Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports

The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: Kaos on May 14, 2009, 05:50:53 PM

Title: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 14, 2009, 05:50:53 PM
So this Netflix thing.  Got me watching movies I meant to watch and never did. 

We'll start today's reviews with The Wrestler.


Dear Marissa Tomei.  You were so hot in Cousin Vinny. Why couldn't you have gotten naked then?  Yeah your body is still pretty hot, but it sure would have been nice to see those little bitty titties when you were in your prime. 

Mickey Rourke plays himself dressed as the Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz.  His damn face looked like an entire hive of bees stung him before every day on the set.  It was distracting.  He hasn't really done anything worth a shit since banging Basinger or that Cosby chick.

The story itself was completely predicatable. It was like Rocky meets a Lifetime movie or some shit. 

Glowing reviews but people today must be very easily entertained.  What a boring fuck of a movie. 


Quick hitters:

Max Payne - Damn what a turd.  What a festering turd.  I didn't give a shit about the guy's wife or his kid. They stick Mila Kunis in there and she's constantly wearing some big ass fur coat or something so you never see anything but glimpses of her face.  What a waste.  One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Rachel Getting Married -- Fuck Rachel. No, don't. Or do. Who cares? I watched this hoping for some hotness from that skinny Hathaway chick.  Fail. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on May 14, 2009, 07:24:08 PM
I liked The Wrestler.  I didn't so much enjoy it for the plot, but I thought it was an interesting look into washed up entertainers.  Some people aren't so much addicted to drugs and alcohol as they are to attention and fame.  Both lead to the same end - a washed up loser who never really accomplished anything. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 15, 2009, 09:04:20 AM
I liked The Wrestler.  I didn't so much enjoy it for the plot, but I thought it was an interesting look into washed up entertainers.  Some people aren't so much addicted to drugs and alcohol as they are to attention and fame.  Both lead to the same end - a washed up loser who never really accomplished anything. 

Thumb.
In.
The.
Meat-slicer.

Ugh.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on May 15, 2009, 05:20:12 PM
Thumb.
In.
The.
Meat-slicer.

Ugh.

What's best is he did it on purpose.

"Fuck this job.  I'm gonna slice my god damn thumb open." 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 16, 2009, 10:58:03 AM
Today's reviews:

The Brave One
Starring Jodi Foster, Terrance Howard and some ridiculous Indian/Pakistani dude

Okay let's start with the casting.  Foster pulled off the psycho killer part reasonably well.  Where she failed -- and failed miserably -- was in the "I'm interesting and attractive enough for this cop and this Indian doctor to give a shit if I live or die."  She just didn't cut it there.  Killing people? Yeah, she did a good crazed look. Being the object of lust for TW?  With her leather face, no-titty body, slouchy attire and slumping demeanor? Give me a fucking break.  If they'd stayed away from that shit and just let her whack people the movie would have been better.  TH also fails as a cop.  He didn't convince me that he could figure out where his own ass was much less catch a criminal. Hate I wasted my time.

Lakeview Terrace
Starring Samuel L. Jackson and a bunch of other non-descript people.

What the hell? Samuel L. is a racist?  Awesome. Is it wrong that I was pulling for him to get away with it and hoping his wooden-acting neighbors got riddled with bullets?  The only thing that elevated this movie from utter turd-dom was Sam's penetrating glare.  The two ditzes playing the neighbors?  I hope they get killed in every movie they're in from here on out.  Woman had a stupid trigger-fish mouth and her damn glasses annoyed the fuck out of me. The guy was a dickweed and his acting skills range from stoic-bland to stoic-terse. He sucked. I'll boycott any movies he's in from here on out unless he's playing a robot or a cigar-store Indian.

Iron Man
Starring Robert Downey Jr.., Terrance Howard, Gwenyth Paltrow and one of the Bridges guys

Seen this movie three times now.  It's entertaining. Very much so. RDJ is one of the better actors of our time. I suffered through Tropic Thunder just for his performance which was outstanding. He's almost on par with Johnny Depp, but Depp couldn't have pulled this role off and made it work like RDJ did.  Terrance was utterly unconvincing in his role, but that's a small complaint in an otherwise fairly perfect superhero movie.  I love Batman and The Dark Knight was an incredible film, but that franchise has lost the ability to laugh at itself. Iron Man strikes just the right balance between serious and silly. It understands that the mission is to entertain, not brood and preach for four and a half hours.  It is what it is. Escapist entertainment and done well.  I'd watch it again. The Blu-Ray features leave a little to be desired. The 3D views of the robots were interesting but only briefly.  I'll still buy this one.


Quick hitters:

House Bunny - Predictable. Anna Faris is cute, though.  It harms no one and is fun enough to waste time on.  Shouldn't have wasted time putting Demi Moore's plastic daughter in it. The makeover on the butch pin cushion is also nice.  There's a hotness factor there.

Role Models - Don't care much for either of the two lead characters, but the movie redeems itself with constant references to KISS and a ridiculous battle scene at the end.  Smart-mouth midget black kids can be entertaining, but only briefly. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 17, 2009, 12:20:38 AM
Today's reviews.  Actually saw two movies today at the theaters.  It was raining and my 8 year old had been bugging the crap out of me to see Wolverine.  Took in the 4:00 matinee.  The movie really jumps around and has way more story telling, slow parts than is needed.  But then, that's kind of the premise of the whole movie...the beginnings of the X-men etc.  Good special effects and Hugh Jackman is a bad ass, doing a lot of his own stunts in the movie.  It's a Marvel Comics story and surprisingly, a ton of people are actually killed but it's obvious they leave out all the blood and gore they could have put in to liven it up.  Not necessary though with a PG-13 rating.  It's a rental if you're into the Marvel Comic scene..which I am.

Okay, shortly after situating the 8 year old with grandma, I'm back to the theater with the wife for a uterus flick.  Ghosts of girlfriends past with Matthew McConaughey (sp?) So, within a couple of hours of each other, I'm watching movies with the last two sexiest men on earth.  Does that make me...?  Oh the hell with it.  I pacified the wife and sat through it.  Okay guys, if you have a date or wife and they want to take in a cutesy love flick...go.  It's actually funny as hell.  Matthew Mc plays a playboy who's fucked more hot ass than any man alive, but of course, there's the one girl..Jennifer Garner, who he's had a thing for since childhood.  All very predictable throughout but with a top notch cast, including Michael Douglas, it's really not bad for a chick flick.  It's worth the cash only if you have to pacify a date/wife who wants to see that kind of movie.  It's pretty entertaining.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 18, 2009, 07:47:26 AM
House Bunny - Predictable. Anna Faris is cute, though.  It harms no one and is fun enough to waste time on.  Shouldn't have wasted time putting Demi Moore's plastic daughter in it. The makeover on the butch pin cushion is also nice.  There's a hotness factor there.

I wasted 45 minutes of my life watching this before I had the good sense to cut it off.  I was ready to look for a gas oven.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 18, 2009, 10:44:40 AM
I wasted 45 minutes of my life watching this before I had the good sense to cut it off.  I was ready to look for a gas oven.

It was harmless fluff.  I may have had the sound turned off for portions of it, I really can't remember.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 18, 2009, 01:14:56 PM
It was harmless fluff.  I may have had the sound turned off for portions of it, I really can't remember.

Never said it wasn't harmless.  Just dumber than dogshit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 20, 2009, 02:49:31 AM
Never said it wasn't harmless.  Just dumber than dogshit.

I'd watch a 48-hour House Bunny marathon over being subjected to any of the following Will Ferrel films for an hour:

Blades of Glory, Step Brothers or Semi-Pro.

They make dogshit look like Einstein. 

I have "Doubt" sitting on the shelf.  Can't bring myself to watch it.  The idea of Meryl Streep clomping around for two hours in a black outfit sort of makes me ill. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 20, 2009, 07:44:00 AM
I'd watch a 48-hour House Bunny marathon over being subjected to any of the following Will Ferrel films for an hour:

Blades of Glory, Step Brothers or Semi-Pro.

They make dogshit look like Einstein. 

I have "Doubt" sitting on the shelf.  Can't bring myself to watch it.  The idea of Meryl Streep clomping around for two hours in a black outfit sort of makes me ill. 

Agree on all counts.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 20, 2009, 12:21:14 PM


I have "Doubt" sitting on the shelf.  Can't bring myself to watch it.  The idea of Meryl Streep clomping around for two hours in a black outfit sort of makes me ill. 

Doubt was good.  I'm a sucker for most of Hoffman's movies, though.  If you haven't seen them, watch Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Capote, and Owning Mahowny.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AuburnChopper 3.0 on May 20, 2009, 05:31:11 PM
I'd watch a 48-hour House Bunny marathon over being subjected to any of the following Will Ferrel films for an hour:

Blades of Glory, Step Brothers or Semi-Pro.

They make dogshit look like Einstein. 

I have "Doubt" sitting on the shelf.  Can't bring myself to watch it.  The idea of Meryl Streep clomping around for two hours in a black outfit sort of makes me ill. 

Step Brothers and Semi-Pro are future classics.  This is horseshit!  .....from planet Camel Dicks!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on May 20, 2009, 05:36:36 PM
Step Brothers and Semi-Pro are future classics.  This is horseshit!  .....from planet Camel Dicks!

Is that a quote from one of the movies?  That's turrible. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 20, 2009, 05:44:47 PM
Is that a quote from one of the movies?  That's turrible. 

I think it says a lot about the relative mentality when either of those two festering turds is considered of even remote quality. 

My teenage daughter, who loves Will Ferrell, said Step Brothers was "painful" and a real disgrace.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 20, 2009, 07:45:18 PM
My bloody Valentine was what you would expect from a slasher movie. The 3d was pretty cool, but hard to watch the whole movie with the 3D glasses on. I give it a 2 out of 5 stars.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AWK on May 21, 2009, 12:18:38 AM
High School Musical 3 and The Hannah Montana movies were teh bombz.  OMG, I luved it.  ROFL MY COPTERS!   :drool:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 21, 2009, 02:24:55 AM
High School Musical 3 and The Hannah Montana movies were teh bombz.  OMG, I luved it.  ROFL MY COPTERS!   :drool:
Step It Up 2 was a instant classic.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 01, 2009, 03:02:44 AM
Star Trek:

Fuck this movie.  It was utter bullshit.  Since it's still in theaters I'm not going to spoil the plot, but fuck whoever did this to the universe.  Fuck Leonard Nimoy's ancient ass.

The special effects were good, but there were times they were so frenectic it was difficult to follow the action.  The actors were adequate.  The guy playing Spock was fair and the guy doing Kirk was outstanding. The rest were fairly forgettable.

There were a couple of the expected inside jokes.

But the story?  Whoever wrote this should be taken to a Star Trek convention and tribbled to death.

I wanted very badly to like this movie.  And maybe if I'd never watched Star Trek I might have. It just tried too hard to straddle the fence between pleasing the hard-core Trek fan and crafting a captivating film.

As the Batman franchise has proven, you can actually just start over. You don't have to tie up any loose ends.  I'd have been perfectly happy with a story line that picked a certain point in the career of Kirk and Spock and followed their exploits.  The unnecessary desire to try to tie up the entire series history really fucked the whole thing up. 

In the end, i left unfulfilled and calling bullshit on the entire exercise. 


It was fucked.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on June 01, 2009, 03:05:31 AM
I thought the Wrestler was an ok movie, it was better than I thought it would be. 2.5 stars
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 01, 2009, 03:08:58 AM
I thought the Wrestler was an ok movie, it was better than I thought it would be. 2.5 stars

You seen Star Trek? 

The Wrestler was okay.  I couldn't get past Rourke's bee-stung face.  He looked like that kid in The Mask or whatever with Cher.

(http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/uglymask.jpg)

It was like a low-rent version of Rocky Balboa, which was a low-rent recycle of Rocky.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 04, 2009, 05:10:55 PM
Three reviews today.  Short and to the point.

Drag Me to Hell
By all means drag me to hell. Just don't try to drag me back to the theater to see this shit fest.  It's a PG-13 horror movie which should have indicated the suckage immediately, but I ignored the warning.  The girl was sort of hot and her choice of shoes was good, but that's where the quality ended here.  The best actor in the whole thing was a damn fly. 

Doubt
I doubt I could possibly have been any more bored.  Oscar can go fuck himself.

The Reader
If I read aloud to you, will you let me fuck you sideways?  And then can you go and kill a bunch of Jews?  Because that will give me lots of angst.  Kate Winslet's ass, Kate Winslet's ass, Kate Winslet's bush, Kate Winslet's titties all deserved best supporting actress awards.  Nerd boy's cock and ass deserved to get the fuck off my screen.  I hate movies that strain to generate emotion from improbable circumstances.  Who the fuck is seriously going to live their entire life obsessed over a month-long fucking of a MILF when they're 16?  Hell, I did this one married chick for six months when I was 17 and I can barely remember her fucking name. Maybe if she'd massacred a bunch of Mexicans I would remember. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 04, 2009, 05:24:07 PM
Three reviews today.  Short and to the point.

Drag Me to Hell
By all means drag me to hell. Just don't try to drag me back to the theater to see this shit fest.  It's a PG-13 horror movie which should have indicated the suckage immediately, but I ignored the warning.  The girl was sort of hot and her choice of shoes was good, but that's where the quality ended here.  The best actor in the whole thing was a damn fly. 

Doubt
I doubt I could possibly have been any more bored.  Oscar can go fuck himself.

The Reader
If I read aloud to you, will you let me fuck you sideways?  And then can you go and kill a bunch of Jews?  Because that will give me lots of angst.  Kate Winslet's ass, Kate Winslet's ass, Kate Winslet's bush, Kate Winslet's titties all deserved best supporting actress awards.  Nerd boy's cock and ass deserved to get the fuck off my screen.  I hate movies that strain to generate emotion from improbable circumstances.  Who the fuck is seriously going to live their entire life obsessed over a month-long fucking of a MILF when they're 16?  Hell, I did this one married chick for six months when I was 17 and I can barely remember her fucking name. Maybe if she'd massacred a bunch of Mexicans I would remember. 
I have no interest in any of those movies so we are good. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 04, 2009, 05:29:28 PM

As the Batman franchise has proven, you can actually just start over. You don't have to tie up any loose ends.  I'd have been perfectly happy with a story line that picked a certain point in the career of Kirk and Spock and followed their exploits.  The unnecessary desire to try to tie up the entire series history really fucked the whole thing up. 

In the end, i left unfulfilled and calling bullshit on the entire exercise. 


It was fucked.
You can go fuck yourself.

Signed,
George Lucas
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 04, 2009, 05:32:42 PM
On upcoming movies, this looks really good:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4K3aM5H5KM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4K3aM5H5KM)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTailgatingRules on June 04, 2009, 05:40:12 PM
The only reason I want to see the Wrestler is to see Marissa Tomei naked.  Had she taken off her clothes for My Cousin Vinny it would have been an instant Acadamy award winner.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on June 05, 2009, 01:01:28 AM
You seen Star Trek? 

The Wrestler was okay.  I couldn't get past Rourke's bee-stung face.  He looked like that kid in The Mask or whatever with Cher.

(http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/uglymask.jpg)

It was like a low-rent version of Rocky Balboa, which was a low-rent recycle of Rocky.
I have heard from two people that Star Trek was a killer movie, I'm not big into sci-fi so I'll just wait until it comes out on Blu-Ray
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on June 05, 2009, 01:07:42 AM
Has anyone seen Anvil-The story of Anvil?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF4H8lB2Y_o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF4H8lB2Y_o)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on June 14, 2009, 12:21:18 AM
Okay, startin' it up again.  Left with the intention of seeing Hangover...but ALL shows were sold out.  My daughter was with me so we were limited in alternatives.  One called Dance Flick was about to start and since she lives eats and breathes dancing, I decided to suffer through it.

I laughed my ass off.  I had forgotten that this was the movie I saw in the previews.  It's a movie by the Wayans brothers and it's basically the same kind of spoof on movies like High School Musical and Step Up etc. as the "Scary Movie" spoofs.  Corny as hell and a lot of racial humor.  Two times the black guy and white girl are about to kiss, the first time Damon Wayans Jr. pulls back..."Ooo black girls, Uh yeah, you just go three blocks down and take a left".  The second time, she pulls back..."Ooo white guys, (Holds up her keys) It's the white Honda with Coldplay in the CD player.  And don't steal anything".

One side note that means nothing to anyone but me and my daughter.  A girl from here in Dothan that we know pretty well did all the dance parts for the lead girl in the show. 

It's one to rent.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on June 14, 2009, 02:43:11 AM
Okay, startin' it up again.  Left with the intention of seeing Hangover...but ALL shows were sold out.  My daughter was with me so we were limited in alternatives.  One called Dance Flick was about to start and since she lives eats and breathes dancing, I decided to suffer through it.

I laughed my ass off.  I had forgotten that this was the movie I saw in the previews.  It's a movie by the Wayans brothers and it's basically the same kind of spoof on movies like High School Musical and Step Up etc. as the "Scary Movie" spoofs.  Corny as hell and a lot of racial humor.  Two times the black guy and white girl are about to kiss, the first time Damon Wayans Jr. pulls back..."Ooo black girls, Uh yeah, you just go three blocks down and take a left".  The second time, she pulls back..."Ooo white guys, (Holds up her keys) It's the white Honda with Coldplay in the CD player.  And don't steal anything".

One side note that means nothing to anyone but me and my daughter.  A girl from here in Dothan that we know pretty well did all the dance parts for the lead girl in the show. 

It's one to rent.
Probably a good thing that you didn't watch Hangover with your daughter.  That movie was one of the funniest movies that I've ever seen.  Towards the end, I thought that I couldn't laugh anymore, but I was wrong.  I'm going to have to see it atleast one more time, just to catch the parts that I missed, because I was laughing so hard.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on June 14, 2009, 02:54:51 AM
Probably a good thing that you didn't watch Hangover with your daughter.  That movie was one of the funniest movies that I've ever seen.  Towards the end, I thought that I couldn't laugh anymore, but I was wrong.  I'm going to have to see it atleast one more time, just to catch the parts that I missed, because I was laughing so hard.
That would have been an akward movie to watch with your daughter.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on June 14, 2009, 07:41:19 AM
That would have been an akward movie to watch with your daughter.

I was kinda' thinkin' that.  But Dance Flick had it's share of uncomfortable moments too. One part is the typical scene where the teacher (Lady dance teacher) is having the first day of class and writing her name on the board.  "My naaaame iiiiissss ....."

She turns around wearing spandex pants and well....I'll let you watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8687-wckwKo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8687-wckwKo)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on June 14, 2009, 03:15:40 PM
I was kinda' thinkin' that.  But Dance Flick had it's share of uncomfortable moments too. One part is the typical scene where the teacher (Lady dance teacher) is having the first day of class and writing her name on the board.  "My naaaame iiiiissss ....."

She turns around wearing spandex pants and well....I'll let you watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8687-wckwKo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8687-wckwKo)
LOL, yeah I could see where that would definitely be an uncomfortable moment...

"We do the Mash Potato here, we don't eat them."  :rofl:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 16, 2009, 12:09:52 AM
Taken

I'd have taken that lying bitch daughter to the woodshed.  That spoiled bitch needed a serious whipping. And the mom, hot as she is, what a mommy part.  Liam should have saved some of that rage and unleashed it on those two whores.  mommy part punted both.  My advice to the actress who played the daughter (Maggie Grace) is to never do any movies where the director wants her to run. She looks like a spastic penguin.

Liam was good. The dinner scene was classic. 

My problem with the whole thing, though, is I can't imagine him working up that kind of rage for either of those ungrateful bitches.

Mr. Brooks
First, let me say that the things I would do to Danielle Panabaker cannot be said out loud.  There is something about her... (http://cdn.buzznet.com/media-cdn/jj1/headlines/2009/02/danielle-panabaker-woods-gq-magazine.jpg)(http://www.denimblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/danielle-panabaker-woods-gq-magazine-03.jpg)
The scene at the end where she's getting sort of horny looking at the blood spraying on the wall? Damn, girl, stab me and let me bleed. 

Beyond that? Meh. The William Hurt device was contrived and not compelling. Dane Cook?  Fuck that. Demi Moore? Yeah, she was utterly convincing. She's a female John Travolta.

Worst, though, was Kevin Costner. I didn't buy him as a killer -- he didn't get enough out of it -- nor did I buy him as a captain of industry.  This movie -- as all -- would have been better with Johnny Depp in the lead role. 

It was a decent filler. Just not noteworthy.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on June 16, 2009, 09:05:05 AM
First, let me say that the things I would do to Danielle Panabaker cannot be said out loud.  There is something about her...

Your taste in women tends to run Howard-ish. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 16, 2009, 09:20:31 AM
Your taste in women tends to run Howard-ish. 

My tastes run broad and deep... from Elisabeth Hasselbeck to Elizabeth Banks to Eva Mendes to Danielle Panabaker to Emily Procter to Jennifer Garner to Raven Riley. 

Expound please....
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on June 16, 2009, 09:31:37 AM
Speaking of way behind...I finally got around to watching a couple of movies this weekend.

Quantum of Solace
I may be the last person in America to see this one, so I got that going for me.  Overall, the action was better than maybe the last few Bond flicks.  Otherwise, meh.
3 out of 5 stars

Then, the wife made me watch what I thought would be a chick flick...

Mr. and Mrs. Smith
The storyline was very far fetched, but the movie was very good.  Pitt and Jolie make a pretty good acting combo in this one.  The one downside was that she never got nekkid.
3.5 out of 5 stars
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 16, 2009, 09:50:58 AM
Speaking of way behind...I finally got around to watching a couple of movies this weekend.

Quantum of Solace
I may be the last person in America to see this one, so I got that going for me.  Overall, the action was better than maybe the last few Bond flicks.  Otherwise, meh.
3 out of 5 stars

Then, the wife made me watch what I thought would be a chick flick...

Mr. and Mrs. Smith
The storyline was very far fetched, but the movie was very good.  Pitt and Jolie make a pretty good acting combo in this one.  The one downside was that she never got nekkid.
3.5 out of 5 stars

I have not seen Squanto's Solace yet.  You are not the last. 

I'm not buying that guy as Bond.  Would come closer had they chosen Jason Stratham.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on June 16, 2009, 10:12:00 AM
Your taste in women tends to run Howard-ish. 

Dirty whores.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 16, 2009, 11:13:10 AM
I have not seen Squanto's Solace yet.  You are not the last. 

I'm not buying that guy as Bond.  Would come closer had they chosen Jason Stratham.
Disagree, I think he kicks ass as Bond.  Stratham while excellent himself, I dont think fits the image. [side bar]Have you seen Layer Cake, good flick (minus the end) plus she gets nekkid

(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/showbiz/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20080722/000d6065c51b09ef8a7b03.jpg) Sienna Miller [back]

IMO Craig is the second best bond since Connery, and I like how they have taken it more old school, not invisible cars that you can drive with a fuckin phone.  As for the movie itself Quantum of Solace while a good action flick, left much to be desired within the story line.  Casino Royale was much much stronger.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 16, 2009, 11:17:11 AM
Between Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005) and Mr. Brooks (2007) we may need to rename this thread Kaos way, way, way, behind movie reviews.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 16, 2009, 11:19:37 AM
Between Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005) and Mr. Brooks (2007) way may need to rename this thread Kao's way, way, way, behind movie reviews.

I told you I was behind. 

I will be reviewing Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen on June 25, however.  I'm geek like that. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on June 16, 2009, 12:00:55 PM
IMO Craig is the second best bond since Connery, and I like how they have taken it more old school, not invisible cars that you can drive with a fuckin phone.  As for the movie itself Quantum of Solace while a good action flick, left much to be desired within the story line.  Casino Royale was much much stronger.

I agree about Casino Royale. 
I could also agree that Craig is second best, but look at his competition... :taunt:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 16, 2009, 12:22:35 PM
I could also agree that Craig is second best, but look at his competition... :taunt:
True

[Another Side Bar] I thought Clive Owen would have been a decent choice for Bond back when.  I was disappointed when they picked Craig. However, he has been a change that the franchise needed.  Did I mention I am kinda a big bond fan.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on June 16, 2009, 12:24:57 PM
True

[Another Side Bar] I thought Clive Owen would have been a decent choice for Bond back when.  I was disappointed when they picked Craig. However, he has been a change that the franchise needed.  Did I mention I am kinda a big bond fan ghey bitch?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on June 16, 2009, 12:25:31 PM
I told you I was behind. 

I will be reviewing Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen on June 25, however.  I'm geek like that. 

My 7 year old wants me to take him to see it...he has watched the first one at least 15 times now.  I know...call DHR.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 16, 2009, 12:25:55 PM
I will be reviewing Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen on June 25, however.  I'm geek like that. 
Yeah we know why (we all know your secret crush for:)

(http://www.newchatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/megan-fox.jpg)

at least thats why me and about 3 guys will be going.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 16, 2009, 12:42:53 PM
[Another Side Bar] I thought Clive Owen would have been a decent choice for Bond back when.  I was disappointed when they picked Craig. However, he has been a change that the franchise needed.  Did I mention I am kinda a big bond fan ghey bitch?

I am assuming you were agreeing with me only adding that you aare a big ghey bitch...we already knew that. and thanks for having my back in the Advice Old Men thread, that was a perfect lob.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 16, 2009, 12:48:13 PM
Yeah we know why (we all know your secret crush for:)

(http://www.newchatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/megan-fox.jpg)

I have decided that I would, in fact, fuck her. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on June 16, 2009, 08:35:10 PM
I have decided that I would, in fact, fuck her. 
Baby steps!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AWK on June 16, 2009, 10:48:31 PM
I have decided that I would, in fact, fuck her. 
The first step is always admission.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on June 16, 2009, 11:30:13 PM
She has decided that she in fact, would call the cops if you got within 150 yards of her gated house.  She does not feel pivileged in any way that you would in fact fuck her.  She does in fact, laugh at your bitch ass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 17, 2009, 06:26:58 AM
She has decided that she in fact, would call the cops if you got within 150 yards of her gated house.  She does not feel pivileged in any way that you would in fact fuck her.  She does in fact, laugh at your bitch ass.

She has no say in the matter.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 17, 2009, 10:28:08 AM
She has decided that she in fact, would call the cops if you got within 150 yards of her gated house.  She does not feel pivileged in any way that you would in fact fuck her.  She does in fact, laugh at your bitch ass.
Hey she was fuckin Brian Austin Green, I haven't seen Kaos, but I like his chances.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 25, 2009, 12:00:31 AM
TRANSFORMERS

I've read the reviews. I've seen the universal pans of this movie. I've read all the problems the critics have with it and their utter disdain for Michael Bay. 

Well you know what?  FUCK them. 

They bitch because the movie has no plot.  What the fuck do they want? Annie Hall or some miserable shit like The Reader?  Here's the plot:  Lots and lots and lots of shit blows up.  Robots brawl.  People run and scream. More shit blows up. The good guys win. 

They complain because certain aspects of the movie are unrealistic or far-fetched.  What the bleeding fuck? They're watching a movie about CARS THAT TURN INTO FUCKING ROBOTS.  That's the premise.  So if they have an alien that can shit Chinese take out, is that really any further off the reality chart?

They piss and moan because Megan Fox can't act.  Well I don't even care for her all that much, but let me be the first to say that I don't give a fuck.  She wasn't hired to do Shakesperean soloquies. She was hired to look fucking hot in those shorts and those jeans and to have a sexy little sassy ass attitude.  Mission accomplished. Yeah, I'd fuck this character.  Maybe not Megan herself, but her character in this movie would get the stiff dick.  And I'd damn sure tell her I loved her.

The movie was what it was. Like Pirates of the Caribbean II it wasn't quite as good as the first one, mainly because the first one set the bar so high that the second couldn't quite measure up.  Doesn't mean it was bad. It was a fun movie.

Yeah, there's some unnecessary throwaway shit.  The dog humping? What the fuck? That meant nothing and was a cheap attempt to draw a laugh.

There were things that didn't make sense.  Don't want to give too much away, but after you've seen it ask yourself these questions:

1) What happened to the litthe traitor Decepticon after it converted? After playing an integral role, it just vanished.

2) Where the fuck did all the flashlights come from? Seriously. I want somebody to answer that one.

3) Do they sell lip gloss in Egypt? I think they must.

4) What happened to theAllSpark sliver? Another important plot point that just vanished with no elaboration.


Other problems? Why they had to add the shits, fucks and pussies to the dialogue was beyond me. This is a movie that kids want to watch. The profanity added nothing. Neither did the silly ass pot brownie moment. I had to explain that ridiculous shit to my nine year old on the way home.

I've also got to fault Bay for flubbing  a pivotal confrontation between Optimus Prime and Megatron. What should have been an emotionally charged moment was completely drained of feeling. That's bad direction.

The movie was supposed to entertain. Fuck those snobby ass critics. I was entertained. My daughter laughed at the right parts and clapped at the end. What else can you expect?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on June 25, 2009, 07:49:58 AM
Good review and let me add dogs humping is always funny unless Jumbo is present.


Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on June 26, 2009, 02:12:42 PM
Good review and let me add dogs humping is always funny unless Jumbo is present.



Do the hump!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 30, 2009, 07:42:40 AM
No County for Old Men

Won a ton of awards.  Not sure why.  It was okay.  Tommy Lee Jones was good in his role as a world-weary sheriff who's more interested in why the world is going to hell in a handbasket than he is in trying to halt the descent. Josh Brolin looks like he lives in a trailer and his wife was acceptably Texas plain (even though she's actually from Scotland). 

Where the movie fails is in its end. I realize that not every film has to have a tidy ending because life rarely does. Still, you don't build a confrontation for 90 minutes and then jerk your dick out and go "Ha ha, not going to come!"

The performances were good enough although the acclaimed Javier Whatthefuckever completely overacted. Would have been better with somebody who could have played that role with an air of cool as opposed to his bug-eyed lunacy.

Overall, just an okay movie. If I'd paid to see it in the theaters I'd probably want my money back because the ending is so ignorant. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on June 30, 2009, 10:56:14 AM

The performances were good enough although the acclaimed Javier Whatthefuckever completely overacted. Would have been better with somebody who could have played that role with an air of cool as opposed to his bug-eyed lunacy.


Gotta disagree here.  Bardem was awesome.  That character was a bug-eyed lunatic, pure sociopath.  The scene in the store where he forces the guy to flip a coin for his life was so fucking good.

I'm predisposed to loving everything McCarthy related, but this movie was awesome in my humble opinion.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Catphish Tilly on June 30, 2009, 02:54:10 PM
No County for Old Men

Where the movie fails is in its end. I realize that not every film has to have a tidy ending because life rarely does. Still, you don't build a confrontation for 90 minutes and then jerk your dick out and go "Ha ha, not going to come!"


Overall, just an okay movie. If I'd paid to see it in the theaters I'd probably want my money back because the ending is so ignorant. 

Couldnt agree more.  Saw this movie On Demand with a friend who just raved about it being one of his top 5 favorite movies.  I couldn't believe how he or anyone else could feel that way.  Spent no money but I wanted those two hours back... and still do.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 01, 2009, 08:27:54 AM
Notorious

Decent movie.  Worth watching if you care at all about the rise of rap music and the East Coast-West Coast feud. 

Be warned, though, that this movie tells things strictly from the East Coast perspective as it was produced by Sean Combs.  B.I.G is a leaf-turning angel, Combs is an earnest, hard-working hand up from the ghetto and Tupac is a crazy ass, reckless young negro who caused all the strife and tension. 

I bet if you got the same story told from the West Coast perspective it would have an extremely different flavor. The film glosses over the fact that Christopher Wallace was a thug in real life. It does show portions of that, but is careful to make sure that there are justifications for his indiscretions.

All in all, though, it's a pretty decent portrait of an ignorant street hood who stumbled into fame and then infamy.  He was probably not, as the movie portrayed, angelic and blameless.  Nor was Combs probably the heroic figure this film makes him out to be. 

Still haven't figured out how that fat bastard snared the decent-looking females, however. 

I enjoyed this movie much more than The Reader, Doubt, Gran Torino, No Ending for Fucked Up Movie and other films I've watched lately.  Maybe it was just because I liked the beat.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: BZ770 on July 02, 2009, 12:03:14 AM
The Wrestler

I rented it today and It's one badass film and Marisa Tomei is still smokin, and she shows lot of tits in the film rent it for that at least.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on July 02, 2009, 12:42:33 AM
The Wrestler

I rented it today and It's one badass film and Marisa Tomei is still smokin, and she shows lot of tits in the film rent it for that at least.
She looked better that I thought she would, I enjoyed the special features better than the movie IMO. The roundtable discussion with the wrestlers I watched growing up is worth a view.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 02, 2009, 09:40:28 AM
The Wrestler

I rented it today and It's one badass film and Marisa Tomei is still smokin, and she shows lot of tits in the film rent it for that at least.

I already reviewed this movie. 

Is the title of this thread bzzzwhatever's re-reviews of movies that have already been reviewed ? I didn't think so.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Eagle!!! on July 02, 2009, 10:10:10 AM
I already reviewed this movie. 

Is the title of this thread bzzzwhatever's re-reviews of movies that have already been reviewed ? I didn't think so.

 :rofl:

I wondered when someone was going to get that reaction from you...

It was coming...only a matter of the wrong person at the wrong time...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 02, 2009, 06:43:47 PM
TRANSFORMERS

I've read the reviews. I've seen the universal pans of this movie. I've read all the problems the critics have with it and their utter disdain for Michael Bay. 

Well you know what?  FUCK them. 

They bitch because the movie has no plot.  What the fuck do they want? Annie Hall or some miserable shit like The Reader?  Here's the plot:  Lots and lots and lots of shit blows up.  Robots brawl.  People run and scream. More shit blows up. The good guys win. 

They complain because certain aspects of the movie are unrealistic or far-fetched.  What the bleeding fuck? They're watching a movie about CARS THAT TURN INTO FUCKING ROBOTS.  That's the premise.  So if they have an alien that can shit Chinese take out, is that really any further off the reality chart?

They piss and moan because Megan Fox can't act.  Well I don't even care for her all that much, but let me be the first to say that I don't give a fuck.  She wasn't hired to do Shakesperean soloquies. She was hired to look fucking hot in those shorts and those jeans and to have a sexy little sassy ass attitude.  Mission accomplished. Yeah, I'd fuck this character.  Maybe not Megan herself, but her character in this movie would get the stiff dick.  And I'd damn sure tell her I loved her.

The movie was what it was. Like Pirates of the Caribbean II it wasn't quite as good as the first one, mainly because the first one set the bar so high that the second couldn't quite measure up.  Doesn't mean it was bad. It was a fun movie.

Yeah, there's some unnecessary throwaway shit.  The dog humping? What the fuck? That meant nothing and was a cheap attempt to draw a laugh.

There were things that didn't make sense.  Don't want to give too much away, but after you've seen it ask yourself these questions:

1) What happened to the litthe traitor Decepticon after it converted? After playing an integral role, it just vanished.

2) Where the fuck did all the flashlights come from? Seriously. I want somebody to answer that one.

3) Do they sell lip gloss in Egypt? I think they must.

4) What happened to theAllSpark sliver? Another important plot point that just vanished with no elaboration.


Other problems? Why they had to add the shits, fucks and pussies to the dialogue was beyond me. This is a movie that kids want to watch. The profanity added nothing. Neither did the silly ass pot brownie moment. I had to explain that ridiculous shit to my nine year old on the way home.

I've also got to fault Bay for flubbing  a pivotal confrontation between Optimus Prime and Megatron. What should have been an emotionally charged moment was completely drained of feeling. That's bad direction.

The movie was supposed to entertain. Fuck those snobby ass critics. I was entertained. My daughter laughed at the right parts and clapped at the end. What else can you expect?

Saw this last night, I agree with your review I thought for what it was it was an entertaining movie.  Then again I could have watched Megan Fox dance around the screen for 2hrs and I would have been entertained.  I have the answer to #4 for you.

The used that sliver to "restart" the old decepticon (the stealth bomber).  I think a better question was why that sliver gave Sam all that knowledge and the other sliver the decepticons stole didn't have that same knowledge, huh...huh.  It was an action movie pure and simple and it did not disappoint.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 03, 2009, 06:32:53 AM
Succubus: Evil Never Dies

Pirates (XXX) set the bar high for adult films. It had a semi-serious plot and a huge budget. It took the interest in high sea adventure spawned by Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean and infused a dose of naked swashbuckling. The result was a film that men could somewhat legitimately pitch to their mates and trick them into watching raw porn.  It's much easier for the mate to justify watching Pirates than it is to accept pleas to sit down to "Cum Swapping Whores IV."  As a result it became one of the biggest adult films in history. It was good enough that Netflix offers a sanitized version.

Here, Internet porn icon Raven Riley attempts to follow in the Pirate wake by combining a tried and true genre (horror) with a heavy dose of adult action. 

Raven, who co-produced the film, recruits goth pal Liz Vicious to play the titular Succubus and adds a handful of other online peek peddlers like Brandi Love to the cast. 

The camera work is good quality, it has the look and feel of a real movie. The concept itself isn't bad.  Cursed girl returns to her ancestral home to battle an awakened evil that only she can destroy. The destruction involves a saber-laced wooden dildo. It's got potential.

So what's the problem? Nobody in this movie can act a lick. The acting is so bad you don't even really care about the screwing when it commences. The worst of all is Raven's partner in the film. The guy is perhaps the worst actor to ever grace any screen.  Poor Raven's not far behind. 

The sex scenes are average at best and lack passion.

Yes, I realize that you're not looking for Oscar-worthy performances in a film like this. (Sidebar: Anybody seen Chloe Sveginy in The Brown Bunny? )  But the acting shouldn't be so godawful that it detracts from the "other." 

For what it is, it's not bad. I've seen worse mainstream movies and worse adult films. In the right hands, though, it could have been so much better. Raven's hands -- while talented in many ways -- don't have the filmmaking touch.

The production values are better than average porn, so it's possible that this is a film you could justify to the wife/girlfriend as a real movie, a la Pirates. Not sure, though, that they'll get the same charge out of it they drew from Pirates, however.

Overall? A C at best.  If this is Raven's attempt to launch herself into the mainstream, she misfired.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 06, 2009, 05:26:21 PM
Public Enemies
Starring Johnny Depp and Christian Bale

The problem with going to a movie based on real life, particularly a life as well-chronicled as that of John Dillinger, is that you already know how it's going to end.  In some cases you also know how they get from beginning to end.  When that's the case, the challenge for the filmmaker is to entertain along the way. 

That was the case with Public Enemies.  I've always liked the gangster lore and was familiar with most of the pieces of Dillinger's rise, run and fall.  Public Enemies really did little more than provide motion and characterization to the hundreds of still images I've seen in reading about Public Enemy Number One over the years. 

Huge fan of Johnny Depp. Think he's brilliant in most roles.  Unfortunately he falls just a little short here.  His performance was just a bit too smooth, he didn't seem to have the hard edge he'd need to actually be Dillinger.

Christian Bale left me flat. His here and gone accent as Melvin Purvis was a distraction and kept jolting me out of the film.  He's simply been in too many movies lately.  I kept waiting for him to put on the batsuit or go kill a robot or something. 

I think the movie missed its mark also by focusing on the John-Billie aspect and not giving enough attention to the gangster life itself.  The differing styles between Dillinger and Nelson, forced together by circumstance, could have been a movie all its own. Instead it got a glossing over. 

All that aside, the movie did a good job of following the chain of events without unnecessarily sensationalizing them.  It managed to entertain while telling a story that I already knew. 

I was hoping for a Goodfellas for the 30s and got something a little less. That doesn't mean it wasn't good.  I'd see it again. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 13, 2009, 10:16:13 AM
Before The Devil Knows You're Dead

I'd never heard of this movie before I ran across it on Showtime the other night.  The combination of Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Albert Finney and Marisa Tomei was too intriguing to resist so I gave it a chance.

Those of you whapping the paddle to Tomei's stripper turn in The Wrestler? She's nekkid in this one, too, -- a super and unexpected bonus -- and she looks a hundred times better than she did in the other flick. Even if you care nothing for the story, it's worth fast forwarding to see her tight body.

The story itself had so much potential.  Brothers conspire to rob parent's jewelry store, but the plot is bungled and it ends in the death of a family member.

There were good sequences and Hoffman's performance was quality.  Overall, though, the movie took a great premise and dropped the ball.

Marissa's dalliance with Hawke -- completely miscast in this role -- wasn't credible and did nothing to advance the story.  Had Hoffman's character actually taken the financial liberties with his employer we were led to believe, the response would have been much more agressive than a barrage of "you need to come talk to us" phone calls.

Hawke stood out like a sore thumb, completely unable to pull off the bumbling dumb brother act.

The ending was flat and didn't provide the resolution you'd expect from the drawn out emotional conflict. 

I'd watch it again, but only to see Marissa naked.  Since I can google that, it's not really necessary to sit through the flick.

(http://flisted.files.wordpress.com/marisa_tomei_before_the_devil_knows_you_re_dead_720p-025.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 17, 2009, 06:07:03 PM
The Uninvited

I love Elizabeth Banks.  I now also love Arielle Kebbel.  (see photo below).  I like knowing that Arielle's favorite ice cream is cookies and cream.  Because I would.... nevermind.  Back to the movie.

Other than slight flash of Elizabeth's midriff and some tacked on shots of Arielle in a bikini, this "horror" movie is absolutely worthless.

It's the remake of a Japanese flick (what horror movie isn't these days?) and for an hour and a half nothing much happens.  Oh, it's got the requisite grim-faced children that seem to populate all Japanese remakes but even they aren't frightening in any way. 

I kept waiting and waiting for something to happen and when it finally did?  Pffffffftttttttt.  Who gives a poop?

The ending provided an alleged twist and although I didn't see it coming, I also didn't give a phuk. 

Don't bother renting this garbage unless you're the kind who can bust a nut over a young girl in a bikini during about five decent minutes of screen time.


(http://www.uncoached.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/arielle_kebbel_1.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 17, 2009, 10:03:29 PM
Slumdog Millionaire

One of the best movies I've seen in a long, long time. 

That is all.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Thrilla on September 17, 2009, 10:28:17 PM
Slumdog Millionaire

One of the best movies I've seen in a long, long time. 

That is all.

I rented it and it surprised the hell out of me as well.  Great flick.  Obviously you were keeping it short here, so I will do the obligatory work:

(http://thelipstickdiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/freida-pinto-wallpaper.jpg)


(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vWB6F7DVGa0/Sa0NB2scsKI/AAAAAAAAAxI/KTCZ0mBqjC8/s800/freida-pinto-hot-photo.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on September 22, 2009, 10:36:24 PM
Public Enemies
Starring Johnny Depp and Christian Bale

The problem with going to a movie based on real life, particularly a life as well-chronicled as that of John Dillinger, is that you already know how it's going to end.  In some cases you also know how they get from beginning to end.  When that's the case, the challenge for the filmmaker is to entertain along the way. 

That was the case with Public Enemies.  I've always liked the gangster lore and was familiar with most of the pieces of Dillinger's rise, run and fall.  Public Enemies really did little more than provide motion and characterization to the hundreds of still images I've seen in reading about Public Enemy Number One over the years. 

Huge fan of Johnny Depp. Think he's brilliant in most roles.  Unfortunately he falls just a little short here.  His performance was just a bit too smooth, he didn't seem to have the hard edge he'd need to actually be Dillinger.

Christian Bale left me flat. His here and gone accent as Melvin Purvis was a distraction and kept jolting me out of the film.  He's simply been in too many movies lately.  I kept waiting for him to put on the batsuit or go kill a robot or something. 

I think the movie missed its mark also by focusing on the John-Billie aspect and not giving enough attention to the gangster life itself.  The differing styles between Dillinger and Nelson, forced together by circumstance, could have been a movie all its own. Instead it got a glossing over. 

All that aside, the movie did a good job of following the chain of events without unnecessarily sensationalizing them.  It managed to entertain while telling a story that I already knew. 

I was hoping for a Goodfellas for the 30s and got something a little less. That doesn't mean it wasn't good.  I'd see it again. 


So basically, if you don't know how everything transpired or if you don't know that much about Dillinger, then this would be a really good movie?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 29, 2009, 07:56:04 AM
Baby Mama
I would like to have a relationship with Tina Fey.  She's smart, funny and cute.  I would like to have sex with Amy Poehler repeatedly.  I bet she'd do some funky shit and have fun doing it. 

Beyond that?  No redeeming value to this movie.  Just a chance to get the losers from SNL who should be flipping burgers and not on my TV some exposure.  Jokes mostly flat, storyline contrived. Steve Martin fails in his role.

Meet Dave
I did not make it past ten minutes of this god awful pile of garbage. 

What the fuck, Eddie Murphy? You were once a comic genius.  How the hell did you get to this point in your career?  Shit movie after shit movie. Un-fucking-watchable.

Beverly Hills Cop 5, please.  No more of this.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on September 29, 2009, 08:04:01 AM
What the fuck, Eddie Murphy? You were once a comic genius.  How the hell did you get to this point in your career? 



Transvestite.

Hooker.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on September 29, 2009, 08:28:08 AM
Transvestite.

Hooker.



You fuck with Rick James you get the horns.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 29, 2009, 08:33:46 AM
What's sad about Meet Dave is that Elizabeth Banks -- who I think is adorable -- is in it.  It's the second straight movie I've seen her in that was just completely abysmal. 

Who in their right mind would think she could "fall" for mugging, goofy, ancient Murphy?  Why would she even take this turd-laced role?  I mean she looks like this:

(http://backseatcuddler.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/elizabethbanks0.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 05, 2009, 01:03:09 PM
Last House on the Left

Forget the remake, I decided to check out the original 1972 version of this film. It was one of Wes Craven's first films, was banned for 30-something years in Australia and has developed a minor cult following over the years.

Something to remember about movies with cult followings?  They're often shockingly bad.  

This one fits that mold.  How anyone who saw this dreadful film could ever have greenlighted another Craven project is beyond me.

The premise is solid. Girl gets raped/killed, killers end up hanging out with her family who eventually exacts revenge.  

But this film?  Godawful.  The acting was terrible. The camera work was hideous.  The soundtrack was intrusive and perhaps the worst I've ever found in a movie.  Nothing fit.  

Oh, there were some good bits.  In 1972 the concept of showing a blowjob and subsequent toothy removal of the appendage was probably some wacko poop.  Having dad stalk around with a chainsaw might have been mindblowing 37 years ago.  It was hackneyed today.  

When you've got a good story to tell and good actors telling it, you don't have to go for the shock factor. This went all shock and wasted a potentially good scenario.  

I hear the remake is similarly butchered (pardon the pun) and won't waste my time.  Too bad a good setup has been now twice wasted.

Pics below are of the peter gnawing mom and the two girls the killers killed.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on October 05, 2009, 01:17:01 PM
Kaos, dont waste your time on Observe and Report. :puke:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 05, 2009, 01:49:55 PM
Kaos, dont waste your time on Observe and Report. :puke:

Thanks for the warning.  Not a big Seth Rogen fan anyway. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on October 05, 2009, 01:51:27 PM
Thanks for the warning.  Not a big Seth Rogen fan anyway. 
This movie reminds me of Will Ferrel after Old School.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: ssgaufan on October 05, 2009, 04:06:23 PM
Last House on the Left

Forget the remake, I decided to check out the original 1972 version of this film. It was one of Wes Craven's first films, was banned for 30-something years in Australia and has developed a minor cult following over the years.

Something to remember about movies with cult followings?  They're often shockingly bad.  

This one fits that mold.  How anyone who saw this dreadful film could ever have greenlighted another Craven project is beyond me.

The premise is solid. Girl gets raped/killed, killers end up hanging out with her family who eventually exacts revenge.  

But this film?  Godawful.  The acting was terrible. The camera work was hideous.  The soundtrack was intrusive and perhaps the worst I've ever found in a movie.  Nothing fit.  

Oh, there were some good bits.  In 1972 the concept of showing a blowjob and subsequent toothy removal of the appendage was probably some wacko poop.  Having dad stalk around with a chainsaw might have been mindblowing 37 years ago.  It was hackneyed today.  

When you've got a good story to tell and good actors telling it, you don't have to go for the shock factor. This went all shock and wasted a potentially good scenario.  

I hear the remake is similarly butchered (pardon the pun) and won't waste my time.  Too bad a good setup has been now twice wasted.

Pics below are of the peter gnawing mom and the two girls the killers killed.

So they showed the BJ, and getting the ole talley wacker bit off?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 05, 2009, 04:29:23 PM
So they showed the BJ, and getting the ole talley wacker bit off?

Not exactly.  But for 1972 it had to be pretty off the wall. 

Showed her getting to her knees, showed him with his head thrown back making the "o" face, then showed him from behind and her ripping her head violently from side to side.  He was fully clothed. 

She ran to the pond gagging and spit something in the water.  It splashed. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on October 05, 2009, 04:38:48 PM
Not exactly.  But for 1972 it had to be pretty off the wall. 

Showed her getting to her knees, showed him with his head thrown back making the "o" face, then showed him from behind and her ripping her head violently from side to side.  He was fully clothed. 

She ran to the pond gagging and spit something in the water.  It splashed. 

I remember as an early teenager, watching that and the end of the movie Blood Sucking Freaks made me leery of women in peril.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: ssgaufan on October 05, 2009, 04:39:40 PM
Not exactly.  But for 1972 it had to be pretty off the wall. 

Showed her getting to her knees, showed him with his head thrown back making the "o" face, then showed him from behind and her ripping her head violently from side to side.  He was fully clothed. 

She ran to the pond gagging and spit something in the water.  It splashed. 

Damn.  That would be the exact opposite of a "happy ending".
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Thrilla on October 05, 2009, 07:04:40 PM
Damn.  That would be the exact opposite of a "happy ending".

I'm glad you clarified that, lest I believe that you were in to some wacky S&M shit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 05, 2009, 11:00:12 PM
My Bloody Valentine

Surprisingly good.

Decent storytelling. Good pace. Plenty of gore, some over the top a little bit but the special effects were good. Well acted. The guy playing Axel was a little weak. Didn't buy him as a Sheriff, but other than that the casting was solid.

Hate now I didn't see this one in 3D in the theaters.

Of the three major horror remakes I've seen (Halloween, Friday the 13th and this one) this is tenfold better than the other two combined.  Zombie's Halloween redux was ham-fisted and the 13th resurrection was just lame altogether despite the sexy Pannabaker elf.

If you do horror, do this one.  It's not the kind that will have you terrified, but it does keep you guessing and wondering until the end. 

Well done.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on October 06, 2009, 03:44:37 AM
I enjoyed My Bloody Valentine as well, I thought the storyline was impressive for a horror flick.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 09, 2009, 09:30:08 AM
Pineapple Express

So I'm 3/4 of the way through this movie and I'm thinking what the hell.  It's just two doofy loser white guys smoking tons of weed and getting into ridiculous situations.  Could it possibly be any more stupid?

Then I remember. I used to laugh my ass off at Cheech and Chong which was basically two doofy loser Mexican guys smoking tons of weed and getting into ridiculous situations. It was pretty stupid, too.  Nice Dreams was good, but the rest of the C&C movies were really pretty bad.

Maybe it's just my age, but I didn't get a whole lot out of Pineapple Express.  It wasn't as funny as Cheech and Chong used to be and it just never really went anywhere.  Anything that was remotely funny was shown in the previews.

I hate when somebody tells me "it's the funniest movie ever" and then I don't laugh even once.  It colors my opinion of them.  

Lame. Dull. Boring.  That's about all I saw out of this Express.

Superbad
Not as bad as Pineapple Express.

I did sort of like this movie, but I'm seriously tired of that fat fucking whiner kid.  Every time a car hit him I was begging him to stay down.  As in be cinematically dead.   I don't ever want to see him in another movie again. 

Seth Rogen is bad enough.  How that nasally fro-top ever became a movie "star" is beyond me because he doesn't have an ounce of talent, but the grungy whiner cocksucker has even less.   He sucks.

If the cast has "Jonah Hill" listed, I'm not going to watch the fucking movie. Ever.  I hate that bastard. 

Don't even try to tell me Emma Stone would be remotely interested in his tubby ass.  Fuck that concept completely. 

Not a bad film, but I hate Jonah Hill. 

Here's Emma:

(http://www.youngteenidols.com/modules/gallery/data/media/55/emma_stone030.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AWK on October 09, 2009, 03:09:04 PM
My Bloody Valentine

Surprisingly good.

Decent storytelling. Good pace. Plenty of gore, some over the top a little bit but the special effects were good. Well acted. The guy playing Axel was a little weak. Didn't buy him as a Sheriff, but other than that the casting was solid.

Hate now I didn't see this one in 3D in the theaters.

Of the three major horror remakes I've seen (Halloween, Friday the 13th and this one) this is tenfold better than the other two combined.  Zombie's Halloween redux was ham-fisted and the 13th resurrection was just lame altogether despite the sexy Pannabaker elf.

If you do horror, do this one.  It's not the kind that will have you terrified, but it does keep you guessing and wondering until the end. 

Well done.
:suicide:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 09, 2009, 03:41:18 PM
:suicide:

I assume you disagree?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 12, 2009, 02:50:33 AM
Knocked Up
Okay, I've seen this before.  I may have even at some point reviewed it.  But I watched again while I was doing some work. 

Couple of things stood out to me. 

Quit calling Judd Apatow a visionary. Quit calling him a superior comedic talent. Quit calling him a director who is worth a tin shit in a cast iron bucket. 

The premise of this movie (and that of many others he's gotten credit for) is pretty good. But in his juvenile, blundering hands it turns to shit. 

Here's the thing. This could have been a really sweet, extremely effective and endearing movie. It wasn't because Apatow is immature. It's Beavis and Butthead level, but not as funny or not as clever.

Katherine Heigl was superb. And pretty fucking hot.

Rogen -- who I don't really care for -- actually showed me that if he'd get out from under Apatow's butchering direction he might actually be able to do more than schelp around like a dumbass and smoke weed.

The interactions between JHeigl, Rogen, Paul Rudd and whoever the shrew playing his wife was?  They were all good.

Rogen's circle of friends would have been shitloads better off without that retarded Jonah Hill bastard fouling up the screen. I was hoping he'd swallow a ping poing ball and die.

Where Apatow blew it with this movie was the unnecessary insertion of crudity.  We don't have to see Rogen's fat sweaty ass to understand the concept that he drunk-fucked Katherine.

The excessive amount of profanity (and shut the fuck up about irony) detracted from the movie. It added nothing and would have been better with a few less fucks, motherfucks and fuckity-fuck-fucks.

This could have been a really good movie. Apatow turned it into a lumbering, bumbling, fifth-grade "you said poo-poo" level butchery. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on October 12, 2009, 05:14:48 AM
Kaos, I watched the new The Last House on the Left. The movie was very graphic, gritty similar to the New Halloween/Friday the 13th. Its worth a look. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on October 12, 2009, 10:44:02 PM
Kaos, I watched the new The Last House on the Left. The movie was very graphic, gritty similar to the New Halloween/Friday the 13th. Its worth a look. 
Uggghhh....My eyes started bleed after I read "Its worth a look".
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 16, 2009, 12:09:49 AM
Running With Scissors

Started this movie on Stealth channel a while ago. 

What a fucked up deal.  Evan Rachel Wood is hot and reminds me of why I loved the 70s.  There's something about that 70s look that brings wood. 

But the movie has too much gay shit going on.  I just don't need that.  I wonder if RWS realizes that his name is the name of a gay ass movie about a gay ass guy and his fucked up drug-addled mother?

Maybe I'm supposed to see some hidden meaning in this meandering shit, but it's not getting through.

I still got an hour left and I really don't think I'm going to make it to the end. 

I enjoy dark comedy. I like quirky shit.  This seems to just be dark shit, like a lumpy turd.   If I do finish it, which at this point I sort of doubt?  I'll add a final analysis. 

The positive?  Soundtrack is a Super 70s groove. Check it here:

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/7280172/a/Running+With+Scissors.htm (http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/7280172/a/Running+With+Scissors.htm)

Bennie and the Jets (Elton John's best song)
The Things We Do for Love
Pick Up the Pieces
Blinded By The Light
Year of the Cat

etc.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 23, 2009, 11:05:47 AM
Frost Nixon

Ron Howard used to be Opie.  I liked him then. He used to be Richie Cunningham. I liked him then. He used to make fun movies like Splash where I got to see Daryl Hannah all kinds of naked and Cocoon where we got to see Wilford Brimley naked.  I liked him then. 

At some point he decided he had a political statement to make and that statement was liberal. I don't like that. His support Obama film that drew in Fonz and Andy really sort of pissed me off, first because he degraded Griffith by putting him in that garbage, but primarily because I despise so-called celebrities thinking they have any business telling me or you how you should vote. That video put him in the same clueless category as the Dixie Chicks, Barbara Striesand, Dave Matthews and the other idiot cocksmokers who think the ability to sustain a note gives them some moral advantage.  Fuck them.  Fuck them all. Every last one.  Opie too.

Frost/Nixon was a complex film. Unless you grew up in the time in which Watergate dominated the nation's consciousness, it probably won't resonate. I did and remember paying close attention to everything that went on.  For a number of reasons, one of them being Howard's inability to refrain from taking subtle shots at Nixon, the film failed to capture the moment.

For the record I think Nixon was a good president. He was paranoid, perhaps, and shouldn't have gotten involved in trying to hide the Watergate mess but most of what he did as President was positive. By the same token, I'm a huge George Wallace fan. If all you can see of the man is him standing in the school house door, you miss his true essence and overlook the tremendous good he did for the State of Alabama.

So...

Watergate was a truly pivotal time in American history. Watergate changed the role of media drastically. It significantly altered the way the American public viewed not just Nixon, but the entire presidency -- and for that matter politics in general.  I've heard it characterized as the moment this country lost its innocence and that's a fair assessment. The patriotism and America-first fervor that had existed through the end of World War II and through the 50s was generally being chipped away by the muddled effort in Korea and then the growing disaster in Vietnam. Nixon provided the opening for that sentiment to become a groundswell. 

Had the current media climate existed in the 1940s, we'd all be speaking German and goose-stepping in memory of our dear Fuehrer today. The horrors of a single hour at Iwo Jima or Normandy surpass two years of Iraq.  Nixon made it permissible -- expected even -- to criticize, analyze and cry out against the decisions of political leaders.

But back to the movie.

Howard didn't do a very good job of capturing that part of the story. Unless you already knew why the interview was important, unless you already understood how dramatically Watergate altered the American political landscape you weren't going to get much from this movie.  In that respect, he left a vast audience behind. Even those who were born after 1975 or so and were interested in the event didn't get a sense of its importance from this film. 

Instead Howard spent a lot of time focusing on Frost's efforts to raise money for the interviews, his relationship with Caroline Cushing and the genesis of the interviews.  Again, unless you were there, you really don't care. It wasn't compelling enough to keep you there.

I felt his characterization of Nixon as a doofy, dottering old man who apparently had alcoholic blackouts barely rose above caricature.  I've also never understood why Hollywood types -- which Howard obviously is -- feel the need to take creative liberties with portions of the story.  Why make Caroline Cushing appear as some trollop Frost picked up on a plane when they had actually been dating for a couple of years when the interview happened?  If he's going to fuck around with something minor like that why wouldn't he also just fabricate anything else he wanted to make it fit his "vision"? 

Also, if you watch the actual interviews and compare them to what Howard filmed, there are differences. Not in Frost's questions, but in Langella as Nixon's answers.  Some were markedly different. Others were in the manner of expression.  What is the point of doing it if you're just going to make up what was said or alter the way it was presented to subtly change the meaning? 

Frank Langella did a decent job of portraying Nixon. The guy playing Frost should stick to playing werewolves. 

There was no nudity. About the closest you had was the girl playing Cushing meeting Nixon and not having her shoes on. 

Final analysis?  The movie just didn't resonate. It didn't with me even though I grew up with Watergate because it missed the focus. It won't with anybody who wasn't a child of the 70s because it fails to convey the significance. 

Fuck Ron Howard. Go back to making movies where Daryl Hannah is naked and a fish.


(http://www.lahiguera.net/cinemania/actores/rebecca_hall/fotos/6712/rebecca_hall.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 29, 2009, 11:27:23 PM
The Midnight Meat Train

So it's Halloween week.  And you're looking for something violent and gory.  The Midnight Meat Train -- not a porno -- almost gets you there. 

It's got an outstanding cast. 

Brooke Shields is in it.  Bradley Cooper (Hangover) is in it.  Leslie Bibb (below) is in it. 

Basic story is that there's this creepy fuck who is slaughtering people on a weird subway train.  He's got this big ass hammer that does all kinds of shocking damage. 

If you like blood on the floor, eyeballs being popped out with a spoon kind of carnage, this movie has you going for most of the duration. 

Couple of problems.  Plot contrivances that make no sense whatsoever.  Some truly bad overacting by Miss Bibb.  No nudity.  Some of the things just don't make any sense whatsoever and there's really no rational explanation for some of the behaviors -- or some of the utterly unlikely coincidences. Is there only ONE detective in all of New York City?   

The movie hums gorily along until the twist at the end, which I have to say is one of the stupidest things I've ever had the misfortune to witness.  It gets to the denoument and you're sitting there going "seriously? That was the point of all this shit? No wonder the damn movie went straight to video despite the stellar credentials." 

Based on a Clive Barker book if that gives anything away. 


(http://www.comicsbulletin.com/busted/images/060807/ghlblg046alesliebibb.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 29, 2009, 11:56:14 PM
Blood and Chocolate

Movie had a very Underworld feel in terms of pacing and direction.   Agnes (below) plays Vivian, a werewolf.  She falls for a human, kicking off the whole love-triangle thing. 

The wolves were sort of cool.  The transformations were not.  They turned into glowing fairies flying through the air in slow motion before flipping to wolves.  Not werewolves, but actual wolves. 

Since they appeared to eat chocloate and other foodstuffs, I'm not really sure why the hunting was necessary for them.  Just be regular except for the being immortal part.  They had the ability to control the transformation, so that wasn't an issue. 

Too much love story, not enough bone chewing in the middle third of the film.   Soundtrack is intrusive to a degree, too. 

This was really a cross bewteen Underworld and Twilight.  It was better than Twilight -- which I confess I've unfortunately seen -- but not as good as Underworld.  It leaned more toward the Underworld side, however.

Stars?

Agnes Bruckner

(http://www.etapetki.com.pl/galleries/znane/B/Agnes_Bruckner/Agnes_Bruckner_j2.jpg)

and

Kata Dobo

(http://cdn2.maxim.com/maxim/files/2006/03/31/kata-dobo/gfd_l3.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on October 30, 2009, 02:13:11 AM
The two girls from above are worth a long look.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 30, 2009, 09:33:07 AM
Ok.

(http://gallery.celebritypro.com/data/media/677/agnes-brucker-james-white-vanity-fair-march-2003-2.jpg)
http://gallery.celebritypro.com/data/media/677/agnes-brucker-james-white-vanity-fair-march-2003-2.jpg (http://gallery.celebritypro.com/data/media/677/agnes-brucker-james-white-vanity-fair-march-2003-2.jpg)


(http://cdn2.maxim.com/maxim/files/2003/02/21/kata-dobo/kata_dobo_l2.jpg)

http://cdn2.maxim.com/maxim/files/2003/02/21/kata-dobo/kata_dobo_l2.jpg (http://cdn2.maxim.com/maxim/files/2003/02/21/kata-dobo/kata_dobo_l2.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on October 30, 2009, 02:46:19 PM
Kaos have you checked out the new Last House on the Left yet? Some of the scenes were hard to watch, I felt bad for the victims.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTailgatingRules on October 30, 2009, 02:49:57 PM
Anybody seen the new saw movie yet?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on October 30, 2009, 02:53:43 PM
Anybody seen the new saw movie yet?
I havent yet.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on November 02, 2009, 08:37:30 PM
I just completed watching all 8 Hellraiser flicks.

I had seen bits and pieces of a few of them (which I now recognize as 3 & 4).

It so awesomely fits into the Horror Movie franchise cliches of being ridiculously horrible by the end of their run, deteriorating bit by bit with each installment.

Here's the breakdown:

Part I: A pretty solid horror movie. Good sci-fi supernatural story that doesn't involve Pinhead much at all. He was no more central of a character than the other three Cenobites (gatekeepers of hell), except he had a couple more lines than the other one that could talk. The Cenobites were not a central part of the story anyway.

Part II: Brought back pretty much all of the central characters. Stuck to the original story, and expanded on it. Went more into explaining things like the Cenobites and the puzzle box. Solid sequel as far as horror sequels go.

Part III: The series begins heading downhill. The characters from the first two movies are abandoned, except Pinhead. It then becomes about him. They contradict the canon of the first two movies to make Pinhead a typical late-80's/early-90's Hollywood movie monster a'la Jason & Freddy who can recruit other Cenobites, which are now just basically zombies with super powers.

Part IV: Takes place in Space 400 years in the future. And partly in the present. And partly 400 years in the past. Only four parts in and it's already this ridiculous.

Part V: A murder mystery thriller with a bit of a supernatural twist. Kind of like a poor man's Se7en. Are you sure this is supposed to be a Hellraiser movie? Quite a departure for the series, but I guess on some level it's kind of cool that they abandoned the blood and guts and made it about Pinhead psychologically torturing someone.

Part VI: Basically the exact same movie as part 5, making it even more predictable. This one was made in 2002. Just enough time for Halloween H20 to come out and have been successful and them to try to steal an element that worked for it. Jamie Lee Curtis came back for that one. The main protagonist teenage girl also returned for the late Nightmare On Elm Street movie, New Nightmare. This must have been why the girl from the first two Hellraiser movies wanted to come back for this one. Clearly her part being the same girl from the first two movies was an element thrown in at the last minute. It is completely unnecessary to the plot.

Part VII: Unbelievably, has even less to do with the Hellraiser series than the last couple of movies. It was clearly written as a movie to stand on its own, and the studio that owns Hellraiser said "Hey, we'll buy it if you put Pinhead in there somehow and call it Hellraiser 7."

Part VIII: Hilariously bad acting. Like worse than most porn. Ridiculous and stupid story. Ridiculous and stupid lines. This tries to be totally hip and deals with online gaming. A bunch of teenagers are obsessed with a Hellraiser based online game, and through the game they get invited to some big party, where guess what, Pinhead kills everyone one by one. All the kids are self-aware of all of the elements from the Hellraiser series, seemingly because of the video game, not the movies. It's so god-awful it's funnybad.

Just thought I'd share. I knew each one would be worse than the one before it, yet I kept watching all 16 hours worth, and frankly, would have been disappointed if one of them had actually been better than the previous one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Argo on November 02, 2009, 10:19:09 PM
I just completed watching all 8 Hellraiser flicks.

I had seen bits and pieces of a few of them (which I now recognize as 3 & 4).

It so awesomely fits into the Horror Movie franchise cliches of being ridiculously horrible by the end of their run, deteriorating bit by bit with each installment.

Here's the breakdown:

Part I: A pretty solid horror movie. Good sci-fi supernatural story that doesn't involve Pinhead much at all. He was no more central of a character than the other three Cenobites (gatekeepers of hell), except he had a couple more lines than the other one that could talk. The Cenobites were not a central part of the story anyway.

Part II: Brought back pretty much all of the central characters. Stuck to the original story, and expanded on it. Went more into explaining things like the Cenobites and the puzzle box. Solid sequel as far as horror sequels go.

Part III: The series begins heading downhill. The characters from the first two movies are abandoned, except Pinhead. It then becomes about him. They contradict the canon of the first two movies to make Pinhead a typical late-80's/early-90's Hollywood movie monster a'la Jason & Freddy who can recruit other Cenobites, which are now just basically zombies with super powers.

Part IV: Takes place in Space 400 years in the future. And partly in the present. And partly 400 years in the past. Only four parts in and it's already this ridiculous.

Part V: A murder mystery thriller with a bit of a supernatural twist. Kind of like a poor man's Se7en. Are you sure this is supposed to be a Hellraiser movie? Quite a departure for the series, but I guess on some level it's kind of cool that they abandoned the blood and guts and made it about Pinhead psychologically torturing someone.

Part VI: Basically the exact same movie as part 5, making it even more predictable. This one was made in 2002. Just enough time for Halloween H20 to come out and have been successful and them to try to steal an element that worked for it. Jamie Lee Curtis came back for that one. The main protagonist teenage girl also returned for the late Nightmare On Elm Street movie, New Nightmare. This must have been why the girl from the first two Hellraiser movies wanted to come back for this one. Clearly her part being the same girl from the first two movies was an element thrown in at the last minute. It is completely unnecessary to the plot.

Part VII: Unbelievably, has even less to do with the Hellraiser series than the last couple of movies. It was clearly written as a movie to stand on its own, and the studio that owns Hellraiser said "Hey, we'll buy it if you put Pinhead in there somehow and call it Hellraiser 7."

Part VIII: Hilariously bad acting. Like worse than most porn. Ridiculous and stupid story. Ridiculous and stupid lines. This tries to be totally hip and deals with online gaming. A bunch of teenagers are obsessed with a Hellraiser based online game, and through the game they get invited to some big party, where guess what, Pinhead kills everyone one by one. All the kids are self-aware of all of the elements from the Hellraiser series, seemingly because of the video game, not the movies. It's so god-awful it's funnybad.

Just thought I'd share. I knew each one would be worse than the one before it, yet I kept watching all 16 hours worth, and frankly, would have been disappointed if one of them had actually been better than the previous one.

You should be commended for this achievement.  Seriously.  I've always had an interest in watching all the "classic" horror films from the start to end.  This was one series I never paid much attention to.

My favorite horror movies was the "Living dead" series.  Nothing better than sitting amongst friends with a few pizzas, a few beverages, and a black and white version of zombies eating brains.

Damn. Those were some good times.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on November 02, 2009, 10:24:46 PM
You should be commended for this achievement.  Seriously.  I've always had an interest in watching all the "classic" horror films from the start to end.  This was one series I never paid much attention to.

My favorite horror movies was the "Living dead" series.  Nothing better than sitting amongst friends with a few pizzas, a few beverages, and a black and white version of zombies eating brains.

Damn. Those were some good times.
I own every Friday the 13th, Nightmare On Elm Street, and Child's Play movies. I've seen all of the Halloweens and Puppet Masters too.

Had never seen any of these all the way through. Like I said, the first two are worth checking out. You can call it a day after part 5, for sure though.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Argo on November 02, 2009, 10:58:28 PM
Another one that I liked as a youngster was pumpkin head.  I'm not even sure how many of those were made, but I need to try to find them.  It's been a long time.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 03, 2009, 06:33:30 AM
I own every Friday the 13th

Part III was as good as any of them.

Worth watching just to see the girl on the left wearing a blue bikini.  I do so love a 70s body.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2181/2279074991_962c98789b.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on November 03, 2009, 08:59:30 AM
Another one that I liked as a youngster was pumpkin head.  I'm not even sure how many of those were made, but I need to try to find them.  It's been a long time.  
There were actually five of them made.  I don't think anyone has actually watched 3-5 though.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on November 03, 2009, 01:05:53 PM
Part III was as good as any of them.

Worth watching just to see the girl on the left wearing a blue bikini.  I do so love a 70s body.

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2181/2279074991_962c98789b.jpg)
I have #3 on Blu-Ray cheesy but the 3d extras are cool, Friday the 13th 5 New Beginning was pretty kick ass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 03, 2009, 01:08:25 PM
I have #3 on Blu-Ray cheesy but the 3d extras are cool, Friday the 13th 5 New Beginning was pretty kick ass.

Is the BluRay #3 in 3d?  Because if it is?  I'm adding it to my collection. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on November 04, 2009, 05:33:46 AM
Is the BluRay #3 in 3d?  Because if it is?  I'm adding it to my collection. 
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2298/friday13thpart3.html (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2298/friday13thpart3.html)

I had to buy, the bonus material is worth the purchase without the movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 07, 2009, 07:36:14 AM
Family Movie Alert.  Family Movie Alert.  Family Movie Alert.

Last night, I took the fam to see A Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey.  It's the 3D animation stuff, which I'm usually not into, but this was very entertaining. Carrey is just an incredibly talented actor.  He's done a lot of stuff that's way out there and some people can't take his over the top style in some of his comedic roles.  But, you can't deny that when he gets in to a certain character, he plays it to the hilt. I remember taking the family to The Grinch several years back and I was worried they would take a guy like Carrey and stray away from the storyline of the original cartoon that Birdman grew up with.  No way.  They couldn't have picked a better actor to play that part and he did the role dead on.

Same with A Christmas Carol.  They stayed perfectly in time with the Dickens classic and Carrey did the characters or voices of at least 4 parts, including Scrooge.  The animation and special effects were pretty good but I'm not sure why they wanted it 3D.  That really added nothing to it.  It was Carrey and the way they portrayed that time period that made the film.  Those of you with kids or just like that story, it's worth the time in my opinion.     
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 11, 2009, 01:17:05 AM
I Love You Man

Maybe it's just me. But today's so-called "comedies" are generally slow-paced douche-fests.  I don't really have anything against Paul Rudd, but he's just boring as fuck.  Like Will Ferrell, he plays the same lame ass outsider fuck in every movie he makes.

This movie had a few mildly amusing moments but it dragged and dragged and dragged and dragged. 

Too much homo shit.

Here's the deal. If the movie were half as entertaining to me as it appeared to be entertaining to them in the outtakes, it would be one hilarious fucking movie.  But it wasn't. 

Completely forgettable. 

There wasn't even the redeeming feature of a naked chick or some hot pieces of ass in the movie.

It blew.  Waste of time.  I seriously wish it was one tenth as funny as they apparently tought it was during the making of it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 11, 2009, 08:11:33 AM
We Own the Night

Any movie that opens with Eva Mendes masturbating in a sexy black dress and black stockings is going to get high marks. 

While she's little more than set dressing for this film, Eva adds much.

The rest of the film, after the awesome (and far too short) opening scene is rather formulaic.  I've never been a big fan of Joaquin Phoenix because he always looks like he's about to cry.

Between Phoenix, Mark Wahlberg, Robert Duvall and Tony Musante (who played Toma) the film manages to put together a fairly credible story of the black sheep son who eschews his family's cop heritage, becomes a player on the fringes of the law and then gets sucked back in when the criminal element in his midst unknowingly targets his family.

It's a decent film, not as suspensful or dramatic as it tries to be, but with enough of both to keep it moving.

There are plot holes. Is the force really going to turn a uniform over to a guy just because he's mad -- with the admonishment that he's got to go to the Academy after he's gotten his vengeance? Would veteran cops seriously turn to this newbie for leadership in the field the minute danger presents itself? Would Eva really, seriously do brooding Joaquin?

The opening fingers in the crotch scene set the bar so high, the rest of the film couldn't match it.  Memo to director: Save that for the middle after you've drawn people in with the plot and characters, otherwise 30 minutes have passed and viewers are wondering just what the hell happened because they forgot to pay attention, lost in the moment.

(http://www.sxxxy.org/eva_mendes-We_Own_the_Night-002.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 11, 2009, 09:19:58 AM
We Own the Night

Any movie that opens with Eva Mendes masturbating in a sexy black dress and black stockings is going to get high marks. 

While she's little more than set dressing for this film, Eva adds much.

The rest of the film, after the awesome (and far too short) opening scene is rather formulaic.  I've never been a big fan of Joaquin Phoenix because he always looks like he's about to cry.

Between Phoenix, Mark Wahlberg, Robert Duvall and Tony Musante (who played Toma) the film manages to put together a fairly credible story of the black sheep son who eschews his family's cop heritage, becomes a player on the fringes of the law and then gets sucked back in when the criminal element in his midst unknowingly targets his family.

It's a decent film, not as suspensful or dramatic as it tries to be, but with enough of both to keep it moving.

There are plot holes. Is the force really going to turn a uniform over to a guy just because he's mad -- with the admonishment that he's got to go to the Academy after he's gotten his vengeance? Would veteran cops seriously turn to this newbie for leadership in the field the minute danger presents itself? Would Eva really, seriously do brooding Joaquin?

The opening fingers in the crotch scene set the bar so high, the rest of the film couldn't match it.  Memo to director: Save that for the middle after you've drawn people in with the plot and characters, otherwise 30 minutes have passed and viewers are wondering just what the hell happened because they forgot to pay attention, lost in the moment.

(http://www.sxxxy.org/eva_mendes-We_Own_the_Night-002.jpg)

Chubb alert.....whew - good lawd that lady is smokin.


Ok, anyway.  Anyone heard of this new movie "Pirate Radio"? The plot sounds different and it may have peaked my interest enough to go see it in the theater. I think it comes out this Friday.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on November 11, 2009, 09:43:09 AM
We Own the Night

Saw it. Like you I only kept watching to see when they would show Eva again. Also, this movie just props up my belief that if you want to play undercover cop, you must first get rid of the stupid chick. The stupid chicks always do something that almost gets you or them killed. Why leave protective custody to go visit your mother, therefore putting her in danger too. But she's hot so she's forgiven. It's decent enough story line. Would not watch it twice.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: jadennis on November 11, 2009, 10:29:12 AM
Saw it. Like you I only kept watching to see when they would show Eva again. Also, this movie just props up my belief that if you want to play undercover cop, you must first get rid of the stupid chick. The stupid chicks always do something that almost gets you or them killed. Why leave protective custody to go visit your mother, therefore putting her in danger too. But she's hot so she's forgiven. It's decent enough story line. Would not watch it twice.

See, you laid out the solution to a problem (get rid of the hot chick)...but then fell right back into the problem (she's too hot).
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Eagle!!! on December 22, 2009, 11:35:45 AM
I saw Body of Lies the other night with DiCaprio and Russell Crow. Pretty good movie for those that haven't seen it. DiCaprio does a pretty good job and Crow plays a lot different role than he is used to playing and did pretty good as well.

I don't remember any lines from the movie to quote like you dorks, but I can say it was one of the better movies I have seen in a while (although I don't watch a lot of movies)...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on December 22, 2009, 11:42:57 AM
K..2 that you need to see, if you have not...Inglorious Bastards and Burn After Reading.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 22, 2009, 12:05:42 PM
K..2 that you need to see, if you have not...Inglorious Bastards and Burn After Reading.

Burn after reading, yes.  IB not yet.

Nothing But the Truth

Is there really any way to fuck up a movie with Kate Beckinsale in a primary role?  Adam Sandler says yes.  So, too, do the directors of Nothing But the Truth. 

How do you fuck up a Beckinsale movie?  First show her married to Ross from Friends. As if that nerdy fuck has a shot in hell.  Then show a sex scene between Kate and nerd-fuck Ross that shows only him on top grunting like a monkey.  Then show Beckinsale in a dreary jail for most of the movie with no makeup and harsh lighting. 

Slow, plodding plot.  Big cast including Alan Alda, Matt Dillon as a cutthroat federal prosecutor (chuckle at his shitty performance) and the nerd dude from ER as a pissed off attorney (another chuckle-worthy performance). 

I didn't even want to fuck Beckinsale after this bore-fest.  What an awful pile of dreck.



and...

Surveillance
Bill Pullman, Julia Ormand and the freaky alien from that John Lithgow TV show.  Fuck, John Lithgow, by the way.  I hate him. 

This movie had a great concept and could have easily been a creepy super win at the box office.  Fantastic premise. 

But the execution was so abysmally poor, it absolutely REEKED. 

Pullman, whom I usually like, was just god awful.  He failed on every level to bring authenticity to his role. 

I won't give away the ending since some of you may decide to use this movie as torture should you ever catch some terrorists. 

Nothing aggravates me more than a good premise that fails to deliver.  This ramps fail up to a whole new level.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on December 22, 2009, 12:11:03 PM
I have never heard of either of those.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on December 22, 2009, 01:05:19 PM
K..2 that you need to see, if you have not...Inglorious Bastards and Burn After Reading.
Bastards was a great movie, be prepared to read for 3 hours.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on December 22, 2009, 01:12:24 PM
Bastards was a great movie, be prepared to read for 3 hours.

Could have been 1.5 hours in lieu of 3
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on December 22, 2009, 01:17:04 PM
Could have been 1.5 hours in lieu of 3
They made every scene dragggg except the end.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 25, 2009, 10:52:37 PM
Went to see Sherlock Holmes but it was sold out. Opted for "Armored" with Matt Dillon and Lawrence Fishburne.  3.5 out of 10.  Plot is an armored car heist attempt through an inside job. Action packed in the second half but VERY predictable.  Dillon and Fishburne play the bad guy role pretty good but overall, it's barely a rental.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on December 25, 2009, 11:10:06 PM
Just saw Avatar. 

My review -

Visually, it's the greatest movie of all time.  Nothing comes close to the highly detailed, imaginative CGI that went into this film.  It really was remarkable.

Actual movie?  Meh.  I've seen it before.  I usually write off the critics that attempt to call out action flicks with political propaganda.  However, this film was pretty heavy on the "America attacks the innocent" theme. 

Decent movie.  Worth paying to see it in the theaters just to see how pretty it is. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on December 28, 2009, 12:17:49 PM
I just saw it in IMAX 3-D.

I've never seen an IMAX movie before, but seeing that movie that way was freaking amazing.

I highly recommend seeing it this way if you can.

I agree about the playing up America attacking the innocent theme. I was rolling my eyes at a couple of poorly disguised parallells they were trying to draw.

In the same night I saw another movie of note: The Box.

It's Richard Kelley (Donnie Darko) so expect weirdness to the point of confusion.

This was a 70's period piece and it really felt like I was watching a movie from that time. It felt like The Shining with a little bit of Creepshow thrown in for good measure, but with better special effects. Very Stanley Kubrick-esque.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on December 28, 2009, 12:56:44 PM


I agree about the playing up America attacking the innocent theme. I was rolling my eyes at a couple of poorly disguised parallells they were trying to draw.


You mean these quotes:

"It'll be a shock and awe campaign"
Numerous marines shouting "GET YOU SOME!" 
"It just so happens that those primitive people are sitting on top of a gold mine that we want"

and also the multiple tribal tattoos. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 28, 2009, 01:07:22 PM
You mean these quotes:

"It'll be a shock and awe campaign"
Numerous marines shouting "GET YOU SOME!" 
"It just so happens that those primitive people are sitting on top of a gold mine that we want"

and also the multiple tribal tattoos. 



The tongue-trill scream that the natives did was only missing a few AK-47 rounds blasted into the sky to complete the Arab stereotype.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 28, 2009, 01:23:05 PM
Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

Not a sequel, but a prequel.  Explained the genesis of the war between vampires and werewolves.  No Kate Beckinsale, which was disappointing but Rhona Mitra filled in admirably.  (See below)

The movie wasn't as good as Underworld but wasn't as sprawlingly bad as Underworld: Evolution.  If Underworld never existed, this movie would have done well as a stand-alone.  Because Underworld did exist, however, it suffers from the inevitable comparisons.  It wasn't as gruesome or gory as either of the other two movies and it actually had a much more coherent storyline than either of the other two.

It was a decent movie, but nothing really to elevate it from the routine.  It told a story those who watched Underworld really already knew, but added a little detail here and there.  I'd watch it again.

The guy playing Victor (who also plays Squidward or whatever in the last two Pirates of the Caribbean movies) really grates on me with his funky accent.

(http://tallteacher.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/rhona-mitra01.jpg)
(http://i00.rnhh.de/eu/shared-images/filmdotcom/assets/rn/img/4/0/4/8/25438404-25438408-large.jpg)
(http://www.blazinbeauties.com/pages1/rhona_mitra/rhona_mitra_2.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on December 28, 2009, 06:25:18 PM
The tongue-trill scream that the natives did was only missing a few AK-47 rounds blasted into the sky to complete the Arab stereotype.
Don't forget the General referring to the tribes defending themselves as acts of terror that must be combatted with terror by means of a preemptive strike. :taunt:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 28, 2009, 11:09:50 PM
Sherlock Holmes

Robert Downey Jr.  is pretty amazing.  Perfect marriage of character and actor. 

A very entertaining movie.  Bit of a muddled plot, but really well done overall.  I'd see it again.  And will.   

I wouldn't say run to the theaters to see it, but I'm glad I didn't wait for the DVD.   I go to the theater to be entertained and I totally was. 

Downey might have supplanted Johnny Depp as my favorite actor. He's not as pretty, but he's just as clever.  Ironman, Tropic Thunder and this?  The guy is superb.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 29, 2009, 12:25:34 AM

Downey might have supplanted Johnny Depp as my favorite actor. He's not as pretty, but he's just as clever.  Ironman, Tropic Thunder and this?  The guy is superb.

Agreed. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on December 29, 2009, 10:34:22 AM
Sherlock Holmes

Robert Downey Jr.  is pretty amazing.  Perfect marriage of character and actor.  

A very entertaining movie.  Bit of a muddled plot, but really well done overall.  I'd see it again.  And will.  

I wouldn't say run to the theaters to see it, but I'm glad I didn't wait for the DVD.   I go to the theater to be entertained and I totally was.  

Downey might have supplanted Johnny Depp as my favorite actor. He's not as pretty, but he's just as clever.  Ironman, Tropic Thunder and this?  The guy is superb.
I agree on all of it.  :p
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on December 29, 2009, 11:01:01 AM
Sherlock Holmes

Robert Downey Jr.  is pretty amazing.  Perfect marriage of character and actor. 

A very entertaining movie.  Bit of a muddled plot, but really well done overall.  I'd see it again.  And will.   

I wouldn't say run to the theaters to see it, but I'm glad I didn't wait for the DVD.   I go to the theater to be entertained and I totally was. 

Downey might have supplanted Johnny Depp as my favorite actor. He's not as pretty, but he's just as clever.  Ironman, Tropic Thunder and this?  The guy is superb.

Downey's role in Tropic Thunder was masterful.  Will definitely check it out, but it will be at least 2 weeks.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 29, 2009, 02:16:11 PM
Bright Lights, Big City

Don't know how (or if) I missed this during the cocaine 80s, but I stumbled across this movie last night while doing some work and started watching it hoping it had a point. 

Less than Zero (another Downey movie) had a point.  It was a solid portrayal of a binging addict and his obsessions.  It featured then super hot Jami Gertz
 (http://cinematicpassions.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/jamigertzposter002.jpg) but suffered slightly from trying to force the career of Andrew McCarthy.  Would have been better with Rob Lowe or Keifer or Sheen in the lead. 

This?  Well, it did have Phoebe Cates (see below).  Keifer sort of filled in the role James Spader made so creepily effective in Less Than Zero. 

But Michael J. Fox?  The dude can't act.  He was about as convincing as a coke-addled yuppie as the Geico Lizard would be if he attempted to star as Batman.  I didn't remember just what a lousy actor Fox really was.  I know he's got the disease and all and I know his wife is sort of untalented hot, too, (see below) but he just absolutely fails as an actor except in select roles. Zero believable chemistry with Cates, overwrought drama with mom Diane Weist, just a pitiful sludge of a movie. 

Garbage. 

Maybe I didn't miss it in the 80s.  Maybe I just blocked it from my memory.


(http://cjcabalfin.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/phoebecates.jpg)

Phoebe Cates

(http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Funny+Thing+Happened+Way+Cure+Parkinson+Benefit+3jQx49pHfeZl.jpg)
Tracy Pollan
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on December 29, 2009, 08:45:58 PM
Just saw Avatar. 

My review -

Actual movie?  Meh.  I've seen it before.  

It followed every cowboy and indian flick ever made, ceptin the injuns was 10 feet tall and blue.

And did that Sigourney Weaver look hot or what as a Navi'??
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on December 30, 2009, 02:21:23 AM
It followed every cowboy and indian flick ever made, ceptin the injuns was 10 feet tall and blue.

And did that Sigourney Weaver look hot or what as a Navi'??
Was I the only one turned on by the main indigenous chick?

Is it weird that a CGI 9 foot tall blue alien with a tail, pointy ears, etc. Did it for me?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on December 30, 2009, 04:15:10 AM
Jennifer's Body is a fucked up movie, Megan Fox looks smokin' hot for some of the movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on December 30, 2009, 12:28:02 PM
OK, so I ditched work at lunch yesterday and went to see Twilight:  New Moon.  It was the only 11:30am movie besides Alvin & The Chipmunks, and I am taking the kids to see that Saturday.

I have read the first three Twilight books, and seen the first movie on DVD, and other than overwhelming teen angst and self esteem issues on the part of the lead actress, Bella I get what the obsession is all about.  Star crossed lovers, good versus evil, incredibly hot guy telling you that he cannot live without you, that you are his life now, that you are his own personal brand of heroin... and he is not trying to get in your pants.  It made my heart flutter with the Romeo-and-Juliet-ness of it all.  She is ageing every day, he is forever seventeen.  Very clean, no sex, only a few sweet kissing scenes, lots of long, languid, drawn out sigh filled anguished looks at one another...  totally appeals to the romantic in nearly any woman, regardless of age.

New Moon was a pretty good, light read.  Again, she could have cut out about a hundred pages of self esteem stuff and teen angst, but if kids are reading a 300+ page book, so much the better.  And the second romantic character gets introduced – the werewolf is the other man, so to speak, second to the vampire, who has left Bella “for her own good”.  Nothing like a good love triangle to get the romance vibes flowing.  So I was looking forward to the movie, a sweet, vapid, romantic distraction.  

I figured the place would be relatively empty.  Instead, I got the last seat in the decent section.  

And it was mostly women my age.

And when the klutzy Bella falls and cuts open her head, and Jacob, the seventeen year old werewolf guy (Taylor Lautner), stands up and removes his shirt to stop the bleeding, all the oxygen was sucked out of the room as every woman in the place inhaled sharply.

Including yours truly.

(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7638/taylorlautnershirtlessp.jpg)

(http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/572/taylorlautnernewmoon.jpg)

Holy shit.

And it just got better after that.  Now that he is a werewolf, Jacob has a body temp of 108 degrees, which removes the need for him to wear a shirt.  Even in the rain.  And it rains a lot in Forks, WA.  I may move there.

As an added bonus, as Edward (Robert Pattinson) is trying to kill himself at the end of the movie because he thinks Bella is dead, he strips off his shirt and starts to step into the sunlight.

(http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3764/0527robertpattinsonspl1.jpg)

Never has pasty white skin looked so awesome.

I left that movie, as they say, “all het up” – and that just does not happen to me.  I am just not like that – give me real life any day.  Especially over the most current tweeny obsession.  But there I was, all hot and bothered and no relief in sight.  Plus, I had to come back to work, just in time for staff meeting, and pretend to give a damn and a half about some stupid contract in Peru, all while my head is spinning with lustful thoughts of guys to whom I could technically have given birth (as a young teenager…)

But I did not care.  Not one little bit.  Call me cougar… Could care less.

And after we take our kids to see The Chipmunks on Saturday while our husbands watch football, my friend Becky and I are going to bring the kids back home to her house, drop them off with their fathers, and return to the theater to see Twilight:  New Moon.

Again.

Carl may have a very nice weekend.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on December 30, 2009, 01:36:25 PM
OK, so I ditched work at lunch yesterday and went to see Twilight:  New Moon.  It was the only 11:30am movie besides Alvin & The Chipmunks, and I am taking the kids to see that Saturday.

I have read the first three Twilight books, and seen the first movie on DVD, and other than overwhelming teen angst and self esteem issues on the part of the lead actress, Bella I get what the obsession is all about.  Star crossed lovers, good versus evil, incredibly hot guy telling you that he cannot live without you, that you are his life now, that you are his own personal brand of heroin... and he is not trying to get in your pants.  It made my heart flutter with the Romeo-and-Juliet-ness of it all.  She is ageing every day, he is forever seventeen.  Very clean, no sex, only a few sweet kissing scenes, lots of long, languid, drawn out sigh filled anguished looks at one another...  totally appeals to the romantic in nearly any woman, regardless of age.

New Moon was a pretty good, light read.  Again, she could have cut out about a hundred pages of self esteem stuff and teen angst, but if kids are reading a 300+ page book, so much the better.  And the second romantic character gets introduced – the werewolf is the other man, so to speak, second to the vampire, who has left Bella “for her own good”.  Nothing like a good love triangle to get the romance vibes flowing.  So I was looking forward to the movie, a sweet, vapid, romantic distraction.  

I figured the place would be relatively empty.  Instead, I got the last seat in the decent section.  

And it was mostly women my age.

And when the klutzy Bella falls and cuts open her head, and Jacob, the seventeen year old werewolf guy (Taylor Lautner), stands up and removes his shirt to stop the bleeding, all the oxygen was sucked out of the room as every woman in the place inhaled sharply.

Including yours truly.

(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7638/taylorlautnershirtlessp.jpg)

(http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/572/taylorlautnernewmoon.jpg)

Holy shit.

And it just got better after that.  Now that he is a werewolf, Jacob has a body temp of 108 degrees, which removes the need for him to wear a shirt.  Even in the rain.  And it rains a lot in Forks, WA.  I may move there.

As an added bonus, as Edward (Robert Pattinson) is trying to kill himself at the end of the movie because he thinks Bella is dead, he strips off his shirt and starts to step into the sunlight.

(http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3764/0527robertpattinsonspl1.jpg)

Never has pasty white skin looked so awesome.

I left that movie, as they say, “all het up” – and that just does not happen to me.  I am just not like that – give me real life any day.  Especially over the most current tweeny obsession.  But there I was, all hot and bothered and no relief in sight.  Plus, I had to come back to work, just in time for staff meeting, and pretend to give a damn and a half about some stupid contract in Peru, all while my head is spinning with lustful thoughts of guys to whom I could technically have given birth (as a young teenager…)

But I did not care.  Not one little bit.  Call me cougar… Could care less.

And after we take our kids to see The Chipmunks on Saturday while our husbands watch football, my friend Becky and I are going to bring the kids back home to her house, drop them off with their fathers, and return to the theater to see Twilight:  New Moon.

Again.

Carl may have a very nice weekend.
I'm team Jacob.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wreckingball on December 30, 2009, 01:56:23 PM
Was I the only one turned on by the main indigenous chick?

Is it weird that a CGI 9 foot tall blue alien with a tail, pointy ears, etc. Did it for me?

Yes. You will receive a wedgie next time I see you.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on December 30, 2009, 03:39:53 PM
I'm team Jacob.
I think the perfect solution would be Jacob in the winter time, because his skin is so hot and warm and luscious and... ahem, I mean, he would keep you warm.

And then Edward in the summer time, when it is too hot to sleep unless you can spoon with this drop dead gorgeous guy with an ice cold body... ice, ice, baby...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on December 30, 2009, 03:45:13 PM
I think the perfect solution would be Jacob in the winter time, because his skin is so hot and warm and luscious and... ahem, I mean, he would keep you warm.

And then Edward in the summer time, when it is too hot to sleep unless you can spoon with this drop dead gorgeous guy with an ice cold body... ice, ice, baby...
If I were a teenage girl I would want to wash my clothes on Jacob's stomach.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 30, 2009, 04:31:55 PM
If I were a teenage girl I would want to wash my clothes on Jacob's stomach.

That boy is in dire need of a belt. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on December 31, 2009, 09:53:50 AM
Okay, so Little Buzz went with my parents to Gatlinburg right after Christmas...so I finally got around to watching several movies over the last few days.

The Blind Side:
Great movie, and I can see why Sandra Bullock is up for actress of the year, or whatever the award is called.  She was great in this movie.  Without giving away too much, the movie will make you laugh, then cry, then laugh and then cry some more.  The only downside was that the bammer sitting two seats over from me yelled out a Ro.. Rrr...Oh hell, I can't even make myself type that.  Anyway, he yelled it out at the top of his lungs as soon as Dick Sabban appeared the first time in the movie.  Never mind the fact that he was wearing a purple and gold tie.
Oh...sorry, back on topic.  It was funny to see all the coaches and the lack of acting ability.  Overall though, I would give it 3.5 out of 5 stars.  If I hadn't been sitting in a crowded theater full of crimpsum, I would have probably given it a 4.

The Hangover:
There are really no "unexpected" moments in this movie, especially after you have seen the trailer for it.  However, I still found myself rolling in the floor laughing at a few scenes in this movie.  I know he has played the same type character a hundred times over, but Zach Galifianakis was hilarious in this movie.  I would have to give it  4.25 out of 5 stars on the Buzz scale.

The Rock Star:
I can't believe I haven't seen this movie before, but somehow it escaped me for all these years.  Jennifer Aniston in her hottest years IMO.  The movie blew huge chunks, but there were some great scenes with Aniston and Dagmara Dominczyk, who played the band's PR person.
(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTIzOTMzMTg5NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwODIzMDEz._V1._SX320_SY400_.jpg)

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on January 01, 2010, 08:33:11 PM
If I were a teenage girl I would want to wash my clothes on Jacob's stomach.
To hell with laundry.  I want to eat ice cream off his stomach.  Or at least start there...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on January 02, 2010, 01:19:12 AM
To hell with laundry.  I want to eat ice cream off his stomach.  Or at least start there...
He's so hot you'd be drinking the ice cream.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 07, 2010, 05:28:51 PM
The Hangover
Booo.  I got a hangover from watching this movie.  Just wasn't funny to me.  It had a few moments, but was hardly the fucking laugh parade I had been led to expect.  I really hate when somebody says "funniest movie ever, you'll laugh till you puke" and I skip over the laughing part and just go straight for the puking. 

The fuck with the beard? Spare me.  I don't ever want to see him (or that fucking Jonah Hill schlub) in another movie, but I see he's being pushed everywhere. 

Nothing redeeming at all in this movie for me.  I'd already seen Heather Graham's tits and there wasn't a baby attached to them when I did.

Inglorious Basterds

I like Tarantino. Reservoir Dogs is awesome.  Dusk Til Dawn is a fun movie.  Pulp Fiction is among my favorites. Both Kill Bills are way up there on my list. 

But this?  Sorry, it just didn't do it for me.  I enjoyed Brad Pitt's performance, it was awesome.  But the story was really just stupid.  I was right with it until the almost end.  What the fuck was that?  I understand creative license, but come the fuck on.  What's pathetic is that 20 years from now, kids who watch that movie will be confused thinking that's the way things really went down. 

Could have followed the same plot without the complete trashing of history near the end. 

For that reason  I just can't give it a positive review.  I'm glad I waited on the DVD.

Noticed that Tarantino found a way to get his feet obsession on the screen with the Cinderella scene.

Two decent looking women in the film.  Neither have any skin moments.

(http://usemycomputer.com/indeximages/2004/September/Diane%20Kruger.jpg)

(http://coedmagazine.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/melanie-laurent.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on January 07, 2010, 05:52:07 PM
Kaos you should join Ebert, because your reviews are about as worthless.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 07, 2010, 06:11:10 PM
Kaos you should join Ebert, because your reviews are about as worthless.
I chortled
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 07, 2010, 07:03:38 PM
Kaos you should join Ebert, because your reviews are about as worthless.


At  least they are original and my own opinion.

As opposed to being recycled and regurgitated info from ESPN and other message boards that I try to pass off as "skreets"

I'll eventually review some films with which you can relate. Do you still have the Earnest Goes to... Collection on DVD?

BTW?  Your brain joined Siskel years ago.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on January 07, 2010, 07:35:43 PM

At  least they are original and my own opinion.

As opposed to being recycled and regurgitated info from ESPN and other message boards that I try to pass off as "skreets"

I'll eventually review some films with which you can relate. Do you still have the Earnest Goes to... Collection on DVD?

BTW?  Your brain joined Siskel years ago.

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ROKRllJwaazvuM:http://image63.webshots.com/63/2/6/95/470320695BaSExx_ph.jpg)

Keep watching those movies.  Here's a smart choice for you, just stick to this, eventhough your views are just about worthless, it seems that aleast you know what you're looking at...again, eventhough it's wrong most of the time.  Let me guess, you've produced movies and written some too...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 17, 2010, 11:26:55 AM
Charlie Bartlett
Expected a movie about a teen aged pill dispensing faux-psychiatrist to be a lot more fun than this was.  While I realized it couldn't live up to the smug cool of Ferris Buehler I hoped it would at least reach the same playing field.  It didn't.  The biggest problem was the movie's main star.  They (they being the Hollywood moguls) have tried to force feed us Anton Yelchin in several films.  I'm not buying it.  He just doesn't have any presence. Female lead played by Kat Dennings (below) in an unconvincing, weak performance.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Positive reviews led me to this film. It was not as good as I was led to believe.  It tried too hard to be smart, hip and cool. Addressing the camera and stopping in places to back up and tell other parts of the story were supposed to be clever and instead were just annoying.  Val Kilmer at a gum snapping gay detective was, I'm sure, supposed to be crazy hilarious, but he just looked fat. Reedeeming feature was a lot of Michelle Monoaghan. Couple of brief nude shots.  Her I like. 

So why profile the two films together?  Because both featured Robert Downey, Jr.  In Bartlett he played Kat's dad and the high school principal.  In KKBB he played Michelle's love interest and a ruffian loser type.

What I learned from these two films is that Downey plays basically the same guy in every film, just with varying degrees of wealth/success. Tony Stark is Sherlock Holmes is principal whatever is loser whoever.  He's not the chameleon Johnny Depp is.  So I want to back up and elevate Depp again.


Kat Dennings
(http://www.bscreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/kat-Dennings.jpg)

Michelle Monoaghan
(http://www.best.celebity-foto.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/michelle-monaghan-picture-03.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on January 17, 2010, 11:59:28 AM
District 9

Just saw this the other night.  Amazing movie.  I highly recommend adding it to your Netflix list.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on January 17, 2010, 12:07:05 PM
District 9

Just saw this the other night.  Amazing movie.  I highly recommend adding it to your Netflix list.
What would you rate it on the Buzz Scale?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on January 17, 2010, 12:33:12 PM
What would you rate it on the Buzz Scale?

Not sure what the Buzz Scale is, but I'll go with out of ten with ten being the best score.

9/10. 

It would be 10/10, but there were some inconsistencies in the storyline. 

District 9 is one of the best sci-fi movies I've ever seen.  It's not an adventure/action movie like Independence Day, War or the Worlds, or Aliens. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on January 17, 2010, 01:49:41 PM
Not sure what the Buzz Scale is, but I'll go with out of ten with ten being the best score.

9/10. 

It would be 10/10, but there were some inconsistencies in the storyline. 

District 9 is one of the best sci-fi movies I've ever seen.  It's not an adventure/action movie like Independence Day, War or the Worlds, or Aliens. 
The Buzz Scale is out of 5 Stars....So, you'd give it 4.75 Stars?  I shall definitely see this movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Eagle!!! on January 17, 2010, 04:53:41 PM
The Buzz Scale is out of 5 Stars....So, you'd give it 4.75 Stars?  I shall definitely see this movie.

Seriously? Really?

5th grade math can be a bitch...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 17, 2010, 04:55:35 PM
Seriously? Really?

5th grade math can be a bitch...

Ain't it though?

(http://www.uttyler.edu/news/2006/aug21/gifs/foxworthy.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Thrilla on January 18, 2010, 12:30:04 PM
Not sure what the Buzz Scale is, but I'll go with out of ten with ten being the best score.

9/10. 

It would be 10/10, but there were some inconsistencies in the storyline. 

District 9 is one of the best sci-fi movies I've ever seen.  It's not an adventure/action movie like Independence Day, War or the Worlds, or Aliens. 

You know, I really enjoyed this movie as well.  I enjoyed the way the entire movie was shot (cinematography), I enjoyed the transition from joy to anguish of the lead character, I enjoyed the way they portrayed the main alien, and I thought that the special effects were top notch.  The movie also introduced a fairly novel concept of alien isolation and "civilization" in today's society, which Peter Jackson really ran with.  Also, the shock of the gore during the action scenes throughout the movie was extremely entertaining.

THS, what inconsistencies in the storyline were you referring to?  Just interested to hear your take.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on January 18, 2010, 12:57:07 PM
I just saw Gran Torino last night.

How that was so universally hated by members of this board, I'll never understand.

Awesome flick. Clint Eastwood plays basically an aged Dirty Harry. But he's still a bad ass.

And all his casual racial epithets had me rolling, especially the scene where he pulls up on the three black guys harassing the Asian girl while her punk-ass wigger boyfriend watched. I was crying, I laughed so hard.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on January 18, 2010, 01:02:42 PM
How that was so universally hated by members of this board, I'll never understand.

Was it?  I thought it was pretty well heralded by this board?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on January 18, 2010, 01:47:44 PM
Was it?  I thought it was pretty well heralded by this board?

As bad a movie as Gran Torino was written, produced, directed, and horrible acting, Clint Eastwood redeemed himself in directing Changeling! This was a great movie! Not only was the movie very accurate on the true story (based on what I have read) but it fucking sucked what this lady went through!  If you have not seen this movie, you need to rent it...very entertaining.  The best movie I have seen in a while! 

Not to Hijack... but Gran Torino was HORRIABLE!!  Worst acting I've seen in a long time! The movie had a great story line, but could have been soooo much better!  Every word, line was predictable!

My review was similar.  Just not a good movie.  Stereotypes galore.

Well, I guess it was just two people now that I look back.

Anyway, I liked it a lot.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on January 18, 2010, 01:50:02 PM
I thought it was one of the best movies that I stole last year.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on January 18, 2010, 02:01:46 PM
You know, I really enjoyed this movie as well.  I enjoyed the way the entire movie was shot (cinematography), I enjoyed the transition from joy to anguish of the lead character, I enjoyed the way they portrayed the main alien, and I thought that the special effects were top notch.  The movie also introduced a fairly novel concept of alien isolation and "civilization" in today's society, which Peter Jackson really ran with.  Also, the shock of the gore during the action scenes throughout the movie was extremely entertaining.

THS, what inconsistencies in the storyline were you referring to?  Just interested to hear your take.

Well, I'll try to do this spoiler free.  But just in case I don't do a good enough job:

 SPOILER ALERT
- The stuff the main alien needed that sprayed into the guy's face.  If it took 20 years to get the needed amount, how did the accidental spraying not cost them five year's worth of work? 
- Why in the hell would they let the aliens live where they did?  I don't want to give too much away, but just think about the main alien and what he was doing. 

I don't think I gave any spoilers away, so if you read that on accident, don't worry.  Really some trivial stuff to worry about, but a movie can't be a 10/10 if it's not perfect.  I can't really say any movie is a 10/10, so that may be a testament to District 9. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on January 18, 2010, 10:34:42 PM
K..2 that you need to see, if you have not...Inglorious Bastards .

Not what I expected. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on January 18, 2010, 11:56:37 PM
Not what I expected. 
No way to drink and read all the lines on the bottom of the screen.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on January 19, 2010, 12:02:08 AM
No way to drink and read all the lines on the bottom of the screen.

It wasn't really the reading so much as I damn near forgot what the movie was about halfway through it.  Seriously, it should have been called "Inglorious Bastards and the Jungle Fever".  It came together at the end, but the lone gunman bullpoop grew very tiresome.  

Although I admit, someone getting their balls blown off was a nice touch.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on January 19, 2010, 08:27:37 AM
It wasn't really the reading so much as I damn near forgot what the movie was about halfway through it.  Seriously, it should have been called "Inglorious Bastards and the Jungle Fever".  It came together at the end, but the lone gunman bullpoop grew very tiresome.  

Although I admit, someone getting their balls blown off was a nice touch.

Yeah I liked it but came to the conclusion that it was about an hour too long.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: lifesapplepie on January 19, 2010, 09:33:10 AM
I just saw Gran Torino last night.

How that was so universally hated by members of this board, I'll never understand.

Awesome flick. Clint Eastwood plays basically an aged Dirty Harry. But he's still a bad ass.

And all his casual racial epithets had me rolling, especially the scene where he pulls up on the three black guys harassing the Asian girl while her punk-ass wigger boyfriend watched. I was crying, I laughed so hard.

I couldn't even finish this movie...awful!!!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: lifesapplepie on January 19, 2010, 09:53:31 AM
The Hangover
Booo.  I got a hangover from watching this movie.  Just wasn't funny to me.  It had a few moments, but was hardly the fucking laugh parade I had been led to expect.  I really hate when somebody says "funniest movie ever, you'll laugh till you puke" and I skip over the laughing part and just go straight for the puking.  

The fuck with the beard? Spare me.  I don't ever want to see him (or that fucking Jonah Hill schlub) in another movie, but I see he's being pushed everywhere.  

Nothing redeeming at all in this movie for me.  I'd already seen Heather Graham's tits and there wasn't a baby attached to them when I did.

Inglorious Basterds

I like Tarantino. Reservoir Dogs is awesome.  Dusk Til Dawn is a fun movie.  Pulp Fiction is among my favorites. Both Kill Bills are way up there on my list.  

But this?  Sorry, it just didn't do it for me.  I enjoyed Brad Pitt's performance, it was awesome.  But the story was really just stupid.  I was right with it until the almost end.  What the fuck was that?  I understand creative license, but come the fuck on.  What's pathetic is that 20 years from now, kids who watch that movie will be confused thinking that's the way things really went down.  

Could have followed the same plot without the complete trashing of history near the end.  

For that reason  I just can't give it a positive review.  I'm glad I waited on the DVD.

Noticed that Tarantino found a way to get his feet obsession on the screen with the Cinderella scene.

Two decent looking women in the film.  Neither have any skin moments.

(http://usemycomputer.com/indeximages/2004/September/Diane%20Kruger.jpg)

(http://coedmagazine.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/melanie-laurent.jpg)


I will have to strongly disagree with your reviews on both of these movies, especially Inglorious Basterds.  It was  the best flick I've seen in a long time.  The whole story line just reeled me in.  I was obsessed with what was going to happen next.  The ending... yeah it did get a little silly, but i think that was done purposely.  Also, you are correct, if you have not seen the movie, go into it knowing that it is not historically accurate, except for the hatred the Nazis had for the Jews.  I loved it and I HIGHLY recommend this movie!!

Oh and BTW, the main character does have some nuddies on the net...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 19, 2010, 10:06:35 AM
Creative license? Yes. Complete revision? No.

I wouldn't like a movie where Robert E Lee shot Grant in the face or where Jesus rampaged on the Roman soldiers.

It was just too far.

The movie was fair at best and I was a huge QT fan.

 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on January 19, 2010, 10:23:09 AM
I wouldn't like a movie where Robert E Lee shot Grant in the face or where Jesus rampaged on the Roman soldiers.
Sounds like blockbuster material to me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 19, 2010, 10:33:56 AM
Sounds like blockbuster material to me.

yep. Straight to DVD.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: lifesapplepie on January 19, 2010, 11:25:41 AM
Creative license? Yes. Complete revision? No.

I wouldn't like a movie where Robert E Lee shot Grant in the face or where Jesus rampaged on the Roman soldiers.

It was just too far.

The movie was fair at best and I was a huge QT fan.

 

That is the whole point of Creative or Artistic License.  It doesn't have to be historically accurate, and doesn't make a movie bad... come on, this isn't the History channel.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 19, 2010, 03:41:44 PM
That is the whole point of Creative or Artistic License.  It doesn't have to be historically accurate, and doesn't make a movie bad... come on, this isn't the History channel.

It would have been the same movie without slaughtering history.  That's the point. 

You liked it.  I was just meh.  Pitt's performance was awesome in its stupidity, but beyond that it didn't do a lot for me. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on January 19, 2010, 04:00:34 PM
SPOILER!!!

It would have been the same movie without slaughtering history.  That's the point. 
Not sure about that...

The ending of that movie was the badest assed part of the whole film. The climax. The vindication.

I guess you could have just had a bunch of other Nazis in that theater besides Hitler, but it wouldn't have been as satisfying. Let alone, that wouldn't be historically accurate either since that never went down.

It's a work of fiction. I think most people recognize it as such.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 24, 2010, 05:30:41 PM
Orphan

Why did I waste my time with this shit?  Not a single redeeming thing about it.  I've yet to figure out why no-figure, horse-faced, titless, shitty actress Vera Farmiga is a "star."   She looks like Marilyn Manson and Sarah Jessica Parker had a child and then abused it (see below).  And she's the best-looking thing in this movie.  Unless you count the whored up ten-year old, that is, and I don't.

SPOILER: Getting that poor ten year old to dress up like a whore and then showing glimpses of her "unwrapping" herself bordered on kiddie porn and whoever is responsible for this movie should be ashamed, if not arrested.

Not sure what I really expected from this film, but it just didn't work. 

(http://images.askmen.com/galleries/actress/vera-farmiga/pictures/vera-farmiga-picture-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 29, 2010, 12:32:04 PM
I have never even heard of that film.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: lifesapplepie on January 29, 2010, 04:07:14 PM
Orphan

Why did I waste my time with this shit?  Not a single redeeming thing about it.  I've yet to figure out why no-figure, horse-faced, titless, shitty actress Vera Farmiga is a "star."   She looks like Marilyn Manson and Sarah Jessica Parker had a child and then abused it (see below).  And she's the best-looking thing in this movie.  Unless you count the whored up ten-year old, that is, and I don't.

SPOILER: Getting that poor ten year old to dress up like a whore and then showing glimpses of her "unwrapping" herself bordered on kiddie porn and whoever is responsible for this movie should be ashamed, if not arrested.

Not sure what I really expected from this film, but it just didn't work. 

(http://images.askmen.com/galleries/actress/vera-farmiga/pictures/vera-farmiga-picture-1.jpg)

Very disturbing movie!!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUsweetheart on January 29, 2010, 04:10:30 PM
I thought Vera looked pretty good in The Departed.

Nice ass, anyway. ;)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 29, 2010, 04:20:45 PM
I thought Vera looked pretty good in The Departed.

Nice ass, anyway. ;)

I've seen better.  On a horse.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on January 29, 2010, 06:17:37 PM
I thought Vera looked pretty good in The Departed.

Nice ass, anyway. ;)
Damn that's hot!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 30, 2010, 11:52:53 AM
The Proposal

Okay so it's allegedly a chick flick.  Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.  As chick flicks go, this was relatively harmless.  It was trite, it was contrived, it was predictable.  The key to making a story work when everybody in the world knows what the outcome is going to be is to somehow make the characters endearing enough that the viewer wants to see the inevitable resolution. 

For the most part, this movie pulled that off.  Ryan Reynolds probably won't ever win an Academy Award.  But he was just goofily sappy enough to sort of make his role tolerable. Craig T. Nelson was wasted. So was Mary Steenburgen for the most part.  Sandra Bullock (below) was okay in the role.  Her body, what you could see of it, fit the part but her face looked really, realy haggard and pinched.  No way does this young guy seriously fall for that.  Would have been better if they'd cast Julia Roberts, Kate Beckinsale, Jennifer Aniston maybe Jennifer Garner or somebody else in there.  Her squinched face kept distracting me and she looked older than Steenburgen a couple of times. 

Oscar (from The Office) was not as funny as the director thought he was. 

And then there's Betty White.  That battle scarred old bitch is what kept the movie from veering into the intolerable realm.  She wasn't hilarious, but she was loony enough to add life to what might otherwise have been a lifeless film -- let's face it, both Reynolds and Bullock both have the screen presence of a cardboard box.

All in all, a relatively sweet movie. Not going to learn any of life's great truths, but your inner woman will enjoy it and you won't turn off the DVD needing a vomit bag. 



(http://pjensi.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/sandra_bullock_81.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 30, 2010, 12:04:32 PM
American Gangster

Denzel Washington might be the best actor in film.  He was brilliant in Training Day.  Playing black mafia kingpin Frank Lucas in this film, he turns in another outstanding performance.

The movie was well done, perfectly captured the gritty New York 70s and featured solid performances from a large cast. 

The problem?  Stupid ass Russell Crowe.  Why the fuck does director Ridley Scott think this douche clown has the first ounce of acting ability?  He put Crowe in Gladiator. He stuck him in Body of Lies. He jammed him into a (bound to be shitty) Robin Hood remake.  His worthless actilng nearly ruined what was an otherwise outstanding film.  Even the guy who played the killer in Silence of the Lambs (and who also played Leland Stottlemeyer on Monk) was more credibile than Crowe. 

I love gangster movies.  Donnie Brasco (Johnny Depp's best work), Godfather, Casino, Goodfellas, Once Upon a Time, etc. are among my favorites.  This should be there.  And it almost could, but it just misses by a little bit. 

Crowe is a big part of that.  He sucks.  He absolutely fucking sucks as an actor. 

No woman to post, but lots of naked unnamed black chicks.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on January 30, 2010, 12:13:03 PM
The Proposal



No. 

Good lord.  That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.  It was predictable.  The storyline was beyond ridiculous.  And then there was the scene of Betty White in full Native American garb along with Bullock dancing around while rapping "To the window, to the wall."  That was without a shadow of a doubt the least funny scene in movie history. 

And Bullock did look awful in the movie.  Her body was good, but I kept wishing Reynolds would get with his old chick who was actually pretty cute.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 30, 2010, 12:24:43 PM
No. 

Good lord.  That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.  It was predictable.  The storyline was beyond ridiculous.  And then there was the scene of Betty White in full Native American garb along with Bullock dancing around while rapping "To the window, to the wall."  That was without a shadow of a doubt the least funny scene in movie history. 

And Bullock did look awful in the movie.  Her body was good, but I kept wishing Reynolds would get with his old chick who was actually pretty cute.

Yeah.  There was that.  I didn't like the face on the old GF either, though.  Her nose looked surgerized.

The movie was stupid, no doubt.  But in comparison to other "chick movies" I've been forced to view -- say, How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days or The Notebook -- this was fairly innocuous.  Didn't hurt anybody, the little white dog was cute, it didn't try to preach any kind of overarching message.  You knew what was going to happen but you didn't -- or at least I didn't -- spend half of the movie looking for a barf bag from the overly cloying sentiment.


The dancing eskimo scene seriously sucked and Bullock danced like she'd been stuck with a cattle prod, but I think that was designed to display her "awkward charm."  I was glad when that part was over.

It also had a few plot holes.  Like what happened to the obstruction charge against Reynolds?  Just walked away from that? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on January 30, 2010, 12:26:16 PM
Quote
Could have followed the same plot without the complete trashing of history near the end.  

For that reason  I just can't give it a positive review.  I'm glad I waited on the DVD.

Again, it's not the fuckin' History Channel, dumbass.  I suggest you rewatch it, over watching "The Notebook".  Watch it...realizing that it's just a fuckin' movie, that it's not trying to be Historically correct, watch it for what it is...Entertainment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma-2Z_aHjTo&feature=related# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma-2Z_aHjTo&feature=related#)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 30, 2010, 12:30:12 PM
Again, it's not the fuckin' History Channel, dumbass.  I suggest you rewatch it, over watching "The Notebook".  Watch it...realizing that it's just a fuckin' movie, that it's not trying to be Historically correct, watch it for what it is...Entertainment.


You're retarded.  Go back to watching Barney the Purple Dinosaur. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on January 30, 2010, 01:11:57 PM
You're retarded.  Go back to watching Barney the Purple Dinosaur. 
No....I'm entirely correct and you just can't stand that.  So, keep watching your girl movies....fag
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 30, 2010, 06:14:34 PM
Book of Eli

Fuck a bunch of blue weirdos.  Go see this movie instead. 

Go see it.  Just go.

That is all I have to say.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on January 30, 2010, 06:42:08 PM
Book of Eli

Fuck a bunch of blue weirdos.  Go see this movie instead. 

Go see it.  Just go.

That is all I have to say.
(http://bp3.blogger.com/_VZaVT03Q2G0/SBEIH0RdbmI/AAAAAAAABpo/aR3kCjo4kSA/s400/temper-tantrum.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 30, 2010, 09:09:16 PM
stupid ass unrelated picture

Of all the idiotic responses you've ever posted, this one may be the dumbest of the lot.  

After some thought let me delve a little deeper into The Book of Eli

The Book of Eli

Denzel Washington gives another outstanding performance in this post-apocalyptic film.  While it trades on the Mad Max dirt and grunge just a bit, it doesn't stoop to the campiness of that Mel Gibson film.  Washington has calm menace down to an art and delivers the same "don't fuck with me" charm he displayed in Training Day, American Gangster and other films.  

The story is well-told, the actor's motivations are generally clear and the film manages to paint both a horrifying and hopeful portrait of the world after we blow it up.   It's rare in a Hollywood film to praise Christianity or to offer the opinion that there just might be hope and power in the words of The Bible.

This film does that, too.  

Gary Oldman provides a somewhat credibile anti-hero but his performance is the only one in the film that seems a little over the top.  He could have scaled it back just a bit and I think that the understatement would have probably made a stronger statement.  Jennifer Beals was okay in her role, but nothing to write home about.

When I saw Mila Kunis in the cast I was afraid the director/producers had shortchanged themselves by casting a lightweight in a role that required a stronger character, but Kunis surprised me.  She handled the dramatic role well. Her performance here might be enough to break her from that ditzy comedy stereotype she was in danger of being trapped in.  Don't know that she's ready to step into "action chick" boots, but she's definitely capable of more than dumb slut roles.

I'm hard to please when it comes to movies.  There is always something that could have been done better, could have been added or could have been cut out.   There are only about a dozen "perfect" movies (Godfather, Goodfellas, Cool Hand Luke etc.).  This isn't a perfect movie, but it's not significantly flawed either.  

The writing, the timing, the pace were all excellent.  The "reveals" were very well done.

It's not the kind of thing you'll go to see over and over again (like Godfather), but it's most definitely good enough to spend your money on.   I'll definitely get it when it comes out on DVD, especially now that I know what I'm looking for.  

I highly recommend this movie.


(http://www.wildbluffmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/mila_kunis_01_header.jpg)

Followup:  Apparently most reviewers disagree with my perception of the film.  It scored poorly with RottenTomatoes.com (44%) and had some harsh reviews.  That makes me happy because I rarely agree with the dipshits there.  Ratatoullie, for instance, which I found insipid and asinine, is one of its highest rated films. 
 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 01, 2010, 11:57:58 AM
Saw this one on Starz a few weeks ago. K, you may have seen this one since you watch a ton of movies.

Across the Universe.  Wow - this was about the most 'different' movie I've seen this side of Deliverance and The Crying Game.

For one - its a musical. Second - it is set in the 60's during the anti-war movement. The acting is sub par but it makes up for it with the music scenes and how everything ties together. The kicker in this movie? The entire plot - every single scene - is set to a Beatles song performed by the cast in the scene spontaneously. It took a little getting used to, but after about 30 mins I was enjoying it and couldn't turn the channel.  The characters have a lot of Beatles' song names - Jude, Prudence, etc....

All in all - I'd say it was a good watch. Long at 2.5 hours.  I usually don't like musicals but this one was "ok".
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on February 01, 2010, 12:46:47 PM
Saw this one on Starz a few weeks ago. K, you may have seen this one since you watch a ton of movies.

Across the Universe.  Wow - this was about the most 'different' movie I've seen this side of Deliverance and The Crying Game.

For one - its a musical. Second - it is set in the 60's during the anti-war movement. The acting is sub par but it makes up for it with the music scenes and how everything ties together. The kicker in this movie? The entire plot - every single scene - is set to a Beatles song performed by the cast in the scene spontaneously. It took a little getting used to, but after about 30 mins I was enjoying it and couldn't turn the channel.  The characters have a lot of Beatles' song names - Jude, Prudence, etc....

All in all - I'd say it was a good watch. Long at 2.5 hours.  I usually don't like musicals but this one was ok.

I thought your kind referred to these as "show tunes"?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 05, 2010, 03:59:48 PM
I thought your kind referred to these as "show tunes"?

My "kind"? Straight and well hung?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 05, 2010, 04:03:24 PM
Saw this one on Starz a few weeks ago. K, you may have seen this one since you watch a ton of movies.

Across the Universe.  Wow - this was about the most 'different' movie I've seen this side of Deliverance and The Crying Game.

For one - its a musical. Second - it is set in the 60's during the anti-war movement. The acting is sub par but it makes up for it with the music scenes and how everything ties together. The kicker in this movie? The entire plot - every single scene - is set to a Beatles song performed by the cast in the scene spontaneously. It took a little getting used to, but after about 30 mins I was enjoying it and couldn't turn the channel.  The characters have a lot of Beatles' song names - Jude, Prudence, etc....

All in all - I'd say it was a good watch. Long at 2.5 hours.  I usually don't like musicals but this one was ok.
Oh no you di'int
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 05, 2010, 04:38:58 PM
Oh no you di'int

Take out the Beatles and it was rubbish.....

Kind of like putting Tom Hanks in a shitty movie - it at least makes it watchable.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 05, 2010, 04:41:52 PM
I actually wasn't commenting about your movie...never seen it. I was just commenting on the fact you reviewed a movie in Kaos's thread.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 06, 2010, 12:21:27 PM
I make allowances.  I've mellowed.

But if he ever reviews a movie in my presence? I will fuck up his face. The internets are serious.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 08, 2010, 09:44:44 AM

But if he ever reviews a movie in my presence? I will phuk up his face. The internets are serious.

You sound like xaff now.....


and oh yeah - sue me....   :fu:

Have others not put reviews in this thread before?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 08, 2010, 10:00:50 AM
You sound like xaff now.....


and oh yeah - sue me....   :fu:

Have others not put reviews in this thread before?
I keed...your cool. Review away.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 08, 2010, 10:15:08 AM
I keed...your cool. Review away.

I wasn't kidding.  He tells me about a movie to my face?   I got something for him.  He won't tell me about my movie to my face. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 08, 2010, 12:18:34 PM
I wasn't kidding.  He tells me about a movie to my face?   I got something for him.  He won't tell me about my movie to my face. 

I tell ya what - I will review 10 movies that YOU LOVE - and I will tell you they all suck while pissing on an autographed picture of KISS and Tony Soprano and you will be smiling about it sipping the last of your Cosmo drink.

That better?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 08, 2010, 01:02:01 PM
I tell ya what - I will review 10 movies that YOU LOVE - and I will tell you they all suck while pissing on an autographed picture of KISS and Tony Soprano and you will be smiling about it sipping the last of your Cosmo drink.

That better?

Who wears the chaps?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 08, 2010, 01:25:49 PM
Who wears the chaps?

Depends - Ralph Lauren Chaps  or  Texas Longhorn Cheerleader Chaps  :vn:?

At least you are consistent. You haven't changed much eh?   I'm still reading through these reviews that date back to last year. I think you've saved me about 75 bucks worth of tickets so far......
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 10, 2010, 11:03:47 AM
The Book of Eli

Denzel Washington gives another outstanding performance in this post-apocalyptic film.  While it trades on the Mad Max dirt and grunge just a bit, it doesn't stoop to the campiness of that Mel Gibson film.  Washington has calm menace down to an art and delivers the same "don't fuck with me" charm he displayed in Training Day, American Gangster and other films. 

The story is well-told, the actor's motivations are generally clear and the film manages to paint both a horrifying and hopeful portrait of the world after we blow it up.   It's rare in a Hollywood film to praise Christianity or to offer the opinion that there just might be hope and power in the words of The Bible.

This film does that, too. 

Gary Oldman provides a somewhat credibile anti-hero but his performance is the only one in the film that seems a little over the top.  He could have scaled it back just a bit and I think that the understatement would have probably made a stronger statement.  Jennifer Beals was okay in her role, but nothing to write home about.

When I saw Mila Kunis in the cast I was afraid the director/producers had shortchanged themselves by casting a lightweight in a role that required a stronger character, but Kunis surprised me.  She handled the dramatic role well. Her performance here might be enough to break her from that ditzy comedy stereotype she was in danger of being trapped in.  Don't know that she's ready to step into "action chick" boots, but she's definitely capable of more than dumb slut roles.

I'm hard to please when it comes to movies.  There is always something that could have been done better, could have been added or could have been cut out.   There are only about a dozen "perfect" movies (Godfather, Goodfellas, Cool Hand Luke etc.).  This isn't a perfect movie, but it's not significantly flawed either. 

The writing, the timing, the pace were all excellent.  The "reveals" were very well done.

It's not the kind of thing you'll go to see over and over again (like Godfather), but it's most definitely good enough to spend your money on.   I'll definitely get it when it comes out on DVD, especially now that I know what I'm looking for. 

I highly recommend this movie.


(http://www.wildbluffmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/mila_kunis_01_header.jpg)

Followup:  Apparently most reviewers disagree with my perception of the film.  It scored poorly with RottenTomatoes.com (44%) and had some harsh reviews.  That makes me happy because I rarely agree with the dipshits there.  Ratatoullie, for instance, which I found insipid and asinine, is one of its highest rated films. 
 

Watched it last night...holy shit you and I agree on a movie.  After listening to all the critics and then your review I would have thought for sure it sucked.  I really liked it, especially the reveal at the end, makes all the little reveals during stand out.   Good flick!  :thumsup: :thumsup:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 11, 2010, 11:55:01 AM
Watched Up in the Air last night, pretty good flick, worth a look.  Not a typical ending which was good.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 11, 2010, 01:01:38 PM
Watched it last night...holy poop you and I agree on a movie.  After listening to all the critics and then your review I would have thought for sure it sucked.  I really liked it, especially the reveal at the end, makes all the little reveals during stand out.   Good flick!  :thumsup: :thumsup:

Im sorry - did you write a review? I couldnt get past the picture.....
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 11, 2010, 01:40:22 PM
District 9

Based on a couple of good reviews here I expected more. 

I went to sleep on this movie twice.  Tried to watch it last night and dozed about 30 minutes in.  Wrote that off to being tired, so I tried it again when I woke up at 4:30.  Went back to sleep on it. 

Finally watched it when I got up for good at 7. 

Disappointing.  I don't have to know everything to enjoy a movie, but I need to know something.  Not enough exposition, not enough conclusion. Just left too many questions unanswered. 

Guy issues a shoot to kill on sight order and after much slaughter, then decides to gloat instead of shoot?  Out of character.

There was only one intelligent prawn?  Only one prawn child?   Just too many holes. 

It was a meh movie.  It didn't make the cut as an action flick and it fell short of the goal in science fiction. Glad I didn't waste any $$ at the theaters. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on February 11, 2010, 02:09:05 PM
District 9

Based on a couple of good reviews here I expected more. 

I went to sleep on this movie twice.  Tried to watch it last night and dozed about 30 minutes in.  Wrote that off to being tired, so I tried it again when I woke up at 4:30.  Went back to sleep on it. 

Finally watched it when I got up for good at 7. 

Disappointing.  I don't have to know everything to enjoy a movie, but I need to know something.  Not enough exposition, not enough conclusion. Just left too many questions unanswered. 

Guy issues a shoot to kill on sight order and after much slaughter, then decides to gloat instead of shoot?  Out of character.

There was only one intelligent prawn?  Only one prawn child?   Just too many holes. 

It was a meh movie.  It didn't make the cut as an action flick and it fell short of the goal in science fiction. Glad I didn't waste any $$ at the theaters. 
I thought this movie had the potential to be really good, but it failed.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on February 11, 2010, 07:17:45 PM
I thought this movie had the potential to be really good, but it failed.
wait 'till you watch District 10....It's going to be the tits.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on February 14, 2010, 09:03:51 PM
Into the Wild

Anyone seen this or know the story? 

Some dude decided to take Emerson, Thoreau, and Tolstoy WAY too seriously and took off to live in the woods by himself.  He had a pretty kick ass journey to Alaska while living like a total hippy. 

It was very entertaining and intriguing considering it's a true story.  I skimmed through the book at Barnes and Noble, and the movie was right along with the original story.

I strongly suggest checking it out. 

The chicks were a bit meh:

Catherine Keener
(http://images.askmen.com/galleries/actress/catherine-keener/pictures/catherine-keener-picture-3.jpg)

Kristen Stewart (Chick from Twilight)
(http://twilight-review.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/kristen-stewart.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on February 14, 2010, 10:49:44 PM
Into the Wild

Anyone seen this or know the story? 

Some dude decided to take Emerson, Thoreau, and Tolstoy WAY too seriously and took off to live in the woods by himself.  He had a pretty kick ass journey to Alaska while living like a total hippy. 

The stupid motherhumper STARVED TO DEATH.  Yeah, just wander off into the wilds of Alaska with no planning, no preparation, no knowledge of survival techniques and hang out for a while... pick a few wild shrooms, get sick as hell and die because you are stupid.  Genetic selection. 

Hippy dippy moron.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on February 14, 2010, 11:15:24 PM
The stupid motherhumper STARVED TO DEATH.  Yeah, just wander off into the wilds of Alaska with no planning, no preparation, no knowledge of survival techniques and hang out for a while... pick a few wild shrooms, get sick as hell and die because you are stupid.  Genetic selection. 

Hippy dippy moron.

^^Spoiler Alert^^

But yeah, kid was a total moron.  I want to show this movie to my students next year when we study American romanticism. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 15, 2010, 12:56:50 AM
Don't know about this, but I showed my eighth graders the black and white 1939 version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame when we were studying the Middle Ages and the influence of the church. 

After they got through bitching and moaning about the movie being black and white and giggling over the acting quite a few of them got something out of it.  I saw tears in the eyes of several of the tough ass boys when Quasi got ditched at the end.  I think when you're an eighth grader you spend more time than you'd care to admit wondering if you're Quasi yourself.

When we did American history and got to Vietnam, I let them watch a couple of episodes of Tour of Duty.  It was cheesy and trite, but it did a good job exploring some of the shit those guys endured. 

I guess in a couple of years some dumbass will show Inglorious Basterds and have his class thinking Hitler was murdered by a Jew theater chick, a black dude and a couple of oafs. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 15, 2010, 11:39:30 PM
GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra

My cobra did not rise.  It did not stir.  It remained dormant throughout this colossal dud of a movie.  

A wooden fence post could have done a better job than Dennis Quaid.  His performance was laughable.

Dude I can only think of as Simon Adabesi from the HBO series Oz was forced into a hideous British accent. He is usually decent, but was horrible in this awful film.  

Wayans? Fucking please.  He's about as convincing in his "I'm the goofy black guy" role as either of the insipid Zack and Cody twins would have been.

The so-called French guy looked like a Mexican with a bad hairdo.

Rachel Nichols was passable but such a shitty actress I didn't really care that she had boobs  -- not that she showed much.  

Channing Tatum is a pathetic excuse for an actor. He had about as much chemistry with Sienna Miller as a pair of cardboard wildebeest.  

There was so much wrong with this movie that there's no point in even attempting to go through it point by point. The action scenes were asinine, the carnage was absurd, the CGI was obvious and incredibly poorly done.  

It set up for a sequel, but I hope people have better sense than to a) make another one of these turd bombs and b) spend money to see it.  

God, what an awful movie.  It was so fucktacularly bad, that they should have played it as a spoof and made a joke out of it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 16, 2010, 09:56:14 AM
GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra

My cobra did not rise.  It did not stir.  It remained dormant throughout this colossal dud of a movie. 

A wooden fence post could have done a better job than Dennis Quaid.  His performance was laughable.

Dude I can only think of as Simon Adabesi from the HBO series Oz was forced into a hideous British accent. He is usually decent, but was horrible in this awful film. 

Wayans? Fucking please.  He's about as convincing in his "I'm the goofy black guy" role as either of the insipid Zack and Cody twins would have been.

The so-called French guy looked like a Mexican with a bad hairdo.

Rachel Nichols was passable but such a shitty actress I didn't really care that she had boobs  -- not that she showed much. 

Channing Tatum is a pathetic excuse for an actor. He had about as much chemistry with Sienna Miller as a pair of cardboard wildebeest. 

There was so much wrong with this movie that there's no point in even attempting to go through it point by point. The action scenes were asinine, the carnage was absurd, the CGI was obvious and incredibly poorly done. 

It set up for a sequel, but I hope people have better sense than to a) make another one of these turd bombs and b) spend money to see it. 

God, what an awful movie.  It was so fucktacularly bad, that they should have played it as a spoof and made a joke out of it. 
As a huge fan of GI Joe as a kid this movie is a travesty and all copies should be burned!  Don't even get me started!!!   It jumped the shark when Snake-Eyes had a mouth on his costume, and they decided to make the back story of Snake-eyes and Storm Shadow when they were 10 years old.   :puke: :puke: The only redeeming quality of this movie was at least the babes were hot.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 17, 2010, 09:39:10 AM
Zombieland

Not exactly what I expected, but a fun movie.  It was no Raising Arizona, but it had a few funny moments and didn't take itself seriously at all.  It's not laugh out loud comedy, it's not scare the shit out of you horror, but just a nice easy blend of fear and bemusement. 

No angst over the crazy situation, no underlying social commentary, no deeper hidden meaning.  Just four misfits (well, five for a while) making the best they can out of a really bad situation. 

Yeah there are crazy plot holes.  For instance how come the power is still on everywhere?  And don't they ever run out of gas?  Or bullets?  But that really doesn't matter all that much because it's not really meant to be taken seriously. 

Woody Harrellson dominates the film.  He's good enough that you'd almost like to see him in a serious zombie killing movie, but then you remember he'd have to do pathos and pass on the idea.  No, he fits better here. 

The nerdy, nebbish guy is interchangeable with any of the other hundred or so nerdy nebbish guys who populate thousands of other teen films.  I'm just glad they didn't get the Superbad guy (Cera) in this role because I'm a little tired of him. 

Emma Stone confuses me.  She's either hot or not and I lean to not. 

It's not a movie you'll buy and put on your shelf to treasure for years to come, but on a throwaway afternoon it would be pretty fun. 

Worth watching.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 17, 2010, 08:43:30 PM
Zombieland

Not exactly what I expected, but a fun movie.  It was no Raising Arizona, but it had a few funny moments and didn't take itself seriously at all.  It's not laugh out loud comedy, it's not scare the shit out of you horror, but just a nice easy blend of fear and bemusement. 

No angst over the crazy situation, no underlying social commentary, no deeper hidden meaning.  Just four misfits (well, five for a while) making the best they can out of a really bad situation. 

Yeah there are crazy plot holes.  For instance how come the power is still on everywhere?  And don't they ever run out of gas?  Or bullets?  But that really doesn't matter all that much because it's not really meant to be taken seriously. 

Woody Harrellson dominates the film.  He's good enough that you'd almost like to see him in a serious zombie killing movie, but then you remember he'd have to do pathos and pass on the idea.  No, he fits better here. 

The nerdy, nebbish guy is interchangeable with any of the other hundred or so nerdy nebbish guys who populate thousands of other teen films.  I'm just glad they didn't get the Superbad guy (Cera) in this role because I'm a little tired of him. 

Emma Stone confuses me.  She's either hot or not and I lean to not. 

It's not a movie you'll buy and put on your shelf to treasure for years to come, but on a throwaway afternoon it would be pretty fun. 

Worth watching.
I'm sensing you're a bit of a bitch.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Pell City Tiger on February 17, 2010, 09:05:09 PM
Quote
I guess in a couple of years some dumbass will show Inglorious Basterds and have his class thinking Hitler was murdered by a Jew theater chick, a black dude and a couple of oafs.
I didn't know Prowler was working on his teachers certification.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on February 17, 2010, 09:13:54 PM
I'm sensing you're a bit of a bitch.
a bit????   :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on February 17, 2010, 11:00:30 PM
Zombieland

Not exactly what I expected, but a fun movie.  It was no Raising Arizona, but it had a few funny moments and didn't take itself seriously at all.  It's not laugh out loud comedy, it's not scare the shit out of you horror, but just a nice easy blend of fear and bemusement. 

No angst over the crazy situation, no underlying social commentary, no deeper hidden meaning.  Just four misfits (well, five for a while) making the best they can out of a really bad situation. 

Yeah there are crazy plot holes.  For instance how come the power is still on everywhere?  And don't they ever run out of gas?  Or bullets?  But that really doesn't matter all that much because it's not really meant to be taken seriously. 

Woody Harrellson dominates the film.  He's good enough that you'd almost like to see him in a serious zombie killing movie, but then you remember he'd have to do pathos and pass on the idea.  No, he fits better here. 

The nerdy, nebbish guy is interchangeable with any of the other hundred or so nerdy nebbish guys who populate thousands of other teen films.  I'm just glad they didn't get the Superbad guy (Cera) in this role because I'm a little tired of him. 

Emma Stone confuses me.  She's either hot or not and I lean to not. 

It's not a movie you'll buy and put on your shelf to treasure for years to come, but on a throwaway afternoon it would be pretty fun. 

Worth watching.

I loved the fact that it didn't take itself seriously. 

Woody Harrelson is one of my favorites and played his part perfectly. 

Emma Stone is hot.  Something about the ghostbusters scene where she was playing Janine did it for me. 

I didn't care much for the nerd or the little girl, but there was a Sancho reference in the scene where the four first met in the grocery store. 

And the twinkie plot was perfect for a movie that seriously had no agenda other than killing zombies.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 18, 2010, 05:16:47 PM
a bit????   :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
It's from the movie
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 18, 2010, 05:32:13 PM
It's from the movie

Yeah, it is you little spit fuck. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on February 18, 2010, 08:44:31 PM
Yeah, it is you little spit fuck. 


I'm thinking more like "a lot of a bitch"
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 18, 2010, 11:04:45 PM
I'm thinking more like "a lot of a bitch"

And I'm thinking you continue to confirm your dumbass. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 18, 2010, 11:10:57 PM
Law Abiding Citizen

Gerard Butler cannot act.  If Russell Crowe, Nick Cage and John Travolta had a baby it would be a better actor than Gerard Butler. 

I thought his affected speech in 300 was just a gimmick, but it's obvious he struggles to maintain an "American" accent and drifts off into gobbeldy-gook (Craig Ferguson mumblety jumbo) from time to time.  And on top of that he's just a shitty actor. 

He's completely unbelievable in a role that was made for Mel Gibson or Charles Bronson (if this was 1970). 

Plenty of star power in the movie with Jamie Foxx and the chick from Talladega Nights and a few people you'd recognize.  But in Butler's clumsy hands (he was the producer of this floating turd) it simply rang hollow. 

Foxx was a real lightweight in his attempt to be a convincing DA.  Didn't work.  Neither did Leslie Bibb as his co counsel. 

We've seen this movie before and we've seen it done much better than this.  It was a waste. 

Ship Gerard back to where ever he came from and let him make infomercials there or something.  I've seen enough of him.  Won't watch anything else in which he "stars"
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 19, 2010, 07:35:36 AM
The Hurt Locker

The Iraq war is helpless and hopeless.  Beyond that we get absolutely nothing from this movie. 

It got such high critical acclaim I was hoping for something better.

The performances were all solid.  Can't complain about any of the actors involved.  But their motivations were muddled, the interplay hackneyed at times.  You wanted to care, but for the most part I was apathetic.

Kathryn Bigelow, the director, didn't have the gravitas or experience to pull off this movie.  Where it should have had depth, it grounded in the shallows. When it had a chance to humanize the characters it fell back on cliche.  In more capable hands, this could have been a powerful and moving film.  In Bigelow's lightweight command it missed the mark. It failed to dig deep enough into the characters to give you a reason to really care.  Their reasons and rationale were not plumbed. 

I can see why Hollywood types loved it, because it makes the American presence in the Middle East seem like an utterly hopeless proposition.  It did so without demeaning the soldiers themselves so I'm sure the groovy "can't we all just get along, here's a nice daisy" crowd is patting itself on the back for managing to express disdain for the war effort without making the soldiers look like monsters -- which was their failed direction in movies like Platoon and Casualties of War. 

It wasn't a bad movie, it was just flat and two dimensional.  It wasn't as silly and over dramatized as some other war films, so it gets points for no frills realism but all in all it was just lacking. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: BZ770 on February 20, 2010, 12:37:08 AM
Three reviews today.  Short and to the point.

Drag Me to Hell
By all means drag me to hell. Just don't try to drag me back to the theater to see this poop fest.  It's a PG-13 horror movie which should have indicated the suckage immediately, but I ignored the warning.  The girl was sort of hot and her choice of shoes was good, but that's where the quality ended here.  The best actor in the whole thing was a damn fly. 

 


Rented this, hated the way it ended.  Maybe I always want goodness to win.  Alison Lohman was the girl from Matchstick men and she was in Big Fish, it was pretty bad acting.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 01, 2010, 06:04:48 PM
Couple's Retreat
Given the abysmal reviews I'd seen from others, I wasn't expecting much.  And that's exactly what I got.  Not much. 

Kristin Davis, Kristen Bell and Malin Akerman all looked pretty good in their underwear.  Akerman especially (see below). She just sort of did it for me. 

The location was outstanding.  Makes me want to visit that place some day.  Maybe spring break. 

But the movie itself was just sort of flat.  I really wish Vince Vaughn was as funny as he clearly thinks he is.  This movie had so much potential and it didn't even collect the low-hanging fruit. 

First, I'm not buying Davis married to Jon Favreau.  About as mismatched as you could possibly be.  Not buying Bell being married to Bateman who is 12-years her senior but looked about 32 years older. 

There were so many plot holes that the plot itself was basically a hole. 

I distracted myself by taking in the scenery -- both the women and the locale -- and just let this piece of fluff movie drift on by.  I'd have been pissed if I'd paid to see it in the theater, but since it was a Netflix mailbox bonus, it was just a piece of somewhat unfulfilling candy.



(http://www.plunderguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Malin-Akerman-8.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 01, 2010, 06:17:36 PM
Jennifer's Body

I've found Megan Fox's dramatic range.  She can either sashay away from the camera showing her reasonably tight ass and legs or she can pout seductively in the general direction of the camera while showing some cleavage.  Ask her to perform a speaking part and everything grinds to a halt. 

That said, I've seen worse in the teen "possessed by a demon" genre. Fox managed the role reasonably well (see below).  She wasn't great, but she wasn't atrocious like some that I've run across over the years.  On the other hand, I've always been impressed by Amanda Seyfried. This wasn't her best work, but she did elevate the film just by being in it. 

The movie sort of meandered through the story. You had a pretty good idea of how it was going to end up -- and then you probably missed figuring some of that part of that out, anyway. 

Best line of the movie?  "Let's play boyfriend-girlfriend like we used to."   I wouldn't go so far to say it was worth watching just for that, but it was there.

It's not something I'd have the friends over to watch. It's not something I need to see over and over (*with one caveat) but it went down easy and was a decent waste of 90 minutes in the middle of the night.

(http://www.meganfoxsource.com/wp-content/uploads/megan-fox-jennifers-body.jpg)

(http://choogal.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/amanda-seyfried.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 02, 2010, 11:10:11 AM
Couple's Retreat
Given the abysmal reviews I'd seen from others, I wasn't expecting much.  And that's exactly what I got.  Not much.  

Kristin Davis, Kristen Bell and Malin Akerman all looked pretty good in their underwear.  Akerman especially (see below). She just sort of did it for me.  

The location was outstanding.  Makes me want to visit that place some day.  Maybe spring break.  

But the movie itself was just sort of flat.  I really wish Vince Vaughn was as funny as he clearly thinks he is.  This movie had so much potential and it didn't even collect the low-hanging fruit.  

First, I'm not buying Davis married to Jon Favreau.  About as mismatched as you could possibly be.  Not buying Bell being married to Bateman who is 12-years her senior but looked about 32 years older.  

There were so many plot holes that the plot itself was basically a hole.  

I distracted myself by taking in the scenery -- both the women and the locale -- and just let this piece of fluff movie drift on by.  I'd have been pissed if I'd paid to see it in the theater, but since it was a Netflix mailbox bonus, it was just a piece of somewhat unfulfilling candy.

I looked up that place after we watched the movie (St Regis Bora Bora).   The rooms they stayed in were about $1200 a night.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 02, 2010, 11:13:14 AM
Fuck that.  For 1200 a night it had best come with hookers and blow.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 02, 2010, 11:15:08 AM
Fuck that.  For 1200 a night it had best come with hookers and blow.
It is all inclusive, maybe that is included...I didn't read the fine print.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 02, 2010, 01:36:24 PM
I looked up that place after we watched the movie (St Regis Bora Bora).   The rooms they stayed in were about $1200 a night.

No way any of them could have afforded it. That was the biggest of all plot holes.  If you thought about that much, it chewed the rest of the film away.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 02, 2010, 02:45:09 PM
No way any of them could have afforded it. That was the biggest of all plot holes.  If you thought about that much, it chewed the rest of the film away.

Yes and no didn't they cover this in the beginning.  It was a special deal that is why all of them needed to go.  Plus if I remember correctly, the rate was cheaper because they had a cancellation thus allowing their group to go.  Finally they had to go to the couples side of the island.

However if we are being that analytical of a fictional movie... no ...none of them probably would have been able to afford that place.  Of course I didn't see their budgets or cash flow analysis in the end credits so I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: RWS on March 06, 2010, 10:04:04 PM
Kaos, do you have any plans to see Shutter Island?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on March 07, 2010, 08:37:33 AM
Alice in Wonderland

Holy hell, what a terrible movie.  I went into this with low expectations as I knew this was just being made for blockbuster money, but this was simply awful.  The story was uneventful.  The plot was rushed.  Besides Johnny Depp's typical quirkiness, the acting was stilted.  What kind of a 17 year old girl enters a realm of evaporating cats, rabbits that talk, a queen with a gigantic head who cuts off other people's heads, and walking cards with spears and doesn't ONCE show any signs of being afraid, surprised, or nervous? 

Oh wait (spoiler alert), she thinks it's a dream until the very end when she realizes it's not a dream.  She keeps saying she wants to wake up.  She hates the dream.  Yet, she keeps going along with the nonsense.  I kept waiting for her to jump off a cliff and attempt to fly, since, she continually reminded me she was only in a dream. 

Also, the ending is completely worthless.  I won't, um I guess, spoil it for you, but trust me when I say that the end to Alice in Wonderland involves a business deal with China. 

And the talent level is sub par.  Anne Hathaway is the only attractive girl in the movie, but she flings her hands around like a child with severe mental retardation (not trying to be mean or funny; that's just how she looked).  Also, she was caked with dark colored make up.  Looked like someone smeared poo all over her. 

Zero stars out of ten. 

Inglourious Basterds

I know most have already seen this movie, but I just saw it and thought it was great.  Not Tarentino's best.  But it was entertaining and had a good story. 

Also, I'm in love:

(http://zookzy.com/wp-content/media//2009/08/MelanieLaurent_01.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 07, 2010, 10:37:49 PM
Defiance

Jews survive in the woods.  Ok.  It's a good story, but -- no offense to the Jews -- how many more Jews suffered during WWII movies can there really be? 

The only thing that sets this apart is that it was a somewhat true story. 

Reasonably well acted if maybe a little over-emoted.  And a little long.  And a little lacking in the wrapup. 

Just meh overall. 

State of Play

Ben Affleck is a super powerful Senator?  Russell Crowe is a schlumpy, stringy-haired reporter? Rachel McAdams -- who is cute, but a complete acting lightweight -- is interested somewhat in Crowe? 

Just a waste.  It wasn't offensive, but it just didn't reach anywhere.  It was the film equivalent of lukewarm tapioca. 

Boo.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: RWS on March 08, 2010, 10:47:12 AM
Alice in Wonderland

Holy hell, what a terrible movie.  I went into this with low expectations as I knew this was just being made for blockbuster money, but this was simply awful.  The story was uneventful.  The plot was rushed.  Besides Johnny Depp's typical quirkiness, the acting was stilted.  What kind of a 17 year old girl enters a realm of evaporating cats, rabbits that talk, a queen with a gigantic head who cuts off other people's heads, and walking cards with spears and doesn't ONCE show any signs of being afraid, surprised, or nervous? 

Oh wait (spoiler alert), she thinks it's a dream until the very end when she realizes it's not a dream.  She keeps saying she wants to wake up.  She hates the dream.  Yet, she keeps going along with the nonsense.  I kept waiting for her to jump off a cliff and attempt to fly, since, she continually reminded me she was only in a dream. 

Also, the ending is completely worthless.  I won't, um I guess, spoil it for you, but trust me when I say that the end to Alice in Wonderland involves a business deal with China. 

And the talent level is sub par.  Anne Hathaway is the only attractive girl in the movie, but she flings her hands around like a child with severe mental retardation (not trying to be mean or funny; that's just how she looked).  Also, she was caked with dark colored make up.  Looked like someone smeared poo all over her. 

Zero stars out of ten. 

My wife and I thought about seeing this the other night, but had heard that either you love it or hate it. Alot of folks said pretty much the same as you. We decided to see Shutter Island instead, which was a great movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 08, 2010, 11:13:11 AM
Oscars said Hurt Locker was a great movie. 

I wasn't moved.  I really think the accolades for the film are more for the subtle way it made the US look overwhelmed and incompetent in a war that's essentially unwinnable (in Hollywood estimation, because as one of our own on this board once said, 'violence is never the answer')  than they are for the fact that the movie was really that good.  The Oscar glory was as much about agenda as it was about film. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 08, 2010, 05:42:27 PM
My wife and I thought about seeing this the other night, but had heard that either you love it or hate it. Alot of folks said pretty much the same as you.

I love Burton, Depp and Carter.  I will be seeing this.

I don't use K's movie reviews for much but entertainment value.  Our tastes are very different.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Aubie16 on March 08, 2010, 05:59:06 PM

I don't use K's movie reviews for much but entertainment value.  Our tastes are very different.

Just an fyi...that was townhall's review.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on March 08, 2010, 07:49:30 PM
I love Burton, Depp and Carter.  I will be seeing this.

I don't use K's movie reviews for much but entertainment value.  Our tastes are very different.

I love them all as well. 

Depp and Carter I can forgive.  Carter seemed to be directed to be like the villain in a kid's movie.  Depp saved the show.

Burton?  The man rushed the script and spent more time evaluating the CGI instead of evaluating the lead role's acting.  That was the main problem.  Alice sucked.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 09, 2010, 10:32:59 AM
Just an fyi...that was townhall's review.

Ah...my mistake.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on March 09, 2010, 01:12:46 PM
I love them all as well. 

Depp and Carter I can forgive.  Carter seemed to be directed to be like the villain in a kid's movie.  Depp saved the show.

Burton?  The man rushed the script and spent more time evaluating the CGI instead of evaluating the lead role's acting.  That was the main problem.  Alice sucked.

It's X-rated?  :gig:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 09, 2010, 01:45:02 PM
It's X-rated?  :gig:

No...that would be this version...which I do have a copy of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8fDfZPN-6Y#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8fDfZPN-6Y#ws)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 09, 2010, 01:52:26 PM
Screw ya'll.  This is all you need.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0JvF9vpqx8&feature=fvst# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0JvF9vpqx8&feature=fvst#)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Lurking Tiger on March 09, 2010, 02:26:40 PM
No...that would be this version...which I do have a copy of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8fDfZPN-6Y#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8fDfZPN-6Y#ws)

Kristine De Bell. Yummy.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Thrilla on March 09, 2010, 10:08:30 PM
No...that would be this version...which I do have a copy of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8fDfZPN-6Y#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8fDfZPN-6Y#ws)

I imagine it sits right next to your copy of Deep Throat? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 09, 2010, 10:11:18 PM
I imagine it sits right next to your copy of Deep Throat Debbie Does Dallas? 
FTFY Why yes it does.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Thrilla on March 09, 2010, 10:12:34 PM
FTFY Why yes it does.

I actually had that initially.  FML
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 16, 2010, 11:26:43 AM
I love them all as well. 

Depp and Carter I can forgive.  Carter seemed to be directed to be like the villain in a kid's movie.  Depp saved the show.

Burton?  The man rushed the script and spent more time evaluating the CGI instead of evaluating the lead role's acting.  That was the main problem.  Alice sucked.

Wow, I'm here to say that I was wrong.  Awful movie.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much Disney and not nearly enough Burton.  Carter was great.  Depp was uncharacteristically unimpressive. 

I would like to see Burton take a mulligan on this one without being handcuffed by the fucking mouse.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 16, 2010, 12:10:34 PM
The Hurt Locker

Gotta disagree with our resident Ebert here.  While not what I would typically think the Academy would pick as Movie of the year. Frankly, because I usually have no interest in the Movie of the Year.  I thought hurt locker told a great story, and something that does probably ring true with some of our younger service men and women.  That being the adrenaline from battle and then the subsequent return home to the mundane existence.  I really didn't notice any anti war propaganda from our usually liberal Hollywood.  I recommend!

Did you Hear about the Morgans

Ok first off chick flick...which I knew going in, but sometimes you gotta bite the bullet.  I actually usually like the bumbling comedic routine of Hugh Grant who pretty much plays the same character in every romantic comedy, however this one was atrocious.  Sarah Jessica Parker....blah or should I say naaaaaah.  Premise...The Morgans a separated couple, due to Grant's infidelity, are very successful New Yorkers.  When they both witness a murder they must be put in protective custody in Ray, Wyoming (a one stoplight town).  Hilarity ensues or actually it doesn't, im sure you can pretty much figure the plot out from here.   Their custody Marshall's played by Sam Elliot (oh Sam WTF are you doing in this turd) and Mary Steenburgen along twith the town help the Marshall's to reconcile while in protective custody.
The only bright spot in this entire movie is Wilford Brimley who plays a grumpy redneck cafe owner.  Avoid!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 16, 2010, 12:24:23 PM
The Hurt Locker

Gotta disagree with our resident Ebert here.  While not what I would typically think the Academy would pick as Movie of the year. Frankly, because I usually have no interest in the Movie of the Year.  I thought hurt locker told a great story, and something that does probably ring true with some of our younger service men and women.  That being the adrenaline from battle and then the subsequent return home to the mundane existence.  I really didn't notice any anti war propaganda from our usually liberal Hollywood.  I recommend!

Agreed.

Quote


Did you Hear about the Morgans

Ok first off chick flick...which I knew going in, but sometimes you gotta bite the bullet.  I actually usually like the bumbling comedic routine of Hugh Grant who pretty much plays the same character in every romantic comedy, however this one was atrocious.  Sarah Jessica Parker....blah or should I say naaaaaah.  Premise...The Morgans a separated couple, due to Grant's infidelity, are very successful New Yorkers.  When they both witness a murder they must be put in protective custody in Ray, Wyoming (a one stoplight town).  Hilarity ensues or actually it doesn't, im sure you can pretty much figure the plot out from here.   Their custody Marshall's played by Sam Elliot (oh Sam WTF are you doing in this turd) and Mary Steenburgen along twith the town help the Marshall's to reconcile while in protective custody.
The only bright spot in this entire movie is Wilford Brimley who plays a grumpy redneck cafe owner.  Avoid!


You're officially a pussy.  You like Hugh Grant?  I fucking loooooooooooooathe that asshole.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 16, 2010, 12:38:00 PM
You're officially a pussy.  You like Hugh Grant?  I fucking loooooooooooooathe that asshole.

Says the guy who went to see Where the Wild Things Are on opening night.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on March 16, 2010, 12:39:52 PM

You're officially a pussy.  You like Hugh Grant?  I fucking loooooooooooooathe that asshole.

You mean, you don't, you know, well, jolly me, by, you, what I mean, oh what was I saying, oh yes, the question, quite right, yes, um, you don't, like the way, he, the actor, uh, um, Hugh Grant, like the way, he, um, studders, um, throughout, a, uh, film?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 16, 2010, 12:42:36 PM
You mean, you don't, you know, well, jolly me, by, you, what I mean, oh what was I saying, oh yes, the question, quite right, yes, um, you don't, like the way, he, the actor, uh, um, Hugh Grant, like the way, he, um, studders, um, throughout, a, uh, film?

Nailed it.  Hate, hate, hate that dude.  To top it off: he left Hurley at home to chase hookers.  I love hookers, but I love Hurley more.

Says the guy who went to see Where the Wild Things Are on opening night.



Fucking right I did. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 16, 2010, 12:51:01 PM
Nailed it.  Hate, hate, hate that dude.  To top it off: he left Hurley at home to chase hookers.  I love hookers, but I love Hurley more.

Fucking right I did. 
I'm not in love with the dude, I just liked some of the movies he was in.  Did I not say he plays a bumbling dope through out every movie.  I am sure he cares that you hate him...he probably cries all the way to the bank.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 16, 2010, 12:53:14 PM
I'm not in love with the dude, I just liked some of the movies he was in.  Did I not say he plays a bumbling dope through out every movie.  I am sure he cares that you hate him...he probably cries all the way to the bank.

Nice and defensive....just the way I like you.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 16, 2010, 12:55:56 PM
Nice and defensive....just the way I like you.
I miss your touch
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 16, 2010, 01:05:39 PM
Final Destination 4, 3D

I hope that was the final destination.  Probably the worst overall movie I've seen in a while.  The acting was atrocious, the plot even more asinine than the previous FD movies (the first two of which were good for what they were) and the contrivances simply ludicrous.  I'd give this movie a 0 on a scale of 10 to 20.

Retire the franchise.  

Plenty of extras on the BluRay version, but who gives a shit?  The "alternate endings" were even worse than the official one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 16, 2010, 01:31:49 PM
Final Destination 4, 3D

I hope that was the final destination.  Probably the worst overall movie I've seen in a while.  The acting was atrocious, the plot even more asinine than the previous FD movies (the first two of which were good for what they were) and the contrivances simply ludicrous.  I'd give this movie a 0 on a scale of 10 to 20.

Retire the franchise.  

Plenty of extras on the BluRay version, but who gives a shit?  The "alternate endings" were even worse than the official one.
I got you beat...Observe and Report...worst piece of shit I have ever witnessed.  I want the 1:45 it stole from my life.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: lifesapplepie on March 16, 2010, 01:40:59 PM
Has anyone seen The Box yet.  If so, can somebody please explain to me what the fuck it was about???  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on March 16, 2010, 01:54:29 PM
I got you beat...Observe and Report...worst piece of shit I have ever witnessed.  I want the 1:45 it stole from my life.
Completely disagree here.

That movie was funny as fuck if you like dark comedies.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on March 16, 2010, 01:57:26 PM
Has anyone seen The Box yet.  If so, can somebody please explain to me what the fuck it was about??? 

In the same night I saw another movie of note: The Box.

It's Richard Kelley (Donnie Darko) so expect weirdness to the point of confusion.

This was a 70's period piece and it really felt like I was watching a movie from that time. It felt like The Shining with a little bit of Creepshow thrown in for good measure, but with better special effects. Very Stanley Kubrick-esque.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 16, 2010, 02:16:08 PM
Completely disagree here.

That movie was funny as fuck if you like dark comedies.
FAIL

I like dark comedies. Insert the Big Lebowski, Clerks, Fargo, Raising Arizona.

I liked Pineapple Express (quasi Dark)..I got it... it was funny...not necessarily Rogen, but I laughed a lot.   

This is a Fail of not funny proportions.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 16, 2010, 02:25:51 PM
Completely disagree here.


No joke, you are the only person I've every heard say Observe and Report was anything other than buzzard shit. 

When it was out a bunch of my daughter's friends were at the house and went to the theater to see it.  College age, the type who try to tell me Kat Williams is the funniest guy who ever lived, who think The Hangover (what a dud) is high comedy and Superbad is the Fast Times at Ridgemont High of their generation.  To a man they declared Observe and Report the worst movie ever. 

When you can't sway a gaggle of mush-headed college frosh and sophomores?  F.A.I.L. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on March 16, 2010, 02:26:43 PM
FAIL

I like dark comedies. Insert the Big Lebowski, Clerks, Fargo, Raising Arizona.

I liked Pineapple Express (quasi Dark)..I got it... it was funny...not necessarily Rogen, but I laughed a lot.   

This is a Fail of not funny proportions.
Anna Farris passed out drunk and puking on herself as he fucked her anyway, and then commanding that he "Don't stop mothafucka" was dark comedy gold, IMO.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 16, 2010, 02:26:55 PM
FAIL

I like dark comedies. Insert the Big Lebowski, Clerks, Fargo, Raising Arizona.

I liked Pineapple Express (quasi Dark)..I got it... it was funny...not necessarily Rogen, but I laughed a lot.   


Those aren't dark.  Particularly not Pineapple Express.

For dark comedy see:  Very Bad Things.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on March 16, 2010, 02:28:22 PM
No joke, you are the only person I've every heard say Observe and Report was anything other than buzzard shit.  

When it was out a bunch of my daughter's friends were at the house and went to the theater to see it.  College age, the type who try to tell me Kat Williams is the funniest guy who ever lived, who think The Hangover (what a dud) is high comedy and Superbad is the Fast Times at Ridgemont High of their generation.  To a man they declared Observe and Report the worst movie ever.  

When you can't sway a gaggle of mush-headed college frosh and sophomores?  F.A.I.L.  
You're saying yourself that their sense of comedy is out of whack.

If you're looking for Dane Cook, Hugh Grant, or Katt Williams comedy, this is not your bag.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 16, 2010, 02:30:18 PM
You're saying yourself that their sense of comedy is out of whack.

If you're looking for Dane Cook, Hugh Grant, or Katt Williams comedy, this is not your bag.

I'm saying myself that they are the audience this movie was geared toward and they rejected it out of hand as schlock.  

You are the only person I've ever, ever, ever heard give this movie any positive comment at all and that spans multi-generations.

From my perspective, I expected nothing less than absolute suckage.  I'm not a Seth Rogen fan.  His movies are rarely funny to me. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on March 16, 2010, 02:33:18 PM
I'm saying myself that they are the audience this movie was geared toward and they rejected it out of hand as schlock.  

You are the only person I've ever, ever, ever heard give this movie any positive comment at all and that spans multi-generations.

From my perspective, I expected nothing less than absolute suckage.  I'm not a Seth Rogen fan.  His movies are rarely funny to me.  
Except it's not. I'm not surprised at all they wouldn't like it. Maybe it was mis-marketed to try to appeal to fans of other Rogan flicks like Knocked Up and Superbad, but it's far from one of those types of movies.

Jody Hill, who does East Bound & Down, and last directed Foot Fist Way (a must see dark comedy) pays a comedic homage to Taxi Driver. It's not for everyone.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on March 16, 2010, 02:45:38 PM
I just ran across this review. This guy gets it.
Quote
Jody Hill's excellent and sure-to-be divisive Observe and Report takes the average comedy about goofy authority figures and turns it on its head. Hill, Seth Rogen, and the rest of the talented team behind this truly twisted movie recognize that if one was to honestly look at characters like Paul Blart or any of the morons from the Police Academy train wrecks, they would have to admit that they're probably a little crazy. Ronnie Barnhardt, the lead in Observe and Report, is a LOT crazy. This dark, subversive film was reportedly inspired by Taxi Driver, and, yes, it’s “Travis Bickle meets comedy." And it's not for the weak of heart either. Heavy drug use, male frontal nudity, date rape, alcoholism, extreme violence - Observe and Report makes last year's "dark comedy" Pineapple Express look like Thomas the Tank Engine in comparison. There will be many, many people who loathe Observe and Report, the same folks who were turned off by dark comedies like Bad Santa or Burn After Reading. I am not one of those folks.

The commercials that have been advertising Observe and Report as another broad comedy with Seth Rogen and Anna Faris are almost hysterically misleading. Not only does Faris have a small role, but O&R is far from your average laugh-fest and couldn’t be LESS of a date movie. Rogen plays Ronnie, a young man who works as the head of security at a local mall and dreams of being the hero. But he doesn't dream of being your average hero. He dreams of blowing away bad guys with his shotgun and being lauded as the savior of the people only after waves of violence. To be blunt, Ronnie is nuts. He takes drugs to deal with his problems, but he's a dangerous individual with a nightstick who wishes he could take a gun to work.

Ronnie sees a chance to fulfill what he sees as his world-changing ambition when a flasher happens into his mall parking lot. One of the young ladies who ends up on the wrong side of the pervert's raincoat happens to be Ronnie's love interest, makeup-counter saleswoman Brandi (Anna Faris). In his new fantasy scenario, Ronnie can get the bad guy and save the girl at the same time. Helping Ronnie in his quest are his right-hand man Dennis (Michael Pena) and twin guards John and Matt (John and Matt Yuan). As he ignores the flirtations of the one person in the film who might actually be able to effectively reach Ronnie emotionally, super-cute coffee girl Nell (Collette Wolfe), our poor hero (although I use that term loosely) descends deeper into madness.

Driving the car that takes Ronnie to crazy town is Detective Harrison (Ray Liotta), someone who immediately recognizes that this mall cop will never be anything but and puts him in his place. Ronnie's answer to the alpha male challenge presented by Harrison is to try and become a cop himself. In his mind, he'll be a gun-toting police officer with a hot girlfriend and he'll put the flasher behind bars. It all sounds great, right?

It might be great for your average security guard, but like I said, Ronnie's not all there. Hill and Rogen have created a fascinating character, someone who you're not really supposed to like, much less root for. Ronnie will make you physically uncomfortable in more ways than one, and the film has an unbelievable way of ratcheting up the tension. I honestly had no idea where Observe and Report was going. If everyone in the film had gone down in a hail of bullets (and I'm not saying they don't), I wouldn't have been remotely surprised.

And that's why Observe and Report works. Not only does it feature Rogen's best performance to date but also it's that one thing that modern comedies so rarely end up being - completely unpredictable. Even if you adore Paul Blart: Mall Cop, you have to admit, once you heard the title, you could close your eyes and outline the basic plot. You will NEVER see the end of Observe and Report coming. For a critic who sees wave after wave of predictable junk, the originality on display in this sure-to-be underrated screenplay was invigorating.

Many people will walk out of Observe and Report. Many people will tell their friends how awful a film it is and loathe it. I don’t blame them and totally understand that viewpoint. And, in some ways, that's why I like it. Sometimes comedy should be dangerous. Sometimes comedy should be divisive. Sometimes comedy should piss people off. Not every laugh-fest needs to be delivered to the same widest audience possible funny bone. Observe and Report walks a high-wire of tension and dark, dark humor. Even if you don't think it makes it to the other side, there's something truly remarkable about the attempt.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on March 16, 2010, 02:52:52 PM
Wow, I'm here to say that I was wrong.  Awful movie.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much Disney and not nearly enough Burton.  Carter was great.  Depp was uncharacteristically unimpressive. 

I would like to see Burton take a mulligan on this one without being handcuffed by the fucking mouse.

i saw this over the weekend with my son.  i agree with wes and townhall...awful movie; however, i have to ask wes about "way" to much disney.  please explain a bit further.



i was raped by regal cinema.  matinee $10.50 per person...regardless of age.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 16, 2010, 02:58:57 PM
Based on that dudes review, this is what I agree with him about.

Bad Santa...Very Funny

Burn After Reading...In my top 30 of favorite comedies...great!

Observe and Report is a steaming pile of turds that should not be uttered in the same story.  It was not funny.



Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 16, 2010, 03:03:48 PM


Observe and Report is a steaming pile of turds that should not be uttered in the same story.  It was not funny.



Better watch out.  Disagreeing with Chad means you're less erudite and unable to logically process.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 16, 2010, 03:15:09 PM
Quote
Many people will walk out of Observe and Report. Many people will tell their friends how awful a film it is and loathe it. I don’t blame them and totally understand that viewpoint. And, in some ways, that's why I like it. Sometimes comedy should be dangerous. Sometimes comedy should be divisive. Sometimes comedy should piss people off. Not every laugh-fest needs to be delivered to the same widest audience possible funny bone. Observe and Report walks a high-wire of tension and dark, dark humor. Even if you don't think it makes it to the other side, there's something truly remarkable about the attempt.

I like my comedy, with at least a side of funny. The only thing that I thought was remotely humorous was his dealing with the flasher at the end and the mall managers handling of the situation.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on March 16, 2010, 03:25:23 PM
Better watch out.  Disagreeing with Chad means you're less erudite and unable to logically process.
Brian tends to like broad comedies. Actually, I can't think of another comedy he didn't enjoy.

You though...I'm genuinely curious. Can you name me one comedy that you actually enjoyed?

I'm guessing you'll probably name something slapstickish from the 70's like Airplane and Blazing Saddles, which I love as well, but I'm guessing you dislike more recent films with similar humor because you apply a "good ol' days" filter to the former.

Can you name a single comedy from the past decade that gets the Kaos seal of approval?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 16, 2010, 03:37:34 PM
Those aren't dark.  Particularly not Pineapple Express.

For dark comedy see:  Very Bad Things. Bad Santa.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 16, 2010, 04:25:08 PM
Brian tends to like broad comedies. Actually, I can't think of another comedy he didn't enjoy.

You though...I'm genuinely curious. Can you name me one comedy that you actually enjoyed?

I'm guessing you'll probably name something slapstickish from the 70's like Airplane and Blazing Saddles, which I love as well, but I'm guessing you dislike more recent films with similar humor because you apply a "good ol' days" filter to the former.

Can you name a single comedy from the past decade that gets the Kaos seal of approval?

Past decade...  

Well, Raising Arizona is one of the classics.  What decade is that from?  (I liked Airplane, hated Blazing Saddles).  

Office Space.  What decade was that from?
I found Naopleon Dynamite sad and amusing.
Dazed and Confused (again, what decade?)
Tropic Thunder was elevated by Robert Downey Jr.'s performance.
Animal House/Ghostbusters/Trading Places/Caddyshack -- that was like 30 years ago?
I liked Little Miss Sunshine, but it was still somewhat lacking.
O Brother Where Art Thou had some quality, particularly in Clooney's self-deprecating performance.
Thought Timothy Olyphant was good in The Girl Next Door.

Funny is not, at least in my opinion, predicated on how many times you can show your ass in baggy underwear or say the word fuck. Comedy isn't derived from crudity.  I like comedy that's got intelligence.  It's hard to tell a good joke or make people laugh with wit.  It's easy to fart and get people to laugh.  I don't like farters.  I do think farts are funny, but a constant stream of farts just begins to smell.  That's all most new comedies have.  

The crop of SNL veterans since Ackroyd, Chase, Murray, Murphy, etc.  -- Rob Schneider, David Spade, Adam Sandler, Ferrel etc. -- suck and suck hard.  Sandler is singluarly untalented although he did have one decent film.  Same for Ferrell. One good film (Elf).  They pander to the lowest common denominator because they know a nation of Beavis and Buttheads will flock to their fart and fuck fests on the opening weekend and make them money.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on March 16, 2010, 04:52:18 PM
Observe and Report was fucking awful
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on March 16, 2010, 05:14:33 PM
Past decade...  

Well, Raising Arizona is one of the classics.  What decade is that from?  (I liked Airplane, hated Blazing Saddles).  

Office Space.  What decade was that from?
I found Naopleon Dynamite sad and amusing.
Dazed and Confused (again, what decade?)
Tropic Thunder was elevated by Robert Downey Jr.'s performance.
Animal House/Ghostbusters/Trading Places/Caddyshack -- that was like 30 years ago?
I liked Little Miss Sunshine, but it was still somewhat lacking.
O Brother Where Art Thou had some quality, particularly in Clooney's self-deprecating performance.
Thought Timothy Olyphant was good in The Girl Next Door.

Funny is not, at least in my opinion, predicated on how many times you can show your ass in baggy underwear or say the word fuck. Comedy isn't derived from crudity.  I like comedy that's got intelligence.  It's hard to tell a good joke or make people laugh with wit.  It's easy to fart and get people to laugh.  I don't like farters.  I do think farts are funny, but a constant stream of farts just begins to smell.  That's all most new comedies have.  

The crop of SNL veterans since Ackroyd, Chase, Murray, Murphy, etc.  -- Rob Schneider, David Spade, Adam Sandler, Ferrel etc. -- suck and suck hard.  Sandler is singluarly untalented although he did have one decent film.  Same for Ferrell. One good film (Elf).  They pander to the lowest common denominator because they know a nation of Beavis and Buttheads will flock to their fart and fuck fests on the opening weekend and make them money.  


So of the past decade (read: this century), you enjoyed one comedy for being sad & amusing, two (very broad comedies) for one actor's performance per film (Tropic Thunder was particularly overrated, IMO), and another that you found "still lacking". I'll be generous and count the one you found had "some quality", although it was released just barely over a decade ago.

So in your estimation there has been one tolerable comedy film released every other year over the past decade.

No good ones.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 16, 2010, 05:29:30 PM
So of the past decade (read: this century), you enjoyed one comedy for being sad & amusing, two (very broad comedies) for one actor's performance per film (Tropic Thunder was particularly overrated, IMO), and another that you found "still lacking". I'll be generous and count the one you found had "some quality", although it was released just barely over a decade ago.

So in your estimation there has been one tolerable comedy film released every other year over the past decade.

No good ones.

I was going off the top of my head.  I don't know.  I don't have a list of all comedy movies released in the last decade sitting next to my computer.

Comedy is definitely hard.  The number of awful attempts always outnumbers the good.  Comedy is also more subjective than other forms.  What's funny to you is (clearly) not funny to me.  Or to anybody else.  What's funny to me probably won't resonate with you. Or anybody else.

Tropic Thunder WAS stupid and lame, but Downey's performance overcame the dreadful, awful, pathetic, ridiculous, craptastic effort of the massively untalented Ben Stiller and the equally inane non-addition of the hugely overrated and unfunny Jack Black. 

If you want to list movies, I'll tell you which ones I thought were good. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on March 16, 2010, 06:05:55 PM
Jack Black's role in Tropical Thunder was hard to watch.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on March 16, 2010, 09:52:15 PM
I was going off the top of my head.  I don't know.  I don't have a list of all comedy movies released in the last decade sitting next to my computer.

Comedy is definitely hard.  The number of awful attempts always outnumbers the good.  Comedy is also more subjective than other forms.  What's funny to you is (clearly) not funny to me.  Or to anybody else.  What's funny to me probably won't resonate with you. Or anybody else.

Tropic Thunder WAS stupid and lame, but Downey's performance overcame the dreadful, awful, pathetic, ridiculous, craptastic effort of the massively untalented Ben Stiller and the equally inane non-addition of the hugely overrated and unfunny Jack Black. 

If you want to list movies, I'll tell you which ones I thought were good. 

I don't believe the movie Dumb and Dumber is subjective.  It is objectively funny.  If you disagree, kill yourself.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on March 16, 2010, 09:54:00 PM
Jack Black's role in Tropical Thunder was hard to watch.

But not as bad as his last line in King Kong.  Most awkward movie line of all time.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on March 17, 2010, 12:09:16 AM
But not as bad as his last line in King Kong.  Most awkward movie line of all time.
I never watched King Kong because he was in it. Be kind Rewind could be the worst movie ever made.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on March 17, 2010, 01:12:06 AM
I never watched King Kong because he was in it. Be kind Rewind could be the worst movie ever made.

my favorite jack black movie...the jackal.  the jackal (bruce willis) brutally ends his life.  cheers.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on March 17, 2010, 04:40:16 AM
my favorite jack black movie...the jackal.  the jackal (bruce willis) brutally ends his life.  cheers.
:clap:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on March 17, 2010, 09:50:17 AM
9

Not a bad little flick.  It's strange in a Tim Burton kind of way.  The plot is that after a long war with machines (More Matrix-like than Terminator), a small group of animatronic dolls try to survive in a world devoid of humans.  The visual effects are phenomenal and worth the price of the rental.  Also, it's only an hour and fifteen minutes, so if you need a quick movie to enjoy, this would be a good choice. 

My only beef with the movie is that the ending (don't want to give any spoilers away) is lackluster and has too many holes. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 17, 2010, 10:15:33 AM
I never watched King Kong because he was in it. Be kind Rewind could be the worst movie ever made.
2nd worst I still contend that What's Eating Gilbert Grape is the worst movie of all time. 

BTW in solid 3rd place is Caddyshack 2
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on March 17, 2010, 10:28:53 AM
2nd worst I still contend that What's Eating Gilbert Grape is the worst movie of all time. 

Is it wrong that I liked Gilbert Grape as well?

Also, I generally like Jack Black. The only times he doesn't work for me are generic broad comedies i.e. Shallow Hal.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 17, 2010, 10:35:15 AM
Is it wrong that I liked Gilbert Grape as well?

Also, I generally like Jack Black. The only times he doesn't work for me are generic broad comedies i.e. Shallow Hal.
It's like I don't even know who you are anymore.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on March 17, 2010, 12:35:36 PM
2nd worst I still contend that What's Eating Gilbert Grape is the worst movie of all time. 

BTW in solid 3rd place is Caddyshack 2
Quit dragging my heart around.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on March 18, 2010, 02:30:07 AM
The Crazies is worth a rent when it comes out on Blu-Ray. It's more of a thriller than horror movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 18, 2010, 11:43:22 AM
The Crazies is worth a rent when it comes out on Blu-Ray. It's more of a thriller than horror movie.

Agreed.  If it's still in a theater near you, it's even worth the price of admission.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 19, 2010, 12:23:18 PM
Up In The Air

Clooney = Good. Vera's ass = Nice. Vera's face = chopped horse.  The movie = meh. 

It was a decent movie but like so many it left a lot on the table.  Could have been better. It was just sort of there.

My biggest problem with it was that I could see what was coming a mile away.  I knew what was going to happen with his singular quest the moment he got his sister's standup picture.  I knew that the achievement of his solitary goal would be less spectacular than he'd planned.  I knew what was going to happen when horse face opened the door.  All of that was basically telegraphed.  I knew that Pixie's techno-solution wouldn't hold in the end.

The movie held no surprises, provided no lessons and basically spoke to nothing.  It was okay, but that's about all.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 19, 2010, 02:17:05 PM
Speaking of Clooney

I'm interested (and maybe Wench too) to hear what your review of O Brother Where Art Thou would be..Care to humor me? I will hold my opinion until after you are done....
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 19, 2010, 02:42:39 PM
I thought Clooney was outstanding in that role. It really changed my perception of him.

The movie itself is an acquired taste. Didn't like it nearly as much the first time I saw it as I did the third or fourth.

Come to appreciate it as one of the better comedies of the last several years. Not Raising Arizona but in the ballpark.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 19, 2010, 02:48:55 PM
O Brother was Jeenyus.  I agree in that the first time I watched it, I thought it was funny enough but just a little different, weird...I couldn't put my finger on it.  Clooney cracked me up throughout.  I think part of the reason for enjoying it more each time is the number of lines that people continue to quote from it.  It's a little like Caddyshack wherein you hear a line and instantly know where it came from.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 19, 2010, 03:41:07 PM
I thought Clooney was outstanding in that role. It really changed my perception of him.

The movie itself is an acquired taste. Didn't like it nearly as much the first time I saw it as I did the third or fourth.

Come to appreciate it as one of the better comedies of the last several years. Not Raising Arizona but in the ballpark.

OBWAT is one of those rare movies that Ive seen 50 times and everytime I watch it I pick up something new. It was very peculiar and deeper than most think.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 20, 2010, 09:58:17 AM
The Ugly Truth

The ugly truth about this movie is that Katherine and that 300 clown have about as much chemistry as Whoopi Goldberg and Ted Danson.  Actually, Whoop and Sam might have more. 

The truth about this movie is that it was just ugly. 

Gerard Butler is one of the worst actors in movie history. He's creeping up into Nick Cage and John Travolta territory. At least Cage's goofy ass over the top mugging and Travolta's persistent Vinnie Barbarino impersonation (even when playing military officers and lawyers) shows a little ability. Butler's stroke face has no range, no personality, nothing to offer.

It was blatantly obvious that this movie was written by women who thought they understood how the male mind works when, in fact, they are probably bull dyke lesbians and have no clue what men are thinking. 

It wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen -- Final Destination 3 was worse -- but this "romantic comedy" was neither comedy nor romance. You're certainly not going to leave the theater (or the couch) with your significant other and have an increased opportunity to get laid.  No, you're more likely to be heading to the medicine cabinet for some maalox.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 20, 2010, 10:01:52 AM
Brief Interviews with Hideous Men

I have no idea what this was about.  People speaking in other's bodies, something about a haircut and a parade of NBC stars from the red-headed chick on Law & Order: CI to Elliot Stabler from L&O: SVU to Jim from The Office and a boat load of angst.  

I'm sure it was meant to be deep and insightful.  It was recommended to me by someone who apparently drew some meaning from it.  

I got nothing.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 22, 2010, 09:18:30 AM
Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day

Maybe I should have watched Boondock Saints  first. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 22, 2010, 09:24:27 AM
The Great Buck Howard

Meandering film produced by Tom Hanks in order to give his kid something to do.  His kid is like Tom, but blander and less compelling.

John Malkovich was good as the titular Buck Howard -- who was actually playing Kreskin.  Why they couldn't have just named the movie The Amazing Kreskin, I really don't know. At the end they even acknowledged that the film was inspired by Kreskin.  I'm probably the only person on this board who saw Kreskin perform so I can at least say that Buck Howard got the smarmy patter pretty close to right. 

In a film like this you're looking for some redemption and there really was none.  Not for Buck -- well maybe a little. Not for the ineffectual Hanks kid. Not for the appealing Emily Blunt who was sort of wasted here. 

The movie told a story, but didn't give me quite enough to care what happened to any of the participants.

I would like to know how he does the final effect, but that's all I was left with.   

(http://www.celebritywonder.com/picture/Emily_Blunt/EmilyBlunt_A__Wyman_13945657.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 22, 2010, 09:46:26 AM
Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day

Maybe I should have watched Boondock Saints  first. 

Almost a pre-req in order to get the best out of II. The first one kicked major ass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on March 22, 2010, 10:50:58 AM
Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day

Maybe I should have watched Boondock Saints  first. 
You should have only watched Boondock Saints.

I started this turd of a movie, and it's one of the very few I just had to turn off after about 30 minutes.

The first was a bit campy and corny, but it worked. It does not work at all in the sequel.

I'm amazed that it was actually written and directed by the same guy and got a theatrical release. It was the Caddy Shack II of its time.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on March 22, 2010, 01:15:53 PM
You should have only watched Boondock Saints.

I started this turd of a movie, and it's one of the very few I just had to turn off after about 30 minutes.

The first was a bit campy and corny, but it worked. It does not work at all in the sequel.

I'm amazed that it was actually written and directed by the same guy and got a theatrical release. It was the Caddy Shack II of its time.
That hurts.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 22, 2010, 01:31:06 PM
The Blind Side

Bullock deserved the Oscar, Jesse James should be bitched slapped and have his balls stuffed into his mouth for cheating on her.   I think most everyone knows the story of Michael Oher, so no surprises.  Just a great feel good story, I don't know how much of it was "hollywoodized" but in my humble opinion it is a must rent, and unlike the Ugly Truth will probably get you laid.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 22, 2010, 02:41:32 PM
You should have only watched Boondock Saints.

I started this turd of a movie, and it's one of the very few I just had to turn off after about 30 minutes.

The first was a bit campy and corny, but it worked. It does not work at all in the sequel.

I'm amazed that it was actually written and directed by the same guy and got a theatrical release. It was the Caddy Shack II of its time.

I have it in my queue but decided not to watch it after watching II.  I can reconsider.   

I picked this one first mainly because Rita (from Dexter) was in it, but even she was terrible. 

As for The Blind Side?  I'm going to pass on that one for eternity.  I'll never watch it.  I don't find Sandra Bullock all that attractive to begin with and from what I can tell the story is so goozled up to paint that damn Rebel family as saints that I have no interest. 

It's telling to me that the Oher kid hasn't watched it, has stated he has no intention of watching it and is (seemingly) estranged from the Dippy family since the film started production. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 22, 2010, 03:46:08 PM
I don't find Sandra Bullock all that attractive to begin with 

Your taste in women can only be described as bizarre.

(http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/27/2773/1GLTD00Z.jpg)

(http://www.realbollywood.com/news/up_images/11112635.jpg)

(http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/pv/Sandra%20Bullock-19.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 22, 2010, 03:55:56 PM
Your taste in women can only be described as bizarre.

(http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/27/2773/1GLTD00Z.jpg)

(http://www.realbollywood.com/news/up_images/11112635.jpg)

(http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/pv/Sandra%20Bullock-19.jpg)

It just moved.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 22, 2010, 03:57:06 PM
It's telling to me that the Oher kid hasn't watched it, has stated he has no intention of watching it and is (seemingly) estranged from the Dippy family since the film started production. 
You know all this from?

a. Your relationship with Oher
b. Your relationship with the Toohey's
c. Your supreme knowledge of everything?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 22, 2010, 04:14:04 PM
You know all this from?

a. Your relationship with Oher
b. Your relationship with the Toohey's
c. Your supreme knowledge of everything?

None of the above.

From two separate interviews I read. One was in the Baltimore Sun. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 22, 2010, 04:15:19 PM
None of the above.

From two separate interviews I read. One was in the Baltimore Sun. 
I am actually curious do you have a link...I tried to look it up and I couldn't find anything about what you were saying.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 22, 2010, 04:51:43 PM
I am actually curious do you have a link...I tried to look it up and I couldn't find anything about what you were saying.

This isn't it. But it references him not watching it.

http://www.examiner.com/x-31097-Book-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m11d28-Michael-Oher-hasnt-and-wont-read-The-Blind-Side (http://www.examiner.com/x-31097-Book-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m11d28-Michael-Oher-hasnt-and-wont-read-The-Blind-Side)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on March 22, 2010, 05:07:29 PM
I am actually curious do you have a link...I tried to look it up and I couldn't find anything about what you were saying.

perhaps...kaos' phone intercepted a text from "da skreets" to prowler.  you know those phone companies and their towers. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 22, 2010, 05:34:35 PM
This isn't it. But it references him not watching it.

http://www.examiner.com/x-31097-Book-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m11d28-Michael-Oher-hasnt-and-wont-read-The-Blind-Side (http://www.examiner.com/x-31097-Book-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m11d28-Michael-Oher-hasnt-and-wont-read-The-Blind-Side)
I read both that story and the SI story it mentions, I take his not wanting to see the movie or read the book as the following:

a. he mentions that he does not want to revisit that time in his life.
b. he also is very widely reported to be an genuinely shy person, he is not interested in promoting himself, he just wants to be a star in the NFL.

Still was a good movie, I have read some of the other real life comparisons, most say that the true story's premise was not that far off from the real thing. Like I said before I am sure it was "hollywoodized".
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Pell City Tiger on March 22, 2010, 05:42:48 PM
I heard he hated Tim McGraw and wanted Vanilla Ice to play Mr Toohey.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 23, 2010, 07:36:36 AM
I heard he hated Tim McGraw and wanted Vanilla Ice to play Mr Toohey.

That's true but only because he wanted to watch Sandra while she gets railed.  She love's chocolate town.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 23, 2010, 10:38:17 AM
Sandra used to look good, but her face was so chopped up looking in The Proposal she just turned me off.  Best I could say is that she's moderately attractive now.

On to other...

Gone Baby Gone

Couple of things.  Ben Affleck is a better director than he is an actor.  His brother is a better actor than he is, but that's not saying much.  A cigar store Indian is better than Ben.

Ben's not good at naming films, though, because this film might have done better had he dropped the name of the novel that provided the story and changed it to something that would resonate.  I didn't watch it at first because I figured it was a sequel to Gone in 60 seconds or one of those damn doofy ass racing movies with Sisquo.  

(For reference, the film earned about $20M.  It fared better than the insipid Walk Hard, but didn't score as well as The Last Mimzy, Mr. Woodcock, an IMAX movie about sea monsters or 107 other films released that year).

The story was good. Didn't have it completely figured out until the very end.  In fact, I thought it was over twice before it got to the end.  

Baby Affleck just didn't cut it for me.  Everybody else in the film -- including the uptight cop from Beverly Hills Cop -- was suited to the role.  Shrimpy Affleck was a fail.  This would have been so much better with Sean Penn, Mark Walhberg, James McAvoy or somebody else in the lead role.  

Not a great film, very depressing and the motives/motivations of Affleck's character just don't make sense but it kept you involved.  

Michelle Monaghan looked good despite a complete lack of displayed skin.  Her character didn't have a lot to do, but she did it well.  

Amy Ryan (Holly from The Office) was excellent as a crack whore. I think she might have even gotten an Oscar nomination for her role.

It was a good directing debut for the bigger Affleck.  Gives me hope that he'll actually contribute something to society.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 23, 2010, 10:41:40 AM
I read both that story and the SI story it mentions, I take his not wanting to see the movie or read the book as the following:

a. he mentions that he does not want to revisit that time in his life.
b. he also is very widely reported to be an genuinely shy person, he is not interested in promoting himself, he just wants to be a star in the NFL.

Still was a good movie, I have read some of the other real life comparisons, most say that the true story's premise was not that far off from the real thing. Like I said before I am sure it was "hollywoodized".

At least one of the things I read was in the Baltimore Sun.  I might have read it online or during a layover in the airport there.  From that I got the sense that he wasn't down with the attention the Dippys got and wasn't happy with being portrayed as little more than a pile of clay that they lovingly sculpted (all my words). 

It's entirely possible that I read into it more than there was.  It's also entirely possible that he doesn't plan to read the book because he went to Ole Miss and can't read. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on March 23, 2010, 11:51:22 AM
 It's also entirely possible that he doesn't plan to read the book because he went to Ole Miss and can't read.  

Yeah, but he can sure bang the shit out of them white bitches.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 24, 2010, 12:53:39 PM
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

A sweet piece of fluffy nothing, this meandering film follows the exploits of a pack of NY/NJ high schoolers who apparently have no parents and roam the streets of the city until the sun comes up. 

Nothing new, nothing ground breaking, just Michael Cera bumbling through another relationship. 

Andy Samberg (sp) and Seth Myers of SNL are wasted in lame cameos.

This is the second movie I've seen in the past couple of months where Kat Dennings breaks some guy in.  The other was Charlie Bartlett (another nerdy doof getting the benefit of Kat's enormosity).

None of the nerdy doofs I knew ever got broken in by a busty, lusty tigress like Kat.  She's not what you'd call classically beautiful, she's not svelte and minx-like.  But I really, really like her. She reminds me a bit of the quirky Joan Cusack (who was always attractive to me, too) but with a much bigger rack and better acting skills.

The movie was decent, a little predictable in places. It was no Fast Times or Breakfast Club, but it passes for what I guess is the current genre of teen movies.  It allowed Cera to do the only thing he's apparently capable of doing on film -- be a lovable little nerd. 



(http://www.bscreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/kat-Dennings.jpg)

(http://benaxelrad.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/kat-crack_a-lack.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: hookemhorns1981 on March 24, 2010, 01:52:31 PM
 Can u say MOTORBOAT!!!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 24, 2010, 03:21:42 PM
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

A sweet piece of fluffy nothing, this meandering film follows the exploits of a pack of NY/NJ high schoolers who apparently have no parents and roam the streets of the city until the sun comes up. 

Nothing new, nothing ground breaking, just Michael Cera bumbling through another relationship. 

Andy Samberg (sp) and Seth Myers of SNL are wasted in lame cameos.

This is the second movie I've seen in the past couple of months where Kat Dennings breaks some guy in.  The other was Charlie Bartlett (another nerdy doof getting the benefit of Kat's enormosity).

None of the nerdy doofs I knew ever got broken in by a busty, lusty tigress like Kat.  She's not what you'd call classically beautiful, she's not svelte and minx-like.  But I really, really like her. She reminds me a bit of the quirky Joan Cusack (who was always attractive to me, too) but with a much bigger rack and better acting skills.

The movie was decent, a little predictable in places. It was no Fast Times or Breakfast Club, but it passes for what I guess is the current genre of teen movies.  It allowed Cera to do the only thing he's apparently capable of doing on film -- be a lovable little nerd. 



(http://www.bscreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/kat-Dennings.jpg)

(http://benaxelrad.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/kat-crack_a-lack.jpg)
:idhitit: Run away, little canary
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on March 24, 2010, 03:28:44 PM
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

A sweet piece of fluffy nothing, this meandering film follows the exploits of a pack of NY/NJ high schoolers who apparently have no parents and roam the streets of the city until the sun comes up. 

Nothing new, nothing ground breaking, just Michael Cera bumbling through another relationship. 

Andy Samberg (sp) and Seth Myers of SNL are wasted in lame cameos.

This is the second movie I've seen in the past couple of months where Kat Dennings breaks some guy in.  The other was Charlie Bartlett (another nerdy doof getting the benefit of Kat's enormosity).

None of the nerdy doofs I knew ever got broken in by a busty, lusty tigress like Kat.  She's not what you'd call classically beautiful, she's not svelte and minx-like.  But I really, really like her. She reminds me a bit of the quirky Joan Cusack (who was always attractive to me, too) but with a much bigger rack and better acting skills.

The movie was decent, a little predictable in places. It was no Fast Times or Breakfast Club, but it passes for what I guess is the current genre of teen movies.  It allowed Cera to do the only thing he's apparently capable of doing on film -- be a lovable little nerd. 



(http://www.bscreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/kat-Dennings.jpg)

(http://benaxelrad.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/kat-crack_a-lack.jpg)



(http://i582.photobucket.com/albums/ss267/Temptationbucket/3d9f79d2.jpg) (http://s582.photobucket.com/albums/ss267/Temptationbucket/?action=view&current=3d9f79d2.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Eagle!!! on March 24, 2010, 11:31:17 PM
Kaos, have you ever seen and reviewed the movie Snatch? It's one of my all time favorites! I'd be curious to see what you think...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 25, 2010, 01:18:55 PM
Kaos, have you ever seen and reviewed the movie Snatch? It's one of my all time favorites! I'd be curious to see what you think...

Nope.  I got Extract from Netflix today.  I'll add Snatch to the list.  Is it a porno?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 25, 2010, 01:20:45 PM
Nope.  I got Extract from Netflix today.  I'll add Snatch to the list.  Is it a porno?

I've got Extract on the way.  Solid cast and you can't usually go wrong with Mike Judge.

I'll predict that you don't like Snatch.  Mostly because it is awesome and you are the only person that I know who is bound and determined to hate all things awesome.  Great cast, great dialogue, engaging story...all the makings for a Kaos pan.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 25, 2010, 01:25:12 PM
I've got Extract on the way.  Solid cast and you can't usually go wrong with Mike Judge.

I'll predict that you don't like Snatch.  Mostly because it is awesome and you are the only person that I know who is bound and determined to hate all things awesome.  Great cast, great dialogue, engaging story...all the makings for a Kaos pan.

I love all things awesome.  I just have high expectations. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on March 25, 2010, 03:17:29 PM
if we're doing review requests...anyone seen body of lies?  the skirt has it on the dvr for movie night this weekend.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 25, 2010, 03:23:11 PM
if we're doing review requests...anyone seen body of lies?  the skirt has it on the dvr for movie night this weekend.

DiCaprio and Crowe.  

It's on my Netflix list, but I keep moving it further and further down. (and based on the edit below, will remove it entirely).   

Crowe and Gerard Butler need to go back to where ever they came from.  Neither can act.

**Edit**

I have seen this.  I may have actually reviewed it in a separate thread before I started this one.  It wasn't bad. It wasn't great.  It was long. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on March 25, 2010, 03:45:15 PM
I've got Extract on the way.  Solid cast and you can't usually go wrong with Mike Judge.

I'll predict that you don't like Snatch.  Mostly because it is awesome and you are the only person that I know who is bound and determined to hate all things awesome.  Great cast, great dialogue, engaging story...all the makings for a Kaos pan.
I just added Extract to my que, I forgot about that one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Eagle!!! on March 25, 2010, 10:32:52 PM
I don't watch a lot of movies but Snatch I think is in my top 5 favorite. I think it's freaking great and hilarious.

Also, I actually liked Body of Lies. I thought it was a pretty good flick...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 26, 2010, 09:30:25 AM
Extract

Mike Judge is known for skewering social commentary.  Beavis and Butthead helped create an entirely new way of looking at the world (and at comedy).   Office Space is amazing in its ability to capture the pointlessness, frustration and dullness of the corporate world.  King of the Hill -- even though I didn't much care for it -- skillfully carved up mundane suburbia in a less vulgar and disturbing way than the crude Family Guy.

In Extract, though, he moved away from what he does best. There was no social commentary. He didn't shine a light on a particular way of life and expose its banality.  Instead he attempted to tell a relatively tame story of personal discovery and redemption.  

It wasn't his best work, but it wasn't horrible.  It was just a little flat and two-dimensional.  

Jason Bateman was adequate.  Much better in this role than he was in Couple's Retreat.  

Ben Affleck is a significantly better supporting actor than he is a leading man. He was good here although he was essentially channeling Lawrence (Diedrich Bader's role in Office Space).  

JK Simmons (one of my favorite actors since his turn as Schillinger the Nazi in Oz) was essentially wasted in a minor role.

Mila Kunis upped her worth with a good performance even though her role didn't really require her to do much beyond look super hot.  Having seen her in Book of Eli and knowing that she's capable of more, that made her understated performance here even more appreciated. And did I mention she was super hot to look at?

Kristen Wiig, who I don't care for at all on SNL, actually looked pretty hot in this movie.  Sexy even.  That was a pleasant surprise.  

Gene Simmons, well... Gene needs to stick to singing. He was over the top and should have taken a little more time to learn his lines.  For somebody who's in front of thousands on a nightly basis, you'd think he would understand a little better how to play a role.  

Overall not a bad movie.  I just expected a little more depth, particularly since Judge was at the helm.  I expected it to have a little more to say.  

Wiig

(http://themoviebanter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Kristen-Wiig-kristen-wiig-323096_600_674.jpg)

Kunis

(http://enciklopediabg.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/mila-kunis-picture.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 28, 2010, 11:09:21 PM
The Bank Job
Serviceable movie.   Whoever did the direction should have left off the "It was always you, Terry" garbage.  

Jason Statham tried really hard to demonstrate his emotional range.  He should stick to just punching people.  

Lots of odd british references and comments that were a little difficult to follow.  

The story itself was good, however.  "Based on a true story" makes me wonder how much was true.

Wish it had been set in America so I could assess the authenticity of what was supposed to be a 70s backdrop.

Cashback

This is one of those movies I saw the trailer for and thought it might be interesting.  Then I just forgot about it.  As far as I know it never did anything at the box office. Saw it come up again on one of those trailer TV shows and rescued it to my queue.

Guy breaks up with his girlfriend, develops insomnia (for weeks at a time) and as his senses withdraw he discovers he has the ability to freeze time around him.  Whether he's just doing it in his imagination or not, you really can't say.  To pass the boredom of the extra eight hours, he gets a job at a supermarket working the nightshift.  

I wish I knew where this supermarket was because it was filled with remarkably attractive women.  As part of his frozen in time meanderings, the hero removes their clothes.  (See below) He's an art student, so he draws them.  

From there, though, the movie bogs down into a formulaic "boy gets girl, girl misunderstands something she sees, boy tries to get girl back" story.  

Many random British humor and references.

The movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be.  Was it a love story? A comedy? An Office Space style riff on the supermarket industry? A twisted look at a world flash frozen? A story of discovery and redemption?  In trying to be all those things, it ended up really being not enough of any.  

The store manager and the two doobs who work there aren't as funny as meant to be.  The chemistry between the clerk and the insomniac is believable enough and rings true.  The chemistry between Mr. Insomnia and the girlfriend with whom he breaks up is zero.  That throws things off from the start.  

A quirky movie.  You'll know how it's going to work from the first 30 minutes, but it's a decent journey to get there.  Lots of introspection if you're into that.

http://desourcesure.com/uploadv3/cashback_3.jpg(NSFW) (http://desourcesure.com/uploadv3/cashback_3.jpg(NSFW))
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: BZ770 on March 28, 2010, 11:29:21 PM
"Snatch" is freaking awesome.  Girl I worked with dated a dope smoking hippie that I coined him the name Pikey in reverence to that movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 31, 2010, 12:47:55 AM
The Men Who Stare at Goats

Marketing was a real problem for this movie.  The trailers portrayed it as a broad comedy in the O Brother/Raising Arizona style when it really wasn't. 

It suffered from critical rejection when people went expecting to see one thing and got something else entirely. 

I enjoyed the movie.  Clooney is outstanding playing a wacko.  That's his niche, I guess. The rest of the cast was also sharp. 

It would have been easy to cast judgement on the people profiled in the film, but while it told a story that was at least (incredibly) partially true it left judging the validty of the entire enterprise largely to the viewer.  Could Clooney's character really "disperse clouds" with his mind?  Maybe. Maybe not.  The fact that he thought he could and was able to convince a relatively sane acquaintance to accept that he might actually have the capacity is the real story.

If you saw this film in theaters, you didn't get the featurette on the DVD where some of the real participants in the actual First Earth Battalion.  Seeing them and listening to their earnestness, it's easy to see why the film wasn't played strictly for laughs.

First Earth:  http://www.firstearthbattalion.org/ (http://www.firstearthbattalion.org/)

It wasn't the greatest movie I've ever seen and it had a hard time figuring out how seriously to take itself but I found it a lot more enjoyable than the average critic.  Interesting, even. 

No chicks at all in the movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 31, 2010, 02:31:32 PM
K,
What do you think about "The Foot Fist Way" and "Garden State". Both indie and just saw them in the last few days. Curious as to what you thought if you've seen em.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 31, 2010, 03:02:11 PM
K,
What do you think about "The Foot Fist Way" and "Garden State". Both indie and just saw them in the last few days. Curious as to what you thought if you've seen em.

Never seen (or heard of) either. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on March 31, 2010, 03:06:11 PM
Never seen (or heard of) either. 
I own both on DVD.

Garden State is ok, but Foot Fist Way is one of my favorites.

I doubt Kaos would like it.

It's where Danny McBride got his start. Will Ferrell picked it so that it got a wider distribution, and the director Jody Hill went on to direct East Bound & Down, and the movie everyone but me here apparently hated, Observe & Report.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 31, 2010, 03:08:01 PM
I own both on DVD.

Garden State is ok, but Foot Fist Way is one of my favorites.

I doubt Kaos would like it.

It's where Danny McBride got his start. Will Ferrell picked it so that it got a wider distribution, and the director Jody Hill went on to direct East Bound & Down, and the movie everyone but me here apparently hated, Observe & Report.

Yeah, sounds like a bowl full of fail in my estimation.  I can only take McBride in miniscule doses.  He was on the screen too much in Tropic Thunder, for instance. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 31, 2010, 04:14:54 PM
Yeah, sounds like a bowl full of fail in my estimation.  I can only take McBride in miniscule doses.  He was on the screen too much in Tropic Thunder, for instance. 
Mother Nature just pissed her pants suit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on April 01, 2010, 07:22:00 AM
K you should add this one to your list....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113613/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113613/)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 01, 2010, 10:05:38 AM
I own both on DVD.

Garden State is ok, but Foot Fist Way is one of my favorites.

I doubt Kaos would like it.

It's where Danny McBride got his start. Will Ferrell picked it so that it got a wider distribution, and the director Jody Hill went on to direct East Bound & Down, and the movie everyone but me here apparently hated, Observe & Report.

I thought both were pretty good. Maybe its because I wasnt expecting much so they both exceeded what I thought they would be. Two totally different movies - Garden State was like Elizabethtown on drugs - depressing to me for the most part but very good.

Foot Fist was one of those that I dont think everyone will like. It has that Napoleon Dynamite/Dumb and Dumber slapstick quirky humor in it. McBride was hilarious to me. His character was like Rex Kwon Do meets Uncle Rico - dude is seriously delusional. The Chuck "The Truck" Wallace subplot was very funny as well.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on April 01, 2010, 10:43:21 AM
I thought both were pretty good. Maybe its because I wasnt expecting much so they both exceeded what I thought they would be. Two totally different movies - Garden State was like Elizabethtown on drugs - depressing to me for the most part but very good.

Foot Fist was one of those that I dont think everyone will like. It has that Napoleon Dynamite/Dumb and Dumber slapstick quirky humor in it. McBride was hilarious to me. His character was like Rex Kwon Do meets Uncle Rico - dude is seriously delusional. The Chuck "The Truck" Wallace subplot was very funny as well.
Dentistry? I can't even believe that's something that's real.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 01, 2010, 03:32:30 PM
The Informant

I started thinking a bit before I watched this movie.  I'm quick to credit Johnny Depp as the best actor of our time and I think that's probably deserved.  If you compare Donnie Brasco to Captain Jack to John Dillinger you'll see that the guy has some incredible range.  I've noticed that Robert Downey, Jr. (who I think is a good actor) seems to play basically the same guy in every film.  That led me to thinking about Matt Damon who stars here.  He did serious in Bourne.  He did ridiculous in Stuck on You. He did quirky and neurotic in Oceans. He did corrupt in The Departed.  And dammit, he did all of them pretty well. 

So as I watched the movie I was thinking that he could really slide up there into Depp-land in terms of diversity if he was able to pull off the unhinged character at the center of The Informant.  He came close.  He came really close.  In the end, though, you could almost see him holding back just a little, afraid to take that last little step over into crazy where Mark Whitacre probably lived.

The film was decent enough.  I think it could have done a better job of establishing Whitacre's credentials and given a tighter explanation of what was going down.  It left you not really knowing who to believe and wondering if Whitacre was a deranged nutcase or a white knight who was mowed down by an international conglomerate (probably closer to the truth). 

It tried to play it for laughs, but when you remember that this was essentially the guy's true story it's not quite as funny to consider the weight of billions of dollars and mountains of political favors pouring down to crush Whitacre and destroy his family. 

Was he crazy?  Well in my book a guy making $400k a year who's getting millions in untraceable kickbacks has to be just a little unbalanced to get trapped by a Nigerian money scam.  My grandmother wasn't even that unschooled.  He's also got to be just a little goofy to volunteer to slaughter the golden goose for no apparent reason (or at least one that was never satisfactorially explained).  He definitely should have worked out a better deal for himself in advance, that's for sure.  Our (corrupt) DOJ reamed his ass out. 

Interesting movie, but it could have told the story in a much better way and been far more compelling. The direction kept Damon fettered.  It might not have been his fault that he never quite reached the full potential.  Movie was backed by Clooney. The whole time I was watching it I thought how much better he would have been in that role.  When he makes the crazy face, you believe it. 

The BluRay was utterly devoid of additional material.  No extra clips, no documentary on the real Mark, no exposition, no upcoming features, no nothing.  All kinds of boo on that. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 01, 2010, 05:13:28 PM
Dentistry? I can't even believe that's something that's real.

LOL - When he said that at the dinner table, I honestly thought she looked like a dude (Rex Kw 
on Do's Starla).

Then by the end of the movie- ie - when she was riding out on Chuck the Truck - she was ok.

"If you were in prison, you'd be raped because you exude feminine qualities. You're also a big ole fat piece of ass."
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 01, 2010, 05:15:15 PM
The Informant

I started thinking a bit before I watched this movie.  I'm quick to credit Johnny Depp as the best actor of our time and I think that's probably deserved.  If you compare Donnie Brasco to Captain Jack to John Dillinger you'll see that the guy has some incredible range.  I've noticed that Robert Downey, Jr. (who I think is a good actor) seems to play basically the same guy in every film.  That led me to thinking about Matt Damon who stars here.  He did serious in Bourne.  He did ridiculous in Stuck on You. He did quirky and neurotic in Oceans. He did corrupt in The Departed.  And dammit, he did all of them pretty well. 

So as I watched the movie I was thinking that he could really slide up there into Depp-land in terms of diversity if he was able to pull off the unhinged character at the center of The Informant.  He came close.  He came really close.  In the end, though, you could almost see him holding back just a little, afraid to take that last little step over into crazy where Mark Whitacre probably lived.

The film was decent enough.  I think it could have done a better job of establishing Whitacre's credentials and given a tighter explanation of what was going down.  It left you not really knowing who to believe and wondering if Whitacre was a deranged nutcase or a white knight who was mowed down by an international conglomerate (probably closer to the truth). 

It tried to play it for laughs, but when you remember that this was essentially the guy's true story it's not quite as funny to consider the weight of billions of dollars and mountains of political favors pouring down to crush Whitacre and destroy his family. 

Was he crazy?  Well in my book a guy making $400k a year who's getting millions in untraceable kickbacks has to be just a little unbalanced to get trapped by a Nigerian money scam.  My grandmother wasn't even that unschooled.  He's also got to be just a little goofy to volunteer to slaughter the golden goose for no apparent reason (or at least one that was never satisfactorially explained).  He definitely should have worked out a better deal for himself in advance, that's for sure.  Our (corrupt) DOJ reamed his ass out. 

Interesting movie, but it could have told the story in a much better way and been far more compelling. The direction kept Damon fettered.  It might not have been his fault that he never quite reached the full potential.  Movie was backed by Clooney. The whole time I was watching it I thought how much better he would have been in that role.  When he makes the crazy face, you believe it. 

The BluRay was utterly devoid of additional material.  No extra clips, no documentary on the real Mark, no exposition, no upcoming features, no nothing.  All kinds of boo on that. 

Agree on Depp - dude is seriously talented.

Downey as well.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wreckingball on April 12, 2010, 02:27:09 PM
The Blind Side

Bullock deserved the Oscar, Jesse James should be bitched slapped and have his balls stuffed into his mouth for cheating on her.   I think most everyone knows the story of Michael Oher, so no surprises.  Just a great feel good story, I don't know how much of it was "hollywoodized" but in my humble opinion it is a must rent, and unlike the Ugly Truth will probably get you laid.

Seriously??? I was forced to watch that piece of shit move last night and I'm going to have to disagree with you. Every Oher line in the movie is a cliche quote and the little kid in the movie is fucking annoying. I would have to say that Kaos is making a smart move by avoiding this one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on April 13, 2010, 11:46:20 PM
Seriously??? I was forced to watch that piece of shit move last night and I'm going to have to disagree with you. Every Oher line in the movie is a cliche quote and the little kid in the movie is fucking annoying. I would have to say that Kaos is making a smart move by avoiding this one.

Agreed.  Awful movie.  It had a terrible script.  That was the main problem.  The writers and director introduced a super sad story and then let it play itself out. 

Also, it was 100% unbelievable.  I get it.  They helped the kid out.  But the movie portrayed Leanne Tuohy as super-badass woman who wouldn't take shit from anybody. 

You tell me if this is realistic: super hot blond woman wearing a skirt that wraps perfectly around her ass goes into the projects alone and talks shit to the hardest looking guys there AND lives without getting fondled or raped. 

Or how about this: goofball coach in the opening game of the season answers his cell phone in the middle of the game and listens to Leanne Tuohy give advice on what plays to call. 

Or:  a seven year old teaches a gigantic black kid who can't read the details of playing offensive football using spice cans and salt shakers. 

Or:  The Tuohy's encouraged Oher to go to Tennessee because they wanted the best opportunity for him. 

None of that shit happened and it was laughable that the movie even tried. 

On another note, I saw Up in the Air tonight.  Not bad.  Kind of boring and had a lackluster ending.  I don't know why, but I'd absolutely destroy the girl playing Natalie.  I noticed her in the first Twilight movie.  Something about her that's just flat out cute.

(http://twilightmovies.org/ruth/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/jessica-stanley-anna-kendrick.jpg)

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 14, 2010, 09:35:39 AM
Agreed.  Awful movie.  It had a terrible script.  That was the main problem.  The writers and director introduced a super sad story and then let it play itself out. 

Also, it was 100% unbelievable.  I get it.  They helped the kid out.  But the movie portrayed Leanne Tuohy as super-badass woman who wouldn't take poop from anybody. 

You tell me if this is realistic: super hot blond woman wearing a skirt that wraps perfectly around her ass goes into the projects alone and talks poop to the hardest looking guys there AND lives without getting fondled or raped. 

Or how about this: goofball coach in the opening game of the season answers his cell phone in the middle of the game and listens to Leanne Tuohy give advice on what plays to call. 

Or:  a seven year old teaches a gigantic black kid who can't read the details of playing offensive football using spice cans and salt shakers. 

Or:  The Tuohy's encouraged Oher to go to Tennessee because they wanted the best opportunity for him. 

None of that poop happened and it was laughable that the movie even tried. 

On another note, I saw Up in the Air tonight.  Not bad.  Kind of boring and had a lackluster ending.  I don't know why, but I'd absolutely destroy the girl playing Natalie.  I noticed her in the first Twilight movie.  Something about her that's just flat out cute.

(http://twilightmovies.org/ruth/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/jessica-stanley-anna-kendrick.jpg)



This wasnt the true story. It was a Hollywood movie BASED on the true story. If every movie based on the true story went totally by what actually happened 100%, most would be boring. There do have to be certain liberties taken in the movies by the hollywood folks. Very few can tell the real story line by line and still make for a good movie - the opening scene to Saving Pvt Ryan comes to mind.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on April 14, 2010, 11:44:10 AM
Saw The Promotion last night.

It's that type of really dry, dark comedy that I love, and apparently no one else here appreciates.

If you hated Observe & Report or Foot Fist Way, chances are you'll hate this too.

I loved it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on April 14, 2010, 12:12:20 PM
Saw The Promotion last night.

It's that type of really dry, dark comedy that I love, and apparently no one else here appreciates.

If you hated Observe & Report or Foot Fist Way, chances are you'll hate this too.

I loved it.

I enjoyed both.  Observe & Report was a damn good movie. I'll check into the promotion.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on April 14, 2010, 01:08:16 PM
I enjoyed both.  Observe & Report was a damn good movie. I'll check into the promotion.
Where were you for all of Page 19 of this thread? I needed some backup.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on April 14, 2010, 01:23:59 PM
Where were you for all of Page 19 of this thread? I needed some backup.

Sorry.  Didn't open the thread for a few weeks.  I'm shocked that more people didn't like the movie.  It was MUCH funnier than Paul Blart, which was completely lame IMO.  The psych interview is one of the best scenes I've seen in a movie in quite a while.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 14, 2010, 03:13:05 PM
Where were you for all of Page 19 of this thread? I needed some backup.
Waaaaaaaah.....so nobody liked one movie that you liked.  Well you got the bammer to rely on, so you got that going for ya.  You don't see me telling everybody to FUCK OFF for trashing the fact that I liked a feel good movie The Blindside or fuck all of you supposed movie critics and your theatrical blah blah and realism pish posh...sometimes a movie is just a movie and I don't want to have to think about it.

I like movies with boobies. Sigh...I miss Sweets.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on April 14, 2010, 03:27:26 PM
Waaaaaaaah.....so nobody liked one movie that you liked.  Well you got the bammer to rely on, so you got that going for ya.  You don't see me telling everybody to phuk OFF for trashing the fact that I liked a feel good movie The Blindside or phuk all of you supposed movie critics and your theatrical blah blah and realism pish posh...sometimes a movie is just a movie and I don't want to have to think about it.

I like movies with boobies. Sigh...I miss Sweets.

And just what the fuck is wrong with having me in agreement? 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on April 14, 2010, 03:31:03 PM
Waaaaaaaah.....so nobody liked one movie that you liked.  Well you got the bammer to rely on, so you got that going for ya.  You don't see me telling everybody to FUCK OFF for trashing the fact that I liked a feel good movie The Blindside or fuck all of you supposed movie critics and your theatrical blah blah and realism pish posh...sometimes a movie is just a movie and I don't want to have to think about it.

I like movies with boobies. Sigh...I miss Sweets.
You don't see me telling anyone to fuck off either.

I was told earlier that I was the only person in the world that enjoyed this movie.

I knew it couldn't be true.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 14, 2010, 03:31:50 PM
You don't see me telling anyone to fuck off either.

I was told earlier that I was the only person in the world that enjoyed this movie.

I knew it couldn't be true.
Exactly a bammer
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 14, 2010, 03:35:20 PM
You don't see me telling anyone to fuck off either.
Shit I forgot the seal

(http://www.arjanwrites.com/arjanwrites/images/2007/09/22/arjanwrites_seal2.jpg)

no not that one.



this one:
 :sarcasm:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on April 18, 2010, 03:06:19 AM
What do you think about "The Foot Fist Way" and "Garden State". Both indie and just saw them in the last few days.
I liked Garden State.  It was funnier than I thought it was going to be.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on April 18, 2010, 03:12:27 AM
Agreed.  If it's still in a theater near you, it's even worth the price of admission.

It is one of my Top Movies for 2010.
The Crazies
Feb 26th
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy8ceorXhmA&NR=1# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy8ceorXhmA&NR=1#)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 18, 2010, 03:14:33 AM
The Final Cut

I don't know how I missed this movie when it came out.  Robin Williams plays a "cutter", basically somebody who removes a microchip from people's heads after they die and distills their entire lives into a short sentimental film played at their funeral.  GODAWFUL movie.  One of the worst I've ever seen.  It's got Mia Sorvino but she never takes off anything but a sweater.  

The concept here had some promise.  But Williams is so horrible in his role it just has zero chance of working. He's supposedly the best in the world at what he does, but when they show a "re-memory" he supposedly did it's so fucking stupid and inane I can't imagine any human being sitting through it.

There are a hundred opportunities for the movie to have some semblance of meaning -- the implication that his high profile client abused his daughter, the potential for espionage if everything a person says or sees is recorded, the possibility that people could be killed for their memories, the distasteful task of "cleaning up" a person's secret life, etc.. -- but those are all largely wasted in a horrifically bad performance by Williams, a laughable effort by Jim Caviezel's fake beard, a stupid ass back story about some childhood memory in William's past, the ridiculous pairing of Williams and Sorvino (who have less chemistry than Wilford Brimley and Richard Simmons would), an ignorant death scene and an utterly absurd side story about tattooed "anti-memory" clans.  

GODAWFUL.  Horrible movie. Utter shit.  

Where the Wild Things Are

I would have preferred Spike Jonze simply film himself taking Maurice Sendak's book, ripping each page out and wiping his ass with it for two hours over this overstuffed, angst-ridden, bloated piece of crap that defiled a book I had a great affinity for as a child.  

This movie took the simple meaning of Sendak's book, buried it in an avalanche of psycho-pop babble and then took a masssive shit on it.  

The movie certainly wasn't for kids because it provides ABSOLUTELY no lesson or opportunity to grow. On top of that, the story is so slathered in morose adult moping (and he drops a few damn's and hell's in there to prove just how adult Spike really is) that no child would be willing to sit through the dreck.  It was BORING.

Was it for adults?  Nope.  Boring again.  

There was no meaning to the mayhem.  At least out of Sendak's book I drew some meaning.   In dealing with the monsters (all of which were essentially inside him), Max discovered a way to cope. He learned that being "king" really isn't all that great.  

Maybe the movie attempted to convey that same sentiment, but it failed in a spectacular manner to do so.

I loved the book and was really looking forward to this movie.  When I saw the initial returns (and watched a preview I considered to be shockingly badly done) I waited for the DVD.  I wish now I'd skipped even that.  

Piss poor effort.  I don't think Jonze (why doesn't the bastard spell his name right) understood what the book was actually about.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on April 18, 2010, 07:41:59 PM
Where the Wild Things Are

I would have preferred Spike Jonze simply film himself taking Maurice Sendak's book, ripping each page out and wiping his ass with it for two hours over this overstuffed, angst-ridden, bloated piece of crap that defiled a book I had a great affinity for as a child.  

This movie took the simple meaning of Sendak's book, buried it in an avalanche of psycho-pop babble and then took a masssive shit on it.  

The movie certainly wasn't for kids because it provides ABSOLUTELY no lesson or opportunity to grow. On top of that, the story is so slathered in morose adult moping (and he drops a few damn's and hell's in there to prove just how adult Spike really is) that no child would be willing to sit through the dreck.  It was BORING.

Was it for adults?  Nope.  Boring again.  

There was no meaning to the mayhem.  At least out of Sendak's book I drew some meaning.   In dealing with the monsters (all of which were essentially inside him), Max discovered a way to cope. He learned that being "king" really isn't all that great.  

Maybe the movie attempted to convey that same sentiment, but it failed in a spectacular manner to do so.

I loved the book and was really looking forward to this movie.  When I saw the initial returns (and watched a preview I considered to be shockingly badly done) I waited for the DVD.  I wish now I'd skipped even that.  

Piss poor effort.  I don't think Jonze (why doesn't the bastard spell his name right) understood what the book was actually about.  

To each his own.  I enjoyed this adaptation.  Watched a short on the making of and Sendak had nothing but praise for Jonez and the final product.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 18, 2010, 07:57:54 PM
To each his own.  I enjoyed this adaptation.  Watched a short on the making of and Sendak had nothing but praise for Jonez and the final product.

He's old and drinks a lot apparently.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on April 18, 2010, 08:05:48 PM
He's old and drinks a lot apparently.

Clearly. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 18, 2010, 10:14:27 PM
So explain it to me.  I'd really like to know what I missed. Here are the objections.

The book had meaning on two levels. For kids it was a silly fantasy about a boy who becomes king of the monsters before finally realizing that home was where he needed to be. Although the monsters were at first scary they became fun. Colorful, wild, free. All the things the boy thought he wanted to be. 

 For adults the book explored the efforts of a child to grapple with all the new and scary emotins bubbling in the boys mind. Each monster represented an emotion or urge that needed to be controlled. In doing so the boy learned not to fear what was inside but  conquer it. By conquering the beasts as we all must Max discovers he can exist in civilization even if the beasts still howl.

My opinion: the movie failed to express that.

By making the monsters drab and dingy it missed the mark if it intended to draw a child's attention. Where was the color?

By making the monsters kvetching pseudo hippies who wrestled with complex adult themes beyond the realm of the average seven year old, the film failed to sufficently illustrate that each represented a part of Max. What part of Max was a jealous Jewish shrew supposed to reflect?

Where was the realization that mayhem for mayhem's sake grows tiresome?

The decision to return home was devoid of reason and logic. There was no moment of clarity or discernablr impetus other than the need to keep the film under three hours.

I guess my biggest question is where was the fun?  The book was alive and vibrant. The book was fun. This movie was not fun. It was not alive. It was not vibrant.  It just didn't ring true.

I'd like to know what you saw differently. I will try again if you make a valid argument. I hated Pulp Fiction the first time. It's a favorite now. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on April 18, 2010, 11:54:18 PM
Extract

Mike Judge is known for skewering social commentary.  Beavis and Butthead helped create an entirely new way of looking at the world (and at comedy).   Office Space is amazing in its ability to capture the pointlessness, frustration and dullness of the corporate world.  King of the Hill -- even though I didn't much care for it -- skillfully carved up mundane suburbia in a less vulgar and disturbing way than the crude Family Guy.

In Extract, though, he moved away from what he does best. There was no social commentary. He didn't shine a light on a particular way of life and expose its banality.  Instead he attempted to tell a relatively tame story of personal discovery and redemption.  

It wasn't his best work, but it wasn't horrible.  It was just a little flat and two-dimensional.  

Jason Bateman was adequate.  Much better in this role than he was in Couple's Retreat.  

Ben Affleck is a significantly better supporting actor than he is a leading man. He was good here although he was essentially channeling Lawrence (Diedrich Bader's role in Office Space).  

JK Simmons (one of my favorite actors since his turn as Schillinger the Nazi in Oz) was essentially wasted in a minor role.

Mila Kunis upped her worth with a good performance even though her role didn't really require her to do much beyond look super hot.  Having seen her in Book of Eli and knowing that she's capable of more, that made her understated performance here even more appreciated. And did I mention she was super hot to look at?

Kristen Wiig, who I don't care for at all on SNL, actually looked pretty hot in this movie.  Sexy even.  That was a pleasant surprise.  

Gene Simmons, well... Gene needs to stick to singing. He was over the top and should have taken a little more time to learn his lines.  For somebody who's in front of thousands on a nightly basis, you'd think he would understand a little better how to play a role.  

Overall not a bad movie.  I just expected a little more depth, particularly since Judge was at the helm.  I expected it to have a little more to say.  

Wiig

(http://themoviebanter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Kristen-Wiig-kristen-wiig-323096_600_674.jpg)

Kunis

(http://enciklopediabg.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/mila-kunis-picture.jpg)
I just watched this tonight. I thought I remembered your review more scathing, so I was going to disagree.

I liked it a lot. You forgot Idiocracy, which was Judge's biggest departure (although I liked it a lot as well). I recommend this movie for sure.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on April 19, 2010, 10:48:35 AM
So explain it to me.  I'd really like to know what I missed. Here are the objections.

The book had meaning on two levels. For kids it was a silly fantasy about a boy who becomes king of the monsters before finally realizing that home was where he needed to be. Although the monsters were at first scary they became fun. Colorful, wild, free. All the things the boy thought he wanted to be. 

 For adults the book explored the efforts of a child to grapple with all the new and scary emotins bubbling in the boys mind. Each monster represented an emotion or urge that needed to be controlled. In doing so the boy learned not to fear what was inside but  conquer it. By conquering the beasts as we all must Max discovers he can exist in civilization even if the beasts still howl.

My opinion: the movie failed to express that.

By making the monsters drab and dingy it missed the mark if it intended to draw a child's attention. Where was the color?

By making the monsters kvetching pseudo hippies who wrestled with complex adult themes beyond the realm of the average seven year old, the film failed to sufficently illustrate that each represented a part of Max. What part of Max was a jealous Jewish shrew supposed to reflect?

Where was the realization that mayhem for mayhem's sake grows tiresome?

The decision to return home was devoid of reason and logic. There was no moment of clarity or discernablr impetus other than the need to keep the film under three hours.

I guess my biggest question is where was the fun?  The book was alive and vibrant. The book was fun. This movie was not fun. It was not alive. It was not vibrant.  It just didn't ring true.

I'd like to know what you saw differently. I will try again if you make a valid argument. I hated Pulp Fiction the first time. It's a favorite now. 

I'm not going to try and convince you to like the movie.  Either you do or you don't...for entirely personal reasons.  I was merely noting that, despite your railing about its failure to grasp the story/meaning, the book's author was very pleased with both director and movie.  Presumably that means that Sendak doesn't think Jonez "didn't get it" or missed the themes.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 19, 2010, 01:01:21 PM
I'm not going to try and convince you to like the movie.  Either you do or you don't...for entirely personal reasons.  I was merely noting that, despite your railing about its failure to grasp the story/meaning, the book's author was very pleased with both director and movie.  Presumably that means that Sendak doesn't think Jonez "didn't get it" or missed the themes.

So we're back to the fact that he's old and apparently intoxicated or sedated. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on April 19, 2010, 01:03:17 PM
So we're back to the fact that he's old and apparently intoxicated or sedated. 

Clearly.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on April 26, 2010, 12:48:47 PM
Extract

Mike Judge is known for skewering social commentary.  Beavis and Butthead helped create an entirely new way of looking at the world (and at comedy).   Office Space is amazing in its ability to capture the pointlessness, frustration and dullness of the corporate world.  King of the Hill -- even though I didn't much care for it -- skillfully carved up mundane suburbia in a less vulgar and disturbing way than the crude Family Guy.

In Extract, though, he moved away from what he does best. There was no social commentary. He didn't shine a light on a particular way of life and expose its banality.  Instead he attempted to tell a relatively tame story of personal discovery and redemption.  

It wasn't his best work, but it wasn't horrible.  It was just a little flat and two-dimensional.  

Jason Bateman was adequate.  Much better in this role than he was in Couple's Retreat.  

Ben Affleck is a significantly better supporting actor than he is a leading man. He was good here although he was essentially channeling Lawrence (Diedrich Bader's role in Office Space).  

JK Simmons (one of my favorite actors since his turn as Schillinger the Nazi in Oz) was essentially wasted in a minor role.

Mila Kunis upped her worth with a good performance even though her role didn't really require her to do much beyond look super hot.  Having seen her in Book of Eli and knowing that she's capable of more, that made her understated performance here even more appreciated. And did I mention she was super hot to look at?

Kristen Wiig, who I don't care for at all on SNL, actually looked pretty hot in this movie.  Sexy even.  That was a pleasant surprise.  

Gene Simmons, well... Gene needs to stick to singing. He was over the top and should have taken a little more time to learn his lines.  For somebody who's in front of thousands on a nightly basis, you'd think he would understand a little better how to play a role.  

Overall not a bad movie.  I just expected a little more depth, particularly since Judge was at the helm.  I expected it to have a little more to say.  

Wiig

(http://themoviebanter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Kristen-Wiig-kristen-wiig-323096_600_674.jpg)

Kunis

(http://enciklopediabg.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/mila-kunis-picture.jpg)

Watched this over the weekend.  I have to agree with this review in its entirety.  Decent flick, but I expect more of Judge.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on April 27, 2010, 10:09:43 PM
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Holy hell, how did I go through 25 years of life without seeing this movie?  I always thought those old Clint Eastwood Westerns were just another generation of John Wayne movies. 

Complete in almost every way possible except for the lack of naked chicks, but I think that would have detracted from the story a bit. 

I now have Fistful of Dollars and Once Upon a Time in the West in queue on Netflix.  Can't wait.

Also, Ecstasy of Gold is one of the most epic movie songs of all time. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOKhQ8ObQ7E# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOKhQ8ObQ7E#)

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on April 28, 2010, 12:24:44 AM
Watched Harry Brown today.

Basically the British version of Gran Torino. Good shit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on April 28, 2010, 06:58:41 AM
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Holy hell, how did I go through 25 years of life without seeing this movie?  I always thought those old Clint Eastwood Westerns were just another generation of John Wayne movies. 

Complete in almost every way possible except for the lack of naked chicks, but I think that would have detracted from the story a bit. 

I now have Fistful of Dollars and Once Upon a Time in the West in queue on Netflix.  Can't wait.

Also, Ecstasy of Gold is one of the most epic movie songs of all time. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOKhQ8ObQ7E# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOKhQ8ObQ7E#)



Have you watched "The Outlaw Josey Wales?"
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on April 28, 2010, 09:14:29 AM
The lovely bones is quite possibly the worst movie that I have ever seen in my life.  I'm not sure how I managed to watch the entire movie, but it was a complete failure. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 28, 2010, 09:15:11 AM
Have you watched "The Outlaw Josey Wales?"

One of my all time favorites. 

Worms gotta eat, too.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 28, 2010, 09:30:53 AM
Puss in Boots

So it's early in the morning and nothing's on.  Well, except for perhaps the hottest assortment of news and traffic morning reporters in human history on WEAR TV3.  I'm wasting time, looking for something to make background noise while I check emails and arrange a couple of meetings for next week.  And what do I find?

Puss in Boots.  Starring Christopher Walken as Puss.  That was, in itself, enough to cause me to stop and give it a try. 

Walken was absolutely ridiculous playing the titular cat with a slight sashay, some tortured singing and a few earnestly muddled lines about taking care of Master. 

But it was obvious that he was having a ball just being silly.  It was almost like what a dad does when he goes overboard telling his kid a bedtime story. 

Oh, the movie is dreadful.  The interjection of abysmal singing portions adds a further layer of absurdity. Haven't looked, but I guess nobody in the movie can or has ever acted in anything else again except Walken -- they were that bad.  Or at least they shouldn't have been in anything else.  But Walken?  You could believe he was a cat. 

There's one scene in the film that I found interesting.  When the miller's son is "rescued" by the king and brought to the castle they have a dance.  Of course he knows no dances so he reverts back to some corny moves he knew as a kid.  And everybody in the room follows suit and learns it.  I've seen that before (and done better) in A Knight's Tale with Heath Ledger. Since Puss came out three years prior to Knight's Tale, perhaps that scene was lifted from this film?

The movie was 96 minutes long.  No way in hell I could sit through the entire thing.  So I filpped between WEAR TV news (see below) and Puss.  I'd watch Walken gleefully skip through a scene and then go back to the news.   I'd never suggest that anyone buy or rent this film, but if you see it pop up on the menu, watch a couple of minutes of Walken's kitty.


WEAR TV NEWS

Pictures do no justice here...

(http://www.newsradio1620.com/Images/jamiee.jpg) (http://www.weartv.com/sections/station/news_team/talent/images/ecnagy.jpg)(http://www.weartv.com/sections/station/news_team/talent/images/hgilchrist.jpg)(http://www.weartv.com/sections/station/news_team/talent/images/bsison.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 28, 2010, 09:35:20 AM
Puss in Boots

So it's early in the morning and nothing's on.  Well, except for perhaps the hottest assortment of news and traffic morning reporters in human history on WEAR TV3.  I'm wasting time, looking for something to make background noise while I check emails and arrange a couple of meetings for next week.  And what do I find?

Puss in Boots.  Starring Christopher Walken as Puss.  That was, in itself, enough to cause me to stop and give it a try. 

Walken was absolutely ridiculous playing the titular cat with a slight sashay, some tortured singing and a few earnestly muddled lines about taking care of Master. 

But it was obvious that he was having a ball just being silly.  It was almost like what a dad does when he goes overboard telling his kid a bedtime story. 

Oh, the movie is dreadful.  The interjection of abysmal singing portions adds a further layer of absurdity. Haven't looked, but I guess nobody in the movie can or has ever acted in anything else again except Walken -- they were that bad.  Or at least they shouldn't have been in anything else.  But Walken?  You could believe he was a cat. 

There's one scene in the film that I found interesting.  When the miller's son is "rescued" by the king and brought to the castle they have a dance.  Of course he knows no dances so he reverts back to some corny moves he knew as a kid.  And everybody in the room follows suit and learns it.  I've seen that before (and done better) in A Knight's Tale with Heath Ledger. Since Puss came out three years prior to Knight's Tale, perhaps that scene was lifted from this film?

The movie was 96 minutes long.  No way in hell I could sit through the entire thing.  So I filpped between WEAR TV news (see below) and Puss.  I'd watch Walken gleefully skip through a scene and then go back to the news.   I'd never suggest that anyone buy or rent this film, but if you see it pop up on the menu, watch a couple of minutes of Walken's kitty.


WEAR TV NEWS

Pictures do no justice here...

(http://www.newsradio1620.com/Images/jamiee.jpg) (http://www.weartv.com/sections/station/news_team/talent/images/ecnagy.jpg)(http://www.weartv.com/sections/station/news_team/talent/images/hgilchrist.jpg)(http://www.weartv.com/sections/station/news_team/talent/images/bsison.jpg)

No - the pics are just fine. Id hit it... :vn:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on April 28, 2010, 11:08:43 AM
One of my all time favorites. 

Worms gotta eat, too.

"Whooped'em again didn't we Josie"
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on April 29, 2010, 06:14:04 PM
Have you watched "The Outlaw Josey Wales?"
Not yet.  But it's been recommended by many.  It's going in the queue folder in five minutes.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on November 02, 2010, 06:22:11 PM
Zombieland

Not exactly what I expected, but a fun movie.  It was no Raising Arizona, but it had a few funny moments and didn't take itself seriously at all.  It's not laugh out loud comedy, it's not scare the shit out of you horror, but just a nice easy blend of fear and bemusement. 

No angst over the crazy situation, no underlying social commentary, no deeper hidden meaning.  Just four misfits (well, five for a while) making the best they can out of a really bad situation. 

Yeah there are crazy plot holes.  For instance how come the power is still on everywhere?  And don't they ever run out of gas?  Or bullets?  But that really doesn't matter all that much because it's not really meant to be taken seriously. 

Woody Harrellson dominates the film.  He's good enough that you'd almost like to see him in a serious zombie killing movie, but then you remember he'd have to do pathos and pass on the idea.  No, he fits better here. 

The nerdy, nebbish guy is interchangeable with any of the other hundred or so nerdy nebbish guys who populate thousands of other teen films.  I'm just glad they didn't get the Superbad guy (Cera) in this role because I'm a little tired of him. 

Emma Stone confuses me.  She's either hot or not and I lean to not. 

It's not a movie you'll buy and put on your shelf to treasure for years to come, but on a throwaway afternoon it would be pretty fun. 

Worth watching.

i can't disagree.

watched it last night in efforts to appease my normal tv viewing after the kids are sent to bed.  network tv blows monkey testicles and does nothing to fulfill my entertainment needs.

     
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 09, 2011, 09:18:30 PM
Easy A

Emma Stone is great.  She plays basically the same role in every film, but it's a good role.  She's the very best thing about this movie.  She's good enough that she almost elevates it.  But not quite.  A surprisingly weak supporting cast is an albatross. Beyond that, the movie tries so hard to recreate the charm and allure of the John Hughes teen movies of the 80s that it forgets to be itself.  The movie features some B list and sliding stars including Phoebe from Friends, Lowell from Wings and a completely wasted Dr. Loomis from the Halloween reboot.  Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson steal the act of the Valley Girl's parents but add a drop of the parents from Pretty in Pink. 

Emma Stone is great.  Unfortunately she was surrounded by fading Disney/Nick stars who couldn't carry her weight.  Ally of Ally and AJ fame and Amanda Bynes of the Amanda Show fill major roles.  Both looked puffy faced and waxy.  Neither could act.  The film did give the underappreciated Lalaine, who once played Lizzie McGuire's best friend, a brief moment of screen time.   The male leads were dreadful. The woodchuck channeled Mark Ruffalo on prozac and had zero magnetism and less chemistry with Emma.

As with so many films, a good premise bogged down by poor acting and an undernourished plot.

Not a bad beginning as the primary lead, but Emma is capable of more.  Interested to see her take on Mary Jane in the upcoming Spiderman reboot.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on February 09, 2011, 09:24:14 PM
We rented it over the weekend and only made it through about 30 minutes.  Worst.  Movie.  Ever.

This movie made The Other Guys and Dinner For Schmucks look like Academy Award winners.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 09, 2011, 09:37:03 PM
The Town
Good film.  Affleck is a better director than he is an actor.  A little unbelivable in the relationship with the female lead, but it was a movie after all.  Worth watching. 

The Expendables
Ugh. Should have been called The Unwatchables.  It should have been a fun romp through exploding scenery. Instead in Stallone's morose hands it morphed into a bleary overwrought unfunny mess.  Brooding? No thanks. Blow things up.

The Other Guys
Somebody shoot Will Ferrell.  Shoot him now.  Before he makes another dud.  Please.

Predators
Had so much promise.  Could have been so, so great.  But Adrien fucking Brody?  Are you shitting me? When the biggest thing on your body is your fucking nose you have no business trying to play an action lead -- unless your name is Karl Malden.  And Topher Grace?  Whoever was in charge of casting this movie should be dropped on an island full of blood-hungry aliens.  Even with the dreadful casting the movie could have delivered.  The effects were good, the Predators amazing.  And then it got to the end and you went... what?  Just die already. 

The Prince of Persia
Utterly fucking rotten.  Jake's british accent was pathetic.  The plot was stupid. The girl wasn't nearly hot enough to make it work.  Should have gone straight to DVD.  Want to see this move done 100000x better?  Watch The Scorpion King. 

Inception
Expected too much, I suppose.  Was just meh. Wasn't awed in the least.  Closer to yawn than awe.   

Valley Girl
A very underappreciated movie.  The soundtrack is fantastic. Nick Cage turns in one of his two career performances that are tolerable. Julie is, like, totally awesome.  There are no great life lessons to be learned and some of it is formulaic, but Valley Girll remains one of the best of the 80s teen comedy genre.  VG, Fast Times at Ridgement High, The Last American Virgin (another underappreciated movie) and The Breakfast Club should be mandatory viewing.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 09, 2011, 09:39:08 PM
We rented it over the weekend and only made it through about 30 minutes.  Worst.  Movie.  Ever.

This movie made The Other Guys and Dinner For Schmucks look like Academy Award winners.

You clearly don't appreciate Emma. 

I've seen way, way, way worse movies than this one. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 09, 2011, 10:50:35 PM
Quote
The Town
Good film.  Affleck is a better director than he is an actor.  A little unbelivable in the relationship with the female lead, but it was a movie after all.  Worth watching. 

Agree that Affleck is better behind the camera than in front.  I think that the guy from the Hurt Locker should get some credit, though.  He's doing tortured male lead better than anyone else lately.

Quote
The Other Guys
Somebody shoot Will Ferrell.  Shoot him now.  Before he makes another dud.  Please.

I enjoyed this more than I thought I would.  I was burned out on the Ferrell character a while ago, but he is actually...wait for it...restrained in this movie.  Mark Wahlberg is actually the guy reaching for laughs....to great effect.  I thought this movie was underrated.  Not going to win any academy awards, and not the basis for a night of serious movie watching, but a fun time-passer.

Quote

Predators
Had so much promise.  Could have been so, so great.  But Adrien fucking Brody?  Are you shitting me? When the biggest thing on your body is your fucking nose you have no business trying to play an action lead -- unless your name is Karl Malden.  And Topher Grace?  Whoever was in charge of casting this movie should be dropped on an island full of blood-hungry aliens.  Even with the dreadful casting the movie could have delivered.  The effects were good, the Predators amazing.  And then it got to the end and you went... what?  Just die already. 

Agree that Brody is not an action hero.  The supporting cast made it fun for me, though.  Walton Goggins ("Shane" from The Shield, and "Boyd Crowder" from Justified)...that guy is awesome.  It was a mindless popcorn movie...enjoy it for that.

Quote
The Prince of Persia
Utterly fucking rotten.  Jake's british accent was pathetic.  The plot was stupid. The girl wasn't nearly hot enough to make it work.  Should have gone straight to DVD.  Want to see this move done 100000x better?  Watch The Scorpion King. 


Didn't see it...don't know why you would with any expectations.  The video game was lame and I would expect the movie to be as well.

Quote
Inception
Expected too much, I suppose.  Was just meh. Wasn't awed in the least.  Closer to yawn than awe.   

Have to really disagree with you here.  I enjoyed this movie on a superficial level: the acting was top-notch from DiCaprio to Page to Gordon-Leavitt to Caine.  And I also enjoyed it on an intellectual level.

The plot was layered and nuanced.  Nolan has a knack for keeping the audience guessing.  Whether it was Memento, The Dark Knight  or Inception, you can watch the movie for its surface story/meaning, or you can walk away wondering about the untold story for days.  Did Cobb end up in the States, absolved of his alleged crimes, or did he end up succumbing to the allure of the dream state?  Was his totem the spinning top he took from Mol's safe or was his another, that we never got to see?  Fun movie to watch and unpack.


Quote
Valley Girl
A very underappreciated movie.  The soundtrack is fantastic. Nick Cage turns in one of his two career performances that are tolerable. Julie is, like, totally awesome.  There are no great life lessons to be learned and some of it is formulaic, but Valley Girll remains one of the best of the 80s teen comedy genre.  VG, Fast Times at Ridgement High, The Last American Virgin (another underappreciated movie) and The Breakfast Club should be mandatory viewing.

Fuck's sake.  You're going to bag on Inception and then positively review Valley Girl?  Yeah, fun movie, but not in the same zip code as Nolan's movies. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 09, 2011, 11:16:39 PM
Agree that Affleck is better behind the camera than in front.  I think that the guy from the Hurt Locker should get some credit, though.  He's doing tortured male lead better than anyone else lately.

I enjoyed this more than I thought I would.  I was burned out on the Ferrell character a while ago, but he is actually...wait for it...restrained in this movie.  Mark Wahlberg is actually the guy reaching for laughs....to great effect.  I thought this movie was underrated.  Not going to win any academy awards, and not the basis for a night of serious movie watching, but a fun time-passer.

Agree that Brody is not an action hero.  The supporting cast made it fun for me, though.  Walton Goggins ("Shane" from The Shield, and "Boyd Crowder" from Justified)...that guy is awesome.  It was a mindless popcorn movie...enjoy it for that.

Didn't see it...don't know why you would with any expectations.  The video game was lame and I would expect the movie to be as well.

Have to really disagree with you here.  I enjoyed this movie on a superficial level: the acting was top-notch from DiCaprio to Page to Gordon-Leavitt to Caine.  And I also enjoyed it on an intellectual level.

The plot was layered and nuanced.  Nolan has a knack for keeping the audience guessing.  Whether it was Memento, The Dark Knight  or Inception, you can watch the movie for its surface story/meaning, or you can walk away wondering about the untold story for days.  Did Cobb end up in the States, absolved of his alleged crimes, or did he end up succumbing to the allure of the dream state?  Was his totem the spinning top he took from Mol's safe or was his another, that we never got to see?  Fun movie to watch and unpack.


Fuck's sake.  You're going to bag on Inception and then positively review Valley Girl?  Yeah, fun movie, but not in the same zip code as Nolan's movies.

I enjoy Three Musketeers. 

I enjoy prime rib. 

When I get a Three Musketeers (Valley Girl) that's what I expect.  Candy. I value it as such. 

When I order Prime Rib (Inception) I expect a litttle more.  I don't compare it to candy.  It's not the same thing.

Inception was beautifully shot.  The acting was good.  I like the Juno chick.  At the end of the day, though, I just didn't care where he ended up.  Don't care if he was dreaming or awake. Part of the problem I had with it was everybody in the world telling me it was the greatest movie ever, it was so thought provoking, blah, blah, blah.  It didn't do it for me.  Sorry.  Plus, just like with the huge supposed "twist" in Shutter Island, I'd figured out the deal way, way, way before the reveal. 

Same with Repo Men.  Good actors, great story, well shot. And then the "you're shitting me, you really copped out" ending?   Surely they're not going to be Bobby Ewing in the shower obvious.  And then they are.  No.  Booo. 

Oh, as for Prince of Persia, why would I watch it with any expectations?  Four words:  Pirates of the Caribbean.   Shitty Disney ride.  One of the most surprising, enjoyable movies I've ever seen.   I expected half that with Prince, seeing as the concept was basically the same.  Didn't get it.  Just abysmally bad.  It bordered on unwatchable. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 09, 2011, 11:21:20 PM
Salt

Angelina Jolie just doesn't do it for me.  She's a decent enough actress, though, but I grew a little tired of watching her pout and slink before improbably blowing shit up. 

She was a double, double, double agent or just a double, double?  Or maybe a double, double, double, double? 

Movie was almost exactly what you'd expect it to be with a couple of plot twists thrown in. 

As with far too many movies the ending was totally unrealistic. 

Better than The Expendables. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 10, 2011, 12:08:04 AM
Plus, just like with the huge supposed "twist" in Shutter Island, I'd figured out the deal way, way, way before the reveal. 


Tell me the deal and the reveal.  I go back and forth on how that is supposed to end.  Shutter Island as well.  I don't think that one is as cut and dry as you would have me believe.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on February 10, 2011, 01:03:01 AM
Speaking of Boyd Crowder, just finished watching the season premiere.  Looks good, but can't really tell how much of a role Goggins will play in this season.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 10, 2011, 01:15:30 AM
Wall Street II: Rise of the Decpticons

I'm tired of being disappointed.  I expected a lot from this movie.  Not the slow, plodding, meandering story.  I couldn't get attached to any of the characters.  Another morality tale from crackpot Oliver Stone. 

Worst of all was the music.  It was completely out of place from the opening credits. Dreadful musical selections. Fucking TERRIBLE.  Gawd fucking AWFUL. The music alone was an epic disaster.  I hated every second of it.  Every note made my skin crawl. 

LeBouf needs to eat a sandwich.  He weighed like 18 pounds.  The girl was completely unattractive and unsexy and unappealing. Douglas hammed up his part. 

The bike racing scene was stupid. 

I don't know, it just left me wishing it would hurry the fuck up and be over.  That's not the sign of a good movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on February 10, 2011, 09:46:20 AM
Speaking of Boyd Crowder, just finished watching the season premiere.  Looks good, but can't really tell how much of a role Goggins will play in this season.

I haven't watched the premier yet, but Boyd/Shane makes the show what it is. When he first came on the show, I expected more Shane and got a big surprise. They can go a ton of different ways with this show. It'll be interesting to see where they take it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 10, 2011, 09:53:57 AM
Tell me the deal and the reveal.  I go back and forth on how that is supposed to end.  Shutter Island as well.  I don't think that one is as cut and dry as you would have me believe.

I thought shutter island was pretty good. I'll admit it took me by surprise. It was well done. The recent movie that disappointed to me was Devil. Expected this huge twist that never was. Shamylan should have saved Sixth Sense for last. I now expect too much of him I think.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 10, 2011, 10:30:11 AM
Tell me the deal and the reveal.  I go back and forth on how that is supposed to end.  Shutter Island as well.  I don't think that one is as cut and dry as you would have me believe.

Knew he killed them. 

Knew she killed them. 

Didn't care.

Where the thing lost me?  When everybody in the hotel was floating around because the van was floating, but the same rules of gravity didn't apply in the snow.  I was tolerating the damn thing to that point, but then I just quit giving a shit.  That was just one of the instances where they just made shit up so they could do what they want. 

I liked Memento and I liked this movie okay, but neither are iconic must see movies for me.  It's like Nolan thinks he's brilliant but all he's doing is asking a bunch of questions and providing no answers. 

At some point as all the ridiculous dream rules kept getting more and more convoluted I just quit caring.  I didn't care which level of hell they were in or whether they'd ever get out. 

EDIT:

After thinking about it more, I just realized what my real problem with Inception is.  And it's pretty simple. 

I don't want to write my own ending to a movie.   And I don't want to write the beginning or middle either.  If I'm going to do that, I'll just save my money pop some popcorn in the microwave and make up my own movie in my head. 

If you want me to write the ending?  Pay me.  Otherwise, write the damn ending.   Would Citizen Kane have been as good if you were left to guess at the identity of Rosebud?  Would To Kill A Mockingbird have been a classic if you were left to wonder whether Boo Radley existed?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 10, 2011, 10:47:53 AM
Wall Street II: Rise of the Decpticons

I'm tired of being disappointed.  I expected a lot from this movie.  Not the slow, plodding, meandering story.  I couldn't get attached to any of the characters.  Another morality tale from crackpot Oliver Stone. 

Worst of all was the music.  It was completely out of place from the opening credits. Dreadful musical selections. Fucking TERRIBLE.  Gawd fucking AWFUL. The music alone was an epic disaster.  I hated every second of it.  Every note made my skin crawl. 

LeBouf needs to eat a sandwich.  He weighed like 18 pounds.  The girl was completely unattractive and unsexy and unappealing. Douglas hammed up his part. 

The bike racing scene was stupid. 

I don't know, it just left me wishing it would hurry the fuck up and be over.  That's not the sign of a good movie.

You need to go watch Wall Street again...the music was a tribute to that.  In fact most of the same music was played in both movies.  I really liked this movie, they did I damn fine job on what was happening at the time.  But its my industry, maybe thats why I liked it so much.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on February 10, 2011, 10:49:37 AM
You need to go watch Wall Street again...the music was a tribute to that.  In fact most of the same music was played in both movies.  I really liked this movie, they did I damn fine job on what was happening at the time.  But its my industry, maybe thats why I liked it so much.

I didn't realize that it was about whore island?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Eagle!!! on February 10, 2011, 10:59:02 AM
Memento was fucking brilliant...

That is all.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on February 10, 2011, 01:37:18 PM
I didn't realize that it was about whore island?
And Boom goes the Dynamite.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on February 10, 2011, 04:45:51 PM
The King's Speech

Tired of being disappointed?  Go see this.  Quirky.  Historical.  Enjoyable.  Feel good.

I really enjoyed it.

Also, I feel the same way about Inception.  I never cared about his big secret concerning his wife's death.  I didn't care about the characters enough to care about the plot.

And they strayed from the plotline too much.  Wasn't planting the idea in the banker's head the ultimate goal of the movie?  It just kind of happened and then ended.  Then he was saving the Asian dude.  Then he was with his kids and a spinning top was spinning and then skipped a beat and then kept spinning. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 10, 2011, 05:18:51 PM
The King's Speech

Tired of being disappointed?  Go see this.  Quirky.  Historical.  Enjoyable.  Feel good.

I'll wait on the Blu-Ray.  Netflix. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 11, 2011, 01:26:46 AM
Machete

Thirty-nine spicy flavors of awesome.  It is what The Expendables should have been.  Didn't take itself seriously at all, was so bad it was good.

Michelle Rodriguez is impossibly hot.  Impossibly.  Jessica Alba is as well. 

The cast was great. Just great.  Segal, Lohan, Cheech, Don Johnson..... Just fun. 

Not for everybody.  Not Inception.  No thinking needed. 

FWIW, I don't agree with the point of view advocated.  Build the wall. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 12, 2011, 01:20:04 AM
JUST GO WITH IT

Saw the premier tonight.  A few points right off the bat. Take a date, your wife, husband, whatever floats your boat.  Understand from the start that this is a comedy and nothing more.  For those of you anticipating a plot, surprise ending, twists and turns etc....do not read the following lines.  Disclaimer:

There are NO surprises!!! The movie begins and ends EXACTLY the way you expect.  That's not what this movie is about.

It is a comedy with Adam Sandler, Jennifer Aniston, Nicole Kidman, 2 cute, talented kids, HOT ass Brooklyn Decker and funny as hell Eddie Swardson.  As such, these are seasoned vets who get it right in a just above PG comedy.  Bottom line, I....along with a packed house theater, laughed our collective asses off for 2 hours.  This movie is funny as hell.  No classic lines and certainly no threads will be hijacked on the X because of it.  But from 10 minutes in until the ending, absolute comedy gold. 

It's a Sandler produced film with Jennifer Aniston.  Sandler is his usual non-stop one liner self, but Aniston is the best she's ever been opposite Sandler.  You may go to it and hate it...but a packed house in Dothan disagrees with you. Seriously, take your significant other and understand going in, it's a slapstick comedy with a little, totally predictable romance thrown in.  MUCH better than I expected.  I laughed my ass off all the way through. Worth the price of admission.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on February 12, 2011, 06:22:33 AM
I spit on your grave
This remake's worth a look.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 12, 2011, 11:46:13 AM
It is a comedy with Adam Sandler...

Comedy and Adam Sandler are mutually exclusive terms. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on February 12, 2011, 01:21:06 PM
The Town
Good film.  Affleck is a better director than he is an actor.  A little unbelivable in the relationship with the female lead, but it was a movie after all.  Worth watching. 


Inception
Expected too much, I suppose.  Was just meh. Wasn't awed in the least.  Closer to yawn than awe.   



The Town: Enjoyed...pretty good flick.  Agree on Affleck

Inception: Modern high-tech version of Dreamscape.  It lost my interest, and I can't explain why exactly. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on February 12, 2011, 03:33:32 PM
The Social Network

I know it's not historically accurate, but it was certainly interesting.  In fact, it inspired me to be more of an asshole to people I work with.  Assholes always seem to succeed.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on February 12, 2011, 04:28:09 PM
The Social Network

I know it's not historically accurate, but it was certainly interesting.  In fact, it inspired me to be more of an asshole to people I work with.  Assholes always seem to succeed.

I enjoyed it.

Also watched Brooklyn's Finest last night.  Good movie.  I love Don Cheadle, though this isn't his best work.  I recommend it.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 13, 2011, 11:31:11 AM
Red
Not the movie I expected from the trailers.  Well, somewhat the movie I expected but not entirely.  It was what The Expendables aspired to be. 

It hit most of the right notes even if the story was somewhat implausible. I don't know what's happened to John Malkovich's face, but he's still a decent actor and was good here.  It's gotten where you can't tell if he's smiling or shitting himself.  His facial expressions are bizarre.

One thing that annoyed me?  During part of the movie they are in Pensacola and go intercept someone they're looking for at the airport in Mobile.  The only time the city name is mentioned, the stupid whore calls it "mobil"  Like mobile phone.  Idiot skank.  And then as they exit the airport you can hear the announcements over the loudspeaker in the background.  Sounds like Grandpa Jones is doing them.  Horrible fake southern accent.  Wish they'd bothered to get some of that right. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on February 14, 2011, 09:42:00 AM
Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad weekend for movies.

Dinner with Shmucks

Unwatchable.  One of the most embarrassing movies I've ever seen, and I typically like Steve Carrell.  Every attempted joke was a miss.  We didn't even make it to the dinner scenes.

Eat Pray Love

My wife roped me into watching this.  She loves chick flicks, and she loves the idea of being a world traveler who is well versed in different cultures.  But even she instantly recognized how inherently selfish the main character was.

Pretty much, an attractive married woman who lives a successful life in New York City decides that she hasn't "found herself," and that her marriage is preventing her from doing so.  She says she doesn't need a man to help her with identity.  So, she abruptly divorces him and decides to spend a year traveling to 3 different locations in 4 month increments. 

In Italy, she learns to how to eat a lot.
In India, she learns to forgive her husband.
In Bali, she learns that in order to achieve "balance," she must find love.

So in the end, (after breaking the hearts of three men - who all, by the way, love everything about her) she ends up with a man. 

Awful.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 14, 2011, 10:35:37 AM
I'm seriously late to the party on this one, but - just now seeing the Blindside. Caught it Saturday on Netflix. Good movie. Not a blockbuster, but def good.


If it did anything, it made me hate the NCAA even more. Sandra Bullock steals the show....and is uber HAWWWTTTTTTT!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 14, 2011, 11:05:19 AM
I'm seriously late to the party on this one, but - just now seeing the Blindside. Caught it Saturday on Netflix. Good movie. Not a blockbuster, but def good.


If it did anything, it made me hate the NCAA even more. Sandra Bullock steals the show....and is uber HAWWWTTTTTTT!

I thought the opposite.  Hated the movie with every fiber of my being because it was such bullshit.  I guess the fact that Oher started distancing himself from them while they bathed themselves in his glory influenced my perception as well.

I left absolutely LOATHING the Touhey's (or however you spell it) and that sanctimonious Lee Anne twat.  She can SUCK it.   Fuck the whole family and the little retarded boy, too.  Fuck Ole Miss.

Also hated Bullock's performance.   She can go to hell.

Just a shitty movie IMO. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 16, 2011, 11:04:39 AM
Dinner with Schmucks

Oh, lord.  Poor Steve.  He's a decent character, but he can't stray too far from Michael Scott or he flops.

I have come to really hate Paul Rudd.  Every movie he's in is just lame.  No personality.  He really sucked in this one. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on February 16, 2011, 11:23:15 AM
Dinner with Schmucks

Oh, lord.  Poor Steve.  He's a decent character, but he can't stray too far from Michael Scott or he flops.

I have come to really hate Paul Rudd.  Every movie he's in is just lame.  No personality.  He really sucked in this one.

Kissmyanthia
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 16, 2011, 11:51:02 AM
Kissmyanthia

Tell her you love her whispering eye....snicker
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on February 16, 2011, 12:27:43 PM
Tell her you love her whispering eye....snicker

Who the fuck is Marvin Hamlisch
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 16, 2011, 04:45:53 PM
Re-watched Less Than Zero for the first time in a loooong time last night.

Great fucking movie.  Downey the junkie man-whore, Spader the greasy dealer-pimp, Gertz the coke tramp, and McCarthy as the clean-cut college boy.

I like Ellis's novels, but this one and American Psycho worked so much better on screen than in print.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 17, 2011, 12:05:53 AM
Re-watched Less Than Zero for the first time in a loooong time last night.

Great fucking movie.  Downey the junkie man-whore, Spader the greasy dealer-pimp, Gertz the coke tramp, and McCarthy as the clean-cut college boy.

I like Ellis's novels, but this one and American Psycho worked so much better on screen than in print.

American Psycho is a great f'n movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on February 18, 2011, 10:00:41 AM
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Way over the top, but in the end, I enjoyed what I watched.  This movie tries to combine Japanese anime and videogames with a mainstream movie.  It works for the most part especially if you've played videogames your whole life.

A few scenes really pissed me off.  Like when the first battle involved a musical number by the immigrant douchebag. 

Overall - a decent film.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 20, 2011, 11:25:09 AM
Pirahna

Intended to be an homage to the spectacularly gory horror genre of the 70s and 80s (I guess), The Fish Movie poured on the boobs, blood, gore and debauchery.

Ving Rhames, Elisabeth Shue (my favorite babysitter), Doc from Back to the Future and Richard Dreyfuss are among the "stars" slumming it in the flim.

Maybe I've just grown up some since I reveled in Spring Break the Movie and Friday the 13th Part III, but the continual nudity and crudity just wore on me.  Where is this place where all the girls are naked and all the boys are stupid? 

I watched it with a friend and her 17 year old daughter.  I cringed (and so did they both) at several just unnecessary and gratuitous parts.

Jerry O'Connell should be barred from acting ever again unless he gets fat and visits a train track where a dead body hides.

I could never get any sympathy for the lead character although I didn't want his cute sorta girlfriend to be eaten by the fish.

Some really bad special effects marred some of the gorier scenes, too.

It wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I guess I'm just too mature now to fully enjoy the presentation.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 21, 2011, 09:45:15 AM
Legion

Had been warned that this was an awful movie so I ignored it for a long time.   Accidentally came across it in the middle of the night on Starz and it wasn't nearly as bad as I anticipated. 

I'm a little fuzzy on the concept of God sending angels to possess people and also why that would be necessary.  If God wanted to destroy the world I think He would be a little more direct than that.  Also not sure why that particular baby was of such importance. 

The special effects were good.  Using the old lady and a little kid as primary protagonists was good too, particularly the old lady. 

It wasn't nearly as crappy as I'd been led to believe.  Not going to win any awards, but was a decent, if muddled, supernatural tale.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 22, 2011, 12:00:09 PM
Anyone going to see Unknown? Looks good and I like liam neeson.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on February 22, 2011, 01:13:33 PM
Anyone going to see Unknown? Looks good and I like liam neeson.

If it's half as good as Taken, it should kick major ass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on February 22, 2011, 01:43:03 PM
Anyone going to see Unknown? Looks good and I like liam neeson.

What is the new movie with the hot guy from The Hangover and DeNeiro?  Something about take a pill to get unlimited mental intelligence or power or something.  I caught the end of the trailer but did not catch the name...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on February 22, 2011, 01:44:48 PM
What is the new movie with the hot guy from The Hangover and DeNeiro?  Something about take a pill to get unlimited mental intelligence or power or something.  I caught the end of the trailer but did not catch the name...

Limitless
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 22, 2011, 01:52:02 PM
Limitless

Can't take Bradley cooper serious in this kind of movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on February 22, 2011, 02:10:10 PM
Can't take Bradley cooper serious in this kind of movie.

To me, he is an up and comer... way hot without being too pretty, and a good enough actor to maybe pull off some meaty parts.  I hope he gets good reviews for this movie - playing opposite DeNeiro is big time... (insert Ben Stiller/Focker joke here tho...   do NOT know what The Man was thinking...)

But I get what you are saying.  Even if Keanu was a freaking Oscar worthy actor, I can never get past Bill & Ted.  I would never be able to see the goofy dentist guy/Andy from Office as any kind of serious actor.  Ever.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 22, 2011, 02:23:10 PM
To me, he is an up and comer... way hot without being too pretty, and a good enough actor to maybe pull off some meaty parts.  I hope he gets good reviews for this movie - playing opposite DeNeiro is big time... (insert Ben Stiller/Focker joke here tho...   do NOT know what The Man was thinking...)

But I get what you are saying.  Even if Keanu was a freaking Oscar worthy actor, I can never get past Bill & Ted.  I would never be able to see the goofy dentist guy/Andy from Office as any kind of serious actor.  Ever.

I cant get past cooper in wedding crashers. Although Vince Vaughn is hilarious to me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 22, 2011, 02:36:04 PM
I cant get past cooper in wedding crashers. Although Vince Vaughn is hilarious to me.

He was in a really bad horror movie about some dude on a train with a meat cleaver, too.  Can't see past it. 

Plus he looks like my accountant.   He's not high on my list.   He's like Matthew McBongodrums lite.  And McBongo's no Malkovich.  Not what you'd call a great actor, anyway. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 24, 2011, 02:30:24 AM
The American

Should have just named it "The Slow and Shitty" 

What a plodding, boring load of crap.  Brooding piano. Brooding Clooney. Hot Italian prostitute.  Brood. Brood. Brood. Brood.  Never get anywhere.  Never offer even the slightest explanation of who anyone was, what they were doing or what purpose they served. 

Awful. 

If I'd paid to see that in the theaters....

Awful.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on February 24, 2011, 08:24:15 AM
Due date sucked balls. It was much funnier with Steve Martin and John Candy.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on February 24, 2011, 08:27:59 AM
Due date sucked balls. It was much funnier with Steve Martin and John Candy.

Those aren't pillows.

Hate to hear that.  I had high hopes for that movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on February 24, 2011, 09:03:12 AM
Those aren't pillows.

Hate to hear that.  I had high hopes for that movie.

Had they gone another direction with the movie, I maybe could have appreciated it.  After all, it had Downey Jr as the lead actor.  And he had some moments.  Danny McBride had a good scene in the movie.  But it followed "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" from start to finish. 

Business man.  Lonely fat guy just trying to make it.  First meet at airport with a luggage scene.  Then on the airplane.  Then again when the business man is stranded and gets a ride from the fat guy.  Minus the train, it follows lock-step all the way down to the fat guy secretly having the business guys wallet. 

Steve Martin was a better business man.  John Candy was a better slob. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 24, 2011, 09:27:18 AM
Had they gone another direction with the movie, I maybe could have appreciated it.  After all, it had Downey Jr as the lead actor.  And he had some moments.  Danny McBride had a good scene in the movie.  But it followed "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" from start to finish. 

Business man.  Lonely fat guy just trying to make it.  First meet at airport with a luggage scene.  Then on the airplane.  Then again when the business man is stranded and gets a ride from the fat guy.  Minus the train, it follows lock-step all the way down to the fat guy secretly having the business guys wallet. 

Steve Martin was a better business man.  John Candy was a better slob.

I liked it and laughed...but Token is dead nutz, I said the same thing.  Still worth a look though IMHO.

and Kaos I agree on the American 100% ...it didn't know what the fuck it was supposed to be.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on February 24, 2011, 09:36:28 AM
I liked it and laughed...but Token is dead nutz, I said the same thing.  Still worth a look though IMHO.

and Kaos I agree on the American 100% ...it didn't know what the fuck it was supposed to be.

All I know is I watched Avatar a couple of days ago and never got to see any blue boobies.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on February 24, 2011, 11:02:50 AM
The American

Should have just named it "The Slow and Shitty" 

What a plodding, boring load of crap.  Brooding piano. Brooding Clooney. Hot Italian prostitute.  Brood. Brood. Brood. Brood.  Never get anywhere.  Never offer even the slightest explanation of who anyone was, what they were doing or what purpose they served. 

Awful. 

If I'd paid to see that in the theaters....

Awful.

The American isn't really an American movie.  It was directed by a dutchman (the damn dutch!) and consisted of mostly Italian actors.  Clooney - for whatever reason - jumped on board in the production phase and also became the main actor.  Perhaps he's shooting for legit actor status instead of cocky, rat-pack-esque pretty boy. 

Anyway, if this had been a foreign film with subtitles, I would have enjoyed it more.  Essentially the movie was analyzing the last job of an assassin who had spent his entire life devoted to his work.  He realized he wanted to fall in love with a woman, but the only women available to him were prostitutes.  I'm assuming the woman he killed in the beginning was also a prostitute. 

The plot did have too many holes.  In fact, the plot turned into more of a hindrance than anything.  But in terms of a character analysis, it was pretty good in my opinion. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on February 24, 2011, 11:06:18 AM
It was directed by a dutchman (the damn dutch!)

There's only two things I hate in this world.  People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on February 24, 2011, 11:15:48 AM
There's only two things I hate in this world.  People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.

Yeah.

Like people who look down on hookers.


"How 'bout no, you crazy Dutch bastard?"
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 24, 2011, 12:11:24 PM
There's only two things I hate in this world.  People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.
I must shay, you look toit. Toit, like a tiger. I can tell by your toit pantsh.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Homer Samford on March 01, 2011, 08:32:36 PM
Impostor (2002)

Philip K. Dick stories get totally screwed when translated to film and this is no different. The theatrical release is totally worthless because it wasn't supposed to happen. It was a short (like 14 pages) story that was supposed to serve as one of three parts of a sci-fi trilogy. They shot some, then abandoned the idea, leaving the studio to come back in and add in 45 minutes of uselessness to this story.

Here's what's worth watching: if you get a hold of the Director's cut you can see the original 40 minute short film in the bonus features. That's actually a pretty fun ride. As a total movie, this sucks like a Hoover, but the short is worth a look.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 02, 2011, 12:16:00 AM
Impostor (2002)

Philip K. Dick stories get totally screwed when translated to film and this is no different. The theatrical release is totally worthless because it wasn't supposed to happen. It was a short (like 14 pages) story that was supposed to serve as one of three parts of a sci-fi trilogy. They shot some, then abandoned the idea, leaving the studio to come back in and add in 45 minutes of uselessness to this story.

Here's what's worth watching: if you get a hold of the Director's cut you can see the original 40 minute short film in the bonus features. That's actually a pretty fun ride. As a total movie, this sucks like a Hoover, but the short is worth a look.

Kirbys suck more than Hoovers. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on March 02, 2011, 02:22:40 AM
Kirbys suck more than Hoovers.
Blast from the past.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 02, 2011, 06:59:32 AM
Blast from the past.

Indeed.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 02, 2011, 09:22:26 AM
Blast from the past.

It's like showing my ID.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on March 02, 2011, 10:40:34 AM
Philip K. Dick stories get totally screwed when translated to film and this is no different.

I tend to agree, but for some reason, I want to see The Adjustment Bureau.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on March 02, 2011, 11:03:24 AM
I watched "127 Hours" last night. I thought it was pretty good. I'd recommend it for everyone to give it a try. I also recommend not going your ass out 5+ hours from a town without folks knowing where you're going. The military would recommend you learn the buddy system.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on March 02, 2011, 12:46:27 PM
Folks, please read thread title before posting a movie review.    :civic:

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 04, 2011, 11:20:11 PM
Unthinkable

Stellar cast.  Sort of.  Samuel L. (who has essentially become the black Michael Caine because he's in everything), the dude who played Lucien in Underworld (and David Frost in Frost/Nixon), the chick from The Matrix (and a host of terrible movies) and several minor characters you've seen before.

Basic storyline: Terrorist (the Underworld dude) confesses to setting a bunch of bombs but not where.  It's Samuel's job to torture the fuck out of him until he tells.  The Matrix chick is supposed to sort of mediate or whatever. 

As with so, so many movies for me, the idea is great but the execution is weak.  Sam is good.  The Matrix chick is a frigid robot.  Hate her.   Lucien isn't bad, but who's buying him as a Muslim extremist?  He's a fucking werewolf for Jeeve's sake. 

The interaction at some points is laughable.  "Get him out of there!"  Guns are drawn and pointed every where.  "We need to find the bombs!  Get him back in there NOW!"  More guns drawn and pointed. 

Would like to have seen this if Julia Roberts or maybe Angie Harmon had played the female lead.  Or especially even Emily Procter.

Wasn't bad, but some seriously shitty dialogue, some ridiculously corny setups and some wooden ass acting kept it from reaching its potential.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 06, 2011, 10:03:59 AM
Ramona and Beezus

You have kids.  You watch what you watch. 

Expected it to be torture.  It wasn't.  Yeah it was predictable.  Yeah, at times it was corny.  But as an "it's okay to be you" tale which is a pretty important message for kids aged 8 - 14 it wasn't really that bad. 

It walked some well-trod ground that tons of kids movies (including the unwatchable Marmaduke) have trod over the years:  Quirky kid searching for identity, dad loses job, family in peril, miraculously tidy "all is well" ending.  But unlike far too many of its contemporaries it didn't stray into schmoozy teen angst romance, it didn't artificially try to turn on the waterworks, and it didn't sink into sappiness. It struck a good balance between goofiness and pathos.  It gave all the characters a little bit to do.

Yes, the timeline was a little odd.  Dad loses job and two days later the bank might take the house?  Yet work on an additional room (and the furnishing of it and another) continues unabated?  But that really didn't detract. 

Selena Gomez has a good screen presence away from the cookie-cutter Disney one-liner smartass role they pigeonhole all of their "stars" into.  The scene where she gets Ramona to come sleep with her when both are scared and concerned over the future of their families rings true and is very sweet. If she picks her roles with care, she is one of the few Disney-philes who could break away and be something away from the Mouse.  Spare me Ashley Tisdale and the loathsome Zack and Cody twins, please. 

I've suffered through a ton of schmaltzy, syrupy, sappy "kids" movies.  This just wasn't that bad.   Not worth watching without a kid (and there are some kid movies that are -- Lion King, for instance) but a decent little film for a dad and daughter to watch together. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on March 06, 2011, 11:07:31 PM
Saw The King's Speech and The Fighter today.

The King's Speech was about what I expected. A slow-paced movie about King George VI and his fear of public speaking. Great. The Social Network should have won best picture.

The Fighter, however, was awesome. I definitely recommend it. Christian Bale was phenomenal as Dicky Ecklund. He really transformed himself for the role. They left out Micky Ward's bouts with Arturo Gatti, and instead chose to end the film after he won the Welterweight title in London.

Skip The King's Speech, but don't miss The Fighter.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on March 06, 2011, 11:47:11 PM
Folks, please read thread title before posting a movie review.    :civic:



Just a reminder.

Thank you...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on March 06, 2011, 11:53:50 PM
Just a reminder.

Thank you...
Some of us only have memory up to and at max of a week. Its not our fault that Kaos is way behind.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 07, 2011, 03:19:34 AM
The Social Network

Very well done movie. 

The pacing was a little uneven because of the bouncing back and forth in time. 

Eisenberg channeling Zuckerberg is a dismal, sad fuck.  Assuming the movie is anywhere close to reality, he's a psychological mess and will likely be miserable regardless of the success or failure of his efforts. 

One casting change I would have made was the CFO.  That guy didn't carry his part IMO.  Eisenberg plays that exact same guy in everything I've seen him in only with varying degrees of misery. 

Not a movie that everybody would care for, but it was good. 

I was primarily disappointed because I was really hoping to get some intel on what the fucking "like" button meant and how to change between profiles, but they never got into that at all. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on March 09, 2011, 06:01:12 PM
Kaos, you gotta watch "The Next Three Days" with Russell Crowe. It just came out on DVD and in my opinion its one of the best I have seen in a long time.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 11, 2011, 12:50:41 AM
Kaos, you gotta watch "The Next Three Days" with Russell Crowe. It just came out on DVD and in my opinion its one of the best I have seen in a long time.

I don't think Crowe can act his way out of a paper bag. 

Him, Travolta, Cage and that awful, pathetic, stroke-faced Gerard Butler are the worst actors in the history of the universe.  They collectively make Adam West look like Nicholson or Depp.   

That said, I have the movie in my Netflix queue.  Glutton for punishment I suppose. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 11, 2011, 10:53:42 AM
Kaos, you gotta watch "The Next Three Days" with Russell Crowe. It just came out on DVD and in my opinion its one of the best I have seen in a long time.
Watched it last night...some holes...but I give it.

 :thumsup: :thumsup:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on March 12, 2011, 10:07:32 AM
The American

Should have just named it "The Slow and Shitty" 

What a plodding, boring load of crap.  Brooding piano. Brooding Clooney. Hot Italian prostitute.  Brood. Brood. Brood. Brood.  Never get anywhere.  Never offer even the slightest explanation of who anyone was, what they were doing or what purpose they served. 

Awful. 

If I'd paid to see that in the theaters....

Awful.

One of thase that was soooooo slow and bad I couldn't make myself endure until it got good, which apparently never happened.  The opening scene grabbed my attention, but then it quickly got shitty.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 12, 2011, 10:12:43 AM
One of thase that was soooooo slow and bad I couldn't make myself endure until it got good, which apparently never happened.  The opening scene grabbed my attention, but then it quickly got shitty.

Opening scene was good.  First five minutes and I thought the movie would fulfill.  But after that it just sank in somber boring piano music. 

Even that opening scene was never fully justified.  There was no rational explanation for his action.  It was simply unnecessary.  It set up nothing. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on March 12, 2011, 10:18:11 AM
Opening scene was good.  First five minutes and I thought the movie would fulfill.  But after that it just sank in somber boring piano music. 

Even that opening scene was never fully justified.  There was no rational explanation for his action.  It was simply unnecessary.  It set up nothing.

Product of bad edit?  Or what.  It made me have visions of "Mike's Murder".
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on March 12, 2011, 10:29:04 AM
The Social Network

Very well done movie. 

The pacing was a little uneven because of the bouncing back and forth in time. 

Eisenberg channeling Zuckerberg is a dismal, sad fuck.  Assuming the movie is anywhere close to reality, he's a psychological mess and will likely be miserable regardless of the success or failure of his efforts. 

One casting change I would have made was the CFO.  That guy didn't carry his part IMO.  Eisenberg plays that exact same guy in everything I've seen him in only with varying degrees of misery. 

Not a movie that everybody would care for, but it was good. 

I was primarily disappointed because I was really hoping to get some intel on what the fucking "like" button meant and how to change between profiles, but they never got into that at all.

Agree.  Wonder if the truth about how it all went down is as interesting as  the movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 13, 2011, 01:41:39 AM
The Collector

Part Saw, part Hostel, part Silence of the Lambs (well, not much of that), part Hellraiser The Collector is essentially a torture fest for people who derive pleasure from torture for the sake of torture. 

The premise is sort of ridiculous.  The ending sucks donkey nuts.  The alternate ending was better, but still completely lacking in resolution. 

The film created a series of setups for which there was no solution.  If you're going to watch, stop reading.

But I've got a ton of questions.

1) Why bother with the whole family backstory if you're not going to address in in the denouement?
2) Why bother with the entire who's paying who setup if it's going to be nothing more than a dangling thread with no meaning?
3) How exactly was the idiotic box supposed to be "bait"?  What purpose did it serve at all?  Stupid.
4) We watched the family drive away together to go on vacation.  Why the fuck were they back at the house?
5) Why was teen-whore with the soft pillow bag tits and henious face out with dickweed?  She'd been forced on the family vacation, too.
6) Why did stupid fuck keep hitting the horn? What dumbass does that?
7) Just how in the hell did The Collector have time to completely "Home Alone" the entire house?  And to what end?  if he had the family restrained, why set the ridiculously elaborate traps? 
8) Why set the traps if he's just going to firebomb the house anyway?
9) Why did dumbfuck criminal keep allowing himself to get right crossed by the damn psycho?

If you get a stiffy from random, senseless torture porn done not nearly as cleverly as Saw, climb on board.  Otherwise? Pass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 13, 2011, 01:55:52 AM
The A-Team

Really didn't expect much.  So that's what I basically got.  It was better than I expected and far better than the reviews led me to believe it would be.  Some was a little far-fetched, but it had its moments. 

Cast:

Liam Neeson - Did an adequate job.  I normally like him but I didn't warm to him in this role at all. His accent was off-putting.  Would have preferred maybe James Brolin, DeNiro, Eastwood, Harrison Ford, Bruce Willis or Malkovich as Hannibal. 

Bradley Cooper was very good in the Dirk Benedict role and hammed it up to just the right extent.

Whoever played BA?  Boo.  Would rather have had the role be completely different than that guy doing it.  Didn't buy him at all. 

The Murdock character was fair and had a funny moment or two.  But he reminded me of one of those insufferable Wilson brothers -- I bet he is one, isn't he? 

Jessica Biel - ick.  She was not that hot, needed a bra and completely out of her depth.  In retrospect i can't think of any role she's really done well.  She's not a good actress and not quite as hot as some seem to think.  Oh, I'd do her.  But she's down the list.  Sorry, Jess.

The guy who played Raoul in Phantom of the Opera was good.  Added a lot. 

Brian Bloom who I sort of thought was Richard Grieco added eyebrows. 

It wasn't a bad movie.  Just popcorny.  Seemed to have a hard time deciding if it wanted to be a serious action flick or pure camp. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 13, 2011, 03:00:20 AM
The Runaways

Didn't finish it.  Was just stupid as far as I could tell.  And I fucking hate the Twilight bitch.  She sucks.  Wouldn't fuck her with a cold vampire dick.

I only made about 25 minutes before I just gave up. 

The only redeeming feature I saw at all?   The guy who played Damone in Fast Times at Ridgemont High (one of the greatest movies of all time) showed up as a music teacher.  Oddly I didn't recognize him by sight, but his voice was unmistakable.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 14, 2011, 11:02:30 AM
These reviews will not be complete until you give us a review on this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvuopBG7tBc
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on March 14, 2011, 11:10:19 AM
These reviews will not be complete until you give us a review on this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvuopBG7tBc

WHAT.THE.FUCK!? Holy shit, I can not help but laugh. It looks more like they are setting up for a game of leap frog.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 14, 2011, 11:15:47 AM
Who....could have possibly dreamed up something so completely.......oh forget it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on March 14, 2011, 11:32:24 AM
Saw Winter's Bone and Black Swan last night.

Didn't care for either.

Winter's Bone was treacherously slow. I don't get Jennifer Lawrence being tauted as highly as she was for her performance here. I found it to be pretty weak, to be honest. The visuals of Podunk-assed-white-trashville was someone interesting, but the story was quite dull for it's label as a "thriller".

Black Swan was better, but not by much. I don't mind a little artistic expression and a plot that is hard to ascertain what is real and what is imagined by the main character. But this was just lacking coherency to me, and was also pretty dull in parts. I guess what it comes down to is there was too much ballet for my taste. I could see where if you were into avant-garde theatrical ballet and, say, didn't like boxing, you might prefer this film over The Fighter, for example. What was worth seeing this film for, of course, is an "alone time" scene with Natalie Portman as well as some lesbo action with her and Mila Kunis.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 14, 2011, 12:46:03 PM
What was worth seeing this film for, of course, is an "alone time" seen with Natalie Portman as well as some lesbo action with her and Mila Kunis.

Would these clips perchance be available on YouTube? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Eagle!!! on March 14, 2011, 04:25:54 PM
Would these clips perchance be available on YouTube?

Um...yeah chad...get to linking this shit...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 14, 2011, 04:31:36 PM
Um...yeah chad...get to linking this shit...

I giggled like a school girl
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 16, 2011, 01:48:01 AM
Red Riding Hood

When i was a small child, my grandmother used to tell me the story of Little Red Riding Hood.  Always one of my favorites. I told the story (albeit with a few of my own flourishes) to my own kids. 

I realize this movie wasn't intended to be that story, but after sitting through it I really wish my grandmother could have come back from the dead and directed it at least. 

The movie had no idea what audience it was trying to reach. 

Since it was rated PG-13 the sex, violence and gore couldn't reach the level to draw the serious horror fan.  There was no sex, almost no cursing, and zero gore.   So it's not for horror fans.

It considered trying to be a romantic kind of thing, maybe on the Twilight level but that failed broadly.  There was no PG-13 tension between the lead characters. 

It could have played as a comedy but instead found unintentional humor with bad acting and asinine setups. 

It wasn't an action film.  It wasn't a drama.  It wasn't scary.  It wasn't uplifting. It flat out wasn't interesting. It offers nothing to any audience. 

Several actors you've seen polluted this film including the creepy Amish kid from Witness, Gary Oldman (who overhammed his part to no end) and Virginia Madsden.  All were wasted. 

I adore Amanda Seyfried.  I think she's achingly cute and can be seriously sexy.  Her work in Jennifer's Body and Chloe was mesmerizing.  Maybe it was because she had super hot lesbian scenes in both, i don't know.  (See severely edited Chloe scene below).   But even her smoldering cuteness and impossibly big eyes couldn't save this turd of a movie. 

So watch a little of Chloe set to some shitty music instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhI2MuOvOeQ
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 17, 2011, 11:14:02 AM
CENTIPEDE!!

CENTIPEDE!!

CENTIPEDE!!

CENTIPEDE!!

CENTIPEDE!!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 19, 2011, 10:31:49 AM
Let Me In

i'd already seen the Swedish film Let The Right One In and was looking forward to an Americanized version of the creepy child vampire movie.  I was hoping the new film would scale back some of the brooding slowness and add some American flavor.

Unfortunately the American version was nothing but a carbon copy of the Swedish one.  Same impossibly ugly and creepy white kid, same constant backdrop of snow, even the same basic look for the wardrobe and sets.

The movie was set in Los Alamos New Mexico, where it apparently snows non-stop.  That threw me off from the beginning.  I could have accepted snow from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine... But I spent the first half of the movie wondering whether or not it really snowed in New Mexico.

I wanted to like this movie.  Might have if I hadn't seen the Swedish one.  It was good because it was Swedish and weird.  This wasn't because it tried to shoehorn the entire Swedish experience into an American setting rather than taking the concept and updating it for an American audience.  It just felt wrong and artificial. 

If you're going to watch, I suggest the Swedish version available on Netflix on Demand.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 19, 2011, 10:35:12 AM
The Last Three Days

It was just fair.  Wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it dragged for far too long. 

The opening argument was artificial and unnecessary.

It had its moments, but in the end I'd much rather he had just given up on the whole idea and hammered Olivia Wilde. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Homer Samford on March 19, 2011, 01:30:34 PM
These reviews will not be complete until you give us a review on this...
The Human Centipede

I highly recommend this podcast about it.
http://www.nowplayingpodcast.com/archives/npp031.php (http://www.nowplayingpodcast.com/archives/npp031.php)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on March 19, 2011, 04:32:39 PM
The Last Three Days

It was just fair.  Wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it dragged for far too long. 

The opening argument was artificial and unnecessary.

It had its moments, but in the end I'd much rather he had just given up on the whole idea and hammered Olivia Wilde.

Damn, your harsh.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on March 19, 2011, 05:29:51 PM
I highly recommend this podcast about it.
http://www.nowplayingpodcast.com/archives/npp031.php (http://www.nowplayingpodcast.com/archives/npp031.php)
I loved the Friday the 13th series, those guys are hilarious.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 19, 2011, 05:34:17 PM
Damn, your harsh.

Don't let him fool you...he only looks like Ebert.

but in the end I'd much rather he had just given up on the whole idea and hammered Olivia Wilde. 
Can't argue with this though
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 21, 2011, 12:05:59 AM
My Soul To Take

Wes Craven helmed horror flick. 

Pretty tame and a relatively lame concept.  Dead schizophrenic murderer kills wife and dies on the way to the hospital?  Or does he? 

Will give Wes credit because I wasn't sure who was possessed or if murderer man actually had survived until the denoument. 

Will deduct credit from Wes for playing politically correct culture bingo and making sure he included every stereotype in the book:  Dumb jock, blonde bimbo with a good heart being led astray by the mean girl, the angry goth chick, the nerdy doofus who has a bad home life, the black guy, the handicapped guy (who was also the black guy), the chinese guy, the misunderstood nerd and the religious zealot. 

Wes gets a serious plus for casting Zena Grey's hair.  She wasn't much of an actress but her amazing red mane was a star in its own right. 

Didn't contain the teenaged punch of Wes' Freddy Krueger films, it lacked the mystique of the Serpent and the Rainbow and it wasn't as much campy fun as Scream.

It was just a typical teen horror film that I probably would have enjoyed a lot more if I were still 17 and snuggled up to a girl who was going to jump every time the music crescendoed. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on March 21, 2011, 09:18:33 AM
K, I was scouring the video rental joint looking for a movie because we've seen almost everything else. I came across a movie that I have been tempted to rent but ended up finding something else that I figured would be better. The movie, Triage starring Colin Farrell and Paz Vega (hot hot hot). Not sure if you've seen it but its a mix of a little action and more drama with a little little splash of romance. I know you will critique a movie more than me but its not a bad movie at all so check it out if you haven't already.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 21, 2011, 12:56:48 PM
Anyone seen 'Exam'?

British psychological thriller.

Starts with a simple precept. Turns into a complicated game. Goes all over the place to get to the end with a cliche twist. Not great, but ok. Lot of misdirection and it kept my attention. Decent flick.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on March 21, 2011, 01:20:46 PM
The Machinist

I saw this movie right before I left for Orlando. 

Pretty good movie.  Christian Bale lost 62 pounds for this role, and his disgusting physique really set the tone for the movie. 

It's intense.  That's for sure.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 23, 2011, 10:37:49 AM
Stone

Robert DeNiro. Edward Norton. Mills Jojovich (sp).

Basic premise: parole board dude (Bobby) deciding the fate of con (Ed). His wife (Milla) wants her hubby out of the joint and is willing to do anything to help him with the board.

Good setup.  Why this movie had to drift off into brooding spiritual self-analysis and the predictable condemnation of Christians as sanctimonious zealots is a mystery. 

Couple of problems. Didn't buy norton as the con even though he gave a great effort. Cornrows Ed? Really?

Timeline was also an issue.  Allegedly in the slam for torching his grandparents he had supposedly been in a dozen years I think.  That would have made milla's wife character 16 or 17 at the time of incarceration?  She's going to sit around with her itty bitty titties and tootsie roll nips and wait on this guy? 

Bobby D was good as usual but overplayed his breakdown a little bit. 

Pretty good setup but no resolution. All movies don't have to be tidy and sometimes it's okay to leave everybody in a state of tortured misery.  This film seemed to beg for a little more though.  It established a series of emotional interactions and then just left them wrecked.

Not a bad movie. May watch it again with different expectations to see if I missed something. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 23, 2011, 10:41:45 PM
Rango

Johnny Depp is a genius.

The animation was amazing.  It was as good -- no probably better -- than Pixar. 

Story wise and character development wise it beat the pants off Despicable Me (which I liked) and MegaMind (which I thought was crappy).

The movie tipped its hat to just about every spaghetti western ever filmed.   It would almost be worth watching again just to see how many of them it channeled.  Among my favorites was the scene where the undertaker was measuring him for a coffin.

There was also a random KISS reference which made me laugh. 

So many animated movies miss the mark and dwell in crude jokes and/or sappy schmaltz.  This film did neither.  It told an intelligent, engaging story and did it with flair. 

The cast of characters was quite ugly, but the movie found a way to make all the dirty, scuzzy stereotypical spaghetti western dirtbags charming. 

Very good movie. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on March 23, 2011, 11:30:32 PM
I love Mr. Depp. He is one of my all time favs. Watch the Tourist. My wife doesn't fully like it, but what the fuck does she know, right? Wait, she is a utopia in the bed, but she knows nothing about decent movies. Johnny Depp plays this movie through. Of course, you know who is still Mrs. Sexy. If I had my turn, she would f.o.r.g.et. about Pitt.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 24, 2011, 09:24:55 AM
The Machinist

I saw this movie right before I left for Orlando. 

Pretty good movie.  Christian Bale lost 62 pounds for this role, and his disgusting physique really set the tone for the movie. 

It's intense.  That's for sure.

I actually fell asleep watching this one on teh Netflix. It seemed slow moving.


Quote from: Kaos

Rango
There was a random KISS reference which made me laugh. 
Very good movie.

FIXT your review to reflect more accuracy.


Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 24, 2011, 09:46:42 AM
The Fighter

Rocky for this generation. 

Basic plot: Pedestrian fighter has to overcome his crack addled attention hog brother and his two minutes of fame, his white trash mother, his seven whore sisters and his own self doubt to earn a shot at the title.  It's not exactly an uplifting film, but it does tell a great story of the internal family conflict that almost derailed Micky Ward's path to the top.

Mark Wahlberg played pretty much the same role as he did in Invincible and even Rock Star to a degree as Mick. But it fit him well. 

Christian Bale absolutely deserved the Oscar for his performance as the crack head brother who once knocked Sugar Ray Leonard down, even if Ray actually slipped.  He did a great job of making you hate him while simultaneously feeling sorry for him.

Melissa Leo was pretty good as their trailerpark trashy meddling mother. Loathed her and the seven skanks she spat out.  She also won an Oscar for her role.  I thought she hammed it up way too much. 

If I had been deciding the Oscar would have gone to Amy Adams instead.  She played Mick's girlfriend and the one person who was able to finally disconnect him from his family of albatrosses and get his career moving in the right direction.  Never really been a fan of her work but she was outstanding here. 

The movie was a little long but that's the only real criticism, which is a strange one because I wish it had been a little longer and dealt with Ward's fights against Gatti.

Good movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 24, 2011, 09:51:40 AM
I stopped reading when I saw "seven whore sisters".  I give two thumbs up, sight unseen.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on March 24, 2011, 09:55:36 AM
I stopped reading when I saw "seven whore sisters".  I give two thumbs up, sight unseen.

Its the kind of whores you want to punch in the face.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 24, 2011, 09:56:59 AM
Its the kind of whores you want to punch in the face.

I thought that was all whores?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 24, 2011, 10:01:02 AM
I thought that was all whores?

They charge extra for punching. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 24, 2011, 10:12:51 AM
They charge extra for punching.

Not if they're unconscious.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 24, 2011, 10:18:51 AM
Not if they're unconscious.
8 more posts and you get a button
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on March 24, 2011, 10:22:35 AM
I thought that was all whores?

Well there's the face punching kind and the donkey punching kind.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on March 24, 2011, 10:32:33 AM
donkey punching kind.

Meh, they say they are going to let you see a donkey punch on them, and they give you their number, and when you call, they never call you back.

I speak from experience.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on March 24, 2011, 10:33:23 AM
8 more posts and you get a button

I have an uneasy feeling about this. Like Y2K or something.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 24, 2011, 01:50:11 PM
What you're missing here is that Kaos liked back-to-back movies.  And they were both watched on the same day. 

Upon further consideration, however, I'm thinking The Fighter was actually Invincible but it was about boxing instead of football.   The two movies could almost play side by side.  They're really interchangeable.  That being the case, I'd probably take Elizabeth Banks over Amy Adams.  Why didn't Invincible get the same kind of Oscar buzz that The Fighter did?  (One word:  Christian Bale. Okay, that's two words, but it means one person).

And how does Marky Mark keep grabbing roles in Oscar-heavy films but keeps getting ignored by The Academy?  The Departed wouldn't have worked without Mr. Marky.  The Fighter was his movie, but just like Micky in real life, he was overshadowed by his more outspoken but less accomplished brother (Bale/Dicky).  At some point the Oscars are going to have to reward this former rapper/underwear model.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 24, 2011, 02:28:15 PM
What you're missing here is that Kaos liked back-to-back movies.  And they were both watched on the same day. 

Upon further consideration, however, I'm thinking The Fighter was actually Invincible but it was about boxing instead of football.   The two movies could almost play side by side.  They're really interchangeable.  That being the case, I'd probably take Elizabeth Banks over Amy Adams.  Why didn't Invincible get the same kind of Oscar buzz that The Fighter did?  (One word:  Christian Bale. Okay, that's two words, but it means one person).

And how does Marky Mark keep grabbing roles in Oscar-heavy films but keeps getting ignored by The Academy?  The Departed wouldn't have worked without Mr. Marky.  The Fighter was his movie, but just like Micky in real life, he was overshadowed by his more outspoken but less accomplished brother (Bale/Dicky).  At some point the Oscars are going to have to reward this former rapper/underwear model.

Agree...The Departed was great. He confuses me though. One good movie, then something terrible or just average. Maybe just bad movie selection or just hindsight.

The Happening...really? The plot was horrible to me. Marky was good but the movie itself? Meh...And maybe its because everything Shamalyan does now will seem to be a let down after making his mark with Sixth Sense, but lately his movies just haven't done it for me.  Devil was 'ok'.

But back to topic, I do generally like Marky's acting and movies.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on March 24, 2011, 02:30:52 PM
8 more posts and you get a button
Button?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTiger1 on March 24, 2011, 04:07:32 PM
Anyone want to review Devil's Reject for AUT1?  I haven't got around to watching it yet.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 24, 2011, 04:08:58 PM
Anyone want to review Devil's Reject for AUT1?  I haven't got around to watching it yet.

I already did somewhere in this thread.  Or on this board.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on March 24, 2011, 04:17:21 PM
What you're missing here is that Kaos liked back-to-back movies.  And they were both watched on the same day. 

Upon further consideration, however, I'm thinking The Fighter was actually Invincible but it was about boxing instead of football.   The two movies could almost play side by side.  They're really interchangeable.  That being the case, I'd probably take Elizabeth Banks over Amy Adams.  Why didn't Invincible get the same kind of Oscar buzz that The Fighter did?  (One word:  Christian Bale. Okay, that's two words, but it means one person).

And how does Marky Mark keep grabbing roles in Oscar-heavy films but keeps getting ignored by The Academy?  The Departed wouldn't have worked without Mr. Marky.  The Fighter was his movie, but just like Micky in real life, he was overshadowed by his more outspoken but less accomplished brother (Bale/Dicky).  At some point the Oscars are going to have to reward this former rapper/underwear model.

I mean, when are they going ot recognize the greatness of Boogie Nights?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on March 24, 2011, 04:39:22 PM
Rango

Johnny Depp is a genius.

The animation was amazing.  It was as good -- no probably better -- than Pixar. 

Story wise and character development wise it beat the pants off Despicable Me (which I liked) and MegaMind (which I thought was crappy).

The movie tipped its hat to just about every spaghetti western ever filmed.   It would almost be worth watching again just to see how many of them it channeled.  Among my favorites was the scene where the undertaker was measuring him for a coffin.

There was also a random KISS reference which made me laugh. 

So many animated movies miss the mark and dwell in crude jokes and/or sappy schmaltz.  This film did neither.  It told an intelligent, engaging story and did it with flair. 

The cast of characters was quite ugly, but the movie found a way to make all the dirty, scuzzy stereotypical spaghetti western dirtbags charming. 

Very good movie.

Four kids went.  Three hated it.  One fell asleep.  Acompanying parents also disliked.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 24, 2011, 05:05:38 PM
Four kids went.  Three hated it.  One fell asleep.  Acompanying parents also disliked.


Not for everybody apparently.  I hate most movies that are hailed 'round here anyhow. 

One of the highest rated movies currently on RottenTomatoes. 

Quote
So many animated movies miss the mark and dwell in crude jokes and/or sappy schmaltz.  This film did neither.  It told an intelligent, engaging story and did it with flair. 
 

Yes.  I said that.   I'd watch it again right now. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on March 24, 2011, 08:18:49 PM

Not for everybody apparently.  I hate most movies that are hailed 'round here anyhow. 

One of the highest rated movies currently on RottenTomatoes. 
 

Yes.  I said that.   I'd watch it again right now.

I have not seen it. This was the comment from some friends whom took their kids.  Said the plot was nebulous and you never really connect with the main character. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 26, 2011, 01:10:42 AM
Faster

Billy Bob Thornton, Carla Gugino, Simon Adibesi (from Oz, no idea what his real name is), the creepy red Malachi dude from the original Children of the Corn and The Rock in a violent tale of revenge. 

Not a fan of Billy Bob with the exception of his role in SlingBlade.  Carla has looked better. 

The story was very weak.  Rock's rage was not convincingly defined and the parental/sibling relationship was, frankly, laughable. 

Rock is a good actor when spoofing himself (Get Smart), when doing broad comedy (Tooth Fairy) or in roles where he's not required to convincingly emote (Scorpion King).  Here where he had to play a flashback death scene where his brother was killed?  Ugh.  Just plain terrible acting.  Seriously awful. 

The film jumped from implausible scene to implausible scene. Where are all the cops when he just walks out of a bar/hospital/office after shooting somebody? How come Rock can put a bullet through the middle of a guy's forehead while essentially shooting from the hip, but he can unload the clip at another guy standing in the hall and miss every time?  Why does the fucking assassin just watch instead of unloading on him during any of the 15 dozen opportunities he has?  Why does the assassin's wife -- who in one scene was sexually aroused by gunplay -- suddenly turn into mush when he doesn't quit the killing game?  How come the voices of the employer and the employer himself don't come close to matching?   

Whatever. 

It was a carnage-filled, utterly joyless rampage.  The Rock is so much better when he gets to add a touch of humor.  He's like Cam.  Things are better when he's smiling. 

Forgettable movie.  For all involved.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 26, 2011, 01:20:45 AM
Unstoppable

This movie was generally panned and I didn't expect much. 

But I liked it.  I liked Pelham 123, too, and it got the same critical bashing. 

There were some extraneous scenes.  Why bother to show the kids at all if they weren't going to be in peril?  That was a wasted 15 minutes of the movie. 

But the rest was pretty tight.  Denzel brings a breezy cool to every role he plays. I've come to appreciate him more and more as an actor.  He'll take the occasional dud role, but he makes the acting seem so completely effortless it's hard not to enjoy his performance. 

The action was well paced, the disagreements between the corporate suits and the men/women in the trenches rang true and the movie steered clear of ridiculous and unnecessary sub plots (with the exception of the damn kids). 

I wish they hadn't done the "based on a true story" thing, though, because from what I understand the real story was much less dramatic.  There was no arched curve, the train wasn't going but something like 20 mph, nobody had to run across the boxcars. 

Just make the movie and keep it to yourself that you heard a story about a train that ran away and decided it would make a great film.  Happens all the time.  Based on a true story?  So was Inglorious Basterds. 

I still thought this was a good movie.  I enjoyed watching it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on March 26, 2011, 07:13:59 AM
Faster

Billy Bob Thornton, Carla Gugino, Simon Adibesi (from Oz, no idea what his real name is), the creepy red Malachi dude from the original Children of the Corn and The Rock in a violent tale of revenge. 

Not a fan of Billy Bob with the exception of his role in SlingBlade.  Carla has looked better. 

The story was very weak.  Rock's rage was not convincingly defined and the parental/sibling relationship was, frankly, laughable. 

Rock is a good actor when spoofing himself (Get Smart), when doing broad comedy (Tooth Fairy) or in roles where he's not required to convincingly emote (Scorpion King).  Here where he had to play a flashback death scene where his brother was killed?  Ugh.  Just plain terrible acting.  Seriously awful. 

The film jumped from implausible scene to implausible scene. Where are all the cops when he just walks out of a bar/hospital/office after shooting somebody? How come Rock can put a bullet through the middle of a guy's forehead while essentially shooting from the hip, but he can unload the clip at another guy standing in the hall and miss every time?  Why does the fucking assassin just watch instead of unloading on him during any of the 15 dozen opportunities he has?  Why does the assassin's wife -- who in one scene was sexually aroused by gunplay -- suddenly turn into mush when he doesn't quit the killing game?  How come the voices of the employer and the employer himself don't come close to matching?   

Whatever. 

It was a carnage-filled, utterly joyless rampage.  The Rock is so much better when he gets to add a touch of humor.  He's like Cam.  Things are better when he's smiling. 

Forgettable movie.  For all involved.
(http://www.imfdb.org/w/images/thumb/1/17/Ruger_sup_redhawk_alaskan.jpg/400px-Ruger_sup_redhawk_alaskan.jpg)
The Ruger 454 Casull Alaskan was worth the price of admission.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 27, 2011, 12:01:12 AM
Due Date

This must be a record.  Four movies of the last five I actually liked. 

Fact is I didn't expect to like it at all.  I don't care for Zack Gaffinakalkiginas at all.  I didn't find The Hangover all that funny.  I thought he sucked iguana ass in Dinner for Schmucks (a terrible, terrible movie).   I expcected him to befoul this one, too. 

Not so fast.  I laughed when I was supposed to laugh, and a few times I probably wasn't supposed to. 

Yes it followed basically the same pattern as Planes, Trains and Automobiles.  Yes, PT&A was done better in terms of character development and had the tear-jerking sentimental sap going for it at the end.  Yes, John Candy is significantly better than Zack Glfarifikghekpias.  No, Steve Martin is not better than Robert Downey Jr. 

My one real complaint was the anticlimactic ending.  It built all that comedic tension and then just fizzled to the end because it was time for the movie to be over. 

Blu-Ray was disappointing because it offered nothing but "Play Movie" and "Set Up"  No commentaries, no bloopers, no deleted scenes, no alternate endings, no nude shots of Michelle M.

I thought it was a funny movie that hit more than it missed. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 28, 2011, 02:36:04 AM
A Time to Kill
It's the middle of the night.  I can't sleep. This movie is on TNT.  It's an outstanding film, the To Kill a Mockingbird of this generation.

John Grisham's books are barely eighth grade level.  They're fast-food literature. He tells essentially the same story every single time, he just changes a few of the names.  I read his books and it's never taken me less than a day to chew through any of them.

Of all his books, A Time to Kill was easily the best.  After its success, it seems to me that Grisham got lazy. It happens to the best.  Stephen King has also fallen prey to the lazy gene.  Instead of breaking new ground like he did with Salem's Lot and The Stand (a fantastic book) he churns out formulaic potboilers with little to no imagination.

Where many of King's novels have not translated well to the screen (curiously his short stories -- Green Mile, Stand By Me, Shawshank -- have been much more successful), Grisham's books do adapt well.

The film version of A Time to Kill is even better than the book.  Far better, in fact. It's exceedingly well done. So many outstanding performances:  Matthew McBongo, Samuel L, Donald Sutherland, Kevin Spacey, Sandra Bullock, Keifer, Ashley Judd and more. 

Ridiculous that this movie wasn't nominated for an Academy Award and the shitty pile of gnu excrement The English Patient won that year. 

Bullock was so much more amazingly hotter 15 years ago.  So was sweaty Judd. 

Hate the characterization of Mississippi as a Klan haven.  I haven't seen that many klansmen in one place since I witnessed a march in the early 70s. 

Still a very good movie and a story well told. 


Side note:  A girl I knew in high school was an extra during the riot scene. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on March 28, 2011, 08:34:08 AM
A Time to Kill
It's the middle of the night.  I can't sleep. This movie is on TNT.  It's an outstanding film, the To Kill a Mockingbird of this generation.

John Grisham's books are barely eighth grade level.  They're fast-food literature. He tells essentially the same story every single time, he just changes a few of the names.  I read his books and it's never taken me less than a day to chew through any of them.

Of all his books, A Time to Kill was easily the best.  After its success, it seems to me that Grisham got lazy. It happens to the best.  Stephen King has also fallen prey to the lazy gene.  Instead of breaking new ground like he did with Salem's Lot and The Stand (a fantastic book) he churns out formulaic potboilers with little to no imagination.

Where many of King's novels have not translated well to the screen (curiously his short stories -- Green Mile, Stand By Me, Shawshank -- have been much more successful), Grisham's books do adapt well.

The film version of A Time to Kill is even better than the book.  Far better, in fact. It's exceedingly well done. So many outstanding performances:  Matthew McBongo, Samuel L, Donald Sutherland, Kevin Spacey, Sandra Bullock, Keifer, Ashley Judd and more. 

Ridiculous that this movie wasn't nominated for an Academy Award and the shitty pile of gnu excrement The English Patient won that year. 

Bullock was so much more amazingly hotter 15 years ago.  So was sweaty Judd. 

Hate the characterization of Mississippi as a Klan haven.  I haven't seen that many klansmen in one place since I witnessed a march in the early 70s. 

Still a very good movie and a story well told. 


Side note:  A girl I knew in high school was an extra during the riot scene.

I watched it last night also, for about the elevententh time.  As I am want to do with movies I like and have seen many times, I start watching for the literary meanings and commentary.

I agree, good flick.  Like so many other movies, one can, if they're not paying close attention, get the wrong impression, and think it's a liberal commentary on the death penalty or race.  However, the death penalty issue is merely, and I don't think Grisham is good enough to give any real credible political commentary on either, and I'm not sure he'd care enough to anyway.  However, it was a great snapshot,  (as opposed to commentary) that included the yin and the yang, of race, and race relations as a southern writer like Grisham could do, and not terribly fucked up by Hollywooed; a snapshot that just happened to take place within the context of a good story like that set in the south.  A strong commentary would have fucked it up. 

McConaughey...I like him, and most things he's done that I've seen.  Just saw "The Lincoln Lawyer" and I recommend it.  He's not a great actor, and brings pretty much the same things to every character, but he's likable and believable.  Thankfully this TX born actor doesn't have to manufacture a bad southern accent and can get by on a generic accent of his own.

I don't think I've ever seen Samuel L. Jackson when I didn't love him and his role. 

Can't add more than you did on either Judd or Bullock.  Both, I think, could have factored in more to the story than they did.

I like Kevin Spacey, but in all movies set in the south, I get irritated and distracted at the inability to do a believable southern accent.  And his character didn't get developed, and was incidental.

Actually, there wasn't enough time to properly develop all the characters you mentioned that had much potential in this flick, yet, it worked well.   

The jail scene at the end while not Oscar worthy, was a great scene.  The closing argument was perfect, and yet,  "Now, imagine she's white" was the boom goes the dynamite moment that, at least for me, was a completely unexpected twist that was done completely with dialogue, or rather monologue in this case.   

Note to Hollywood, we have air conditioners in the south, we don't all sweat all the time, though Judd does look nice sweaty.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on March 28, 2011, 09:06:50 AM
McConaughey...I like him, and most things he's done that I've seen.  Just saw "The Lincoln Lawyer" and I recommend it.  He's not a great actor, and brings pretty much the same things to every character, but he's likable and believable.  Thankfully this TX born actor doesn't have to manufacture a bad southern accent and can get by on a generic accent of his own.

My favorite movie he's been in was 2002's Frailty, not counting Dazed and Confused, of course.  If you haven't seen it, it should be added to your netflix queue ASAP.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on March 28, 2011, 10:34:25 AM
The wife, after 6 years, talked me into watching this for the first time.

Dirty Dancing

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on March 28, 2011, 10:56:26 AM
Due Date

This must be a record.  Four movies of the last five I actually liked. 

Fact is I didn't expect to like it at all.  I don't care for Zack Gaffinakalkiginas at all.  I didn't find The Hangover all that funny.  I thought he sucked iguana ass in Dinner for Schmucks (a terrible, terrible movie).   I expcected him to befoul this one, too. 

Not so fast.  I laughed when I was supposed to laugh, and a few times I probably wasn't supposed to. 

Yes it followed basically the same pattern as Planes, Trains and Automobiles.  Yes, PT&A was done better in terms of character development and had the tear-jerking sentimental sap going for it at the end.  Yes, John Candy is significantly better than Zack Glfarifikghekpias.  No, Steve Martin is not better than Robert Downey Jr. 

My one real complaint was the anticlimactic ending.  It built all that comedic tension and then just fizzled to the end because it was time for the movie to be over. 

Blu-Ray was disappointing because it offered nothing but "Play Movie" and "Set Up"  No commentaries, no bloopers, no deleted scenes, no alternate endings, no nude shots of Michelle M.

I thought it was a funny movie that hit more than it missed.
I thought this movie was fucking horrible.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on March 28, 2011, 11:20:34 AM
I thought this movie was fucking horrible.

You thought wrong.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on March 28, 2011, 11:21:45 AM
You thought wrong.
[/quote
 :pwnd: :facepalm:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on March 28, 2011, 11:51:13 AM
Quote function rulz
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on March 28, 2011, 12:02:39 PM
Quote function rulz
That was funnier than Due Date.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 28, 2011, 01:10:32 PM
A Time to Kill
It's the middle of the night.  I can't sleep. This movie is on TNT.  It's an outstanding film, the To Kill a Mockingbird of this generation.

John Grisham's books are barely eighth grade level.  They're fast-food literature. He tells essentially the same story every single time, he just changes a few of the names.  I read his books and it's never taken me less than a day to chew through any of them.

Of all his books, A Time to Kill was easily the best.  After its success, it seems to me that Grisham got lazy. It happens to the best.  Stephen King has also fallen prey to the lazy gene.  Instead of breaking new ground like he did with Salem's Lot and The Stand (a fantastic book) he churns out formulaic potboilers with little to no imagination.

Where many of King's novels have not translated well to the screen (curiously his short stories -- Green Mile, Stand By Me, Shawshank -- have been much more successful), Grisham's books do adapt well.

The film version of A Time to Kill is even better than the book.  Far better, in fact. It's exceedingly well done. So many outstanding performances:  Matthew McBongo, Samuel L, Donald Sutherland, Kevin Spacey, Sandra Bullock, Keifer, Ashley Judd and more. 

Ridiculous that this movie wasn't nominated for an Academy Award and the shitty pile of gnu excrement The English Patient won that year. 

Bullock was so much more amazingly hotter 15 years ago.  So was sweaty Judd. 

Hate the characterization of Mississippi as a Klan haven.  I haven't seen that many klansmen in one place since I witnessed a march in the early 70s. 

Still a very good movie and a story well told. 


Side note:  A girl I knew in high school was an extra during the riot scene.

I watched as well, this is one of my favorite flicks. Of course Matthew McConaughey is so dreamy.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 28, 2011, 01:14:50 PM
I watched as well, this is one of my favorite flicks. Of course Matthew McConaughey is so dreamy.

Isn't he though?  I mean his abs are so darn.....

Wait...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 28, 2011, 01:15:30 PM
Faster

Forgettable movie.  For all involved.

This might be a first as well.  Agree 100%

It was better the first three times I saw it.

Hard to Kill 1990
Payback 1999
Get Carter  2000
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 28, 2011, 02:21:51 PM
Pananormal Activity 2
Caught this Sat night on teh Netflix. Didn't realize it was a Prequel to the first one. The whole movie pretty much explains throughout HOW the first one came to being. The end of this one is the first 2-3 mins or so of the 1st one. AND this one also skips forward after that part to show you what happens after the first one as well where it left off. It was "ok". Had a few "shit your pants" moments but to me all these type of movies now are just cheap Blair Witch knockoffs.

Anyone else see it? Any opines?

I'm watching the Fourth Kind tonight so I'll post my thoughts on that one soon......


Also caught another classic this weekend as well:

Deerhunter
I've seen it 100 times but its still classic. A little long and slow moving but you get the point of the movie pretty quickly. Weird seeing Walken and DeNiro that young. Good but depressing IMHO.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 01, 2011, 01:07:46 AM
This Thing of Ours

Major fan of mob movies.  Godfather, Godfather II, Casino, Goodfellas, Donnie Brasco, Once Upon a Time in America, The Departed... all among some of my favorite movies of all time.  I've watched Godfather I and II probably 100 times each. 

So when I saw This Thing of Ours on the Netflix list and saw the cast, i figured there was no way I could go wrong. 


Phil Leotardo from The Sopranos AKA Frank Marino from Casino AKA Billy Batts from Goodfellas (Frank Vincent)
Big Pussy from The Sopranos (Vincent Pastore)
Sonny Corleone from The Godfather (James Caan)
Jimmy Patrille from The Sopranos  -- AKA Artie Piscano from Casino (Vinnie Vella, Sr)
with
Joseph Rigano (one of the bosses from Casino)
and one other guy I know, but can't come up with the name of. 

Gotta be a slam dunk, super fun mob movie, right? 

Oh holy shit..  What a festering sack of garbage. 

Imagine the worst porn movie you've ever seen.  And by porn movie I mean one of the super bad shitty ones that tries to have a plot.  Then take out all the sex.  And leave only the bad acting.  It was worse than that. 

The story was stupid. The acting was horrific.  It sucked balls the size of Maine. 

This was quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen.   The. WORST.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 01, 2011, 08:59:42 AM
This Thing of Ours

Major fan of mob movies.  Godfather, Godfather II, Casino, Goodfellas, Donnie Brasco, Once Upon a Time in America, The Departed... all among some of my favorite movies of all time.  I've watched Godfather I and II probably 100 times each. 

So when I saw This Thing of Ours on the Netflix list and saw the cast, i figured there was no way I could go wrong. 


Phil Leotardo from The Sopranos AKA Frank Marino from Casino AKA Billy Batts from Goodfellas (Frank Vincent)
Big Pussy from The Sopranos (Vincent Pastore)
Sonny Corleone from The Godfather (James Caan)
Jimmy Patrille from The Sopranos  -- AKA Artie Piscano from Casino (Vinnie Vella, Sr)
with
Joseph Rigano (one of the bosses from Casino)
and one other guy I know, but can't come up with the name of. 

Gotta be a slam dunk, super fun mob movie, right? 

Oh holy shit..  What a festering sack of garbage. 

Imagine the worst porn movie you've ever seen.  And by porn movie I mean one of the super bad shitty ones that tries to have a plot.  Then take out all the sex.  And leave only the bad acting.  It was worse than that. 

The story was stupid. The acting was horrific.  It sucked balls the size of Maine. 

This was quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen.   The. WORST.

I never thought much of Pastore and Vincent in Sopranos anyway. We all know Sirico and Van Zandt stole the show there. Although I expect better out of Caan. I will try and catch this on the Netflix. Is it DVD or streaming available?

Watched The Fourth Kind last night.....

Fourth Kind
Oh ma Jesus....it doesn't even deserve a review. THAT bad. Horrid. Bad screenplay. Bad acting. Bad directing. I just hated it. I usually like Supernatural horror movies but this one was just awful. Jollovich - not her best. It wasn't even believable. Although it does show some real "actual" scenes of a dude killing people on film. Kinda weird.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 02, 2011, 10:57:08 PM
Hop

Packed theater.  Mostly kids under 14 and parents.  Maybe -- maybe -- two or three "full theater" laughs. 

A couple of "over their heads" shots that got a smattering of small laughs from the grownups. 

So it wasn't a comedy.  Surely it could wring some drama from the premise, maybe give a tear-jerker moment (like The Santa Clause was able to do).  Nope.  All eyes dry. 

So what was it.  Cute.  That's about it.  It was just cute.  It wasn't "awwww" cute.  It wasn't "that's so" cute.  It was just cute.  Really had nothing to say. 

What happened to Kaley Cuoco?  She was sooooo hot in "Fuck You If You Want To Date My Daughter" or whatever that show was where John Ritter had his swan song (see below).  She looked absolutely horrible here.  Her hair was a shitty mess, her face looked puffy and swollen, and her clothes (except for the jogging outfit) didn't even fit well.  She looked horrible and was a pretty bad actress, too. 

Marsden?  Goofy grinning bastard.  Found him utterly annoying. 

The thing I was most dreading -- Russell Brand as the bunny -- was actually tolerable.  Apparently Russell is only an annoying fuck when you have to actually look at his goofy ass.  He was much, much better as an animated character. 

Animation was okay -- not nearly as good as Rango, but the job on the rabbit hair was very good. The movie just had a hard time drumming up any feeling for any of the cardboard cutout characters. And it really needed it. 

Based on the enormous crowd I saw lining up for this one, it's going to make a shitload of cash and be number one for a week or so.  Really a sad state of affairs. 

Be glad when Kung Fu Panda 2 and Pirates 4 come out.   

(http://www.gunaxin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/kaley_cuoco-018.jpg) 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on April 04, 2011, 07:15:56 AM
I have noticed that if the chick has a puffy or round face then she has no chance with you.  Not critiquing just and observation.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 04, 2011, 07:55:55 AM
I have noticed that if the chick has a puffy or round face then she has no chance with you.  Not critiquing just and observation.

Round face, okay.  Pie face not.  kate winslet and Charlize Theron are said to have round faces.  They are both pretty hot.   

Puffy?  No, I don't like swollen and misshapen.  If they look like they've been boxing that day or just endured a bout of bee stings?  Not a fan.  Kaley looked like she boxed a swarm of bees in Hop. 

(http://media.photobucket.com/image/kaley%20cuoco%20hop/bastardlybutta/bastardly-photos/album162/kaley-cuoco-03191001.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on April 04, 2011, 09:39:10 AM
In another wife-decided movie choice:

The Bridges of Madison County

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on April 04, 2011, 02:37:52 PM
In another wife-decided movie choice:

The Bridges of Madison County

 :facepalm:
I raise you with my wife's movie choice last night....
Everybody's Fine
Notebook and Jersey Girl are comedies compared to this shit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on April 04, 2011, 02:46:14 PM
I raise you with my wife's movie choice last night....
Everybody's Fine
Notebook and Jersey Girl are comedies compared to this shit.

I double raise with ANY movie on LMN. She gets to the remote before I get home-  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on April 04, 2011, 02:52:18 PM
I double raise with ANY movie on LMN. She gets to the remote before I get home-  :facepalm:

When I was at Auburn my roommate's parents were visiting.  My roommate walked into the living room and saw his mom watching LMN.  He said, "Hey! Isn't this the one with the asshole husband?"  She said, "Yeah! How did you know that?"  She never did understand what was so funny.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on April 04, 2011, 02:54:51 PM
I raise you with my wife's movie choice last night....
Everybody's Fine
Notebook and Jersey Girl are comedies compared to this shit.

Kate Beckinsale vs. Meryl Streep?
Widower vs. Infidelity?
Did your wife enjoy Everybody's Fine?  Because mine was pissed after watching Bridges of Madison County. 

I'd take the recent non-old people chick flick over the liberal puke I watched last night. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on April 04, 2011, 02:58:14 PM
When I was at Auburn my roommate's parents were visiting.  My roommate walked into the living room and saw his mom watching LMN.  He said, "Hey! Isn't this the one with the asshole husband?"  She said, "Yeah! How did you know that?"  She never did understand what was so funny.

That's good shit right there.  You also could have substituted "this is the one with Valerie Bertenelli" and been pretty safe.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 04, 2011, 03:16:45 PM
On a cold and rainy Saturday afternoon, I've been known to watch a Lifetime movie or two. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on April 04, 2011, 04:23:30 PM
On a cold and rainy Saturday afternoon, I've been known to watch a Lifetime movie or two.

Thats breeding ground for a bout of depression.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on April 04, 2011, 11:48:33 PM
Unstoppable

This movie was generally panned and I didn't expect much. 

But I liked it.  I liked Pelham 123, too, and it got the same critical bashing. 

There were some extraneous scenes.  Why bother to show the kids at all if they weren't going to be in peril?  That was a wasted 15 minutes of the movie. 

But the rest was pretty tight.  Denzel brings a breezy cool to every role he plays. I've come to appreciate him more and more as an actor.  He'll take the occasional dud role, but he makes the acting seem so completely effortless it's hard not to enjoy his performance. 

The action was well paced, the disagreements between the corporate suits and the men/women in the trenches rang true and the movie steered clear of ridiculous and unnecessary sub plots (with the exception of the damn kids). 

I wish they hadn't done the "based on a true story" thing, though, because from what I understand the real story was much less dramatic.  There was no arched curve, the train wasn't going but something like 20 mph, nobody had to run across the boxcars. 

Just make the movie and keep it to yourself that you heard a story about a train that ran away and decided it would make a great film.  Happens all the time.  Based on a true story?  So was Inglorious Basterds. 

I still thought this was a good movie.  I enjoyed watching it.

I watched it based on this review.  The kids didn't bother me, but I found myself on a continuous plateau with no real peak.  The end was ok, but it left me wanting some gratuitous blood and guts...somebody falling under the train...something.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on April 05, 2011, 12:01:20 AM
On a cold and rainy Saturday afternoon, I've been known to watch a Lifetime movie or two.

Is this done with a loaded revolver and the kind of vodka that comes in plastic bottles?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on April 05, 2011, 12:28:30 AM
Kate Beckinsale vs. Meryl Streep?
Widower vs. Infidelity?
Did your wife enjoy Everybody's Fine?  Because mine was pissed after watching Bridges of Madison County. 

I'd take the recent non-old people chick flick over the liberal puke I watched last night.
No she cried the last hour of the movie, we looked at the movie description on the Dvr that shit said comedy?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on April 05, 2011, 11:54:06 AM
That's good shit right there.  You also could have substituted "this is the one with Valerie Bertenelli" and been pretty safe.

Or the guy from Animal House (Otter?) he fuck overs-kills-steals-from alot of women. When I come from umpiring at night-I can tell if shes been watching it and how bad of an asshole the guy(any guy) was that night.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: BZ770 on April 06, 2011, 11:49:02 PM
Hop

Packed theater.  Mostly kids under 14 and parents.  Maybe -- maybe -- two or three "full theater" laughs. 

A couple of "over their heads" shots that got a smattering of small laughs from the grownups. 

So it wasn't a comedy.  Surely it could wring some drama from the premise, maybe give a tear-jerker moment (like The Santa Clause was able to do).  Nope.  All eyes dry. 

So what was it.  Cute.  That's about it.  It was just cute.  It wasn't "awwww" cute.  It wasn't "that's so" cute.  It was just cute.  Really had nothing to say. 

What happened to Kaley Cuoco?  She was sooooo hot in "eff You If You Want To Date My Daughter" or whatever that show was where John Ritter had his swan song (see below).  She looked absolutely horrible here.  Her hair was a poopty mess, her face looked puffy and swollen, and her clothes (except for the jogging outfit) didn't even fit well.  She looked horrible and was a pretty bad actress, too. 

Marsden?  Goofy grinning bastard.  Found him utterly annoying. 

The thing I was most dreading -- Russell Brand as the bunny -- was actually tolerable.  Apparently Russell is only an annoying eff when you have to actually look at his goofy ass.  He was much, much better as an animated character. 

Animation was okay -- not nearly as good as Rango, but the job on the rabbit hair was very good. The movie just had a hard time drumming up any feeling for any of the cardboard cutout characters. And it really needed it. 

Based on the enormous crowd I saw lining up for this one, it's going to make a poopload of cash and be number one for a week or so.  Really a sad state of affairs. 

Be glad when Kung Fu Panda 2 and Pirates 4 come out.   

(http://www.gunaxin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/kaley_cuoco-018.jpg)

I got stuck seeing this Friday when it came out with the family.  It was painful.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 17, 2011, 04:03:54 AM
Scream 4

Let me get this out of the way first.  Courtney Cox looks like hammered buzzard shit.  Her plastic surgery was a disaster, the fake cheekbones and ghoulishly stretched smile is reminiscent of the Joker. Never thought I would say this but Arquette could do better.  Congrats to him for moving on. 

Neve Campbell, on the other hand, didn't go the "carve-em-up" route and has aged pretty well.

And now the movie. 

It's exactly what you expect.  Exactly.

Plenty of attractive beasts.  Marielle Jaffe?  Holy smoking cow. See below.  Hayden Panieterre?  Meh, reminded me of a midget.  Brittany Robertson?  Nice hair.  Happy 21st birthday on Monday, BTW, Miss Robertson.  Emma Roberts?  Not so much hot, but a nice performance as the stalked one.   

Like the original Scream you were never really sure who was under the mask until the final reveal.  That's always good. I hate seeing what's coming early on.   The script dropped a few red herrings and kept Ghostface's identity secret. 

What the film lacked, though, was bite.  We've seen it before.  The cast -- and it was better than the average horror flick -- seemed to be going through the motions.  The original was fresh and served as a springboard for a number of new faces like Neve, Courtney, Skeet, Jamie, Lillard and Rose McGowan.  This version -- with the exception of Roberts -- was more a vehicle for established stars to chew a little scenery.  Don't think there's a budding Jamie Kennedy in the group of lesser names here. 

Complaint?  Ghostface talked too damn much.  And if you've seen the Scary Movie franchise, it's hard to take old Ghosty serious any more.  When he's huffing weed with the Wayans brothers and his mask changes?  Can't get that image out of my head.  In a way, the Scary Movie series surpassed all but the first Scream anyway.  It was better.  But...

If you go, you'll get exactly what you pay for.  Some low rent slashing, some attractive teens (no nudity at all), a shockingly hideous Courtney Cox, a surprisingly preserved Neve, a reveal you didn't expect and a pile of dead bodies. 

The theater we went to added the surprise of a staffer dressed as Ghostface slipping into the screening as the credits rolled.  He lurked in the shadows toward the exit and scared the absolute bejesus out of a group of ignorant, obnoxious, punk ass teens who'd spent most of the movie running their mouths from the back row.  It was worth the price of admission to see the piggy bitch knocking her friends aside like bowling pins as they threw popcorn and drinks and scrambled back up the aisle. 

(http://shocktillyoudrop.com/nextraimages/marielle-jaffe-scream-4b.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 17, 2011, 04:28:02 AM
The Kindgom

How did I miss this movie when it was in theaters?  I got it from Netflix by accident, it wasn't even in my queue.  Started to send it back, but thinking it was that Burt Reynolds, Ray Liotta, Jason Statham medieval movie and good for a laugh or two, I put it in. 

Not that movie.  It's actually called In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (which should tell you all you need to know about that). 

No, The Kingdom is a story about the bombing of a US outpost in Saudi Arabia and the response by an FBI team led by Jamie Foxx.  Team includes Jennifer Garner, Chris Cooper (very underrated actor) and Jason Bateman (who was pretty damn good in his role). 

This movie was everything I hoped The Hurt Locker would be.  Instead Hurt Locker was an emotional morass, obviously directed by a woman.  This movie was much more direct, the action sequences were a little over the top, but they kept your attention. There was no wobbly moral compass, no effort to delve into the emotional crises of the main characters.  It told a straightforward story.  It was a story of conflict directed by a man. 

The Kingdom offered a disturbing and sobering tale of US-Saudi relations. It dealt with the interaction between the Muslim and western worlds and painted a pretty stark picture of the ever expanding gulf between them both. 

The performances were understated and that gave them gravitas.  There was no hulking Arnold shooting up buildings and declaring he'd be back. But there was a tense shoot-em-up preceded by a major car crash/chase scene.   

The emotions rang true on all sides.  Foxx was steady.  Garner was very solid. 

Ok, so I don't necessarily buy that the FBI would go rogue and send in a team when their intervention had been expressly forbidden, but beyond that the film was done very, very well. 

The action sequences were taut. The tension felt legitimate. The director did a nice job of setting the stage and then letting the actors and the environment do their jobs. 

I know I would hate to be an American in the Middle East.  The movie effectively conveyed that. 

It was a pretty decent movie with a relatively thought-provoking epilogue.  Hackneyed?  Yeah.  A little, but sometimes the best endings are.

Why didn't I know about this movie?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on April 17, 2011, 08:44:27 AM
Anyone ever seen Yojimbo? 

It's from the 50s and served as the inspiration for the Firstful of Dollars series.  Excellent movie if you can handle subtitles. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 19, 2011, 11:17:10 PM
The Tourist

Preface.  I love Johnny Depp.  Think he is incredibly talented. 

I must amend that statement now, however, to include the following caveat:  in certain types of roles. 

If the character Depp is playing is weird, fey, affected, afflicted with some bizarre abnormality or otherwide prop-aided odd, Depp is as good as there is. 

When asked to play a role where he has to exist as an allegedly normal guy and interact normally with other human beings and you get The Tourist.  Depp is awkward. His emotions are so flat that they don't register.  He delivers 'I love you" and "this was very good wine" with the same earnest puppy dog expression.  Might as well have been reading from the phone book. 

When called on to perform action scenes, he can't escape the arms-flailing quirkiness that characterizes Jack Sparrow -- and makes that role such a perfect fit.  Perhaps Depp isn't playing Sparrow so much as he's just being himself. 

I watched this movie with it's implausible, nonsensical plot, its continual contrivances and its liberal application of deus ex machina and found myself wishing for another actor in the lead -- one with the chops and bravura to lend some credence to the role.  This movie with Robert Downey Jr. might have elevated itself from dreck to tapioca, perhaps. 

But it was still bad.  So bad that maybe it couldn't be rescussitated. 

Cast was solid but did little with it.   

Depp was dreary although he did sneak in a somewhat clever quip about his inability to sustain an accent, something that plagues the Kentucky boy in real life.

Angelina Jolie essentially pouted, sashayed and smirked her way through this turkey.  She was useless and lightweight.

The guy who played Chaucer in A Knight's Tale was adequate and delivered the best line, a sly homage to the Heath Ledger film.

The guy who played Count Adhelmar in Knight's Tale was also in the cast, but he was completely wasted in a throwaway role.   

The scenery was spectacular if you like a little Venice. 

The performances were just so devoid of honest human emotion that I didn't care.  I wondered (aloud more than once) if they sat through the dailies and thought to themselves "wow, this is great!"   I snorted audibly at some of the asinine "emotional" moments.

The director -- some cat named Doofenschmirtz -- said he intended the film to be a comedy with some dramatic moments.  Too bad he didn't bother to film it in that manner.  It might have actually worked as a comedy.  As what it turned out to be?  It didn't work at all.  It was nothing.

What is it about people that they can't recognize complete and utter shit when they're making it?  I might not could make a better movie, but I could have spent 15 minutes looking at any day's shooting and told them this was dead in the water. 

I have a number of rules in my life.  Don't eat at a buffet restaurant from 1:15 to 5:40 pm is one of them.  Another time-honored maxim is that if a Blu-Ray/DVD has no additional features -- no bloopers, no director's cut, no alternate ending, no exposition, no making of, no deleted scenes -- it's going to be a big old honking wad of excrement.  Proven once again. 

Dammit Johnny.  I'm going to just erase this one from memory.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on April 20, 2011, 06:57:41 AM
Depp hasn't been normal since 21 Jump Street
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: ssgaufan on April 20, 2011, 10:01:39 AM
The Tourist

Preface.  I love Johnny Depp.  Think he is incredibly talented. 

I must amend that statement now, however, to include the following caveat:  in certain types of roles. 

If the character Depp is playing is weird, fey, affected, afflicted with some bizarre abnormality or otherwide prop-aided odd, Depp is as good as there is. 

When asked to play a role where he has to exist as an allegedly normal guy and interact normally with other human beings and you get The Tourist.  Depp is awkward. His emotions are so flat that they don't register.  He delivers 'I love you" and "this was very good wine" with the same earnest puppy dog expression.  Might as well have been reading from the phone book. 

When called on to perform action scenes, he can't escape the arms-flailing quirkiness that characterizes Jack Sparrow -- and makes that role such a perfect fit.  Perhaps Depp isn't playing Sparrow so much as he's just being himself. 

I watched this movie with it's implausible, nonsensical plot, its continual contrivances and its liberal application of deus ex machina and found myself wishing for another actor in the lead -- one with the chops and bravura to lend some credence to the role.  This movie with Robert Downey Jr. might have elevated itself from dreck to tapioca, perhaps. 

But it was still bad.  So bad that maybe it couldn't be rescussitated. 

Cast was solid but did little with it.   

Depp was dreary although he did sneak in a somewhat clever quip about his inability to sustain an accent, something that plagues the Kentucky boy in real life.

Angelina Jolie essentially pouted, sashayed and smirked her way through this turkey.  She was useless and lightweight.

The guy who played Chaucer in A Knight's Tale was adequate and delivered the best line, a sly homage to the Heath Ledger film.

The guy who played Count Adhelmar in Knight's Tale was also in the cast, but he was completely wasted in a throwaway role.   

The scenery was spectacular if you like a little Venice. 

The performances were just so devoid of honest human emotion that I didn't care.  I wondered (aloud more than once) if they sat through the dailies and thought to themselves "wow, this is great!"   I snorted audibly at some of the asinine "emotional" moments.

The director -- some cat named Doofenschmirtz -- said he intended the film to be a comedy with some dramatic moments.  Too bad he didn't bother to film it in that manner.  It might have actually worked as a comedy.  As what it turned out to be?  It didn't work at all.  It was nothing.

What is it about people that they can't recognize complete and utter shit when they're making it?  I might not could make a better movie, but I could have spent 15 minutes looking at any day's shooting and told them this was dead in the water. 

I have a number of rules in my life.  Don't eat at a buffet restaurant from 1:15 to 5:40 pm is one of them.  Another time-honored maxim is that if a Blu-Ray/DVD has no additional features -- no bloopers, no director's cut, no alternate ending, no exposition, no making of, no deleted scenes -- it's going to be a big old honking wad of excrement.  Proven once again. 

Dammit Johnny.  I'm going to just erase this one from memory.

I actually agree with you on this one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 21, 2011, 11:25:04 AM
Depp hasn't been normal since 21 Jump Street

If 21 jump street is normal, then I would like to be weird. Depp is a great actor - in certain roles, as Kaos said. When he's on, there's no one better. I'm not gonna say he's Tom Hanks or Jimmy Stewart, but I think he's pretty versatile and believable in most roles.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on April 27, 2011, 09:33:23 AM
I Love You Phillip Morris

I made a mistake. No really, a serious fucking mistake renting this movie. There wasn't shit to rent so I went for this one since I had noticed it a couple times while browsing. I thought surely it would be decent since it had Jim Carrey and Ewon McGreggor. To hell with that. This movie has now officially become the #1 worst movie eva; even worse than Bug. Nothing but a gay love fest b/w Carrey and Ewon. I actually heard the words "I want to cum in your ass" come out of Carrey's mouth. We couldn't recover from that. The movie was turned off and back to our regularly scheduled cable programming.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 27, 2011, 10:06:04 AM
I Love You Phillip Morris

I made a mistake. No really, a serious fucking mistake renting this movie. There wasn't shit to rent so I went for this one since I had noticed it a couple times while browsing. I thought surely it would be decent since it had Jim Carrey and Ewon McGreggor. To hell with that. This movie has now officially become the #1 worst movie eva; even worse than Bug. Nothing but a gay love fest b/w Carrey and Ewon. I actually heard the words "I want to cum in your ass" come out of Carrey's mouth. We couldn't recover from that. The movie was turned off and back to our regularly scheduled cable programming.
Carey jumped the shark with Truman Show or perhaps Liar Liar.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 27, 2011, 10:14:06 AM
Carey jumped the shark with Truman Show or perhaps Liar Liar.

He rode into the business on a fucking shark.  Dreadfully unfunny.  Should have been shot after his first Fire Marshall Bill sketch and left for dead. 

I've hated everything he's ever been in except The Dead Pool and that's only because it was Dirty Harry and because Axl, Duff, Slash and Izzy were also in the film.  GnR in a movie?  Win. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 27, 2011, 10:16:30 AM
He rode into the business on a fucking shark.  Dreadfully unfunny.  Should have been shot after his first Fire Marshall Bill sketch and left for dead. 

I've hated everything he's ever been in except The Dead Pool and that's only because it was Dirty Harry and because Axl, Duff, Slash and Izzy were also in the film.  GnR in a movie?  Win.

Except for the Commie sympathizing agenda in it, I thought The Majestic was pretty decent. He actually ACTED in it instead of the standard Ace Ventura mannerisms in every other movie he does. Dare I mention.....gulp......23?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on April 27, 2011, 10:30:25 AM
Except for the Commie sympathizing agenda in it, I thought The Majestic was pretty decent. He actually ACTED in it instead of the standard Ace Ventura mannerisms in every other movie he does. Dare I mention.....gulp......23?

I refused to watch 23 because the premise seemed...how do you say?...retarded.  So I don't know how he acted in it, but I also enjoyed The Majestic.  The Truman Show was alright, considering that he was supposed to take on a goofy, 1950's television stereotype, but as the movie progressed, it required him to take on a more serious role.

He's definitely not my favorite actor by far, mostly due to the over-the-top physical comedy that brought him to fame, but at least he's gotten less goofy in recent roles.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on April 27, 2011, 10:45:12 AM
Jim Carrey?

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. 

He was good in that.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 27, 2011, 10:48:18 AM
Jim Carrey?

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. 

He was good in that.

That movie sucked a 45-pound dick. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on April 27, 2011, 10:48:51 AM
That movie sucked a 45-pound dick.

No it didn't.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on April 27, 2011, 10:49:13 AM
That movie sucked a 45-pound dick.

I liked it.

...the 45-pound dick, that is.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on April 27, 2011, 11:03:35 AM
I liked it.

...the 45-pound dick, that is.

Then you would love I Love You Phillip Morris. There is even a huge dick cloud in the sky.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 27, 2011, 11:09:18 AM
No it didn't.

Okay.  A 60-pound dick then.  I was trying to be nice. 

Dreadful movie.  Mawkish shit.  It's one brain cell elevated from 50 First Dates. 

The asinine plot device where memories are hiding memories?  Asinine.  Shitty writing. 

And Carrey sucked in it.  Hard.

Allow me to rephrase:  I did not like this movie at all.  The only redeeming feature was Winslet's varying hair color.  At least her rainbow coif was mildly interesting. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on April 27, 2011, 11:27:07 AM
Okay.  A 60-pound dick then.  I was trying to be nice. 

Dreadful movie.  Mawkish shit.  It's one brain cell elevated from 50 First Dates. 

The asinine plot device where memories are hiding memories?  Asinine.  Shitty writing. 

And Carrey sucked in it.  Hard.

Allow me to rephrase:  I did not like this movie at all.  The only redeeming feature was Winslet's varying hair color.  At least her rainbow coif was mildly interesting.

So I take it you aren't a big fan of Charlie Kaufman - Adaptation, Being John Malkovich.

And to compare it to 50 First Dates in terms of substance?  That's weak.  Really weak. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 27, 2011, 11:51:06 AM
So I take it you aren't a big fan of Charlie Kaufman - Adaptation, Being John Malkovich.

And to compare it to 50 First Dates in terms of substance?  That's weak.  Really weak.

Those movies weren't as great as people made them out to be, it's just that so much of moviedom is so completely and totally mindless that anything that is remotely clever or attempts to engage you mentally is hailed as some kind of cinematic triumph. 

Inception was like that.  Really not a very good movie, but it was huzzahed to the heavens because it wasn't Fast and Furious Seven.  It allegedly required you to think.  It required me not to care in the least and to laugh at ridiculous plot holes, but I digress. 

50 First Dates had more substance.  It wasn't filled with sappy faux sentimentality and logical fallacies you could drive Precious through.  It also had Adam Sandler who is on par with Carrey in terms of acting ability.  As in a stuffed hamster has more. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 27, 2011, 01:19:10 PM
Those movies weren't as great as people made them out to be, it's just that so much of moviedom is so completely and totally mindless that anything that is remotely clever or attempts to engage you mentally is hailed as some kind of cinematic triumph. 

Inception was like that.  Really not a very good movie, but it was huzzahed to the heavens because it wasn't Fast and Furious Seven.  It allegedly required you to think.  It required me not to care in the least and to laugh at ridiculous plot holes, but I digress. 

50 First Dates had more substance.  It wasn't filled with sappy faux sentimentality and logical fallacies you could drive Precious through.  It also had Adam Sandler who is on par with Carrey in terms of acting ability.  As in a stuffed hamster has more.

Do I think Sandler is a cool guy who seems to be funny in SOME roles? But on par with Carrey's abiity? No way.

By ability I mean, ceiling. Carrey CAN act when he choses to. Sandler is what he is. An avg actor who comes off as being a genuine guy. I don't expect blockbusters out of him. I expect more of Carrey because I know he has it in him. He just rarely shows it anymore.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 29, 2011, 04:58:45 PM
The Breakfast Club

Yeah.  I know. 

But it's on and I'm temporarily stuck inside. 

I once had a professor who made us watch 15 minutes of this movie every day and then dissect the characters, their motivations, methods to handle their issues, ways to connect with them, etc.  Because of that, I sort of lost just how fantastic the overall movie actually was. 

The casting was dead solid perfect.   Yes each character was a stereotype to an extent.  And yeah, the resolution was a little packaged.  But the movie itself?  Quite simply the greatest teen angst movie ever made.  John Hughes should have started and stopped here. 

Molly Ringwald carries just the right rich bitch princess tone.  Judd is outstanding playing a ramped up version of me in high school.  Emilio turns in a solid performance as the jock.  Sheedy is adorable as the weirdo. Anthony Michael Hall has the dweeb down pat. 

Paul Gleason is somewhat undervalued in his role as Principal Vernon.  If you grew up in the 70s and 80s you had to deal with at least one Vernon.  The empty threat bully who spouted cliches and thought them life lessons was a staple of every high school.  So was the guy who told him to fuck off, like Nelson's character did.

"I make $31,000.  I have a home.  I'm not going to waste that on a piece of punk like you.....  Just as I thought, you're a gutless turd." 

That particular speech was delivered to me by our Vice Principal, a bald black man named Mr. Thomas (he called himself Mr. T) just before he shut me up in the "hot box" for an entire day. 

The movie is 25 years old (will there be a 25th anniversary retrospective?  Maybe a sequel, called The Country Club where we find out that Bender is a state senator, the wrestler works at a factory, the princess finished community college and works as a hairdresser, the weirdo owns a restaurant and the nerd is an accountant stuck in a boring life with a wife who is fucking her massage therapist?).  Even at 25, it still perfectly captures all the emotion, frustration, fear, hope, pain, anger and joy of that particular time in a person's maturity. 

It's an outstanding character study and one of my favorite movies of all time.   

If I only had ten movies on an island, I'd hope one of them was this one. 

A good story well told and well acted.  Can't ask for anything more.  Except nudity and that might have been creepy here.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on April 29, 2011, 05:01:08 PM
The Breakfast Club



One time when I was holding Saturday School, I said to a student, "Quiet down, Wang Chung."  I thought it was hilarious.   

He didn't get it.  His mom didn't get it.  Luckily my AP got it and only gave me a "warning." 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 29, 2011, 05:04:59 PM
One time when I was holding Saturday School, I said to a student, "Quiet down, Wang Chung."  I thought it was hilarious.   

He didn't get it.  His mom didn't get it.  Luckily my AP got it and only gave me a "warning."

What I could never get my professor to understand was that all kids didn't have a heart of gold hiding behind whatever wall they'd erected for themselves. 

Some kids are just plain mean ass bastards.  Some are simply sluts.  Some have no compassion for anyone or anything. 

Some just aren't reachable. 

But he never got it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 02, 2011, 09:55:00 AM
The Breakfast Club

Yeah.  I know. 

But it's on and I'm temporarily stuck inside. 

I once had a professor who made us watch 15 minutes of this movie every day and then dissect the characters, their motivations, methods to handle their issues, ways to connect with them, etc.  Because of that, I sort of lost just how fantastic the overall movie actually was. 

The casting was dead solid perfect.   Yes each character was a stereotype to an extent.  And yeah, the resolution was a little packaged.  But the movie itself?  Quite simply the greatest teen angst movie ever made.  John Hughes should have started and stopped here. 

Molly Ringwald carries just the right rich bitch princess tone.  Judd is outstanding playing a ramped up version of me in high school.  Emilio turns in a solid performance as the jock.  Sheedy is adorable as the weirdo. Anthony Michael Hall has the dweeb down pat. 

Paul Gleason is somewhat undervalued in his role as Principal Vernon.  If you grew up in the 70s and 80s you had to deal with at least one Vernon.  The empty threat bully who spouted cliches and thought them life lessons was a staple of every high school.  So was the guy who told him to fuck off, like Nelson's character did.

"I make $31,000.  I have a home.  I'm not going to waste that on a piece of punk like you.....  Just as I thought, you're a gutless turd." 

That particular speech was delivered to me by our Vice Principal, a bald black man named Mr. Thomas (he called himself Mr. T) just before he shut me up in the "hot box" for an entire day. 

The movie is 25 years old (will there be a 25th anniversary retrospective?  Maybe a sequel, called The Country Club where we find out that Bender is a state senator, the wrestler works at a factory, the princess finished community college and works as a hairdresser, the weirdo owns a restaurant and the nerd is an accountant stuck in a boring life with a wife who is fucking her massage therapist?).  Even at 25, it still perfectly captures all the emotion, frustration, fear, hope, pain, anger and joy of that particular time in a person's maturity. 

It's an outstanding character study and one of my favorite movies of all time.   

If I only had ten movies on an island, I'd hope one of them was this one. 

A good story well told and well acted.  Can't ask for anything more.  Except nudity and that might have been creepy here.

Don't you......forget about me........
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 02, 2011, 11:31:28 AM
Some of my favorite 80's movies.
The Breakfast Club
Goonies
Sixteen Candles
Some Kind of Wonderful
Can't Buy Me Love
One Crazy Summer
Better Off Dead
Stand By Me
Caddyshack
Fletch
Over the Top
Roadhouse
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 02, 2011, 12:14:52 PM

Roadhouse

(http://www.underculture.co.za/images/starwars_homo.gif)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 02, 2011, 12:24:16 PM
(http://www.underculture.co.za/images/starwars_homo.gif)
I'm the Cooler...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 02, 2011, 12:29:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtBIHcSnyF0&feature=related
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 03, 2011, 11:55:23 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey9MTt2RWRk&feature=related
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on May 03, 2011, 04:53:06 PM
Judd is outstanding playing a ramped up version of me in high school.

It was the fingerless gloves, wasn't it?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTailgatingRules on May 03, 2011, 05:00:37 PM
(http://www.underculture.co.za/images/starwars_homo.gif)

Did you not see the smoking hot blond in Roadhouse?  Makes it worth watching
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 03, 2011, 05:15:20 PM
Did you not see the smoking hot blond in Roadhouse?  Makes it worth watching

Meh.  She was fair.

(http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsL/10740-16104.gif)

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTailgatingRules on May 03, 2011, 05:31:32 PM
Meh.  She was fair.

(http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsL/10740-16104.gif)

By 1980's standards, SMOKING HOT.  By todays standard STILL SMOKING HOT.  The scene in Swazey's barn loft where she was naked showed how hot her body was. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 03, 2011, 05:37:03 PM
She gave my teenage body wood. 


Coughlin's Law: anything else is always something better
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTailgatingRules on May 03, 2011, 05:40:20 PM
She gave my teenage body wood. 


Coughlin's Law: anything else is always something better

Watched that movie over and over just because of her as well.  That Bo Derek type bikini sure did look good on her.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 03, 2011, 05:41:40 PM
Watched that movie over and over just because of her as well.  That Bo Derek type bikini sure did look good on her.

SWEETHEART....COME HITHER
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTailgatingRules on May 03, 2011, 05:45:26 PM
SWEETHEART....COME HITHER

The Red Eye...Breakfast of champions
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 03, 2011, 05:50:51 PM
When you see the color of their panties, you know you've got talent. Stick with me son and I'll make you a star.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 03, 2011, 05:51:46 PM
(http://blog.mrskin.com/data/features/131/lynch-roadhouse-1.jpg)

It's okay...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 03, 2011, 06:10:51 PM
Review this:
(http://www.brooklandsvideo.com/Road%20House%202.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTailgatingRules on May 03, 2011, 06:13:40 PM
(http://blog.mrskin.com/data/features/131/lynch-roadhouse-1.jpg)

It's okay...

Ahhhh, teenage memories.  I used to love myself to that scene
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 03, 2011, 06:18:28 PM
Ahhhh, teenage memories.  I used to love myself to that scene

I believe you have mistaken it for this scene which happens earlier in the movie.

(http://www.neonbubble.com/neonimg/1/roadhouse1.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 03, 2011, 07:47:25 PM
When you see the color of their panties, you know you've got talent. Stick with me son and I'll make you a star.
Cocktail's and Dreams.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on May 03, 2011, 08:36:18 PM
Do I think Sandler is a cool guy who seems to be funny in SOME roles? But on par with Carrey's abiity? No way.

By ability I mean, ceiling. Carrey CAN act when he choses to. Sandler is what he is. An avg actor who comes off as being a genuine guy. I don't expect blockbusters out of him. I expect more of Carrey because I know he has it in him. He just rarely shows it anymore.

Carrey, like Will Ferrell, uses idiotic/improbable backdrops to put on a weak, unfunny slapstick routine.  The only difference in Carey and Ferrell, is that once in blue moon, Carey can make it work in a flick IF you don't go in expecting anything. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 04, 2011, 07:27:03 AM
Coughlin's Law: Bury the dead.  They stink up the place.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 05, 2011, 12:23:26 AM
Hobo with a shotgun

Jeez. 

I know it was supposed to be camp.  Supposed to be tongue in cheek.  Supposed to be goofy gory fun.

Where Machete filled that job, Hobo just didn't do it. 

It was dumb. 

I didn't make it through it. 

The hooker with a heart of gold was pretty, though. 

Holly Dunsmore.  Molly Dunsworth.  Something like that. 

It just wasn't good.  One of the few movies I didn't bother to finish.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on May 05, 2011, 01:06:58 AM
Jim Carrey?

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. 

He was good in that.
I agree
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 05, 2011, 10:31:53 AM
Hobo with a shotgun

Jeez. 

I know it was supposed to be camp.  Supposed to be tongue in cheek.  Supposed to be goofy gory fun.

Where Machete filled that job, Hobo just didn't do it. 

It was dumb. 

I didn't make it through it. 

The hooker with a heart of gold was pretty, though. 

Holly Dunsmore.  Molly Dunsworth.  Something like that. 

It just wasn't good.  One of the few movies I didn't bother to finish.

You just crushed my soul...hadn't watched it yet.  Have it saved but haven't gotten a chance to view. :(
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on May 05, 2011, 11:34:39 AM
(http://blog.mrskin.com/data/features/131/lynch-roadhouse-1.jpg)

It's okay...

(http://i692.photobucket.com/albums/vv287/eloehr/Roadhouse/Roadhouse2.gif)   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 05, 2011, 01:09:33 PM
(http://i692.photobucket.com/albums/vv287/eloehr/Roadhouse/Roadhouse2.gif)
Don't make me rip out your throat...cause that's my move, I rip out throats.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 05, 2011, 01:14:21 PM
(http://blog.mrskin.com/data/features/131/lynch-roadhouse-1.jpg)

It's okay...

She's got factory air
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on May 05, 2011, 01:48:49 PM
She's got factory air

And I bet he would like a BIG do over on that smoking thing.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 05, 2011, 02:35:02 PM
And I bet he would like a BIG do over on that smoking thing.

Smoking causes pancreatic cancer?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 05, 2011, 02:41:01 PM
Smoking causes pancreatic cancer?

He meant how smoking hot he looked, I'm sure (considering that it was dallas who made the comment).

Maybe if he knew how sick he was going to get, he might have spent less time buffing up and more time enjoying shit. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on May 05, 2011, 02:46:30 PM
Smoking causes pancreatic cancer?

Theoretically, yes, but I don't know how they arrived at that conclusion.  It may be the same reasoning that declared eggs to be a cause of cancer.  Apparently smoking also causes bladder cancer.

(http://www.rollogrady.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/the_more_you_know.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on May 05, 2011, 03:13:18 PM
Smoking causes pancreatic cancer?

Didn't say it casued it, but I read (looking for link) that during his treatment his body was unable to heal (not that it would have) due to the years of smoking and he contiuned to smoke while receiving treatment.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 05, 2011, 03:42:04 PM
I heard the butt sex causes pancreatic cancer. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on May 05, 2011, 04:11:02 PM
Didn't say it casued it, but I read (looking for link) that during his treatment his body was unable to heal (not that it would have) due to the years of smoking and he contiuned to smoke while receiving treatment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1145486/Gaunt-Patrick-Swayze-defiantly-chain-smokes-battles-cancer.html
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 05, 2011, 09:01:15 PM
I heard the butt sex causes pancreatic cancer.

And shitting yourself.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on May 05, 2011, 09:08:39 PM
Felon

Caught this on the tube the other night.  I thought it was OK.    Basically this was an episode of Oz except an hour longer.  Highlights were a completely unrecognizable Val Kilmer as the grizzled prison vet, some pretty realistic fight scenes (supposedly they hired real ex-cons as the extras so they could show how prison fights and gang beat downs looked), and the daughter from Vegas Vacation getting strip searched after her underwire bra set off the metal detector.

I think there was a moral to the story, the moral was being in prison sucks.  Actually it was supposed to show how the US penal system is lacking proper oversight, desensitizes cons even more than they already were, and is utterly failing at rehabilitating criminals.  It did a good job at showing this without being overly preachy.  Of course, it presented no answers to these issues either.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 05, 2011, 11:26:06 PM
And shitting yourself.
Can you believe THIS shit? That chick frosted me like I was a fucking cake!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 06, 2011, 10:08:28 AM
Felon

Caught this on the tube the other night.  I thought it was OK.    Basically this was an episode of Oz except an hour longer.  Highlights were a completely unrecognizable Val Kilmer as the grizzled prison vet, some pretty realistic fight scenes (supposedly they hired real ex-cons as the extras so they could show how prison fights and gang beat downs looked), and the daughter from Vegas Vacation getting strip searched after her underwire bra set off the metal detector.

I think there was a moral to the story, the moral was being in prison sucks.  Actually it was supposed to show how the US penal system is lacking proper oversight, desensitizes cons even more than they already were, and is utterly failing at rehabilitating criminals.  It did a good job at showing this without being overly preachy.  Of course, it presented no answers to these issues either.

Oz was some scary shit. 

I still have trouble watching Law&Order SVU.   I can't keep from thinking of Elliot as Keller.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 06, 2011, 12:16:59 PM
Kaos - finally got around to catching Inception ALL THE WAY through with no interuption. I agree with you. Did not like it. It sucked. Was hoping for Shutter Island and all I got was a maze of a movie that made no sense as far as where it wanted to go.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on May 06, 2011, 02:12:02 PM
Oz was some scary poop. 

I still have trouble watching Law&Order SVU.   I can't keep from thinking of Elliot as Keller.

I feel that way about the insurance commercials with Schillinger.  I keep seeing him and Keller breaking the student's arms and legs like they did to Beecher.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 06, 2011, 03:05:58 PM
Or burning a swastika into his ass. 

That show did a good job of showing that "progressives" like McManus will meet with mixed results and in a lot of cases make things worse because they are so easily manipulated by sociopaths.

Another one I have trouble with is Eames on L&O: CI.  She showed it all and more as the death row psycho who killed her kids.  And then she rejected Adabisi because he was black. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 07, 2011, 06:46:30 AM
African Cats

Eleven year old animal-loving daughter having a sleepover.  Wife who wants to go see Waterboarded Elephants, something I'm not about to do.  So I get the Cats and the kids. Better than Waterhead Elephants I figure.

So about the African Cats, a Disney wildlife production.

Imagine an episode of Wild Kingdom. 

Not take away Marlin Perkins.  Take away Jim and the unintentional comedy he provided. 

Now give names to all the animals in the production.  Lions named Mara, Fang, Layla and Kali.  A cheetah named Sita. 

Now stretch it out to 90 minutes. 

Now give Samuel L. Jackson the task of reading an over the top script that overdramatizes and over emotes.   There are no snakes on these motherfucking plains, but Sam ramps it up anyway. 

Now add one of the worst movie scores you can imagine.  Sam is over the top.  Way over.  But the music?  Completely distracting, overly tense, overly dramatic, utterly annoying.

Once all that gets rolling,  commence yawning.

The visuals, the cinematography is stunning.  It's amazing that the crew was able to get that embedded in the world of these magnificent creatures.  I've always marveled at the ability to get cameras into these locations to capture the interactions between the animals and their environment. 

As a screensaver, this would be great.  Picture after picture of beautiful animals (but somebody could perhaps CGI out all the flies). 

In the end, though, the film tells us nothing.   The "bad lion" wins.  Some cats survive, some don't (and we don't care).   We're not breaking any new ground here.  It's pretty, but that's all.  It can't overcome the lack of story, the cloying score and Sam's "do they speak English in what?" narration. 

On the plus side, there was a long trailer for Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides in the previews.  May 20.  I will be lining up for that one.  Love Captain Jack. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on May 07, 2011, 11:41:50 AM
Thor

Not my genre of movie, but I expected Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman could help it.  They didn't.   If you're in to computer generated, complete fantasy, parallel world, action/violence over the top bullshit....have a fucking ball.

As for me... :puke:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on May 11, 2011, 09:18:25 AM
Good Will Hunting

I know this is an older movie I should have seen, but I finally got around to watching it last night. 

Not bad.  A lot of parts I could criticize like the fight scene on the basketball court, the "It's not your fault" scene, and the fact that they didn't build the "love is the most important aspect of life" angle enough. 

I thought Matt Damon did a good job as did Robin Williams.  Affleck was Affleck.  He should have quit after Voyage of the Mimi.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 11, 2011, 09:37:31 AM
Good Will Hunting

I know this is an older movie I should have seen, but I finally got around to watching it last night. 

Not bad.  A lot of parts I could criticize like the fight scene on the basketball court, the "It's not your fault" scene, and the fact that they didn't build the "love is the most important aspect of life" angle enough. 

I thought Matt Damon did a good job as did Robin Williams.  Affleck was Affleck.  He should have quit after Voyage of the Mimi.

Soundtrack to this movie is tits.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 11, 2011, 10:46:10 PM
Ya'll are fuckin' up my thread....

I need to watch a movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 12, 2011, 03:02:50 AM
Ya'll are fuckin' up my thread....

I need to watch a movie.
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 12, 2011, 03:40:51 PM
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
In future conversations, you will refer to me as... Mr. Sanderson and I will refer to you as... Mrs. Esterhouse
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 13, 2011, 07:08:03 AM
In future conversations, you will refer to me as... Mr. Sanderson and I will refer to you as... Mrs. Esterhouse

We're talking mucho dinero, and probably some American money too.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 13, 2011, 12:11:35 PM
In future conversations, you will refer to me as... Mr. Sanderson and I will refer to you as... Mrs. Esterhouse
Keep your eye on the fruit, keep you eye on the fruit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 16, 2011, 09:37:22 AM
Neighbor

The promo photo (below) looked good.  The premise was interesting:  Attractive woman with a bent mind moves in, dude next door ends up getting tortured in the basement for her amusement. 

Problem?  Too many to list.  Here are a few:

Film looked like it was shot on some douchebag's hand-held HD camera.

Nobody in the movie could act -- not even a little bit.

The lead actress, America Olivio, was the worst actress of all.  I've seen grade school plays with better performances.  Maybe if she'd taken her clothes off there would have been some miniscule amount of redeeming value, but not even close. 

The score was atrocious.

The storyline was muddled, none of the characters had any depth or believability.

The characters had no viable motive, there was no rationale for their actions.  And they couldn't act a lick.

Flipping back and forth in time/dream sequences left the film confused (but you won't care).

Constant continuity foul ups.  Slam a door and the sign on it falls off.  Next scene sign is back.  Same sign appears in three different locations.

Wasn't expecting Pulp Fiction or Halloween (the 70s version) but figured to get a little spooky torture porn to pass the time.  Instead, got this abomination.   

Absolutely in the top five of worst movies I've ever seen.  Give me ten days, $50, two bottles of vodka, and an iPhone and I could make a better film. 

(http://images.moviepostershop.com/neighbor-movie-poster-2009-1020550043.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on May 16, 2011, 09:48:17 AM
Easy A

I like it.  I love Emma Stone. 

Fuck yall.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 16, 2011, 09:55:16 AM
Easy A

I like it.  I love Emma Stone. 

Fuck yall.

Movie already reviewed several pages back. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 16, 2011, 10:46:35 AM
Easy A

I like it.  I love Emma Stone. 

Fuck yall.

(http://www.tigersx.com/images/navybolt.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 16, 2011, 12:07:20 PM
Bridesmaids is teh shiznit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 16, 2011, 12:08:35 PM
Bridesmaids is teh shiznit.

In depth, yet succinct and to the point.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 16, 2011, 12:16:49 PM
In depth, yet succinct and to the point.
Like fisting.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on May 16, 2011, 12:26:44 PM
Hit the Redbox over the weekend and finally got around to seeing The Green Hornet and Little Fockers.

I loathe almost everything about Seth Rogen, so I hadn't really had any desire to see TGH...but little man is into the superhero action flicks already, so we got it against my better judgment.  A few minutes into the movie, I realized that Britt Reid was the perfect character for him to play though; a simple, childish idiot who thinks he's ten feet tall and bullet proof.

The action scenes were decent at best, but the comedic interface was enough to make the movie entertaining.  The cars were badass though.

As for Little Fockers...
I fell asleep 25 minutes in.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on May 16, 2011, 01:29:01 PM
Way way way behind movie review.  Mad Max 2 aka The Road Warrior aka Smokey and the Bandit gone horribly wrong.

Flipping through the movie channels and saw that this was going to be on, decided to DVR for later viewing which I got around to last night.

If you are going to make a movie with no plot, hardly any dialogue, and no big problems to solve this is the way to do it.  George Miller really made his chops with the first two Mad Max films and then somebody gave him a budget and he responded by hiring Tina Turner and crapping out Beyond Thunderdome, Babe, and Happy Feet.  That's right, the guy who gave us Mad Max Rockatansky went on to make movies about pigs who talk to sheep and dancing penguins.

If any of you have ever missed this movie and really like car chase scenes you have got to pick this one up, it should be at a dollar bin near you.  If you like to nitpick apart mechanical and engineering impossibilities such as a semi rig sitting out in the desert for years just need 5 gallons of diesel to start up and drive on its non dry rotted tires you will like it to. 

Oh, and according to IMDB the scene where the biker hits the car and then flips end over end toward the camera was not fake.  The stunt went wrong and the stuntman nearly died and they left it in the film anyway.

And watching this movie again reminded me of why I always wanted a Blue Heeler named Dog.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on May 16, 2011, 01:37:21 PM
Amadeus

I like it.  Great movie.  Seemed a bit "made for TV," so I was a little confused on how it won so many awards.

I did get annoyed with the whole "God hates me" angle.  Also, the priest listening to the story was a nancy.  He should have interrupted him very early on in his story to say, "Shut up and get over yourself."
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 19, 2011, 02:49:42 PM
It's Complicated

It's not complicated. It's dreary, overlong and drizzly.

If you like watching Meryl Streep (one of the most overrated actresses of our time) flit, flip her hair, laugh like a loon for no apparent reason and look like hell on a platter, this is your movie.  If you want to watch Alec Baldwin priss, purse his lips and make hangdog eyes at a creepily ugly hag then this is your film.  If you want to see John Krasinski fail yet again to escape being Jim from the Office pretending to be another goofy guy you're supposed to like, then grab this off the rental rack.   If you're into watching Steve Martin portray a sad and ineffectual schlub who is mystifyingly attracted to a shrewish hag and is simultaneously mystifyingly seen as attractive by her, then you've found your flick. 

If you don't want to wish you had seven hours of your life back, then let this one go.   What?  Run time was only 120 minutes? You're KIDDING.   Seemed like I spent a month waiting for this to end. 

Basic premise? Shockingly poorly aged Meryl Streep has an affair with ex husband ten years after the divorce and while he's having a bad time with his marriage to a much younger (and much tighter) other woman. How bad did Streep look with her big baggy ass and sandblasted face? During one scene where she was eating some chocolate turd thing, I thought she had a wad of chocolate on her nose.  Nope.  It was a shadow from her hawkish bill.

Obviously, obviously, obviously written by a woman.  Probably a very ugly woman who hates men because they fuck her for sport and then don't bother calling again.  Either that or her husband left her for somebody who didn't look like a fucking yeti. 

No way is Alec's character going to be attraced to leatherface when he has a better-looking option at home.  No way.  Written by a woman?  Yep.  Because at the end -- and this shit is so dreadful I'm not going to even avoid spoilers -- the only person left with nothing is Baldwin's character.  He slinks off broken and empty, but happy he ruined his life by sticking it to a baggy piece of naugahyde.   And then leatherface humps her big fat ass over toward schlubbing Steve Martin instead.  Mr. Mealymouth nice guy. 

I LOATHED this dreadful wad of shit.  What a terrible movie.  Utter garbage.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 20, 2011, 09:06:27 AM
Skyline

Another "aliens take over the world" film. 

Unlike Independence Day where we were inspired and allowed to hope that somewhere, somehow a nerd and a fighter jockey could team up to find the brains and brawn to defeat the bastards, this movie left us with the depressing concept that in the end we're pretty much fucked.   Aliens gonna vacuum us up, eat our brains and be essentially impervious to any method of retaliation.  No hope. We lose.

Film starts with some ridiculous and unnecessary backstory about a guy who's made millions flying some friends out to LA.  Throwaway and a waste of nearly 30 minutes of movie time.  Dude's wealth plays no part in the movie.  Neither does another throwawy subplot regarding whether or not he was having an affair with his assistant -- which I think he was. But it didn't matter if he was or wasn't.  Wasted. 

Movie did feature Brittany Daniel, Scottie Thompson and Crystal Reed (all of whom are moderately hot and have porn star names) but none of them even approached naked.  Fail.

It started with the alien invasion and then flipped backward 15 hours to tell the flight to LA and party like a rock star story.  Stupid and unnecessary.  Total waste.

The special effects were fair, but not great. 

The ending was just terrible.  Terrible and ignorant.  It was like the producers ran out of money and said "okay, wrap this shit up now."

Rumor is that there will be a Skyline 2.  Maybe they'll provide some hope that the humans can win in that one.  Or what would be even better is if the producers of Independence Day saw this lame ass movie and decided to revive theirs. 

Of course this movie may have deterred that.  Despite a ridiculous amount of promotion the film tanked after the opening weekend.  It only took in $11 mil  when it opened and was outpaced by a dreadful Megamind and Due Date (both in their second weeks) as well as the debut of Unstoppable.  After that it fizzled away, drawing only another $10 mil.  With foreign box office, it finished 88th for the year. 

Battle Los Angeles fared better.  Will maybe give that a shot. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 20, 2011, 10:00:10 AM
Skyline

You were kind in your review....this was one of the 2hrs in my life I will never get back.

Battle Los Angeles was decent, but when comparing it to Skyline its like comparing Godfather to well uh Skyline.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 20, 2011, 03:13:57 PM
Meryl Streep (one of the most overrated actresses of our time)

You serious Clark?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 21, 2011, 12:01:43 AM
You serious Clark?

Yep.  Sure am.  She's never impressed me. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 21, 2011, 12:11:19 AM
Pirates 4: On Stranger Tides

Never thought I'd say this, but the film suffered from a little too much Depp. 

Never thought I'd say this, either, but it also suffered greatly from not having Bloom and Kiera to counterbalance the bizarre pretend world where people die and come to life at a whim. 

Never thought I'd say this, but the movie sorely missed the humor of the pirate pair (Pintel and Rigetti).  Side note, the guy who played Rigetti also played the Dwight character in the British version of The Office.

Never thought I'd consider this, but Ian McShane just didn't make a menacing enough foe.  There really wasn't a true villainous character to add the sense of danger.

Didn't count on this, but Penelope Cruz did look pretty hot in a couple of scenes, because she's generally not all that.  Her stupid accent was off-putting.  She also was clearly playing a part, you never quite went over and accepted her as what she was attempting to portray as you did in the past with Keira, Orlando and even Bill Nighy.

Not nearly as fun as the first movie, not nearly as convoluted as the third, not nearly as open-ended as the second.  But still...

It just seemed to me that the characters of Barbosa, Sparrow and Gibbs were playing caricatures of themselves, like cardboard cutouts standing around in lush locales. 

It wasn't bad.  Johnny Depp is still pretty and he had a few good lines. 

He's just not pirate enough to carry the entire movie (or franchise) by himself.  Savvy?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on May 21, 2011, 11:27:34 PM
Pirates 4: On Stranger Tides

Didn't count on this, but Penelope Cruz did look pretty hot in a couple of scenes, because she's generally not all that.

Johnny Depp is still pretty

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 22, 2011, 10:51:33 AM
:facepalm:

you beat me to it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on May 23, 2011, 11:14:30 AM
Shawshank Redemption

What's the big deal?

I mean, great movie.  I like it a lot.  But it's #1 on IMDB.com's top 250 list. 

Better than Godfather?  No.

Better than The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly?  No.

I'd put it in my top 25.  It might make the top 25.  Maybe. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 23, 2011, 11:03:11 PM
Shawshank Redemption

What's the big deal?

I mean, great movie.  I like it a lot.  But it's #1 on IMDB.com's top 250 list. 

Better than Godfather?  No.

Better than The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly?  No.

I'd put it in my top 25.  It might make the top 25.  Maybe.

Agree....great movie. But far from the best of all time.  Its not even Morgan Freeman's best of all time.

Just gone done watching The Expendables....finally.

Agree with Kaos. It was ok, but not the juggernaut they built it up to be. Too much special effects and CGI. Not enough substance. Stallone needs to put down the HGH already.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 26, 2011, 01:34:28 AM
In Bruges

I think this was the movie The American aspired to be. 

Couple of remorseful murderers hiding out in Bruges, which Colin Farrell describes as "a shithole" on multiple occasions. 

The older murderer enjoys the scenery and the history of the oldest preserved medieval town in Europe.  Their boss compares it to a fairy tale.  Colin hates it and wishes he was home or at least in London.  Then their boss gives them an order that changes all their lives.  Each has to make life and death decisions -- sometimes more than once.

Masterful mix of humor and pathos.  One minute you're feeling horrible over the angst and horror Farrell's Ray feels over an assisination that went wrong. The next you're laughing at his frustration with Bruges or at him karate chopping a midget.  Yes, he karate chops a midget. 

There's a dalliance with Chloe (played by Clémence Poésy who is pictured below).  She's not what you'd call classically beautiful, but she's engagingly cute and sexy. 

I liked this movie.  I ended up liking it a lot. Not something I'm going to watch ten or eleven times, but it's worth a look just for Farrell's performance as a petulant, childish gangster who's beating himself up.

It dragged in parts and was maybe a little too in love with Bruges (although I now want to go there).  It was a touch too brooding in parts and it started so slowly I wasn't sure I could get behind it but once I figured out where it was headed I really enjoyed the slow ride.

For the record, I laughed three times as much in this movie as I did during The Hangover.

No nudity, no sex. Lots of use of the word "fuck."

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OuKIMUeA20M/TDvhTQXxczI/AAAAAAAADf4/cCbISg6L7Og/s400/Cl%C3%A9mence%2BPo%C3%A9sy%2Bgossip%2Bgirl.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on May 26, 2011, 09:40:27 AM
Mr. Popper's Penguins

I have not seen this film.  I will not see this film.  I just wanted to be the first to say that this film is God awful and should be burned. 

This review is based off of the one TV spot that was on during the NBA game last night.  These guys do a good job of summing it up.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2011/may/25/mr-poppers-penguins-jim-carrey-trailer

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 26, 2011, 04:40:29 PM
How many of you fucks are named Kaos?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on May 26, 2011, 07:21:17 PM
How many of you fucks are named Kaos?

flex your e-penis and make it a lockable thread...you with the only key. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on May 26, 2011, 10:58:12 PM
How many of you fucks are named Kaos?

Who the fuck wants to hear your opinion about movies in this thread?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 26, 2011, 11:39:53 PM
Who the fuck wants to hear your opinion about movies in this thread?
:jesus:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on May 26, 2011, 11:55:44 PM
:jesus:

Weak.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 27, 2011, 12:08:04 AM
Weak.
:23:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 27, 2011, 07:40:05 AM
Who the fuck wants to hear your opinion about movies in this thread?

44 pages mocks you. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 28, 2011, 08:09:45 AM
Solitary Man

This movie was what Wall Street II: Boring as Fuck really should have been. 

Change Michael Douglas' name from Ben to Gordon, change the business from car dealer to financial broker and the films easily could have been interchangeable -- except this one was better, way better than Wall Street.  It's the movie Wall Street could have been but failed miserably to attain.

This is one of those "how did this movie miss" curiosities that I don't understand.  It was released in 2009 nad just sort of disappeared from the radar. 

Top notch cast, but it just vanished.  Cost $15 million to make, did only about $4 mil box office.

It drifts into a very grey area early on, brushing up against an extremely uncomfortable and disturbing subject with serious taboos attached.  Maybe this is why the film never made a mainstream dent.  I'm sure it probably crossed enough lines to cause some pushback.

Michael Douglas, Danny DeVito, Susan Sarandon, Mary-Louise Parker, Imogene Poots, Jesse Eisenberg, Richard Schiff and Jenna Fischer (who says "fuck" at least twice) populate the cast.

An disturbing visit to a doctor sets an ultra successful businessman on a path of self-destruction.  He destroys everything that once meant anything to him and revels in his own debauchery.   

The film makes no apologies for occasional ambiguity, even at the end.  Was anything ever realy wrong with Ben or did he just freak out out of unwarranted fear?  Is he really a skeevy bastard or is he just reacting to his fear? Is it young ass or security that he seriously craves?

Douglas is completely at home playing this part.  He does the downtrodden rich like he was born into it.  He plays the lothario sleaze to perfection.  He rolls around in this role like your favorite dog in a piece of dead roadkill.  Ends up stinking like hell, but you can't help but like him even though he really has no redeeming qualities.

Sarandon, who I hate, wasn't bad.  Her scenes were limited and she didn't over act.  Fischer never got remotely naked and I have a hard time seeing her as anything but Pam.  She's not nearly as stuck as Pam as Jim is as Jim, but it is close.

The head turning scene at the very end is classic.  Closure would have been nice, but is there ever really any closure in life?  The ending was as open-ended as The Sopranos finale in its own weird way. 

Not the best movie I've ever seen, but as a character study it wasn't bad even though Douglas' take on this skeevy character has been studied repeatedly in film.  He's almost playing a caricature of the other skeeves he's played.

Still, if you can get past the taboo (which I won't spoil)  check out this superior version of Wall Street II.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 28, 2011, 08:40:35 AM
The Babysitters

Yet another movie that busts a taboo wide open. 

It's a little like Risky Business in reverse.  Babysitter hooks up with a dad and then helps her friends earn a little side money.  Of course it gets out of hand. 

Very weird movie.  The lead babysitter, Shirley, is oddly attractive.  Shows her sweaty midsection and crazily decent tits in one pretty cool scene.  Difficult to manage looking at them knowing that she's the daughter of Law & Order's Jack McCoy in real life. (Daa-DUMMMM)

For any guy who's ever hired a good looking baby sitter and had a random inappropriate thought while driving her home..... this is why you keep those thoughts locked away deep, deep in your head where they belong.

Lots of sad, seeking, lost, confused married schlumps finding validation and being manipulated by all-too-mature teenage girls.  Living the fantasy -- except the fantasy has fangs.

Only a little (okay, maybe a lot) unrealistic in the lack of consequences.  In the real world somebody's going to jail.  Jack McCoy (with help from Elliot Stabler and Olivia Benson) would make sure of it.  Letting everybody skate is a story-telling fail. 

But of course everybody skated in Risky Business, too, so it's the filmmaker's prerogative.  The final spoken denoument makes no sense, though. 

Worth seeing just for Jack McCoy's daughter's sweaty tits. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on May 28, 2011, 10:07:57 PM
I was at the grocery store and saw this girl in cutoff stretching up to get something off the top shelf.  I thought to myself, "Those are some nice legs."  Then she turns around and it is our 16 year old babysitter.  I went home and told my wife, "I heard Olivia has been caught smoking weed, we can't hire here anymore."
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 29, 2011, 08:14:04 AM
I was at the grocery store and saw this girl in cutoff stretching up to get something off the top shelf.  I thought to myself, "Those are some nice legs."  Then she turns around and it is our 16 year old babysitter.  I went home and told my wife, "I heard Olivia has been caught smoking weed, we can't hire here anymore."

I demand, uh I mean, saniflush demands pics of this encounter.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Eagle!!! on May 29, 2011, 07:12:34 PM
The Dilemma

Holy fuck. This shit was a disgrace. One of the worst movies I have ever seen...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on May 30, 2011, 04:13:55 AM
Who the fuck wants to hear your opinion about movies in this thread?
Ummm Yeah...that's already been covered, back on page one or two.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on May 30, 2011, 05:05:17 AM
Ummm Yeah...that's already been covered, back on page one or two.

It wasn't a serious question.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 31, 2011, 12:03:45 AM
Green Zone -- 2010
The Longest Day -- 1962

I watched Green Zone with Matt Damon and Greg Kinnear.  Within 24 hours I watched The Longest Day with John Wayne, Sean Connery, Robert Wagner, Henry Fonda, Robert Mitchum, Red Buttons, Steve Forrest, Fabian, Richard Burton, Peter Lawford, Roddy McDowell, Sal Mineo and Richard Dawson (among hundreds of others you'd likely recoginze. 

The dicohtomy in presentation made me physically ill and very clearly illustrated just how far we as a nation have slid in the way we view ourselves and our position in the world.  The media's relentless "need to know" coupled with general public apathy and compounded by the current "love in, laugh in" generation of radical hippie fucks who have become the establishment all conspire to destroy everything we are and everything we could be -- and do it from the inside.

In The Longest Day, the soldiers were portrayed as heroes, putting their lives on the line and willingly sacrificing themselves in the name of honor, country, loyalty, faith and dury. 

In Green Zone, the US is the bad guy, the clueless invader, the arrogant deceiver bent on war for reasons of greed.  We lie to our troops, we lie to our allies, we lie to our enemies, we lie to ourselves.  That's the message of Green Zone. 

In The Longest Day, valor was exhibited by our heroic troops. In Green Zone, the troops were confused and disorganized, their agendas self-serving. The only nobility and valor was exhibited by a one-legged local.

I'm sick of movies that demonize our soldiers, paint our administration (under GWB) as inept and corrupt and portray America as the evil empire imposing its bogus will on the world.   

After watching The Longest Day, I shut off my television and said a slient prayer thanking God for the men who spilled their blood and sacrificed their lives so that air-headed shit bags like the pacifist fucks who make movies like Green Zone have the freedom and the right to smear the name and reputation of this country.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 31, 2011, 06:50:20 AM
I'm sick of movies that demonize our soldiers, paint our administration (under GWB) as inept and corrupt and portray America as the evil empire imposing its bogus will on the world.   

 :thumsup:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on May 31, 2011, 09:35:55 AM
It's amazing to me that the only movie that makes US troops look like brave, organized, upstanding people that I have seen in the last 10 years was....Transformers.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 31, 2011, 11:44:42 AM
The Babysitters

Yet another movie that busts a taboo wide open. 

It's a little like Risky Business in reverse.  Babysitter hooks up with a dad and then helps her friends earn a little side money.  Of course it gets out of hand. 

Very weird movie.  The lead babysitter, Shirley, is oddly attractive.  Shows her sweaty midsection and crazily decent tits in one pretty cool scene.  Difficult to manage looking at them knowing that she's the daughter of Law & Order's Jack McCoy in real life. (Daa-DUMMMM)

For any guy who's ever hired a good looking baby sitter and had a random inappropriate thought while driving her home..... this is why you keep those thoughts locked away deep, deep in your head where they belong.

Lots of sad, seeking, lost, confused married schlumps finding validation and being manipulated by all-too-mature teenage girls.  Living the fantasy -- except the fantasy has fangs.

Only a little (okay, maybe a lot) unrealistic in the lack of consequences.  In the real world somebody's going to jail.  Jack McCoy (with help from Elliot Stabler and Olivia Benson) would make sure of it.  Letting everybody skate is a story-telling fail. 

But of course everybody skated in Risky Business, too, so it's the filmmaker's prerogative.  The final spoken denoument makes no sense, though. 

Worth seeing just for Jack McCoy's daughter's sweaty tits.

WARNING NSFW....MAY CONTAIN BREASTS!
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2396152/katherine_waterston_in_the_babysitters/ (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2396152/katherine_waterston_in_the_babysitters/)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 31, 2011, 12:53:26 PM
insert Jumbo's video

Thank you, you saved me from having to watch the movie, I just saw the best part.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 31, 2011, 12:58:27 PM
It just moved
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 31, 2011, 01:12:28 PM
It just moved
I am calling your IT department!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 31, 2011, 01:21:12 PM
I am calling your IT department!

Don't disturb them.  They are very happy right now.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 31, 2011, 01:30:11 PM
Don't disturb them.  They are very happy right now.

I thought they cared?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 31, 2011, 01:40:58 PM
I thought they cared?

My IT department cares very much about any movement.  They monitor such things closely.  THAT made IT move.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 31, 2011, 02:25:07 PM
Thank you, you saved me from having to watch the movie, I just saw the best part.
Sorry I should have posted the disclaimer.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 31, 2011, 02:30:54 PM
Sorry I should have posted the disclaimer.

WARNING: It could move
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 31, 2011, 02:38:30 PM
WARNING: It could move
Pet the sweaty.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on June 05, 2011, 08:51:21 AM
Brotherhood

College freshman Adam Buckley finds himself blindfolded in the back of a van dealing with the fact that he has to rob a convenience store as the final step of his initiation into the Sigma Zeta Chi fraternity. Minutes later he finds himself dealing with the fact that a fellow-pledge just got shot while doing it.

Frank, the senior fraternity brother in charge of the night’s events, is able to get the injured pledge out of the store alive, but the fraternity’s troubles are just beginning. Thinking they can get out of the situation without taking the pledge to a hospital, Frank decides the group will handle things themselves. But when every move is met with disaster, Adam must find it within himself to go against Frank and his new brothers in order to save his friend’s life.


After a string of suck ass DVD rentals, I think this is a sleeper. It was entertaining all the way through the movie and thats without all the high tech Hollywood special effects. I def suggest all to watch.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on June 05, 2011, 12:37:38 PM
Solitary Man

This movie was what Wall Street II: Boring as Fuck really should have been. 

Change Michael Douglas' name from Ben to Gordon, change the business from car dealer to financial broker and the films easily could have been interchangeable -- except this one was better, way better than Wall Street.  It's the movie Wall Street could have been but failed miserably to attain.

This is one of those "how did this movie miss" curiosities that I don't understand.  It was released in 2009 nad just sort of disappeared from the radar. 

Top notch cast, but it just vanished.  Cost $15 million to make, did only about $4 mil box office.

It drifts into a very grey area early on, brushing up against an extremely uncomfortable and disturbing subject with serious taboos attached.  Maybe this is why the film never made a mainstream dent.  I'm sure it probably crossed enough lines to cause some pushback.

Michael Douglas, Danny DeVito, Susan Sarandon, Mary-Louise Parker, Imogene Poots, Jesse Eisenberg, Richard Schiff and Jenna Fischer (who says "fuck" at least twice) populate the cast.

An disturbing visit to a doctor sets an ultra successful businessman on a path of self-destruction.  He destroys everything that once meant anything to him and revels in his own debauchery.   

The film makes no apologies for occasional ambiguity, even at the end.  Was anything ever realy wrong with Ben or did he just freak out out of unwarranted fear?  Is he really a skeevy bastard or is he just reacting to his fear? Is it young ass or security that he seriously craves?

Douglas is completely at home playing this part.  He does the downtrodden rich like he was born into it.  He plays the lothario sleaze to perfection.  He rolls around in this role like your favorite dog in a piece of dead roadkill.  Ends up stinking like hell, but you can't help but like him even though he really has no redeeming qualities.

Sarandon, who I hate, wasn't bad.  Her scenes were limited and she didn't over act.  Fischer never got remotely naked and I have a hard time seeing her as anything but Pam.  She's not nearly as stuck as Pam as Jim is as Jim, but it is close.

The head turning scene at the very end is classic.  Closure would have been nice, but is there ever really any closure in life?  The ending was as open-ended as The Sopranos finale in its own weird way. 

Not the best movie I've ever seen, but as a character study it wasn't bad even though Douglas' take on this skeevy character has been studied repeatedly in film.  He's almost playing a caricature of the other skeeves he's played.

Still, if you can get past the taboo (which I won't spoil)  check out this superior version of Wall Street II.

Agree, but I still wanted closure in the end.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 13, 2011, 08:51:43 AM
Catfish

Ton of critical buzz, uproar because it was snubbed by the Academy Awards.  Supposedly groundbreaking. Allegedly a poignant portrayal of lost souls congregating on the Internet. 

I'm calling bullshit on the entire exercise. 

Nothing that happened in this so-called documentary was real.  Everything was completely scripted.  And poorly so.  You could see what was coming a mile away.  Every step was telegraphed.

Nev is a complete douche.  He should change his name to Naive.  What a stupid fag. 

Short version?  Douchey fag begins an online relationship.  Equally douchey fag friends decide to start filming his online interactions. (There's your first giveaway that this is totally fake, who films anybody talking to somebody online?  What could be more boring than watching somebody type?).  Douchey fag "falls in love" with one of the people he's chatting with and then these three douches decide to take a road trip to see what's real and what's not.  And who's surprised when things aren't exactly as they were represented. 

Fuck the idiots in this film.  Nev, Ariel, Joost and Angela can all suck it.  Complete and utter frauds. 

Moral of the story?  People are stupid.  That this fluff would draw critical acclaim illustrates yet again just how low our standards have fallen. 

We're just really retarded. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 14, 2011, 03:55:48 AM
Human Centipede

Stupid.  And gross.  Significant inconsistencies. 

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans

Eva Mendes is smoking hot.  Fairuza Baulk is hot and essentially wasted. 

Nicholas Cage is the absolute worst actor in the history of American film.  You put a sniveling gibbon in his role and this movie might have elevated itself.  With Cage?  Just an absolute, complete and total suckfest.  He fucks up every single scene he is in -- and he's in every fucking scene. 

I'm done with this assclown.  Unless it's Valley Girl or Raising Arizona, I won't watch another movie Mr. Cage is ever in.   If you took Will Ferrell, John Travolta, Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, porn's Randy Spears, Owen Wilson, Brendan Fraser, Josh Hartnett and David Caruso and merged them all together, and they collectively had a baby they named Prudence with Kristen Stewart, dearl little Pru would be a much, much better actor than Nicholas Cage. 

He's without question the worst fucking actor on the planet and that's saying a lot.  I couldn't enjoy the movie and have no idea what the story was supposed to be thanks to his shit-tastic performance.  God he sucked balls.   

Here's a visual example of just how bad he sucked:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qJQQ6GDNiIU/TAFcY-sB7CI/AAAAAAAACBk/-Maq0pkfCGE/s1600/bad_lieutenant_nicolas_cage.jpg)

And another

(http://thumbnails.truveo.com/0018/5B/B3/5BB3602278F58C540F9EF8_Large.jpg)

And here's why I bothered:

(http://www.theme-vista.com/images/wallpapers/59400376/Celebrities/Eva%20Mendes/Eva%20Mendes%20Wallpaper.jpg)

And another

(http://thumbs.twilightsex.com/blog/201003/celebs-102323.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 17, 2011, 12:19:12 AM
Much Ado About Nothing

Kate Beckinsale, Denzel Washington, Keanau Reeves, Michael Keaton, Emma Thompson, Kenneth Branagh and House's friend from House. 

Great cast. 

Denzel is Keanau's brother.  I think that was done in the stage tradition of suspending reality.  Boys can play girls, girls boys and Denzel and Keanau are brothers and nobody bats an eye.  I batted.  It fucking confused me for far too long. 

Ken and Emma blithered and blathered hamming it up and gnawing on the bones of scenery.  They over-emoted, overacted and overreacted all of which fouled up the works. 

Kate was a freaking baby, just barely 20 when the movie was released.  She still had a puffy little baby face.  Love some kate, but she wasn't what you'd call 100% appealing. 

There was a purpose behind watching this particular film.   Daughter has to know it.  The beginning of the movie very nearly bored her out of watching the entire thing.  I had to make her sit through the pretentious setups before they got to the meat of the story.  But once she figured out what was going on she was fully engaged. 

Keanau sucked.  Sucked balls.  Ken and Emma were so over the top I wanted to punch both of them in the teeth.  They were four years into a marriage that only lasted two more beyond this film.  Already looked strained and old.  She was particularly bad, but I've never liked her in much of anything anyway. 

The movie was fluff.  Could have been done much better but it was tolerable at least. 

I get the impression that Branagh is a pretentious ass, though.  Real life. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on June 21, 2011, 05:02:18 PM
Black Dynamite

I was flipping through the channels last night when this gem caught my eye.  At first I thought it was an actual '70's blaxploitation film, but I quickly caught on.  If you like the cheesiness of the '70's, movies that parody cliches, or mustaches you must see this.  It hits every '70's blaxploitation cliche available.  All I should really have to say is that the finale features a nun-chuck fight between a militant Shaft knockoff with a CIA issued license to kill and Richard Nixon in the Oval Office.  And to quote Roger Ebert from his review of the film.

Quote
I am happy to say it brings back an element sadly missing in recent movies, gratuitous nudity. Sexy women would "happen" to be topless in the 1970s movies for no better reason than that everyone agreed, including themselves, that their breasts were a genuine pleasure to regard -- the most beautiful naturally occurring shapes in nature, I believe. Now we see breasts only in serious films, for expressing reasons. There's been such a comeback for the strategically positioned bed sheet, you'd think we were back in the 1950s.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 21, 2011, 05:17:46 PM
Funhouse
Typical 80s era horror flick.  Obligatory shower scene with plump natural breasts. 

Side note:  I adore actual breasts with their funky nipples, odd shapes and fullness.  Fake breasts are not good.  I don't like them. 

Side note two: The plump breasts in the shower scene were later revealed to supposedly belong to a junior in high school.  Sixteen.  Of course she wasn't, but that was the connotation.

Obligatory lecherous jackass jock in an Members Only jacket who drives a loud muscle car. Obligatory glasses-wearing nerd who'd outkicked his poon coverage.  Obligatory obtuse parents and obligatory jerk little brother. 

Cheesy sub-human wearing a frankenstein mask gets a hand job from a fortune teller in torn fishnets.  Sweet.

All the elements were there.  But it failed to deliver.  No chills, little spookiness. 

This is the kind of movie you'd take a date to at the drive in, you might look up once or twice from your bra plundering to see what was on the screen and then you'd pour out the popcorn and take the disheveled chick back home.  Completely forgettable, never meant to actually be watched, I don't think. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 21, 2011, 05:20:30 PM
It's Alive

No. It's not. 

Bad movie.  Bad fake baby.   Bad acting. Bad setup. Bad performance. Bad delivery.

Bad. 

I'd beat that baby's ass
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on June 22, 2011, 12:11:43 AM
Being John Malkovich

What the hell was I thinking in college?  I thought this movie was some cerebral masterpiece, but after a second viewing, it's utter shit. 

I even hyped it up to my wife who hadn't seen it before.  She barely made it through. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on June 22, 2011, 10:47:36 AM
Being John Malkovich

What the hell was I thinking in college?  I thought this movie was some cerebral masterpiece, but after a second viewing, it's utter shit. 

I even hyped it up to my wife who hadn't seen it before.  She barely made it through.

I think we've covered Charlie Kaufman in this thread previously.  You either love him or hate him.  I think he's one of the few original minds in Hollywood.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on June 22, 2011, 11:06:22 AM
I think we've covered Charlie Kaufman in this thread previously.  You either love him or hate him.  I think he's one of the few original minds in Hollywood.

The stories my 5 year old makes up are original too.  I don't know if I want them stretched to 2+ hours and filmed.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on June 22, 2011, 09:46:50 PM
I think we've covered Charlie Kaufman in this thread previously.  You either love him or hate him.  I think he's one of the few original minds in Hollywood.

We did. 

And I defended him with all of my might.

But Being John Malkovich was awful.  It tried way too hard to have a profound meaning.

I still stand behind Eternal Sunshine and Adaptation.  I just may never watch them again. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on June 23, 2011, 09:23:51 AM
May have been covered earlier but I saw the new Pirates the other night.  Same as all the others.  Took the 10 year old and we both enjoyed it because I'm a big fan of that series.  Same story line, pretty much the same actors, same ending.....

But that's okay because I don't care for sequels that go to extremes to try and top the one before.  If the original works, stay with it.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GarMan on June 23, 2011, 09:57:49 AM
It's Alive

No. It's not. 

Bad movie.  Bad fake baby.   Bad acting. Bad setup. Bad performance. Bad delivery.

Bad. 

I'd beat that baby's ass 

I remember this movie...  Typical 70's crap...  I was a little too young to see it when it came out, but when I eventually saw it, I was severely disappointed.  The television commercials were far more scary than the actual movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 23, 2011, 09:59:57 AM
I remember this movie...  Typical 70's crap...  I was a little too young to see it when it came out, but when I eventually saw it, I was severely disappointed.  The television commercials were far more scary than the actual movie.

New version, actually. 
(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTI3NDg5NTExN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjQ2NjQ3Mg@@._V1._SY317_.jpg)

Made in 2008. 

Still sucked.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 24, 2011, 11:00:04 PM
Cars 2

Animation is absolutely amazing.  The background scenery is particularly impressive. 

I hate Owen Wilson's whiny ass voice.  The only time I can tolerate Larry the Dumbass, Legend's role model, is when he's being a tow truck. Then he's tolerable.  Even occasionally amusing. 

Cars 2 was half again too long, despite the eye-popping animation.  It began to drag with its convoluted race/spy movie mashup. 

The original Cars had heart and purpose.  You grew to care at least a little about the plight of the little wide spot in the road the crew called home. It was a wistful homage to the hundreds of small towns that shriveled up and died as a result of Interstate projects that bypassed them. 

This?  Zero heart at all.  Just a visually overwhelming and incredibly noisy explosion of color and sound. 

For parents of small kids there were a couple of references to "killing" this car or that car, including one demand to "kill Lightning McQueen."  This frightened and disturbed my niece (five years old) who understands that "killed means they can't wake up any more."  Not good. 

For the record, I didn't need, want or give half of a technicolor shit in a leprechaun's pot to have the "green agenda" rammed down my throat in the guise of a kid's movie.   Whatever happened to just telling a good story (this one was not) without using the film as a pulpit to preach "oil companies are bad..?"

Cars, I'd give a solid four out of five (in retrospect).  Cars 2?  Two is right. 

That said?  It's going to make a fuckpot of money.  Every showing was sold out tonight.  And by sold out, I mean people in every fucking seat. 

Transformers comes out next week.  That's what I'm waiting on.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 25, 2011, 10:55:34 PM

Transformers comes out next week.  That's what I'm waiting on.
meh...you are just happy Megan Fox isn't in it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on June 25, 2011, 11:49:29 PM
meh...you are just happy Megan Fox isn't in it.
The new chick is smoking hott.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 29, 2011, 01:46:12 AM
Transformers 3

It's rare when the third film in a series manages to rise to the occasion and elevate the franchise. Usually the third film sucks ass as the franchise grows flat and stale.  Godfather III anyone?

There are exceptions. Friday the 13th 3D managed the trick.  Star Wars: Return of the Jedi was as good as any even though the damn Ewoks very nearly fucked it completely up.  Rocky III didn't diminish the franchise, but it was Rocky 4 that raised the bar.   Christmas Vacation remains the best of the Vacation foursome.

Add Transformers to the list.  The third installment of the Transformers series is far, far better than the second which suffered from a number of false starts, not the least of which was the Ying Yang twins.  It's not quite as good as the first but only because the first was such a mind-blowing special effects spectacle and nobody was really sure Shia could pull off his role. 

The Dark of the Moon stretches the bounds of logic a little and has some surprise guests lend realism to the fable.  But so what?  It's gorgeously rendered.  It tells a story that can be fairly easily followed and doesn't stray into too much mumbo jumbo jargon or preachiness.

The producers took out the idiotic dog humping and horny mother eats pot brownies lowbrow efforts at comedic relief and let Shia channel his inner Lewis Stevens instead.  There was just enough of the mom and dad to remind you of their eccentricities and just the right mix of moments that make you laugh. 

You know they've done a good job when you find yourself cheering the Autobots and hoping nothing bad happens to them.  They manage to humanize animated objects. 

Speaking of animation--- holy shit.  Absolutely amazing.  At some point you start to wonder if they didn't just build the damn things in real life and then destroy a large American city to get it right. 

It is what it is.  Lots and lots of things blow up.  The good guys fight the bad guys.  You know the good guys will eventually win because that's what happens in movies, but the film gets you to care about the ride. 

Awesome movie.   99.583% bad ass.  Can't wait to see it again. 

Tons of star power. Lots of people got their beaks wet on this one.

If there is any complaint it would be that it is a little long. 2:34 Could probably have cut about 20-30 minutes and tightened it up a bit.  I can see how it would be hard to decide what to cut.  Do we kill some of this abso-fucking-loutely awesome animation?  Dial back some of the humorous breaks?  Cut mom and dad out of the movie completely?   Not sure what could or should have been trimmed. 

Oh, one more thing?  Meagan who? 

The movie didn't suffer at all from her absence.  In fact, i think it might have been better without her.

You can bet that the critics will savage it, but when it comes to movies like this, they are elitist fuckwad assholes. 

It's a big, noisy, fun movie.  Fuck the critics.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on June 29, 2011, 10:32:15 AM
Quote
The Dark of the Moon stretches the bounds of logic a little

Besides the intelligent transforming alien machines? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on June 29, 2011, 10:33:40 AM
Besides the intelligent transforming alien machines?
That's plausible??
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 29, 2011, 11:27:59 AM
That's plausible??

Yes.

(http://jcolavito.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/sphinxbluesky.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 29, 2011, 01:35:16 PM
I was right.  Critics can't see past their own snobbery. 

They see "Michael Bay" and start pissing blood.  On this one, they're all full of shit.  Here's how pathetic their kind can really be:

Quote
With "Transformers," the third time is apparently the charm.
Not that there's much that's actually charming about "Transformers: Dark of the Moon." It is the same sort of deafening mayhem celebration as its two absolutely awful predecessors.
Except this time it works. Or at least it isn't fully repugnant. OK, I'll admit it — this is hard — the big silly thing is sort of great.
An admission like that can end a critical career, the first two "Transformers" movies being among the most loathsome films of the past decade, but it must be made.

This fuck is so worried that someone might think him less discerning for actually liking a loud, fun, screen chewing, robot brawling, visually bad ass movie that he has to couch it in negatives. 

Most weren't able to leave their haughtiness at the door. 

Here's a sample:
Quote
Despite having the finest technical talent at his disposal, Bay just flails around like a kid in a 3D candy store watching bots morph into cars and back again and battle each other like dueling refrigerators. Bay believes that you can indeed kick a dead horse forever and the profits his bot epics rake in prove him right. He's laughing (at us) all the way to the bank.


Of course this comes from the same kind of fucks who thought "The Reader" was great cinema and that "Inception and "Kings Speech" are masterpieces. 

Apparently when you become a movie critic, you are issued a stick to shove up your ass. 

Irony?  Maybe.  But I like what I like and don't rape or love stuff because other people do or because I want to appear more erudite. 

Fuck the critics.  Go see Transformers. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 29, 2011, 01:47:30 PM
Fuck the critics.  Go see Transformers.

Wait..by reviewing movies doesn't that make you a critic?  But you like Transformers....but I am supposed to fuck the critics.  I am so confused. Hold me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 29, 2011, 01:59:11 PM
Wait..by reviewing movies doesn't that make you a critic?  But you like Transformers....but I am supposed to fuck the critics.  I am so confused. Hold me.

Everything I tell you is a lie. 

I just lied. 




Your brain just exploded. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on June 29, 2011, 02:12:04 PM
I read a review about the original Transformers which perfectly sums up the movies and why I like them.  It went something like,

There was no plot, the dialogue was horrible....Giant robots are hitting each other!  Weeeee!!!!!!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 04, 2011, 12:09:58 PM
The Green Hornet

Should have been named The Unfunny Brown Turd

Hate for Seth Rogen reinforced.  What a putz. 

This movie fails on so many levels you can't list them all.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 05, 2011, 12:17:50 PM
The Green Hornet

Should have been named The Unfunny Brown Turd

Hate for Seth Rogen reinforced.  What a putz. 

This movie fails on so many levels you can't list them all.

Seth Rogan and Zack Garagahauytytsdgdllaiifiliggas most overrated actors evah.

Ray Liotta and Don Cheadle most underrated actors evah.

Discuss.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 30, 2011, 02:20:26 PM
Limitless

I really, really, really wanted to like this movie. 

The concept of tapping the alleged unused portion of the brain, the ability to catalog and store everything you've ever seen and heard -- and have the means to call it up whenever necessary -- and the power that could come from being able to think two steps ahead is fascinating to me. 

But the movie fumbled the ball.

I still liked it because I went into it wanting to like it, but there's not much to recommend it. 

Bradley Cooper was pretty good, but there were some absolutely ridiculous contrivances. 

For starters why was the creepy Russian mobster guy coming to whip his ass?  He sold the book, kicked stock market ass and had plenty of cabbage.   Was he really going to let that loose end dangle ESPECIALLY since he'd been operating at high mental capacity and should have easily seen the potential trouble brewing there? 

Could you really leave bloody, murderous carnage in your apartment and be elected to the Senate?  Doubt even Ted Kennedy could have gotten away with that.

Why did the (admittedly cute) girlfriend keep bipping and bopping in and out of his life? 

Why did the killers of the ex-GF's brother leave the place?  If the cops weren't coming, why were they not still there tearing it apart? 

The movie was supposed to explore the concept of expanding mental capacity.  Instead it only used about 5% of its brainpower in this sloppy mess. 

Didn't hate it, but I wouldn't tell anybody to go see it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on July 30, 2011, 07:55:00 PM
Kaos have you watched Unknow with Liam Neeson, it's worth a look.
(http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z55/ajbar7/fashionising/eight/gallery_enlarged-)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 01, 2011, 09:27:58 AM
Horrible Bosses

Pretty sad when a weak movie like this gets credit just for not being completely awful.  But in the world of "comedy" as it stands today, avoiding sucking complete and total ass gets you a pass. 

This was an occasionally amusing film that just sort of innocuously meandered its way to a convenient conclusion. 

As with several other comedic efforts, the bloopers during the credits showed a cast apparently having a much better time making the film than I did watching it. 

Jason Bateman played the same neurotic ineffectual schlump he's portrayed in a dozen or more movies now.  He wasn't bad, he wasn't good he was just a set piece.  He seemed restrained and could have added more with better direction.

The chipmunk guy was occasionally OCD funny but never reached the hilarity I'm sure he was supposed to bring.

Jason Sudekis was fair.  Of all the recent SNL alums to graduate to film he's the least obnoxious.  He understands how to play a role (the same role repeatedly) without flailing over the top and wrecking the movie.  I'd much rather watch a film he's in than I would anything with Ferrell, Fallon, Hader, Armisen, Forte, Meyers, Carvey, etc.

Kevin Spacey was good but somewhat wasted.
Colin Farrell was completely wasted as a one-note character that could have been played by anybody.

Jennifer Aniston had an opportunity to take a significant step forward with a bawdy comedic role but either a lack of talent or piss poor direction held her back.  Her role could have been so, so much more but it felt like she was being held back.  Didn't buy her horny fascination with a chipmunk. 

She does still have an amazing body to be 42, but it seems pretty obvious that her face has had some serious work -- and it wasn't good.  She looked very plastic, her eyes were funny and it was off-putting.  I've always thought she was hot, but she didn't move me with her plastic face blown up on the big screen.

The bathtub scene had so much potential but it didn't stick with it long enough.  Or maybe I was expecting porn, I dunno.

Jamie Foxx gnawed on a throwaway role that didn't add a whole lot to the film other than a repeated joke about his name.

The film had an R rating but could easily have kept a PG-13.  Not really sure why it WASN'T PG-13, actually.  The R should have allowed them to push the envelope much further which could have added to the humor.

Wasn't horrible, but it could have been a much better film by reaching just a bit instead of always trying to reap the lowest hanging fruit. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 01, 2011, 10:52:58 AM
(http://celebshut.com/wp-content/uploads/celebrities/jennifer-aniston/horrible-bosses-screencaps/jennifer-aniston-horrible-bosses-screencaps-05.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 02, 2011, 09:39:15 AM
Source Code

Garbage. 

Convoluted impossibility.

Michelle is super cute but wasted. She couldnt save this load of crap.   I loved her in that insane movie with Robert Downey, Jr and Val Kilmer.  Here she is just set dressing. 

Jake sucks.  He should leave the business. 

Just a bad movie.  The groundhog day matrix on a train. 

Awful.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on August 03, 2011, 09:07:30 AM
Ray Liotta and Don Cheadle most underrated actors evah.

I agree and would add Edward Norton.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 04, 2011, 10:10:01 AM
Unknown

Better than I anticipated. 

Some goofy plot holes and an ambiguous too neat conclusion, but generally well done. 

Diane Kruger's accent was horrible and there's no way she or the other chick were into Liam.

Also his passport listed his birthday as 1964.  Ha.  No way.

Pretty good movie overall, though.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 05, 2011, 11:39:27 AM
Hall Pass

I'm ready to see Jenna Fischer naked.  But not with a spray tan like she had in this movie.

Owen Wilson absolutely sucks.  I can't stand him and he ruins this movie. 

It was fair.  About the same as Horrible Bosses in terms of comedic moments -- meaning they were few and far between -- and about the same level of believability (as in none).

Two schlumps get freedom for a week to pursue sexual conquests because their wives are tired of their "obsession" over sex. 

That part of the story had truth to it because few married couples are sexually compatible and because most guys think that if it weren't for the wives they'd be some snatch snatching hounds. 

Guys find out that the hunting grounds for older lions aren't so fertile.  Girls accidentally find out that lions still hunt. 

That much is true.  Give an attractive woman a week and she could fuck six dozen different guys.  She could walk into JC Penney, grab the intercom and say "I'm 43 and slightly horny.  Will be evaluating guys to fuck in the blender aisle between 10 and 10:45 this morning."  There would be a line all the way to the other end of the mall within five minutes. 

For a guy, that hunt is much more difficult. 

Back to the movie..

Owen Wilson's pursed lip, mumbly mouth character had absolutely no shot or possible attraction to the babysitter nor would the blazing Australian chick be willing to hit him up.  Completely implausible, impossible and ridiculous.  Destroyed any credibility the movie hoped to maintain by setting up those scenes. 

Other than a really nice pair of tits and a couple of occasional laughs, there's not much to recommend this movie. 

If you've watched it and are married here's a question for you.  Do you consider what Jenna Fischer's character did to be cheating in the broader sense?  Or does "cheating" only involve actual sexual penetration of some orifice?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on August 05, 2011, 11:52:24 AM
Do you watch movies because they exist?

I mean, honestly, what leads you to order Hall Pass and push play without someone holding a gun to your head or copious amounts of alcohol being involved?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 05, 2011, 12:20:22 PM
Do you watch movies because they exist?

I mean, honestly, what leads you to order Hall Pass and push play without someone holding a gun to your head or copious amounts of alcohol being involved?

Friend says "Hey, I've got Hall Pass.  Want to watch it?  And I think 'Jenna Fischer, kinda hot in a Pammy way...'" 

That's the thought process.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 06, 2011, 04:39:25 AM
Rio

It's an animated bird movie.  Just another emesis of color and cacophony splatted on the screen without benefit of a cohesive story or anything of real entertainment value.

You've got Toy Story, Lion King, Rango, Ice Age, Shrek, Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo on one hand.  Fantastic movies that tell stories well. 

You've got Igor, Shark Tale, any Barbie movie, The Wild, Megamind and Atlantis on the other.  Half ass efforts to cash in on the animation craze. 

Rio falls somewhere inbetween.

It's not good, but it's not slapdash awful. 

I didn't give a shit about the birds.  Monsters Inc. made me care about a fuzzy behemoth with horns.

I didn't give a shit about the romance between the human characters.  Toy Story made me care about a kid's relationship with a pull-string cowboy. 

The musical numbers were lame, particularly the rapping cockatoo.  Compared to Scar's menacing musical interlude in Lion King it was bad, bad, bad.

The bad guys were caricatures.  Scar, Cruella DeVille, Jafar, Ursula, Shere Khan.  Now THOSE guys were bad to the creepy bone.  The clowns here were useless and worthless.

The same guy showed up in about 20 different scenes playing different parts but looking exactly the same.  Piss poor animation. 

Some of the jokes were crude and stupid and beneath even the target audience.

I could watch Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Jungle Book, Toy Story, Monsters Inc., again right now.  Some of those movies are on my 20 movies on a desert island list. 

I don't care if I ever see Rio again. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 06, 2011, 04:45:44 AM
The Rite

Damn.  A PG-13 possession movie. 

Should have been a clue right there. 

Anthony Hopkins in a "based on a true story" account of a priest in Italy who performs exorcisms and his interaction with a seminary graduate in a state of disbelief and confusion. 

Hopkins was menacing when the role called for it, but I couldn't help flashing back to Silence of the Lambs.  I kept waiting for him to say something about Clarice and that was a major distraction. 

The would-be priest with doubts wasn't a very good actor and helped drop the film a peg or two. 

The journalist angle was a big pfffftttt. 

But as noted it was a PG-13 depiction of exorcisms.  So the envelope couldn't be pushed very far. 

It had a few moments, but I really liked this film a whole lot better when it was called The Exorcist and the possessed was a little girl. 

I keep expecting that to be remade any day now.  The original scared the flaming chocolate hell out of me.  Same with the original Omen.  Really the only two horror movies that have ever spooked the fuck out of me.  The Omen remake sucked turtle balls, though.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 08, 2011, 12:57:12 AM
Sucker Punch

I'm sure you're expecting a scalding review blasting this trifling load of nonsense, but the fact is that I sort of liked this little movie. 

I had no idea what was going on most of the time.  Wasn't sure what reality we were living in.  But I enjoyed the struggle. 

Abby Cornish was good. Vanessa Hudgens was good.  Emily Browning was outstanding. 

It looked like a fun movie to make and I enjoyed watching it. 

Didn't like the ending, but I understood why they went that way with it. 

I've seen it blasted by reviewers from all over.  I saw it called "icky, sadistic, tedious, boring, empty, senseless and hollow" among other things.  That's one of the reasons I waited so long to watch it. 

It was none of those things to me, except maybe sadistic. 

We're supposed to celebrate the genius of QT when he makes up a bloody fantasy about Hitler being killed in a theater by a sadistic band of Jews but this escape from reality is panned?  I don't think so. 

Fuck the critics.  I liked the movie. 

I do think this is one you'll either like or absolutely hate, though.  Don't think there's much "meh" middle ground.  My wife would have hated it. 

I didn't.  I'd watch it again.  The girls with the guns and swords were fun.  A movie doesn't have to be The Reader (one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen) to be enjoyable.  Sometimes you want to leave reality at the door and watch girls with machine guns blow shit completely the fuck up. 

How can you go wrong with this:

(http://scifimafia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/sucker-punch-chics-guns.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on August 08, 2011, 09:29:12 AM
Limitless


But the movie fumbled the ball.



So, Mario Fannin took up acting?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 12, 2011, 12:19:52 AM
Wild Target

British movie.  Allegedly madcap humor. 

Featuring Bill Nighy (squidward from Pirates of the Caribbean and Viktor from Underworld) as an assassin, Emily Blunt as a carefree con artist, Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) as an accidental accomplice and the guy who played Jim on the British version of The Office as a competing assassin. 

Nighy has a contract on Blunt but is so smitten with her cavalier thievery he can't pull the trigger and inadvertently ends up as her protector. Grint is a drifter caught up in the mayhem when he gets in the middle of a botched attempt on Blunt's life. 

It's a great idea for a story but it was so, so miscast. 

The idea of a romance, particularly a long-lasting one, between the dour Nighy and the playful Blunt is unfathomable.  It simply doesn't fly.   

The crazy humor the movie hoped to deliver didn't pan out.  There was some random silliness, but nothing of the wry ribaldry Brits are known for.  It just didn't work. 

The film might have had a chance with someone other than Nighy in the lead role.  I tend to like him in everything I've seen him in, but he just didn't cut it here. 

Blunt -- damn girl.  She was Katy Perry sexy. Like a cross between Katy Perry and Demi Lovato.  Her acting left a lot to be desired, but the scene where she steals her way through a market had some sly cool going for it.  I also loved her shoes.  She had great shoes throughout.  I notice things like that.

This is a movie I hope ends up getting Americanized.  I'd like to see it with, say Reese Witherspoon/Scarlett Johanssen/Amanda Seyfried and somebody like Leo DiCaprio/Shia Lebouf/Matt Damon/Clooney/Christian Bale.   Put it in the hands of a Jerry Bruckenheimer, Stephen Soderbergh or Michael Bay (to make sure we get titties and explosions) and this could be a good film. 

It wasn't bad here, just dull and lifeless.  It didn't have the pop it needed.   


(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0BHs_R7H_Dg/TMeQvbC1YFI/AAAAAAAAFxc/CAHVuoKBNcI/s1600/WildTarget.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 12, 2011, 12:29:58 AM
How Do You Know

How do you know?  When you start throwing up ten minutes into a shitty film. 

What awful, awful crap.

I tried to watch this because I find Reese Witherspoon to be immeasurably cute and she looked pretty adorable here. 

Like super adorable. 

But hearing her sexual moans when she was allegedly in the sack with Owen Wilson (for no apparent reason) made me physically ill.  And then when her little blonde hotness is actually trying to decide between super schmuck Owen and schlump schmuck Paul Rudd?  I blew chunks in the floor. 

What a shitty, shitty, shitty movie. 

Even this couldn't keep me:

(http://eleven.com.au/images/reese_witherspoon.jpg)

I give this film

 :puke: :puke: :puke: 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 13, 2011, 03:16:12 PM
Restraint

Australian movie.  Popped up on Netflix and I decided to give it a late night shot. 

Pretty well done film that scraped the surface of a bunch of degenerates and found little soul.   

Teresa Palmer is Dale, a former stripper who seduces a psychopath into helping her escape her strip club pimp. The guy is a little too unhinged and ends up making a bloody mess from which they have to escape.  They take refuge at the home of an agoraphobic dude (some guy of True Blood, I think). 

Mr. Recluse helps them out a little, becomes infatuated with Dale and manages to contrive a happy ending -- at least for some of the cast. 

The interactions between psycho Ron, sexy Dale and calculating Andrew are pretty good and contain a decent mix of tension and frustration. 

Ron's big plan for escape is hilariously poorly thought out and hinges on "yellow bastards."

The ending left a few gaping questions that needed some answers and there were a couple of plot points that bore some better effort. 

For instance when the cops come one day and he tells them his fiance has left him, why would they blindly accept her being back the next as if nothing was wrong (or at least not make some comment). 

What was the purpose of showing the body floating on the lake if that was never going to be addressed. Wouldn't a floating body be a problem?

It's also never really clear what happened to Daddy Dearest and the original whore fiance.  But I suppose that can be left to the imagination. It can be whatever you want it to be.

As for Teresa Palmer?  Holy smoking shit. 

One of the best bodies I've ever seen on screen.  Ass that is simply amazing.  Her face is a cross between Scarlett Johanssen and Kristen Stewart with the best features of both.  She's fucking hot.  Seriously fucking hot. 

Worth skimming through just for her.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OuKIMUeA20M/TS7zvZjrXiI/AAAAAAAAEWY/N6Yirdx_478/s1600/Teresa-Palmer-Jurlique.jpg)

(http://www.gruppiz.com/img/news/__BIG/5992_path.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 14, 2011, 01:48:15 AM
Severance

British horror/torture movie.

Not bad.

Some implausible plot points.  No way in fuck they stay at the "resort" particularly since there was no food source, no welcoming party and no amenities. 

Where did all the crazies come from and what was their real beef?


Suck
Band becomes vampires to gain fame and fortune. 

Some slightly funny moments.  Alice Cooper, Henry Rollins, Iggy Pop and Moby all make appearances. 

Jessica Pare (below) has some vampire hotness.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hALxdO3M1Tw/TLH6XQEpNUI/AAAAAAAABMA/x9anUyBUoD4/s1600/Suck2009DVDRipXviD-SPKCap1.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 16, 2011, 07:57:48 AM
Lincoln Lawyer

Nothing to see here that hasn't already been covered. 

Wasn't great.  Wasn't bad.  Emotionally flat. 

Completely forgettable.  In fact, I already have.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on August 16, 2011, 08:04:15 AM
Lincoln Lawyer

Nothing to see here that hasn't already been covered. 

Wasn't great.  Wasn't bad.  Emotionally flat. 

Completely forgettable.  In fact, I already have.

I liked.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 16, 2011, 08:18:01 AM
I liked.

Wasn't bad.  Just that it pieced together several other movies and recycled characters we've already seen before. 

It made no impression on me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 17, 2011, 03:29:57 AM
The King's Speech

Bloody hell.  Could that have moved any slower? 

It was fair.  I liked Barbosa's character pretty well.  He should have gotten best actor over Firth.  He was ten times better than Firth was. 

It wasn't the cinematic masterpiece I was led to believe. 

The Fighter, Toy Story 3 and The Social Network were better films.  The Fighter in particular.

But this is exactly the stuffy sort of shit the academy award types tend to like.

Given the chance to watch this or Transformer's 3 again?  I'm taking robots every single time.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on August 17, 2011, 08:46:36 AM
The King's Speech

Bloody hell.  Could that have moved any slower? 

It was fair.  I liked Barbosa's character pretty well.  He should have gotten best actor over Firth.  He was ten times better than Firth was. 

It wasn't the cinematic masterpiece I was led to believe. 

The Fighter, Toy Story 3 and The Social Network were better films.  The Fighter in particular.

But this is exactly the stuffy sort of shit the academy award types tend to like.

Given the chance to watch this or Transformer's 3 again?  I'm taking robots every single time.

My mom keeps telling me to watch this.  I'm glad you saved me the pain.  Your pan is exactly the way I envisioned it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 17, 2011, 09:04:25 AM
My mom keeps telling me to watch this.  I'm glad you saved me the pain.  Your pan is exactly the way I envisioned it.

My mom (who taught english lit at a junior college and fancies herself a member of the british royalty) loved it.   My wife loved it too.  Both have clamored for me to watch it for months.  I've had the Netflix Blu-ray sitting here since June.

I didn't hate it. It didn't offend me.  But seriously.  We know the fucker stutters and tried to get help. Does that take two hours?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on August 17, 2011, 11:58:49 AM
My mom (who taught english lit at a junior college and fancies herself a member of the british royalty) loved it.   My wife loved it too.  Both have clamored for me to watch it for months.  I've had the Netflix Blu-ray sitting here since June.

I didn't hate it. It didn't offend me.  But seriously.  We know the fucker stutters and tried to get help. Does that take two hours?

I expect it wouldn't offend, but bore.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 17, 2011, 01:16:27 PM
I expect it wouldn't offend, but bore.

It was funny when he was screaming profanities. 

Fuck, fuck, fuckity, fuck, bugger, buggery, fuck, fuckity, fuck.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 17, 2011, 08:35:28 PM
It was funny when he was screaming profanities. 

Fuck, fuck, fuckity, fuck, bugger, buggery, fuck, fuckity, fuck.
I expect to say the same thing this season. Prolly several times
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on August 17, 2011, 09:34:37 PM
It was funny when he was screaming profanities. 

Fuck, fuck, fuckity, fuck, bugger, buggery, fuck, fuckity, fuck.

Well, shit, I may have to rent it now.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 18, 2011, 04:25:05 PM
You should.   It's worth a watch.  Just wait until you have nothing better to do.  Or when you want to score wife points (she will like it).
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: BZ770 on August 20, 2011, 11:13:23 PM
Took the Fam to see "Smurfs".  It wasn't as bad as I expected.  Katy Perry plays Smurfette, I have to admit I had some perverse thoughts.  Doogie Howser's plays a married man, married to the girl from Glee with the germ phobias.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 21, 2011, 01:08:59 PM
McGruber

Was on.  Wasn't completely tired.  Figured I'd give it a spin. Couldnt be as bad as I'd heard, surely.  I remember the marketing blitz was unavoidable.  No way they would have pumped that much effort into marketing something that was inferior to a wet turd. 

I was right.  It wasn't as bad as I'd heard. 

It was ten times fucking worse. 

Every time I think Ive seen the shittiest movie ever, remind me of this. It was absolutely horrible. 

The high point of the comedy was Ryan phillipe sticking celery up his ass.  Yes, you read that right. 

Just an awful, dreadful movie. 

I really don't (and never will) understand how people working on this shit can watch the dailies and think "damn, we nailed that.  Some funny shit there...". Terrible.  Just terrible.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 22, 2011, 10:10:01 AM
Arthur

Why remake a movie when you have nothing to add? 

The excesses of Arthur played well in the sprawling early 80s when the country was flush with newfound enthusiasm, AIDS was something only gays and monkeys got and everybody drank and smoked.  It caught the tail end of the old boozy Dean Martin era and meshed with the new drug-fueled excess of the Studio 54 crowd.  In those days we were still willing to forgive the lifestyle of the rich and famous. 

Today?  Things have changed.  Arthur would be forced to give a public apology, go into rehab and would be stalked by TMZ.  Charlie Sheen tried to be Arthur in real life and look what that got him.

The sodden man-child just didn't play at all in this film.  Besides, Dudley Moore was a much more charming Arthur than Russell Brand.  Granted you didn't have Liza Minelli's outlandish schnozz and ugly mug clotting up the screen so it did have that for it. 

But the idea of a hard-drinking rich boy flaunting his wealth just didn't resonate in these difficult economic times. 

Brand gave some effort but wasn't really as charming or amusing as he needed to be. 

The old woman failed to deliver the humor that John Gielgud brought to the caretaker role of Hobson in the original.

Greta Gerwig was shitloads better than the ugly ass Minelli of the original, but that's not saying a whole lot, really.  A babboon's ass is better looking than Minelli.

Jennifer Garner continues her desperate career spiral.  I used to think she was so incredibly hot and now I just want her to get the fuck off the screen as soon as possible.  She was terrible, just abysmal here.

I was never convinced that Gerwig's Naomi would be remotely interested in the idiotic Arthur unless it was for the money.  His character displayed no redeeming qualities whatsoever and to imagine that she would remain unattached and/or remotely interested while he floated through his lengthy voyage of self discovery is unfathomable.

In all, a rather drab and sad retelling of a story that no longer has any place in the world today. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 24, 2011, 01:33:52 AM
Blow

Johnny Depp.   Blow. 

So I was disappointed...

Very underrated movie.  Good performances from Depp, Pee Wee, Franka and Bobcat.  Didn't care for Penelope.  Never have. 

Told the at least somewhat true story of George Jung who became the original cocaine cowboy of the late 70s.  Found his way into the Escobar circle and was literally swimming in money. 

Like a real life Scarface, he lost it all.  Corrupt government stole most of it. 

Cautionary tale that there is always a time to get out but most people can't recognize it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 24, 2011, 09:41:36 AM
Blow

Johnny Depp.   Blow. 

So I was disappointed...

Very underrated movie.  Good performances from Depp, Pee Wee, Franka and Bobcat.  Didn't care for Penelope.  Never have. 

Told the at least somewhat true story of George Jung who became the original cocaine cowboy of the late 70s.  Found his way into the Escobar circle and was literally swimming in money. 

Like a real life Scarface, he lost it all.  Corrupt government stole most of it. 

Cautionary tale that there is always a time to get out but most people can't recognize it.

This is an awesome movie with a great soundtrack, please tell me this isn't the first time you are seeing this?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 24, 2011, 09:49:49 AM
This is an awesome movie with a great soundtrack, please tell me this isn't the first time you are seeing this?

Ok.  I won't tell you that. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 24, 2011, 10:31:11 AM
Ok.  I won't tell you that.
Son, we need to help you with your que list. If you are watching shit like McGrubber and you haven't seen Blow...tha fuck.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 24, 2011, 10:37:30 AM
Son, we need to help you with your que list. If you are watching shit like McGrubber and you haven't seen Blow...tha fuck.

I watch what's on sometimes.  I may have seen this one back in the day, but I don't think I ever saw it in toto before yesterday. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: DnATL on August 24, 2011, 11:55:46 AM
I watch what's on sometimes.  I may have seen this one back in the day, but I don't think I ever saw it in toto before yesterday.
sounds like Jumbo's forearm after Dorothy stumbled upon the x on the way to Oz
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 24, 2011, 03:59:46 PM
The Omega Man
Cheesy 70's apocalyptic awesomeness. 

Charlton Heston at the height of his sweaty barechested Apesian dudeitude.  You get the full effect of his teeth-gritted steely glare, his cryptic snarls and his Shatner-esque over-emoting.

He makes it with a black chick who sports a mega-fro.  That added to his suave coolness.

Awesome cars.  Crazy 70s musical score.

Horrible makeup on the Family, though.   And I don't understand why they kept carrying fire and burning shit when they were afraid of lights.

So much better than the Will Smith remake "I am Legend." 

Bonus: The head of the family is the guy who ran the amusement park rides in KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on August 24, 2011, 11:16:48 PM
The Omega Man
Cheesy 70's apocalyptic awesomeness. 

Charlton Heston at the height of his sweaty barechested Apesian dudeitude.  You get the full effect of his teeth-gritted steely glare, his cryptic snarls and his Shatner-esque over-emoting.

He makes it with a black chick who sports a mega-fro.  That added to his suave coolness.

Awesome cars.  Crazy 70s musical score.

Horrible makeup on the Family, though.   And I don't understand why they kept carrying fire and burning shit when they were afraid of lights.

So much better than the Will Smith remake "I am Legend." 

Bonus: The head of the family is the guy who ran the amusement park rides in KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park.

Fuck Heston.  Fuck him for his shitty acting and his political activism.  I want my actors to act and leave their fucking politics at home.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on August 24, 2011, 11:22:00 PM
Fuck Heston.

I'm sure you would, princess...

(http://www.stillsecureafteralltheseyears.com/ashimmy/WindowsLiveWriter/charlton%20heston.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 25, 2011, 08:05:31 AM
Fuck Heston.  Fuck him for his shitty acting and his political activism.  I want my actors to act and leave their fucking politics at home.

I only want that when I disagree with them, you damn dirty ape.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on August 25, 2011, 08:15:23 AM
I want my actors to act and leave their fucking politics at home.

If you are putting that qualifier on then you are not going to have much outside entertainment in your life.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 25, 2011, 08:34:00 AM
Winter's Bone

Very grim movie.

Imagine if your typical Finebaum caller, say Legend, had a family.  This is what it would be like. 

Don't ever want to hear anything about Alabama rednecks or trailer trash after watching this look into Mizzourah hillbilly life. 

Desperate to save what little her family has 17-year old Ree Dolly sets out determined to buck the hillfolk ways and find her missing daddy before he jumps bail on an upcoming court date and sacrifices the cabin and land he put up as bond.  She's essentially alone in the world raising two younger siblings after her mom mentally checked out and dad is either in jail or on the run due to his meth-cooking lifestyle.

The white trash authenticity is outstanding right down to the cheap shit on the walls and cluttered kitchen counters.

If Ree can't find her daddy her only possible hope of escaping the abject misery of her existence is the Army but even that dream has no wings.

There's no grand and tidy resolution, drug-baked dad doesn't magically appear after being rehabbed with the keys to a fantastic new home, Ree doesn't get a miracle scholarship that saves the family.  In the end she is what she is and will likely never rise above the anchors of her family's poverty.  This film illustrates the shame of that situation because she is obviously smart, she's filled with courage, she's savvy and determined. She clearly aspires to be something other than Ree Dolly, hillbilly meth whore.  Too bad that's the only path realistically available to her.

In one of my previous vocations I used to sell/rent furniture, appliances and electronics to people like the Dollys.  I can't count the number of times I saw teenage boys and girls who were bright enough but just had nothing.  I often wondered what they could have become had they just had half a chance of shedding the burden of their situation.  Remember one girl in particular who lived in a rented shack in Holt with her five brothers and sisters, her indifferent mom and her sometimes employed dad (when he wasn't laying out drunk or stoned).  She was smart, she was beautiful and with just a sliver of opportunity there's no telling what she could have done with her life.  Instead she was married by 17, had a bruised and battered face and a kid by 18, divorced by 20 and strung out on some nasty shit.  Last time I saw her was in a mug shot.  She looked haggard and mean and her eyes were dead. 

But I digress. 

The film was very well done.  The pace was a little slow, but the tone was right, the actors were all completely believable and the background was depressingly realistic. 

Jennifer Lawrence, who played Ree, was fantastic.  If she was acting you couldn't tell it.  It was like they plucked somebody from the hills and told them to just be themselves.  I'll be interested to see her in something else to see if she can carry that same legitimacy to other roles. 

Best line came from her uncle to his wife/live-in:

"I already told you to shut up once with my mouth..."
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on August 25, 2011, 09:16:53 AM
If you are putting that qualifier on then you are not going to have much outside entertainment in your life.
I was about to say that. Tim Robbins and Sean Penn have to be the absolute worst. But if they are in a good movie, I will probably watch.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 28, 2011, 02:06:13 PM
Takers
Wanted to watch this because it evoked a little Oceans 11 cool and because Idris Elba is a pretty decent actor. 

Too bad Matt 'Chompers' Dillon and Obi Wan Kenobi were on hand to fuck it up. 

The ending was idiotic and contrived.  Where you gonna go with three silver suitcases full of cash, a bullet in the gut and partners dying in a hail of bullets?  Drive to Vegas?

The resolution of the dirty cop arc was idiotic and contrived.

Bullets blow holes in walls and doors but can't penetrate couches and mattresses?

Decent performance by Elba but I typically like him.  Shitty performances by Dillon, Kenobi and Marianne Jean-Baptiste who should have stayed her ugly ass in Without a Trace on tv.  Paul Walker was adequate, Chris Brown was stupid, but could run. Some Ealy character was fair.  T.I. needs to stick to rapping although is isn't much good at that either. Zoe Saldana was pretty much wasted in a "you my bitch, ho" role. 

Stole the entire blowing up the street bit from The Italian Job, but otherwise the larcenies were nicely planned and organized if a little hokey.  Could they really have planned an escape around a news chopper showing up at the precise moment it was needed?  And being stupid enough to land?

Movie aspired to be way more than it was.  Wasn't horrific. Just wasn't that good.  Stupid ending hurt it badly.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 30, 2011, 08:22:38 AM
The Adjustment Bureau

Matt Damon and Emily Blunt. 

I pretty much like Damon.  There are very few movies he is in where I don't like his character or his performance. 

This fit that pattern.  I thought he did a very good and credible job.  Blunt is like a low-rent Katy Perry.  I tend to like her too.  I thought the interaction between her and Damon felt real and wasn't forced. 

The story itself?  Well, I don't know about hat-wearing forces that control everything but I wouldn't rule it out.  We've all had things in our life that are just too impossible to be random and you wonder who is pulling the strings. 

The movie was better than I expected.

Not something you buy to watch over and over, but a decent story well acted and worth the viewing. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on August 30, 2011, 08:36:43 AM
The Adjustment Bureau

Matt Damon and Emily Blunt. 

I pretty much like Damon.  There are very few movies he is in where I don't like his character or his performance. 

This fit that pattern.  I thought he did a very good and credible job.  Blunt is like a low-rent Katy Perry.  I tend to like her too.  I thought the interaction between her and Damon felt real and wasn't forced. 

The story itself?  Well, I don't know about hat-wearing forces that control everything but I wouldn't rule it out.  We've all had things in our life that are just too impossible to be random and you wonder who is pulling the strings. 

The movie was better than I expected.

Not something you buy to watch over and over, but a decent story well acted and worth the viewing.

I watched it on a plane a couple of months ago.  It made me want to hit the emergency exit....While in flight.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on August 30, 2011, 10:31:42 AM
The Adjustment Bureau

Matt Damon and Emily Blunt. 

I pretty much like Damon.  There are very few movies he is in where I don't like his character or his performance. 

This fit that pattern.  I thought he did a very good and credible job.  Blunt is like a low-rent Katy Perry.  I tend to like her too.  I thought the interaction between her and Damon felt real and wasn't forced. 

The story itself?  Well, I don't know about hat-wearing forces that control everything but I wouldn't rule it out.  We've all had things in our life that are just too impossible to be random and you wonder who is pulling the strings. 

The movie was better than I expected.

Not something you buy to watch over and over, but a decent story well acted and worth the viewing.

It felt weird.  It had moments, but got way out in left field for me with the hat and doors thing.  And I fucking hate goofy hats too.  But goofy hats with magical powers?  It had potential, but went the wrong way.  It also felt like it stole discarded shitty ideas and combined them in a not so good way from movies like that shit thing where Nick Cage played the angel that turned mortal for love, Heaven Can Wait, and something else that escapes me.  I kept waiting on a cameo by Sinatra too.  Chairman?  The fuck?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on August 30, 2011, 10:34:30 AM
Oh, and not to mention the whole Hollyweirds poking fun at Christianity crap.  God and Angels who are called "The Chairman", and whatever the fuck the adjustment fucks were called.  Then the whole "God has a plan, but if you want to change it bad enough you can" routine.  Nah, I wanted to like it...I couldn't.  And I do like Damon.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 30, 2011, 12:19:55 PM
It's actually from a 1954 story by Hugo winner Phillip K. Dick (heh heh heh, I said dick) called "Adjustment Team"

So maybe all that other shit you mentioned stole from this, I dunno. 

I wasn't looking for deep metaphysical meaning.  And I liked the brims. 

The questions I wanted answered were as follows:

Were the lead characters believable?
Did the chemistry between the primary actors work?
Was the film well-acted, well-paced and well directed? 

Yes, yes, yep.  Good enough for me. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on August 30, 2011, 12:25:09 PM
It's actually from a 1954 story by Hugo winner Phillip K. Dick (heh heh heh, I said dick) called "Adjustment Team"

So maybe all that other shit you mentioned stole from this, I dunno. 

I wasn't looking for deep metaphysical meaning.  And I liked the brims. 

The questions I wanted answered were as follows:

Were the lead characters believable?
Did the chemistry between the primary actors work?
Was the film well-acted, well-paced and well directed? 

Yes, yes, yep.  Good enough for me.

I could probably agree with all that.  Just that some of the off the wall shit distracted me, and yes, I know, it's make believe...still, not all "impossible or improbable concepts" in movies distract me.  This one did.  I knew it was a remake or rehash of some kind.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 31, 2011, 01:49:27 AM
The Mechanic

I like Jason Statham less and less every time I see a movie he is in. 

This is utterly and absolutely unwatchable. 

Sucked.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 01, 2011, 12:23:31 AM
The Machinist

Christian Bale lost a lot of weight.  Looked like a concentration camp survivor. 

Too bad he did it for this plodding dreary film. 

Saving grace?  Jennifer Jason Leigh's pretty tits.  I loved them in Fast Times at Ridgemont High when she was Stacy and I liked them a lot here. 

Christian Bale lost a scary amount of weight. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 02, 2011, 01:40:13 AM
True Grit

Preface:  Never seen, never intend to watch the original.  Blasphemous as some may think this to be, I consider John Wayne merely William Shatner in a saddle.  I don't care for his acting and never have.  So I had no baseline or comparison when it came to this remake. 

And now the review:

Fuck me. 

What the hell was that?  Jeff Bridges sounded like he was trying to channel Karl Childers from Slingblade.  I kept expecting him to ask for a fucking mustard biscuit. 

Remember what I said about liking Matt Damon's body of work?  There are exceptions and this is certainly one. 

The girl was okay, but compared to Jennifer Lawrence's  amazing work in Winter's Bone she might as well have been Wednesday Adams reciting spider poetry. 

Why did the entire movie seem to me as if they were doing a parody of Raising Arizona or O Brother Where Art Thou?  The funny, clipped and affected speech added to those films.  Here it just sounded stupid.  I could have sworn I heard the girl tell Hi to "get back up there and get her a Chaney." 

I didn't hate the movie, I just didn't care.  The interaction between Mattie and the horse guy was good.  Everything else beyond that sort of sucked dusty, crusty ass. 

I didn't buy Mattie's emotional attachment to Cogburn, I didn't buy her whims of allegiance and her turnaround on LaBeef. 

Seems I heard that in the original LeBeef dies.  That would have been better. 

I don't know if the bullshit about losing an arm, going to a traveling show and Cogburn being dead when she got there was part of the original, but the ending absolutely sucked sweaty pimple laden balls.  If that was the original ending just fuck that completely. 

I could have gone all my life without seeing this badly done film.  In fact I wish I had.  Now when I hear people talk reverently about the John Wayne masterpiece True Grit I'm going to think of this boiler pot of shit. 

I really hope the original was better.  But now I for sure don't want to find out. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on September 02, 2011, 05:56:30 AM
True Grit

Preface:  Never seen, never intend to watch the original.  Blasphemous as some may think this to be, I consider John Wayne merely William Shatner in a saddle.  I don't care for his acting and never have.  So I had no baseline or comparison when it came to this remake. 

And now the review:

Fuck me. 

What the hell was that?  Jeff Bridges sounded like he was trying to channel Karl Childers from Slingblade.  I kept expecting him to ask for a fucking mustard biscuit. 

Remember what I said about liking Matt Damon's body of work?  There are exceptions and this is certainly one. 

The girl was okay, but compared to Jennifer Lawrence's  amazing work in Winter's Bone she might as well have been Wednesday Adams reciting spider poetry. 

Why did the entire movie seem to me as if they were doing a parody of Raising Arizona or O Brother Where Art Thou?  The funny, clipped and affected speech added to those films.  Here it just sounded stupid.  I could have sworn I heard the girl tell Hi to "get back up there and get her a Chaney." 

I didn't hate the movie, I just didn't care.  The interaction between Mattie and the horse guy was good.  Everything else beyond that sort of sucked dusty, crusty ass. 

I didn't buy Mattie's emotional attachment to Cogburn, I didn't buy her whims of allegiance and her turnaround on LaBeef. 

Seems I heard that in the original LeBeef dies.  That would have been better. 

I don't know if the bullshit about losing an arm, going to a traveling show and Cogburn being dead when she got there was part of the original, but the ending absolutely sucked sweaty pimple laden balls.  If that was the original ending just fuck that completely. 

I could have gone all my life without seeing this badly done film.  In fact I wish I had.  Now when I hear people talk reverently about the John Wayne masterpiece True Grit I'm going to think of this boiler pot of shit. 

I really hope the original was better.  But now I for sure don't want to find out.

Pfffft!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on September 02, 2011, 09:57:28 AM
Pfffft!

I agree with him. Remake was a total piece of shit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on September 02, 2011, 09:59:16 AM
I was about to say that. Tim Robbins and Sean Penn have to be the absolute worst. But if they are in a good movie, I will probably watch.
Sean Penn hasn't been a good actor since playing Spicoli
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on September 02, 2011, 10:01:10 AM
Sean Penn hasn't been a good actor since playing Spicoli

(http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/spicoli.jpg)

True.

But some of the movies he has been in have been 'decent'. Not much anymore however.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on September 02, 2011, 10:01:48 AM
I watched it on a plane a couple of months ago.  It made me want to hit the emergency exit....While in flight.

At least it was original, I didn't mind it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on September 02, 2011, 11:08:05 AM
I agree with him. Remake was a total piece of shit.

Not as good as the original, not even close, but it had no chance to be.  Not a bad movie IMO.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on September 02, 2011, 11:12:34 AM
True Grit

Preface:  Never seen, never intend to watch the original.  Blasphemous as some may think this to be, I consider John Wayne merely William Shatner in a saddle.  I don't care for his acting and never have.  So I had no baseline or comparison when it came to this remake. 

And now the review:

Fuck me. 

What the hell was that?  Jeff Bridges sounded like he was trying to channel Karl Childers from Slingblade.  I kept expecting him to ask for a fucking mustard biscuit. 

Remember what I said about liking Matt Damon's body of work?  There are exceptions and this is certainly one. 

The girl was okay, but compared to Jennifer Lawrence's  amazing work in Winter's Bone she might as well have been Wednesday Adams reciting spider poetry. 

Why did the entire movie seem to me as if they were doing a parody of Raising Arizona or O Brother Where Art Thou?  The funny, clipped and affected speech added to those films.  Here it just sounded stupid.  I could have sworn I heard the girl tell Hi to "get back up there and get her a Chaney." 

I didn't hate the movie, I just didn't care.  The interaction between Mattie and the horse guy was good.  Everything else beyond that sort of sucked dusty, crusty ass. 

I didn't buy Mattie's emotional attachment to Cogburn, I didn't buy her whims of allegiance and her turnaround on LaBeef. 

Seems I heard that in the original LeBeef dies.  That would have been better. 

I don't know if the bullshit about losing an arm, going to a traveling show and Cogburn being dead when she got there was part of the original, but the ending absolutely sucked sweaty pimple laden balls.  If that was the original ending just fuck that completely. 

I could have gone all my life without seeing this badly done film.  In fact I wish I had.  Now when I hear people talk reverently about the John Wayne masterpiece True Grit I'm going to think of this boiler pot of shit. 

I really hope the original was better.  But now I for sure don't want to find out.

We finally agree on something: Wayne is an overrated hack.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on September 02, 2011, 11:13:27 AM
We finally agree on something: Wayne is an overrated hack.

You shut your dirty whorish mouth.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on September 02, 2011, 11:30:26 AM
We finally agree on something: Wayne is an overrated hack.

Your mouf.  It's dirty and whorish.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on September 02, 2011, 01:45:44 PM
We finally agree on something: Wayne is an overrated hack.

Marion Morrison was an incredible actor he just played one character, John Wayne.

I guess next your going to say that The Rock sucks.  Commie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on September 04, 2011, 10:21:56 PM
Anyone see the original "Straw Dogs" from the 70's with Hoffman?

There is a remake coming out in a couple of weeks. Instead of Wales, it takes place in Southern Mississippi. Looks decent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7krZZabaC_U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7krZZabaC_U)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 05, 2011, 04:09:09 AM
Battle Los Angeles

Pleasantly surprised. 

I didn't expect much considering Independence Day and Skyline had come before it.  Pretty good movie, though.  Lots of explosions, lots of combat, no effort to use the aliens to represent some evil corporate empire or axis of evil.   

Just a straightforward documentation of one group's efforts to execute a mission and the complications that follow. 

It borrowed from Independence Day.  It borrowed from Blackhawk Down. It borrowed from We Were Soldiers. It borrowed from Alien and Predator.  But it pretty much only borrowed good parts. 

The confrontation between Staff Sgt Nantz and Lockett was a little contrived and tried to hard to be a tearful rallying point, but beyond that the performances in battle were solid throughout. 

There was no political posturing at all.  We didn't see or hear what the president or congress thought about it.  We just saw US soldiers hit the ground brawling.  That was a welcome change.

Soldiers using their own tenacity and training figured out a way to knock the invading bastards down, it didn't take some wacky, wonky scientist and his iPad to put a virus in their machine or drunk Cousin Eddie in a biplane.  Nope.  These military guys just figured out a way to kick ET ass.  I liked that.

There was a little too much "oooh RAH, we are the Auburn family and we never leave a game early marines and marines don't quit" bluster and some ham-fisted dialogue, but that's sort of expected in this kind of film.  It wasn't overbearing. 

In a way it was a lot like a first-person shooter game.  In fact if there is one I wouldn't mind trying to fight my way through LA or NY or Chicago to find the alien command center and call in an airstrike to light that bitch up.  Might be fun. 

There was no gut-wrenching drama, the directors didn't try to get us too personally involved in the outside lives of the soldiers.  We knew the basics -- enough to go "well damn" when one of them died -- but there was no huge 'let a taxi driver marry you before you go send emails to aliens' moment. 

I loved Independence Day when it first came out.  But as I look back on it, that was some cheesy silly shit.  This movie took it more seriously and at ground level. 

As I expected, reviewers savaged this movie.  I pretty much hate all of them.  They suck. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 07, 2011, 10:28:54 AM
Insidious

Nothing new to see here.  Basically Poltergeist. Replace the creepy girl with a comatose boy, replace the creepy woman with a less creepy shrew and replace Craig T and sexy momma Jobeth with wooden Patrick Wilson and some no-tit drip and you've got Insidious. 

It went so far as to feature raw steak in a blatant nod to the vastly superior Polter.

Demons were not frightening. Lead demon was, in fact, laughably ridiculous.  It smeared lipstick on it's face to look pretty (something no one who watched the film understood without the Blu-Ray extras) and ended up looking like a drunk Darth Maul.  Idiotic and about as frightening as a meerkat. 

The story was goofy, the acting overboard.

The only startling moments in the film came when the music suddenly tamped from about a three volume to a 43.  Often there was no action to warrant the shreik. 

When a "horror" movie has to rely on a blaring soundtrack to startle it's an epic fail. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on September 09, 2011, 11:07:34 PM
I know K hates Will Ferrell, but I just saw Everything Must Go.

Loved it. As I've mentioned, I really like dry, dark comedies. I like when normally mainstream comedians do these types of flicks. Loved Punch Drunk Love, Dan in Real Life, etc. This was along those lines.

Ferrell did a surprisingly good job in this. Pretty big departure for him, but he pulled it off.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 14, 2011, 01:15:41 AM
Hereafter

Clint Eastwood directed and produced this film. 

I guess he's getting old and as all people who age eventually do, he's begun to contemplate his own passing.  What happens to Eastwood when the lights go out?  Is there something after death?

This meandering morose trip into nothing will have you wishing for death.  It's long, tedious and just flat out boring. 

Matt Damon (been on an accidental Damon kick it seems) is as completely dull as you could ever hope to make him.  The dead twins are lifeless (get it?  haha).  The French author is a snoozer. 

There's just nothing here. 

I kept waiting for the big denoument, for the moment that tied the disparate and disjointed stories together but it never delivered. 

Eastwood and Damon have done some great work separately.  This isn't one either will be remembered for.  If Clint was aiming to cement his legacy as a filmmaker he shouldn't have dished up this warmed over oatmeal mush. 

Boo.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on September 14, 2011, 09:51:47 AM
Battle Los Angeles

Pleasantly surprised. 

About how I felt.  Only thing I didn't like was at the ending, when the Marines didn't want to eat.  I've never known Marines to turn down chow.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on September 14, 2011, 10:05:25 AM
About how I felt.  Only thing I didn't like was at the ending, when the Marines didn't want to eat.  I've never known Marines to turn down chow.

Yeah.  Calling bullshit on that one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 15, 2011, 12:39:06 AM
127 Hours

Wanted to like it.  Didn't. 

Not a James Franco fan and he was barely adequate here.  Too much mugging. 

The music was absolutely horrific.  Completely inappropriate for the scenes and jarring.  Nails on a chalkboard bad.  The music would have ruined the movie on its own had the rest not fallen so flat on the promise. 

What happened to the two splash chicks?  Why have them in there at all if they played no part in the end?

Clemence Poesy (who I loved in In Bruges) was good but wasted. 

And the bullshit at the end about a "premonition?"  Kiss my premonited ass. 

Great story poorly done. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 17, 2011, 01:51:49 AM
Contagion

Hang on, let me go wash my hands before I start this. 

Okay, a slow-moving and not quite satisfying tale of the life cycle of an epidemic. 

Hang on, need to go wash my hands again. 

Pretty well told in terms of what might be happening day to day, but some question marks remain.  If there was widespread panic who was keeping the power on and the cell phones running?  Who was paying the bill for months?

Give me a second, I'm going to wash my hands.  And stay away from me, okay?   I'm taking my own plastic forks to restaurants and I'll be bringing my own sterilized glass.  Don't pour me anything unless it comes directly from a bottle.  In fact, don't pour me anything at all.  And don't touch my credit card.  Or anything on my table.  No, I don't want to use your pen.  Quit breathing air around me. 

Viruses suck.  I don't want them.  If you've been to Hong Kong stay the fuck away from me.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 17, 2011, 02:04:17 AM
Just Go With It

Why the fuck does Adam Sandler think he needs to star in his own movies?  Put almost anybody else in his role and you've got a pretty decent little movie.  But him? 

Let's list the things that didn't work:

1) Not buying for a second that he was a plastic surgeon. 
2) The chance of there being any attraction from Brooklyn Decker toward his peanut head ass is roughly negative infinity.  It wasn't realistic.  This continues a pattern where he pairs himself with people in movies he could never hope to sniff in real life: Kate Beckinsale, Salma Hayek, Teresa Palmer, Jessica Biel, Paz Vega, Drew Barrymore, Winona Ryder, Fairuza Balk, Julie Bowen, Bridgette Wilson, etc.  Not happening. 
3) Not buying the attraction between him and Jennifer Aniston. At all.
4) And he's dropping $18k a day for suites in Hawaii?  Yeah.  That's happening. 
5) Any scene he was in.  He fucking sucks. 

Aniston, however, looked pretty awesome.  Much better than she did in Horrible Bosses.  Probably one of her better roles. 

The boy child was good.  The girl child needed to be punched in the gullet. 

Brooklyn D -- meh.  Not hot enough to overcome her wooden acting. 

The schlump playing his friend?  Fuck that assbag.  I'd almost rather Jonah Hill have played that role and I hate me some Jonah Hill. 

Could have been a cute movie.  In Sandler's untalented hands it just fizzled out and went flat. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 17, 2011, 10:00:31 PM
The Lion King: 3D

The 3D gimmick adds nothing to the movie other than some ViewMaster-ish depth.

No matter, it was a great experience to see this film in theaters again after 17 years.  If the only place your kids have seen this film is on DVD, it's worth the trip to see it again in all its glory. 

One of the best films I've ever seen.  The opening sequence is straight up magic. 

Long live the King. 

Fantastic movie.  Absolutely fantastic. (And I'd say that even if I didn't have kids to take).

I wish Disney would slow-release all of its classics from Jungle Book to Mulan to Pocahantas to Beauty and the Beast again in theaters.  I'd love to see them all again on the big screen. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 18, 2011, 01:14:23 AM
Drive Angry

So wanted to loathe this movie.  Assumed it was a Fast and Furious  type load of testosterone with a brain-dead script and a plethora of clumsily delivered lines.  Plus it had Nicholas Cage, one of the worst actors in American history. 

Oddly enough I didn't hate it.  This is the kind of garbage Cage should do exclusively.  He was terrible but it didn't really matter. 

Basically a revenge story with some odd twists, it wasn't all that bad.  Some silly plot contrivances and the obligatory ham-fisted dialogue, but not so much that it destroyed the movie. 

If the director had used a little of Tarantino's visual style it would have fit in nicely with the Grindhouse/Machete series. 

It was at least as good as Machete and IMO, better than the Grindhouse with Kurt Russell.

On top of that, Amber Heard was so astonishingly, jaw-droppingly, mind-fuckingly hot that she transcended any flaws the film might have, including her here-and-gone accent. 

It didn't try to pretend to be something it wasn't, it just chewed scenery from start to finish while loading up a steady dose of rock and roll riffs.

The closing song "Alive" sounds a bit like Meatloaf (it isn't) and was written by Desmond Child.  Interesting guy, Desmond.  He collaborated with Paul Stanley to do "I Was Made for Loving You" "X In Sex" and "Heaven's On Fire" (among others) and worked with Bon Jovi to write "You Give Love a Bad Name" and "Livin' On a Prayer."   He also worked with Aerosmith, Meatloaf and Alice Cooper.  He wrote Ricky Martin's two biggest songs "La Vida Loca" and "She Bangs."  Recently wrote Katy Perry's "Vegas" song.  Just an aside that means nothing. 

Wanted to hate the movie.  Was fully prepared to hate it.  And didn't. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on September 18, 2011, 01:18:13 AM
Wanted to hate the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4TLiiY5VCE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4TLiiY5VCE)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on September 19, 2011, 01:26:52 PM
I thought Just Go With It was funny as hell.  Look, you know going in that it's Adam Sandler and Jennifer Anniston.  Why expect Charlton Heston and Audrey Hepburn? It's just the usual stream of predicatble one liners and snappy comebacks.  I thought they did a good job with this one and the theater was rolling throughout.

Spy Kids 4 on the other hand....Had to take one for the team yesterday and take mini.  Holy schnitzkies, worst kids movie I believe I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on September 19, 2011, 01:52:03 PM
I thought Just Go With It was funny as hell.  Look, you know going in that it's Adam Sandler and Jennifer Anniston.  Why expect Charlton Heston and Audrey Hepburn? It's just the usual stream of predicatble one liners and snappy comebacks.  I thought they did a good job with this one and the theater was rolling throughout.

You just like it cause you want to put it in her butt.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on September 19, 2011, 01:55:03 PM
You just like it cause you want to put it in her butt.

Nice catch, Captain Obvious
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 21, 2011, 12:26:40 AM
Post Grad

Alexis Bledel, Carol Burnett, Michael Keaton, Jane Lynch, J.K. Simmons (in a throwaway role), Fred Armisen (in essentially a cameo) and Craig Robinson (Darryl from The Office in another cameo basically). 

Girl graduates from college with big dreams, has trouble finding a job, ends up back with her nutty family where she discovers who she is and what's important to her. 

Netflix delivered this although it wasn't in my queue.  Thanks Netflix, I guess now that you're in your anaconda death throes you'll start fucking things up. 

Quirky movie held back by a frustrating mix of over the top hamming it up (Keaton and Burnett) and stiffly wooden, emotionless portrayals (Alexis and her wanna-be-beau Zach Gilford). 

Burnett's surgically altered face was a distraction.  She's fucking gross. 

Keaton, who was once a promising actor, just channeled a combination of Beetlejuice and Lindsay Lohan's dad from the Herbie movie.   

Lynch looks like a big bull dyke lesbian so the effort to pass her off as Keaton's wife interest was flatter than a flitter.

The story itself was okay, but it tried to meld too many movies all at once.  If it had focused on the retardo kid and his relationship to Keaton's character, fine.  If it had focused on Burnett's preoccupation with death, good. If it had developed a triangle between Alexis, Gilford and Mr. Brazil next door, cool.  If it had confined itself to her struggle to find her identity while searching for a job, awesome.  If it had decided to be a comedy, great. If it chose to tell a dramatic story of personal discovery, I'm there.  If it wanted to trifle with romance, I could deal.  But to try to horn all of that (and then some) into the same film?

It ended up doing none of it very well.  Too much of it was left partially baked and a lot wasn't cooked at all. 

If this film is Alexis Bledel's resume, she may get that job search experience she pretended to get here.  She's cute, but there are a ton of cute girls out there and a lot of them can act, too. 

I kept watching Alexis and wishing hard for Emma Stone, ya know?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on September 21, 2011, 04:27:30 PM
Anyone see the original "Straw Dogs" from the 70's with Hoffman?

There is a remake coming out in a couple of weeks. Instead of Wales, it takes place in Southern Mississippi. Looks decent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7krZZabaC_U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7krZZabaC_U)
Im hearing from most that this movie blows donkey bollocks.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 23, 2011, 12:32:32 AM
Morning Glory

Rachel McAdams at the height of her earnest can-do bubbliness as the producer of a failing morning show. 

Heavy hitting supporting cast including Harrison Ford, Harrison Ford's socks, Diane Keaton, Jeff Goldblum, Patrick Wilson and John Pankow.

This is another of the new Netflix "oops" deliveries as it wasn't in my queue but appeared in the mailbox.  So I watched it anyway. 

Glad I did. 

Wasn't the best movie ever, but was oddly endearing.  So much better than the trite schlock of PostGrad.  At times McAdams was a little too gamin grin and Ford sometimes struggled to provide the right gravitas to the washed up news anchor role he pulled, but overall the tone and balance was pretty good.  I believed McAdams in the role and enjoyed her cuteness.

Story meandered to a predictable conclusion, but it wasn't a painful ride to get there.

And a few of the scenes with the weatherman made me laugh.  That's a plus.

I wonder sometimes why movies like this that aren't terrible just sort of disappear while other craptacular films get more attention.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on September 23, 2011, 09:07:18 AM
Morning Glory

Rachel McAdams at the height of her earnest can-do bubbliness as the producer of a failing morning show. 

Heavy hitting supporting cast including Harrison Ford, Harrison Ford's socks, Diane Keaton, Jeff Goldblum, Patrick Wilson and John Pankow.

This is another of the new Netflix "oops" deliveries as it wasn't in my queue but appeared in the mailbox.  So I watched it anyway. 

Glad I did. 

Wasn't the best movie ever, but was oddly endearing.  So much better than the trite schlock of PostGrad.  At times McAdams was a little too gamin grin and Ford sometimes struggled to provide the right gravitas to the washed up news anchor role he pulled, but overall the tone and balance was pretty good.  I believed McAdams in the role and enjoyed her cuteness.

Story meandered to a predictable conclusion, but it wasn't a painful ride to get there.

And a few of the scenes with the weatherman made me laugh.  That's a plus.

I wonder sometimes why movies like this that aren't terrible just sort of disappear while other craptacular films get more attention.

She is super hot. That is all.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 23, 2011, 10:00:48 AM
She is super hot. That is all.

Gotta disagree.  She's more elfish cute.  Her eyes are too far apart and her mouth has a sharkish quality. 

Another one you guys harp on is Sandra Bullock.  I saw about 15 minutes of All About Steve.  The movie was so fucking horrendously shitty I turned it off and tried to sear it from my memory.  Beyond that, she was frighteningly heinously ugly in the film. 

Look at this surgically-butchered shit:

(http://pophangover.com/images/sandra-bullock-face-5.jpg)
(http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/sandra-bullock.jpg)

She looks like Michael Jackson after fighting a UFC match.  She's fucking hideous.   I would not touch this hag with Joan Rivers' dick. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on September 23, 2011, 10:25:50 AM
I wonder sometimes why movies like this that aren't terrible just sort of disappear while other craptacular films get more attention.

Because the world is full of stupid people.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on September 23, 2011, 10:54:32 AM
Gotta disagree.  She's more elfish cute.  Her eyes are too far apart and her mouth has a sharkish quality. 

 

You are one choosy begger.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on September 23, 2011, 11:31:04 AM
Because the world is full of stupid people.

Meet me at the mission at midnight, we'll divvy up there.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on September 23, 2011, 11:32:02 AM
Meet me at the mission at midnight, we'll divvy up there.

I've got the pistol, so I get the pecos
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on September 23, 2011, 11:36:32 AM
I've got the pistol, so I get the pecos

That seems fair.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on September 23, 2011, 11:43:47 AM
That seems fair.

It's so refreshing to see these movie reviews
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on September 23, 2011, 12:05:40 PM
Meet me at the mission at midnight, we'll divvy up there.

I've got the pistol, so I get the pecos

You boys are scoring some big points with these posts.  I'm a Roger Clyne junkie.

Did you watch the Turbo Ocho DVD?  Awesomeness from start to finish.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 23, 2011, 07:44:16 PM
You are one choosy begger.

I choose not to beg.  Difference. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 24, 2011, 03:16:40 AM
Get Him To The Greek

I expected a festering turd.  I got a turd but it didn't fester. 

Jonah Hill wasn't quite as loathsome as he has been in other roles, but I still hated his ass.  Movie would have been so much better without that lousy fuck in it. 

I really wish Judd Apatow would try just a little to reach for some quality humor because on the rare occasions he wipes the shit from his mouth you see glimmers of hope that he might actually use whatever gift he has.  And then he dives right back into the very bottom of the cesspool. 

The guy isn't a visionary. He's not a great comedic director.  He doesn't get subtlety, he fails at situational comedy, he can't get his head out of the toilet long enough to develop honest characters and give them emotional responses that could lead to humor.  Face it. Apatow movies, by and large, suck complete and total ass.  He uses a rubber mallet when a finishing hammer would serve better. It's like he only knows one volume and he keeps it turned to braying jackass stupidity 24/7.

I hate Jonah Hill. That miserable bastard made this movie almost unwatchable and that's sad because almost everybody else was passable.  Brand played himself, so that was easy.  The girlfriend had to dig deep into her actress training and pretend to be attracted to that filthy Hill son of a bitch, so she should get an Oscar or two for that.  Puff, P-, Diddly, Dirty D or whatever the fuck he calls himself these days was adequate in his role and had a few funny lines. 

The neat resolution of the relationship between the disgusting Hill and the slightly cavewoman girlfriend was asinine and was clearly written with no women in the room.  You ass dial your girlfriend four times while you're fucking/about to fuck/attempting to fuck/stoned and high in a week?  She's not going to let your diseased and drugged out friend go down on her for kicks and then let that all be a wash.  Fuck no.  That shit is OVER, brother.  If you do get back in that house you have no hand whatsoever and you do whatever the fuck she says whenever the fuck she says it.  You never, ever, ever, ever live that down.  Ever.  And you don't bury the hatchet with the dude who suggested the menage the same day, either.  Nope.  That shit will be indelibly burned into your mind and will destroy the friendship and the romance.  Done.  Toast.  Fuck all ya'll. 

I expected to hate this film with a roaring, flaming, burning intensity.  That I didn't hate all of it is a mild victory, I suppose.  I've seen worse. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 26, 2011, 10:57:27 PM
Hachi: A Dog's Tale

Richard Gere, Joan Allen and George Costanza in a sweet and touching movie about a dog who understood the meaning of "All In." 

If you don't feel a little something when Joan sees the dog after an extended absence, you don't like dogs or you aren't human. 

Not a cinematic masterpiece by any stretch, but a very solid depiction of a small New England town that became a community home for loyal Hachi.  Did a good job of capturing the daily walk in the small town (I think it was supposed to be in Rhode Island, I've been to some of the places were it was shot) and gently and believably laid out the steadily growing bond between Hachi and Gere. 

I don't understand why Joan had to move, but that was the only thing that made no sense to me.  Why move?  What was the point of that?

I also don't understand why a beautifully shot and well framed story like this, one that has a relatively broad appeal just gets shit on by Sony. 

It never got a theatrical release in the US (made $45 million overseas) and wasn't promoted at all.

Meanwhile, utter donkey shit like "Smurfs" which has no socially redeeming value gets a massive marketing push and pulls in $500 million.  Fuck a smurf. 

 I wonder if the name of the film wasn't problematic in itself.  I resisted watching it because "A Dog's Tale" didn't interest me all that much.  My mistake.

Also a little disappointed to discover that while Hachi was real, he lived in Japan.  Before WWII. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 04, 2011, 03:13:19 AM
Thor

Thud. 

At least it had Kat Dennings, who I find delectable.  Too bad she spend the entire movie swaddled in layers of clothes and a goofy toboggan. 

Everything that makes Iron Man cool and suave and funny and enjoyable was missing in this film. 

Big cast. Wasted most of it.  Renee Russo: Wasted.  Bootstrap Bill: Wasted. Idris Elba: Wasted.

Where was Nick Fury? 

I think I'll pass when they finally start linking all these movies up like comics.  And I'll pass on the Justice League, too, if it ever gets that far.  Given the turd laid by Green Lantern, I hope that project is on hold now.

Heath Ledger as Joker was outstanding casting and a picture perfect portrayal in the Dark Knight. Brilliant take on the character. Too bad it almost got lost amidst the meandering story lines. DK got bogged down in too many side stories, an ugly, fugly, nasty ass Rachel (Maggie Uglyhaul) and a less than capable Harvey Dent (Aaron Suckhard).  It tried to be too many things.  Should have just been Joker and Bruce, mano y psycho.   Fuck, I'd have been happy to watch a Joker movie without even Batman to clean it up. 

Thor didn't really try to be anything.  Felt like a backstory with some silly extraneous shit tacked on. 

IDGAF about the bridges and rainbow walkers and ice cream castles.   Too much musing, not enough Thoring. 

Another dud in the Marvel line. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on October 04, 2011, 02:15:40 PM
Thor

Thud. 

At least it had Kat Dennings, who I find delectable.  Too bad she spend the entire movie swaddled in layers of clothes and a goofy toboggan. 

Everything that makes Iron Man cool and suave and funny and enjoyable was missing in this film. 

Big cast. Wasted most of it.  Renee Russo: Wasted.  Bootstrap Bill: Wasted. Idris Elba: Wasted.

Where was Nick Fury? 

I think I'll pass when they finally start linking all these movies up like comics.  And I'll pass on the Justice League, too, if it ever gets that far.  Given the turd laid by Green Lantern, I hope that project is on hold now.

Heath Ledger as Joker was outstanding casting and a picture perfect portrayal in the Dark Knight. Brilliant take on the character. Too bad it almost got lost amidst the meandering story lines. DK got bogged down in too many side stories, an ugly, fugly, nasty ass Rachel (Maggie Uglyhaul) and a less than capable Harvey Dent (Aaron Suckhard).  It tried to be too many things.  Should have just been Joker and Bruce, mano y psycho.   Fuck, I'd have been happy to watch a Joker movie without even Batman to clean it up. 

Thor didn't really try to be anything.  Felt like a backstory with some silly extraneous shit tacked on. 

IDGAF about the bridges and rainbow walkers and ice cream castles.   Too much musing, not enough Thoring. 

Another dud in the Marvel line.

100% agree!  I never was a comic fan, and don't know what I was expecting when I went to see it, but got exactly what you described and it sucked.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 04, 2011, 02:35:22 PM
100% agree!  I never was a comic fan, and don't know what I was expecting when I went to see it, but got exactly what you described and it sucked.

I was a huge Marvel fan growing up with DC close behind.  Only a few movies have really captured the spirit of what the particular comic or character was.  Spiderman was spot on.  Followed the original story lines, kept the characters in tact and didn't try to go over the top to make it something it wasn't.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on October 04, 2011, 02:45:14 PM
I was a huge Marvel fan growing up with DC close behind.  Only a few movies have really captured the spirit of what the particular comic or character was.  Spiderman was spot on.  Followed the original story lines, kept the characters in tact and didn't try to go over the top to make it something it wasn't.


You need to review this thread.  Kaos cannot do Spiderman because Kirsten Dunst
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 04, 2011, 02:54:18 PM

You need to review this thread.  Kaos cannot do Spiderman because Kirsten Dunst

I would have nailed that....more than once.  Not much of a Toby McGuire fan but if you grew up reading Spidey comics, he was the perfect fit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on October 04, 2011, 03:30:29 PM
I would have nailed that....more than once.  Not much of a Toby McGuire fan but if you grew up reading Spidey comics, he was the perfect fit.

As I recall her face was too round or some such nonsense. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 04, 2011, 03:33:03 PM
As I recall her face was too round or some such nonsense.

I just googled her and now I need a cigarette
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 04, 2011, 04:20:34 PM
I was a huge Marvel fan growing up with DC close behind.  Only a few movies have really captured the spirit of what the particular comic or character was.  Spiderman was spot on.  Followed the original story lines, kept the characters in tact and didn't try to go over the top to make it something it wasn't.

Dafoe?  Perfect casting. 

Toby?  Peter Parker is not a peter puffer.  He sucked, sucked, sucked, sucked, sucked, sucked, sucked. 

And that punchy faced Dunst chick?  B-leh.  bluarf.  Worst. Mary. Jane. Ever.

MJ is supposed to be curvy, sexy and red-headed. 

(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kze7yqsNVw1qzu26wo1_500.png)

She's not supposed to look like an anorexic pan-faced putz. 

(http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2007/gallery/celebbookclub/kirsten_dunst300.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 04, 2011, 04:28:50 PM
Has anyone did a review of Kaos' Reviews?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on October 04, 2011, 04:33:12 PM
Has anyone did a review of Kaos' Reviews?

Most movies suck.

A few don't.

"Simmons Family Jewels" should splice together season one for theatrical release.  It would win an Oscar.

I just summarized 41 pages of posts.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 04, 2011, 04:34:51 PM
Most movies suck.

A few don't.

"Simmons Family Jewels" should splice together season one for theatrical release.  It would win an Oscar.

I just summarized 41 pages of posts.

Kaos got wood on your third sentence. He thanks you.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 04, 2011, 04:58:40 PM
Most movies suck.

A few don't.

"Simmons Family Jewels" should splice together season one for theatrical release.  It would win an Oscar.

I just summarized 41 pages of posts.

Reality TV, including Family Jewels, as a rule sucks. 

The only television series I can think of off the top of my head that would benefit from a movie treatment are:

The Sopranos
Dexter
Dead Like Me
Walking Dead
La Femme Nikita (the Peta Wilson version)
Oz


Each of those series should essentially "start over" and tell a different story than TV, though.  Sopranos, for instance, I always thought could pick a spot somewhere in Season Four or Five -- bring back Adriana -- and just tell a story from that season.  Wouldn't have to tie all the arcs together like the series did. 

My movie reviews are gold.  Most movies DO suck.   Great films are rare. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on October 05, 2011, 10:17:46 AM
Reality TV, including Family Jewels, as a rule sucks. 

The only television series I can think of off the top of my head that would benefit from a movie treatment are:

The Sopranos
Dexter
Dead Like Me
Walking Dead
La Femme Nikita (the Peta Wilson version)
Oz


Each of those series should essentially "start over" and tell a different story than TV, though.  Sopranos, for instance, I always thought could pick a spot somewhere in Season Four or Five -- bring back Adriana -- and just tell a story from that season.  Wouldn't have to tie all the arcs together like the series did. 

My movie reviews are gold.  Most movies DO suck.   Great films are rare.

Been so long now I forgot specifics, but they left several story lines hanging in the Sopranos that could be a movie unto themselves.   I fucking hate the way HBO fucked that series up with odd seasons starts, and long layoffs.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 05, 2011, 01:36:10 PM
I fucking hate the way HBO fucked that series up with odd seasons starts, and long layoffs.

K might know, but I have no idea why Chase and HBO did that.  Maybe had something to do with filming, contracts, etc. I think the series would have went on another season or two if not for Gandolfini wanting to leave and try other things. He was getting mucho bucks per episode. I think the most ever until Sheen broke his record a couple of years back. The long layoffs made the characters age more (especially the kids) than they really did in the storylines.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 05, 2011, 01:46:06 PM
K might know, but I have no idea why Chase and HBO did that.  Maybe had something to do with filming, contracts, etc. I think the series would have went on another season or two if not for Gandolfini wanting to leave and try other things. He was getting mucho bucks per episode. I think the most ever until Sheen broke his record a couple of years back. The long layoffs made the characters age more (especially the kids) than they really did in the storylines.

Back in 2003 Gandolfini sued HBO because he thought he was underpaid and used a loophole in his contract to say the network neglected to inform him in a timely manner that he was expected back for the fifth season (one of the best, actually). 

He was making $5 million.  Wanted $16.  Not sure what they settled on. 

This came after he asked for and got permission to delay the fifth season (and I think one other) so he could work on some really shitty movies that nobody remembers. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 05, 2011, 01:52:39 PM
Back in 2003 Gandolfini sued HBO because he thought he was underpaid and used a loophole in his contract to say the network neglected to inform him in a timely manner that he was expected back for the fifth season (one of the best, actually). 

He was making $5 million.  Wanted $16.  Not sure what they settled on. 

This came after he asked for and got permission to delay the fifth season (and I think one other) so he could work on some really shitty movies that nobody remembers.
He's done some USO project for HBO as well. Although I find it admirable he did that, to have his mind on that looking forward post Sopranos during the peak of one of the best shows in history and to know that's where his mind was during Season 5 and 6 - IS beyond me. Careerwise - not a good move IMHO. Andy Griffith, Seinfeld, MASH, Friends, Lucy, Cheers - when your show that you are the star of is already being mentioned with these shows, and all you have on your mind is doing a 2nd rate USO documentary and trying to wrap up the show so you can get to this project - I have to question what the hell you are thinking.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 06, 2011, 10:22:39 AM
Resident Evil: Afterlife

New record. 

Turned this gob of shit off 11 minutes after it started. 

That is all.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on October 06, 2011, 10:27:38 AM
Resident Evil: Afterlife

New record. 

Turned this gob of shit off 11 minutes after it started. 

That is all.

I always wanted to do naughty things to Milla Jovovich's pink parts.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 06, 2011, 10:52:55 AM
And I've always had a throb for Ali Larter. 

Didn't save this gabage.  Just a shitty movie.  Everything about it piss poorly done. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on October 06, 2011, 10:58:08 AM
And I've always had a throb for Ali Larter. 

Mostly because of this:

(http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn16/wesf9977/ali06.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 06, 2011, 12:01:13 PM
As it happens I didn't see that movie right away.  I saw her first getting ramrodded from behind in a movie called Three Way. What hooked me with Ali was her Maxim spread.

It included this photo:

(http://www.ratewall.com/cpics/fb36380d-d09e-463f-bde3-c67e43eb5b49_Ali%20Larter.jpg)

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 06, 2011, 12:15:22 PM
As it happens I didn't see that movie right away.  I saw her first getting ramrodded from behind in a movie called Three Way. What hooked me with Ali was her Maxim spread.

It included this photo:

(http://www.ratewall.com/cpics/fb36380d-d09e-463f-bde3-c67e43eb5b49_Ali%20Larter.jpg)

I think I just skajizzled my Jockeys
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 19, 2011, 01:08:59 AM
Everything Must Go

Will Ferrell in a serious role. 

Watched this on the recommendation of another poster here. 

When it was over I didn't know whether I should review and comment or commit suicide.  It was a difficult decision. 

Should have known when there were 15 minutes of previews and every single one was for an incredibly shitty movie that what was to come would be more of the same. 

Like how most of Ferrell's comedic efforts are nowhere near as funny as he thinks they are, this dramatic effort was nowhere near as poignant as he obviously thought it was.  It wasn't "worst movie ever" realm -- we'll save that for Blades of Glory -- but it was incredibly slow and lame.  Nuance my ass. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 21, 2011, 03:07:34 AM
Middle Men

All Wilsons suck, but this one sucks less than the others.  Don't know his name, don't care. 

Pretty good story and told pretty well.  It had a little Blow, it had a little Goodfellas, it had a touch of Boogie Nights. 

The IBill story is very interesting from the geek perspective.  All of us keep hoping we'll stumble on that simple idea that will make us shitloads of cash.  Watching two immature idiots do it is, at the least, entertaining. 

The fact that I know at least peripherally one of the key players loosely portrayed in the film added to it for me.  That knowledge also clued me in to the ridiculous liberties "inspired by a true story" allows.  About 2/3 of the shit didn't happen that way and the other 1/3 was fabricated.

As a film, it could have used just a little more character development so you could get a better sense of the emotional struggle the Owen guy endured.  Should have probably done a better job of showing how his lines slowly grayed as opposed to some of the leaps he made. 

As I've watched some acquaintances and former associates go down the path that leads to unsavory ends, it's never the big decisions they make that lead to enforcement agents knocking at the door, it's always the cumulative effect of the smaller ones. 

Not for everyone, but I enjoyed the movie a good bit. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 21, 2011, 03:18:04 AM
Hanna

Weird ass white girl (seriously white) who has lovely bones kicks people's asses in freaky locales, makes out with a 12-year old girl and guts an elk or a reindeer (or some shit).  She's fascinated with a light switch because she's never seen electricity, but can jump on a computer and master teh Googles in 15 seconds well enough to dig into super secret government projects.  She doesn't know what a coffee maker is, but knows how to reconfigure a car. She's terrified of a hotel shower but has no trouble navigating mass transit in a busy metro area. 

Eric Bana makes faces and butchers another accent.  He's John Travolta bad.   

Some crazy white bitch with red hair brushes her teeth until they bleed.

Mr. Grimm has a fairytale house. 

"Dad" sends her off on a solo cross-country journey but they're supposed to meet up at some random locale.

Crazy CIA bitch caps people's asses left and right and there are no repercussions.

Lord Cutler Beckett from Pirates of the Caribbean shows up in the gayest tennis outfit known to man. 

Fucking weird movie with a fucked up Chemical Brothers backbeat and some odd framing. 

Not sure what I expected, but I expected much more than this.   I didn't hate it, but I could have gone my whole life without watching it and been ok-fine.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on October 21, 2011, 08:48:20 AM
Is it me, or have most of the reviews of recent movies been well-deserved harsh criticisms? 

I've got this theory that 99% of the movies being released over the past decade have been absolute shit. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 21, 2011, 08:58:20 AM
Is it me, or have most of the reviews of recent movies been well-deserved harsh criticisms? 

I've got this theory that 99% of the movies being released over the past decade have been absolute shit.

When it comes to movies, I'm pretty hard to please. 

I want a coherent storyline that doesn't contain ridiculous gaps, illogical leaps, improbable/impossible coincidences and dangling plot points. 

I want actors that engage me and make me forget they are acting (See Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone, what a damn fine performance THAT was). 

I want time and attention paid to the set.  I want creativity. 

I want smart storytelling, clever dialogue.  I want to be surprised. 

In the absence of that, I want to be ENTERTAINED (See Transformers). 

I can like any style of movie, but it has to at least try.  Most movies today don't.  When Judd Apatow is hailed as a creative/comedic genius we are in a world of shit.   The worst Cheech and Chong movie is more clever and creative than anything the Apatow line has shat out. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 21, 2011, 10:19:19 AM
Night before last, I watched 6th Sense again.  I'm sure some thought it was lame, but for me, it was the last time I walked out of a theater and couldn't stop talking about what I just saw.  One of those movies where the ending makes every scene you thought meant one thing, suddenly becomes part of a totally different storyline.  All the way home, we're going, "Oh yeah, and remember the scene where he meets his wife for dinner and she gets up and walks out?"  "But what about when...?"
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: ssgaufan on October 21, 2011, 11:00:32 AM
Kaos, I'm too lazy to go back in this thread to find out for myself.  Have you reviewed the paranormal activities films?  I know they are fake, but I really like them and can't wait to watch the next one.  MmmK thanks.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 21, 2011, 11:11:17 AM
Kaos, I'm too lazy to go back in this thread to find out for myself.  Have you reviewed the paranormal activities films?  I know they are fake, but I really like them and can't wait to watch the next one.  MmmK thanks.

Not sure if reviewed.  I watched the first one.   

I thought the build ups were great.  They did a good job of drawing out the tension. 

But I was underwhelmed with the end reveals.   

I remember watching The Entity back in the 80s (Barbara Hershey's boobs squeezed by an invisible force).  It was the same kind of thing but a little better.  It also channeled Blair Witch a bit and I wasn't a huge Blair Witch fan. 

They're okay, but derivative. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: ssgaufan on October 21, 2011, 11:13:25 AM
Not sure if reviewed.  I watched the first one.   

I thought the build ups were great.  They did a good job of drawing out the tension. 

But I was underwhelmed with the end reveals.   

I remember watching The Entity back in the 80s (Barbara Hershey's boobs squeezed by an invisible force).  It was the same kind of thing but a little better.  It also channeled Blair Witch a bit and I wasn't a huge Blair Witch fan. 

They're okay, but derivative.

Thanks.  And I only watched about 30 minutes of Blair Witch and turned it off.  That shaky camera shit just didn't do it for me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 21, 2011, 02:05:00 PM
Not sure if reviewed.  I watched the first one.   

I thought the build ups were great.  They did a good job of drawing out the tension. 

But I was underwhelmed with the end reveals.   

I remember watching The Entity back in the 80s (Barbara Hershey's boobs squeezed by an invisible force).  It was the same kind of thing but a little better.  It also channeled Blair Witch a bit and I wasn't a huge Blair Witch fan. 

They're okay, but derivative.

Didn't think they were all that great but I thought it was different and creative. They are laughing all the way to the bank as are the Napoleon Dynamite makers. None of those movies cost anything make. Very smart business people if nothing else.

ssg - have you seen both 1 and 2? It seems that 2 shows the buildup to where 1 begins. Kind of interesting. Although I thought 2 had scarier moments in general, the last 10 mins of 1 could make someone shit their pants.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: ssgaufan on October 21, 2011, 02:18:28 PM
Didn't think they were all that great but I thought it was different and creative. They are laughing all the way to the bank as are the Napoleon Dynamite makers. None of those movies cost anything make. Very smart business people if nothing else.

ssg - have you seen both 1 and 2? It seems that 2 shows the buildup to where 1 begins. Kind of interesting. Although I thought 2 had scarier moments in general, the last 10 mins of 1 could make someone shit their pants.

Yes I've seen them both.  2 did have its moments but like you said, the end of 1 was great.  I guess the reason I like them is because they are different than the normal scary movie type of crap.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 21, 2011, 02:19:44 PM
Yes I've seen them both.  2 did have its moments but like you said, the end of 1 was great.  I guess the reason I like them is because they are different than the normal scary movie type of crap.

Its the angle of them being "real" like Blair Witch.

And yeah, they are fake as hell. But clever. The new one comes out soon I believe.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: ssgaufan on October 21, 2011, 02:25:14 PM
Its the angle of them being "real" like Blair Witch.

And yeah, they are fake as hell. But clever. The new one comes out soon I believe.

I think it's the fact that you are sitting there just trying to find the smallest thing happening and then, BOOM all the fucking cabinet doors open and slam shut.

Yes I've seen the trailer for #3 and can't wait to get it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 21, 2011, 02:52:45 PM
I think it's the fact that you are sitting there just trying to find the smallest thing happening and then, BOOM all the fucking cabinet doors open and slam shut.

Yes I've seen the trailer for #3 and can't wait to get it.

Just looked in the Columbus (GA) paper. It opens tonight.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AlicevilleEagle on October 21, 2011, 07:23:49 PM
When it comes to movies, I'm pretty hard to please. 

I want a coherent storyline that doesn't contain ridiculous gaps, illogical leaps, improbable/impossible coincidences and dangling plot points. 

I want actors that engage me and make me forget they are acting (See Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone, what a damn fine performance THAT was). 

I want time and attention paid to the set.  I want creativity. 

I want smart storytelling, clever dialogue.  I want to be surprised. 

In the absence of that, I want to be ENTERTAINED (See Transformers). 

I can like any style of movie, but it has to at least try.  Most movies today don't.  When Judd Apatow is hailed as a creative/comedic genius we are in a world of shitake.   The worst Cheech and Chong movie is more clever and creative than anything the Apatow line has shat out.

You want Batman XXX or Pirates...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: RWS on October 21, 2011, 08:50:05 PM
Is it me, or have most of the reviews of recent movies been well-deserved harsh criticisms? 

I've got this theory that 99% of the movies being released over the past decade have been absolute shit.
The same could be said for TV nowadays as well. I mean, I'm only 28, and I think TV sucks. A few weeks ago my wife and I were discussing how movies and TV have both gone to shit, really. Pretty much the only shows my wife and I watch are Hell's Kitchen, Kitchen Nightmares, Storage Wars, Glee, Boardwalk Empire, True Blood, and America's Funniest Home Videos (some for us, some for the kids). We have sort of gotten into X-Factor recently. I don't like American Idol, but I think X-Factor is OK so far. So You Think You Can Dance is pretty good too.

The sitcoms, and TV in general just aren't the same as they used to be. I think movies are getting worse and worse due to the need to just pop one out every so often. Good ones are just fewer and farther between. And there doesn't seem to be a middle of the road anymore, either. They are either good, or a total dud.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on October 23, 2011, 05:07:15 AM
The same could be said for TV nowadays as well. I mean, I'm only 28, and I think TV sucks. A few weeks ago my wife and I were discussing how movies and TV have both gone to shit, really. Pretty much the only shows my wife and I watch are Hell's Kitchen, Kitchen Nightmares, Storage Wars, Glee, Boardwalk Empire, True Blood, and America's Funniest Home Videos (some for us, some for the kids). We have sort of gotten into X-Factor recently. I don't like American Idol, but I think X-Factor is OK so far. So You Think You Can Dance is pretty good too.

The sitcoms, and TV in general just aren't the same as they used to be. I think movies are getting worse and worse due to the need to just pop one out every so often. Good ones are just fewer and farther between. And there doesn't seem to be a middle of the road anymore, either. They are either good, or a total dud.

Good TV: The ones that properly "retool" Ricky and Lucy, and All in the Family, plus the rare one that does something a little fresh in a good way.

Bad TV: The ones that improperly "retool" Ricky and Lucy, and All in the Family, plus the plethora that attempt something fresh and fail miserably. 

Movies: almost same same, but there's a little bit more freedom on the big screen to do something unique, but few have the balls and talent to do it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on October 23, 2011, 09:56:17 AM
I think family comedies can still thrive.  Take Modern Family for example. 

I haven't seen Tim Allen's new show, but I have high hopes.  What seems to be missing is diversity when it comes to family shows. 

In the prime of family TV shows (my childhood of course), you had Home Improvement, Everybody Loves Raymond, The Cosby Show, Fresh Prince, Full House, Married with Children, Malcolm in the Middle (late childhood), Roseanne, and Family Matters.

Each one of those shows brought a unique perspective of family life with its own style of comedy. 

The family show has been replaced with a bunch of extended Saturday Night Live skits that feature late 20s/early 30s single people. 

Not that those shows are inherently bad.  A few are great. 

But comedy is mostly dead on TV. 

Luckily, a few stations like AMC have had the audacity to put HBO-level shows on TV.  Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, and Mad Men have all flourished on cable. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 23, 2011, 10:39:53 AM
Pretty much the only shows my wife and I watch are

Hell's Kitchen Reality show bullshit.  Garbage.

Kitchen Nightmares Reality show bullshit.  Garbage.

Storage Wars Reality show bullshit.  Garbage.

Glee Fag

Boardwalk Empire Good show, but the Sopranos in the 30s is all it is

True Blood Fag

America's Funniest Home Videos (some for us, some for the kids) Dumb


We have sort of gotten into X-Factor recently.  Fag


TV hasn't declined.  Your taste in television is shit, you fucking goat roper.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 23, 2011, 10:41:26 AM

In the prime of family TV shows (my childhood of course), you had Home Improvement, Everybody Loves Raymond, The Cosby Show, Fresh Prince, Full House, Married with Children, Malcolm in the Middle (late childhood), Roseanne, and Family Matters.

Each one of those shows brought a unique perspective of family life with its own style of comedy. 

FWIW?  Most of those were terrible, horrible shows.  HI and ELR in particular sucked the monkey tit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on October 23, 2011, 10:52:15 AM
FWIW?  Most of those were terrible, horrible shows.  HI and ELR in particular sucked the monkey tit.

 :fu: Watching Home Improvement right now and laughing. 

(http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/DealWithIt/unclesamdeal.gif)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on October 23, 2011, 11:11:15 AM
TV hasn't declined.  Your taste in television is shit, you fucking goat roper.

Although I like Hell's Kitchen for comedic value, I have to pretty much agree with K's take.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 23, 2011, 01:22:03 PM
FWIW?  Most of those were terrible, horrible shows.  HI and ELR in particular sucked the monkey tit.

THIS

Ssg, caught paranormal 3 in auburn last night. Best one yet. The plot thickens. There are some root cause things going on now. There will be a PA 4 at least.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: RWS on October 23, 2011, 01:38:56 PM
:fu: Watching Home Improvement right now and laughing. 
Unless you watch what Kaos watches, you're a moron. Get it right.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: RWS on October 23, 2011, 01:40:06 PM
TV hasn't declined.  Your taste in television is shit, you fucking goat roper.
Yeah, and you like KISS (and dress up like them).


Fag.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 23, 2011, 03:50:46 PM
Unless you watch what Kaos watches, you're a moron. Get it right.

Fuck you, shit eater.  You watch ignorant fag shows. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on October 24, 2011, 09:17:02 AM
I've got this theory that 99% of the movies being released over the past decade have been absolute shit.

Add this to your 99% if it happens:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/cannonball-run-to-be-remade-as-a-gm-product-placement/2011/10/19/gIQALYwKxL_blog.html


Quote
‘Cannonball Run’ to be remade as a GM product placement?
By Jen Chaney


(Fox via LA2Day) “Cannonball Run” — the 1981 cross-country car chase ensemble comedy that starred, as improbable as it sounds, Burt Reynolds, Roger Moore, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Farrah Fawcett, Terry Bradshaw and Jackie Chan — may be getting a remake. And that remake may be financially backed in part by auto maker General Motors.

Vulture reports that the deal to make the movie is still being worked out, but that GM — a company that came out of bankruptcy in 2009 thanks to substantial financial assistance from the U.S. and Canadian governments — is poised to take “an actual hard-dollar, equity stake” in the film, which would, in turn, feature a bevy of vehicles from its 2014 line.

Because the U.S. and Canada still own stakes in the company (27 and 12 percent, respectively), one could argue that, in a way, we’re all investing in the “Cannonball Run” remake. Hence, it’s important for you to know that Guy Ritchie is the current front-runner to direct (Shawn Levy of “Night at the Museum” and “Real Steel” is also interested), and, according to Vulture, Ritchie wants Brad Pitt — who mumbled pseudo-Irishly throughout’s Ritchie’s 2000 crime flick “Snatch” — to star.

Ritchie also is interested in shooting some of the movie in Europe, even though the original focused on a U.S.-based cross-country race. No word on whether the Middle Eastern oil sheikh character, played circa 1981 by Jamie Farr, will make a reappearance in the 2011 version. (Fingers crossed!)

The ’81 “Cannonball Run” spawned a sequel, 1984’s “Cannonball Run II.” So if this all works out, GM could land a couple of two-hour product placements and audiences could again be treated to a double-helping of the randy, lowbrow comedy that a good, old-fashioned ensemble racing movie provides.

Would anyone be interested in seeing a “Run” retry? Would you be less inclined to buy a ticket knowing that GM played a key role in making the movie happen? Weigh in by posting a comment. But first, watch the trailer for the original below.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on October 24, 2011, 09:33:21 AM
Unless you watch what Kaos watches, you're a moron. Get it right.

True...and he and I disagree heavily on movies.

But, he is correct about Home Improvement and Raymond.  Banal garbage.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on October 24, 2011, 09:36:25 AM
True...and he and I disagree heavily on movies.

But, he is correct about Home Improvement and Raymond.  Banal garbage.

So not everybody loves him?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on October 24, 2011, 09:37:34 AM
So not everybody loves him?

Some people, in fact, loathe him.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on October 24, 2011, 09:39:40 AM
Some people, in fact, loathe him.

I like the prospects of this new series.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 24, 2011, 09:52:38 AM
Some people, in fact, loathe him.

His shrew bitch wife for one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 24, 2011, 10:05:23 AM
Some people, in fact, loathe him.

I loathe him heavily.

Ray Romano is one of the unfunniest people ever. Show was horrid.

And I am now on the Breaking Bad train with you guys. Excellent show.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on October 24, 2011, 10:53:30 AM
I loathe him heavily.

Ray Romano is one of the unfunniest people ever. Show was horrid.



^^^This
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 24, 2011, 11:13:08 AM
^^^This

"Most of Tigersx Loathes Raymond"

But apparently TBS and all of the syndication deal makers love him.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on October 24, 2011, 01:15:25 PM
The last show that I watched that was consistently funny was "Better Off Ted".  It lasted two seasons.  Work place comedy that just went straight for off the wall laughs.

Best episodes was one where the company installed motion sensors that operated all the door locks and lights, but they didn't "see" the black employees.  Hilarity ensued.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ1TaYwU394&feature=related

Another one that comes to mind is one where the company released a memo that mistakenly said "Employees must now use abusive language" and refused to admit to making a mistake.  Hilarity ensued.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7Nz4bIwss
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 24, 2011, 01:36:00 PM
The last show that I watched that was consistently funny was "Better Off Ted".  It lasted two seasons.  Work place comedy that just went straight for off the wall laughs.

Best episodes was one where the company installed motion sensors that operated all the door locks and lights, but they didn't "see" the black employees.  Hilarity ensued.


Another one that comes to mind is one where the company released a memo that mistakenly said "Employees must now use abusive language" and refused to admit to making a mistake.  Hilarity ensued.


Last 2 network shows or sitcoms that I watched regularly were Friends and Drew Carey. I like Carey's brand of dry humor. Some people hate him. I thought the chemistry and harsh humor between him and Mimi was great. Friends wasn't great but it was a decent all around show that could keep my attention. Plus the hotties didn't hurt. It had some hilarious moments.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on October 24, 2011, 01:50:13 PM
Plus the hotties didn't hurt.

Yeah, Chandler and Joey were-

Wait...nevermind.  Nothing to see here...move along...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 24, 2011, 03:09:59 PM
Yeah, Chandler and Joey were-

Wait...nevermind.  Nothing to see here...move along...

I figured you more as a Ross Gellar kind of guy.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on October 24, 2011, 03:30:53 PM
I figured you more as a Ross Gellar kind of guy.

Paleontologists have the best boners...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 24, 2011, 03:37:37 PM
Paleontologists have the best boners...

I was thinking more because he was Jewish. You prefer the Jewish cut down "there".
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on October 24, 2011, 03:38:51 PM
I was thinking more because he was Jewish. You prefer the Jewish cut down "there".

Or I'm just a (Jew) gold digger.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Hogwally on October 24, 2011, 04:47:06 PM
TV Shows I think are good: 

Modern Family
Psych
Burn Notice
Men of a Certain Age
Warehouse 13
Castle
Mythbusters
Bar Rescue
Glades (not great, but they film around my house a lot)
Anthony Bourdain - No reservations

Movies I would love to see made:

Monster Hunters International
Steven King's Darktower novels
Rick Reilly's Missing Links
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on October 24, 2011, 05:13:17 PM
Y'all are fucking up K's thread.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 24, 2011, 10:34:46 PM
Y'all are fucking up K's thread.

Good. Maybe he'll get pissy. He's been soft lately.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on October 24, 2011, 11:04:22 PM
Good. Maybe he'll get pissy. He's been soft lately.
:jaw:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 24, 2011, 11:11:14 PM
:jaw:

Hes not as interesting when he's not pissy. It's a compliment actually.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on October 24, 2011, 11:25:19 PM
Y'all are fudgeing up K's thread.

That's right!  He doesn't need any help screwing up his own threads!!!  Ya'll get off the lawn!!!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on October 26, 2011, 01:10:26 PM
Funny to me that you watched 4 more minutes of All about Steve then you did Resident Evil: Afterlife.

All about Steve might almost be as bad as What's Eating Gilbert Grape, how the fuck did they get actors to make that movie. Fuck me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on October 26, 2011, 02:03:52 PM
Funny to me that you watched 4 more minutes of All about Steve then you did Resident Evil: Afterlife.

All about Steve might almost be as bad as What's Eating Gilbert Grape, how the fuck did they get actors to make that movie. Fuck me.
Steve and Grape or HORRRIBLEEEEE oh and a big fuck you to P.S. I Love You.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 26, 2011, 02:06:07 PM
Funny to me that you watched 4 more minutes of All about Steve then you did Resident Evil: Afterlife.

All about Steve might almost be as bad as What's Eating Gilbert Grape, how the fuck did they get actors to make that movie. Fuck me.

DiCaprio was a slow starter.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 31, 2011, 12:12:00 AM
Back to the purpose of the thread.

Puss In Boots

So many try.  So many fail. 

Despicable Me, a little flat.
Hop. Just not good.
Rango. Good movie, but still missing one string on the guitar. 
Rio, Cloudy with Meatballs, Megamind, Gnomeo, Mars Needs Moms, Tangled, How to Train Your Dragon, Planet 51, Monsters vs. Aliens, Happily Never After, Coraline, Ice Age... the list goes on forever.  Each of them had their own charms, but all were somewhat incomplete.  Rango, for instance, was more enjoyable to me than it was to my kids because I understood all the iconic spaghetti western imagery. 

And then there's Puss.

Great movie.  Very well done. 

Hit just the right balance between subtle adult humor and kid- friendly charm.  On occasions I found myself laughing at something in the film at the same time as my kids and her friends but we were laughing for two entirely different reasons.

The film, a spinoff of the Shrek franchise, could have taken the easy route and pulled in cameos from the green ogre or the gingerbread man or any of the other assorted characters who populated Shrek's swamp.  But the didn't.  Instead they crafted an entirely new story, bastardized a few fairy tale legends along the way and delivered a solid home run. 

Well animated, well told, well paced.  And Antonio Banderas owns the role he was meant to play.

Could have done without Zac Guffingkafackas as Humpty Dumpty but there are those who appreciate his work (God knows why) and he wasn't utterly awful.  His whining delivery was the only sour note in the entire film. 

If you're a parent and been forced to sit through some drizzly shit like Happy Feet, Rio or Cars 2 in order to pacify the kids, pretend you're making a sacrifice, take the kids and earn brownie points at a showing of Puss.  Well worth it.  If you don't have kids, borrow some and go. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on October 31, 2011, 12:24:00 AM
If you don't have kids, borrow some and go.

If by "borrow some and go," you mean kidnap some kids from the local elementary school, take them to a movie, and then keep them in your basement forever, then I'm all in.

(http://images.wikia.com/wikiality/images/c/cb/UNCLE_PEDOBEAR_by_Lemon_of_Doom.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on October 31, 2011, 03:50:56 AM
Back to the purpose of the thread.

Puss In Boots

So many try.  So many fail. 

Despicable Me, a little flat.
Hop. Just not good.
Rango. Good movie, but still missing one string on the guitar. 
Rio, Cloudy with Meatballs, Megamind, Gnomeo, Mars Needs Moms, Tangled, How to Train Your Dragon, Planet 51, Monsters vs. Aliens, Happily Never After, Coraline, Ice Age... the list goes on forever.  Each of them had their own charms, but all were somewhat incomplete.  Rango, for instance, was more enjoyable to me than it was to my kids because I understood all the iconic spaghetti western imagery. 

And then there's Puss.

Great movie.  Very well done. 

Hit just the right balance between subtle adult humor and kid- friendly charm.  On occasions I found myself laughing at something in the film at the same time as my kids and her friends but we were laughing for two entirely different reasons.

The film, a spinoff of the Shrek franchise, could have taken the easy route and pulled in cameos from the green ogre or the gingerbread man or any of the other assorted characters who populated Shrek's swamp.  But the didn't.  Instead they crafted an entirely new story, bastardized a few fairy tale legends along the way and delivered a solid home run. 

Well animated, well told, well paced.  And Antonio Banderas owns the role he was meant to play.

Could have done without Zac Guffingkafackas as Humpty Dumpty but there are those who appreciate his work (God knows why) and he wasn't utterly awful.  His whining delivery was the only sour note in the entire film. 

If you're a parent and been forced to sit through some drizzly shit like Happy Feet, Rio or Cars 2 in order to pacify the kids, pretend you're making a sacrifice, take the kids and earn brownie points at a showing of Puss.  Well worth it.  If you don't have kids, borrow some and go.
I watched tonight in 3D, great movie and the 3D was actually worth the extra cash.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 31, 2011, 10:47:59 AM
Zac Guffingkafackas there are those who appreciate his work (God knows why)

Thank you.

I thought I was the only one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: DnATL on October 31, 2011, 06:59:51 PM
If by "borrow some and go," you mean kidnap some kids from the local elementary school, take them to a movie, and then keep them in your basement forever, then I'm all in.
Don't be ridiculous - you misunderstood - read it again....
take the kids and earn brownie points at a showing of Puss. Well worth it.  If you don't have kids, borrow some and go.
He's saying you should take them to a porno - but one with women in it, so not your normal fare

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on October 31, 2011, 07:37:05 PM
He's saying you should take them to a porno - but one with women in it, so not your normal fare

Trannies count as half women...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: DnATL on October 31, 2011, 09:01:27 PM
Trannies count as half women...
trannie hookers count as zero, because hookers have no soul
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on October 31, 2011, 09:04:52 PM
trannie hookers count as zero, because hookers have no soul

They're not hookers if they're paid by a third party to have sex while being recorded.

At any rate, why are we focusing on the trannies here?  I thought we were talking about more important things, like kidnapping children...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: DnATL on October 31, 2011, 10:08:08 PM
They're not hookers if they're paid by a third party to have sex while being recorded.

At any rate, why are we focusing on the trannies here?  I thought we were talking about more important things, like kidnapping children...
How about tranny kids, with lesbians too!
 (http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=16143.0)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on October 31, 2011, 10:15:11 PM
How about tranny kids, with lesbians too!
 (http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=16143.0)

(http://assetsus3.wordansassets.com/wordansfiles/images/2011/2/3/65221/65221_340.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 07, 2011, 07:55:09 PM
A Face In The Crowd

1957.  So way, way, way behind on this review. 

I guess I've seen parts of this movie over the years.  Today I ended up watching the whole thing. 

First let me say I love Andy Griffith.  The Andy Griffith Show ranks among the best television of all time. He was the perfect choice to play that role and in an ironic way became almost as famous and important as the Lonesome Rhodes character he plays in A Face In The Crowd. 

But my lord did he overact, over mug, over ham, over goof this role.  I know some of it is the way films were done in that era, overacting was part of the deal but he was so over the top it was hard to take his character seriously. 

When he was supposedly winning people over with his folksy charm he looked more like a drug-addled baboon. How the director ever got away with portraying that braying jackass becoming a national icon is beyond me. 

Then, of course, I wasn't alive in 1957 so maybe that kind of buffoonery would have been a big hit. 

Andy was better when he reined it in a little and showed some of the inner menace behind his bumpkin persona. 

Patricia Neal was pretty bad, too.  I never thought she could act a dadgum lick and she shore proved it here, fellas. 

Walter Matthau was pretty good in the film.  Understated and believable. 

The story itself is timeless.  When Andy and his benefactor are trying to shape a presidential candidate and they're drilling him on soundbytes and personality-driven presentations, when they're explaining that what he really believes is unimportant compared to what people believe about him, when they're explaining that his abilities are less important than the ability to market him to the people... It resonated hard even 54 years later. 

In Senator Curly Worthington, I saw Obama.  Shaped and molded to fit a demographic, his ability to perform the duties of the office completely secondary. 

I've seen this film hailed as a cinematic masterpiece. I disagree. The acting was too broad (and too bad) and the peripheral characters too stereotypical for this film to occupy a spot on the same shelf that holds To Kill A Mockingbird, On The Waterfront, Kane, Cool Hand Luke, Godfather, etc.   But it's worth watching at least once, particularly when you can now view it through the lens of the Reagan, Clinton and Obama presidencies as well as the rise of politically active entertainers like Baldwin, Streisand, Eastwood and their ilk. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on November 08, 2011, 09:49:13 AM
I've seen the movie before.  I liked it, but it was over the top.  You know most people think that the movie was aimed directly at folksy Will Rogers.  It was just shocking to me to see young Andy Griffith as a philandering, power hungry bad guy.

I think the manic personality thing was big for celebs in the '50's (remember this is the time of Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Wolfman Jack, and other people who would just be looked at as cartoonish today).  I also think drug use was heavily implied though the way he acted to, and the drugs of choice in the '50's after you moved past weed were bennies and other amphetamines (see On the Road).  Actually you can look at On the Road also for the whole manic personality/'50's thing.  Dean Moriarty (the real life Neal Cassady) basically was the major emphasis behind the beat movement and later the hippies based purely on his personality, drug use, and antics.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 08, 2011, 05:07:25 PM
I've seen the movie before.  I liked it, but it was over the top.  You know most people think that the movie was aimed directly at folksy Will Rogers.  It was just shocking to me to see young Andy Griffith as a philandering, power hungry bad guy.

I think the manic personality thing was big for celebs in the '50's (remember this is the time of Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Wolfman Jack, and other people who would just be looked at as cartoonish today).  I also think drug use was heavily implied though the way he acted to, and the drugs of choice in the '50's after you moved past weed were bennies and other amphetamines (see On the Road).  Actually you can look at On the Road also for the whole manic personality/'50's thing.  Dean Moriarty (the real life Neal Cassady) basically was the major emphasis behind the beat movement and later the hippies based purely on his personality, drug use, and antics.


I read that the movie was actually a satire directed at Arthur Godfrey. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 15, 2011, 12:48:46 AM
X Men: First Class

Amazing cast. 

Movie? Pffffttttttttttttttttttttt.  Hahahahahaha.  What a joke. 

I adored Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone.  Thought she could be the next great actress, maybe the first great one in a long time.  Fuck a bucket, I was wrong.  She was absolutely fucking hideous here.  She was Amanda Byne-level.  Horribly used.  If this shit had come out before WB she'd have been laughed out of the Oscar Nomination she deserved her WB performance.

Terrible film.  Everybody in it sucked.

Kevin Bacon?  BAAAA HAAA HAA HAAAA HAAAA... Shitty. 

Call me... Magneto... BAAAA HAAAA HAAA HAAA HAAAA. 

Wait, was this a comedy?  I might have to change my view.  Batman snickered when he saw this film.  Brandon Routh was relieved because his shitty, shitty Superman movie has competition.

FWIW, this continues a pattern.  No previews or extras on the Blu Ray.  Whenever that happens the movie sucks moldy ass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 15, 2011, 12:59:04 AM
The Perfect Host

Ever wonder if Maris Crane was real?  Ever give thought to the fact that Niles Crane might have had some really kinky weird shit going on when he wasn't bothering Frasier, disappointing his dad or lusting after Daphne? 

If it ever crossed your mind, The Perfect Host is a film that gives you a glimpse into the possibilities.  Whatever his name is will always be Niles Crane.  He can't escape that persona.  And he doesn't here despite his best efforts. 

A desperate outlaw seeks refuge in the house of the guy who is not Niles and finds out that he may have gotten way more than he bargained for.

The "Working at the Carwash" scene is almost worth it.  If you don't watch the movie you should at least look that up on YouTube.  It won't make a lot of sense without the context that leads up to it, but it's interesting.

The movie doesn't quite reach the level of depravity it should and because of that leaves a lot on the table. 

Other than Niles, the rest of the cast is basically upper-tier porno quality.  Well, except for Helen Reddy and she doesn't even reach those heights.  The film itself suffers from a definite lack of production values, the sets and lighting are pretty bad, the wardrobe selections are not even porno-level and the supporting cast is terribly weak and wooden. 

It's clearly a very low-budget film but it does have some entertainment value.  I guess when you're pigeonholed as Niles you'll take about anything to try to break that mold. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 15, 2011, 11:20:12 AM
Fred Claus

Vince Vaughn never acts.  He merely portrays himself in various films. 

Here he fucking sucks.  As always.

I was hoping the usually good Paul Giamatti could elevate this film.  He was worse here than he was as orangutan. 

I hoped the typically sexy Rachel Weisz would give me some incentive.  She did not, bundled as she was in a fur cap and heavy postman gear.

I was looking forward to the adorable Elizabeth Banks.  Sadly, not enough to make this film watchable. 

Festering turd of a film. 

Vince Vaughn is the worst of the Turd Pack of no-talent hacks which includes Ferrell, Wilson (all of them) and the rest of that painfully unfunny crew. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on November 15, 2011, 11:21:45 AM
Fred Claus

Vince Vaughn never acts.  He merely portrays himself in various films. 

Here he fudgeing sucks.  As always.

I was hoping the usually good Paul Giamatti could elevate this film.  He was worse here than he was as orangutan. 

I hoped the typically sexy Rachel Weisz would give me some incentive.  She did not, bundled as she was in a fur cap and heavy postman gear.

I was looking forward to the adorable Elizabeth Banks.  Sadly, not enough to make this film watchable. 

Festering turd of a film. 

Vince Vaughn is the worst of the Turd Pack of no-talent hacks which includes Ferrell, Wilson (all of them) and the rest of that painfully unfunny crew.

This was on TV the other night after How the Grinch Stole Christmas (the good one with Boris Karloff, not Jim Carrey's travesty).  You are correct sir, it got 86'ed about 3 minutes in.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 16, 2011, 09:25:35 AM
All I know is The Negotiator was on again last night for the 217th time.....and I watched it...for the 217th time.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on November 16, 2011, 02:32:12 PM
All I know is The Negotiator was on again last night for the 217th time.....and I watched it...for the 217th time.

Same with me except mine was: Jenna does (ah nevermind)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 18, 2011, 01:24:42 AM
Bridesmaids

Not at all what I expected. 

2:05:00 of my life I wish I could have back. 

Kept waiting for it to hit its stride and all it did was wallow.  Kristin Wiig cannot carry a movie.  Neither can Maya.  Both are better in supporting -- minor -- roles.

A bad NBC sketch comedy full of SNL and The Office castoffs. 

How this dismal stink bomb earned critical praise and was considered a "comedy" is beyond me. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 20, 2011, 09:01:13 AM
I Am Number Four

No.  You made number two on the screen. 

Wasted the gorgeous Teresa Palmer. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 28, 2011, 04:55:07 PM
Ed Wood

Johnny Depp in an angora sweater and blonde wig just wasn't everything I thought it would be.  Not even when he showed his bra, panties and leggings did the film rise up. 

I wasn't as impressed with Depp as I expected to be in this role. He made the same face he made throught Willy Wonka but this one was just in black and white and without all the cool props.

I assume it was meant to be as campishly bad as all of Wood's campishly awful movies and in this it was a success. 

Landau as Lugosi was excellent.  Outstanding job.   I forgot he wasn't Bela for a while. 

The rest of the cast .... meh.  Intentionally bad I think. 

A film only serious Depp fans could appreciate and I guess I'm just not as serious as I thought I was.   

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on November 28, 2011, 05:10:34 PM
Bridesmaids

Not at all what I expected. 

2:05:00 of my life I wish I could have back. 

Kept waiting for it to hit its stride and all it did was wallow.  Kristin Wiig cannot carry a movie.  Neither can Maya.  Both are better in supporting -- minor -- roles.

A bad NBC sketch comedy full of SNL and The Office castoffs. 

How this dismal stink bomb earned critical praise and was considered a "comedy" is beyond me.
Another one I agree with you on...perhaps the world is coming to an end.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 11, 2011, 10:09:45 AM
Captain America

If there was an online survey I'd check "neither liked nor disliked" this movie.   It wasn't good. It wasn't bad.  It wasn't all that entertaining.  It wasn't boring. 

The big reveal at the end and the continuing push toward the big group Avengers-type film was idiotic and contrived.  Stupid, it was. 

I don't really want to see the big Avenger-fest anyway.   It's like when you take the stupid kids and try to mainstream them in with the bright kids hoping that the better students will inspire and elevate the poorer ones.  Doesn't work that way.  Always sinks to the lowest level.  The dumb remain dumb while the smart dull it down. 

So you've got Ironman -- one great and one pretty good movie.   Hulk: a number of dreadfully shitty movies.  Thor: One bowl of cold oatmeal of a movie.  Hawkeye, who hasn't been in a movie . Black Widow who made a cameo in the worst of the two Ironman movies.  And Loki.  What the fuck is Loki?  Going to add this dry and uninspiring Captain America to that mix.  Bleh. 

The guy playing Captain America was a horrible actor.  Terrible. He brought no panache to any scene he was in. Plus he is already Torch in the Fantastic Four.  That's like having Gwen Paltrow also play Catwoman.  Or Zach Quintl also play Han Solo in a Star Wars reboot. She's either Pepper or she's Selena.  He's either Spock or Han. Can't be both.  And did I mention that he's a wooden stiff of an actor with zero screen presence.  He has no chemistry with his supposed best friend, no chemistry with the army lady, none with Tommy Lee Jones and none with a squandered Stanley Tucci.
 
TLJ was utterly wasted.  Nothing but a set piece. Any number of nameless, faceless character actors could have filled that role adequately. Red Skull wasn't intimidating in the least.  His girlfriend is now close to 100 and probably smells dusty. Not that I bought that relationship anyway. 

The film went all in with a special effects bonanza which saw a shrimpy version of the wooden actor become a more chiseled version of the same bad actor.  Yeah, that was pretty cool but it wasn't enough to carry the movie and by the end had really no bearing on anything. 

That portion of the story was a little reckless, actually. So what, Captain America can hit 70 home runs or win the league MVP trophy now that he's juiced up on HGH and roids?

As a one-off waste of time, it was fair.  As a building block to the beginning of the Avengers franchise, I cringe.  Ironman is great.  These dreary supplemental pieces will do nothing but drag that quality franchise into the shitter.  I hope they never  do Justice League. 

Welcome back Cap'n.  You been sleep for 70 years.  Pfffffffffffffffttttttttttttttttttttt.  Would have been better if he'd woken up to apes running the country.  Way better. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 16, 2011, 11:55:17 PM
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Now that's what a movie should be. 

Being that it was a sequel it suffered somewhat from sequel disease.  It was a little bloated and overlong; it wasn't quite as oddly charming as the first episode; it tried to do a little too much; it tacked on some action sequences that defied belief. 

And yet...

Great movie.  Action mixed with fun mixed with a dash of drama and intrigue thrown in for good measure.  Kept you guessing, made you care. 

Robert Downey, Jr. is the man.  I hate Jude Law in everything else but this.  Here, he's quite good. 

Not going to bother you with the extremely convoluted story or nitpick the action that occasionally bordered on ridiculous (and at the end crossed the line completely into absurd). 

See the movie.  It's worth the ticket. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 17, 2011, 03:47:01 PM
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Now that's what a movie should be. 

Being that it was a sequel it suffered somewhat from sequel disease.  It was a little bloated and overlong; it wasn't quite as oddly charming as the first episode; it tried to do a little too much; it tacked on some action sequences that defied belief. 

And yet...

Great movie.  Action mixed with fun mixed with a dash of drama and intrigue thrown in for good measure.  Kept you guessing, made you care. 

Robert Downey, Jr. is the man.  I hate Jude Law in everything else but this.  Here, he's quite good. 

Not going to bother you with the extremely convoluted story or nitpick the action that occasionally bordered on ridiculous (and at the end crossed the line completely into absurd). 

See the movie.  It's worth the ticket.

Agree on Downey. When the dude is sober he's a great actor.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on December 17, 2011, 07:10:53 PM
Agree on Downey. When the dude is sober he's a great actor.

Agree on Downey as well, and I plan to see the movie.  Loved the first one.  I can handle the absurdly ridiculous action stuff in movies like this. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on December 17, 2011, 09:57:14 PM
Agree on Downey as well, and I plan to see the movie.  Loved the first one.  I can handle the absurdly ridiculous action stuff in movies like this.

Agreed.  Suspension of disbelief works in movies like this, can't wait to see it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on December 18, 2011, 03:50:00 AM
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Now that's what a movie should be. 

Being that it was a sequel it suffered somewhat from sequel disease.  It was a little bloated and overlong; it wasn't quite as oddly charming as the first episode; it tried to do a little too much; it tacked on some action sequences that defied belief. 

And yet...

Great movie.  Action mixed with fun mixed with a dash of drama and intrigue thrown in for good measure.  Kept you guessing, made you care. 

Robert Downey, Jr. is the man.  I hate Jude Law in everything else but this.  Here, he's quite good. 

Not going to bother you with the extremely convoluted story or nitpick the action that occasionally bordered on ridiculous (and at the end crossed the line completely into absurd). 

See the movie.  It's worth the ticket.
Whew knew Sherlock was a Ninja.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on December 19, 2011, 07:44:06 AM
If you liked the movie, give the BBC series "Sherlock" a go from Netflix, a modern day retelling of the Holmes stories.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 19, 2011, 09:34:17 AM
If you liked the movie, give the BBC series "Sherlock" a go from Netflix, a modern day retelling of the Holmes stories.

They did a movie about John Holmes?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on December 19, 2011, 11:58:54 AM
They did a movie about John Holmes?

Actually...

http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/4188022/wonderland_movie_trailer.swf (http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/4188022/wonderland_movie_trailer.swf)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 19, 2011, 01:08:16 PM
Actually...

http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/4188022/wonderland_movie_trailer.swf (http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/4188022/wonderland_movie_trailer.swf)

"They" meaning BBC. I guess porn is art huh?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 21, 2011, 01:16:37 PM
So, I'm a huge Sherlock Holmes fan.  Read the entire collection and seen numerous movies through the years.  Really enjoyed Robert Downey Jr's version except I thought they took the disheveled, don't give a fuck look a bit too far.  Doyle's character was known to have some "addictions" but rarely did he ever portray him as looking like he was at rock bottom and needing to lean on Watson so much.  Regardless, the movie was great in my book.

So far, I've heard from a couple of people that hit "A game of shadows" and they both went back the next night because they enjoyed it that much.  Anyone gone yet?  Heard from others who have?  It'll be next week before I have a free night to go but I'm pretty pumped about it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 21, 2011, 02:44:31 PM
So, I'm a huge Sherlock Holmes fan.  Read the entire collection and seen numerous movies through the years.  Really enjoyed Robert Downey Jr's version except I thought they took the disheveled, don't give a fuck look a bit too far.  Doyle's character was known to have some "addictions" but rarely did he ever portray him as looking like he was at rock bottom and needing to lean on Watson so much.  Regardless, the movie was great in my book.

So far, I've heard from a couple of people that hit "A game of shadows" and they both went back the next night because they enjoyed it that much.  Anyone gone yet?  Heard from others who have?  It'll be next week before I have a free night to go but I'm pretty pumped about it.

Great movie.  Saw it last Saturday.  You won't be disappointed.  It was quite a bit better than the first installment.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 21, 2011, 02:55:24 PM
Great movie.  Saw it last Saturday.  You won't be disappointed.  It was quite a bit better than the first installment.

That's what both said.  Better than the first.  I may have to smoke one before I go. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on December 21, 2011, 03:57:35 PM
That's what both said.  Better than the first.  I may have to smoke one before I go.

Or eat some cocaine out of your BIL's ass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 21, 2011, 04:01:33 PM
Or eat some cocaine out of your BIL's ass.

Pfffft....but I will eat some weed laced brownies off his nipples.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 22, 2011, 08:51:29 AM
Great movie.  Saw it last Saturday.  You won't be disappointed.  It was quite a bit better than the first installment.

Saw it yesterday afternoon. Agree 100%.  Best movie I've seen in a while. Downey was the titz. Funniest part to me was where they show up to Watsons wedding drunk and passed out. Hilarious.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 22, 2011, 09:56:40 PM
Quantum of Solace

Quorum of Stupid.

Terrible movie.   Worse that it is a Bond movie. 

Fucking horrible.  Bond should be suave. Debonair. Smooth. Cool. Not a fucking bull blundering through a china shop.

Ridiculous load of shit. 

Rango told the story better. 

Awful movie.  Just awful. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 26, 2011, 01:41:51 PM
Christmas Vacation

By my way of thinking, the greatest Christmas movie of all time.  One of the top ten movies of any kind in my mental list. 

Eminently quotable, solid casting choices, outstanding musical choices, silly yet sentimental.  This was John Hughes at his zenith before he crapped on his amazing legacy (Ferris Bueller, Weird Science, Sixteen Candles, Pretty in Pink, Breakfast Club, Mr. Mom, The Great Outdoors and Uncle Buck for starters) with schlock like Beethoven 5, Drillbit Taylor, Baby's Day Out  and Dennis the Menace. 

I've seen it 10,000 times and still laugh when I'm supposed to laugh.  I still get a little lump in the throat watching Clark in the attic reminiscing about family times from days gone by.  I still find Ellen's open blouse pretty hot.  And she rocks the sweater, too. The kids are funny, the grandparents are awesome in their surly disposition and Aunt Bethany is priceless.  Best of the four Vacation movies by far -- and they didn't even go anywhere.

Fletch and Caddyshack included, it's the defining moment of Chevy Chase's career. 

A Christmas Story is great.  It's a Wonderful Life is fantastic (and very, very long).  White Christmas and Bells of St. Mary's meh.  Home Alone (I and II), First Blood, Die Hard, Jingle All the Way, Gremlins, The Santa Clause, Miracle on 34th Street, Holiday Inn, Scrooged, Trading Places, A Christmas Carol (GC Scott, not the Disney freak-fest) etc are all good in their own ways.  Used to love Rudolph and the Rankin Bass animations but looking at them now?  Creepy just a bit. Frosty is still pretty good.  Love Jimmy Durante.

Christmas with the Kranks is a shit-filled punch bowl.  Four Christmases sucks Fred Willard's ass.  Surviving Christmas is dreadful despite a star-loaded cast that included Tony Soprano, Kelly Bundy, Daredevil and Kate McCallister (from Home Alone).    Fred Claus is worse than a ruptured donkey spleen.

It's not Christmas without Vacation, Elf, The Grinch (cartoon, not the Jim Carey abomination) and A Charlie Brown Christmas. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on December 26, 2011, 01:55:29 PM
I'm surprised you mentioned Elf in a good way.  And I still enjoy watching Scrooged.  Maybe it's just Bill Murray I like.  But I agree, Christmas Vacation is by far the best Christmas movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on December 26, 2011, 01:58:26 PM
Because of the things going on with family lately, I had no time to sit down and watch the Christmas Movies I always watch.  The must see Christmas flicks for me are A Christmas Story (I know every line before it comes), and It's a Wonderful Life.  You cannot dislike Jimmy Stewart.   The rest?  Some entertaining, some just meh. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 26, 2011, 02:05:43 PM
I'm surprised you mentioned Elf in a good way.  And I still enjoy watching Scrooged.  Maybe it's just Bill Murray I like.  But I agree, Christmas Vacation is by far the best Christmas movie.

It's the only Will Ferrell movie that is tolerable.  It's his defining moment, too.  It should have been the alpha and omega of his career. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 26, 2011, 02:14:09 PM
Saw the new Sherlock Holmes this weekend.  Damn fine flick.  Not sure if I liked it better than the first or not.  Loved them both.  I think there was more action and funny lines in this one but I found the plot harder to follow.  Didn't really come together until over half way in the movie.  But, RDJ's acting made up for it. 

Yep, saw A Christmas Story about 2 1/2 times.  Never ever gets old.  My dad has the leg lamp and puts it up in the front window every year.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 26, 2011, 02:25:45 PM
Saw the new Sherlock Holmes this weekend.  Damn fine flick.  Not sure if I liked it better than the first or not.  Loved them both.  I think there was more action and funny lines in this one but I found the plot harder to follow.  Didn't really come together until over half way in the movie.  But, RDJ's acting made up for it. 

Yep, saw A Christmas Story about 2 1/2 times.  Never ever gets old.  My dad has the leg lamp and puts it up in the front window every year.

I've got an order in for the Christmas Vacation Advent House.  Expensive but cool. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 26, 2011, 10:20:30 PM
I've got an order in for the Christmas Vacation Advent House.  Expensive but cool.

While you order that, rws is ordering this.....

http://www.christmasvacationcollectibles.com/productDetails.cfm?merchID=100914214730012112&category=100430112015642710&position=1 (http://www.christmasvacationcollectibles.com/productDetails.cfm?merchID=100914214730012112&category=100430112015642710&position=1)

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 02, 2012, 01:17:47 AM
Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Holy jeez what a load of festering monkey crap.  And I expected so much.  The original lifts this listless load of orangutan excrement above its head and throws it over the Hoover Dam.  The Mark Wahlberg vehicle snickers at this. 

Forget the special effects which were pretty decent, the rest of the movie was shallow, vapid and stupid.

First I've got serious plausibility issues:

1) Abscond with an ape, keep it in your house for EIGHT years and nobody is the wiser?
2) "I tested it on my father! It worked. I have no evidence of such, but it did."  Right! Cheerio! You'll have all the resources you need, start testing on chimps immediately!
3) Abscond with copious amounts of an experimental drug and nobody is the wiser
4) There's a prison full of orphan monkeys in San Francisco being mistreated by a stooge
5) Dude dates girl for FIVE YEARS, neither age a day, change clothes or hairstyles and she has no idea his pet monkey is a little brighter than the average chimp -- and she's a chimp specialist vet?
6) Monkey bites a dude's finger off and he just gets shipped to monkey prison and can have visitation? Nobody questions where the monkey comes from?  Nobody is the wiser?  Sorry. Nancy Grace has round the clock monkey coverage for several weeks.
7) Dude gets exposed to virus, nobody pays much attention and then he's absent from work for several weeks and who cares? 
8) Crazed monkey gets shot dead in rampage and everybody keeps their job? They go on working on the same formula?


I've got character issues.

1) When somebody chides John Travolta for being a shitty actor, he chuckles, wags his finger and says four words: Pulp Fiction, James Franco.  He was awesome in Pulp Fiction.  James Franco makes Travolta look like James Mason or Paul Newman.   Franco was about as convincing as a scientist as Kim Kardashian would have been.  He was a major disappointment.  His lines were delivered with all the emotion and intensity of a warmed over box of Ramen noodles.  He was abysmal.  Absolutely abysmal and he rendered the entire film impotent with his lack of range.  A terrible, terrible performance, one of the worst I've ever seen. 
2) Freida Pinto.  Okay to look at.  Brought nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero to the film.  The dramatic bridge kiss made me want to vomit it was so cheesy. 
3) John Lithgow.  Oh dear lord, John did you really need the money that much?  Your work on Dexter a couple of years ago wasn't nearly as good as it was made out to be and this awkward performance sealed it.  The nod before dying?  I cawed mawkish laughter at that cheese fest.
4) The rest of the cast which was apparently taken directly from a porn set.  No, make that a cast of porn understudies.  Terrible in every single respect.  Just blithering horrible. 

I've got all kinds of issues with the writing.  Too many to list.  The cheese factor was turned all the way to 11. 

This was no masterpiece.  It was no significant series reboot.  It was an abomination.  In the pantheon of POA films this one ranks dead last in my opinion.   It's worse than the ridiculous Beneath the Planet of the Apes and it even fails in comparison to the short-lived TV series. 

This film had some decent special effects.  Too bad it sacrificed every thing else to promote them.  I'd rather have had a little less CGIApe and a lot better acting and story. 

Dreadful movie that took a kong-sized dump on one of my favorite film franchises.  Speaking of, this was worse than the Jack Black Kong film in monkey moviedom IMO. 

Hated it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 02, 2012, 11:54:06 AM
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
 
And I expected so much. 


This is your first problem.

Actually I'll tell you what my main issue is with remakes. They tried to make this a serious movie. Problem is that the original while trying to be serious comes off as campy and funny. Actors also knew how to act back then.  Hollywood doesn't realize that you can't create campy it has to come off naturally. That's why when they try it also fails horribly (ie Dukes of Hazzard, Charlie's Angels Movies).

Honestly I think you expect to much from movies. Maybe it's because I don't pay for them anymore. Most of the time I just want to watch something for 2 hours and forget about life's issues. If I don't look at my watch during a movie then it must be decent. Movie was entertaining, but I wouldn't watch it again.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 02, 2012, 12:53:03 PM

Honestly I think you expect to much from movies. Maybe it's because I don't pay for them anymore.

You pay.  Whether it's a rental fee, a Netflix sub, HBO/Showtime/Starz sub, DirecTV package or whatever you in some way pay.  Unless you're getting 147 cease and desist letters a day and enjoy federal prison, that is.

I expect not to be insulted.  I expect the writers to be at least as intelligent as I am.  I expect things to fit within the constraints of the film's intent.  I expect actors to make me forget they are acting.  I expect casting choices to fit the roles.  James "Duh" Franco as a genetic engineer?  Fail of epic proportions. 

I expect grand sagas to be grand, comedies to be funny (not just gross and stupid), dramas to be dramatic.  I demand to be entertained.  My demands are not often met. 

Movie making shouldn't be that hard.  The story in Apes was a good one.  In the right hands (creatively and acting-wise) it could have been a fantastic cautionary tale.  Instead you had two cardboard cutouts, a CGI monkey who was a better actor than any of the leads, a prissy John Lithgow whose primary emoting was done by his hair and plot gaps so big Onterrio would run through them without ever considering the sideline.  Good concept, poorly executed.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on January 03, 2012, 12:38:17 AM
Unless you're getting 147 cease and desist letters a day and enjoy federal prison, that is.

 :thumsup:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 03, 2012, 10:55:39 AM
Seedbox.learn.it.   I do pay for DTV though so yeah they get me there
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 03, 2012, 01:31:08 PM
Seedbox.learn.it.   I do pay for DTV though so yeah they get me there

Seedbox = vagina.   

Explain, Lucy. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 03, 2012, 01:37:52 PM
Seedbox = vagina.   

Explain, Lucy.

Ok, I LOL'ed at that one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on January 04, 2012, 02:00:41 PM
Ok, I LOL'ed at that one.

ditto
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 08, 2012, 07:25:48 PM
We Bought a Zoo

Roped into this one by the little girl.  Was supposed to rain so instead of golf I promised to take her to see this movie. 

It didn't rain. 

The movie was predictable. It was sappy. It was sentimental.

It was pretty damn good. 

I enjoyed the whole sappy, sentimental, predictable thing.  I knew what was coming and still wanted to see it happen. 

I'm back on the Matt Damon wagon.  The guy does most roles really well.  So much better than his buddy Ben. 

Scarlett?  She didn't look that great but was still endearing enough to work.  The rest of the cast was okay.  They could really have overplayed the adorable seven-year old Rosie hand but carefully avoided too much of the little girl cutesy. 

Watching Damon's performance in the struggle overcoming the loss of his wife was hard.  He did that pretty well.

This is what movies should be about.  Really enjoyed it and didn't miss golf a bit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on January 08, 2012, 07:38:08 PM
We Bought a Zoo

. . .

Scarlett?  She didn't look that great but was still endearing enough to work.

I happened to catch a clip between movies either on Showtime or HBO which had Damon and Scarlett talking about the movie.

Damon actually mentioned that he had no idea what they planned on doing when they casted Scarlett as a fucking zoo keeper.  It'd be like casting Salma Hayek as a homely school teacher, or Amber Heard as a methed out grandmother.

Anyhoo, Scarlett laughed and said something about just not taking showers for some time in order to pull it off.

Shower or not, I'd still hit it like Tyson.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: DnATL on January 08, 2012, 08:45:24 PM
I happened to catch a clip between movies either on Showtime or HBO which had Damon and Scarlett talking about the movie.

Damon actually mentioned that he had no idea what they planned on doing when they casted Scarlett as a fucking zoo keeper.  It'd be like casting Salma Hayek as a homely school teacher, or Amber Heard as a methed out grandmother.

Anyhoo, Scarlett laughed and said something about just not taking showers for some time in order to pull it off.

Shower or not, I'd still hit it Damon's ass like Tyson.
fixt
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on January 08, 2012, 08:49:16 PM
fixt

It's the male tards that always get to me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWTzyU5MFgM#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWTzyU5MFgM#ws)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: DnATL on January 08, 2012, 09:42:22 PM
It's the male tards that always get to me...
You get hard for the 'tard?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on January 08, 2012, 09:47:14 PM
You get hard for the 'tard?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvMN11Q7N-c# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvMN11Q7N-c#)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 27, 2012, 11:07:11 AM
The Quiet

Very strange film.  One of those things where you're stuck in a hotel room, the middle of the night, can't sleep and you come across this so you watch it. 

Really good cast overall. Elisha Cuthbert. Camilla Belle. Edie Falco (tremendous in the Sopranos). Martin Donovan (who was outstanding in Boss). 

The premise wasn't bad either.  Family (Donovan, Falco and Cuthbert) take in the daughter of a close friend (Belle) after the friend is killed. 

The girl they take in appears to be a deaf mute.  She "dresses like a janitor (Cuthbert's words)" and does nothing to improve her appearance.  Funny thing is that even though she slumps around with stringy hair and a sullen look you can tell she's hot underneath. 

Of course she's ostracized at school.  All high school girls are superficial mean bitches.  And all high school boys are superficial engorged penises who engage in regular self-loathing and take it out on anyone who is different. 

Turns out the new girl isn't exactly as she seems. 

And it turns out that there are some family secrets going on in the house.   Dad's a creeper and mom's hopped up on pills. 

Cuthbert spends a relatively long portion of the movie in some various stage of undress.  Bra and panties, tight tshirt and panties and so on. 

Belle is pretty hot even as a schlump. 

Falco's hair is that idiotic short version and plastered to her skull that she tried back in 2005 and it looked super shitty, but her body of work is fairly strong.   And she pops out the titties in this one.

Donovan has a quality resume.

The story was told reasonably well.

So why did this movie never register? 

 It cost about 900 grand to make, earned just 27K on opening weekend and finished its run at a little over 300k total.  So you could say it was an epic flop.

It leaped off in taboo territory and people just aren't ready for that I don't think.   Creeper dad crossed lines that just aren't crossed in movies.  I imagine that turned the distributor off and it didn't get any promotion.  I'd never heard of it and I am a movie trailer addict.   I also think that those who saw it were probably reviled by the creepiness of the dad and nothing else resonated. 

 



Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 27, 2012, 11:22:12 AM
Godfathers movie review....

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

It is a really good movie...watch it!!!!!!!!  :thumsup: :thumsup:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 27, 2012, 04:07:44 PM
Godfathers movie review....

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

It is a really good movie...watch it!!!!!!!!  :thumsup: :thumsup:

Original or Hollywood rehash?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 27, 2012, 04:08:43 PM
Original or Hollywood rehash?

He just likes women who kick shit up a guy's ass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on January 27, 2012, 04:09:46 PM
Do any of you know where I can obtain a legal copy of "After Last Season"? They used to sell it on the website but that's no longer there. Amazon is a no go as well.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 27, 2012, 04:15:04 PM
Original or Hollywood rehash?
Did not see original...enjoyed hollywood rehash
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 30, 2012, 01:00:48 AM
Tucker and Dale vs. Evil

Better than it had a right to be. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 04, 2012, 11:21:27 PM
Bad Teacher

Bad Teacher? Worse movie. 

I found the appearance of Cameron Diaz to be disturbing.  She is fugly and all her extreme fugliness was on display here.  Her face nauseated me. 

The high concept of comedy here was getting Diaz to mention sucking dick in four or five different ways.  Like anybody would let that crocodile grill anywhere near their man things. 

There was no chemistry between her and Schlumpy McFag who played a gym teacher and her supposed love interest at denoument. 

Justin Timberlake, who has his moments on SNL and wasn't a complete turd in Alpha Dog put in a performance so shitty it was painful to watch. 

On the old Seinfeld show and on Married with Children you couldn't find a character with any redeeming values.  Same here.  But Seinfeid and Married were funny.  This was not.  It was just crude. 

In the conflict between Diaz and Red McSunshine the viewer couldn't find anyone to support.  Both should have lost.  That's not what you want. 

It's worth noting that in a competition between Diaz and Lucy Punch (who played redhead Spunky McSquirrel) I'd have taken the redhead over Diaz every day and four times on Tuesday.  Nothing appealing about Diaz at all.

There were no winners in this film.  It failed on every level. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 05, 2012, 09:48:20 AM
Woman in Black.

Pretty good. Well done. Liked the movie as a whole but hated the ending. Radcliffe was pretty good and may have a career post Harry Potter. Some good shit your pants moments. Worth a matinee ticket.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 05, 2012, 10:11:15 AM

I found the appearance of Cameron Diaz to be disturbing.  She is fugly and all her extreme fugliness was on display here.  Her face nauseated me. 

Are you serious Clark?

She may not look like she did in the mask but shit man, that was 20 years ago.

(http://t.wallpaperweb.org/wallpaper/babes/thumbnail/22375.jpg)



Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 05, 2012, 10:24:10 AM
Are you serious Clark?

She may not look like she did in the mask but shit man, that was 20 years ago.

(http://t.wallpaperweb.org/wallpaper/babes/thumbnail/22375.jpg)

You're seriously going to post some heavily airbrushed shit from 1980 as your "evidence"

I could airbrush YOU and make it look good. 

She's fucking ugly as fuck.  Seriously ugly.  This movie accentuated everything about her that is hideous. 

(http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/bg/Cameron+Diaz+Bad+Teacher+Moscow+Premiere+6f85wZB6cNdl.jpg)

Do not want.  At all. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on February 05, 2012, 10:59:19 AM
Check out a movie called Texas Killing Fields. Would be interested in reading your thoughts.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 05, 2012, 11:00:41 AM
Check out a movie called Texas Killing Fields. Would be interested in reading your thoughts.

What, are you Kreskin?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on February 05, 2012, 12:15:31 PM
You're seriously going to post some heavily airbrushed shit from 1980 as your "evidence"

I could airbrush YOU and make it look good. 

She's fucking ugly as fuck.  Seriously ugly.  This movie accentuated everything about her that is hideous. 

(http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/bg/Cameron+Diaz+Bad+Teacher+Moscow+Premiere+6f85wZB6cNdl.jpg)

Do not want.  At all.

She never was a "classic beauty" or "classic hottie" but she had her own style and look that was appealing at times.  She's clearly not aging well, and though I wouldn't call her ugly, it's not great. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 05, 2012, 03:19:45 PM
Not with your greasy weasel

(http://static.flickr.com/46/163976771_f7265435b2.jpg)

(http://cdn.wwtdd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/diaz_cameron_05_11.jpg)

Couldn't pay me. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 06, 2012, 11:27:13 AM
Not with your greasy weasel

(http://static.flickr.com/46/163976771_f7265435b2.jpg)

(http://cdn.wwtdd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/diaz_cameron_05_11.jpg)

Couldn't pay me.

Everyone has bad days and bad pictures. Look at Lohan from years ago and then now. My pic wasn't from the 80's. It was from the late 90's (around the Mary movie timeframe). Didn't say she was dropdead or even looked like she did 20 years ago, just think you are crazy for saying fugly as JR stated. She has also had some work done after she turned 40, as evidenced by your 2nd pic. Those cheeks are fake as hell - BOTOX galore.

I'm in love with this one anyway.....She trumps all:

(http://im.in.com/connect/images/profile/oct2009/Kate_Beckinsale_300.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 06, 2012, 11:33:58 AM
I'm in love with this one anyway.....She trumps all:

(http://im.in.com/connect/images/profile/oct2009/Kate_Beckinsale_300.jpg)

HAWT!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 06, 2012, 11:34:17 AM
Bad Teacher was at least better than the turd known as Bridesmaids.


Why the comparison you may ask...watched them on the same night.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 06, 2012, 11:35:57 AM
HAWT!!!!!!!!!!

HAWTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(http://www.flix66.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Underworld-Kate-Beckinsale.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 06, 2012, 11:38:47 AM
HAWTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(http://www.flix66.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Underworld-Kate-Beckinsale.jpg)

I'm sure Kaos will find some pics of her with no makeup while she was sick and running on 2 hours of sleep, to prove that she is really hideous. If any guy shies his cock holster away from this woman, I question his sexuality. I don't give a rat's ass what unflattering pic some queer digs up.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 06, 2012, 11:44:45 AM
HAWTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(http://www.flix66.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Underworld-Kate-Beckinsale.jpg)

Yummy

(http://scifibloggers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/kate-beckinsale.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 06, 2012, 11:46:53 AM
I'm sure Kaos will find some pics of her with no makeup while she was sick and running on 2 hours of sleep, to prove that she is really hideous. If any guy shies his cock holster away from this woman, I question his sexuality. I don't give a rat's ass what unflattering pic some queer digs up.

She can wrestle my Lycan any day.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 06, 2012, 11:54:02 AM
I'm sure Kaos will find some pics of her with no makeup while she was sick and running on 2 hours of sleep, to prove that she is really hideous. If any guy shies his cock holster away from this woman, I question his sexuality. I don't give a rat's ass what unflattering pic some queer digs up.

No, she's attractive.  Even sans makeup she's attractive. 

(http://allwomenstalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/kate-beck-sans-fin-2.jpg)

I hear she chain smokes.  Like two packs a day and that could be a problem, but she looks good regardless. 

Cameron Diaz is fucking ugly. Face like a broken Foreman grill.  I'd fuck eeyore before her. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 06, 2012, 11:58:41 AM

I hear she chain smokes.  Like two packs a day and that could be a problem, but she looks good regardless. 


Is it gonna turn my dick yellow? Cause otherwise I don't see this as a problem.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 06, 2012, 12:01:21 PM
No, she's attractive.  Even sans makeup she's attractive. 

(http://allwomenstalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/kate-beck-sans-fin-2.jpg)

I hear she chain smokes.  Like two packs a day and that could be a problem, but she looks good regardless. 

Cameron Diaz is fucking ugly. Face like a broken Foreman grill.  I'd fuck eeyore before her.

Thats sad to hear. That will catch up with Kate in her 40's if true. Right now she is gorgeous.

Eeyore huh? What about one of RWS' goatmates?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 06, 2012, 12:04:01 PM
Thats sad to hear. That will catch up with Kate in her 40's if true. Right now she is gorgeous.

Eeyore huh? What about one of RWS' goatmates?

A goat or Diaz?  Could I just turn gay instead?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on February 06, 2012, 12:04:24 PM
Is it gonna turn my dick yellow? Cause otherwise I don't see this as a problem.

Can't stand kissing a smoker. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 06, 2012, 12:06:45 PM
Can't stand kissing a smoker.

Normally I would agree.

The smoker being Beckinsale? I could get over it quickly.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 06, 2012, 12:10:49 PM
Can't stand kissing a smoker.

Aqua-Fresh does wonders.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on February 06, 2012, 12:14:59 PM
Normally I would agree.

The smoker being Beckinsale? I could get over it quickly.

Yeah, I probably could too. 

Aqua-Fresh does wonders.

Don't care what they do, if they're a regular smoker, you can taste it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 06, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
Can't stand kissing a smoker.

Who said anything about kissing?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on February 06, 2012, 12:23:25 PM
Who said anything about kissing?

Just me. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 06, 2012, 12:26:53 PM
Just me.

Oh...you're one of those.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on February 06, 2012, 12:30:48 PM
Oh...you're one of those.

I love cuddling too.   :puke:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 06, 2012, 02:02:02 PM
Oh...you're one of those.

For JR, this;

(http://counterculturebeauty.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/0906-pretty-feet.jpg)

and this

(http://happynewstime.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/deep-kissing.jpg)

equals this

(http://www.babycity.co.nz/sites/bounty.sinuous.info/images/Baby/Crying%20Newborn.JPG)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 06, 2012, 02:31:19 PM
For JR, this;


Says the guy with the 17 kids.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 06, 2012, 02:36:17 PM
Says the guy with the 17 kids.

That left a mark....Simp will have to ice that spot for days.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on February 06, 2012, 02:38:06 PM
Says the guy with the 17 kids.

Dude better keep the old lady happy, cuz child support would be a cast iron bitch. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 06, 2012, 02:39:17 PM
Says the guy with the 17 kids.

Well, with this being the family site as the X is, I can't link up pics that describes what equals for me. I do however know pretty well how that shit happens.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 06, 2012, 02:40:29 PM
Dude better keep the old lady happy, cuz child support would be a cast iron bitch.

Que? No hablo Inglesia.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 06, 2012, 02:49:52 PM
Well, with this being the family site as the X is, I can't link up pics that describes what equals for me. I do however know pretty well how that shit happens.

Since you aren't fucking, I mean making babies anymore - maybe now we can tend to some more beer infused fishing outtings this spring.....unless you want to be a pussy.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 06, 2012, 02:54:31 PM
Since you aren't fucking, I mean making babies anymore - maybe now we can tend to some more beer infused fishing outtings this spring.....unless you want to be a pussy.

Bring it gator boy.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 06, 2012, 02:56:38 PM
Bring it gator boy.

I'd like to get that gator and AUT1 together. Let the bastard stare at his Elijay....just let him.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTiger1 on February 06, 2012, 03:27:54 PM
I'd like to get that gator and AUT1 together. Let the bastard stare at his Elijay....just let him.

I would fuck him up.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 06, 2012, 04:04:45 PM
Well, with this being the family site as the X is, I can't link up pics that describes what equals for me. I do however know pretty well how that shit happens.

I don't know why you can't post.

For Simp..

This
(http://lovestruckguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/smiling-girl1.jpg) + Hi Honey = (http://www.babycity.co.nz/sites/bounty.sinuous.info/images/Baby/Crying%20Newborn.JPG)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 06, 2012, 04:09:17 PM
For Simp..

Well I was gonna go with more of an X-rated approach. Anyway, skip the "Hi Honey" part.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 06, 2012, 04:48:06 PM
Please remember that

(http://static.tvfanatic.com/images/gallery/major-flirt.jpg) 

+

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_vZhR4a7LLS8/SxRyMMjPYaI/AAAAAAAAR0s/GfHXBIOT0qk/s1600/ST-Blow-Job1.jpg)

=

(http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/nobabies.jpg)


This has been a public service announcement from the Get Yours First Coaliation. Remember boys, always get yours first.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 06, 2012, 04:51:24 PM
Please remember that

This has been a public service announcement from the Get Yours First Coaliation. Remember boys, always get yours first.

Or this

(http://s2.hubimg.com/u/190605_f496.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 06, 2012, 04:52:21 PM
Or this

(http://s2.hubimg.com/u/190605_f496.jpg)

Oh, so that's what nutts look like.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 06, 2012, 04:56:33 PM
Oh, so that's what nutts look like.

Maybe Momma will let you get a peek.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 06, 2012, 04:57:23 PM
Back to the debate. 

You're watching Bridesmaids and there's not a single bangable chick in the film.  All manner of heinosity. 

In Bad Teacher you have this:

(http://www.101lifestyle.com/images/celebs/lucy_punch/DCELEB-lucy-punch-pics-001.jpg)

Who's admittedly not the best looking thing around with her weird ass eyes

But your only other visual distraction is one of these three ugly ass dudes

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KPuPjHAEXeU/TheU7hVbCHI/AAAAAAAABSg/aw-UF3o4c_I/s1600/Bad+Teacher+3.JPG)

Flop. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 06, 2012, 05:01:47 PM
Molly Sims is on the cover of Shape magazine.  Saw it at the checkout lane in Pube-licks. 


Just sayin'...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on February 06, 2012, 05:10:14 PM
Please remember that . . .

Oh, but it can...

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2011/02/27/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/ (http://mensnewsdaily.com/2011/02/27/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 07, 2012, 08:50:18 PM
Oh, but it can...

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2011/02/27/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/ (http://mensnewsdaily.com/2011/02/27/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/)

’s!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 07, 2012, 11:46:42 PM
Ferris Bueller's Day Off

There are few movies that transcend generations.  Few that are almost note for note perfect. 

Ferris Bueller's Day Off is one of those.  I remember watching it when I was just out of high school. My oldest watched it when she was about 14.  My youngest watched it tonight.  The things that were funny to me in 1986 were just as funny to them in 2003 and 2012.

The cast is outstanding.  Ferris under anyone else's hand could have come off as a jerkwad jackass. Broderick played the role with just the right combination of cockiness, smarm and vulnerability.

Jennifer Grey was way cuter with her regular face and frizzy hair than she was after the surgery.  She had just the right amount of spaz.

Mia Sara was delicious. She looked like a young Jane Seymour. 

Rooney was outstanding.  He said more with his dead expressions than he ever could have with words.

The parents were perfectly clueless.

If you look you can see short appearances by Louie Anderson and Kristy Swanson too.

It's a teen movie but it's timeless.  I wouldn't want to watch it every day, but it's something I don't mind coming back to occasionally. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on February 08, 2012, 03:09:15 AM
Ferris Bueller's Day Off

There are few movies that transcend generations.  Few that are almost note for note perfect. 

Ferris Bueller's Day Off is one of those.  I remember watching it when I was just out of high school. My oldest watched it when she was about 14.  My youngest watched it tonight.  The things that were funny to me in 1986 were just as funny to them in 2003 and 2012.

The cast is outstanding.  Ferris under anyone else's hand could have come off as a jerkwad jackass. Broderick played the role with just the right combination of cockiness, smarm and vulnerability.

Jennifer Grey was way cuter with her regular face and frizzy hair than she was after the surgery.  She had just the right amount of spaz.

Mia Sara was delicious. She looked like a young Jane Seymour. 

Rooney was outstanding.  He said more with his dead expressions than he ever could have with words.

The parents were perfectly clueless.

If you look you can see short appearances by Louie Anderson and Kristy Swanson too.

It's a teen movie but it's timeless.  I wouldn't want to watch it every day, but it's something I don't mind coming back to occasionally.
Great Movie Bueller, Bueller?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on February 08, 2012, 08:46:16 AM
Ferris Bueller's Day Off

There are few movies that transcend generations.  Few that are almost note for note perfect. 

Ferris Bueller's Day Off is one of those.  I remember watching it when I was just out of high school. My oldest watched it when she was about 14.  My youngest watched it tonight.  The things that were funny to me in 1986 were just as funny to them in 2003 and 2012.

The cast is outstanding.  Ferris under anyone else's hand could have come off as a jerkwad jackass. Broderick played the role with just the right combination of cockiness, smarm and vulnerability.

Jennifer Grey was way cuter with her regular face and frizzy hair than she was after the surgery.  She had just the right amount of spaz.

Mia Sara was delicious. She looked like a young Jane Seymour. 

Rooney was outstanding.  He said more with his dead expressions than he ever could have with words.

The parents were perfectly clueless.

If you look you can see short appearances by Louie Anderson and Kristy Swanson too.

It's a teen movie but it's timeless.  I wouldn't want to watch it every day, but it's something I don't mind coming back to occasionally.

Yep, every time I stumble across it scrolling channels, I at least look in to see a little of it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 08, 2012, 09:12:57 AM
You're the sausage king of Chicago?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 08, 2012, 09:24:50 AM
You touch me and I yell rat
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 08, 2012, 09:28:17 AM
The place is like a museum. It's very beautiful and very cold, and you're not allowed to touch anything.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on February 13, 2012, 10:43:39 AM
Watched a bunch of movies this weekend. Figured I'd share.

The Descendants - As is the case with most movies expected to rake in Oscars, this movie was ok, but I can't quite understand the magnitude of hype it received. It was a good movie. I suspect that if George Clooney wasn't the lead, it would have been viewed as the 6 it was, instead of the 9 or 10 that SAG seems to think it is.

The Rum Diary - From one movie that kind of over-represented the white people in a tropical island US state, to one that even more so over-represented the white people in a tropical island US territory. It was pretty awesome though. All the elements you'd expect from a Hunter S. Thompson story are there. A metafiction "Gonzo" story about a newspaper journalist's crazy adventures that involves heavy boozing and at least one scene involving LSD. Having been to San Juan several times and marrying into a family originally from there, it was pretty cool to see it represented the way it was in this movie. Small things like every night scene featuring the coquís chirping, made it seem authentic. I definitely recommend this one.

The Woman - This movie is apparently a sequel to a movie called Offspring, about a feral forrest-dwelling cannibal tribe getting loose into suburbia. From what I can tell, it's completely unnecessary to see that film to watch this one. All you need to know, as it explains at the beginning of this film, is that one woman from that tribe remains, living alone in the woods. Without giving too much away, the plot centers around a suburban Stepford-esque family somewhere in the south. One day, the patriarch is hunting in the woods when he decides to capture this woman, and chain her up in the cellar to attempt to "civilize" her. The WTF's slowly snowball until the final act, where they spin out of control. This is a weird one, but I liked it a lot.

The Human Centipede II - The original Human Centipede, much like The Woman, was shocking and strange, but still a surprisingly good movie. You're probably thinking, how in the fuck could a movie with that ludicrous premise be even semi-decent. Well, that's kind of why I guess I was surprisingly pleased. I guess I didn't expect much from it, and it turned out to be as well executed, and as tastefully done (no pun intended), as could have possibly been the case for a movie like that. The Internet was abuzz from horror fans about how let down they were by this. People wanted to compare it to A Serbian Film. They wanted to be shocked and disgusted. They felt like a film with this premise fell short of so many opportunities to be truly disgusting. Well, it appears as though the director took this criticism and said "You think you wanted that movie, you sick fucks? Fine, here's that movie then." Shot entirely in black and white, and with very limited dialogue, this movie is about a demented and slightly retarded parking lot attendant, who apparently was sexually and mentally abused by his parents. His mother, still living with him, abuses him daily. This psychopath is obsessed with the Human Centipede movie. To the point he keeps a book with the "medical" drawings, pictures of the cast presumably printed off of IMDB, scenes from the film, etc. And he watches it on repeat on the job in his parking lot attendant's booth. In one scene, he masturbates to it using sand paper. Just because. It's that kind of movie. Apparently, this guy wants to realize the goal that the antagonist from the first film set, which was to build a much larger Human Centipede, consisting of 12 people instead of three. He preys upon victims in his parking lot, stitching them together. He tries to get the actors from the original to be a part of the chain, convincing one (the "back end" from the original movie) by telling their agents that he was conducting an audition for a Quentin Tarantino film. Everything that was left to the imagination in the first one, was cheaply and explicitly done in this one. For example, it quite graphically shows him cutting out the ligaments in the victims' knees. There's a lot more blood involved. The shit-in-mouth scenes are more grotesque. In an "artistic touch", the only color in the film is applied to the shit that sprays out of the ass of the back end of the centipede in one scene. How avant guarde! Also at one point, he wraps barbed wire around his dick and rapes the back end of the centipede. Just because. It's that kind of movie. If there is any artistic value whatsoever to this movie, it could be that it is a big "fuck you" to fans of the original, especially those that said they wanted it to be sicker and more over-the-top. The main antagonist is the personification of those sick fucks. And the film itself is what they claimed they wanted. I may be giving him too much credit though. Maybe it just sucked.

The Other F Word - Probably not a lot of people here were into the whole 90's skate punk thing, with bands like NOFX, Rancid, and Pennywise like I was. If you were, don't miss this movie. It's about the dichotomy of being this out of control anarchist screaming "fuck authority", on stage in your day job, and then trying to raise a family at home. It's kind of a coming-of-age type of story about how these eternal children kind of have to grow up to raise their own kids. The film heavily centers around the band Pennywise, especially singer Jim Lindberg. It chronicles their last tour, and shows that he misses his family, and ultimately (spoiler) quits the band mid-tour. I didn't know until I saw it in this movie that they had broken up. Apparently, the reason for Pennywise serving as the centerpiece is because the whole concept was based on a book Lindberg had written called "Punk Rock Dad". However, it also prominently features Lars Frederiksen from Rancid, Mark Hoppus from Blink-182, Fat Mike from NOFX, Flea from Red Hot Chili Peppers, Art Alexakis from Everclear, Joe Escalante from The Vandals, Tony Adolescent from The Adolescents, Brett Gurewitz from Bad Religion, Duane Peters from U.S. Bombs, Ron Reyes from Black Flag, pro skater Tony Hawk, amongst many other punk icons. I can see how if you were never into these kinds of bands, this would be of no interest to you, but if you were, definitely watch this one.

Lenny Bruce - Swear To Tell The Truth - This last one wasn't a new release, and I really don't have much commentary for it. I didn't know much about Lenny Bruce, considering he died 16 years before I was born. That motherfucker was cool, though. I suspected he might have been, considering all I really knew about him prior to watching this is that George Carlin, Richard Pryor, and several other "envelope pushers" all cite him as their inspiration, and he is often referred to as the first public "bad boy". The film shows how by a certain point in his career, after he had reached a certain level of infamy, he was arrested after virtually every one of his shows, because as one interviewee put it "If he went to a town and they didn't arrest him, it perceived as something wrong with that town." It's almost surreal to see someone say the things he was saying on film in the 1950s, considering that it's miles away from Ward Cleaver, and everything else I've ever seen from that era.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on February 13, 2012, 10:48:50 AM
One more, I left out.

The Rock-afire Explosion - A documentary about the rise and fall of Show Biz pizza. As a child of the 80's, this was some serious nostalgia. The film centers around a handful of fans that are now in their 30s, but are obsessed with the Rock-afire Explosion (the animatronic band fronted by Billy Bob the bear). One guy, from Alex City, Alabama, had collected the entire show. He had the full stage exactly as it appeared in a Showbiz Pizza, completely set up and operational in a room in his house. As a hobby, he would program the robots to perform modern pop songs.

Here's an example. If you look at this on YouTube, you will see that there are tons of other songs he has programmed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b90Cf6ARscc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b90Cf6ARscc#)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on February 13, 2012, 10:54:34 AM
Watched a bunch of movies this weekend. Figured I'd share.

The Descendants - As is the case with most movies expected to rake in Oscars, this movie was ok, but I can't quite understand the magnitude of hype it received. It was a good movie. I suspect that if George Clooney wasn't the lead, it would have been viewed as the 6 it was, instead of the 9 or 10 that SAG seems to think it is.

The Rum Diary - From one movie that kind of over-represented the white people in a tropical island US state, to one that even more so over-represented the white people in a tropical island US territory. It was pretty awesome though. All the elements you'd expect from a Hunter S. Thompson story are there. A metafiction "Gonzo" story about a newspaper journalist's crazy adventures that involves heavy boozing and at least one scene involving LSD. Having been to San Juan several times and marrying into a family originally from there, it was pretty cool to see it represented the way it was in this movie. Small things like every night scene featuring the coquís chirping, made it seem authentic. I definitely recommend this one.

The Woman - This movie is apparently a sequel to a movie called Offspring, about a feral forrest-dwelling cannibal tribe getting loose into suburbia. From what I can tell, it's completely unnecessary to see that film to watch this one. All you need to know, as it explains at the beginning of this film, is that one woman from that tribe remains, living alone in the woods. Without giving too much away, the plot centers around a suburban Stepford-esque family somewhere in the south. One day, the patriarch is hunting in the woods when he decides to capture this woman, and chain her up in the cellar to attempt to "civilize" her. The WTF's slowly snowball until the final act, where they spin out of control. This is a weird one, but I liked it a lot.

The Human Centipede II - The original Human Centipede, much like The Woman, was shocking and strange, but still a surprisingly good movie. You're probably thinking, how in the fuck could a movie with that ludicrous premise be even semi-decent. Well, that's kind of why I guess I was surprisingly pleased. I guess I didn't expect much from it, and it turned out to be as well executed, and as tastefully done (no pun intended), as could have possibly been the case for a movie like that. The Internet was abuzz from horror fans about how let down they were by this. People wanted to compare it to A Serbian Film. They wanted to be shocked and disgusted. They felt like a film with this premise fell short of so many opportunities to be truly disgusting. Well, it appears as though the director took this criticism and said "You think you wanted that movie, you sick fucks? Fine, here's that movie then." Shot entirely in black and white, and with very limited dialogue, this movie is about a demented and slightly retarded parking lot attendant, who apparently was sexually and mentally abused by his parents. His mother, still living with him, abuses him daily. This psychopath is obsessed with the Human Centipede movie. To the point he keeps a book with the "medical" drawings, pictures of the cast presumably printed off of IMDB, scenes from the film, etc. And he watches it on repeat on the job in his parking lot attendant's booth. In one scene, he masturbates to it using sand paper. Just because. It's that kind of movie. Apparently, this guy wants to realize the goal that the antagonist from the first film set, which was to build a much larger Human Centipede, consisting of 12 people instead of 3. He preys upon victims in his garage stitching them together. He tries to get the actors from the original to be a part of the chain, convincing one (the "back end" from the original movie) by calling their agents and setting up an audition for a Quentin Tarantino film. Everything that was left to the imagination in the first one, was cheaply and explicitly done in this one. For example, it quite graphically shows him cutting out the ligaments in the victims' knees. There's a lot more blood involved. The shit-in-mouth scenes are more grotesque. In "artistic touch", the only color in the film applied to the shit that sprays out of the ass of the back end of the centipede. How avant guarde! Also at one point, he wraps barbed wire around his dick and rapes the back end of the centipede. Just because. It's that kind of movie. If there is any artistic value whatsoever to this movie, it could be that it is a big "fuck you" to fans of the original, especially those that said they wanted it to be sicker and more over-the-top. The main antagonist is the personification of those sick fucks. And the film itself is what they claimed they wanted. I may be giving him too much credit though. Maybe it just sucked.

The Other F Word - Probably not a lot of people here were into the whole 90's skate punk thing, with bands like NOFX, Rancid, and Pennywise like I was. If you were, don't miss this movie. It's about the dichotomy of being this out of control anarchist screaming "fuck authority", on stage in your day job, and then trying to raise a family at home. It's kind of a coming-of-age type of story about how these eternal children kind of have to grow up to raise their own kids. The film heavily centers around the band Pennywise, especially singer Jim Lindberg. Apparently, the idea for the film was based on his book. It chronicles their last tour, and shows that he misses his family, and ultimately (spoiler) quits the band mid-tour. I didn't know until I saw it in this movie that they had broken up. Apparently, the reason for this is that the whole concept was based on a book Lindberg had written called "Punk Rock Dad". However, it also prominently features Lars Frederiksen from Rancid, Mark Hoppus from Blink-182, Fat Mike from NOFX, Flea from Red Hot Chili Peppers, Art Alexakis from Everclear, Joe Escalante from The Vandals, Tony Adolescent from The Adolescents, Brett Gurewitz from Bad Religion, Duane Peters from U.S. Bombs, Ron Reyes from Black Flag, pro skater Tony Hawk, amongst many other punk icons. I can see how if you were never into these kinds of bands, this would be of no interest to you, but if you were, definitely watch this one.

Lenny Bruce - Swear To Tell The Truth - This last one wasn't a new release, and I really don't have much commentary for it. I didn't know much about Lenny Bruce, considering he died 16 years before I was born. That motherfucker was cool, though. I suspected he might have been, considering all I really knew about him prior to watching this is that George Carlin, Richard Pryor, and several other "envelope pushers" all cite him as their inspiration, and he is often referred to as the first public "bad boy". The film shows how by a certain point in his career, after he had reached a certain level of infamy, he was arrested after virtually every one of his shows, because as one interviewee put it "If he went to a town and they didn't arrest him, it perceived as something wrong with that town." It's almost surreal to see someone say the things he was saying on film in the 1950s, considering that it's miles away from Ward Cleaver, and everything else I've ever seen from that era.

tl/dr

Is your name Kaos?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 13, 2012, 10:55:25 AM
One more, I left out.

The Rock-afire Explosion - A documentary about the rise and fall of Show Biz pizza. As a child of the 80's, this was some serious nostalgia. The film centers around a handful of fans that are now in their 30s, but are obsessed with the Rock-afire Explosion (the animatronic band fronted by Billy Bob the bear). One guy, from Alex City, Alabama, had collected the entire show. He had the full stage exactly as it appeared in a Showbiz Pizza, completely set up and operational in a room in his house. As a hobby, he would program the robots to perform modern pop songs.

Here's an example. If you look at this on YouTube, you will see that there are tons of other songs he has programmed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b90Cf6ARscc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b90Cf6ARscc#)

Weren't you about 5 when the 80's ended?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on February 13, 2012, 11:14:59 AM
Weren't you about 5 when the 80's ended?
Eight. Show-Biz (and Chuck-E-Cheese) is primarily for kids under ten, so I was a prime patron.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 13, 2012, 11:22:47 AM
Eight. Show-Biz (and Chuck-E-Cheese) is primarily for kids under ten, so I was a prime patron.

Show-Biz was the shit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on February 13, 2012, 11:26:33 AM
Show-Biz was the shit.
You should watch the movie.

I think it's on Hulu for free.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on February 13, 2012, 11:33:41 AM
You should watch the movie.

I think it's on Hulu for free.
Cliff Notes version of what happened to ShowBiz???
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on February 13, 2012, 11:41:48 AM
Cliff Notes version of what happened to ShowBiz???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rock-afire_Explosion#Concept_unification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rock-afire_Explosion#Concept_unification)
Quote
ShowBiz Pizza Place was similar to (and competed with) Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre, another restaurant chain that was popular in other parts of the United States. In the mid-80s, both venues began to suffer financial difficulties, partially due to the video game crash of 1983 and also due to Showbiz Pizza's having opened more restaurants than they could afford to maintain. When "Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre" filed for bankruptcy in 1984, Showbiz Pizza bought the company, hoping that new talent and merchandising opportunities could save both companies.[1]

The corporation maintained the two restaurant chains simultaneously for several years. Each continued its own stage shows and sold different merchandise. However, in the latter part of the decade, relations between Creative Engineering and Showbiz began to cool. In 1988, Aaron Fechter, the founder of Creative Engineering and creator of the Rock-afire Explosion, claimed that the fallout between his company and Showbiz arose when Showbiz asked him to sign away the licensing and copyrights to the Rock-afire Explosion, which would have allowed Showbiz to cut production costs on the show, such as manufacture of future shows and royalty payments to Creative Engineering. Fechter refused, both on the grounds that Showbiz offered no monetary compensation for the rights, and because Fechter had hoped to franchise Rock-afire out as a cartoon series.[1]

Showbiz began toying with the idea of replacing The Rock-afire Explosion with licensed characters, such as Spider-Man or Garfield, and three locations actually retrofitted the robots at stage left into Yogi Bear and Boo Boo[1]

Ultimately, the company decided to enact a process called "concept unification," in which all Showbiz Pizza locations would be remodeled into Chuck E. Cheeses. The remodel included the elimination of all Rock-afire characters from merchandise and advertising and retrofitting/reprogramming the Rock-afire Explosion robots into a new show called Munch's Make Believe Band featuring the Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre characters. Unused animatronics and props were either sold off to other restaurants or destroyed.[1]

"Concept unification" began in 1990 and occurred sporadically at Showbiz locations for the next two years, with the final Showbiz being converted in 1992.[1] As concept unification began at each location, the left and center stages of the Rock-afire show were shut down, leaving only the Rolfe and Earl characters operational. During this period, the characters performed "The Rolfe and Earl Show," featuring the voices of Showbiz employees imitating the characters; the two ran a highlights reel of old Rock-afire shows and wondered aloud what the band would do now, and hinted at the coming Chuck E. Cheese-themed show. "The Rolfe and Earl Show" was the final Rock-afire show; after concept unification had been completed on the center and left stages, Rolfe and Earl were themselves removed.[2]
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 13, 2012, 01:14:39 PM
Dream House

Made the mistake of watching an extended trailer before getting the movie.  Because of that the whole "surprise reveal" was transparent and it became a game of waiting for the stupid characters to catch up to what I already knew. 

Not a bad film, but not a good one either. 

I'm sick of seeing Daniel Craig in every damn thing.  He's not that good an actor.  In fact he's extremely limited.  His efforts to emote in this film were borderline ridiculous.

Rachel Weisz was fair but completely clothed at all times.  Naomi Watts was awful. 

Few scares, little mystery, just not much to recommend this.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 13, 2012, 02:01:04 PM
Eight. Show-Biz (and Chuck-E-Cheese) is primarily for kids under ten, so I was a prime patron.

Bullshit....I still go to Chuck-e-cheese and play skeeball every weekend. Don't any of them youngsters want none of this old man at teh skeezball.

I keed, but seriously - Showbiz > Chuck-E-Jizz by a country mile. Show Biz was the titz.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on February 13, 2012, 02:04:26 PM
Bullshit....I still go to Chuck-e-cheese and play skeeball every weekend. Don't any of them youngsters want none of this old man at teh skeezball.

I keed, but seriously - Showbiz > Chuck-E-Jizz by a country mile. Show Biz was the titz.

Been so damn long, I can't even remember where the Showbiz Pizzas were in the area.   My brother is teh skiball champeen.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 13, 2012, 02:43:49 PM
Have done several birthday parties at teh Cheeze.  Just get em' all their cups of tokens, a slice of pizza and a coke....then kick back with all the kids' hot moms for an hour. 

By the way...no one is more consistent at banking it off the left bumper and up into the 40 hole than Captain Snags.  People trip over the wad of tickets rifling out of my machine.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 13, 2012, 03:05:08 PM
Been so damn long, I can't even remember where the Showbiz Pizzas were in the area.   My brother is teh skiball champeen.

Tell him to bring it
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on February 13, 2012, 03:17:57 PM
Tell him to bring it

I think Snaggie issued a direct challenge.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 13, 2012, 03:44:45 PM
I think Snaggie issued a direct challenge.

The word that does not fit here is challenge.  There would be no challenge once I drop the token in the slot.



GH and JR, I'm coming for you man. My style is impetuous. My defense is impregnable, and I'm just ferocious. I want your heart. I want to eat your children. Praise be to Allah!

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: DnATL on February 13, 2012, 06:13:12 PM
I worked at a Showbiz for all of two shifts back in the summer of '90 - switched over to working at the movie theater down the street for post-Sani girls

Now, I go to Chuck E Cheese and just toss a cup of tokens in the air - makin' it hail, bitches!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 13, 2012, 10:02:24 PM
I worked at a Showbiz for all of two shifts back in the summer of '90 - switched over to working at the movie theater down the street for post-Sani girls


(http://mrsunshinevegas.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/rat.jpg)

I mean, you put the vibe out to 30 million chicks, something is gonna happen.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: DnATL on February 14, 2012, 05:58:53 PM
(http://mrsunshinevegas.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/rat.jpg)

I mean, you put the vibe out to 30 million chicks, something is gonna happen.
My car was not even super keen
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 15, 2012, 12:42:56 AM
Lilly Hammer

It's not really a movie, but maybe it sort of is.  It's a new Netflix original series.

What happens if Tony Soprano dies, his idiot sister takes over and then tries to have Silvio whacked? 

That's the premise here with all the names changed. 

Silvio's Steven Van Zandt is Frank, a New York mobster, who turns rat after a bungled assassination attempt. He chooses Lillihammer  as his destination for witness protection because he liked the way it looked in the 1994 Olympics. It's not all he thought it would be.

Before long his old criminal tendencies surface and he's back to being the Frank he was before except in a frozen tableau. 

It's not Sopranos quality, in fact its a far cry from it.  So is everything else so that's an unfair comparison. 

I've only watched two episodes of the series but they were interesting.  I'm intrigued enough to finish the seven episode arc.  It's pretty cool to watch Silvio flex his mob muscle again.  Makes me ache for a Sopranos movie.

His first hit as a newly minted Norwegian is clever. 

One complaint is the amount of freaking Norwegian talking.  75% of the show sounds like the Norwegian/Swedish chef with subtitles.  Be prepared to do a LOT of reading.  And I don't really have any interest in learning the language because it seems fluffy and pretentious. 

If you liked Silvio on The Sopranos it's worth checking this out. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 15, 2012, 09:49:08 AM
The Ides of March

I'm not usually a fan of movies that use a political campaign as their plot vehicle (Wag the Dog being the exception to this rule, mostly due to the cast).  Again, the cast makes the exception to my rule work.  Ryan Gosling, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti and George Clooney (with a little Marisa Tomei thrown in for good measure) make for a powerful group of characters.

Long story short: idealist political spin doctor gets jaded by the process.  Everyone is a shithead in the end...except for the one guy who seemed like the biggest shithead.

Fast-paced and very well acted.  Watch it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 15, 2012, 10:03:08 AM
What happens if Tony Soprano dies, his idiot sister takes over. 


That's exactly what did happen. Haven't we went through this already?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 15, 2012, 10:07:05 AM
The Ides of March

I'm not usually a fan of movies that use a political campaign as their plot vehicle (Wag the Dog being the exception to this rule, mostly due to the cast).  Again, the cast makes the exception to my rule work.  Ryan Gosling, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti and George Clooney (with a little Marisa Tomei thrown in for good measure) make for a powerful group of characters.

Long story short: idealist political spin doctor gets jaded by the process.  Everyone is a shithead in the end...except for the one guy who seemed like the biggest shithead.

Fast-paced and very well acted.  Watch it.
Not so surprisingly I disagree.

It bored me.  I thought it was superficial.  It made so little an impression that I neglected to review it after I watched it the other night.

The ambiguous ending was a fail.  The kitchen scene was contrived and hokey.  The governor's character flaw was also contrived and wouldn't have mattered in the real world.  Nobody would have cared.

FWIW I like Clooney usually.  Ryan Gooslem doesn't have the weight of character to be convincing in this role or any other.  I pretty much think he sucks. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 15, 2012, 10:10:03 AM
Not so surprisingly I disagree.

It bored me.  I thought it was superficial.  It made so little an impression that I neglected to review it after I watched it the other night.

The ambiguous ending was a fail.  The kitchen scene was contrived and hokey.  The governor's character flaw was also contrived and wouldn't have mattered in the real world.  Nobody would have cared.

FWIW I like Clooney usually.  Ryan Gooslem doesn't have the weight of character to be convincing in this role or any other.  I pretty much think he sucks.

Gosling is good as supporting just not as lead.

Agree on Clooney. What do you think of Giamatti? Always thought he was underrated as well as Ray Liota and Don Cheadle.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 15, 2012, 10:26:43 AM
I am a big Giamatti fan, guy is multi-faceted. I agree with the esteemed counselor from west Florida.  I liked the Ides of March, also probably not far from the truth regarding political campaigns.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 15, 2012, 10:56:59 AM
Gosling is good as supporting just not as lead.

Agree on Clooney. What do you think of Giamatti? Always thought he was underrated as well as Ray Liota and Don Cheadle.

Giamatti is good. Can do just about any role.  He has some misses, but he usually handles every role well.  I didn't care for Sideways and hate that he disgraced himself in Fred Claus.  Did you know he had a bit part in one of my favorites Donnie Brasco?   For me, Brasco is up there with Goodfellas and Casino.  It combines mobsters, the 70s and Johnny Depp (in what's probably his strongest and least weird role).  How can that go wrong?

Ray i don't think much of outside of Goodfellas.  Maybe it's because he's taken roles in a ton of really shitty movies.

Cheadle is typically good but seems a little limited in the roles he can play.   I've wanted to watch his new show House of Lies on Showtime but haven't gotten around to it yet.  It's supposed to be good.

Also underrated IMO is McBongohey.  He can't play every role, but he does smarmy cool as well as anyone.  He needs to leave the romantic comedies behind. 


"Actors" who cannot act? 

Ryan Reynolds, Terrence Howard, Gerard Butler, Jason Statham, Ben Affleck, Vince Vaughn, all Owen brothers, Keanau, Ben Stiller (and everyone in his movies), Hayden Wan Kenobi, Adam Sandler (and everyone in his movies like Kevin James), Channing Tatum, Dennis Quaid, Russell Crowe (except for Gladiator), Dane Cook, Ashton Kutcher, Paul Walker and Brendan Fraser.

The worst of the worst:
3) Butler -- Exception 300 but only because it opened the door for Spartacus
2) Travolta -- exception Welcome Back Kotter and Pulp Fiction
1) Nicholas Cage -- exception Raising Arizona and Valley Girl to a degree
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 15, 2012, 11:49:52 AM
Giamatti is good. Can do just about any role.  He has some misses, but he usually handles every role well.  I didn't care for Sideways and hate that he disgraced himself in Fred Claus.  Did you know he had a bit part in one of my favorites Donnie Brasco?   For me, Brasco is up there with Goodfellas and Casino.  It combines mobsters, the 70s and Johnny Depp (in what's probably his strongest and least weird role).  How can that go wrong?

Ray i don't think much of outside of Goodfellas.  Maybe it's because he's taken roles in a ton of really shitty movies.

Cheadle is typically good but seems a little limited in the roles he can play.   I've wanted to watch his new show House of Lies on Showtime but haven't gotten around to it yet.  It's supposed to be good.

Also underrated IMO is McBongohey.  He can't play every role, but he does smarmy cool as well as anyone.  He needs to leave the romantic comedies behind. 


"Actors" who cannot act? 

Ryan Reynolds, Terrence Howard, Gerard Butler, Jason Statham, Ben Affleck, Vince Vaughn, all Owen brothers, Keanau, Ben Stiller (and everyone in his movies), Hayden Wan Kenobi, Adam Sandler (and everyone in his movies like Kevin James), Channing Tatum, Dennis Quaid, Russell Crowe (except for Gladiator), Dane Cook, Ashton Kutcher, Paul Walker and Brendan Fraser.

The worst of the worst:
3) Butler -- Exception 300 but only because it opened the door for Spartacus
2) Travolta -- exception Welcome Back Kotter and Pulp Fiction
1) Nicholas Cage -- exception Raising Arizona and Valley Girl to a degree

Agree on Cage heavily.

Vaughn isn't a good actor but I admit a laugh a lot at most of his work.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 15, 2012, 12:05:57 PM
I'm okay with Cage in most of his stuff.  Same with much of Travolta's.  I guess the difference is I'm just looking to be entertained and not hoping for an Academy Award performance.  The one Cage movie that just pissed me off was Con Air.  First, probably the worst attempt at a Southern accent in the history of film.  Why?  He wasn't good at it and it just wasn't necessary for the character.  Had he just played a bad ass ex-Marine, it would have been 100% better.  The movie itself had a great storyline, set up for a killer action flick.  And other than Cage's pathetically distracting accent, it WAS....right up until they landed a fucking cargo plane on the strip in Las Vegas.

Really?  Really?  Everything they did up to that point...sans dragging a car through the air...was somewhat believable.  But they had to go all spectacular ending and screw it up. 

How did I get off on a Con Air rant?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on February 15, 2012, 12:07:00 PM
The Ides of March

I'm not usually a fan of movies that use a political campaign as their plot vehicle (Wag the Dog being the exception to this rule, mostly due to the cast).  Again, the cast makes the exception to my rule work.  Ryan Gosling, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti and George Clooney (with a little Marisa Tomei thrown in for good measure) make for a powerful group of characters.

Long story short: idealist political spin doctor gets jaded by the process.  Everyone is a shithead in the end...except for the one guy who seemed like the biggest shithead.

Fast-paced and very well acted.  Watch it.
I liked it a lot as well.

Ryan Gosling is the new Brad Pitt in many ways. When Brad Pitt first burst onto the scene he was "That faggot from Legends of the Fall". Ryan Gosling was "That faggot from The Notebook".

Brad Pitt came out with Interview with the Vampire at the same time, which was kinda cool, but still kinda gay. Then followed up with Se7en, 12 Monkeys, Sleepers, and Fight Club. I then realized that Brad Pitt was actually awesome.

Same with Gosling. The next movie I saw with him was Lars and the Real Girl in which he played completely against type as a creepy mustached loser that was in love with a Real Doll. Blue Valentine was incredibly well acted. I feel like he got robbed of at least a nomination that year. Again, for most of the movie, he was a bald, mustached, poorly aged, kind of creepy guy. I really like Crazy, Stupid Love. Drive was pretty badass.

I'm team Gosling now. He's dreamy.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 15, 2012, 01:25:22 PM
The ambiguous ending was a fail. 

What ambiguity?  The ending is clear as day.

Quote
The governor's character flaw was also contrived and wouldn't have mattered in the real world.  Nobody would have cared.

John Edwards disagrees.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 15, 2012, 01:26:25 PM
I liked it a lot as well.

Ryan Gosling is the new Brad Pitt in many ways. When Brad Pitt first burst onto the scene he was "That faggot from Legends of the Fall". Ryan Gosling was "That faggot from The Notebook".

Brad Pitt came out with Interview with the Vampire at the same time, which was kinda cool, but still kinda gay. Then followed up with Se7en, 12 Monkeys, Sleepers, and Fight Club. I then realized that Brad Pitt was actually awesome.

Same with Gosling. The next movie I saw with him was Lars and the Real Girl in which he played completely against type as a creepy mustached loser that was in love with a Real Doll. Blue Valentine was incredibly well acted. I feel like he got robbed of at least a nomination that year. Again, for most of the movie, he was a bald, mustached, poorly aged, kind of creepy guy. I really like Crazy, Stupid Love. Drive was pretty badass.

I'm team Gosling now. He's dreamy.

Agree all around.  Check out Half-Nelson if you haven't already.  The kid has range.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTiger1 on February 15, 2012, 01:49:33 PM
"Actors" who cannot act? 

Ryan Reynolds, Terrence Howard, Gerard Butler, Jason Statham, Ben Affleck, Vince Vaughn, all Owen brothers, Keanau, Ben Stiller (and everyone in his movies), Hayden Wan Kenobi, Adam Sandler (and everyone in his movies like Kevin James), Channing Tatum, Dennis Quaid, Russell Crowe (except for Gladiator), Dane Cook, Ashton Kutcher, Paul Walker and Brendan Fraser.

The worst of the worst:
3) Butler -- Exception 300 but only because it opened the door for Spartacus
2) Travolta -- exception Welcome Back Kotter and Pulp Fiction
1) Nicholas Cage -- exception Raising Arizona and Valley Girl to a degree

I don't necessarily like Travolta, but I don't hate on him like a lot do.  He's ok.  I liked Fraser in With Honors and School Ties.  Other than that, can't think of a movie he has been in that I liked.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 15, 2012, 01:54:21 PM
I don't necessarily like Travolta, but I don't hate on him like a lot do.  He's ok.  I liked Fraser in With Honors and School Ties.  Other than that, can't think of a movie he has been in that I liked.

I agree on Travolta. Sometimes he looks awful but then he will pull off a performance that makes you like him again. He had his moments in Swordfish, and even Ladder 49 was decent. As the firechief he was believable. Some of his older stuff is his bread and butter though - Sat Night Fever, Kotter, Urban Cowboy.

All of the others that K mentioned - they are what they are. Sandler, Reynolds, Cook, Vaughn, James, Kutcher - none of them are bad if you take them at face value. If you expect an A performance out of any of them, that's when you get a letdown. They are silly actors that make slapstick movies for the most part. I don't expect anything more from any of them.

I do think that Freddie Prinze Jr, Paul Walker, Keanu Reeves and Brendan Frazier are some of the worst actors Ive ever seen.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 15, 2012, 03:27:58 PM
I do think that Freddie Prinze Jr, Paul Walker, Keanu Reeves and Brendan Frazier are some of the worst actors Ive ever seen.

(http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp14/spookier/bill-and-ted.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on February 16, 2012, 09:57:35 AM
Just to be clear, I may have understated the badassery of Drive.

Watch this movie.

It transcends genre. It is at the same time an action movie, a mobster movie, a suspense/thriller, a film noir, and a little bit of a horror movie.

The "Miami Vice-ish" hot pink title cards, and the Euro-synth-pop soundtrack throughout gives it a distinct 80's feel. Think Scarface.

Highly recommend.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 16, 2012, 10:10:52 AM
Hey, have you guys heard about this movie Drive? Its bad ass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 16, 2012, 10:11:21 AM
Just to be clear, I may have understated the badassery of Drive.

Watch this movie.

It transcends genre. It is at the same time an action movie, a mobster movie, a suspense/thriller, a film noir, and a little bit of a horror movie.

The "Miami Vice-ish" hot pink title cards, and the Euro-synth-pop soundtrack throughout gives it a distinct 80's feel. Think Scarface.

Highly recommend.

I enjoyed it, but I had watched prior to your recommendation.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 16, 2012, 10:13:40 AM
Hey, have you guys heard about this movie Drive? Its bad ass.

I heard the same thing. It's supposed to be like the Miami Vice meets Scarface.

Did it seem real 80's to you? Because I have also heard that about it as well.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 16, 2012, 10:17:17 AM
I heard the same thing. It's supposed to be like the Miami Vice meets Scarface.

Did it seem real 80's to you? Because I have also heard that about it as well.

Yep, and Ryan Gosling....he's dreamy.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 16, 2012, 10:19:40 AM
I heard Drive sucked gangrenous donkey balls. 

From multiple sources. 

No thanks. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on February 16, 2012, 10:25:10 AM
I heard the same thing. It's supposed to be like the Miami Vice meets Scarface.

Did it seem real 80's to you? Because I have also heard that about it as well.
I mean, damn, all that has been said previously about it in this thread was "Drive was pretty badass", when I was explaining that Gosling is more than just the faggot from The Notebook."

I felt the need to expound a bit.

I heard Drive sucked gangrenous donkey balls. 

From multiple sources. 

No thanks. 
Your taste in movies never ceases to baffle, but as much as you like mobster movies, I would think you of all people would enjoy this one. Trying to judge your taste in film is next to impossible though, so I could certainly be wrong.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 16, 2012, 10:26:14 AM
I heard Drive sucked gangrenous donkey balls. 

From multiple sources. 

No thanks.

No way dude. Ive heard it is awesome. Has a real 80's euro feel to it. Like Miami Vice.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 16, 2012, 10:27:09 AM
I mean, damn, all that has been said previously about it in this thread was "Drive was pretty badass", when I was explaining that Gosling is more than just the faggot from The Notebook."

I felt the need to expound a bit.

No worries. I keed.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 16, 2012, 10:28:08 AM
No way dude. Ive heard it is awesome. Has a real 80's euro feel to it. Like Miami Vice.

And badassery.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 16, 2012, 10:32:15 AM
I mean, damn, all that has been said previously about it in this thread was "Drive was pretty badass", when I was explaining that Gosling is more than just the faggot from The Notebook."

Just f'n with Chizad. You can thank Jumbo later.

I've watched the movie and thought it was pretty good. The only thing I didn't really like was the number of times there was this dead silence/awkward feeling moments in the acting. I think that was over done a little.

Oh, did you catch the 80's feel? It was a lot like Miami Vice.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 16, 2012, 10:55:55 AM
Just f'n with Chizad. You can thank Jumbo later.

I've watched the movie and thought it was pretty good. The only thing I didn't really like was the number of times there was this dead silence/awkward feeling moments in the acting. I think that was over done a little.

Oh, did you catch the 80's feel? It was a lot like Miami Vice.

Its like Walker Texas Ranger but without the Texas and substitute the 90's with the 80's. Crocket was badass. I guess you could say he possessed badassery.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GarMan on February 16, 2012, 11:03:35 AM
No way dude. Ive heard it is awesome. Has a real 80's euro feel to it. Like Miami Vice.
Huh?  Don't you dare shit on Miami Vice that way!  Drive was lame...  a sleeper...  a second rate attempt at something resembling a movie.  There were some pretty cool parts in it, but that was about it.  It's like a group of stoned high schoolers walked into a cutting room, picked up various scraps off the floor from different movies and assembled a "movie".  It was almost more of a Grindhouse style movie, but it was a bit too slow for that. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on February 16, 2012, 11:09:37 AM
Huh?  Don't you dare shit on Miami Vice that way!  Drive was lame...  a sleeper...  a second rate attempt at something resembling a movie.  There were some pretty cool parts in it, but that was about it.  It's like a group of stoned high schoolers walked into a cutting room, picked up various scraps off the floor from different movies and assembled a "movie".  It was almost more of a Grindhouse style movie, but it was a bit too slow for that.
I will give you that the first act played pretty slow. It almost could have been an additional genre. More of a romance. By the beginning of the second act though, if your blood wasn't running you have no pulse.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 16, 2012, 11:13:47 AM
Huh?  Don't you dare shit on Miami Vice that way!  Drive was lame...  a sleeper...  a second rate attempt at something resembling a movie.  There were some pretty cool parts in it, but that was about it.  It's like a group of stoned high schoolers walked into a cutting room, picked up various scraps off the floor from different movies and assembled a "movie".  It was almost more of a Grindhouse style movie, but it was a bit too slow for that.

Whoa whoa whoa Mr. alpha male. Hold the phone there (preferbly an 80's euro style phone).

(http://doublehappiness.ilikenicethings.com/wp-content/southwestern_bell_motorola_brick_cell_phone_web.jpg)

And Ryan Gosling could kick your alpha make ass. He is cool and I am not gay for saying that.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 16, 2012, 11:17:41 AM
He is cool and I am not gay for saying that.

 *snicker*
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GarMan on February 16, 2012, 11:33:09 AM
Whoa whoa whoa Mr. alpha male. Hold the phone there (preferbly an 80's euro style phone).
Don't mock my favorite phone... 

And Ryan Gosling could kick your alpha make ass.
I'm guessing that I don't have anything to worry about...

(http://www.bpax.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ryan-gosling-kiss-06.jpeg)

He is cool and I am not gay for saying that. 
No...  That pretty much makes you gay.  Sorry... 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 16, 2012, 11:45:34 AM
Don't mock my favorite phone... 
I'm guessing that I don't have anything to worry about...

(http://www.bpax.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ryan-gosling-kiss-06.jpeg)
No...  That pretty much makes you gay.  Sorry...

:funny:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 16, 2012, 12:24:21 PM
Back to topic though and on a more serious note - Kaos, GarMan or anyone else seen Gettysburg (1993)? Starring Martin Sheen, Tom Berenger and Jeff Daniels. Its nearly 5 hours long so I am watching it in 1.5 hour chunks, finishing the first chunk last night. So far, pretty pleased. I pondered watching the prequel, Gods and Generals first but decided to just go ahead and knock this one out. Thoughts? Im sure Kaos hates it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GarMan on February 16, 2012, 02:10:58 PM
Back to topic though and on a more serious note - Kaos, GarMan or anyone else seen Gettysburg (1993)? Starring Martin Sheen, Tom Berenger and Jeff Daniels. Its nearly 5 hours long so I am watching it in 1.5 hour chunks, finishing the first chunk last night. So far, pretty pleased. I pondered watching the prequel, Gods and Generals first but decided to just go ahead and knock this one out. Thoughts? Im sure Kaos hates it.
I honestly don't recall.  I'm not really a fan of Martin Moonbat, but Tom Berenger has done some interesting work over the years.  I'll check into it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 21, 2012, 11:11:40 AM
Sunday afternoon was movie day for the Snags clan.  The wife wanted to see a uterus flick so she and a couple of friends went to The Vow.  I didn't ask because I didn't want to know.  Me and 11 year old mini-Snags decided on Journey 2 because of a lack of anything else suitable for someone his age.  Drove over to Carmike 12 just in time to find out....we're at the wrong frickin' theaters.  Ummm...yeah.....when you check movie times, you might want to actually look at where it's playing.....dumbass.  Turned out to be a much bigger mistake than I thought.  Not that I had much of an expectation for Journey 2 other than extra butter on my super jumbo tub-o-corn...but since it was too late to drive to the other theater, we decided to catch the 3D Star Wars.  How bad could it be?

What...the....hell?  I normally gloss over a lot of the reviews because first, I'm not a huge movie fan, and second, when I do go I just want to be entertained.  I don't care about breaking down the acting or picking apart the story line.  If it's a comedy and I laugh my ass off....money well spent.  If it's an action flick and the special effects are good or the fight scenes are bad-ass...great.  I'm easily pleased.  This had to be the biggest piece of shit I have ever seen in my life.  The acting....throughout...EVERY single actor/actress.....was mind numbingly bad.  I've seen 5th grade plays where the kids showed more ability.  Again, normally I don't get caught up in critiquing that sort of thing, but when it becomes so distracting that you literally want to get up and walk out...it's a problem.  I kept asking myself how the directors/producers/whoever made the decision to unleash this pile of steaming shit on the public.  Did these "Actors" get paid?  Really?   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 21, 2012, 11:23:06 AM
So, what is this Star Wars you speak of. Heard of this movie I have not.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 21, 2012, 11:25:24 AM
I honestly don't recall.  I'm not really a fan of Martin Moonbat, but Tom Berenger has done some interesting work over the years.  I'll check into it.

Good solid movie. As objective as you could expect from a Hollywood film. I didn't really notice much bias. The main theme being, 2 great armies at war, doing as they were both told from higher ups - tons of bravery, with each side's soldiers respecting their opponent in the end.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 21, 2012, 11:29:07 AM
(http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/george-lucas.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 21, 2012, 12:10:07 PM
Sunday afternoon was movie day for the Snags clan.  The wife wanted to see a uterus flick so she and a couple of friends went to The Vow.  I didn't ask because I didn't want to know.  Me and 11 year old mini-Snags decided on Journey 2 because of a lack of anything else suitable for someone his age.  Drove over to Carmike 12 just in time to find out....we're at the wrong frickin' theaters.  Ummm...yeah.....when you check movie times, you might want to actually look at where it's playing.....dumbass.  Turned out to be a much bigger mistake than I thought.  Not that I had much of an expectation for Journey 2 other than extra butter on my super jumbo tub-o-corn...but since it was too late to drive to the other theater, we decided to catch the 3D Star Wars.  How bad could it be?

What...the....hell?  I normally gloss over a lot of the reviews because first, I'm not a huge movie fan, and second, when I do go I just want to be entertained.  I don't care about breaking down the acting or picking apart the story line.  If it's a comedy and I laugh my ass off....money well spent.  If it's an action flick and the special effects are good or the fight scenes are bad-ass...great.  I'm easily pleased.  This had to be the biggest piece of shit I have ever seen in my life.  The acting....throughout...EVERY single actor/actress.....was mind numbingly bad.  I've seen 5th grade plays where the kids showed more ability.  Again, normally I don't get caught up in critiquing that sort of thing, but when it becomes so distracting that you literally want to get up and walk out...it's a problem.  I kept asking myself how the directors/producers/whoever made the decision to unleash this pile of steaming shit on the public.  Did these "Actors" get paid?  Really?

Meesa no unnastan you, boo boo.  What you say ees rasis!!

Oh, BTW?  I agree with this. 

Reason #19 (of 78) to hate this movie:

Darth Maul's Introduction
At one point Darth Sidious is speaking with the Viceroy. He then announces his apprentice, Darth Maul. Darth Maul then steps into range of the holographic transmitter to mug for the camera. I must say that as cool as every eight year old thinks Darth Maul is, I find him to be one of the greater flaws of the movie. Where Jar Jar fails in comic entertainment, Darth Maul succeeds. Look at him, he's just a funny looking dude! He looks like he could be a member of KISS. If KISS hadn't stopped wearing the makeup I bet Bruce Kulick would have worn makeup just like this. And by the way, Darth Maul? That's a pathetic name for a Sith. Why did they break the tradition of naming Darth's after words that begin with the letters in? inVader, inSidious. I would be happier if his name were something like Darth Truder, Darth Cendiary or more appropriately Darth Ane.


IMO the stupid face paint looked like something Sting would wear on TNA Wrestling.  I laughed at it.  And no, Bruce would not have worn that.  No red makeup (except lipstick) in KISS.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 21, 2012, 12:14:10 PM
Meesa no unnastan you, boo boo.  What you say ees rasis!!

Best "Actor" in the entire movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 21, 2012, 12:32:28 PM
(http://saysomethingfunny.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/jar-jars-curse-ii.jpg?w=500)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 27, 2012, 02:50:07 PM
Final Destination 5

The fourth installment in this series was so monstrously bad that I was hesitant to even watch the new supposed final episode.  I was prepared to throw food at the screen, boo loudly and turn the movie off if after five minutes it exhibited any of the epic awfulness of its predecessor.

I was surprised.  Usually when a movie series jumps the shark so badly it can't recover.  FD5 pulled the entire collection out of the sewer.  It was much more in line with FD1, 2 or 3 (each of which was solid for what it was) than it was with the craptacular FD4. 

Like the first three, it featured a fresh face for horror.  In this case it was the chick who played Amy from The Walking Dead. 

FWIW, FD1 had delectable Ali Larter, FD2 brought us yummy AJ Cook and FD 3 had Mary Elizabeth Winnstead.  Amy (or Molly as she was known in the film) isn't in the same league as those three but she was solid enough. 

Also appearing for good measure was Todd Packer from The Office.  Odd and funny.

The movie is just what you'd expect.  People die in strange ways as death makes up for being cheated. 

The movie delivers a truly clever final five minutes and a full-circle moment that I didn't expect. 

Best movie ever?  Nah.  Best horror movie ever?  Not close.  But so much better than its predecessor I'm loathe to slam it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 27, 2012, 02:52:12 PM
The Rum Diary

I like Johnny Depp.  Never denied it. 

This, though?  Pfffffffffttttttttttt.

I wish I'd had the 161 miniatures and the gallon of 450 proof just to make it through this snooze fest.

The previews made it look like such a fun movie.  It was, instead, as dreary as you can make Panama.  Depp was terrible.  It was like he was playing a combination of Ed Wood and the lizard from Rango. 

Terrible movie.   Hated it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 27, 2012, 02:59:17 PM
Choose

I like cheesy horror movies.  This one started with such promise and then fizzled as it went on. 

Sadistic jackass forces people to choose their manner of death (or the manner of the death of others).  He makes a pianist choose between having his fingers or having his hearing. 

Stuck with it because the lead showed a lot of promise.  That and she had an amazing head of hair that deserved a credit of its own.

(http://img.poptower.com/pic-33264/katheryn-winnick.jpg?d=1024)

The storyline fell apart toward the end and the killer didn't follow his initial sadism with anything that approached that level of dementia.  As a result the B movie faltered to C level.

I think we'll hear more from Katheryn Winnick in the future, though.  She has the potential to make it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 27, 2012, 03:00:26 PM
Final Destination 5

The fourth installment in this series was so monstrously bad that I was hesitant to even watch the new supposed final episode.  I was prepared to throw food at the screen, boo loudly and turn the movie off if after five minutes it exhibited any of the epic awfulness of its predecessor.

I was surprised.  Usually when a movie series jumps the shark so badly it can't recover.  FD5 pulled the entire collection out of the sewer.  It was much more in line with FD1, 2 or 3 (each of which was solid for what it was) than it was with the craptacular FD4. 

Like the first three, it featured a fresh face for horror.  In this case it was the chick who played Amy from The Walking Dead. 

FWIW, FD1 had delectable Ali Larter, FD2 brought us yummy AJ Cook and FD 3 had Mary Elizabeth Winnstead.  Amy (or Molly as she was known in the film) isn't in the same league as those three but she was solid enough. 

Also appearing for good measure was Todd Packer from The Office.  Odd and funny.

The movie is just what you'd expect.  People die in strange ways as death makes up for being cheated. 

The movie delivers a truly clever final five minutes and a full-circle moment that I didn't expect. 

Best movie ever?  Nah.  Best horror movie ever?  Not close.  But so much better than its predecessor I'm loathe to slam it.

No innocent tomato's were harmed in the making of this review.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 27, 2012, 03:07:31 PM
Animals

I like cheesy B-grade horror. 

This was just bad.  Hoped to get something out of Nicki Aycox but the lead guy was terrible and the production so ridiculously bad I ended up bailing on it midway through. 

Why show the guy breaking rocks at his job in slow motion?

Just terrible.

I hardly ever turn a movie off, but this one didn't make it past the stupid fight/fuck scene on the hood of a car. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 27, 2012, 03:10:33 PM
You see a lot of movies I have never even remotely heard of, and I love movies.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 27, 2012, 03:24:58 PM
You see a lot of movies I have never even remotely heard of, and I love movies.

The wonders of Netflix. 

Should I include a link to the IMDB page in future reviews?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 27, 2012, 03:26:43 PM
The wonders of Netflix. 

Should I include a link to the IMDB page in future reviews?
Nah we agree on a lot of things, taste in movies is not one of those.  I do enjoy reading your reviews as always.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 27, 2012, 03:29:10 PM
The Rum Diary

I like Johnny Depp.  Never denied it. 

This, though?  Pfffffffffttttttttttt.

I wish I'd had the 161 miniatures and the gallon of 450 proof just to make it through this snooze fest.

The previews made it look like such a fun movie.  It was, instead, as dreary as you can make Panama.  Depp was terrible.  It was like he was playing a combination of Ed Wood and the lizard from Rango. 

Terrible movie.   Hated it.

That saddens me about Depp. Just a good actor but the last 4-5 years? Blllyuckkk! The first Pirates and Wonka were excellent to me. Has he jumped the shark? I hope not. I never thought Tom Hanks would either.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 27, 2012, 03:31:42 PM
Choose

I like cheesy horror movies.  This one started with such promise and then fizzled as it went on. 

Sadistic jackass forces people to choose their manner of death (or the manner of the death of others).  He makes a pianist choose between having his fingers or having his hearing. 

Stuck with it because the lead showed a lot of promise.  That and she had an amazing head of hair that deserved a credit of its own.

(http://img.poptower.com/pic-33264/katheryn-winnick.jpg?d=1024)

The storyline fell apart toward the end and the killer didn't follow his initial sadism with anything that approached that level of dementia.  As a result the B movie faltered to C level.

I think we'll hear more from Katheryn Winnick in the future, though.  She has the potential to make it.

Sounds like a poor man's Saw.

And yes, that is one cutie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 03, 2012, 10:25:48 PM
The Woman In Black
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596365/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596365/)

As far as basic rules to live by, there aren't really that many.

1) Never ask a woman when she's due.  She might just be fat.
2) In a relationship, never ask a question unless you're already pretty sure what the answer is going to be (this applies to business and personal).
3) If you have to choose between work and family, never choose work. 
4) Don't eat at a Chinese buffet after 1:30.
5) Don't expect much when a "horror" movie is rated PG-13.

The Woman In Black was ridiculous.  Poor Harry Potter tried his damndest, but even he couldn't wizard this one out of the bog.

What was wrong with it?  First it wasn't scary in the least.  When a movie resorts to blaring the music in order to get the audience to jump it's already failed.  Or when it randomly inserts a face screaming for no reason into a period of silence, that's fail number two.  This movie did both.  Repeatedly. 

Nobody is going to care so I'm going to spoil the fuck out of this one. 

They couldn't pull the carriage out of the marsh because no one had a car?  Seriously?  That weasel little car could pull better than a dozen men or more?  And if you pull a child up from the bog after some number of years he's going to be rotted away to bones for jeeber's sake. 

And what fool is going to walk around some haunted old mansion to see what the silly ass noises are?  Or follow footprints without bothering to take up some kind of weapon beyond a candle. 

And where did the damn dog go?  And what was the crazy drama with fuckstick's wife?

Asinine plot, silly fucking ending and a boring ass movie.

I went to sleep twice in the theater as Harry Potter moped around the dusty old house. 

I give this one five solid boos and half a meh.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 04, 2012, 11:58:40 AM
The Woman In Black
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596365/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596365/)

As far as basic rules to live by, there aren't really that many.

1) Never ask a woman when she's due.  She might just be fat.
2) In a relationship, never ask a question unless you're already pretty sure what the answer is going to be (this applies to business and personal).
3) If you have to choose between work and family, never choose work. 
4) Don't eat at a Chinese buffet after 1:30.
5) Don't expect much when a "horror" movie is rated PG-13.

The Woman In Black was ridiculous.  Poor Harry Potter tried his damndest, but even he couldn't wizard this one out of the bog.

What was wrong with it?  First it wasn't scary in the least.  When a movie resorts to blaring the music in order to get the audience to jump it's already failed.  Or when it randomly inserts a face screaming for no reason into a period of silence, that's fail number two.  This movie did both.  Repeatedly. 

Nobody is going to care so I'm going to spoil the fuck out of this one. 

They couldn't pull the carriage out of the marsh because no one had a car?  Seriously?  That weasel little car could pull better than a dozen men or more?  And if you pull a child up from the bog after some number of years he's going to be rotted away to bones for jeeber's sake. 

And what fool is going to walk around some haunted old mansion to see what the silly ass noises are?  Or follow footprints without bothering to take up some kind of weapon beyond a candle. 

And where did the damn dog go?  And what was the crazy drama with fuckstick's wife?

Asinine plot, silly fucking ending and a boring ass movie.

I went to sleep twice in the theater as Harry Potter moped around the dusty old house. 

I give this one five solid boos and half a meh.

Didn't think it was good but not bad either.

On some of your questions:

You've never seen a sphagnum bog have you? A human could not pull anything out of one. We're talking thick stacked layers of goo. Also, bogs like that are known for preserving bodies for years especially in Europe.

The nut job wife was possessed. And also crazy from losing her son to the ways of the woman in black.

The rest you asked about is probably just for show and to sell tickets. Walking the house, loud music, etc.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 04, 2012, 01:54:55 PM
Didn't think it was good but not bad either.

On some of your questions:

You've never seen a sphagnum bog have you? A human could not pull anything out of one. We're talking thick stacked layers of goo. Also, bogs like that are known for preserving bodies for years especially in Europe.

The nut job wife was possessed. And also crazy from losing her son to the ways of the woman in black.

The rest you asked about is probably just for show and to sell tickets. Walking the house, loud music, etc.

So that broke ass car and a rope is more powerful than a dozen men and a horse?   The car had bicycle tires for cripes sake.   I don't buy that part of it. 

I'll take your word that bogs can preserve bodies but I call pffftttt on most of the rest of the film. 

When they climbed out of the muck dripping with black goo I was glad to see there was a laundry close by to clean and press his entire suit and dry his shoes completely out.  Not a single spot on either.  Oh what, there wasn't a laundry?  Pfftt pf pf pf pf pffff pff pffffffft.

The movie was incredibly dull to me.   If they didn't have the volume turned up to 13 when some random whore screamed I would have dozed off for sure.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on March 04, 2012, 02:19:59 PM
The Woman In Black

. . .

And what fool is going to walk around some haunted old mansion to see what the silly ass noises are?  Or follow footprints without bothering to take up some kind of weapon beyond a candle.

(http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/9324/scooby10ri9.gif)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 05, 2012, 09:12:42 AM
So that broke ass car and a rope is more powerful than a dozen men and a horse?   The car had bicycle tires for cripes sake.   I don't buy that part of it. 

I'll take your word that bogs can preserve bodies but I call pffftttt on most of the rest of the film. 

When they climbed out of the muck dripping with black goo I was glad to see there was a laundry close by to clean and press his entire suit and dry his shoes completely out.  Not a single spot on either.  Oh what, there wasn't a laundry?  Pfftt pf pf pf pf pffff pff pffffffft.

The movie was incredibly dull to me.   If they didn't have the volume turned up to 13 when some random whore screamed I would have dozed off for sure.

Agree in your assessment of dull. Probably a better adjective than bad. Radcliffe and the guy that played Mr Dailey were decent, but the entire rest of the cast was awful. They couldn't carry the movie alone, and they certain couldn't overcome the bad writing and screenplay. The ending did not suit me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 18, 2012, 11:27:46 AM
The Skin I Live In

Supposedly a creepy psychological film that so shocked film goers in Cannes that the viewers flooded from the theater in disgust. 

I'm down for that. 

If this was that?  Then those people need to get a grip. 

Had the story been told in sequential fashion, the big pervy reveal might have been much more shocking.  Instead it was told in a series of flashbacks and flash forwards so that by the time the nature of the reveal was actually revealed, the reveal had already happened and therefore lost whatever shock value it might have had. 

The end, in particular, was a complete fizzle.

The Nasonex Bee tried really hard to summon an air of deranged depravity but this is a role Mr. Bee Banderas just didn't quite have the depth to manage.  The occasional smirk and glib nonchalance was more suited to Puss in Boots than a character of supposedly completely unsound mind.  You didn't buy him as a brilliant and fabulously wealthy surgeon and you didn't completely buy him as an obsessed psychopath either. This was a role that required him to unleash a little and he never got that edge. 

The story, what there was of it, was so jumbled but the concept in the right hands could be amazing. 

Dad exacts righteous, disturbed revenge on the man he blames for causing his daughter's death and in doing so brings said dead daughter back to "life."  That and that alone, without the sickish sexual twist, would be a strong film.  Add in the sick sexo part?   That would be something people would talk about for a long time.

The way this film was handled, however, completely fumbled the football.  Dropped it on the ground and kicked it out of the back of the endzone for a touchback. 

I expected so, so much more.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 26, 2012, 12:35:33 AM
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Fairly interesting movie.  The Swedish/Switzerlandish/Norwayish (or whatever) set was sort of offputting.  If you're going to redo a movie with British and American actors change the setting.  Would have worked just as well if the rich family was in New England.

The titular girl was interesting in an odd way.  The story was pretty well told.  It had enough intrigue and occasional twists to keep it moving. 

The score was AWFUL and completely distracting.  Came close to ruining the film.  It was overbearing and obnoxious. 

A reasonably good movie but not worth the blizzard of hype that came with it.   If they make the second one I don't know if I'll bother watching it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 26, 2012, 07:18:25 AM
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Fairly interesting movie.  The Swedish/Switzerlandish/Norwayish (or whatever) set was sort of offputting.  If you're going to redo a movie with British and American actors change the setting.  Would have worked just as well if the rich family was in New England.

The titular girl was interesting in an odd way.  The story was pretty well told.  It had enough intrigue and occasional twists to keep it moving. 

The score was AWFUL and completely distracting.  Came close to ruining the film.  It was overbearing and obnoxious. 

A reasonably good movie but not worth the blizzard of hype that came with it.   If they make the second one I don't know if I'll bother watching it.

The original is on Netflix.  Good watch.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on March 26, 2012, 09:23:09 AM
The original is on Netflix.  Good watch.

Watched it last night and thought it was pretty good. I found the freak bitch interesting too. I would do her.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 26, 2012, 10:35:20 AM
(http://images.wikia.com/milleniumtrilogy/images/0/04/RooneyMara.jpg)

(http://www.retrodivamedia.com/beauty/wp-content/gallery/golden-globes-2012/mara-rooney-golden-globes-2012.jpg)

I'm surprised Kaos didn't say something about her elf"ish" ears.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on March 26, 2012, 10:40:05 AM
(http://images.wikia.com/milleniumtrilogy/images/0/04/RooneyMara.jpg)

(http://www.retrodivamedia.com/beauty/wp-content/gallery/golden-globes-2012/mara-rooney-golden-globes-2012.jpg)

I'm surprised Kaos didn't say something about her elf"ish" ears.

Its amazing what eyebrows will do for you.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 26, 2012, 10:44:41 AM
Hard to notice ears with all the other freaky crap going on. 

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2Gvi6_ScyEg/Tns1ESZYHEI/AAAAAAAAAwU/2JQe0A7N7YQ/s1600/rooney-mara-in-the-girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 26, 2012, 10:51:27 AM
I'm surprised Kaos didn't say something about her elf"ish" ears.


You should see if there are any foot pictures.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 26, 2012, 12:05:20 PM

You should see if there are any foot pictures.

Why is JR4AU interested?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 27, 2012, 09:18:19 AM
Why is JR4AU interested?

Instead of Pearl Necklaces, JR prefers "ankle bracelets" and "toe rings".
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 27, 2012, 09:41:17 AM
The Killer Elite
Deniro, Statham, Clive Owen

I like Jason Statham less and less every time I see him in a movie.  Most of the time I can't understand his dialogue because he mumbles it and you add his accent on top of it and virtually every line he has comes out like "wazamuhberferla" 

Clive Owen is the worst.  He's made of wood shavings.  His performance here is as usual -- flat and listless.  He doesn't even rise to Travolta or Cage level worthlessness because it looks like he doesn't even try, he just drifts through scenes awkwardly.

I tried three times to watch this movie.  I went to sleep three times. 

It's supposed to be based on a true story.  Apparently a boring true story.  Maybe when I get through watching it (if I do) I'll have kinder things to say and edit this.

Edit. Finished it finally.  Was a waste.  Epic dud.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on March 27, 2012, 10:50:06 AM
Instead of Pearl Necklaces, JR prefers "ankle bracelets" and "toe rings".

 :thumsup:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 27, 2012, 11:22:57 AM
The Killer Elite
Deniro, Statham, Clive Owen

I like Jason Statham less and less every time I see him in a movie.  Most of the time I can't understand his dialogue because he mumbles it and you add his accent on top of it and virtually every line he has comes out like "wazamuhberferla" 

Clive Owen is the worst.  He's made of wood shavings.  His performance here is as usual -- flat and listless.  He doesn't even rise to Travolta or Cage level worthlessness because it looks like he doesn't even try, he just drifts through scenes awkwardly.

I tried three times to watch this movie.  I went to sleep three times. 

It's supposed to be based on a true story.  Apparently a boring true story.  Maybe when I get through watching it (if I do) I'll have kinder things to say and edit this.

Clive Owen is usually good when he is in the right role. I blame a lot of his latest gaffes on movie selection. I find him similar to Sean Bean and to a lesser extent Liam Nisson. I don't see too many things that Nisson is in where he is bad. The movie maybe, but not him. Clive has a ton of upside, its a shame he underperforms in BAD movies.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on March 27, 2012, 04:05:57 PM
I recently watched Hulk from 2003.

I don't get why people hate this so much. It's bold. Daring. Not setting up a franchise or merchandise line. I liked it. Oh, Nick Nolte is way over the top but when is he not and any good?

Way more interesting than Edward Norton. Too bad the "official" Marvel Avengers-verse is ignoring this one in favor of Norton's set up film.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 30, 2012, 01:48:34 PM
The Thing

Prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter gore fest The Thing.  That was a good movie. And it had Wilford Brimley.

This one was really sort of unnecessary. 

Basically the same thing happened as in the one from 1982 and in sort of the same way.   

There was a Thing.  It came from outer space. It gnawed on people. It replicated them.   It had some occasionally bad CGI.  It was very dark and you couldn't tell what was going on most of the time.

This movie and the 1982 version of The Thing are virtually interchangeable.  Same things happen in the same places. But the 1982 movie was better.  Better because it didn't look as silly as this one and it did so without the magic of CGI (which was wasted here). 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 01, 2012, 07:27:09 PM
The Hangover 2

Less probable than Hangover 1. 

Had a few moments, but never as good as it could be. 

Not a big Andy Bernard fan anyway. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on April 01, 2012, 08:10:52 PM
The Hangover 2

Less probable than Hangover 1. 

Had a few moments, but never as good as it could be. 

Not a big Andy Bernard fan anyway.

Hangover 1 left me with a "wait, what the fuck?" feeling.  I expected something that never happened and don't even know what it was.  Had a moment or 2, but, meh.  So I guess 2 is about the same, but with no expectations.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 02, 2012, 09:24:00 AM
Shutter - nothing but Gothika and The Grudge mixed. I predicted what was going on and what was gonna happen after first 15 mins.  It was even about Americans in Tokyo like the Grudge with more the plot of Gothika. Pretty lead actress though.

Insideous - remember when this came out at the movies last year but never saw it. Caught it on Netflix last night. Was better than I thought it would be. Had a couple of moments I wasn't expecting. Near the end I thought it had been wrapped up all neat with a bow on top (was thinking at the time "so typical"), until a slight twist happened that I didn't expect - but it made sense. Better than Shutter. About as good as you'll get with a B Horror movie. SAW and Paranormal are better in this genre.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 05, 2012, 08:56:03 PM
30 Minutes or Less
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/30_minutes_or_less/ (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/30_minutes_or_less/)

I like Eisenberg.  The Indian guy is okay.  I think Danny McBride and Nick Swardson are about as funny as dead infants but figured that maybe in this mixed cast it could work.

Wrong. 

Good idea and some clever concepts completely mangled by whoever directed this stinking turd of a movie.  Not a single redeeming feature. 

It took me 30 seconds or less to realize this was a pile of shit and I stupidly swam through the fecal mass to the bitter, foul end. 

Awful movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 09, 2012, 03:16:45 AM
Johnny English: Reborn

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/johnny_english_reborn/ (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/johnny_english_reborn/)

If you like Mr. Bean's quirky comedy you'll probably find a thing or two to like in this goofy Rowan Atkinson comedy. 

It's marked by the same type of facial gyrations and physical pratfalls that are staples of the Mr. Bean skits and movies, only here Atkinson speaks (which isn't really an improvement). 

His schtick is reminiscent of the same kind of rubber-faced buffoonery that Jim Carrey peddles, but where I find Carrey crass and dismally un-funny since he left In Living Color, I tend to like the somewhat more understated machinations of Atkinson. 

I don't find it howlingly funny, but it is amusing to a certain degree.  I'd definitely take this over almost anything Sandler, Schnieder, Spade, K. James, Stiller (exception: Tropic Thunder), either Wilson, Vaughn or that idiotic troop puts out. 

At least Atkinson attempts to find subtle humor in outlandish situations and doesn't resort to piss, shit, puke or fart references in puerile attempts to be funny as the aforementioned assclowns do.

This spoof of the 007 genre isn't a great movie.  Bean/English is so maddeningly stupid that you want to reach into the screen and beat his ass sometimes.  He does stumble into the occasional amusing situation and he does so without sinking to fifth grade fart humor or interjecting unnecessary raunch as a substitute for fun. 

If you like Mr. Bean you'll find this tolerable.  If you don't?  Stay away. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 09, 2012, 09:28:21 AM
Did anyone see American Reunion this weekend?

Yes, its slapstick, shallow, average acting with average cast.....but I love the "American" series. Don't know why but I do. I think the plot reminds me so much how myself at those ages (aside from the Apple Pie).
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 09, 2012, 09:43:27 AM
Took Mini Snags to see Wrath of the Titans this weekend. 

The popcorn was outstanding
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 09, 2012, 11:01:23 AM
Took Mini Snags to see Wrath of the Titans this weekend. 

The popcorn was outstanding

That is disappointing to hear.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 09, 2012, 11:14:09 AM
That is disappointing to hear.

Truthfully, the coke was a little flat but the Twizzlers were first rate. 

Don't know if you were serious on the movie.  I took Mini because I was looking for something age appropriate and I wasn't in the mood for a Snow White remake.  The special effects were pretty amazing and the acting was decent. Just kind of...meh overall.  It was premised around the gods losing their powers because people had stopped praying to them.  As a result, the evil imprisoned god, Crapius or Shitakius or some such, was gaining all their powers and was going to be released to destroy the world.  Presius (sp?) is the half-god who predictably, is charged with defeating him.  Not giving anything away...they tell you that right at the start.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 09, 2012, 12:47:47 PM
Truthfully, the coke was a little flat but the Twizzlers were first rate. 

Don't know if you were serious on the movie.  I took Mini because I was looking for something age appropriate and I wasn't in the mood for a Snow White remake.  The special effects were pretty amazing and the acting was decent. Just kind of...meh overall.  It was premised around the gods losing their powers because people had stopped praying to them.  As a result, the evil imprisoned god, Crapius or Shitakius or some such, was gaining all their powers and was going to be released to destroy the world.  Presius (sp?) is the half-god who predictably, is charged with defeating him.  Not giving anything away...they tell you that right at the start.   

I was.  I wasn't overly crazy about the remake of the original Wrath of the Titans, it was kind of meh.  I was looking forward to seeing this one it looked better. Sorry to hear it was not.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 09, 2012, 12:56:41 PM
I was.  I wasn't overly crazy about the remake of the original Wrath of the Titans, it was kind of meh.  I was looking forward to seeing this one it looked better. Sorry to hear it was not.

You may like it.  I didn't see the first remake so nothing to compare it to...unless you count the original Clash of the Titans from like 1968.  Damn, that snake-headed lady was nasty.  Like I said, I thought the effects were damn good.  It was just the story line was 100% predictable so it kind of gave it that meh affect. 

Question: I saw this one in 3D and I have yet to see a 3D movie where I thought there was any reason to make it that way.  I want shit to jump out of the screen at me.  I want to that WOW factor.  I always wind up asking myself why I'm wearing a goofy pair of glasses in a theater.  Any 3D movies out there worth seeing? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 09, 2012, 12:59:57 PM
You may like it.  I didn't see the first remake so nothing to compare it to...unless you count the original Clash of the Titans from like 1968.  Damn, that snake-headed lady was nasty.  Like I said, I thought the effects were damn good.  It was just the story line was 100% predictable so it kind of gave it that meh affect. 

Question: I saw this one in 3D and I have yet to see a 3D movie where I thought there was any reason to make it that way.  I want shit to jump out of the screen at me.  I want to that WOW factor.  I always wind up asking myself why I'm wearing a goofy pair of glasses in a theater.  Any 3D movies out there worth seeing?

I meant the original Clash of the Titans.

I hate 3D (gives me a headache)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on April 09, 2012, 01:02:54 PM
I meant the original Clash of the Titans.

I hate 3D (gives me a headache)

Oh hells yea.....Harry Hamlin was da bomb.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 09, 2012, 01:08:01 PM
Oh hells yea.....Harry Hamlin was da bomb.

Those skeleton demon soldiers gave me the heebie-jeebies.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 09, 2012, 01:32:31 PM
Snaggle you have been going to the wrong theaters, porn in 3D is where it's at!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 09, 2012, 02:50:05 PM
Snaggle you have been going to the wrong theaters, porn in 3D is where it's at!

Couldn't take Mini to teh porns.  Besides, I don't need some dude's 26 foot cock jumping off the screen at me. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 09, 2012, 02:53:16 PM
Couldn't take Mini to teh porns.  Besides, I don't need some dude's 26 foot cock jumping off the screen at me.
skeet skeet skeet
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on April 09, 2012, 03:11:43 PM
  Besides, I don't need some dude's 26 foot cock jumping off the screen at me.

liar.  you would be the first to turn around in your seat. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 09, 2012, 03:20:44 PM
skeet skeet skeet

SPLAT SPLAT SPLAT
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on April 09, 2012, 11:58:11 PM
I meant the original Clash of the Titans.

Don't know how many times I have watched the original but I still love it. So what happened to the mechanical owl in the newbie. Either I fell asleep or it wasn't in the new one. To be honest though, I will still watch the new over many of the modern day remakes anyday.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on April 10, 2012, 01:27:37 AM
Don't know how many times I have watched the original but I still love it. So what happened to the mechanical owl in the newbie. Either I fell asleep or it wasn't in the new one. To be honest though, I will still watch the new over many of the modern day remakes anyday.

It was in the new one...but just for a brief moment as a humorous reference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4Wdpwi5wCQ# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4Wdpwi5wCQ#)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 18, 2012, 08:23:09 PM
The Conspirator
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0968264/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0968264/)

Solid cast with James McAvoy, Robin Wright, Kevin Kline, Alexis Biedel, Evan Rachel Wood, Milton Waddams from Office Space and Darryl from Walking Dead. 

Directed by Robert Redford. 

Tried to wring pathos from the story of Mary Surratt who was hanged as part of the reaction to the assassination of Lincoln.  She was charged with conspiring to murder him and/or treason or something.  Wright was Surratt and McAvoy her attorney Fred Aiken.

The problem?  Despite the stellar cast, Redford kept the emotional shackles clamped tightly down.  Wright was terribly bland and I found myself not caring a bit about her eventual fate because she didn't care much.  McAvoy was restrained and his drive to defend a woman who assisted so little in her own defense and at such personal cost to his character seemed forced.  There was never a compelling reason to support her and his emotional turn fell flat.

Wood and Biedel were also tepid and useless. 

The pace was too slow, the emotional handwringing seemed contrived and every actor in the piece (even Milton) seemed to be sleepwalking through it. 

There was a similarity to the Trayvon story that has been so prevalent lately in that Mary Surratt was guilty before she stepped foot in the courtroom.  The verdict was pre-determined and even as McAvoy fought his way up the chain higher ups in the government had decided that she was going to be executed, evidence be damned.  The government, personified in this film by Kline's Secretary of War Stanton, bowed to public outrage and made sure she went to the gallows.  It took the suspension of a writ by President Johnson to accomplish it, but hanged she was.

And I didn't care. 

That's sort of how I see this Zimmerman thing going.  Since the Muslim Benefactor has already expressed his outrage and rushed to judgment I can easily see his conviction being pushed down from the top to appease the angry mob.  Hell with freedoms. 

And still this movie didn't make me care.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 18, 2012, 08:40:08 PM
Welcome to The Rileys
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1183923/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1183923/)

James Gandolfini will always be Tony Soprano to me.  He's locked in that cage for life.  He tried very hard to pull off a performance as a mild-mannered plumbing salesman (or something) from Indiana who struggled with grief over the death of his daughter, had an affair with a black waffle waitress and then tried -- and sort of failed -- to rescue a whorish runaway in New Orleans by walking away from his entire life and integrating himself in hers.  No sex please.

Kristen Stewart will always be a vapid bitch to me.  She has a thimble full of talent and carries herself as if she's doing the world a favor by dragging her schlumpy, ugly ass on the screen.  Never been impressed with her in anything she's done.  Here she tried to take on the role of the filthy, foul mouthed street whore with a heart of gold.  Or at least bronze.  She was fair, but her performance just didn't resonate.  And her ass is ugly too. 

The story was filled with improbabilities. 

A woman with extreme agoraphobia gets in the car and drives from Indy to NOLA and chats up strangers in a truck stop?

A runaway hooker lets some random guy move in with her and start ordering her around?

Some random guy wants to surrender his life to a trashy hooker but won't even take a gratis bj?  Seriously? 

This movie, like Conspirator, tried extremely hard to set emotional hooks but couldn't quite pull it off.  Tony, for all his Soprano menace/angst, couldn't reach far enough to bring the right level of despair and despondency to his character.  After seeing him in a variety of other roles I really don't think he has anything in the tank other than Tony.  He should have embraced that character and ridden it as long as the series could possibly last rather than bucking against the role he was meant to play. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 19, 2012, 08:39:02 AM

The Double
Richard Gere and Topher Grace in a spy thriller with roots in the Cold War era. 

Richard Gere.
Topher Grace.
Spy thriller. 

Fail.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on April 21, 2012, 05:27:44 PM
Kick-Ass

I could have sworn that Kaos reviewed this one, but a search of the site reveals only this entry:

Quote
Kick Ass - Good potential, but how many times have you seen movie studios fuck up good potential.  Strike one here is Nicktheass Cage.  Strike two is Nicktheass Cage.  It's got a 1 in 3 chance of living up to its premise. 

I avoided the movie because the trailers made it seem as though it were made for children (pint-sized costumed avengers). 

This movie is not for children.  Gory violence and harsh language abound.  I was way more entertained than I thought I would be.  Cage does suck, per usual, but the rest of the cast (nobodies except for McLovin, the kid from Hot Tub Time Machine and Gramma from Rounders) makes it really enjoyable.

Worth an hour and a half of your time, but no cinematic masterpiece.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 21, 2012, 11:09:43 PM
Kick-Ass

I could have sworn that Kaos reviewed this one, but a search of the site reveals only this entry:

I avoided the movie because the trailers made it seem as though it were made for children (pint-sized costumed avengers). 

This movie is not for children.  Gory violence and harsh language abound.  I was way more entertained than I thought I would be.  Cage does suck, per usual, but the rest of the cast (nobodies except for McLovin, the kid from Hot Tub Time Machine and Gramma from Rounders) makes it really enjoyable.

Worth an hour and a half of your time, but no cinematic masterpiece.

I thought it was decent. You need to see Super, same premise but I thought better done.

(http://fierceandnerdy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/super-movie-poster.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 22, 2012, 12:42:10 AM
Liked Kick Ass.  Watched it twice. 

But...

Lonely Heart

John Travolta, James Gandolfini, Salma Hayek.

Grifters allow their schemes to go haywire and the cops are on the hunt. 

I'm cycling through Gandolfini roles trying to see if he's got life after Sopranos.  Based on what I've seen so far?  Not a chance. 

Terrible toupe, worse acting in this 2006 thriller.   Travolta was his usually shitty self, quite possibly the worst actor of this generation.  He's had some outstanding roles -- Tony in Saturday Night Fever and Vincent in Pulp Fiction -- but is an absolute grimacing turd in everything else I've ever seen him in.  He's at his absolute unconvincing worst in this slow-moving film that swings and misses at every emotional hook it tries to set. 

Salma isn't convincing in her role.  Travolta is spectacularly shitty.  Gandolfini --  in an awful hairpiece and ill-fitting clothes -- was the worst of all. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 22, 2012, 12:51:45 AM
The Cabin in the Woods

Like horror movies.  Like zombies, werewolves, ghosts and demented characters. Like movies that have unexpected twists.  Like movies that find humor in odd places.  Like redheaded heroines.

Why then did this movie not quite get me there?

It was flooded with gore and met the requisite horror movie standards -- young chicks, some action, some boobs, some blood.

It had its share of odd characters including some zombies and werewolves.

It had unexpected twists.

It found plenty of humor in weird places -- for instance a girl making out with a moose that might have actually been a wolf. 

The heroine was red headed, pretty, big-eyed and strutted around in panties during the opening. 

I think the problem with this film is that it never found balance.  It never settled into any genre long enough to get you invested.  Was it a comedy?  A thriller? A horror flick?  A gore-fest?  A futuristic puzzle?   In trying to be all of those things it ended up being none of them and left me flat. 

It's like a really hot girl takes off her clothes and you find out her entire rack is the result of a pushup bra and two pairs of socks, her sexy blonde hair is nothing but extensions and clips, her ass is a butt pad and she's never trimmed the hedges.  It's ok, but you just don't have the same enthusiasm you hoped to bring to it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on April 22, 2012, 04:26:41 AM
If you haven't read the book Hunger Game is amazing! If you've read the books it was anti-climatic.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on April 22, 2012, 08:31:36 PM
The Haunted World of El Superbeasto

For the Rob Zombie fans on the board.  I'd never heard of Zombie's comic book aspirations but ran across this on Netflix today.  Weird, funny and raunchy.  A fun way to kill an hour and a half.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 03, 2012, 10:25:08 AM
Avatar

Was on FX.  Watched about 25 minutes of this.  Utterly fucking ridiculous.  Most idiotic thing I've ever seen.  Turned it off shaking my head at the collective stupidity of the populace. 

"unobtainium" Please.  What an insult.

There was nothing to appreciate in this shitty CGI fucksterpiece.  Garbage, pure and simple. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 03, 2012, 10:28:45 AM
Avatar

Was on FX.  Watched about 25 minutes of this.  Utterly fucking ridiculous.  Most idiotic thing I've ever seen.  Turned it off shaking my head at the collective stupidity of the populace. 

"unobtainium" Please.  What an insult.

There was nothing to appreciate in this shitty CGI fucksterpiece.  Garbage, pure and simple.

I liked it better when it was called Dancing With Wolves.  Dumb fucking movie  with a ridiculously transparent plot and "message"...but it was visually appealing in 3D on the big screen.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 03, 2012, 10:31:46 AM
Avatar

Was on FX.  Watched about 25 minutes of this.  Utterly fucking ridiculous.  Most idiotic thing I've ever seen.  Turned it off shaking my head at the collective stupidity of the populace. 

"unobtainium" Please.  What an insult.

There was nothing to appreciate in this shitty CGI fucksterpiece.  Garbage, pure and simple.


I liked it better when Disney made it and called it Pocahontas.

(http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d58/saniflush/avatarripoff.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTiger1 on May 03, 2012, 11:42:33 AM
Someone talk to me about War Horse.  I don't remember it being talked about............search shows nothing.

Is it worth the rental?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 03, 2012, 01:33:37 PM
Someone talk to me about War Horse.  I don't remember it being talked about............search shows nothing.

Is it worth the rental?

Everything Ive read says its a decent feel good type movie, much like Secretariat and Sea Biscuit in the horse genre. Maybe even to a lesser extent, Cinderella Man. It might be too feel good and cliche for some. Enjoy it for what it is - a decent, but not blockbuster movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 03, 2012, 03:20:11 PM
Someone talk to me about War Horse.  I don't remember it being talked about............search shows nothing.

Is it worth the rental?


Decent enough movie.  Not as good as Secretariat and Sea Biscuit since it's not based on a true story but you might can pass it off as a chick flick and get credit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on May 03, 2012, 03:39:19 PM

Decent enough movie.  Not as good as Secretariat and Sea Biscuit since it's not based on a true story but you might can pass it off as a chick flick and get credit.

> 18 ...?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 10, 2012, 09:04:09 AM
Contraband

Mark Wahlberg, Kate Beckinsale, the psychiatric dude from L&O/nazi from Oz, Ben Foster, the Amish kid from Witness, Giovanni Ribisi

What could go wrong?

Essentially everything.  Bad acting from all involved, particularly Walhberg and Beckinsale.  Worse acting from the Amish kid and Ben Foster.  Ridiculous plot lines, stupid wrap up, asinine setups, improbable/impossible resolutions. 

Thought this would be a fun, fast-moving story of revenge and redemption. It was instead sluggish and d.u.m.b dumb. 

Beckinsale was awful and didn't even look that good.

Very disappointed in this one. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 11, 2012, 04:52:38 AM
Dark Shadows

Had high hopes.  The trailers looked good and Depp seemed to be in his element as the quirky vampire.

Should have known that Tim Burton's stupid ass was the kiss of fucking death. 

The movie couldn't decide if it wanted to be a comedy or a drama and ended up doing neither well. 

It could have gone for campy and focused on the integration of a 1500s vampire into 1970s culture.  You saw the majority of that effort in the trailer.  Multiple opportunities for comedic social commentary were wasted.

It could have gone for a dramatic tale of resurrection and redemption.  It tried but failed in that attempt as well.

The script, other than a few Depp riffs (in the trailer), was hackneyed and ham fisted.  The performances from Michelle P, the ever present Bonham Carter and even Hit Girl were lazy and uninspired. 

As much as I love Depp I've begun to grow tired of seeing the same Edward Sparrowhands, Mad HatterWood  hand-flapping almost effeminate performance that Burton seems to draw from him. 

I fucking hate Tim Burton.  I don't think he's a creative genius of any sort and he's shit on a number of movies that had potential -- Batman (in retrospect), Alice in Blunderland, Planet of the Apes -- and now he bent over and evacuated his ridiculous bowels on Dark Shadows. 

I've finally learned.  I'm not going to spend money on another Burton helmed picture.  I hope that frizzy headed fuck retires and never makes another one. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 11, 2012, 08:47:46 AM
Dark Shadows

Had high hopes.  The trailers looked good and Depp seemed to be in his element as the quirky vampire.

Should have known that Tim Burton's stupid ass was the kiss of fucking death. 

The movie couldn't decide if it wanted to be a comedy or a drama and ended up doing neither well. 

It could have gone for campy and focused on the integration of a 1500s vampire into 1970s culture.  You saw the majority of that effort in the trailer.  Multiple opportunities for comedic social commentary were wasted.

It could have gone for a dramatic tale of resurrection and redemption.  It tried but failed in that attempt as well.

The script, other than a few Depp riffs (in the trailer), was hackneyed and ham fisted.  The performances from Michelle P, the ever present Bonham Carter and even Hit Girl were lazy and uninspired. 

As much as I love Depp I've begun to grow tired of seeing the same Edward Sparrowhands, Mad HatterWood  hand-flapping almost effeminate performance that Burton seems to draw from him. 

I fucking hate Tim Burton.  I don't think he's a creative genius of any sort and he's shit on a number of movies that had potential -- Batman (in retrospect), Alice in Blunderland, Planet of the Apes -- and now he bent over and evacuated his ridiculous bowels on Dark Shadows. 

I've finally learned.  I'm not going to spend money on another Burton helmed picture.  I hope that frizzy headed fuck retires and never makes another one.

This is disappointing
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 11, 2012, 09:25:59 AM
A couple I caught on Netflix this week:

Evidence of Blood - pretty decent, from 1998. Had Mary McDonnell (from Blue Chips and Dancing with Wolves). Interesting plot that could have taken several directions. Small town murder mystery kind of thing going on. Decent acting, good plot. Not the worst way to kill 2 hours.

The New Daughter - this was from a couple of years ago, had Kevin Costner in it and was labeled as a Supernatural Thriller so thought I would check it out. Started out decent enough, had an interesting plot until about the middle of the movie. Then it went off into LAA LAA land with talk of mythology and gods have a need to survive through young girls. I lost interest the last 30 mins. It started out well then went down a notch and fizzled.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 11, 2012, 09:27:11 AM

The movie couldn't decide if it wanted to be a comedy or a drama and ended up doing neither well. 


This is sometimes the dilemma with Depp and even Downey Jr.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 26, 2012, 01:44:23 AM
Sleeping Beauty

Watched this sleeper on Netflix only because Emily Browning was in it.  I liked her in Sucker Punch and she's good here, too.  This girl needs to fire her agent because she's just not getting enough to work with. 

This film was sick.  Who wants to see decrepit old men's dicks?  Who wants to see old bastards dry humping?

Granted Emily does spend about half the movie in varying stages of nudity and is seemingly comfortable with that.  Good. 

But the stupid dialogue, the odd pacing and the silly psycho-seriousness of this film just failed her completely.   I had no idea what she was trying to do, her motivations were false and her behavior, particularly in the final six minutes untrue to the character. 

Other than the nudity -- which was offset by the creepy old naked men -- nothing to recommend here.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 27, 2012, 10:53:35 PM
Beastly
Vanessa Hudgens. 

A tween take on the Beauty and the Beast story.  Although you knew how it was going to end, it was still done okay. 

I expected to hate it and hate Hudgens, too but I did neither.  She's not that bad. 

It was instantly forgettable, but I wasn't throwing up through the entire thing.  It was a nice story for a teenage audience. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 29, 2012, 10:26:29 AM
Did anyone check out Chernobyl Diaries or MIB3? Thoughts???
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 29, 2012, 10:28:19 AM
Who wants to see decrepit old men's dicks?  Who wants to see old bastards dry humping?

varying stages of nudity and is seemingly comfortable with that. 

creepy old naked men

All of the above - VV
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on May 29, 2012, 11:18:21 AM
All of the above - VV

I'm gay enough to watch old naked men, but I am not gay enough to call Beastly a "nice story."
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 29, 2012, 12:11:10 PM
I am not gay enough to call Beastly a "nice story."

It's a tale as old as time.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 29, 2012, 12:12:57 PM
It's a tale as old as time.

Are you talking about the old men now?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 29, 2012, 02:02:34 PM
Are you talking about the old men now?

That would be a tail.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 04, 2012, 12:54:42 PM
Moneyball

Ok, so I know it was mostly BS.  But the movie was pretty good.  I hate Jonah Hill but could almost tolerate his stupid mug here because he wasn't playing an adolescent assclown. 

Enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would.  Even though it was mostly BS.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 04, 2012, 02:41:13 PM
Moneyball

Ok, so I know it was mostly BS.  But the movie was pretty good.  I hate Jonah Hill but could almost tolerate his stupid mug here because he wasn't playing an adolescent assclown. 

Enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would.  Even though it was mostly BS.

Ive learned that Hollywood has to take a lot of liberties in movies to make the plot better when it comes to true stories especially. War movies do it. Sports movies do it too. Ive seen good ones in both genres who have taken minor liberties and filled in gaps, and it still turn out ok - i.e. Secretariat, We Were Soldiers, Braveheart, Patriot, Invinceable. Few true stories have a full plot that needs no Hollywood intervention as far as telling the story. D Day and the life of Jesus are two of those exceptions.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on June 04, 2012, 02:52:59 PM
Ive learned that Hollywood has to take a lot of liberties in movies to make the plot better when it comes to true stories especially. War movies do it. Sports movies do it too. Ive seen good ones in both genres who have taken minor liberties and filled in gaps, and it still turn out ok - i.e. Secretariat, We Were Soldiers, Braveheart, Patriot, Invinceable. Few true stories have a full plot that needs no Hollywood intervention as far as telling the story. D Day and the life of Jesus are two of those exceptions.

I wouldn’t watch jack shit about Saban.   :taunt: :puke:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 04, 2012, 03:19:53 PM
I wouldn’t watch jack shit about Saban.   :taunt: :puke:
Another solid shot to the gap.

Dude is starting to hit for power. Could be juicing the way the ball is popping off the bat the last few weeks.  Do we have a drug policy around here? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 04, 2012, 03:22:59 PM
I wouldn’t watch jack shit about Saban.   :taunt: :puke:
He's not Jesus...he's his evil, shorter twin brother.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 04, 2012, 03:23:47 PM
Ive learned that Hollywood has to take a lot of liberties in movies to make the plot better when it comes to true stories especially. War movies do it. Sports movies do it too. Ive seen good ones in both genres who have taken minor liberties and filled in gaps, and it still turn out ok - i.e. Secretariat, We Were Soldiers, Braveheart, Patriot, Invinceable. Few true stories have a full plot that needs no Hollywood intervention as far as telling the story. D Day and the life of Jesus are two of those exceptions.

When it comes to Moneyball it's just completely fraudulent to pretend that a bumbling first-baseman and a retread David Justice were the catalysts for that A's team. 

Cy Young winner in Mulder.  Also had Zito and Hudson.  Probably the best rotation not named "The Braves" of that decade.  Also had AL MVP in Miguel Tejada. 

The movie completely glossed over their contributions -- which were killer. 

As one somebody said back in the day "you don't have to be no genius manager or GM when you got a pitching rotation like that.  Hell a monkey with a dartboard could fill out the roster card and get you 85 wins."
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 04, 2012, 03:35:04 PM
When it comes to Moneyball it's just completely fraudulent to pretend that a bumbling first-baseman and a retread David Justice were the catalysts for that A's team. 

Cy Young winner in Mulder.  Also had Zito and Hudson.  Probably the best rotation not named "The Braves" of that decade.  Also had AL MVP in Miguel Tejada. 

The movie completely glossed over their contributions -- which were killer. 

As one somebody said back in the day "you don't have to be no genius manager or GM when you got a pitching rotation like that.  Hell a monkey with a dartboard could fill out the roster card and get you 85 wins."

There can be something to sabermetrics. I don't think it works everytime, but it's a great thing to use for teams that aren't big market and can't spend the kind of money the Yankees do. Also, if every team did it, then it would be a useless technique.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on June 04, 2012, 04:16:07 PM
Another solid shot to the gap.

Dude is starting to hit for power. Could be juicing the way the ball is popping off the bat the last few weeks.  Do we have a drug policy around here?

No drugs, we just are so slow at work that I have now have time to concentrate on important matters.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on June 07, 2012, 08:25:32 AM
Men in Black 3 is a vast improvement over the dreck that was/is Men in Black 2.

Sure the ending is a little hokey but it's a fun ride. Josh Brolin nails the young Tommy Lee Jones. By the way, Tommy Lee Jones is one old looking dude.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 07, 2012, 10:21:29 AM
Men in Black 3 is a vast improvement over the dreck that was/is Men in Black 2.

Sure the ending is a little hokey but it's a fun ride. Josh Brolin nails the young Tommy Lee Jones. By the way, Tommy Lee Jones is one old looking dude.

That's because he is an old dude.

Might check MIB3 out now that you said its better than the crap that was 1 and 2.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on June 07, 2012, 10:32:11 AM
The first one was pretty decent.  I thought the 2nd MIB sucked donkey balls. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 07, 2012, 11:11:14 AM
The first one was pretty decent.  I thought the 2nd MIB sucked donkey balls. 
She kicked her shoes off onto the floor
She said, "Drive fast, speed turns me on"

She put her hand on my knee, I put my foot on the gas
We almost got whiplash, I took off so fast

The sun roof was open , the music was high
And this girl's hand was steadily moving up my thigh

She had opened up three buttons on her shirt so far
I guess that's why I didn't notice that police car

We're doing ninety in my Mom's new Porsche
And to make this long story short - short

When the cop pulled me over I was scared as hell
I said, "I don't have a license but I drive very well, officer"

I almost had a heart attack that day
Come to find out the girl was a twelve-year-old runaway
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on June 07, 2012, 12:34:18 PM
She kicked her shoes off onto the floor
She said, "Drive fast, speed turns me on"

She put her hand on my knee, I put my foot on the gas
We almost got whiplash, I took off so fast

The sun roof was open , the music was high
And this girl's hand was steadily moving up my thigh

She had opened up three buttons on her shirt so far
I guess that's why I didn't notice that police car

We're doing ninety in my Mom's new Porsche
And to make this long story short - short

When the cop pulled me over I was scared as hell
I said, "I don't have a license but I drive very well, officer"

I almost had a heart attack that day
Come to find out the girl was a twelve-year-old runaway

Old skool.

My favorite lines:

She said, "How do I know you're not sick?  You could be some deranged lunatic!"
I said, "Come on, toots, my name is the Prince.  Besides, would a lunatic have a Porsche like this?"
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on June 07, 2012, 12:39:40 PM
http://youtu.be/T3ANUkOyDNQ
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 09, 2012, 11:03:43 AM
Bonnie and Clyde

Haven't watched this movie in a long time and saw it was on Netflix so I watched it last night. 

I remembered that it got nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor twice, Best Supporting Actress and a few others, putting it in the same ballpark for nominations as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.  Every major cast member in the film was nominated for an Academy Award.

I recently watched Cuckoo's Nest again as well.  It stands the test of time.  It might need a little sprucing up, but if it were released today for the first time it would still be just as powerful and just as well-received as it was when it first came out. 

Bonnie and Clyde not so much I don't think.  The cinematography was beautiful.  But I found Dunaway's performance to be a classic case of overacting.  Of all the Academy Awards it was nominated for, only Estelle Parsons' screeching portrayal of Blanche (IMO the WORST performance in the film by far) was a winner.

The film was considered ground breaking and drew much criticism at the time for its depiction of sex and violence.  I've seen more sex and violence in an afternoon of the Disney Channel than in this film. 

I understand why its a classic.  I understand how it played a part in changing the way movies were done.  But this is a movie I think I would like to see remade. 

It would have been great 10-15 years ago with Matthew McBongahey and maybe Charlize Theron, Holly Hunter, Michelle Pfieffer of even Uma Thurman. 

I'd like to see it now with Scarlett Johansen or Amanda Seyfried and --uh... maybe some douche like Paul Walker or the guy who plays DiNozzo on NCIS, Chris Pine or even Matt Damon (although he's not slick enough).

It wasn't a BAD movie per se, even though the editing was choppy (particularly in the climactic scene), the acting was overwrought and the story wasn't fleshed out as well as it could have been.

It just didn't hold up on further review like The Godfather, Cool Hand Luke, The Sting, Cuckoo's Nest, Mockingbird, Wonderful Life (yes, I know you either hate or love this movie), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid or the others I remember fondly from the 60s and 70s.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on June 09, 2012, 11:31:55 AM


, Wonderful Life (yes, I know you either hate or love this movie),

I love it!  Funny thing is, I was way in my late 30s before I saw it for the first time, or remember seeing it.  I don't think I've ever hated anything Jimmy Stewart ever did.  Loved most of it.  One of my all time faves is Anatomy of a Murder.  It's just hard not to like the guy.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 10, 2012, 09:56:18 PM
Madagascar 3

Never been a big fan of the Madagascar series to begin with.  Just sort of ehhhhh about it.  It's like a stale joke that wasn't really all that funny to begin with.

This "finale" didn't move me move me. 

The Circus Afro TV spots amused me.  The sad part is that that was about the only part of the film that made me laugh. 

The giraffe/hippo love story?  Pfffttt.  Don't care.  The bear/marmoset (or whatever) love story?  Pffftt.  Don't care.

I'm just not invested in the characters like I have been in Toy Story, Shrek, Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocohantas, Mulan or any of the other amazing animated films that have come out over the last 20 years or so. 

Madagascar (and to a similar extent Ice Age) just seem like half-ass efforts.  The scripts don't have nearly the same level of wit, humor, pathos and beautiful simplicity of even Kung Fu Panda or Bolt.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on June 11, 2012, 09:32:29 AM
Madagascar 3

Never been a big fan of the Madagascar series to begin with.  Just sort of ehhhhh about it.  It's like a stale joke that wasn't really all that funny to begin with.

This "finale" didn't move me move me. 

The Circus Afro TV spots amused me.  The sad part is that that was about the only part of the film that made me laugh. 

The giraffe/hippo love story?  Pfffttt.  Don't care.  The bear/marmoset (or whatever) love story?  Pffftt.  Don't care.

I'm just not invested in the characters like I have been in Toy Story, Shrek, Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocohantas, Mulan or any of the other amazing animated films that have come out over the last 20 years or so. 

Madagascar (and to a similar extent Ice Age) just seem like half-ass efforts.  The scripts don't have nearly the same level of wit, humor, pathos and beautiful simplicity of even Kung Fu Panda or Bolt.

Took the kids to see it last Friday.  I'm ready to blow my brains out the next time I hear "Polka dot, Polka dot, Afro Circus!" even though it was kind of funny the first dozen times.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 11, 2012, 09:50:27 AM
Caught American Reunion this weekend at the cheap seats. Its the 4th installment of the American Pie series. The review is simple. It follows the path verbatim of the first 3. If you like them, you will like this one. If you don't, then you won't. Its great nostalgia for those that like the series. Good, but not great - which I didn't expect it to be.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on June 12, 2012, 12:39:41 PM
Prometheus

Imagine if Alien vs. Predator had twice the budget and its head twice as far up its own ass. That is this movie.

Beautifully shot but a shoddy premise and poor execution right up until the bad ending ripped right out of AvP.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Ranger12 on June 15, 2012, 04:12:12 PM
Prometheus

Imagine if Alien vs. Predator had twice the budget and its head twice as far up its own ass. That is this movie.

Beautifully shot but a shoddy premise and poor execution right up until the bad ending ripped right out of AvP.

I have an opposite opinion as I thought it was a pretty good movie because it provided something fans of the Aliens franchise have wanted for years...the story of the Space Jockey that was briefly seen in the original Alien movie. We agree that the special effects and shooting was excellent. I saw it in 3D and I recommend it be seen in that way. There are several scenes that will lose their intended impact if seen in 2D.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Ranger12 on June 22, 2012, 09:09:59 AM
Not a review, but a preview. What do you guys think of the trailer for the new Judge Dredd movie? Seems more true to the Judge Dredd comic and I don't think I have been disappointed in anything Karl Urban has ever done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PifvRiHVSCY&feature=colike
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on June 22, 2012, 09:27:39 AM
Not a review, but a preview. What do you guys think of the trailer for the new Judge Dredd movie? Seems more true to the Judge Dredd comic and I don't think I have been disappointed in anything Karl Urban has ever done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PifvRiHVSCY&feature=colike
I could be wrong, but that looks cheesier than the Stallone version judging solely from that trailer.

Dredd can't even fill out his helmet. Looks goofy.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on June 22, 2012, 10:03:59 AM
Saw two movies that came out on Blu-Ray & DVD this week each from comedy filmmakers I enjoy.

Jeff Who Lives At Home - The Duplass brothers have been at the forefront of the "Mumblecore" movement. Central to that is typically a dialogue-heavy dry comedy with elements of drama where people talk like real people (not like Juno), and usually involves lots of improvisation. I saw the Duplass's "The Puffy Chair" when I saw it under "New Releases" on Netflix years ago and really enjoyed it. It starred Mark Duplass (one of the directors) & Katie Aselton, both now stars of the TV Show The League. They followed that up with Baghead, which was maybe a small step backward. Then they took the "Hollywood" leap with Cyrus, which I loved.

Their newest film, Jeff Who Lives at Home, I think is their best. By far. Brace yourself, Wes, but one element that I couldn't help but enjoy was that it was filmed in New Orleans, and much of the settings were easily recognizable. The scene where he's riding the bus at the beginning shows Veteran's, which is the New Orleans equivalent to 280, which I work right off of, and live pretty close to. Kind of weird seeing those scenes in a movie (to a lesser degree, this is also true for 21 Jump Street - Another hilarious movie you should check out). In spite of it clearly being filmed in New Orleans, and the real New Orleans restaurant Cochon is central to the plot, it supposedly takes place in Baton Rouge.

All that being said, that only plays a small part in what I liked about it this movie. It's all about coincidences and "everything happens for a reason". I'd elaborate more, but I don't want to risk spoiling the plot. If you're into these not-exactly-broad comedies, I highly recommend this one.

Wanderlust - I was always a big fan of The State back when MTV was relevant. Loved Viva Variety, Reno 911!, Stella, Childrens Hospital, Wet Hot American Summer, The Ten, and pretty much anything these guys collaborate on. If you haven't heard of or seen Ken Marino's new web-series spoofing "The Bachelor" type shows, check out Burning Love (http://screen.yahoo.com/burning-love/). David Wain directs, who is behind the camera as is usually the case for these post-The State projects. I feel like he's the most irreverently silly of the group, in a good way, and his unique sense of humor spills over heavily into this. At some times it's almost anti-humor, but somehow they're the funniest moments. Awkward pauses, unnecessary redundancy, and dryly "pointing out the obvious". If you're familiar with his work, you know the types of jokes I'm talking about.

And if you like seeing hippies being satirically made fun of for virtually 90 minutes, this is your movie Example: "This is my husband. He's an African American. And we're just as much in love as if we were the same color."
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 23, 2012, 01:46:08 PM
There sure are a lot of people named Kaos.

Brave
I was rooting for this movie.  As the father of two girls I was hoping for a strong heroic female lead who didn't spend her entire time defying her parents in the name of love or doing something to chase a boy.  Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Tangled, Pocahontas, etc always had that male character. 

There was no male character of any substance here.  But instead of putting money on a strong story the production team apparently opted to drop their entire budget on animating red hair.  The lead character (I forget her name, which should tell you something) had an amazing mass of unkempt red hair that was almost a character in and of itself. 

The story was typical Disney fare: Girl thinks she knows more than her parents, there's conflict and then a meeting in the middle. 

But this Pixar film just didn't work for me. 

There wasn't enough of the brilliant humor that drove the Shrek films (and Puss) and the story didn't quite have the emotional and visual power of even Beauty and the Beast or Mermaid. 

It could have been Brave and at least looked in the direction of making a Brave statement, but in the end it copped out. 

Compared to Adam Sandler's latest shit fest (which I refuse to even watch) this movie would earn 40 stars.  But compared to Shrek, Puss, Toy Story, etc.?  It barely registers 2.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on June 27, 2012, 03:21:07 AM
There sure are a lot of people named Kaos.

Brave

But this Pixar film just didn't work for me. 

There wasn't enough of the brilliant humor that drove the Shrek films (and Puss) and the story didn't quite have the emotional and visual power of even Beauty and the Beast or Mermaid. 

It could have been Brave and at least looked in the direction of making a Brave statement, but in the end it copped out. 

Compared to Adam Sandler's latest shoot fest (which I refuse to even watch) this movie would earn 40 stars.  But compared to Shrek, Puss, Toy Story, etc.?  It barely registers 2.

Shrek is actually DreamWorks but I think I follow what your going with here.

Sad to read this one pussed out like that. This summer has blown chunks so far for me. Hoping August turns it around because July is determined to not be good save Christopher Nolan's latest mindfudge.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 27, 2012, 09:10:39 AM
Not a review, but a preview. What do you guys think of the trailer for the new Judge Dredd movie? Seems more true to the Judge Dredd comic and I don't think I have been disappointed in anything Karl Urban has ever done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PifvRiHVSCY&feature=colike

So now Hollywood is taking bad movies and redoing them...ugh.  Going with the Chadskins on this one... looks bad.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 27, 2012, 09:17:54 AM
Shrek is actually DreamWorks but I think I follow what your going with here.

Sad to read this one pussed out like that. This summer has blown chunks so far for me. Hoping August turns it around because July is determined to not be good save Christopher Nolan's latest mindfudge.

Spiderman should actually help July's cause coming out July 3rd (Holiday time). Whether it's good or not, it will make huge sums of money. Looks good to me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 27, 2012, 01:36:39 PM
Spiderman should actually help July's cause coming out July 3rd (Holiday time). Whether it's good or not, it will make huge sums of money. Looks good to me.

They just can't get the Spiderman casting right.  This new dude?  Please.  Peter Parker is not a scrawny, wormy fuck. 

Very bad choice. 

I could be wrong but I expect the new spiderman to suck -- despite the casting of the edible Emma Stone. 

Will wait for DVD. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on June 27, 2012, 01:42:27 PM
They just can't get the Spiderman casting right.  This new dude?  Please.  Peter Parker is not a scrawny, wormy fuck. 

Very bad choice. 

I could be wrong but I expect the new spiderman to suck -- despite the casting of the edible Emma Stone. 

Will wait for DVD.

I don't think the new Spiderman looks any different than the Tobey Spiderman. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 27, 2012, 01:46:59 PM
I don't think the new Spiderman looks any different than the Tobey Spiderman.

That scrawny gay-monk bastard was a massive fail, too. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 27, 2012, 02:07:59 PM
I don't think the new Spiderman looks any different than the Tobey Spiderman.

It looks decent. Hard to tell if it will be better or worse. It definitely tells the story from a different angle. More dark and going into Spiderman's origins. Bad or not, it will be HUGE at the box office.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 27, 2012, 03:21:09 PM
They just can't get the Spiderman casting right.  This new dude?  Please.  Peter Parker is not a scrawny, wormy fuck. 
Uhhh what Spiderman did you read? Yes he was.

Not wormy, but he was scrawny.  He was a smart assed nerd.  I don't care for Tobey Mcguire in the roll nor the direction they took the movie(s), but from a looks standpoint he nailed Spiderman.

(http://s1.hubimg.com/u/349384_f520.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 27, 2012, 05:06:03 PM
Uhhh what Spiderman did you read? Yes he was.

Not wormy, but he was scrawny.  He was a smart assed nerd.  I don't care for Tobey Mcguire in the roll nor the direction they took the movie(s), but from a looks standpoint he nailed Spiderman.

I never read the yellowed-out 1945 Spiderman.  My point of reference was the 1970s.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iW5bCdxTvCw/R1TH4mdzLII/AAAAAAAAA24/Z1DuVOobrYU/s1600-R/61JV73KFFEL._SS500_.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on June 28, 2012, 07:11:57 AM
I never read the yellowed-out 1945 Spiderman. 


There was a Japanese version?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 28, 2012, 09:57:00 AM
I never read the yellowed-out 1945 Spiderman.  My point of reference was the 1970s.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iW5bCdxTvCw/R1TH4mdzLII/AAAAAAAAA24/Z1DuVOobrYU/s1600-R/61JV73KFFEL._SS500_.jpg)
Point is he was supposed to be an everyman... someone who was kind of nerdy dork that turned into a superhero.  He didn't have money like Batman, he wasn't an alien like Superman. All the comic renditions I have looked at (including the one above) he was lean and agile and had a smart assed sense of humor (he had an athletic build). He wasn't built like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

While I totally agree with you that Maguire sucked in the part (or at least I didn't care for his acting) IMO he perfectly fit the description. 

I also think the new guy looks the part, the rest is up for debate.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 28, 2012, 09:59:34 AM
(http://bestweekever.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/tobey_maguire_ripped.jpg)
I consider that an athletic build
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 28, 2012, 11:25:06 AM
(http://bestweekever.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/tobey_maguire_ripped.jpg)
I consider that an athletic build

It's CGI. In real life both he and the new scrawny nerd have sunk-in chests. They weigh about 100 pounds.  They didn't CGI him in the rest of the movie. 

From what I remember from the comics (and Spiderman was never my favorite) he was always fairly buff.  Not a no-ass stick figure like these two.  Not saying he has to be Ferrigno or even Dwayne The Rock, but somebody with a mannish build would be nice. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 28, 2012, 11:36:25 AM
somebody with a mannish build would be nice.

You have VV's attention...again.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on June 28, 2012, 12:03:24 PM
It's CGI. In real life both he and the new scrawny nerd have sunk-in chests. They weigh about 100 pounds.  They didn't CGI him in the rest of the movie. 

From what I remember from the comics (and Spiderman was never my favorite) he was always fairly buff.
Not a no-ass stick figure like these two.  Not saying he has to be Ferrigno or even Dwayne The Rock, but somebody with a mannish build would be nice.

He's like Batman, the muscles were just part of the suit.

What I always wondered is how the strongest alien in the universe looks like this in his costume made of spandex

(http://metropolisplus.com/Superman/CReevesS.jpg)

while Batman does a few pushups in the morning and his muscles actually show through a suit made of kevlar?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/Bale_as_Batman.jpg/170px-Bale_as_Batman.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 28, 2012, 04:21:58 PM
You have VV's attention...again.

Great.  Something else to deduct. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on June 28, 2012, 04:26:30 PM
Great.  Something else to deduct.

Unless you have a harem of accountants incorrectly telling you that it can't be deducted.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 28, 2012, 10:35:30 PM
The Princess and the Frog

Terrible, awful, dreadful movie. 

Abysmal.

A disgrace to the Disney genre.

Bloated with stereotypes.  Insulting. 

TRASH
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on June 29, 2012, 07:11:27 PM
I never read the yellowed-out 1945 Spiderman.  My point of reference was the 1970s.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iW5bCdxTvCw/R1TH4mdzLII/AAAAAAAAA24/Z1DuVOobrYU/s1600-R/61JV73KFFEL._SS500_.jpg)

He looks to be gazing at his penis in the reflection.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 01, 2012, 01:23:28 AM
Piranha 3DD

Tried to conjure the silliness of 80's titty teen schlock like Ski School and mix it with cheesy 80s horror. 

Worked somewhat well in the first Piranha remake but missed the boat a bit here. 

Danielle Pannebaker is still moderately delicious.  Todd Packer plays basically the same guy in every movie/TV show he's in and is just as unfunny as always. 

If you go in expecting nothing and accept it for humor you'll be okay.  Despite an earnest performance by Danielle, this is supposed to be pure camp.  The Hoff's self-mocking effort is probably the best part of the film. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 01, 2012, 01:24:29 AM
Human Centipede 2

Please give me that 90 minutes back.

What a fetid pile of shit. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on July 01, 2012, 03:25:27 AM
No Magic Mike review???? Vandy's gonna blow.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on July 01, 2012, 04:50:42 AM
No Magic Mike review???? Vandy's gonna blow.

I've been blowing for awhile now.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on July 01, 2012, 07:24:05 AM
Human Centipede 2

Please give me that 90 minutes back.

What a fetid pile of shoot.

Yeah Tom Six use that as a way to take a flaming whiz on people who watched the first HC. Pointless.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on July 02, 2012, 02:34:19 AM
No Magic Mike review???? Vandy's gonna blow.

I got your Magic Mike review...

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh snap.

Oooooo, baby, come to momma.

DAMN.

Holy shit.

Yummy yummy yummy.

Oh, yeah, do that again...

Oh, Mr Fireman Joe Manganiello, thank you taking your shirt off before rescuing my cat from that tree.

Yes, you are both an officer and a gentleman but I like the choker whites best in a pile on the floor.

And Channing Tatum... hubba hubba... the boy has some damn SKILLZ!!!!!!!

Somebody get momma a fan cuz it is fucking HOT up in here and it is NOT the weather...

********************************************

Bottom line (and my my MY what some fine as hell bottoms they were...) - the plot sucked, which is sad because it definitely had potential.  Not sure what the hell the writer/producer was going for.  But I guaran-damn-tee you I would have paid twice the ticket price to just sit and watch those boys dance for two solid hours.  Sweet heavens, that was more eye candy than one woman could stand all at once.   If the all male revues are anything like that in real life, I do not think my heart could stand it.

So plot?  Who gives a crap!!  Mowar strippers!!!!! 

I went to see it with the new girl - and we have decided we need an all-X dance team.  To be considered, we will need each of you to please send us your best audition video and pics of your asses in a thong.  Don't be afraid - we will be gentle.

I give Magic Mike a five out of five pelvic thrusts and a g-string loaded with cash.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on July 02, 2012, 09:36:20 AM
I got your Magic Mike review...

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh snap.

Oooooo, baby, come to momma.

DAMN.

Holy shit.

Yummy yummy yummy.

Oh, yeah, do that again...

Oh, Mr Fireman Joe Manganiello, thank you taking your shirt off before rescuing my cat from that tree.

Yes, you are both an officer and a gentleman but I like the choker whites best in a pile on the floor.

And Channing Tatum... hubba hubba... the boy has some damn SKILLZ!!!!!!!

Somebody get momma a fan cuz it is fucking HOT up in here and it is NOT the weather...

********************************************

Bottom line (and my my MY what some fine as hell bottoms they were...) - the plot sucked, which is sad because it definitely had potential.  Not sure what the hell the writer/producer was going for.  But I guaran-damn-tee you I would have paid twice the ticket price to just sit and watch those boys dance for two solid hours.  Sweet heavens, that was more eye candy than one woman could stand all at once.   If the all male revues are anything like that in real life, I do not think my heart could stand it.

So plot?  Who gives a crap!!  Mowar strippers!!!!! 

I went to see it with the new girl - and we have decided we need an all-X dance team.  To be considered, we will need each of you to please send us your best audition video and pics of your asses in a thong.  Don't be afraid - we will be gentle.

I give Magic Mike a five out of five pelvic thrusts and a g-string loaded with cash.
How were Olivia Munn's tittays?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on July 02, 2012, 11:21:23 AM
I went to see it with the new girl - and we have decided we need an all-X dance team.  To be considered, we will need each of you to please send us your best audition video and pics of your asses in a thong.  Don't be afraid - we will be gentle.

My dancing skills are so epic that when the music stops it is at least 10 minutes before my gut and ass stop doing the wave.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on July 02, 2012, 11:22:42 AM
My dancing skills are so epic that when the music stops it is at least 10 minutes before my gut and ass stop doing the wave.

(http://mlkshk.com/r/JJC)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on July 02, 2012, 12:17:09 PM
The wife, daughter and several friends went to see MM yesterday. All said weak plot, hot dancing but total overkill on the F-Bombs.  Kind of took away from an already meh movie.....except for the dancing.  They liked the dancing.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: RWS on July 02, 2012, 01:45:48 PM
Ted was fucking awesome.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on July 02, 2012, 03:19:45 PM
total overkill on the F-Bombs. 

Absoutely.  Goodness knows I am ok with some f-bombs but holy smokes.  Used as a noun, verb and adjective in every sentence is a bit much.

But yea, the dancing... just... damn.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Shug Dye on July 02, 2012, 05:16:33 PM
How were Olivia Munn's tittays?

there were titties? I don't remember that at all.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on July 02, 2012, 10:37:33 PM
there were titties? I don't remember that at all.

they were sitting right next to you.  perky. spectacular. succulent.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on July 02, 2012, 11:11:57 PM
there were titties? I don't remember that at all.

I didn't even notice that Chizad asked the question...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on July 02, 2012, 11:13:04 PM
they were sitting right next to you.  perky. spectacular. succulent.
:hug:

There were some pretty awesome ones to my left as well.  Our waiter got an eyeful and then some.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on July 02, 2012, 11:25:28 PM
Pics or it didn't happen.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on July 03, 2012, 01:23:44 AM
Pics or it didn't happen.

Oh, it happened.

We giggled after about how much money we could have made selling the photos on here.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on July 03, 2012, 11:00:37 AM
The wife, daughter and several friends went to see MM yesterday. All said weak plot, hot dancing but total overkill on the F-Bombs.  Kind of took away from an already meh movie.....except for the dancing.  They liked the dancing.
That doesn't sound awkward for your daughter at all.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on July 03, 2012, 11:03:50 AM
That doesn't sound awkward for your daughter at all.

She's 21 and dances for a living.  Not on a pole...well, not very often.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on July 03, 2012, 11:24:40 AM
That doesn't sound awkward for your daughter at all.

No kidding.  My mom actually got miffed that I did not ask her to accompany me and the new girl to see the movie.  Not that I needed another one to add to the LONG list of reasons why there was no way in hell I would see that with her, but once it was over, with all the language?  VERY GLAD she was not there.  She would have bitched about that all the way home, and would have lectured me about "that smutty movie you took me to see" for years to come.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUChizad on July 03, 2012, 11:58:53 AM
She's 21 and dances for a living.  Not on a pole...well, not very often.
And likes movies about bouncing cocks.

 :pics:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on July 03, 2012, 12:07:30 PM
And likes movies about bouncing cocks.

 :pics:

She's been dancing around bouncing cock for years.  It's just gay bouncing cock.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on July 03, 2012, 12:12:45 PM
No kidding.  My mom actually got miffed that I did not ask her to accompany me and the new girl to see the movie.  Not that I needed another one to add to the LONG list of reasons why there was no way in hell I would see that with her, but once it was over, with all the language?  VERY GLAD she was not there.  She would have bitched about that all the way home, and would have lectured me about "that smutty movie you took me to see" for years to come.

Before my mom passed her and my dad were visiting my house when she went in to one of the back closest to look for a sweater as it was chilly that day, well up on the shelf were a couple of moves that had real adult content. She came back out and was just flabbergasted that her sweet son and beautiful daughter in law would view such filth. Took some explaining and quick movement of putting the conversation in a different direction.

Didn’t have the heart to tell her “ole” dad views it on-line as I have to do work on his pooter and I check his history to see what he has been doing and why he has this virus.
 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on July 03, 2012, 12:16:31 PM
Is that why I keep getting a virus?  I knew it had to be something.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on July 03, 2012, 12:55:03 PM
Is that why I keep getting a virus?  I knew it had to be something.

Chlamydia is a bitch to get rid of.   Luckily some of our newest members have offered up Z-Packs at a reduced rate.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Shug Dye on July 03, 2012, 01:16:43 PM
Chlamydia is a bitch to get rid of. 

Day Glo sportswear effectively wards off any kind of sexually transmitted disease.

And any kind of sex.

And any interest from the opposite sex.

And...

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: ssgaufan on July 03, 2012, 01:18:18 PM
Day Glo sportswear effectively wards off any kind of sexually transmitted disease.

And any kind of sex.

And any interest from the opposite sex.

And...

 :muttley:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on July 03, 2012, 01:23:23 PM
Day Glo sportswear effectively wards off any kind of sexually transmitted disease.

And any kind of sex.

And any interest from the opposite sex.

And...

I believe...wait....yep, I'm certain now....that just happened.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on July 03, 2012, 01:40:09 PM
Mods, can we ban the new kid?!?!?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on July 03, 2012, 02:44:21 PM
Day Glo sportswear effectively wards off any kind of sexually transmitted disease.

And any kind of sex.

And any interest from the opposite sex.

And...

I don't know. I heard that Dayglow actually adds ten inches...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on July 03, 2012, 02:53:32 PM
I don't know. I heard that Dayglow actually adds ten inches...

Just curious.  Where does one get this Dayglow apparel?  Not that I want any...or need any.  Just askin'.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on July 03, 2012, 02:54:40 PM
Just curious.  Where does one get this Dayglow apparel?  Not that I want any...or need any.  Just askin'.

At Wild Birds Unlimited.  In the children's section.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on July 03, 2012, 03:04:19 PM
I'm going to have to spike a few warn meters around here, I can see...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on July 03, 2012, 03:07:15 PM
Just curious.  Where does one get this Dayglow apparel?  Not that I want any...or need any.  Just askin'.

Not that I went here-found this by accident.

http://www.zazzle.com/dayglow+tshirts   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on July 03, 2012, 03:10:17 PM
Sweet!  Found my shirt for this year's golfs...

(http://rlv.zcache.com/corey_tiger_80s_tiger_cute_t_shirts-r85d127af28a64540aef7d8b3390c0c2e_f03qu_512.jpg?rlvnet=1)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on July 03, 2012, 03:21:28 PM
Not that I went here-found this by accident.

http://www.zazzle.com/dayglow+tshirts   

Sweet, now I can get that extra 10 inche...I mean..    :haha: you've been ordering Dayglow shirts
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on July 03, 2012, 03:30:55 PM
Sweet, now I can get that extra 10 inche...I mean..    :haha: you've been ordering Dayglow shirts

Looking to trade shirts for two game tickets.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on July 03, 2012, 03:36:48 PM
Looking to trade shirts for two game tickets.

The hustle...it was good.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on July 03, 2012, 04:25:46 PM
The hustle...it was good.

For an old guy my hustle is slow and uphill both ways.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 04, 2012, 12:00:43 AM
Mr. Deeds
I hate Adam Sandler.  He's the fucking worst.  Every movie he makes slides further and further down the tubes of shittiness. 

I'd never seen this one and got roped into it today. 

Compared to his recent work, it's fucking Casablanca or The Godfather.  It just shows you how utterly shitty and juvenile his more recent films (including Grownups) really are.  Total fetid shit fests. 

You could see in this slow-moving and improbable donkey turd the beginnings of the abject laziness and disdain/disrespect for the audience he now exhibits in all films. 

He half-assed his way through it with a tepid performance that was matched by a dreadful coked-out flail by Whydontcha Ryder.  Unless I'm mistaken this was the point where her career disappeared into the toilet where it languishes today.  She hasn't done anything worth a damn in the ten years since this turkey was shit on the cinematic floor. 

Sandler is terrible.  He's a waste of humanity.  This film was the beginning of his true decline into turddom.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 04, 2012, 12:09:31 AM
Spiderman 3

Oh holy fuck, Tobey McGuire is a HORRIBLE actor.   I'd forgotten just how monstrously bad this rotten egg of a movie actually was. 

McGuire is spectacularly shitty. 

I can't watch this shit.   It's freakishly terrible. 

Thank God Ironman came along and rescued the Marvel franchise.  This cement turd could have sunk the entire line. 

It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen and I've seen some bad ones. 

Given the choice of watching the horrible Human Centipede 2 five times in a row or watching Tobey Fuckface McGuire butcher another five minutes of this?  Give me the 'pede. 

I'd rather watch John Travolta and Nick Cage wear bama gear and do an extended remake of Brokeback Mountain than this. 

I'd rather watch Jonah Hill, Will Ferrell, Vince Vaughn and Dave Matthews in a KISS cover band than be subjected to any more of this horrible performance by McGuire. 

God god, he's horrible.  He looks like he's having a seizure!  Is that supposed to be emotion?  What emotion is that?  Snark? 

Fuck this.  Top five worst movies of all time. 

In the scenes where he's supposed to be 'bad' Spiderman he looks like Edward Furlong and Crispin Glover had a baby and then choked off its air for the first ten minutes of its life. 

This entire thing is an affront to humanity.  How could anyone -- anyone -- have looked at the dailies for this roach shit and said to themselves "yeah! this is great!" 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on July 04, 2012, 07:42:23 AM
Quote
I'd rather watch John Travolta and Nick Cage wear bama gear and do an extended remake of Brokeback Mountain than this. 

But only if they switch faces. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 07, 2012, 12:42:17 AM
Katy Perry: Part of Me

Surprisingly sweet and touching.  Well produced and effectively edited.  The concert sequences were beautiful, colorful, bold and sparkling just like her. 

Based on what I saw of her concert in the film, it was definitely something a KISS fan could appreciate. I hope she tours again soon because it would be well worth the money to see that in person.  And almost definitely worth premium seats/access.

I adore Katy Perry in wholesome ways I never thought possible.  The movie humanized her. It stripped away the sex symbol persona to reveal a little glimpse of the person inside.  I adore that person. 

Probably not for everybody but as a dad with a 12-year old daughter who aspires to scale the same heights Katy has, it was definitely a good show. 

I'd see it again. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on July 07, 2012, 02:04:32 AM
Katy Perry: Part of Me

Surprisingly sweet and touching.  Well produced and effectively edited.  The concert sequences were beautiful, colorful, bold and sparkling just like her. 

Based on what I saw of her concert in the film, it was definitely something a KISS fan could appreciate. I hope she tours again soon because it would be well worth the money to see that in person.  And almost definitely worth premium seats/access.

I adore Katy Perry in wholesome ways I never thought possible.  The movie humanized her. It stripped away the sex symbol persona to reveal a little glimpse of the person inside.  I adore that person. 

Probably not for everybody but as a dad with a 12-year old daughter who aspires to scale the same heights Katy has, it was definitely a good show. 

I'd see it again.

First, let me say:

 :jaw:

Second, I saw a televised special of some sort awhile back about Katy Perry and her parents' uber conservative religious fervor.  They aren't too happy about the sex symbol persona that she developed in order to sell her brand.

For a pop star whose songs rarely have any sort of deeper meaning, it was surprisingly interesting to see her personal side and how she was raised.

It was also interesting to see her scantily clad while preparing for shows.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 07, 2012, 07:24:59 AM
First, let me say:

 :jaw:

Second, I saw a televised special of some sort awhile back about Katy Perry and her parents' uber conservative religious fervor.  They aren't too happy about the sex symbol persona that she developed in order to sell her brand.

For a pop star whose songs rarely have any sort of deeper meaning, it was surprisingly interesting to see her personal side and how she was raised.

It was also interesting to see her scantily clad while preparing for shows.

Her parents were a part of this film and seemed to have come to terms with who and what she's become.  Toward the end there's a brief glimpse of her mom at a concert.  Conservative dad looked like a total weird-wack with his silver sliver beard, Harry Caray glasses and Judas Priest wardrobe.  Not sure what that was. 

For what it's worth I don't recall seeing her scantily clad.  All I remember is workout clothes, hoodies and maybe a couple of times wrapped in a big towel.  She definitely wasn't prowling around backstage in Victoria's Secret signature gear. 

I actually thought the film took great pains to show her as a regular girl and purposely avoided portraying her as a sex kitty. Other than a few of the stage costumes, there wasn't anything overtly sexy about her wardrobe.  Most of the time backstage she was sans makeup, too.  That's something I think few of those obsessed with their looks would have allowed people to see.

That was the really interesting part of this movie.  My daughter wanted to go, I figured why not, Katy Perry is crazy awesome hot and there's nothing wrong with drinking in that sweet 3D vision for an hour and a half.  Left the movie not seeing her in the same manner.  It transformed her from a delicious collection of tits, legs, hair, eyes, ass,  and yummy parts into a complete person.  A person I adore.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 09, 2012, 10:53:12 AM
Katy Perry: Part of Me

Surprisingly sweet and touching.  Well produced and effectively edited.  The concert sequences were beautiful, colorful, bold and sparkling just like her. 

Based on what I saw of her concert in the film, it was definitely something a KISS fan could appreciate. I hope she tours again soon because it would be well worth the money to see that in person.  And almost definitely worth premium seats/access.

I adore Katy Perry in wholesome ways I never thought possible.  The movie humanized her. It stripped away the sex symbol persona to reveal a little glimpse of the person inside.  I adore that person. 

Probably not for everybody but as a dad with a 12-year old daughter who aspires to scale the same heights Katy has, it was definitely a good show. 

I'd see it again.


The movie rocked because she is UBER hot.

FIXT
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 09, 2012, 12:07:50 PM
FIXT

Except it wasn't like that at all.  Hotness very quickly became a non-factor.  Wasn't a part of the narrative.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 09, 2012, 12:32:28 PM
The Help

Yet another movie that portrays Southerners as uneducated rebels who cling to dying traditions in the face of the fabulous, urbane, witty New Yorkers. 

Yet another double helping of white southern guilt where the only characters with any virtue. morality or integrity are either black or Yankee-driven. 

Such utter bullshit.  Complete and utter fucking horse fucking manure. 

The film was done reasonably well and there may have been some truth to parts of it.  But things warn't like they was portrayed.  Still that's what my children and most other folks who didn't live in that time will consider to be the truth. 

When I was a little kid most of the families we knew had domestic help.  People were hired to cook, clean, and help out with the babies (most folks had large families if you remember.  Seven kids wasn't a rarity).  There were no doo-doo pies. Nobody was calling out lynch squads or accusing people of stealing just to set them up.  Can't speak for all, but most of the families I knew formed genuine bonds and relationships with the people who worked in our houses.  It wasn't a world of abuse, shame, degradation and pettiness.  People did their jobs.  The help was part of the family.  Just like Alice on the Brady Bunch. 

BTW, the Home Help Sanitation Initiative which was a major component of this film was completely fictional.  There's no indication anyone ever forced the help to have separate facilities or build separate facilities for them to use.  Utter bullshit.  The author of this load of excrement excuses her literary license by saying "it very well could have existed, but it didn't." 

I think I'm going to do a movie about the NAACP and have one of the characters describe the "Murder Honky Initiative" in detail.  It wasn't real, but it very well could have existed.   

Because the movie twisted historical fact I'm compelled to tell it to go fuck itself. 

Emma Stone is still pretty damn great.  Ugly as some think she is, she's good.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on July 09, 2012, 01:21:36 PM
The Help

Yet another movie that portrays Southerners as uneducated rebels who cling to dying traditions in the face of the fabulous, urbane, witty New Yorkers. 

I hate it when Hollywood makes us all look like Bammers.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 09, 2012, 01:22:19 PM
Except it wasn't like that at all.  Hotness very quickly became a non-factor.  Wasn't a part of the narrative.

My post was somewhat tongue in cheek but I agree, I like her personality a lot. The fact that she is super duper (almost girl next door in a weird way) hot is icing. She just seems cool in general.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 14, 2012, 10:45:28 PM
Underworld: Awakening

Underworld: Putting Me to Sleepening. 

The first and third installments of this series were pretty damn good.  The third didn't suffer at all from a lack of Selene. 

This?  Absolutely TERRIBLE. 

It's one thing to watch Selene fighting werewolves and brawling with vampires.  It's quite another to watch her mowing through the human population.  Hard to root for somebody who indiscriminately slaughters people left and right. 

Stupid story.  No, that's an insult to stupid.  The story was insulting.  It was utter shit. 

Terrible acting. 

Completely insipid and lazy. 

Even Beckinsale -- so vampishly hot in the first film of the series -- was dull and unsexy. 

I knew it was going to suck a little (pun).  I didn't expect it to just take a shit and wipe its dirty ass on the screen. 

Bad movie with no life at all.

Boo.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Eagle!!! on July 16, 2012, 12:04:35 PM
The Help

Yet another movie that portrays Southerners as uneducated rebels who cling to dying traditions in the face of the fabulous, urbane, witty New Yorkers. 

Yet another double helping of white southern guilt where the only characters with any virtue. morality or integrity are either black or Yankee-driven. 

Such utter bullshit.  Complete and utter fucking horse fucking manure. 

The film was done reasonably well and there may have been some truth to parts of it.  But things warn't like they was portrayed.  Still that's what my children and most other folks who didn't live in that time will consider to be the truth. 

When I was a little kid most of the families we knew had domestic help.  People were hired to cook, clean, and help out with the babies (most folks had large families if you remember.  Seven kids wasn't a rarity).  There were no doo-doo pies. Nobody was calling out lynch squads or accusing people of stealing just to set them up.  Can't speak for all, but most of the families I knew formed genuine bonds and relationships with the people who worked in our houses.  It wasn't a world of abuse, shame, degradation and pettiness.  People did their jobs.  The help was part of the family.  Just like Alice on the Brady Bunch. 

BTW, the Home Help Sanitation Initiative which was a major component of this film was completely fictional.  There's no indication anyone ever forced the help to have separate facilities or build separate facilities for them to use.  Utter bullshit.  The author of this load of excrement excuses her literary license by saying "it very well could have existed, but it didn't." 

I think I'm going to do a movie about the NAACP and have one of the characters describe the "Murder Honky Initiative" in detail.  It wasn't real, but it very well could have existed.   

Because the movie twisted historical fact I'm compelled to tell it to go fuck itself. 

Emma Stone is still pretty damn great.  Ugly as some think she is, she's good.

This is what is being taught though. I visited Gettysburg a couple of months ago and the general theme of the whole museum was complete shit.

(http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/auwilson22/Gettysburg.jpg)

Umm...what?

No mention of states rights anywhere in there? Really?

Every part of the museum talked about how southerners thought they were the superior race while the northerners just wanted everyone to be equal. Now I am not naive enough to know that some of this didn't exsist...but the whole war fought over it? Nope.

Quote
PERCENTAGE OF SOUTHERNERS WHO OWNED SLAVES IN 1860
25%  were  slaves owners -
of that 25%:
52% owned 1-5 slaves;
 
35% owned 6-9 slaves;
 
11% owned 20-99 slaves; and
 
1% owned 100 or more slaves

So, you are telling me that there were over 1,000,000 confederate soldiers, of which over 260,000 of them died, so a small fucking percentage of white dudes could keep their slaves? Nope.

But you won't see that fucking taught anywhere.

Again, I am not saying that slavery was right. It wasn't. But to teach that this was the fundamental reason for the war, which creates a fictional history like the one presented in this movie, is factually wrong.

I am going to stop now before I really get going...

This is a huge  :soap: for me...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 16, 2012, 12:26:32 PM
This is what is being taught though. I visited Gettysburg a couple of months ago and the general theme of the whole museum was complete shit.

(http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n20/auwilson22/Gettysburg.jpg)

Umm...what?

No mention of states rights anywhere in there? Really?

Every part of the museum talked about how southerners thought they were the superior race while the northerners just wanted everyone to be equal. Now I am not naive enough to know that some of this didn't exsist...but the whole war fought over it? Nope.

So, you are telling me that there were over 1,000,000 confederate soldiers, of which over 260,000 of them died, so a small fucking percentage of white dudes could keep their slaves? Nope.

But you won't see that fucking taught anywhere.

Again, I am not saying that slavery was right. It wasn't. But to teach that this was the fundamental reason for the war, which creates a fictional history like the one presented in this movie, is factually wrong.

I am going to stop now before I really get going...

This is a huge  :soap: for me...

Total agree. I get real riled up about portrayed Civil War history in the media as well. They always seem to mention nothing but the Confederate hicks who just wanted to own black people and wished for the demise of the country, but good old Abe - he saved us all and was able to put those rebel rousing, slave owning mutants in their place and save the whole darned country.... Just like the FDR/Great Depression propoganda.  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 16, 2012, 12:45:38 PM
Total agree. I get real riled up about portrayed Civil War history in the media as well. They always seem to mention nothing but the Confederate hicks who just wanted to own black people and wished for the demise of the country, but good old Abe - he saved us all and was able to put those rebel rousing, slave owning mutants in their place and save the whole darned country.... Just like the FDR/Great Depression propoganda.  :facepalm:
Don't you talk shit about Abe...he killed vampires mother fucker.

(http://www.thelmagazine.com/binary/328c/2012_abraham_lincoln_vampire_hunter_003.jpg)





:sarcasm:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on July 16, 2012, 12:49:01 PM
First off teachers need to teach the definition of a civil war. 

We were not in a civil war.  We did not want control of their government.  We wanted control of ours.

Big difference.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 16, 2012, 02:17:25 PM
First off teachers need to teach the definition of a civil war. 

We were not in a civil war.  We did not want control of their government.  We wanted control of ours.

Big difference.

Or to add to that, the fed gov't wanted too much to control us beyond their bounds. Tenth amendment bitches.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 16, 2012, 03:01:29 PM
Or to add to that, the fed gov't wanted too much to control us beyond their bounds. Tenth amendment bitches.

Say....

Maybe it's time for another uprising? 

(http://www.conservapedia.com/images/thumb/3/3c/ObamaCareSymbol.jpg/150px-ObamaCareSymbol.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on July 17, 2012, 12:12:53 AM
The Help

Yet another movie that portrays Southerners as uneducated rebels who cling to dying traditions in the face of the fabulous, urbane, witty New Yorkers. 

Yet another double helping of white southern guilt where the only characters with any virtue. morality or integrity are either black or Yankee-driven. 

Such utter bullshit.  Complete and utter fucking horse fucking manure. 

The film was done reasonably well and there may have been some truth to parts of it.  But things warn't like they was portrayed.  Still that's what my children and most other folks who didn't live in that time will consider to be the truth. 

When I was a little kid most of the families we knew had domestic help.  People were hired to cook, clean, and help out with the babies (most folks had large families if you remember.  Seven kids wasn't a rarity).  There were no doo-doo pies. Nobody was calling out lynch squads or accusing people of stealing just to set them up.  Can't speak for all, but most of the families I knew formed genuine bonds and relationships with the people who worked in our houses.  It wasn't a world of abuse, shame, degradation and pettiness.  People did their jobs.  The help was part of the family.  Just like Alice on the Brady Bunch. 

BTW, the Home Help Sanitation Initiative which was a major component of this film was completely fictional.  There's no indication anyone ever forced the help to have separate facilities or build separate facilities for them to use.  Utter bullshit.  The author of this load of excrement excuses her literary license by saying "it very well could have existed, but it didn't." 

I think I'm going to do a movie about the NAACP and have one of the characters describe the "Murder Honky Initiative" in detail.  It wasn't real, but it very well could have existed.   

Because the movie twisted historical fact I'm compelled to tell it to go fuck itself. 

Emma Stone is still pretty damn great.  Ugly as some think she is, she's good.

I kind of liked this movie until I read your critique.  Now I hate it.

Nice write up. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Aubie16 on July 17, 2012, 12:43:20 AM

Emma Stone is still pretty damn great.  Ugly as some think she is, she's good.

Who the hell thinks Emma Stone is ugly? Show yourselves.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Eagle!!! on July 17, 2012, 10:00:43 AM
Who the hell thinks Emma Stone is ugly? Show yourselves.

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m622solJ541qixct4o2_500.gif)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 17, 2012, 11:29:35 AM
I have never seen so many crazy lying motherfuckers. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 17, 2012, 01:42:35 PM
It isn't my hand that's rising.

(http://feetbanks.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/emma_stone_03.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 17, 2012, 02:01:28 PM
It isn't my hand that's rising.

(http://feetbanks.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/emma_stone_03.jpg)
Yeah for once, you are still crazy though.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 20, 2012, 04:59:03 AM
The Dark Knight Rises

Preface by saying Batman is far and away my favorite superhero.  It's not even close. 

Also preface by saying that while I enjoyed the 80s version with Keaton and Nicholson for what it was at the time I've grown to dislike that movie over the years and come to fairly loathe the silly ass sequels that followed. 

I greatly liked Batman Begins (with the exception of the affected voice Bale elected to use). 

I thought The Dark Knight was as good as a Batman movie could possibly be.  Heath Ledger's Joker was brilliant.  The only drawback was the colossal waste of the Harvey Dent character and the complete and utter ugliness of that Gylenhall cow.  Still, it was a fantastic movie. 

The Dark Knight Rises I saw at the midnight premiere tonight.  I can't say I was disappointed, but I left definitely less than awed. 

The movie will suffer badly in comparison to the far more entertaining Avengers film.  While I'm no Marvel fan and am a DC guy all the way you can't deny that Iron Man and The Avengers got the superhero movie right.  Both of those films had just the right mix of humor and action and didn't try to reflect some grand overarching message.  the message?  Rich folks are evil and got there on the backs of the poor.  Let's riot!

They really should have titled this thing Batman: Ode to the Occupiers!

Batman, particularly Rises, is dark, dingy, dirty, morose and brooding.  I wasn't impressed at all with the plot, got no spark whatsoever from Hathaway as Catwoman and was completely underwhelmed with the Bane character.  I also grew weary of Gordon.

Question: Does EVERYBODY in Gotham know Bruce Wayne is Batman? 

Like all third acts this movie preached too much, brooded too deeply, pondered its own navel for what seemed like hours on end and despite its ridiculously excessive three-hour run-time left plot holes the size of Canada and allowed multiple story threads to unravel.  It was far, far too long.  I think it would have been better had it wrapped up in 90-135 minutes instead of a full 180. 

For fans of the comic the "big surprises" will come as no surprise.  The end takes seemed rushed.  Not going to post any spoilers but some of the supposedly awesome finale had my audience groaning instead of cheering.

Finally, I wasn't really pleased with Batman's portrayal either.  Yeah, he has to fight people that's part of the schtick.  But Batman is always Ali.  He's got something up his sleeve, he's a showman, he has a trick or two that you don't expect.  This movie made him more of a brainless brawler brute.  More Frazier than Ali.  Batman can do more than just stalk around and punch the shit out of people. 

It's really not fair to compare this movie to its predecessors or to the Avengers, but you can't escape that.  As a stand-alone film it's pretty good.  Held in contrast to Avengers or The Dark Knight, it was flatter than a three-hour flitter.  Easily the worst of the three Nolan-helmed Batman films and with none of the self-mocking humor and awareness that made Avengers great. 


 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on July 20, 2012, 11:27:50 AM
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m622solJ541qixct4o2_500.gif)

+1
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 20, 2012, 11:59:09 AM
+1
Wait...you think this is ugly?

(http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/files/2011/07/Emma-Stone-smiles.jpg)

I don't even know you anymore. No wonder the bird looks so dead.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 21, 2012, 02:53:15 AM
Dark Knight Rising

Second. Viewing. 

Liked it the second time much better than the first. 

Saw my name spraypainted on a wall prior to the police/horde clash. Like this: KAO$. I like that. 

Still some misses, but much more satisfied with the overall result.  Except perhaps the cliched and cornball last five minutes. 

Theater was full.  Some parts got audible reactions (positive) but there was no clapping and cheering like there was for Avengers. 

Definitely watch it though. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on July 24, 2012, 05:42:37 PM
Dark Knight Rising

Second. Viewing. 

Liked it the second time much better than the first. 

Saw my name spraypainted on a wall prior to the police/horde clash. Like this: KAO$. I like that. 

Still some misses, but much more satisfied with the overall result.  Except perhaps the cliched and cornball last five minutes. 

Theater was full.  Some parts got audible reactions (positive) but there was no clapping and cheering like there was for Avengers. 

Definitely watch it though.

I didn't like it. 

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS


DON'T READ ANY MORE IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT. 





SPOILERS



WHY ARE YOU STILL READING?




Quote
Quote
Ok...the review:

It wasn't horrible.  It was pretty good.  However, after the first two, I expected much, much better.  Ending the trilogy should have been legendary.  Hell, everything Nolan has ever made - except Inception which was still a good movie - is in my top twenty of all time. 

But this?  This was a total let down.  I left the movie with so many questions - not about the plot because who could really care about it? - about bad lines, bad writing, and bad decisions. 

Here they are.  Answer if you can.  I may like it better:

1.  Who the fuck is Catwoman?  We know she's trying to get away from Bane for something.  Not sure what.  We know he wants to kill her.  But he never does, and if there's one thing it seems that Bane can do well, it's find and kill people. 

2. How does one survive a nuclear blast?  No suit of armor or aircraft or magic League of Shadows dust can save someone from a direct shot of a nuclear bomb.  So either the writing was terrible with the ending OR Batman got out. 

And if he got out, then that ruins everything the movie was building with Batman, Bruce, and his love for Gotham. 

The movie should have ended with his sacrifice.  But it didn't.  And since it didn't, that means Bruce ejected from the plane that was - as stated THREE times - erratic and unreliable with its autopilot.  So Bruce cared more about his life than Gotham because if the plane was on autopilot, he ran the risk of it still destroying Gotham, which was stated by Lucius Fox earlier in the movie. 

3.  Robin.  Are you fucking kidding me?  ROBIN?  Robin is one of the lamest characters of all time.  He should have been written out a long time ago, and I thought Nolan was finally doing the world a justice and deleting him from the lore.  But no.  He had to show up.  Except now he's not just Robin.  He's Batman Robin.  Even better.  Robin completely takes over Batman's role.  Thank God we won't see a fourth movie made with that homosexuality. 

4.  The plot twist.  (WARNING BIG SPOILER).  Talia.  Ok, isn't Talia supposed to love Bruce Wayne?  Like an unending, obsessive, everlasting love for Bruce and the type of love that pushes her to destroy shit just to be with him for eternity? 

Anyways, back to the movie.  You don't use the side character that seems to have very little to do with the overall plot.  That's not who you use for the plot twist.  I didn't give a shit about Miranda except that she had big boobs (and why did Bruce sleep with her?  What did that contribute to the movie?).  So when suddenly she's the main villain, I lost interest. 

Even though it would have been worse from a plot point of view, conventional writing would have had Catwoman be Talia.  That would at least explain her superhuman skills. 

5.  Alfred.  Where did Alfred go?  I thought they were setting up Alfred to die.  He was Bruce's new father.  That was a big part of the beginning.  But Alfred just disappeared.  Then came back to cry.  Then went to a restaurant to be happy.

6.  That's the biggest complaint of the movie.  The emotional rollercoaster - and not in a good way.  Nolan killed Batman.  But he didn't!  Bane is a maniacal, unstoppable killing machine who Batman must stop!  Nope!  Just a "protector" of Ghul's daughter (by the way, Ghul's immortal without a mention of the Lazarus Pit).  Alfred's super sad because he let Bruce Wayne down.  No, he's still alive and happy with Catwoman! 

7.  How the fuck did Bruce Wayne get back into Gotham?  He's stuck in a prison buried deep within some Arabian desert and gets out. Hurray!  My first question after this was, "Wow.  How's he going to get back into the city with the bridges out, the tunnels blocked, and the military guarding anyone from coming and going? 

Oh, welp, he got in just fine.  In fact, walked right up to where Catwoman was using an apple to whip two dude's asses. 

Now, before you think I absolutely hated it, I didn't.  I really didn't.  It was a good, exciting blockbuster superhero comic book movie.  But Nolan was supposed to do more than that.  This was ordinary.  Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were legendary.



















SPOILERS UP TOP.  DON'T RISK IT!  I even quoted it twice to make it more difficult to read. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Catphish Tilly on July 25, 2012, 11:06:04 AM
The movie should have ended with his sacrifice.  But it didn't.  And since it didn't, that means Bruce ejected from the plane that was - as stated THREE times - erratic and unreliable with its autopilot.  So Bruce cared more about his life than Gotham because if the plane was on autopilot, he ran the risk of it still destroying Gotham, which was stated by Lucius Fox earlier in the movie.

The autopilot was fixed with a software patch 6 months earlier.

Other than that, agreed on most points... plus a few other things.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 28, 2012, 12:02:20 AM
Magic Mike

Expected to hate it or be bored.  Didn't and wasn't. 

It tried to be deep but was actually pretty shallow.  I saw no weiners.  I saw Olivia Munn's unimpressive -- totally unimpressive -- titties. 

I also saw Matthew McBongohey do a gratuitous strip routine while a KISS song blared from the soundtrack.  Loved that part.  McBongohey oozed sleaze as only he can and helped elevate this film from total dreck.

It's not going to win any awards. The problem with the film was that it addressed a controversial topic but failed to take any risks.  It wasn't nearly as on the edge as I anticipated.   

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on July 28, 2012, 12:57:31 AM
The autopilot was fixed with a software patch 6 months earlier.


Someone told me about that yesterday, which actually made me a bit more angry.  If it was fixed, then the line delivery was quick and seemingly unimportant.  Also if it was fixed, then the two times they discussed the ineffectiveness of the autopilot served absolutely zero purpose. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on July 29, 2012, 10:57:12 AM
I also saw Matthew McBongohey do a gratuitous strip routine while a KISS song blared from the soundtrack.  Loved that part.

From the guy who called me gay for liking Ryan Gosling's movies.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 30, 2012, 09:17:48 AM
From the guy who called me gay for liking Ryan Gosling's movies.
:pwnd:

(http://files.myopera.com/drlaunch/blog/cat-pwned.png)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on July 30, 2012, 09:41:24 AM
Magic Mike

Expected to hate it or be bored.  Didn't and wasn't. 

It tried to be deep but was actually pretty shallow.  I saw no weiners.  I saw Olivia Munn's unimpressive -- totally unimpressive -- titties. 

I also saw Matthew McBongohey do a gratuitous strip routine while a KISS song blared from the soundtrack.  Loved that part.  McBongohey oozed sleaze as only he can and helped elevate this film from total dreck.

It's not going to win any awards. The problem with the film was that it addressed a controversial topic but failed to take any risks.  It wasn't nearly as on the edge as I anticipated.

Wife and I were on date night and this was the only movie not sold out that didn't start at midnight.  I went thinking it would pay off dividends later ;) .  The wife was dissapointed, she thought it was going to be some kind of romantic comedy WITH STRIPPERS! but it turned out to try to be "Boogie Nights" WITH STRIPPERS! and not very good acting, or writing, or dialogue.  But WITH STRIPPERS!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 30, 2012, 09:45:45 AM
Wife and I were on date night and this was the only movie not sold out that didn't start at midnight.  I went thinking it would pay off dividends later ;) .  The wife was dissapointed, she thought it was going to be some kind of romantic comedy WITH STRIPPERS! but it turned out to try to be "Boogie Nights" WITH STRIPPERS! and not very good acting, or writing, or dialogue.  But WITH STRIPPERS!

I think he meant it to be the Saturday Night Fever for this generation.  But it turned out to be more Showgirls than Jive Talkin' 

For Wes some clarification:   

Liking Ryan Gosling = Super homo

Appreciating the sleaziness of a Matthew McBongohey performance in a non romcom role with the backbeat of a song from the greatest American rock band of all time roaring from the speakers? =  American male nirvana
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on July 30, 2012, 09:46:44 AM
We laughed last weekend as we went into the movies.  I actually talked the wife into seeing Ted with me.
Never before in America have men lined up to see a movie about a teddy bear, while the women waited in droves to see a movie about strippers.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on July 30, 2012, 09:51:14 AM
We laughed last weekend as we went into the movies.  I actually talked the wife into seeing Ted with me.
Never before in America have men lined up to see a movie about a teddy bear, while the women waited in droves to see a movie about strippers.

While we were waiting for the movie to start  I counted all the guys in the room.  There were two, including myself.  What was really awkward was the other dude looked to be about 16 and was there with his girlfriend and what had to either be his or his girlfriend's mother.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 30, 2012, 09:55:56 AM
While we were waiting for the movie to start  I counted all the guys in the room.  There were two, including myself.  What was really awkward was the other dude looked to be about 16 and was there with his girlfriend and what had to either be his or his girlfriend's mother.

Only one other guy in the movie where I was.  Mid to late 50s.  Long hair.  Weighed about 320.  And was alone. 

There were two bridal parties with their tiaras and "Bitch getting married!" buttons and sashes.  Bride and bridesmaids.  Most drunk (or pretending to be so they could get loud).  At least one glittery pimp cup.

That was fun at least. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on July 30, 2012, 10:04:20 AM
At least one glittery pimp cup.

Congrats to Prowler!  I had no idea he was getting married.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 30, 2012, 10:09:26 AM
Congrats to Prowler!  I had no idea he was getting married.

I'd come closer to fucking Prowler than the gorilla bride with the pimp cup.  She had one or two bridesmaids that were just barely borderline decent.  And that was with the lights down. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 30, 2012, 10:15:59 AM
Liking Ryan Gosling = Super homo

Appreciating the sleaziness of a Matthew McBongohey performance in a non romcom role with the backbeat of a song from the greatest American rock band of all time roaring from the speakers? =  American male nirvana
(http://rlv.zcache.com/overruled_sticker-p217535071049965528z85xz_400.jpg)
The fact you saw this movie is evidence enough.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 30, 2012, 10:19:18 AM
(http://rlv.zcache.com/overruled_sticker-p217535071049965528z85xz_400.jpg)
The fact you saw this movie is evidence enough.

(http://www.nytorch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/veto.png)

I'll watch almost any movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 30, 2012, 10:36:01 AM
(http://www.nytorch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/veto.png)

I'll watch almost any movie.
You can't veto, sorry judgement has been made.  While Wes's statement for Gosling was ghey, your statement coupled with the watching of the movie was ghey-er.  Plus he nailed you on it.  Jury please strike the plaintiffs last comments from the record.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 30, 2012, 11:14:48 AM
You can't veto, sorry judgement has been made.  While Wes's statement for Gosling was ghey, your statement coupled with the watching of the movie was ghey-er.  Plus he nailed you on it.  Jury please strike the plaintiffs last comments from the record.

Your definition of nailage needs work. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 30, 2012, 11:19:00 AM
Your definition of nailage needs work.
as does your definition of pwnd.  It sucks, I know, deal with it and move on.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Shug Dye on July 30, 2012, 11:23:01 AM
as does your definition of pwnd. 

K, you need some money? Don't go to those Pwn shops, man...they will rip you off.
Unless you want to pwn some shit signed  by Michael Dyer.


I pwnd some stuff once....never did get it back.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 30, 2012, 11:35:00 AM
Seriously, though you are both ghey.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on July 30, 2012, 11:43:19 AM
Seriously, though you are both ghey.


So they will not be eating at Chick-Fil-A?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 30, 2012, 11:46:33 AM

So they will not be eating at Chick-Fil-A?

Not only will we be eating there, but I will be mouth kissing wes with greasy chicken lips in the aftermath of fried poultry goodness.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 30, 2012, 12:04:43 PM
Not only will we be eating there, but I will be mouth kissing wes with greasy chicken lips in the aftermath of fried poultry goodness.

hmm... I think I might go get me some today.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on July 30, 2012, 12:47:45 PM
hmm... I think I might go get me some today.

Two-timing whore!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on July 30, 2012, 01:39:26 PM
The Help

Yet another movie that portrays Southerners as uneducated rebels who cling to dying traditions in the face of the fabulous, urbane, witty New Yorkers. 

Yet another double helping of white southern guilt where the only characters with any virtue. morality or integrity are either black or Yankee-driven. 

Such utter bullshit.  Complete and utter fucking horse fucking manure. 

The film was done reasonably well and there may have been some truth to parts of it.  But things warn't like they was portrayed.  Still that's what my children and most other folks who didn't live in that time will consider to be the truth. 

When I was a little kid most of the families we knew had domestic help.  People were hired to cook, clean, and help out with the babies (most folks had large families if you remember.  Seven kids wasn't a rarity).  There were no doo-doo pies. Nobody was calling out lynch squads or accusing people of stealing just to set them up.  Can't speak for all, but most of the families I knew formed genuine bonds and relationships with the people who worked in our houses.  It wasn't a world of abuse, shame, degradation and pettiness.  People did their jobs.  The help was part of the family.  Just like Alice on the Brady Bunch. 

BTW, the Home Help Sanitation Initiative which was a major component of this film was completely fictional.  There's no indication anyone ever forced the help to have separate facilities or build separate facilities for them to use.  Utter bullshit.  The author of this load of excrement excuses her literary license by saying "it very well could have existed, but it didn't." 

I think I'm going to do a movie about the NAACP and have one of the characters describe the "Murder Honky Initiative" in detail.  It wasn't real, but it very well could have existed.   

Because the movie twisted historical fact I'm compelled to tell it to go fuck itself. 

Emma Stone is still pretty damn great.  Ugly as some think she is, she's good.

Agree with your take on the slant of the movie, as well as on Emma. 

My mom grew up in Jackson, MS, and this hit home hard with her.  I called her after I watched it, and she pretty much said the same thing you did about how over the top it was, and went on about how their "help" was part of the family, and treated very well.  The movie actually upset my mother. 

I know a lady whose father was a Vet. in south AL.  He owned many acres, and had lots of "help" most of which were descendants from "help" that his father had, and from the slave days before that...they just stayed on because they had work, shelter, and food.  They were treated well.  If they were sick, he paid the medical bills.  He sent a few of their children to college.  He even housed them.  When he died, he willed each of them the 10 acres of property they had been living on to be their own.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 08, 2012, 11:05:49 AM
Took Mini-Snags to see The Amazing Spiderman.  Andrew Garfield played Peter Parker and to me, is a much more believable PP than Toby McMuffin. Pretty entertaining movie but I hadn't paid attention to any of the trailers so I went in expecting to see a whole new story line.  It wasn't. It basically was the original Spiderman story that focused more on PP as a kid and losing his parents, how he became Spidey and a different twist on his love interest with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone)

The "Villian" is a badass lizard on a Barry Bonds-esque roid regimen.  Dennis Leary plays the police chief and Gwen Stacy's dad so there's some good scenes with him.  Overall, pretty entertaining flick.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on August 08, 2012, 12:02:33 PM
Took Mini-Snags to see The Amazing Spiderman.  Andrew Garfield played Peter Parker and to me, is a much more believable PP than Toby McMuffin. Pretty entertaining movie but I hadn't paid attention to any of the trailers so I went in expecting to see a whole new story line.  It wasn't. It basically was the original Spiderman story that focused more on PP as a kid and losing his parents, how he became Spidey and a different twist on his love interest with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone)

The "Villian" is a badass lizard on a Barry Bonds-esque roid regimen.  Dennis Leary plays the police chief and Gwen Stacy's dad so there's some good scenes with him.  Overall, pretty entertaining flick.

And Emma Stone is fucking hot.  Can't believe you left that part out, you homo.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 08, 2012, 12:08:59 PM
And Emma Stone is fucking hot.  Can't believe you left that part out, you homo.

Oh yeah, and Sally Field is fucking hot.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on August 08, 2012, 03:10:44 PM
Oh yeah, and Sally Field is fucking hot.

Later bandit.  And have fun tapping that hot hot Sally Field ass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 08, 2012, 03:20:44 PM
Later bandit.  And have fun tapping that hot hot Sally Field ass.

She was incredibly cute and fapable back in the day.  She played Aunt Mae in Spidey and yeah, I know she's old but dayum, she was fugly as sin.  They gave her the haven't washed or brushed my hair in 3 1/2 years look. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on August 08, 2012, 03:48:18 PM
She was incredibly cute and fapable back in the day.  She played Aunt Mae in Spidey and yeah, I know she's old but dayum, she was fugly as sin.  They gave her the haven't washed or brushed my hair in 3 1/2 years look.

She was hawwwt in Bandit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 10, 2012, 10:46:14 AM
Footloose -- original version

I somehow escaped the 80s without being forced to watch this movie.  I never saw the remake either. So until yesterday I managed to completely avoid the entire Footloose phenomena.  Not sure how that happened but considered myself fortunate. 

Until yesterday, that is.  My younger daughter wanted to watch the original so I agreed. 

Holy shit what an AWFUL fucking movie.  It was absolutely terrible in every respect.  How this clunky load of gerbil jizz could be considered a "classic" alongside such marvels as Fast Times, Ferris, Last American Virgin etc.

This was absolutely godawful. 

Lori Singer couldn't have possibly looked any more grotesque.  She looked like an anorexic gecko in high-waisted pants.  And she could not dance a lick. 

Kevin Bacon?  His "dancing" looked like a scarecrow hit with a taser while being simultaneously shaken by a crazed doberman.  It was laughable at best.   

After watching this is anyone really surprised Chris Penn is dead? 

The soundtrack was about as gay as I've ever heard.  Bacon is really going to get pumped up and flit around a warehouse place to Bonnie Tyler?  Really?  What a homo. 

Bacon is on the "gymnastics team" HAHAHAHAHAHA. 

This was without a doubt one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life.  It was a complete joke. 

Better movies of the era include the aforementioned Fast Times, Ferris, LAV, and others like Private School, Dirty Dancing, Flashdance, All the Right Moves and basically every other movie that came out in the entire decade.   

Holy balls this was terrible.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 10, 2012, 10:53:28 AM
I may not agree with some of your tastes in teh cinemas, but the reviews are priceless.

"Kevin Bacon?  His "dancing" looked like a scarecrow hit with a taser while being simultaneously shaken by a crazed doberman.  It was laughable at best." 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on August 10, 2012, 11:50:32 AM
  How this clunky load of gerbil jizz could be considered a "classic"

 :rofl: :rofl:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 11, 2012, 10:46:00 AM
Safe House

Denzel playing bad cool.  Ryan Reynolds playing doe-eyed do-gooder. Horse-face Farmiga playing a phone answering spy boss (she sucks). 

Not really okay with a movie that portrays a traitor to the country as the good guy and buries the evil CIA as the ultimate baddie. 

Just never got completely off the ground.  Wasn't a bad movie but just never soared like it could have with the cast it had in place.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 11, 2012, 10:55:55 AM
Detention
Perhaps the weirdest movie I've ever seen.

It was supposed to be a spoof I think, but it was so oddly done I'm not even sure about that.  It gave nods to movies like Freaky Friday, Breakfast Club and others.  Was billed as a horror movie, but there was no horror.  Just silly oddness.  A dude with fly blood. A bear from the future/past.

Maybe it was going for laughs.  It had to be.  In the end it was just a goofy immature mish mash of nothing that had no beginning, no end and no cohesive middle to tie it together.  It was like random scenes of weirdness.  And not weird weirdness, just blatantly goofy weirdness. 

And lots of vomiting.

Don't watch this movie. 

It did feature this chick who looks like a baby Angie Harmon if Angie ate a few sandwiches. There's a gratuitous shot at one point of one of her (very shapely) boobs but even that seemed forced and weird.

(http://www.horror-asylum.com/news/pics/shanley-caswell-to-star-in-detention.jpg)

But it also featured Dane Cook which is enough to put it on the trash heap. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 12, 2012, 12:19:39 PM
Machine Gun Preacher

Problem #1:  The Title.

I was expecting to see something like Hobo With a Shotgun.  Instead this was a four-hour commercial against Joseph Kony -- who I thought was an Internet meme. Oh, it only lasted two hours?  Seemed longer.

Problem #2: The Lead
The movie struggled with Gerard DePardieu -- pardon, Gerard Butler -- in the lead as his accent swirled back and forth and his eyeball popping rage face was difficult to watch.  He was good in 300 and in Phantom of the Opera, but has pretty much sucked baby-eating dingo ass in the few forgettable romantic comedies and other films he's been in. He wasn't abysmal here, but the movie would have benefited from a better lead.   

Problem #3: The Story
The movie meandered, left threads just hanging and had real difficulty justifying the motivations of the characters.  It also skipped ahead with little to no exposition.  It started in gripping fashion by showing the abduction of children and the atrocities they were forced to commit. But then it dawdled around with biker prisoner Butler, biker Butler, converted Butler, inspired Butler, etc. all the while never really establishing any real connection with the characters. 

He's an asshole. He's an addict. He kills a bum. Goes to church one time and is a preacher. What?

The film really struggled with story pacing.  In one WTF sequence,  his wife stencils the name of a business on his truck, the family walks down the road to a huge house that's theirs (this after living in a shithole of a trailer seconds before), then they're sitting at the dinner table and his daughter has aged six or seven years with no explanation.  Wife hasn't aged, he's still wearing the same fucking shirt, mom hasn't aged -- but the kid's grown up.  What?

And then there's his "transformation."  God loves everybody!   God wants wolves with ripping teeth, tearing at the evils of the world!  Be a wolf!  Fuck all of you sonsabitches! 

The guy's real story is probably a good one, but here it's really poorly told.  It never managed to build any connection with any of the characters and the ending was even more WTF.  It was like "oh, we're out of film so let's stop here and we'll stick some words up there that says what happened to everybody." 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 12, 2012, 12:21:54 PM
The Intruders

I keep waiting for Clive Owen to make a good movie. 

Still waiting. 

Really idiotic story that was supposed to be horror.  Hey! Grandpa's in the closet. 

Pfffttttttt.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 12, 2012, 12:30:11 PM
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

Tom Cruise looks old and greasy. 

Too much running and fist fighting.  Definitely too much of Cruise running.  There were what, five different scenes where he's running like hell and then punching somebody?  Or not dying when cars collide head on at 100 mph? 

Fucking ridiculous. 

The old Mission Impossible series was cool and suave.  They tricked people, bamboozled them and then smirked and laughed at the end.  The MI series with Cruise in the lead exchanges subtlety an subterfuge for neanderthal punching and the "serious Cruise face." 

Fuck that.

This just wasn't good.  Most of the action sequences were asinine and unbelievable. 

Don't like Cruise, didn't like this.  Hope they don't make any more.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 13, 2012, 09:41:53 AM
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

Tom Cruise looks old and greasy. 

Too much running and fist fighting.  Definitely too much of Cruise running.  There were what, five different scenes where he's running like hell and then punching somebody?  Or not dying when cars collide head on at 100 mph? 

Fucking ridiculous. 

The old Mission Impossible series was cool and suave.  They tricked people, bamboozled them and then smirked and laughed at the end.  The MI series with Cruise in the lead exchanges subtlety an subterfuge for neanderthal punching and the "serious Cruise face." 

Fuck that.

This just wasn't good.  Most of the action sequences were asinine and unbelievable. 

Don't like Cruise, didn't like this.  Hope they don't make any more.

Don't like Cruise either, and I don't know why they continue to make him run, he looks like a retard...check that I shouldn't insult the Rae-tards. 

I will say this, it was better then the last one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 13, 2012, 12:37:11 PM
Don't like Cruise either, and I don't know why they continue to make him run, he looks like a retard...check that I shouldn't insult the Rae-tards. 

I will say this, it was better then the last one.

Agree. 

But that's like saying "this dog turd tasted better with mustard." 

Still a dog turd. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 14, 2012, 01:22:30 AM
Real Steel

Take Rocky I.  Mix in some Rocky 4. Swirl it around for a bit.  Add a dash of Transformers.  Let it marinate. Stir in a healthy dose of Over the Top. 

Replace Stallone with Hugh Jackoff.

What you end up with is a completely unsatisfying meld of flavors that isn't nasty but doesn't bring much to the table.  Every move seemed choreographed and/or stolen from another film, right down to the Rocky 1/4 mashup ending.

The movie had heart.  The heart it flagrantly ripped from the chest of a series of Stallone movies. 

I give if an overall P for Plagarism.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 14, 2012, 11:57:39 AM
Real Steel

Take Rocky I.  Mix in some Rocky 4. Swirl it around for a bit.  Add a dash of Transformers.  Let it marinate. Stir in a healthy dose of Over the Top. 

Replace Stallone with Hugh Jackoff.

What you end up with is a completely unsatisfying meld of flavors that isn't nasty but doesn't bring much to the table.  Every move seemed choreographed and/or stolen from another film, right down to the Rocky 1/4 mashup ending.

The movie had heart.  The heart it flagrantly ripped from the chest of a series of Stallone movies. 

I give if an overall P for Plagarism.

You forgot Judge Dread.

I swear they used the same robot.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PD_786x0UiY/Tp6wN0eUIKI/AAAAAAAABd0/krWYZM2QVTg/s1600/ABC_Warrior_Robot.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 14, 2012, 12:11:00 PM
It doesn't take much to make me laugh when it comes to comedy.  The movies that don't even require you to bring your brain are normally the ones I like best.  Yesterday I was off and flipping through channels and see a movie is just starting...Tomcats.  Never heard of it but it's early and I'm bored. Jerry O'Connell, Jake Busey, Horatio Sanz and a few other Gawd-awful actors.  I tried....I really did.  But maybe 12 minutes in, I turned the channel.  Holy crap, who makes something that incredibly shitty and unleashes it on an unsuspecting public?  Somebody somewhere actually thought it was comedy.  It's not!!  It was shit.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 22, 2012, 09:32:08 AM
Green Lantern

Shitty CGI.

Tim Robbins can suck a dinosaur cock.  His politics make it hard for me to watch him in anything. 

Seen 15 minutes of this movie.  it's 14 too many.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 22, 2012, 09:36:55 AM
Green Lantern

Shitty CGI.

Tim Robbins can suck a dinosaur cock.  His politics make it hard for me to watch him in anything. 

Seen 15 minutes of this movie.  it's 14 too many.
This movie was horrible
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on August 22, 2012, 09:40:00 AM
Safe House

Denzel playing bad cool.  Ryan Reynolds playing doe-eyed do-gooder. Horse-face Farmiga playing a phone answering spy boss (she sucks). 

Not really okay with a movie that portrays a traitor to the country as the good guy and buries the evil CIA as the ultimate baddie. 

Just never got completely off the ground.  Wasn't a bad movie but just never soared like it could have with the cast it had in place.

Speaking of Denzel, did you ever see a movie he did back in 1999 called "Fallen"?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 22, 2012, 01:02:23 PM
Saw Fallen.  Don't remember much about it.

The Art of Getting By

Teen angst movie I'd never heard of.  Not played for laughs, but played for sappy emotional drama. 

Does have Emma Roberts who looks pretty good.  And some chick I'd never heard of named Elizabeth Reaser as a horny mom who also looked pretty good.  And it had Alicia Silverstone who somehow managed to look like a pasty haint. 

Predictable all the way through, stolen from every other overwrought Lifetime teen movie ever.  Nerds don't get the girl.  That's not the way it works. 

This movie was probably meant for Jesse Eisenberg and Ellen Page or Jennifer Lawrence but since they couldn't get them and also couldn't get Jay Baruchel, Michael Cera, Emma Stone, Emma Watson, Dakota Fanniing or Abby Breslin, they ended up with Emma Roberts (who really didn't look or act that badly) and this other nerdy douche with no chin and no life who crawled out of the chocolate factory.

Movie was savaged by critics and for good reason. 

Not sure why I watched this other than it was on and I was working. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on August 22, 2012, 01:06:05 PM
Saw Fallen.  Don't remember much about it.

Caught it on Netflix this past weekend.

He plays a detective who is chasing a criminal who is a moving target - as in, a demon who keeps possessing people and committing crimes. Has a pretty good twist at the end with Sympathy For the Devil as the closing song. I thought it was pretty decent but Rotten Tomatoes didnt.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 22, 2012, 01:16:26 PM
Caught it on Netflix this past weekend.

He plays a detective who is chasing a criminal who is a moving target - as in, a demon who keeps possessing people and committing crimes. Has a pretty good twist at the end with Sympathy For the Devil as the closing song. I thought it was pretty decent but Rotten Tomatoes didnt.
Kaos hates tomato ratings.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on August 22, 2012, 01:21:10 PM
Kaos hates tomato ratings.

Although I have seen him reference them when needed.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 22, 2012, 01:35:33 PM
Caught it on Netflix this past weekend.

He plays a detective who is chasing a criminal who is a moving target - as in, a demon who keeps possessing people and committing crimes. Has a pretty good twist at the end with Sympathy For the Devil as the closing song. I thought it was pretty decent but Rotten Tomatoes didnt.

If the devil thing is Lithgow, no I didn't like that movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on August 22, 2012, 02:22:58 PM
This movie was horrible

Yep, and it pisses me off that because of how shitty DC makes their movies (Recent Batman is the exception), we will never get a good Justice League movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on August 22, 2012, 02:41:28 PM
If the devil thing is Lithgow, no I didn't like that movie.

That sounds like Dexter.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Shug Dye on August 22, 2012, 02:58:55 PM
I just saw The Bourne Legacy.

I thought it was pretty good. Not as slick as the ones that have Damon in them, a little more raw. It took  me a little while to understand the timeline, but there were no slow parts and the action was pretty much non-stop.

It was fun. And worth my seven bucks since I haven't seen anything since Magic Mike.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 22, 2012, 07:56:16 PM
That Logan's Run Movie with Justin Timberlake

Too long. 

Already seen it when it was called Logan's Run and had Farrah in it.  Was cooler then.  Farrah was the tits. 

Justin isn't much of an actor. He's better in comedic roles where he makes fun of himself.

Amanda Seyfried is nice to look at.  So is Olivia Wilde.

Movie is half again too long.   Just didn't do much for me.  I kept leaving the room and coming back, surprised it was still on. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 23, 2012, 01:13:03 AM
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

Snoozer, Sleeper, Bored, And Die

Good lord what a dose of ambien.  Told a pretty good story but told it as if a turtle was doing the telling.  A slow turtle. The twists and turns of the story were shrouded in such mind numbing boredom I could give a shit who was spying on whom.

The vast majority of the movie consisted of Commissioner Gordon looking through his glasses with an owly smirk or the same Commissioner Gordon walking so slowly he looked like he was rehabbing a double hip replacement. 

Seemed like there were a lot of closeted homos in there too.  I took from the Iron Eyes Cody scene near the end that Colin Firth was a raging homo.  And big red was apparently a fudge packer as well.

I expected to like the movie because I assumed it would be an intelligent, well spun tale of espionage that rose a level or two above Die Hard.  I don't mind movies that make me think.  Wish this had been one.

It seems as if in getting to that supposed higher level every drop of fun, color, excitement and suspense was leached out of it. 

I've watched ants fuck and been more entertained.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Eagle!!! on August 23, 2012, 08:03:56 AM
I watched Bernie with Jack Black on a plane yesterday. Pleasantly surprised. I found myself laughing several times at some of the one liners in the movie. Jack Black, who usually gets on my nerves, played the part really well. I would recommend for anyone that grew up in the south, or specifically a small town in the south.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 23, 2012, 08:47:31 AM
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

Snoozer, Sleeper, Bored, And Die

Good lord what a dose of ambien.  Told a pretty good story but told it as if a turtle was doing the telling.  A slow turtle. The twists and turns of the story were shrouded in such mind numbing boredom I could give a shit who was spying on whom.

The vast majority of the movie consisted of Commissioner Gordon looking through his glasses with an owly smirk or the same Commissioner Gordon walking so slowly he looked like he was rehabbing a double hip replacement. 

Seemed like there were a lot of closeted homos in there too.  I took from the Iron Eyes Cody scene near the end that Colin Firth was a raging homo.  And big red was apparently a fudge packer as well.

I expected to like the movie because I assumed it would be an intelligent, well spun tale of espionage that rose a level or two above Die Hard.  I don't mind movies that make me think.  Wish this had been one.

It seems as if in getting to that supposed higher level every drop of fun, color, excitement and suspense was leached out of it. 

I've watched ants fuck and been more entertained.


I have yet to make it past 15 minutes of this movie.  I have tried 3 times.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 23, 2012, 09:37:51 AM

I have yet to make it past 15 minutes of this movie.  I have tried 3 times.

I powered through it on my fourth or fifth attempt.  I went to sleep the other times and had no idea what I'd watched or hadn't watched. 

The only reason I forced myself to complete it was because I was afraid I was too dumb to understand a highly intellectual movie. 

Amazingly I discovered today that this movie was nominated for several Oscars including one for Oldman. 

Apparently all you have to do to earn an Oscar nomination is walk slowly in a trenchcoat, peer through thick glasses and say almost nothing.   THAT was an Oscar-worthy performance? 

It won for screenplay.  This further entrenches Oscar as a stuffy fart.  BOOOOR-ing.
I was wrong.  I'm too shallow to enjoy a drab and dull affair. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 23, 2012, 09:43:16 AM
I powered through it on my fourth or fifth attempt.  I went to sleep the other times and had no idea what I'd watched or hadn't watched. 

The only reason I forced myself to complete it was because I was afraid I was too dumb to understand a highly intellectual movie. 

I was wrong.  I'm too shallow to enjoy a drab and dull affair.

It's a shame because the premise appeals to me, the trailers made it look good and Gary Oldman is one of my favorite actors.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on August 23, 2012, 09:45:13 AM

I have yet to make it past 15 minutes of this movie.  I have tried 3 times.

Ive done the same thing with Super 8. Big letdown.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 23, 2012, 09:48:40 AM
Ive done the same thing with Super 8. Big letdown.
no.interest.at.all
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on August 23, 2012, 09:57:44 AM
no.interest.at.all

Gave it a chance since it was Spielberg produced.

I shouldn't have. It's awful. Ive tried to watch it twice. Stopped it at 20 mins first time and 30 mins the second time.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on August 23, 2012, 06:09:15 PM
I watched Bernie with Jack Black on a plane yesterday. Pleasantly surprised. I found myself laughing several times at some of the one liners in the movie. Jack Black, who usually gets on my nerves, played the part really well. I would recommend for anyone that grew up in the south, or specifically a small town in the south.

cool.  but did you memorize any movie quotes.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 25, 2012, 09:27:58 AM
Silent House

I have a passion for horror. 

Stephen King is my favorite author. When I was growing up The Exorcist scared the roaring piss out of me. The Omen left me horrified for months. Friday the 13th, Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street all fascinated me (until the sequels got silly).  I even embraced the premise of Saw at first.

So I'm always in search of the next great horror film. 

This isn't it. 

Trite story, big surprise reveal telegraphed.  It was so obvious I said that there's no way the directors would stoop to that cliche.  They stooped. 

The big story here is that the non-twin Olsen chick carries the entire film.  It's her movie entirely.  Not sure what she did to earn that right other than be an Olsen with actual boobs but it's hers all the way.  Rest of the cast really doesn't exist except in the periphery.

Speaking of boobs, her ample cleavage (although slightly odd) deserves an acting credit of its own.  It was front and center bathed in light for the entire movie.  I hope her tits got their SAG card. They certainly deserved it. 

Her boobs were so omnipresent I found myself distracted, watching their performance for a large portion of the film.  They were never exposed and only rarely nipply but they were just so there it was hard not to consider them.

(http://thefilmnest.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/SilentHouse_thumb.jpg)

Other than the starring role of cleavage there's no reason for anyone to see this movie.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 25, 2012, 09:31:24 AM
Bernie

Watched it because somebody here recommended it. 

Wasn't bad, had its moments.  Having grown up in a small Alabama town I knew almost all of the documentary-style observers.  I've met each and every one of them even though I've never seen any of those people before.

It wasn't what i expected.  I guess (based on the trailers) I thought I'd get more of a comedy and less of a live-action documentary with a mildly amusing moment here and there along the way. 

Definitely not for everybody.  Very oddball true story.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 25, 2012, 10:05:42 AM
Hit and Run

The trailers lie. 

This isn't a dreadlocked Bradley Cooper criminal romp.  He's really a minor player who is in only about 1/3 of the film and even then seems to not quite embrace the fill criminality of his character.  He doesn't have as much fun as he should with it. 

No this wasn't Cooper being Cooper, this was the Dax Shepard Show from start to finish.  Shepard who isn't nearly as endearing or funny as he obviously thinks he is, wrote, directed, edited, sold, promoted and most likely catered the film.  It's all about Dax. 

The dialogue between him and his real-life girlfriend Kristen Bell (who's hot but always seemed a little off in the eyes, like she might be mildly retarded) is sort of cute, not what you'd call hilarious and takes up the majority of the movie.  The thing is their back and forth banter, while cutesy and meant to show just how connected scraggly nasty ass Dax and Bell are in real life I guess, would have been just as well delivered while sitting around a campfire, lounging on the couch or sitting under a tree.

First, nobody with any sense is buying Kristen as a brilliant expert with a doctorate in conflict resolution.  And Dax is so low key and flat he just drifts through the movie without ever giving his role any teeth.  He's a bowl of whiny oatmeal. 

Word is he tried to get this film made and released for years and was only allowed to do so because the distributors wanted to capitalize on what fleeting popularity Bell and Cooper currently have, not because the movie was any good.

Tom Arnold was in far too many scenes as a one-joke failed federal marshall. The gay cop had too many improbable scenes and really just how far does his jurisdiction extend?  Speaking of odd plot contrivances how long does it take to travel 500 miles in a 700 hp car?  Do you really need three days?  Does it require stops at shady roadside motels?  Can't you do a 500 mile haul in about six hours?

Bell isn't endearing enough to bear the weight of the movie on her tiny shoulders.  If Dax was a tenth as cool as he believes himself to be he'd be a cool motherfucker.  He's not.  Not at all. He's a scruffy ass low-talker who brings no depth or range to his character at all.  He should really never be around a movie set again in any capacity.  He definitely dragged this film down. 

I'm sure in his mind he thought he was creating a new Raising Arizona, a wildly fun road trip romp and a brilliant character study.  Too bad the concept didn't deliver -- mainly from the tepid casting and the stupid decision to have him and his gf take the main roles. 

All that in the books it wasn't bad, I didn't hate it and it had a few random moments which showed that it might have had the potential to be pretty funny in more capable hands.  The movie just sort of drifted along and then it ended.  It was the equivalent of a serving of tasteless cardboard.

Dax may be good in 30 second increments but he sucks at being the lead in a movie.  I think that's why the trailers lied.  Nobody but his mother and Bell would go the movie if they knew it was his to carry. I guess he's hoping people will go to see Cooper and Bell and be amazed at his awesomeness.  He's wrong. Dax just doesn't have it.

Expect this movie to tank quickly.  There were only 4 people in the room where I watched this movie.  Strangely enough the movie about the kid who is also a tree was nearly full.   I can't imagine anybody wanting to watch parents plant their children in a garden, but who knows. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on August 27, 2012, 10:08:49 AM
Hit and Run

The trailers lie. 

This isn't a dreadlocked Bradley Cooper criminal romp.  He's really a minor player who is in only about 1/3 of the film and even then seems to not quite embrace the fill criminality of his character.  He doesn't have as much fun as he should with it. 

No this wasn't Cooper being Cooper, this was the Dax Shepard Show from start to finish.  Shepard who isn't nearly as endearing or funny as he obviously thinks he is, wrote, directed, edited, sold, promoted and most likely catered the film.  It's all about Dax. 

The dialogue between him and his real-life girlfriend Kristen Bell (who's hot but always seemed a little off in the eyes, like she might be mildly retarded) is sort of cute, not what you'd call hilarious and takes up the majority of the movie.  The thing is their back and forth banter, while cutesy and meant to show just how connected scraggly nasty ass Dax and Bell are in real life I guess, would have been just as well delivered while sitting around a campfire, lounging on the couch or sitting under a tree.

First, nobody with any sense is buying Kristen as a brilliant expert with a doctorate in conflict resolution.  And Dax is so low key and flat he just drifts through the movie without ever giving his role any teeth.  He's a bowl of whiny oatmeal. 

Word is he tried to get this film made and released for years and was only allowed to do so because the distributors wanted to capitalize on what fleeting popularity Bell and Cooper currently have, not because the movie was any good.

Tom Arnold was in far too many scenes as a one-joke failed federal marshall. The gay cop had too many improbable scenes and really just how far does his jurisdiction extend?  Speaking of odd plot contrivances how long does it take to travel 500 miles in a 700 hp car?  Do you really need three days?  Does it require stops at shady roadside motels?  Can't you do a 500 mile haul in about six hours?

Bell isn't endearing enough to bear the weight of the movie on her tiny shoulders.  If Dax was a tenth as cool as he believes himself to be he'd be a cool motherfucker.  He's not.  Not at all. He's a scruffy ass low-talker who brings no depth or range to his character at all.  He should really never be around a movie set again in any capacity.  He definitely dragged this film down. 

I'm sure in his mind he thought he was creating a new Raising Arizona, a wildly fun road trip romp and a brilliant character study.  Too bad the concept didn't deliver -- mainly from the tepid casting and the stupid decision to have him and his gf take the main roles. 

All that in the books it wasn't bad, I didn't hate it and it had a few random moments which showed that it might have had the potential to be pretty funny in more capable hands.  The movie just sort of drifted along and then it ended.  It was the equivalent of a serving of tasteless cardboard.

Dax may be good in 30 second increments but he sucks at being the lead in a movie.  I think that's why the trailers lied.  Nobody but his mother and Bell would go the movie if they knew it was his to carry. I guess he's hoping people will go to see Cooper and Bell and be amazed at his awesomeness.  He's wrong. Dax just doesn't have it.

Expect this movie to tank quickly.  There were only 4 people in the room where I watched this movie.  Strangely enough the movie about the kid who is also a tree was nearly full.   I can't imagine anybody wanting to watch parents plant their children in a garden, but who knows.

Think about that for a minute. Teh wimmenz love Cooper. He sells tickets. That trailer was done like that on purpose.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 02, 2012, 06:38:36 PM
Tower Heist

Ben Stiller sucks. It's sad to see how far Eddie Murphy has fallen

This is a sad, only barely mildly amusing movie. 

The ending is stupid.  Boo.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 03, 2012, 01:41:10 AM
Lawless

Didn't move nearly as quickly as I hoped from the trailers. 

Lewis Stevens did a pretty decent job, but his accent wavered and was occasionally just plain damn terrible.  He couldn't keep it consistently which was a problem. 

Tom Hardy mumbled like a motherfucker and maybe it was supposed to convey that he was taciturn, but there were times it was just plain funny. 

Gary Oldman's role was inconsequential which was a real shame.

Guy Pearce's character was never fully fleshed out and his motivations were not always entirely clear. 

Several loose ends. 

All in all I liked the move, but I just kept waiting for it to catch a gear that it never quite caught.   Was a pretty good add on to Boardwalk Empire. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 03, 2012, 11:41:45 PM
God Bless America

You saw pretty much the entire movie in the trailer. 

Other than the predictable left-wing Hollywood bias, the lead character basically summed up my entire feeling about the world we live in.  He did the things I think about almost every single day.

If I knew there were no eternal retribution and I was 75% sure I could get away with it, I'd leave bodies stacked like cordwood in my wake.  I'd kill hundreds a day probably.  And I'd do it for pretty much the same reason Frank did. 

His rant at the beginning to a co-worker and his televised rant at the end could have been lifted directly from things i think and say.  I hate American Idol.  I loathe the pandering we do to the lowest common denominator.  I weep for a society that has created and embraced abominations like Paul Finebaum, Lex and Terry, Toddler Tiaras,  Jersey Shore, Jerry Springer and all the other reality TV series that choke the airwaves. If punishment weren't an option I'd kill them all.

I really do think about 3/4 of the population of this country is too dumb to live.  They're definitely too dumb to vote, too dumb to be heard, too dumb to breed.

The movie was sort of okay.  It wasn't nearly the revenge fantasy it could potentially have been.  The score was intriguing.  The girl who played Roxy brought a marvelous sense of deranged energy to the film.  She singlehandedly kept it from sinking.  She was great. 

Could have been better, could have been worse. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on September 04, 2012, 09:03:04 AM
God Bless America

You saw pretty much the entire movie in the trailer. 

Other than the predictable left-wing Hollywood bias, the lead character basically summed up my entire feeling about the world we live in.  He did the things I think about almost every single day.

If I knew there were no eternal retribution and I was 75% sure I could get away with it, I'd leave bodies stacked like cordwood in my wake.  I'd kill hundreds a day probably.  And I'd do it for pretty much the same reason Frank did. 

His rant at the beginning to a co-worker and his televised rant at the end could have been lifted directly from things i think and say.  I hate American Idol.  I loathe the pandering we do to the lowest common denominator.  I weep for a society that has created and embraced abominations like Paul Finebaum, Lex and Terry, Toddler Tiaras,  Jersey Shore, Jerry Springer and all the other reality TV series that choke the airwaves. If punishment weren't an option I'd kill them all.

I really do think about 3/4 of the population of this country is too dumb to live.  They're definitely too dumb to vote, too dumb to be heard, too dumb to breed.

The movie was sort of okay.  It wasn't nearly the revenge fantasy it could potentially have been.  The score was intriguing.  The girl who played Roxy brought a marvelous sense of deranged energy to the film.  She singlehandedly kept it from sinking.  She was great. 

Could have been better, could have been worse.

know who the director was?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 04, 2012, 10:53:56 AM
know who the director was?

Gkkkkkkkssssssshhhhhhhhh uhhhh ggggggNO. 

I heard it was some clown.

(http://www.filmfresh.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/MoviePoster/films/GOLD03.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 04, 2012, 12:51:13 PM
Bad Girls from Valley High

Ever wake up in the middle of the night and find something on the TV that wasn't what you were watching when you fell over? 

That brings me to Bad Girls from Valley High. 

Woke up sometime around 3 a.m. to find this 2005 gem just starting up on HBO.  Was intrigued because I love me some Julie Benz and she's the star of this film.  The fact that she was 33 trying to pass for 17 didn't bother me at all.  I love me some Julie Benz.   (Actually I just discovered she was only 28 as the movie was filmed in 2000 and languished for five years before being bounced to the DVD bargain bin).

But back to Julie. I'd marry her tomorrow.

(http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/julie-benz.jpg)

What intrigued me even more was the presence of Aaron Paul -- Jesse from Breaking Bad.  Here he played a super nebbish nerd.  And he overplayed it to the hilt.  He was really bad although I did get an unexpected laugh when he started a sentence with "Yo!"

(http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsP/52491-28162.gif)

I'll have to admit that I have no idea how this movie ended.  I might have watched 40 minutes or so before I fell back asleep.  But I saw enough. 

The story was a mish-mash of Heathers, Mean Girls and Jennifer's Body with a slap dash of half a dozen teen movies and/or teen movie parodies tossed in for good measure. 

It was dopey, it was vapid, it was tedious and it was moronic.  But watching Jesse act like Urkel and watching the woman who would be Rita (and how I miss her on Dexter) strut around in teenager's clothes provided its own cheap amusement. 

In one curious twist, the story featured a glum dude obsessing over his girlfriend's suicide (which was actually a murder).  The actor playing the sad-eyed boy was Jonathan Brandis (the kid from SeaQuest and the one who played a girl in Ladybugs).  The movie was filmed in 2000 and released in 2005.  In 2003 he hung himself to death.  So here he was in his last film role moping over a suicide and then he goes and offs himself before the movie gets released (if you count straight to DVD purgatory a release).  Weird.

Would I advise anyone in their right mind to watch it?  No, but it is worth maybe 15 minutes to see a little bit of Rita for Dexter fans or to catch Jesse the nerd for Breaking Bad fans at least.  HBO's got it two or three more times this month.  Set the DVR.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on September 06, 2012, 08:56:32 AM
Where are you on the Paranormal Activity flicks?


(http://img002.lazygirls.info/people/katie_featherston/katie_featherston_rack_ZLQyUiQ.sized.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 06, 2012, 09:28:22 AM
Where are you on the Paranormal Activity flicks?


(http://img002.lazygirls.info/people/katie_featherston/katie_featherston_rack_ZLQyUiQ.sized.jpg)

They are terrible. I'd like to see her naked
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on September 06, 2012, 12:23:41 PM
They are terrible. I'd like to see her naked

A reason to watch part 4?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 06, 2012, 04:18:03 PM
A reason to watch part 4?

There will be no nudity.  Won't watch.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 07, 2012, 07:53:50 PM
The Lucky One

My man card is attached.  Please let me know the length of my suspension. 

(http://rlv.zcache.co.uk/official_man_card_business_card-p240382442048889736b2dq9_400.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on September 07, 2012, 08:03:19 PM
Are you saying you enjoyed it? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 07, 2012, 08:13:19 PM
The Possession

The Exorcist Light.  The Jewish Exorcist.

Very light on actual scares, just missed the horror boat.  We've seen scary kids.  We've seen demonic possession.  We haven't seen Grant Show since Melrose Place went off the air and we haven't exactly missed him either.  He didn't age well and turned out to look more like Dave from News Radio than the studly Jake from Melrose.  Actually according to IDB he's been working steadily, just haven't paid much attention. 

The hook for Possession is that it is "based on a true story."  Well if all that shit DID happen in real life? This would be a messed up world. 

According to what I could find the people who actually owned this real-life box experienced some weird crap and smelled cat piss.  My suggestion is they let the damn cat out of the box but nobody listens to me.   

Back to the movie.  Kyra Sedgwick -- oh holy jeez what the fuck got a hold of your face?  She looks like leather hell in the face.  Her mouth is surgically fucked and the rest of her mug looked more like Vincent from the old Beauty and the Beast show than it did a human.  She looked like a hairless cat in a fright wig.  She was the real horror of this film.  She looked so shockingly bad I couldn't figure out why either guy would be interested in her mummified ass. 

The movie wasn't bad overall.  It was too slowly paced, it never achieved the level of fright it hoped to attain and it didn't fully flesh out the full on leap from "my daughter has issues" to "THERE'S A JEW DEMON IN THIS HERE BOX"  freakout the main guy underwent. 

The Jewish exorcist wasn't nearly as compelling as the catholic ones in Exorcist.  He actually looked pretty funny during the parts he was supposed to be demon-commanding.  He bobbed up and down like his ass hurt. 

Rent it.  Even though it's mildly kicking box office ass, wait for the rental.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 07, 2012, 08:14:03 PM
Are you saying you enjoyed it?

I watched it. 

Found it formulaic, trite and predictable. 

But I watched it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on September 07, 2012, 09:00:17 PM
I watched it. 

Found it formulaic, trite and predictable. 

But I watched it.

Did you beat off to it?








Do you have video of that?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on September 09, 2012, 10:18:57 PM
The Lucky One

My man card is attached.  Please let me know the length of my suspension. 

(http://rlv.zcache.co.uk/official_man_card_business_card-p240382442048889736b2dq9_400.jpg)

You have been on suspension since you paid to see Magic Mike, don't push your luck.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 17, 2012, 12:27:23 AM
Fright Night

Lukewarm remake of a movie I once thought was pretty good but later came to realize was cheesy camp. 

The original had Marcy from Married With Children at her 80s horny devil best -- and before we knew she was a lesbian.

(http://cbs1059sunnyfm.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/fn_amy2.jpg)

It also had Ceasar/Galen/Cornelius from Planet of the Apes as the vampire slayer.

The remake had Colin Ferrel acting weird and a vampire slayer in black underwear whose balls itched.

The original was cheesy classic. The remake forgettable. 

Watch the original. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 22, 2012, 07:40:03 AM
House at the End of the Street

Jennifer Lawrence was so amazingly good in Winter's Bone that any other performance I've seen of hers leaves me a little flat.  In this film her face is so chipmunkishly round and so numbingly plain I don't think she'll ever be able to have the range of expression to deliver on the promise she showed in Bone. Her face is actually a distraction to me it's so weird looking.

In House he's paired with Elisabeth Shue, who I've always wanted to have as my personal babysitter, in a semi-formulaic "family moves to creepy neighborhood and strange things ensue" allegedly horror/suspense film. 

Got one of the worst ratings of the year by Rotten Tomatoes, but that might be a little harsh.

The movie experience was marred by a bama assclown a row above who was trying (and failing) to prove just how clever and cool he was to his girlfriend by narrating the entire movie with such insightful comments as:

"Oh hell, this shit is ON now..."
"Dat dumb bitch gonna go in the house"
"Oh yeah, boyeeeee, he's fucked."

One or two would have been okay, but he kept it up from the first trailer to the last scene, stopping only when a theater employee would come and stand at the end of his aisle.  Ignorant motherfucker.

The movie wasn't really horror, wasn't truly suspense because it meandered too much, wasn't really a good family drama because it tossed out extraneous plot threads that went nowhere. Her dad was in a band?  Relevant to the story?  She joined a band?  Were any of the characters in that plot deviation relevant?  Apparently. No. Yes. No.

Wasn't a really a bad movie. Wasn't a good movie. It was just sort of "there."  By the time it got to the reveals, it had wandered around aimlessly for so long you'd lost the ability to care enough to be shocked/surprised or whatever.

There are worse ways to spend an hour and a half than looking at Shue and wondering if Lawrence will ever live up to her potential, though. 

(http://www.indiewire.com/static/dims4/INDIEWIRE/9f6882e/4102462740/thumbnail/485x341%3E/http://d1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net/d6/8ced40f2e811e1baf122000a1d0930/file/elisabethshue-jenniferlawrence-House-at-the-End-of-the-Street-1951628.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 22, 2012, 01:15:20 PM
VHS
Tried to capture the Blair Witch/The Ring/White Noise/Poltergeist vibe with a disjointed story about VHS tapes, zombies, bat chicks and who the fuck knows what else.

The shaky camera style deal was disorienting, you never got any sense at all who the main characters were or what they were doing, and the VHS vignettes were just plain weird.

I have no idea what happened, why it happened or what the ending was supposed to be. 

Whoever directed this shaky cut and jerk had no sense of continuity or story. 

Bad director.  Bad actors.  Bad.  (Of course critics seem to love this and hate House at the End so what do I know).
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 22, 2012, 01:16:56 PM
Chronicle

What would you do if you were Superman?  That's the question this teen angst movie tries to answer. 

The answer is apparently act like a spoiled brat and quite possibly be gay. 

Good idea but the execution faltered. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on September 22, 2012, 02:13:24 PM
Chronicle

What would you do if you were Superman?  That's the question this teen angst movie tries to answer. 

The answer is apparently act like a spoiled brat and quite possibly be gay. 

Good idea but the execution faltered.

Agreed on this one.

A lot of people liked it.  I think if you have experience in the high school classroom, you'll despise having to watch those three typical high school douchebags giggle for two hours. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 23, 2012, 02:13:05 AM
Snow White and the Huntsman

Kristen Stewart is the worst actress on the planet today.  She's worse than the aborted fetus of Paris Hilton and Tom Green.

Here there-and-gone accent was pathetic.  Her constantly vapid expression, her schlumpy carriage and her ugly fish mouth were completely annoying. 

Charlize Theron struggled with maintaining an accent, too.  She was pretty bad here. 

This was a brainless, dickless, tub of monkey shit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on October 08, 2012, 09:59:57 PM
K, favorite Stephen King adapted movie?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 08, 2012, 11:09:54 PM
K, favorite Stephen King adapted movie?

Probably The Green Mile. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on October 09, 2012, 03:57:26 PM
Probably The Green Mile.

C'mon, you know it is really Maximum Overdrive.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on October 09, 2012, 04:53:30 PM
Probably The Green Mile.

That and Shawshank.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 13, 2012, 01:10:55 AM
Didn't care that much for Shawshank.  Know that makes me the minority, but I'll just get more money from the gubment so that's okay.

Argo

Very good story, timely considering the state of the Middle East and well played by everyone involved.  it moved a bit slowly in places but overall it was intriguing and maintained your interest even if you knew the eventual outcome.

Complaints?  It had to skew toward the "US is the bad guy" in its simplistic opening explanation.  It could and should have depicted Ayatollah as the raving lunatic he was, but it glossed over that in a broader effort to portray the Shah as an Americanized Marie Antionette.  Not big on revisionist history and there was some there. 

While skewing it also tried to help Jimmah Carter redeem his pussified legacy by trying to glom some of the credit.  His weak-ass pandering is what got us in the situation in the first place.  People -- like my kids -- who weren't around for his pansy administration won't recognize that it was the perceived strength of Ronald Reagan which led to the release of the hostages.  In Carter's post-script voice-over he tries to steal the credit when he says "we got the hostages home..." and then brays some fairy-whore glitter about maintaining the integrity of the US.  What's sad is that measly, weasly fuck actually thinks he was a great statesman and president.  (Just like the current jug-eared fop.)

Still a good movie.  Worth watching.   

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 18, 2012, 05:51:21 PM
The Grey

Sometimes the setting is a character of its own. That's never more apparent than in Liam Neeson's The Grey. 

The harsh and unforgiving arctic wilderness plays as much a role in this film as do any of the characters, human or lupine. 

The movie is so beautifully shot that it makes you feel the cold and the pain of trying to survive in that frigid nightmare even before it becomes apparent that you've got to also deal with a stalking pack of wolves. 

Good movie. Could feel the pain in your own bones.  After watching it, was surprised to walk out into the bugs and steam of an October day in South Alabama. Expected to be cold.

Neeson is perfectly at home in this role, completely believable as the hard-edged old bastard who would wind up as the defacto leader of a bunch of jackholes trying to live another day. 

Could have done without a few of the flashback scenes and didn't really see the need for his moment of weakness to be exposed. 

And I've got to say that the ending left me just a bit displeased.  But any ending would probably have left holes.  I mean there's only two ways it can go, right?  Wolves/environment gets him or he understands the meaning of life and gets the triumphal close.  One or the other. And either (won't tell you which it was) sucks in its own way.

One last criticism?  Director must be an atheist.  One completely out of character moment of screaming at God and demanding a miracle was taken as proof that none exists.  Pffffttttt.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on October 18, 2012, 06:01:45 PM
The Grey

Sometimes the setting is a character of its own. That's never more apparent than in Liam Neeson's The Grey. 

The harsh and unforgiving arctic wilderness plays as much a role in this film as do any of the characters, human or lupine. 

The movie is so beautifully shot that it makes you feel the cold and the pain of trying to survive in that frigid nightmare even before it becomes apparent that you've got to also deal with a stalking pack of wolves. 

Good movie. Could feel the pain in your own bones.  After watching it, was surprised to walk out into the bugs and steam of an October day in South Alabama. Expected to be cold.

Neeson is perfectly at home in this role, completely believable as the hard-edged old bastard who would wind up as the defacto leader of a bunch of jackholes trying to live another day. 

Could have done without a few of the flashback scenes and didn't really see the need for his moment of weakness to be exposed. 

And I've got to say that the ending left me just a bit displeased.  But any ending would probably have left holes.  I mean there's only two ways it can go, right?  Wolves/environment gets him or he understands the meaning of life and gets the triumphal close.  One or the other. And either (won't tell you which it was) sucks in its own way.

One last criticism?  Director must be an atheist.  One completely out of character moment of screaming at God and demanding a miracle was taken as proof that none exists.  Pffffttttt.
Big fan of Liam Neeson, I thought it was a decent flick.  I was a little pissed that he couldn't help that dude get his foot out of the rocks. Thought that was a little weak.  Wasn't crazy about the ending either, but like you said...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on October 18, 2012, 08:58:25 PM
frankenweenie

a must see. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on October 19, 2012, 07:35:13 AM
frankenweenie

a must see.

Wrong.


My weenie is a must see.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on October 19, 2012, 09:14:11 AM
Wrong.


My weenie is a must see.

Helicopter Style!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on October 19, 2012, 09:25:46 AM
Helicopter Style!

The one handed clap.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on October 22, 2012, 06:37:39 PM
Saw Killer Joe.

Two words: fucked up
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 23, 2012, 12:02:24 AM
Big fan of Liam Neeson, I thought it was a decent flick.  I was a little pissed that he couldn't help that dude get his foot out of the rocks. Thought that was a little weak.  Wasn't crazy about the ending either, but like you said...

Upon both of your reviews I caught this one Friday night on teh Netflix. Pretty decent.

Why was there no help dispatched to the crash when the plane went down? Every time a plane flies it is tracked. If it fell off radar, someone at a flight control tower knows.  Just seemed like a big plot hole to me. But Neeson plays quite the badass. That terrain was rough.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 04, 2012, 05:44:19 PM
The Campaign

Dog shit.  From a diseased dog. With a bleeding asshole. 

One of the most offensive, ignorant worthless loads of canine turds I've ever wasted time on.

This is the LAST Will Ferrell movie I will ever watch.  Fuck him. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 07, 2012, 09:35:39 AM
21 Jump Street

Liked it a lot more than I thought I would.  Not exactly funny but at least clever enough to rise above what it could have been.  Knew when to make fun of itself, which was good.

Better than the idiotic Starsky and Hutch spoof with Ben Stiller. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on November 07, 2012, 09:49:46 AM
21 Jump Street

Liked it a lot more than I thought I would.  Not exactly funny but at least clever enough to rise above what it could have been.  Knew when to make fun of itself, which was good.

Better than the idiotic Starsky and Hutch spoof with Ben Stiller.

Had to like the undercover DEA agents at the end.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 15, 2012, 12:09:30 AM
Gone

Amanda Seyfried.

Tried to confuse you here and there with red herrings. 

Stupid ending and wooden acting doomed this one. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 21, 2012, 07:39:16 PM
Skyfall

Good movie. Not what I'd call a Bond movie. More Bourne than Bond.

Some nice nods to the past which is actually the future. 

Worth seeing. But I do have a parentage question.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on November 27, 2012, 10:40:18 AM
Skyfall

Good movie. Not what I'd call a Bond movie. More Bourne than Bond.

See and I thought the opposite.  I thought Quantum of Solace was way more Bourne then Bond.  To much action no story.  This to me was more of a traditional Bond story with action mixed in.  The old Bonds were more story and character driven then they were action films.  Pierce Brosnan fucked up the franchise IMO, not him necessarily but the writers during his tenure.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 27, 2012, 10:54:08 AM
Saw Red Dawn over the holidays.  Pretty decent action flick and stayed somewhat believable.  Chris Hemsworth played the Marine who was on leave from the Middle East when the city was invaded, this time by Koreans, with Russian help.  Wasn't real enthused about about seeing Josh Peck, the fat ass kid from Drake and Josh, as one of the stars, but I thought he did a good job.  Not a chubbo anymore and he played the high school QB and Hemsworth's brother.  The movie had a lot of funny parts thrown in when what's left of them, hooks up with some ex-Marines and they kick some Korean/Russina ass. Not a bad remake IMO.

Wolverines.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on November 27, 2012, 11:15:20 AM
Saw Red Dawn over the holidays.  Pretty decent action flick and stayed somewhat believable.  Chris Hemsworth played the Marine who was on leave from the Middle East when the city was invaded, this time by Koreans, with Russian help.  Wasn't real enthused about about seeing Josh Peck, the fat ass kid from Drake and Josh, as one of the stars, but I thought he did a good job.  Not a chubbo anymore and he played the high school QB and Hemsworth's brother.  The movie had a lot of funny parts thrown in when what's left of them, hooks up with some ex-Marines and they kick some Korean/Russina ass. Not a bad remake IMO.

Wolverines.

Not one mention of Adrianne Palicki?  You know how I know you're gay?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on November 27, 2012, 11:17:57 AM
Not one mention of Adrianne Palicki?  You know how I know you're gay?
Cause he has a bumper sticker that reads "I like it when balls hit me in the face"?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 27, 2012, 11:25:11 AM
Not one mention of Adrianne Palicki?  You know how I know you're gay?

Oh yeah, and there was that.  This is not really a spoiler alert.  They just didn't develop that like they should have.  Looked like all through the flick like her and Hemsworth would do the sweaty nasty but every time you thought they would....the enemy attacks.  She never got close to nekkid. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on November 27, 2012, 11:30:37 AM
Oh yeah, and there was that.  This is not really a spoiler alert.  They just didn't develop that like they should have.  Looked like all through the flick like her and Hemsworth would do the sweaty nasty but every time you thought they would....the enemy attacks.  She never got close to nekkid.

(http://www.hollywoodfamousfark.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/e320adrianne-palicki-maxim-0523-500x318.jpg)
(http://www.magxone.com/uploads/2012/05/Adrianne-Palicki-Maxim-US-5.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 27, 2012, 11:34:55 AM
(http://www.hollywoodfamousfark.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/e320adrianne-palicki-maxim-0523-500x318.jpg)
(http://www.magxone.com/uploads/2012/05/Adrianne-Palicki-Maxim-US-5.jpg)

See....THIS^^^ was not a part of the movie.  That's why it only got two enthusiastic thumbs up.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 30, 2012, 09:32:32 AM
See and I thought the opposite.  I thought Quantum of Solace was way more Bourne then Bond.  To much action no story.  This to me was more of a traditional Bond story with action mixed in.  The old Bonds were more story and character driven then they were action films.  Pierce Brosnan fucked up the franchise IMO, not him necessarily but the writers during his tenure.

I didn't watch Squanto's Solace so I didn't have that comparison. 

Didn't care about the story that much in this one. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on December 11, 2012, 11:52:14 AM
No Silent Night, Deadly Night review?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 14, 2012, 08:37:46 AM
Moneyball

Ok, so I know it was mostly BS.  But the movie was pretty good.  I hate Jonah Hill but could almost tolerate his stupid mug here because he wasn't playing an adolescent assclown. 

Enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would.  Even though it was mostly BS.

Watched this last night, and I agree.  I abhor the sport of baseball and really expected to hate the movie, but I was intrigued to hear the financial strategy that is the namesake.

I could have used about 20 minutes fewer "real" baseball montage, but other than that a solid movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on January 03, 2013, 02:08:01 PM
Saw "The Hobbit", it was good.  Really good in IMAX 3D.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 04, 2013, 10:12:30 AM
Saw "The Hobbit", it was good.  Really good in IMAX 3D.

Came real close to when I was down at Pier Park (PCB) right before Christmas and did not. It was the only movie playing in IMAX 3D at the time.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on January 04, 2013, 11:44:33 AM
Came real close to when I was down at Pier Park (PCB) right before Christmas and did not. It was the only movie playing in IMAX 3D at the time.

I usually find 3D movies distracting.  They remind me of the 3D in my Viewfinder back when I was a kid.  But this was really smooth and added to the film.

Remember those?

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mem3y1TYrZ1rhhsdwo1_400.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on January 04, 2013, 11:55:05 AM
Saw "The Hobbit", it was good.  Really good in IMAX 3D.

The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and Dune are the only books I've read more than once (and I've read those books multiple times).

I was somewhat disappointed in the Hobbit.  Few of the things that they added, that were different from the book, just bothered me a bit.

I wonder if they added some stuff they were saving for the special edition, to make the film longer since they decided to make it a trilogy, was part of what I disliked.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on January 04, 2013, 12:41:31 PM
The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and Dune are the only books I've read more than once (and I've read those books multiple times).

I was somewhat disappointed in the Hobbit.  Few of the things that they added, that were different from the book, just bothered me a bit.

I wonder if they added some stuff they were saving for the special edition, to make the film longer since they decided to make it a trilogy, was part of what I disliked.

I think they added it in to tie more directly to the Lord of the Rings for the people that haven't read the books.  Plus with what they had to cut out of LOTR (Glorfindel, Bombadil, etc) to fit it into three movies they decided to nut cut anything from Hobbit and that necessitated going to three movies.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on January 04, 2013, 01:54:29 PM
I think they added it in to tie more directly to the Lord of the Rings for the people that haven't read the books.  Plus with what they had to cut out of LOTR (Glorfindel, Bombadil, etc) to fit it into three movies they decided to nut cut anything from Hobbit and that necessitated going to three movies.

I heard that Jackson is going to use The Hobbit as more of a prequel to LOTR than just an adventure story. 

1st and 2nd movies will be from Bags End to Smaug.  3rd movie from Five Armies to stories from the appendices that explain how Sauron came back to power.

I know he already used some appendix stuff in the first movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on January 04, 2013, 01:59:10 PM
I heard that Jackson is going to use The Hobbit as more of a prequel to LOTR than just an adventure story. 

1st and 2nd movies will be from Bags End to Smaug.  3rd movie from Five Armies to stories from the appendices that explain how Sauron came back to power.

I know he already used some appendix stuff in the first movie.

Yeah, Azog the white goblin was only really talked about in the LOTR appendices and so far he has been the main antagonist.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on January 04, 2013, 02:32:16 PM
Yeah, Azog the white goblin was only really talked about in the LOTR appendices and so far he has been the main antagonist.

Right and I'm pretty sure he died in that old dwarf battle.  But Jackson needed a main villain to ride with orcs and wargs that the group encounters.  I'm cool with that change. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on January 05, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
Right and I'm pretty sure he died in that old dwarf battle.  But Jackson needed a main villain to ride with orcs and wargs that the group encounters.  I'm cool with that change.

Yeah, I get what he did there, since the first third of this trilogy doesn't really have an antagonist, he created one.  And you are correct about Azog dying in the Dwarf battle in Moria.  I don't have a big issue with that, either.  I expect Azog to be leading the goblin army in the Battle of 5 armies, and Thorin will kill him then.

My issues with what he changed were more Bilbo related.  Bilbo figuring out that if he could get the Trolls distracted, they'd turn to stone in the sun.  Bilbo jumping in front of an Orc who was about to kill Thorin.

Maybe it will make sense in the 2nd movie?  Thorin respects Bilbo now, as opposed to respecting him after Bilbo frees them from the Spiders and the Elves?

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on January 05, 2013, 11:45:10 AM
Yeah, I get what he did there, since the first third of this trilogy doesn't really have an antagonist, he created one.  And you are correct about Azog dying in the Dwarf battle in Moria.  I don't have a big issue with that, either.  I expect Azog to be leading the goblin army in the Battle of 5 armies, and Thorin will kill him then.

My issues with what he changed were more Bilbo related.  Bilbo figuring out that if he could get the Trolls distracted, they'd turn to stone in the sun.  Bilbo jumping in front of an Orc who was about to kill Thorin.

Maybe it will make sense in the 2nd movie?  Thorin respects Bilbo now, as opposed to respecting him after Bilbo frees them from the Spiders and the Elves?

Might be setting up a "maybe I was wrong about Bilbo" part of the second movie. 

Who knows.  I loved all three LOTR movies and I loved the first Hobbit.  I'm sure Jackson will do it right. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on January 10, 2013, 10:15:03 AM
Ted

Replace fat Peter Griffen with slob Mark Wahlberg and Brian the dog with a talking stuffed bear, remove all censors and modicum of humor about a 5th grade level and you have this trumped up bunch of hot air.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on January 10, 2013, 10:22:09 AM
Have any of you seen Zero Dark Thirty?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on January 16, 2013, 07:38:12 AM
Have any of you seen Zero Dark Thirty?

Yes.  I thought it was pretty fucking good.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 16, 2013, 08:58:18 AM
Yes.  I thought it was pretty fucking good.

thirded
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 31, 2013, 01:14:13 PM
Post-Holiday/Flu recap:

Ted: Fucking lame.  I love Wahlberg and most of McFarlane's stuff, but this was just bad.  Never once uttered an honest laugh.  Even tried it high...nothing.

Looper: Really liked this one.  Leavitt is getting better and better (though the makeup was distracting at times) and this was an interesting take on the paradoxes of time travel.  Bonus points for the creepy mutilation of the first Loop.

The Hobbit: So good.  Despite the liberties taken with the book, this was a strong entry made so much better with Martin Freeman rather than that weepy fuck Elijah Wood.

Django Unchained: Loved it.  Ran a bit long, but otherwise very strong work from QT (who got crazy fat all of the sudden).  Christoph Waltz is a brilliant actor and should be a much bigger star.  Part camp, part blood fest, part social commentary...the only thing that I could have done without was the full shot of Django's Djunk.

Killing Them Softly: Odd movie that was just not well done.  I like the premise and most of the cast, but the story went nowhere and ended abruptly.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tarheel on January 31, 2013, 01:28:44 PM
Have any of you seen Zero Dark Thirty?

I haven't actually been to the movies in ages but I went to see that one recently; it was phenomenal.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tarheel on January 31, 2013, 01:32:29 PM
Post-Holiday/Flu recap:

Ted: Fucking lame.  I love Wahlberg and most of McFarlane's stuff, but this was just bad.  Never once uttered an honest laugh.  Even tried it high...nothing.

Looper: Really liked this one.  Leavitt is getting better and better (though the makeup was distracting at times) and this was an interesting take on the paradoxes of time travel.  Bonus points for the creepy mutilation of the first Loop.

The Hobbit: So good.  Despite the liberties taken with the book, this was a strong entry made so much better with Martin Freeman rather than that weepy fuck Elijah Wood.

Django Unchained: Loved it.  Ran a bit long, but otherwise very strong work from QT (who got crazy fat all of the sudden).  Christoph Waltz is a brilliant actor and should be a much bigger star.  Part camp, part blood fest, part social commentary...the only thing that I could have done without was the full shot of Django's Djunk.

Killing Them Softly: Odd movie that was just not well done.  I like the premise and most of the cast, but the story went nowhere and ended abruptly.

That's the third positive, personal review I've read in as many days; I've had some concerns about the artistic deviations from the book.  Well, I might have to go and spend a few shekels and see this one after all.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on January 31, 2013, 01:36:10 PM
I already know the movie without seeing it. 

They are gonna walk everywhere.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on February 01, 2013, 10:39:11 AM
That's the third positive, personal review I've read in as many days; I've had some concerns about the artistic deviations from the book.  Well, I might have to go and spend a few shekels and see this one after all.

If it makes sense the deviations were not done in such a way as to disrupt or take away from the main plot of the book, just mostly done for character development.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on February 05, 2013, 07:52:15 AM
I already know the movie without seeing it. 

They are gonna walk everywhere.

At least the trees don't in this one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 05, 2013, 04:07:38 PM
I already know the movie without seeing it. 

They are gonna walk everywhere.
(http://www.tigersx.com/images/fuckin_a.jpg)

Fuckin A
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on February 05, 2013, 04:13:08 PM
I haven't actually been to the movies in ages but I went to see that one recently; it was phenomenal.

The overall movie yes was good, some of the military scenes were bogus to downright wrong.


If you have one in your area I highly suggest watching movies at " The studio movie grill" easy chairs and waiters that bring you beer. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on February 06, 2013, 03:10:29 PM
(http://www.tigersx.com/images/fuckin_a.jpg)

Fuckin A

 :thumsup:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on February 06, 2013, 03:24:23 PM
The overall movie yes was good, some of the military scenes were bogus to downright wrong.

I was actually shocked that they showed the SEALs doubletapping the already dead bodies.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 06, 2013, 04:08:47 PM
I was actually shocked that they showed the SEALs doubletapping the already dead bodies.

Spare no one. (Old...but one of my favs)

http://youtu.be/Ja-kHvb-c4A
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on February 06, 2013, 04:11:56 PM
I was actually shocked that they showed the SEALs doubletapping the already dead bodies.

That and unless I missed a part it look like the guys were just sitting around and she walked up and said Hey who wants to go kill Osama tonight????  Yawl busy?????

I thought entry into the choppers was funny. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on February 06, 2013, 04:27:36 PM
That and unless I missed a part it look like the guys were just sitting around and she walked up and said Hey who wants to go kill Osama tonight????  Yawl busy?????

I thought entry into the choppers was funny.

Movie doesn't cover the training the SEALs did to prepare for it.  In the book, No Easy Day, the author says that the CIA build an exact replica of the compound somewhere in North Carolina, and they practiced a lot.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 22, 2013, 03:24:31 PM
Zero Dull Thirty

Could tell that load of garbage was directed by a woman with ties to Hollywood. 

Forget the training and work those dumb ol' country fat Seals put into preparing and risking their lives for. 

Let's make the US look just as bad as the terrorists because we torture folks and just straight out shoot defenseless women in the floor. 

Let's worry about how little Maya dates.  Or whether she's going to doink somebody in the office.  Let's make sure she's the only person in the world who figures anything out. Because the men are so dumb. 

I hated this movie. 

Well, first I was bored for about 122 of the 160 minute run-time.   The other 38 minutes I was pissed at the portrayal of the US as being on par with the terrorists in our methods, offended at the portrayal of the Seals as hillbilly doofuses just shooting folks for fun, and wondering what was going on because it was so dark. 

If somebody wants to do a REAL movie about this situation, it would be about 65 minutes of Navy prep, training and execution of the mission, 15 minutes about Maya's evidence trail and 10 minutes of what happened after the dude was dead.  World reaction, where is the body, etc. 

BOOOOO to this ridiculous chick flick. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 26, 2013, 12:15:43 AM
Burt Wonderstone

Steve Carrell should have stayed in Scranton. 

Absurd, awful movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 03, 2013, 10:45:06 AM
Iron Man 3

Sort of like Pirates of the Caribbean 3 and how Captain Jack had almost become a parody of himself, RDJ's Tony Stark drifted into parody area IMO.  The stressors/panic attacks/freakouts seemed contrived too.  Didn't see the need for that aspect of the thing at all.

Yeah, I know Jon Favreaeu directed the first two, but that dude needs a diet.  Badly.  He added nothing to the film and could have been cut out completely and it would have been better.

And really just too much Pepper. Don't like her character all that much and am not a fan of Gwyneth so I grew tired of her under/over/vapidly acting. 

All that in the books, though, it's like somebody handing you a solid gold BMW and you decide to complain about the gas mileage.

Good popcorn, blow things up and let the good guys win in the end type film. 

Have heard it hailed as "better than Avengers" but I must disagree.  It was good, but not that good.  Better than Thor, better than CA, better than Hulk, better than Iron Man 2 even. Didn't top the first Iron Man in my book.

There's at least one surprise that you won't see coming unless somebody tells you, but I don't think they got the mileage out of that they could have, nor was the reveal particularly eventful. Would have liked to see the big plot turn played out in a different way. 

Still... Laughed some, paid attention and the kids in the audience cheered at the end.  So that's all you can ask for. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 03, 2013, 11:01:30 AM
Iron Man 3

Sort of like Pirates of the Caribbean 3 and how Captain Jack had almost become a parody of himself, RDJ's Tony Stark drifted into parody area IMO.  The stressors/panic attacks/freakouts seemed contrived too.  Didn't see the need for that aspect of the thing at all.

Yeah, I know Jon Favreaeu directed the first two, but that dude needs a diet.  Badly.  He added nothing to the film and could have been cut out completely and it would have been better.

And really just too much Pepper. Don't like her character all that much and am not a fan of Gwyneth so I grew tired of her under/over/vapidly acting. 

All that in the books, though, it's like somebody handing you a solid gold BMW and you decide to complain about the gas mileage.

Good popcorn, blow things up and let the good guys win in the end type film. 

Have heard it hailed as "better than Avengers" but I must disagree.  It was good, but not that good.  Better than Thor, better than CA, better than Hulk, better than Iron Man 2 even. Didn't top the first Iron Man in my book.

There's at least one surprise that you won't see coming unless somebody tells you, but I don't think they got the mileage out of that they could have, nor was the reveal particularly eventful. Would have liked to see the big plot turn played out in a different way. 

Still... Laughed some, paid attention and the kids in the audience cheered at the end.  So that's all you can ask for.
Agree mostly with your assessment. No way better than 1 on par with 2.

I will say that this was more about Tony and his concept of where he fits into the world ...is he a superhero does he only fight super beings.  He has to battle with his identity. Is he "Tony Stark or Iron Man?"   

The anxiety attacks were important because it fits into the development of his character.  He was as cocky as you could be in the 1st one and he has "evolved" throughout. The events in New York (Avengers) the fact that there were aliens and he was just a man in an iron suit, gave him a new perspective on things. He didn't know how to handle it (hence the anxiety). 

Agree on the plot twist, very anticlimactic. Although a great portrayal.

This was the end of the contract for RDJ and Iron Man, he has talked about loving the character and the producer wants to bring him back for a 4 and 5, I hope they do.  It has become my favorite comic franchise and RDJ is Iron Man.

As it stands now in the Marvel universe there will be a Thor 2 (2013) at the end of this year. Then Captain America 2 (2014) and Guardians of the Galaxy (2014).   Avengers 2 will be in 2015 followed by Ant Man (2015). So the next earliest release of an Iron Man wouldn't be until 2016 or later.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Eagle!!! on May 14, 2013, 04:48:52 PM
Ant man?

What the fuck is that?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 19, 2013, 05:02:57 AM
Star Trek: Into Darkness
It was ok.  Lots of nods to the original TV series.

My biggest complaint was that it just wasn't "fun" enough. It never managed to lighten up.

The beauty of Iron Man and most of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies is that Downey and Depp infuse their characters with just enough hamminess that you believe they are enjoying the role just as much as you enjoy their performing it. 

Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto never reach that almost comedic sense of self awareness. The film would be so much better if they did.

Lots of over the top action. Numerous references to the old series that tied many things up. It was good but still left me wanting.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Eagle!!! on May 20, 2013, 01:12:08 PM
Agree mostly with your assessment. No way better than 1 on par with 2.

I will say that this was more about Tony and his concept of where he fits into the world ...is he a superhero does he only fight super beings.  He has to battle with his identity. Is he "Tony Stark or Iron Man?"   

The anxiety attacks were important because it fits into the development of his character.  He was as cocky as you could be in the 1st one and he has "evolved" throughout. The events in New York (Avengers) the fact that there were aliens and he was just a man in an iron suit, gave him a new perspective on things. He didn't know how to handle it (hence the anxiety). 

Agree on the plot twist, very anticlimactic. Although a great portrayal.

This was the end of the contract for RDJ and Iron Man, he has talked about loving the character and the producer wants to bring him back for a 4 and 5, I hope they do.  It has become my favorite comic franchise and RDJ is Iron Man.

As it stands now in the Marvel universe there will be a Thor 2 (2013) at the end of this year. Then Captain America 2 (2014) and Guardians of the Galaxy (2014).   Avengers 2 will be in 2015 followed by Ant Man (2015). So the next earliest release of an Iron Man wouldn't be until 2016 or later.

Went and saw this this weekend. I was highly entertained. I have not seen 1 or 2...but really liked 3. My son said his favorite was 3...but he is 9 so it is probably just the newest. We started Iron Man 1 together at about 9:30 Saturday night and he wanted to turn it off around 10:45...so all I got to see was the first half or so. However, based on what I saw, Iron Man 3 is far better.

But then again, I am not a huge comic or super hero fan. I go to be entertained...Iron Man 3 did that...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on May 20, 2013, 01:13:35 PM
Star Trek: Into Darkness
It was ok.  Lots of nods to the original TV series.

My biggest complaint was that it just wasn't "fun" enough. It never managed to lighten up.

The beauty of Iron Man and most of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies is that Downey and Depp infuse their characters with just enough hamminess that you believe they are enjoying the role just as much as you enjoy their performing it. 

Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto never reach that almost comedic sense of self awareness. The film would be so much better if they did.

Lots of over the top action. Numerous references to the old series that tied many things up. It was good but still left me wanting.

Hated it.

Well, didn't hate it.  It was a decent action flick, but the homage to Wrath of Khan was awful.  Kirk dying the same way Spock did was such fan fiction bullshit. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 20, 2013, 03:59:39 PM
(http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/star-trekii-1.jpg)
(http://kidsdontgetit.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/kahn1.jpg)
(http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/qlIiadnA31o/hqdefault.jpg)

TOWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN!!!!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on May 20, 2013, 04:12:37 PM
God I even forgot about his "Khaaaann!" scream.  That was terribly forced. 

I did like the new Khan guy though.  He fit the description much better than David Bowie Labyrinth Version.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 20, 2013, 05:14:40 PM
God I even forgot about his "Khaaaann!" scream.  That was terribly forced. 

I did like the new Khan guy though.  He fit the description much better than David Bowie Labyrinth Version.

(http://www.shallownation.com/images/ricardo_montalban_star_trek_the_wrath_of_khan_1.jpg)

I am forced to disagree. 

The dude was 63 and in better shape than any of us. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: DnATL on May 26, 2013, 11:33:03 PM
(http://www.shallownation.com/images/ricardo_montalban_star_trek_the_wrath_of_khan_1.jpg)

I am forced to disagree. 

The dude was 63 and in better shape than any of us.
He needed his little friend
"da plane, da plane"
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 27, 2013, 02:16:00 AM
Hangover 3 is a steaming pile of shit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on May 27, 2013, 03:08:13 AM
Hangover 3 is a steaming pile of shit.
Told ya, lol.

I'll wait to watch it on Vudu or a little later on Netflix.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on May 27, 2013, 09:53:35 AM
That's two out of three big summer movies that have left me wanting something when they ended. IronMan 3 was okay but the ending was a mess and Downey mailed it in. Star Trek Into Darkness was just fan fic hack crap.

Man of Steel is going to suck now. I just feel it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 28, 2013, 07:46:20 AM
Hangover 3 is a steaming pile of shit.
Worse than 1 but better than 2?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 28, 2013, 09:35:00 AM
Saw Great Gatsby Friday night.  Mini was spending the night off and Snagette wanted to see a movie (Before hot, lovely relations) and I knew I was going to have to see a uterus flick. This movie was as big a waste of time as any I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through.  Toby McGuire needs a big Kaos sized shovel to the face.  I was fine with him as Spider Man because the character of Peter Parker called for someone who you'd least expect to a super hero.  The timid, shy guy who just blends in with society and hardly anyone notices him.  But apparently, this is the only character McGuire knows how to play.

McGuire was the main character in Gatsby even though he wasn't Gatsby.  Throughout the entire movie, he has that look on his face like he's wondering when his next ass beating is going to happen.  I was done with his character after the first 10 minutes of the movie.  Overall, it just went nowhere.  It was just one boring, loooonng sad attempt at a love story.  And Leonardo DeCaffeinated is horrible. That is all.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 28, 2013, 09:58:08 AM
Worse than 1 but better than 2?
Worse than 2 by far.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 28, 2013, 09:16:10 PM
Worse than 2 by far.

You are now creeping up on "Worst Movie Ever" territory.  You're in Blades of Glory land.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: bottomfeeder on May 28, 2013, 10:03:18 PM
Saw Great Gatsby Friday night.  Mini was spending the night off and Snagette wanted to see a movie (Before hot, lovely relations) and I knew I was going to have to see a uterus flick. This movie was as big a waste of time as any I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through.  Toby McGuire needs a big Kaos sized shovel to the face.  I was fine with him as Spider Man because the character of Peter Parker called for someone who you'd least expect to a super hero.  The timid, shy guy who just blends in with society and hardly anyone notices him.  But apparently, this is the only character McGuire knows how to play.

McGuire was the main character in Gatsby even though he wasn't Gatsby.  Throughout the entire movie, he has that look on his face like he's wondering when his next ass beating is going to happen.  I was done with his character after the first 10 minutes of the movie.  Overall, it just went nowhere.  It was just one boring, loooonng sad attempt at a love story.  And Leonardo DeCaffeinated is horrible. That is all.

So, how did you get it up after that?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 29, 2013, 01:37:23 AM
You are now creeping up on "Worst Movie Ever" territory.  You're in Blades of Glory land.
It's King of Saturday night or Adam Sandler bad.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 29, 2013, 10:16:47 AM
You are now creeping up on "Worst Movie Ever" territory.  You're in Blades of Glory land.

Was about to say something similar. For it to be worse than 2 - wow.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on May 29, 2013, 02:52:48 PM
Saw Great Gatsby Friday night.

Thats all I read and figured you were gay and had no balls.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 29, 2013, 02:56:33 PM
Thats all I read and figured you were gay and had no balls.

Curious about this thread

(http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/2085462717/Varys_HBO.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 29, 2013, 03:43:44 PM
Thats all I read and figured you were gay and had no balls.

I thought you knew. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on May 29, 2013, 04:28:03 PM
I thought you knew.

The force was with me as I had unlearned what I had learned. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 01, 2013, 01:55:30 PM
Now You See Me

Critics didnt much like it. 

I disagree.

Was entertained throughout.  Liked eisenberg's smarmy delivery. Was never quite sure who was tricking whom. 

Could have used a little more Isla Fischer and maybe have replaced some of the bombastic middle with additional character development. Didn't need any of the codas at the end.  Pfffftttt on that.

Just a nice fluffy summer movie. Not something youd buy on DVD because you already know but would definitely watch it again to see what obvious clues I missed along the way.

I say see now you see me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on June 03, 2013, 08:24:10 AM
Now You See Me

Critics didnt much like it. 

I disagree.

Was entertained throughout.  Liked eisenberg's smarmy delivery. Was never quite sure who was tricking whom. 

Could have used a little more Isla Fischer and maybe have replaced some of the bombastic middle with additional character development. Didn't need any of the codas at the end.  Pfffftttt on that.

Just a nice fluffy summer movie. Not something youd buy on DVD because you already know but would definitely watch it again to see what obvious clues I missed along the way.

I say see now you see me.

Saw it. Great example of how really good actors can't rescue a script that is too fast and loose.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 03, 2013, 08:38:44 AM
Saw it. Great example of how really good actors can't rescue a script that is too fast and loose.

Disagree.  The tempo was a big part of the entertainment for me.

One of the better movies I've seen of late.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 03, 2013, 08:44:33 AM
The Hunger Games

First time I've seen this and never read any of the books. 

If Dr. Seuss did a lot of LSD and got really mean and paranoid this would have been the result. 

The movie was:
Poorly written
Poorly filmed
Poorly staged
Poorly acted
Poorly developed

Festering neon garbage. 

I have no idea what possible allure this film had for anyone or why there would be any anticipation whatsoever for the followup to this electric tripe. 

Jennifer Lawrence can be awesome (Winter's Bone) or she can be blank-faced and vapidly terrible (House at the End, X-Men) and here she was just plain-faced terrible. 

I'm sorry I wasted time on this painted turd and I won't bother to read the books (although I'm told they're airy enough you can read all three in a matter of an hour or two). 

Garbage. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on June 03, 2013, 09:09:09 AM
The Hunger Games

First time I've seen this and never read any of the books. 

If Dr. Seuss did a lot of LSD and got really mean and paranoid this would have been the result. 

The movie was:
Poorly written
Poorly filmed
Poorly staged
Poorly acted
Poorly developed

Festering neon garbage. 

I have no idea what possible allure this film had for anyone or why there would be any anticipation whatsoever for the followup to this electric tripe. 

Jennifer Lawrence can be awesome (Winter's Bone) or she can be blank-faced and vapidly terrible (House at the End, X-Men) and here she was just plain-faced terrible. 

I'm sorry I wasted time on this painted turd and I won't bother to read the books (although I'm told they're airy enough you can read all three in a matter of an hour or two). 

Garbage.

The books are worse. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 05, 2013, 07:46:00 PM
Killer Joe

Had some moderate expectations for this grim and dismal psychological thriller with the emphasis on psycho. 

Matthew McBongahey plays an unhinged cop who does contract killings on the side and takes a liking to an odd waif who is the sister of one of his clients. 

Features a pretty good performance by a grizzled Haden Thomas Church and a couple of full on bush shots from Gina Gershon and Juno Temple, but McBongahey never quite got unhinged enough to carry his part. 

Yeah his restrained menace was good and so was his fried chicken perversion, but he just wasn't quite mean enough I guess.

Some sloppy storytelling and an open-ended finale left it short of the deranged bar. 

Not for kids. Lots of foul language, some bizarre sex scenes and more. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 06, 2013, 08:53:44 AM
Gangster Squad

Apparently Ryan Gosling got confused and thought he'd been cast as Curly from the Three Stooges.  Is that his real voice?  How does he ever get roles?  He's abysmal, he sucks, and I just realized I've never liked a single movie he was in. 

Sean Penn was absolutely horrible.  Worst mobster portrayal in the history of mobster portrayals.

Brolin didn't fare much better.  Bad job all around.

This movie had a great premise but the execution absolutely sucked.  The trailers were 11 times better than the movie. 

The director should be taken out back and shot by a Mexican.  In slow motion.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 06, 2013, 09:43:24 AM
The Hunger Games

First time I've seen this and never read any of the books. 

If Dr. Seuss did a lot of LSD and got really mean and paranoid this would have been the result. 

The movie was:
Poorly written
Poorly filmed
Poorly staged
Poorly acted
Poorly developed

Festering neon garbage. 

I have no idea what possible allure this film had for anyone or why there would be any anticipation whatsoever for the followup to this electric tripe. 

Jennifer Lawrence can be awesome (Winter's Bone) or she can be blank-faced and vapidly terrible (House at the End, X-Men) and here she was just plain-faced terrible. 

I'm sorry I wasted time on this painted turd and I won't bother to read the books (although I'm told they're airy enough you can read all three in a matter of an hour or two). 

Garbage.

Saw House at End last night on Netflix.

You would be correct. Her performance was dead. And she even drug Shue along with her although I still have the hots for her and she wasn't AS bad. Sad too because it was a decent plot albeit predictable - it still could've been executed better.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 08, 2013, 03:37:21 PM
Fierce Creatures

Essentially A Fish Called Wanda set in a zoo. 

Curtis, Kline, Cleese, Palin.  At one point Cleese even calls Curtis' character Wanda (instead of Willa, which is her name here). 

Take Palin's stuttering character and make him a chatterbox who won't shut up.  Change the fish for a marmoset.  Basically the same movie. 

Not quite as funny as Fish but there was something about Curtis beginning in 1983 (Trading Places) and ending prior to 1999 (Virus/Halloween H20 when she cut her hair off) that I liked.  And this movie, released in 1997, was right at the end of the Curtis wheelhouse.  Liked her and liked looking at her in this.

Add former Law & Order assistant DA Carey Lowell in a bra and garters and there's an interesting mix. 

I liked Fish Called Wanda and I'm a little surprised that I never ever ever heard of Fierce Creatures before it showed up on some channel in the middle of my insomnia. 

Wasn't great, wasn't bad, just missed the edge that Fish had and I guess it just dissolved in the wake of that. 

For the record, Fish made about 63 million in domestic box office.  Fierce made 9. 

Thus ended the Kline, Cleese, Palin, Curtis pairings. 

(http://cineplex.media.baselineresearch.com/images/305436/305436_large.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 09, 2013, 12:02:19 PM
Fierce Creatures

Did I time warp back to the 90's?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 09, 2013, 12:42:24 PM
Life of Pi

Was there a tiger? Did you see one?

Amazing visually. Wish I had seen it in theaters just for the 3d visual aspect.

Pretty simple and somewhat ambiguous story. 

Tiger? What tiger?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 12, 2013, 04:20:03 PM
Man of Steel

I did not like the trailers I saw for this movie.  Early reviews are out and it is getting absolutely raped. 

I will, therefore, not be seeing it. 

I'm a DC guy.  Batman was my hero.  I didn't care at all about the Marvel comic universe.  Films, though?  Other than the Spiderman abominations -- and let's face it, they've all been abominations from the goofy gimp Toby to the pumpkin-faced Kirsten Dumps to even Emma Stone -- the Marvel film franchise is a much better product. 

I prefer Marvel's glib and flip IronMan to DC/Nolan's muddled, brooding and ridiculously intense Batman (with the exception of the unhinged performance by Heath Ledger).   The Batman films are good but they lost their sense of fun.  IronMan found it and used it well. 

Yeah Thor was a bit of a dud and Captain America a flaccid mess and all of the Hulks unwatchable but the Avengers assembled was a huge payoff.  The subsequent Thor and CA films look to have benefited from that spark. 

Superman of Steel looked like stale turtle piss out of the gate and I'm not surprised to see it termed "Man of Stink," and Superdud.  Not surprised at all to see it panned as terribly boring.  Superman IS a boring turd.  Even his main rivals are pedestrian. 

It might be nice if we lived in a world where a Superman could still inspire people with his do-goody ways. We don't.  And this movie will be DOA.   

Does that mean there will be no Justice League if this flops?  Because I could live with that. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on June 17, 2013, 03:02:53 AM
Man of Steel is the funniest movie I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 17, 2013, 11:20:03 AM
Man of Steel is the funniest movie I've ever seen.
and you own Caddyshack 2 on DVD.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on June 17, 2013, 06:40:52 PM
and you own Caddyshack 2 on DVD.
Caddyshack 2 is a better movie than Man of Steel, not close to being funnier.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 24, 2013, 09:52:40 PM
Monsters University

Imagine if they leeched all the heart and soul out of Monsters, Inc.  Imagine if they drained it of the emotional connection. Imagine if they excised the action and drama.  Imagine if they made Revenge of the Nerds without Booger or Takashi or Lamar or Betty.  And then drop a rung or two below that. 

There was no need to make this movie other than to wring cash out of the family-film crowd.  It didn't have any of the qualities that made Monsters Inc. such a good movie. 

I read somewhere that this film was Pixar's chance to resurrect the magic after the dreadful/awful Cars 2.  Swing. Miss. No magic.  It failed to connect. 

I hate that because the first Monsters is one of my favorites.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on June 25, 2013, 09:45:00 AM
Monsters University

Imagine if they leeched all the heart and soul out of Monsters, Inc.  Imagine if they drained it of the emotional connection. Imagine if they excised the action and drama.  Imagine if they made Revenge of the Nerds without Booger or Takashi or Lamar or Betty.  And then drop a rung or two below that. 

There was no need to make this movie other than to wring cash out of the family-film crowd.  It didn't have any of the qualities that made Monsters Inc. such a good movie. 

I read somewhere that this film was Pixar's chance to resurrect the magic after the dreadful/awful Cars 2.  Swing. Miss. No magic.  It failed to connect. 

I hate that because the first Monsters is one of my favorites.

It may not be all Pixar's fault.  I read that when they partnered with Disney (and are now owned by Disney) then Disney got the rights to all the Pixar characters and the rights to make sequels with no input from Lassiter and company.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 30, 2013, 10:42:58 AM
World War Z

Better than I expected.

Fast zombies. Reminded me of crazy ants.  Less gore than most zombie movies. Less than a typical episode of Walking Dead.

I tend to like brad Pitt in certain roles. He's good in this. Made it almost to the end without the obligatory scene of him eating or drinking something. Even that was added well and drew a laugh.

The best part of the movie experience was the chubby ginger loudmouth barely teen and his outkicked-the-coverage-so-far-he-had-to-be-rich date who was all braggart before the film started and was reduced to squeaking "holy sh!t" at various times.

I like zombie movies. This had plot gaps the size of Colorado but was still intense and engaging enough to navigate past them.

Worth seeing.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on June 30, 2013, 08:03:10 PM
World War Z

Better than I expected.

Fast zombies. Reminded me of crazy ants.  Less gore than most zombie movies. Less than a typical episode of Walking Dead.

I tend to like brad Pitt in certain roles. He's good in this. Made it almost to the end without the obligatory scene of him eating or drinking something. Even that was added well and drew a laugh.

The best part of the movie experience was the chubby ginger loudmouth barely teen and his outkicked-the-coverage-so-far-he-had-to-be-rich date who was all braggart before the film started and was reduced to squeaking "holy sh!t" at various times.

I like zombie movies. This had plot gaps the size of Colorado but was still intense and engaging enough to navigate past them.

Worth seeing.

 :bowl:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 06, 2013, 10:34:20 AM
Despicable Me 2

Compared to the lackluster Monsters University, this was a fantastic film.  Compared to its predecessor Despicable Me, the sequel lacked the depth of the original. 

In the first, the storyline was the gradual redemption of a "bad" character won over by the innocence of three young girls he originally meant only to exploit and then cast away. 

There was no redemption story in this film. He was already redeemed and that made Gru much less interesting. The girls, so central to the first film, were given little to do. All the best minion moments made it to the trailers. 

The minions are funny, though, and their antics are what elevate this film above the sluggardly Monsters U and make this otherwise drab story worth watching. 

The theater was completely full for the Friday showing I attended, the first time I've seen a full theater since Heath Ledger's Batman turn. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 07, 2013, 01:06:44 AM
The Lone Ranger

Very problematic.

Too much Depp who was unconvincing as Tonto. Too much violence. Not enough resolution. Too little interest in the characters or their motivations. Way, way, way, way too long. 

Don't remember the Lone Ranger being a befuddled do-goody buffoon. 

Just took the character in a completely wrong direction, relied too much on Depp's deadpan Tonto and muddled around with the story and a completely unnecessary "my brother's wife has the hots for me" crap diversionary storyline.  Stupid.  The love interest angle was okay, but making her his brother's betrothed?  Pffftttttt. 

Fair movie but I wouldn't bother watching it again.  Ever.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on July 07, 2013, 09:13:16 AM
The Lone Ranger

Could have told you this was awful from the trailers. Depp jumped the shark long ago and the tall guy from The Social Network doesn't really move the needle.

Disney needs a clue.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on July 07, 2013, 09:51:42 AM
IMO, Depp will forever be Jack Sparrow.  It's like that character as over taken him.  Tonto looked like Jack Sparrow trying to be an Indian. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: JR4AU on July 07, 2013, 12:55:04 PM
The Lone Ranger

Very problematic.

Too much Depp who was unconvincing as Tonto. Too much violence. Not enough resolution. Too little interest in the characters or their motivations. Way, way, way, way too long. 

Don't remember the Lone Ranger being a befuddled do-goody buffoon. 

Just took the character in a completely wrong direction, relied too much on Depp's deadpan Tonto and muddled around with the story and a completely unnecessary "my brother's wife has the hots for me" crap diversionary storyline.  Stupid.  The love interest angle was okay, but making her his brother's betrothed?  Pffftttttt. 

Fair movie but I wouldn't bother watching it again.  Ever.

Agree.  Definitely not worth the watch unless you see it on the big screen IMO.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on July 07, 2013, 10:01:13 PM
Katy Perry: Part of Me 

Caught this on the Flixnets. For the first 20 minutes, I was sure you had lost your mind. Then, I saw what you were getting at.

For the record, you have still lost your mind but that was a fun peek inside of her touring life and props to her for not shying away from the ugly stuff in her personal life.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on July 08, 2013, 02:13:47 PM
Agree.  Definitely not worth the watch unless you see it on the big screen IMO.

so your sayin' it's worth to pay money to see it on the big screen rather than spend a dollar on it a couple of months and watch it at home...? 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on July 08, 2013, 02:31:06 PM
so your sayin' it's worth to pay money to see it on the big screen rather than spend a dollar on it a couple of months and watch it at home...?

He's not the best color guy in the business for nothin' folks.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 17, 2013, 09:21:51 AM
Expendables 2

Hackneyed. Cliched. Ham-fisted.

Bad actors offering bad dialogue amid improbable circumstances and lots of pyrotechnics. 

They were supposed to be having fun but they all looked old and like it hurt. 

Sad, really. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 22, 2013, 01:57:05 PM
The Conjuring

So scary they had to post paramedics and police outside the theater.

If you've ever seen any "possession" movie from The Exorcist to Last Rites to Emily Rose to ... you name it ... you've seen this film. 

No new ground.  Banging doors. Creepy sounds. Birds. Vomit.   

*yawn*
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on July 25, 2013, 10:00:29 AM
Took Mini Snags to see R.I.P.D. last night.  Ryan Reynolds plays a cop who gets killed by his partner, Kevin Bacon.  In the afterlife, he's immediately transported to a police precinct where dead cops are trying to save the world from the apocalypse, which the "Deado's" are trying to make happen.  Kind of a Men In Black type theme.  Jeff Bridges plays Reynolds' partner in the afterlife and he makes the movie.  He's an old west Sheriff, killed back in the 1800's. 

None of the above is a spoiler because the trailer tells you all of this.  The funny thing is that they see each other as they really are while the rest of the world sees them totally different.  Bridges looks like a blonde supermodel while Reynolds is an old Chinese guy.  Overall, a pretty entertaining movie.  Worth a rental or something to do on a Wednesday night.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 27, 2013, 09:47:07 AM
Evil Dead 2013

Horror, like comedy, is a difficult genre to get just right. What scares me may bore you. There's only so many slamming doors and leaping cats you can use before it becomes tedious and cliche.

A remake is even less likely to surprise. See Friday the 13th or Elm Street reboots as evidence.
Evil Dead made the right choice and told a slightly different story than the original.

Scary? Not so much.  Gory, cringe inducing and painful? Yeah.

True scares are few and far between in any movie. The days of an exorcist or psycho terrifying audiences is gone. We see worse on walking dead or honey boo boo. Don't think Evil Dead came close to horror but it did provide a number of scenes where you went "oh jeez, that had to hurt"

It was well paced, a little goofy and piled on the gore effects.

I liked it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 30, 2013, 10:54:06 AM
Flight

The trailers made it out to be something it wasn't.  The film was about a crash, yes, but not a plane crash. 

The plane crash was in a way allegorical, although it did happen.  It was symbolic of the personal and professional crash of the pilot played by Denzel. 

He was a hero, but he was not.  It was difficult to decide whether the daring act that allegedly saved lives was worth overlooking the personal flaws that he overcame to perform it.

He lay with women of various ethnicities including Dr. Watson's wife.  Sherlock will probably punish him for that. 

He convincingly played the same people I've known all my life from my uncles to my former business partner to my friends who all loudly proclaimed they were in control, it was their choice when in fact they were not and it hadn't been for a long time.  The wreckage he left behind is also familiar. 

Not all of those end up with the tidy resolution this one does, sadly most of those end in personal disaster. 

A pretty depressing film all in all. 

But as with most of Denzel's fare, worth watching for his efforts.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 08, 2013, 07:56:56 AM
Lincoln

Makes me wish the South would have won.  Would have been spared this boring drivel.

When it opened with an uppity Negro soldier boasting of the prowess of the colored brigades and their essential role in the War and badgering Abe about black this and snapping that he don't shine shoes or cut hair, I knew this borefest was headed in the wrong direction. 

Saint Abe, determined to save all slaves. Pffftttttt. 

Boring. Historically inaccurate.  Worse twisting of history than Inglorious Basterds.  And boring. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on August 08, 2013, 08:06:36 AM
Lincoln

Makes me wish the South would have won.  Would have been spared this boring drivel.

When it opened with an uppity Negro soldier boasting of the prowess of the colored brigades and their essential role in the War and badgering Abe about black this and snapping that he don't shine shoes or cut hair, I knew this borefest was headed in the wrong direction. 

Saint Abe, determined to save all slaves. Pffftttttt. 

Boring. Historically inaccurate.  Worse twisting of history than Inglorious Basterds.  And boring.

Abe was a fucking war criminal.  That is all.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTiger1 on August 08, 2013, 09:52:45 AM
Abe was a fucking war criminal.  That is all.

 :kimclap:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 10, 2013, 09:48:00 AM
We're The Millers

Moderately funny. 

Jenny Anny would go broke as a real stripper.  She just doesn't have the moves.  Nice body, but not a stripper.

Sudekis can only play one guy. 

Ed Helms very nearly completely ruined this movie.  He was not believable and his career should crash and burn.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on August 11, 2013, 06:18:36 PM
Elysium is fucking awesome.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on August 11, 2013, 07:24:33 PM
Abe was a fucking war criminal.  That is all.

 :bar: to sani.


 :fu: to Abe the federalist.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on August 11, 2013, 08:23:28 PM
Elysium is fucking awesome.

I really want to see this after having viewed District 9.  I did read that Elysium is overtly political.  Did you see any of that?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on August 11, 2013, 08:38:09 PM
I really want to see this after having viewed District 9.  I did read that Elysium is overtly political.  Did you see any of that?

Oh yeah.  District 9 was his apartheid movie and this is his free/equal access to health care movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 12, 2013, 01:21:46 PM
Oh yeah.  District 9 was his apartheid movie and this is his free/equal access to health care movie.

Then it sucks. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on August 12, 2013, 01:59:22 PM
Oh yeah.  District 9 was his apartheid movie and this is his free/equal access to health care movie.

Apartheid?  Man, glad to see this guy is up to date on current events.  Hopefully he can generate enough interest to get Mandella released.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on August 12, 2013, 02:52:06 PM
Apartheid?  Man, glad to see this guy is up to date on current events.  Hopefully he can generate enough interest to get Mandella released.

Was gonna do a Mandella name drop there but you beat me to it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 16, 2013, 06:25:40 PM
Olympus Has Fallen

And it can't get up. 

I don't much like Gerard Butler, but here at least he wasn't required to do much acting, nor was he called on to be comedic or ham up much of any female relationship.  His primary duty was to mumble silly one-liners while single-handedly slaughtering 30 or so highly trained terrorists. 

It was a silly, stupid movie that had some ridiculous gaps.

The terrorists need three codes for Cerebrus to activate.  Okay, the three people who know the codes are all in the bunker.  So they threaten to kill each one in sequence.  If you're one of three people in the world who knows a code that can prevent a national nuclear holocaust all you have to do is keep your mouth shut. So, they kill you?  World is saved.  Terrorist threat averted.  But no, gallant president Harvey Dent orders them to give up the codes. Idiot.

Chucklehound Gerard besting half the world in hand-to-hand combat?  Nah.  Not happening. 

But if you suspend any need for logic, rationality, plot or sense and you just enjoy watching the White House get blown to smithereens then this is an action flick for you. 

Did think the method of infiltrating the White House was fairly well done.

My biggest complaint: In the situation room with God as acting President, they're trying to figure out who the person spearheading the invasion is but come up with nothing from his video images. "We're running this guy through facial recognition software but coming up with nothing. "  Later when Lunkwater Butler gives them a name, suddenly there's an entire dossier on the screen - complete with pictures.  Really? And that facial recognition stuff drew a blank? 

My second biggest complaint: Ashley Judd is wasted in a really stupid set up sequence that added nothing to the story whatsoever.

My third biggest complaint: MSNBC talking heads in a cameo. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on August 17, 2013, 02:28:42 AM
Olympus Has Fallen

And it can't get up. 

I don't much like Gerard Butler, but here at least he wasn't required to do much acting, nor was he called on to be comedic or ham up much of any female relationship.  His primary duty was to mumble silly one-liners while single-handedly slaughtering 30 or so highly trained terrorists. 

It was a silly, stupid movie that had some ridiculous gaps.

The terrorists need three codes for Cerebrus to activate.  Okay, the three people who know the codes are all in the bunker.  So they threaten to kill each one in sequence.  If you're one of three people in the world who knows a code that can prevent a national nuclear holocaust all you have to do is keep your mouth shut. So, they kill you?  World is saved.  Terrorist threat averted.  But no, gallant president Harvey Dent orders them to give up the codes. Idiot.

Chucklehound Gerard besting half the world in hand-to-hand combat?  Nah.  Not happening. 

But if you suspend any need for logic, rationality, plot or sense and you just enjoy watching the White House get blown to smithereens then this is an action flick for you. 

Did think the method of infiltrating the White House was fairly well done.

My biggest complaint: In the situation room with God as acting President, they're trying to figure out who the person spearheading the invasion is but come up with nothing from his video images. "We're running this guy through facial recognition software but coming up with nothing. "  Later when Lunkwater Butler gives them a name, suddenly there's an entire dossier on the screen - complete with pictures.  Really? And that facial recognition stuff drew a blank? 

My second biggest complaint: Ashley Judd is wasted in a really stupid set up sequence that added nothing to the story whatsoever.

My third biggest complaint: MSNBC talking heads in a cameo.
I thought it was a good movie definitely worth a view.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 17, 2013, 10:26:29 AM
I thought it was a good movie definitely worth a view.

Do you disagree with "give them the code" ?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on August 17, 2013, 11:42:14 AM
Apartheid?  Man, glad to see this guy is up to date on current events.  Hopefully he can generate enough interest to get Mandella released.

Tarantino really missed the boat making a movie about slavery, too.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on August 17, 2013, 02:25:00 PM
Do you disagree with "give them the code" ?
They part was cheesy but I enjoyed the movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 18, 2013, 01:38:13 PM
Ted

Not as horrendously awful as I expected.

Unnecessarily crude, unnecessarily vulgar, could have been much better without the senseless raunch.

Marky Mark hamming it up. Mila Kunis looking cute. Stupid bear being trashy.

But I didn't hate it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 18, 2013, 03:16:05 PM
Ted

Not as horrendously awful as I expected.

Unnecessarily crude, unnecessarily vulgar, could have been much better without the senseless raunch.

Marky Mark hamming it up. Mila Kunis looking cute. Stupid bear being trashy.

But I didn't hate it.

Ok was it any one of those names with a Lynn after it?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on August 18, 2013, 04:23:32 PM
Took Mini Snags to see R.I.P.D. last night.  Ryan Reynolds plays a cop who gets killed by his partner, Kevin Bacon.  In the afterlife, he's immediately transported to a police precinct where dead cops are trying to save the world from the apocalypse, which the "Deado's" are trying to make happen.  Kind of a Men In Black type theme.  Jeff Bridges plays Reynolds' partner in the afterlife and he makes the movie.  He's an old west Sheriff, killed back in the 1800's. 

None of the above is a spoiler because the trailer tells you all of this.  The funny thing is that they see each other as they really are while the rest of the world sees them totally different.  Bridges looks like a blonde supermodel while Reynolds is an old Chinese guy.  Overall, a pretty entertaining movie.  Worth a rental or something to do on a Wednesday night.
I definitely want to see this movie...when it hits Vudu. The old Chinese guy is the same old Chinese guy in Big Trouble in little China (1986).

James Hong 2013
(http://filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsH/8169-30565-0.jpg)

James Hong 1986
(http://www.wingkong.net/media/chars/lopan/lopan3.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 19, 2013, 09:40:32 AM
I definitely want to see this movie...when it hits Vudu. The old Chinese guy is the same old Chinese guy in Big Trouble in little China (1986).

James Hong 2013
(http://filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsH/8169-30565-0.jpg)

James Hong 1986
(http://www.wingkong.net/media/chars/lopan/lopan3.jpg)

Dude looks damn good for 84 years old, must be all those girls with green eyes.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on August 24, 2013, 07:06:21 PM
I definitely want to see this movie...when it hits Vudu. The old Chinese guy is the same old Chinese guy in Big Trouble in little China (1986).

I think I'd rather see it for Marisa Miller.  But hey, who am I to judge?  Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 30, 2013, 01:14:45 AM
One Direction: This Is Us

Man card surrendered.  You do what you do when you have only daughters.

Not the worst thing I've ever seen.  Took great pains to paint the boy band as appreciative of the fans, not a pack of stuck on themselves jerkwads and fun, funny, normal.

Songs are throwaways as with all boy bands.  Don't see any of them as having the sort of Justin Timberlake breakout personality. 

But as a veteran of the boy band scene, they were much more likeable than either Backstreet or N'sync ever were (caveat, as portrayed in this film). 

I sort of hope we don't ever see the rehab headlines, the breakup and reunions, anybody doing porno to stay afloat or any of them twerking for attention.  That would be sad.  But it's a path often trod by many including KISS, Beatles, Stones, Floyd and on through Backstreet, NKOTB, Demi Lovato, and so on. 

They are only moderately talented and it would be nice if at least one of them could play some kind of instrument, but that's not the appeal I guess.  Sing cookie cutter songs written and arranged by others, swim in cash, rinse and repeat.

At least they seem to be having fun doing it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 30, 2013, 05:15:35 PM
One Direction: This Is Us

Man card surrendered.  You do what you do when you have only daughters.

You lost your man card when you went to see Magic Mike in theaters.  Now you are just flirting with disaster.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on September 05, 2013, 09:06:06 AM
Wait wait wait. Demi Lovato has done porn? Man that was a fast plummet
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 09, 2013, 10:32:59 AM
Wait wait wait. Demi Lovato has done porn? Man that was a fast plummet

At the time of that writing there was a lesbian porn video being shopped by a former partner.  Not sure what became of that, but I've got the Netflix search going. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 16, 2013, 04:01:45 PM
Pain & Gain

Like Mark Wahlberg but his range is limited. Like The Rock but his range is more limited.

This story couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a comedy, a farce, a black comedy, a morality play or something else.  It ended up doing nothing very well. 

It tried to make idiot, bumbling killers as the sympathetic heroes of the story while turning the "rich guys" into the villians. Didn't understand that take on it at all. 

The real Daniel Lugo was dumb, cruel, sadistic and sick.

Rock played what was basically a combination of several low-level hoods and seemed there primarily to piss on the redemptive values of Christianity.

That this film elected to make them "hilarious" three stooges type characters you were supposed to (I think) root for in the end is a massive fail in my opinion.

Unbelievable that this was a (mostly) true story.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 16, 2013, 09:09:04 PM
Journey 2

Starring Vanessa Hudgens' chest, legs, butt and pubic bones.  Also some other guys.

Silly story. Bad acting. Really bad acting. Just goofy.

But kids seemed to like it. Laughed at some of the cheesy lines 

But this is a bad movie.

Vanessa is hot.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 28, 2013, 10:38:08 AM
The Purge

Interesting concept that had the potential for tremendous tension.  But the director fumbled the ball away on this one. 

Too much was left unexplained. 

1) Why would crime rates miraculously drop just because you had one free day a year? That doesn't make logical sense to me because the motivating factor behind crime usually isn't to fill a psychological pathological need, but to respond to an immediate situation.  Tempers dictate crime much more so than calculation.

2) For what reason did the band of psychos chase the injured black man? What motivated their cold blooded rage -- and since there were no repercussions for crimes why the need for masks?  That was stupid.

3) A million-dollar security system that can be compromised by a Ford and a $20 chain from Home Depot?  Really?  It's only a 12-hour thing, the house would have had an impenetrable bunker and a collection of movies to pass the time.

4) Boyfriend side story was a ridiculous waste and merely an excuse to show daughter's leg curve and breast swell inside the bra.

5) Neighbors just walk away and go back to sharing cookies?  Yeah.  Whatever. That's going to make the POA meetings a little uncomfortable.

Didn't care about any of the characters.  They all seemed to swiftly get over the grisly death of people who were supposed to be close to them.  None of their emotional responses rang true. 

Could have been so much better than it was, the writers and director simply squandered what should have been a great set up.  Hope to see this done again in a few years but done well.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on October 31, 2013, 08:16:59 PM
Pain & Gain

Like Mark Wahlberg but his range is limited. Like The Rock but his range is more limited.

This story couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a comedy, a farce, a black comedy, a morality play or something else.  It ended up doing nothing very well. 

It tried to make idiot, bumbling killers as the sympathetic heroes of the story while turning the "rich guys" into the villians. Didn't understand that take on it at all. 

The real Daniel Lugo was dumb, cruel, sadistic and sick.

Rock played what was basically a combination of several low-level hoods and seemed there primarily to piss on the redemptive values of Christianity.

That this film elected to make them "hilarious" three stooges type characters you were supposed to (I think) root for in the end is a massive fail in my opinion.

Unbelievable that this was a (mostly) true story.

Rented it on DVD a couple of weeks ago, did not even finish watching it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 31, 2013, 10:30:39 PM
Since its Halloween saw these two recently:

Sinister - decent. Ethan Hawke is good. Somewhat complicated and doesn't quite come together until the end. Not bad not great. The Ring meets 8mm.

Paranormal Activity 4 - awful. Not scary. Worst of the bunch so far. Got bored watching it. And I thought the first three were decent.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 01, 2013, 09:36:51 AM
Since its Halloween saw these two recently:

Sinister - decent. Ethan Hawke is good. Somewhat complicated and doesn't quite come together until the end. Not bad not great. The Ring meets 8mm.

Paranormal Activity 4 - awful. Not scary. Worst of the bunch so far. Got bored watching it. And I thought the first three were decent.

Saw the 3rd last night.  My kind of "horror" flick.  Not a fan of the blood, guts, hack em' up.  Love the suspense. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: WiregrassTiger on November 01, 2013, 09:53:54 AM
I went to see Gravity or whatever that flick with Sandra Bullock in it is called. It was far out. I would go so far as to say it was out of this world.

Sandra gets naked but you can't see titties or her syrup bucket.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 01, 2013, 11:30:20 AM
Saw the 3rd last night.  My kind of "horror" flick.  Not a fan of the blood, guts, hack em' up.  Love the suspense.
3 was probably the best of the bunch to me. 4 will disappoint you. It is seriously boring. Except the creepy kid. That little shit just stands there and stares. F that.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 05, 2013, 09:47:08 AM
Took in Last Vegas this weekend.  No spoiler here in telling you it's basically another in a long line of "We've got 2 days in Vegas to cram every bit of debauchery possible in so what happens in Vegas...."  Been there, done that.  But, with 4 guys who have a few years of acting under their collective belts, there were some bits of comedy gold here and there.  In fact, we always kid about "You owe me a monitor" on here.  That was honestly the first time I actually lost it and spewed diet coke after a one line. 

Overall, a pretty solid comedy.  Not much of a story line, but chortles a plenty.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 05, 2013, 10:32:13 AM
Took in Last Vegas this weekend.  No spoiler here in telling you it's basically another in a long line of "We've got 2 days in Vegas to cram every bit of debauchery possible in so what happens in Vegas...."  Been there, done that.  But, with 4 guys who have a few years of acting under their collective belts, there were some bits of comedy gold here and there.  In fact, we always kid about "You owe me a monitor" on here.  That was honestly the first time I actually lost it and spewed diet coke after a one line. 

Overall, a pretty solid comedy.  Not much of a story line, but chortles a plenty.

You just related because they were old, didn't you?

I bet they drove up the strip in their super keen sexpedition.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 05, 2013, 10:49:58 AM
You just related because they were old, didn't you?

I bet they drove up the strip in their super keen sexpedition.

I drive a Nissan Crotch Grinder now.  And yes, I am old.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 05, 2013, 11:05:40 AM
I drive a Nissan Crotch Grinder now.  And yes, I am old.

You don't talk about my Dodge Status like that! I'm a division mgr. I am very important.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on November 05, 2013, 04:33:17 PM
Took in Last Vegas this weekend.  No spoiler here in telling you it's basically another in a long line of "We've got 2 days in Vegas to cram every bit of debauchery possible in so what happens in Vegas...."  Been there, done that.  But, with 4 guys who have a few years of acting under their collective belts, there were some bits of comedy gold here and there.  In fact, we always kid about "You owe me a monitor" on here.  That was honestly the first time I actually lost it and spewed diet coke after a one line. 

Overall, a pretty solid comedy.  Not much of a story line, but chortles a plenty.

You just related because they were old, didn't you?

I bet they drove up the strip in their super keen sexpedition.

All others are just keen unless its mine.


Mens X-gate one weekend in Vegas?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 17, 2013, 01:37:36 PM
Two movies I didn't want to watch, but enjoyed more than I expected to. 

Pitch Perfect
We've seen this movie a thousand times.  It's every cliched teen/college competition movie rolled into one. It stole liberally from things like Krush Groove, Step Up, Stomp the Yard, Drumline (which was interesting in its own way), You Got Served, Bring It On, School of Rock and every other trite movie of that ilk.  The characters were stereotypical, stale even.  The story a complete ripoff.

But the general likability of most of the cast saved this bland effort. Anna Kendrick did a good job with terrible lines, atrocious setups and ridiculous situations. The creepy Chinese girl who ate her own twin had a good line or two. Brittany Snow was adequate. The two competition announcers (one was Elizabeth Banks) hammed it way up, basically letting the viewing audience know the entire premise was absurd and a joke. The actors were able to rise above the terrible writing, poor directing and shoddy cinematography.

The one I didn't like was the fat blonde one.  Granted she's less offensively annoying than bug-eyed, vein-popping, obnoxiously loud hippo Melissa McCarthy who really has only one grating character, but if the Fat Amy goo tub hopes to have a legitimate career she's going to have to come up with something other than ripping her shirt off (which was, I hear, the entire premise of her probably soon-to-be cancelled sitcom).  Ignorantly enough the blonde Australian compares the blisteringly low ratings of her brain-dead show to the series arc of Seinfeld -- which had layers and more than one repetitive joke. So she's dumb, too. Hated her in this movie and pretty much hate her in everything she's in.

Still, Anna Kendrick and her frequently teased cleavage rallied this film. (see below)

(http://www.gq.com/images/copilot/women/photos/201309/anna-kendricks-gq-magazine-september-2013-women-02.jpg)

Warm Bodies
Warm Bodies featured a blond Australian import. The antithesis of Fat Patricia, the blonde in Warm Bodies is the absolutely adorable Teresa Palmer. (See below) She can look a little Kristen Stewarty at times, but she's got 100x the acting chops of the Twilight twit.  Then again so does Scott Baio, so there's that.

Different take on a zombie story. Some sort of ridiculous plotlines and some silly action, but as it was designed for teens coming off the Twilight high and searching for another fix, it worked for what it was.  It was ten million times better than all the Twilight movies put together. Then again, so was Caddyshack 2 (and that movie didn't even exist) so there's that.   

Neither movie is what I'd call "must see" or even "waste time with" but I watched both and didn't die. 

(http://i2.listal.com/image/2697623/600full-teresa-palmer.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 18, 2013, 10:54:53 AM
Sat up Friday night for some reason and watched Liam Neeson's "Unknown".  Hadn't really ever followed his career and didn't know who he was until I came across the first "Taken".  Guarantee I've watched Taken 5 times now.  If it's reasonably well done, I love the one-man army flicks. 

Hey, you can't come in here. Who are y.....crack, slam....ball point pen to the throat. 

I recall some of the previews for Unknown but didn't really remember what it was supposed to be about.  I just knew Neeson's character lost his identity and there were bad guys trying to kill him.  Perfect scenario.  He'll get enough of his memory back to realize he's really a trained assassin and start offing bad guys.

Whack, slam....head stuffed in a sandwich steamer.

Nope.  This was the most pitiful, piece of crap I've ever sat through.  His character was always shaking and scared, running from the baddies.  The whole thing was hard to follow and they never really fleshed out the reasons someone stole his identity.  Why was someone posing as him and boinking his wife?  Best I could tell, it had something to do with corn.  Anyway, Neeson never turned badass and the movie just sucked scrotum.  Just a bunch of German...French...hard to understand Swiss people, chasing each other around.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on November 18, 2013, 03:25:06 PM
The whole thing was hard to follow and they never really fleshed out the reasons someone stole his identity.  Why was someone posing as him and boinking his wife?  Best I could tell, it had something to do with corn.  Anyway, Neeson never turned badass and the movie just sucked scrotum.  Just a bunch of German...French...hard to understand Swiss people, chasing each other around.

Did you watch it until the end?  He turns into a badass for the last fight scene, which is also around the time that they fully explain why his identity was taken instead of flashing random memory sequences.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 19, 2013, 08:00:41 AM
Beasts of the Southern Wild

Maybe I'm just not smart, cultured or deep enough because my reaction to this movie was

Whaaaaaat?

The kid was good in a sassy black kid way, but not overacting sassy black like that insufferable bug-eyed shrimp on Disney's Jessie (a completely intolerable show, all of those kids should be neutered then sent to a birthday party at John Wayne Gacy's house).  But other than that? 

Whaaaaaaat?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 19, 2013, 09:38:30 AM
Did you watch it until the end?  He turns into a badass for the last fight scene, which is also around the time that they fully explain why his identity was taken instead of flashing random memory sequences.

I did watch til the end and he was still getting his ass kicked until the girl saved him.  And the explanation wasn't worth 2 hours of watching him play the opposite role of his character in Taken.  Bad asses kick ass.  Jason Statham acts a little and kicks ass the rest of the time.  Stallone mumbles incoherently, then kills 127 Vietnamese with a bow and arrow.  Chuck Norris would round house kick his driver's license back in his wallet.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on November 19, 2013, 04:28:28 PM
I did watch til the end and he was still getting his ass kicked until the girl saved him.  And the explanation wasn't worth 2 hours of watching him play the opposite role of his character in Taken.  Bad asses kick ass.  Jason Statham acts a little and kicks ass the rest of the time.  Stallone mumbles incoherently, then kills 127 Vietnamese with a bow and arrow.  Chuck Norris would round house kick his driver's license back in his wallet.   

I agree that the movie was more mystery oriented than action oriented, which may not be your thing or what you were expecting.  But I still want to know how much you drank throughout the movie, because the girl (Diane Kruger) definitely didn't save him in the last fight scene when he finally recalls everything.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 19, 2013, 04:40:55 PM
I agree that the movie was more mystery oriented than action oriented, which may not be your thing or what you were expecting.  But I still want to know how much you drank throughout the movie, because the girl (Diane Kruger) definitely didn't save him in the last fight scene when he finally recalls everything.

It was a Friday night so yes, I had partaken of the drankage.  And she did save his ass.  She walked in just before Neeson jabbed the shard of glass through the baddies neck.  I wanted to see her tits. 


Okay, I have no idea what that has to do with saving him.  But I wanted to see her naughty bits.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on November 19, 2013, 04:44:10 PM
It was a Friday night so yes, I had partaken of the drankage.  And she did save his ass.  She walked in just before Neeson jabbed the shard of glass through the baddies neck.  I wanted to see her tits. 


Okay, I have no idea what that has to do with saving him.  But I wanted to see her naughty bits.

(http://img002.lazygirls.info/people/diane_kruger/diane_kruger_diane_kruger_cleavage_ZF6mU1P.sized.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 19, 2013, 05:00:31 PM
(http://img002.lazygirls.info/people/diane_kruger/diane_kruger_diane_kruger_cleavage_ZF6mU1P.sized.jpg)

Good googly moogly
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 20, 2013, 12:05:25 PM
2 Guns

Wanted to see it in theaters.  Didn't.  Was sort of looking forward to the DVD release because I like Washington and I mostly like Marky Mark and I hoped the pairing would provide some good action flick chemistry. 

It sort of did. It sort of didn't. 

Absolutely ridiculous plot. Other than Denzel/Wahlberg the characters were comic book pulp, and completely overplayed.

Olmos was a caricature. Bill Paxton was a version of the same guy he played in True Lies.

Film struggled with pacing, struggled with contrived plot and utterly preposterous setups, struggled with actors not knowing what to do, struggled with continuity and just struggled overall.

It never got to the farce level that would have made the Wash/Wahl dynamic work, never devolved into gritty action because of the Wash/Wahl dynamic and ended up a completely muddled mess.  It just failed to deliver in a big way.

Denzel is better than this. So is Marky. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 20, 2013, 03:51:04 PM
2 Guns

Wanted to see it in theaters.  Didn't.  Was sort of looking forward to the DVD release because I like Washington and I mostly like Marky Mark and I hoped the pairing would provide some good action flick chemistry. 

It sort of did. It sort of didn't. 

Absolutely ridiculous plot. Other than Denzel/Wahlberg the characters were comic book pulp, and completely overplayed.

Olmos was a caricature. Bill Paxton was a version of the same guy he played in True Lies.

Film struggled with pacing, struggled with contrived plot and utterly preposterous setups, struggled with actors not knowing what to do, struggled with continuity and just struggled overall.

It never got to the farce level that would have made the Wash/Wahl dynamic work, never devolved into gritty action because of the Wash/Wahl dynamic and ended up a completely muddled mess.  It just failed to deliver in a big way.

Denzel is better than this. So is Marky.

Denzel is the man

Speaking of, have you or anyone else seen Flight?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 20, 2013, 04:26:28 PM
Should be reviewed here already.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on November 20, 2013, 04:31:28 PM
Denzel is the man

Speaking of, have you or anyone else seen Flight?


I saw the Russian version on-line a couple of days ago.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on November 20, 2013, 04:47:09 PM

I saw the Russian version on-line a couple of days ago.

Excellent.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on November 20, 2013, 04:49:14 PM

I saw the Russian version on-line a couple of days ago.

Excellent.


I heard about 50 people really gave a nose thumbs down.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 20, 2013, 08:09:51 PM
Should be reviewed here already.

I'll check it out.

Just saw it. Was curious how your take on it was.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on November 20, 2013, 08:17:14 PM
Excellent.

Is it on Netflix by the same name?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on November 21, 2013, 08:19:03 AM
Is it on Netflix by the same name?

Not sure if srs...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 22, 2013, 07:20:29 AM
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

When virtually everyone in your life that's important to you is a woman/girl you make sacrifices. One of those is attending midnight premieres of movies that hold little interest to you.  Thus, Catching Fire.

It was better than the first Hunger Games movie, but that's not saying much because the first one was hideously atrocious. 

I don't care for the "evil rich people partying on the backs of the downtrodden" storyline and its overtly socialist themes.

I've also come to revise my opinion on Jennifer Lawrence. Her work in Winter's Bone had me convinced that she was the next great actress. But her subsequent vapid, emotionless performances in films like X-Men, Hunger Games and House at the End of the Street left me unimpressed. Never saw Silver Limping Prayerbook or whatever that was, but she was supposedly better in it. She'd have to be because she's achingly bad in some of her other work.

Here, she's got little magnetism.  Not to give anything away, but the final scene was (I think) supposed to represent a sea change of emotion in her face, but her expressions are so plastic and flat-eyed it was difficult for me to tell what those emotions might be.  Her face is a smooth blank slate regardless of whatever emotional reaction she's allegedly having.  She's just not that good.

The rest of the cast is either reveling in its own over-costumed, over-acted performance or it just stumbles through the material without much effort.

Everything in the movie from the public uprisings, to the sneering trooper to the devious president to the double cross at the end is a mass of unlikely ridiculousness. What's amazing to me is that this franchise has drawn some pretty decent talent -- including Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Donald Sutherland, Elizabeth Banks and Woody Harrelson -- most of whom have proven themselves capable of portraying characters of incredible depth and detail, but here they're left to scenery chewing barely believable caricatures.  Sutherland was actually twirling his mustache at one point (or if he wasn't, the scene was so stupidly bad I imagined him to be doing so).

This movie is essentially a four and a half hour (what? It didn't last that long?) filler piece between part one and the eventually upcoming part three. 

I'll have to watch that one, too. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 27, 2013, 02:42:23 AM
Madea Christmas

Don't you know Tyler Perry cringes every time he has to put on that dress and slum for money again? 

Movie was about what you'd expect.  Racist commentary (albeit mostly from the black characters, not the white), crass jokes, celebrating hysterical and ignorant blackness, and some digs at the dumb country crackers who live in Alabammer. 

Lots of people/things you've seen before including an awful-looking Alicia Witt, the 'hide yo kids' guy, an ad for Prilosec, Blair from Facts of Life, and ain't nobody got time for that.

Perry sleepwalks through it and looks bored and lazy.  There are a few good moments including his retelling of the birth of Jesus.  Sacrilegious, but mildly amusing. 

The rest was either overacted badly, clumsily done or trite. 

It's also staggeringly stupid.  In what world does the mayor hire and fire teachers, particularly when there is apparently only one teacher (and one black person) in the entire town?  Where in Alabama do rednecks fight over who gets to plant corn? Or have "porn setter" farms? Where in this state do robed Klansmen meet in the middle of town?

A real waste of time that didn't have an impactful ending despite the setup to do so.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on December 27, 2013, 10:24:16 AM
Madea Christmas

Don't you know Tyler Perry cringes every time he has to put on that dress and slum for money again? 

Movie was about what you'd expect.  Racist commentary (albeit mostly from the black characters, not the white), crass jokes, celebrating hysterical and ignorant blackness, and some digs at the dumb country crackers who live in Alabammer. 

Lots of people/things you've seen before including an awful-looking Alicia Witt, the 'hide yo kids' guy, an ad for Prilosec, Blair from Facts of Life, and ain't nobody got time for that.

Perry sleepwalks through it and looks bored and lazy.  There are a few good moments including his retelling of the birth of Jesus.  Sacrilegious, but mildly amusing. 

The rest was either overacted badly, clumsily done or trite. 

It's also staggeringly stupid.  In what world does the mayor hire and fire teachers, particularly when there is apparently only one teacher (and one black person) in the entire town?  Where in Alabama do rednecks fight over who gets to plant corn? Or have "porn setter" farms? Where in this state do robed Klansmen meet in the middle of town?

A real waste of time that didn't have an impactful ending despite the setup to do so.

I could have told you all of that from the previews.  I have never watched one of his movies nor do I care to.  Really have no interest in a man dressing up in drag, there have been few times where it has actually been funny, (Mrs. Doubtfire, Tootsie) but those characters were actually men who dressed up within the movie.  The fact you spent money to see this has me  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on December 27, 2013, 10:50:57 AM
The fact you spent money to see this has me  :facepalm:

Lets not forget, K likes his men in makeup.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 27, 2013, 11:19:59 AM
The fact you spent money to see this has me  :facepalm:

Have I mentioned that I have girls? That my best friend is a girl. And that her children are both girls?

This movie choice was the culmination of this conversation:

Lets go to a movie.
Ok. What about wolves of Wall Street?
Sounds boring and it's three hours long?
American Hustle?
That's politics isn't it? Kids will be bored.
Grudge Match?
Might have been funny in 1980 but it's two old guys.
Hunger Games? Frozen?
Some of us have seen those movies.
Dino walking?
Really? That movie sucks.
Hobbit?
Ewwww no!
Ronin?
Who?
Mr. Banks?
I hate Mary poppins.
Mitty?
What? Who? I hate Ben stiller.

What about madea?
Ehhh. Sure. Ok.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Eagle!!! on December 27, 2013, 11:50:51 AM
That my best friend is a girl.

Huh? And apparently this isn't your wife??

I'm so confused right now...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 27, 2013, 09:44:50 PM
Huh? And apparently this isn't your wife??

I'm so confused right now...

My wife is a girl.  My best friend is a girl.  No confusion. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on December 28, 2013, 03:23:23 PM
Kaos have you watched the Conjuring? One of the best horror movies I've seen in a long time.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on December 31, 2013, 04:40:42 PM
Kaos have you watched the Conjuring? One of the best horror movies I've seen in a long time.

Agree. Was in my top 5 for the year.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 03, 2014, 11:23:24 AM
Have I mentioned that I have girls? That my best friend is a girl. And that her children are both girls?

This movie choice was the culmination of this conversation:

Lets go to a movie.
Ok. What about wolves of Wall Street?
Sounds boring and it's three hours long?
American Hustle?
That's politics isn't it? Kids will be bored.
Grudge Match?
Might have been funny in 1980 but it's two old guys.
Hunger Games? Frozen?
Some of us have seen those movies.
Dino walking?
Really? That movie sucks.
Hobbit?
Ewwww no!
Ronin?
Who?
Mr. Banks?
I hate Mary poppins.
Mitty?
What? Who? I hate Ben stiller.

What about madea?
Ehhh. Sure. Ok.

No no.... I get it, but in my world I would have rather chosen to go do something else instead of seeing a black man play an old woman in drag while not being funny for 2 hours.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 05, 2014, 03:16:09 PM
Grudge Match

Might have been funny in the 80s or 90s. But it's two really old guys. 

The jokes were telegraphed, the language more crass than I expected, the outcome inevitable.  Nothing much here but churning waters that have been heavily churned many times before.

The inside jokes were constant.  It merged Rocky and Raging Bull storylines from start to finish down to the eggs, slabs of meat, placement of the cuts during the "fight" and everything you've seen from all the trailers. The movie mined very little fresh territory beyond those trailers, honestly. 

There's still a fluid grace with which Stallone moves that can be admired even as he creeps up on 70 (he's 67 now).  I'd hate to think I had to do a scene with my shirt off at 50, much less in nearly 20 years.  So there's that, too.  But the movie just doesn't pay off like it could/should. 

I did see a trailer for Expendables 3 before the film, though.  It's adding Mel Gibson (54), Harrison Ford (72  OMG, Han Solo is 72!), Wesley Snipes (52), and Antonio Nasonex Banderas (53).  Willis is out. Norris is out.  Van Dumm is out.

Arnold stays in as does Dolph, Statham, Jet Li, Crews and Coture.  New additions that intrigue me?  Kelsey Frasier Grammer and Rhonda Rousey.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 10, 2014, 05:36:27 PM
American Hustle

I vaguely remember ABSCAM.  I like period pieces, especially ones like this where I can judge the authenticity from my own experience. 

The movie had the right feel for the era.  And it was okay.  Overly, overly long and at times confusing but okay.  I just didn't see where it possibly rated the "OMG greatest movie EVAR!" tag. 

Christian Bale gained weight and did a DeNiro impression. The lingering glances between Amy Adams, Bale and Bradley Cooper were drawn out to the point that they were almost Twilight-esque in their soap opera dramatics. Jennifer Lawrence is either really good or really bad.  Thankfully in this she was really good. I had a major problem with the idea that she was married to Bale, though.  She's, what, 20? And he's like 42?  That was bad casting.  Jeremy Renner was decent but not spectacular. I think he's always gonna be a B-level actor.  Elisabeth Rohm was completely unrecognizable. There were some surprise appearances. And Adams' boobs should have their own credit in the film, as they turned in a better performance than Adams did.

The movie struggled with whether it wanted to play things as comdey or drama and usually settled for something in the middle which satisfied neither intent.  It wasn't funny enough to be a comedy, wasn't dramatic enough to be a drama like Argo and instead meandered down that middle road of nothingness. There wasn't enough fun, there wasn't enough real suspense. The film just wasn't tight enough and should have spent more time in editing working on the pace.

It clocks in at just over two hours but it felt way, way longer than that.  And that's a bad sign.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 11, 2014, 01:28:14 AM
The Call
Oh how good this could have been.

The drama of a 911 operator working a kidnapped teen through the machinations of discovery and escape could have been fraught with tension and intensity. That part of the film was well done.

Sadly this film lost its way. This is how:

1. Silly diversion with "yo baby girl" cop.
2. Insanely over the top characterization of the big bad
3. Hallie Berry's awful hair.
4. The slutty friend that was meaningless. Why introduce a character that has no part in the events or resolution?
5. The waste of Christopher moltisanti.  Apparently parts have been hard to come by for Chrissy in the aftermath of The Sopranos.  His role could have been played by a stuffed animal, guy fieri or squeaky fromme. It was a serious squanderance of the illusion of talent/star power. His role was "guy in car"
6. The end. What a load of crap. Of all the ways to end the movie that was the worst the writers could have devised. So many problems with it there's no need to list them. It was, in a word, stupid. And it destroyed any goodwill the previous hour and a half may have created.

Before the last 15 minutes I would have given it a B.  But those last 15 pushed it down to a hard D.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 11, 2014, 09:15:22 AM
The Call
Oh how good this could have been.

The drama of a 911 operator working a kidnapped teen through the machinations of discovery and escape could have been fraught with tension and intensity. That part of the film was well done.

Sadly this film lost its way. This is how:

1. Silly diversion with "yo baby girl" cop.
2. Insanely over the top characterization of the big bad
3. Hallie Berry's awful hair.
4. The slutty friend that was meaningless. Why introduce a character that has no part in the events or resolution?
5. The waste of Christopher moltisanti.  Apparently parts have been hard to come by for Chrissy in the aftermath of The Sopranos.  His role could have been played by a stuffed animal, guy fieri or squeaky fromme. It was a serious squanderance of the illusion of talent/star power. His role was "guy in car"
6. The end. What a load of crap. Of all the ways to end the movie that was the worst the writers could have devised. So many problems with it there's no need to list them. It was, in a word, stupid. And it destroyed any goodwill the previous hour and a half may have created.

Before the last 15 minutes I would have given it a B.  But those last 15 pushed it down to a hard D.

Don't lie...you love a hard D. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 11, 2014, 11:03:10 AM
Anchorman 2 probably reviewed pages ago but if so, missed it.  Simply put...laughed my ass off for 2/3 or 57% of it.  Asked myself WTF was that for about 23% of the movie.  The remaining 33% was just jump the shark (literally), do NOT make an Anchorman 3, stupid.  Some really funny bits in it and a ton a holy-crap-did-he-just-say-that racial humor. Left there feeling like this was everything Will Ferrell has ever done, combined into one movie and taken to the extreme.  Some incredibly funny and incredibly face-palm moments.  Overall, worth the price of the ticket to me.     
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on January 11, 2014, 11:36:49 AM
Overall, worth the price of the ticket to me.   

Well, that's because the price of the ticket is about .00000000000000000000001% of what you make...monthly.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 11, 2014, 12:48:34 PM
Anchorman 2 probably reviewed pages ago but if so, missed it.  Simply put...laughed my ass off for 2/3 or 57% of it.  Asked myself WTF was that for about 23% of the movie.  The remaining 33% was just jump the shark (literally), do NOT make an Anchorman 3, stupid.  Some really funny bits in it and a ton a holy-crap-did-he-just-say-that racial humor. Left there feeling like this was everything Will Ferrell has ever done, combined into one movie and taken to the extreme.  Some incredibly funny and incredibly face-palm moments.  Overall, worth the price of the ticket to me.   

Not reviewed and won't be.

From someone who spent years trying to convince me that ferrel was a comedy genius:

"I was wrong. He just doesn't have anything but one character over and over. Anchorman 2 was embarrassing for everybody involved."
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 19, 2014, 12:06:35 PM
Ride Along

Theater was completely full on a Friday night if that means anything.

Not as raunchy or profane as I expected it to be given the presence of Kevin Hart and Ice.

Pretty good movie that delivered exactly what it advertised. The "story" such as it was with its Serbian guns in Atlanta spin was actually terrible and if the film had tried to deliver that turd seriously it would have failed miserably. Instead it was just an excuse to get Hart into a variety of messy situations that allowed him to improvise in character.

Hart reminded me very much of 80s Eddie Murphy and this could very easily have been a film done by Murphy and say Samuel L Jackson in 1985 or so. 

Cube is pretty much himself but that's not a bad thing. He's semi believable. The angry white cop boss cliche is there for no reason and John legume reminds you once again why he has trouble getting quality roles. He's awful. 

But as a whole the movie delivers what the trailers promise. A fun and funny ride along.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 19, 2014, 12:16:51 PM
Lone Survivor

This movie hurt my soul. 

It's so much better than I hoped it might be. Having watched Wolf of Wall Street, American Hustle and this film all within the last week or so, it disturbs me that Bale and Leo and their films are piling up on the award circuit while this movie is being ignored. 

Marky is outstanding.  Foster is tremendous.  Hirsch is very good. Even Taylor kitsch -- who is clearly a terrible actor -- does well here.

The movie's gritty realism makes you feel every bit of the pain endured by the men on this mission. Their desperation becomes yours.

The theater sold out -- on a Saturday afternoon -- and I joked before it started that it was unusual to be one of the youngest in the audience.  There were a lot of veterans in the mix too. During the end credits you could hear a lot of sniffling and crying.

Powerful movie. Powerful message. Well acted. Well shot.

Everybody needs to see it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 19, 2014, 12:21:51 PM
Wolf of Wall Street
This movie is about excess. And it is excessive. Runs three hours. Could have been condensed to one.

Didn't learn anything, didnt see anything other than some vulgarity that I haven't seen before.

It was fair but just not worth the hype or the expansive running time.

What was the moral? Anytime the story is about excess and the inevitable crash there is usually a moral in there somewhere. Not in this muddled mess of an ending.

Just didnt do anything for me at all.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on January 19, 2014, 12:22:16 PM
Everybody needs to see it.

Or read the book.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 19, 2014, 01:03:46 PM
Or since this is an area for movie reviews, go see the movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: bottomfeeder on January 19, 2014, 06:12:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MCtC_U4e2o# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MCtC_U4e2o#)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 20, 2014, 10:30:13 AM
Maniac


I expected very little from this one, mainly because Elijah Wood is so hit or miss (hated the weepy, over-emoting Hobbit role...but really like him in Wilfred).

HOWEVER, this was a quality horror film.  About 80% of the movie is POV as Wood goes through his psychotic endeavors.  Couple some gruesome trophy taking with a smoking hot French girl...you've got something sweeter than YooHoo.

Check it on Netflix.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on January 21, 2014, 01:18:49 PM
Lone Survivor

This movie hurt my soul. 

It's so much better than I hoped it might be. Having watched Wolf of Wall Street, American Hustle and this film all within the last week or so, it disturbs me that Bale and Leo and their films are piling up on the award circuit while this movie is being ignored. 

Marky is outstanding.  Foster is tremendous.  Hirsch is very good. Even Taylor kitsch -- who is clearly a terrible actor -- does well here.

The movie's gritty realism makes you feel every bit of the pain endured by the men on this mission. Their desperation becomes yours.

The theater sold out -- on a Saturday afternoon -- and I joked before it started that it was unusual to be one of the youngest in the audience.  There were a lot of veterans in the mix too. During the end credits you could hear a lot of sniffling and crying.

Powerful movie. Powerful message. Well acted. Well shot.

Everybody needs to see it.

AGREE.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on January 21, 2014, 01:21:19 PM
Maybe if the SEALs in Lone Survivor all started having anal relations with each other, then came back to the states, robbed some banks and snorted blow out of each other's anus cavities, Hollywood and OSCAR would take notice.

But, no, it's about about heroes doing their jobs and showing that there are bad people in this world. They made the MORAL choice to let people live and it cost them all. Hats off to those and all others who serve.

Screw Hollywood.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 21, 2014, 01:24:40 PM
and snorted blow out of each other's anus cavities, Hollywood and OSCAR would take notice.

How else are you supposed to do blow?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on January 21, 2014, 01:29:16 PM
How else are you supposed to do blow?

Through the pee hole.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 21, 2014, 03:05:19 PM
Through the pee hole.
I prefer the anus.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on January 21, 2014, 03:08:55 PM
I prefer the anus.

Sometimes I pee out of my butt.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 21, 2014, 03:18:12 PM
Sometimes I pee out of my butt.

Drink Responsibly!

This has been a product advertisement for Sweetwater 420
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on January 23, 2014, 12:19:52 PM
Hellraiser VII: Deader

Kari Wurher is still hot. Movie sucks.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on January 23, 2014, 01:01:56 PM
Hellraiser VII: Deader

Kari Wurher is still hot. Movie sucks.

Even after she shrunk her boobies?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on January 23, 2014, 01:07:30 PM
Lone Survivor

This movie hurt my soul. 

It's so much better than I hoped it might be. Having watched Wolf of Wall Street, American Hustle and this film all within the last week or so, it disturbs me that Bale and Leo and their films are piling up on the award circuit while this movie is being ignored. 

Marky is outstanding.  Foster is tremendous.  Hirsch is very good. Even Taylor kitsch -- who is clearly a terrible actor -- does well here.

The movie's gritty realism makes you feel every bit of the pain endured by the men on this mission. Their desperation becomes yours.

The theater sold out -- on a Saturday afternoon -- and I joked before it started that it was unusual to be one of the youngest in the audience.  There were a lot of veterans in the mix too. During the end credits you could hear a lot of sniffling and crying.

Powerful movie. Powerful message. Well acted. Well shot.

Everybody needs to see it.

Same here. Just sat and tried to remember the faces of those that died.

Several years ago, a kid in his 20's was living down the street. he had just gotten out of the Army (ranger). He claimed he was supposed to have been in the heli that went down. But he was home getting his ear operated on(burst in an explosion). I'm not sure if he was telling the truth or not, but he re-enlisted within the year. But i didnot put the two events together until this movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on January 23, 2014, 02:49:01 PM
Even after she shrunk her boobies?

Yep. And they are on display in that piece of
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 02, 2014, 01:19:17 AM
A Clockwork Orange

My beezerbupas skeezersad this movie was a classominco. Sezam I eysaballes it for 30 snipersnaps of its three hour geltaflam.

This bing the cassie, my brothers, I toronadoed the pipslot and feeblegarbed on my merry way.


Translation: Heard this movie was a classic. I made it through 30 minutes of the three-hour thing. Then I turned it off and vowed never to watch it a single second of it again and to roundly mock anyone who proclaims to find any value in this Dr. Seuss nightmare.

What a load of garbage. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 02, 2014, 09:19:49 AM
A Clockwork Orange

My beezerbupas skeezersad this movie was a classominco. Sezam I eysaballes it for 30 snipersnaps of its three hour geltaflam.

This bing the cassie, my brothers, I toronadoed the pipslot and feeblegarbed on my merry way.


Translation: Heard this movie was a classic. I made it through 30 minutes of the three-hour thing. Then I turned it off and vowed never to watch it a single second of it again and to roundly mock anyone who proclaims to find any value in this Dr. Seuss nightmare.

What a load of garbage.

Too many Disney movies and too much boy band music has warped your sensibilities.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on February 02, 2014, 10:31:29 AM
A Clockwork Orange

My beezerbupas skeezersad this movie was a classominco. Sezam I eysaballes it for 30 snipersnaps of its three hour geltaflam.

This bing the cassie, my brothers, I toronadoed the pipslot and feeblegarbed on my merry way.


Translation: Heard this movie was a classic. I made it through 30 minutes of the three-hour thing. Then I turned it off and vowed never to watch it a single second of it again and to roundly mock anyone who proclaims to find any value in this Dr. Seuss nightmare.

What a load of garbage.

Still better than Wolf of Wall Street. Scorsese is the KMart of art house douchebaggery filmmaking.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on February 02, 2014, 10:59:23 AM
Still better than Wolf of Wall Street. Scorsese is the KMart of art house douchebaggery filmmaking.

Best display of wit you've had since signing up.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on February 02, 2014, 11:38:22 AM
Same here. Just sat and tried to remember the faces of those that died.

Several years ago, a kid in his 20's was living down the street. he had just gotten out of the Army (ranger). He claimed he was supposed to have been in the heli that went down. But he was home getting his ear operated on(burst in an explosion). I'm not sure if he was telling the truth or not, but he re-enlisted within the year. But i didnot put the two events together until this movie.


Have not seen the movie yet. May not, I don't well at those kinds of movies. Everyone wants to remember the guys who gave all, but you also have to remember  most had families. I always thought that we should have a day dedicated to military spouses. They sacrifice as much as anyone with the long deployments and having to be both husband and wife while military members are gone. I truly give Mrs. Dallas kudos for the times I was gone. She would be very happy when I came back (after a shower).
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: DnATL on February 02, 2014, 03:15:18 PM
I truly give Mrs. Dallas kudos for the times I was gone. She would be very happy when I came back (after a shower).
Maybe while you were deployed in the Army, Buzz was on shore leave, motorboating like an old sailor
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 02, 2014, 05:35:09 PM
Too many Disney movies and too much boy band music has warped your sensibilities.

I'm sorry but this was the worst movie  I've ever seen. I'd rather sit through a 24-hour will Ferrell/Adam sandler marathon than watch 10 minutes of this claptrap. I'd rather listen to Eli Gold read war and peace than spend another five minutes watching this nonsensical turd. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on February 02, 2014, 11:24:31 PM
A Clockwork Orange

My beezerbupas skeezersad this movie was a classominco. Sezam I eysaballes it for 30 snipersnaps of its three hour geltaflam.

This bing the cassie, my brothers, I toronadoed the pipslot and feeblegarbed on my merry way.


Translation: Heard this movie was a classic. I made it through 30 minutes of the three-hour thing. Then I turned it off and vowed never to watch it a single second of it again and to roundly mock anyone who proclaims to find any value in this Dr. Seuss nightmare.

What a load of garbage.

I actually own the DVD after hearing how great it was and seeing it in a $5 bin at Best Buy.  I think I might have even watched the whole thing at one point.  Just philosophical posturing and violence for violence sake.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 03, 2014, 09:07:17 AM
violence for violence sake.

You completely missed the point.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 03, 2014, 09:32:40 AM
You completely missed the point.

Expound please
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on February 03, 2014, 09:43:15 AM
You completely missed the point.

I understood the point of which is better, to be violent and evil with free will or be peaceful and good but have your will taken away, but it was still over the top violent.  It started getting cartoonish.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 03, 2014, 09:58:55 AM
Dead Man Down

Dead Actors walking. 

Good concept, poorly executed and poorly acted. 

Terrence Howard is easily one of the most overrated actors in the world.  He's typically awful and doesn't disappoint here. He's the worst of a bad lot. He's a black John Travolta. No talent at all, but occasionally stumbled into a role that didn't require much and made himself seem more than he is.  Abysmal in this role.

Colin Farrell has made one good movie. This isn't it.  He was perfectly cast in the film In Bruges, average in Seven Psychopaths but stinks up everything else I've seen him in.  He's not the worst part of this movie but struggles to carry it.

Noomi Rapace is woefully bad. 

The story is fairly straightforward, but instead of telling one and making it good the writer/director tried to interweave two stories and ended up muddling both of them. 

I've seen worse -- Clockwork anything -- but as with far too many films I'm disappointed in the clumsy handling of what should / could be a decent story.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 03, 2014, 10:14:53 AM
I understood the point of which is better, to be violent and evil with free will or be peaceful and good but have your will taken away, but it was still over the top violent.  It started getting cartoonish.

That's still a pretty distilled take on the themes of the book.  Looming large in the story are the implications of governmental participation in therapy (setting goals/desired outcomes).
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 03, 2014, 10:20:13 AM
That's still a pretty distilled take on the themes of the book.  Looming large in the story are the implications of governmental participation in therapy (setting goals/desired outcomes).

Regardless of the "meaning" it would have been a story better told without the Dr. Seuss nonsense gibberish.  It might possibly have been effective then even if the performances were so absolutely ridiculously cartoonish. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 03, 2014, 10:21:54 AM
Regardless of the "meaning" it would have been a story better told without the Dr. Seuss nonsense gibberish.  It might possibly have been effective then even if the performances were so absolutely ridiculously cartoonish.

Diff'rent strokes.  It ranks among Kubrick's greatest for a reason.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on February 03, 2014, 10:23:15 AM
Diff'rent strokes.  It ranks among Kubrick's greatest for a reason.

Ranked by those loons that spew that global climate change garbage.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 03, 2014, 10:27:41 AM
Ranked by those loons that spew that global climate change garbage.

Wow...been reading the bottomfeeder primer, have ya?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 03, 2014, 10:32:26 AM
Diff'rent strokes.  It ranks among Kubrick's greatest for a reason.

Reason being that people so desperately want to appear smart that they embrace idiocy in the name of art. 

Ranking this as "best" is no different than the people who pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for prostitute feces smeared on a colored canvas because someone told them it was a desperate artistic expression of anguish. 

Same as people who proclaim Yngwie Malmsteen a great guitarist because he can make it sound like a million angry bumblebees assaulted an accordion.  That's not music. Stevie Ray Vaughn or Eddie Van Halen... they understand rhythm, pace and the overall concept that the guitar work has to fit in with the complete piece.

Same as people who wear the most ridiculous clothes imaginable because somebody (who's laughing behind their backs) told them it was "trendy" or whatever. 

Same as people who eat atrocious food and drink crap that tastes like decayed cough syrup because it's supposed to show their "culture."

I tend to ridicule that sort of snobbish buffoonery and this movie fits into that category for me.  Nobody really enjoyed it, they just felt as if they'd be considered ignorant by some other snoot if they didn't proclaim its greatness. 

The movie's crap.  Kubrick was a weirdo. Most of his movies suck anyway.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 03, 2014, 11:37:14 AM
  Kubrick was a weirdo. Most of his movies suck anyway.   

Cementing your heretofore established credentials as having incredibly awful taste.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 03, 2014, 11:42:35 AM
Cementing your heretofore established credentials as having incredibly awful taste.

The Shining was fair.  Nicholson carried that movie, but he screwed up the ending from the book.

Full Metal Jacket was good.

2001 (another "classic") was mostly bubbling sewage.  It's difficult to watch and hardly makes any sense.  Nobody even knows what it means, people just have theories.

Spartacus was okay, but that was during the period where the studios reined him in and didn't allow him to go all bizarro. Otherwise it probably would have ended with Spartacus putting a pan of goat milk on his head and time-traveling to become Hustler publisher Larry Flynt. 

The rest of his stuff is looney clap trap. 

Eyes Wide Shut?  Yep.  That's the only way to watch most of his godawful films. 

Claiming any of his crap is worth watching is the cinematic equivalent of The Emperor's New Clothes. 

I'm not afraid to point out the obvious nudity.  You're welcome to continue oohing and aahhing over the finely tailored fabrics that make up his resplendent robe. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on February 03, 2014, 12:41:46 PM
Wow...been reading the bottomfeeder primer, have ya?

That snow in Birmingham was sent by the gubment.  It don't burn like normal snow do when I set it on fire.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 03, 2014, 01:06:03 PM
 

Claiming any of his crap is worth watching is the cinematic equivalent of The Emperor's New Clothes. 


That's, like, your opinion, man.

In this case, as in so many of your art-related opinions, you're just dead fucking wrong.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 03, 2014, 01:54:51 PM
That's, like, your opinion, man.

In this case, as in so many of your art-related opinions, you're just dead fucking wrong.

Let me tell you something, pendejo. You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash a piece out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the fucking trigger 'til it goes "click."
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 03, 2014, 01:56:47 PM
That's, like, your opinion, man.

In this case, as in so many of your art-related opinions, you're just dead fudgeing wrong.

The emperor is naked.  Film at 11.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 03, 2014, 04:01:25 PM
Wow...been reading the bottomfeeder primer, have ya?
hes not the king of extreme hyperbole for nothing my man.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on February 05, 2014, 01:19:58 PM
Last night "Robin Hood Men In Tights" was on TV, I saw it in the theater when it released originally.  God is it stupid, but if I fail to laugh at a blind man falling from a tree then just shoot me, because I have lived too long.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 05, 2014, 02:09:14 PM
Last night "Robin Hood Men In Tights" was on TV, I saw it in the theater when it released originally.  God is it stupid, but if I fail to laugh at a blind man falling from a tree then just shoot me, because I have lived too long.

A true Mel Brooks classic. 

Hey Blinken

Did you say Abe Lincoln?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 08, 2014, 11:44:16 AM
Taken Too (2)

Liam "I'm a man I'm 80" Neeson acting like Steven Segal in a movie that would have been laughed at uproariously had Segal been the lead. It only lacked a three word title (Taken For Vengeance perhaps?) to actually be a Segal boilerplate. But because Neeson has an accent this silly film is legitimized.

If you spent money on it you got Taken Too.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 08, 2014, 11:54:02 AM
The Family
Deniro quit acting years ago. Once again be phoned in a performance where he plays a wise guy. Looked bored and yawned his way through it.

Michelle Pfieffer looked rode hard and put up very wet. The years haven't been kind to her. Nor has her plastic surgeon. She needs to sue. She also looked bored and disinterested in being in this film.

There was one scene that was amusing in its life imitating art sort of way but that brief amusement was hardly worth slogging through the rest of this mess.

Wasted: Tommy Lee Jones, Deniro, Pfieffer, the dude from Breakout Kings, and a girl who looked like Emma Roberts but wasn't.  Fantastic cast completely frittered away in a garbage movie.

The action was implausible and too dark for the comedic moments it tried to create. The comedy was too lame to give the action credibility. The film couldn't decide what it wanted to be and the awkward juxtapositions between bad comedy and gory action just didn't work.

Never let anybody outside the family know what you're thinking? In this case it's ok. The family flopped.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 08, 2014, 08:16:19 PM
Epic

Yes. If by "epic" you mean craptacular.

Only 15i minutes in and I can already proclaim this epically shitty.

Typically in Disney animation there is some effort to align the character with the person inhabiting the role. That helps lend a touch of authenticity  Here? The Indian guy from parks and rec is a big fat slug. Enough said?

I expect quality animation in these big budget big cast epics (pun intended). Here? Barely to the level of one of the Barbie animated movies -- which suck.

Waste of time.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 09, 2014, 07:07:26 PM
Bad Grandpa

What in the roasting carnivorous hell was Johnny Knoxville trying to do here? Improbably set up gags, Borat style "did he really just say/do that" audience reactions all mixed in with a half ass effort to tell a story that's been told a hundred times before.  Circumstances match up two dissimilar people and they find love along the way.  Yawn.

I was a little disturbed by the scenes of the kid drinking beer. Not necessary. And considering the way over the top antics  of Knoxville the audience reactions were really really tame. In one sequence he supposedly sprayed his own feces on the wall of a restaurant as the result of a farting contest gone bad. None of the other patrons of the restaurant got up to leave or did much more than shake their head in amusement. They kept right on eating. Somebody fires off a shower of dung a booth away from me and I'm coming unhinged. I won't be laughing politely and returning to my Reuben. I'm having a shit fit of my own.

I expected the sort of balls out lunacy that used to make me laugh at Jackass. Instead I got the worst of the "Johnny Knoxville makes somebody uncomfortable" skits with a kid thrown in.

JKnox does have the old man strut down pat though. There were times I could almost forget that he wasn't an 80 year old man.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 10, 2014, 11:34:21 AM
Bad Grandpa

What in the roasting carnivorous hell was Johnny Knoxville trying to do here? Improbably set up gags, Borat style "did he really just say/do that" audience reactions all mixed in with a half ass effort to tell a story that's been told a hundred times before.  Circumstances match up two dissimilar people and they find love along the way.  Yawn.

I was a little disturbed by the scenes of the kid drinking beer. Not necessary. And considering the way over the top antics  of Knoxville the audience reactions were really really tame. In one sequence he supposedly sprayed his own feces on the wall of a restaurant as the result of a farting contest gone bad. None of the other patrons of the restaurant got up to leave or did much more than shake their head in amusement. They kept right on eating. Somebody fires off a shower of dung a booth away from me and I'm coming unhinged. I won't be laughing politely and returning to my Reuben. I'm having a shit fit of my own.

I expected the sort of balls out lunacy that used to make me laugh at Jackass. Instead I got the worst of the "Johnny Knoxville makes somebody uncomfortable" skits with a kid thrown in.

JKnox does have the old man strut down pat though. There were times I could almost forget that he wasn't an 80 year old man.

Especially if a tomato is involved
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 11, 2014, 07:10:07 AM
Prisoners

The only way I would want to watch this movie again is if I were being held prisoner and the only avenue of escape was to view it one more time. 

Jake Gaylynnhall mumbled and sad-eyed his way through it.  Terrance was typically terrible.  The rest was overwrought. 

Admittedly I never knew for sure who the big bad was *although I was 90% right all along, just doubted because of a few red herrings* but the acting was so bad I ended up not caring. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on February 16, 2014, 08:25:25 PM
Robocop (2014)

If 1987's Robocop was a satire of 80's excess, this version serves more as a dark, political paranoia statement.

Plenty of violence and gunplay are well mixed with the Alex Murphy story and the corporation that built him for little more than a marketing ploy to loosen U.S. Misgivings about automated patrol robots roaming the streets.

Joel Kinnaman is well suited as Murphy/Robocop and flanked by a solid supporting cast of Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Keaton, Jackie Earl Haley, and Gary Oldman, the story unfolds at a brisk but followable pace.

Set aside what you love about that original and a good time can be herby this admirable remake.



Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on February 17, 2014, 10:38:14 AM
Robocop (2014)

If 1987's Robocop was a satire of 80's excess, this version serves more as a dark, political paranoia statement.

Plenty of violence and gunplay are well mixed with the Alex Murphy story and the corporation that built him for little more than a marketing ploy to loosen U.S. Misgivings about automated patrol robots roaming the streets.

Joel Kinnaman is well suited as Murphy/Robocop and flanked by a solid supporting cast of Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Keaton, Jackie Earl Haley, and Gary Oldman, the story unfolds at a brisk but followable pace.

Set aside what you love about that original and a good time can be herby this admirable remake.

But like I asked before, does a bad guy get drenched in toxic waste and run over by a car?  Because I'm not going unless that happens. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on February 17, 2014, 11:31:24 AM
But like I asked before, does a bad guy get drenched in toxic waste and run over by a car?  Because I'm not going unless that happens.

If you go again expecting them to recreate the 1987 experience, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

But if you go in expecting them to do a real remake - take the original, update it, sprinkle in new or different subtext - then you will enjoy.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on February 17, 2014, 01:29:59 PM
If you go again expecting them to recreate the 1987 experience, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

But if you go in expecting them to do a real remake - take the original, update it, sprinkle in new or different subtext - then you will enjoy.

So it doesn't happen?  Not going.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 23, 2014, 05:52:47 PM
Pompeii

Eh.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on February 23, 2014, 06:20:40 PM
Pompeii

Eh.

TL;DR
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 25, 2014, 11:19:10 AM
Kick Ass 2

Toss out everything that made Kick Ass a surprisingly cool little movie, pile on layers of violence, brutal murders played for a goof, a dash of Carrie, some wasted talent and a hackneyed story and you've got Kick Ass 2.

It was a horrible follow up to a decent little movie. If Kick Ass 2 had come out before Kick Ass there never would have been a sequel. It was just bad. Couldn't find a single redeeming feature.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 04, 2014, 11:26:50 AM
Curious of Kaos' take of Non Stop. Mine?

For an action flick it was decent. Good not great. Had a few plot holes in it that slightly aggravated me. Neeson was great as usual playing the gruff Air Marshall of a commercial jet. The ending was average. It's def a whodunit the whole movie with about a dozen red herrings thrown in along the way. I think people getting bent out of shape over the ending is way overblown. Politically speaking anyway. I saw no real agenda other than a wacko trying to prove a point to an entire country via extreme means. It's happened before. Big whoop.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 04, 2014, 11:29:50 AM
I wanted to see some reviews before plunking down the cash to see this one.  Regardless of the actors, I'm always wary of any movie that takes place almost exclusively on a plane, bus, train etc. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 04, 2014, 11:58:21 AM
I wanted to see some reviews before plunking down the cash to see this one.  Regardless of the actors, I'm always wary of any movie that takes place almost exclusively on a plane, bus, train etc.

I didn't regret it. Like I said it was good. Not great. Neeson is worth it alone. 

I started not to based off some negative reviews of the ending but said screw it and went anyway. The political complaints about the ending are seriously overblown. I wouldn't let that detract anyone.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 04, 2014, 12:11:59 PM
Does it have snakes on it?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 04, 2014, 12:56:28 PM
Does it have snakes on it?

Or tomatoes?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 06, 2014, 08:13:16 AM
Non Stop

Please stop. 

Ok, so you were never really sure who the bad guys were.  Unfortunately I didn't care at all. 

Liam again gets a pass because he has an accent. And weird looking ears.  All in all a generally silly movie with cartoon/cliched characters and silly sub plots.  Featured a lot of people behaving in ways that defied any semblance of logic. 

The worst was the "we're going to kill you, but oh you made an impassioned speech about your daughter so here's your gun back and let's rally on three" scene that was just stupid.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 06, 2014, 11:10:02 AM
Non Stop

Please stop. 

Ok, so you were never really sure who the bad guys were.  Unfortunately I didn't care at all. 

Liam again gets a pass because he has an accent. And weird looking ears.  All in all a generally silly movie with cartoon/cliched characters and silly sub plots.  Featured a lot of people behaving in ways that defied any semblance of logic. 

The worst was the "we're going to kill you, but oh you made an impassioned speech about your daughter so here's your gun back and let's rally on three" scene that was just stupid.

Silly and cartooned? Yes. So in that respect it was realistic and symbolic of most in society. Right?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 09, 2014, 03:13:31 PM
Mr Peabody
Might have been good 40 years ago when people knew who Mr Peabody was.

In 2014 it fails on practically every level.  A few cute moments but those are drowned out by weak characters, trying too hard to be clever dialogue and a baby bitch you wanted to see die in a fire.  For the writers to use her shallow bully bitch character to try to teach a life lesson was a major blunder. 

Movie was weak from start to finish.  Cannot recommend.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 11, 2014, 02:25:47 PM
Machete Kills

The movie was supposed to be bad.  And it was. Made no pretense of trying to be serious, just piled ludicrous mayhem on top of boobs and midriffs and allowed a bevy of actors and actresses to have fun with a ridiculous story, cheesy dialogue and relentless action.

In that it was great.  Mayem, blood and gore. With boobs.

The original Machete featured a creative use of human intestines and Machete Kills took that half a step further. 

The cast included Sofia BigBoobs (for whom I have never seen the attraction whatsoever, she turns me completely off), Michelle Rodriguez (yummy yes...), Carmen from Spy Kids all grown up and blazing hot in ass-less chaps, Amber Heard (all 10-foot legs of her), Jessica Alba, Vanessa Hudgins, Lady Gaga, Cuba Gooding Jr., Mel Gibson, Antonio "Nasonex" Banderas, Carlos Estevev (aka Charlie Sheen) as the president, Boyd from Justified and others I've probably forgotten. 

Was it the best movie I've ever seen? No. Will it win Oscars, change the world? No. Did it tell a great story or inform me in any way? Nope.  It just started romping from the pre-movie trailer and romped all the way to the end.  It knew what it was and didn't try to do anything else.

I liked it.  More than I probably should.

If you're in the Rodriguez/Tarantino circle you'll see a few things recycled here and there that should seem familiar.  Like the guy with the crotch revolver who was in From Dusk 'Til Dawn. And the crotch revolver, too but on a different character.

Would I watch Machete Kills Again.... In Space should that movie ever be made?  Yep.  I'd rent it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 15, 2014, 09:50:40 PM
Thor: The Dark World

I tend to like Marvel Superhero movies for the most part because they understand far better than the most recent iterations of Batman and Superman that it's really all for fun and it's perfectly okay to laugh at yourself as you employ epic levels of bombastic action.  Marvel gets this even more than Transformers does (which I love) because Transformers piled on the preaching while it stooped to dog-screwing and pot brownies for its humor in its most recent efforts.

The first Thor I didn't like all that much when I initially watched it.  But then I watched it again after watching the second Thor and I have to say the original holds up much better than the sequel just for those humorous moments it managed to intersperse into the film. 

The second was far too ponderous to me.  Oh no, the nine worlds of Scandor are aligning for the first time since the thousand year reign of Prepostenelese, therefore the bifurcan must remain closed or we must all Odinnap in the knowledge that the lord protector of Asgard has failed to bring goodwill to the Cassiopeans, Tetrachnarians, Moofasas and Bludensnorps while the dawn of Sephtarious manacled the Blutarsky. 

Whaaaat? 

Ease up on the speechifying and let Loki rampage.  The movie bogged down any time Loki was absent from the screen. 

I watched it with about half a dozen other people and no one really had any idea what the wickets Princess  Leia's mother and the Broke Girl had, what they were supposed to do or why the hammer knocked greminopolous out at the end when he sort of batted it aside most of the time before.   It was more "oh, Thor must have done something. Yay. He won?"

Watching the dude bash crap around with a big hammer grows tiresome after a while no matter how quality the CGI is. 

Thor I was better than Thor II.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 16, 2014, 09:44:40 AM
The Heat

Cringingly bad.  Unless you enjoy fat wildebeest charging around and bellowing there's nothing in this movie that could be considered remotely interesting. 

The characters were cardboard and stupid. The "action" worthless. The story clichéd and recycled from the worst buddy cop movies you've seen a hundred times before.

Sandra Bullock is completely unwatchable. She's horrible here. I know she's won and been nominated for Oscars. I know she got all kinds of praise for that crappy ole miss movie but I thought she was terrible in that too.  I won't watch Gravity because I consider her the female John Travolta or Nicholas Cage. She's one of the worse actresses I've ever seen. She stinks up the screen in everything I've ever seen her in except perhaps Speed.

When a performance is so gratingly awful that it makes you forget there's a bloated walrus roaring in a profane and disgustingly obnoxious manner next to her for most of the movie, it's pretty bad.

This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a while and it's a sad commentary on the current state of entertainment that crap like this, bridesmaids, wedding crashers and identity thief are hailed as "great" comedies.  It was worthless garbage.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 16, 2014, 11:42:47 AM
Escape Plan

How old are these guys anyway? 

Fair movie, but a condemnation of the current generation of "action" stars (of which there are none).  Stallone, Schwartz, Willis, Ford and even Gibson are a dying breed.  There is no new crop to take their place and fill the screen with mayhem. 

Seriously who's out there?  Thor? The Rock? Renner (who's 5-4)? Cruise (who's nearing 60)? Action heroes now have to show a softer side. Go look up lists of action star possibilities.  You get names like Daniel "Harry Potter" Radcliffe, Zachary "Spock" Quinto, Jason "Drago" Momoa (not generic enough), the pencil-thin Spiderman geek, vapid Channing Tatum, mumbling Tom Hardy, and guarantee-a-movie-bomb Taylor Kitsch.  The best choices are Matt Damon who has much more range and Mark Wahlberg, who I usually like but who also lacks that "it" factor that true action stars have.  He's close to a wise-cracking Willis and could probably fit into the Die Hard franchise. But still. It's a weak, wussified crew.


So these older guys keep on trying.  This would have been a much better movie when Stallone and Arnie were in their 30s or 40s.  It looks a little uneven now that they're 90. 

I did like the location of the prison, but found the "make a diversion" escape plot to be really stupid.  Also hated the prison warden creeper.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AU_Tiger_2000 on March 17, 2014, 09:45:31 AM
Escape Plan

How old are these guys anyway? 

Fair movie, but a condemnation of the current generation of "action" stars (of which there are none).  Stallone, Schwartz, Willis, Ford and even Gibson are a dying breed.  There is no new crop to take their place and fill the screen with mayhem. 

Seriously who's out there?  Thor? The Rock? Renner (who's 5-4)? Cruise (who's nearing 60)? Action heroes now have to show a softer side. Go look up lists of action star possibilities.  You get names like Daniel "Harry Potter" Radcliffe, Zachary "Spock" Quinto, Jason "Drago" Momoa (not generic enough), the pencil-thin Spiderman geek, vapid Channing Tatum, mumbling Tom Hardy, and guarantee-a-movie-bomb Taylor Kitsch.  The best choices are Matt Damon who has much more range and Mark Wahlberg, who I usually like but who also lacks that "it" factor that true action stars have.  He's close to a wise-cracking Willis and could probably fit into the Die Hard franchise. But still. It's a weak, wussified crew.


So these older guys keep on trying.  This would have been a much better movie when Stallone and Arnie were in their 30s or 40s.  It looks a little uneven now that they're 90. 

I did like the location of the prison, but found the "make a diversion" escape plot to be really stupid.  Also hated the prison warden creeper.

Sad that the best "new" action movie star is Liam Neeson.  Heard that Taken 3 is in the works.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on March 17, 2014, 03:33:17 PM
Escape Plan

How old are these guys anyway? 

Fair movie, but a condemnation of the current generation of "action" stars (of which there are none).  Stallone, Schwartz, Willis, Ford and even Gibson are a dying breed.  There is no new crop to take their place and fill the screen with mayhem. 

Seriously who's out there?  Thor? The Rock? Renner (who's 5-4)? Cruise (who's nearing 60)? Action heroes now have to show a softer side. Go look up lists of action star possibilities.  You get names like Daniel "Harry Potter" Radcliffe, Zachary "Spock" Quinto, Jason "Drago" Momoa (not generic enough), the pencil-thin Spiderman geek, vapid Channing Tatum, mumbling Tom Hardy, and guarantee-a-movie-bomb Taylor Kitsch.  The best choices are Matt Damon who has much more range and Mark Wahlberg, who I usually like but who also lacks that "it" factor that true action stars have.  He's close to a wise-cracking Willis and could probably fit into the Die Hard franchise. But still. It's a weak, wussified crew.


So these older guys keep on trying.  This would have been a much better movie when Stallone and Arnie were in their 30s or 40s.  It looks a little uneven now that they're 90. 

I did like the location of the prison, but found the "make a diversion" escape plot to be really stupid.  Also hated the prison warden creeper.



He'll get his chance in the new transformer. Number 4?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 17, 2014, 04:28:31 PM
I know Kaos reviewed Bad Grandpa awhile back, but I saw it on the plane yesterday.  Really nothing to "review".  It's Jackass with a plot, sort of. So, you know exactly what you're getting.  Have to admit Knoxville was pretty funny sometimes because he had to ad lib a good bit of it based on people's reactions.  He got people pissed as hell and I thought he was going to get his ass kicked several times but most held off because he was an "80 year old man."  Netflix it if you want some decent Jackass humor.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on March 18, 2014, 11:26:58 AM
I saw the new karate kid on my last flight.

I figured it was punishment for leaving the country.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 18, 2014, 11:38:38 AM
Escape Plan

How old are these guys anyway? 

Fair movie, but a condemnation of the current generation of "action" stars (of which there are none).  Stallone, Schwartz, Willis, Ford and even Gibson are a dying breed.  There is no new crop to take their place and fill the screen with mayhem. 

Seriously who's out there?  Thor? The Rock? Renner (who's 5-4)? Cruise (who's nearing 60)? Action heroes now have to show a softer side. Go look up lists of action star possibilities.  You get names like Daniel "Harry Potter" Radcliffe, Zachary "Spock" Quinto, Jason "Drago" Momoa (not generic enough), the pencil-thin Spiderman geek, vapid Channing Tatum, mumbling Tom Hardy, and guarantee-a-movie-bomb Taylor Kitsch.  The best choices are Matt Damon who has much more range and Mark Wahlberg, who I usually like but who also lacks that "it" factor that true action stars have.  He's close to a wise-cracking Willis and could probably fit into the Die Hard franchise. But still. It's a weak, wussified crew.


So these older guys keep on trying.  This would have been a much better movie when Stallone and Arnie were in their 30s or 40s.  It looks a little uneven now that they're 90. 

I did like the location of the prison, but found the "make a diversion" escape plot to be really stupid.  Also hated the prison warden creeper.
Statham... Although lately all of his movies seem to be the same.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 18, 2014, 01:19:42 PM
Statham... Although lately all of his movies seem to be the same.

He's in the mix, but he's pretty terrible.

He's almost 50, has no range at all.  All his movies pretty much are the same.  Plus I can't understand a word he says most of the time. I have to turn captions on to figure it out. 

The Mechanic was barely watchable.
Killer Elite was a good idea but he dudded it up.
Death Race? Bank Job? 

He was okay in Italian Job because he didn't have to carry the film.

Even Crank was a terrible movie.  Except it had this going for it:
(http://bilder.poster.net/LRG/59/5932/WZ4RG00Z.jpg)
Like her a lot for reasons I'd rather not say. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 18, 2014, 04:08:08 PM
He's in the mix, but he's pretty terrible.

He's almost 50, has no range at all.  All his movies pretty much are the same.  Plus I can't understand a word he says most of the time. I have to turn captions on to figure it out. 

The Mechanic was barely watchable.
Killer Elite was a good idea but he dudded it up.
Death Race? Bank Job? 

He was okay in Italian Job because he didn't have to carry the film.

Even Crank was a terrible movie.  Except it had this going for it:
(http://bilder.poster.net/LRG/59/5932/WZ4RG00Z.jpg)
Like her a lot for reasons I'd rather not say.
He gets a lifetime pass in my eyes due to Snatch. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 28, 2014, 08:25:18 PM
Captain Phillips

Original review lost in the purge

Can't remember much except Tom Hanks proves again that he's a great actor.  The scene where he's being treated after his (spoiler!) rescue is proof of that. 

Two things I took away from this film:

1) It's great to live in a country where we have the resources to send warships to rescue a single person from harm.
2) It's even greater that not only do we have those resources, but we are willing to commit them to that rescue. And that men and women of this nation are willing to put their own lives on the line for the sake of one normal, random individual. 

That's what I learned.  It's good to be an American.

Last Vegas

Gasp Vegas. 

Anything worth seeing was in the trailers. 

Michael Douglas' skin and teeth were painful to look at.  No girl is climbing on Kevin Kline, period.  DeNiro loafs through yet another throwaway performance. Freeman was okay, but not given much to do.  Aged chanteuse made me yawn.  Didn't care about any of their backstory, didn't care about any of their front story. 

It wasn't raucous enough to inspire, tried to send some garbage message about true love, and had its motivations all in the wrong place. 

Sad to watch those guys shuffle through this dreck. 

I'd rather remember those guys as Jimmy Conway (or Vito Corleone), Otto, Gordo Gecko and Lucius Fox (or God, Eddie Dupris, Red, Alex Cross, Somerset or however you see that guy) than I would watch them shuck and jive for a few mild chuckles.

30 minutes of Sirens on USA was exponentially funnier than the 90 minutes of this movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 29, 2014, 02:41:17 AM
Admission

Love Tina Fey, but I'm stamping denied on this turkey.  Really missed the emotional mark it hoped to hit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 30, 2014, 06:24:56 PM
Lords of Salem

Rob Zombie has a creepy mind.  He's done good and crazy work like Devil's Rejects.  He's created overdone and not borderline work (Halloween remakes).  And then he's done this horrible mishmash. 

It was absolutely terrible.  Silly story, wasted B-level actors and a couple of shots of his wife's (albeit nice) ass. 

I love horror movies.  This was just bad.

Only redeeming feature?  Look for a small KISS sticker on the bottom left of the refrigerator door in the girl's apartment. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 30, 2014, 06:29:28 PM
Django Unchained

I like Quentin.  Kill Bill (I and II), Res Dogs, From Dusk Til Dawn, and Pulp Fiction are among some of my favorite watch over and over again movies.   Great stuff.

I wasn't a fan of Grindhouse and I thought Inglorious was so bad that he'd lost his storytelling touch.  For that reason I stayed away from Django for a long, long time.  I didn't want to see him spiral any further down. 

My mistake.

Great movie.  Enjoyed pretty near all of it.  Don't get what the uproar was over the use of the carbon word. It was appropriate for the times and used as conversationally as I remember it being used when I was a child (pre-Civil Rights movement). 

The raiding party scene with Don Johnson was quality stuff and by itself enough to recommend this movie. 

I just wish I'd seen it sooner. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on April 07, 2014, 09:45:12 AM
Captain America The Winter Soldier

Better than the first Captain America. Better than both Thor films. Still not all that great. Evans is fine in the role and Redford must have wanted to do something for the grandkids, but this movie is mostly a tease of "what's to come" and therefore it fails to make any lasting points. At this stage, the Avengers universe has so many interconnected parts, it is hard for any film to just stand on singular merit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 07, 2014, 10:28:16 AM
Rainy a$$ day yesterday...and today.  So, I veg'd out on the couch and watched the tube all day, including Da Vinci Code.  Was a decent flick with a great plot but went way too long and then just pfffft...fizzled...popped.  I'd much rather have watched Monty Python's search for the Holy Grail than Tom Hanks'.     
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on April 07, 2014, 10:31:15 AM
Captain America The Winter Soldier

Better than the first Captain America. Better than both Thor films. Still not all that great. Evans is fine in the role and Redford must have wanted to do something for the grandkids, but this movie is mostly a tease of "what's to come" and therefore it fails to make any lasting points. At this stage, the Avengers universe has so many interconnected parts, it is hard for any film to just stand on singular merit.

Really?  I disagree. 

Practically non-stop action thru the whole thing, and a hell of a retrospect with a Marvel flair on where the world's going with all this NSA/CIA information collecting fun and what not, that we keep hearing about, Marvel's hit, yet another one, out of the park.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 07, 2014, 11:06:21 AM
Cap'n America: Winter Solider
and
Superman: Man of Steel

Watched both movies this weekend, one at the theater the other on HBO/Skinomax/Starz/Showtime whatever. 

Did so purposely because I find similarities between the two characters and their "american way" patriotism.  They are in some ways the DC/Marvel mirror image of each other just with different back stories. 

Both are too bland by a degree to me. Neither has that jagged edge or inner demon or outsized alter ego that drive other major comic characters.  Batman has the revenge factor, Spiderman also lost a paternal figure, Hulk was driven half mad by radiation, Iron Man has a recklessness, etc.  Superman and the Captain are pure good in a world of evil.  Both could use a little swagger, just a dash of Tony Stark's flippancy. 

(Six is completely wrong and needs to get his own thread.)

If I'm ranking Marvel films, Captain America: Winter Soldier would fall behind Avengers, behind any of the Iron Man films and somewhere in a mix that includes the last Thor, the first Thor and the first Captain America.  It would be above Ghost Rider, mainly because Nicholas Cage is one of the worst actors of our generation.  His performance in GR: Spirit of Vengeance was laughable to the point of parody.

Captain America Winter Soldier was fair.  It seemed a little disjointed in places and the ending seemed rush and almost artificial. No spoilers (not that there could really be any, honestly) but there are lots and lots of fights and the good guys sort of win in the end. 

I found the underlying motivation of the bad guys to be a trifle asinine and it pained me to see Robert Redford in the role he took.  Nazis in 2014 really? I understand the need to tie Captain to his frozen lost era, but the same story could have been told without the Nazi insinuations.  Would probably have been better, actually.

The movie was at least 30 minutes longer than it needed to be.  It could easily have trimmed out one or more of the repetitive shield-flinging fight scenes that dragged on and on. 

It also suffers in comparison to The Avengers, Iron Man and even Thor all of which had opportunities for comic relief and were better paced. Each had a foil (whether it be Loki or Iron Man's own ego) that Captain was seriously lacking.  The Captain was just too stuffed and taciturn.

Got zero bump from the bird dude.  Expected he'd bring a different dynamic to the film and maybe that chance for some levity but it didn't happen.

And finally Scar-Jo didn't look well.  Something was wrong with her face and it didn't show enough of her body to even it out.

On to Man of Steel.

I was pre-disposed to dislike the film.  I'm a Batman guy and Batman guys typically aren't Superman fans.  All of the Superman films I've seen to this point pretty much sucked.  The ones with Keanau Reeves' father (or whoever that equestrian fellow was) were hokey and jokey.  The one that destroyed Brandon Routh's career was pretty abysmal. 

So I didn't have much hope for this Superman reboot and avoided it at the theaters.  But given the weather and the opportunity to compare the boring Captain to the boring Superman, I took a chance.

Turns out I actually liked this film much better than Captain America.  The guy playing Superman did well with the part.  I found the Scrod guy's motivations to be a little far-fetched and the scenes on Krypton didn't really do a good job explaining why he would be so hell-bent on that level of fury. 

In some ways the two films actually told the same story -- the destruction of earth's population in order to create a more perfect society -- but they came at it from different angles. 

Not a fan of Amy Adams as Lois, for what it's worth. Not that Rachel McAdams or that creepy old Margot Kidder with her false teeth in the 70s were any better, though.

Got tired of watching buildings fall in Man of Steel.  My daughter watched it with me and was reduced to going -- "there's another entire building hitting the ground."  It's like since Transformers (or maybe before) these superhero directors seem obsessed with taking down high rises for dramatic effect.  I got so weary of the constant stream of building, car, truck, store, street, tree, house and earth carnage. 

As in Captain America, the fight scenes were just overlong and in the case of Superman, far too much collateral destruction.

Still, it was a story better told. 

Superman was a B-.  Winter Soldier was a mid to low C.  Wish I hadn't spent the money to see Captain in theaters, wish I had spent it to see Man of Steel. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on April 07, 2014, 11:16:33 AM
The collateral damage in superhero movies (and some others like the most recent Star Trek) really takes away the enjoyability of the ending. 

Like in The Avengers.  Gigantic flying eels with insect-space ships that swarm and destroy just leveled half of the city.  The Avengers in order to take the bad guys down have to also destroy half of the city.  And at the end, it's a bunch of kids celebrating and adults singing songs and reporters treating it like New Year's Eve. 

Or in Star Trek.  A starship crashes into San Francisco and levels a huge chunk of the city.  MILLIONS of people would have died.  Countless injured.  Infrastructure crumbled.  A decade to rebuild and most likely widespread fear and panic of the starships in orbit capable of doing that or more if a bad terrorist gets the helm. 

Or like you mentioned in Man of Steel.  Skyscrapers being reduced to rubble.  It's like 9/11 happen 15 times in one day except it's not Muslims hijacking planes you have to worry about.  It's a demi-god guy who can fly having to fight off other alien beings that are just as strong as he is. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 07, 2014, 12:08:48 PM
The collateral damage in superhero movies (and some others like the most recent Star Trek) really takes away the enjoyability of the ending. 

Like in The Avengers.  Gigantic flying eels with insect-space ships that swarm and destroy just leveled half of the city.  The Avengers in order to take the bad guys down have to also destroy half of the city.  And at the end, it's a bunch of kids celebrating and adults singing songs and reporters treating it like New Year's Eve. 

Or in Star Trek.  A starship crashes into San Francisco and levels a huge chunk of the city.  MILLIONS of people would have died.  Countless injured.  Infrastructure crumbled.  A decade to rebuild and most likely widespread fear and panic of the starships in orbit capable of doing that or more if a bad terrorist gets the helm. 

Or like you mentioned in Man of Steel.  Skyscrapers being reduced to rubble.  It's like 9/11 happen 15 times in one day except it's not Muslims hijacking planes you have to worry about.  It's a demi-god guy who can fly having to fight off other alien beings that are just as strong as he is.

A disaster analyst has pegged the damage done to Metropolis during the climactic battle between Superman, General Zod and his forces in Man of Steel at $700 billion–that’s five times what The Avengers would have cost New York, or roughly fifteen times the cost of the damage done in the real-life September 11 terror attacks on the city. They also guess that the financial fallout from the attack would ultimately end up costing $2 trillion.

(http://d1mxyp5ceukbya.cloudfront.net/images/man-of-steel-destruction-cost-metropolis-buzzfeed.jpg)


Ridiculous.  I knew it was excessive and I seriously got tired of watching glass shatter and skyscrapers crumble. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on April 07, 2014, 01:12:39 PM
Cap'n America: Winter Solider
and
Superman: Man of Steel

(Six is completely wrong and needs to get his own thread.)


(http://host.jwcinc.net/1170501/Buford%20T%20Justice.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 07, 2014, 01:15:24 PM
A disaster analyst has pegged the damage done to Metropolis during the climactic battle between Superman, General Zod and his forces in Man of Steel at $700 billion–that’s five times what The Avengers would have cost New York, or roughly fifteen times the cost of the damage done in the real-life September 11 terror attacks on the city. They also guess that the financial fallout from the attack would ultimately end up costing $2 trillion.

(http://d1mxyp5ceukbya.cloudfront.net/images/man-of-steel-destruction-cost-metropolis-buzzfeed.jpg)


Ridiculous.  I knew it was excessive and I seriously got tired of watching glass shatter and skyscrapers crumble. 

It's Obama's plan for job creation.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 11, 2014, 09:50:22 AM
Put me in the "like" column for Captain A.  Saw it last night.  Great action flick and not too over the top.  More fight scenes than $8 trillion in collateral damage.  I would like to have seen them try and make it a little more humorous.  Numerous opportunities to throw some comedy relief in there but they keep Cap way too serious and stoic.  But, overall a really entertaining super hero movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 26, 2014, 10:55:13 AM
Brick Mansions.  Quite possibly the cheesiest, worst made action flick in the history of man.  I have a feeling after Paul Walker died, they had to tear 25 Vin Diesel posters off his wall.  Fuck sake this was bad.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 26, 2014, 11:14:54 AM
Brick Mansions.  Quite possibly the cheesiest, worst made action flick in the history of man.  I have a feeling after Paul Walker died, they had to tear 25 Vin Diesel posters off his wall.  Fuck sake this was bad.
You see dead people.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on April 26, 2014, 11:44:16 AM
Brick Mansions.  Quite possibly the cheesiest, worst made action flick in the history of man.

Obviously you have never seen the movie Bug(2006) or The Bag Man(2014)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 27, 2014, 01:59:41 AM
Oculus

Oculus. Spanish for sucks.

Awful movie

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 27, 2014, 02:12:34 AM
Transcendence

Seen this movie panned by critics but I liked it.  It raised a lot of interesting questions about what a present day God or Messiah might be. 

I found it interesting because so many of the concepts (mapping the brain and reducing consciousness to a series of electrical impulses, the power of nano-technology to heal, where does the soul begin) are things that I sometimes ponder and study.  The dramatic aspect was overplayed somewhat and the resolution a bit too simplistic but it did keep my attention and set my internal wheels to spinning slowly.

If all we are is contained in our thought processes and our flesh is merely a vehicle for transport, would we remain "alive" if those thoughts, memories, feelings, desires and emotions could be digitized?  And if we were alive, could we not theoretically create another flesh and blood vessel into which those digital files could be transferred?  At what point in the future does our Carbonite backup include our mental relays so that we never die, they are just downloaded into a new copy should something happen to us? 

Would that be a bad thing?

Christopher Nolan directed this movie. Most of his films have deep layers.  Some (Inception) are too flawed for me to embrace the concept. Others (Memento) intrigue me.  Transcendence falls somewhere in between. The story is too broad and the brushstrokes too light to have the impact of Memento, but it didn't (for me) contain the logical loops that derailed Inception. 

It's not a movie you can go to with a bucket of popcorn and turn your mind off while superheroes or robots trash another major American city.   As with all Nolan films, you're required to think.  The film raised some troubling concepts for me. Nothing that's faith-shaking, but definitely some questions about whether we'll recognize the lines that shouldn't be crossed in our mortal quest to be gods. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on April 27, 2014, 08:36:23 AM
Transcendence was directed by Willy Pfister, and this was his debut as a director.  He worked as a cinematographer for Nolan for multiple movies, but on this one, Nolan only served as a producer. 

The previews for the movie made me think of a combination of Lawnmower Man, The Matrix, and Surrogate. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 27, 2014, 12:29:14 PM
Transcendence was directed by Willy Pfister, and this was his debut as a director.  He worked as a cinematographer for Nolan for multiple movies, but on this one, Nolan only served as a producer. 

The previews for the movie made me think of a combination of Lawnmower Man, The Matrix, and Surrogate.

You are right. Saw Nolan in the credits prominently and thought it was his. He had something to do with it but now I don't know for sure what his role was.


Was more a mix of 2001, War Games and Max Headroom.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on April 28, 2014, 08:55:11 AM
Transcendence

Yeah, notice how Nolan hasn't been out trumpeting this? Copycats rarely get close on the facsimile.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 11, 2014, 01:16:04 PM
Neighbors

I don't really like Seth Rogen, but this movie delivered on the promise of its previews. 

It was funny enough that I enjoyed it.  Definitely not what you'd call a classic comedy and it's not something that's going to persist long term (like Raising Arizona or Stripes). But it did have its moments. 

Problems?

1) Unnecessary crudity.  I didn't need to see Rogen's sweaty ass grinding (same problem with Knocked Up, honestly) to get the concept of what was happening in a scene.
2) Inconsistent story.  Pieces of it didn't make sense or fit.  At the end the movie had a chance to turn the dial over to 11 and become epic. It could have reached for Project X insanity, which would have been the perfect move.  Instead it let the last bash fizzle.  Also the emotional flip of Efron from the scene where he confronts the couple on the porch and makes almost pedophiliac threats about the daughter to his "bro" demeanor four months later wasn't fleshed out and didn't carry the right weight. 

The movie scratched the surface of a number of legitimate issues: How to still be a couple and have kids; the angst of children of divorce; slogging through school and ending up with nothing but a piece of paper; learning to be an adult... but it didn't explore any of them quite enough to matter.

It was a good movie, but with a couple of tweaks it could have been so, so much better. 

I liked the girl who played Rogen's wife.  Her character was the right mix of what I think a good wife should really be.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: bottomfeeder on May 11, 2014, 05:27:55 PM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI18Jc2roqY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI18Jc2roqY#ws)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1x6ZyGRMnU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1x6ZyGRMnU#ws)

http://www.neighbors-movie.com/tagged/video (http://www.neighbors-movie.com/tagged/video)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on May 12, 2014, 09:40:26 AM
I've walked out of a theater 3 times in my life.

#1. 8MM  - This is where I gave up on Nicholas Cage for good.

#2. Halloween II (Rob Zombie version) - thanks for ruining your good ideas yourself, Rob.

#3. Neighbors - got through 33 minutes of this crap and turned the other way. Never again, Seth Rogan. Never.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 12, 2014, 10:40:02 AM
I've walked out of a theater 3 times in my life.

#1. 8MM  - This is where I gave up on Nicholas Cage for good.

#2. Halloween II (Rob Zombie version) - thanks for ruining your good ideas yourself, Rob.

#3. Neighbors - got through 33 minutes of this crap and turned the other way. Never again, Seth Rogan. Never.

You clearly need to get out more.  Walking out of Neighbors was a mistake. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on May 12, 2014, 11:02:03 AM
You clearly need to get out more.  Walking out of Neighbors was a mistake.

I get out plenty. That movie is a piece of crap to me. Not worth the time. Glad I only lost matinee price on it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 12, 2014, 11:03:00 AM
I get out plenty. That movie is a piece of crap to me. Not worth the time. Glad I only lost matinee price on it.

How do you know?  You didn't bother to watch it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on May 12, 2014, 11:16:37 AM
How do you know?  You didn't bother to watch it.

I watched enough to know it wasn't worth finishing. If I get a burned steak, I don't have to swallow every bite to know it's not worth eating. Same with that movie. And I am entitled to my opinion about it. Enjoy dissension in the discourse, man.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 12, 2014, 11:31:49 AM
I watched enough to know it wasn't worth finishing. If I get a burned steak, I don't have to swallow every bite to know it's not worth eating. Same with that movie. And I am entitled to my opinion about it. Enjoy dissension in the discourse, man.

I brook none of that.  One opinion counts here.  This isn't America, and freedom of expression is stifled.

I've seen a thousand movies worse than this one.  At least half a dozen Rogen movies that make this look like the Citizen Kane of comedies. Knocked Up, Pineapple Express, Paul, The Green Hornet, Funny People, Observe and Report, Zack and Miri are all exponentially worse than this.   Hell, Bridesmaids, every Fokker movie ever filmed, all of the Hangover movies, both of the Grownups films, everything Adam Sandler has ever made, and every Jim Carey movie is worse than this. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 13, 2014, 09:56:28 PM
Elysium

Tried twice.  Quit on it twice.  Neighbors was good.  This?  This is garbage.  Festering, putrid garbage.

Jodie Foster's accent is so awful I can't watch it. She's Nicholas Cage level bad.  The bad guy down on earth was unintelligible his accent was so putrid. 

And the story?  I mean really.  If they let all those mongrels up there, won't it just become another nasty earth?  Somebody needs to do population control or something down there.

Claptrap.  I won't finish it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 13, 2014, 09:59:29 PM
The Way Way Back

Was really hard to watch Michael Scott be a complete and total ass bag. 

This movie aspired to be so much more than it really was.  Sam Rockwell was good but the rest of the cast was sort of wasted in a saccharine sweet coming of age story. 

It had some good points and it was harmless enough, but it didn't quite hit the home run it wanted to.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 13, 2014, 10:12:21 PM
Alex Cross

A perfect example of how bad casting can destroy what should be a promising franchise. 

The Alex Cross books were once -- at least for a while -- the best of the flotsam that James Patterson puts out. 

Morgan Freeman did a good Alex Cross in Along Came a Spider but that movie suffered from other issues of its own.

Tyler Perry as Alex Cross, though?  Sweet jeeves what a disaster.   It would have been better if Perry had just put on a dress and a wig.   He was flatly terrible and his oatmeal-bland performance dragged down what should have been a quality overall cast.  Edward Burns, Cicely Tyson, Rachel Nichols, John McGinley and even Gus Fring were squandered in this hairy turd. 

One of the worst movies I've seen in a long time.  It was painful to watch.  But I made it through it, unlike the asinine Elysium. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 14, 2014, 01:30:48 PM
The Impossible

Naomi Watts doesn't have much of a face to look at, but she's a good actress. 

Good movie. Tells the story of the 2004 Thai tsunami. Painful to watch, terrible for those people. 

I read somewhere that something like 250,000 people died in this thing.  That's crazy. Three full Jordan Hare Stadiums all gone in a matter of minutes. 

Unimaginable to be sitting by the pool one minute and then separated by roaring floodwaters the next second.  Kids, wives, all just washed away.   Trying to sort through hundreds of thousands of screaming, injured, dead and dying to find somebody you lost -- and maybe never finding them. 

Movie was done really well.  A lot was asked of the child actors in particular and most of them came through with strong performances. 

Will never understand the award show circuit.  Watts deserved a Best Actress nomination, but why nobody else got any notice and why the film only grossed $18 mil makes no sense to me.  Should have done better than that when you consider that dog vomit like "That's My Boy" brings in $36 mil. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 14, 2014, 01:46:03 PM
Unimaginable to be sitting by the pool one minute and then separated by roaring floodwaters the next second.  Kids, wives, all just washed away.   Trying to sort through hundreds of thousands of screaming, injured, dead and dying to find somebody you lost -- and maybe never finding them. 

I have imagined this and it was good.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 14, 2014, 02:43:18 PM
I have imagined this and it was good.

I'm pretending I'm Asian and imagining it now. 

(http://www.snappcambodia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/happy-man.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 14, 2014, 02:48:42 PM
I'm pretending I'm Asian and imagining it now. 

(http://www.snappcambodia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/happy-man.jpg)


What does math have to do with this?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on May 14, 2014, 03:53:29 PM
Django Unchained:

I know I'm late on this one.  I'm usually late on all movies and TV shows actually.

But this was one of Tarantino's weaker films.  It had that Tarantino-charm and was really entertaining.  However, some of the music choices were out of place.  Whenever I'm watching a Tarantino film, I expect to be introduced to esoteric song selections that create a proper feel for the movie.  Everyone one of his films has not only achieved this but pretty much been the flagship for how other movies should create a soundtrack. 

Rap music doesn't belong in a western or a southern gothic or a Civil War film.  It just didn't fit.  I tried coming up with a reason why he chose it and all I could think was that he wrote this movie for black people to enjoy and thought they'd like to hear rap music. 

But it wasn't just the rap music, I didn't like the Jim Groce selection either.  Pretty much anything mainstream that would take me out of the setting, I don't like especially when watching a Tarantino film.

I didn't like the ending either.  The movie was really on a good pace and setting up serious tension...and then Schultz can't just shake the guy's hand.  I know it was supposed to show that he was a heartless bastard until he saw a slave being torn apart by dogs and that was the end of his line, but it was a bad way for the 2nd main character to go out. 

The good:

- Samuel L Jackson was incredible in this film.  DiCaprio was as well, but I thought Jackson's depiction of a head house slave was award worthy.

- The treatment of the slaves was gut wrenching. 

- I loved the stylized bloody mess of each gun fight.  Movies should be entertaining unless they're truly delving into realism. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: WiregrassTiger on May 14, 2014, 04:26:25 PM
Django Unchained:

I know I'm late
Take two ept's and if they are both positive, go see your obgyn.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 14, 2014, 04:47:54 PM
Django Unchained:

I know I'm late on this one.  I'm usually late on all movies and TV shows actually.


Not only are you late, but you are wrong.  Already reviewed:


Django Unchained

I like Quentin.  Kill Bill (I and II), Res Dogs, From Dusk Til Dawn, and Pulp Fiction are among some of my favorite watch over and over again movies.   Great stuff.

I wasn't a fan of Grindhouse and I thought Inglorious was so bad that he'd lost his storytelling touch.  For that reason I stayed away from Django for a long, long time.  I didn't want to see him spiral any further down. 

My mistake.

Great movie.  Enjoyed pretty near all of it.  Don't get what the uproar was over the use of the carbon word. It was appropriate for the times and used as conversationally as I remember it being used when I was a child (pre-Civil Rights movement). 

The raiding party scene with Don Johnson was quality stuff and by itself enough to recommend this movie. 

I just wish I'd seen it sooner. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on May 14, 2014, 06:54:37 PM

Not only are you late, but you are wrong.  Already reviewed:


Django Unchained

I like Quentin.  Kill Bill (I and II), Res Dogs, From Dusk Til Dawn, and Pulp Fiction are among some of my favorite watch over and over again movies.   Great stuff.

I wasn't a fan of Grindhouse and I thought Inglorious was so bad that he'd lost his storytelling touch.  For that reason I stayed away from Django for a long, long time.  I didn't want to see him spiral any further down. 

My mistake.

Great movie.  Enjoyed pretty near all of it.  Don't get what the uproar was over the use of the carbon word. It was appropriate for the times and used as conversationally as I remember it being used when I was a child (pre-Civil Rights movement). 

The raiding party scene with Don Johnson was quality stuff and by itself enough to recommend this movie. 

I just wish I'd seen it sooner.

You really liked the sudden switch to Tupac in the middle of a gunfight in the 19th century South?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 16, 2014, 06:56:31 PM
Godzilla
Don't waste them money on 3d. But give this movie a shot.

It didn't do anything I expected it to.  It was a good 40 minutes too long. It invested too much in throwaway characters. It had some enormous plot holes.  (For instance where does your uniform come from when you are hundreds of miles from where you are supposed to be and didn't have it with you to begin with?) There are some bizarre contrivances. (For instance, if you can just fly the warheads in a damn sling why bother with a train?)


But overall? It worked. Truer to the original than the ferris buehler one even though some aspects were similar.

I liked it. Broke no new ground. Made superman, zod, transformers and the avengers jealous of its total destruction.  But was what it was and good for that.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on May 21, 2014, 08:39:51 PM
Argo

Uuhhhh...what the fuck?

This movie won Best Picture?  96% on Rotten Tomatoes? 

There's too much to criticize.  It wasn't a terrible movie.  Wasn't really bad at all.  But going into it, I was really excited to see a movie so lauded amongst its peers. 

But the suspense died when you already know they'll escape.  The process of setting up the fake movie was rushed.  Affleck was a really humdrum character with zero development.  The only attempt at any character development at all was the dweeby looking guy with the hot wife who doubted Affleck would save them.  Then he had the obligatory "Sorry.  You were right all along" moment at the end. 

The best part of the movie were the real news clips.  That was interesting.  Getting a glimpse of how the Iranians acted in their own country was interesting.

The plot was too easy and not worth the accolades it received. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 24, 2014, 02:35:43 AM
Out of The Furnace

There's no way you could go wrong with a movie that has Christian Bale, Woody Harrelson, Sam Shepherd, Zoe Saldana, Forrest Whitaker, Willem Dafoe and the baby Affleck kid, right?

Yeah. Yeah there is. 

Saddle the characters with overwrought unrealistic emotions. Bury them in a morose fully asinine plodding story. Show them scraping their plates into the trash a few times. Give them motivations that don't ring true. Immerse them in a dingy, dour light and pile stilted dialogue on top of wooden performances. Concoct a ridiculous storyline that has something to do with New Jersey mountain people and bare knuckle fighting.   Tack on a hollow anti war message.  Mix in a hokey deer hunting juxtaposition.  Flesh it out with a laughable ending.

I went to sleep four times on this dullard movie and had to keep starting it over from the last point I remembered watching.  I finished it out of pure bull headedness, not because there was a single compelling reason to watch this load of self-important and self-involved crap. 

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go scrape a plate into the garbage can. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 24, 2014, 02:53:39 AM
X-Men: Days of Future Past

Maybe I should have paid attention to the X-Man canon.  Perhaps knowing the history and backstory might have helped me understand or care about the characters or what was going on. 

I liked looking at Jennifer Lawrence's blue belly and booty. But as a key component of this movie, she just didn't carry her weight. Her performance was eclipsed and overshadowed by anyone and everyone on the screen, including extras. She had no magnetism (insert Magneto joke). The film would have been better had it eschewed the big name star and cast someone in this role who was more dynamic. Lawrence alternates in the real world between some really great performances (Winter's Bone, American Hustle) and some sleepwalking, duds where she just has no presence and wilts on the screen (House at the End of the Street, the blank-faced Hunger Games movies).  Her performance here was far closer to her dim-witted turns as Katnips Everteen in those awful Hunger Games films.  When you're going to be completely blue, you need the ability to emote with your expression and your eyes and Lawrence's face (while pretty) looks like it's been botoxed into a wax figure.  She just doesn't have an expressive face which would have been a real benefit here. 

I liked the 70s attire. I liked the sly Nixon inside joke.  I liked James McAvoy's performance because I think he's a good actor. I liked seeing Tyrion Lannister in a role that wasn't angry or elf.  I really liked the ten minutes Evan Peters (from American Horror Story) was on the screen. His segment was by far the best and most creative part of the movie.  Too bad the rest didn't maintain the same fast-paced tone.

I'm not a fan of the "go back in time and create a new future" concept when it comes to movies. That gets really muddled for me, particularly when you have characters occupying two different spaces at the same time.  This movie didn't give me any reason to change my mind. 

Never been a follower of X-Men to begin with.  Always felt like they were just a ripoff/spinoff of the Fantastic Four anyway. This movie tried hard, but it didn't win me over to the X-Men universe.  When it comes to Marvel the pecking order still goes Avengers, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Fantastic Four, Blade, X-Men (and any of the associated Wolverine movies, etc.), Daredevil/Electra, Hulk, Ghost Rider, Punisher, Howard the Duck and Spiderman.  Just don't care for the movie versions of the webslinger.  I liked his comics, but the films are bubbling turds. 

If you're an X-Men fan, this might be good.  But there were so many nuances I probably missed because this is the first and only X-Men film I've ever watched completely, I didn't understand the significance of a lot of what was going on. 

The destruction was extremely limited compared to other recent superhero films.  Entire cities were not reduced to rubble, no skyscrapers fell, roads did not buckle, explosions didn't engulf entire buildings and there were no earthquakes or volcanoes or machines designed to remake the world in the image of some alien race (Godzilla, Superman, Transformers 3 and so on).  I felt like the film tried to be more cerebral than simply celebrating mayhem, but as a non X-ophile I didn't really know what they were cerebreing about a good bit of the time. 

So, in short? X-Men follower?  Pretty good movie I'd wager with the exception of a disappointing Mystique. Non X-Men fan looking for big budget action?  Not so much. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 24, 2014, 10:45:31 AM
Argo

Uuhhhh...what the fudge?

This movie won Best Picture?  96% on Rotten Tomatoes? 

There's too much to criticize.  It wasn't a terrible movie.  Wasn't really bad at all.  But going into it, I was really excited to see a movie so lauded amongst its peers. 

But the suspense died when you already know they'll escape.  The process of setting up the fake movie was rushed.  Affleck was a really humdrum character with zero development.  The only attempt at any character development at all was the dweeby looking guy with the hot wife who doubted Affleck would save them.  Then he had the obligatory "Sorry.  You were right all along" moment at the end. 

The best part of the movie were the real news clips.  That was interesting.  Getting a glimpse of how the Iranians acted in their own country was interesting.

The plot was too easy and not worth the accolades it received.

In case you were unaware, the "plot" was reality.  That's what happened.  To complain that it was too easy is like watching a replay of the 2013 Auburn-Georgia game and being aggravated with the fact that Auburn threw a long pass at the end and didn't dramatically drive the field. 

Reviewed October 2012:

Argo

Very good story, timely considering the state of the Middle East and well played by everyone involved.  it moved a bit slowly in places but overall it was intriguing and maintained your interest even if you knew the eventual outcome.

Complaints?  It had to skew toward the "US is the bad guy" in its simplistic opening explanation.  It could and should have depicted Ayatollah as the raving lunatic he was, but it glossed over that in a broader effort to portray the Shah as an Americanized Marie Antionette.  Not big on revisionist history and there was some there. 

While skewing it also tried to help Jimmah Carter redeem his pussified legacy by trying to glom some of the credit.  His weak-ass pandering is what got us in the situation in the first place.  People -- like my kids -- who weren't around for his pansy administration won't recognize that it was the perceived strength of Ronald Reagan which led to the release of the hostages.  In Carter's post-script voice-over he tries to steal the credit when he says "we got the hostages home..." and then brays some fairy-whore glitter about maintaining the integrity of the US.  What's sad is that measly, weasly fudge actually thinks he was a great statesman and president.  (Just like the current jug-eared fop.)

Still a good movie.  Worth watching.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on May 24, 2014, 12:07:27 PM
In case you were unaware, the "plot" was reality.  That's what happened.  To complain that it was too easy is like watching a replay of the 2013 Auburn-Georgia game and being aggravated with the fact that Auburn threw a long pass at the end and didn't dramatically drive the field. 

I'm fully aware and that was part of the problem.  The suspense of the movie died knowing that it worked.  The action of getting them out was kind of boring.  They had to make a fake movie, which was completed in some dialogue scenes.  Then Affleck flew over and waltzed into the house.  They memorized their lines.  They went for a walk through the streets and got heckled.  Then Affleck told his boss to piss off and they hopped on the plane. 

It's a great story from history but made for a rather boring movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 29, 2014, 10:59:42 PM
I, Frankenstein

You terrible. 

Okay movie, but recasting Franky as a superhero just didn't fly with me.  Frankenstein's monster is a brainless, soulless murderer.  He's not Batman. (Although he was Harvey Dent). 

Movie had a very Underworld feel to it without the heart and soul of that film.  Underworld elevated Kate Beckinsale -- who is actually rather plain looking and not a very good actress at all -- into something mythical.   I, Frankenstein devalued Aaron Eckhart who can, at times, be a fairly decent actor.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 29, 2014, 11:01:36 PM
Devil's Due

Better than Occulus, but so is being stabbed in the eye with a gangrenous toenail. 

Jerky camera and who films all that stuff anyway?  Story was weak, too many questions were left unanswered and it just didn't work. 

Only scares came from a loudly barking dog. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 29, 2014, 11:05:19 PM
Delivery Man

Misguided attempt to humanize a non-human.  Vince Vaughn just doesn't have it. 

Movie was cute and had a moment or two, but all the performances seemed lazy and phoned in.  It lacked true emotion. 

I hope it is understood that I'm not saying I hate all these movies, but I am hard to please.  I'm looking for something in every movie -- power, emotion, quality acting, story, atmosphere, etc. -- and so many have bits and pieces but just lack the whole package. 

Delivery Man only had about half of half of a package.  It was just blundering through on what it assumed was Vince's "charm." Only he had none. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 29, 2014, 11:39:05 PM
Malificent

First let me say that most people will probably like this film. The aura was gorgeous, the imagery beautifully done (for the most part).  I didn't hate it.  But since it's supposed to be one of the summer's anchors and will probably do huge business I can't ignore the many, many problems I have with this film. 

1) Angelina Jolie.  I will be hooted from the board for saying this but I don't find her attractive at all. All of the features that make her unattractive to me were emphasized in this film.  She also cannot act a bit.  Not one single whit.  Her performance here was, to me, absolutely horrible. Yes, she wears the horns well and she has an evil visage but that's as far as she goes with it.  Her come and go accent was distracting and in the moments when she was supposed to express rage, fury or happiness she just came across as blank.  The exception was the "curse" scene.

2) Sleeping Beauty.  Sleeping Fugly was more like it.  Aurora was one ugly girl. That's a harsh thing to say about a kid, but she's supposed to be the most beautiful girl in the kingdom and she was a 4 on her best day.  She was hideous.  She also failed as an actress. Her "happy face" was a cross between an "I've got to take a dump" grimace and a vapid "I don't understand the joke" stare.  Terrible, awful, abysmal casting. 

3) King Stefan.  Who was that guy?  Craig Ferguson?  His accent meandered.  Sometimes Scottish and occasionally unintelligible.  Perhaps the worst casting choice in a series of bad casting choices. 

4) The blue, red and green fairies.  When kids leave the theater wanting to punch them in the face? You've missed something there.  They were insipid and terribly annoying. 

5) The bastardization of the story.  Not going to spoil it here because most of you gays will go see it but it essentially craps on everything you know about the Sleeping Beauty legend.  It went to great lengths to make Malificent a sympathetic character and cast Aurora's parents in the evil role.   I knew that was going to happen, but good grief.  It was just too much.  Mal was an evil bitch.  Period.  She should have been left as such.  And the awakening event was singularly disappointing, but sadly not unexpected.  What garbage. I'm just going to say this.  If they make a film about Shere Khan explaining that he was angry because his father had been accidentally killed by a bear and that after initially fighting with Baloo he found his heart when he thought he had accidentally killed him and then the two became fast friends?  I'm going to dig Walt Disney up, use the formulas the Bammers have been trying to invent to resurrect Bahr, perfect them (because those idiots are too stupid to figure it out), reanimate Walt, starve and beat him until he becomes a deranged serial killer and then turn him loose in his old studio.   Or if they try to make a film where Hannibal Lecter is really a caring doctor who acted out of mercy for terminally ill patients I'm going to vomit. 

6) The plot holes.  She's magic.  But sometimes she just chooses not to use it.  Why?  If your dragon is tied up with chains, turn him into a hamster long enough to get free, right?  Or if you need to get somewhere in a hurry, why are you riding a horse?  MAGIC your ass there.  Jeez. 

7) Did I mention Sleeping Ugly?  That girl was awful to look at.  If she's the most beautiful girl in the kingdom I'm moving to another kingdom or taking up the gay. 

8) More plot holes.  Does it take that idiot 16 years to remember a weakness?  Is the king REALLY going to hand off the crown to just any old jackhole?  How could any "war" between humans and creatures who can perform MAGIC ever happen?  Just magic the humans away.  Put them all to sleep. Have dragons fry their asses. It's over. 

9) Bad acting.  The film was visually striking but every single performance in the movie was devoid of logical or realistic emotion.  The entire cast was bland.  The best actors were some CGI trees.

10) A distinct lack of humor. Other than a few scenes where some mildly amusing event briefly distracted from the constant morose moping (or the blank-eyed mooning of that awful Aurora twit) there just wasn't enough of the humor that typically keeps Disney fare moving along. 

Finally, there was Sleeping Ghastly.  She should have stayed asleep and put us out of her misery. 

It wasn't dreadfully bad, but it fell far short of other ambitious Disney movies that delivered over the years.  It wasn't as entertaining as it should have been. This movie was more Country Bears than it was Lion King. 

Given the choice I'd prefer to watch the animated Sleeping Beauty film from 1959 again as opposed to this bastardization of a classic story. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 30, 2014, 09:33:45 AM
Devil's Due

Better than Occulus, but so is being stabbed in the eye with a gangrenous toenail

Jerky camera and who films all that stuff anyway?  Story was weak, too many questions were left unanswered and it just didn't work. 

Only scares came from a loudly barking dog.

This^^^ has to be in the top 10 of Kaos critiques.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 30, 2014, 10:21:36 AM
The Amazing Spiderman 2

Had plans to take mini to see Gozeera last night but couldn't make the start times work out.  Spidey 2 was really the only one we could fit in and we joined 6 other people in the theater on a rainy Thursday night.  In fact, there were very few peeps at any of the flicks. 

Not a bad remake with a few different twists and turns.  Same story with a couple of new characters like Jamie Foxx, who played "Electro".  And they played it a little different as to how Harry Osborne became the Green Goblin; however, they didn't call him that and he really didn't turn bad until the very end.  Of course, they left it wide open for the series to continue with a whole cast of new villains. 

It did have a little something at the end that made you go, "Whoa, didn't see that coming."  The real spidey action is at the very beginning and the very end.  The majority of the movie is mostly story lines and set up.  Andrew Garfield does a decent job as Peter Parker IMO.  A good bit more diverse than Toby Maguire.  But then, I have a Pekingese puppy that's more diverse than Toby Maguire.  Overall, nothing special but pretty enjoyable for a middle of the week flick.       
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 30, 2014, 10:24:02 AM
The Amazing Spiderman 2

Had plans to take mini to see Gozeera last night but couldn't make the start times work out.  Spidey 2 was really the only one we could fit in and we joined 6 other people in the theater on a rainy Thursday night.  In fact, there were very few peeps at any of the flicks. 

Not a bad remake with a few different twists and turns.  Same story with a couple of new characters like Jamie Foxx, who played "Electro".  And they played it a little different as to how Harry Osborne became the Green Goblin; however, they didn't call him that and he really didn't turn bad until the very end.  Of course, they left it wide open for the series to continue with a whole cast of new villains. 

It did have a little something at the end that made you go, "Whoa, didn't see that coming."  The real spidey action is at the very beginning and the very end.  The majority of the movie is mostly story lines and set up.  Andrew Garfield does a decent job as Peter Parker IMO.  A good bit more diverse than Toby Maguire.  But then, I have a Pekingese puppy that's more diverse than Toby Maguire.  Overall, nothing special but pretty enjoyable for a middle of the week flick.       
So tired of the Spidey reboot.  not.even.interested.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 30, 2014, 10:28:05 AM
So tired of the Spidey reboot.  not.even.interested.

Well, I spent the $34.00 and wore the 3D glasses so damn it, I reviewed it.  (2 tickets, one popcorn refill, 2 cokes and a pack of Twizzlers)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 01, 2014, 01:58:42 AM
A Million Ways to Die in the West

Never been a big Seth MacFarlane fan.  Find Family Guy to be crass and infantile. Ted was okay but just not that great and was too vulgar by a click. His Oscar turn was flat, juvenile and insulting. Never bothered with American Dad or Cleveland because they just looked like cheap Family Guy ripoffs. 

So I went into A Million Ways expecting to find a million ways to hate it. 

Wrong. 

Enjoyed it immensely.  Far funnier to me than anything the dreadful Adam Sandler (and his crew that includes David Spade, Kevin James, Schneider), the blundering Seth Rogan (his mentor Apatow and crew that includes Jonah Hill and the rest of the schlubs), the dismal Paul Rudd, the singularly unfunny Will Ferrell, the dull Vince Vaughn, the despised Owen Wilson, the garbage sucking Ben Stiller or any of their ilk have vomited on the screen and pretended they were comedies.

Yeah, he went for the cheap a few times with the obligatory fart, piss and poop jokes. And yeah, some of the gags were just plain silly.  But I laughed.  I laughed often. Couldn't tell you how many times I've gone to a "comedy" and waited in vain for anything remotely amusing to happen.  Not the case here.

There were funny moments, some unexpected surprises, and an underlying sweetness to the movie. His previous efforts (to me) never managed to rise above the crass.  This movie did. 

I liked it.  Despite being predisposed to dismiss it (and MacFarlane) I found myself liking the movie a lot and growing to appreciate his easygoing role in it.  It's not a classic by any means, but it gives me hope that the comedy genre isn't dead and that it can be wrested from the hands of purveyors of pure garbage like Sandler. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 11, 2014, 11:30:24 AM
Oblivion
I'd like to punch Tom Cruise into oblivion. 

This movie is essentially unwatchable.  It's like EVERY Cruise movie lately.  He makes the serious face. He makes the heroic face.  He runs. Something explodes. He wears some goofy outfit.  The world, the planet, the city, something is in danger. Pfffffftttt.

It's plug and play and they all, all, all suck. 

Reacher
Mission Impossible II, III
Minority Report
War of the Worlds

All pretty much the same crappy movie. 

Oblivion may be -- ah, hell, it is -- the worst of that sorry lot.  He's terrible in it and it's terrible on its own.  The sheer duddage of this movie doomed his current release, Edge of Tomorrow, which I absolutely refuse to see. 

He's done a good film or two, but not many. 

I won't bother discussing the barely coherent plot of this stinking load of Scientological excrement.  Mainly because I quit on this turkey about an hour in.  Unwatchable. 

Cruise needs to retire. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 11, 2014, 11:41:14 AM
Oblivion
I'd like to punch Tom Cruise into oblivion. 

This movie is essentially unwatchable.  It's like EVERY Cruise movie lately.  He makes the serious face. He makes the heroic face.  He runs. Something explodes. He wears some goofy outfit.  The world, the planet, the city, something is in danger. Pfffffftttt.

It's plug and play and they all, all, all suck. 

Reacher
Mission Impossible II, III
Minority Report
War of the Worlds

All pretty much the same crappy movie. 

Oblivion may be -- ah, hell, it is -- the worst of that sorry lot.  He's terrible in it and it's terrible on its own.  The sheer duddage of this movie doomed his current release, Edge of Tomorrow, which I absolutely refuse to see. 

He's done a good film or two, but not many. 

I won't bother discussing the barely coherent plot of this stinking load of Scientological excrement.  Mainly because I quit on this turkey about an hour in.  Unwatchable. 

Cruise needs to retire.
x100  at least the latest groundhog day one has Emily Blunt in it
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 14, 2014, 12:44:53 AM
22 Jump Street
Rare is the sequel that surpasses the original but 22 Jump Street so far eclipses 21 that the first film is rendered inconsequential.

Rare is the comedy that doesn't give away it's best bits in the trailers. In this case the trailers give nothing away. The best isn't even hinted at in the previews. It's so much better than the trailers indicate.

The movie hit every self-deprecating comedic mark.  There were gags within gags and even a good bit of sly humor that passed almost unnoticed.

Channing Tatum was outstanding playing dumb. And I even liked Jonah Hill.

Not something you'd watch over and over but it was funny from start to finish.  Best comedy I've seen in a long time. 

Really really good.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 14, 2014, 10:50:36 PM

Jonah Hill.

funny from start to finish

Best comedy I've seen in a long time. 

Really really good.

Lots of pigs have to be flying somewhere right now, meanwhile lucifer is asking for a blanket.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 27, 2014, 02:34:15 AM
Transformers 4: Age of Ex-stink-tion

First let me say that to this point I liked all the Transformers movies, even the middle one that went to Egypt. 

This one?  It veered wildly off the track I thought. 

Casting:  C-
 Wahlberg was just barely okay. Shaia Labeouf was scads better as Bumblebee's ward. The daughter (cute) was awful. The boyfriend was terrible. Tucci was good but the rest was just bad.  Didn't even much enjoy John Goodman's babbling as an Autobot.  Best role went to Erlich from Silicon Valley, but his (much welcome) commentary was rubbed out far too soon.  No Lebouf, no Tyrese, no Duhamel, no Tutturo, no Malkovich, no Dunn and White, no Jeong, no Tudyk and the movie suffered BADLY for it. 

Length: F 
The movie ran 2:37 and it felt every single minute of it.  It could have been cut by an hour without losing a beat. 

Story: F
Too many confusing things going on.  Optimus acted like a pissy bitch far too often. A lot of it just didn't make sense. I'm willing to suspend a lot of logic in a movie that features cars that turn into robots, but this was just too much. The one-note "don't touch my daughter" banter between Wahlberg and the boyfriend wore thin after the second joke. Frasier was a flop as the human big bad. Unlike the other three, I ceased to care about an hour and a half in.  The interactions, emotions and reactions just didn't ring true.  Felt forced.  Michael Bay is great at crafting amazing CGI action and destruction, but (even in the first three) he flounders when asked to write/film human emotion sequences. The dialogue was stilted and silly.  The girl (cute) was awful. Did I mention that?  The film opened with a brief bit of exposition about the aftermath of the Chicago destruction from the last film, even noting the massive human and financial cost of the carnage.  Would have been a much better film if it had just stayed there and explored the tenuous relationship with robots that should defend us and a human population shellshocked by the ravages of a war unlike any ever waged on American soil.  Instead it muddled around with a bunch of other garbage. By the time one of the the big bads was finally dispatched -- a moment that was designed to bring triumphant cheers -- it just fizzled, lost in the rampant and wanton destruction.

Action: C
Lots and lots and lots of fights and buildings shattering and people/robots flying around.  Just once i'd like to see a movie of this nature scale back on demolishing cities (Chicago and Hong Kong in this case) and build a different kind of tension.  We've watched The Avengers maul New York, Superman shred Gotham, Godzilla flatten Tokyo, Captain America destroy buildings in some town, Transformers shatter Chicago once before and on and on.  It's gotten to be too much.  There are some beautiful shots of buildings imploding and exploding but at this point it just seems stale.  Seen it. 

Plot: F
What?  What was it?  There will be some who will rip me on this topic, claiming I'm not astute enough to see the doors that were opened by the muddled and open-ended topics.  Yeah, I realize that there are a number of possibilities set up by the ending. Bad guys still exist, Optimus can possibly explore where they actually came from,  some dinosaurs just wandered off to who knows where.  But none of that moves me.  I wasn't invested AT ALL in the lead characters.  Was hoping one or more of them would just die already.

Music: F-
The earlier films had Linkin Park and some other decent music.  This didn't.  The "songs" it played were out of place and just terrible, terrible. 

Love the Transformers franchise but was terribly disappointed in this one.  It (like this review) was overly long, ponderous, fatuous and blundering.  It took all the things I liked about the first films and pissed on them.  I won't watch it again and it will be the first Transformers film I don't buy on Blu Ray.  I hate that because I really hoped that Walhberg would help spark the franchise and give it new life.  Alas, no.  There will, of course, be another one but at this moment I'm not sure I will bother.  The magic was gone and I don't know if they can get it back. 

Caveat: 10-year old boys will revel in the massive destruction and will like watching the robots fight and turn into cool cars. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 27, 2014, 10:07:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ik2ikgOyNU#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ik2ikgOyNU#ws)

$1 to Uncle Sani
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Ranger12 on June 27, 2014, 06:59:36 PM
Just watched the new Transformers movie and my son and I both agree this might actually be the best one yet as far as the special effects and action goes. It is a typical Michael Bay film with no solid storyline and plot holes, but then again, one does not go see a Michael Bay film for Oscar winning story telling. I go to see action, explosions, special effects, and more action. The 3D is actually pretty good and worth the extra $$$ for the ticket price. I usually check out the 3D reviews before I go see a movie in that format, as many are just not that good, and the good 3D reviews for this one did not let me down. Probably the best movie I have seen in 3D in a couple of years.

FYI...my theater showed a few of the trailers for upcoming movies in 3D; Guardians of the Galaxy and Hercules had good looking 3D, Planet of the Apes not so much.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 28, 2014, 05:20:39 PM
Just watched the new Transformers movie and my son and I both agree this might actually be the best one yet as far as the special effects and action goes. It is a typical Michael Bay film with no solid storyline and plot holes, but then again, one does not go see a Michael Bay film for Oscar winning story telling. I go to see action, explosions, special effects, and more action. The 3D is actually pretty good and worth the extra $$$ for the ticket price. I usually check out the 3D reviews before I go see a movie in that format, as many are just not that good, and the good 3D reviews for this one did not let me down. Probably the best movie I have seen in 3D in a couple of years.

FYI...my theater showed a few of the trailers for upcoming movies in 3D; Guardians of the Galaxy and Hercules had good looking 3D, Planet of the Apes not so much.

No offense but you've lost your freaking mind. 

Either that or you dropped acid before, during and for hours after this turd burgling three-hour wad of garbage. 

The 3D was absolutely worthless and definitely not worth the additional money.  It was so bad I saw several people in the theater just take the glasses off and drop them to the ground, preferring to watch things a bit fuzzier than deal with the hassle of the glasses for zero return.  3D added nothing.

I love Transformers but this was an abomination. Very, very disappointing. 

Your sanity is now in question.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: bgreene on June 28, 2014, 05:27:03 PM
3D is gay.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Vandy Vol on June 28, 2014, 05:41:53 PM
3D is gay.

(http://www.mrskincdn.com/_v/data/blog/resource/00/10/61/00106175/nude_scnes_in_3d.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on June 28, 2014, 09:14:20 PM
Put me in the dislike group for Godzilla.

Pros:
Bringing back the old Godzilla

The background story of Godzilla

The 15-20 minute battle scene between Godzilla and the MUTOs

Godzilla charging up with the plasma

Godzilla shooting the plasma down the MUTO's throat

Cons:
The actors, minus Bryan Cranston (he didn't last long enough), didn't look like they wanted to be in the movie

The script for the actors were badly written, which might've been the reason why the actors seemed like they were just going through the motions

Length of the movie was about an hour and a half too long, I got board after the first 15 minutes, then I was interested when the fighting happened, but I was already disappointed in the movie
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 29, 2014, 04:56:44 AM
Jersey Boys

Clint Eastwood behind the camera.  Great music. Highly successful Broadway play as the base.  How could you possibly go wrong?

1) The actor playing Frankie Valli had absolutely no charisma whatsoever. Maybe he was great on Broadway but it didn't translate to the screen.
2) The occasional "turn and talk to the camera" moments were offputting and distracting.
3) There were no real dramatic events to move the narrative (or if there were, they were handled poorly).
4) The actor playing Frankie Valli was annoying as @($# trying to mimic Frankie's vocals -- and he did it really poorly.  Would have been better to have them lip sync and use the real vocals.  Instead it came off like a really bad cover band.
5) The Partridge Family pretended to play instruments with more believability than the clowns in this movie.
6) The age progression was horrible.  Was supposed to cover a span of a number of years but the people didn't change (other than the random hairstyle).   When they did change -- the closing RIDICULOUS Hall of Fame ceremony that was some 30 years forward from the last random moment -- the makeup was abysmal. Some of the worst aging I've ever seen on film.  It was so bad it was silly.
7) There were no real redeeming qualities to any of the film's characters. The guido who works for Pesci was grating.  So too was the chowderhead who sang bass.
8) Eastwood's direction was sketchy at best.   There were some really bad CGI scenes when they were driving and it sort of bounced around telling the most boring story imaginable. Maybe in hands better suited to the material this could have been good, but it was slow and boring for the most part.  The story simply wasn't compelling and Eastwood's direction did nothing to help that.
9) Topics were opened and then never explored. Rabbit trails were everywhere.
10) Even the "did he really put that in there" cameo was a waste. 

I've seen musicals adapted for the screen that were moving and beautifully done (Phantom of the Opera comes to mind).  This wasn't one of those.   

Haven't seen any other reviews, but the lead was so horrifically bad I can't imagine they'll be good.

Couple of other things:
A) There were moments (many) where I desperately wished for a Transformer or Godzilla or Iron Man to burst through a wall and destroy the entire set.
B) The movie was terribly bad at explaining situations or giving you reasons to care about anyone.  Frankie has children, he sings once to one, his drunken wife kicks him out, his daughter becomes a plot device later when he's going to help her be a singer (no prior discussion of her being able to sing) and then she ODs.  Only a superfluous treatment as a way to move Frankie's music ahead.  Stupendously bad.
C) Film was executive produced by Valli which probably explains why his story was treated so favorably in the movie. It glossed over some pretty significant character flaws and ignored his history of domestic abuse. People dropped in and out of the narrative with little to no exposition other than to give Frankie an opportunity to make a stupid face, say something goofy in a clichéd Jersey accent and then vanish.  The lead in this movie was possibly the worse casting choice I've seen in a film in years.  Zero screen presence.
D) Christopher Walken.  The guy did more acting with a watering eyeball or a twitch of a finger than the rest of the cast combined provided through the entire film.  His performance was lazy and half-assed but it was still so much better than anything else the movie had to offer that it made the remaining cast look like overcooked spaghetti in comparison.
E) The insulting Jersey stereotypes were pretty bad as well.  It was like an episode of Jersey Shore where Pauly dressed up in a velvet suit. 

Usually I look back on a movie a few days after and my initial reaction mellows.  In this case, it's even worse in retrospect than it was while I was sitting through it.  Maybe the stage play is better.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 29, 2014, 07:44:47 PM
Jersey Boys

Clint Eastwood behind the camera.  Great music. Highly successful Broadway play as the base.  How could you possibly go wrong?

1) The actor playing Frankie Valli had absolutely no charisma whatsoever. Maybe he was great on Broadway but it didn't translate to the screen.
2) The occasional "turn and talk to the camera" moments were offputting and distracting.
3) There were no real dramatic events to move the narrative (or if there were, they were handled poorly).
4) The actor playing Frankie Valli was annoying as @($# trying to mimic Frankie's vocals -- and he did it really poorly.  Would have been better to have them lip sync and use the real vocals.  Instead it came off like a really bad cover band.
5) The Partridge Family pretended to play instruments with more believability than the clowns in this movie.
6) The age progression was horrible.  Was supposed to cover a span of a number of years but the people didn't change (other than the random hairstyle).   When they did change -- the closing RIDICULOUS Hall of Fame ceremony that was some 30 years forward from the last random moment -- the makeup was abysmal. Some of the worst aging I've ever seen on film.  It was so bad it was silly.
7) There were no real redeeming qualities to any of the film's characters. The guido who works for Pesci was grating.  So too was the chowderhead who sang bass.
8) Eastwood's direction was sketchy at best.   There were some really bad CGI scenes when they were driving and it sort of bounced around telling the most boring story imaginable. Maybe in hands better suited to the material this could have been good, but it was slow and boring for the most part.  The story simply wasn't compelling and Eastwood's direction did nothing to help that.
9) Topics were opened and then never explored. Rabbit trails were everywhere.
10) Even the "did he really put that in there" cameo was a waste. 

I've seen musicals adapted for the screen that were moving and beautifully done (Phantom of the Opera comes to mind).  This wasn't one of those.   

Haven't seen any other reviews, but the lead was so horrifically bad I can't imagine they'll be good.

Couple of other things:
A) There were moments (many) where I desperately wished for a Transformer or Godzilla or Iron Man to burst through a wall and destroy the entire set.
B) The movie was terribly bad at explaining situations or giving you reasons to care about anyone.  Frankie has children, he sings once to one, his drunken wife kicks him out, his daughter becomes a plot device later when he's going to help her be a singer (no prior discussion of her being able to sing) and then she ODs.  Only a superfluous treatment as a way to move Frankie's music ahead.  Stupendously bad.
C) Film was executive produced by Valli which probably explains why his story was treated so favorably in the movie. It glossed over some pretty significant character flaws and ignored his history of domestic abuse. People dropped in and out of the narrative with little to no exposition other than to give Frankie an opportunity to make a stupid face, say something goofy in a clichéd Jersey accent and then vanish.  The lead in this movie was possibly the worse casting choice I've seen in a film in years.  Zero screen presence.
D) Christopher Walken.  The guy did more acting with a watering eyeball or a twitch of a finger than the rest of the cast combined provided through the entire film.  His performance was lazy and half-assed but it was still so much better than anything else the movie had to offer that it made the remaining cast look like overcooked spaghetti in comparison.
E) The insulting Jersey stereotypes were pretty bad as well.  It was like an episode of Jersey Shore where Pauly dressed up in a velvet suit. 

Usually I look back on a movie a few days after and my initial reaction mellows.  In this case, it's even worse in retrospect than it was while I was sitting through it.  Maybe the stage play is better.

Not what I was wanting hear....
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chityeah on June 29, 2014, 08:09:31 PM
Shut your whore mouth! David Cassidy rocks! I would bend Shirley Jones over the kitchen table now. ( sorry still emotional over Lutzy.)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on June 29, 2014, 10:14:34 PM
Shut your whore mouth! David Cassidy rocks! I would bend Shirley Jones over the kitchen table now. ( sorry still emotional over Lutzy.)

(http://s.mcstatic.com/thumb/7319158/20146199/4/flash_player/0/1/grandmas_boy_2006_film_you_were_my_first.jpg?v=2)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on June 30, 2014, 09:51:09 AM
Flight

The trailers made it out to be something it wasn't.  The film was about a crash, yes, but not a plane crash. 

The plane crash was in a way allegorical, although it did happen.  It was symbolic of the personal and professional crash of the pilot played by Denzel. 

He was a hero, but he was not.  It was difficult to decide whether the daring act that allegedly saved lives was worth overlooking the personal flaws that he overcame to perform it.

He lay with women of various ethnicities including Dr. Watson's wife.  Sherlock will probably punish him for that. 

He convincingly played the same people I've known all my life from my uncles to my former business partner to my friends who all loudly proclaimed they were in control, it was their choice when in fact they were not and it hadn't been for a long time.  The wreckage he left behind is also familiar. 

Not all of those end up with the tidy resolution this one does, sadly most of those end in personal disaster. 

A pretty depressing film all in all. 

But as with most of Denzel's fare, worth watching for his efforts.

Watched this last night.  I don't like it when movies trick me.  This was a movie about a plane crash, right?  Nope. 

The first part of the movie was edited well.  Great pace.  Interesting scenes - how can you not like it when a movie opens with a nude -  full frontal and backside - shot of a really hot girl?  The suspense build up to the plane flight was done well.  And then the actual flight, holy shit!  I was gripping my ears throughout the whole ride.

And then the movie slowed to a snail's pace.  Not too long after the crash, I felt like the movie should be almost over.  We get it.  He's a fuck up and an alcoholic.  I hit pause to get a drink.  Still an hour and a half left.

The rest of the movie was choppy, muddled, and boring.  It reminded me of The Walking Dead.  Too many scenes of pointless conversations.  Too much "in-your-face" directing.  Did you notice he was sad?  No?  Here's a close up of a tear drop going down his eye. 

Also way too many forced philosophical quips about God and religion. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTiger1 on July 05, 2014, 12:47:53 AM
Tammy:

So the wife and I had no clue what to watch b/c everything looked like it sucked.  Decided to give Tammy a try. We've chuckled at Mike and Molly before, Susan what's her face isn't that bad of an actress, so why not?

First time either one of us have left in the middle of a movie.  I snickered once or twice at the disbelief that we paid money to see this abomination. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 06, 2014, 11:27:18 AM
Lego Movie
Heard over and over how great this movie was, blah blah blah.  I just HAD to watch it. 

So I did.  Meh. 

Funny moment or two but nothing that would make me want to see it again or hope they make a sequel. It shot itself in the ass using Will Ferrell in the way that it did. Wrong character to pull off that role.

 I guess kids would like all the bright colors but beyond that?  Meh.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 06, 2014, 12:18:05 PM
Mission to Mars
Ran across this on one of the pay networks and watched most of it. 

Better than average cast.

Gary Sinese, Don Cheadle, Connie Nielsen, Tim Robbins, Kim Delaney, Jerry O'Connell.  Manned mission to Mars goes wrong so another manned mission is sent to "bring back survivors"  Forget that in a best-case scenario situation (at the closest pass in the fastest ship we have), a trip to Mars would take more than a month which pretty much rules out the possibility of survivors, this movie was ridiculous. 

The Martians created us all.  We're going 'home."  Wanted to be profound like 2001 was (supposedly).  Ended up being unintentionally funny like too many bad movies that take themselves very seriously. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 10, 2014, 01:33:35 AM
Deliver Us From Evil

Eric Bana and Olivia Munn in an Exorcist/possession movie.

It breaks no new ground. We've seen exorcisms, we've seen demons cast out. We've seen it done with more actual or implied peril to the lead.

We saw very little of Olivia and no boobs whatsoever. She did attempt a sometimes there New York/New Jersey accent in the few lines she had but she didn't do well with it. Accent was bad.

The priest/preacher/rabbi had a thick accent. There were times he said something important to the story (possibly) but what it sounded like was "you must chuff jalapeno butter"   I had no idea what he said.

Most of the "scares" were the jump out variety.  Why does every one of these things include some damn cat leaping out from where it shouldn't be?  Cats suck.

The best part of the movie was Joel McHale. He played a wise-cracking sidekick who got in some relatively funny one-liners -- essentially himself. 

Makeup was also good and the CGI wasn't bad. 

Not really a horror movie, it moved too slowly for that but it was okay.  Better than Occulus. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on July 11, 2014, 09:32:07 AM
Monsters

Quick summary - Space probe goes to somewhere in space. Comes back.  Small glowing pods begin to hatch aliens that grow into 100 yard tall octopi who have a bad attitude with humans who shoot rockets at them.  Two Americans need to get from Central America through the "infected zone (alien land of North Mexico) to the giant wall on the American border. 

A dozen years ago, I was soft for low budget, independent movies.  It was easy to forgive them because they were on their own.  They didn't have big actors or big studios or blockbuster hyper.  They didn't have mass appeal.  They were edgy.  They were "scene." 

But now, I just want a good movie.  I don't care if it's low budget or independent.  I don't care if it's niche or if it's hipster.  I just want good writing, acting, and some excitement.  Hot chicks are enjoyed but not always required. 

Monsters is boring.  It's hackneyed.  It lacks dialogue.  Somehow, the in-real-life married couple failed to have any chemistry on screen. 

I do give it credit for establishing some suspense with such a small budget.  The night vision, tv-camera scenes of the fighter jets taking out the aliens were a nice touch.  The two aliens in the end were beautiful.

But the message was unclear.  Also, what was up with the gas masks?  They introduced them as being vital for anyone near the area of the aliens but never explained why.  Also, the whole American border being walled and American military killing the aliens in Central America really gave this movie a weak allegorical feel for illegal immigration.


Europa Report

Great movie for sitting in a realistic spaceship.  Rather terrible in terms of spontaneity.  Very little character development.

The characters also didn't live up to the tidbits of personality we were given.  There was the father of the child who missed his family.  The asshole tough guy.  The hot chick.  The badass pilot.  The random Asian guy and the absolutely pointless other guy who I'm not sure I ever learned his name. 

The family guy was only there to make people sad.  The asshole tough guy never had a struggle with being tough; he just turned into the hero.  The hot chick never got naked, and for some reason, they picked her to be the scientist most obsessed with the discovery of new life.  The badass pilot failed to ever do anything badass.  The random Asian guy randomly died - though his death scene was cool.  The other as a microcosm of his entire role in the film simply fell into a hole, disappearing forever. 

The alien at the end was an octopus.  Maybe it was because I had watched Monsters the night before, but I'm not a big fan of alien life being some variation of an octopus. 

Pretty good flick for hard sci fi.  Fails to do anything memorable. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on July 13, 2014, 08:33:54 AM
Mary and Max

Want to feel depressed?  Watch Mary and Max.  Basic gist: An 8 year old Australian girl whose life sucks major ass decides to write a random person in America.  Turns out to be a 44 year old man whose life also sucks major ass.  After some of the shittiest things possible happen to the girl as her life progresses, the movie ends with you feeling like you've been punched in the gut and pee'd on. 

Worth watching for the brilliant claymation and style.  Set in both a fictional apocalyptic-feeling sepia suburb and the grim and dismal black and white big city, the atmosphere created is perfect for helping you feel like shit.  There are some insightful moments especially when portraying the difficulties of someone with Asbergers, and even though you know it's wrong to laugh at a few of the situations, a few things that Max gets himself into are rather humorous. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 13, 2014, 10:19:26 AM
Tammy
I keep reading about what a great comedic talent Melissa McBuffalo is. So when friends wanted to see this movie I grudgingly agreed.

What talent? She does the same things every single time. 

She runs. But she's fat and slow so she's easily caught.
She dances awkwardly.
She bellows classic songs and beats on the dashboard while she drives.
She makes uncomfortable advances on a man who would never in real life be interested in her and somehow he sees through the layers of blubber and sheaths of crass behavior to recognize she's really a beautiful and tender soul.
She brays.
She whines.
She "transforms" from a slovenly hippo into a "beautiful and sexy" vision by putting on a little makeup, combing her hair and wearing an enormous dress.

There was not one single new or original note in this disaster of a film where the few potentially good parts are telegraphed in the trailers. 

She's not funny. She's not brilliant. She's not the female John Belushi or John Candy. She's an obnoxious whale who gets a lot of latitude just because she's horrifyingly obese. She didn't deserve the Oscar nomination for Bridesmaids. She doesn't deserve the box office she generates. She's a one-trick sad wad of flab. I hope this is the last time we have to see her lazily slob through a movie. Any legit actor/comedian put out something this crappy -- unless his name is Adam Sandler who does the same no effort thing -- and he/she would see their career go down in flames. The ONLY reason she isn't savaged for her crapph films is because skinny guilt prevents people from telling the truth. She's a hack.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 13, 2014, 10:37:31 AM
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
I wasn't a huge fan of the second reboot with James Franco. I felt the casting, particularly the stoner Franco as a 'brilliant' scientist was terrible.  He and Frieda Pinto were so bad that they nearly derailed the entire movie.

Thank goodness both are dead and gone in the sequel. It's rare when a follow up is exponentially better than the first film but that's certainly the case here.  Rise is Gigli compared to Dawn's Argo.

The movie didn't miss a note. Good story. Good execution. Very well told, very well done.

If I'm going to nitpick about the only things I could come up with is that the time that elapsed between Caesar bellowing his first word to him doing Shakespearen soliloquies seems compressed. And why would the monkeys know and speak English? If there are monkeys in Mexico will they naturally speak Spanish?

Gary Oldman was little used which was good. He's become a caricature, almost like Chris Walken. But unlike Walken he distracts from the film whenever he's on screen. He jarred me out of the narrative every time he showed up.

The rest was tremendously done. Taking a page from Animal Farm, it was intriguing to watch the apes come to realize that in the end they aren't that much different than we are. And we aren't much different than they. It was a deft examination of human nature.

Was beautifully rendered too. The ravaged city of San Fran was starkly authentic.

Just a good movie. Not something you're going to watch time and time again. No quotes that will be repeated in threads here.

But watch it. And do so in the medium that does it service -- at the theater.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTiger1 on July 14, 2014, 10:33:08 AM
Tammy
I keep reading about what a great comedic talent Melissa McBuffalo is. So when friends wanted to see this movie I grudgingly agreed.

What talent? She does the same things every single time. 

She runs. But she's fat and slow so she's easily caught.
She dances awkwardly.
She bellows classic songs and beats on the dashboard while she drives.
She makes uncomfortable advances on a man who would never in real life be interested in her and somehow he sees through the layers of blubber and sheaths of crass behavior to recognize she's really a beautiful and tender soul.
She brays.
She whines.
She "transforms" from a slovenly hippo into a "beautiful and sexy" vision by putting on a little makeup, combing her hair and wearing an enormous dress.

There was not one single new or original note in this disaster of a film where the few potentially good parts are telegraphed in the trailers. 

She's not funny. She's not brilliant. She's not the female John Belushi or John Candy. She's an obnoxious whale who gets a lot of latitude just because she's horrifyingly obese. She didn't deserve the Oscar nomination for Bridesmaids. She doesn't deserve the box office she generates. She's a one-trick sad wad of flab. I hope this is the last time we have to see her lazily slob through a movie. Any legit actor/comedian put out something this crappy -- unless his name is Adam Sandler who does the same no effort thing -- and he/she would see their career go down in flames. The ONLY reason she isn't savaged for her crapph films is because skinny guilt prevents people from telling the truth. She's a hack.

Should have read what I posted above and saved yourself from misery.  We walked out of the theater halfway through.  It sucked bad!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 14, 2014, 10:58:24 AM
Should have read what I posted above and saved yourself from misery.  We walked out of the theater halfway through.  It sucked bad!

I did.  Thought of that while I was watching it.  Tried to figure out at what point you'd had enough. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 14, 2014, 11:35:50 AM
Caught two flicks this weekend...one at the Theater and one on Netflix:

America: Imagine the World Without Her- very good. very fact based including some I didn't even know myself. And I don't think D'Souza is trying to score big political points or anything. More that I think he is trying to restore the country and it's people in being proud of the good that America has done the world and be proud of the unique idea that it is, instead of focusing too much on a lot of the revisionist history that weve done nothing but bad in the world. And its a good history lesson for those who have tried to rewrite it the last 1/4 century.

Drinking Buddies - this had the chick from House, and the dude from Office Space....Wilde I think her name is. Independent movie. Had a good premise, the acting was very improv it seemed. Liked 2/3 of the movie and then it fell flat (to me). I like Indy movies more times than not. This one wasn't BAD...just kind of meh at the end. It just kind of ended. But she was nice to look at for 90 mins.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTiger1 on July 14, 2014, 11:51:34 AM
I did.  Thought of that while I was watching it.  Tried to figure out at what point you'd had enough.

It was at the point that they blew up the RV and went to the lesbian party. When she started flirting with the guy again I was done.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 14, 2014, 12:12:56 PM
It was at the point that they blew up the RV and went to the lesbian party. When she started flirting with the guy again I was done.

There was a less than zero chance that that guy would have found anything about her appearance or demeanor attractive.  She looked like she smelled like piss and grease.  Young, reasonably attractive men who have money are ALWAYS chasing that.  Really terrible movie.  She's an awful human being.  Plays the same awful human being in everything she's been in.  But most people are afraid to say what they think because she's fat and they don't want to look like they're being cruel to her because she is morbidly obese. 

Rex Reed isn't amused either:

Quote
Her entire performance—if you can call it that—consists of being slapped, slugged, dumped in various lakes and rivers, and bounced off walls and pavements like a big rubber Shmoo doll. She isn’t smart, imaginative or creative enough to be a real female clown, like Lucille Ball. Nothing that resembles a fresh approach to slapstick farce ever engages the mind or the eye. Instead she recycles every fatso cliché from John Candy to Totie Fields, which only turns the viewer cynical.


Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 15, 2014, 01:02:03 AM
Monuments Men

Heavily hyped.  Perhaps the movie I've seen the most trailers for ever.  Seemed like every movie I saw for six months had a preview of this one in it. 

I'm not going to make it through it.  The actors are great.  The performances are good so far.  The sets are magnificent. Easy to believe this is WWII era Europe. The costumes are perfect.  The vehicles authentic.

But this thing is SO stupendously boring. 

It's a vanity project for Clooney, Damon, Murray and the rest. 

I don't know what I expected.  But I'm yawning -- and writing this -- instead of paying attention.

Is it supposed to be funny that Bill Murray is on camera and they're calling somebody Garfield?   Ha. Ha. He. 

snore...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 15, 2014, 04:30:27 PM
Robocop

I so wish I'd seen this in theaters. 

The original movie was perfect for its time.  A great 80s movie that captured the outlandish greed and excess of that period perfectly.  Then they carried on with Robocop 2, Robocop 3, Robocop in the Hood, Robocop in Space, Robocop Takes Manhattan and all the rest of the really bad sequels.  I had no expectation that a reboot in 2014 could have anything new or interesting to add.

I was wrong. That was a great popcorn movie. 

When Vince Vaughn redid Psycho -- poorly -- the director opted for a shot-by-shot remake of the original. This film took the central concept and created its own -- and frankly much better -- story.

I liked the way it change the family dynamic from the original. I liked the way it handled the reconstruction much better. I liked the role Gary Oldman played, something that would have been very welcome in the original. 

This one lacked Ronny Cox pissing on Miguel Ferrer's shoes, but other than that pretty much every aspect of the 2014 film topped the 1987 version. And I didn't think that was remotely possible.  I loved the old Robocop. 

I especially liked the random nods to the previous movie that were hiding throughout the film like little Easter eggs. 

I'd buy this version of Robocop for a dollar. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on July 20, 2014, 08:54:28 AM
Upstream Color

I don't know if I should say this was a bad movie or brilliant movie.  It wasn't really entertaining.  Definitely an artistic yet nebulous attempt at discussing hypnotism and control and the effects it can have on people.  But much like Carruth's previous film Primer, it's left me thinking about it a lot.  I liked it, but I'm not really sure why.  Maybe it was weird enough to be intriguing but not too weird for me to throw it out.

City of Lost Children

The same guy that did the remarkable movie Amelie made a movie in the mid 90s about an industrial yet apocalyptic world that has a bad who steals children to harvest their dreams.  This movie succeeded in creating a memorable setting with strange, Gilliam-like characters and a bad guy who was rather creepy.  Ron Perlman did a great job portraying an oversized and ignorant brute who desperately wanted to save his little brother.

If you enjoy movies like Brazil, The Baron of Munchausen, or Dark City, you'll like City of Lost Children.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 20, 2014, 09:08:05 AM
Internship
Townhall needs a thread called 'movies nobody ever knew existed and where the fuck would you possibly find them' but I digress.

As Vince vaugnn/Owen Wilson movies go I've seen worse. The internship was far duller than they probably meant it to be. The "on the line" jokes lost steam after about the 43rd version.

I hate Owen Wilson with a passion. He has zero talent beyind a crappy hairdo and permanent duck face. He isn't "charming" and there's no way in hell Seth Rogen's 'Neighbors' wife would ever be into him. Ever. Wilson was the worst part of this movie, a whining blonde abortion of a character. Neither he nor Vaughn were believable in their roles as inspiration to a team of nerds. Nor would their complete ignorance have been a plus in earning google jobs.

But there were some mildly amusing moments along the way. None involving Wilson who was like a clubbed seal every time he was on screen, but a few. The rest of the cast was straight out of revenge of the nerds 101. 

Largely forgettable. But not the worst thing I've seen from this horribly unfunny brat pack.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on July 20, 2014, 09:17:56 AM

Townhall needs a thread called 'movies nobody ever knew existed and where the fuck would you possibly find them' but I digress.


Damnit.  I post my own movie reviews in my own threads and you tell me to put them here.  I put them here and you say start another thread.  What is it that you want, man?  What is it?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 20, 2014, 09:36:35 AM
Damnit.  I post my own movie reviews in my own threads and you tell me to put them here.  I put them here and you say start another thread.  What is it that you want, man?  What is it?

I don't think you are posting about movies. That be the point of my snark.  These are dreams or something. Never heard of these things. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on July 20, 2014, 09:42:52 AM
I don't think you are posting about movies. That be the point of my snark.  These are dreams or something. Never heard of these things.

I've pretty much exhausted the pop choices on Netflix Streaming.  I rummage through the choices and see what has four or more stars.  Then I search the title on Reddit to see if it's been discussed thoroughly and then I watch it. 

Also notice a lot of the obscure movies I talk about are more sci fi than not.  It's hard to find sci fi movies that aren't Transformers, so a sci fi fan like myself really has to be on the lookout for the more obscure ones.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 21, 2014, 01:09:00 AM
The Purge: Anarchy

How many ways can you screw up a movie?  However many ways there are, this pile of crap tried to hit every one of them. 

I've seen it hailed as a step in a new direction, better than the original, a deeper examination of the concepts behind the purge rather than a random celebration of its violence. 

Pffffttttt.  Hell with that.  Here's your "deeper meaning": Rich people bad. Poor people good. Thanks Obama.

This was one of the worst movies I've seen in a while.

For one thing it tried to tell way too many stories.  There were about five things going on at the same time and none were fleshed out enough. The narrative had little cohesiveness. If it had taken any one of the multiple storylines and focused solely on that, it might have had potential.  Instead it was a screwed up mess of misguided motivation, bumbled storytelling and flat emotions.  Did not give one half of one shit about any of the characters.  They all should have died.

Speaking of characters, Kylie Sanchez was one of the leads and she exhibited every bit of the blank-eyed, no-talent, pinch-faced piss poor acting she displayed on the cancelled USA series The Glades. Her performance was so bad she was the primary reason the thing was booted off the air. She was hated.

The rest of the characters, including a completely wasted Chalky White, were so fraudulent that they should have been murdered as part of the story. 

it was really bad. I hope this ends the series, but since the theater I saw it in was full I fully expect a Purge 3 coming soon. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 21, 2014, 09:43:16 AM
Then I search the title on Reddit to see if it's been discussed thoroughly and then I watch it. 

God, why?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 21, 2014, 09:45:20 AM
The Purge: Anarchy

How many ways can you screw up a movie?  However many ways there are, this pile of crap tried to hit every one of them. 

I've seen it hailed as a step in a new direction, better than the original, a deeper examination of the concepts behind the purge rather than a random celebration of its violence. 

Pffffttttt.  Hell with that.  Here's your "deeper meaning": Rich people bad. Poor people good. Thanks Obama.

This was one of the worst movies I've seen in a while.

For one thing it tried to tell way too many stories.  There were about five things going on at the same time and none were fleshed out enough. The narrative had little cohesiveness. If it had taken any one of the multiple storylines and focused solely on that, it might have had potential.  Instead it was a screwed up mess of misguided motivation, bumbled storytelling and flat emotions.  Did not give one half of one shit about any of the characters.  They all should have died.

Speaking of characters, Kylie Sanchez was one of the leads and she exhibited every bit of the blank-eyed, no-talent, pinch-faced piss poor acting she displayed on the cancelled USA series The Glades. Her performance was so bad she was the primary reason the thing was booted off the air. She was hated.

The rest of the characters, including a completely wasted Chalky White, were so fraudulent that they should have been murdered as part of the story. 

it was really bad. I hope this ends the series, but since the theater I saw it in was full I fully expect a Purge 3 coming soon.

Sounds like it meant well in trying to get into the deeper meaning thing , but maybe tried to hard and became confusing. Ive seen it happen before.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTiger1 on July 21, 2014, 11:28:26 AM
Kaos, watch or re-watch Primal Fear.  I would like to know what you thought about it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 22, 2014, 10:34:41 AM
The Purge: Anarchy

How many ways can you screw up a movie?  However many ways there are, this pile of crap tried to hit every one of them. 

I've seen it hailed as a step in a new direction, better than the original, a deeper examination of the concepts behind the purge rather than a random celebration of its violence. 

Pffffttttt.  Hell with that.  Here's your "deeper meaning": Rich people bad. Poor people good. Thanks Obama.

This was one of the worst movies I've seen in a while.

For one thing it tried to tell way too many stories.  There were about five things going on at the same time and none were fleshed out enough. The narrative had little cohesiveness. If it had taken any one of the multiple storylines and focused solely on that, it might have had potential.  Instead it was a screwed up mess of misguided motivation, bumbled storytelling and flat emotions.  Did not give one half of one shit about any of the characters.  They all should have died.

Speaking of characters, Kylie Sanchez was one of the leads and she exhibited every bit of the blank-eyed, no-talent, pinch-faced piss poor acting she displayed on the cancelled USA series The Glades. Her performance was so bad she was the primary reason the thing was booted off the air. She was hated.

The rest of the characters, including a completely wasted Chalky White, were so fraudulent that they should have been murdered as part of the story. 

it was really bad. I hope this ends the series, but since the theater I saw it in was full I fully expect a Purge 3 coming soon.

It's a shame really I thought the premise was good.  The first one was so-so.  I thought the second one just from the trailers looked lame.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 23, 2014, 02:12:49 AM
12 Years A Slave

Once again a slave movie focused on beatings, rapings, breaking families and abuse.  Reality was a different thing entirely, but let's not let the truth get in the way of the story. Slavery was bad. No question. Can't own another human being, just not right.  But let's tell the truth here. Slavery in America lasted less than 80 years.  It was abolished nearly 150 years ago.  I think it's time to let go. The average Six Flags boor munching on a waffle dog has about as much relation to slavery as I do to the King of England. The true horror of American history is the treatment of the Indians, but we don't tell that story.

The vast majority of slaves were not raped by their masters, were not tortured for white folk's amusement and were not horribly abused.  95% of slaves were "owned" by people who subsisted at a level barely above what a slave endured. Slaves were expensive -- hundreds and thousands of dollars at a time when a dollar was worth about 1/30th what it is now.  Comparative value?  An average slave cost what today would equal $30,000.  There are some incredibly rich people who would abuse a $30,000 investment. Most wouldn't. 

But I digress. Let's talk about the movie itself.  It won an Oscar. Whoopee. That white guilt voting bloc must be strong. No other reason this should have won. American Hustle, Captain Phillips and Wolf of Wall Street were all far superior films.

Some good performances were sprinkled throughout 12 Years.  So were some pretty crappy ones.  Solomon was good. Eliza and Patsy were shitty. I don't care if she won a sympathy Oscar for her effort, Patsy (or ey) was one of the worst parts of the film. 

Everybody sported really bad accents, but that seems to be a staple of any film that tries in any way to capture Southern life. 

Tons of quality and not-so-quality stars popping up because this was an IMPORTANT movie and they wanted to get their screen time.  Brad Pitt showed up for about ten minutes. Paul Giamatti for less than that.  Bentdick Cumberbutch was there as was a terribly overacting and hammy Michael Fussbender (inexplicably nominated for an Oscar for one of the laughably worst performances I've ever seen). His performance was asinine. So too was Sarah Paulson's bitchy southern matron act. Terrible. Alfre Woodard popped up for no reason other than to say she was in the film. She added nothing to it. If anything she detracted from the story. Was disappointed that Morgan Freeman or Samuel L. Jackson didn't make an appearance, but they can't be in every single movie that comes out I suppose.  Chalky White was there, however, but he didn't last long. His performance was much better than his effort in Purge, so there is that at least.

Some other casting choices were highly questionable.  Paul Dano was a lightweight as an overseer. 

And then there was this guy, doing this very same bit. 

(http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Capture2-300x206.jpg)

That threw me so badly I discounted the movie from the first second he was on screen.  I kept expecting him to say "NEXT..."  I had a hard time taking it seriously after that.

Aside from the casting, the movie suffered from pacing problems. It bounced around in the timeline for no apparent reason on several occasions.  At one point it was so bad I paused the movie and made sure I hadn't accidentally hit the chapter back button since it was showing something -- something inconsequential -- I'd already seen before.

It was a decent movie.  Completely overdone and overdramatized, but decent enough. Not nearly the groundbreaking must-see superbly drawn film I was led to believe it would be.  But decent.  I'll never watch it again and won't remember any of it two weeks from now.  It was that kind of thing. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 02, 2014, 08:59:25 AM
The World's End
There is an endearing quality about Simon Pegg. You can't help but like his muddle brained loser Gary King and hope that he not only finds the meaning of life but manages to finish his pub crawl quest in this uneven comedy. Unfortunately a town full of robots -- well they're not exactly robots and we could debate what they are to the end of time -- stand in the way of completing both journeys.

It's an unusual film. I like British comedy and this is basic Brit. It relied on interplay between the characters for its humor and did so fairly well. It wasn't vulgar or excessive like American comedy has become and you had to pay attention to catch some of the cleverness that brought the funniest moments.

Compared to what passes for humor now in American movies (Tammy, anything from Ben stiller or ferrel or jim Carey) and this comes off as utter brilliance. It had a few cleverly funny moments, a zany premise, a solid cast and the winsome presence of Pegg.

Not for everybody but I enjoyed it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on August 02, 2014, 09:19:19 AM
The World's End
There is an endearing quality about Simon Pegg. You can't help but like his muddle brained loser Gary King and hope that he not only finds the meaning of life but manages to finish his pub crawl quest in this uneven comedy. Unfortunately a town full of robots -- well they're not exactly robots and we could debate what they are to the end of time -- stand in the way of completing both journeys.

It's an unusual film. I like British comedy and this is basic Brit. It relied on interplay between the characters for its humor and did so fairly well. It wasn't vulgar or excessive like American comedy has become and you had to pay attention to catch some of the cleverness that brought the funniest moments.

Compared to what passes for humor now in American movies (Tammy, anything from Ben stiller or ferrel or jim Carey) and this comes off as utter brilliance. It had a few cleverly funny moments, a zany premise, a solid cast and the winsome presence of Pegg.

Not for everybody but I enjoyed it.

I'll watch just about anything with Pegg.  The "Cornetto Trilogy" (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, The World's End) are a great slice of Brit humor.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 02, 2014, 01:11:05 PM
3 Days to Kill

Amber Heard is amazingly hot. But playing a supposed CIA operative? Joke-worthy. She's worse than Denise Richard as a nuclear scientist. Amber was cringingly bad. Terrible in fact. So bad that her hotness was almost unnoticed.

Kevin Costner is past his time.  Know his character was supposed to be but he himself just is.

With any two other leads this might have been a very good movie.

Those two just bollocksed it up. 

It was so mixed up I couldn't decide if it was an action farce intended to be campy on purpose or a serious action movie that tried so hard it became farcical.

The on again off again tortured relationship with the teen daughter was painfully badly done as was the silly "she still loves me" dynamic with the wife.  Dancing with his daughter to "I wanna make it with you" was pedo-incesto-creepy.

This movie could have worked and worked well but it failed on almost every level to provide honest emotion or drama. It did succeed to wring out a few situational laughs but if you've seen the trailers you already know them all. 

Killed two hours of my life with this one.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 03, 2014, 10:40:05 AM
Guardians of the Galaxy

The leadership at Marvel clearly knows how to craft a superhero movie. Iron Man, Avengers and even Thor, CA all understand the proper mix of humor, action, seriousness and camp. With the exception of Spider-Man, which the studio just can't seem to make anything decent out of, Marvel's superhero treatment is typically on point.

Add Guardians to Marvel's long list of solid hits. In some ways it may be the best of all.

The only real drawback is a hard to follow storyline that introduced numerous people and places that sort of blended together in a miasma of space junk.

Chris Pratt did a good job as the goofy leader of a ragtag group of aliens. Bradley Cooper's raccoon and Vin diesel's tender hearted tree dominated the film and were the real stars.

Plenty of action. Plenty of intelligent humor. Just a very enjoyable movie.

Marvel completely gets what DC with its ponderous, brooding treatments of Superman and Batman as well as it's unwatchable trash like Green Lantern absolutely does not.

As a Batfan it really makes me wish the Crusader was a Marvel property. I'd love to see what they could do with his story.

Guardians is definitely worth seeing.  It's a fun ride that deftly hits all the right emotional buttons.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: jmar on August 03, 2014, 11:17:00 AM
I'll watch just about anything with Pegg.  The "Cornetto Trilogy" (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, The World's End) are a great slice of Brit humor.
I like Pegg and Steve Coogan almost as much.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on August 03, 2014, 09:17:38 PM
Guardians of the Galaxy

This film is everything Star Wars Episode I SHOULD HAVE BEEN!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 04, 2014, 10:41:47 AM
I'll watch just about anything with Pegg.  The "Cornetto Trilogy" (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, The World's End) are a great slice of Brit humor.
Troof
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on August 04, 2014, 08:42:12 PM
The World's End
There is an endearing quality about Simon Pegg. You can't help but like his muddle brained loser Gary King and hope that he not only finds the meaning of life but manages to finish his pub crawl quest in this uneven comedy. Unfortunately a town full of robots -- well they're not exactly robots and we could debate what they are to the end of time -- stand in the way of completing both journeys.

It's an unusual film. I like British comedy and this is basic Brit. It relied on interplay between the characters for its humor and did so fairly well. It wasn't vulgar or excessive like American comedy has become and you had to pay attention to catch some of the cleverness that brought the funniest moments.

Compared to what passes for humor now in American movies (Tammy, anything from Ben stiller or ferrel or jim Carey) and this comes off as utter brilliance. It had a few cleverly funny moments, a zany premise, a solid cast and the winsome presence of Pegg.

Not for everybody but I enjoyed it.

Hated it.  Maybe not hated the movie but hated that it was a huge drop off from SotD and HF.  I thought the conversation with the talking voice alien thing was one of the biggest failures of any movie I've ever seen.  Such build up for the big explanation for what the hell had been going on and it concludes with "Whatever...fuck it."  BAD, bad, bad. 

It still featured some of that Cornetto charm though.  Just seeing those guys on screen makes me happy and I loved the addition of Martin Freeman who I really like despite his inability to be any other character than the one that he always is. 

If I had seen it before the other two, I may have had a better opinion of it though I might not have been inspired to continue watching the others. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on August 05, 2014, 07:30:05 AM
With the exception of Spider-Man, which the studio just can't seem to make anything decent out of, Marvel's superhero treatment is typically on point.

And oddly, Marvel Studios don't own the rights to Spider-Man (Sony Pictures does), which might explain why they aren't as good (although I enjoyed Spider-Man 1 and 2 - the ones that Sam Raimi did.)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on August 06, 2014, 08:48:49 AM
Guardians of the Galaxy

The leadership at Marvel clearly knows how to craft a superhero movie. Iron Man, Avengers and even Thor, CA all understand the proper mix of humor, action, seriousness and camp. With the exception of Spider-Man, which the studio just can't seem to make anything decent out of, Marvel's superhero treatment is typically on point.

Add Guardians to Marvel's long list of solid hits. In some ways it may be the best of all.

The only real drawback is a hard to follow storyline that introduced numerous people and places that sort of blended together in a miasma of space junk.

Chris Pratt did a good job as the goofy leader of a ragtag group of aliens. Bradley Cooper's raccoon and Vin diesel's tender hearted tree dominated the film and were the real stars.

Plenty of action. Plenty of intelligent humor. Just a very enjoyable movie.

Marvel completely gets what DC with its ponderous, brooding treatments of Superman and Batman as well as it's unwatchable trash like Green Lantern absolutely does not.

As a Batfan it really makes me wish the Crusader was a Marvel property. I'd love to see what they could do with his story.

Guardians is definitely worth seeing.  It's a fun ride that deftly hits all the right emotional buttons.

Based solely upon the universally great reviews this movie is getting, I went to see it last night. 

I won't gush as much most reviewers have, but it was a solidly entertaining movie.  I am not a comic fan and, frankly, when I first saw the trailer for this one back in the spring I was picking it to be a stinker.  A fucking raccoon and a tree?  Really?  I'll admit to being wrong, but I don't know that I'll beat a path to the box office when the inevitable sequel comes out.

It was good to see Merle from the Walking Dead back in action.  Nathan Filion was wasted in his "cameo."  Vin Diesel has the easiest role ever.  He literally had to speak 5 distinct words throughout the entire movie ("I am Groot" and "We are Groot").

The teaser after the credits was fun.  I loved that movie (for some fucking reason) as a kid and I'm curious to see what they do with a reboot.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 06, 2014, 09:44:01 AM
The teaser after the credits was fun.  I loved that movie (for some fucking reason) as a kid and I'm curious to see what they do with a reboot.
No one laughs at a master of Quack Fu!

Young viral Lea Thompson.... :drool2: mmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Oh how my 10 year old self wanted you so.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on August 06, 2014, 09:51:48 AM
viral

Que?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 06, 2014, 09:55:32 AM
Que?
sorry...virile
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on August 06, 2014, 09:57:04 AM
sorry...virile

vir·ile
adjective \ˈvir-əl, ˈvir-ˌī(-ə)l, British also ˈvī(-ə)r-ˌī(-ə)l\

: having or suggesting qualities (such as strength and sexual energy) that are associated with men and that are usually considered attractive in men


Something wrong with your medulla oblongata!  I believe you're searching for "nubile."
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 06, 2014, 09:58:52 AM
Hawt would suffice
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 06, 2014, 10:00:29 AM
vir·ile
adjective \ˈvir-əl, ˈvir-ˌī(-ə)l, British also ˈvī(-ə)r-ˌī(-ə)l\

: having or suggesting qualities (such as strength and sexual energy) that are associated with men and that are usually considered attractive in men


Something wrong with your medulla oblongata!  I believe you're searching for "nubile."
sexy...k? Wesus Christo!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 06, 2014, 10:48:20 AM
Watched Hot Fuzz. Sorry ths. It was not substantially better than Worlds End. In fact I liked it far less. Not even going to bother with a review.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 10, 2014, 01:15:04 PM
Lucy

At the end of the movie Scarlett intones "You have the knowledge. Now you know what to do with it."  I thought about that for a moment and then asked the people with me if they had any idea what we were supposed to do. They didn't know. I heard several others ask the same rhetorical question as we filed out. What ARE we supposed to do? No idea.

The film is pretty. It looks good but it's got some ridiculous holes.  It's a little like Limitless, that film with Bradley Cooper.  You've unlocked all this mental power but make stupid, basic mistakes that put everyone at risk?

I just didn't really get much out of this one at all. It was okay but just wasn't groundbreaking. I don't know if I believe that all the things she was represented as being able to do would actually be possible regardless of how much of the mind we could access.

Some interesting concepts that made you think wrapped in a silly and not fully explained storyline about Asian gangsters. They are really going to trust all that to a sweaty drunken cowboy?

Bleh.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Ranger12 on August 10, 2014, 08:28:26 PM

The teaser after the credits was fun.  I loved that movie (for some fucking reason) as a kid and I'm curious to see what they do with a reboot.

I read an interview with the director and he said to not read too much into that post-credit scene. It was just a way for him to have a little fun with the whole post-credits thing that Marvel normally does. Since GoG is eventually going to play a role in the Avengers movies, people were expecting a post-credit scene that may connect them, so Gunn instead decided to he wanted to play a little joke on the movie-goers. It was good, because even my wife got it, though my 16 year old son was completely lost.

I am hoping they bring Cosmo, the Russian space dog, back in the sequel. In the Marvel comic universe, he is sort of the administrator/leader of the Guardians at their headquarters in N.O.W.H.E.R.E
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 10, 2014, 11:20:24 PM
It was good, because even my wife got it, though my 16 year old son was completely lost.


Good for her. 

It definitely went over a lot of people's heads. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 13, 2014, 01:19:59 PM
Snitch

Just a friendly reminder that no matter how charming Dwayne Johnson may be, he cannot act a single lick.  Nor can Susan Sarandon in this film.  Nor can Shane from Walking Dead.  About the only decently framed character is the ever popular Chalky White, here as a lower level drug dealer. 

Melina Kanadaredes is wasted in a throwaway role as the sad mother.  Wasted, too, is Benjamin Bratt in a small role that could have been handled by any random Latino actor and definitely didn't require his (limited) star power.

Silly story about a dad trading drug convictions to win his son's freedom -- a deal no decent DA would ever make.  Bad dialogue, uneven pacing, poor motivational exposition.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 13, 2014, 01:21:32 PM
War Games
A nice little film for what it was. 

Matthew Broderick is weirdly awkward and the story is now quite a bit dated considering what computers are able to do. 

Ally Sheedy in 21-year old prime, though?  With those high waisted pants and that yoga outfit?  Good times. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 13, 2014, 01:42:54 PM
War Games
A nice little film for what it was. 

Matthew Broderick is weirdly awkward and the story is now quite a bit dated considering what computers are able to do. 

Ally Sheedy in 21-year old prime, though?  With those high waisted pants and that yoga outfit?  Good times.
Or considering the WOPR would now be less powerful than my iPhone. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on August 13, 2014, 01:52:01 PM
Or considering the WOPR would now be less powerful than my iPhone.

Yea but the phone on the WOPR probably works.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 13, 2014, 03:24:09 PM
Yea but the phone on the WOPR probably works.

Siri also won't play tic-tac-toe. Stupid bitch.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on August 13, 2014, 03:26:33 PM
Or considering the WOPR would now be less powerful than my iPhone.


But your Iphone can't bomb Russia.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 13, 2014, 03:46:39 PM

But your Iphone can't bomb Russia.
Says you. I have an app
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 16, 2014, 01:49:47 AM
Let's Be Cops

It came so close to being uproariously funny.  But the movie was just afraid to take that extra step and completely go over the edge.  On the few occasions when it did push past the norm it had some good comedy moments, but it would almost always defuse those by drifting back into some lame romance thing that nobody cared about whatsoever or it would decide to get serious for a minute or two or it would try to wring some emotional "loser makes good" drama out of it. 

It was funny in places, uneven and sporadic in many more.  Not the worst comedy I've ever seen.  Not the best, either. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 24, 2014, 11:53:56 AM
If I Stay

I have girls.  Sometimes I make sacrifices.  This was one. 

Terrible, stupid, vapid movie.  There were only two other guys in the theater which was about half filled.  At times the teenage girls in the movie were sobbing/bawling so loudly that you couldn't even hear the dialogue. 

What were they crying for?  I couldn't figure it out.  I can be moved by movies. I'll even admit to getting a tear or two in Little Mermaid (only at the end when the dad let the daughter go).  But I got absolutely nothing out of this. 

The movie seemed as if it was written by a 15-year old, a child who has no concept of what true relationships should look like, no idea of what love means, no understanding of what's important in life.  It was sappy crappy treacle which traded on the worst possible motivations for behaviors. 

I was really, really surprised and saddened at just how little screen presence Chloe-Grace Morentz has.  I love her as Hit Girl. She was okay in Carrie. But here, she's expected to carry the movie and she is nothing but a cardboard cutout. 

The film tracked her internal decision to live or die after she was seriously injured in a car accident. Through a series of jarring "where are we in the timeline?" flashbacks, you learn about her relationship with her parents and her on and off boyfriend.  She's supposed to be some brilliant celloist with a yen fir Beethoven. He's a budding punk rock star. 

The music is gratingly awful and there's no way the boyfriend's "band" would draw any interest unless the film was set in 1968. 

Both characters were completely self-absorbed. Their emotional range was non-existent. Rage to adoration to despair all within the same smug, quirky expression. 

We've seen tons of these type of movies, from Love Story to Brian's Song to Endless Love to the recent sappy Fault In Our Stars crap.  This one was just absolutely terrible. Forced emotions, two of the most self-involved characters I've ever seen in a movie and a shallow, pathetic message at the end. 

Horrible.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: smooth_operator on August 24, 2014, 09:37:01 PM
Let's Be Cops

It came so close to being uproariously funny.  But the movie was just afraid to take that extra step and completely go over the edge.  On the few occasions when it did push past the norm it had some good comedy moments, but it would almost always defuse those by drifting back into some lame romance thing that nobody cared about whatsoever or it would decide to get serious for a minute or two or it would try to wring some emotional "loser makes good" drama out of it. 

It was funny in places, uneven and sporadic in many more.  Not the worst comedy I've ever seen.  Not the best, either.

The funny part of this movie was all the torture tools were from someone's tackle box.
The knife was a Berkeley fillet knife which is about 8 dollars at Walmart and those pliers are the same type I carry in my salt water bag because some of those sumbitches have big teeth.
There were some hugely funny bits but too much time between
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 25, 2014, 05:09:16 AM
Old Dogs

One of the "hey, Robin Williams is dead let's watch one of his movies" moments.  This was a pretty bad choice. 

"Genius" sports marketers Williams and John Travolta have a kazillion dollar Japanese mega deal in the works when Williams finds out a fling he had years ago with Kelly Preston (Travolta's real life wife) led to a pair of twins. He ends up having to take care of them when Preston goes to jail for two weeks and we get the usual bumbling dad makes good and learns to love while at the same time nailing the business deal in an unconventional way storyline. 

This film reminds you again that John Travolta is a terrible actor. In certain roles he's okay. Playing a human being isn't one of those. 

It also reminds you again just how socially awkward Williams is.  He tries to play it straight without his typical bizarre explosions of manic personalities and looks painfully out of place.  Asked to show real emotion and he looks like he's being tasered. Not one single time does he manage to convey an appropriate response that resonates. 

The only time the movie is funny is when he gets to do a little of his usual schtick on a golf course due to taking the wrong medication. The rest of the movie fails. 

Watching Travolta and Williams fail so miserably at trying to portray human beings made me wonder if the pair aren't really aliens masquerading as humans.  Neither of them looked capable of conveying any basic human feeling or carrying on a real interaction.  They're both terribly awkward and robotic.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on August 25, 2014, 09:28:53 AM
Old Dogs

One of the "hey, Robin Williams is dead let's watch one of his movies" moments.  This was a pretty bad choice. 

"Genius" sports marketers Williams and John Travolta have a kazillion dollar Japanese mega deal in the works when Williams finds out a fling he had years ago with Kelly Preston (Travolta's real life wife) led to a pair of twins. He ends up having to take care of them when Preston goes to jail for two weeks and we get the usual bumbling dad makes good and learns to love while at the same time nailing the business deal in an unconventional way storyline. 

This film reminds you again that John Travolta is a terrible actor. In certain roles he's okay. Playing a human being isn't one of those. 

It also reminds you again just how socially awkward Williams is.  He tries to play it straight without his typical bizarre explosions of manic personalities and looks painfully out of place.  Asked to show real emotion and he looks like he's being tasered. Not one single time does he manage to convey an appropriate response that resonates. 

The only time the movie is funny is when he gets to do a little of his usual schtick on a golf course due to taking the wrong medication. The rest of the movie fails. 

Watching Travolta and Williams fail so miserably at trying to portray human beings made me wonder if the pair aren't really aliens masquerading as humans.  Neither of them looked capable of conveying any basic human feeling or carrying on a real interaction.  They're both terribly awkward and robotic.

He was decent in Ladder 49. He actually showed emotion and cared. Little cheesy but it was decent. One of the few movies where I saw grown men tearing up in the threater.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 26, 2014, 09:40:15 AM
I'll echo the reviews already given on Guardians of the Galaxy.  Surprisingly entertaining.  Took mini just to have something to do on a Saturday afternoon before foosballz season cranks up.  Definitely worth the rental. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 01, 2014, 07:09:55 AM
As Above, So Below

As a movie, so it sucked.

Genius (and sorta cute) researcher goes trawling through the catacombs of Paris in search of some alchemy stone.  A few jump scares here and there, some bizarre and completely unexplained imagery, some random events that didn't make sense or had no context, and some really bad acting slung together to make a story that was neither emotional drama nor horror.

Complete waste of time.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: jmar on September 13, 2014, 11:57:22 AM
Take time to watch The Words.

Not sure if anyone has seen this not having an updated past listing of reviews here but this is as well done overall as I have seen in several months. Stars  Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Irons and Dennis Quaid.
Definitely not a waste of time as so many are.
I'm sort of new to Cooper and never had much interest in Quaid's ability beyond that window of time when he was much younger. I watched it with no prior knowledge other than the mini-synopsis in the listings and was very happy I took the time.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 13, 2014, 01:12:32 PM
No Good Deed

At the risk of sounding completely racist I have to say that my opinion of this movie was colored by the makeup of the audience. The theater was completely full and my friend and I were the only white people in the room.

It was cacophony. 

Woman in front of us stayed on her phone the entire time except for three two minute segments after an usher came and told her to put t away. The conversation went like this through most of the movie:

"Ohhhhnshit. This bitch fiddn to get her ass kilt! Hold on, hd on..... OH FUCK, he done hit her with the goddam shovel!!"

The entire theater erupted in pandemonium at about four different events.  I'm talking popcorn throwing, monkey madness.

There were at least a dozen "comedians" offering loud and profane running commentary. They drew hooting and hollering from the audience at inappropriate times.

Four white characters in the film. All were killed. None were bad guys. The murder of each drew cheers from the crowd. Even when the homicidal lead gunned down a cop they cheered loudly. Screamed their appreciation at the murder of "that stupid ass whitey." 

Don't ever tell me again that there are not differences. I've never gone to a movie and carried on like that to the point that others could not even hear the movie at al

As for the movie? It was okay. Idris Elba has a powerful screen presence. The twist as to the reason he ended up where he did was well handled and hidden. But the female lead was lacking.  In the end, the hidden surprise actually made the movie trite and less compelling.

If you watch the movie ask yourself this question: "hotel? Why when there was a note on the pillow?"

Or note as one obnoxious female shouter did multiple times during the film " GODDAM these niggahs got some nice ass houses."

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 22, 2014, 11:57:56 AM
Draft Day

Kevin Costner proved once again why he has been unable to sustain the success that followed his turns in Bull Durham and Field of Dreams.  His twisted-mouth mumblings only take him so far.  Jennifer Garner further proved why her star has fallen completely off the map and she's doing airline seating commercials these days.  She was plastic and completely unconvincing. 

The movie was slow. It was contrived. It was hackneyed. It was clichéd. It was improbable. It was ridiculous. 

Boo.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 22, 2014, 12:17:50 PM
Sabotage
Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. The performances were worse than anything in KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park. 

An aging Arnold leads a team of rogue DEA agents in an asinine story that involves revenge and betrayal. Let's make a list of the people in this movie who cannot act a lick:
 
Arnold Schwarzenegger  (goes without saying, he's done the same character with little variation for 40 years)
Sam Worthington
Joe Manganiello  (Better hang on to the penis pump and hope for Magic Mike 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Not going to make enough money acting to support himself otherwise if this effort is any indication. What a maroon.)
Josh Holloway
Terrence Howard (Keeps on proving why he's the black John Travolta. Absolutely zero acting talent. Can't even lend any gravitas to this small role. Look how uncomfortable he appears holding a gun in every scene.)
Max Martini
Kevin Vance
Mark Schlegel 
Ned Yousef
Mireille Enos (Horribly, horribly bad. One of the worst cases of overacting I've ever seen. Completely inappropriate emotional reactions in nearly every scene she was in. Gratingly, achingly, disgustingly awful performance. Can't recall when I've seen a worse effort.)
Maurice Compte
Martin Donovan (Completely wasted, typically not this awful an actor)
Michael Monks 
Nick Chacon
Tim Ware  (Hilariously bad)
Gary Grubbs
B.J. Winfrey
Kendrick Cross
Hakim Callender
Troy Garity
Morgan Alexandria
Jermaine Holt 
Jaime FitzSimons
Everton Lawrence
Neko Parham 
Olivia Williams (Among the worst of a sad, sorry lot. Her jumping of Arnie's bones was sickeningly creepy and out of character)
Harold Perrineau  (Can apparently only act when confined to a wheelchair)
DeWayne Calhoun
Maia Moss-Fife 
Parisa Johnston
Alan Gilmer
Emily B. Torres
Catherine Dyer
Patrick Johnson
Jose L. Vasquez
Eddie J. Fernandez
Adrian F. Gonzalez
Jared Woods
Antony Matos
Laurence Chavez
Maya Santandrea
Travis Lee Young
Terry Gragg
Paul Anthony Barreras
Amy Parrish
Elizabeth Davidovich
Andrew Comrie-Picard
Andrew Fincher
Mario Ramirez Reyes
Melissa Martinez
Michelle Alvarado Martins
Jimmy Ortega
Sabrina LeBrun 
Luis Moncada 
Chris Trouble Delfosse 
Carlos Ayala 
Daniel Moncada

All of these people suck at acting.

Wooden dialogue didn't help. Neither did a ridiculous story, out of place scenes and some of the stupidest setups in the history of film.  The "comedy" relief of this film was two black "cops" arguing whether their dicks would fit inside a jar of piss and another black guy asking about the size of Arnie's dick after he railroaded a butch lady cop.   :puke:

This was a messy abortion of a movie.  Just horrible.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 22, 2014, 12:39:25 PM
A Walk Among the Tombstones

Walk is right.  For about 100 of the movie's 113 minute run-time that's about all Liam Neeson does: Walk around.  He walks through the city at night. Walks through the cemetery during the day. Walks through the city in the rain. Walks at night AND in the rain.  Walks here. Walks there.

I like Liam Neeson. With anyone else in the lead role this film would have been unbearable. But his screen presence and hangdog intensity keeps a slow-moving story intact until it finally gets to the end -- at which point the director jerks off on the screen and ruins it with some jarring juxtapositions.  My only complaint with his performance here (and just about anywhere) is that he refuses to get a dialogue coach who can wring anything resembling a decent American accent out of him. 

A lot of things wrong here. The side story about the sidekick with a disease was not needed. But if you're going to go there, at least bring some closure to the sidebar.  Don't let the kid get his ass beat and not have Liam dispense some 70-year old justice on their punk asses.

Casting was also terrible. Other than Neeson, TJ and the creepy cemetery guy, the casting was a shit show.  Some guy from Downton Abbey was horrible as a supposed drug dealer. Brought nothing to the role at all.  He sucked. He worse than sucked. His inability to portray his character very nearly brought the whole film to a halt. 

I really had a lot of trouble with several important scenes in the film. 

1) The bad guys spot a potential target, one they didn't expect, and all of a sudden there's this slow-motion visual with a soaring track from Donovan or something like that.  Very weird, very out of place, very WTF

2) At what should have been the final confrontation, the director chose to go into some weird ass freeze frame shit with voice-overs repeating the 12 steps of AA.  It just didn't fit with the rest of the movie which had been traditionally (if slowly) paced to that point. 

3) The sadistic killers who had no remorse and were savvy enough to stay ahead of everyone hunting them wouldn't have been duped into a meeting and certainly wouldn't have let anyone live/walk away from there if they had.  Completely silly.

Neeson was the saving grace.  He managed to make even some really stupid situations seem reasonable. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on September 29, 2014, 01:24:35 PM
Captain Phillips.  Already reviewed, I believe.  Just my .02 that the fact that it was based on real events made it even more riveting.  When all the pirating was going on during that time period, I was always wondering how in the world did these ships get taken over in the first place?  The Maersk is a huge cargo ship so I couldn't understand how they even got on board.  I'm still amazed at how they did it but the fact that apparently these ships aren't allowed to have firearms aboard made it a bit easier.  I assume they can't have weapons because if they did, none of these pirates would have been successful at boarding the ship.

You know Hanks is going to deliver but the cast of Somali pirates was first rate, especially the leader, Muse.  You almost felt sorry for him by the end.  The show was intense throughout and big props to the bad ass Navy SEALS.  But the very last scene was easily the best and one of the reasons Hanks is one of the best.  Not giving anything away but when they bring Hanks back on board and he's being checked out by the doc, just wow.  She's examining him and firing off questions about what's going on with him while he's so emotional and in shock that he can barely answer.  One of those scenes that took a decent movie to another level, at least for me anyway.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 29, 2014, 02:45:54 PM
Captain Phillips.  Already reviewed, I believe.  Just my .02 that the fact that it was based on real events made it even more riveting.  When all the pirating was going on during that time period, I was always wondering how in the world did these ships get taken over in the first place?  The Maersk is a huge cargo ship so I couldn't understand how they even got on board.  I'm still amazed at how they did it but the fact that apparently these ships aren't allowed to have firearms aboard made it a bit easier.  I assume they can't have weapons because if they did, none of these pirates would have been successful at boarding the ship.

You know Hanks is going to deliver but the cast of Somali pirates was first rate, especially the leader, Muse.  You almost felt sorry for him by the end.  The show was intense throughout and big props to the bad ass Navy SEALS.  But the very last scene was easily the best and one of the reasons Hanks is one of the best.  Not giving anything away but when they bring Hanks back on board and he's being checked out by the doc, just wow.  She's examining him and firing off questions about what's going on with him while he's so emotional and in shock that he can barely answer.  One of those scenes that took a decent movie to another level, at least for me anyway.

You should have read my review. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Catphish Tilly on September 29, 2014, 02:49:44 PM
You know Hanks is going to deliver but the cast of Somali pirates was first rate, especially the leader, Muse.  You almost felt sorry for him by the end. 

It's my understanding, the actor didn't fair much better than the character he played.  Read he was paid pennies to begin with, blew what little he did earn pretty quickly, and was stuck renting the tux he wore to the Oscar ceremony. Bummer.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on September 29, 2014, 03:58:03 PM
You should have read my review.

Mine was better.  But srsly, the two things that stood out to me were how these pirates could board a monster like that ship in the first place.  Can any of you sailor types confirm that firearms are a no no for these ships in international waters?  I would think that with the amount of pirate activity going on during that time that these crews could protect themselves. 

The other was again, that last scene.  The movie itself was good but apparently we had a lot of dust or something floating around in the room because I definitely got a bunch of it in my eyes.  Irritated the hell out of them.  The sheer emotion Hanks showed, like the tension and stress of all the events came crashing down on him.  Powerful stuff.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 12, 2014, 03:42:03 AM
Dracula Untold

Ol' Vlad the Impaler was really a family man.  He turned to vampirism merely to save his wife and son. 

Tyrion Lannister was the original vamp which was a nice surprise.  The rest was just B-movie monster lore. 

The CGI was pretty good when Drac transformed into a swirl of bats and the leads were nice to look at, but the story was pretty ho-hum and the film filled with over-emoting actors. 

Worth a rental. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on October 12, 2014, 08:15:56 AM
Kaos, you see Gone Girl or Annabelle yet? Hoping to read those thoughts soon.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 13, 2014, 11:50:55 AM
Gone Girl

Would have written this sooner but I went in to see the movie on October 8 and it just let out. 


Good GOD what a long movie.  I was already feeling "wow, this is waaaay too long" and then realized we hadn't even seen Tyler Perry or that horsey face bama bitch yet. 

It was a good movie.  But just way too long. Like Gone With the Wind played twice while it was on long. 

Obviously I can't get past the extreme length.

No heroes, only anti heroes.  Affleck did a good job basically playing himself but gave me no confidence he can pull off batman (despite some not-too-subtle digs at the batman angst). The ice queen was okay. The best part of the movie was the girl playing ben's sister. She's Nora Dunn from The Leftovers and coincidentally the best part of that show too.

The movie can be summed up thusly: That bitch is crazy and he's not much better. 

A little implausible in the denoument, way (WAY) too long and a little improbable here and there. 

It was amusing to hear a bathroom full of men deconstructing the film in the aftermath.  Trust me, it's so long everybody has to piss immediately after it ends. The consensus seemed to be that Ben should have just hired the equalizer instead of madea. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 15, 2014, 03:03:59 PM
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

Ben Stiller is just not a good actor.  He befouled this movie.  It wasn't going to be that good to begin with, but he just stinks. 

This is one of those movies that tried really hard to make Kristen Wiig fuckable and almost succeeded.

It sort of meandered, skirting the line between what was real and what was imagined. And it told a clichéd, blasé story. 

It mushed my brain. 

Boo Ben Stiller.  Suck it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 15, 2014, 03:12:08 PM
This is one of those movies that tried really hard to make Kristen Wiig fuckable and almost succeeded.

She is.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 15, 2014, 03:29:41 PM
She is.

You don't say much, Sir.  But when you do.....
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 15, 2014, 03:49:24 PM
The Rundown.  B- made for TV action flick.  The Rock does a pretty good one man army/wrecking crew.  Seann William Scott was actually watchable in something other than American Pie.  And Christopher Walken cracks me up.  The guy plays a ruthless mofo for 99.9% (Or 267/279ths) of the movie.  Then delivers a one liner in Christopher Walken fashion and I spewed Diet Pepsi on the couch. 

I'm easily amused.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on October 15, 2014, 04:18:24 PM
The Rundown.  B- made for TV action flick.  The Rock does a pretty good one man army/wrecking crew.  Seann William Scott was actually watchable in something other than American Pie.  And Christopher Walken cracks me up.  The guy plays a ruthless mofo for 99.9% (Or 267/279ths) of the movie.  Then delivers a one liner in Christopher Walken fashion and I spewed Diet Pepsi on the couch. 

I'm easily amused.
Did we go back in time? Is this 2003, this isn't 2003?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 15, 2014, 04:20:42 PM
Did we go back in time? Is this 2003, this isn't 2003?

The Giants win the pennant.  The Giants win the pennant.

Look, I don't get out much.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 17, 2014, 04:05:06 PM
She is.

Nope.  Never.  Could only see this:

(http://pmcmovieline.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/kristen_wiig_gilly.jpg)

Or this:

(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/62/1d/99/621d99b063ba452fceef571d8086ebf0.jpg)

Couldn't do it if I had to. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 18, 2014, 09:56:11 AM
Annabelle

I'm so tired of horror movies that essentially consist of somebody screaming.  Annabelle looked scary, but that was all she really did.  Her eyes could have moved to enhance the creepiness. Her head could have turned. Anything. Instead all she did was sit there with that stupid look on her face.  Chuckie would kill the everliving hell out of this lame doll.

The movie had a slightly spooky aura but just never really went anywhere. 

I had some major continuity problems with it. 

1) The movie starts with the hero couple in church, but because of his job and some fire they have to move (or something).  They move to a different town yet the next day (and more days after that) they're back in the same church again. 

2) Depending on where they need to be for cinematic purposes, the couple change places in the bed.  Sometimes she sleeps on the left, sometimes on the right.  That's now how it works.  You get your side and that's it. 

3) Husband is a new doctor.  "They put him on "the night shift"  But he's gone to work during the day when things are happening.  He's around at night.  He's going to "take off early" for a romantic dinner but never shows,  an act that was worthy of dwelling on and her sad putting away of the dishes and candles. But his absence was never mentioned after that.  Where was he? 

4)  Mia and Leeah.  Ugh.  I wanted to punch Alfre Woodard in the tooth.
 
5) The movie opens with the woman watching breaking news about the Tate LaBianca murders.  So the film was set in 1969.  But wait.. according to the film synopsis it's set in 1967.  So she was watching breaking news on something that wouldn't happen for two years. 

6) When somebody breaks into the house, Mia runs to the phone and dials 911.  Really? 911 service wasn't widely used in California until well after the movie's timeframe.  One municipality in California, a small one, had 911 service in 1970. The film was supposedly set in 1967.  It was 1972 before the California legislature began implementation of a statewide 911 program and 1985 before it was complete.  Yet in 1969, she knew to dial 911 instinctively?   I don't think so.  Woodard later runs to a ROTARY phone and dials 911.  Wrong.  This bothered me probably more than anything. 

7) The ugly ass doll.  Who in the fuck would want something that ugly? 

8) Before the baby is born, there's a scene talking with the neighbors where they claim they don't know if it will be a boy or a girl.  Then they go inside to the nursery and it's full of creepy ass dolls.  Why would you decorate a nursery with such an overwhelming female theme if there was a possibility it could be a boy?  A gay boy, maybe. 

9) All the Annabelle's.  Who was Annabelle anyway?  The girl who played Mia was named Annabelle.  The woman who broke into their home was named Annabelle.  Was the doll an Annabelle too?  Or did it just adopt the name of the weirdo who broke in?  AND... was the doll "evil" before the break in or was it just ugly as fuck but harmless?  AND... if it WAS creevil (creepy and evil) what was the purpose of the psychos breaking in?  Why didn't the doll just do its thing?

10) Finally the doctor dad.  He thought she was crazy.  Then after she freaked out again and he didn't see anything, suddenly he was fully on board with "there's got to be a demon blah, blah, blah."   Just bad acting and motives. 

So, in short?  Boo.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 22, 2014, 12:58:47 PM
Hunger Games: Mockingjay

Karl Marx is smiling today. 

That is all.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 04, 2014, 05:35:02 PM
Expendables 3

Painfully bad.  Clunky dialogue, bad acting, improbable action at every turn. 

There's a throwaway line issued by Ronda Rousey about how the plan Stallone has devised to blow up some shit or something would be good "if this were 1985."  That says a lot about this movie.  I'm sure Stallone intends it to be a loving tribute to the bad ass action films that dominated that decade. 

Schwartzenegger slaughtered predatory aliens and cyborged to earth. Rocky single handedly beat the Russians and Rambo broke sheriffs and all of Vietnam. Die Hard rocked Christmas. Indiana Jones would whip your ass. Literally. Mad Max was hell on wheels. Martin Riggs was borderline insane.

It was an era of big explosions, bigger guns and the baddest motherfuckers on the planet.  They were so fucking big and so monstrously bad that they couldn't share the screen.

As a curious contrast/aside, that era also produced some of the biggest, baddest horror icons -- Michael, Freddy and Jason -- who also were so big that they couldn't share the stage. 

But that was then.   Things are different now.  Big dumb (or smug, or smarmy, or sarcastic) lugs who blow shit up don't resonate any more in this beta world. 

If these guys had created these movies back in 1988?  Biggest films of all time maybe.  Today it seems clichéd and hackneyed.  Ham fisted and plodding.  It was just bad, bad bad.  It doesn't work now. 

One of the biggest problems is just how old the primary leads look.  Stallone still has the guns, but his face is a muddled mess incapable of human expression.  Harrison Ford looked shockingly old.  It was actually painful to see him look as bad as he did.  He looked like absolute grizzled hell.  Wesley Snipes looks pretty much the same but he couldn't act except to overact.  Arnold appeared to be wearing a very bad and very tacky hairpiece. 

Honestly it was pretty sad to see those guys who once ruled the box office gimping around and spouting really bad one liners.  Really bad.  REALLY bad. 

The new guys weren't much better.  There's no real market any longer for tough guy blow-em-up action leads but even if there were, Lutz, Ortiz and Powell don't have the chops.  Neither does Rousey although she fits a dress surprisingly well considering. 

The only people who comported themselves well in this bombastic mess were Antonio Banderas and Mel Gibson.  Banderas looked trim and youthful as a talkative sidekick.  Gibson unleashes some of the old eye-popping lunacy that served him well as Martin Riggs in the Lethal Weapon series.  His face also didn't look like it had tons of work done -- and it served him well.  He was about the only one who looked like he could step into his old shoes and still get the job done.  Gibson looked as if he could crawl back into Thunderdome and make it. 

There were a couple of trying to be cute lines: One about Snipes being in prison for tax evasion and another about nobody being able to understand anything Statham said. 

But those two glimmers didn't overcome the blundering and misguided attempt at nostalgia here. 

Hate it.  Would have loved to see this movie in 1985. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 15, 2014, 10:06:41 AM
Saturday night, I let mini pick a movie to go to and he chose The Hunger Games follow up, Mockingbird, Blue Jay...whatever.  I rarely want to walk out of a theater in mid flick, but this one.... :facepalm:

Now granted, I didn't see Hunger Games and I'm sure this one would have had a little more meaning if I had.  But, I knew enough about it and they explained enough during the movie to give anyone a pretty good idea of what was going on.  This movie was just plain bad.  Very little action and the acting....even I recognized this as a steaming pile of crap. 

I really don't recall much of what Jennifer Lawrence has done in the past. Maybe she's a great actress and my hope is that her performance lies solely on the shoulders of the director.

CUT.....No, no, no.  Jennifer, we've gone over this a hundred times.  You're supposed to have the exact same "I'm scared to death and about to cry" look you had in the previous 27 scenes.  Now get that smile off your face and think scared.  Really depressed and scared.  Okay, places everybody. Scene 28, Catnip Cleverbeen looks really scared, like she's about to cry while gazing out over the landscape.  Aaaannnd...ACTION.

Just a horrible movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 15, 2014, 10:09:24 AM
Saturday night, I let mini pick a movie to go to and he chose The Hunger Games follow up, Mockingbird, Blue Jay...whatever.  I rarely want to walk out of a theater in mid flick, but this one.... :facepalm:

Now granted, I didn't see Hunger Games and I'm sure this one would have had a little more meaning if I had.  But, I knew enough about it and they explained enough during the movie to give anyone a pretty good idea of what was going on.  This movie was just plain bad.  Very little action and the acting....even I recognized this as a steaming pile of crap. 

I really don't recall much of what Jennifer Lawrence has done in the past. Maybe she's a great actress and my hope is that her performance lies solely on the shoulders of the director.

CUT.....No, no, no.  Jennifer, we've gone over this a hundred times.  You're supposed to have the exact same "I'm scared to death and about to cry" look you had in the previous 27 scenes.  Now get that smile off your face and think scared.  Really depressed and scared.  Okay, places everybody. Scene 28, Catnip Cleverbeen looks really scared, like she's about to cry while gazing out over the landscape.  Aaaannnd...ACTION.

Just a horrible movie.

She can't act a fucking lick. Most overrated person in Hollywood. Only good movies she has been in she has been held up by a great supporting cast (Hustle).
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 15, 2014, 10:14:48 AM
She can't act a fucking lick. Most overrated person in Hollywood. Only good movies she has been in she has been held up by a great supporting cast (Hustle).

Reminded me of Kristen Stewart.  I saw a little bit of Twilight and did see Snow White and the Huntsman.  She has one expression.  ONE.  Same with Lawrence in this movie.  She never changed and really didn't do a dang thing in this movie except walk around looking scared and worried.  No action at all.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 15, 2014, 10:35:03 AM
She can't act a fucking lick. Most overrated person in Hollywood. Only good movies she has been in she has been held up by a great supporting cast (Hustle).

See my reviews in this thread of the previous Hunger Games movie, House at the End of the Street and also Winter's Bone.  I've discussed this vapidity at length.  Particularly in the review of the previous Hunger Games entry. 

She was amazing in that movie.  But she's very uneven.  Supposedly good in Silver Linings Playbook but I didn't watch it.   I did like her performance in American Hustle, but she was the weakest part of that movie and very nearly took it down a notch. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 15, 2014, 10:40:04 AM
Dumb and Dumber 2

An idea at least 15 years past its expiration date.  Was hard to watch those two clown with the craggy age lines marring their respective faces.  Was also painful to look at Kathleen Turner and remember how hot she was in Body Heat and that Michael Douglas movie where he played an Indiana Jones kind of dude. 

There were a few funny moments, but the climate is different now than it was when the first movie came out.  The same kind of juvenile gags don't always pay off.  For every one that hit in this movie there were a dozen painful, cringingly bad misses. 

Much like The Expendables, this would have been a funny movie in 1998.  Not so much today.  There were a few good scenes, but it failed on numerous levels. 

Did I laugh?  Yeah, at parts.  Parts I probably shouldn't have because of what it says about me, but a few times. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 17, 2014, 10:56:30 AM
Flirting With Disaster (1996)

Was searching for something to watch in the middle of a bout of amnesia and ran across this.  Ben Stiller, Tea Leoni, Patricia Arquette, Mary Tyler Moore, Josh Brolin, Alan Alda, Lilly Tomlin.  Figured it would be a stupid harmless comedy. 

Wow.

Concept is that Stiller can't name his baby until he finds out who his birth parents are.  So he and his wife (Arquette) take off cross country with an adoption broker (Leoni) to find them.  The rest is ridiculous setups designed to introduce bizarre characters (truckers, gay federal agents, etc.) and offbeat locales. 

Some of what we were subjected to during this journey?

Discussion and portrayal of armpit licking as a sexual turnon.   :puke:

Mary Tyler Moore in a bra and panties going down on George Segal (and then flossing her teeth).

Josh Brolin doing gay sex and kissing a dude.

Alda and Tomlin having yoga sex and sharing a joint.

And Stiller finding out that the last name of his birth parents was Schlicting  (pronounced "Shitting")

You can hear his mental gears turn.  Hey, it was funny when people thought the last name was shitting! What if we make a whole movie about a dude whose last name is FUCKER!  Oh ha!  What a brilliant concept!  We'll make meeeelions. 

Sometimes what is seen cannot be unseen.  Knob gobbling MTM is one of them. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 22, 2014, 09:43:44 AM
Exodus: Gods and Kings

Short version? 

(http://nerdreactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/batman-dark-knight-christian-bale.jpg)
"I'm Moses!"

(http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/files/2014/10/jesse_pinkman-5583_large.jpg)
Egypt, bitch.

That's all you need to know.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on December 22, 2014, 11:04:54 AM
Maybe she's a great actress and my hope is that her performance lies solely on the shoulders of the director.

Or blue body paint.

(http://www.hawtcelebs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/jennifer-lawrence-wearing-mystique-outfit-from-x-men_1.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 24, 2014, 11:10:00 AM
Lot of downtime right now on Vac so have caught a few movies...mostly older ones, one new one.


No Good Deed - decent. Not great but better than what I was expecting going in. The villian is a cut throat, high IQ, relentless badass. That is all.

Saw 4 - these movies entertain me. I stopped at Saw 3 a few years ago and wanted to pick back up with the series. As anyone knows who has watched them, they are "Thinking" horror/psychological movies. Not great but they are entertaining and worth a view.

Saw 5 - same as 4. Decent for horror flick. "Saw" movies at least have some depth to them and attempt somewhat of a twist right when you think you have them figured out. I like that.

Requiem for A Dream - I find Aronofsky to be hit and miss with his movies. This one was ok. Probably somewhere in the middle but I liked it more than I disliked it. I think it was also one of his first ones too. More along the lines of "Pi" than the Wrestler or Fighter. Better than The Fountain. I havent seen Noah yet so can't compare. Love him or hate him, he makes interesting movies. Def outside the box with this one. Elen Burnstyn "outacts" the entire rest of the cast in this one which included Jared Leto, Jennifer Connely (delicious), Chris McDonald (click click, Shootah!) and Marlon Wayans.

Penguins of Madagascar - First Madagascar and even 2nd one was ok. This one is just wearing out the welcome. Seems they are just making animated movies to make money now. Case in point - Frozen. Average at best movie. Animated movies like Toy Story, Shrek and Lion King were good and set the bar. Then it seems they just try to milk it for what its worth after that making crappy sequels (Shrek, Madagascar, Toy Story) and crappy originals (Big hero, Frozen, Brave). Animated movies have become a cash cow much like Taylor Swift is in the music industry because they know kids will drag their parents to it regardless of how awful or average it is. And thats what happened to me on this one. ehhhhh
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: WiregrassTiger on December 25, 2014, 09:17:07 PM
Unbroken. See it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 27, 2014, 02:18:58 AM
Into The Woods

Awful. Terrible. Horrible. Monumentally bad.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life.  Absolutely abysmal.  I wanted to leave 15 minutes into it. And it never got better. If anything it got worse. 

Given the choice of watching this movie again or eating four dozen tomatoes while watching a Bear Bryant movie marathon, I'd choose Busey as Bear 52 out of 50 times. 

First of all it was a musical.  I wasn't expecting that.  I can handle musicals.  Phantom of the Opera is great.  I've seen others that I enjoyed as well. But the songs in this clunking turd were horribly awful.  And stupid. And painful.  That made the fact that it was a "musical" more annoying than anything. Mother FUCK this was a bad movie.

Fuck this movie.  Fuck this fucking motherfucking piece of fucking fucked up tripe. 

It's been a long time since I hated on a movie as hard as I hate on this one.  T E R R I B L E movie.  Sucked. Blew. Reeked. Stunk.

Hated every single second of it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 05, 2015, 01:42:06 PM
Into The Woods

Awful. Terrible. Horrible. Monumentally bad.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life.  Absolutely abysmal.  I wanted to leave 15 minutes into it. And it never got better. If anything it got worse. 

Given the choice of watching this movie again or eating four dozen tomatoes while watching a Bear Bryant movie marathon, I'd choose Busey as Bear 52 out of 50 times. 

First of all it was a musical.  I wasn't expecting that.  I can handle musicals.  Phantom of the Opera is great.  I've seen others that I enjoyed as well. But the songs in this clunking turd were horribly awful.  And stupid. And painful.  That made the fact that it was a "musical" more annoying than anything. Mother FUCK this was a bad movie.

Fuck this movie.  Fuck this fucking motherfucking piece of fucking fucked up tripe. 

It's been a long time since I hated on a movie as hard as I hate on this one.  T E R R I B L E movie.  Sucked. Blew. Reeked. Stunk.

Hated every single second of it.

But did you like it?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 05, 2015, 01:44:07 PM
Into the Wind
I liked this movie better when it was called Twister.

Lori from Walking Dead was in it. Spent most of the movie wishing she would die.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 05, 2015, 01:45:24 PM
Unbroken. See it.

He ^^ speaks for all of us.

Absolutely awesome. Zamperini = balls of titanium. Best part is that it really happened.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 05, 2015, 01:47:30 PM
Sanatorium
Typical horror movie. People walk TOWARD strange sounds in a deserted mental hospital going "hello?"

You do that, you deserve to die.

This movie was harmed by the abrupt clip POV that kept cutting from scene to scene. Just glad it didn't have the obligatory "cat jumps out and scares people" gag.

Kind of a B- horror film.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 05, 2015, 01:51:49 PM
Sanatorium
Typical horror movie. People walk TOWARD strange sounds in a deserted mental hospital going "hello?"

You do that, you deserve to die.

This movie was harmed by the abrupt clip POV that kept cutting from scene to scene. Just glad it didn't have the obligatory "cat jumps out and scares people" gag.

Kind of a B- horror film.

This made me think of another homerun Geico hit in 2014.  "Why can't we just get in the running car?"


http://youtu.be/AWv-dIUP9oc (http://youtu.be/AWv-dIUP9oc)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 05, 2015, 01:59:03 PM
Tusk
I don't know what I expected from this movie but what I got wasn't at all what I thought I was going to get.

One of the weirdest movies I've ever seen.  If you know anything about it you know the basic idea: dude tried to turn somebody into a walrus. So there's that.

It was surprisingly funny. Well acted believe or not. Haley Joel something wasn't good but the rest was.

Michael Parks was absolutely fantastic.  So was Guy Lapointe as a sort of French Columbo. If you watched this and know who Guy was, don't spoil it. And don't go to IMDB to see. It's better to just let it happen when it does.

Even Justin Long was pretty damn good in his dual role. 

The use of Fleetwood Mac was priceless

I probably enjoyed this more than I should have. But any movie that had the capacity to surprise -- even if the surprise is goofy -- wins Kaos points.

Movie isn't for everybody.  But it's worth finding out whether or not it is. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on January 05, 2015, 02:13:40 PM
You are not allowed to like Kevin Smith.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 05, 2015, 02:15:52 PM
You are not allowed to like Kevin Smith.

Who?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 05, 2015, 02:16:41 PM
The use of Fleetwood Mac was priceless

Good catch.

Funny story - FM jokes about that album at their concerts.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on January 05, 2015, 02:21:01 PM
Who?

Lunchbox.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on January 05, 2015, 07:07:33 PM
Lunchbox.

Is it true that chicks fart if you blast 'em in the ass?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 05, 2015, 10:42:01 PM
You are not allowed to like Kevin Smith.

Me and Silent Bob modeled our whole lives off Morris Day and Jerome.

I'm a smooooooth pimp who loves the pussy and Tubby here is my black man-servant.

WHAT!?!?!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 11, 2015, 09:38:01 PM
Taken 3

Same same.  Liam is the baddest ass on the planet.  Ridiculously invincible.  One man kills dozens.  The first of several denouments was particularly silly with a goon unloading a massive machine gun at him while he ran in circles and somehow nothing ever even scratched Neeson. 

He looked old and achy when he walked.  Speaking of walking, this film was at least better than that one where he walked, walked, walked and walked. 

Movie was exactly what you'd expect.  It was really long on exposition -- longer than you'd think, want or care really. 

There was one scene where he was running from the cops and for whatever reason the yodeling song from Raising Arizona started playing in my head.  That sort of made it hard for me to take the rest of the movie seriously.  If you watch it, try that.  Just hear it in your head while he runs and they chase. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 16, 2015, 02:55:16 PM
Tusk
I don't know what I expected from this movie but what I got wasn't at all what I thought I was going to get.

One of the weirdest movies I've ever seen.  If you know anything about it you know the basic idea: dude tried to turn somebody into a walrus. So there's that.

It was surprisingly funny. Well acted believe or not. Haley Joel something wasn't good but the rest was.

Michael Parks was absolutely fantastic.  So was Guy Lapointe as a sort of French Columbo. If you watched this and know who Guy was, don't spoil it. And don't go to IMDB to see. It's better to just let it happen when it does.

Even Justin Long was pretty damn good in his dual role. 

The use of Fleetwood Mac was priceless

I probably enjoyed this more than I should have. But any movie that had the capacity to surprise -- even if the surprise is goofy -- wins Kaos points.

Movie isn't for everybody.  But it's worth finding out whether or not it is.

The shock/schlock of the walrus monster was part comical and part horrifying if you tried to imagine Wallace trapped in there.

As usual, Smith is subtle as a jackhammer with the emotional aspects.  The flashback in the last scene re: tears was cringe-worthy.

The parallels between the dehumanizing of "Old Wallace" to "New Wallace" and "New Wallace" to "Mr. Tusk" deserved some more exploration, but I guess Smith was going for a funny/odd tale and not a hard-hitting introspective piece.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 18, 2015, 12:56:36 AM
American Sniper

Bradley Cooper was good and about 88% believable as the Legend.  The rest of the movie was typical Clint Eastwood fare. Clumsily and woodenly poking at heartstrings with a gnarled finger. Awkward pacing. Threads left dangling for no reason. Auxiliary topics opened but never explored. Gaps in reason and logic.

Where the movie lost me:  Very badly done fake baby scene.  Back at home, trying to deal with his second child and the thing passed from mom to dad was VERY obviously a doll. It was so bad, there are already countless posts about it.  It's featured prominently in reviews.  It was horrifically bad.

Cooper's performance aside, the film was just painfully flat and lifeless. I wanted to be moved. I wanted to be inspired. I wanted to feel the tension and be for good guys but Clint's direction sucked every bit of that out of me.  I was never really given a reason to like Chris Kyle other than he was a twangy Texas boy who could aim a gun.  It felt like every potential emotional mark was completely missed.

There were numerous throwaway sidebars... his brother, for one.  "Fuck this place."  Ok. Why?  What was the natural exposition of that scene? 

I was emotionally invested in Lone Survivor. I had a stake in each of the main characters. I got their pain and felt the rage and helplessness. That movie (whether or not it was 100% historically accurate) reached me on several levels.   American Sniper kept me at arm's length for the most part.  At times I felt like Eastwood was even a little conflicted, not really sure what story he wanted to tell.

---- SPOILER -----

If you know the story, you know that Chris was killed during the filming by a veteran he was trying to help. The damn fool shot him with his own gun at a shooting range and then stole his truck.

Without that coda?  Without that sobering reality -- which, remember, was not even a part of the original story that was filmed?  This would have been a substantially less powerful movie and one that would (to me, at least) barely resonate. 

---- END SPOILER -----

It's not Black Hawk Down. It's not Lone Survivor.  It's not Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket or even Hurt Locker.  It doesn't reach those heights. 


Fake Baby:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7QEgxICIAAyUDt.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on January 18, 2015, 09:07:17 AM
I can't bring myself to see that movie knowing how much of a liar the guy was.  Why should I trust anything shown on film?   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 18, 2015, 11:10:42 AM
I can't bring myself to see that movie knowing how much of a liar the guy was.  Why should I trust anything shown on film?   

Explain.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on January 18, 2015, 01:04:03 PM
Here's a big write up on him:

http://mpmacting.com/blog/2014/7/19/truth-justice-and-the-curious-case-of-chris-kyle (http://mpmacting.com/blog/2014/7/19/truth-justice-and-the-curious-case-of-chris-kyle)

The biggest two for me are the Jesse Ventura case and the claim that he sniped 30 people from atop the Superdome during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 19, 2015, 12:25:09 AM
Life After Beth
Weird little movie.  And I like weird little movies.  Lots of people you'd know including:  Aubrey Plaza, Paul Reiser, John C. Reilly, the skinny dude from Criminal Minds, Anna Kendrick, Molly Shannon and Cheryl Hines. 

Girl dies, girl comes back but doesn't know she's a zombie. Parents don't want her to know. Boy loves girl. Boy fucks scarf. Boy at first overjoyed when zombie girlfriend returns from the dead, but is later less pleased. 

Just sort of meandered around, never really hitting on all cylinders. Not a bad movie, but not a good one either. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 19, 2015, 12:40:41 AM
A Beautiful Mind
What if none of you were really here?  What if I wasn't?

Never watched this because I just never much liked Russell Crowe.  Turned out it was a much better movie than I expected. 

I'm glad I knew nothing about it going in because it made the reveals that much more powerful. Halfway through I honestly thought I was watching a spy movie and the guy was going to turn out to be the one who saved the world from a Communist plot.  Thought the good guys were the bad guys and vice versa.

Was interesting to me to see Mike and Tony from Dazed and Confused paired up again.  Nobody else got that reference or was as intrigued by it as I was. 

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5wWLuAZqqys/TV1SGYc91PI/AAAAAAAAEeA/3b66s4-daUQ/s1600/tony.jpg)

I kept hoping Cynthia or Slater would pop up somewhere, but they didn't. 

I always thought schizophrenia was more of a person having two personalities themselves, not somebody who sees visions or apparitions.  After watching the movie and then hitting the googled chrome, I realize now that's not the case. 

I still don't much like Russell Crowe, but he was pretty good here.  I liked him in this and in Gladiator and not much else.  Oddly enough I watched both of those movies this weekend. As well as Godzilla (already reviewed), Planet of the Apes (Wahlberg version) and To Kill a Mockingbird (one of the finest movies of all time and no review necessary).  About to watch Grand Budapest. Played 36 holes of golf, went shopping with my best friend and her daughter, had a fantastic meal at a newly discovered Cajun restaurant with them and had carrots at Cracker Barrel. 

So anyway, good movie. Better than I expected and not at all what I anticipated. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: smooth_operator on January 19, 2015, 06:16:53 AM
Here's a big write up on him:

http://mpmacting.com/blog/2014/7/19/truth-justice-and-the-curious-case-of-chris-kyle (http://mpmacting.com/blog/2014/7/19/truth-justice-and-the-curious-case-of-chris-kyle)

The biggest two for me are the Jesse Ventura case and the claim that he sniped 30 people from atop the Superdome during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

meh. Read the whole thing, the articles he linked and a great deal of the comments. Even if the poster's assertions are all correct it doesn't take away from the guy doing some amazing shit. I'm sure he did embellish some things in his book.

The poster, as someone who seemed more than a little sympathetic to 9/11 truthers, put an awful lot of faith in an inherently corruptible government ran civil trial, ignored that major media including communist news network confirmed the presence of some WMD in the form of bio/nerve agents were present in Iraq and lent an awful lot of credence to two people's account of a drunken story told by Kyle.

Was the trial horseshit? Did Kyle find WMD personally? Did the two people who related the story lie? Fuck, I don't know. I guess I should blog about it with a lengthy self righteous long winded rant about the stupid sheeple believing everything they're told. In the end Kyle probably did most of the combat shit he said he did. At the very least the medals he recieved were certainty not for fictional exploits. Maybe he got the big head and as a result developed a big mouth and his family profited from it, but I still like him more than the petulant little know-it-all blogger.

Ending your blog with a pointed discussion of the righteous mind and cognitive dissonance provides a quick and easy way to marginalize any dissent. That's a pretty clever back door for an article about questioning what you've been told.   

Kyle names names and units in his book. Collectively, a couple thousand military personnel could call him on any of his combat exploits. None of that happened in a total vacuum, and if he was the asshole braggart he seems to be at times there would be plenty of reason aside from truth and justice for any of them to come out and call him on any of it, before or after he was killed. The only person who did was known asshole Jesse Ventura, who I wouldn't piss upon only if he were on fire.  In conclusion I don't know if he lied a little or a lot (we all get creative when we're measuring our dicks) but I'm not gonna let it get in the way of a good movie. I think you've probably earned the right to drink too much and tell a couple lies when you've earned two silver stars and five bronze stars in service to your country.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 19, 2015, 09:18:11 AM
Here's a big write up on him:

http://mpmacting.com/blog/2014/7/19/truth-justice-and-the-curious-case-of-chris-kyle (http://mpmacting.com/blog/2014/7/19/truth-justice-and-the-curious-case-of-chris-kyle)

The biggest two for me are the Jesse Ventura case and the claim that he sniped 30 people from atop the Superdome during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Really really bad sources dude. Quit reading that looney conspiracy bullshit. Btw - Ventura is the real pos. Wtf has he ever done? And before anyone mentioned Vietnam he didn't do jack shit. Kyle > Ventura.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 19, 2015, 10:09:22 AM
meh. Read the whole thing, the articles he linked and a great deal of the comments. Even if the poster's assertions are all correct it doesn't take away from the guy doing some amazing shit. I'm sure he did embellish some things in his book.

The poster, as someone who seemed more than a little sympathetic to 9/11 truthers, put an awful lot of faith in an inherently corruptible government ran civil trial, ignored that major media including communist news network confirmed the presence of some WMD in the form of bio/nerve agents were present in Iraq and lent an awful lot of credence to two people's account of a drunken story told by Kyle.

Was the trial horseshit? Did Kyle find WMD personally? Did the two people who related the story lie? Fuck, I don't know. I guess I should blog about it with a lengthy self righteous long winded rant about the stupid sheeple believing everything they're told. In the end Kyle probably did most of the combat shit he said he did. At the very least the medals he recieved were certainty not for fictional exploits. Maybe he got the big head and as a result developed a big mouth and his family profited from it, but I still like him more than the petulant little know-it-all blogger.

Ending your blog with a pointed discussion of the righteous mind and cognitive dissonance provides a quick and easy way to marginalize any dissent. That's a pretty clever back door for an article about questioning what you've been told.   

Kyle names names and units in his book. Collectively, a couple thousand military personnel could call him on any of his combat exploits. None of that happened in a total vacuum, and if he was the asshole braggart he seems to be at times there would be plenty of reason aside from truth and justice for any of them to come out and call him on any of it, before or after he was killed. The only person who did was known asshole Jesse Ventura, who I wouldn't piss upon only if he were on fire.  In conclusion I don't know if he lied a little or a lot (we all get creative when we're measuring our dicks) but I'm not gonna let it get in the way of a good movie. I think you've probably earned the right to drink too much and tell a couple lies when you've earned two silver stars and five bronze stars in service to your country.

Problem? 

It wasn't a good movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Eagle!!! on January 19, 2015, 10:22:02 AM
American Sniper

Bradley Cooper was good and about 88% believable as the Legend.  The rest of the movie was typical Clint Eastwood fare. Clumsily and woodenly poking at heartstrings with a gnarled finger. Awkward pacing. Threads left dangling for no reason. Auxiliary topics opened but never explored. Gaps in reason and logic.

Where the movie lost me:  Very badly done fake baby scene.  Back at home, trying to deal with his second child and the thing passed from mom to dad was VERY obviously a doll. It was so bad, there are already countless posts about it.  It's featured prominently in reviews.  It was horrifically bad.

Cooper's performance aside, the film was just painfully flat and lifeless. I wanted to be moved. I wanted to be inspired. I wanted to feel the tension and be for good guys but Clint's direction sucked every bit of that out of me.  I was never really given a reason to like Chris Kyle other than he was a twangy Texas boy who could aim a gun.  It felt like every potential emotional mark was completely missed.

There were numerous throwaway sidebars... his brother, for one.  "Fuck this place."  Ok. Why?  What was the natural exposition of that scene? 

I was emotionally invested in Lone Survivor. I had a stake in each of the main characters. I got their pain and felt the rage and helplessness. That movie (whether or not it was 100% historically accurate) reached me on several levels.   American Sniper kept me at arm's length for the most part.  At times I felt like Eastwood was even a little conflicted, not really sure what story he wanted to tell.

---- SPOILER -----

If you know the story, you know that Chris was killed during the filming by a veteran he was trying to help. The damn fool shot him with his own gun at a shooting range and then stole his truck.

Without that coda?  Without that sobering reality -- which, remember, was not even a part of the original story that was filmed?  This would have been a substantially less powerful movie and one that would (to me, at least) barely resonate. 

---- END SPOILER -----

It's not Black Hawk Down. It's not Lone Survivor.  It's not Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket or even Hurt Locker.  It doesn't reach those heights. 


Fake Baby:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7QEgxICIAAyUDt.jpg:large)

I completely agree with this write up. This movie did nothing for me and didn't hold a candle to Hurt Locker or Lone Survivor.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: smooth_operator on January 19, 2015, 12:10:55 PM
Problem? 

It wasn't a good movie.

Hell you knew what I meant.

I won't let it get in the way of an okay movie/ memory of a decorated veteran. How bout that
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 19, 2015, 12:14:10 PM
Hell you knew what I meant.

I won't let it get in the way of an okay movie/ memory of a decorated veteran. How bout that

I need some cleanup in here.  Mods? Move this to the SGA board. Titan?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on January 19, 2015, 12:26:42 PM
two silver stars and five bronze stars   =   a very bad ass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 19, 2015, 01:17:46 PM
two silver stars and five bronze stars   =   a very bad ass.

But how many grillz?  That's the question. 

And still not movie-related.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 20, 2015, 07:23:26 PM
Camp Takota

My two daughters (both the 15-year old ones) were really excited to watch this.  It stars some of "their favorite YouTubers! OMG!!!"

Basic plot line is that some up and coming bitch gets in trouble and drunkenly volunteers to be a camp counselor where she camped as a teen. 

I figured, what's the harm? 

Fuck me until shit runs from my nose.  This was terrible.  Forget the acting, which was shit on a dirty stick but about what you'd expect.  I've actually seen movies which were more poorly acted than this turtle turd fuck, but that's irrelevant. 

Production values are actually better than I would have expected from people used to filming their stupid ass with iPhones and putting that ridiculous shit out for the world to see.  It actually had a decent look and feel set wise.  It "looked" like a summer camp for the most part.

Same basic stupid shit we've seen in every single "summer camp" movie from the beginning of time.  Poison ivy on the crotch, kids hitting counselors with dodge balls, crafts day, all the stereotypical shit.  Absolutely nothing new.  Shitty dialogue too.

But the messages....

Get drunk!  Fuck your boyfriend to get in a good mood!  'I'm taking a break from dick this summer!!'  Hey, hey, it's okay to be gay!  Shoot tequila for shits and giggles!!

I'm banning the fucking YouTubes.  I'm banning the fucking "Viners" whatever the monkey fur fuck that is.  If this is the kind of idiotic fuckardo stuff they're sitting around looking at all day on the YouTubes, that shit is OVER. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chityeah on January 20, 2015, 07:33:02 PM
American Sniper

Bradley Cooper was good and about 88% believable as the Legend.  The rest of the movie was typical Clint Eastwood fare. Clumsily and woodenly poking at heartstrings with a gnarled finger. Awkward pacing. Threads left dangling for no reason. Auxiliary topics opened but never explored. Gaps in reason and logic.

Where the movie lost me:  Very badly done fake baby scene.  Back at home, trying to deal with his second child and the thing passed from mom to dad was VERY obviously a doll. It was so bad, there are already countless posts about it.  It's featured prominently in reviews.  It was horrifically bad.

Cooper's performance aside, the film was just painfully flat and lifeless. I wanted to be moved. I wanted to be inspired. I wanted to feel the tension and be for good guys but Clint's direction sucked every bit of that out of me.  I was never really given a reason to like Chris Kyle other than he was a twangy Texas boy who could aim a gun.  It felt like every potential emotional mark was completely missed.

There were numerous throwaway sidebars... his brother, for one.  "Fuck this place."  Ok. Why?  What was the natural exposition of that scene? 

I was emotionally invested in Lone Survivor. I had a stake in each of the main characters. I got their pain and felt the rage and helplessness. That movie (whether or not it was 100% historically accurate) reached me on several levels.   American Sniper kept me at arm's length for the most part.  At times I felt like Eastwood was even a little conflicted, not really sure what story he wanted to tell.

---- SPOILER -----

If you know the story, you know that Chris was killed during the filming by a veteran he was trying to help. The damn fool shot him with his own gun at a shooting range and then stole his truck.

Without that coda?  Without that sobering reality -- which, remember, was not even a part of the original story that was filmed?  This would have been a substantially less powerful movie and one that would (to me, at least) barely resonate. 

---- END SPOILER -----

It's not Black Hawk Down. It's not Lone Survivor.  It's not Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket or even Hurt Locker.  It doesn't reach those heights. 


Fake Baby:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7QEgxICIAAyUDt.jpg:large)
Thank you. Thought it was just me. It was kind of boring and I watched a boot leg of it. I really wanted to know how he dealt with the shots he took.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on January 22, 2015, 08:33:24 AM
American Sniper

Bradley Cooper was good and about 88% believable as the Legend.  The rest of the movie was typical Clint Eastwood fare. Clumsily and woodenly poking at heartstrings with a gnarled finger. Awkward pacing. Threads left dangling for no reason. Auxiliary topics opened but never explored. Gaps in reason and logic.

Where the movie lost me:  Very badly done fake baby scene.  Back at home, trying to deal with his second child and the thing passed from mom to dad was VERY obviously a doll. It was so bad, there are already countless posts about it.  It's featured prominently in reviews.  It was horrifically bad.

Cooper's performance aside, the film was just painfully flat and lifeless. I wanted to be moved. I wanted to be inspired. I wanted to feel the tension and be for good guys but Clint's direction sucked every bit of that out of me.  I was never really given a reason to like Chris Kyle other than he was a twangy Texas boy who could aim a gun.  It felt like every potential emotional mark was completely missed.

There were numerous throwaway sidebars... his brother, for one.  "Fuck this place."  Ok. Why?  What was the natural exposition of that scene? 

I was emotionally invested in Lone Survivor. I had a stake in each of the main characters. I got their pain and felt the rage and helplessness. That movie (whether or not it was 100% historically accurate) reached me on several levels.   American Sniper kept me at arm's length for the most part.  At times I felt like Eastwood was even a little conflicted, not really sure what story he wanted to tell.

---- SPOILER -----

If you know the story, you know that Chris was killed during the filming by a veteran he was trying to help. The damn fool shot him with his own gun at a shooting range and then stole his truck.

Without that coda?  Without that sobering reality -- which, remember, was not even a part of the original story that was filmed?  This would have been a substantially less powerful movie and one that would (to me, at least) barely resonate. 

---- END SPOILER -----

It's not Black Hawk Down. It's not Lone Survivor.  It's not Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket or even Hurt Locker.  It doesn't reach those heights. 


Fake Baby:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7QEgxICIAAyUDt.jpg:large)

I haven't seen the movie yet.  Actually have not decided if I will.  There is no doubt that Kyle did a number of things that he will always have my respect for but like a lot of SOF folks I knew in my day they could also be full of shit and suffer from needing their ego pumped on a regular basis. 

I am no fan of Jesse Ventura but you could do worse than read this article.
There is a reason that the court agreed with him on his defamation lawsuit which are historically hard to prove.

http://mpmacting.com/blog/2014/7/19/truth-justice-and-the-curious-case-of-chris-kyle (http://mpmacting.com/blog/2014/7/19/truth-justice-and-the-curious-case-of-chris-kyle)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 22, 2015, 09:18:16 AM
I haven't seen the movie yet.  Actually have not decided if I will.  There is no doubt that Kyle did a number of things that he will always have my respect for but like a lot of SOF folks I knew in my day they could also be full of shit and suffer from needing their ego pumped on a regular basis. 

I am no fan of Jesse Ventura but you could do worse than read this article.
There is a reason that the court agreed with him on his defamation lawsuit which are historically hard to prove.

http://mpmacting.com/blog/2014/7/19/truth-justice-and-the-curious-case-of-chris-kyle (http://mpmacting.com/blog/2014/7/19/truth-justice-and-the-curious-case-of-chris-kyle)

Seriously?

That's the same weak shit THS posted way back and which was ridiculed by others.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on January 22, 2015, 09:21:30 AM
Seriously?

That's the same weak shit THS posted way back and which was ridiculed by others.

I'm hear you but the fact still remains that a number of things in his book do not add up.  I suspect he and Richard Richard Marcinko would have gotten along fine. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: WiregrassTiger on January 22, 2015, 11:28:55 AM
I'm hear you but the fact still remains that a number of things in his book do not add up.  I suspect he and Richard Richard Marcinko would have gotten along fine.
Agree on the sniper book. And I respect and appreciate what this guy did for his country, as I do all who served. At the same time, I know that the vast majority of true American heroes never wrote a book about themselves or had a movie made about what they did.

Sani, I know you will know about this battle. My uncle was one of the "frozen chosin" and the only way I know about it is from asking him questions when I was kid. I didn't know any better than to ask, "Did you kill a bunch of folks Uncle D?" He would talk to kids about it.

Anyway, I'm no military history buff but I've read enough about this battle to know that it was one of the worst or best in modern military history. It depends on how you look at it.

About 8k U.S. marines were surrounded by 120k Chinese and they ran out of most everything. They had to make a decision to "attack from a different direction" (some would call it a retreat but not the commander who came up with this phrase). It was the coldest winter in Korea in 100 years.

I remember him talking about how they would stack up their frozen buddies to hide behind them for cover and hearing the bullets whistle over them. They ran out of ammo and our guys would fly over, dropping loose ammo. He said the Chinese were coming so fast that they couldn't reload and they were bayonetting them.

My point is, there are a bunch of heroes out there that you don't hear ANYTHING from, unless you ask. And most of them will likely say, like I heard him tell someone one time, that they left their heroes over there.

Nowadays, it seems like if you are lucky enough to live through a famous skirmish or battle, you come home and cash in. Not saying that I blame them. But I don't think it's quite so glamorous. That's why I chose to not go see the movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: smooth_operator on January 23, 2015, 02:44:23 AM
Agree on the sniper book. And I respect and appreciate what this guy did for his country, as I do all who served. At the same time, I know that the vast majority of true American heroes never wrote a book about themselves or had a movie made about what they did.

Sani, I know you will know about this battle. My uncle was one of the "frozen chosin" and the only way I know about it is from asking him questions when I was kid. I didn't know any better than to ask, "Did you kill a bunch of folks Uncle D?" He would talk to kids about it.

Anyway, I'm no military history buff but I've read enough about this battle to know that it was one of the worst or best in modern military history. It depends on how you look at it.

About 8k U.S. marines were surrounded by 120k Chinese and they ran out of most everything. They had to make a decision to "attack from a different direction" (some would call it a retreat but not the commander who came up with this phrase). It was the coldest winter in Korea in 100 years.

I remember him talking about how they would stack up their frozen buddies to hide behind them for cover and hearing the bullets whistle over them. They ran out of ammo and our guys would fly over, dropping loose ammo. He said the Chinese were coming so fast that they couldn't reload and they were bayonetting them.

My point is, there are a bunch of heroes out there that you don't hear ANYTHING from, unless you ask. And most of them will likely say, like I heard him tell someone one time, that they left their heroes over there.

Nowadays, it seems like if you are lucky enough to live through a famous skirmish or battle, you come home and cash in. Not saying that I blame them. But I don't think it's quite so glamorous. That's why I chose to not go see the movie.

I don't understand. His account doesn't matter because he spoke and wrote about it? Studies show that talking and writing reduce the effects of PTSD. Furthermore I think there should be more written about military experiences because it increases public awareness. Wouldn't you rather the entertainment generated by the war on terrorism come from and be profited by those who sacrificed to participate? No GIs from WWII profited from Saving Private Ryan.

His combat didn't matter because it wasn't a single battle in the Korean war? Generally I agree with your posts WT I just don't understand this one. Lots of US service members fought in battles besides the chosin reservoir and their accounts matter. (Besides, neither I nor you would know about it if someone hadn't said something.)

In my family I knew my great grandfather on my father's side who served in WWI, my grandfather and his brothers (that survived, on my father's side) who served, to a man, in the pacific theater of WWII and my grandfather on my mother's side who served in Korea. Didn't say shoot about it. None of them. That was just their way. On the other hand, if they had, I would be too busy managing my inherited fortune to talk to you idiots on an internet forum. Just because he wrote about it (like many, many before him) his heroism doesn't count any more?

Be aware that I'm not denigrating your decision to not read a book or watch a movie, just saying I don't understand your reasoning. This guy served in the military version of the NFL. He was the best of the best and, reasonably, got pretty lucky in engagements. Some folks, even in the NFL, are nobodies but some folks are record breakers. He wanted to tell his story and he profited from it before he was killed by some idiot. You can not to watch it for whatever reason but I have to question questionable reasoning.

I mean fudge it, I only have like 6 good stories from around a decade of farting around with the idiotic criminals Alabama has to offer but I'll still write a book and fill in a bunch of stories from some guy named token.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 23, 2015, 05:58:44 AM
You lost all credibility wen you told WT that generally you agree with his posts.  Didn't read the rest.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 23, 2015, 06:36:58 AM
The people who survived WWII didn't come home and whine about it, blame their service for their inability to function in society All they did was help build the greatest society in the history of the world instead of bitching and moaning. 

Those guys saw horrors that soldiers in subsequent wars could not even fathom. And they manned up, nutted up, endured and then thrived. 

What happened to Gary Cooper? The strong, silent type. That was an American. He wasn't in touch with his feelings. He just did what he had to do.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: WiregrassTiger on January 23, 2015, 08:34:15 AM
I don't understand. His account doesn't matter because he spoke and wrote about it? Studies show that talking and writing reduce the effects of PTSD. Furthermore I think there should be more written about military experiences because it increases public awareness. Wouldn't you rather the entertainment generated by the war on terrorism come from and be profited by those who sacrificed to participate? No GIs from WWII profited from Saving Private Ryan.

His combat didn't matter because it wasn't a single battle in the Korean war? Generally I agree with your posts WT I just don't understand this one. Lots of US service members fought in battles besides the chosin reservoir and their accounts matter. (Besides, neither I nor you would know about it if someone hadn't said something.)

In my family I knew my great grandfather on my father's side who served in WWI, my grandfather and his brothers (that survived, on my father's side) who served, to a man, in the pacific theater of WWII and my grandfather on my mother's side who served in Korea. Didn't say shoot about it. None of them. That was just their way. On the other hand, if they had, I would be too busy managing my inherited fortune to talk to you idiots on an internet forum. Just because he wrote about it (like many, many before him) his heroism doesn't count any more?

Be aware that I'm not denigrating your decision to not read a book or watch a movie, just saying I don't understand your reasoning. This guy served in the military version of the NFL. He was the best of the best and, reasonably, got pretty lucky in engagements. Some folks, even in the NFL, are nobodies but some folks are record breakers. He wanted to tell his story and he profited from it before he was killed by some idiot. You can not to watch it for whatever reason but I have to question questionable reasoning.

I mean fudge it, I only have like 6 good stories from around a decade of farting around with the idiotic criminals Alabama has to offer but I'll still write a book and fill in a bunch of stories from some guy named token.
Look, I don't want to get into an argument because I know that you will go cop and shoot WT as I'm reaching for the keyboard.

But I don't know what there is to disagree with in my post. I'm stating my opinion, which matters more than yours, and is that I admire veterans from that era more. Only used Korea as an example.

And I'm certain that my families military is much longer and more distinguished but I don't have time this am to expound. I have important and high level work to do.

Honestly, I realize that these accounts (sniper boy, Blackhawk down, killing Osama, etc) were great acts and heroic. But really, these guys were just doing their job and creative license is surely there.

Please don't shoot me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 23, 2015, 09:37:32 AM
Shoot him.  Shoot him.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on January 23, 2015, 10:19:15 AM
The people who survived WWII didn't come home and whine about it, blame their service for their inability to function in society All they did was help build the greatest society in the history of the world instead of bitching and moaning. 

Those guys saw horrors that soldiers in subsequent wars could not even fathom. And they manned up, nutted up, endured and then thrived. 
What happened to Gary Cooper? The strong, silent type. That was an American. He wasn't in touch with his feelings. He just did what he had to do.

Horror is Horror, no matter when the time. Yes, modern technology has made destroying and mangling the human body much easier, but a mangled body in 1942 is no different than one in 1992. You may not believe this but part of the reason that were able to adapt better was they had time to decompress, a lot them stayed in country after they finished and were assigned roles to help the local population rebuild, which in turn helped them rebuild themselves. Then they took a slow boat home. After one deployment I was home in less than 18 hours from being in country. We just didn't have time to adjust, we went from one extreme to the other.

I am not saying anybody is right or wrong on this. I still haven't made up my mind to go see the movie. As for him coming home and profiting from this I have no problem. I seriously doubt he went to Hollywood and was shopping scripts running around telling people he was the USA most deadly sniper. I would like to think they approached him and he saw a way to tell his story and have his family benefit from this.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 23, 2015, 10:34:41 AM
Shoot him.  Shoot him.

It's duck season
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on January 23, 2015, 10:54:03 AM
It's duck season


It's wabbit season.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on January 23, 2015, 11:44:19 AM

It's wabbit season.

Gator season

(http://www.chootem.com/CHOOT_EM_Troy_Landry_Logo_wide.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 24, 2015, 08:59:50 AM
Horror is Horror, no matter when the time. Yes, modern technology has made destroying and mangling the human body much easier, but a mangled body in 1942 is no different than one in 1992. You may not believe this but part of the reason that were able to adapt better was they had time to decompress, a lot them stayed in country after they finished and were assigned roles to help the local population rebuild, which in turn helped them rebuild themselves. Then they took a slow boat home. After one deployment I was home in less than 18 hours from being in country. We just didn't have time to adjust, we went from one extreme to the other.

I am not saying anybody is right or wrong on this. I still haven't made up my mind to go see the movie. As for him coming home and profiting from this I have no problem. I seriously doubt he went to Hollywood and was shopping scripts running around telling people he was the USA most deadly sniper. I would like to think they approached him and he saw a way to tell his story and have his family benefit from this.

Check casualty numbers from the civil war, ww1, ww2 compared to anything the last 20 years. It was a lot more common then. Those guys saw a lot more of it and it's not even close.

Fwiw- he gave the proceeds of the book to other soldiers in need coming home with disabilities.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 24, 2015, 12:13:34 PM
Check casualty numbers from the civil war, ww1, ww2 compared to anything the last 20 years. It was a lot more common then. Those guys saw a lot more of it and it's not even close.

Fwiw- he gave the proceeds of the book to other soldiers in need coming home with disabilities.

I think it's nice that you and K are telling dallas and the others who served what they saw/experienced. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 24, 2015, 02:17:38 PM
I think it's nice that you and K are telling dallas and the others who served what they saw/experienced.


Meh....you seen one guy blown in half, you seen em' all.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: DnATL on January 24, 2015, 04:08:18 PM

Meh....you seen one guy blown in half, you seen em' all.
You've seen guys blown by a halfling?  Hanging around VV again?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on January 24, 2015, 04:54:00 PM
I don't understand. His account doesn't matter because he spoke and wrote about it? Studies show that talking and writing reduce the effects of PTSD. Furthermore I think there should be more written about military experiences because it increases public awareness. Wouldn't you rather the entertainment generated by the war on terrorism come from and be profited by those who sacrificed to participate? No GIs from WWII profited from Saving Private Ryan.

His combat didn't matter because it wasn't a single battle in the Korean war? Generally I agree with your posts WT I just don't understand this one. Lots of US service members fought in battles besides the chosin reservoir and their accounts matter. (Besides, neither I nor you would know about it if someone hadn't said something.)

In my family I knew my great grandfather on my father's side who served in WWI, my grandfather and his brothers (that survived, on my father's side) who served, to a man, in the pacific theater of WWII and my grandfather on my mother's side who served in Korea. Didn't say shoot about it. None of them. That was just their way. On the other hand, if they had, I would be too busy managing my inherited fortune to talk to you idiots on an internet forum. Just because he wrote about it (like many, many before him) his heroism doesn't count any more?

Be aware that I'm not denigrating your decision to not read a book or watch a movie, just saying I don't understand your reasoning. This guy served in the military version of the NFL. He was the best of the best and, reasonably, got pretty lucky in engagements. Some folks, even in the NFL, are nobodies but some folks are record breakers. He wanted to tell his story and he profited from it before he was killed by some idiot. You can not to watch it for whatever reason but I have to question questionable reasoning.

I mean fudge it, I only have like 6 good stories from around a decade of farting around with the idiotic criminals Alabama has to offer but I'll still write a book and fill in a bunch of stories from some guy named token.

None of my stories are entertaining. Except maybe the the car door arrest. Or watching you roadside interview a burglar with a demarini.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 24, 2015, 09:35:24 PM
I think it's nice that you and K are telling dallas and the others who served what they saw/experienced.

Pleased to be quoting where we said that. All I said was the grotesque casualties were a lot more numerous in stated conflicts. Tell me where I am wrong. I apologize that I don't think Grenada was as bloody as D Day.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 25, 2015, 02:00:07 AM
I think it's nice that you and K are telling dallas and the others who served what they saw/experienced.

Did you forget how to read? 

I've seen video of what shit looked like from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Middle East.  It's all horrible. 

All I said was that people who came back from WWII didn't bitch and whine and look for excuses. They worked their ass off.  They're the "greatest generation" for a reason. 

The explanation that maybe they had time to decompress because they spent time after the war helping rebuild makes sense.  So does the fact that they came home completely and utterly victorious with no doubt that what they'd sacrificed saved the world.  Haven't had that since (thanks, liberal hippie pussies). 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 25, 2015, 10:52:06 AM
The Irritation Game

This was a very interesting and moderately well-acted movie about espionage in World War II.  And then it turned into a paean to homosexuality. 

I enjoyed the espionage elements.   I did not enjoy the "poor persecuted misunderstood wonderful the gays" portion of the film. 

I think it could have told the espionage story well without devolving into a movie about the gays.  I think it could have sung praises to the gays and only briefly touched on the espionage elements.  Either film would have been fine with me because I would have known not to go see the second one. 

He could have confessed his queerness at a slightly later stage in the film and not in the hokey way it was presented here and you could have very easily ended the first movie moments before the confession and done "The Imitation Game 2: The Turning of the Pouf"  for all the homo parts. 

The movie sort of reminded me of A Beautiful Mind.  Except for the gays. 

I don't know why everybody is raving over Bentdick Cumperbitch though.  I don't care much for him as an actor in anything I've seen him in and this was no exception.  I find him difficult to look at and his performances, such as they are, always seem to me to be a variation on the same british asshole character.  I'm not impressed with him in the least.  Kiera Knightly was really sort of hot in Pirates but after seeing her here, I don't think she's going to age very well. 

Would I see the movie again knowing what I know now?  Yeah, probably so because I like movies that are historically based.  But I'd get up and walk out when it started wallowing in the gay stuff. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 01, 2015, 10:02:40 AM
The Suquelizer

So when The Equalizer came out, I really wanted to check this flick out.  Never got around to going to the theater but finally rented it last night.  I said before, Denzel Washington is one of my favorite actors, and still is. This steaming pile of puke wasn't his fault.  In fact, he was the only reason I didn't hit stop/eject. 

Here's the spoiler alert to save you $1.56 at the Redbox.  The first 45 minutes of it are dead.  Zero action.  Nothing going on. Just him working at Lowes or Home Depot or some giant hardware store. Or him eating at 2:00 in the morning at some diner, talking to a whur.  Whur gets beat up by her Russian pimp and Denzel finally springs into action and kills the pimp and his pimp friends.  This pisses off a bada$$ Russian dude who flies over and tracks him down.  They fight....in Lowes.  Denzel wins.

Yep.  That was the whole movie.  That was all the action.  So pathetically written, it boggles what little mind I have left.  Every scene had some new character that you knew nothing about and who turns out to have no relation to the plot.  Out of the blue, the Russian dude goes into the office of a sand and gravel business, has some terse words with the boss, and then beats him up.  Why?  Who was he?  Denzel off'd a pimp. Denzel does make two cops give back the protection money they took from an Asian lady at her business.  Were they tied to the Russian? Who knows? 

What was Denzel's past?  You know he was some kind of CIA/FBI/SEAL/SOMETHING.  They never said and never tried to build that story line.  He did meet with a lady at her house who apparently had something to do with the government.  Well, at least she had an American flag standing in the corner.

Oh, he looks at his watch and times things a lot.  So, there was that.  Umm....yeah.     
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 01, 2015, 11:16:26 AM
Bad Word

Pretty predictable but fairly interesting. 

Jason Bateman as an ass who enters a kids spelling bee at 40. He was pretty good as was the little Indian short round. 

The final act was weak but overall a harmless movie worth watching once.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 01, 2015, 11:29:12 AM
Fury

Fuck this fucking fuck of a fucking movie was fucking pretty fucking good.

I'm no stranger to the word, but the first five minutes of this movie took its use to extremes that would make scarface blush.  It was so bad that my friend says if it continues at that level we have to turn it off. 

It leveled off a little after that but it was definitely a fuck fest at the start.

Most of the characters were sort of cardboard. Weren't bad but I never got as attached to them as I should.

Some really crazy gore, some moderately interesting tank battles (but not as many as you'd think) and a sort of ridiculous over dramatized finale. 

They spent a lot of time on character development and unfortunately never really made me care enough for the movie to be completely fucking effective.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 01, 2015, 12:09:13 PM
The Loft

Rich white people problems.

Hard to find anyone to sympathize with in this ode to horndog excess.

I will say I've apparently been attending the wrong conferences. 

It was good that it kept twisting things until you really weren't sure what was what. The flash back flash forwards were disconcerting and detracted from the pace.  It wasn't as tense as it could have been for that reason.

Five guys have a fuck pad until one screws it up for everybody.

The final denoument was silly. Every one of those skeevy fucks would be in jail. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on February 01, 2015, 03:42:11 PM
Thanks for saving me some dough on Loft and Fury, K. Have you seen Foxcatcher or do you plan to? Looks interesting. I like "true" crime stories.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 01, 2015, 06:08:32 PM
Thanks for saving me some dough on Loft and Fury, K. Have you seen Foxcatcher or do you plan to? Looks interesting. I like "true" crime stories.

Yep. It's on the list.  I read this story a long time ago.  Crazy.  Curious to see how it's done.

Also want watch that one with schillinger from Oz playing the drum instructor.

Fury was ok to watch.  It didn't have the emotional impact of private Ryan or lone survivor. It wasn't bad -- except for the part played by Shane from walking dead. He wasn't good. Cajun? Dumbass? Hard to say what he was going for.

Also wouldn't say DONT see loft. It's about the same level as that idris Elba home invAsion movie. But no redeeming characters.  All jackholes. Every single one.  That makes it hard.  I need a hero. Everybody can't be the bad guy.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on February 03, 2015, 02:45:43 PM
Pleased to be quoting where we said that. All I said was the grotesque casualties were a lot more numerous in stated conflicts. Tell me where I am wrong. I apologize that I don't think Grenada was as bloody as D Day.


Not even close, different scope, different mission. But you know what, when rounds are coming down range at you, you don't tend to compare. And buttholes get tight, grown men cry and are scared no matter what the year.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 07, 2015, 08:37:30 AM
Seventh Son
Probably saw more trailers for this movie in the last year than any other.  Maybe twice as many.  Seemed like every movie I went for half of ever to see included a preview for this one.  In all seriousness, I know I started seeing trailers for it in early summer.  June or July.  Of 2012. The film was originally scheduled to come out in February 2013.  Then October 2013. Then February 2014. There were studio mergers, bankruptcies and all kinds of other crap associated with it. 

Big buildup for nothing.  The mess was never fixed. Should have left this turd in the can and flushed.

Anybody remember Beastmaster?  Cheesy old world battle/quest/sorcery flick with crazy witches, weird temples, Rip Torn as Maaax, Dad from Good Times, Mark (Lori's brother) Singer, and naked Tanya Roberts?  The dialogue was stilted, clunky and full of mumbo jumbo. The acting was hammy at best. The movie was so horrible it was almost good.

Seventh Son is the Beastmaster for this generation.  Jeff Bridges, Julianne Moore, Kit Harrington (jon snow) and the guy from the worst of the three Narnia films.  Lots of cheesy dialogue delivered badly.  A heaping dose of mumbo jumbo and some ridiculous babble about witch talismans, spooks, ghasts, doofleorks, trindlaparkens and a bunch of other shit that didn't make sense.  The acting was worse than hammy. The movie was just plain horrible.  It never crossed over in the "so bad it's good" territory.  It just languished in the so-bad realm until it wobbled to a ridiculous end. 

There was no naked Tanya to redeem it.  No awesome John Amos bad dialogue. No twin weasels named Kodo and Podo. No rings with eyeballs in them. No seeing-eye hawks. In other words there was none of the goofy campiness that made the awfully bad Beastmaster a classic.  Had this film turned up the camp it could have been better. It just wasn't. 

I'm rarely looking at my watch in a movie wondering how much longer it can possibly drag on, but I was here.  I looked at least three times and half dozed twice. 

Bridges couldn't decide if he was channeling Slingblade or Yoda so he settled into a mishmash mouth-full-of-marbles mix of both.  I got the sense that he was supposed to be cantakerously lovable and funny. Didn't get there. 

Julianne Moore should have to decline her Oscar nomination, retroactively return all of her previous nominations and agree not to appear on screen except in lesbian scenes with Kate Beckinsale or Amanda Seyfried for the next four years.  She was that gallingly awful. 

Jon (Harrington) Snow was wasted in a five minute opening sequence that was hideously bad in every respect.  I suspect that the film was in the can so very long ago that Jon Snow when hired wasn't the phenomenon that Jon Snow is now.  Had the  directors known who he was going to turn out to be, they might have used him in the main role instead of the kid who got it.  He was bad too.  Wouldn't have saved the movie having Jon Snow in the lead, but might have been more compelling. 

Digimon Honshu (sounds like a Pokemon character) was similarly wasted. 

The soundtrack was also fucktacularly bad.  Overwrought and intrusive. 

Can't think of a single thing this film did right. 

The movie was about some quest or something and a witch locked up in a cage who then got pissed when she got out.  Old dude used to have wood for her and now wants to put wood (and a match) to her.  A bunch of CGI action mixed in with senseless made up words, Yoda and some other hoo doo.  And a final scene that wasted the purpose of the entire thing.

NOTE:
Have since learned that this was an adaption of some young adult fantasy book or something.  And that it was originally conceived as a vehicle for Jennifer Lawrence and Alex (magic mike) Pettyfer.  Wouldn't have mattered.  The script was a shit show, the performances by Bridges and Moore sprayed excrement on every frame and the CGI wasn't that special.  Dud. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 16, 2015, 09:37:01 AM
Kingsman

From the director of the better-than-expected Kick Ass comes this combination of James Bond, Jason Bourne and Kill Bill.  And it's really, really good.  The movie knows where it owes its debts and even specifically references Bond and Bourne. 

Not sure I've enjoyed a movie more in quite a while.  Not that it's the best movie I've seen, but just that it was all well done and a good mix of silly and serious.  Very good stuff. 

Essential story is a street punk being recruited into an elite British secret service organization.  Even though he's not the conventional selection, he proves his worth and ends up trying to save the world. 

Some stunningly elaborate sequences of violence, a hamming-it-up Samuel L. Jackson, a girl with knives for legs, a shockingly old Luke Skywalker, some cute puppies and occasionally hard to understand accents all merged together to make a qualify film.  it didn't waste time in distracting subplots, didn't follow the trite (and easy) path of trying to create a love story between the main character and one of his competitors.  It just plowed along with the story from start to finish and didn't really waste a frame. 

The humorous aspects of the movie were well placed, well executed and pretty clever.

Watch for a sweet little call back to Trading Places toward the end after mentioning the movie earlier in the film. 

It took balls for the studio to release this movie on the same weekend that 50 Shits of Fuck came out.  Any other weekend and I think this is the top grossing movie of the year (at least so far).  We went to a Saturday night showing at 9:20.  Yeah, both theaters showing 50 Fucks of Slut were full of greasy grinning men and their dates (reeking of the new perfume from Max Factor 'hoping I get laid').  But there weren't many empty seats in Kingsman either. 

I hope a good movie like this doesn't get lost in the blizzard surrounding the 50 Dicks of Skeet. It deserves to be seen.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 22, 2015, 09:45:03 AM
Birdman

This is why I hate the Oscars. 

I was really looking forward to watching this movie. I like Michael Keaton, hated that he ended up slumming it in garbage movies like Lindsay Lohan's awful Love Bug remake, and was glad to see all the praise he was getting for this allegedly career defining/reviving role. The trailers made the film look appealing and the cast which included Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Amy Ryan and Zach Gulliverfarkineasras was quality. 

This movie sucked. It sucked beyond all suckage imaginable.  Apparently it is some inside joke between filmmakers and theater lovers.  I don't give a shit about that inside joke. It's a condemnation of the public's preference for action and fun movies over the pretense of the THE-AH-TURRRR. Don't give a fuck about that either. I'd rather watch a fun film than this self-absorbed tripe.

Every performance was over the top and invalid. None of it rang true.

Can't figure out why Keaton is getting such praise for this film.  I've seen a thousand performances better than this. Hell, Robert Downey Jr, in any of the Iron Man films, is better than this overwrought grimace-fest. I thought his effort in this film was sub par. He was better in Love Bug and The Other Guys. Before I watched this I was hoping he'd win an Oscar.  Now I hope it goes to Jeff Daniels for Dumber and Dumber and Dumber in an upset. 

Emma Stone, who I usually like and mostly think is hot, needs to eat a sandwich or something. She was too thin and her eyes were distractingly enormous. 

The director's "bold choice" to shoot the movie essentially in one take was dizzying. Half the film was essentially following someone down a hall that changed lighting as you went along. 

The score made me want to murder kittens and puppies.  An overbearing jangly discordant drum beat overwhelmed the film. It was "jazz drum" I think, but it was annoying to the point that there were several times I wasn't sure I could even finish the film.  I wanted it to stop. 

If I'd gone to the theater to see this, I would have walked out.  I would have walked out within the first 30 minutes.  I couldn't have endured it, particularly the drums. Since I watched it at home I was able to mute the thing when the drums got to the point I thought I was going to scream.

The story was lightweight. Ridiculous even. 

And the ending?  If the director were here I'd tell him to go fuck himself with a chicken wing. 

Birdman?  The only bird here was one giant turkey.  The film was a huge gobbler and I'm a turkey for wasting money renting the thing. 

Makes me worry that I'm going to hate Whiplash, too. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 22, 2015, 09:57:58 AM
Kingsman

From the director of the better-than-expected Kick Ass comes this combination of James Bond, Jason Bourne and Kill Bill.  And it's really, really good.  The movie knows where it owes its debts and even specifically references Bond and Bourne. 

Not sure I've enjoyed a movie more in quite a while.  Not that it's the best movie I've seen, but just that it was all well done and a good mix of silly and serious.  Very good stuff. 

Essential story is a street punk being recruited into an elite British secret service organization.  Even though he's not the conventional selection, he proves his worth and ends up trying to save the world. 

Some stunningly elaborate sequences of violence, a hamming-it-up Samuel L. Jackson, a girl with knives for legs, a shockingly old Luke Skywalker, some cute puppies and occasionally hard to understand accents all merged together to make a qualify film.  it didn't waste time in distracting subplots, didn't follow the trite (and easy) path of trying to create a love story between the main character and one of his competitors.  It just plowed along with the story from start to finish and didn't really waste a frame. 

The humorous aspects of the movie were well placed, well executed and pretty clever.

Watch for a sweet little call back to Trading Places toward the end after mentioning the movie earlier in the film. 

It took balls for the studio to release this movie on the same weekend that 50 Shits of Fuck came out.  Any other weekend and I think this is the top grossing movie of the year (at least so far).  We went to a Saturday night showing at 9:20.  Yeah, both theaters showing 50 Fucks of Slut were full of greasy grinning men and their dates (reeking of the new perfume from Max Factor 'hoping I get laid').  But there weren't many empty seats in Kingsman either. 

I hope a good movie like this doesn't get lost in the blizzard surrounding the 50 Dicks of Skeet. It deserves to be seen.

Totally agree.  This was a really fun film.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 23, 2015, 08:30:09 AM
When the Game Stands Tall

It wanted to be Friday Night Lights but picked the wrong source of inspiration. It tried to be Remember the Titans but forgot its soul. 

This was an absolutely dreary movie filled with wooden performances and stilted dialogue. 

Jim "Jesus" Caviezel was a major problem.  He played the role with all the joy and animation of someone whose best friend had just died while carrying his dead puppy from his burning home.  He was supposed to be this great coach who led his team to a record 150-something consecutive wins, but there was absolutely nothing in his drab, monotone, mumbling, flat, dead-eyed manner that would possibly inspire anyone to perform well on the field. 

An even bigger problem with this wooden film was the team we were supposed to rally behind. 

It's really hard to tug on my heartstrings when a team that doesn't play by the same rules as the ones against which it competes wins 150 straight and then "oh, the humanity!!" loses two games so they can rally to win their eleventy fourth consecutive state championship.  Seriously.  This is who I'm supposed to empathize with and cheer for?  Fuck those clowns.  I was hoping they'd lose and lose some more.  When the rich get richer, particularly when the rich are skirting the rules to do so?  Yeah, that's some inspiring shit right there. 

De La Salle, the team in the film, is a private catholic school that pulls in players from all over the place to compete against teams that have to abide by area restrictions.  So a kid can bus for an hour to De La Salle or he can go to the shitty inner city school he'd otherwise be assigned to.  Not every kid who wants to carry the rock can go to De La.  They pick and choose who gets in. Jesus makes sure to proclaim in his super dour voice that his school doesn't give scholarships. Maybe not, but they most definitely recruit.   Is that cheating?  Maybe not but the playing field certainly wasn't level. 

That begs the question: Is the lead character a great coach or just a great recruiter getting by on talent alone.  I think the answer is probably a little of the first and a lot of the second.  Regardless, it made it difficult to cheer for a team that wins by taking an unfair advantage.  It's a little like feeling sorry for Alabama and making an inspiring movie because they came back and beat West Virginia after losing to Auburn and Oklahoma to end 2013. 

Another issue I had with the film is the superficial message that if you play really hard and play as a team, God will bless you with wins.  I'm sure the coach is a good guy and may walk the walk while talking the talk but there are a whole lot of teams and players who are devout, who sacrifice, who pour their sweat and blood on the field and still get that ass beat on a regular basis.  "A perfect effort" isn't what created a 150-game winning streak.  Stacking your team with talent poached from your rivals probably had more to do with it than God blessing your practice routine. 

This was an incredibly dull film that was not elevated in any way by the subject matter, by the lackluster performances of Jesus and Laura Dern or by the hokey, schmaltzy manner in which it was presented. 

I wish I hadn't wasted time on this. And I hope De La Salle goes on a 160-game losing streak. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 01, 2015, 08:16:55 AM
Lazarus Effect

Take an ounce of Pet Semetary, mix in two cups of Lucy, a dash of Firestarter and add six large slices of Flatliners and you've got this moderately lame horror film. 

It had the chance to explore some really heady topics but devolved in the second half into a semi-hokey film we've seen a hundred times before.

Olivia Wilde does mean bitch pretty well, but once again the cardinal rule of horror -- PG13 equals a film that falls flat -- holds true. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 01, 2015, 08:20:56 AM
Nightcrawler

Jake Gyllenhall is a weird looking fuck.  Rene Russo has gotten really old.  Anything else you need to know about this movie you saw in the trailers. 

It's another one of those films that danced around the edges of being really good but in the end couldn't completely commit.  There should have been some explanation for how Jake got to be the way he was. There were too many rabbit holes left unexplored and unexplained.  Seriously, if you saw the trailer for this movie you could have written the rest yourself.  Your version would be just as good or better than the final version you saw on screen. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 01, 2015, 09:44:21 AM
Lazarus Effect

Take an ounce of Pet Semetary, mix in two cups of Lucy, a dash of Firestarter and add six large slices of Flatliners and you've got this moderately lame horror film. 

It had the chance to explore some really heady topics but devolved in the second half into a semi-hokey film we've seen a hundred times before.

Olivia Wilde does mean bitch pretty well, but once again the cardinal rule of horror -- PG13 equals a film that falls flat -- holds true.

Took mini to this yesterday.  Only because he bugged the crap out of me.  Not a fan of the horror film.  Do not like lights going off and things jumping out at you.  It makes me scream like a little girl.  That was what the entire second half of this movie devoted itself to.   

Why don't we just get in that running car over there?

Are you crazy?  Let's hide behind those chain saws.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 09, 2015, 06:40:35 PM
Ouija

If a 14 year old girl was given a video camera and told to make a scary movie, the result would be similar to this.

There were so many plot holes and the story was so laughable that it became more fun to mock every aspect of the movie -- and we did loudly -- than it was to even try to understand it or be scared. 

Among the problems

> Girl commits suicide, so all the parents in the town simultaneously take trips.  Including the dead girl's parents who go on some sort of vacation the day of the death.

> During a session with the ouija board in the dead girl's house, a chair at the end of the table slides back for an unseen entity to park its ghostly ass.   The assembled teens glance up, shrug it off and go back to the board.  Right.  I'm an old man.  A chair moves like that?  I'm knocking people down getting the fuck out of there. 

> People start dying, so obviously going back to the ouija board is the only answer.  None of the parents bother to return from their vacations as the friends of their teenage children start to drop like flies. 

This was a terrible, terrible attempt at a horror movie. 

There are few things in the world that spook me at all.  An Ouija board is one of them.  Once was at a party with people I did not know well who were using one of the damnable things. Five people at the table and I was an outright obnoxious skeptic. And a little bit drunk.  So the girl who was running the thing challenged me to ask it five questions.  The first four some of those people could maybe, possibly have guessed. Maybe. But the fifth one?  Nobody knew that but me.  Nobody. It was something nobody could have even guessed.  And I didn't know any of those people who were playing the thing.  But that cocksucking board spelled it out... bam bam bam bam bam.  Letter by letter it answered the question.  And it freaked me the fuck completely out.  On my life, there was no way at all anybody sitting at that table could have known that answer.  It was about somebody I had known years earlier, somebody none of them could have known. Somebody who had died.  And I didn't even give that shitty board anything to go on but "my friend Sherry"  No context of when I'd known her, no context of where.  And it still got the answer that nobody could have guessed.  It was even harder than that queen knowing fucking Rumplestiltskin's name.  And it got it with ease.  And that bitch who was driving the board smiled at me in this creepy ass predatory manner with her fucking shiny red lipstick and asked me "do you believe now?"  Her eyes were all on fire.  I wanted to fuck her so bad at that moment, I would have crawled across the table and taken her to the floor if I wasn't afraid she was some sort of succubus.  But I digress. 

Ouija boards are scary ass things.  I've been waiting for somebody to take one on and do it justice.  This movie didn't.  It blew it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on March 09, 2015, 09:46:34 PM
Ouija boards are scary ass things.  I've been waiting for somebody to take one on and do it justice.  This movie didn't.  It blew it.

I've got a story with one of those fucking things too, and I won't go near them.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on March 09, 2015, 09:55:24 PM
Interstellar:

Bring a pillow. It's the longest movie you'll ever see...ever. I've done the Lonesome Dove marathon and this movie felt longer.

It's a okay movie. Before you watch it, just make sure you don't have anything else to do for the entire day.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 10, 2015, 01:39:31 AM
I've got a story with one of those fucking things too, and I won't go near them.

Yep.  Like a ten-year old girl.  I will run from the room if somebody breaks one of those things out.  I won't have one in my house at all.  Don't even try to bring one. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 10, 2015, 07:05:18 AM
Yep.  Like a ten-year old girl.  I will run from the room if somebody breaks one of those things out.  I won't have one in my house at all.  Don't even try to bring one.

Gonna put tomatoes on one and express ship.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 10, 2015, 10:01:35 AM
Gonna put tomatoes on one and express ship.

Maybe your best course would be to tread lightly. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 10, 2015, 02:13:19 PM
An early heads up.  They just announced the filming of Zoolander 2.

It's a walk-off.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 13, 2015, 10:59:41 PM
Focus

Couldn't get in Cinderella or Sponge Bob tonight so we settled for Focus.  Good flick.  Very entertaining.  Will Smith usually gives a solid and funny performance and this film was no exception.  Smith plays the ultimate pick-pocket/con artist, one of the higher ups in a network of thieves.  Movie centers around his serious love interest in Margot Robbie, a fellow con artist, and several scams with pretty cool twists and turns.  Adrian Martinez has several appearances in the movie and without him, it would have been really average,  He easily has 2-3 of the funniest moments in it.  "No, you are a lesbian.  Every other time you talk, I smell vagina". 

Maybe not worth the $31.00 plunked down for 2 tix, small popcorn and a drink. But definitely worth a rental and a couple of hours of your time.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 18, 2015, 10:02:31 AM
Focus

Couldn't get in Cinderella or Sponge Bob tonight so we settled for Focus.  Good flick.  Very entertaining.  Will Smith usually gives a solid and funny performance and this film was no exception.  Smith plays the ultimate pick-pocket/con artist, one of the higher ups in a network of thieves.  Movie centers around his serious love interest in Margot Robbie, a fellow con artist, and several scams with pretty cool twists and turns.  Adrian Martinez has several appearances in the movie and without him, it would have been really average,  He easily has 2-3 of the funniest moments in it.  "No, you are a lesbian.  Every other time you talk, I smell vagina". 

Maybe not worth the $31.00 plunked down for 2 tix, small popcorn and a drink. But definitely worth a rental and a couple of hours of your time.

Nope.  Say what you will, but I don't want to watch 50-something year old black Fresh Prince make moves on 24-year old white Australian girl. 

That's a fuck no, no, no, no, no, no, no HELL no.  Not today, not forever. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 18, 2015, 10:10:16 AM
Run All Night

Just call this A Non-Stop Walk Taken Among The Tombstones aka White Equalizer.

Cookie cutter movie where Neeson is the crusty baddest fuck on the planet taking out armies by himself. 

Very formulaic.  Neeson sleepwalked through it.  Ed Harris debased himself. 

Two actors who can do much better plodding through cliched mayhem just to make a paycheck.  Neither looked like they enjoyed a moment of it. 

I like Neeson, but this is getting old.  He's had a long career and shown the ability to bring depth to a number of varied roles, but this late career action arc is limiting him to the point that people are going to forget how good he used to be. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 19, 2015, 10:07:33 AM
Run All Night

Just call this A Non-Stop Walk Taken Among The Tombstones aka White Equalizer.

Cookie cutter movie where Neeson is the crusty baddest fuck on the planet taking out armies by himself. 

Very formulaic.  Neeson sleepwalked through it.  Ed Harris debased himself. 

Two actors who can do much better plodding through cliched mayhem just to make a paycheck.  Neither looked like they enjoyed a moment of it. 

I like Neeson, but this is getting old.  He's had a long career and shown the ability to bring depth to a number of varied roles, but this late career action arc is limiting him to the point that people are going to forget how good he used to be.

HAven't seen the movie but agree, hell the trailer alone looked like Taken 4
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: bgreene on March 19, 2015, 10:20:46 AM
Taken was a good movie, but aside from that, I can't think of a single movie that he has been in that was good.  I'm not a fan of his. He is the same character in every single movie (recently), and he has a very Keanu voice (nevere changes).
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 19, 2015, 02:35:05 PM
Run All Night

Just call this A Non-Stop Walk Taken Among The Tombstones aka White Equalizer.

Cookie cutter movie where Neeson is the crusty baddest fuck on the planet taking out armies by himself. 

Very formulaic.  Neeson sleepwalked through it.  Ed Harris debased himself. 

Two actors who can do much better plodding through cliched mayhem just to make a paycheck.  Neither looked like they enjoyed a moment of it. 

I like Neeson, but this is getting old.  He's had a long career and shown the ability to bring depth to a number of varied roles, but this late career action arc is limiting him to the point that people are going to forget how good he used to be.

This. All of it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 19, 2015, 03:03:57 PM
Yeah, I honestly didn't know who the guy was until I saw Taken. Maybe I just didn't pay attention.  But yeah, while I love a well done, "One man army" flick, this is getting to be like another Vin Diesel street racing movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 19, 2015, 03:10:04 PM
Yeah, I honestly didn't know who the guy was until I saw Taken. Maybe I just didn't pay attention.  But yeah, while I love a well done, "One man army" flick, this is getting to be like another Vin Diesel street racing movie.

Hey bitch... Vin Diesel and his car can solve all of the worlds problems.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 19, 2015, 03:29:25 PM
Hey bitch... Vin Diesel and his car can solve all of the worlds problems.


GROOOOOT
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 23, 2015, 09:02:18 PM
Insidious 2

I am dumber for having watched this.  I didn't like the first one all that much. This load of ridiculous claptrap was twice as bad. 

I enjoy the woman. She was Seth Rogan's wife in Neighbors. 

They are making a third one.  I hope I am not stupid enough to watch it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 12, 2015, 11:02:41 AM
2:13

Browsing through the bargain basement horror movie bin on Netflix/Amazon/Vudu (or whatever service we were using).  Came across this and was intrigued.  Lots of people in the cast whose faces you'd know including Ferris Buelher's dad, Sam from A Few Good Men, Wynn from Justified, Doyle from Slingblade, Rita's first husband on Dexter, the White Shadow, and Fokker's wife. 

The movie was written by and starred a guy from Florence. Not Italy. Florence, Alabama.  That was the first mistake. He wasn't good enough to carry the part.   He was the Mark half of the old Mark and Brian radio show that some of you may remember.  He should have stayed on the radio. 

Second, he didn't have enough money to do it right. The sets were cheap, the sound editing was really bad. The FX was nearly non-existent. The transitions were bad and choppy. Even the clothes were second-rate.  The lead guy recycled the same tie like eight times.

Third, he must have pictures of Ferris' dad, Sam, Wynn, Doyle, Rita's hubby, Shadow and Fokker's wife greasy and naked with goats or gnus.  What these people were doing slumming in this movie is beyond me. It's not something I'd want on my resume.

As far as the story goes it had some potential. Or could have been in the right hands. Radio Mark mishandled pretty much every piece of what could have been an intriguing tale of childhood trauma and grown-up revenge. It was so poorly done it squeezed all the potential life out of the movie.

The biggest gaffe?  Radio Mark was a rumpled, wrinkled, baggy-eyed mess that looked every bit of the 54 years he was at the time of filming (born in 1955) -- and then some.  The trigger incident for the entire story supposedly happened when he was ten.  The big bad of the film was -- according to the backstory -- about 25 at the time.  Problem?  The actor he hired for the big bad is nine years younger than he is and looks at least 20 years younger.  So this 25 year old big bad only ages about 15 years over the FOURTY FOUR intervening years while Radio Mark ages a drooping 50 years?  Absolutely terrible and destroyed whatever shreds of credibility the film might have had.  Perhaps he forgot that on TV, people can SEE what you're doing. 

Beyond that?  It missed every possible emotional mark. Every reaction was forced and unrealistic. The actors (with the possible exception of Kevin Pollack) looked like they were fed their lines two minutes before reciting them and there were no retakes matter how stiff or dumb they sounded.   A psychiatrists' trick was so ridiculously bad that they used it twice. 

2:13 had the potential to be a solid psychological thriller, but was mishandled so badly by Radio Mark and a director whose primary credits are as producer on SI Swimsuit model home videos that the movie became a clunky, plodding mess.  It needed a stronger lead, some better sets and a better team of writers to take the basic concept and polish it up. 

Radio Mark should never be allowed to write and star in a movie again.  I have no idea how he scraped up the cash to get this one done. 

(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/phineasandferb/images/1/16/Mark_LaMarr_Thompson.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130726024508)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 18, 2015, 12:22:57 AM
Paul Blart, Mall Cop 2

Kevin James is painfully, cringingly unfunny.  The first Paul Blart movie had a little cleverness, a dash of heart and a good supporting cast that was unable to overcome his comedic deficiencies. 

Paul Blart 2 had none of those things. 

Amazingly the theater was packed. hardly a seat to be found. Sadly the movie failed to deliver.  There were a few six and eight year olds that screamed laughter at a random moments of physical comedy (seen them all in the trailers) and who were overheard remarking that the movie was "really great!"  Most adults were more along the lines of "eh, it was sort of cute..." 

That's not what I wanted out of this movie.  I wanted funny.  I got a dash of that and a big assload of James hamming it up and falling flat.  This movie could have been fantastic with Chris Farley in the lead role. Or even John Candy.  They're both dead.  Still might have been better with either of their corpses in the lead. 

First major problem I had?  Selena Gomez' wizard brother was immediately smitten by that bulbous headed ogress who played James' daughter in the first Blart film (and who also played the annoying ugly-ass possibly dwarf friend on Austin and Ally -- something all Disney indoctrinated parents will recognize).  There's no way on God's green earth the wizard would have looked at that misshapen wad of dough and done anything other than recoil in horror or projectile vomit.  That doughy girl was horrendously painful to look at.  On top of that she has zero screen presence and less than zero fucking talent.  I abhor this lumpy bag of cottage cheese and curds. 

This film was another insult to human intelligence from the Adam Sandler shitpile of shittily executed shit fests.  And true to Sandler style it featured a woman he (or his pals) could never score in real life falling all over the schlub lead.  Garbage.  Nothing remotely endearing about the crude ass losers he seems to think are amusing. 

I used to think that if I could go back in time and kill anyone it would be Hitler.  I think now I might punch Judy Sandler in the gut or castrate Daddy Sandler.  Anything to deliver us from Little Nicky, Jack and Jill, Big Daddy, Blended, That's My Boy, Chuck&Larry, Zohan, Zookeeper, Bucky Larson, etc.  Fuck that guy.  The few decent things he's done don't come near to offsetting the mountains of shit he's spewed out.   

I should have known I was in for a crap fest when every single preview for this movie was for an animated film.   

Saw trailer for:
Peanuts (from the awful previews I saw, guaranteed beyond a doubt to be an enormous box office flop)
Hotel Transylvania 2 (who gives a fuck?  Was there a Hotel Transylvania 1?)
Inside Out (remotely promising, but nothing compelling)
Minions (yeah, I laugh at minions so I'll probably see this one).
Pixels (another Sandler vehicle which means that a potentially funny premise will be destroyed in a barrage of stupid accents and lame fart jokes)

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 19, 2015, 03:14:36 AM
Unfriended

What a horrible movie. 

Maybe I'm just behind the curve. Maybe I've got old-man-itis.  But watching this film occur entirely on the computer dashboard of a vapid teen whore was annoying to the point that I wanted to murder all the people in the movie myself. 

Not once did this film stray from the digitized world and enter the reality of any of the participants.  Instead we were treated to typing in chat windows, typing in facebook screens, typing in google, typing in chat roulette, following links, watching YouTube and conversing in skype windows. 

Fucking annoying.

Apparently this is the life that kids now live.  They no longer get in their cars and congregate in the church parking lot on Friday nights. Instead, they sit in isolation, glued to their electronic devices and interacting while utterly alone.  What a shitty existence this is.  How much they miss. 

If I wanted to sit and look at a fucking computer screen for 90 minutes, I wouldn't have gone to the fucking theater. 

This movie sucked pimpled balls. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 01, 2015, 01:25:40 AM
Interstellar

Wait, what? 

I know a lot of you consider Nolan a visionary but I've grown tired of his puerile attempts to fuck people's mind.  It's like he sits around and goes "what if you got in a car and drove it backward at 1000 miles an hour.  Would you at some point pass yourself?  And if you did, what would happen if you both stopped at the same time simultaneously and waved at each other.  What if that opened a hole in the asphalt and time ceased to exist?  Then could you slide through that hole and find Bill and Ted? And what if Abraham Lincoln had shaved? Or he could fold time into four scores and see inside everybody's brain?  And what if what he saw were tiny little ants that wore crowns made of begonias? And what if the begonias were actually small constellations?  And what if earth is just a proton in an atom of a sasquatch?  What if earth's atom makes up a small part of one hair follicle that's going to fall out in six sasquatch weeks, which could possibly be eleven quadrillion earth years..."

The movie was long. It was ponderous. It had too many different stories going on at once.  It was pretty to look at, but either I'm too dumb to watch any more of his LONG ASS movies or he thinks he's way smarter than he is.  I'm done with Nolan I think. 

In retrospect all the Batman movies were half an hour too long and the last was simply drudgery.  The only films of his I like are Memento (which isn't as good the second time as it was the first) and the second Batman (and even it is far too long). 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 01, 2015, 01:41:08 AM
Avengers: Age of Ultron

It had all the pieces.  Comic banter from all the Avenging stars.  A surprise or two along the way.  A touching moment you really didn't expect. James Spader gnawing on his lines.

But Jesus Monte Cristos at the carnage.  It was so noisy.  Between Transformers, Superman, Thor, Captain America, Iron Man and the Avengers collectively, there's not much left of the earth to save or protect.  Buildings blown apart left and right.  Streets torn up, cars tossed around like leaves in the wind. Buses, trains, semis, motorcycles, planes, helicopters, thousands of robots all turned to smoking rubble. 

It's gotten to be too much.  I'm tired of seeing glass shattering, buildings collapsing, the earth splitting.  (BTW, from the previews we're in for way more of that when The Rock takes on the San Andreas fault)

There came a point in this movie when I wanted some half ass plausible explanation for what was going on and instead I got more banging and clanging -- hours of it. 

It wasn't a bad movie.  It doesn't come close to supplanting Marvel's top thee (Iron Man 1, Guardians of the Galaxy and Avengers 1) but it is better than the second Thor, either Captain America, all of the Spiderman movies combined, all of the X-Men (which I never much cared for) and maybe the second and third Iron Man.  Second Iron Man for sure, but the third Tony Stark movie might be as good or better than this massive noisefest. 

I'm sort of looking forward to Ant Man, honestly.  Be interesting to see how that works out. 

I know most everybody here will go see Avengers.  I'm going to go at least one more time, maybe two.  I liked most of it, but some of the situations felt a little forced and as much as I like Robert Downey Jr. in this role, and he was good again, it looked to me that it is getting a little stale even for him. 

Decent film.  As usual better than anything DC has to offer despite the fact that Batman is and forever will be my favorite character.  Can't wait to watch Snyder fuck the Bat completely up. (sarcasm)

I'd like to see one superhero movie soon that doesn't involve destroying an entire city and fighting from start to finish.  There are better stories that can be told. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on May 01, 2015, 07:39:38 AM
I'd like to see one superhero movie soon that doesn't involve destroying an entire city and fighting from start to finish.  There are better stories that can be told.

I think beginning with Captain America : Civil War, you will see that there are going to be changes in the Marvel world, due to the destruction of cities.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on May 09, 2015, 09:59:33 PM
Quote
It wasn't a bad movie.  It doesn't come close to supplanting Marvel's top thee (Iron Man 1, Guardians of the Galaxy and Avengers 1) but it is better than the second Thor, either Captain America, all of the Spiderman movies combined, all of the X-Men (which I never much cared for) and maybe the second and third Iron Man.  Second Iron Man for sure, but the third Tony Stark movie might be as good or better than this massive noisefest. 

After an unreal long week full of late nights and no appreciation for it, I declared a fuck it all afternoon and played hooky from work to go see a matinee of Ultron.  And I can't wait to see it again.  Scarlet Witch is freaky scary awesome and well played by Elizabeth Olsen.  And for the life of me, I think all the feminists screaming in faux outrage over Black Widow actually having a feminine side need to find a man and get laid stat so they can flush the sand out of their vaginas.  What a crock of crap.  I loved the interactions between Badass Beauty and the Beast, although I don't think Mark Ruffalo is good looking at all, which makes him an anomaly in that cast.  I thought Spader was the perfect choice for the voiceover. 

Robert Downey Jr is so perfect as Tony Stark too - that was perfect casting back in the day, and he just keeps getting better.  There was a little room for improvement with the premise behind why he was so hellbent on creating Ultron - it wasn't until he was confessing to Fury that I made the connection between the vision he had when Witch was messing with his head and the need to provide a shield against alien attack.  They all had visions but I thought they all realized what she was doing to them and got over it.  Thor's need to understand was well developed but considering that Stark's vision was the crux of the whole thing, it could have been fleshed out a little more.

As for all the buildings crashing and all the explosions, well, Kaos needs to just tell the kids to get off his damn lawn and get over it.  Yes, there was a LOT of noise and clouds of dust but that's to be expected when superheroes go at it.  Compare it with Daredevil, where things are destroyed on a much more human scale.  Daredevil is just a guy - he isn't saving the world, just his little corner of it.  The funny thing is that when I see movies like Ultron and whole cities are getting demolished, the risk manager in me is thinking "I wonder if there is a Superhero v Villain exclusion to their insurance policy?  What does that do to the risk profile?" I know, twisted.

The Stan Lee cameo was the best one yet.  Excelsior!!!!!!!

So I can't say enough wonderful stuff about Ultron.  I am really finally immersed in the Marvel world enough to where I get all the inside nerd jokes, the references to other events, other movies, etc.  And Joss Whedon is a god in this business. You could see his influence all over the place - he did an impressive job considering how much the studio tried to rein him in.  I hope he will do another one but I am not sure he would agree to be controlled that much by suits again instead of being left free to make his own movie.

I generally don't like blondes, but there is an exception for every rule, and Cap is it.  Chris Evans is just beautiful, and Cap'n America is every woman's dream man, so decent and good.  He was not shirtless at all in Ultron, which is just a damn shame.  So I am going to admit to some serious Cap bias, and say that I loved the first Captain America and LOVED LOVED the Winter Soldier.  GOTG is probably my favorite Avengers movie so far, but I have no complaints about any of them at all.  If I had to pick my least favorite, the second Thor wasn't all that, although I do enjoy Loki.  I didn't care for any of the Spiderman movies because I find Toby Maquire tiresome.  Hawkeye made me like him a little more that I did before, but I still don't find Jeremy Renner attractive.  His eyes are too... buggy or something.  I find it interesting that he is coming to a comic con in Houston this month, and charges $150 for an autograph.  Wow.  Mighty impressed with himself.  I'd pay that for a photo of me with Chris Evans, but Renner's autograph?  No thanks.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chityeah on May 10, 2015, 11:43:39 PM

I generally don't like blondes, but there is an exception for every rule, and Cap is it.  Chris Evans is just beautiful, and Cap'n America is every woman's dream man, so decent and good.  He was not shirtless at all in Ultron, which is just a damn shame.  So I am going to admit to some serious Cap bias, and say that I loved the first Captain America and LOVED LOVED the Winter Soldier.  GOTG is probably my favorite Avengers movie so far, but I have no complaints about any of them at all.  If I had to pick my least favorite, the second Thor wasn't all that, although I do enjoy Loki.  I didn't care for any of the Spiderman movies because I find Toby Maquire tiresome.  Hawkeye made me like him a little more that I did before, but I still don't find Jeremy Renner attractive.  His eyes are too... buggy or something.  I find it interesting that he is coming to a comic con in Houston this month, and charges $150 for an autograph.  Wow.  Mighty impressed with himself.  I'd pay that for a photo of me with Chris Evans, but Renner's autograph?  No thanks.
   For you Wench. Chris Evans is the reason this movie is good.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4NsB6eDQeM
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 11, 2015, 06:51:41 AM
The Stan Lee cameo was the best one yet.  Excelsior!!!!!!!


https://youtu.be/N8m-NxpUIP0
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 11, 2015, 08:50:43 AM

https://youtu.be/N8m-NxpUIP0

I love the fact the Rooker was eating chocolate covered pretzels.  LMAO
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 11, 2015, 09:48:20 AM
I love the fact the Rooker was eating chocolate covered pretzels.  LMAO

Damn, I didn't even catch that part.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 11, 2015, 10:22:19 AM
Avengers: Age of Ultron



A whole lot of "meh".  Nothing new or groundbreaking.  The jokes/one-liners are getting progressively worse as the franchise dumbs down for the masses.

Total waste of my 2.5 hours and $30.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on May 11, 2015, 10:23:10 AM
Damn, I didn't even catch that part.

They're a little melty but damn are they exquisite.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 11, 2015, 12:30:32 PM

As for all the buildings crashing and all the explosions, well, Kaos needs to just tell the kids to get off his damn lawn and get over it.  Yes, there was a LOT of noise and clouds of dust but that's to be expected when superheroes go at it. 

At some point it becomes overdone.  The earth is gone.

Thirty six cities were demolished in Independence Day.  More in 2012.

Monsters in Godzilla ransacked Hawaii, Las Vegas and San Fran in 2014.

Star Trek also blew San Francisco apart

Transformers crushed Chicago, the Pyramids, New York and half the world.

Avengers left New York in ruins and then killed some eastern european city.  (getting everybody off the berg was a pretty asinine subplot). 

Seriously.  How many buildings do we need to see blow up?  How much glass can fall? How much dust? 

It's become tiresome watching these movies try to out-mayhem each other.   When I saw the White House explode in Independence Day I was astounded.  When the first Transformers wrecked houses and donkey punched some nameless town, I was stunned.  But watching the subsequent "my dust is bigger than your dust" over the top efforts I'm numb to it.   

Man of Steel was the tipping point for me.  The constant crashing and bashing, the showers of glass, the twisting of metal, the crumbling of concrete and asphalt was just too much.  The brawling and punching into buildings (where, let's be honest nobody was in real jeopardy) bored me. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 11, 2015, 12:50:21 PM
They're a little melty but damn are they exquisite.

If I remember correctly you're a big pretzel fan.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on May 11, 2015, 01:33:21 PM
Man of Steel was the tipping point for me. 

If I were the mayor of Metropolis, I'd tell Superman to take his shit to Gotham City.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on May 11, 2015, 01:53:59 PM
If I were the mayor of Metropolis, I'd tell Superman to take his shit to Gotham City.

So is the upcoming movie, Batman vs Superman, in Gotham or in the Metro?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on May 11, 2015, 03:08:48 PM
So is the upcoming movie, Batman vs Superman, in Gotham or in the Metro?


Let's hope it's in Tuscaloosa. How many trailers can be destroyed in one movie? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 15, 2015, 07:36:37 AM
Horrible Bosses 2 (If reviewed 10 pages back, I missed it)

Bored and wanted to laugh so we rented it.  Didn't see HB but trust me, that would have made no difference.  Some of you have talked about It's always sunny in Philly and I've watched it a few times.  Yes, the show is funny as hell but I think what helps it stay that way is that it's a series.  By that I mean 3 guys, the main characters including Charlie Day of It's always sunny, all talking at the same time for two straight hours really gets old.

For me, the movie was 50/50.  There were some incredibly funny moments *spoiler* like Jennifer Aniston, who plays a sex addict, who wants a threesome with the guys and while she's in the bathroom shaving her twat twat, the three guys are debating over who gets ass, mouth or pussy.  Aniston comes out of the bathroom saying, "Boys, this pussy is not going to eat itself."  Okay, maybe that scene was memorable for me strictly because Jennifer Aniston said that. But the movie really did deliver some laugh your ass off moments.

The drawbacks were the aforementioned endless attempts to be funny with all characters talking over each other.  If you couldn't make out the dialogue, which happened a lot, you almost missed entire scenes.  The second was the cussing.  Ever come out of a flick and think how it would have been much better without the stream of F-bombs?  It just didn't fit here and I honestly don't recall ever seeing a movie with more of them. It was needless.  Added nothing and actually got really distracting at times.  It was like watching Al Borges and Rick Trickett running an Auburn practice. Case in point, Jamie Foxx had a small part in it.  His name was Motherfucking Jones. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 15, 2015, 08:05:14 AM
Case in point, Jamie Foxx had a small part in it.  His name was Motherfucking Jones.

You know how he got that name? 

When he was a kid he snuck into his mother's bedroom.

She was laying there, naked.

She'd been drinking all night.

And he snuck up behind her.

And he slipped his fingers...




into her purse.




And he took her money. The whole weeks pay. He really fucked her over and that's how he got the name, Motherfucker Jones.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on May 15, 2015, 09:02:26 AM
You know how he got that name? 

When he was a kid he snuck into his mother's bedroom.

She was laying there, naked.

She'd been drinking all night.

And he snuck up behind her.

And he slipped his fingers...




into her purse.




And he took her money. The whole weeks pay. He really fucked her over and that's how he got the name, Motherfucker Jones.

Maybe you should go by motherfucker over Jones...to avoid the confusion.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 15, 2015, 09:07:25 AM
Maybe you should go by motherfucker over Jones...to avoid the confusion.
What confusion?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 17, 2015, 01:27:42 AM
Pitch Perfect 2

Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever wasted money to see.  House full of girls and my Mad Max wish got overruled.  I wish to hell Max had crashed in and murdered the chicks in this film.  And the alleged dudes, too. 

I get that it's supposed to be campy and not taken seriously.  Worldwide acapella competitions?  Yeah.  Whatever.  The interplay between the two smarmy hosts was occasionally interesting.  Key (or was it Peele?) was a dash of moderate quality but...

None of the fucks in this movie about singing can fucking sing.  Not a lick.

All of the male parts are androgynously plain with all the personality of a squishy dishrag. 

Anna Kendrick, who I at one point considered good looking, I think, was hard to look at.  And her voice was like tinfoil through a screen door.  Nasal and grating. 

The fat bitch looks like a bad John Candy impersonator wearing a shitty blonde wig.  Except Candy in a wig would be funny.  This rotund moose is never funny. Ever.  I've never seen a single thing she's been in where she added anything to the film, with the exception of her first role when she played the roommate in Bridesmaids.  She essentially plays the same bumbling, mumbling oaf in every appearance since. She hasn't expanded her repertoire beyond "I'm fat and crude" and is so gratingly awful she makes the double shitacular elephantippo Melissa McCarthy look as funny as a combination of Richard Pryor,80s Eddie Murphy and Stripes Bill Murray.  I fucking loathed every second that wasted wad of blubber was on the screen. 

Brittany Murphy was hysterically bad.  The rest of the cast sucked rabid salamander tits.

All the competition was pathetic. 

The "fun" college party looked as boring as Stephen Hawking's bar mitzvah.  The "fun" pillow fight looked about as realistic and entertaining as a pack of greasy hyenas scrumming over an ostrich carcass. 

Holy FUCK this movie was a disgrace.  It was a fresh level of hell, one I didn't think existed. 

What a terrible movie.  Elizabeth Banks directed this epic turd.  I guess she learned the craft from her time on the "comedy" Meet Dave. 

Sucked. I can't think of enough words to express my utter contempt and disdain for every celluloid second of this shizzlefuckfest. 

And to top it off?  Snoop Do-double-don't give a fuck no more, stooped to shitting all over his legacy in this film. 

Firing squads should be convened.  Immediately. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 17, 2015, 08:57:55 AM
Anna Kendrick may be just as overrated as Jennifer Lawrence. Just a little older. And seems nicer.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 17, 2015, 09:04:50 AM
Anyone seen Pitch Perfect 2? I've heard good things about it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on May 17, 2015, 03:55:17 PM
Anyone seen Pitch Perfect 2? I've heard good things about it.

Just add tomatoes.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Catphish Tilly on May 18, 2015, 09:40:18 AM
Anyone seen Pitch Perfect 2? I've heard good things about it.

My fiance's reviews typically range from "that was a cute movie" to "aww, that was a cute movie". Being filmed at LSU tipped her review to lean more toward the "aww" end of the scale.

I was not in attendance to review the film, which is a strong indicator mine would lean toward Kaos' spectrum.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on May 18, 2015, 09:42:25 AM
Pitch Perfect 2

Brittany Murphy was hysterically bad. 

This guy here is dead.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on May 18, 2015, 09:45:18 AM
This guy here is dead.

Well, cross him off then!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on May 18, 2015, 10:21:52 AM
Anyone seen Pitch Perfect 2? I've heard good things about it.

Tops in the box office this weekend - even beat Mad Max.  $70.3M - that's a lot of crap.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 18, 2015, 11:14:44 AM
Tops in the box office this weekend - even beat Mad Max.  $70.3M - that's a lot of crap.

Is a commentary on the decline of society more than anything.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on May 18, 2015, 11:29:10 AM
I got around to Avengers this weekend. Imax in 3D. Not as good as the first one but killed some rain time here in Dallas.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 18, 2015, 12:55:26 PM
Anyone seen Pitch Perfect 2? I've heard good things about it.
I watched it this weekend thought it was a smash hit. It's a heated mess.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on May 18, 2015, 12:58:08 PM
I watched it this weekend thought it was a smash hit. It's a heated mess.


Guess I need to go see Pitch Perfect 1 to get caught up.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 18, 2015, 01:50:14 PM
Horns

Based on a book by Stephen King's son, Joe Hill (which I have read). 

Essentially a guy wakes up to find the love of his life has been murdered and he's the chief suspect.  He curses God for his plight and is rewarded with a pair of horns (devil horns) that compel people to tell him their darkest secrets. And he can use them to suggest actions. 

Starred Harry Potter, the girl Matthew McConaghey boned in Killer Joe, Dexter's dad, a guy from St. Elsewhere and a few other faces you'd probably recognize from various places.

Let's get this out of the way first:  In the grand tradition of most Stephen King books, the movie was eleventy seven times shittier than the book. There's just something about King's brand of horror and the people chosen to participate in film projects of his books that turns the written page into glittering shit. 

The dialogue, which sort of works in the book, is stilted and stupid. 

Harry Potter is a horrible actor, one of the worst I've seen (and I've seen Nicholas Cage try to act).

Everything about the movie was awful  Stupidly inappropriate scenes of raunch for no real reason. Bad sets, bad CGI, bad acting, bad everything. 

Everything about it was an epic fail.  That Potter dude better hope JK writes an assload more wizard books because he isn't capable of doing much else. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on May 19, 2015, 08:30:06 AM
And I would say that was a generic Auburn shirt in the warehouse scene, our thuggary should not be contained to just one continent.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 19, 2015, 03:06:10 PM
Mad Max: Fury Road

Meh.  About 45 minutes too long.  The overbearing hockey horn was too much, too often.  Too much girly drama for a Max film
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: WiregrassTiger on May 19, 2015, 03:58:25 PM
Mad Max: Fury Road

Meh.  About 45 minutes too long.  The overbearing hockey horn was too much, too often.  Too much girly drama for a Max film
I saw Mad Max on HBO around 1986. If you are catching up, I also recommend Smokey and the Bandit and Rambo.

Both of these are decent movies and must sees for intellectuals, such as yourself.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 20, 2015, 08:46:06 AM
Mad Max: Fury Road

Meh.  About 45 minutes too long.  The overbearing hockey horn was too much, too often.  Too much girly drama for a Max film
That's disappointing to hear.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 20, 2015, 08:55:55 AM
That's disappointing to hear.

Worth pirating or ordering OD, but save the theater money.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 20, 2015, 11:41:06 AM
A whole lot of "meh".  Nothing new or groundbreaking.  The jokes/one-liners are getting progressively worse as the franchise dumbs down for the masses.

Total waste of my 2.5 hours and $30.

Saw this yesterday and yes. Agree entirely especially on the cheesy one liners. Movie could have also been shortened by a half hour.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on May 20, 2015, 02:07:19 PM
Saw this yesterday and yes. Agree entirely especially on the cheesy one liners. Movie could have also been shortened by a half hour.
Dead to me, you are.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 20, 2015, 09:35:45 PM
Dead to me, you are.

Like Kaos, I generally thought it was ok overall. But a lot wrong with it too. The length and one liners both irked me. I didn't pay for the movie because it was a company "paid for" trip, but I'm glad I didn't.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 22, 2015, 07:49:19 AM
White House Down

Channing Tatum as a father and aspiring Secret Service member?   :rofl:

Jamie Fucking Foxx as a missile-firing Obama-like President?   :rofl:

That ugly fucking Gylenhall chick as anything? She cracks the screen with her hideous mug.  :rofl:

Chase scene around the White House Lawn?   :rofl: :rofl:

Laughable exchanges like: Where's my daughter? Come and get her. What are you gonna do? What do you think?  :rofl:

Wasting the usually good Jason Clarke as an accent dropping Russian one minute, American the next hackneyed bad guy?   :rofl:

Promoting a utopian vision of the world where olive branches are the only answer to world problems?   :rofl:

Making the bad guys American "Right Wing Extremists"  :rofl:  Hey.... wait....  :bs: :fu:

This movie played like something an ultra liberal tenth-grade lesbian vegan would have scripted and shot on her iPhone to impress her ultra liberal dreadlock-wearing hippie LGBT crew.

Foxx was ridiculously bad as President whatever.  Tatum was dead-eyed terrible.  I've probably reviewed this movie before, but I saw it again last night with its "Withdraw the troops and feed those bastards if we want to win the Middle East" propaganda and its "the real bad guys are American businessmen" agenda and I was so ashamed of it and so appalled by the epic awfulness of the performances that I had to shake my head in disgust and point and laugh at the absurdity of the thing one more time. 

To the director and the writers?  I say this with the full weight and authority of an American citizen:  Fuck you.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 25, 2015, 08:09:07 PM
Mad Max: Fury Road

This review will be written using lines from the movie uttered by Max.

No No No.

Unh, Hrm. Grrrr. Unh.  Ugh.

The end. 

Translation:  Meh?  It would have to crawl across the Sahara to reach up to meh.   Maybe I was high when I tried to watch it, but it was like a really dumb Cannonball Run if Burt Reynolds was a bald girl and the Sheriff wore a Halloween mask. 

Eleven kinds of terrible. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 30, 2015, 01:22:24 AM
San Andreas

If you thought the Avengers turned havoc loose on New York or the Transformers unleashed hell on Chicago, wait until you see what Mother Nature has in store for LA, San Francisco and half the west coast. 

The "plot" was so laughably bad that it became more interesting to tally up the ridiculous carnage than it did to pay attention to the background noise Rock, Spy Kid Mom, Limbo from Planet of the Apes, Plasti-Man and this chick with boobs were putting up.

Alexandra Daddario, 29 playing a 21-year old, had boobs that needed their own billing. They bounced, jiggled, waggled and wiggled every time she moved. 

Limbo, aka Paul Giamatti, had to be cringing inside when he delivered his cheese-laden drama lines. 

Rock tried his best to emote, but for the most part he simply looked intensely constipated at every emotional turn.  Like he REALLY had to poo.

The story, such as it was, floundered. They're not divorced, but she's moving in with some super rich dude and leaving him behind, and everybody's okay with it, except they still love each other, they just couldn't get past the drowning death of a younger daughter and then this earthquake takes out the Hoover Dam, but it's not just that it's gonna mow down LA, San Fran and a lot of cities in between.  Because, carnage, yo!

The sheer spectacle of cities imploding is worth watching.  But maybe not at the theater. 

What do we do now?  We rebuild. 

Extra cheese please. 

I'm gonna grant you that the girl's tits were spectacular.  You didn't see enough of them in this movie but if you want to see them on full majestic display, check out her performance in True Detective (Season 1)

(http://www.barnorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/331.jpg)

Try to ignore Woody Harrelson mauling them -- as well he should.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 31, 2015, 07:49:57 AM
The Drop

Tom Hardy is a weird dude.  In every movie I've ever seen him in, he does some weird nearly unintelligible accent.  No different here.  It's sort of a cross between the really dumb Rocky from the first Italian Stallion film and Rainman.  His role is like an almost retarded bartender with a touch of meanness and a big dash of "I love my dog" dimness.

James Gandolfini is a version of Tony Soprano. A weaker, ineffective, sadder version of Tony.  Sort of what Tony would have been had he not been the son of Johnny and heir to the throne.  This role again served notice that Gandolfini had very limited range and was going to be stuck in that mold for the rest of his life.

I don't know what this movie was about, only that it moved at a slowness that cold molasses would envy.  There were some occasional moments of almost danger followed by hours upon hours of meandering slowness that really explained or added nothing to the film. 

Part of the end was actually good in a story-telling sense, but it took so long meandering to get there that the effect was lost. 

Cardboard cutout foreign gangsters didn't help.  Neither did weird Naomi Rapooce or whatever. 

If you need to go to sleep watch this movie.  Just don't get caught up in trying to figure out what Hardy is mumbling or that will keep you awake. 

After watching Hardy in Batman, Lawless, Mad Max, This Means War, Inception and this?  I'm off the Hardy bandwagon.  Not that I was ever on it, but his presence is now definitely not a hook to encourage me to watch a movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 09, 2015, 01:15:39 PM
Spy

The Melissa McCarthy checklist:

1) Have her rant profanely and obnoxiously. Check.
2) Have her fall down because she is fat. Check.
3) Have someone ridicule her because she is fat. Check.
4) Have someone completely improbable be attracted to her. Check.
5) At lease one dinner gag where she eats something inappropriately or grotesquely. Check.
6) At some point have her dress up in some monstrous black sail, flip her hair and show off her "sexiness." Check.
7) Have her perform some physical stunt that her weight would clearly preclude her from being able to perform. Check.


Every segment of the typical Melissa McCarthy hippo list was marked off in this parody of the James Bond genre. 

And still it wasn't bad.  Not as bad as Tammy (abysmal), The Heat (cringingly unfunny) or Identity Theft (pathetic).  It was, to me, the best film she's ever done but that was largely because she dialed back some of the outlandish oafishness and let a cast that included Allison Janney, Jude Law, Rose Byrne and Jason Statham carry their own limited weights. (All four combined don't equal her if we're talking about body weight, but I'm actually referring to screen presence).

The biggest problem with this film is that it showed once again that McCarthy has essentially no range whatsoever. She plays the same fat, bumbling, braying, crude slob in every single film.  It's starting to wear thin.  Given the performances of the rest of the cast, this movie would have been much better without her in it.  Slot Mindy Kaling into that role or Zooey Deschanel or ehh, you get the picture.

The movie starts off with McSwarthy sitting at a computer screen guiding a field agent (Jude Law) through his paces. Slob on the makeup, add a pair of glasses and make Law a large blackish man and it would be a direct ripoff of Criminal Minds down to the sexually frustrated patter between the two. 

Eventually Law gets murderedish and swooning McCarthy becomes a field agent to help avenge his death. Hilarity (or what passes for it these days) ensues. Statham is probably the best part of the film with his intense rants about past experiences. 

There are some good parts. Some bad parts. And some sloppy editing.  During one chase sequence that featured a blue BMW, the rim styles kept changing depending on the angle. And at one point when McSweaty is on a scooter her shoes kept flipping back and forth from heels to flats.  There's also a scene where she's hanging from a helicopter by the landing rails.  Nope. That's not happening. No way could her pudgy hands a) get a grip on that bar or b) support that swaying weight.

Also, the 50-Cent cameos were not as funny as they probably meant them to be.  Nor was a ridiculous (and mercifully short) bat/rat/rodent side story that added nothing to the movie and seemed stolen directly from Dwight/Meredith and The Office.  All we needed was for Bullissa McCarthy to set up the Elaine Crocker's CIA Virginia Susan Cooper Memorial Celebrity Rabies Awareness Pro-Am Fun Run Race for the Cure and the theft would have been complete.

Even so, it's the only McCarthy movie I've ever seen where I could possibly suggest that it was worth the time to watch it.

Edit this to note: McFarthy has apparently become like Bruce Jenner.  People are afraid to criticize her/him.  Every review for this movie gushes over how magnificent she is.  Part of that is, I think, because that one reviewer had the (correct) audacity to call her a "hippo" in a review of a previous film and the backlash was so strong the world now lives in fear of not recognizing her greatness. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes.  Nobody really likes her or thinks she's sexy/funny -- but you can't say it out loud.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 09, 2015, 01:33:57 PM


Alexandra Daddario, 29 playing a 21-year old, had boobs that needed their own billing. They bounced, jiggled, waggled and wiggled every time she moved. 


I love her.

That is all.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 09, 2015, 01:41:21 PM
Enough Said

I put off watching this movie for a number of reasons, chief among them that it was James Gandolfini's last official role. I also was not personally in a place where I wanted to watch the struggles faced by divorced men and women who are about to confront an empty home when the kids leave.  Struck too close to MY home.

First, Jimmy G.  I thought his performance in The Sopranos was among the best in television history.  He layered that character with so much sadness and confusion and elation and rage and arrogance and despair and pettiness and pride. I'm no gangster, but as a father and business man of relatively the same age I could completely relate to the entire palette of emotions he brought to the role.  Now that I've seen him in several other things, though, I wonder if he was acting or not.  What made Tony Soprano work was that all his weaknesses were offset by a power that few of us have and fewer know how to effectively wield.

In roles like this (and The Drop, Killing Them Softly, Burt Wonderstone, Welcome to the Rileys, Surviving Christmas, etc.) only one part of that persona comes through. He's either a petulant brute or a pussy. Doesn't seem to be much in between. Gandolfini the actor thrived in that grey area on The Sopranos.

Here he was mostly puss. Broken down by an ex-wife who failed to appreciate him, trapped in a body with which he was uncomfortable, struggling to relate to his almost grown daughters, he slogged through a mundane life that was devoid of accomplishment, value or warmth.  (Sounds uncomfortably familiar, actually). 

Enter Elaine.  (She will always be Elaine to me).  She's broken in her own right.  A masseuse who's battling the onset of empty nest syndrome by trying too hard to be the cool mom and glomming on to her daughter's friends. 

Neither of them has a life that could be called fulfilling.  In that wasteland, they find each other.  She doesn't like him at first, but grows to later. 

Complicating this slowly developing romance is the fact that she unknowingly took on his ex-wife as a massage client and spends part of her days listening to her demean the man who is her new beau.  The criticisms get to her. In addition her married friends spend much of their time squabbling which further causes her to question the relationship she's building. 

The movie really wasn't bad at all. It had a slow, syrupy sweetness to it. Some of the topics of divorced and dating rang truer than I wanted them to be.  So did the struggle to maintain relationships with children who are learning how to "be" in the world.  All of that felt very real to me.

The dinner conversation where Elaine had too much wine and acted like a shrewish bitch was hard to watch.  Had I been her date, I would have left her ass there.

Still it was hard to separate Gandolfini from Tony. It pained me to see a mild version of Tony without any teeth.  His meekness needed just a little power to balance it out.  His presence was simply too big to be stripped away like it was. 

Not really a date movie, but better than the average romantic comedy.  That was part of the problem. It wasn't really a drama, wasn't really a comedy.  Doesn't really fit anywhere. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on June 09, 2015, 02:16:51 PM
Beverly Hills Cop

Must see.  Eddie Murphy hasn't put out anything funny in a very long time.  He knocked it out of the park with this one.  Murphy plays a Detroit detective who takes a "vacation" out to Beverly Hills, but the real purpose of his trip is to track down his friend's killers.  During the course of his hunt for the mobsters, he befriends a couple of Beverly Hills detectives, played by John Ashton and Judge Reinhold, always keeping them in trouble with his zany antics.  Reinhold looks like he's barely aged since Fast Times.  Must be the make up. 

The contrast in police styles between the whatever-means-necessary Murphy, and the by-the-book, straight laced Beverly Hills detectives, makes for some real side splitting moments.  Guffaws a-plenty.  Bronson Pinchot and Damon Wayans have cameo appearances that add so much to the hilarity as well.  I can only hope they're already working on a sequel. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: bgreene on June 10, 2015, 02:51:43 AM
Beverly Hills Cop

Must see.  Eddie Murphy hasn't put out anything funny in a very long time.  He knocked it out of the park with this one.  Murphy plays a Detroit detective who takes a "vacation" out to Beverly Hills, but the real purpose of his trip is to track down his friend's killers.  During the course of his hunt for the mobsters, he befriends a couple of Beverly Hills detectives, played by John Ashton and Judge Reinhold, always keeping them in trouble with his zany antics.  Reinhold looks like he's barely aged since Fast Times.  Must be the make up. 

The contrast in police styles between the whatever-means-necessary Murphy, and the by-the-book, straight laced Beverly Hills detectives, makes for some real side splitting moments.  Guffaws a-plenty.  Bronson Pinchot and Damon Wayans have cameo appearances that add so much to the hilarity as well.  I can only hope they're already working on a sequel.


I must say, I took your advise and watched this movie last night.  Thanks for the tip.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Pell City Tiger on June 10, 2015, 02:01:09 PM
Beverly Hills Cop
The key to comedy is timing. Those who understand the concept are the ones who reap the benefits.

Snags post is a textbook example which accurately illustrates the concept of comedic timing. A guy offers a look into this soul and makes a touching connection with the plot of an emotional movie. Snags follows it with fucking Beverly Hills Cop - from 1986!

I went from the depths of K's soulful review to the apex of lowbrow comedy - all in the matter of 2 minutes.

I salute you, Snags! Very nicely played!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on June 10, 2015, 03:17:58 PM
The key to comedy is timing. Those who understand the concept are the ones who reap the benefits.

Snags post is a textbook example which accurately illustrates the concept of comedic timing. A guy offers a look into this soul and makes a touching connection with the plot of an emotional movie. Snags follows it with fucking Beverly Hills Cop - from 1986!

I went from the depths of K's soulful review to the apex of lowbrow comedy - all in the matter of 2 minutes.

I salute you, Snags! Very nicely played!

1986????  Son of a..........
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on June 12, 2015, 07:36:43 AM
1986????  Son of a..........
Thanks for keeping us up to date with all the new releases.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 12, 2015, 09:08:20 AM
I'm not gonna fall for the banana in the tailpipe.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on June 12, 2015, 09:55:10 AM
Thanks for keeping us up to date with all the new releases.


Just got mine in the mail today.

(http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u1/miked0003/835285584_tp1_zps2xyockif.jpg) (http://s164.photobucket.com/user/miked0003/media/835285584_tp1_zps2xyockif.jpg.html)   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 13, 2015, 01:37:36 AM
Zombeavers

Yes. It's exactly what it sounds like.  Beavers imbued with zombie powers after a vat of toxic waste lands on their damn dam. 

There are come and go Southern accents, some gratuitous titties, some implied lesbianism, Frank Tripp from CSI Miami, Kuby from Breaking Bad, a whack-a-mole scene and some horribly rendered Muppet Zombie Beavers.

Yeah.  All of that. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7onFrBK_hKE
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 13, 2015, 01:57:36 AM
Jurassic World, AKA Product Placement Land

There are some movie moments that stay with you forever.  When the star destroyer (or whatever that was) crawls from the top of the screen in the opening of Star Wars it changed the way people saw movie CGI.  It had depth and enormity. You knew at that moment that Star Wars was a bigger film than you'd anticipated. It made you believe. 

About 16 years later Jurassic Park did the same thing.  When those dinosaurs rose over the plain and charged around Damien (whatever his name was) the CGI was so breathtaking that you believed that dinosaurs could actually exist in this time and space.   

Since then we've seen a lot thanks to the wonders of CGI. We've seen the White House destroyed in Independence Day. We've seen Transformers morph from cars to enormous robots. We've seen entire cities leveled by Batman, Superman, Avengers, Spiderman, Godzilla and others.  We've seen liquid terminators. We've seen worlds populated by weird blue people. We've seen Sandra Bullock adrift in space. 

That original wonder, the shock and awe of dinosaurs walking the earth and trying to eat Jeff Goldblum was what made Jurassic Park so compelling.  And that's what's missing in this movie.

We've seen dinosaurs tromping around in the original film and its sequels. We've seen bigger and badder CGI since.  For this film to be a triumph it needed a solid original story and a good cast. 

It had a great cast.  Hard to imagine that Andy from Parks and Rec has become a box office hero. The Law  & Order dudes are good in what the script let them do.  The corrections officer from Orange and the Cop from Let's Be are mildly amusing (and could have been so, so much more).  But the story is essentially the same as it has been forever.  It really needed a new twist, something other than dinosaurs eating people and fighting each other. Something other than bullets and helicopter crashes and sweeping views of the remote island.  It needed something other than tourists in some sort of mild peril.

It was a good movie, reasonably well acted and beautifully rendered. It had all the pieces, too bad it didn't do more with them. 

Yeah, it will make an asston of money. I'm not saying don't go see it (I think this is the kind of movie that only works in a theater) but don't go expecting a transformative reboot.  Expect the same thing you've seen several times before wrapped in a different package.

It just didn't have the magic and emotional resonance of the original.

If you go, take a pen and paper and write down all the instances of product placement.  It got to be so prevalent that I started counting the number of different products and brands I saw on display.  I counted at least 40 and I didn't start counting until half an hour or more into the film.

In fact, I'd like to create a comprehensive list of the products that are portrayed at some point. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on June 13, 2015, 03:36:01 AM
That beaver movie looks fucking awful.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 14, 2015, 01:34:33 AM
The Woman In Black 2

The Woman In Black was one of the worst horror movies I've ever seen.  Didn't keep them from making a sequel and to my chagrin I watched it. 

I'd rather watch Zombeavers again than this slow-moving turd.  A few random jump scares, some silliness about the war and some mistreated orphans was about all this bowl of brown molasses had going for it. 

PG-13 is not conducive to horror and this terrible movie proved that again. 

Abysmal. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 14, 2015, 01:49:45 AM
The Judge

It's official. Robert Downey Jr. is the one actor who elevates any film he's in.  Grizzled veteran Tom Hagen (or Robert Duvall if you prefer) can't keep up with Downey.

The movie laid on the emotional syrup just a bit too thick for my taste, but the crackling animosity between Downey and Hagen was pretty good for most of the film. 

Didn't much care for the horse-face side story.  Sick of seeing that Vera Farmiga woman portrayed as something men would lose their scrotum hairs over.  I wouldn't give her rangy Mr. Ed ass a second glance and I'm not nearly in the same category as Downey.  That's one good looking man. 

Too much idle twisting on the heart strings with the mentally challenged brother and the physically handicapped brother, too.  Both of those stories were essentially unnecessary to the film except to set up other scenes and confrontations.  I was struck by how uncomfortable Vincent DiFornicatio (the L&O CI guy) was in this role. It was like he had no idea whatsoever how to play it so he went with befuddled. I typically like his performances, but here (and in Jurassic World) he didn't fit the part. 

And finally why the fuck is Hollywood (or whoever) insisting on ramming Dax Shepard's zero talent monkey ass down the viewing public's throat?  The guy was adequate in Employee of the Month playing an arrogant no-talent dickhole.  But he has shit the bed and wiped his dirty ass with the covers in everything else he's been in.  He's fucking terrible.  I'm sorry he's married to Kristen Bell.  Actually, I'm not. I find them both to be massively annoying and devoid of any talent whatsoever. They deserve each other.  Dax fucking sucks. His presence in this movie very nearly destroyed the credibility it sought to achieve. 

Long story short, son disappoints father with his reckless ways and then to spite the old man becomes a success. I can relate.  Son feels estranged from the family but when dad needs a little help he returns to his roots to try to save the day.  Dad and son argue over everything and eventually try to patch things up. 

The first part of the ending is saccharin to the point that it drives the everything before it almost off the rails.  It was an "awwwww" moment that felt shoehorned in. 

The final final act is ambiguous. Although I typically detest ambiguity (because if I wanted to write my own script I would) I had no problem with this particular ending.  It was probably the best way to handle it, honestly. 

The movie was worth watching just for Downey, Jr. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: DnATL on June 14, 2015, 04:55:11 PM
Dax fucking sucks.
Snags may cu.... oh, did Snags just get punk'd?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on June 15, 2015, 09:40:34 AM
Jurassic World, AKA Product Placement Land

There are some movie moments that stay with you forever.  When the star destroyer (or whatever that was) crawls from the top of the screen in the opening of Star Wars it changed the way people saw movie CGI.  It had depth and enormity. You knew at that moment that Star Wars was a bigger film than you'd anticipated. It made you believe. 

About 16 years later Jurassic Park did the same thing.  When those dinosaurs rose over the plain and charged around Damien (whatever his name was) the CGI was so breathtaking that you believed that dinosaurs could actually exist in this time and space.   

Since then we've seen a lot thanks to the wonders of CGI. We've seen the White House destroyed in Independence Day. We've seen Transformers morph from cars to enormous robots. We've seen entire cities leveled by Batman, Superman, Avengers, Spiderman, Godzilla and others.  We've seen liquid terminators. We've seen worlds populated by weird blue people. We've seen Sandra Bullock adrift in space. 

That original wonder, the shock and awe of dinosaurs walking the earth and trying to eat Jeff Goldblum was what made Jurassic Park so compelling.  And that's what's missing in this movie.

We've seen dinosaurs tromping around in the original film and its sequels. We've seen bigger and badder CGI since.  For this film to be a triumph it needed a solid original story and a good cast. 

It had a great cast.  Hard to imagine that Andy from Parks and Rec has become a box office hero. The Law  & Order dudes are good in what the script let them do.  The corrections officer from Orange and the Cop from Let's Be are mildly amusing (and could have been so, so much more).  But the story is essentially the same as it has been forever.  It really needed a new twist, something other than dinosaurs eating people and fighting each other. Something other than bullets and helicopter crashes and sweeping views of the remote island.  It needed something other than tourists in some sort of mild peril.

It was a good movie, reasonably well acted and beautifully rendered. It had all the pieces, too bad it didn't do more with them. 

Yeah, it will make an asston of money. I'm not saying don't go see it (I think this is the kind of movie that only works in a theater) but don't go expecting a transformative reboot.  Expect the same thing you've seen several times before wrapped in a different package.

It just didn't have the magic and emotional resonance of the original.

If you go, take a pen and paper and write down all the instances of product placement.  It got to be so prevalent that I started counting the number of different products and brands I saw on display.  I counted at least 40 and I didn't start counting until half an hour or more into the film.

In fact, I'd like to create a comprehensive list of the products that are portrayed at some point.

After reading your review, I was prepared to be put off by the product placement.  It's not half as bad as you make it out to be.  The story is set in a theme park...where you will find all manner of consumable goods and products with a trademarked name pushed at you from every angle.  That said, they even joked about the pending deluge of product placement with the "Verizon Wireless presents..." line at the new Rex display early in the movie.

The rest of your review is pretty spot on: fun, but not groundbreaking, movie.

Minor spoiler: I predict that the Rex fight will far surpass the Batman/Superman fiasco coming down the pike.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on June 15, 2015, 03:13:28 PM
Minor spoiler: I predict that the Rex fight will far surpass the Batman/Superman fiasco coming down the pike.

The nerd word on da skreets is that the Bat/Supe movie is gonna be an epic clusterfuck. My nerd friends who are media connected say the scuttlebutt is not good. Afleck sucks.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 15, 2015, 05:03:34 PM
After reading your review, I was prepared to be put off by the product placement.  It's not half as bad as you make it out to be.  The story is set in a theme park...where you will find all manner of consumable goods and products with a trademarked name pushed at you from every angle.  That said, they even joked about the pending deluge of product placement with the "Verizon Wireless presents..." line at the new Rex display early in the movie.

The rest of your review is pretty spot on: fun, but not groundbreaking, movie.

Minor spoiler: I predict that the Rex fight will far surpass the Batman/Superman fiasco coming down the pike.

Where I started noticing product placement was when Dude was by his motorcycle drinking a coke out of the bottle and he made sure the label was pointed at the camera.  After that it became a sport. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on June 17, 2015, 10:48:01 AM
Jurassic World, AKA Product Placement Land

This review was spot on, and brought you you by Verizon Wireless.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on June 22, 2015, 09:52:43 AM
Inside Out

Girlfriend is a huge Pixar fan, so we went to see this on Friday afternoon.  Theater was packed with unruly children, mostly under 10 with the vast majority of them younger than 5.

THIS IS NOT A MOVIE FOR KIDS.  IT IS A MOVIE ABOUT A KID.

The bright colors and goofball visualizations of complex emotional/memory concepts kept the little bastards mostly entertained, but they obviously couldn't grasp the overall meaning of the story.

It was a very good movie about the maturation of a young girl and the complex evolution of emotional responses and personality traits as we age. 

Just don't go to the 12:55pm showing...shit will be a daycare zoo.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 22, 2015, 11:03:03 AM
Inside Out

Girlfriend is a huge Pixar fan, so we went to see this on Friday afternoon.  Theater was packed with unruly children, mostly under 10 with the vast majority of them younger than 5.

THIS IS NOT A MOVIE FOR KIDS.  IT IS A MOVIE ABOUT A KID.

The bright colors and goofball visualizations of complex emotional/memory concepts kept the little bastards mostly entertained, but they obviously couldn't grasp the overall meaning of the story.

It was a very good movie about the maturation of a young girl and the complex evolution of emotional responses and personality traits as we age. 

Just don't go to the 12:55pm showing...shit will be a daycare zoo.

Did you get any head though?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on June 22, 2015, 02:05:11 PM
Did you get any head though?

She lives by the book.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Lurking Tiger on June 23, 2015, 03:20:15 AM
She lives by the book.

Neva got movie head. Got a couple hand jobs. Bravo to you sir.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 23, 2015, 08:43:12 AM
She lives by the book.

How much did that cost ya?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on June 23, 2015, 08:48:16 AM
How much did that cost ya?

Matinee tix: $12
Popcorn and lube butter: $8
Going all Jackson Pollack on the theater upholstery: Priceless


Note: I never said that she made with the head in the theater. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on June 23, 2015, 10:11:03 AM
Jupiter Ascending

I could tell when this was released that it would stink on ice.  But, the group prevailed last night and I was outvoted, so we streamed this steaming pile.

Knowing that it would be bad, I thought to myself, "Self, you should get Cheech-stoned for this and maybe it'll be amusing."

I was so wrong.  Nothing could save that abortion of a film.  The CGI was laughably bad, the acting horrible, the makeup/wardrobe were asinine and the story abysmal.

Mila was the only redeeming quality...and only because she's smoking hot.  Her acting is JLaw bad.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 23, 2015, 01:13:40 PM
Matinee tix: $12
Popcorn and lube butter: $8
Going all Jackson Pollack on the theater upholstery: Priceless


Note: I never said that she made with the head in the theater. 

I'd say you came out good on that one. In more than one way.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 23, 2015, 03:44:44 PM
Jupiter Ascending

I could tell when this was released that it would stink on ice.  But, the group prevailed last night and I was outvoted, so we streamed this steaming pile.

Knowing that it would be bad, I thought to myself, "Self, you should get Cheech-stoned for this and maybe it'll be amusing."

I was so wrong.  Nothing could save that abortion of a film.  The CGI was laughably bad, the acting horrible, the makeup/wardrobe were asinine and the story abysmal.

Mila was the only redeeming quality...and only because she's smoking hot.  Her acting is JLaw bad.
Verdict: You may need to find a new group
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on June 23, 2015, 03:57:16 PM
Jupiter Ascending

I could tell when this was released that it would stink on ice.  But, the group prevailed last night and I was outvoted, so we streamed this steaming pile.

Knowing that it would be bad, I thought to myself, "Self, you should get Cheech-stoned for this and maybe it'll be amusing."

I was so wrong.  Nothing could save that abortion of a film.  The CGI was laughably bad, the acting horrible, the makeup/wardrobe were asinine and the story abysmal.

Mila was the only redeeming quality...and only because she's smoking hot.  Her acting is JLaw bad.

The kids wanted to watch this, so, we did. The kids got bored. Nuff said.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 25, 2015, 02:58:47 PM
Inside Out

Girlfriend is a huge Pixar fan, so we went to see this on Friday afternoon.  Theater was packed with unruly children, mostly under 10 with the vast majority of them younger than 5.

THIS IS NOT A MOVIE FOR KIDS.  IT IS A MOVIE ABOUT A KID.

The bright colors and goofball visualizations of complex emotional/memory concepts kept the little bastards mostly entertained, but they obviously couldn't grasp the overall meaning of the story.

It was a very good movie about the maturation of a young girl and the complex evolution of emotional responses and personality traits as we age. 

Just don't go to the 12:55pm showing...shit will be a daycare zoo.

Watched this last night.  We were the only people in the theater with the exception of a lone woman in her 20s-30s sitting against the wall on the left who began quietly weeping about the time the volcano started singing and sniffled and chuffed until the movie credits rolled.

Disney/Pixar does as good a job as any at navigating that fine line between kid-friendly fare and grown-up entertainment.  This movie was no exception even though it meandered through some of the same coming of age sappiness that Toy Story peddled so well.

Toy Story was great.  Seriously great.  This movie was merely good.

The film was beautifully rendered when it came to the interaction between the lead character and her family (aka the real world).  The brief clip of the family driving through the west was particularly stunning to me, having actually been there just the day before.  I was struck by just how realistic the animation was. 

I think the animation was lacking in the portrayals of the competing emotions in her brain.  I wasn't impressed with the look of Joy or Sadness.  It didn't meet the high bar set by films like Toy Story or Nemo or even Rango.

The voices were uniformly good.  Amy Poehler as Joy was fantastic. So was Phyllis from The Office as Sadness.  Lewis Black's Anger was pretty good too. Didn't care as much for Bill Hader's Fear. 

The story was very similar to Toy Story except here the character doesn't grow apart from toys, but has to learn to deal with competing emotions as she ages.

The realization that the world is more than just joy is a heartbreaking one for kids.  It's a terrible thing to learn that there is fear, anger, sadness, regret, hate and all the other swirl of emotions that make us human. It's awful to take the rose colored glasses off and step outside that cocoon of safety and security that parents provide. 

This movie does an outstanding job of portraying that even the best memories are tinged with sadness and nostalgia. 

Yeah, it lays it on a little thick and tries a touch too hard to yank at the heartstrings, but the emotions rang true enough.  What's the purpose of a movie?  First, to entertain.  This one did that easily.  If it can go beyond and inform and make you think, then it's elevated itself. This one did that too.

I wish I'd seen this movie when my own daughter was eleven.  It might have changed the way I dealt with some of the emotional mazes she wandered through. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 26, 2015, 11:22:07 AM
Whiplash

Short version? 

A classic case of battered person syndrome. 

Kid takes abuse from Vern Schillinger, but doesn't get swastika tattooed on ass,  blames himself, turns on abuser and then goes right back for more abuse. 

JK Simmons was essentially playing Vern from Oz.  I can't decide if he's really an asshole who only plays nice in other movies or if he's really a nice guy who knows how to play an asshole.  This character, Terrance Fletcher, is a carbon copy of the raging asshole he played in Oz.  Just a mean son of a bitch.  Oscar worthy?  I don't know.  Seems like playing a dick stain comes easily to Simmons. 

There were some loose ends I didn't like.  Why bother introducing the girl and building that part of the story only to let it fade away. 

The film was a little ambiguous on whether the abuser was doing the abused kid a service by his abuse or not.  My take was that the kid actually came at the very end to embrace and appreciate the abuse -- that the abuse made him better at what he does. 

For that reason I decided I didn't care for the movie.  There's no happy ending or moment of clarity when an abused person submits to more abuse. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on July 01, 2015, 09:57:22 AM
Terminator Genisys

Yeah...no.  :facepalm: of a movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on July 02, 2015, 01:33:20 AM
Terminator Genisys

Yeah...no.  :facepalm: of a movie.

He did say...I'll be back.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 06, 2015, 09:00:34 AM
John Wick

Rampant senseless stylized violence wrapped up in a shambles of a story.

Keanau delivers another tone-deaf wooden performance. Not believable as an accomplished assassin. 

Alfie "Theon Greyjoy" Allen simply reeked (get it?) as the son of a Russian gangster.  One of the worse performances on film I've ever seen.  Nicholas Cage level mugging for the camera.

Mayhem was wasted in a role that required him to do little more than say "English please".

Don't know why I expected more but this was just a dull, dead movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 06, 2015, 01:06:39 PM


Keanau delivers another tone-deaf wooden performance.


Also known as: his entire career.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on July 06, 2015, 05:21:33 PM
Also known as: his entire career.

He's got some clunkers on the resume, but lifetime pass given in my book for Point Break and The Matrix.

I liked John Wick.  Fun rampage flick...Not sure why K expected high art.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on July 06, 2015, 06:27:58 PM
He's got some clunkers on the resume, but lifetime pass given in my book for Point Break and The Matrix.

I liked John Wick.  Fun rampage flick...Not sure why K expected high art.

K's definition of high art:

(http://media.mlive.com/news/baycity_impact/photo/kiss-triubtejpg-ac59466408a27614.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on July 06, 2015, 06:38:41 PM
K's definition of high art:

(http://media.mlive.com/news/baycity_impact/photo/kiss-triubtejpg-ac59466408a27614.jpg)

Exactly.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 06, 2015, 10:56:36 PM
He's got some clunkers on the resume, but lifetime pass given in my book for Point Break and The Matrix.

I liked John Wick.  Fun rampage flick...Not sure why K expected high art.

Yeah good point on the matrix but the rest are duds.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 07, 2015, 09:33:17 AM
He's got some clunkers on the resume, but lifetime pass given in my book for Point Break and The Matrix.

I liked John Wick.  Fun rampage flick...Not sure why K expected high art.

Didn't expect high art.  Just something above what it was. It got a good deal of praise, I expected some medium-level entertainment (something like Commando maybe) and then was subjected to a series of awful caricatures. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 07, 2015, 09:37:25 AM
Snowpiercer

Another movie that got tons of critical praise.  And another that flatlined for me. 

Take Mad Max, add in some Sucker Punch (minus all the hot girls), throw in some Hunger Games, stir it all up on a train and layer an avalanche of snow and you've got Snowpiercer. 

Chris Evans was really good in his role.  Ed Harris was Ed Harris.  The story was ridiculous.  The ending -- well I'm sure some of you would laud its brilliance but I was shaking my head in disgust.  Of all the directions it could have gone...

I wanted to watch this movie for a long time.  Hate I wasted my time.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 07, 2015, 11:42:13 AM
Snowpiercer

Another movie that got tons of critical praise.  And another that flatlined for me. 

Take Mad Max, add in some Sucker Punch (minus all the hot girls), throw in some Hunger Games, stir it all up on a train and layer an avalanche of snow and you've got Snowpiercer. 

Chris Evans was really good in his role.  Ed Harris was Ed Harris.  The story was ridiculous.  The ending -- well I'm sure some of you would laud its brilliance but I was shaking my head in disgust.  Of all the directions it could have gone...

I wanted to watch this movie for a long time.  Hate I wasted my time.

Soylent green is people
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 07, 2015, 11:59:34 AM
Soylent green is people

The little ones taste best. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on July 07, 2015, 12:38:58 PM
Snowpiercer

Another movie that got tons of critical praise.  And another that flatlined for me. 

Take Mad Max, add in some Sucker Punch (minus all the hot girls), throw in some Hunger Games, stir it all up on a train and layer an avalanche of snow and you've got Snowpiercer. 

Chris Evans was really good in his role. Ed Harris was Ed Harris.  The story was ridiculous.  The ending -- well I'm sure some of you would laud its brilliance but I was shaking my head in disgust.  Of all the directions it could have gone...

I wanted to watch this movie for a long time.  Hate I wasted my time.

Chris Evans is good at just breathing and standing still and blinking his eyes and stuff. 

Someone on here recommended I watch The Losers because he is in it.  I LOVED it in general, but he was freaking hysterical.  Evans was the best part of the movie other than the sex scene with whatsherface and Jeffrey Dean Morgan.  I have wanted to see him get all sexed up since he was on Grey's Anatomy.  Got my wish and how...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chityeah on July 07, 2015, 05:40:46 PM
Chris Evans is good at just breathing and standing still and blinking his eyes and stuff. 

Someone on here recommended I watch The Losers because he is in it.  I LOVED it in general, but he was freaking hysterical.  Evans was the best part of the movie other than the sex scene with whatsherface and Jeffrey Dean Morgan.  I have wanted to see him get all sexed up since he was on Grey's Anatomy.  Got my wish and how...
  Liked the angle of the dangle did you?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Tiger Wench on July 08, 2015, 10:23:03 AM
  Liked the angle of the dangle did you?

Damn skippy.  From the top of his head down... what I wouldn't have given for a wide screen camera shot...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on July 11, 2015, 01:53:38 PM
Hit Jurassic Park last night.  First 30-40 minutes were slow as Christmas. But, once they started bringing the Choppers into it, it picked up big time.  The special effects/robotics/however they make the dinos, are crazy good. They kept it real PG with the killings. Could have made it super blood and gore but chose to go with "Yep, he got chomped."  Overall, pretty entertaining.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviewsd
Post by: WiregrassTiger on July 11, 2015, 02:19:00 PM
Supposed to see Jurasic tonight. Thanks for spoiling it by saying someone gets chomped, asswipe.

But there is a debate on whether we see this or some movie about a dog. Max, I think.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: WiregrassTiger on July 12, 2015, 10:46:23 PM
So we chose Jurasic. A little too salty for my 8 yr old girl and I actually didn't know it was pg13. Bad parenting but she'd only seen G up to this point.

The kids loved it but I thought some of it was a little over the top and maybe not historically accurate. I found a few things fantastical. Like the helicopter crash. I don't remember that in any news reports from when the dinosaur actually escaped but that's been years and maybe I'm slipping.

The red head CEO of Jurasic World did a lot for me though. I'd like her to pet my dicraeosaurus.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 13, 2015, 09:15:17 AM
some of it was a little over the top and maybe not historically accurate.

Ya think?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 19, 2015, 12:31:53 AM
Ant Man

Not really sure what to make of this. 

It was more entertaining than the too-often convoluted Thor and far too often ponderous Captain America movies.  But at the same time it's hard to say it was "better" than those. 

I enjoyed the movie, but enjoyed it in sort of the same way I used to enjoy the old Batman TV series.  It was campy, it was a little silly, it took the bounds of reality and just trampled them.  In that respect it was a fun movie to watch.  Like all Marvel movies it walked a near-perfect line between fighting, comedy and exposition.  Also like all Marvel movies, it was just a bit too long. 

Paul Rudd was a concern for me.  I usually don't like him much and think he's hurt some movies that had good potential.  I wasn't sure how he could possibly pull off the action hero role.  Much like Michael Keaton in the campy Tim Burton Batman film, he was much better than I expected. 

The rest of the cast was pretty good with the sort of exception of Courtney Stoll (an actor I've liked well enough in pretty much everything I've seen him in).  Stoll didn't have the menace his role required.  Michael Douglas was good. Evangeline Lilly was unrecognizable but servicable.

I don't know how this is going to fit into the Avengers universe, although it is clearly going to do so.  I sort of wish it didn't have to and could exist as a standalone series that exists on the Avenger periphery. 

It's worth seeing.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 20, 2015, 10:41:30 PM
3 Headed Shark Attack
Danny Trejo slumming it in a terrible movie chock full of spectacularly bad acting and even worse CGI.  So bad it wasn't even bad-good.  Not even an Oscar worthy (haha) performance from Rob Van Dam could save this three-headed turkey.

Why watch?  Much of it was filmed in Pensacola. One of the boats had "Orange Beach Alabama" across the back.  Curiosity, I suppose.

Stoneheart Asylum
Ben Kingsley, Kate Beckinsale, Michael Caine and a host of crazies in a film based on an Edgar Allen Poe story set in an insane asylum.

But who's running the place?  Have the inmates taken over?

Very intriguing movie that moved just a bit too slowly and failed to deliver quite enough scares/menace for to really draw the kind of attention it should have. 

I enjoyed the story and further enjoyed figuring out bits and pieces of it as the events unfolded.  To the very end, I didn't have the entire story puzzled out. 

Very well done and under promoted movie.

Open Grave
Sharlito Copely (the bug guy from District 9) and a few other people wake up with complete amnesia and try to figure out who they are, why they are where they are and what connection they have (or don't have) to each other.  Copely's character (when he couldn't figure out his name, he called himself John) awoke in a pit filled with rotting bodies.  The rest of the amnesia victims didn't trust him and considered him an outsider.

On top of that, they are under siege from zombies. 

Copely really struggled to pull off his part of the film.  In this, at least, he was terribly bad.  He attempted to affect an American accent and was horrendous at it. Mumble mush mouth and clunky lines really hamstrung a film that could have been so very spooky and intriguing.  For that matter, every character was afflicted with terribly cheesy lines all of which were delivered pretty badly. 

The movie had an interesting story, it unspooled it at a pace that languished just a bit more than I would have liked and then had an ending that was almost a perfect fit.  If if had just ended a moment or two before it actually did. 

My big problems (trying to not give away too many spoilers)

1) The amnesia situation could have easily been solved with two pieces of paper and a pencil.
2) When soldiers fill a pit with the dead, they burn it.  Especially if the dead may be zombies.
3) No computers, no electricity?  Except there WERE computers and they WERE running.  So yeah, what about that?

The absolute worst scene came when Copely and this woman were yelling about a dog.  He overacted so badly it made me want the dog to kill his ass.  And then the dog was gone. 

I wish Sharlito was still a bug.  That would have made a better movie.  I hated him in this one. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 21, 2015, 09:29:03 AM
Stoneheart Asylum
Kate Beckinsale

Worth it just for her.

Its been in my Netflix queue a while. Looked decent. Figured if Kingsley and Caine were in it, there wasnt much of a logical chance that it could be TOO bad.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on July 21, 2015, 08:57:27 PM
Can I get a review of the blockbuster film, "Zombeavers"?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on July 21, 2015, 09:36:41 PM
Nice beaver
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on July 22, 2015, 07:35:39 AM
Can I get a review of the blockbuster film, "Zombeavers"?

I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but I believe K actually reviewed this one.

Nice beaver

Thanks.  I just had it stuffed.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 23, 2015, 04:42:50 PM
Scooby Doo and KISS, Rock and Roll Mystery

How could I not watch this?  Childhood favorite Scooby and secret toon crush Velma team up with the greatest rock band of all time to solve a theme park mystery.  What could be better? 

Yes, I know your answer is "lots of things"

This would have been a movie better done in, say, 1980 or so.  Sort of hard to believe Daphne has a juicy for Paul these days.  But when you consider that Daphne was 16 in 1969, she might actually be a little long in the tooth for the Starchild.  She was 28 when they reached the top of the rock world in 1978.  She'd be 62 today -- same age as the KISS crew actually. 

But all that's meaningless. Daphne is eternally 16.  Paul is eternally 20-something.  So it works for the cartoon. 

This film fused a lot of the goofiness of the 1978 "KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park" TV movie with some typical Scooby elements.  Throw in a few KISS songs and you got what you got.

There was a mystery, the reveal at the end, chases, scared Shaggy all mixed up and merged with super power KISS characters.  Paul with the magic eye, Catman turning feral, Space Ace riding the lightning and surly Gene blowing flames. 

There was also Gene doing some weirdo impersonation of the Batman voice or something. 

So many KISS inside jokes.  The powerful black diamond, characters named Shandi, Beth, Christine and Delilah, and more. Numerous "eggs" that nobody but hard core fans are likely to get. 

It was corny. It was silly. It lost its way with the flying guitar through the portal of time storyline.  It was about what you'd expect from a Scooby Doo movie featuring KISS.  Thankfully Scrappy Doo did not make an appearance.  Sadly neither did Don Knotts or Dick Van Dyke.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A35YBHx0ots

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on July 23, 2015, 05:09:17 PM
You have entirely too much time on your hands. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 23, 2015, 05:37:52 PM
You have entirely too much time on your hands.

Good song.  Saw it performed live not too long ago. 

So far this summer I've sorta seen Elton John and attended Def Leppard, Styx, Imagine Dragons, Boston, Kansas, Tesla and some other concerts I can't remember.  Still have Van Halen, Lenny Kravitz, Billy Idol, Hall and Oates and a few more to go before my summer tour ends.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 23, 2015, 10:11:11 PM
Good song.  Saw it performed live not too long ago. 

So far this summer I've sorta seen Elton John and attended Def Leppard, Styx, Imagine Dragons, Boston, Kansas, Tesla and some other concerts I can't remember.  Still have Van Halen, Lenny Kravitz, Billy Idol, Hall and Oates and a few more to go before my summer tour ends.

Billy Joel, Fifth Dimension, Fleetwood Mac, The Who and the Rolling Stones was my spring/summer tour. 'Twas teh awesomez. And yeah I know, one of those doesn't go with the rest. But I did get to hear Aquarius live. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 23, 2015, 11:23:30 PM
Seinfeld

Okay, not a movie but I don't really know where to put this.  Went to see him do his standup tonight in Mobile. 

Always liked the sardonic, sarcastic, blackish nature of his shows and while it was never fall-down-in-the-floor funny, I greatly admired the intelligence of it -- even when the subject matter may have been base.  Smart humor. 

Wasn't sure what to expect with his routine, but I found it to be fantastic.  He was entertaining, engaging and sharp.  Looked great for a very youthful 62.  I found him making some of the very same observations I make about the world but expressing those observations in a far funnier manner than I ever could. 

The best part to me came when he cut down a moron who bellowed "rawl tahd" during a pause in the show. 

He compared the phrase to a nasty belch. "It's like you can't help yourself, it's one of those burps that just comes out and you can't control it." He ridiculed the phrase itself.  "Tides don't roll. They may rise or ebb or do other things, but rolling isn't one of them."   He told the guy that he'd be hard pressed to find anything he cared any less about than rolling tides.  He did pander a bit at the end and said that if it helped the guy feel better he's pretend for the next 45 minutes that he cared, but once he was off the stage he'd care no more. 

I really enjoyed his show.  Not something I ever have to see again (and tickets were pricey for comedy) but I'm glad to be able to say that I did see him live at least one time.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 28, 2015, 11:27:16 PM
Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No

I know it's supposed to be bad.  That's part of the concept.  But good grief, this was awful.  It was so bad it almost wasn't any fun. 

Machete was bad.  But Danny Trejo, Jessica Alba (looking magnificent) and Michelle Rodriguez (looking impossibly good) played it up, hammed it up and made it a spectacular movie.  It's even better in retrospect than it was on first viewing. 

Sharknado?  It was just shitty bad.  Super shitty.  Bad CGI. Terrible acting. Awful makeup. Worst dialogue ever. Dumbest story ever contrived.  In Machete Trejo, Alba and Rodriguez looked like they were having fun. The shitty performers in this god awful thing didn't appear to be having any fun at all.

*** SPOILERS ***

Mark Cuban was stiffly awful as a gun-toting president. 
Tara Reid looks like red-assed hell. If she ever was attractive, she left that attribute behind years ago. And she can't act a single lick.
Bo Derek looked like a monkey with an electric drill got ahold of her face and body.  And she can't act either.
Hasselhoff has become a joke in and of himself.  Terrible.
The best actor in the entire damn movie was probably Matt Lauer. Either him or Chris Jericho of WWE. Or maybe Al Roker.  Or maybe Cassie Scerbo's titties. 

When the ultra shitty Ian Zeiring dove into a shark's mouth in space and then used the burning fish to survive re-entry to earth's atmosphere, it was pretty obvious this ridiculous film series had -- pardon the pun -- jumped the shark. 

If you're going to do a stupid movie, do a stupid movie. Give it some lightness and levity.  This thing was just a cardboard turd floating in a pool of doo doo water. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on July 29, 2015, 08:00:32 AM
Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No

I know it's supposed to be bad.  That's part of the concept.  But good grief, this was awful.  It was so bad it almost wasn't any fun. 

Machete was bad.  But Danny Trejo, Jessica Alba (looking magnificent) and Michelle Rodriguez (looking impossibly good) played it up, hammed it up and made it a spectacular movie.  It's even better in retrospect than it was on first viewing. 

Sharknado?  It was just shitty bad.  Super shitty.  Bad CGI. Terrible acting. Awful makeup. Worst dialogue ever. Dumbest story ever contrived.  In Machete Trejo, Alba and Rodriguez looked like they were having fun. The shitty performers in this god awful thing didn't appear to be having any fun at all.

*** SPOILERS ***

Mark Cuban was stiffly awful as a gun-toting president. 
Tara Reid looks like red-assed hell. If she ever was attractive, she left that attribute behind years ago. And she can't act a single lick.
Bo Derek looked like a monkey with an electric drill got ahold of her face and body.  And she can't act either.
Hasselhoff has become a joke in and of himself.  Terrible.
The best actor in the entire damn movie was probably Matt Lauer. Either him or Chris Jericho of WWE. Or maybe Al Roker.  Or maybe Cassie Scerbo's titties. 

When the ultra shitty Ian Zeiring dove into a shark's mouth in space and then used the burning fish to survive re-entry to earth's atmosphere, it was pretty obvious this ridiculous film series had -- pardon the pun -- jumped the shark. 

If you're going to do a stupid movie, do a stupid movie. Give it some lightness and levity.  This thing was just a cardboard turd floating in a pool of doo doo water.

Masochist.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 31, 2015, 11:48:17 AM
Masochist.
He enjoys it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on July 31, 2015, 12:03:23 PM
What does chewing food have to do with any of this?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 01, 2015, 02:35:30 AM
Pixels

Adam Sandler makes shitty movies.  He makes shitty movies for one reason: To put himself onscreen with women he would never be able to touch in real life.

Click: Kate Beckinsale
Blended: Drew Barrymore
Grownups: Salma Hayek
Just Go With It: Jennifer Aniston
Zohan: Emmanuelle Chriqui
Deeds: Wynona Rider

And so on. 

This movie was to give him the chance to attach himself to Michelle Monaghan by doing the same old mumble mouthed loser with a good heart routine that supposedly endears himself to all the other women in all the other movies. 

Here he's an ex video game wizard called upon to save the earth. 

The CGI was fantastic (3D isn't worth the upcharge for sure, though) and the story was different from anything we've seen.  But Adam Sandler is a lazy fuck.  He makes movies that have great potential but are lazy and uninspired.  He drags his loser friends around in those movies when they shouldn't be on screen.  Kevin James is terrible.  Josh Gad wasn't given enough freedom.  Tyrion Lannister screwed up by having a terrible accent. 

So much of the movie would have worked for me, though.  The video game references were on target.  So too were the cultural references from Reagan to Rourke to Hall and Oates. 

When I was 14 an arcade called Wizards opened up in the middle of the town square.  It became THE place to go for teenagers age 14-17.  Girls were always hanging around in terrycloth shorts and tube tops (whilst wearing lip gloss).  Dudes smoked out front and played video games and pinball inside.  I worked the hayfields in the daytime to make money and then squandered it there on bootleg booze, smokes and rolls of quarters to play games. 

Asteroids
Joust
Centipede
Burger Time
Pitfall
Pac Man
Defender
Galaxians
Donkey Kong
Frogger
Space Invaders

And the greatest arcade game ever: Galaga.  I could play Galaga for hours.  Pretty damn good at it, actually.

Those were some pretty fantastic times.  Go play some games, ride to the county line with some friends (and girls if one were fortunate), down a few, have a little fun and then head back to hit the arcade again.   No cell phones, parents didn't know where you were except "at Wizards."   Of course the old folks tried to shut it down.  Didn't like us kids loitering with our loud music and long hair and funny cigarettes.  Didn't like finding Mary Jane's panties on top of the trash can in the alley.  Then some numb fuck hit the police station with a pipe bomb when they started hassling us regularly.  And Wizards was no more.  Curfew.  Awesome times. 

Anyway, I digress.

This movie got all that right.  The arcade games were a major (and serious) part of life.  I remember the newspaper back home doing a profile on a guy who played Asteroids for something like 40 straight hours without losing a life or something. 

It was so crazy and cool to hear the video game sounds -- like the little warbling scream the human characters made in Defender -- as part of the film.  My teenage girls were not as enamored. None of those retro references resonated with them at all. 

They still liked the movie and recognized Pac Man and Donkey Kong, but the rest went over their heads. 

It was better than the typical Sandler turd burger, but still wasn't a "must see" movie.  Fun enough but no real laughs. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 01, 2015, 02:47:36 AM
It Follows

Imagine two snails fucking.   Two elderly snails.  Two geriatric snails.  In slow motion.

That's the pace at which this alleged horror movie moved. 

The premise was decent.  You have sex and the person with which you had the relations passes on a demonic presence that follows you and tries to kill you.  The only way to get rid of it is to have sex with somebody else and the demon then becomes their problem.  Only issue there is that if the person doesn't escape the demon and is killed by it, the demon reverts back to you and you gotta fuck again to rid yourself of it.  Nobody can see the demon but you. 

Too bad the movie was completely mishandled by the worst director on the face of the earth.  Long lingering shots of tree branches that were unrelated in any way to the story.  When the two main characters go to visit a school, you hear the morning announcements in their entirety despite the fact that none of the announcements are related to the story either.  Continually stupid setups.  Just horrible directing.

You get the demon, the solution is easy.  If you are a man you go fuck a prostitute.  Within 24 hours you're six or seven down the demon depth chart.  If you are a woman, you fuck your man and then invite him to go fuck a prostitute.  End of story. 

Instead this movie just dragged around looking at trees, several miles of graffiti, a couple of car rides showing streets filled with run down houses, a really stupid pool scene and the least scary "demons" in the history of moviedom. 

I love horror movies and this shit filled dunce fest was hailed as one of the great new additions to the genre. 

It sucked leprosy-riddled hedgehog dicks. 

Don't watch this movie or you'll think Snowpiercer was pretty fucking fantastic.  And it wasn't.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on August 03, 2015, 08:53:15 AM
Mission Impossible 5

Kind of like Mission Impossible 4. No love story angle which was nice. Some crazy stunts. Shaun of the Dead is funny. Popcorn movie but mostly fun unless you apply an ounce of brain power to it. Then you'll realize how stupid the plot really is but turn your brain off for two hours and fun can be had.

Side note: never do popcorn on a Sunday afternoon. Pretty sure they are serving me warmed up stuff from Saturday and my anus is still mad at me for that small helping.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 04, 2015, 04:57:41 PM
Mission Impossible 5

Kind of like Mission Impossible 4. No love story angle which was nice. Some crazy stunts. Shaun of the Dead is funny. Popcorn movie but mostly fun unless you apply an ounce of brain power to it. Then you'll realize how stupid the plot really is but turn your brain off for two hours and fun can be had.

Side note: never do popcorn on a Sunday afternoon. Pretty sure they are serving me warmed up stuff from Saturday and my anus is still mad at me for that small helping.

Side note:   Kaos is my name. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: DnATL on August 04, 2015, 08:22:58 PM
Mission Impossible 5

Kind of like Mission Impossible 4. No love story angle which was nice. Some crazy stunts. Shaun of the Dead is funny. Popcorn movie but mostly fun unless you apply an ounce of brain power to it. Then you'll realize how stupid the plot really is but turn your brain off for two hours and fun can be had.

Side note: never do popcorn on a Sunday afternoon. Pretty sure they are serving me warmed up stuff from Saturday and my anus is still mad at me for that small helping.
Side note:   Kaos is my name.
Did you also catch a Sunday afternoon madanus?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on August 05, 2015, 11:32:27 AM
Mission Impossible 5

Kind of like Mission Impossible 4. No love story angle which was nice. Some crazy stunts. Shaun of the Dead is funny. Popcorn movie but mostly fun unless you apply an ounce of brain power to it. Then you'll realize how stupid the plot really is but turn your brain off for two hours and fun can be had.

Side note: never do popcorn on a Sunday afternoon. Pretty sure they are serving me warmed up stuff from Saturday and my anus is still mad at me for that small helping.



So I won't see this one either.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 10, 2015, 08:32:10 AM
The Gift

The pace was way too slow.  The characters were not defined clearly enough.  The side trails it chased were pointless. 

Bateman is good and could excel in the right role.  But he wasn't allowed to be quite edgy enough to work here.  None of the characters were, actually. 

It could have gone so many different directions.  Too bad the paths it elected to follow were the least interesting of all.  There was not enough menace, too many things left only hinted at that needed more exposition, too much anticipation for such little bang. 

Do not recommend despite Bateman's performance.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 15, 2015, 01:17:51 AM
The Man from U.N.C.L.E

Was headed to see Straight Outta Compton, but tonight's show was sold out.  I almost said something different that referenced a Georgia Bulldog tradition, but changed my mind.  Would not have been a good night for a middle-aged white man to see that movie.  It will do fierce box office I'm sure.  But the general behavior of the throng, the cacophony that accompanied the crowd and the destruction that was caused in the theater and around the concession stands (heard some of the workers lamenting the "wreck" that was left in the theater as they tried to clean up trash and other items that had been simply dropped to the ground as opposed to trash bins around the front) it makes me wonder if "that" audience is one theater owners truly covet.

So I chose Man from UNCLE instead.  Good choice.  Pretty obvious from the tone and visuals that the same guy who did the Sherlock Holmes reboot with Downey, Jr. also handled this film.  It even had the requisite show something and then back up and in slower-mo, show what actually happened (the bare knuckle brawl from Holmes 2 being the perfect example).  It was overused. 

The biggest problem is that this movie had no Downey Jr. or Jude Law to carry it.  It paired Superman and the Lone Ranger.  Think about that.  The two blandest, most do-goodey, boringest, self-righteous "heroes" in the entir comic/film pantheon.  And that's what you had here. 

Superman wasn't bad (you quickly forgot he was Superman) but his suave patter was oatmeal.  It didn't have the crackle and pop -- or depth -- that Downey brought to Holmes. 

The Lone Ranger wasn't bad (I didn't even remember he'd been the Ranger, that performance was so forgettable) but he was stiff, dry and struggled at times to maintain a really shitty accent. 

Most of you won't remember the original series.  I do vaguely.  My dad watched what I guess were re-runs when I was a small child.  What I remember was that the TV show was fun.  The two actors (who now hate each other, and one is Ducky on NCIS) played well off each other, they had an easy on-screen chemistry and the show sparked and sizzled with snarky dialogue. 

It was also on TV at the perfect time, airing from 1964 to 1968.  The country lived in fear of the Russian menace, buried in the middle of the Cold War, imagining spies around every corner.  Kennedy had just been assassinated, Oswald was widely assumed to have Russian leanings, Vietnam was beginning to ramp up.  It was a different time and place. 

This movie was set in the same era.  Where Holmes was able to evoke a legitimate sense of time and place for the quaint and odd characters, this film never really found that same groove. It just seemed a little dated.  Kids can imagine Victorian England I think.  But it's hard for them to get their heads around the 60s.  Maybe just me, but I think this film would truly have worked better if the director had chunked the era and reset the movie in a normal time. 

The TV show was fun.  This movie could have been, but just never quite got there. 

The girl was hot.  Seriously hot. 

I will say that I MUCH prefer this treatment of TV shows I loved than the farcical (and shitty) reboots like Ben Stiller's fucking OFFENSIVE Starsky and Hutch, Drew Barrymore's limpid Charlie's Angels, the blah A-Team and the other quasi-spoofs that have been occasionally done. 

Starsky and Hutch could have been a FANTASTIC movie with the right players.  Imagine like Mark Ruffalo and Bradley Cooper or Ryan Reynolds or something with a good script... 

Anyway, this movie isn't bad.  I enjoyed it.  I thought the ending (well, one of them as there were numerous endings) was a little contrived and anti-climactic, but it wasn't bad. 

Can't say rush out and see it, but if you pull it up on Netflix one day, give it a shot. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on August 18, 2015, 10:53:34 PM
Straight Outta Compton is, predictably, awesome.  I wanted more back-story and would have gladly traded some of the post-break up meandering to know how Cube and Dre started working at the club together.

Oshea Junior is legit.  He's got his pop's mannerisms down pretty well.  Look out for remakes of Are We There Yet and the Friday franchise.  Watch for the origin of "Bye, Felicia" in SOC.

The guys that play Suge and Pac are dead-ringers...Snoop was poorly cast.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chityeah on August 19, 2015, 12:02:41 AM
Straight Outta Compton is, predictably, awesome.  I wanted more back-story and would have gladly traded some of the post-break up meandering to know how Cube and Dre started working at the club together.

Oshea Junior is legit.  He's got his pop's mannerisms down pretty well.  Look out for remakes of Are We There Yet and the Friday franchise.  Watch for the origin of "Bye, Felicia" in SOC.

The guys that play Suge and Pac are dead-ringers...Snoop was poorly cast.
Huh?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 19, 2015, 12:50:36 AM
Shit on a Plane, aka Hot Pursuit and Get Hard

Plane delayed in Texas.  My 9 am flight left at 4 pm.  They "had to get a different plane out of the maintenance hanger because the original plane was unable to fly."  That's scary in its own right.  For my inconvenience I got a $7 meal voucher, a $50 credit toward future flights (some exceptions apply) and free TV/movies on the flight. 

I started trying to watch Hot Pursuit with Mangled-English Boobs and I-used-to-think-she-was-cute Reese Witherspoon. 

Here Reese channeled her massively shitty Holly Hunter impersonation.  I expected her at any moment to tell Hi to go "git her thayut baybee."   Sweet Moses she was terrible.  Her performance was among the worst I've ever seen in any movie I've ever watched.  The cast of Zombeavers was significantly better. I've seen better acting in a porno. 

Mush mouth mexican big tits was no better.  Awful.  Horrible. Abysmal. Gratingly bad. 

I rarely -- if ever -- give up on a movie.  I've watched some horrendous shit to the bitter, bile-spewing end. 

This rotten moldy turd of a movie?  I gave up about 20 minutes in.  I can't think of any comedy I've ever seen that came close to being this bad except possibly that shockingly shitty Bruce Willis/Tracy Morgan sulfur fart of a film.  I turned it off.  Changed the channel.

Switched over to Get Hard, having missed the opening set up. 

It was barely fair, but in comparison to what I'd been watching it was a vast improvement.  Will Ferrell once again playing the same lame ass character he plays in every movie and Kevin Hart snoozing through this weak ass film to get a payday.  That was about it. 

There was some useless offensive material, a mild semi-chuckle here and there, but otherwise it was pretty lame. 

I'm sick of Will Ferrell playing the same character.  He's as bad as Adam Sandler about that shit. 

I wouldn't watch either of them again.  I'd watch a Nicholas Cage marathon before I'd watch one minute of Hot Pursuit.  It was that bad. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on August 19, 2015, 01:28:00 AM
Straight Outta Compton is, predictably, awesome.  I wanted more back-story and would have gladly traded some of the post-break up meandering to know how Cube and Dre started working at the club together.

Oshea Junior is legit.  He's got his pop's mannerisms down pretty well.  Look out for remakes of Are We There Yet and the Friday franchise.  Watch for the origin of "Bye, Felicia" in SOC.

The guys that play Suge and Pac are dead-ringers...Snoop was poorly cast.
I can't wait to watch thanks for the review.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: bgreene on August 19, 2015, 01:45:08 AM
Straight Outta Compton is, predictably, awesome.  I wanted more back-story and would have gladly traded some of the post-break up meandering to know how Cube and Dre started working at the club together.

Oshea Junior is legit.  He's got his pop's mannerisms down pretty well.  Look out for remakes of Are We There Yet and the Friday franchise.  Watch for the origin of "Bye, Felicia" in SOC.

The guys that play Suge and Pac are dead-ringers...Snoop was poorly cast.




I know it's long, but it gives answers to some of the questions I had.
https://youtu.be/Q7HoVypBqug
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on August 19, 2015, 11:21:59 AM
Kid that played Eazy E stole the show in Straight Outta Compton.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 19, 2015, 11:46:52 AM
You guys are skrate up hood.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on August 19, 2015, 01:58:00 PM
You guys are skrate up hood.


werd:

(http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u1/miked0003/64293_10200785536980028_1029945265_n1_zpsdn3xnsyy.jpg) (http://s164.photobucket.com/user/miked0003/media/64293_10200785536980028_1029945265_n1_zpsdn3xnsyy.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 20, 2015, 10:32:47 PM
Disney: Descendants

Disney Channel movie aimed at Tweens.  Basic story is the descendants of the Disney big bads like Malificent get to go to school with the kids of the do-gooders. 

My 15 year old girls wanted to watch it.

The lead actress is one of those Disney is trying to flog as the next big thing.

Over the years I've watched this channel sink to lower and lower depths in terms of the actors it tries to build.  Miley was bad, but when you're flopping around with rancid shit like Zach and Cody, those smart ass kids on Jessie, that disgusting fat sow on Austin/Ally (that entire cast is an abomination) and a blogging dog you're swimming in the toilet bowl. With this hideous screeching, mugging puke, Disney has scraped the scummy remnants of a diarrhea dump.  This bitch CANNOT act.  Her singing makes me want to murder meerkats.  She makes random squeaking and moaning noises like Michael Jackson having and epileptic fit. She's awful. 

Add in the ugly ass punk kid from Jessie and a turd load of other really shitty actors and actresses?  You've got this stinking load of dumbo dung. 

Yeah and while you're at it, fuck up some pretty clear concepts, mmmk? 

Yeah Cruella was a black woman who looks like aunt Esther from Sanford and Son.  And sleeping beauty's mom was a black woman.  Except she's white.  No. 

Oh lord this thing is disturbingly bad. 

Disney spent a lot of money trying to polish this turd cast. But it still reeks of shit. 

I would like to to have seen it with the cast of that Victoria Justice show doing these roles instead of these insipid Disney kids. Too bad that's not going to happen. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 14, 2015, 06:46:16 AM
The Visit

M. Night Shalamadang was ruined by The Sixth Sense.  Good movie with the "big twist" that people talked about for months.  He's spent the rest of his career trying to recreate that "big surprise" instead of concentrating on making good movies. 

Unbreakable was fair: Surprise Jules is a bad guy!, Signs was borderline: Surprise, aliens don't like water! and then he just shit the twisty bed.  The Village: Surprise, it's today (like no plane would EVER fly over).  The Happening: Surprise, it's plants! The Devil: Surprise, it's one of us! Lady in the Water: Surprise, Paul Giamatti sucks. 

Once again, he's got to jam a pretty apparent surprise into a film that actually has a good premise and a chance to be pretty scary. 

Sadly the premise is left to languish, the words the characters are given to say are laborious and there are too many possibilities left unexplored. 

I don't think the movie was supposed to be funny but twice during the film I laughed so hard I nearly made myself sick.  Laughed more and harder at this movie than any Will Ferrell film in the last ten years.  Combined. 

The movie wasn't as scary as it should have been.  The actors were god awful with the exception of the grandparents -- who weren't allowed to really stretch their characters as they could/should have.  The girl was exceedingly verbose and spoke as if an adult who knew nothing about children wrote her dialogue. The rapping boy was annoying but did have some  good comedic relief moments.  The mother -- Kathryn Hahn -- was absolutely terrible.

The movie dragged and dragged and dragged with nothing much but some occasionally strange behavior to break up the non-stop babbling by overly-verbose daughter.  Then apparently Shamalamabingbong looked at his watch, realized he only had seven minutes to wrap up the film and then forced every second of action -- from reveal to closure -- in a four-minute blur. 

The PG-13 rating never allowed the movie to explore the depths of depravity it could have. It never crossed that edge into being scary enough. There was never nearly enough menace.  You never sensed that anyone was in any real peril.  By the time the menace should have manifested itself, Slammayalaming was rushing to the credits. It was mostly just strange goofiness and sort of what you'd expect from old people sliding into dementia.

I read somewhere that the movie was made for less than $5 million and it looked it.  The thing appeared to be filmed on an iPhone as most of it was just the kids filming themselves. 

It was better than that shitty Unfriended, though. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 27, 2015, 11:22:01 PM
Black Mass
Whitey Bulger's story has always intrigued me.  I've read four or five books about the guy.  Watched several documentaries.  When I was up there a year or so ago I drove through South Boston and found some of the places where Whitey hung out, places where he killed people in broad daylight. 

The man was a straight up psychopath. Maybe the LSD experiments he signed up for in Alcatraz messed him up.  Maybe it was the death of his son. Maybe his mom. But he was killing people way before that.  Whitey's probably the last larger than life OG.  The story of his rise to power, his ruthless South Boston rule and his life on the lam should have been a compelling one.  Too bad this movie picked the wrong pieces of Whitey's life on which to focus, left too much untold and moved at a snail's pace.

Johnny Depp did a fantastic job of capturing the mannerisms, the look, the aura of menace, the general psycopathy. He became Whitey.  Performances like this are why I once thought Depp might be the best actor of this generation.  You take this, the first Jack Sparrow, Donnie Brasco, Scissorhands, Once Upon a time in Mexico, and a few others and that body of work is outstanding. He's got just as many shitty ones, though.

The rest of the cast had the cachet, but really dragged the movie down.

Bendingdick Cumberbitch was bloody awful as Billy Bulger. He didn't fit the part at all. His Boston accent was the same snooty british shit he did as Sherlock. Fail.

Joel Edgerton was a flop as John Connolly.  The film didn't spend nearly enough time examining the real relationship between Whitey and John.  It wasted too much time doing other shit. 

Completely wasted: Kevin Bacon, Adam Scott, Corey Stoll, Juno Temple. No point in any of them being in it. 

Whitey's story is fascinating.  The movie just failed to make the case.  Not for lack of trying on Depp's part.  He was fantastic.  The rest was just limp. 

Parts of Bulger's story have already made it to the screen.  Jack Nicholson's character in The Departed was loosely based on Whitey. 

The showtime series Brotherhood was essentially a carbon copy of Bulger's story with a Rhode Island setting.  In case you never watched it, the series was pretty good.  Jason Isaacs was the older brother, the ruthless gangster who went away then came back to rule the neighborhood. Jason Clarke was the younger brother who was a state political power, a senator and straight up guy.  Their story was Jimmy and Billy made over. Also some nude annabeth gish in that show which adds to its luster.  Better to watch this series than the long and plodding movie that even Depp's best efforts couldn't save.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on September 28, 2015, 09:02:59 AM
Black Mass
Black Mass Review

That's disappointing I was looking forward to seeing this.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on September 28, 2015, 09:27:05 AM
That's disappointing I was looking forward to seeing this.

Ditto....why K gotta be fucking up our high expectations?

Imma still go see it though. Like him, I'm intrigued by the guy. Bad mofo.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on September 28, 2015, 09:33:28 AM
That's disappointing I was looking forward to seeing this.

Negative Asshole.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on September 28, 2015, 09:34:53 AM
Don't let K's review discourage you.  Nothing is ever good enough for him.

It's a very good movie and Depp is fantastic (the makeup is a little off-putting, though...he looks like Ray Liotta knocked up Leo DiCaprio and they had an elderly baby.  I kept waiting for Depp to scream at KA-ren!)

Agree with the complaints about pacing, the movie drags a bit, but it's worth your time and $.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 28, 2015, 09:43:07 AM
Ditto....why K gotta be fucking up our high expectations?

Imma still go see it though. Like him, I'm intrigued by the guy. Bad mofo.

It's worth seeing just for Depp's performance. 

I might have liked it better had I not known all the things they left out. Had I not known how some things were glossed over or ridiculously simplified.  Had I not known that some things were just not as portrayed. 

The scenes with the FBI were really poorly done IMO.  Would have been better to just make the movie about Jimmy and had the FBI guy hovering around the periphery or make the movie about the FBI and have Jimmy out there as an evil specter. 

It was too long, but it didn't do nearly enough to explain:

> Jimmy's rise to power and the Kileen-Mullen war
> His control of the drug trade
> The whole Valhalla situation
> How he took care of rivals
> How Connolly got seduced by money, power and fame
> Jimmy's women
> His prep for life on the lam
> His relationship with Steve and Kevin, and how he controlled them

There were bits and pieces of all of that in there.  I took friends who knew nothing about the Winter Hill gang and all the disconnected pieces of story left them confused about what was happening and why.  I was also a little confused about what they were trying to do with Jimmy.  Were they trying to make him a little sympathetic?  They softened the edges sometimes. 

American Hustle was similar because there was such a broad story that had to be told, but that movie did it so much better than this one.  I was really hoping for an epic that would stand with Goodfellas or Casino in the mob movie pantheon. Just wasn't that.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 01, 2015, 06:59:46 AM
Due Date

Might have been reviewed back on page 74.  Don't recall.  Never seen this 2010 flick but it came on last night. Robert Downey, Jr. and Zach Gafalakinikalis...alafinis basically remake Planes, Trains & Automobiles.  Exact same story line. Probably more what the sequel would be like.  Downey Jr. plays Steve Martin's straight-laced character trying to get home to his wife without wallet or luggage.  Gafalafa...err, Zach plays Candy, who is an aspiring actor on his way to Hollywood. 

Snickers-a-plenty.  A big waste of $$$ if you saw it in the theater.  A smaller waste of $$$ of you rented it.  Pretty entertaining if it comes on at 8:00 on a Wednesday night.  Worth the watch there. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 01, 2015, 03:38:56 PM
Due Date

Might have been reviewed back on page 74.  Don't recall.  Never seen this 2010 flick but it came on last night. Robert Downey, Jr. and Zach Gafalakinikalis...alafinis basically remake Planes, Trains & Automobiles.  Exact same story line. Probably more what the sequel would be like.  Downey Jr. plays Steve Martin's straight-laced character trying to get home to his wife without wallet or luggage.  Gafalafa...err, Zach plays Candy, who is an aspiring actor on his way to Hollywood. 

Snickers-a-plenty.  A big waste of $$$ if you saw it in the theater.  A smaller waste of $$$ of you rented it.  Pretty entertaining if it comes on at 8:00 on a Wednesday night.  Worth the watch there.

Official review on Page 26.
Other mentions on Page 22
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on October 02, 2015, 01:45:04 PM
100 pages and going strong congrats K.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on October 02, 2015, 02:16:36 PM
100 pages and going strong congrats K.


No shit, dude be checking out the flicks.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 05, 2015, 11:16:54 AM
The Green Inferno

Waited a long time to see this.  Trailers first started popping up a couple of years ago. 

Basic gist:  Group of activists head off into the Peruvian jungle to save a village of rarely-seen natives from the evil corporate bulldozers.  Plane crashes and the naive green-peacers get an up close and personal look at the cannibalistic villagers. 

Expected tons of gore and grossness. Got a little of that. 

Saw at the beginning that the special effects were headed up by Greg Nicotero -- familiar to Walking Dead fans as the SFX lead for that show.  And it was pretty obvious.  There were some clear WD parallels except the natives were the zombies.  Same kind of visuals. 

Hated all the activists fuckers except one.  Wanted them all to die grisly deaths.   One did.  The rest were pretty anticlimactic.  The one who needed to die most, didn't. Or did he? Who the fuck knows?

The story was lame, the ending was dumber than dogshit. 

If I barely escape the clutches of a cannibal tribe?  I'm going to want that place nuked off the fucking map. 

I was really looking for a Hostel-like level of uncomfortability and this just didn't reach it. 

Can't recommend.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 24, 2015, 10:33:47 AM
Crimson Peak

Expected a horror movie.  Got a few weird ghostly pop-ups most of which were in the previews. 

The rest of the movie was horrible period outfits, terrible hairdos, dramatic music and knowing glances (leers) between the earnest cast. 

The back story about some ridiculous attempt to mine crimson clay from under a sagging house added nothing to the film and actually caused it to drag out longer than it should. 

The "shocker" wasn't really shocking at all given the long leers and assorted whispered comments. 

I didn't hate it, but it was more puff than substance.  More a chance for Jessica Chastain to give up on even trying a british accent while grumping around in heavy victorian garb, more a chance for Loki to smirk, and more a chance for Alice to crawl through a puffy shouldered rabbit hole. 

The lead girl was so ugly it was hard to watch.  She's a terrible actress and looking at her for that long made my eyes hurt.  Her outfits with giant balls of shoulder material were off-putting and annoying.  I hope to never see her in another movie again.  She was atrocious. 

The movie should have decided to be either the story of some swindling con artists trying to keep their family name alive or the story of a really ugly girl trapped in a house with ghosts and boogeys.  It needed a more supernatural flair to work as horror.  Would have been so much better if Loki or Chastain turned out to be vampires or dead or something.  Or if the ghosts had never been part of the mix and it was a straight up story about a pair of sickos who charm people out of their fortunes.   Trying to straddle the fence between worlds didn't work. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on October 28, 2015, 10:45:10 AM
Crimson Peak

Expected a horror movie.  Got a few weird ghostly pop-ups most of which were in the previews. 

The rest of the movie was horrible period outfits, terrible hairdos, dramatic music and knowing glances (leers) between the earnest cast. 

The back story about some ridiculous attempt to mine crimson clay from under a sagging house added nothing to the film and actually caused it to drag out longer than it should. 

The "shocker" wasn't really shocking at all given the long leers and assorted whispered comments. 

I didn't hate it, but it was more puff than substance.  More a chance for Jessica Chastain to give up on even trying a british accent while grumping around in heavy victorian garb, more a chance for Loki to smirk, and more a chance for Alice to crawl through a puffy shouldered rabbit hole. 

The lead girl was so ugly it was hard to watch.  She's a terrible actress and looking at her for that long made my eyes hurt.  Her outfits with giant balls of shoulder material were off-putting and annoying.  I hope to never see her in another movie again.  She was atrocious. 

The movie should have decided to be either the story of some swindling con artists trying to keep their family name alive or the story of a really ugly girl trapped in a house with ghosts and boogeys.  It needed a more supernatural flair to work as horror.  Would have been so much better if Loki or Chastain turned out to be vampires or dead or something.  Or if the ghosts had never been part of the mix and it was a straight up story about a pair of sickos who charm people out of their fortunes.   Trying to straddle the fence between worlds didn't work.

Honestly you should have known it was going to suck by the title.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 06, 2015, 06:56:01 AM
Vacation

I loathe Ed Helms. He was the absolute worst part of The Office.  He nearly ruined We're The Millers. I hate to see him sing.  Why should I have expected him to do anything but disgrace the Vacation franchise? 

The original movies had a goofy sweetness that was mixed with some occasional weird vulgarity.  This reboot was a mass of crude vulgarity mixed with a tiny dash of goofy sweetness that didn't ring close to true. 

Dick jokes. Vagina jokes. Masturbation jokes. Rim job jokes. Glory hole jokes.  None of that had a place in the Chevy Chase Vacation pantheon. That's all this film was. 

I should have known to turn it off when the opening credits rolled over a song that said the word "motherfucker" about a dozen times and when the very first scene included a gag about giving oral sex to a child (as well as an f-bomb from the son of Tom Hanks).   

By the time the movie had shitted, fucked, dicked, pussied, whored, and masturbated its way to a shockingly bad cameo from Chevy and Beverly all I had was contempt for this wrong-headed attempt to revive the franchise. 

Everything that made the original Vacation movies classics was bastardized and smeared by a string of unnecessary profanity and vulgarity. It was a real shame and I'm sorry I saw it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 06, 2015, 09:57:24 AM
Vacation

I loathe Ed Helms. He was the absolute worst part of The Office.  He nearly ruined We're The Millers. I hate to see him sing.  Why should I have expected him to do anything but disgrace the Vacation franchise? 

The original movies had a goofy sweetness that was mixed with some occasional weird vulgarity.  This reboot was a mass of crude vulgarity mixed with a tiny dash of goofy sweetness that didn't ring close to true. 

Dick jokes. Vagina jokes. Masturbation jokes. Rim job jokes. Glory hole jokes.  None of that had a place in the Chevy Chase Vacation pantheon. That's all this film was. 

I should have known to turn it off when the opening credits rolled over a song that said the word "motherfucker" about a dozen times and when the very first scene included a gag about giving oral sex to a child (as well as an f-bomb from the son of Tom Hanks).   

By the time the movie had shitted, fucked, dicked, pussied, whored, and masturbated its way to a shockingly bad cameo from Chevy and Beverly all I had was contempt for this wrong-headed attempt to revive the franchise. 

Everything that made the original Vacation movies classics was bastardized and smeared by a string of unnecessary profanity and vulgarity. It was a real shame and I'm sorry I saw it.

All of this was my initial thought when I first saw the preview. And Im sad to see that I was right. The vacation franchise is sacred, much like Rocky or Back to the Future. Don't fuck with it. They fucked with it and badly. Shame on them. And the same is about to happen with Ghostbusters. At least Dumb and Dumber To was done about as well as a sequel to that movie could have been done. If Vacation was going to do a reboot, it should have been on the same story arc and cast. I could have went for a Christmas Vac 2 with the same premise.

And yes, Ed Helms is horrible. 

Couple I have seen recently since you mention it:

Devils Due

Moderately attractive chick gets married, goes to the Domican Republic on her honeymoon with goofy dork of a husband who films everything because he likes to keep memories. They get lost and drunk in the DR, so a cab driver kindly takes them somewhere "fun" which ends up being a mistake. Long story short, chick gets knocked up while there. They come back home and while the pregnancy progresses, they realize that all aint up to snuff. Turns out chick has been knocked up by good ole lucifer himself. What a man whore satan is huh? That dog. Goes a little off the rails towards the end when the baby comes, and is somewhat anti-climatic. Whole film is done as a "found footage" movie since dumbass recorded EVERYTHING. And the movie also starts with nerdy hubs in the police dept trying to explain away what happened in the present day. So the whole movie is also a flashback of what leads up to that point. Moral of the story, dont get drunk in the DR and let shady cab drivers take you to strange places, or you may end up getting screwed by lucifer.

Id give it a 2 or 3 out of 5. It was done well enough, no worse than paranormal activity really. Had some weird parts but its a found footage film so I didnt go in expecting much.



The Loft

Had James Marsden. Other than him, I didn't know who anyone else was. 4 guys, all homeboys you would assume - decide to all go in secretly on a loft apt in a high rise - for the sheer purpose of carrying out the banging of hot chicks discreetly without their wives or anyone else knowing. They buy/rent (not sure) the place and the banging commences. All have their own personal demons and motives, and a plot of their own aside from the banging in the loft. All are also emotional wrecks under the surface which plays into the main story eventually. Long story short on this one, a girl dies in the loft and is found on the bed by one of the guys (not the one who banged her before she croaked). This sets off a complicated spider web of events and twists that I thought was pretty well done. You get through one twist and think you have it figured out, then....wait a minute, there's more......then another, then another.....all pretty shocking and well crafted. 

I thought it was a good movie. Not great but solid, especially if you like thrillers with a hot naked chick, and mutiple twists at the end.

Id give it a 3.5 or 4 out of 5.


Both are on Teh Netflix
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 11, 2015, 11:21:29 PM
Straight Outta Compton
Badly wanted to see this when it was in theaters but was alone in that sentiment.  When NWA hit I was still relatively young.  It was before (now dissolved) marriage, before mortgage, before parenthood.

I was one of the few of my then crew who gravitated toward that.  While everybody else I knew was losing their fucking minds over Alabama and George Strait and Randy Travis and Marty Stuart or they were fucking around with sappy Whitney Houston, Mr. Mister and Lionel Richie (which I did like) I was pulled in a different direction.  Rock music, yes.  Always.  But I was fascinated with Run DMC, Sugar Hill Gang, Beastie Boys, Parliament.  When NWA first started I didn't get the power of the lyrics, but I definitely got the vibe.  My friends wore cowboy hats. I wore Raiders gear. I was the only white guy I knew who had a collection of NWA, Public Enemy, Heavy D, Kool Moe D and the like.  I'm not from Compton. Been there once and it scared the living fuck out of me.  I'm no gangsta wannabe.  But the music resonated. Even through DMX, Jay-Z (sucks), Sean C, Tupac, Nelly, Biggie and so on, I stayed with it. I think the movement has gotten coopted now, though by people who curse just to hear themselves do it.  The anger is manufactured. It's no longer real. But I digress.

I knew they rose from nothing to become major players and I wanted to see this movie to get a sense of how that happened.  This film was motherfucking awesome.

First the performances.  When a biopic like this makes you forget that you aren't watching the actual people  that's pretty fantastic. These guys were portraying people who (with the exception of Eazy) are still alive. They all nailed it.  Eazy in particular.

The story was so broad it glossed over parts. It probably unfairly hung Jerry Heller out to dry. It probably unnecessarily villianized Eazy to a point and it probably unfairly bestowed sainthood and honor on Cube and Dre.  They produced and wrote it, so they're allowed I guess.

Good performances. Good story.  I really wish they'd given it the Tarrantino treatment and broken it up into two or three different movies.  I'd like to see one just on the Priority Record era. Another on the Suge Knight impact.

Still was just a fantastic movie.  Those guys perfectly captured the mood of much of the nation and in the process changed the social narrative.  Compelling stuff.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on November 23, 2015, 09:11:45 AM
Spotlight was very good.  Cast was strong: Michael Keaton, John Slattery, Stanley Tucci, Liev Schreiber, Billy Crudup, Mark Ruffalo and Rachel McAdams.

Kind of shocking, in a Pedo State way, how many people were in on the cover-up.  Some actively participated and some just turned their heads.  The standard line was, "Look at all the good the church does for the city."

The scope and massive, systemic shuffling of these predators is pretty shocking.

You know the final news article the main characters produce, but watching them get there is worth the ride.  Well acted, well paced...very good movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 23, 2015, 09:54:04 AM
Spotlight was very good.  Cast was strong: Michael Keaton, John Slattery, Stanley Tucci, Liev Schreiber, Billy Crudup, Mark Ruffalo and Rachel McAdams.

Kind of shocking, in a Pedo State way, how many people were in on the cover-up.  Some actively participated and some just turned their heads.  The standard line was, "Look at all the good the church does for the city."

The scope and massive, systemic shuffling of these predators is pretty shocking.

You know the final news article the main characters produce, but watching them get there is worth the ride.  Well acted, well paced...very good movie.

Good to hear. Will probably go catch this one.

Also has a great moral to the story. If not for those great, vigilant jounralists - how much longer would those abuses have went on , or at minimum stayed a secret? Scary.

I used to be Catholic. Until I became an adult and decided NOT to be anymore. There is a reason. Actually, there are many reasons....and thus was when my libertarian streak started.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on November 23, 2015, 10:03:58 AM

Also has a great moral to the story. If not for those great, vigilant jounralists - how much longer would those abuses have went on , or at minimum stayed a secret? Scary.


They (the "Spotlight" investigative team) had to be pressured into taking the story on.  They were mostly Boston-lifers and the stories had been slowly trickling for so long that they took the newest "scandal" in stride.  It took the new editor (Schreiber), an outsider Jew, to push the story. 

That said, once they dug in, the Spotlight team was zealous in their pursuit of the story.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 26, 2015, 12:19:56 AM
Victor Frankenstein

The story was essentially the same as always.  Demented genius animates a dead creature to his ultimate dismay. 

The difference here is James McAvoy.  Fantastic actor in the right roles.  Outstanding in Last King of Scotland. Savior of X-men IMO.  Until just this minute, I didn't realize he was the weird ass goat thing in those Narnia movies but my younger daughter just reminded me of that.  Ok, so he's good in a lot of things, but not as a goat. 

He's really good here.  His performance makes the movie worth watching even though you know how it's going to turn out.  Stupid ass Harry Potter almost dragged it down with his awful acting efforts.  He should be banned from any further movies for life. 

It's well rendered, despite being a little shaky on the background CGI in the beginning.  It moves the story along quickly enough. 

The end felt a little rushed, but overall it was an enjoyable film -- particularly if you appreciate the monster mythos. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 16, 2015, 01:48:58 AM
Krampus

Christmas movie mixed with a dash of horror. 

Think Gremlins, but darker and more malevolent.

The cast was good, the story was adequate, the mix of humor and horror was on target.  I enjoyed it more than I probably should have.  Will watch it again next Christmas. 

Really looking forward to the movies this weekend.  Big one coming out to review.  You know, Alvin and the Chipmunks. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on December 16, 2015, 09:45:41 PM
Big one coming out to review.  You know, Alvin and the Chipmunks.

(https://images.rapgenius.com/c29af699263437e9c128389aa18d27d7.800x600x1.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 18, 2015, 11:28:09 PM
Star Wars

I think you should see it and decide for yourself. 

There were things I liked.  Things I didn't.  Things that felt shallow and forced.  Things that were deeper.

Maybe it's just my age but I was far more invested in the fate and fortune of the original characters than I was with newer characters.  The black kid didn't move me.  The Brit chick had some good moments but in the end she lacked the reckless mettle solo brought to the originals and she didn't have enough of the do-gooder nerdishness of Luke. Wanted to care about her.  Didn't much.

Dawned on me about an hour and a half in.  The movie wasn't for me except as a means to connect me back to the older story.  The movie was for every 8-15 year old in the world as a means to indoctrinate them into the mythology. 





Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 20, 2015, 11:14:15 PM
Krampus

Christmas movie mixed with a dash of horror. 

Think Gremlins, but darker and more malevolent.

The cast was good, the story was adequate, the mix of humor and horror was on target.  I enjoyed it more than I probably should have.  Will watch it again next Christmas. 

Really looking forward to the movies this weekend.  Big one coming out to review.  You know, Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Saw this one Thursday afternoon. Like you, I think I liked it more than I thought I would. Toni Collete still looks ok. I saw a few plot holes but then again, its a movie about 3000 year old German folklore.

Also saw In the Heart of the Sea Saturday. Thought it was pretty solid. Just an all around solid job by Ron Howard again directing. Dude has become one of the big boys in Hollywood. Opie has came a long way.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on December 30, 2015, 10:19:38 PM
Saw The Big Short. Interesting presentation and ways of breaking the fourth wall to tell the story.

By the way, iff that is all true, we have failed as a society.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on January 01, 2016, 11:01:07 AM
The Hateful Eight

Spoiler free.

I saw this in the Hoover IMAX for the 70mm presentation. It was a beautiful, beautiful film. I was expecting to be underwhelmed by the 70mm hype, but some of those shots really were outstanding.

As for the movie itself...meh. It wasn't bad. It's divided into six chapters, and the first four chapters were excellent. Last two were okay. But there were some gaping holes in the character development. A lot of plot points not explained well enough. I'm a big Tarantino fan and would rank this pretty low on his list of movies.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 02, 2016, 12:09:17 AM
Star Wars was sold out.  Decided at the last minute on The Hateful Eight.  Would not have gone if I knew it was a Tarantino film. Didn't realize until we got in there. Scumbag cop hater can die in a fire as soon as possible.  Fuck him with a goat aids infected cattle prod.  Now, to the movie.  Not a spoiler...just an overview of the plot.

It's a "western" set in the hills of Wyoming with 90% of it played out in one huge room, a general store where all 8 characters get stranded during a blizzard.  Samuel L. Jackson and Kurt Russell play two bounty hunters trying to get their kills/catches to Red Rock to collect their cash.  Russell's bounty is a girl, (Jennifer Jason Leigh), who he is trying to get to Red Rock for a hanging.  The 8, including one of my all time favorites, Bruce Dern, play out a mystery of who dunnit..who's siding with who...who is going to get out of this alive...or not.  Played out in 6 chapters. Loved every one.   

The positive:  Funny as hell.  Countless one liners from several characters that had me and the entire audience bent over laughing.  Jackson is awesome.  Delivers non-stop, whether it's comedy or gruesomely deep, morbid story telling.  Saw numerous commercials for this.  Thought I saw a cameo by Walton Goggins.  Fuck sake, he almost stole the show.  Was a close second to Jackson in delivering the side splitting line and being the focus of the whole show.  Damn fine and underrated actor.  The guy is long overdue for some lead roles.  It's always been hard for me to take Kurt Russell seriously. Too many Disney type roles in his early years. He stepped it up a notch here.  Played the late 1800's hard ass to a tee.

The negative:  I saw a write up that said 'black" was said 65 times in the film.  I think they mis-counted,  Look, I'm the farthest thing from politically correct you'll ever see.  But it was clear they were intentionally putting it in there for effect and honestly, it got real old.  The same with the graphic blood scenes.  Waaaayyyy over the top.  Jennifer Jason Leigh's character stayed covered in blood in one form or another for the entire film.  Completely unnecessary. Over the top graphic on blowing people's heads off. 


Overall, very entertaining film.  My 15 year old was with me but I took a chance and snuck him in to a Super R film.  He knew it was over the top but the comedy effect was worth the risk. Just be prepared for mega cussing, mucho negro and new ways to splatter blood and brain matter.     
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 02, 2016, 12:20:36 AM
Daddy's Home

Man child, befuddled, overly happy elf Ferrell has gotten old.  But it wasn't too bad here. 

Wahlberg plays basically the same guy he played in Date Night right down to the "put shirt on" scenes. I wondered at one point if the character name wasn't even the same.  Didnt  look it up. 

Some mildly amusing moments sprinkled in.  Not really "funny" per se.  But did end with a cute and tidy wrap and a semi funny reversal. 

Marky and Will banter well together. 

It's no classic.  And it wasn't even really that funny.  But I've seen way worse from Ferrell. Wahlberg too.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 04, 2016, 08:38:51 AM

 It's always been hard for me to take Kurt Russell seriously. Too many Disney type roles in his early years. He stepped it up a notch here.  Played the late 1800's hard ass to a tee.

Watch Bone Tomahawk.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 10, 2016, 10:40:39 AM
The Revenant
First the good. The movie is stunning visually.  It makes you feel every ache, every frozen breath.  DiCaprio -- one of the best actors of our time -- is really good, acting for much of the movie with little more than his eyes. 

The weasel or otter or whatever tom hardy has on his head. Liked that.

Now the bad.
The movie is far too long.  It clocks in at 2:40 when the story could easily have been compellingly completed in half that.  There are entire arcs and characters that are superfluous.  Some actually detract from the story. Some were made up by the director entirely in the name of creative license when the "real" story was probably the better one.  It just dragged and dragged layering one improbable misery on top of another.  Just too much extraneous scenery snd story.

Tom Hardy.  What the fuck is the attraction with this guy? In every movie I've ever seen him he affects some mumbling out-of-place accent that should require subtitles.  Batman. Mad max. Lawless.  No idea what he's saying half the time in the dumbass accent he picks.  No different here.  Says something in s weird accent.  Makes a face. Pouts. Fucking sucks.  He's terrible.

Is worth seeing for Leonardo's performance and the cinematography/setting.  But bring a snack and something with caffeine in it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on January 10, 2016, 01:57:57 PM
Is worth seeing for Leonardo's performance and the cinematography/setting.  But bring a snack and something with caffeine in it.

(http://www.framestore.com/sites/default/files/styles/hero_720x406px/public/work/lagttl_web_homepage.jpg?itok=dEcWudFU)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 10, 2016, 03:27:58 PM
Star Wars was sold out.  Decided at the last minute on The Hateful Eight.  Would not have gone if I knew it was a Tarantino film. Didn't realize until we got in there. Scumbag cop hater can die in a fire as soon as possible.  Fuck him with a goat aids infected cattle prod.  Now, to the movie.  Not a spoiler...just an overview of the plot.

It's a "western" set in the hills of Wyoming with 90% of it played out in one huge room, a general store where all 8 characters get stranded during a blizzard.  Samuel L. Jackson and Kurt Russell play two bounty hunters trying to get their kills/catches to Red Rock to collect their cash.  Russell's bounty is a girl, (Jennifer Jason Leigh), who he is trying to get to Red Rock for a hanging.  The 8, including one of my all time favorites, Bruce Dern, play out a mystery of who dunnit..who's siding with who...who is going to get out of this alive...or not.  Played out in 6 chapters. Loved every one.   

The positive:  Funny as hell.  Countless one liners from several characters that had me and the entire audience bent over laughing.  Jackson is awesome.  Delivers non-stop, whether it's comedy or gruesomely deep, morbid story telling.  Saw numerous commercials for this.  Thought I saw a cameo by Walton Goggins.  Fuck sake, he almost stole the show.  Was a close second to Jackson in delivering the side splitting line and being the focus of the whole show.  Damn fine and underrated actor.  The guy is long overdue for some lead roles.  It's always been hard for me to take Kurt Russell seriously. Too many Disney type roles in his early years. He stepped it up a notch here.  Played the late 1800's hard ass to a tee.

The negative:  I saw a write up that said 'black" was said 65 times in the film.  I think they mis-counted,  Look, I'm the farthest thing from politically correct you'll ever see.  But it was clear they were intentionally putting it in there for effect and honestly, it got real old.  The same with the graphic blood scenes.  Waaaayyyy over the top.  Jennifer Jason Leigh's character stayed covered in blood in one form or another for the entire film.  Completely unnecessary. Over the top graphic on blowing people's heads off. 


Overall, very entertaining film.  My 15 year old was with me but I took a chance and snuck him in to a Super R film.  He knew it was over the top but the comedy effect was worth the risk. Just be prepared for mega cussing, mucho negro and new ways to splatter blood and brain matter.     

Agree with you on all points except the last two.  Those are QT signatures, you had to know that was coming when you entered the theater.  Debate the merits of the language and gore, but they are his personal signature.

Thoroughly enjoyed this movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 10, 2016, 10:59:14 PM
The Forest

Once again violating one of my main rules, I tried a PG-13 horror movie.  Once again, I was reminded of why I made that rule in the first place. 

Stupid. Inane. Boring. Pointless. Dull. Dumb. Awful.

I've seen worse movies. I've seen movies that were way worse than this one, actually. But this was an incredibly mind-numbing drone of banality. 

Don't waste your time. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 11, 2016, 09:21:32 AM
Agree with you on all points except the last two.  Those are QT signatures, you had to know that was coming when you entered the theater.  Debate the merits of the language and gore, but they are his personal signature.

Thoroughly enjoyed this movie.
It's in my top 3 of QT Movies, I loved it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 11, 2016, 09:39:09 AM
It's in my top 3 of QT Movies, I loved it.

Question (WITH SPOILERS):





























The need to nail the door shut (with two pieces of wood!) was never explained, was it?  The door worked fine when the "four passengers" arrived at Minnie's.  Then calamity was unleashed upon Minnie, et al, but the door was never affected.  When did the door hardware get fucked up?

Also, thought it was great that QT worked in the classic Red Apple cigs.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 11, 2016, 10:09:46 AM
I think the two pieces of wood was strictly for comedy.  Every time someone new walked in, everybody in the house was yelling over each other. It got funnier each time and we started waiting for the chorus every time someone opened the door.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 11, 2016, 10:14:00 AM
I think the two pieces of wood was strictly for comedy.  Every time someone new walked in, everybody in the house was yelling over each other. It got funnier each time and we started waiting for the chorus every time someone opened the door.

Agreed...but for such a prominent running joke you'd think some setup would be given.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 11, 2016, 10:27:45 AM
The Forest

Once again violating one of my main rules, I tried a PG-13 horror movie.  Once again, I was reminded of why I made that rule in the first place. 

Stupid. Inane. Boring. Pointless. Dull. Dumb. Awful.

I've seen worse movies. I've seen movies that were way worse than this one, actually. But this was an incredibly mind-numbing drone of banality. 

Don't waste your time.

Saw this one Saturday.

I was meh about most of it. Wasn't bad. But wasn't The Conjuring or Sixth Sense either if were talking Scary Thrillers that play off fear of the unknown in a non gorey kind of way.

Spoiler alert....dont read below if you are going to see this....







The main character to me,  almost purposely violated every rule in the book. She was stubborn, wouldn't listen to anyone. To the point where it was noticeable and annoying.

I was also left at the end, of what really happened and what she thought really happened? Did the journalist guy really have bad intentions ever at ANY point other than trying to get in her pants at the bar? I dont think he did. I think she imagined them all. Including the pic on his phone. When it turned out the movie was more about her own internal struggles with her parents and sister, than the actual Forest, it was underwhelming. Blahhhh. Was just a twisted maze of random shit that never really tied together or wrapped up. Kinda messy. Ive seen worse, but glad I paid the matinee price.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 11, 2016, 10:30:30 AM
Why don't we just get in that running car?

Are you crazy?  Let's hide behind those chainsaws.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 11, 2016, 10:32:49 AM
Why don't we just get in that running car?

Are you crazy?  Let's hide behind those chainsaws.

Ummmm, thats EXACTLY what it reminded me. THAT obvious. Kaos probably noticed it too.

Hey, the Japanese guide just told me to not walk off this path and that bad things lurked off the path and would happen. Hey, whats that scary thing over there OFF the path im seeing? I think I will leave the path to go see if its something bad. (LOUD SCREAM 4 seconds later)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 11, 2016, 11:46:42 AM
Question (WITH SPOILERS):





























The need to nail the door shut (with two pieces of wood!) was never explained, was it?  The door worked fine when the "four passengers" arrived at Minnie's.  Then calamity was unleashed upon Minnie, et al, but the door was never affected.  When did the door hardware get fucked up?

Also, thought it was great that QT worked in the classic Red Apple cigs.

Yes Bob shot out the door when the black guy stumbles in from putting the horses away. He hits him in the shoulder and the door closes but Bob keeps firing and blows the lock off.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 11, 2016, 12:02:08 PM
Yes Bob shot out the door when the black guy stumbles in from putting the horses away. He hits him in the shoulder and the door closes but Bob keeps firing and blows the lock off.

Forgot that he was shot through the door before Joe/Grouch went out to finish him.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Townhallsavoy on January 12, 2016, 08:22:58 PM
Mad Max: Fury Road

This review will be written using lines from the movie uttered by Max.

No No No.

Unh, Hrm. Grrrr. Unh.  Ugh.

The end. 

Translation:  Meh?  It would have to crawl across the Sahara to reach up to meh.   Maybe I was high when I tried to watch it, but it was like a really dumb Cannonball Run if Burt Reynolds was a bald girl and the Sheriff wore a Halloween mask. 

Eleven kinds of terrible.

I'm late on this, but I finally got around to watching this today. I loved it. Absolutely amazing action film that needed little dialogue.

I will say that Mad Max was an irrelevant character. The story was about Furiosa and Max was as important as the bald headed gremlin that was tagging along with them.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 15, 2016, 11:10:16 AM
I don't understand how anyone could rave over Mad Max Fury Road.  It was hot garbage, unintelligible and just a string of ridiculous scenes strung together for the sole sake of creating faux mayhem. Little story, less exposition and just a lengthy parade of carnage for no reason.  Bleh.

On to...

Sicario
This movie had some great components and some that were dreadful.  As a result it lost the power it could have and hurt itself at the box office.  It did fair largely due to some soft competition (Pan which flopped, Hotel Transylvania 2 which sucked even for kids, The Intern which further pussified Don Corleone).  But it didn't resonate like it could have.

On the whole I enjoyed the movie. It kept me entertained and there were some extreme moments that really should have evoked shock or something. But the pacing struggled so that the "oh shit" events lacked that sting.

Let's start with the dreadful. 
1) The Name.  Sicario.  It's not an automatic draw. It's a spanish word that means hitman.  But you'd have to know that to look at movie listings and go "yeah, I want to watch that."  So pffft on the name. 
2) The story.  There were gaps, there were holes, there were unexplained connections, unlikely actions and reactions. It needed to be cleaned up a little and tightened in places.  For instance there was some alleged connection between Emily Blunt's character and her partner.  It was never fleshed out and in the final denoument didn't matter. It was a waste and his character could have been omitted entirely without changing the film in any real way.  He was extraneous and needed to be chopped.  So too was this entire arc of a somewhat corrupt cop. I understand what it was supposed to represent, but it took up too much screen time.
3) Emily Blount.  She's a cute thing, but does not have the gravitas or the acting chops to pull off the role of a hardened FBI assault team member turned task force semi-bad ass.  Her response to the overwhelming nature of the role was reduced to making dour "I need to take a shit" faces, looking doe-eyed and confused, grimacing, moping, acting bitchy and talking without moving her mouth.  She was terrible. I read recently that there are talks of a sequel and if there is one, she will not be a part of it.  Good move. She was hideously bad here.

Now the good:
1) Cinematography was outstanding.  The way shots were framed was fantastic. Excellent job making the film look and feel right.  The way some of the transitions were filmed was creative and spot on.  Really good job with the tone of the movie. 
2) Benicio Del Toro.  I'm not really a major fan of his work and think he's highly overrated for what he brings to the table, but here he was extremely good. The writers gave him a character who had no soul (or at least had it removed) and also provided him a scene that should have been a topic of much discussion and consternation. The fact that it wasn't speaks to the flat effect of the movie that was due in part to Blunt's dulling performance.  De Toro's character had no remorse and displayed that in a way that should have been brutally shocking.  I'm surprised I heard nobody mention that scene (or this movie) at all. 
3) Josh Brolin. Pretty good as a loose-cannon CIA-type.  Numerous other actors (Downey, McBongohey, Harrellson, etc.) would have fit the bill but Brolin held his own.

It's a shame that the name (in my opinion), Blunt's numbing performance and a wobbling story that kept the major plot points from having the impact they should derailed what could have been a truly outstanding film.  Not that I didn't enjoy it, I did, but it just left me thinking how much better it could have been.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 15, 2016, 12:01:25 PM
I don't understand how anyone could rave over Mad Max Fury Road.  It was hot garbage, unintelligible and just a string of ridiculous scenes strung together for the sole sake of creating faux mayhem. Little story, less exposition and just a lengthy parade of carnage for no reason.  Bleh.

On to...

Sicario
This movie had some great components and some that were dreadful.  As a result it lost the power it could have and hurt itself at the box office.  It did fair largely due to some soft competition (Pan which flopped, Hotel Transylvania 2 which sucked even for kids, The Intern which further pussified Don Corleone).  But it didn't resonate like it could have.

On the whole I enjoyed the movie. It kept me entertained and there were some extreme moments that really should have evoked shock or something. But the pacing struggled so that the "oh shit" events lacked that sting.

Let's start with the dreadful. 
1) The Name.  Sicario.  It's not an automatic draw. It's a spanish word that means hitman.  But you'd have to know that to look at movie listings and go "yeah, I want to watch that."  So pffft on the name. 
2) The story.  There were gaps, there were holes, there were unexplained connections, unlikely actions and reactions. It needed to be cleaned up a little and tightened in places.  For instance there was some alleged connection between Emily Blunt's character and her partner.  It was never fleshed out and in the final denoument didn't matter. It was a waste and his character could have been omitted entirely without changing the film in any real way.  He was extraneous and needed to be chopped.  So too was this entire arc of a somewhat corrupt cop. I understand what it was supposed to represent, but it took up too much screen time.
3) Emily Blount.  She's a cute thing, but does not have the gravitas or the acting chops to pull off the role of a hardened FBI assault team member turned task force semi-bad ass.  Her response to the overwhelming nature of the role was reduced to making dour "I need to take a shit" faces, looking doe-eyed and confused, grimacing, moping, acting bitchy and talking without moving her mouth.  She was terrible. I read recently that there are talks of a sequel and if there is one, she will not be a part of it.  Good move. She was hideously bad here.

Now the good:
1) Cinematography was outstanding.  The way shots were framed was fantastic. Excellent job making the film look and feel right.  The way some of the transitions were filmed was creative and spot on.  Really good job with the tone of the movie. 
2) Benicio Del Toro.  I'm not really a major fan of his work and think he's highly overrated for what he brings to the table, but here he was extremely good. The writers gave him a character who had no soul (or at least had it removed) and also provided him a scene that should have been a topic of much discussion and consternation. The fact that it wasn't speaks to the flat effect of the movie that was due in part to Blunt's dulling performance.  De Toro's character had no remorse and displayed that in a way that should have been brutally shocking.  I'm surprised I heard nobody mention that scene (or this movie) at all. 
3) Josh Brolin. Pretty good as a loose-cannon CIA-type.  Numerous other actors (Downey, McBongohey, Harrellson, etc.) would have fit the bill but Brolin held his own.

It's a shame that the name (in my opinion), Blunt's numbing performance and a wobbling story that kept the major plot points from having the impact they should derailed what could have been a truly outstanding film.  Not that I didn't enjoy it, I did, but it just left me thinking how much better it could have been.

Fuck me.  I agree with Kaos almost whole-heartedly in a movie post.

Max was devastatingly disappointing and I agree with your take on Sicario (less and except the take on Del Toro...love that guy).
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 15, 2016, 01:52:27 PM
Fuck me.  I agree with Kaos almost whole-heartedly in a movie post.

Max was devastatingly disappointing and I agree with your take on Sicario (less and except the take on Del Toro...love that guy).
Love Franky 4 Fingers
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 15, 2016, 04:56:16 PM
Love Franky 4 Fingers

Bubby, I'll bet there's a lot I know that you don't.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 15, 2016, 11:41:24 PM
Ride Along 2

Innocuous.  That's about the best word.  Kevin Hart does his familiar schtick.  Ice Cube snarls and growls.  I like Ice but he's not much of an actor. 

They get into improbable situations. They get out of improbable situations.  There are some mildly amusing moments, only a few gags really remotely laugh inducing.  Then it careens to its inevitable conclusion. 

It's formulaic. It's harmless.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 16, 2016, 07:31:25 PM
Ride Along 2

Innocuous.  That's about the best word.  Kevin Hart does his familiar schtick.  Ice Cube snarls and growls.  I like Ice but he's not much of an actor. 

They get into improbable situations. They get out of improbable situations.  There are some mildly amusing moments, only a few gags really remotely laugh inducing.  Then it careens to its inevitable conclusion. 

It's formulaic. It's harmless.

Saw it this afternoon.  Good review, K.  Mildly funny movie that could have been much more.  The biggest problem to me was Kevin Hart's schtick being way over the top.  Distracting at times.  Cube is Sheldon Cooper.  He's playing the only role he really knows how.  Hart's character could have/should have stole the show.  Didn't happen. His facial expressions were 10X funnier than any lines he delivered.  Still, it was a decent comedy with a few good moments.     
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 18, 2016, 10:34:17 AM
Fast & Furious (pick a number)

Watched the first film in this franchise many years ago.  Remember being overwhelmed by dumb and swearing the rest of them off. Was convinced to watch the last two (or was it three) in the franchise over the weekend because the movies "had gotten much better" and were allegedly "totally bad ass."

Yick.  The acting was atrocious. (But do you watch a porn movie for the acting? This is action porn, just enjoy the crazy car chases).  The car chases and action was so improbable, impossible and ridiculous that it was a joke. (Stop being so critical! It's just a movie, can't you just think how awesome it would be if people COULD do that?) Oh, you mean leap from a speeding car across a separated bridge, grab somebody in mid-air who was flying from a speeding car toward you, take their momentum in the other direction, land on the windshield of a moving car and not be injured in the least? Not out of breath, not mangled beyond recognition, not even a scratch?  Fuck me. That's so stupid I can't watch this. (My GOD, it's just a movie. That was B.A.D.A.S.S.  ) No. No it wasn't. That was idiotic. (Fine. Whatever. Shhhhhhhhh.. Paul Walker. He's pretty awesome, and isn't it poignant that he just said "ride or die?" )  Poignant? No. Dumber than a forest full of toothless beavers. The idiot bastard apparently thought the ridiculous shit they do in these movies was real. He crashed fast and died furiously. I don't find any sadness or poignancy or anything in that. He's an awful actor and he died like a fool. (Just watch the movie.)  Oh the girl died because she fell ten feet to the concrete and they're not even going to look for her body, but that other guy flew like Superman and caved in the windshield of a moving car, but he's not only alive, but didn't even get the wind knocked out of him?  Seriously?  What the fuck?  (It's JUST A MOVIE!  Christ!)

Ok. I get that "it's just a movie."  I understand that. But it's lazy. It's horrible.  It's senseless. When Luda is the best actor on the screen at any time, you've got some problems.  The girls are just as bad. They don't look good, none of them can act. 

The "chemistry" between the team members is forced and incredibly fake. I also have a little bit of a problem with thinking the bad guys are cool. Oceans Eleven (the Clooney version) gave me enough rationale that I could be on board with the robberies. These fucks are just meat heads, chowder heads and punk thieves. They're stealing for their own purposes. (No they're not, they're like Robin Hood!) Right. Robin Hood buys himself mansions and jets.  Explain to me why I should want them to get away with stealing people's cars?  What if they stole my car?  (Aggggghhh, they're not going to steal your car. It's just a movie!)  Well what if they tore up my car while they were killing people all over the Interstate?  (*sigh* )  How are they getting away with that?  I was counting.  There are probably 40 bystanders dead in just that one scene. "It's just a movie" has to make some sense. Somebody's going to jail for all those dead people on the road. They don't just get away from that. (I give up.  Let's watch Trainwreck instead).  Fuck now.  I don't want to watch that chubby bitch be whorishly obnoxious. I've seen some of her standup and it's vulgar and offensive. She's not funny. No thanks.

There is no problem bigger than Vin Diesel. The guy has to be the worst actor I've ever seen in my life.  Every facial expression he has simply does not match the emotion he should be feeling.  Anger?  He looks like he just slipped a fart. Happiness? Like he's trying to suppress a sneeze. Sadness? Like he just inhaled a doob and is waiting to exhale. He walks like something is really itchy in his asshole. His dialogue (which I understand he wrote much of) is nonsensical. He mumbles stupid shit. He's worse than Nicholas Cage. Worse than John Travolta.  I wanted to murder him the entire time he was on screen.

How this useless fuck has a career beyond "I am Groot" is beyond me. He's the worst.  I understand that it's just a movie. But how this senseless mayhem has spawned all these sequels and made all this money is incomprehensible to me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 18, 2016, 11:50:04 AM
The money the Furious franchise has generated worldwide is staggering.  Many billions.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 18, 2016, 12:47:53 PM
The money the Furious franchise has generated worldwide is staggering.  Many billions.

But so is the dumb.  Yes?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 18, 2016, 03:20:01 PM
But so is the dumb.  Yes?

Absolutely.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 19, 2016, 10:15:08 AM
Absolutely.

So you can't solve the worlds problems with fast cars?  Damn!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 19, 2016, 11:14:36 AM
So you can't solve the worlds problems with fast cars?  Damn!

I watched the last one yesterday, after being repeatedly told that the final Paul Walker tribute was "worth it all." 

No. No it wasn't.  It was fucking creepy is what it was.  A movie that glorified the exact behavior that burned him alive and then a horrifyingly eerie loop of some goofy smirk-face badly CGI pasted over somebody else's just added to the surreal nature of the thing.  If you ask me it was completely irresponsible. 

Two head-on car crashes and nobody gets a scratch?  Roll a car off a cliff and somebody loses a shoe, but that's it?  Destroy city blocks with missiles and machine guns and Vin comes back to life spouting dumbass shit in the name of 'love'?  Fuck that pile of excrement.  The first few I watched just left me numb.  This one made me laugh at how motherfucking idiotic it was.  Then I started to feel a little disgusted and dismayed at the number of people who embrace this brain-dead garbage.  Finally I got pissed off a little. Fuck Paul Walker. Not glad he's dead, but I'm not crying over it either.  Reap what's sown. 

The movie had a chance to make a statement that would discourage all the fucking morons in tricked out Toyotas who think they can do the same kind of shit and end up dead. The movie should have slaughtered every single one of those fucktard meatheads in a hideous and gruesome manner. 

This should have been the story 10 minutes into this shit fest. 

Michele Rodriguez:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/62/40/04/624004afb83985e119685783d198cb55.jpg)

Vin Diesel:
(https://deathsworldwide.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/accident-rutier-irlanda.jpg)

Ludacris:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/82/b6/c6/82b6c62db3ee71fbe4251b672088deee.jpg)

Jason Statham:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/95/b5/0c/95b50cef67dd630b8573dd16a47f8638.jpg)

To our friend, Paul Walker:
(http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f10/225693d1289681727-shut-hole-your-face-graphic_death.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 19, 2016, 11:28:53 AM
I was thinking meat lovers pizza for lunch, but I think now I'll just have the soup.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on January 19, 2016, 11:56:51 AM
I was thinking meat lovers pizza for lunch, but I think now I'll just have the soup.

your pants say thank you.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 19, 2016, 01:19:46 PM
I was thinking meat lovers pizza for lunch, but I think now I'll just have the soup.
Happy Tuesday to you!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on January 19, 2016, 04:35:48 PM
Good lord.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on January 19, 2016, 04:40:13 PM
Good lord.

No doubt, post a picture of some snatch and get the warning, post some chicks face on the road and  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 19, 2016, 06:27:20 PM
Sorry about the road kill.  Thought I did an admirable job matching up the bodies.  But whatever.

Spiderman 3

I've probably reviewed this before, but 20 minutes into this gooey turd I feel compelled to note once again how spectacularly god awful and asstastic this pool of stringy pumpkin shit this is. 

Oh my sweet lord, pussy Peter Parker is nauseating. That simpering Toby McGuire weasel is destroying the character. 

This? 
(http://www.mynewhustle.com/media/images/spideypizzadelivery2.jpg)
I can smell the vagina juice from here.

And this? His "bad ass" look?

(http://ap2hyc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Screen-Shot-2015-09-22-at-7.12.08-PM-590x344.png)

What, Edward Furlong wasn't available?  Or maybe Crispin Glover? 

I'm surprised (and thankful since Iron Man came along) that this flaccid penis of a film didn't bring down the entire Marvel universe.  It's worse than Brendan Routh's Superman, it's worse than any Fantastic Four, it's worse than Green Lantern, worse than any Hulk.  It's nuclear option bad. 

Speaking of, after Ryan Reynolds fucked up the DC universe with his shitty Green Lantern, why does he get to go to Marvel and fuck up Deadpool?  Couldn't they find Dane Cook?

Oh.my.lord.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtx18tPNda4

Haaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa haaaa haaa.  This is the epitome of the shittiness of this shitty movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 19, 2016, 07:00:04 PM
So, you're saying you don't like Spidey 3?  I'm getting that sense.

I couldn't agree more about III.  That was one I was really pissed that I spent the $$$ to go see.  Awful in every sense of the word, especially the lame ass attempt at Evil Peter.  That being said, I thought his impish demeanor really fit the first two well, especially the original.  I grew up on Spidey comics and Peter Parker was that photographer nerd that always seemed to blend in the background and get stepped on a lot in life.  McGuire did a good job with that in transforming from the nerdy kid into someone being amazed at his newfound super powers.  But III???  Sweet Haysus, they swung and missed with the bases loaded with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th.  Horrible.

BTW, I also mistakenly spent $$$ on seeing McGuire in The Great Gatsby.  He's the same character.  He can't act any other way than what you see in Spiderman.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on January 20, 2016, 05:58:17 PM
Kaos, have you watched Dear Zakary?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on January 20, 2016, 06:45:24 PM
Kaos, have you watched Dear Zakary?

Excellent choice, Jumbs.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on January 21, 2016, 12:47:26 PM
Excellent choice, Jumbs.
It's a must see.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 22, 2016, 01:13:46 PM
I just read where Victor Frankenstein, a movie I thought was fair and had a great lead in James McAvoy, was the biggest box office disaster of all time (for movies that open in 2500 theaters or more). 

It was apparently so bad it reached OogieLove territory.

For movies in 2000 theaters or less it was the 19th worst opening, in the company of such marvels as Jem and the Holograms, Pluto Nash and Bandslam. 

I was also dismayed to see the Bill Murray vehicle Rock the Kasbah (a film I never saw but thought I wanted to see before it disappeared from theaters) at number five of the worst openings ever. 

I didn't think Franky was that bad.  Definitely missed the mark with the public though.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 30, 2016, 05:20:24 PM
Daddy's Home

Bored on a Saturday afternoon so me and mini decided to check it out.  Went in with low expectations.  Will Ferrell flicks are so hit and miss.  The trailer pretty much tells the story.  Ferrell plays the wimpy step dad and Wahlberg, the ex, shows up and they compete for hot wife/ex-wife.  First 30 minutes were filled with extreme meh.  However, it wound up being a pretty hilarious by movies' end. 

Ferrell's character was so over the top wimpy, it made you dislike him.  But the situations and some of the gags got better and better as the movie wore on.  A trip to the fertility doctor with the doc comparing Ferrell's and Wahlberg's junk, was damn funny.  Referred to Wahlberg's perfectly shaped, enormous balls as twin Patrick Stewarts.  Thomas Haden Church and Hannibal Buress really helped pick up the comedy level. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on January 31, 2016, 10:02:05 AM
Daddy's Home

Bored on a Saturday afternoon so me and mini decided to check it out.  Went in with low expectations.  Will Ferrell flicks are so hit and miss.  The trailer pretty much tells the story.  Ferrell plays the wimpy step dad and Wahlberg, the ex, shows up and they compete for hot wife/ex-wife.  First 30 minutes were filled with extreme meh.  However, it wound up being a pretty hilarious by movies' end. 

Ferrell's character was so over the top wimpy, it made you dislike him.  But the situations and some of the gags got better and better as the movie wore on.  A trip to the fertility doctor with the doc comparing Ferrell's and Wahlberg's junk, was damn funny.  Referred to Wahlberg's perfectly shaped, enormous balls as twin Patrick Stewarts.  Thomas Haden Church and Hannibal Buress really helped pick up the comedy level.

Kaos?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Michael2 on January 31, 2016, 08:42:59 PM
I am also hoping they bring Cosmo, the Russian space dog, back in the sequel. :fu:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casesam Samsung Galaxy S7 case (http://www.casesam.co.uk/category-galaxy-s7-case-cover-110.html)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on January 31, 2016, 11:12:17 PM
I am also hoping they bring Cosmo, the Russian space dog, back in the sequel. :fu:

 :404:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 31, 2016, 11:57:44 PM
The Boy
Always looking for a good horror movie. Always breaking my own "PG-13 is going to suck" rule. 

This was PG-13.  While it didn't exactly suck, it meandered to the end, packing the only real action into the final ten minutes, long after you've lost interest. 

Maggie from Walking Dead (can't decide if she's super hot or not) carries this film as an American escaping an abusive relationship by taking a job as a nanny at an English manor.  No explanation of how she learned of the odd job, the film opens with her already on the way. 

She meets a friendly neighborhood grocer who immediately begins to make moves on her.  She meets the elderly family that owns the manner.  And she meets their precocious, mischevious eight-year old son. Who just happens to be a doll.

Is the house haunted? Is the doll alive? Are the old couple insane?  All is revealed -- slowly -- and some of it just doesn't make sense. 

Maggie's (I think her name in the movie was Greta) turn from disbelief to absolute conviction was a little abrupt, as was her "I want you -- no I don't -- yes I do -- no I don't" pecking with the friendly grocery boy. 

A really dumb sidebar about the abusive ex-boyfriend led to the final denouement, but I could have done without his leaden and off-key performance.  He was completely out of place in the film.  Could have gotten to the same place without him. 

Not going to spoil it for the one or two of you who may decide to go see this or download it or whatever.  The eventual reveal wasn't something I expected, but it actually created more questions than it answered.  It made the movie dumber due to the events leading up to it. 

Maggie doesn't get close to naked, if that's of any concern.  I have heard that Walking Dead's Beth does in some other movies, but I haven't seen it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 01, 2016, 09:17:45 AM
The Boy
Always looking for a good horror movie. Always breaking my own "PG-13 is going to suck" rule. 

This was PG-13.  While it didn't exactly suck, it meandered to the end, packing the only real action into the final ten minutes, long after you've lost interest. 

Maggie from Walking Dead (can't decide if she's super hot or not) carries this film as an American escaping an abusive relationship by taking a job as a nanny at an English manor.  No explanation of how she learned of the odd job, the film opens with her already on the way. 

She meets a friendly neighborhood grocer who immediately begins to make moves on her.  She meets the elderly family that owns the manner.  And she meets their precocious, mischevious eight-year old son. Who just happens to be a doll.

Is the house haunted? Is the doll alive? Are the old couple insane?  All is revealed -- slowly -- and some of it just doesn't make sense. 

Maggie's (I think her name in the movie was Greta) turn from disbelief to absolute conviction was a little abrupt, as was her "I want you -- no I don't -- yes I do -- no I don't" pecking with the friendly grocery boy. 

A really dumb sidebar about the abusive ex-boyfriend led to the final denouement, but I could have done without his leaden and off-key performance.  He was completely out of place in the film.  Could have gotten to the same place without him. 

Not going to spoil it for the one or two of you who may decide to go see this or download it or whatever.  The eventual reveal wasn't something I expected, but it actually created more questions than it answered.  It made the movie dumber due to the events leading up to it. 

Maggie doesn't get close to naked, if that's of any concern.  I have heard that Walking Dead's Beth does in some other movies, but I haven't seen it.

Fun fact:
Maggie...aka Lauren Cohen actually shows nipple and slight boobage from Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj.
Beth ...aka Emily Kinney gets nekkid in Showtime Series Masters of Sex.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on February 01, 2016, 12:17:55 PM
Quote
Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj

huh?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 01, 2016, 12:26:22 PM
huh?
(http://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/dvdboxart/162525/p162525_d_v8_ab.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 06, 2016, 12:07:19 AM
Snagette: Know what we're doing tonight?

Snags: What

Going to a movie

What movie?

The Choice

What's The Choice?

A Nicolas Sparks film

Aww HELL no!

You have no choice.  Now grab my purse and let's go.

Ooohhh do I have to?

Shut up and get in the truck.


If you've never been subjected to a uterus flick by Nicolas Sparks....run and hide if your woman suggests it.  The only up side?  Pretty funny dialogue. Incredible scenery set in the low country of presumably, South Carolina.  Not a half bad first hour.  Then....it happens.  The thing I had always heard about with Nicolas Sparks stories.  You go from sappy love story to.....a coma.  Depression.  Sawdust falling constantly from the ceiling into your eyes.  Asking yourself how in the Sam Freaking Hell could I be tearing up in this stupid movie I don't even want to be at?  It's dark.  Wipe your eyes where no one will notice.  Promise yourself you'll stick a fork in your own thigh if you start it again during the next scene. Oh hell, here it goes again.

The Choice. That's my review.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 06, 2016, 12:33:03 PM
Snagette: Know what we're doing tonight?

Snags: What

Going to a movie

What movie?

The Choice

What's The Choice?

A Nicolas Sparks film

Aww HELL no!

You have no choice.  Now grab my purse and let's go.

Ooohhh do I have to?

Shut up and get in the truck.


If you've never been subjected to a uterus flick by Nicolas Sparks....run and hide if your woman suggests it.  The only up side?  Pretty funny dialogue. Incredible scenery set in the low country of presumably, South Carolina.  Not a half bad first hour.  Then....it happens.  The thing I had always heard about with Nicolas Sparks stories.  You go from sappy love story to.....a coma.  Depression.  Sawdust falling constantly from the ceiling into your eyes.  Asking yourself how in the Sam Freaking Hell could I be tearing up in this stupid movie I don't even want to be at?  It's dark.  Wipe your eyes where no one will notice.  Promise yourself you'll stick a fork in your own thigh if you start it again during the next scene. Oh hell, here it goes again.

The Choice. That's my review.

Burn your man card.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 06, 2016, 01:13:39 PM
Burn your man card.

I thought I was going to have to until I got there and saw several guys I know trying to look unconspicuous, pulling the hat down low and the collar up. 

Hey Randall, whatchu here to see?

Oh...umm....uh...Star Wars.  Yeah, Star Wars.

Wait, wasn't that you walking out of The Choice just ahead of me?

The Choi...what?...Nooo....The Choice?  You thought I was..

Yeah, that was you. Stop lying.

Alright fine.  She made me go.  You tell anybody and I'll....

No worries.  Remember?  I was in there too?  Wait..were you crying?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 07, 2016, 02:05:56 AM
The Diabolical

Ali Larter is about to be 40.  She's relatively pretty but not breathtaking (like Amber Heard can be).  She briefly bumps and grinds with an Indian. Not the woo-woo type of Indian.

Thus ends my review of this movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on February 07, 2016, 01:12:39 PM
The Choice

the skirt:  leaving at 8 with Jane to see The Choice.

nook:  have fun. kids get ready for bed...dad and the dog are watching Band of Brothers - Points

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 07, 2016, 02:15:03 PM
The Choice

the skirt:  leaving at 8 with Jane to see The Choice.

nook:  have fun. kids get ready for bed...dad and the dog are watching Band of Brothers - Points

10:30 Nook:  How was the movie?

Skirt: Fine (Door slams)

Nook gets blanket from closet and curls up with dog.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on February 08, 2016, 02:35:10 AM
10:30 Nook:  How was the movie?

Skirt: Fine (Door slams)

Nook gets blanket from closet and curls up with dog.
I'm gonna have to watch that bullshit soon  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 08, 2016, 11:36:15 AM
10:30 Nook:  How was the movie?

Skirt: Fine (Door slams)

Nook gets blanket from closet and curls up with dog.

He likes his wife....he loves the dog.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on February 08, 2016, 11:41:42 AM
I'm gonna have to watch that bullshit soon  :facepalm:

straight
outta
#mcm
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on February 08, 2016, 02:02:18 PM
He likes his wife....he loves the dog.

Well it's his dog.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on February 12, 2016, 12:16:30 AM
Didn't see one for 13 Hours.


Helluva movie. Shows how shitty the great ONE's administration really is!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 12, 2016, 01:06:01 AM
Didn't see one for 13 Hours.


Helluva movie. Shows how shitty the great ONE's administration really is!

I want to see it badly.  Can't get anybody to go with me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 14, 2016, 10:24:57 AM
The Last Witch Hunter

The only way this movie would have been tolerable is if it had been titled "The Last Movie Vin Diesel Will Ever Make Unless He is Playing a Tree."  The tagline should be "That Weasel Worm Elijah Woods is Done, Too!"

The movie was a muddled mish mash of witch and witch hunter stuff. It could have been okay if it had made any sense, but it chose to inject convenient contrivances whenever needed and fumble around with mumbo jumbo far too often.

Most powerful witch of all time and you get into a sword battle with her?  Seems like she'd just magic the sword away or something. Movies that rely on magical elements have always struggled to make sense to me because there inevitably seems to be an inconsistent application of powers. No different here.

But that's not the biggest problem here.  Vin Diesel is one of the worst actors I've ever seen.  His facial grimaces that are supposed to pass for emotion are so forced and phony that you can't tell if he's happy or struggling to keep a turtle turd contained.  He mumbles every line in an off-kilter monotone that destroys whatever motivation it is intended to convey. His inflection is so bad you, again, can't determine if he's angry, happy, in agony or eating oatmeal. He's like a big drunken bull let loose in an office building, bumbling through scene after scene and making a horrible shit-caked mess. I won't watch anything else he's ever in (except Guardians of the Galaxy).

Compounding the affront here is the presence of the wussy Elijah Wood. Another horrible actor whose emotional range varies between squeaking frightened mouse and wimpy pussified gerbil.  Like Diesel, his facial expressions make it hard to decipher what emotion he's attempting to convey and his inflection is so off that he comes off as a puss and nothing more.  Zero presence at all. 

The film completely wastes Michael Caine (who will appear in any movie for a dollar it seems).  His presence only serves to reinforce just how spectacularly shitty Diesel and Wood both are. 

Rose "You Know Nothing Jon Snow" is essentially a non-starter, completely failing to move the needle in this effort. 


Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 14, 2016, 10:37:36 AM
Sinister 2

A horror film that is weird in the fact that the horrific elements are primarily contained in movie-within-a-movie footage which gives you no empathetic relationship with the victims. They're generic, almost faceless and you just don't have any reason to care about them.

Where the movie succeeds is that the movie-within-a-movie victims are slaughtered in such creative and gruesome ways that it captures your attention.  You almost wish the movies within a movie would have been the movie itself.

The big bad doesn't really do much and really isn't that compelling.  His schtick is to give kids movie cameras and get them to film the murder of the rest of their family with each depraved tyke trying to thrill the big bad with the level of depravity.   Whoever came up with the methods of murder has a sick streak that should really have been explored and expanded on. 

Instead, the majority of the movie consists of kids saying "look at what we've done!  It's your turn" by showing the films of their murderous conquests.  Why these kids are dead instead of incarcerated or under psychiatric care (they are the ones who did the killing, so they would have survived) is never explained.

The cast is pretty good with the exception of pissed off ex husband who is a caricature.  The deputy who was involved in the first Sinister movie is the only holdover (which makes sense given the end) from the first Sinister film.  Well, except for the big bad not-so-scary jump-scare man.  The deputy guy is pretty funny and does a good job balancing things. 

Scary?  No.  Predictable? Yeah, sort of.  But the kill scenes keep it from sucking like the vast majority of horror movies do.  Too bad they are just short vignettes and not movies of their own.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on February 14, 2016, 11:25:40 AM
The Revenant
First the good. The movie is stunning visually.  It makes you feel every ache, every frozen breath.  DiCaprio -- one of the best actors of our time -- is really good, acting for much of the movie with little more than his eyes. 

The weasel or otter or whatever tom hardy has on his head. Liked that.

Now the bad.
The movie is far too long.  It clocks in at 2:40 when the story could easily have been compellingly completed in half that.  There are entire arcs and characters that are superfluous.  Some actually detract from the story. Some were made up by the director entirely in the name of creative license when the "real" story was probably the better one.  It just dragged and dragged layering one improbable misery on top of another.  Just too much extraneous scenery snd story.

Tom Hardy.  What the fuck is the attraction with this guy? In every movie I've ever seen him he affects some mumbling out-of-place accent that should require subtitles.  Batman. Mad max. Lawless.  No idea what he's saying half the time in the dumbass accent he picks.  No different here.  Says something in s weird accent.  Makes a face. Pouts. Fucking sucks.  He's terrible.

Is worth seeing for Leonardo's performance and the cinematography/setting.  But bring a snack and something with caffeine in it.

Spot on. The bear attack was the most intense animal attack scene that I've ever seen.  That movie made me hurt from start to finish.  Much more dreadfully cold feeling than "grey".
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 17, 2016, 11:37:41 AM
Deadpool

Didn't really know what to expect.  Got more than I wanted.  In a good way. 

Let me start by saying this is not for kids.  When Wade Wilson was having something jammed up the ass during a sex scene I didn't enjoy the ten year old a row back bellowing "what are they DOING?"  Speaking of sex scenes, there's really only one and it is pretty energetic.  Features Mrs. Brody from Homeland. 

Lots of foul language.  Played for laughs. 

Not a big Ryan Reynolds fan but this is the role he was meant to play.  So many inside jokes that landed. Probably many many more that I missed. 

It's not iron man.  It's not superman.  It quickly abandons the "hero saving the world" concept and establishes the "dude is getting some spectacular revenge" mindset. 

Not really sure how to review this.  Was consistently entertained from the opening credits to the tag on scene at the end (no spoiler but it pays homage to a favorite movie). It's not the greatest movie I've ever seen.  It didn't make me think. Oh sure it was implausible but I just didn't care. 

Definitely recommend for anyone over about 17 or so. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 17, 2016, 11:40:40 AM
The Witch and the new Jesse Owens movie both come out this weekend. Have guarded optimism for both. Hope they do not disappoint.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 17, 2016, 12:45:05 PM
The Witch and the new Jesse Owens movie both come out this weekend. Have guarded optimism for both. Hope they do not disappoint.
Can't take Jason Suckdickass seriously.  He is going to ruin that one.  The previews make me not want to watch it because of him.  In the previews it appears he's playing the gum-snapping douchebag guy from SNL.

The Witch?  Never heard of it nor seen a trailer for it.  So there's that. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 17, 2016, 01:10:37 PM
Can't take Jason Suckdickass seriously.  He is going to ruin that one.  The previews make me not want to watch it because of him.  In the previews it appears he's playing the gum-snapping douchebag guy from SNL.

The Witch?  Never heard of it nor seen a trailer for it.  So there's that.

Well Jason Sudakis as a black man is a hard sell.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 17, 2016, 02:04:01 PM
Can't take Jason Suckdickass seriously.  He is going to ruin that one.  The previews make me not want to watch it because of him.  In the previews it appears he's playing the gum-snapping douchebag guy from SNL.

The Witch?  Never heard of it nor seen a trailer for it.  So there's that.

The Witch is getting a shitload of hype.

I'll see the Jesse Owens one just cause I like Jesse Owens. I'll try and ignore sudackass
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 17, 2016, 02:48:01 PM
The Witch is getting a shitload of hype.

I'll see the Jesse Owens one just cause I like Jesse Owens. I'll try and ignore sudackass

I see a movie almost every weekend.  I'm a horror fanatic.  And yet I've never heard anything about this movie or seen a trailer or seen a preview poster. 

Go see deadpool.  Forget the witch.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 17, 2016, 03:37:34 PM
I see a movie almost every weekend.  I'm a horror fanatic.  And yet I've never heard anything about this movie or seen a trailer or seen a preview poster. 

Go see deadpool.  Forget the witch.

Fwiw, Stephen king said it scared the shit out of him. The trailer is intriguing. Gets good preliminary marks from imdb, metacritic and rotten tomatoes which is unusual for all 3 and especially for a horror type movie.

I believe it's independent and did well at sundance. So not as much marketing as the big movies.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on February 18, 2016, 10:44:51 AM
Well Jason Sudakis as a black man is a hard sell.

You betta pump ya brakes boy

(http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4400000/Robert-in-Tropic-Thunder-robert-downey-jr-4499954-720-480.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 18, 2016, 11:19:31 AM
You betta pump ya brakes boy

(http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4400000/Robert-in-Tropic-Thunder-robert-downey-jr-4499954-720-480.jpg)

Limp dick motherfuckers
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: djsimp on February 19, 2016, 10:06:18 AM
Not sure if this has been discussed but we watched Black Mass the other night OnDemand. If this movie comes anywhere close to the actual Whitey Bulger story, then this dude really was ruthless. I like Johnny Depp as an actor anyway so it was to me an interested character role. Good movie I thought.

https://youtu.be/9wb6SJHB0l4
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 21, 2016, 12:48:59 PM
Deadpool was great.  I'm a Reynolds fan, so no surprise to me that he killed this role.  Take his fast talking, smart ass character from Waiting and give him badass fighting skills (and ramp up the swearing to 11)  and you get a sense of the Deadpool character.

TJ Miller was perfect in his minor role.

Laugh out loud funny through most of the film, killer action sequences and lots of 4th wall destruction.

Go see this movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 21, 2016, 05:58:22 PM
Deadpool was great.  I'm a Reynolds fan, so no surprise to me that he killed this role.  Take his fast talking, smart ass character from Waiting and give him badass fighting skills (and ramp up the swearing to 11)  and you get a sense of the Deadpool character.

TJ Miller was perfect in his minor role.

Laugh out loud funny through most of the film, killer action sequences and lots of 4th wall destruction.

Go see this movie.

I just came here to say what you just said, verbatim.  One of the overall funniest movies I've seen in a long time. Sometimes, the constant smart-assedness by certain characters gets old if they can't pull it off or the writing just isn't that good.  Reynolds more than pulled it off and the lines were well written and well-timed.

Even the credits before and after were hilarious.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 22, 2016, 09:19:46 AM
Crimson Peak

Expected a horror movie.  Got a few weird ghostly pop-ups most of which were in the previews. 

The rest of the movie was horrible period outfits, terrible hairdos, dramatic music and knowing glances (leers) between the earnest cast. 

The back story about some ridiculous attempt to mine crimson clay from under a sagging house added nothing to the film and actually caused it to drag out longer than it should. 

The "shocker" wasn't really shocking at all given the long leers and assorted whispered comments. 

I didn't hate it, but it was more puff than substance.  More a chance for Jessica Chastain to give up on even trying a british accent while grumping around in heavy victorian garb, more a chance for Loki to smirk, and more a chance for Alice to crawl through a puffy shouldered rabbit hole. 

The lead girl was so ugly it was hard to watch.  She's a terrible actress and looking at her for that long made my eyes hurt.  Her outfits with giant balls of shoulder material were off-putting and annoying.  I hope to never see her in another movie again.  She was atrocious. 

The movie should have decided to be either the story of some swindling con artists trying to keep their family name alive or the story of a really ugly girl trapped in a house with ghosts and boogeys.  It needed a more supernatural flair to work as horror.  Would have been so much better if Loki or Chastain turned out to be vampires or dead or something.  Or if the ghosts had never been part of the mix and it was a straight up story about a pair of sickos who charm people out of their fortunes.   Trying to straddle the fence between worlds didn't work.

Kind of agree with this review, but ultimately you see GDT's movies for the visuals.  I thought he made beautiful use of the eponymous color in contrast to the bleak snowy setting.  The "horror" in this film is about on par with any of his other films.  He's not Wes Craven.

Not a must-see, but if you like GDT's work then you should give it a shot.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 22, 2016, 01:02:45 PM
The Martian

I was really looking forward to seeing this film.  I like Matt Damon.  I like Michael Pena. I like Sean Bean. I usually like Jessica Chastain.  I like Kate Mara. 

I wondered why the film was rewarded at the Golden Globes in the Comedy category. 

After watching The Martian, I understand. 

It was beautifully shot.  Made you believe the guy was stranded on Mars.   But....

1) The scene of super skinny Matt Damon didn't match his face.  He should have been gaunt and it was clear a body double was used.  He didn't commit like Christian Bale would have.  That was disappointing. 
2)  Launching with a tarp covering the nose? 
3) Iron-Manning through space?  C'mon.
4) Grabbing the guy at 90 mph or whatever?  Please.
5) The "slingshot around earth" plan?  Wasn't that one of Captain Kirk's trademark moves?  To go back in time? 
6) Once the china rocket came into play, the ridiculously risky and inprobissle turn the ship around rescue wasn't necessary.  Send the supply ship and then use the time to prepare a rescue proper. 
7) Kick around in the dust in a vast, enormous field desert and come across the one thing you need?
8) Dig up the rover from under all that dirt (impossible to begin with), get the thing dug out deep enough to lift it and THEN get the Pathfinder -- which weighed in at 1,973 pounds -- loaded on his rover?  Without a crane at the site?  Horseshit. 
9) Drive 3500 miles in a rover designed to do 35 miles a day and not run out of food along the way?  Bullshit.  And then find the needle in the desert haystack without so much as a GPS?  Pfaw!

So unrealistic it was funny.  Therefore: Comedy.

Yes.  I realize that all of those things that irked me could possibly, potentially, maybe work.  But not all of them at the same time. 

It was faux drama.  It pretty much wasted Mara, Bean, Chewing Pettifore (or whatever that black guy with the glasses is called), Jeff Daniels (who portrayed the dumbest head of NASA I've ever seen) and even wasted Chastain and Pena for the most part.  They were incidentals, and could have been played by any number of ex Law and Order character actors. 

Mackenzie Davis as a NASA employee was an actress that seemed to have much more to offer, but her role was limited. 

Kristen Wiig was also a complete bust in her role.  Completely ineffective and absolute zero on the screen at all times.  Why was she even there?  She should have had the big forehead and tiny hands at least. 

It's easy to see from my point of view why Leonardo DiCaprio would deserve the Oscar over Matt Damon when you take two films where their singular character carried an enormous amount of the film with little to play against but themselves. 

Not saying "don't see The Martian" but saying that if you do see it -- and most of you already have or have already decided not to -- go in expecting the same level of "realism" you'd get from an Avengers movie.  It will make it much more palatable.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 22, 2016, 02:23:17 PM
Not sure if this has been discussed but we watched Black Mass the other night OnDemand. If this movie comes anywhere close to the actual Whitey Bulger story, then this dude really was ruthless. I like Johnny Depp as an actor anyway so it was to me an interested character role. Good movie I thought.

https://youtu.be/9wb6SJHB0l4

Yes. Whitey Bulger was that bad. As ruthless of a gangster that has ever existed.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Pell City Tiger on February 22, 2016, 03:09:54 PM
I just came here to say what you just said, verbatim.  One of the overall funniest movies I've seen in a long time. Sometimes, the constant smart-assedness by certain characters gets old if they can't pull it off or the writing just isn't that good.  Reynolds more than pulled it off and the lines were well written and well-timed.

Even the credits before and after were hilarious.
I saw it Saturday night. It was the first time in quite a while that I've walked out at the end of a movie not feeling like I'd just been ripped off.

Hilarious flick!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 22, 2016, 03:20:01 PM
Deadpool was great.  I'm a Reynolds fan, so no surprise to me that he killed this role.  Take his fast talking, smart ass character from Waiting and give him badass fighting skills (and ramp up the swearing to 11)  and you get a sense of the Deadpool character.

TJ Miller was perfect in his minor role.

Laugh out loud funny through most of the film, killer action sequences and lots of 4th wall destruction.

Go see this movie.

I would happily stick it in her butt like she wanted....ah gawd...so hot!
(http://cdn.movieweb.com/img.site/PHPH4QG3P43KSY_1_l.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTiger1 on February 22, 2016, 03:27:06 PM
Yes. Whitey Bulger was that bad. As ruthless of a gangster that has ever existed.

Him and Albert Anastasia.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 22, 2016, 07:10:31 PM
The Martian

I was really looking forward to seeing this film.  I like Matt Damon.  I like Michael Pena. I like Sean Bean. I usually like Jessica Chastain.  I like Kate Mara. 

I wondered why the film was rewarded at the Golden Globes in the Comedy category. 

After watching The Martian, I understand. 

It was beautifully shot.  Made you believe the guy was stranded on Mars.   But....

1) The scene of super skinny Matt Damon didn't match his face.  He should have been gaunt and it was clear a body double was used.  He didn't commit like Christian Bale would have.  That was disappointing. 
2)  Launching with a tarp covering the nose? 
3) Iron-Manning through space?  C'mon.
4) Grabbing the guy at 90 mph or whatever?  Please.
5) The "slingshot around earth" plan?  Wasn't that one of Captain Kirk's trademark moves?  To go back in time? 
6) Once the china rocket came into play, the ridiculously risky and inprobissle turn the ship around rescue wasn't necessary.  Send the supply ship and then use the time to prepare a rescue proper. 
7) Kick around in the dust in a vast, enormous field desert and come across the one thing you need?
8) Dig up the rover from under all that dirt (impossible to begin with), get the thing dug out deep enough to lift it and THEN get the Pathfinder -- which weighed in at 1,973 pounds -- loaded on his rover?  Without a crane at the site?  Horseshit. 
9) Drive 3500 miles in a rover designed to do 35 miles a day and not run out of food along the way?  Bullshit.  And then find the needle in the desert haystack without so much as a GPS?  Pfaw!

So unrealistic it was funny.  Therefore: Comedy.

Yes.  I realize that all of those things that irked me could possibly, potentially, maybe work.  But not all of them at the same time. 

It was faux drama.  It pretty much wasted Mara, Bean, Chewing Pettifore (or whatever that black guy with the glasses is called), Jeff Daniels (who portrayed the dumbest head of NASA I've ever seen) and even wasted Chastain and Pena for the most part.  They were incidentals, and could have been played by any number of ex Law and Order character actors. 

Mackenzie Davis as a NASA employee was an actress that seemed to have much more to offer, but her role was limited. 

Kristen Wiig was also a complete bust in her role.  Completely ineffective and absolute zero on the screen at all times.  Why was she even there?  She should have had the big forehead and tiny hands at least. 

It's easy to see from my point of view why Leonardo DiCaprio would deserve the Oscar over Matt Damon when you take two films where their singular character carried an enormous amount of the film with little to play against but themselves. 

Not saying "don't see The Martian" but saying that if you do see it -- and most of you already have or have already decided not to -- go in expecting the same level of "realism" you'd get from an Avengers movie.  It will make it much more palatable.

I don't disagree with much in this review...but I was entertained.

When Damon is first aware of his situation and tells the video-diary that he's going to survive by "science-ing the shit out of it!" I knew I wasn't in for a story that NASA co-wrote.

This was Survivor on Mars.  It was at times funny, tense and heartwarming.  It wasn't scientifically accurate and it has no place in Oscar discussions (relevant ones, anyway...maybe sets/props/whatever).  I like Damon and most of the cast and so I liked their story. 

And it was on Mars...which is fun and cool.

Fuck it...it was a couple hours of entertainment that was better than most efforts.  I don't think it should win awards.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 23, 2016, 12:04:41 AM
I don't disagree with much in this review...but I was entertained.

When Damon is first aware of his situation and tells the video-diary that he's going to survive by "science-ing the shit out of it!" I knew I wasn't in for a story that NASA co-wrote.

This was Survivor on Mars.  It was at times funny, tense and heartwarming.  It wasn't scientifically accurate and it has no place in Oscar discussions (relevant ones, anyway...maybe sets/props/whatever).  I like Damon and most of the cast and so I liked their story. 

And it was on Mars...which is fun and cool.

Fuck it...it was a couple hours of entertainment that was better than most efforts.  I don't think it should win awards.

I was entertained.  Damon is that good.  Think about this for a minute though.

If Bradley Cooper had been the stranded astronaut?   Nick Cage?  Chris Pine?  Dave Franco?   Would you still have been entertained?  I don't know that I would have.  I think I would have trashed it. 

Still don't know why they wasted such big names in essentially throwaway roles. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 23, 2016, 12:10:33 AM
I was entertained.  Damon is that good.  Think about this for a minute though.

If Bradley Cooper had been the stranded astronaut?   Nick Cage?  Chris Pine?  Dave Franco?   Would you still have been entertained?  I don't know that I would have.  I think I would have trashed it. 

Still don't know why they wasted such big names in essentially throwaway roles.

Can't argue with that.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 23, 2016, 09:25:43 AM
I was entertained.  Damon is that good.  Think about this for a minute though.

If Bradley Cooper had been the stranded astronaut?   Nick Cage?  Chris Pine?  Dave Franco?   Would you still have been entertained?  I don't know that I would have.  I think I would have trashed it. 

Still don't know why they wasted such big names in essentially throwaway roles.


Why is the hate so strong with this one?  I haven't seen The Martian, but I can guarantee there were no lines delivered that came close to matching:

"Put....the bunny....back....in the box."

I get chills just hearing that in my head.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 23, 2016, 09:42:07 AM

Why is the hate so strong with this one?  I haven't seen The Martian, but I can guarantee there were no lines delivered that came close to matching:

"Put....the bunny....back....in the box."

I get chills just hearing that in my head.
(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/yxUFwfEhIGsTGPz4IJSDv-4b-e0=/0x0:1050x591/1600x900/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/46711910/supermanlives2.0.0.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 23, 2016, 09:56:31 AM
(https://browntweedsociety.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/nicolas_cage_goes_crazy_outside_club.jpg)

This face. 

He's just a terrible actor.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 24, 2016, 11:03:36 PM
The Intern
You can't teach an old dog new tricks but old dogs still have a few tricks up their sleeves. 

That was the basic theme of this fluffy quasi-comedy featuring DeNiro as the retiree looking a place in the world and Ann Hathaway as the too busy for the real world internet tycoon in need of a few life lessons. 

The movie flowed along amicably not stirring up much dust and wringing some sporadic comedy from the cliched old fish in a new pond setups. 

And then it fucked itself so completely I am compelled to tell it to take a flying fuck at Jupiter.  The last decision made by Hathaway's character is so weak and so opposed to the person she needed to be in that moment that I no longer gave a shit about her or her dilemma.  Fuck her. 

Movie shit on itself in the last five pathetic minutes.  Booooo. Fucking booooooo.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 28, 2016, 09:37:59 AM
I see a movie almost every weekend.  I'm a horror fanatic.  And yet I've never heard anything about this movie or seen a trailer or seen a preview poster. 

Go see deadpool.  Forget the witch.

Saw The Witch last night.

Very solid. Very well made. Very different. It had a scary subtly to it much like some of M. Nights early stuff. You wonder the whole time who the culprit is in the house. The end is a slight surprise when you what the overall objective was. Takes place in 17th century New England at a high time of Puritan and witchcraft beliefs which is where the story is derived from.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 28, 2016, 10:13:35 AM
The VVITCH

This moving picture be setteth in yon time of long ago where there be things that hath frights in the woods. If thee wisheth to take thy kin to this snoozeth festival prepare thyself for speech unintelligible.

Boooooo.  Family gets exiled from Puritan village for reasons not well explained, family gets exposed to ridiculously mild threats in yon woods, tense music ramps up when absolutely nothing is happening and then it ends stupidly. 

I had a difficult time understanding anything the family patriarch said what with all the thee-ing and thou-ing and his general tendency to mutter in prayerful supplication.  The son was even harder to understand. I would have spent half the movie asking "what did he just say?" if I cared what he had said or if I thought it mattered.

Hated the shrew wife, loathed the fat little kids.

It wasn't scary at all.  I hated it as much as I've hated a movie in a long long time. 

Do not wasteth thy time.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 07, 2016, 01:09:08 PM
Creed

We've seen this story.  We saw it done to perfection in Rocky.  We saw a version of it in the somewhat silly but under appreciated Rocky Balboa. 

Underdog gets a shot against a fighter against which he should have little chance.  Underdog shows unexpected guts and tenacity, taking a beating, turning a hostile crowd in his favor, taking punishment and the fight to the limit and .... Does he win? 

It's been done better.  This movie hits the same technical marks but it is lacking in heart. It's missing the sweetness and family at the core of the original films. 

The unwarranted cockiness and relentless anger displayed by Adonis Johnson Creed is grating and overbearing.  I found myself rooting for him to get his little ass whipped. 

It may have failed harder with me because I had watched the first film just a few days prior so the near cinematic perfection of that film was still fresh.

Creed wasn't a bad film, it just rang the same formulaic bell one time too many for me. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 07, 2016, 01:14:30 PM
London is Falling
If the president gets kidnapped twice during his term in office there's a major problem.  If he's at the forefront of destroying cultural and historic landmarks in both DC and London he needs to be impeached or something. 

Lots of action.  Lots of destruction. Lots of improbable situations. 

Turn your brain off and just watch the action unfold and this movie will pass with little effect.  It's the cinematic equivalent of chewing gum. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on March 07, 2016, 02:18:10 PM
Creed
Creed wasn't a bad film, it just rang the same formulaic bell one time too many for me.

But of the 4 movies that got rebooted last year (Mad Max, Jurassic Park, Star Wars, and Rocky), I think that it was the best.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 07, 2016, 02:25:11 PM
The VVITCH

This moving picture be setteth in yon time of long ago where there be things that hath frights in the woods. If thee wisheth to take thy kin to this snoozeth festival prepare thyself for speech unintelligible.

Boooooo.  Family gets exiled from Puritan village for reasons not well explained, family gets exposed to ridiculously mild threats in yon woods, tense music ramps up when absolutely nothing is happening and then it ends stupidly. 

I had a difficult time understanding anything the family patriarch said what with all the thee-ing and thou-ing and his general tendency to mutter in prayerful supplication.  The son was even harder to understand. I would have spent half the movie asking "what did he just say?" if I cared what he had said or if I thought it mattered.

Hated the shrew wife, loathed the fat little kids.

It wasn't scary at all.  I hated it as much as I've hated a movie in a long long time. 

Do not wasteth thy time.

Thou thinks you are most hard to please unto thee cinema.

If they had spoken plain English you would have complained that it was not accurate. I think you look for things to complain about. It wasn't all that. But wasn't bad either. Although I think most of your review was just spite in re to my comments on the previous page. I get it. People hyped it up. Stephen King hyped it up. You hate that. So you went to see it so you could complain how bad it was and how everyone is stupid. Rinse and repeat...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 07, 2016, 02:52:16 PM
Thou thinks you are most hard to please unto thee cinema.

If they had spoken plain English you would have complained that it was not accurate. I think you look for things to complain about. It wasn't all that. But wasn't bad either. Although I think most of your review was just spite in re to my comments on the previous page. I get it. People hyped it up. Stephen King hyped it up. You hate that. So you went to see it so you could complain how bad it was and how everyone is stupid. Rinse and repeat...

No. I was actually looking forward to seeing it.  Your review gave me additional encouragement. 

I just hated the movie.  As did my friend who went with me.  There was no horror.  The tension -- such as there was -- was artificial and forced.  I just didn't like it at all. 

I've said often that movies have to work hard to reach me.  I want to be entertained without being insulted. Depending on the genre I look for different things. I just got nothing out of this one at all. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 07, 2016, 02:54:43 PM
But of the 4 movies that got rebooted last year (Mad Max, Jurassic Park, Star Wars, and Rocky), I think that it was the best.

Star Wars and Creed were similar in that they told almost exactly the same story that started the series.

Of the two I was more entertained by Star Wars.  I think the acting was better in Creed.  Neither set my drawers on fire. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 13, 2016, 12:33:38 PM
Legend

Tom Hardy.  And Tom Hardy.

When will I ever learn. 

Sort of a British goodfellas.  English gangster twin brothers both played by Hardy.

As in every movie he puts on a near unintelligible accent that leaves me wondering what he said for half the movie.  I understand that it was cockney.  So was everybody else. But he was the only one making weird speech affectations to the point that his words were just mumbo jumbo. 

Good story, poorly paced and with not quite enough exposition on some aspects with far too much on others. 

Love gangster movies.  This was just put together so choppily that I didn't enjoy it as much as I could have.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 14, 2016, 12:28:23 AM
Exeter

Horror. Gore. I like that.  Mix in a little humor and you've got a winner in my book. 

This little movie that I'd never heard of did a pretty good job of mixing the requisite ingredients and coming up with something that I enjoyed. 

A little Exorcist. A little Quarantine. A little of every partying teenager in a movie cliche you've seen before, but done so much better than movies with bigger budgets, bigger name actors and bigger promotional vehicles.  It's not trying to be anything other than an inventively gory, occasionally funny movie that's the equivalent of a Little Debbie honey bun.   It's good for the moment and then you quickly forget you had it. The film was self-aware enough to acknowledge the films that were a part of its makeup and I liked that as well. 

Also liked that I didn't have the whole thing completely figured at the end. 

Basic concept is that a teenager is part of a crew that's cleaning up an old mental institution. He's close to some priest who has some connection to the place.  His friends decide it would be the perfect site for a massive party.  As the party winds down a bunch of drunk/drugged out kids decide to re-enact the "light as a feather, stiff as a board" thing from The Craft.  And they unleash a beast that has to be contained.

I have no idea who any of the actors are.  Never seen any of them in anything before with the exception of the guy who played the priest, Stephen Lang.  He's been in an assload of stuff including Avatar.  Here he's not much involved in the real story. 

I figure this movie got trashed in the reviews, but I liked it well enough.  Not gonna add it to my permanent queue, but it was a satisfying snack of a film. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 14, 2016, 08:56:41 AM
10 Cloverfield Lane

Interesting thriller about 3 people in a bunker, sealed off from the world.

The aliens appear at the very end just to make sure there was a connection to JJ Abrams' work.

It was not an IMAX movie, it was not a Cloverfield/alien/monster movie.

It was ok...see it on demand.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 15, 2016, 12:50:55 AM
Max

In this new era of Trumpish patriotism how can you not be in love with a movie that celebrates the loyalty and dedication of the dogs who serve the United States military, searching out weapons and warning of danger? How can you screw up a movie that pays homage to those magnificent creatures. 

Let me count the ways:

1) Wooden, emotionally vacant performances from every actor in the film except the dog. Thomas Hayden Church and Lauren Graham were both unconvincing and looked like they wanted to be anywhere else but playing a married couple dealing with a dog. The lead kid, Josh Wiggins, was particularly awful. He failed to convey a single convincing emotional response.  He was abysmal.  The poor dog was ashamed to be involved with that dead-legged cast.

2) Cliched and inept mexican bad guys

3) A ridiculous story about arms dealing that involved crooked cops, crooked soldiers and the cliched inept mexican bad guy

It was just a silly plot dragged down by lifeless performances. 

I'd really like to see a good story about a military dog who recovers from the trauma of war, but without the ridiculous "wanna buy some RPGs and ship them to Mexico? Sure, but what about those meddling kids and their dog?"  plotline. 

Turned what should have been an inspiring story into an episode of:

(http://www.picgifs.com/clip-art/cartoons/scooby-doo/clip-art-scooby-doo-959006.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 15, 2016, 07:50:21 AM
(http://www.picgifs.com/clip-art/cartoons/scooby-doo/clip-art-scooby-doo-959006.jpg)

Funny sidebar, The Scooby Doo and Kiss movie has become the stepkids favorite cartoon.  It has weaned them off of pup patrol and given me a catalyst to introduce them into rock and roll.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 15, 2016, 09:07:36 AM
Funny sidebar, The Scooby Doo and Kiss movie has become the stepkids favorite cartoon.  It has weaned them off of pup patrol and given me a catalyst to introduce them into rock and roll.

The end will justify the means.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on March 15, 2016, 09:14:48 AM
The end will justify the means.

But is the juice worth the squeeze?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 15, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Funny sidebar, The Scooby Doo and Kiss movie has become the stepkids favorite cartoon.  It has weaned them off of pup patrol and given me a catalyst to introduce them into rock and roll.

Sidebar:
Reviewed on page 98 of this thread.

(http://s24.postimg.org/ho3f8nret/f5_RBe_B7.png)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 15, 2016, 10:39:20 AM
Sidebar:
Reviewed on page 98 of this thread.

(http://s24.postimg.org/ho3f8nret/f5_RBe_B7.png)

Oh I know, that's is what alerted me to it so I could roll it into their cartoons.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 16, 2016, 08:58:54 AM
The end will justify the means.
It's just so bad though that he has to start with such a shitty band.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 16, 2016, 10:36:12 AM
It's just so bad though that he has to start with such a shitty band.

Well I figured get them started off on the bubble gum rock then move them to the real shit to get them hooked.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 20, 2016, 12:54:37 AM
John Dies At The End

Wanted horrorish movie.  Got whatever the hell this was.  It was by turns

a) idiotic
b) senseless
c) ridiculous
d) terrible
e) absurd
f) poorly acted
d) poorly scripted
e) poorly executed
f) confusing
e) poorly directed
f) god awful

One of the biggest wastes of 90 minutes I've ever spent. 

I can usually find some small thing to appreciate in most every movie.  Not this one. Well, the dog was pretty.  So there's that.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 20, 2016, 01:11:21 AM
Pee Wee's Big Holiday

I've always enjoyed the silly work of Pee Wee Herman. From the first time I saw him as the cocaine-snorting hamburger man in Nice Dreams, I found his work to be absurdly amusing.  I thought his Saturday show was borderline brilliant.  Pee Wee's Big Adventure was not comedic genius, but it was a good use of his character. Big Top Pee Wee wasn't quite as good, but it stayed true to the character and I enjoyed it too. 

And then he choked a chicken in a Florida porn house and got busted for having an enormous porn collection. 

Pee Wee Herman died.  Pretty much disappeared from the radar completely.

Thirty something years later, he's back with a Netflix only release.  Same silly schtick. Same crazy setups. Same fish-out-of-water scenarios, this time with Joe Magliominolo along for parts of the ride. 

He looks older and some of the behavior almost seems sad/pathetic but as much as I hate to admit it, this movie made me laugh.  The snake scene and showing the Amish how to have fun cracked me up for reasons I don't understand and can't explain. 

I've since seen the film described as a homo-erotic fantasy and the gayest movie since Brokeback Mountain.  I didn't see it that way at all. I've always thought of Pee Wee as a naive man child and his sexuality is not even a consideration.  I think only a gay would watch Pee Wee's movie and see it as some kind of fruity romp. 

I enjoyed the movie and am glad I watched it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 20, 2016, 01:15:37 AM
The Collection
Followup to The Collector, which I think I may have reviewed somewhere in here. 

Creepy dude in a mask kidnaps people and subjects them to perverse experiments/torture for reasons unknown.  He hides out in an abandoned hotel which he has rigged up with some inventively gruesome booby traps. 

After he slaughters a club full of people and kidnaps one, a former victim and a crew of mercenaries storm the hotel to retrieve the kidnapped girl.  Gore ensues. 

Not the best movie I've ever watched, but the creative and gruesome deaths were entertaining. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 20, 2016, 09:36:50 AM
Saw The Big Short. Interesting presentation and ways of breaking the fourth wall to tell the story.

By the way, iff that is all true, we have failed as a society.

Finally got around to watching this last night.  Great movie with an excellent cast (less and except the makeup on Gosling...off-putting).

The true story of the fucked-up, masturbatory system that created the housing crisis should be required viewing for all citizens.

My only beef was that they glossed over the characteristics (other than rating) that made the loans "subprime".  The mortgage douches that Mark Baum and his crew speak with ("Last year I was a bartender...now I have a boat") touched on the bullshit "underwriting" that their mortgage companies performed, but they missed an opportunity to explain the shitty mortgage products that Countrywide and some of the other egregious offenders offered (ie - negative amortization "pick a payment" loans).

Great movie told from the perspectives of a handful of people that saw the bubble coming...and bet against the American Dream.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 23, 2016, 10:12:43 AM
Finally got around to watching this last night.  Great movie with an excellent cast (less and except the makeup on Gosling...off-putting).

The true story of the fucked-up, masturbatory system that created the housing crisis should be required viewing for all citizens.

My only beef was that they glossed over the characteristics (other than rating) that made the loans "subprime".  The mortgage douches that Mark Baum and his crew speak with ("Last year I was a bartender...now I have a boat") touched on the bullshit "underwriting" that their mortgage companies performed, but they missed an opportunity to explain the shitty mortgage products that Countrywide and some of the other egregious offenders offered (ie - negative amortization "pick a payment" loans).

Great movie told from the perspectives of a handful of people that saw the bubble coming...and bet against the American Dream.
agree
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 25, 2016, 10:48:09 AM
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

First let me preface this by saying I'm a borderline obsessed batnerd.  Batman is by far my favorite comic character of all time. I've got a Batman comic collection that dates back now to the late 50s.  There's a small bat-sticker somewhere on every car I've ever owned.  I'm able to appreciate every bat incarnation on the big and small screen to a degree. Adam West, Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Bale and now Affleck all brought something different to the table with varying degrees of success.  At this point I think Keaton probably made the best Bruce Wayne and Bale (minus the stupid voice) probably makes the best Batman. But I'm not even sure about that. 

What I am sure about is that Affleck was not the best Batman, nor was he the best Bruce Wayne.  But he wasn't always the worst either.  I was so unnerved by his casting that I expected him to bomb in a big way. That he didn't is about the best I can say. 

And now the movie.  I'm sure many of you will like it.  I've now seen it and it wasn't horrible, but I have no interest in seeing it again.   It missed so many marks and cracked under it's own weight in innumerable places. 

What a plodding, ponderous, mangled mish mash of a handful of stories.  The director was so ham-handed, so mechanically driven that the heart of the story simply didn't exist. 

__________________________
Here there be spoilers......
__________________________

Among the myriad problems:

1) The run time.  The movie (with the 15 previews that came before it) started at 9:30 and let out at 12:18.  There just wasn't enough meat to carry the story for that length of time so it bogged down terribly in a number of places.  There were too many pointless threads that meandered nowhere.  The director really is a hack. By the time it got to the Batmanning and Supermanning, many in our crowd had mentally checked out.

2) Amy Adams was mind-numbingly horrible. Every second she was on the screen was an absolute waste.

3) As bad as Amy Adams was, Holly Hunter was exponentially worse.  Dreadful.  Her motives were never clear, her stances were left unexplained and her death was welcome. 

4) Eisenberg.  Maybe he'll grow into it in the future, but his frenetic bopping simply is NOT Lex Luthor.  And you'd think that a movie that ran close to three hours would have been able to rationally explain his Superman loathing.  But it didn't.  Complete fail. Oh, it hinted at it here and there, but the root of his animus was never successfully explored.

5) Batman.  Yes, I know the current trend is to portray him as a morose and brooding bitch, but that's not all he is (or should be).   There was the obligatory training scene where Affleck got to show off his muscles, but his Batman was unconvincing in the fight sequences. Not nimble or agile enough.  And guns, bullets, brands, murder... That's not Batman either.  The Bat is not a murderous brute, bulling through the city with tanks, rockets and machine guns.

6) Did I mention the director sucked?  Two (no, actually three) dream sequences that muddied the plot.  Fucking dream sequences.  Grrrr.

7) Location, location, location.  I've always envisioned Gotham as being New York and Metropolis as being Boston or Chicago or LA or something.  Or even vice versa.  This fucked up movie is trying to tell me that the two are fucking ACROSS A BAY FROM EACH OTHER?  And that the fucking Bat Signal can be SEEN FROM METROPOLIS?   No fucking way.  Bullshit. Idiotic.  That Batman and Superman exist on two peninsulas separated by a sliver of water?  And that Batman rarely strays into Metropolis to fuck up Luthor or any of Superman's problems and Superman never drifts across to help with Joker, Clayface, Riddler, Catwoman, Penguin, Twoface, etc. etc. etc?  That's lunacy.  If any one thing ruined this movie, that was it. 

8) Not enough exposition or explanation.  Again, three hours, but so much was left in a muddy mess.  Way too much was left just hanging out there for no reason.  Why? Why? Why?  If Superman can hear Lois fart from half a world away, how come he couldn't hear his mother screaming when she was kidnapped?  Was his Super bathtub boner getting in the way? 

9) Stupidity.  Example: So Batman and Superman fight and Batman's got this spear that he hides somewhere so he can use it in the end.  And they crash through block after block of buildings, rooftops, walls, and who knows fuck all.  But when he gets Superman down?  Why there's that fucking spear, right where he must have left it, within easy reach.  The fuck?  How could he possibly have planned to have the damn thing just sitting right there?  That was one.  I could list 50 more but won't. 

10) All of a sudden everybody knows who everybody is.  Well hey, Clark. What's up Bruce. Everybody in the world has it figured out. Like literally 20 people in this movie.   So why even fuck with the masks and fake jobs?  Jeez. 

11) Wonder Woman setup.  Oh, hey, look!  That's Chris Pine in the old photo of Wonder Woman!  I bet that would make a good origin movie!  Could they be ANY more clunk-fuckingly obvious? 

12) Doomsday. Eh.  Kid behind me wanted to know why King Kong was fighting Batman.  Just not well rendered.  The story could have been told so much better without that big explosion-laden distraction tacked on to the end. 

13) Oh hey!  There's Aquaman.  And Flash!  Ohhh! Cyborg!  All clumsily revealed.  And where's Green Lantern?  Oh, that's right. He's Deadpool now and mocking himself. 

14) Superman period.  It's hard to get the character right.  This guy does as good as anybody I guess, but I just don't care for him or his story at all.   He's the Captain America (which Marvel does better) to Batman's Tony Stark-Ironman (which Marvel also does exponentially better). 

15) No self awareness.  What I like about the Marvel movies is that they are almost completely self aware. They inject just enough humor to remind us that we are supposed to be having fun watching the most improbable bunch of freaks save the world in the most violent and explosive way.  Hell, even the first Transformers got that right.  Batman v Superman is a relentlessly dark movie. No fun allowed.  That makes it much harder to connect with the characters. Why should you care what happens to either of them, really?  And what's to fear from lightweight Jesse E?  The movie needed a better director.

16) The Dark Knight Returns.  Great comic series by Frank Miller that told the story of an older Batman coming out of a forced/negotiated retirement because the city was near out of control.  The government (a thinly veiled Ronald Reagan, actually) sends Superman to take him out.  Cue epic fight, some masterful bat trickery and a satisfying ending.   This movie borrowed pieces of that.  The bat suit for the showdown is almost a carbon copy of the one Miller drew up for the comic.  So, too is the bulkier batman frame, the fatter bat logo and the much shorter bat ears (believe it or not, ear length is a significant touchstone in bat history.  This alteration is a major change from the ears that had gotten longer and longer through Clooney).  But whoever did this story didn't take all of Miller's story.  Yeah, there was a kryponite weapon, but in the book Green Arrow had it.  And Batman did have his foot on Superman's throat.  But there wasn't the absolutely ASININE moment of ... "Wait, did you say Martha?  Oh hell, my mom's name is Martha too!  Dang bitch, I guess I should stop trying to kill your ass and we can just partner up and be all cool together.  Man, if you'd just told me her name was Martha, all this seething rage I've been building up for years would have gone away.  Martha.  Be damned. Her name, too, huh?"   My daughter actually blurted out "What the Faaahhhh" when he turned that fast for no good reason. 

17) Fishburne.  I'm still mad at that racist bastard from his work in Boyz in the Hood.  He can kiss my ass.

18) The score.  Teeth achingly bad, beat you over the head music.  Relentless, pointless pounding.  Absolutely worthless.

19) Terrible director.  Have I mentioned that? As he has the Justice League contract, I have no hope for that at all. It’s going to suck beyond all imagination and probably kill the super hero genre for the remainder of my natural life. 

20) No cohesive focus.  Why were Batman and Superman really pissed at each other?  Do we know?  Do we care?  Why jam in the electro monster?  And Wonder Woman?   The movie would have been so much if it had just taken two hours to compare and contrast the ways Batman and Superman effect their own brands of justice and then set up some legitimate beef between the two that demanded a violent resolution.  If it had told the story of each of their relationships with the public maybe.  Instead, we got this.   


So after all that, would I suggest that you go see the movie?  Sure.  I actually didn't hate it, but I want so much from a Batman movie that this just left me meh.  It wasn't great, it wasn't awful. I will never watch it again.  But now I'm definitely not enthused about any Justice League movie and I probably won't do Aquaman, Wonder Woman or Flash.  I probably won't even do CA: Civil War.  I'm sick of the trailers for that. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 26, 2016, 12:14:04 AM
10 Cloverfield Lane

Interesting thriller about 3 people in a bunker, sealed off from the world.

The aliens appear at the very end just to make sure there was a connection to JJ Abrams' work.

It was not an IMAX movie, it was not a Cloverfield/alien/monster movie.

It was ok...see it on demand.

Gonna have to be a little more positive in regard to this one. 

Enjoyed it more than I did dawn of justice. 

I've always thought the lead chick was hot.  So I enjoyed that.  John Goodman was weirdly creepy. Emmett was a good character. 

Some of the problems I had though?  Couldn't get a sense of elapsed time.  Did weeks or months pass?  I assume this was purposeful to give the same sense of disorientation faced by the characters.  Also don't understand why they put the whole "that's not his daughter that's a missing girl" angle in.  Again I presume it was to solidify the urgency of escaping and cast further doubt on Goodman's motives.  But it just seemed like a poor choice.  It should have been left out or fleshed out. 

Even though the ending had been somewhat spoiled by the review above I still enjoyed the sheer helplessness and resigned shock that followed the frantic drama of the escape.  It was a good turn.  Was pretty funny when I heard a black dude two rows over mirror her "oh fuck" almost beat for beat when she realized what she was facing after escaping and in the process destroying what might be the only sanctuary remaining. 

A nicely put together film that I enjoyed more than I anticipated. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on March 26, 2016, 08:27:58 PM
My take on ‪Batman v Superman‬:

Mark Zuckerberg fails to get Jesus and Mark Cuban to kill each other. They team up with  Jane Pauly & Xena to destroy The Incredible Cloverfield Hulk Monster.

Was a fun enough ride. Not the greatest thing but not bad either.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 27, 2016, 11:49:05 PM
My take on ‪Batman v Superman‬:

Mark Zuckerberg fails to get Jesus and Mark Cuban to kill each other. They team up with  Jane Pauly & Xena to destroy The Incredible Cloverfield Hulk Monster.

Was a fun enough ride. Not the greatest thing but not bad either.

Zero fun.  That was one of my biggest complaints.  Zero fun. 

I'm watching a few minutes of The Dark Knight right now and despite its flaws, it is so far superior to Dawn of Justice that words cannot do it justice.  Dawn is like Zapped! to Dark Knight's Breakfast Club.   If DK is a prime rib, DoJ would be a can of stale potted meat.  If DK is Jessica Alba, DoJ is Momma June. 

The only thing that really keeps DK from being near perfect (except for being too long with too many stories at once)?  Maggie Fuglyhall.  Lord that creature is difficult to look at.  She's hideous. Disgustingly so. 

Other than that, everything about DK is exponentially better -- like times 200 better -- than DoJ.   Watching this now, I'm stunned at just how miserably Dawn actually failed.  It's even worse in hindsight than it was in real time.  I'm amending my initial review to rate that Dawn as one of the most disappointing movies ever. It's a great big turkey.

It's also worth noting that the awfulness of DoJ is not related in any way whatsoever to what I thought would sink it - Ben Affleck.  He wasn't that bad. With a better director, better script and some better costuming I think he could actually have been one of the best to play the role. 

Zac Snyder is the problem.  If there is to be a Justice League, he HAS to go.  The franchise absolutely cannot be left in his hands.  I'm a DC guy at my core.  I want that franchise to find its way and rival the power of Marvel.  It will flop like a fish on a griddle if he helms the rest. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on March 28, 2016, 09:35:37 AM
Zero fun.  That was one of my biggest complaints.  Zero fun. 

I'm watching a few minutes of The Dark Knight right now and despite its flaws, it is so far superior to Dawn of Justice that words cannot do it justice.  Dawn is like Zapped! to Dark Knight's Breakfast Club.   If DK is a prime rib, DoJ would be a can of stale potted meat.  If DK is Jessica Alba, DoJ is Momma June. 

The only thing that really keeps DK from being near perfect (except for being too long with too many stories at once)?  Maggie Fuglyhall.  Lord that creature is difficult to look at.  She's hideous. Disgustingly so. 

Other than that, everything about DK is exponentially better -- like times 200 better -- than DoJ.   Watching this now, I'm stunned at just how miserably Dawn actually failed.  It's even worse in hindsight than it was in real time.  I'm amending my initial review to rate that Dawn as one of the most disappointing movies ever. It's a great big turkey.

It's also worth noting that the awfulness of DoJ is not related in any way whatsoever to what I thought would sink it - Ben Affleck.  He wasn't that bad. With a better director, better script and some better costuming I think he could actually have been one of the best to play the role. 

Zac Snyder is the problem.  If there is to be a Justice League, he HAS to go.  The franchise absolutely cannot be left in his hands.  I'm a DC guy at my core.  I want that franchise to find its way and rival the power of Marvel.  It will flop like a fish on a griddle if he helms the rest.

Nolan-verse movies are far superior to everything Marvel or DC, no argument. Just saying I didn't hate it outright. It was fine considering the heavy-handed subtext (described in my take on it) and I went with the ride. Would I watch it again? Maybe...if it is on Netflix or something and I want some noise in the background while I clean or something.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 28, 2016, 11:45:16 AM
Nolan-verse movies are far superior to everything Marvel or DC, no argument. Just saying I didn't hate it outright. It was fine considering the heavy-handed subtext (described in my take on it) and I went with the ride. Would I watch it again? Maybe...if it is on Netflix or something and I want some noise in the background while I clean or something.

You had a different opinion and take on it. We must alert the church elders at once.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 28, 2016, 12:18:00 PM
You had a different opinion and take on it. We must alert the church elders at once.

It's called "discussion"

Alert the founding fathers.  Tell them that constitution thing works pretty well when liberals aren't twisting it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 29, 2016, 01:55:53 AM
Just saw a new trailer for Captain America: Civil War.

It looks very much like the exact same movie as Dawn of Justice.  Except it looks much better. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKrVegVI0Us

Giving Super Captain Man America grief over the destruction wrought by the Avengers.   And Bat Iron Man has to fight him.   

But instead of just Wonder Woman there are acres of guests -- including one that I wish had not been completely spoiled by the fucking trailer I just saw.  Why ruin the reveal?

(http://wondersofdisney.webs.com/disxd/spiderman/spiderman/spidermancrawl2.png)

Oddly enough it came on right before a trailer for Dawn of Justice, one that reminded me of how wrong that movie got Lex Luthor, Alfred, and so much else. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 29, 2016, 12:11:43 PM
But instead of just Wonder Woman there are acres of guests -- including one that I wish had not been completely spoiled by the fucking trailer I just saw.  Why ruin the reveal?

Because it is based on the comics and Spidey has the pivotal role in how everything plays out.

Plus this was huge news months (years?) ago when Sony (they own the Spidey rights) agreed to let Marvel Franchise (Disney) use him.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 29, 2016, 12:17:46 PM
Review online ...agrees with Kaos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE4YgpkRGtI
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 01, 2016, 11:20:07 AM
Goodnight Mommy

Austrian horror film, therefore subtitled. 

Could have been such a great movie.  Mom has plastic surgery from an accident or whatever.  Her creepy twin sons begin to question whether the woman behind the bandages is actually their mother.  They eventually decide to hold her hostage and torture her until she tells them where their "real" mother is. 

Some of the torture scenes were a little spooky and the twins did a fairly good job of conveying quiet unhinged menace. 

Problem is that the film so blatantly telegraphed the "big surprise" so early that it was actually a letdown when it was finally revealed.  By then you were hoping that what you knew might actually be wrong. 

It also included a couple of ridiculously weird scenes for no reason including:
> One where mommy stood in the mirror and massaged her boobs while her face was bandaged
> One where mommy wandered out in the woods, stripped of all her clothes and threw a head-banging fit.

Some creepy elements here and there, but knowing the reveal really dampened the impact of the movie.  If there is ever an Americanized version (The Grudge, Let Me In, etc were foreign horror that got America'd) , I hope they hold on to the power that reveal could bring until the end.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 04, 2016, 02:35:53 PM
It's called "discussion"

Alert the founding fathers.  Tell them that constitution thing works pretty well when liberals aren't twisting it.

The irony in this ^
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 04, 2016, 02:48:18 PM
The irony in this ^
^
The irony in that.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on April 08, 2016, 03:34:26 PM
"He Never Died"

Had seen the trailer for this and meant to watch it earlier.  Finally did last night. 

I thought it was good.  Not great but certainly worth the 1.5 hours on Netflix.

https://youtu.be/6QK2T7I5uUA
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 10, 2016, 01:29:04 AM
The Boss

Melissa McCarthy is pretty grating.  She's like Chris Farley in that she's really a one-note character.  Obnoxious fat ass with some surprising agility, at least two fat pratfalls per flick and supposedly a heart of gold. 

I keep seeing reviews of this movie (and others of hers) that say she's this clearly great comedic actress trapped in movies that don't properly use her talents.  They compare her to Bill Murray and Jim Carey.  But what if the opposite is true? What if this shrill, crass, vulgar, obese moose in a china shop schtick is all she has in the tank.  I tend to think it is.  Even in Spy, which was one of her successes, she was being the same character.  That movie was elevated not by her one trick pony but by rich performances from Jason Statham, Jude Law, Rose Byrne, Miranda Hart, and the guy who played Aldo.  If she had carried the film like she tried to do this one?  Turd. 

She's not abysmal here (not nearly as bad as Tammy), and neither is the brain-dead vacant-eyed Kristin Bell, but that doesn't mean they're great either.

The story has a funny moment or two, but dips unnecessarily into gutter-level crudity when it really doesn't need to.  I saw parents bringing young (third or fourth grade) children in despite the R rating and those kids were treated to a lengthy, unneeded scene where three people banter about who's sucking who's dick. 

In a movie like this you need to have somebody to pull for or relate to and there just wasn't a soul. McCarthy was an asshole, so you didn't want her to triumph. Bell was a brain-dead, botox face schlump so you had no rooting interest for her. The girl playing Bell's kid was a pie-faced over-emoting reject from a disney casting call, so no empathy there. Bell's "love interest" was such a poorly constructed character you had no interest in him at all.

The film kept clumsily reaching for emotion that just wasn't there. Neither were many laughs.  That the "brain trust" from this movie has the Ghostbusters franchise in their inept paws makes me cringe. 

Another major problem with the movie?  Several characters, including Kathy Bates as schlubby shrew's mentor, were introduced and discarded without ever really having impact or closure.  Bad, bad storytelling. 

This is a half-baked, lukewarm semi-comedy with few laughs, the occasional moderately amusing setup, a stockpile of wasted characters and a penchant for making the wrong people the heroes. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 10, 2016, 01:40:00 AM
The Babadook

Rarely does any film crash and burn in the last five minutes as hard as this one did.  Up until those last few idiotic scenes I was liking the movie a lot. 

Creepy little freakazoid seven-year old kid is really clingy with mom and she's equally overprotective of him because the dad got killed in a wreck on the way to the kid's birth.  So the kid's not right to begin with.  Terrified of monsters, worried that something's going to get him. 

One night instead of the usual fairy tales, he drags out a book called Mr. Babadook which is a pretty freakish horror book about a monster wanting in. 

Over time mom's sanity begins to fray while the kid -- who was an annoying, unhinged little jerk that you maybe wouldn't mind seeing gruesomely murdered by a closet monster -- started to sort of become the voice of reason. 

The Babadook was frightening enough in its simplicity, the descent into madness that gripped the mom was captured well and for an hour and 35 minutes or so, the film built eerie suspense -- and its chops as a pretty good horror flick. 

And then.  And then.  The hat. And the worms.  What. the. slithering. fuck. 

Most absurd and ridiculous end to a pretty good horror movie.  Rendered all the good work of the previous 1:35 void.  Whoever wrote the end needs a babadook shoved up his rectum. 

Can't remember any other movie that fell so far, so hard and so badly at the end.  It was like eating a pretty good steak dinner and then the bite you've been saving for the end turns out to be an old can of potted meat. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 11, 2016, 10:13:48 AM
The Babadook


I had a nasty babadook last night, but I just flushed it down the toilet.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 12, 2016, 03:19:06 PM
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

First let me preface this by saying I'm a borderline obsessed batnerd.  Batman is by far my favorite comic character of all time. I've got a Batman comic collection that dates back now to the late 50s.  There's a small bat-sticker somewhere on every car I've ever owned.  I'm able to appreciate every bat incarnation on the big and small screen to a degree. Adam West, Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Bale and now Affleck all brought something different to the table with varying degrees of success.  At this point I think Keaton probably made the best Bruce Wayne and Bale (minus the stupid voice) probably makes the best Batman. But I'm not even sure about that. 

What I am sure about is that Affleck was not the best Batman, nor was he the best Bruce Wayne.  But he wasn't always the worst either.  I was so unnerved by his casting that I expected him to bomb in a big way. That he didn't is about the best I can say. 

And now the movie.  I'm sure many of you will like it.  I've now seen it and it wasn't horrible, but I have no interest in seeing it again.   It missed so many marks and cracked under it's own weight in innumerable places. 

What a plodding, ponderous, mangled mish mash of a handful of stories.  The director was so ham-handed, so mechanically driven that the heart of the story simply didn't exist. 

__________________________
Here there be spoilers......
__________________________

Among the myriad problems:

1) The run time.  The movie (with the 15 previews that came before it) started at 9:30 and let out at 12:18.  There just wasn't enough meat to carry the story for that length of time so it bogged down terribly in a number of places.  There were too many pointless threads that meandered nowhere.  The director really is a hack. By the time it got to the Batmanning and Supermanning, many in our crowd had mentally checked out.

2) Amy Adams was mind-numbingly horrible. Every second she was on the screen was an absolute waste.

3) As bad as Amy Adams was, Holly Hunter was exponentially worse.  Dreadful.  Her motives were never clear, her stances were left unexplained and her death was welcome. 

4) Eisenberg.  Maybe he'll grow into it in the future, but his frenetic bopping simply is NOT Lex Luthor.  And you'd think that a movie that ran close to three hours would have been able to rationally explain his Superman loathing.  But it didn't.  Complete fail. Oh, it hinted at it here and there, but the root of his animus was never successfully explored.

5) Batman.  Yes, I know the current trend is to portray him as a morose and brooding bitch, but that's not all he is (or should be).   There was the obligatory training scene where Affleck got to show off his muscles, but his Batman was unconvincing in the fight sequences. Not nimble or agile enough.  And guns, bullets, brands, murder... That's not Batman either.  The Bat is not a murderous brute, bulling through the city with tanks, rockets and machine guns.

6) Did I mention the director sucked?  Two (no, actually three) dream sequences that muddied the plot.  Fucking dream sequences.  Grrrr.

7) Location, location, location.  I've always envisioned Gotham as being New York and Metropolis as being Boston or Chicago or LA or something.  Or even vice versa.  This fucked up movie is trying to tell me that the two are fucking ACROSS A BAY FROM EACH OTHER?  And that the fucking Bat Signal can be SEEN FROM METROPOLIS?   No fucking way.  Bullshit. Idiotic.  That Batman and Superman exist on two peninsulas separated by a sliver of water?  And that Batman rarely strays into Metropolis to fuck up Luthor or any of Superman's problems and Superman never drifts across to help with Joker, Clayface, Riddler, Catwoman, Penguin, Twoface, etc. etc. etc?  That's lunacy.  If any one thing ruined this movie, that was it. 

8) Not enough exposition or explanation.  Again, three hours, but so much was left in a muddy mess.  Way too much was left just hanging out there for no reason.  Why? Why? Why?  If Superman can hear Lois fart from half a world away, how come he couldn't hear his mother screaming when she was kidnapped?  Was his Super bathtub boner getting in the way? 

9) Stupidity.  Example: So Batman and Superman fight and Batman's got this spear that he hides somewhere so he can use it in the end.  And they crash through block after block of buildings, rooftops, walls, and who knows fuck all.  But when he gets Superman down?  Why there's that fucking spear, right where he must have left it, within easy reach.  The fuck?  How could he possibly have planned to have the damn thing just sitting right there?  That was one.  I could list 50 more but won't. 

10) All of a sudden everybody knows who everybody is.  Well hey, Clark. What's up Bruce. Everybody in the world has it figured out. Like literally 20 people in this movie.   So why even fuck with the masks and fake jobs?  Jeez. 

11) Wonder Woman setup.  Oh, hey, look!  That's Chris Pine in the old photo of Wonder Woman!  I bet that would make a good origin movie!  Could they be ANY more clunk-fuckingly obvious? 

12) Doomsday. Eh.  Kid behind me wanted to know why King Kong was fighting Batman.  Just not well rendered.  The story could have been told so much better without that big explosion-laden distraction tacked on to the end. 

13) Oh hey!  There's Aquaman.  And Flash!  Ohhh! Cyborg!  All clumsily revealed.  And where's Green Lantern?  Oh, that's right. He's Deadpool now and mocking himself. 

14) Superman period.  It's hard to get the character right.  This guy does as good as anybody I guess, but I just don't care for him or his story at all.   He's the Captain America (which Marvel does better) to Batman's Tony Stark-Ironman (which Marvel also does exponentially better). 

15) No self awareness.  What I like about the Marvel movies is that they are almost completely self aware. They inject just enough humor to remind us that we are supposed to be having fun watching the most improbable bunch of freaks save the world in the most violent and explosive way.  Hell, even the first Transformers got that right.  Batman v Superman is a relentlessly dark movie. No fun allowed.  That makes it much harder to connect with the characters. Why should you care what happens to either of them, really?  And what's to fear from lightweight Jesse E?  The movie needed a better director.

16) The Dark Knight Returns.  Great comic series by Frank Miller that told the story of an older Batman coming out of a forced/negotiated retirement because the city was near out of control.  The government (a thinly veiled Ronald Reagan, actually) sends Superman to take him out.  Cue epic fight, some masterful bat trickery and a satisfying ending.   This movie borrowed pieces of that.  The bat suit for the showdown is almost a carbon copy of the one Miller drew up for the comic.  So, too is the bulkier batman frame, the fatter bat logo and the much shorter bat ears (believe it or not, ear length is a significant touchstone in bat history.  This alteration is a major change from the ears that had gotten longer and longer through Clooney).  But whoever did this story didn't take all of Miller's story.  Yeah, there was a kryponite weapon, but in the book Green Arrow had it.  And Batman did have his foot on Superman's throat.  But there wasn't the absolutely ASININE moment of ... "Wait, did you say Martha?  Oh hell, my mom's name is Martha too!  Dang bitch, I guess I should stop trying to kill your ass and we can just partner up and be all cool together.  Man, if you'd just told me her name was Martha, all this seething rage I've been building up for years would have gone away.  Martha.  Be damned. Her name, too, huh?"   My daughter actually blurted out "What the Faaahhhh" when he turned that fast for no good reason. 

17) Fishburne.  I'm still mad at that racist bastard from his work in Boyz in the Hood.  He can kiss my ass.

18) The score.  Teeth achingly bad, beat you over the head music.  Relentless, pointless pounding.  Absolutely worthless.

19) Terrible director.  Have I mentioned that? As he has the Justice League contract, I have no hope for that at all. It’s going to suck beyond all imagination and probably kill the super hero genre for the remainder of my natural life. 

20) No cohesive focus.  Why were Batman and Superman really pissed at each other?  Do we know?  Do we care?  Why jam in the electro monster?  And Wonder Woman?   The movie would have been so much if it had just taken two hours to compare and contrast the ways Batman and Superman effect their own brands of justice and then set up some legitimate beef between the two that demanded a violent resolution.  If it had told the story of each of their relationships with the public maybe.  Instead, we got this.   


So after all that, would I suggest that you go see the movie?  Sure.  I actually didn't hate it, but I want so much from a Batman movie that this just left me meh.  It wasn't great, it wasn't awful. I will never watch it again.  But now I'm definitely not enthused about any Justice League movie and I probably won't do Aquaman, Wonder Woman or Flash.  I probably won't even do CA: Civil War.  I'm sick of the trailers for that.
I had no hopes for this movie from the get-go

I read your review before I watched it, it actually made me more optimistic towards watching it.

You were waaaay too kind in your review.

This was a horrible turd of a movie.

(https://rockytoppoliticsdotcom1.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/flaming-dog-poop.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 12, 2016, 03:51:59 PM
I had no hopes for this movie from the get-go

I read your review before I watched it, it actually made me more optimistic towards watching it.

You were waaaay too kind in your review.

This was a horrible turd of a movie.

(https://rockytoppoliticsdotcom1.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/flaming-dog-poop.jpg)

In what way did you draw optimism from my review? 

I hope DC has the sense to throw this exercise out and reboot again before continuing with Justice League. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 13, 2016, 01:04:27 PM
In what way did you draw optimism from my review? 

I hope DC has the sense to throw this exercise out and reboot again before continuing with Justice League.
You weren't harsh ENOUGH maybe?

VERY disappointed in this one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 15, 2016, 09:16:57 AM
You weren't harsh ENOUGH maybe?

VERY disappointed in this one.

^^Pretty much ^^.   Also the point in which you said you didn't hate it, gave me hope. 

I hated it, it takes a lot for me to hate a movie....that was fucking worse than.....yes I'm going to say it.....Caddyshack 2
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 15, 2016, 09:20:23 AM
^^Pretty much ^^.   Also the point in which you said you didn't hate it, gave me hope. 

I hated it, it takes a lot for me to hate a movie....that was fucking worse than.....yes I'm going to say it.....Caddyshack 2

***GASP***
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on April 15, 2016, 09:44:13 AM
^^Pretty much ^^.   Also the point in which you said you didn't hate it, gave me hope. 

I hated it, it takes a lot for me to hate a movie....that was fucking worse than.....yes I'm going to say it.....Caddyshack 2

Mrs. Esterhouse will not be pleased
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 17, 2016, 09:35:50 AM
Criminal
Kevin Costner was decent playing against type but the rest of the movie was a mangled mix of Face Off / Total Recall and Johnny Mnemonic and the matrix. 

A long list of good actors doing shitty jobs headed by hang dog tommy Lee jones as the least believable doctor ever and Gary oldman as a rage fueled one dimensional character. 

You'd think that a movie with commissioner Gordon, two face, Wonder Woman, Deadpool, and superman's dad would be a sure bet but no. The premise was stupid.  Insert memories into the only person capable of accepting them -- an emotionless psychopath chained by the neck in solitary who had a brain injury as a child.  And in the end, when some of the memories stick, set him free!  That was the central story, but the movie tried to craft several other storylines from that single weak thread.

Dumb. 

Action was good.  Costner was pretty good.  But it's hard to recommend this one. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 27, 2016, 01:29:10 PM
Has there ever been a movie request for a review?  Kaos I want you to review this.

https://youtu.be/fz_TIl_TgpY
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 27, 2016, 01:30:11 PM
Mrs. Esterhouse will not be pleased

Keep your eye on the fruit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on April 27, 2016, 01:33:00 PM
Has there ever been a movie request for a review?  Kaos I want you to review this.

https://youtu.be/fz_TIl_TgpY

Steven Seagal=Failure
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on April 27, 2016, 02:16:10 PM
Has there ever been a movie request for a review?  Kaos I want you to review this.



DANCE MONKEY!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 27, 2016, 03:18:46 PM
Steven Seagal=Failure

Evah oncet in a whaaal.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 27, 2016, 03:32:53 PM
Steven Seagal=Failure
Missed the point: That is the greatness of it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on April 27, 2016, 04:05:40 PM
Missed the point: That is the greatness of it.


Also, I guess they have new weight limits on SF guys.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 29, 2016, 12:03:39 PM
Snaggle would you give us your review of Keanu after you see it tonight?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 29, 2016, 12:17:43 PM
Snaggle would you give us your review of Keanu after you see it tonight?

I saw it last night. He was selected 16th by the Falcons.  Big hitter that boy is.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 29, 2016, 12:48:29 PM
I saw it last night. He was selected 16th by the Falcons.  Big hitter that boy is.
Don't lie...you know you gonna see it, those are your boys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_zLEi_Sk3Y
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 29, 2016, 12:51:52 PM
Don't lie...you know you gonna see it, those are your boys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_zLEi_Sk3Y

I admit I do like a lot of their stuff.  I also admit this shit looks laaaammme as hell.  I would only consider it if people started giving it surprisingly good reviews but I have feeling this one will be out on the Boo Rays by the end of May.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on April 29, 2016, 01:00:38 PM
Can't wait for kaos to review this one:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PENHLqucJVQ
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 09, 2016, 09:14:20 AM
Keanu

You know those Saturday Night Live skits they turn into movies that were great for 180 seconds on SNL but become interminable when stretched to 90 minutes for a film?

This was a little like that. 

It took a number of Key and Peele standards, mashed them together and tried to cobble an entire movie out of it.  There just wasn't enough material to sustain the film. And even at that, it was way too long.  Could and should have ended a couple of times before it finally lurched to a stop. 

The difference between the majority of the SNL-based movies and this one is that Key and Peele are actually talented.  They have enough screen presence to support the flimsy (and really sort of silly) premise. 

There are a few good moments, a laugh or two here and there (far more laughs here than Ride Along 2) and a single thin gag stretched out over far too long. 

I know they've done a ton of supporting work (more so Key than Peele) and they've proved more than adequate in those supporting roles.  If they're going to transition to leading roles on the big screen they're going to need much stronger material than this. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 09, 2016, 11:33:00 AM
No one saw cap'n amurrica this weekend? Color me shocked.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on May 09, 2016, 11:34:45 AM
No one saw cap'n amurrica this weekend? Color me shocked.

i did but the title of the thread says it all.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 09, 2016, 11:41:34 AM
Keanu

You know those Saturday Night Live skits they turn into movies that were great for 180 seconds on SNL but become interminable when stretched to 90 minutes for a film?

This was a little like that. 

It took a number of Key and Peele standards, mashed them together and tried to cobble an entire movie out of it.  There just wasn't enough material to sustain the film. And even at that, it was way too long.  Could and should have ended a couple of times before it finally lurched to a stop. 

The difference between the majority of the SNL-based movies and this one is that Key and Peele are actually talented.  They have enough screen presence to support the flimsy (and really sort of silly) premise. 

There are a few good moments, a laugh or two here and there (far more laughs here than Ride Along 2) and a single thin gag stretched out over far too long. 

I know they've done a ton of supporting work (more so Key than Peele) and they've proved more than adequate in those supporting roles.  If they're going to transition to leading roles on the big screen they're going to need much stronger material than this.

Even the few positives you alluded to really surprises me.  Even the premise of this one looked ridiculous and worthy of nothing more than one of their skits.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 09, 2016, 01:46:24 PM
i did but the title of the thread says it all.

True. But never stopped anyone before. I think he kind of likes it. How else would his thread be 108 pages long by now without our expert opinions and insults?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 09, 2016, 04:58:57 PM
True. But never stopped anyone before. I think he kind of likes it. How else would his thread be 108 pages long by now without our expert opinions and insults?
You smell
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 09, 2016, 07:45:51 PM
You smell

You wound me. Your words are beyond hurtful.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on May 11, 2016, 03:04:27 PM
No one saw cap'n amurrica this weekend? Color me shocked.

Saw that shit. Was funny at times. Lots of shit going on in there. Not sure it served any purpose other than to set up whatever in seven hells Infinity Wars is.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 13, 2016, 10:48:55 AM
Chappie
This wasn't really the movie I thought it was going to be.  But I liked it. 

Chappie the robot was endearing and funny. 

The story borrowed so heavily from Robocop and Terminator, though, that it frayed from the center out. 

The performances from Mommy and Daddy were shockingly bad as was a good bit of their entire "we have to do the heist to get $20 million" storyline.  Daddy, aka Ninja,  was a particularly poorly sketched out character bouncing wildly from emotion to emotion without any real balance.  Did he care, did he not? Do we?

Hugh Jackman's Moose-bot was so completely similar to the failed ED-209 from the Robocop series that it might as well have been a carbon copy.  It was exactly the same machine.

Buried within this uneven film, though, was a study of what makes us, well, "us."   Who are we?  Are we nothing more than the neural patterns that make up our consciousness?  Can those be manipulated? Can they be transferred?  Can they be re-created?   

I enjoyed watching Chappie play at being a gangster, struggle with the human capacity for lies and betrayal and figure out what made him tick.   I thought it was a good movie, but it bogged itself down in the dim-witted larceny of Mommy, Daddy and Amerika without giving the "Who Are We" theme enough time to properly breathe. 

Side note: Where did they get those t-shirts? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 15, 2016, 10:10:29 PM
Captain America: Civil War

The less said about this the better. 

I just didn't enjoy it. 

Oh it was better than Batman v Superman while grappling with similar "where is the oversight" themes but that's not saying much. 

I literally didn't give one single fuck about the cat person.  I could do without fire fingers and red face too. And also spider twit. 

The "villain" such as he was added nothing and his knowledge, access, financial resources and expertise defied logic. 

Bear in mind that I don't much care for the Thor movies -- except for Loki --nor did I like either previous CA. Fuck Bucky. 

This movie just didn't have the easy elan of the great ones.  Avengers and Iron Man 1 and 3.   

This entire genre is losing its touch.  It's almost become ponderous self parody. 

It needs to end soon before it eats itself. 

My wife is dead. My mom is dead. Oh boo fucking hoo. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 16, 2016, 10:07:37 AM
barbershop 3

It was the only one playing at the exact time I wanted to go, so why not. I like ice cube. I generally like his movies. They are silly but fun. They aren't great but if you go into them just expecting a decent movie with a few laughs, and nothing more - they are nice to watch. This one follows the same path as the first two except it's ten years later. crime is up, and Calvin is bothered by it. His son is a teenager now and the crime and gang violence is now affecting him directly. Long story short, Calvin and the folks at the barbershop try to solve the issue themselves on the streets of south Chicago. It's a mix of kumbaya, social justice warrior, some funny bits, a few hilarious characters and a happy ending. Just like the first two. Again, decent and funny for what it is. Nothing spectacular.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 18, 2016, 02:56:43 PM
barbershop 3

It was the only one playing at the exact time I wanted to go, so why not. I like ice cube. I generally like his movies. They are silly but fun. They aren't great but if you go into them just expecting a decent movie with a few laughs, and nothing more - they are nice to watch. This one follows the same path as the first two except it's ten years later. crime is up, and Calvin is bothered by it. His son is a teenager now and the crime and gang violence is now affecting him directly. Long story short, Calvin and the folks at the barbershop try to solve the issue themselves on the streets of south Chicago. It's a mix of kumbaya, social justice warrior, some funny bits, a few hilarious characters and a happy ending. Just like the first two. Again, decent and funny for what it is. Nothing spectacular.

Did you get your black card stamped?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 18, 2016, 04:52:23 PM
Did you get your black card stamped?

You know it.

I'm like one of the Homies now.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 18, 2016, 04:53:23 PM
You know it.

I'm like one of the Homies now.

High 5, my nurra.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 18, 2016, 04:58:20 PM
High 5, my nurra.

Herrrr it be. Sho nuff
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 18, 2016, 05:01:36 PM
Herrrr it be. Sho nuff

Hey... knock a self a pro, Slick! That gray matter backlot perform us DOWN, I take TCB-in', man!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 18, 2016, 05:24:23 PM
Hey... knock a self a pro, Slick! That gray matter backlot perform us DOWN, I take TCB-in', man!

Chump don't want help, chump don't get no help.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on May 18, 2016, 08:12:03 PM
Hey... knock a self a pro, Slick! That gray matter backlot perform us DOWN, I take TCB-in', man!

DON'T BE NAIVE ARTHUR. EACH OF US FACES A CLEAR MORAL CHOICE.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 18, 2016, 11:56:40 PM
The Jungle Book

Disney's 1967 version of The Jungle Book is my all time favorite animated film.  I love the movie and don't care that portions of it were recycled in their entirety in Robin Hood (which I also liked).  I loved the movie so much I had stuffed versions of Baloo, Bagheera and Louie when I was a kid.  I still have Baloo.

So it was with no small trepidation that I finally agreed to go see the new live action version tonight. 

I wish I'd seen it sooner. 

I expected to be put off by the CGI because the trailer made it look a little spotty.  Nope. It was 1000% amazing.  Easy to believe every one of the creatures was real. Immersed in the characters and the setting.

I expected to be disappointed in the story changes.  Nope.  It retained enough of the heart of the animated version to be properly reverent to it, but differed in enough ways to keep it interesting and entertaining. 

I expected to lose focus when Bill Murray did the voice of Baloo.  Bill Murray, you know.  Nope.  Within a line or two he became Baloo and I forgot Murray was behind it. 

Shere Khan was outstanding. Scary ass tiger rendered expertly and voiced by Idris Elba who oozed menace.   

Mowgli was also pretty amazing.  How that kid performed like he did against essentially nothing?  Fantastic job by the director. 

Which brings me to the director.  I should have known that the film I loved from my childhood wasn't going to be shit on when I saw Jon Favreau directed it.  Favreau has a really good touch.

It's worth seeing in the theaters no doubt. 

(http://img.lum.dolimg.com/v1/images/gallery_thejunglebook2016_sherekhan_fe66a378.jpeg?region=0%2C0%2C1087%2C635)

Amazing movie.  Maybe it wasn't necessarily "needed" and I was one of those who was aggravated when the movie was announced, but I can't complain after seeing it. The movie didn't detract from my memories and it stands on its own just fine. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 19, 2016, 10:46:32 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcfDDa5YoV8
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTiger1 on May 19, 2016, 12:53:15 PM
The Jungle Book

Disney's 1967 version of The Jungle Book is my all time favorite animated film.  I love the movie and don't care that portions of it were recycled in their entirety in Robin Hood (which I also liked).  I loved the movie so much I had stuffed versions of Baloo, Bagheera and Louie when I was a kid.  I still have Baloo.

So it was with no small trepidation that I finally agreed to go see the new live action version tonight. 

I wish I'd seen it sooner. 

I expected to be put off by the CGI because the trailer made it look a little spotty.  Nope. It was 1000% amazing.  Easy to believe every one of the creatures was real. Immersed in the characters and the setting.

I expected to be disappointed in the story changes.  Nope.  It retained enough of the heart of the animated version to be properly reverent to it, but differed in enough ways to keep it interesting and entertaining. 

I expected to lose focus when Bill Murray did the voice of Baloo.  Bill Murray, you know.  Nope.  Within a line or two he became Baloo and I forgot Murray was behind it. 

Shere Khan was outstanding. Scary ass tiger rendered expertly and voiced by Idris Elba who oozed menace.   

Mowgli was also pretty amazing.  How that kid performed like he did against essentially nothing?  Fantastic job by the director. 

Which brings me to the director.  I should have known that the film I loved from my childhood wasn't going to be shit on when I saw Jon Favreau directed it.  Favreau has a really good touch.

It's worth seeing in the theaters no doubt. 

(http://img.lum.dolimg.com/v1/images/gallery_thejunglebook2016_sherekhan_fe66a378.jpeg?region=0%2C0%2C1087%2C635)

Amazing movie.  Maybe it wasn't necessarily "needed" and I was one of those who was aggravated when the movie was announced, but I can't complain after seeing it. The movie didn't detract from my memories and it stands on its own just fine.

I took my sons to see it.  Expected it to horrible and for Hollywood to ruin it.   Felt the same as you when I left.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 19, 2016, 02:26:31 PM
I took my sons to see it.  Expected it to horrible and for Hollywood to ruin it.   Felt the same as you when I left.

Don't use your sons to make you look better.  You know you went by yourself.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 23, 2016, 11:04:37 AM
The Offering

Horror. Mistake.

Incoherent plot. Horrible acting.

Some ridiculous nonsense about the Tower of Babel rising again by people killing themselves on video because they were sick and coming back in seven days and because the new international language was binary code which was basically building the tower of babel again, but that was forgotten about and the people weren't coming back in seven days and there was this lame demon who possessed people and it possessed this girl who had a terrible disease that her mom had and the detective showed her super reporter sister a video of the mom's suicide that happened after she divorced her husband but the kid used a flashlight and then people hung themselves and there was a priest and a Chinese guy and the kid channeled her inner exorcist and the demon ummmm.... I don't know.

Just awful.

The Tower of Babel story and making binary the new global language angle would have interested me.  I think the story of the Tower is one of the most intriguing in the Bible. I've often tried to figure out Genesis 11:6

“And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.”

Why?  Why would God want to limit our ability to "do" things, whatever they might be?  Was it just because people were turning away from God because they were impressed with their own abilities?  Isn't that part of what's happening today given our technological advances and the "science" crap where we think we have things figured out and the hubris to imagine we can change them?

I could see a movie where the international use of binary opened a door for demons. 

But no, that was just one of the random elements thrown into this convoluted garbage dump of a movie and then it was basically discarded and glossed over.

Do not watch.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 30, 2016, 08:39:55 AM
The Nice Guys

I go to the movies to be entertained.  And I was.  Very much so. 

Of course the trailer gives away too many of the good parts, but that's typical unfortunately. 

Ryan Gosling (who has never impressed me as much as some people) was really good here.  Russell Crowe, looking much more like John Goodman than a Gladiator, isn't great but better than in a lot of roles I've seen him.  I hate him by the way.  He gained 65 pounds for the role because "he wanted to look different than Gosling" and then lost it after the filming wrapped.  Who does that?  Does he not know how hard it is for normal people to do shit like that?   

Anyway...  The girl playing Gosling's daughter was really good too. 

Not going to give away the story, but essentially two bottom feeders team up in trying to find the same missing person.   And they do, sort of, but that embroils them in a much larger issue that puts both (and the daughter) in danger. 

There were odds and ends of the story that weren't fleshed out enough and some pieces were left hanging.  And the end felt like a bit of a letdown. 

But it was funny and intriguing.  Was easy to watch and enjoy.  I'd see it again and recommend it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 30, 2016, 08:58:26 AM
The Exorcism of Molly Hartley

Yes, it lifted much from the hundreds of exorcism movies that have come since Linda Blair spewed pea soup all over Jason Miller.  In fact there's a pea soup exercise in this one.  It even stole the general musical tone of the original Exorcist. 

It hit all the standard marks.  Flesh disfiguration, demon strapped to a bed, puke, growling, levitating, holy water splashing, bees (flies/bugs), eyes whited out, and so on. 

Nothing we haven't seen before.  But...

It packaged the thing pretty well, the effects were good, it tossed in a different ending when you thought the movie would have been over. The actors weren't great, but all were capable and committed.  This one was better than the normal horror schlock you get on Netflix when you pick a movie you haven't heard of before.  It wasn't great, but horror's a tough thing.  If you're going to steal, steal from the best.  This did. Sort of a low-rent Exorcist.  I wouldn't say rush out and watch it, but I've seen much much worse. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 31, 2016, 02:13:54 PM
He gained 65 pounds for the role because "he wanted to look different than Gosling" and then lost it after the filming wrapped.  Who does that? Does he not know how hard it is for normal people to do shit like that? 
People who have personal chefs and personal trainers and have nothing to do except work-out while down between movie roles.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 31, 2016, 03:29:14 PM
The Do-Over

I still like Sandler...he's had some clunkers (Jack and Jill, etc), but he delivers consistent low-brow laughs with bright spots of heartfelt seriousness (Big Daddy).

Spade and Sandler meet up at the high school reunion and Sandler "convinces" Spade that his life is awful and he needs to chase his (booze and weed elicited) dream to start life anew.

Motives are clear...then altered...

Hilariousness ensues (thanks in no small part to Luis Guzman, Michael Chiklis and Nick Swardson) and a throw away buddy film gets to be something a little better.

It's not high art, and some of the jokes are Sandler's gutter best, but it's a funny film with a little heart.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 11, 2016, 02:11:07 AM
Conjuring 2

The horror genre has become stale and formulaic. This film is a prime example.  The third installment in the Conjuring franchise (Annabelle was the middle piece) follows Ed and horse face as they slowly, slowly, slowly, slowly unravel a case of alleged demonic possession/haunting in England. 

Some poorly done makeup, some seen-it-before jump scares, some levitation, some growly voices.... the movie clocked in at 2:13 but felt six times longer. 

Horror is bad right now.  It's just not being done well and this James Wan guy who directed it along with Blum House which backed it are the main culprits.  They keep churning out warmed over mumbo jumbo, throw in a few shrieks and moans, have the boogey man appear out of nowhere and call it good. There's so little thought, so little effort into truly engaging the audience and unleashing psychological scares as opposed to some fuck jumping out and shouting boo.  You never really get a good look at the baddies, it's always a flicker quick shot.  I'd so much rather the camera linger on whatever horrific beast is being portrayed.

The movie dragged and dragged. I damn sure didn't need to see Patrick Wilson croon an entire Elvis song.  After all that buildup, the final confrontation with the so-called demon was abrupt and anti climactic. Not to mention silly.

But why should they bother doing better?  The theater was almost completely full.  It's going to make ass bags of money. 

Speaking of that, people ruin the moviegoing experience.  Absolutely ruin it. 

Behind us there was a bawling woman who "wuz saavin theum seeeets" for a party of 15.  When they finally got there they were obnoxiously loud and amusing only to themselves.  Country done come to town.

In front of us was an entire row of black people.  Over half of them were on their cell phones throughout the movie.  The one in front of me took or made at least six calls during the movie.  And when I had the privileged audacity to ask them to please turn off their cell phones, one of them turned and glared at me for a full two minutes and then made a few loud smart ass comments.  But she kept her phone put up.  The guy making calls just said "pssshhh" and kept right on. 

There were three kids on the row holding the seats for the entire group that wandered in toward the end of the previews and then they all got up and walked out during the final scenes. 

I need my own theater. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 12, 2016, 10:13:58 PM
Hotel Hell

Atrocious

You could ask the next eight people you see to join you in making a movie, spend $18 on cheap horror props at Party City and borrow somebody's go-pro.  Then you could ad lib scenes on camera for 90 minutes.  The movie you'd make would be exponentially better than this shit. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on June 13, 2016, 08:18:18 AM
Hail, Caesar

Not the Coen's best effort, but worth viewing.  Strong cast: Brolin, Fiennes, Swinton, Johannsen, Clooney, Tatum, Hill...

Movie-studio fixer Brolin is being wooed by Lockheed while trying to manage talent-crises.  Clooney is abducted by Communists.  His rodeo cowboy star is forced into a leading-man dramatic role.  He has a pregnancy crisis with an unwed starlet.

There is typical Coen absurdity (ie - the panel discussion with religious leaders to gauge the offensiveness of the portrayal of Jesus in the studio's "prestige picture", Hail, Caesar) and an overarching lesson doled out by the omniscient narrator.

Not in their top 5 for me, but their past work always earns them a viewing.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 13, 2016, 01:44:33 PM
Conjuring 2

The horror genre has become stale and formulaic. This film is a prime example.  The third installment in the Conjuring franchise (Annabelle was the middle piece) follows Ed and horse face as they slowly, slowly, slowly, slowly unravel a case of alleged demonic possession/haunting in England. 

Some poorly done makeup, some seen-it-before jump scares, some levitation, some growly voices.... the movie clocked in at 2:13 but felt six times longer. 

Horror is bad right now.  It's just not being done well and this James Wan guy who directed it along with Blum House which backed it are the main culprits.  They keep churning out warmed over mumbo jumbo, throw in a few shrieks and moans, have the boogey man appear out of nowhere and call it good. There's so little thought, so little effort into truly engaging the audience and unleashing psychological scares as opposed to some fuck jumping out and shouting boo.  You never really get a good look at the baddies, it's always a flicker quick shot.  I'd so much rather the camera linger on whatever horrific beast is being portrayed.

The movie dragged and dragged. I damn sure didn't need to see Patrick Wilson croon an entire Elvis song.  After all that buildup, the final confrontation with the so-called demon was abrupt and anti climactic. Not to mention silly.

But why should they bother doing better?  The theater was almost completely full.  It's going to make ass bags of money. 

Speaking of that, people ruin the moviegoing experience.  Absolutely ruin it. 

Behind us there was a bawling woman who "wuz saavin theum seeeets" for a party of 15.  When they finally got there they were obnoxiously loud and amusing only to themselves.  Country done come to town.

In front of us was an entire row of black people.  Over half of them were on their cell phones throughout the movie.  The one in front of me took or made at least six calls during the movie.  And when I had the privileged audacity to ask them to please turn off their cell phones, one of them turned and glared at me for a full two minutes and then made a few loud smart ass comments.  But she kept her phone put up.  The guy making calls just said "pssshhh" and kept right on. 

There were three kids on the row holding the seats for the entire group that wandered in toward the end of the previews and then they all got up and walked out during the final scenes. 

I need my own theater.

Hate to hear that about this one. The first one I thought was decent for horror. It wasn't what many hyped it up to be but decent. M Night needs to come up with another gem like sixth sense to somewhat pull the thriller/horror genre out of the mud. And soon. He's the only I can see being able to do it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 15, 2016, 01:42:13 AM
13 Hours

Hillary Clinton should be in prison.  What difference does it make?  Fuck that ragged whore.

Nuke the middle east. 

Thus ends the review.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 15, 2016, 09:55:59 AM
13 Hours

Hillary Clinton should be in prison.  What difference does it make?  Fuck that ragged whore.

Nuke the middle east. 

Thus ends the review.

What difference does it make why it happened?

What difference does it make what we call these terrorist attacks?

I see a trend.

It makes a huge difference. I wanna see this movie now.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 15, 2016, 10:55:01 AM
What difference does it make why it happened?

What difference does it make what we call these terrorist attacks?

I see a trend.

It makes a huge difference. I wanna see this movie now.

Movie was very careful not to implicate her.  But it's there.  If you know the story, you know what she did. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 15, 2016, 11:23:58 AM
Movie was very careful not to implicate her.  But it's there.  If you know the story, you know what she did.

Yeah fucking nothing, while Americans died....c u next tuesday.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on June 15, 2016, 02:49:02 PM
What difference does it make why it happened?

What difference does it make what we call these terrorist attacks?

I see a trend.

It makes a huge difference. I wanna see this movie now.


I try and avoid military movies based on actual events. It's no fun being left in a situation where you count on others and no help arrives. I fear it would make want to kill that skanky hoe.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 02, 2016, 01:01:29 AM
Central Intelligence

Didn't have really high hopes for this one.  Expected something along the lines of a retread of the Ride Along films. 

Was pleasantly surprised.  It's not going to win any awards but it had its moments.  The Rock played a goofy former fat kid with Kevin Hart playing the high school success turned corporate drone.  The two teamed up for some covert operations. 

The movie did a good job of leaving you wondering who was telling the truth. It featured a handful of well-placed cameos.  It hid a few inside jokes/references  in for good measure, bitch. 

I enjoyed the uneasy chemistry between Hart and Rock. Enjoyed the meandering story. Enjoyed the silly action that harkened back to A-Team level "shooting at each other from ten paces and nobody gets killed" silliness. 

Enjoyable movie.  Not necessarily saying run to the theater but definitely give it a chance. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 07, 2016, 01:11:09 AM
Purge: Election Year

Sadly this was not about removing Hillary Clinton from the presidential race.  I really wish it had been. I might have enjoyed it more. 

It was predictable, down to the obligatory death of one of the "heroes" and the final result. 

But it was stupid in so, so many ways.  Election Day is in May? Really?  And it's warm in DC in March?  Really?  And polling results from California will be in before those from Florida come through?  Really? 

So much dumb and so much overacting, particularly from the "bad ass" candy girls.  They were terrible.  Every scene was plagued with moronic decisions by people who should theoretically know better. 

There wasn't enough purging, there was too much exposition, there were too many D-level actors. When Mykelti Williamson looks like an Oscar winner compared to the rest of the cast, you've got a really godawful crew. 

Didn't much appreciate the not-so-subtle shots at the 1% (aka Republicans essentially). 

The first Purge (while not that good) was miles better than this tired third installment.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 10, 2016, 01:50:26 PM
Bill and Ted.... Err... Mike and Dave

Two destructive dumbasses destroy their sister's wedding and find love -- or at least ass-- in a four-man last act redemption.

Mildly funny. Not nearly as vulgar or offensive as I expected it to be. 

Some things to take away:

Aubrey Plaza's 15 minutes are over.  She was atrocious here.  I've seen better performances from heroin addled porn actresses. She just doesn't have it.

95% of the movie is in the various trailers. About the only thing you haven't seen is a massage featuring Dinesh from Silicon Valley and an ecstasy fueled horse emancipation. 

Adam DeVine is fair.   Efron and Kendrick look like they are drifting through a payday and making the best of it.  By the way? When Zac Efron is the best actor in the film by far? Yowch.

Nothing to really recommend this movie.  Wait for Netflix. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 10, 2016, 10:24:47 PM
Secret Life of Pets

Animation over the last 25 years or so (beginning with Little Mermaid and continuing on through Lion King, Shrek, Toy Story, Finding Nemo, etc.) has really raised the bar.  Some of those films are as good or better than anything I've ever seen.  Lion King, for instance, is a masterpiece in nearly every respect. Visually stunning, intriguing story, fantastic music, amazing voice actors and full of lessons on the nature of life, love, jealousy and greed. Just a magnificent movie.

This one?  It might have seen the bar but it never got near it. 

The animation was okay, the voices were ehhhh, and the story was flat.   For animated films to work they have to do at least some of the following well:  Be visually captivating, have strong characters (which require strong character voices), have some inappropriate material that adults find funny but kids aren't sure what they're laughing at or tell a good story.  This did none of those things. 

I'm not sure kids will even find anything to keep their attention during this movie.  It had no shine. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on July 11, 2016, 11:05:22 AM
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

First let me preface this by saying I'm a borderline obsessed batnerd.  Batman is by far my favorite comic character of all time. I've got a Batman comic collection that dates back now to the late 50s.  There's a small bat-sticker somewhere on every car I've ever owned.  I'm able to appreciate every bat incarnation on the big and small screen to a degree. Adam West, Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Bale and now Affleck all brought something different to the table with varying degrees of success.  At this point I think Keaton probably made the best Bruce Wayne and Bale (minus the stupid voice) probably makes the best Batman. But I'm not even sure about that. 

What I am sure about is that Affleck was not the best Batman, nor was he the best Bruce Wayne.  But he wasn't always the worst either.  I was so unnerved by his casting that I expected him to bomb in a big way. That he didn't is about the best I can say. 

And now the movie.  I'm sure many of you will like it.  I've now seen it and it wasn't horrible, but I have no interest in seeing it again.   It missed so many marks and cracked under it's own weight in innumerable places. 

What a plodding, ponderous, mangled mish mash of a handful of stories.  The director was so ham-handed, so mechanically driven that the heart of the story simply didn't exist. 

__________________________
Here there be spoilers......
__________________________

Among the myriad problems:

1) The run time.  The movie (with the 15 previews that came before it) started at 9:30 and let out at 12:18.  There just wasn't enough meat to carry the story for that length of time so it bogged down terribly in a number of places.  There were too many pointless threads that meandered nowhere.  The director really is a hack. By the time it got to the Batmanning and Supermanning, many in our crowd had mentally checked out.

2) Amy Adams was mind-numbingly horrible. Every second she was on the screen was an absolute waste.

3) As bad as Amy Adams was, Holly Hunter was exponentially worse.  Dreadful.  Her motives were never clear, her stances were left unexplained and her death was welcome. 

4) Eisenberg.  Maybe he'll grow into it in the future, but his frenetic bopping simply is NOT Lex Luthor.  And you'd think that a movie that ran close to three hours would have been able to rationally explain his Superman loathing.  But it didn't.  Complete fail. Oh, it hinted at it here and there, but the root of his animus was never successfully explored.

5) Batman.  Yes, I know the current trend is to portray him as a morose and brooding bitch, but that's not all he is (or should be).   There was the obligatory training scene where Affleck got to show off his muscles, but his Batman was unconvincing in the fight sequences. Not nimble or agile enough.  And guns, bullets, brands, murder... That's not Batman either.  The Bat is not a murderous brute, bulling through the city with tanks, rockets and machine guns.

6) Did I mention the director sucked?  Two (no, actually three) dream sequences that muddied the plot.  Fucking dream sequences.  Grrrr.

7) Location, location, location.  I've always envisioned Gotham as being New York and Metropolis as being Boston or Chicago or LA or something.  Or even vice versa.  This fucked up movie is trying to tell me that the two are fucking ACROSS A BAY FROM EACH OTHER?  And that the fucking Bat Signal can be SEEN FROM METROPOLIS?   No fucking way.  Bullshit. Idiotic.  That Batman and Superman exist on two peninsulas separated by a sliver of water?  And that Batman rarely strays into Metropolis to fuck up Luthor or any of Superman's problems and Superman never drifts across to help with Joker, Clayface, Riddler, Catwoman, Penguin, Twoface, etc. etc. etc?  That's lunacy.  If any one thing ruined this movie, that was it. 

8) Not enough exposition or explanation.  Again, three hours, but so much was left in a muddy mess.  Way too much was left just hanging out there for no reason.  Why? Why? Why?  If Superman can hear Lois fart from half a world away, how come he couldn't hear his mother screaming when she was kidnapped?  Was his Super bathtub boner getting in the way? 

9) Stupidity.  Example: So Batman and Superman fight and Batman's got this spear that he hides somewhere so he can use it in the end.  And they crash through block after block of buildings, rooftops, walls, and who knows fuck all.  But when he gets Superman down?  Why there's that fucking spear, right where he must have left it, within easy reach.  The fuck?  How could he possibly have planned to have the damn thing just sitting right there?  That was one.  I could list 50 more but won't. 

10) All of a sudden everybody knows who everybody is.  Well hey, Clark. What's up Bruce. Everybody in the world has it figured out. Like literally 20 people in this movie.   So why even fuck with the masks and fake jobs?  Jeez. 

11) Wonder Woman setup.  Oh, hey, look!  That's Chris Pine in the old photo of Wonder Woman!  I bet that would make a good origin movie!  Could they be ANY more clunk-fuckingly obvious? 

12) Doomsday. Eh.  Kid behind me wanted to know why King Kong was fighting Batman.  Just not well rendered.  The story could have been told so much better without that big explosion-laden distraction tacked on to the end. 

13) Oh hey!  There's Aquaman.  And Flash!  Ohhh! Cyborg!  All clumsily revealed.  And where's Green Lantern?  Oh, that's right. He's Deadpool now and mocking himself. 

14) Superman period.  It's hard to get the character right.  This guy does as good as anybody I guess, but I just don't care for him or his story at all.   He's the Captain America (which Marvel does better) to Batman's Tony Stark-Ironman (which Marvel also does exponentially better). 

15) No self awareness.  What I like about the Marvel movies is that they are almost completely self aware. They inject just enough humor to remind us that we are supposed to be having fun watching the most improbable bunch of freaks save the world in the most violent and explosive way.  Hell, even the first Transformers got that right.  Batman v Superman is a relentlessly dark movie. No fun allowed.  That makes it much harder to connect with the characters. Why should you care what happens to either of them, really?  And what's to fear from lightweight Jesse E?  The movie needed a better director.

16) The Dark Knight Returns.  Great comic series by Frank Miller that told the story of an older Batman coming out of a forced/negotiated retirement because the city was near out of control.  The government (a thinly veiled Ronald Reagan, actually) sends Superman to take him out.  Cue epic fight, some masterful bat trickery and a satisfying ending.   This movie borrowed pieces of that.  The bat suit for the showdown is almost a carbon copy of the one Miller drew up for the comic.  So, too is the bulkier batman frame, the fatter bat logo and the much shorter bat ears (believe it or not, ear length is a significant touchstone in bat history.  This alteration is a major change from the ears that had gotten longer and longer through Clooney).  But whoever did this story didn't take all of Miller's story.  Yeah, there was a kryponite weapon, but in the book Green Arrow had it.  And Batman did have his foot on Superman's throat.  But there wasn't the absolutely ASININE moment of ... "Wait, did you say Martha?  Oh hell, my mom's name is Martha too!  Dang bitch, I guess I should stop trying to kill your ass and we can just partner up and be all cool together.  Man, if you'd just told me her name was Martha, all this seething rage I've been building up for years would have gone away.  Martha.  Be damned. Her name, too, huh?"   My daughter actually blurted out "What the Faaahhhh" when he turned that fast for no good reason. 

17) Fishburne.  I'm still mad at that racist bastard from his work in Boyz in the Hood.  He can kiss my ass.

18) The score.  Teeth achingly bad, beat you over the head music.  Relentless, pointless pounding.  Absolutely worthless.

19) Terrible director.  Have I mentioned that? As he has the Justice League contract, I have no hope for that at all. It’s going to suck beyond all imagination and probably kill the super hero genre for the remainder of my natural life. 

20) No cohesive focus.  Why were Batman and Superman really pissed at each other?  Do we know?  Do we care?  Why jam in the electro monster?  And Wonder Woman?   The movie would have been so much if it had just taken two hours to compare and contrast the ways Batman and Superman effect their own brands of justice and then set up some legitimate beef between the two that demanded a violent resolution.  If it had told the story of each of their relationships with the public maybe.  Instead, we got this.   


So after all that, would I suggest that you go see the movie?  Sure.  I actually didn't hate it, but I want so much from a Batman movie that this just left me meh.  It wasn't great, it wasn't awful. I will never watch it again.  But now I'm definitely not enthused about any Justice League movie and I probably won't do Aquaman, Wonder Woman or Flash.  I probably won't even do CA: Civil War.  I'm sick of the trailers for that.

Was stuck on a plane from Doha, Qatar to ATL. Coming home from a glorious two weeks in Bangalore (sarcasm alert).

13.5 hour flight. Watched Jungle Book before I had only one newish movie left. You guessed it.

OMG. Your review is too kind. This was the most rambling incoherent shit I have ever seen. More flashbacks to already EXHAUSTED origins for both. And the thing that played Batman...

And then to kill off the MAN!

I guess WW intrigues me a bit. She was more badass than I remembered in the cartoon. But not top heavy enough as I remembered from my childhood TV show. But I digress. If there would have been an open hatch, I would have jumped.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 11, 2016, 02:08:25 PM
Secret Life of Pets

Animation over the last 25 years or so (beginning with Little Mermaid and continuing on through Lion King, Shrek, Toy Story, Finding Nemo, etc.) has really raised the bar.  Some of those films are as good or better than anything I've ever seen.  Lion King, for instance, is a masterpiece in nearly every respect. Visually stunning, intriguing story, fantastic music, amazing voice actors and full of lessons on the nature of life, love, jealousy and greed. Just a magnificent movie.

This one?  It might have seen the bar but it never got near it. 

The animation was okay, the voices were ehhhh, and the story was flat.   For animated films to work they have to do at least some of the following well:  Be visually captivating, have strong characters (which require strong character voices), have some inappropriate material that adults find funny but kids aren't sure what they're laughing at or tell a good story.  This did none of those things. 

I'm not sure kids will even find anything to keep their attention during this movie.  It had no shine.

Took my kids to it Saturday morning to a special screening (because of my white privilege). It wasn't bad. It wasn't great. Thought it was better than angry birds. It was just meh to me. Had its moments. I thought the plot was rambling. Louis ck did decent as the lead. The Bassett hound was pretty cool. And the bunny rabbit was funny. But the rest was just meh.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 25, 2016, 12:29:46 AM
Lights Out

Keep waiting for the next great horror movie.  Still waiting. 

This wasn't bad, per se.  A few jump scares here and there, and the most ridiculous story/plot I've seen lately. 

Basically there's a haint from the past who can only exist in the dark.  So lights mysteriously go out (which makes no sense because in order to turn out the light, the haint has to get in the light to do it). 

A lot of mumbo jumbo, some absurdly convenient discoveries -- absurdly convenient -- and a little bit of boo!  95% of the "scares" are in the trailer. 

Semi redeeming factor is the lead, Teresa Palmer.  She's very easy to look at.   She was in a movie called Restraint about eight years ago where she displayed one of the best looking backsides I've ever had the pleasure of seeing on screen.  So when this movie dragged -- and it did -- I thought of that. 

There has to be a good horror story out there.  Has to be.  I'm still waiting for it as I get buried by a parade of watered down PG-13 snoozers. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 01, 2016, 02:19:12 PM
Eye In the Sky

Helen Mirren, Jesse Pinkman, Jorah Mormont, Hans Gruber, and one of the Somali Pirates from Captain Phillips in a tension-builder that sought to juxtapose the need to eliminate terrorists with the desire to minimize collateral damage. 

It was ok.  Made you think a little bit, but it exposed to me the clear difference in who we were and who we are. 

In WWII we (America) made the correct decision that civilian lives were part of the punishment.  We bombed towns.  We nuked entire cities.  We understood that the civilian pain would help bring the war to a more rapid close and in doing so prevent the loss of even more lives. 

Watching these people grapple, cry and stress over the life of one single innocent who was possibly in the line of fire illustrated just how far our "humanity" has removed us from the ability to use the big stick when conditions warrant. 

When you have the opportunity to take out five known terrorists, and you can take them out as they are strapping suicide vests on fanatics?  You do it.  If there's one innocent in the potential blast radius, you have to do it.  You can't wait. 

You can't wait on legal opinions. You can't wait on foreign secretaries to weigh in . You can't wait on the Secretary of State to stop playing ping pong.  You take the shot. 

We aren't barbaric enough any more to win the wars we're going to have to win.  This movie made that case definitively although I don't think that was its intent. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 01, 2016, 02:46:16 PM
Hateful Eight

Not done watching this yet.  Typical Quentin.  Very verbose.  Violent and gross.  Lots of words that polite people don't say. 

I like his movies, but they require a level of concentration sometimes of which I'm incapable. 

There are levels.  Pulp Fiction and the Kill Bills are masterpieces. Reservoir Dogs is right there with them.

From Dusk til Dawn and Django Unchained are just a small notch below.

Inglorious Basterds and Death Proof are several rungs down the ladder. 

I like this a little better than IB, but it's not up to Dusk til Dawn standards and it's way, way, way down the line from Pulp Fiction.  Not in the same world.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 01, 2016, 02:49:54 PM
Hateful Eight

Not done watching this yet.  Typical Quentin.  Very verbose.  Violent and gross.  Lots of words that polite people don't say. 

I like his movies, but they require a level of concentration sometimes of which I'm incapable. 

There are levels.  Pulp Fiction and the Kill Bills are masterpieces. Reservoir Dogs is right there with them.

From Dusk til Dawn and Django Unchained are just a small notch below.

Inglorious Basterds and Death Proof are several rungs down the ladder. 

I like this a little better than IB, but it's not up to Dusk til Dawn standards and it's way, way, way down the line from Pulp Fiction.  Not in the same world.

Loved this one.  Had to get past the 172 "N-Bombs" in the first 5 minutes, but overall, quite enjoyable.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on August 01, 2016, 03:22:28 PM
Loved this one.  Had to get past the 172 "N-Bombs" in the first 5 minutes, but overall, quite enjoyable.

Why would you have to get past that?  I have no problem with naggers.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 01, 2016, 03:26:55 PM
Why would you have to get past that?  I have no problem with naggers.

He's a racist white man lawyer.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 01, 2016, 03:29:00 PM
He's a racist white man lawyer.

I was advised of my white privilege the other day by one of my clients.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on August 01, 2016, 03:29:27 PM
Loved this one.  Had to get past the 172 "N-Bombs" in the first 5 minutes, but overall, quite enjoyable.

You must have been sitting way up at the top.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on August 01, 2016, 03:31:16 PM
I was advised of my white privilege the other day by one of my clients.

Have you brought action against yourself?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 01, 2016, 03:33:33 PM
Have you brought action against yourself?

I owe myself reparations.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 01, 2016, 08:27:47 PM
Star Trek Beyond

Mini and me decided to take in the latest offering this afternoon.  Meh X10.  Went out of the way to recreate all the original cast.  James T. Kirk, Mr. Spock, Bones, Scotty, UWhorea, Sulu, Checkov.  Not only that but many of the same lines from the original weekly series.  "Damn it, Jim.  I'm a Doctor."  I didn't read any write ups on it so I probably missed the reason.

Quite corny and they really missed a lot of opportunities for humor.  Nothing unique about the story line.  Typical and predictable.  And the battle scenes were nothing short of awful.  Impossible to follow.  Not giving anything away here because you see what the enemy weapon is 10 minutes in, which is a swarm of hundreds of thousands of tiny attack ships.  It made every battle scene jumbled and yes, like being inside a swarm of bees.

Going Kaos on this one.  Mini said he enjoyed it.  I was not entertained.  And it doesn't take much for me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 06, 2016, 10:53:21 AM
Green Room

Patrick Stewart! Anton Yelkin! Imogene Poots! The daughter from Deck the Halls (who was also in the new Pee Wee movie)!  All caught in a gory, gruesome story of torture and terror featuring skinheads and......

Crap.  It just didn't work. 

I wanted it to work, I was so looking forward to Stewart shredding scenery and bringing out the cool brit menace.  I was really looking forward to Yelkin's puppy-dog meekness being brutalized by the biker bar brawlers until he figured out a way to fight back.

It tried a little of those things, but for the most part it was a lot of introspective mumbling, too-quick deaths, ridiculous "plotting" by Stewart and his skinhead crew, an inconsistent timeline and a bunch of other jibbled up mess.

Five people are locked in a room with one way out, behind a flimsy door held closed only by a small pin latch and with a small sofa in front of it.  Five people you want dead and you've got an army of willing skinhead warriors surrounding the place.  You don't fiddle fuck around talking, you don't bring attack dogs, you don't come up with some day long plan and then drive off leaving most of the hostages still in the room.  Nope.  Too many other options.  So that was idiotic from the go and after it took way too long to even get to that point. 

Terrible movie that failed to deliver on the promise of its cast and the inherent terror of its setup.  I kept waiting for this movie to show up in theaters after I saw the trailer. When it didn't I looked for it on DVD.  Wasn't worth the wait or consideration. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on August 07, 2016, 12:20:47 PM
Suicide Squad

The reviews are unjustifiably harsh.  Still oddly flat, as only DC movies can be apparently, but a fun romp otherwise.

The star of the movie is Margot's ass in tiny blue shorts.  It's in nearly every shot.  Will Smith was predictably good and Viola Davis plays coldblooded to the hilt.

The Croc guy and the Aussie were throwaway characters, but Diablo was pretty badass.

Leto's Joker was excellent.  He'll be (unfairly) compared to Ledger, but that bar will not be reached.  Leto played the character as a restrained version of the comic rather than the menacing, subdued Ledger take. 

Go see it and have some fun.  It's the best DC has offered in a while.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 09, 2016, 09:35:27 AM
Invitation

Very weird movie about a dinner party with -- perhaps -- a hidden agenda.   

Very strange.  Leaves you wondering if the main character is the crazy one or if something odd is going on. 

Moves too slowly in places, doesn't explain some of the motives well enough, doesn't explain the need to have that particular group in place. 

The cast is filled with people you've seen before but can't quite place where. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on August 09, 2016, 09:58:15 AM
Suicide Squad

The reviews are unjustifiably harsh.  Still oddly flat, as only DC movies can be apparently, but a fun romp otherwise.

The star of the movie is Margot's ass in tiny blue shorts.  It's in nearly every shot.  Will Smith was predictably good and Viola Davis plays coldblooded to the hilt.

The Croc guy and the Aussie were throwaway characters, but Diablo was pretty badass.

Leto's Joker was excellent.  He'll be (unfairly) compared to Ledger, but that bar will not be reached.  Leto played the character as a restrained version of the comic rather than the menacing, subdued Ledger take. 

Go see it and have some fun.  It's the best DC has offered in a while.
Saw it last night and this take is spot on.  Fun movie overall, but watching Margo's ass was the highlight fo sho.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 11, 2016, 08:27:25 AM
Jack Reacher
Watching it on FX.

 :puke:

Why are they making a sequel?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on August 11, 2016, 01:22:26 PM
Jack Reacher
Watching it on FX.

 :puke:

Why are they making a sequel?

The books
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on August 11, 2016, 02:27:15 PM
The books

Of which they basically ignored in the first one
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on August 11, 2016, 10:24:26 PM
Saw it last night and this take is spot on.  Fun movie overall, but watching Margo's ass was the highlight fo sho.
Pics?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on August 11, 2016, 10:33:39 PM
Pics?
(https://giant.gfycat.com/NippyFrigidBunting.gif)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 12, 2016, 09:44:51 AM
(https://giant.gfycat.com/NippyFrigidBunting.gif)
Now I don't have to waste money on another shitty DC storyline.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 13, 2016, 11:01:00 AM
Zootopia

I think this was supposed to teach me something about racism. 

I don't want to be taught lessons by cartoon foxes. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on August 14, 2016, 05:33:05 PM
Now I don't have to waste money on another shitty DC storyline.
Perfect
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 16, 2016, 01:21:31 AM
Suicide Squad
Daughters wanted to go.  So I gave it a shot. 

Batman is my favorite superhero/comic character. Joker is my favorite villain. Harley is my favorite evil sidekick. 

Mother of Zod, the DC Universe cannot be salvaged.  In the hands of Warner, it's completely tone deaf, gratingly ham-handed, murky, muddled, bloated and asinine. 

Zac Snyder has to go.  Ben Affleck has to go. Fuck both of those blundering clowns. Their vision for this franchise is suffused with doom.

This could have been the perfect answer to Deadpool -- a perfectly irreverent, self-aware, well-acted, on-target, massively crude film.  Instead it was a dingy swirl of horrific performances, moronic storylines, wooden acting, idiotic setups and sloppy execution. 

It wasn't as bad as Batman v. Superman, but it lives in the same neighborhood.   Bullet points of the good and bad. 

1) Harley Quinn:  B+.  M Robbie is hot and tried really hard to nail the part. Unfortunately the director kept her reined in too much and didn't let her come nearly as unglued as she should.  And the backstory was laughably unbelievable and pitifully interjected into the film.  Still, she was far and away the best part of the movie.
2) Joker.  D-.  I didn't care for Leto's take on the clown prince of crime at all. Terribly disappointed.  I understand that he didn't want to go Ledger and that Nicholson's version is too clownish to fit the current vibe, but still. Just didn't work for me. I thought it was awful and not true to the character's history. 
3) Killer Croc. C-.  Really poorly done. Added nothing to the film.
4) Deadshot. C-.  Just not enough there, couldn't connect with the character.  Will looked like he was sleepwalking through it just to get a payday.
5) Diablo. F. Shiiiiiity execution and the CGI morph had people in our audience laughing.
6) Kitana, Boomerang, Whoever the fuck else?  D.  Poorly fleshed out characters with little to no purpose.
7) Enchantress.  F-.  What the fuck was that thing at the end?  I kept expecting it to ask Bill Murray to "choose the form of the destuctor."
(http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/981/981717/top-ten-angels-and-demons-20090511025354770-000.jpg)
It was so badly done I heard people laughing out loud at it. 
8) The CGI. F.  Absolutely terrible.  Eye-rollingly bad. 
9) Battfleck.  F --.  Fuck that asshole. I was wrong. He's a shitty Batman.
10) Viola Davis: D.  Pathetic. And how the blazing blue hell did she hold on to that stupid cell phone? 
11) Rick Flag: F. The guy was spectacularly bad and had any of the rest of it worked, this abysmal performance would have dragged the rest of it down by itself.  Astonishingly bad.
12) The climbing dude. F. Waste of a character and just stupid.

There were too many plot holes and inconsistencies to even begin to list them all. The pacing was shitty.  The characters just didn't resonate. There was nobody to care about, no reason to give a shit and the setup with the witch and the brother and Zul and Gozer and crossing the streams was monstrously awful. 

It was so disappointing to see characters in which I am invested being mishandled and abused in this manner.

So boo.  Why can't somebody competent take over the DC Universe and start over from scratch?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 16, 2016, 08:43:54 AM
Suicide Squad
Daughters wanted to go.  So I gave it a shot. 

Batman is my favorite superhero/comic character. Joker is my favorite villain. Harley is my favorite evil sidekick. 

Mother of Zod, the DC Universe cannot be salvaged.  In the hands of Warner, it's completely tone deaf, gratingly ham-handed, murky, muddled, bloated and asinine. 

Zac Snyder has to go.  Ben Affleck has to go. Fuck both of those blundering clowns. Their vision for this franchise is suffused with doom.

This could have been the perfect answer to Deadpool -- a perfectly irreverent, self-aware, well-acted, on-target, massively crude film.  Instead it was a dingy swirl of horrific performances, moronic storylines, wooden acting, idiotic setups and sloppy execution. 

It wasn't as bad as Batman v. Superman, but it lives in the same neighborhood.   Bullet points of the good and bad. 

1) Harley Quinn:  B+.  M Robbie is hot and tried really hard to nail the part. Unfortunately the director kept her reined in too much and didn't let her come nearly as unglued as she should.  And the backstory was laughably unbelievable and pitifully interjected into the film.  Still, she was far and away the best part of the movie.
2) Joker.  D-.  I didn't care for Leto's take on the clown prince of crime at all. Terribly disappointed.  I understand that he didn't want to go Ledger and that Nicholson's version is too clownish to fit the current vibe, but still. Just didn't work for me. I thought it was awful and not true to the character's history. 
3) Killer Croc. C-.  Really poorly done. Added nothing to the film.
4) Deadshot. C-.  Just not enough there, couldn't connect with the character.  Will looked like he was sleepwalking through it just to get a payday.
5) Diablo. F. Shiiiiiity execution and the CGI morph had people in our audience laughing.
6) Kitana, Boomerang, Whoever the fuck else?  D.  Poorly fleshed out characters with little to no purpose.
7) Enchantress.  F-.  What the fuck was that thing at the end?  I kept expecting it to ask Bill Murray to "choose the form of the destuctor."
(http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/981/981717/top-ten-angels-and-demons-20090511025354770-000.jpg)
It was so badly done I heard people laughing out loud at it. 
8) The CGI. F.  Absolutely terrible.  Eye-rollingly bad. 
9) Battfleck.  F --.  Fuck that asshole. I was wrong. He's a shitty Batman.
10) Viola Davis: D.  Pathetic. And how the blazing blue hell did she hold on to that stupid cell phone? 
11) Rick Flag: F. The guy was spectacularly bad and had any of the rest of it worked, this abysmal performance would have dragged the rest of it down by itself.  Astonishingly bad.
12) The climbing dude. F. Waste of a character and just stupid.

There were too many plot holes and inconsistencies to even begin to list them all. The pacing was shitty.  The characters just didn't resonate. There was nobody to care about, no reason to give a shit and the setup with the witch and the brother and Zul and Gozer and crossing the streams was monstrously awful. 

It was so disappointing to see characters in which I am invested being mishandled and abused in this manner.

So boo.  Why can't somebody competent take over the DC Universe and start over from scratch?

This might be your best review yet.  Fucking spot on.

I will add how can a bomb blow up an immortal/ and whatever the fuck she was building.  Also horrible horrible supposed villain of the movie....what was her motivation?

It's only redeeming quality was the music and like you said nowhere near as bad as Batman v Superman.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 01, 2016, 01:01:24 AM
Some movies I've seen, may have reviewed already and watched again

Up In the Air
I hate Vera Horseface, but this was a much better movie than I remember it being the first time I saw it.  Clooney's abject loneliness masked by a "I love it this way" facade was deftly done.  The kick in the sack when he finds out who the woman for which he's willing to change his life is well acted. 

The movie says more than I remembered it saying about life, relationships and how we all cope. 

Fever Pitch
I love the Red Sox.  With the exception of a few Auburn teams of the past, the 2004 Red Sox gave me more drama and happiness than any sports team ever.  The climb from the 0-3 hole against the Yankees was one of the greatest baseball series I've ever had the joy of watching. 

This movie weaves a cute love story around that team.  Originally it was supposed to chronicle yet another season of heartbreak, but those four games against the Yankees required a script revision.  Knowing that, you can see how the all-but inevitable end-of-season failure (that didn't happen) was a big part of the plot. 

Drew Barrymore is about as adorable as she gets - and I think she's pretty adorable usually.  Jimmy Fallon is convincing and a better actor than he was given a chance to prove before he took over Late Night.   

It's not a great movie, but it's one that both the guys and girls can enjoy - which is rare.  Helps to love the Sox.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 03, 2016, 10:17:12 AM
Don't Breathe

Looking for that horror/scare thing still.  Thought there was a good premise here.  Punk burglars break into home of blind man who catches them in the act and then traps them in the same darkness in which he lives his entire life. 

The problem?  A stupid side story that turns everybody in the film into a bad guy.  You need to have at least one person with whom to sympathize. When you want them all to lose, all to die a grisly death?  The movie missed its mark.

Add in a cavalcade of stupid decisions and "who would really do that" moments and you get a movie that blunders along and fails to deliver on its promise. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 07, 2016, 12:31:34 AM
I Am Wrath
John Travolta has had a few memorable roles. His turn as Vincent in Pulp Fiction was a brilliant casting choice and director Tarrantino let him do just little enough to be effective.  He was fair in Grease and passable in Saturday Night Fever, but mostly for the dancing and not the acting.  Okay in Urban Cowboy and got to crush on Glynnis O'Connor (who for some reason I thought was hot in the day) in Bubble Boy.
 
The rest of his catalog can be rated on the scatological scale. As in how shitty was his performance.

Tragedy spurs Travolta to rampage through the underworld seeking revenge.  He's supposed to be some retired bad ass. 

This straight to DVD turkey turd helped cement his status alongside Nick Cage as one of the worst actors of our lifetime. 

He was absolutely terrible here in a dumb film with a ridiculous plot and contrived setups.  Every emotion he tried to portray looked like he was squeezing out a really painful shit.  His face looked like it was carved out of dirty wax, his hair was either a bad wig or a terrible job at implants.  It was bad. Real bad.

I hated to see L&O SVU's Chris Meloni (an actor I like) bogged down in this swampy, poorly acted mess.  He was just as bad as the rest of the hack cast, though.  Shame. 

Just a thought.  Do you really think the bad guys stand around doing soliloquies or do they just shoot the fuck out of you?  Because there were at least three soliloquies in this movie.  You'd think the bad guys would learn to shoot first and then talk to your dead body. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on September 07, 2016, 09:55:56 AM
I Am Wrath
John Travolta has had a few memorable roles. His turn as Vincent in Pulp Fiction was a brilliant casting choice and director Tarrantino let him do just little enough to be effective.  He was fair in Grease and passable in Saturday Night Fever, but mostly for the dancing and not the acting.  Okay in Urban Cowboy and got to crush on Glynnis O'Connor (who for some reason I thought was hot in the day) in Bubble Boy.
 
The rest of his catalog can be rated on the scatological scale. As in how shitty was his performance.

Tragedy spurs Travolta to rampage through the underworld seeking revenge.  He's supposed to be some retired bad ass. 

This straight to DVD turkey turd helped cement his status alongside Nick Cage as one of the worst actors of our lifetime. 

He was absolutely terrible here in a dumb film with a ridiculous plot and contrived setups.  Every emotion he tried to portray looked like he was squeezing out a really painful shit.  His face looked like it was carved out of dirty wax, his hair was either a bad wig or a terrible job at implants.  It was bad. Real bad.

I hated to see L&O SVU's Chris Meloni (an actor I like) bogged down in this swampy, poorly acted mess.  He was just as bad as the rest of the hack cast, though.  Shame. 

Just a thought.  Do you really think the bad guys stand around doing soliloquies or do they just shoot the fuck out of you?  Because there were at least three soliloquies in this movie.  You'd think the bad guys would learn to shoot first and then talk to your dead body.

If you don't grasp the brilliance of his delivery of this classic line, then all your reviews are kindergarten level babbling.

"Why couldn't you put the bunny back in the box?"

And giving us that dramatic line while nailing a southern drawl....
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on September 07, 2016, 10:34:24 AM
I Am Wrath
John Travolta has had a few memorable roles. His turn as Vincent in Pulp Fiction was a brilliant casting choice and director Tarrantino let him do just little enough to be effective.  He was fair in Grease and passable in Saturday Night Fever, but mostly for the dancing and not the acting.  Okay in Urban Cowboy and got to crush on Glynnis O'Connor (who for some reason I thought was hot in the day) in Bubble Boy.
 
The rest of his catalog can be rated on the scatological scale. As in how shitty was his performance.

Tragedy spurs Travolta to rampage through the underworld seeking revenge.  He's supposed to be some retired bad ass. 

This straight to DVD turkey turd helped cement his status alongside Nick Cage as one of the worst actors of our lifetime. 

He was absolutely terrible here in a dumb film with a ridiculous plot and contrived setups.  Every emotion he tried to portray looked like he was squeezing out a really painful shit.  His face looked like it was carved out of dirty wax, his hair was either a bad wig or a terrible job at implants.  It was bad. Real bad.

I hated to see L&O SVU's Chris Meloni (an actor I like) bogged down in this swampy, poorly acted mess.  He was just as bad as the rest of the hack cast, though.  Shame. 

Just a thought.  Do you really think the bad guys stand around doing soliloquies or do they just shoot the fuck out of you?  Because there were at least three soliloquies in this movie.  You'd think the bad guys would learn to shoot first and then talk to your dead body.

Well you've obviously never seen Look Who's Talking bucko
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 11, 2016, 10:15:00 AM
Money Monster

Obviously trying to speak to the nature of corporate greed.  Guy blames TV host for advice that caused him to lose his $60,000 inheritance.  So he takes over the show and gradually brings Clooney around to wondering how the company that lost his money lost its stock and why.

Starred Clooney, a Julia Roberts who is not aging well, some other people you've seen before. 

Just didn't work.  Couldn't get invested in the characters who seemed shallow and poorly formed.  A stupid sidebar about weiner enhancing cream was unnecessary. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 11, 2016, 10:20:29 AM
Now You See Me Too
Everything interesting, clever, sly and entertaining that the original Now You See me was has, in this movie, been corrupted and squandered. 

It's a complete waste of the talent on hand and a sorry, meandering mishmash of silly storylines and "twists."  Lizzie Caplan is cute, but she's not Isla Fischer's equal.

Should have left well enough alone and let the first movie stand on its own. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: bgreene on September 19, 2016, 04:55:47 PM
Now You See Me Too
Everything interesting, clever, sly and entertaining that the original Now You See me was has, in this movie, been corrupted and squandered. 

It's a complete waste of the talent on hand and a sorry, meandering mishmash of silly storylines and "twists."  Lizzie Caplan is cute, but she's not Isla Fischer's equal.

Should have left well enough alone and let the first movie stand on its own.

And they set it up for another one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on September 20, 2016, 02:16:18 AM
Sausage Party was a steaming pile of dog shit!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: bgreene on September 20, 2016, 08:24:24 AM
Check out "Hard Candy".  I watched it on demand from Comcast, don't know where else to get it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on September 20, 2016, 09:31:15 AM
Sausage Party was a steaming pile of dog shit!
I told you this, y u no trust me?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on September 20, 2016, 09:33:17 AM
Not sure why you guys went in the first place.  Were you curious?  Experimenting? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on September 20, 2016, 09:34:05 AM
Not sure why you guys went in the first place.  Were you curious?  Experimenting?

It was hot and I was hungry....who knew?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on September 20, 2016, 10:00:08 AM
I told you this, y u no trust me?
:facepalm:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 22, 2016, 10:07:11 PM
Star Wars: Phantom Menace
Star Wars: Attack of the Clones
Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith


These films have been on TNT over the last three nights.  I watched them all in the hopes of convincing myself that I'd just misremembered, misjudged and unfairly maligned them. 

I was wrong.  They were even worse than I remember. 

The CGI is roughly the equivalent of Sharknado.  Well, Sharknado might be better. 

The acting is worse than that in any porn movie you've ever seen. 

Liam Neeson? Atrocious. Hayden whateverthefuck? Kill him now. Ewan McGregor?  Horrendous. Natalie Portman? I've never really thought much of her as an actress beyond her work with Leon and she's woefully bad here. 

The "Jar Jar Binks was really the bad guy" theory?  Blow it out your ass. That poorly rendered rastafarian piece of shit was massively offensive and annoying.

They are three of the worst movies in every conceivable way that I've ever seen.  If you hadn't told me George Lucas was serious with this shit I'd swear the were bad parody.  The "Scary Movie" to "Scream" 

They perverted the story, shit all over the history and mythos and should be expunged from the universe never to be shown again. 

They're fucking awful.  Dreadful.  I'd rather bang my face into a bucket of broken glass than watch any of these turkey turds again. 

I wish the master copies would burn in a dick fire. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on September 22, 2016, 10:57:19 PM
K, have you seen any of the Purge movies? Curious as to what you think of those.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 22, 2016, 11:27:05 PM
K, have you seen any of the Purge movies? Curious as to what you think of those.

Liked the first one.
Hated the second one pretty much.
Election Year was much better (save the shitty acting) but not as good as the first 

When I travel I like to look up where movies were filmed and if I can, go visit that area.  When I was in Rhode Island this summer I went to St. Ann's in Woonsocket where the church scenes were filmed. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on September 22, 2016, 11:45:51 PM
Liked the first one.
Hated the second one pretty much.
Election Year was much better (save the shootty acting) but not as good as the first 

When I travel I like to look up where movies were filmed and if I can, go visit that area.  When I was in Rhode Island this summer I went to St. Ann's in Woonsocket where the church scenes were filmed.

Thanks. Haven't seen the third one yet but saw it on rental availability. I will give it a shot.

My wife and I did that visit the site thing in Savannah with Midnight in the Garden. Neat to see the real thing. Except for Uga the dog. Fuck that mutt.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 01, 2016, 12:24:02 AM
The Shallows

Blake Lively is pleasant enough to look at, although that mole under her eye is distracting as hell.  The scenery in this movie is beautiful. 

That's all there is to recommend this overboiled oceanic turd of a movie.  It's absolutely terrible. 

Killer shark stalks surfer who has the misfortune of crossing its path. Cuts her off from land and strands her on a rock that grows smaller with the tide. 

I like some continuity.  This movie had very little.  One shot shows calm seas as far as the horizon, the next she's roiling in ten-foot waves.  The continued transition between placid seas and soaring waves was unnerving. 

This shark bites grown men in half, but shakes her for a few minutes and all she has is a thigh wound.  Bad one, but still. 

The list of stupid could go on forever.  The way the shark was vanquished in the end was ludicrous. 

I wanted the shark to win. 

Zero stars. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 02, 2016, 08:01:50 AM
The Darkness

Kevin Bacon makes a limpid horror movie. 

This is one of those that probably looked good on paper but once they started filming they realized they had a turkey turd. Then they kept on filming it anyway. 

In one of the weirdest casting decisions I've ever seen in my life, the story opens with Bacon and his wife (Rhada Mitchell who you'll recognize, but have no idea what you've seen her in) out in the desert on some kind of weird ass picnic with another couple.  The other couple consists of Veep's Matt Walsh and Allison from House.  Medium-big stars (arguably bigger than Bacon/Mitchell) who disappear after that opening scene.  They are not seen again. 

There are some weird glances, hints of "an affair" but that story thread just fizzles.  Did the original story have more for them to do and the director decided to pivot and waste the money paid them?  It was decidedly odd to have the second-billed case members only appear on screen for maybe five minutes. Did the same thing with Ming-Na Wen and Paul Reiser both of whom appear to be there only to make nonsensical commentary. 

There's a wasted sideline about eating disorders that had no place in the film.   And autism!  And alcoholism! And infidelity!

Mainly a case of throw shit against a wall, have people behave like no people in the world would ever really behave, play some loud music and make some shadows.  Call it a movie and get the fuck out. 

Absolutely terrible. 

For those gluttons for idiocy who still might want to watch it, the storyline is about some dumbass rocks the autistic kid brings back from a cave that unleash some sleeping demons.  Thank goodness there was a youtube video that explained exactly what was happening if you google "strange sounds..." 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 03, 2016, 07:30:21 AM
The Neighbor

Bill Engvall as a possibly murderous neighbor to a couple living way out in the Mississippi sticks. 

Let that sink in for a minute.  Bill Engvall as the bad guy.

He's not the worst part of this movie.

Any questions?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on October 03, 2016, 08:45:10 AM
The Shallows

Blake Lively is pleasant enough to look at, although that mole under her eye is distracting as hell.  The scenery in this movie is beautiful. 

That's all there is to recommend this overboiled oceanic turd of a movie.  It's absolutely terrible. 

Killer shark stalks surfer who has the misfortune of crossing its path. Cuts her off from land and strands her on a rock that grows smaller with the tide. 

I like some continuity.  This movie had very little.  One shot shows calm seas as far as the horizon, the next she's roiling in ten-foot waves.  The continued transition between placid seas and soaring waves was unnerving. 

This shark bites grown men in half, but shakes her for a few minutes and all she has is a thigh wound.  Bad one, but still. 

The list of stupid could go on forever.  The way the shark was vanquished in the end was ludicrous. 

I wanted the shark to win. 

Zero stars.

I was ok with it up until the way she killed the shark at the end....It jumped the shark.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 03, 2016, 09:36:07 AM
'Titanic

I loathe this movie.  I hate it as much as I hate Alabama. I hate it because it sucks. I hate it because of some personal associations in my life. 

Was forced to endure roughly six hours of this eleven-hour schmaltz fest yesterday.  I hate it more now than I did before.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chityeah on October 03, 2016, 12:51:23 PM
'Titanic

I loathe this movie.  I hate it as much as I hate Alabama. I hate it because it sucks. I hate it because of some personal associations in my life. 

Was forced to endure roughly six hours of this eleven-hour schmaltz fest yesterday.  I hate it more now than I did before.
Should have watched cinemax. 7 hours of uninterrupted Godfather. Heaven!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on October 03, 2016, 12:55:42 PM
'Titanic

I loathe this movie.  I hate it as much as I hate Alabama. I hate it because it sucks. I hate it because of some personal associations in my life. 

Was forced to endure roughly six hours of this eleven-hour schmaltz fest yesterday.  I hate it more now than I did before.


Ass whip of a movie, but shed a male tear at the end when they are in the water and it is big time male credits around the house for a while.    :gig:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 03, 2016, 02:47:44 PM
No Deep Water Horizon this past weekend for anyone?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on October 17, 2016, 10:42:55 AM
The Accountant

Won't win awards, but it evolves into a fun rampage flick.

Some of the pieces are tied up a little too tidily for my liking, but it didn't detract from my overall satisfaction with the movie.

Affleck is, true to his form, solid in the role.  JK Simmons is always great.  Anna Kendrick was a bit lightweight for her role, but whatevs...all those ingenue types look/act similarly these days.

The surprise for me....



spoilerish.....




Jon Berenthal was awesome in this flick.  Don't know why he didn't feature more prominently in the advertising.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on October 18, 2016, 01:56:51 PM
The Accountant
Jon Berenthal was awesome in this flick.  Don't know why he didn't feature more prominently in the advertising.

I honestly didn't know he was even in it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on October 18, 2016, 02:15:11 PM
I honestly didn't know he was even in it.

Nor did I until he popped up on the screen.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 22, 2016, 01:06:49 AM
Boo: A Madea Hallerween

You'd think this would get old after a while.  But it doesn't.  Or when it does, it gets brought back. 

Is this high comedy?  No.  It's just funny.   Madea's Christmas was amusing.  It had a few good moments. 

This one just cracked me up.  I haven't laughed so much at a movie in -- I don't know when, really.  It's rude, it's ridiculous, it's not anything much beyond what you'd expect.  But it made me and everyone else in the audience laugh almost continuously. 

Tyler Perry, Tyler Perry, Tyler Perry, a funny black woman, a not-so-funny black woman, and some of the worst actors I've ever seen on film star in a movie that's just plain silliness. 

The girl playing the daughter is atrocious.  The frat boys are unconvincing and look like they were simply pulled off the streets the day of the shoot and handed their lines.  The presidente of the fraternitay was pathetically bad. 

Tyler Perry -- when playing straight as the dad -- is stiff, stilted and flat.  It's so weird that he's such a terrible actor when he's trying to play a real character as himself (see the unwatchable Alex Cross movie) but is funny as Madear.

I'd actually like to see somebody besides Perry helm a Madea movie at least once.  Get a quality cast, an actual budget, some better production values and then let turn Madea loose. 

When this comes out I'll add it to my collection of Halloween staples.  It's a good one.
 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Prowler on October 23, 2016, 05:00:23 AM
Not surprising. Kaos you want to kill yourself after watching 9 out of the last 10 movies that you posted, including Titanic. But Madea Hallerween is funny and a good movie, minus the worst acting you've ever seen, horrible budget, & production...but it's so good that you're going to put it in your collection.

Smh
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on October 24, 2016, 08:58:08 AM
Not surprising. Kaos you want to kill yourself after watching 9 out of the last 10 movies that you posted, including Titanic. But Madea Hallerween is funny and a good movie, minus the worst acting you've ever seen, horrible budget, & production...but it's so good that you're going to put it in your collection.

Smh

You know how I know you're gay? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on October 24, 2016, 09:00:44 AM
You know how I know you're gay?

Because he listens to the Dave Matthews Band?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on October 24, 2016, 10:14:34 AM
Because he listens to the Dave Matthews Band?

Shut that whore mouth, mister. :haha:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 24, 2016, 11:28:42 AM
Shut that whore mouth, mister. :haha:

But it's true.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on October 25, 2016, 12:19:17 PM
You know how I know you're gay?
Cause he wants to sit on Bernie Sanders face?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 25, 2016, 07:40:03 PM
Cause he wants to sit on Bernie Sanders face?

He wants someone else to sit on it for him and just hand him a jar of ass boogers.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 08, 2016, 09:11:20 AM
Star Trek: Beyond

Beyond credulity.
Beyond sense.
Beyond silly.

Stole some creature effects from Star Wars.  Didn't care for any of that.
Stole the 80s-90s music idea from Guardians of the Galaxy.  Boo.
Stole its story from some fanboy's bad dream.

A few good moments here and there marred by a ridiculous storyline, some laughably bad CGI (particularly the motorcycle ride), some forced dialogue, some shoehorned "emotion" and the artificial subtle interjection of Sulu's gayness.

Not a good movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 08, 2016, 09:24:42 AM
Star Trek: Beyond

Beyond credulity.
Beyond sense.
Beyond silly.

Stole some creature effects from Star Wars.  Didn't care for any of that.
Stole the 80s-90s music idea from Guardians of the Galaxy.  Boo.
Stole its story from some fanboy's bad dream.

A few good moments here and there marred by a ridiculous storyline, some laughably bad CGI (particularly the motorcycle ride), some forced dialogue, some shoehorned "emotion" and the artificial subtle interjection of Sulu's gayness.

Not a good movie.

Unfortunately paid good cash to see this one in the theater.  The popcorn, drowning in that liquid gold they have in that big ole pump dispenser, was fab-you-lust.  Otherwise, I was pissed I wasted that much of my life.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 11, 2016, 08:46:46 AM
A Most Violent Year

Jessica Chastain and Poe Dameron in an 80s era movie about corruption in the heating oil business.

Well, it just didn't work.  Plodding and muddled storyline that fizzled to the end and never delivered. 

Disappointed. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 11, 2016, 10:19:42 AM
Idiocracy

Not hardly the masterpiece I was led to believe.  One of Mike Judge's worst efforts in my opinion. 

He stole my long-held belief that due to human nature the collective IQ will only drop over the years as "smart" people have far fewer children than the idiots (democrats) and the desire for immediate distraction will triumph over sacrifice for the greater good.  Roman breads and circuses, remember?  He didn't, however, present anything remotely close to what that world would look like and instead squandered the opportunity that presented. 

For those that stupidly tried to tie that film to the election of Trump?  Nope.  The idiotic sheep voted for her.  A Hillary win would have pushed us closer to that future than Trump.  So bah on you. 

I was not impressed at all.  Judge's films and television shows often provide biting and authentic social commentary.  This tried but flopped like Clete Wetli on November 8. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on November 12, 2016, 08:34:24 AM
Dr. Strange was, predictably, pretty awesome.  Visually amazing, though they relied on the "Inception" visual a bit too much in my opinion.

Cumberbatch is in his comfort zone playing the smartest man in the room but he doesn't wear the earnest hero-turn very well, unfortunately.  It comes off forced and/or hokey.

Lots of action, some light Marvel-esque humor and stunning visuals.  Spend the money and see it in 3D and/or IMAX.

Also, two teasers after this one.  Stay to the very end.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 12, 2016, 03:59:17 PM
Took the kiddos to see Trolls yesterday on the day off school.

Thought it was much better than Secret Life of Pets and angry birds.

Still nowhere in the neighborhood of the classics of the same genre. Toy story Etc
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on November 13, 2016, 12:07:25 PM
Took the kiddos to see Trolls yesterday on the day off school.

Thought it was much better than Secret Life of Pets and angry birds.

Still nowhere in the neighborhood of the classics of the same genre. Toy story Etc
Music was good
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTiger1 on November 13, 2016, 12:56:55 PM
Took the kiddos to see Trolls yesterday on the day off school.

Thought it was much better than Secret Life of Pets and angry birds.

Still nowhere in the neighborhood of the classics of the same genre. Toy story Etc

What ages? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 13, 2016, 10:47:26 PM
Ghostbustiers

Ghostbusters with chicks.  Ugh.  Finally gave in and checked it out. 

Much like people can't understand that the reason people hated and refused to vote for Hillary had nothing to do with her being a woman, the people who made this movie were so tone deaf that they rejected any criticism as being nothing more than "anti-woman" sentiment. 

I wouldn't object to women in those roles.  I objected to THOSE women in THAT movie. 

It wasn't as blatantly horrible as I expected.  What it was, however, was listless, lifeless, dull and insulting.  It could have been fun.  It wasn't.  McCarthy was restrained but still obnoxious.  Wiig was paper thin and vaccuous.  Leslie Jones is the least talented person ever to grace a screen of any size.  If braying stupid things loudly is "talent" I need to be an agent.  Signups begin at 11 a.m. at Wal Mart.  McKinnon is okay on SNL in small bites, but her mugging just grew tiresome.  She was a one-note joke with no room to expand. 

The scene where Kev was getting the cops to dance was amusing.  Beyond that, there wasn't much else.  The constant cameos were actually distracting. 

Sad because the visual effects were pretty good. 

If you're going to remake a movie that's considered a classic, either have a new take or have something new to say.  This film did neither.  Instead, the only message it delivered was "hey, remember that 80s movie Ghostbusters?  It was pretty cool."
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 13, 2016, 11:58:34 PM
What ages?

6 and 9

Its pretty mild. Few subtle jokes here and there they won't get, some farting and laughing, but pretty mild. As GF said, has a LOT of music.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 15, 2016, 12:01:58 AM
Tarzan

Me Yawn. 

You Idiotic.

Boo.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on November 15, 2016, 08:58:43 AM
You ever seen Kiss Meets Phantom of the Park? A podcast I listen to reviewed that as a one off once and the review was hilarious.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTiger1 on November 15, 2016, 10:22:02 AM
6 and 9

Its pretty mild. Few subtle jokes here and there they won't get, some farting and laughing, but pretty mild. As GF said, has a LOT of music.

Then I will probably take them to see it.  Someone told me that my 6 year old wouldn't like it but my 3 year old would love it.  They said it was a bit toddler'ish, but if it has a lot of good music the 6 year old will enjoy it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 15, 2016, 10:32:54 AM
Then I will probably take them to see it.  Someone told me that my 6 year old wouldn't like it but my 3 year old would love it.  They said it was a bit toddler'ish, but if it has a lot of good music the 6 year old will enjoy it.

Oh stop.  You're not fooling anybody.  You know you're going to slip off to the matinee showing tomorrow by yourself.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 15, 2016, 10:55:53 AM
You ever seen Kiss Meets Phantom of the Park? A podcast I listen to reviewed that as a one off once and the review was hilarious.

Seen it?  I own it. 

It's terrible.  Everything was done wrong.

First it was helmed by Hanna Barbera. 
Second the script was made up on the fly.
Third Ace and Peter had already mentally checked out.  Pete's dialogue was dubbed. Not his voice. Ecause he refused.  Ace was so high he'd only make squawking noises. Led to doubles being used for many scenes -- some of which are clearly black guys.
Fourth it was made for TV so it was gonna be bad
Fifth the writers didn't "get" KISS and went cartoonish. That led to fights between band members who didn't want to be a part of it.

Still?  It was the highest rated movie of the year.  Or maybe it wasn't.

Fwiw? The band hated it.  Still a sore subject and gene prefers not to have it mentioned in his presence.

My daughter loved it when she was three.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on November 15, 2016, 11:51:45 AM
Then I will probably take them to see it.  Someone told me that my 6 year old wouldn't like it but my 3 year old would love it.  They said it was a bit toddler'ish, but if it has a lot of good music the 6 year old will enjoy it.

My 6 year old loved it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 15, 2016, 12:48:43 PM
My 6 year old loved it.

For whatever reason that was the target audience.  Hana barbera I guess.  KISS fans were 13-25 at that stage. Yet they make a movie for 5-10 year olds.  Poor decisions abounded. 

It's Rocky Horror bad but without the cult status.  Well except among KISS fans who view it with a certain amount of bemused reverence. 

It's no worse than the distressingly bad Detroit Rock City which suffered from the unfortunate casting of Edward Furlong and a script full of stereotypes.  Could have been a great coming of age movie but stumbled badly. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on November 15, 2016, 01:39:17 PM
For whatever reason that was the target audience.  Hana barbera I guess.  KISS fans were 13-25 at that stage. Yet they make a movie for 5-10 year olds.  Poor decisions abounded. 

It's Rocky Horror bad but without the cult status.  Well except among KISS fans who view it with a certain amount of bemused reverence. 

It's no worse than the distressingly bad Detroit Rock City which suffered from the unfortunate casting of Edward Furlong and a script full of stereotypes.  Could have been a great coming of age movie but stumbled badly.

I meant Trolls....not jewish guys in makeup and leather.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 15, 2016, 01:52:46 PM
I meant Trolls....not jewish guys in makeup and leather.

Give it a whirl.  It's better than trolls
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 16, 2016, 09:41:46 AM
Give it a whirl.  It's better than trolls

No.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on November 17, 2016, 07:59:11 AM
Give it a whirl.  It's better than trolls

Easy Catman
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 17, 2016, 10:00:23 AM
Easy Catman

They are serious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoN1-Jjysk4
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 17, 2016, 11:01:43 AM
They are serious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoN1-Jjysk4

No. No. Absolutely not.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on November 17, 2016, 12:44:42 PM
They are serious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoN1-Jjysk4

My 8 and 6 year old love the Rock and Roll Mystery with Scooby Doo
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on November 21, 2016, 10:17:46 AM
The Arrival

Save yo fucking dollars and see this one on USA or some shit.

"Meh" coupled with the hype equals waste of fucking money.

I love first-contact stories and there was a ton of potential here, but they fell on their faces with this.  Too much close-up weepy Amy.  Too much dead kid flashback.  Too much Nolan-straining.

I wish I had two more hands so I could give those titties four thumbs down.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 02, 2016, 12:03:19 AM
The Infiltrator

I'd sworn off Bryan Cranston's dumb ass until he moves to Canada.  But this was a gift from someone I love who knows how much I liked Breaking Bad and who was really excited that I'd want to watch it. So I was sort of obligated.

Cranston is just a variation of Walter White here.  Playing a DEA/CIA/FBI/IRS something or other who wormed his way into the Colombian drug trade by posing as a major money launderer, brought down the banks and a handful of Pablo Escobar's crew and somehow lived to tell the tale. 

It was a fair movie. 

But I still don't know how to launder money.  I looked it up in a dictionary. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 02, 2016, 08:30:31 AM


But I still don't know how to launder money.  I looked it up in a dictionary.

Kaos = Michael Bolton

LAUNDERING. TO CLEAN...NO, UH, HERE IT IS. TO CHANNEL MONEY THROUGH A
SOURCE OR BY AN INTERMEDIARY.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on December 02, 2016, 10:26:57 AM
Kaos = Michael Bolton

LAUNDERING. TO CLEAN...NO, UH, HERE IT IS. TO CHANNEL MONEY THROUGH A
SOURCE OR BY AN INTERMEDIARY.

I celebrate his entire catalog
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 02, 2016, 04:44:46 PM
Unknown Caller

Ran across this on Showtime. 

Dude traps a man and his daughter in a house with their own security system in order to exact revenge for some high school slights. 

The acting is bad.  The CGI is just as bad as Batman v. Superman.  The story dragged on too long and was just silly. 

Funny to see the lead barreling past the Regions building and climbing up Vulcan. 

That's all there is to recommend it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 02, 2016, 11:16:04 PM
I celebrate his entire catalog

Why should I change? He's the one that sucks.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 03, 2016, 07:58:41 AM
Incarnate
Still in search of the next great horror movie. This effort from Jason Blum isn't it and isn't in the same hemisphere as even good horror. It's a load of slung together nonsensical crap.  Beginning to hate Blum House for churning out turd after turd.

This one features an over-acting Aaron Eckhart and the Red Woman from Game of Thrones who is given little more to do than sit on a couch and make faces. 

Idiotic plot.  Aaron has some gift that allows him to enter the mind of the possessed and get demons to jump out of windows or something.  There are triple doses of dumb in this one. 

Case in point.  Little demon boy kills his father by levitating him to the ceiling and dropping him eight feet (the fact that Aaron falls several stories and lands on the concrete without dying later in the film is a laughable contrast, but I'm straying from the point).   The next scene is an ambulance crew carrying dear old dead daddy out in a body bag.  But no cops show up, the characters move right along as if nothing happened, there's no investigation, no arrest, no questions to the family, no questions for this group of people with all kinds of weird medical/monitoring equipment that tag along with Aaron.  They just roll dad out and roll right along.  Stewpid. 

Terrible movie.  All associated with it should be ashamed. I could do better.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 16, 2016, 07:54:29 PM
Rogue One

Really fugging good.  Not as light-hearted as TFA, but with at least as many (if not more) nods to the original trilogy.

It starts a bit slow and you're bounced around the galaxy a few times to get the initial players on the board...but once it starts rolling the action seldom lets up and the final 20 minutes or so makes you forget that you were tapping your toe earlier.

The aesthetic of SW and ESB is captured nearly perfectly in the interior shots of the Imperial installations so kudos to the set designers or whoever does that. 

Given the faces that show up on screen, it's really tough to see this as some tangential side-story (as I understand the movies released on years between SW movies to be) and I felt like it was the perfect setup to Ep IV.  It wasn't necessary to an understanding of SW...but if you knew that story, you'd want to know how Leia got the info she loaded onto R2.

I'll probably see it at least once more in the theater.  It's not really worth the extra $$ for 3D.  See it in IMAX or standard.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 16, 2016, 10:05:40 PM
Rogue One

Really fugging good.  Not as light-hearted as TFA, but with at least as many (if not more) nods to the original trilogy.

It starts a bit slow and you're bounced around the galaxy a few times to get the initial players on the board...but once it starts rolling the action seldom lets up and the final 20 minutes or so makes you forget that you were tapping your toe earlier.

The aesthetic of SW and ESB is captured nearly perfectly in the interior shots of the Imperial installations so kudos to the set designers or whoever does that. 

Given the faces that show up on screen, it's really tough to see this as some tangential side-story (as I understand the movies released on years between SW movies to be) and I felt like it was the perfect setup to Ep IV.  It wasn't necessary to an understanding of SW...but if you knew that story, you'd want to know how Leia got the info she loaded onto R2.

I'll probably see it at least once more in the theater.  It's not really worth the extra $$ for 3D.  See it in IMAX or standard.

Heard a review on this today and it was spot on to yours.  He said, slow for the first hour while you get acclimated to the characters and their stories, but then the action picks up and rolls on til the end.  He said quite funny in places but a much darker tone overall.  I will see it next week with mini fo sho.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 20, 2016, 11:34:13 PM
Just got back from Rogue.

Solid SW action.  Not much more to say about it other than too long.  Would not take the time to watch it again, theater, rental or otherwise.  Not saying it was bad by any means.  Just zero wow factor.  Maybe just burned out on 40 years of Star Wars.  Seemed like I was watching the same story I've watched for that long, with a good bit darker ending.

I think possibly the two main characters just didn't pull me in at all.  Felicity Jones was about as bland as any lead role I've seen since...well...Jennifer Lawrence in Mockingjay. (Fucking horrible BTW)  Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang easily turned in the best performances.  Both characters were hilarious and made you really pull for them.

Decent.  A ton of SW action.  Just nothing to make me want to come back.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on December 27, 2016, 10:43:50 AM
Just got back from Rogue.

Solid SW action.  Not much more to say about it other than too long.  Would not take the time to watch it again, theater, rental or otherwise.  Not saying it was bad by any means.  Just zero wow factor.  Maybe just burned out on 40 years of Star Wars.  Seemed like I was watching the same story I've watched for that long, with a good bit darker ending.

I think possibly the two main characters just didn't pull me in at all.  Felicity Jones was about as bland as any lead role I've seen since...well...Jennifer Lawrence in Mockingjay. (Fucking horrible BTW)  Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang easily turned in the best performances.  Both characters were hilarious and made you really pull for them.

Decent.  A ton of SW action.  Just nothing to make me want to come back.


For once I agree with our esteemed wiregrass caring barrister.  It was good but I walked out not understanding why everyone was jazzing in their pants over it?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 27, 2016, 10:48:22 AM

For once I agree with our esteemed wiregrass caring barrister.  It was good but I walked out not understanding why everyone was jazzing in their pants over it?


You wound me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on December 27, 2016, 11:13:25 AM

You wound me.

Don't want you getting the big head
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on December 29, 2016, 09:31:47 AM
Don't want you getting the big head

What about that time you found him naked eating a bowl full of Jello?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on December 30, 2016, 06:55:59 AM
What about that time you found him naked eating a bowl full of Jello?

That was different.  He was hot and he was hungry.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 06, 2017, 07:17:23 PM
Human Centipede 3
Watched the first one out of sick curiosity.  It was freakishly terrible. Watched the second one wondering how they could make it work.  It was horrible and senseless.

The third?  Well you're already that invested, might as well go the whole yard.

What an awful load of crap.

The film brings back Dieter Laser from the original and casts him as a demented prison boss.  It brings back the mole-looking screen-watching schlub from the second and casts him as the prison accountant.  It adds porn star Bree Olson as a slutty secretary, Tiny Lister as a prisoner and Eric Roberts as the governor.

Laser is by far the worst actor I have ever seen.  Every line is bellowed as if it is painful for him to speak. He grimaces, contorts, strains and snarls. Most of what he says is barely understandable.  Schlub affects a come and go piss poor attempt at a southern accent.  Eric Roberts is, by far, the best actor on the screen.  Olson is a close second and that speaks volumes. 

The basic story is that the prison boss and accountant watch the first two movies and decide to create a human centipede out of the prison population as a measure to control the inmates and save money.

It is without a doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen.  It was bad porn level without any payoff. 


Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 07, 2017, 06:01:03 PM
Human Centipede 3
Watched the first one out of sick curiosity.  It was freakishly terrible. Watched the second one wondering how they could make it work.  It was horrible and senseless.

The third?  Well you're already that invested, might as well go the whole yard.

What an awful load of crap.

The film brings back Dieter Laser from the original and casts him as a demented prison boss.  It brings back the mole-looking screen-watching schlub from the second and casts him as the prison accountant.  It adds porn star Bree Olson as a slutty secretary, Tiny Lister as a prisoner and Eric Roberts as the governor.

Laser is by far the worst actor I have ever seen.  Every line is bellowed as if it is painful for him to speak. He grimaces, contorts, strains and snarls. Most of what he says is barely understandable.  Schlub affects a come and go piss poor attempt at a southern accent.  Eric Roberts is, by far, the best actor on the screen.  Olson is a close second and that speaks volumes. 

The basic story is that the prison boss and accountant watch the first two movies and decide to create a human centipede out of the prison population as a measure to control the inmates and save money.

It is without a doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen.  It was bad porn level without any payoff.

But it sounds like a great idea for the prison population issue.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 08, 2017, 03:51:38 PM
Deepwater Horizon

Pretty solid and standard Mark Wahlberg movie.  If I'm ever in need of rescue it's Mark I want talking me down. 

Don't know if it was all true and BP was as carelessly greed driven as portrayed. But it was worth the watch to see it.

Good special effects.  Decent acting.  Enjoyed it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 08, 2017, 03:53:53 PM
School for Peculiar Children

From the vision of Tim Burton comes...

A bit confusing what the fuck? 

Beautifully shot.  No idea what happened in this long movie. Not worth the time.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on January 08, 2017, 11:00:57 PM
Just got back from Rogue.

Solid SW action.  Not much more to say about it other than too long.  Would not take the time to watch it again, theater, rental or otherwise.  Not saying it was bad by any means.  Just zero wow factor.  Maybe just burned out on 40 years of Star Wars.  Seemed like I was watching the same story I've watched for that long, with a good bit darker ending.

I think possibly the two main characters just didn't pull me in at all.  Felicity Jones was about as bland as any lead role I've seen since...well...Jennifer Lawrence in Mockingjay. (Fucking horrible BTW)  Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang easily turned in the best performances.  Both characters were hilarious and made you really pull for them.

Decent.  A ton of SW action.  Just nothing to make me want to come back.


I think you totally whiffed on this. The main characters were supposed to be blah. There was no reason to invest in them since they would all die. This was a movie that filled in the gap as to how the rebels got the plans to the death Star. In the original, all we were told is that a lot of good people died getting the information.


I totally enjoyed a SW movie that I had no expectations from.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 09, 2017, 08:58:37 AM

I think you totally whiffed on this. The main characters were supposed to be blah. There was no reason to invest in them since they would all die. This was a movie that filled in the gap as to how the rebels got the plans to the death Star. In the original, all we were told is that a lot of good people died getting the information.


I totally enjoyed a SW movie that I had no expectations from.

So the question becomes, why the hell would I want to spend that much cabbage on a movie where they intentionally made the characters blah and mundane?  Guess they got me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 09, 2017, 10:21:29 AM
Been on a movie binge lately:

Criminal- Ryan Reynolds' memories "transferred" to mentally malformed psychopath Kevin Costner.  Strong performance by Costner saves a rather pedestrian movie.  Entertaining, if predictable.  Flowers for Algernon meets Face-Off, sort of.

Office Christmas Party- Looked predictable, but I really like most of the cast so I gave it a whirl.  Fucking sucked.  Not even a chuckle.  Pretty disappointed in this one.

Sisters - Love Poehler and Fey, so this was a no-brainer.  Funny stuff, but nothing groundbreaking.  Trying to make Ike Barinholtz into a sex-symbol was weird.

Magnificent Seven - Solid performances by all except D'Onofrio (what was the fucking falsetto about?).  Nothing new in the story, really.  Meh.

Bad Santa 2 - I love the original but this is not up to snuff.  Tired jokes and, apart from Herman Merman's bizarrely consistent appearance, nothing remarkable about it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 09, 2017, 10:58:58 AM
Been on a movie binge lately:

Criminal- Ryan Reynolds' memories "transferred" to mentally malformed psychopath Kevin Costner.  Strong performance by Costner saves a rather pedestrian movie.  Entertaining, if predictable.  Flowers for Algernon meets Face-Off, sort of.

Office Christmas Party- Looked predictable, but I really like most of the cast so I gave it a whirl.  Fucking sucked.  Not even a chuckle.  Pretty disappointed in this one.

Sisters - Love Poehler and Fey, so this was a no-brainer.  Funny stuff, but nothing groundbreaking.  Trying to make Ike Barinholtz into a sex-symbol was weird.

Magnificent Seven - Solid performances by all except D'Onofrio (what was the fucking falsetto about?).  Nothing new in the story, really.  Meh.

Bad Santa 2 - I love the original but this is not up to snuff.  Tired jokes and, apart from Herman Merman's bizarrely consistent appearance, nothing remarkable about it.

Ha.

You've seen some of the same ones I have over the holidays. Spot on with office party - sucked donkey bollocks.

And tina fey? 8 days a week. Something about her. Boing.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on January 10, 2017, 12:49:56 AM
So the question becomes, why the hell would I want to spend that much cabbage on a movie where they intentionally made the characters blah and mundane?  Guess they got me.


For the story, man!

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on January 10, 2017, 12:51:12 AM
Ha.

You've seen some of the same ones I have over the holidays. Spot on with office party - sucked donkey bollocks.

And tina fey? 8 days a week. Something about her. Boing.


All those good hallmark Christmas movies and you guys waste your money on those!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 10, 2017, 06:59:11 AM

All those good hallmark Christmas movies and you guys waste your money on those!

I watched every single one of them.  Just spared you the reviews.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 10, 2017, 07:48:58 AM
Masterminds - Zach Galifianakis, Kristen Wiig, Jason Sudeikis and Owen Wilson are tangled up in an armored car heist.

ZG plays his fallback character: effeminate southern man (Kate McKinnon steals her scenes as ZG's fiance).  Sudeikis is great as the psychopathic hitman.  Wilson's character is more ruthless and less mumbly-bumbly than he usually plays.

Predictable to the end, but worth it for the constant barrage of gags.  If you don't like this cast (looking at you, K), then you probably won't like this movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 10, 2017, 08:16:40 AM
Masterminds - Zach Galifianakis, Kristen Wiig, Jason Sudeikis and Owen Wilson are tangled up in an armored car heist.

ZG plays his fallback character: effeminate southern man (Kate McKinnon steals her scenes as ZG's fiance).  Sudeikis is great as the psychopathic hitman.  Wilson's character is more ruthless and less mumbly-bumbly than he usually plays.

Predictable to the end, but worth it for the constant barrage of gags.  If you don't like this cast (looking at you, K), then you probably won't like this movie.

I'll take your word for it. 

I tried to watch Sisters.   I like Amy Poehler (a lot).  I like Tina Fey (less now because of her strident and unwanted political opinions).  I know they're great friends in real life. 

How in the world can two people who are really friends and clearly have chemistry together have such a complete absence of chemistry on screen?   The movie was unwatchable.  It's one of the few movies that I've ever quit on.  I just turned it off.  I watched Human Centipede 3 to the inevitable shitty end, but I turned Sisters off before it was half over. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 10, 2017, 10:56:14 AM
I'll take your word for it. 

I tried to watch Sisters.   I like Amy Poehler (a lot).  I like Tina Fey (less now because of her strident and unwanted political opinions).  I know they're great friends in real life. 

How in the world can two people who are really friends and clearly have chemistry together have such a complete absence of chemistry on screen?   The movie was unwatchable.  It's one of the few movies that I've ever quit on.  I just turned it off.  I watched Human Centipede 3 to the inevitable shitty end, but I turned Sisters off before it was half over.

I just wanna do tina fey. Nothing more.

Cct - watched the hallmark movies too! They have some hot chicks in them so don't hate on them. Some of the worst acting you'll ever see too. I was off two weeks on vac so I had a ton of time. Most that I watched were either on TV or Netflix so no real money lost.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 10, 2017, 11:34:02 AM
I just wanna do tina fey. Nothing more.

Cct - watched the hallmark movies too! They have some hot chicks in them so don't hate on them. Some of the worst acting you'll ever see too. I was off two weeks on vac so I had a ton of time. Most that I watched were either on TV or Netflix so no real money lost.

Yep.  Hallmark movies are cheesy and predictable, but nice holiday fluff. 

Plus, she's in a few of them:

(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/40/4915422-screen+shot+2015-11-06+at+3.29.31+pm.png)

She's kind of a second-level Olivia Munn.  I met her once and she's extremely sweet and unassuming.  Very personable.  I think she's great. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 10, 2017, 11:35:31 AM
Yep.  Hallmark movies are cheesy and predictable, but nice holiday fluff. 

Plus, she's in a few of them:

(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/40/4915422-screen+shot+2015-11-06+at+3.29.31+pm.png)

She's kind of a second-level Olivia Munn.  I met her once and she's extremely sweet and unassuming.  Very personable.  I think she's great.

Name?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 10, 2017, 11:36:20 AM
Name?

Number?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 10, 2017, 11:37:01 AM
Number?
First things first.

Or as jr would have asked, feet pics? Bush?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 10, 2017, 11:41:26 AM
First things first.

Or as jr would have asked, feet pics? Bush?

Katrina Law.  She played Spartacus' wife Mira before the Christmas movies. 

Won't post the pic, but here's a link to full frontal bushiness.

[*edit* Link Below - Obviously NSFW]
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6a/57/29/6a5729a56c79961a6b81dd866efe2f7d.jpg
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 12, 2017, 09:32:05 AM
War Dogs

I don't like Jonah Hill.  Never have.  His weight in this film is, to be blunt, significantly alarming.  The yo-yoing from thinnish to gaining 60 pounds in a few months, to losing 40 back is going to eventually kill him.  But that's not the point here.  He was sweaty obese, though. 

This movie tells the story of a couple of hustlers who break into the lucrative government defense contract business and are willing to take a couple of risks on their way to landing hundreds of millions of dollars in bids. 

It's a condemnation of the stupidity of government for one.  A cautionary (if somewhat cliched) tale of the pitfalls of greed. 

It's a good movie.  It's the type of film that I like, along the lines of American Hustle, because it's got a basis in truth, it requires you to think just a little, it gives you a moral/ethical dilemma that is relatable and the performances were solid.  Not great, just solid. 

I like Miles Teller.  In time, I think he's going to be a very good actor. He's just a little bland here. Hill played Jonah Hill, but that's the role he's best suited for.  I can't say I hated his performance, because I think he did a really good job with what he had. The rest of the cast is really just a backdrop (although one of the backdrops is amazingly nice to look at).

There's a briefly sketched side story about the home life of Teller's character.  Other than the fact that it featured the spectacular Ana de Armas, it really wasn't necessary for the story at all.   

There are some things that are a little ridiculous.  Like, would Teller's character seriously go back to his broke down car and door-to-door massages just days after leaving a business relationship where he'd banked millions and was sporting a brand new paid-for Porsche? 

But those flaws are easily overlooked in the telling of the story. It's laid out well and moves quickly enough that it's extremely entertaining.  This was a better movie than I expected, although I sort of expected the movie I got. 

It's worth watching. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 12, 2017, 09:46:58 AM
War Dogs

I don't like Jonah Hill.  Never have.  His weight in this film is, to be blunt, significantly alarming.  The yo-yoing from thinnish to gaining 60 pounds in a few months, to losing 40 back is going to eventually kill him.  But that's not the point here.  He was sweaty obese, though. 

This movie tells the story of a couple of hustlers who break into the lucrative government defense contract business and are willing to take a couple of risks on their way to landing hundreds of millions of dollars in bids. 

It's a condemnation of the stupidity of government for one.  A cautionary (if somewhat cliched) tale of the pitfalls of greed. 

It's a good movie.  It's the type of film that I like, along the lines of American Hustle, because it's got a basis in truth, it requires you to think just a little, it gives you a moral/ethical dilemma that is relatable and the performances were solid.  Not great, just solid. 

I like Miles Teller.  In time, I think he's going to be a very good actor. He's just a little bland here. Hill played Jonah Hill, but that's the role he's best suited for.  I can't say I hated his performance, because I think he did a really good job with what he had. The rest of the cast is really just a backdrop (although one of the backdrops is amazingly nice to look at).

There's a briefly sketched side story about the home life of Teller's character.  Other than the fact that it featured the spectacular Ana de Armas, it really wasn't necessary for the story at all.   

There are some things that are a little ridiculous.  Like, would Teller's character seriously go back to his broke down car and door-to-door massages just days after leaving a business relationship where he'd banked millions and was sporting a brand new paid-for Porsche? 

But those flaws are easily overlooked in the telling of the story. It's laid out well and moves quickly enough that it's extremely entertaining.  This was a better movie than I expected, although I sort of expected the movie I got. 

It's worth watching.

Agree on all counts.

Was fun to watch because I used that same website (fedbizopps.gov) to drum up contracts when our residential construction started to falter back in '06-'07.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 12, 2017, 01:24:24 PM
The Nice Guys

I go to the movies to be entertained.  And I was.  Very much so. 

Of course the trailer gives away too many of the good parts, but that's typical unfortunately. 

Ryan Gosling (who has never impressed me as much as some people) was really good here.  Russell Crowe, looking much more like John Goodman than a Gladiator, isn't great but better than in a lot of roles I've seen him.  I hate him by the way.  He gained 65 pounds for the role because "he wanted to look different than Gosling" and then lost it after the filming wrapped.  Who does that?  Does he not know how hard it is for normal people to do shit like that?   

Anyway...  The girl playing Gosling's daughter was really good too. 

Not going to give away the story, but essentially two bottom feeders team up in trying to find the same missing person.   And they do, sort of, but that embroils them in a much larger issue that puts both (and the daughter) in danger. 

There were odds and ends of the story that weren't fleshed out enough and some pieces were left hanging.  And the end felt like a bit of a letdown. 

But it was funny and intriguing.  Was easy to watch and enjoy.  I'd see it again and recommend it.

Agree on this one.  Enjoyable and underrated.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 12, 2017, 02:57:22 PM
Agree on this one.  Enjoyable and underrated.

The hell dude?  That's two in a row. 

You sick or something? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 14, 2017, 12:13:27 AM
Bye Bye Man

Don't say it. Don't think it. Don't think it. Don't say it. Don't watch it.

It wasn't that bad.  Still in search of that elusive next great horror movie.  May search forever, because this wasn't quite it. 

Good idea, just some really slipshod execution, wooden acting and gaping plot holes. 

Plus neither the big bad nor his CGI dog inspired any fear.  His name was stupid.  Bye Bye Man.... really?   Was Goo Goo Buddy taken?

Dude, girlfriend and obligatory black friend rent a big rambling house.  Nobody has a job, of course, so how they afford this place that's 15 sizes too big for just the three is never explained, but that's a constant gripe of mine.  How do these people in these movies (not just this movie) afford the stuff they have? 

In the house they find an end table with some strange markings.  For fun they have a seance (note to self, don't have seances).  There's a name carved in the drawer of the table.  He says it. He thinks it.  It comes.

That's a little dumb in and of its own right.  Apparently this demon makes you see and think things that aren't necessarily real, so the only way to keep it from coming is kill everybody who knows its name, including yourself last.... uhhh... what?  So why did the guy who did that first (flashback scene) leave writings about the demon and also scratch the name in a drawer?  If he was going to murder everybody who knew the name and then whack himself?  Why leave the record? 

AND.... what was the demon's real reach?  It didn't kill anybody.  I think it's only purpose was to let its really terribly rendered CGI dog eat some dead people eyeballs (or something). 

I like the idea (Candyman) of not speaking the name.  I like the idea of not knowing what's real or not and making horrible choices (any of three dozen movies). 

This wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but as I find myself saying far too often..... It could have been so much better.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 14, 2017, 08:43:43 AM
The Autopsy of Jane Doe

Hit or miss horror entry.  Featured a fine cast including a barely used Roose Bolton, Emile Hirsch and the underrated Brian Cox.  Film also introduces Olwen Catherine Kelly as Jane Doe.  More on her later.

Nude girl  is found partially buried in a house where a couple of brutal murders are discovered. No ID, no obvious trauma, just dead in a hole.  Sheriff transports her to the small town morgue where Cox and Hirsch are a father/son team running the funeral home/crematory. 

Unraveling the mystery of what killed Jane Doe piece by autopsied piece leads to a morass of psychological terror that engulfs the pair.  The major "terror" points come in figuring out what's actually happening and what's only occurring in their minds.  The movie had a languid pace that was intended to slowly build tension and confusion until it reached the final act. 

The mumbo jumbo is strong.  There are some logical leaps that no sane person would make.  "It's her, she's making us do this.."  The final denouement is sort of idiotic -- as in what in the world did he think doing THAT would solve?

As was said to me when the movie was over... "I hate watching a movie that has some good ideas, and builds it up well but ends up not making any sense..."  When you sit there after it's over and list ten or fifteen things that lacked sense or purpose?  When you can't figure out the whys and wherefores? The movie clearly lost its way.  Like why were the other bodies supposedly up and moving around?  Did they move actually or are we supposed to assume that was all a mirage planted in the minds of the two.  How did the murders where the body was discovered tie in?  And how did those tattoos get there?

It did a good job of creating a puzzle as each discovery inside and outside the body was revealed.  Neither of us had any idea what direction it would take as the pieces of the puzzle were laid out.  Sort of disappointed in the way they figured it out (too convenient) -- and also disappointed in what/who Jane Doe supposedly turned out to be (sort of ridiculous, actually). 

The one thing that was (unfortunately?) intriguing?  Olwen C. Kelly.  She played the dead girl and her entire performance in the movie involved lying completely still.  With one last second minor exception, she never once moved.  Never blinked. Never twitched.  She just laid there on the table completely nude.  For the entire movie. In every scene she was in. 

Her stillness was such a part of the film that we actually looked it up after the fact. 
http://www.clattoverata.com/2016/12/19/playing-dead-olwen-catherine-kelly-talks-autopsy-of-jane-doe/

Six week shoot and she just lay there sometimes for eight hours or more a day.   There was something impressive about it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 17, 2017, 11:11:36 AM
This looks good, maybe it will meet your expectations.  Have heard good things about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO_pbtgnmm0
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 17, 2017, 12:02:07 PM
I believe K might be familiar with the director of this particular film.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 17, 2017, 01:00:42 PM
This looks good, maybe it will meet your expectations.  Have heard good things about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO_pbtgnmm0

Shot in Fairhope and Spanish Fort. 

I'm going to see it for that reason alone.  And yes. I met the director. Ha!

Also gonna go see Split this weekend.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 17, 2017, 02:11:13 PM
Shot in Fairhope and Spanish Fort. 

I'm going to see it for that reason alone.  And yes. I met the director. Ha!

Also gonna go see Split this weekend.

Knowing who is behind the film, I watched the trailer waiting for that "Scary Movie" moment.  Nope. 

I'm not into horror movies for the most part.  They lost me years ago after the original Halloweens and movies from that era when it became all about how much blood and gore can you show?  Oooo...watch this guy's arm get ripped off and see how much blood shoots across the room and gives his teenage girlfriend the bloody money shot.

This looks more along the lines of the more suspense oriented horror flicks I'm into.  May have to check it out. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 17, 2017, 03:08:17 PM
I'm not into horror movies for the most part.  They lost me years ago after the original Halloweens and movies from that era when it became all about how much blood and gore can you show?  Oooo...watch this guy's arm get ripped off and see how much blood shoots across the room and gives his teenage girlfriend the bloody money shot.

Why do you hate virgins?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 17, 2017, 03:11:23 PM
Why do you hate virgins?

I don't hate them.  In fact, I think I should be rewarded with 72 of them.  I don't really want to blow myself or anyone else up to get them, though.  Just give me my virgins.


 


Women virgins.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 17, 2017, 03:41:19 PM
I don't really want to blow myself

You don't want to...but you would if you had too.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 17, 2017, 04:22:30 PM
You don't want to...but you would if you had too.

Bull shit.  If I could, I'd never leave the house.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on January 18, 2017, 09:28:45 AM
I don't hate them.  In fact, I think I should be rewarded with 72 of them.  I don't really want to blow myself or anyone else up to get them, though.  Just give me my virgins.


 


Women virgins.

As I read the first part of your post, I thought, sweet, I am going to say something that is going to get me cut.  And then you went and clarified.  Damn you.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 18, 2017, 09:51:15 AM
As I read the first part of your post, I thought, sweet, I am going to say something that is going to get me cut.  And then you went and clarified.  Damn you.

I know this board.  Soft toss one underhanded and BAM!  Out of the park.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 21, 2017, 12:35:17 PM
Split

First the good. 

James McAvoy does a fairly amazing job.  He plays a mentally disturbed man who has 20-something personalities. Only about five of those were ever fully realized for the audience, but McAvoy managed to inhabit each completely differently.  You could usually tell just by the facial expression whether he was Hedwig, Barry, Patricia or Dennis. 

You've seen the trailers.  One of the personalities kidnaps three teenage girls and then the others interact with them as they try to figure out how to escape. 

The girls are pretty standard horror movie fare, completely forgettable.  The girl who was in The Witch is a little better, but she's still not McAvoy's equal -- and this movie needed that balance.

Now the bad. 

The mom from Eight is Enough (and the prison therapist from Oz) plays a stereotypically unaware psychiatrist with some lunatic theory about people with DID (disassociative identity disorder?).  Her clumsy handling of McAvoy's character(s) is weak. 

M. Night Shamalemaladabingbong wrote and directed and he left a lot -- a LOT -- of potentially fantastic story possibilities unturned.  The girls were given too little to do.  He kept McAvoy reined in more than he should have, there needed to be a much harder edge to some of the characters. 

The movie dragged and dragged, never truly delivering any suspense or sense of terror.  Too much was left unexplained. 

There was a backstory on the main chick that kept breaking up the drudge in some flashbacks, but it was not really relevant and could have been done so much better.  In fact, there was in my mind a major opportunity for that backstory to pay off in a decidedly shocking manner and yet he just left the string flapping in the breeze. Just didn't deliver. 

There was also a "big reveal" at the very end, but for those of us who aren't versed in M. Night Shaboolamamadingdong's catalog, it really was pointless and, in fact, added a sense of complete confusion.    As the black fellow behind me observed after the reveal "I think that was the same dude, but growed up some or maybe it was the cat what played in that Wolverines movie.." 

For some I'm sure it was cool.  For most of the people in the (theater full to the point that management held the movie and asked people move into empty seats so they could get the crowd in the lobby settled in) audience it appeared to be primarily a "what was that" moment.  Therefore?  F.A.I.L.

The movie wasn't bad and McAvoy was worth watching, but it was lacking in so many areas I just can't recommend it except when it comes out on some streaming service. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 22, 2017, 10:55:11 PM
13 Cameras

What a creepy landlord. 

Other than that, though, this wanna be thriller fell flat. 

You need at least one person in a thriller movie to get behind or want to survive.  In this slow trudge, there just wasn't one.  I hated them all and wanted them all to die. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: dallaswareagle on January 23, 2017, 12:02:17 PM
13 Cameras

What a creepy landlord. 

Other than that, though, this wanna be thriller fell flat. 

You need at least one person in a thriller movie to get behind or want to survive.  In this slow trudge, there just wasn't one.  I hated them all and wanted them all to die.


Sounds like a movie full of liberals.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Ogre on January 30, 2017, 04:55:39 PM

Sounds like a movie full of liberals dallaswareagles.

FTFY
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on January 30, 2017, 05:27:15 PM
FTFY

you don't type much, my friend, put when you do it's to the point. 

i salute you. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 15, 2017, 10:54:47 AM
Watching The Dark Knight Rises again. 

It's worse than I remember.  Tom Hardy is atrocious as Bane.  My impression of him is definitely colored by some of his subsequent work.  The stuuuuupid voice choices by him and also by Christian Bale in this film (as well as Bale's Batgrowl in the others) really detract.   Selina Kyle is horrible.  So is that punk kid from third rock. 

The movie is bloated, self-important, full of holes and absurd.  It's not a fitting end to what started well with Begins and peaked with Dark Knight.  Even in DK, as unexpectedly fantastic as Ledger was, you could feel the Nolan bloat beginning to seep in. It was too sprawling and could have used some condensation. 

Rises, for all its flaws, is still monumentally better than that disgraceful Battfleck turd floated out by Zack Snyder.  I was really hoping that DC would see the error of its ways and get rid of that assclown before it moved into Justice League, WonderWoman territory.  He's a hack. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on February 15, 2017, 11:40:28 AM
Watching The Dark Knight Rises again.

DKR should have been Batman vs. Two-Face and Batman dealing with having killed Joker (original ending of DK until Ledger died and they went with the "softer" one).
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 18, 2017, 09:21:52 AM
Masterminds

Occasionally amusing film that showcased just how limited the talents of Kristin Wiig, Leslie Jones, Kate McKinnon and Zach Galifarkinasklas really are. 

The film told the "true" story of David Ghantt.  It's very loosely based on a real robbery where a down-on-his-luck schmo (Ghantt) is prodded to rob the armored car company where he works.  Ghantt flees to mexico with a small amount of the stolen loot while his co-conspirators proceed to blow through the rest of the money -- and in doing so get themselves caught. 

McKinnon is a one-note character, essentially channeling the same goofy, wide-eyed, plastered-grin weirdo she played in Ghostbusters.  She's awful and adds zero to the film. 

Zach Graflelkarnabis plays a version of the same socially awkward weirdo he's done in Due Date, Hangover, and pretty much everything else.  He's done it better before. 

Wiig shows very little range and plays one of the two or three one-dimensional characters she knows how to play.  She might as well have had tiny hands and a big forehead. 

Jones performed the same big-mouth, bug-eyed screaming ugly black woman that isn't funny on SNL, wasn't funny in Ghostbusters, isn't funny in any of the commercials that have been forced on us and isn't funny at all here. 

Jason Sudekis is okay as a misguided hitman.

The biggest problem I have with this movie is that they took a really interesting true story and in a misguided attempt to add "humor" (and I use this term very, very loosely) they simply made up most of the events.  The true story is much more interesting. 

For example the scene where Sudekis mistakenly believes he and Gaplerigkanifaks are brothers and decides not to kill him didn't happen.  And it was badly done.  What really happened was that a Mexican thug hired to kill Ghantt ambushes him, but notices that the guy is wearing a Jerome Bettis jersey. Pittsburgh is the thug's favorite team and he can't bring himself to kill a guy wearing a Steeler's jersey so he tells Ghantt about the plot take him out. 

There were times I thought the directors/writers were trying to create a Raising Arizona vibe, but the film never came close to reaching the level of that masterpiece.  One "well, unless round is funny" from Arizona is a hundred times funnier than the entirety Masterminds. It was a morass of badly sketched idiots doing stupid things for "laughs."

Fail.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 23, 2017, 01:08:38 PM
Spotlight was very good.  Cast was strong: Michael Keaton, John Slattery, Stanley Tucci, Liev Schreiber, Billy Crudup, Mark Ruffalo and Rachel McAdams.

Kind of shocking, in a Pedo State way, how many people were in on the cover-up.  Some actively participated and some just turned their heads.  The standard line was, "Look at all the good the church does for the city."

The scope and massive, systemic shuffling of these predators is pretty shocking.

You know the final news article the main characters produce, but watching them get there is worth the ride.  Well acted, well paced...very good movie.
Spotlight
Watched this last night. 

Agree on the performances and pacing for the most part.  I was not enamored with Mark Ruffalo's performance, though.  I thought he was the weakest part of the film. 

There were two things I kept coming back to on it. 

1) Everybody there, even the guys at the Globe, knew on some level that it was going on.  Maybe they didn't connect all the dots to get the scope of it, but they knew.  They just didn't do anything about it.
2) I kept thinking the whole time... "where's this 'Spotlight' group when it comes to the rampant pattern of abuse that runs from the NCAA offices to the Capstone?  Wouldn't it be great if there were two or three people somewhere with the guts to take on the Crimson Cabal in the way these guys did the church? 

Couple of things. 

I know there was a lot of ground to cover but there were times things felt a little slapdash. I needed to know more about some people/events and maybe less about others. There were places where I needed exposition that wasn't there.  Characters that really added nothing to the story and could have been jettisoned without notice.   

I was thrown off by the dangling thread of the interview with the "I didn't get any gratification out of it" priest.  That was a huge door opened and then closed with little comment. 

I also hated the score. I found it jarring and it kept some of the power of the film at bay for me because it was so tinklingly annoying. 

Still a solid movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on February 23, 2017, 07:22:54 PM
The Arrival

Save yo fudgeing dollars and see this one on USA or some shoot.

"Meh" coupled with the hype equals waste of fudgeing money.

I love first-contact stories and there was a ton of potential here, but they fell on their faces with this.  Too much close-up weepy Amy.  Too much dead kid flashback.  Too much Nolan-straining.

I wish I had two more hands so I could give those titties four thumbs down.

Words can't express how right Wes is about this movie. Jesus Christ, I'd rather spend the 2 hours hitting refresh on the sga board than watch this piece of shoot again.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 24, 2017, 10:05:06 AM
Words can't express how right Wes is about this movie. Jesus Christ, I'd rather spend the 2 hours hitting refresh on the sga board than watch this piece of shoot again.
But given the choice to watch only this or Batman v Superman would you use a shotgun or a 45?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 24, 2017, 10:21:57 AM
But given the choice to watch only this or Batman v Superman would you use a shotgun or a 45?


I tried to watch both BvS and Suicide Squad this week hoping to convince myself that my prior disgust with both films was merely a matter of unrealistic expectations. 

I should have chosen the 45 caliber shotgun.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 24, 2017, 10:51:57 AM


I tried to watch both BvS and Suicide Squad this week hoping to convince myself that my prior disgust with both films was merely a matter of unrealistic expectations. 

I should have chosen the 45 caliber shotgun.
AS bad as Suicide Squad was I can deal with it just to look at Margot Robbie.  BvS has no redeeming qualities...none!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 25, 2017, 10:28:32 AM
Get Out

Went to see this primarily because a) it was written and directed by someone I have seen in person and b) it was filmed in Fairhope so I was interested to see if I recognized anything.

First Fairhope.  99.74% of the movie takes place at one house. It could have been anywhere. So zero Fairhope flavor.  That was a disappointment.

The rest of the movie was well done.

The dynamic between the black boyfriend and the white bread daughter wasn't entirely convincing but that may have been purposeful. There was less humor than I expected given that jordan peele wrote and directed.

The movie can't really be classified as horror given that any horror aspects didn't really begin until the last 15 minutes or so.  Instead it was a slow burn of "what's wrong with this picture" until Peele put all the pieces together in the short (in comparison) final act. 


 A little slow in places. And some small things that bothered me which I can't discuss without revealing too much. 

Still a quality effort for a first time writer/director known primarily for dumb football names. 

Worth a look.  Don't know if it's theater worthy though. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 25, 2017, 10:36:03 AM
Get Out

Went to see this primarily because a) it was written and directed by someone I have seen in person and b) it was filmed in Fairhope so I was interested to see if I recognized anything.

First Fairhope.  99.74% of the movie takes place at one house. It could have been anywhere. So zero Fairhope flavor.  That was a disappointment.

The rest of the movie was well done.  A little slow in places. And some small things that bothered me which I can't discuss without revealing too much. 

Still a quality effort for a first time writer/director known primarily for dumb football names.

G'Glester Hardunkichud approves.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 05, 2017, 08:02:11 AM
The Girl With All the Gifts - Zombie movie with a refreshing turn at the end.  The kid who played Melanie was pretty rad.

Hidden Figures - Predictable almost to a fault, but strong performances by just about everyone made it a movie that I really enjoyed. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 06, 2017, 08:10:01 AM
Logan

The action sequences are badass.  The little girl is a fierce ass-kicker.  The return of the prince of the Soul Glo empire was a surprising treat.

The rest of the movie (read: all the parts with Patrick Stewart) were slow and ponderous.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 06, 2017, 08:43:47 AM
Eden Lake
Kelly "Freckles" Reilly and Michael "This Guy has Talent?" Fassbender in a trapped-in-the-woods thriller. 

The couple drives through the English woods to a place that's supposed to be idyllic (but looks dirty and crappy) for a weekend getaway.  There, they encounter a group of surly teens.  Over time the confrontations escalate until it becomes a deadly situation for all involved. 

It tried.  It really did. It tried to give you suspense and a sense of helpless, hopeless dread.  It tried to give you the end you didn't see coming, the one that no film in its right mind would deliver. So credit for trying. But it went wrong. 

Let me count some of the ways.

1) The accent on the main rogue teen was so low class Brit that you couldn't ever really understand what he was saying.  "Ay, woo rah, yah gwa stee hah toorah." 
2) The couple treks through the woods to this dirty lake carrying a few small bags.  Supposedly they're staying the weekend.  Where's the food and water?  And later he comes out of the filthy lake in a full scuba suit, tank and all.  Where did that come from?
3) Why did she do any of the stupid things she did?  Leave. Don't just stand there whimpering. It reached the point to where you were seriously hoping she'd just die already. 
4) Continuity errors abounded. Dress is dirty, dress is clean. She's limping, she's walking, she's limping..
5) Stupid choices.  Why not just get away from there? 

It tried, but the juice wasn't worth the squeeze. 

Ah wounnna seh yah shoo wah dee wan.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 06, 2017, 09:09:10 AM
Shut In

Naomi Watts in a film about a woman stuck in a blizzard with her invalid son and another lost kid. 

The blizzard was never fully realized and the invalid son looked like a cross between Edward Furlong and Darryl from Walking Dead.

Her motives were odd, the way it played out was a bit ridiculous. The big Norman Batesy surprise was ehhhh.

The scenery was beautiful.  Canada pretending to be Maine.  But the movie failed on numerous levels.  Let's be honest.  Watts is difficult to look at.  She's the female version of Owen Wilson. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 07, 2017, 07:22:56 AM
The matching, pastel upholstered ottoman and headboard....simply put....they work here.  Very bold!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 07, 2017, 07:29:02 AM
The matching, pastel upholstered ottoman and headboard....simply put....they work here.  Very bold!

The Russians are tampering with the X.

Thanks, Obama.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Lurking Tiger on March 07, 2017, 11:38:59 PM
Get Out

Went to see this primarily because a) it was written and directed by someone I have seen in person and b) it was filmed in Fairhope so I was interested to see if I recognized anything.

First Fairhope.  99.74% of the movie takes place at one house. It could have been anywhere. So zero Fairhope flavor.  That was a disappointment.

The rest of the movie was well done.

The dynamic between the black boyfriend and the white bread daughter wasn't entirely convincing but that may have been purposeful. There was less humor than I expected given that jordan peele wrote and directed.

The movie can't really be classified as horror given that any horror aspects didn't really begin until the last 15 minutes or so.  Instead it was a slow burn of "what's wrong with this picture" until Peele put all the pieces together in the short (in comparison) final act. 


 A little slow in places. And some small things that bothered me which I can't discuss without revealing too much. 

Still a quality effort for a first time writer/director known primarily for dumb football names. 

Worth a look.  Don't know if it's theater worthy though.

Very well acted and great cinematography. The rest was shit. Full of cliches and one dimentional characters. A ton of plot holes and some glaring continuity mistakes. This would have been a good netflix watch. But I feel like I am out $24.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 10, 2017, 11:50:39 PM
Nailbiter

Still looking for the next good horror movie.  This isn't it by a long shot. 

Laughable. Pathetic. 

Mom and three daughters get trapped by a tornado and take refuge in a storm shelter at an old farmhouse. 

Let the not-so-creepy, really stupid, poorly rendered CGI, badly acted fun begin. 

Huge tornadoes come through.  No trees are down and there's no damage despite there supposedly being damage.  That was one of the many, many problems in this turkey turd.  Would take too long to list the rest.

The only redeeming feature of the entire film was an adequate performance from one of the daughters.  The other two daughters made up for whatever spark of talent she had by being absolutely fucking abysmal.  Terrible.  They should have their acting privileges revoked. 

Don't waste your time.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 10, 2017, 11:55:00 PM
Don't Knock Twice

Shit.  Don't knock at all. 

The cinematography was good and in the first half it built a decent amount of horror-based tension with some creepy enough choices. 

And then it descended into a ridiculous sprawl of mumbo jumbo that included taking down and burning the doors of the house. 

Starred Starbuck of the new Battlestar Galactica who is proving that about all she can or should do is that role. 

The last half of the movie was spuddled shit. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 17, 2017, 08:37:46 AM
Havenhurst

Watched this attempt at a horror movie only because it starred Dexter's wife Rita, aka Julie Benz.

Poor Jules.  Her range is so limited.  She plays mousy and soft spoken even when it's not warranted.  She did it in Boondock Saints II (yes, that exists) and she does it here.  Downtrodden, beaten, timid, shrinking. This role just needed a stronger presence. 

Here's the setup.  Woman played by the always welcome Fionnula Flanagan  owns Havenhurst, a huge, swank skyscraper in New York where she allows recovering addicts to live (rent free, it appears) so long as they stay away from whatever it was to which they were addicted (sex, drugs, booze, kids).  Fall off the wagon and get an eviction notice -- which means something more sinister at the Hurst.  There, you get evicted from the face of the earth.

Rita (or whatever her name was here, she's always Rita to me) leaves rehab and gets a place at Havenhurst.  She's given the same room once occupied by a friend of hers from rehab who has disappeared leaving all her shit behind.  That gets Rita to thinking and leads her down a stumbling path to investigating the disappearance. 

That's where it gets a little silly.  The decision she makes as a method to find her lost friend is asinine.  Soo, too, is the monster lurking in the shadows part of the story. 

The end is a little less than satisfying, but at least it was a somewhat decent attempt at swirling things around a bit and handing you something you maybe didn't expect.  There are just so many gaping gaps in the story, things that are roll-your-eyes dumb in places, that the movie ultimately implodes on its own missteps. 

It's a B movie which appears to be Julie's wheelhouse these days.  She's still just so adorable, though. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 19, 2017, 09:58:24 AM
Way of the Wicked
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2483208/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_15

The search for a decent horror movie is turning into an exercise in abuse.  Way of the Wicked is yet another turkey and one that really leaves you disappointed.

A horror movie should contain some elements of horror.  This one doesn't.  It's a lot of talking and misplaced emotion.  Like all just talking and brooding.  Nothing ever happens.

Here's the gist.  Priest (Christian Slater seriously slumming) chases kid he's convinced is the antichrist due to some of the most ridiculous religious mumbo jumbo in history.  "See?  He was born on the same DAY!" he screeches at one point.  Ignoring the obvious fact that about 350,000 babies are born worldwide every day, of course. 

His antichrist is being bullied as a third grader and one of the meanies mysteriously chokes to death during the fight.  That's enough to set Father Slater off on his crusade to .... well... nobody's sure exactly what he intends to do other than lurk in the woods and watch him. 

Fast forward ten years.  The kid's now a high schooler and looks like a sloped-forehead gorilla. He's also really short and stupid looking.  He's still carrying a torch for one of the girls who watched him get beaten up, who happens to be the daughter (no accent) of an Australian police chief (heavy accent) who maybe drinks too much because his wife died.  She's got an unwanted suitor who incurs the wrath of the brooding possible antichrist and ends up dead.  Aussie dad is, of course investigating, daughter dearest gets hot and bothered for the short apeish little man and .... ummm....  nothing really happens.

There's surprise ending that's bungled so badly it makes you wonder if maybe the filmmakers just ran out of film and decided to shut it down. 

Emily Tennant, the girl, is semi-sorta cute and not the worst I've ever seen. Potential antichrist (Jake Crocker) is numbingly bad.  I wonder if he was the director's son or something because there was zero reason to cast this guy.  He was awful.  His bio says he's 5-7 but I'm guessing 5-3. His head is shaped like an ape's.  His hideous haircut in this movie should have had its own billing. Looked like he cut it with a cheese grater.

But here's the thing.  Buried in this talk-heavy shitshow was the nugget of what could have been a really good story.  Better script, better pacing, more action, better actors?  There was something that could have been a winner here. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 23, 2017, 08:49:53 PM
Bleed For This

This is what Rocky MCMVXII should have been.   Good story, true story of a kid with more heart than talent and a single-minded willingness to risk his life for something he wanted -- and the only thing he was really good at.  It's also what Rocky MCMVXII didn't need to be:  flat, leached of emotion, cardboard, dead.  With the Rocky movies there was a good enough backstory that made you care about the characters.  Here?  There was really nobody to like.  Maybe that's reality. But maybe it needed more.

Told the story of boxer Vinny Paz (he legally changed his name to this) and his return from a horrific car crash that left him millimeters away from being paralyzed with a broken neck.  Against doctor's recommendation and the advice of everyone around him, he rejected neck fusion surgery which would have guaranteed he could walk but not box and opted for a metal halo which gave him the slim chance to get back in the ring.

The cast should have been first rate including Miles Teller, Aaron Eckhart, Katey Sagal, Ted Levine, Ciaran Hinds.

Teller, as Vinny P,  was good and the fight scenes were realistic enough. More true to form than Rocky.

Sagal didn't have much to do. Her role could have been played by a chicken finger with no noticeable loss.

Eckhart left something to be desired as the paunchy, bald Kevin Rooney.  Just didn't have the right spark. 

Levine (it puts the lotion on its skin) was supposed to be Lou Duva but did so by making a peculiar squinched up face that was distracting and didn't have the ring of truth.  Bad casting. 

Hinds was a complete mess. I usually like the guy, but he was awful here.  Bad directing maybe? 

I liked the movie okay but it just didn't reach the emotional depths I needed it to.  I wanted to like Vinny (Teller's character) but other than the fact that he just wanted to fight, there wasn't much about him to get behind.  He wasn't likable.

I also noticed several liberties the movie took with the truth that were completely unnecessary.  Most of the movie was fairly accurate, but why -- for instance -- change the scores the judges submitted for a fight that went the distance?   Use the real damned scores.  That wasn't part of my general letdown during the movie, but it made me think less of it after the fact. 

The director shoehorned music in and out with some abrupt and jarring transitions.  A song would just stop in the middle for no reason.  The overall direction was clunky and ham handed.  Made me wonder if this was the guy's debut film, because he made numerous seriously bad choices that detracted from the film.  I checked. He's done a few films, but this was his baby.  Wrote it, did the screenplay and directed. So the failures all land at his feet. And there were more than a few.

After I finished the film I looked up the real Vinny P and found him to be even more unlikable than the Teller version.  He was a dumb punk  with nothing going for him but a brash mouth-overloading-his-ass personality.  Nothing appealing about him at all.  Again, that didn't color my initial impression of the movie, but it absolutely made me care less about it looking back.  It's not something I'd watch again. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 30, 2017, 10:13:46 AM
Power Rangers

The year was 1993 my first born was a curious and active three year old. Enter the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. For a couple of years she became Kimberly.  Every afternoon we would watch essentially the same show as the Rangers teamed up to battle the minions of Rita Repulsa, Goodar and eventually Lord Zed.  They'd fight putties.  Then a bigger monster would show up. They'd try to battle it for a while before figuring out they were better as a combined team.  Then they'd form megazord, kick some monster ass and save the day.  Go go power rangers.  My daughter's obsession with the show was such that she wore Kimberly gear to preschool, assigned ranger roles to her friends (one of whom she still calls Billy to this day) and proceeded to gang kick the shit out of other kids who had no idea they were goldar, Rita, Grumble, fang or a putty.  There was a broken arm -- hers from leaping off the top of some playground equipment so her pink ranger could help the red ranger tackle an unsuspecting lord zed -- a concussion, numerous scrapes and bruises and the dreaded parent conference. Still we watched.  And went to live shows. And the movie.

So it was with no small amount of nostalgia that she and I went to see the new Power Ranger movie.

It was okay.  It took the "cool kids become heroes" storyline and dirtied it up some.  No longer the good kids from angel grove the new Rangers were the fallen and the outcast.  They avoided the obvious stereotyping of the black ranger being black and the yellow ranger being Asian. But they also had to toss in an ambiguous lesbian reference which was unnecessary.

The film followed the same basic script as the tv show once it got the obligatory and lengthy backstory out of the way.  Fight putties. Fight solo. Team up. Save the day. 

Elizabeth Banks enjoyed herself as Rita. Fun to watch.  The new rangers didn't have quite the same easy chemistry as the tv version.  For fans of the series there were several nods to it including a sentimental recreation of part of the show's opening sequence and a cameo or two.

There was also a product placement so blatantly obvious and over the top that it was funny. 

There were a couple of crude references I could have done without.  Kimberly wasn't as good as the marvelous and lovely Amy Jo Johnson of the original and Bryan Cranston didn't add as much as I'd hoped as the digitized Zordon.

Worth watching for nostalgia's sake if your kid was ever a ranger or if you've got a 5-10 year old who wants to be one. Otherwise?  Nah.


Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on April 03, 2017, 09:24:02 AM
Ghost In The Shell

Beautiful movie (seen in Imax/3D) with great action sequences and visuals.

Plot?  Meh.  You've seen this movie before.

The nerds are up in arms because of the whitewashing of two main characters, but I don't have any relationship with the source material, so it wasn't a problem for me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 03, 2017, 10:40:46 AM
Room

Interesting movie. 

Some of the pacing is odd, but I can understand why Brie Larson won the Academy Award for Best Actress. I don't understand, however, why the kid Jacob Tremblay wasn't even nominated.  He was every bit Larson's equal and the made the movie as appealing and emotionally resonant as it was. 

It's essentially two stories.  In the first, mother and son survive captivity in a shed with a single skylight. She was snatched off the street at 17 and held there for years before she managed an escape.   The second movie is about how she and the child cope in a world that's moved on since she was captured.  It's here that the boy is such a force.  Learning to live in a wide open space after five years in which his only world was a tiny room he does a really good job conveying how even the simplest things are overwhelming. 

Nancy Allen is decent as the mom and William H. Macy does little as the now-estranged dad. 

I'm still trying to figure out what the movie was trying to say.  I assume there was some deeper emotional meaning I was supposed to get, some emotional lesson I was supposed to learn.  That part eluded me. 

I enjoyed the movie, though.  It was worth the watch.   Glad I didn't do it in the theater.  It moved too slowly for that. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 03, 2017, 11:30:30 AM
Maggie

Very different kind of zombie movie. 

An epidemic is unleashed.  Get bitten and over a period of time (six to eight weeks) you turn into a flesh craving zombie. 

Where this movie veers from the usual zombie fare is the six to eight week span and how you cope with the realization that a family member is doomed and will become a danger to you and the rest of your family. 

Arnold Schwarzenegger finds out that his daughter, Abigail Breslin, has been infected.  As the infection progresses he's got three basic options.

1) Turn her over to the quarantine squad.  She's taken in with all the other zombies and basically thrown into a pit where they gnaw on each other.
2) Give her the drug cocktail that puts them down.  It's allegedly slow and painful.  That part's not really explained. 
3) Put her down himself.   

This is one of Arnie's better roles.  He's not blowing things up and dropping corny one-liners.  He's not awkwardly stumbling through a comedy.  He does a pretty good job of conveying the emotional pain endured by a father who is slowly losing the one thing in life that means the most to him. 

As I watched this movie I couldn't help but think of parents who watch their children dying of cancer or some other horrible disease.  How helpless and powerless they must feel as the disease slowly takes control. 

What would you do if your child was becoming a monster and you couldn't stop it?  How far would you let it go? How far would you go to protect her? How much danger would you put yourself in?  How would your friends and family treat you?  How would they treat your dying child?  Those are the themes, slowly and thoughtfully considered here. 

Breslin does an okay job as a zombiefying teenager.

It's a very slow moving film. Not horror by any stretch.  Very contemplative. 

The ending was a little cheap in that it didn't force Arnie to answer the primary question.  How far would he have gone?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on April 03, 2017, 02:01:59 PM

What would you do if your child was becoming a monster and you couldn't stop it? 

I have often considered this. 

I mean if they became bama fans, I think the right and just thing to do is to put them down.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 03, 2017, 02:08:55 PM
I have often considered this. 

I mean if they became bama fans, I think the right and just thing to do is to put them down.

My brother went to Bama.  I tried to shoot him as he drove away but the gun jammed.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 03, 2017, 02:41:58 PM
My brother went to Bama.  I tried to shoot him as he drove away but the gun jammed.

Damn sand and moisture.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 06, 2017, 02:48:44 PM
Star Wars: Rogue One

Well....

I don't like it.  I've tried three or four times and I can't make it through the thing. 

Forrest Whitaker -- aka Jefferson from Fast Times -- is terrible here.  The story is muddled.

I just don't like it. 

I'm not going to even finish. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 06, 2017, 03:01:00 PM
Star Wars: Rogue One

Well....

I don't like it.  I've tried three or four times and I can't make it through the thing. 

Forrest Whitaker -- aka Jefferson from Fast Times -- is terrible here.  The story is muddled.

I just don't like it. 

I'm not going to even finish.

I finished it because I saw it in the theater and I still had more popcorn with that delicious, golden liquid on it left.

It was a whole of of MEH to me.  Good Jedi Fighter action fight scenes.  That's about the sum total of it.  They never developed or let you identify with or get attached to the main characters, and with good reason.  But that made for a boring assed plot.  Plus, the comedy sidekick robot, just plain wasn't funny.

I get what they were doing in giving you the back story, but it looked like just an excuse to make another Star Wars movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on April 06, 2017, 09:36:44 PM
Kaos, fast forward to the last 10 minutes. The Vader scene is worth it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on April 06, 2017, 11:29:59 PM
I get what they were doing in giving you the back story, but it looked like just an excuse to make another Star Wars movie print money.

FTFY
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 07, 2017, 09:39:44 AM
I finished it because I saw it in the theater and I still had more popcorn with that delicious, golden liquid on it left.

It was a whole of of MEH to me.  Good Jedi Fighter action fight scenes.  That's about the sum total of it.  They never developed or let you identify with or get attached to the main characters, and with good reason.  But that made for a boring assed plot.  Plus, the comedy sidekick robot, just plain wasn't funny.

I get what they were doing in giving you the back story, but it looked like just an excuse to make another Star Wars movie.

I thought it was a fine action space movie. Here's the thing did we really need a story about how the death star plans were captured? Do we care?  ($2 to Nook)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 07, 2017, 10:00:46 AM
I thought it was a fine action space movie. Here's the thing did we really need a story about how the death star plans were captured? Do we care?  ($2 to Nook)

I tried again.  Didn't make it to the end.  Again.  I quit after the father died this time.  Just a terrible scene. 

The girl wasn't compelling.  Forrest Whitaker was horrible.  The worst.  I didn't care about Machete-light. Didn't care about Blind Lemon Jello or whatever his name was.  The lame robot got off a few interesting lines.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 07, 2017, 10:13:42 AM
I tried again.  Didn't make it to the end.  Again.  I quit after the father died this time.  Just a terrible scene. 

The girl wasn't compelling.  Forrest Whitaker was horrible.  The worst.  I didn't care about Machete-light. Didn't care about Blind Lemon Jello or whatever his name was.  The lame robot got off a few interesting lines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjR71XpAu0I
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 07, 2017, 03:34:56 PM
Star Wars: Rogue One

Ok. I made it to the end. 

Yes, Vader striding down the hall with the red light saber was pretty good but it wasn't worth the hours-long slog through semi-British accents and a fatuous storyline.

I had a number of problems with the movie, some of which were continuations of issues I had with the first three (actually second three) films and all of which could also be applied to The Force Awakens.

I'll give you a few. 

1) The dialogue is terribly stilted and hokey. 
2) I didn't develop any emotional bond with any of the characters.  Whoever is directing these last two films seems to think that having their lead actor make a grimace-face into the camera is the height of artistic achievement.
3) Good lord Forrest Whitaker was terrible.
4) The decisions to die.  Stupid storytelling.  Oh, let's hide out for a while and then rush into the melee so we can die heroically.  The movie was more than two hours long.  It could have come in at 90 minutes or less if it had just cut out stupid death scenes.  Maybe it was supposed to show how worthwhile the fight was since people were willing to make sacrifices.  Whatever.
5) About 90% of the things in the cartoon Godfather posted.  My very first thought the first time I tried to watch it was "why in the hell park that ship way the fuck out there?" 
6) Why send a damned hologram instead of the plans?  That was senseless.

I saw several say it was only a setup to another movie.  But we already HAVE that movie and have had it for nearly 40 years.  Well THAT makes me feel old. 

It was a story that could have been told over half an hour as part of a bigger story.  Not deserving of a full length movie treatment. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 08, 2017, 12:39:01 AM
Kong: Skull Island
Fresh off watching Brie Larson perform convincingly in Room I figured I'd give her a big budget chance in the Kong: Skull Island retooling of the King Kong legend. The movie was okay, but she barely registered meh. She was dull.

The story bears a lot of similarity to the broadly panned 2005 version of King Kong that starred Jack Black, Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody, Kyle Chandler and a few others.  A mismatched crew heads to an Island where a giant gorilla lives along with some other giant creatures.  Some make it back, others don't.  This one had Easy-E, Dr. Dre, Loki, Jules Winnfield, Brie and Fred Flintstone.  But the concept was the same.  Go to the island, encounter creatures, some come back. 

Where the two diverged is that in the 2005 version, Kong is captured and brought to the US.  Here, he gets to stay at home. 

It's based in the Vietnam era.  Samuel L. leads a chopper crew supporting an expedition to an island just discovered via the magic of satellites.  Easy E is one of the pilots.  John Goodman and Dr. Dre are the scientists who back some hollow earth theory or something and go on the expedition to do some archeological whatever.  Larson tags along as a defiant anti-war photographer.  Loki Huddleston rounds out the cast as the decommissioned british bad ass jungle tracker.  Dewey Cox pops up as a Gilligan, marooned on the uncharted island for years. 

It's big loud and dumb. Larson adds zippo to the film, she's a waste of flesh.  Loki is pretty ridiculous too. As for Samuel L, I kept waiting for him to say "I've had enough of these motherfucking apes on this motherfucking plain.."  But he didn't.

The big ape fight scenes are decent.  This is really a summer scenery chewer and I don't get the rationale for releasing it in April.  I think it's going to hurt it at the box office. 

It's worth watching probably but I think if I had it to do over I'd either do 3D or just wait until it comes out on DVD. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chityeah on April 08, 2017, 01:47:48 AM
I tried again.  Didn't make it to the end.  Again.  I quit after the father died this time.  Just a terrible scene. 

The girl wasn't compelling.  Forrest Whitaker was horrible.  The worst.  I didn't care about Machete-light. Didn't care about Blind Lemon Jello or whatever his name was.  The lame robot got off a few interesting lines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GougmvRJio
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 08, 2017, 08:58:16 AM
Split

First the good. 

James McAvoy does a fairly amazing job.  He plays a mentally disturbed man who has 20-something personalities. Only about five of those were ever fully realized for the audience, but McAvoy managed to inhabit each completely differently.  You could usually tell just by the facial expression whether he was Hedwig, Barry, Patricia or Dennis. 

You've seen the trailers.  One of the personalities kidnaps three teenage girls and then the others interact with them as they try to figure out how to escape. 

The girls are pretty standard horror movie fare, completely forgettable.  The girl who was in The Witch is a little better, but she's still not McAvoy's equal -- and this movie needed that balance.

Now the bad. 

The mom from Eight is Enough (and the prison therapist from Oz) plays a stereotypically unaware psychiatrist with some lunatic theory about people with DID (disassociative identity disorder?).  Her clumsy handling of McAvoy's character(s) is weak. 

M. Night Shamalemaladabingbong wrote and directed and he left a lot -- a LOT -- of potentially fantastic story possibilities unturned.  The girls were given too little to do.  He kept McAvoy reined in more than he should have, there needed to be a much harder edge to some of the characters. 

The movie dragged and dragged, never truly delivering any suspense or sense of terror.  Too much was left unexplained. 

There was a backstory on the main chick that kept breaking up the drudge in some flashbacks, but it was not really relevant and could have been done so much better.  In fact, there was in my mind a major opportunity for that backstory to pay off in a decidedly shocking manner and yet he just left the string flapping in the breeze. Just didn't deliver. 

There was also a "big reveal" at the very end, but for those of us who aren't versed in M. Night Shaboolamamadingdong's catalog, it really was pointless and, in fact, added a sense of complete confusion.    As the black fellow behind me observed after the reveal "I think that was the same dude, but growed up some or maybe it was the cat what played in that Wolverines movie.." 

For some I'm sure it was cool.  For most of the people in the (theater full to the point that management held the movie and asked people move into empty seats so they could get the crowd in the lobby settled in) audience it appeared to be primarily a "what was that" moment.  Therefore?  F.A.I.L.

The movie wasn't bad and McAvoy was worth watching, but it was lacking in so many areas I just can't recommend it except when it comes out on some streaming service.

Disagree on almost all points...except the brilliance of McAvoy.

SPOILER-ISH INFO>>>>>




I was confused about the David Dunn tie-in at the end...seemed clumsy and pointless.  Then I read that the next MNS movie will connect Unbreakable and Split (presumably Dunn will be called upon to rein in the Beast).  It had been over a decade since I watched Unbreakable, so I went back and revisited it.  Better than I remember (perhaps aided by the new knowledge that it's not a stand alone film) and caught a bit of an easter egg, perhaps:

When Dunn is brushing past people on the concourse at the stadium, he touches a woman dragging a wailing child.  The "flash" of her misdeeds seems to be her berating/beating the kid...and she seems to call him "Kevin."  The timelines work out so that this could be the Kevin who begs to be shot in Split.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 08, 2017, 09:05:41 AM
The Autopsy of Jane Doe

Hit or miss horror entry.  Featured a fine cast including a barely used Roose Bolton, Emile Hirsch and the underrated Brian Cox.  Film also introduces Olwen Catherine Kelly as Jane Doe.  More on her later.

Nude girl  is found partially buried in a house where a couple of brutal murders are discovered. No ID, no obvious trauma, just dead in a hole.  Sheriff transports her to the small town morgue where Cox and Hirsch are a father/son team running the funeral home/crematory. 

Unraveling the mystery of what killed Jane Doe piece by autopsied piece leads to a morass of psychological terror that engulfs the pair.  The major "terror" points come in figuring out what's actually happening and what's only occurring in their minds.  The movie had a languid pace that was intended to slowly build tension and confusion until it reached the final act. 

The mumbo jumbo is strong.  There are some logical leaps that no sane person would make.  "It's her, she's making us do this.."  The final denouement is sort of idiotic -- as in what in the world did he think doing THAT would solve?

As was said to me when the movie was over... "I hate watching a movie that has some good ideas, and builds it up well but ends up not making any sense..."  When you sit there after it's over and list ten or fifteen things that lacked sense or purpose?  When you can't figure out the whys and wherefores? The movie clearly lost its way.  Like why were the other bodies supposedly up and moving around?  Did they move actually or are we supposed to assume that was all a mirage planted in the minds of the two.  How did the murders where the body was discovered tie in?  And how did those tattoos get there?

It did a good job of creating a puzzle as each discovery inside and outside the body was revealed.  Neither of us had any idea what direction it would take as the pieces of the puzzle were laid out.  Sort of disappointed in the way they figured it out (too convenient) -- and also disappointed in what/who Jane Doe supposedly turned out to be (sort of ridiculous, actually). 

The one thing that was (unfortunately?) intriguing?  Olwen C. Kelly.  She played the dead girl and her entire performance in the movie involved lying completely still.  With one last second minor exception, she never once moved.  Never blinked. Never twitched.  She just laid there on the table completely nude.  For the entire movie. In every scene she was in. 

Her stillness was such a part of the film that we actually looked it up after the fact. 
http://www.clattoverata.com/2016/12/19/playing-dead-olwen-catherine-kelly-talks-autopsy-of-jane-doe/

Six week shoot and she just lay there sometimes for eight hours or more a day.   There was something impressive about it.

The ending didn't really pay off, but I enjoyed this one.  Fun little thriller.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 08, 2017, 10:25:36 AM
The ending didn't really pay off, but I enjoyed this one.  Fun little thriller.


I'm like k in regards to plot holes. They irk me. And a funeral home becoming a forensic pathologist/medical examiners office loses me. When did funeral homes become places for autopsies?

I haven't seen this yet, just going by K's review. I did see it on vudu this weekend and almost pulled the trigger to give it a try. Is it on Netflix ?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 09, 2017, 02:55:50 PM
Get Out

Went to see this primarily because a) it was written and directed by someone I have seen in person and b) it was filmed in Fairhope so I was interested to see if I recognized anything.

First Fairhope.  99.74% of the movie takes place at one house. It could have been anywhere. So zero Fairhope flavor.  That was a disappointment.

The rest of the movie was well done.

The dynamic between the black boyfriend and the white bread daughter wasn't entirely convincing but that may have been purposeful. There was less humor than I expected given that jordan peele wrote and directed.

The movie can't really be classified as horror given that any horror aspects didn't really begin until the last 15 minutes or so.  Instead it was a slow burn of "what's wrong with this picture" until Peele put all the pieces together in the short (in comparison) final act. 


 A little slow in places. And some small things that bothered me which I can't discuss without revealing too much. 

Still a quality effort for a first time writer/director known primarily for dumb football names. 

Worth a look.  Don't know if it's theater worthy though.

Watched this last night and really enjoyed it.

Only real gap in the story for me was.....SPOILER>>>>>>







What was the feature/attribute that the old bag wanted from Andre?  Root wanted eyes and the daughter starts to shop athletes when she thinks Chris is under the knife.  So...what was the "selling point" for the Andre-body?  Huge wang?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 09, 2017, 03:02:10 PM
You love the huge wang.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 09, 2017, 03:33:14 PM
What was the feature/attribute that the old bag wanted from Andre?  Root wanted eyes and the daughter starts to shop athletes when she thinks Chris is under the knife.  So...what was the "selling point" for the Andre-body?  Huge wang?

My guess was that the old man was dying quickly and black was in.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 10, 2017, 08:29:07 AM
Guardians of the Galaxy 2:

Predictably fun ride.  Go see it, don't overthink it.

Lots of cameos and Baby Groot overload, but still the most fun you'll have this year in a theater.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 10, 2017, 08:39:54 AM
Baby Groot
(http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/mickey-dollar-eyes.jpg)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQEVgbMqq7o
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 10, 2017, 08:42:24 AM
(http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/mickey-dollar-eyes.jpg)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQEVgbMqq7o

No doubt.  They are going to make sick money off that little sprout.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 10, 2017, 02:30:54 PM
the most fun you'll have this year in a theater.

You are doing shit wrong in the dark
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 10, 2017, 03:18:41 PM
You are doing shit wrong in the dark
It's $10 for a BJ, $12 for an HJ, $15 for a ZJ...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 20, 2017, 06:22:22 AM
Gold

Matthew McCongahey as a sweaty, paunchy greed-fueled prospector whose desire to strike it rich and live up to his daddy's long shadow caused him to ignore all the warning signs -- of everything.

I like MM but found it incredibly hard to root for the success of his abrasive character.  He kept suffering from self-inflicted wounds, behaved boorishly and selfishly, and didn't have any really redeeming characteristics.

His character Kenny inherited a successful mining business from his dad, ran it into the ground, stole from his girlfriend to finance a highly suspect last ditch exploration into the Indonesian jungles.  When gold was discovered, he acted like a full scale jackass and turned his back on the opportunity to make staggering amounts of money out of sheer pride.  There was no joy in watching him sweatily crash and burn or try to find a way back. 

It told a story, but it didn't tell it well.  MM never seemed to get past the surface of his booze-addled character to give me enough depth to really care. 

FWIW: Watched on a plane.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 20, 2017, 07:48:53 AM
Gold

Matthew McCongahey as a sweaty, paunchy greed-fueled prospector whose desire to strike it rich and live up to his daddy's long shadow caused him to ignore all the warning signs -- of everything.

I like MM but found it incredibly hard to root for the success of his abrasive character.  He kept suffering from self-inflicted wounds, behaved boorishly and selfishly, and didn't have any really redeeming characteristics.

His character Kenny inherited a successful mining business from his dad, ran it into the ground, stole from his girlfriend to finance a highly suspect last ditch exploration into the Indonesian jungles.  When gold was discovered, he acted like a full scale jackass and turned his back on the opportunity to make staggering amounts of money out of sheer pride.  There was no joy in watching him sweatily crash and burn or try to find a way back. 

It told a story, but it didn't tell it well.  MM never seemed to get past the surface of his booze-addled character to give me enough depth to really care. 

FWIW: Watched on a plane.

This one was worth a watch.  Agree that MM's character isn't particularly likeable, and his ego fucked everybody (some only briefly), but the ride was worth a couple hours.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 20, 2017, 09:28:55 AM
Patriot's Day

About what you'd expect.  Marky being Marky.  Told a fictionalized version of the search for suspects  in the Boston Marathon bombing.

It wasn't as compelling as Deepwater Horizon.  Accomplished cast that included Marky, Michelle Monaghan, Schillinger from Oz (who was also in Deepwater Horizon), John Goodman, the guy who plays Jin-Yang in Silicon Valley, Kevin Bacon and Johnny Sack from The Sopranos.  Also included the man/legend David Ortiz. 

I expected Mark to be convincing in this role, but he didn't quite get there.  I sort of got the feeling that because it was a Boston story and that should be so completely in his wheelhouse he didn't put in the same effort he would for other roles.  He just sort of sleep walked through it. 

One of the things that I'm particular about is the score.  This one tried to build constant tension with a razor-wire screech but it just didn't work.  It detracted from the film in my opinion. 

Wasn't bad, just wasn't moving like it needed to be. 

Also watched on a plane.  To Boston.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 20, 2017, 01:29:31 PM
Patriot's Day

About what you'd expect.  Marky being Marky.  Told a fictionalized version of the search for suspects  in the Boston Marathon bombing.

It wasn't as compelling as Deepwater Horizon.  Accomplished cast that included Marky, Michelle Monaghan, Schillinger from Oz (who was also in Deepwater Horizon), John Goodman, the guy who plays Jin-Yang in Silicon Valley, Kevin Bacon and Johnny Sack from The Sopranos.  Also included the man/legend David Ortiz. 

I expected Mark to be convincing in this role, but he didn't quite get there.  I sort of got the feeling that because it was a Boston story and that should be so completely in his wheelhouse he didn't put in the same effort he would for other roles.  He just sort of sleep walked through it. 

One of the things that I'm particular about is the score.  This one tried to build constant tension with a razor-wire screech but it just didn't work.  It detracted from the film in my opinion. 

Wasn't bad, just wasn't moving like it needed to be. 

Also watched on a plane.  To Boston.

I'd say it was more based on the real thing more than I'd say it was fictionalized.

I thought it was great. But wayyyy too long. They should have shaved 40 mins from it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 20, 2017, 06:24:17 PM
I'd say it was more based on the real thing more than I'd say it was fictionalized.

I thought it was great. But wayyyy too long. They should have shaved 40 mins from it.

I said fictionalized because I understood that Marky's character did not actually exist.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 20, 2017, 06:35:18 PM
This one was worth a watch.  Agree that MM's character isn't particularly likeable, and his ego fucked everybody (some only briefly), but the ride was worth a couple hours.
And was "based" on a true story
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 20, 2017, 06:37:30 PM
Patriot's Day

About what you'd expect.  Marky being Marky.  Told a fictionalized version of the search for suspects  in the Boston Marathon bombing.

It wasn't as compelling as Deepwater Horizon.  Accomplished cast that included Marky, Michelle Monaghan, Schillinger from Oz (who was also in Deepwater Horizon), John Goodman, the guy who plays Jin-Yang in Silicon Valley, Kevin Bacon and Johnny Sack from The Sopranos.  Also included the man/legend David Ortiz. 

I expected Mark to be convincing in this role, but he didn't quite get there.  I sort of got the feeling that because it was a Boston story and that should be so completely in his wheelhouse he didn't put in the same effort he would for other roles.  He just sort of sleep walked through it. 

One of the things that I'm particular about is the score.  This one tried to build constant tension with a razor-wire screech but it just didn't work.  It detracted from the film in my opinion. 

Wasn't bad, just wasn't moving like it needed to be. 

Also watched on a plane.  To Boston.
Good flick. Mark's character was based on several officers. My neighbor who ran the race and finished about 20 minutes before the bomb found it very surreal.  Her cheering section was right where the bomb went off.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 21, 2017, 04:56:20 PM
Alien Covenant

Meh.  Watch it on demand.  Wasted opportunity to advance the story.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Lurking Tiger on May 21, 2017, 07:27:57 PM
Alien Covenant

Meh.  Watch it on demand.  Wasted opportunity to advance the story.

Fuck.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 22, 2017, 10:47:09 AM
The ending didn't really pay off, but I enjoyed this one.  Fun little thriller.

Just caught it last night.

Agree totally. Was a great build up. Even some good jumpy moments. But the end just kind of killed it for me. Not terrible. Just not great

Brian Cox is a good good actor though.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 22, 2017, 10:58:29 AM
Autopsy
Eight Films to Die For offering. 

What in the hell is Robert Patrick doing slumming in this weak, underfunded waste of film?  The cast includes Tommy from Valley Girl, Momma vampire from Near Dark and some chick who's devolved to Lifetime Movies. 

How awful was it?  The only time it lightninged or thundered was when people were walking through one certain hallway. 

I'm plumbing the depths.  This one was terrible and not worth wasting any more words on.  There's nothing to recommend this one at all. 

I think I'm going to give Black Sheep a shot next.  Killer sheep. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 27, 2017, 12:15:51 PM
Pirates V

No sequel can ever recapture the unexpected brilliance of the first Pirates of the Caribbean film.  Some of the later installments were so misguided they came close to tarnishing the legacy of the franchise. 

This one falls somewhere in between.  Nowhere near the original but not as bad as the efforts that followed.

When the worst part of the film is the threadbare and tired portrayal of Jack Sparrow by a Johnny Depp who really appeared to be in it just for the money and delivered the bare minimum?  That says a lot. FWIW? Barbosa was pretty played out too.

Still the movie entertained. It was too long by a third. I'm tired of the spectral nature of the sea and would have preferred a more straightforward tale with less mysticism. But still. Not bad.

I hope it's the last one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 29, 2017, 10:19:22 AM
Baywatch

As one of very few people who never watched a single episode of the Baywatch TV series I had no expectations whatsoever about this movie.  Good thing because this awful turd of a film couldn't have lived up to even the most minimum expectations I might have had. 

It was a raunch-filled dick fest that only found occasional humor and even that humor was barely worth a smirk. 

The girls were decent to look at but not that great.  The rest was just crass vulgarity. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on May 29, 2017, 02:23:12 PM
Baywatch

As one of very few people who never watched a single episode of the Baywatch TV series I had no expectations whatsoever about this movie.  Good thing because this awful turd of a film couldn't have lived up to even the most minimum expectations I might have had. 

It was a raunch-filled dick fest that only found occasional humor and even that humor was barely worth a smirk. 

The girls were decent to look at but not that great.  The rest was just crass vulgarity.

 :haha:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 30, 2017, 09:49:34 AM
Baywatch

As one of very few people who never watched a single episode of the Baywatch TV series I had no expectations whatsoever about this movie.  Good thing because this awful turd of a film couldn't have lived up to even the most minimum expectations I might have had. 

It was a raunch-filled dick fest that only found occasional humor and even that humor was barely worth a smirk. 

The girls were decent to look at but not that great.  The rest was just crass vulgarity.
(http://www.pbh2.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/alexandra-daddario-boobs.jpg)

She makes my pee-pee maker t-t-tingle.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 30, 2017, 11:08:54 AM
(http://www.pbh2.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/alexandra-daddario-boobs.jpg)

She makes my pee-pee maker t-t-tingle.

You ain't kiddin.

Has since first sight.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 30, 2017, 12:35:26 PM
(http://www.pbh2.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/alexandra-daddario-boobs.jpg)

She makes my pee-pee maker t-t-tingle.

I think she's hot too.

She's wasted in this movie.  Barely a set piece.

All the girls (with the exception of the "surprise" cameo) were hot.  Just not well used.

The blond girl in particular is wasted -- in large part due to the director's obsession with penisi. 

And while I'm at it? The poor man's Jonah Hill was a ridiculous waste.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 30, 2017, 02:54:10 PM
I think she's hot too.

She's wasted in this movie.  Barely a set piece.

All the girls (with the exception of the "surprise" cameo) were hot.  Just not well used.

The blond girl in particular is wasted -- in large part due to the director's obsession with penisi. 

And while I'm at it? The poor man's Jonah Hill was a ridiculous waste.

Damn.

One we all agree on.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 02, 2017, 11:02:47 AM
Pirates V

No sequel can ever recapture the unexpected brilliance of the first Pirates of the Caribbean film.  Some of the later installments were so misguided they came close to tarnishing the legacy of the franchise. 

This one falls somewhere in between.  Nowhere near the original but not as bad as the efforts that followed.

When the worst part of the film is the threadbare and tired portrayal of Jack Sparrow by a Johnny Depp who really appeared to be in it just for the money and delivered the bare minimum?  That says a lot. FWIW? Barbosa was pretty played out too.

Still the movie entertained. It was too long by a third. I'm tired of the spectral nature of the sea and would have preferred a more straightforward tale with less mysticism. But still. Not bad.

I hope it's the last one.

Well, I just watched part of At World's End.   I was wrong.  It was better than this last one.  As muddled and confusing as it was, it was a far better movie than whatever this latest installment was called. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 02, 2017, 01:44:15 PM
Invitation

Very weird movie about a dinner party with -- perhaps -- a hidden agenda.   

Very strange.  Leaves you wondering if the main character is the crazy one or if something odd is going on. 

Moves too slowly in places, doesn't explain some of the motives well enough, doesn't explain the need to have that particular group in place. 

The cast is filled with people you've seen before but can't quite place where.

JUST caught this on Netflix.

Thought it was pretty good compared most others in the genre today. Enjoyed how it kept the viewer guessing on which was true.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 06, 2017, 11:58:09 PM
Wonder Woman

I didn't really want to go see this.  DC has screwed up so much with the two Superman duds, the spectacularly shitty Batman v. Superman and the colossally flubbed Suicide Squad that I really had no hope that anyone at Warner Brothers would have a clue how to craft an effective movie.  I'm a DC guy.  Batman is my boy.  Justice League (before the stupid as fuck WonderTwins and BatMite shit) was my jam.  It's true, I never cared much for Superman, but who did?  Watching what DC has done to those characters with this latest "universe" has pretty much made me physically ill.  So I went with resignation, near certain that I was about to be disappointed, disgusted and disillusioned.

Wrong. 

This was a really good movie primarily because they got the casting just right and the director had enough sense to let Gal Gadot dominate..  I've rarely seen any actor simply own the screen the way Gadot did.  She was absolutely mesmerizing.  Granted she's one of the most attractive things I've ever seen, but it was more than that.  She made the character and she made the movie.

I was a little concerned through the first third while they waded through the whole Amazon women on an island backstory.  But when she emerged in full Wonder Woman bloom in the middle of a war?  Fucking A.  One of the best "superhero rises" action sequences I've seen. 

Yes, it was DC so it was darker and more earnest and less flippant than the Marvel films.  DC heroes (even in the comics) doesn't have the same insouciance as an Iron Man or Spider Man.  They're more tortured, more reflective, more introspective.  All those things played against the Superman/Batman and Suicide Squad films that got bogged down in it and never slogged out of the mire. 

The story (even as silly as it was) was tighter here, more focused.  It could have used a touch more levity perhaps, but it tried here and there. 

There was stuff about WWI, some gas, some pilot, and even some Zac Snyderish fighting in the dark (thank God not the rain) but all of that was superfluous to simply watching Gadot do her Wonder Woman thing.  Watching her here it made me hate Batman v. Superman even more than I already did because she was so ill used. 

Solid movie, very enjoyable.  It was good enough that it gives me a slight glimmer of hope that they're not going to donkey fuck the Justice League film. 


Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Ogre on June 07, 2017, 07:31:16 AM
Wonder Woman
Granted she's one of the most attractive things I've ever seen, but it was more than that. 

Maybe it was the fact she looks like Raven Riley?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 07, 2017, 09:03:34 AM
Maybe it was the fact she looks like Raven Riley?
Gadot is hotter.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 07, 2017, 09:05:53 AM
Maybe it was the fact she looks like Raven Riley?

You're blasting my past... I haven't thought about Raven in years. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 07, 2017, 10:45:03 AM
You're blasting my past... I haven't thought about Raven in years.

Dude has a mind like a steel trap now that he quit drinking. 

BTW has he told you about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 07, 2017, 10:54:39 AM
Gadot is hotter.

No argument there. 

This just in... or maybe it was already in and I didn't find out about it until now.  Whatever. 

The guy who dragged down both Superman films and was almost single handedly responsible for the disaster that was Superman v. Batman is out of the picture for Justice League.

Zack Snyder (and his wife Deborah) are off the JL film after his daughter committed suicide.  That's an awful thing for them to deal with and I hate it for them both.  DC is bringing in Joss Whedon, though.  The guy who made the Avengers movie as good as it was.  Granted, Age of Ultron was a silly overstuffed mess, but still. 

So while I feel sorry for Zack, I'm greatly encouraged that Justice League will be a far, far better movie than it would have been with him there.  The fact that Whedon has ordered "massive reshoots" is another indicator that things will be better.  Now if he'll just fire Affleck.....
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 07, 2017, 02:33:40 PM
I would like to request a review of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2nSI6jx36E
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on June 07, 2017, 08:17:49 PM
Wonder Woman

I didn't really want to go see this.  DC has screwed up so much with the two Superman duds, the spectacularly shitty Batman v. Superman and the colossally flubbed Suicide Squad that I really had no hope that anyone at Warner Brothers would have a clue how to craft an effective movie.  I'm a DC guy.  Batman is my boy.  Justice League (before the stupid as fuck WonderTwins and BatMite shit) was my jam.  It's true, I never cared much for Superman, but who did?  Watching what DC has done to those characters with this latest "universe" has pretty much made me physically ill.  So I went with resignation, near certain that I was about to be disappointed, disgusted and disillusioned.

Wrong. 

This was a really good movie primarily because they got the casting just right and the director had enough sense to let Gal Gadot dominate..  I've rarely seen any actor simply own the screen the way Gadot did.  She was absolutely mesmerizing.  Granted she's one of the most attractive things I've ever seen, but it was more than that.  She made the character and she made the movie.

I was a little concerned through the first third while they waded through the whole Amazon women on an island backstory.  But when she emerged in full Wonder Woman bloom in the middle of a war?  Fucking A.  One of the best "superhero rises" action sequences I've seen. 

Yes, it was DC so it was darker and more earnest and less flippant than the Marvel films.  DC heroes (even in the comics) doesn't have the same insouciance as an Iron Man or Spider Man.  They're more tortured, more reflective, more introspective.  All those things played against the Superman/Batman and Suicide Squad films that got bogged down in it and never slogged out of the mire. 

The story (even as silly as it was) was tighter here, more focused.  It could have used a touch more levity perhaps, but it tried here and there. 

There was stuff about WWI, some gas, some pilot, and even some Zac Snyderish fighting in the dark (thank God not the rain) but all of that was superfluous to simply watching Gadot do her Wonder Woman thing.  Watching her here it made me hate Batman v. Superman even more than I already did because she was so ill used. 

Solid movie, very enjoyable.  It was good enough that it gives me a slight glimmer of hope that they're not going to donkey fuck the Justice League film.

Saw this today and agree with this review totally.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 10, 2017, 12:22:50 PM
Back to Baywatch just a second. 

I did not make the connection that Alexandra Daddario was the owner of this spectacularly large pair of naked tits from the first season of True Detective. 

Please do not click on the following links unless you want to see unsheathed Daddario boobs. 
https://www.celebjihad.com/celeb-jihad/images/alexandra_daddario_nude_true_detective_corrected.jpg

http://www.hecklerspray.com/wp-content/gallery/alexandra-daddario-nude-true-detective/alexandra-daddario-nude-true-detective-15.jpg



Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 10, 2017, 12:24:53 PM
Back to Baywatch just a second. 

I did not make the connection that Alexandra Daddario was the owner of this spectacularly large pair of naked tits from the first season of True Detective. 

Please do not click on the following links unless you want to see unsheathed Daddario boobs. 
https://www.celebjihad.com/celeb-jihad/images/alexandra_daddario_nude_true_detective_corrected.jpg

http://www.hecklerspray.com/wp-content/gallery/alexandra-daddario-nude-true-detective/alexandra-daddario-nude-true-detective-15.jpg

I love her.


And I will hurt you if you attempt to take her from me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 10, 2017, 12:26:35 PM
Pirates V

No sequel can ever recapture the unexpected brilliance of the first Pirates of the Caribbean film.  Some of the later installments were so misguided they came close to tarnishing the legacy of the franchise. 

This one falls somewhere in between.  Nowhere near the original but not as bad as the efforts that followed.

When the worst part of the film is the threadbare and tired portrayal of Jack Sparrow by a Johnny Depp who really appeared to be in it just for the money and delivered the bare minimum?  That says a lot. FWIW? Barbosa was pretty played out too.

Still the movie entertained. It was too long by a third. I'm tired of the spectral nature of the sea and would have preferred a more straightforward tale with less mysticism. But still. Not bad.

I hope it's the last one.

I pulled a garman, and nodded off in the theater off and on during the last 20-30 mins of this. Not because it was bad but because I had seen enough. You were dead on in the length assessment.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on June 12, 2017, 11:56:13 PM
Power Rangers

The year was 1993 my first born was a curious and active three year old. Enter the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. For a couple of years she became Kimberly.  Every afternoon we would watch essentially the same show as the Rangers teamed up to battle the minions of Rita Repulsa, Goodar and eventually Lord Zed.  They'd fight putties.  Then a bigger monster would show up. They'd try to battle it for a while before figuring out they were better as a combined team.  Then they'd form megazord, kick some monster ass and save the day.  Go go power rangers.  My daughter's obsession with the show was such that she wore Kimberly gear to preschool, assigned ranger roles to her friends (one of whom she still calls Billy to this day) and proceeded to gang kick the shit out of other kids who had no idea they were goldar, Rita, Grumble, fang or a putty.  There was a broken arm -- hers from leaping off the top of some playground equipment so her pink ranger could help the red ranger tackle an unsuspecting lord zed -- a concussion, numerous scrapes and bruises and the dreaded parent conference. Still we watched.  And went to live shows. And the movie.

So it was with no small amount of nostalgia that she and I went to see the new Power Ranger movie.

It was okay.  It took the "cool kids become heroes" storyline and dirtied it up some.  No longer the good kids from angel grove the new Rangers were the fallen and the outcast.  They avoided the obvious stereotyping of the black ranger being black and the yellow ranger being Asian. But they also had to toss in an ambiguous lesbian reference which was unnecessary.

The film followed the same basic script as the tv show once it got the obligatory and lengthy backstory out of the way.  Fight putties. Fight solo. Team up. Save the day. 

Elizabeth Banks enjoyed herself as Rita. Fun to watch.  The new rangers didn't have quite the same easy chemistry as the tv version.  For fans of the series there were several nods to it including a sentimental recreation of part of the show's opening sequence and a cameo or two.

There was also a product placement so blatantly obvious and over the top that it was funny. 

There were a couple of crude references I could have done without.  Kimberly wasn't as good as the marvelous and lovely Amy Jo Johnson of the original and Bryan Cranston didn't add as much as I'd hoped as the digitized Zordon.

Worth watching for nostalgia's sake if your kid was ever a ranger or if you've got a 5-10 year old who wants to be one. Otherwise?  Nah.

Morbid curiosity got the best of me on this one.  I had no relationship with the source material and, frankly, had a jaundiced view of the story/concept based on some very limited exposure.

It was pretty atrocious and I was surprised that Cranston, Banks and Heder signed on.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 13, 2017, 10:00:35 AM
I love her.


And I will hurt you if you attempt to take her from me.

She is mine...back the fuck off or I will gut you.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 15, 2017, 12:33:26 AM
The Accountant

Better than I expected. 

Affleck is a problem.  Watching this movie I finally figured it out.  He's fine when he's playing grim and basically stoic.  When he's asked to generate anything that remotely resembles human emotion he simply cannot pull it off.  He can do stoic anger but not full-on rage.  He can do awkward stoic pain but cannot portray true angst or misery.  Anything resembling a romantic scene is painful to watch.  It's his stupid seamless face.  Emotion doesn't play there.  He has the dead eyes of a lizard.  He's best when he isn't really given that much to do. 

Thankfully he didn't really have to do much in this movie but act weird and it came very naturally to him. 

Pretty decent story, far less number crunching than I figured there would be.  I liked it more than I thought I would. 

Agree with a previous review that Shane from Walking Dead added a lot to the film.  That guy is really trying to make the acting thing work and he's been second or third banana in a lot of films.  Was pretty okay in this one.  Several people you'll know in this one including John Lithgow (the killer of Rita whom I now despise), Jean Smart, Anna Kendrick, Jeffrey Tambor,  Nazi Schillinger from Oz and Naevia from Spartacus. 

It's not something I'd watch again, but since it's about to come out on HBO (or Showtime, Starz or one of those...) it's worth the free look. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 15, 2017, 09:40:00 AM
I asked K last week but I'll ask everyone in this thread too - anyone seen It Comes at Night yet?

I caught it while down in Florida last week. Hated it as soon as it ended. I thought it moved too too slow the first 90%. Then all hell breaks loose the last 15 mins. I hated it because I don't think I understood the point it was conveying at first. I went in with a traditional horror/thriller mindset. That was the problem. This one was outside the box in that there was no traditional bad guy or boogeyman. The enemy was mans own paranoia and imagination.

The longer time goes by the more I think I appreciate it. Although it wasn't without flaw. It did move too slow and there were a few plot holes. But by today's standard in that genre it was decent.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 15, 2017, 04:20:09 PM
I asked K last week but I'll ask everyone in this thread too - anyone seen It Comes at Night yet?

I caught it while down in Florida last week. Hated it as soon as it ended. I thought it moved too too slow the first 90%. Then all hell breaks loose the last 15 mins. I hated it because I don't think I understood the point it was conveying at first. I went in with a traditional horror/thriller mindset. That was the problem. This one was outside the box in that there was no traditional bad guy or boogeyman. The enemy was mans own paranoia and imagination.

The longer time goes by the more I think I appreciate it. Although it wasn't without flaw. It did move too slow and there were a few plot holes. But by today's standard in that genre it was decent.
I always come at night.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 15, 2017, 08:59:36 PM
I always come at night.

Not a fan of the nooner. Sani wept.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on June 15, 2017, 09:07:57 PM
Does Ben Affleck fill any of Anna Kendrick's holes with his love muscle in The Accountant?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 15, 2017, 09:09:41 PM
Does Ben Affleck fill any of Anna Kendrick's holes with his love muscle in The Accountant?

I'd prefer Daddario but I see your point.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 15, 2017, 09:10:23 PM
Does Ben Affleck fill any of Anna Kendrick's holes with his love muscle in The Accountant?

This is a spoiler free zone.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on June 15, 2017, 09:11:25 PM
This is a spoiler free zone.

oops.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 23, 2017, 02:12:21 PM
Taps
Saw this movie in 1981 with my girlfriend.  Have seen it a couple of times since and came across it again last night.  Not sure what my 1981 girlfriend is doing.  Probably should have called her.

Very solid movie that still holds up 36 years later.  So many people who went on to have significant careers were in this thing. 

It was intended to be a lead vehicle for Timothy Hutton who had just won an Oscar and was expected to be the next Cary Grant.  He was good here, but after this his career just fizzled away -- or at least didn't live up to the heady expectations.  Can he really complain, though?  Dated Angelina Jolie. Dated Uma Thurman. Dated Diane Lane. Married to Debra Winger. Married to a hot French art chick.  Just moved in (at 54) with a 26-year old who isn't half bad.  That's a trophy case I'd be proud to have.

The movie also featured:
Baby Sean Penn, pre-Spicoli
Baby Tom Cruise, pre-Joel in Risky Business
Baby Giancarlo Esposito, pre-Gus Fring (there's a Fring-ish moment toward the end, though)
Baby Evan Handler, pre-lots of roles you'd know

Toss in pre-Robocop Ronny Cox and post-Patton George C. Scott and you've got a seriously good ensemble. 

The story is just a little silly on its face.  But in today's snowflake world where students at places like Trinity and Evergreen act like spoiled, entitled twits?  There was something uplifting about the dedication to honor, respect, dignity and integrity expressed by the cadets in the face of impossible odds.  Even though their mission was a little doe-eyed and improbable, I enjoyed seeing the unity they expressed and the dedication to protocol they displayed. 

It's not one of my Top Ten movies.  It's not even one of my "best of the 80s" movies.  But maybe it should be.  Good story told in a compelling manner by a group of decent actors. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 30, 2017, 07:06:15 PM
Jason Bourne

Did not give the minimum amount of fucks.

Seen it all before.  Completely unnecessary.   

Waste of my time

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on June 30, 2017, 11:21:10 PM
A Cure for Wellness -
A couple of European actors you've seen before, but can't quite place, fight in and around a "sanitorium" in the Swiss Alps.  It's kind of formulaic, but still a satisfyingly creepy horror/thriller.

Okja -
Supposed to be some big statement about the ethics/cruelty of industrial food production, I think. 

Giancarlo Esposito (Gus M'Fing Fring), Steven Yuen (Glenn from The Walking Dead), Paul Dano (Brian Wilson in Love and Mercy), Tilda Swinton (x2) and Jake Gyllenhaal (who is pretty fucking awesome in his role) combine to make a predictable, if somewhat nuanced, look at corporate greed...whether it's cloaked in touchy-feely "laudable" goals (Lucy) or naked profiteering (Nancy).
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 01, 2017, 02:18:54 PM
A Cure for Wellness -
A couple of European actors you've seen before, but can't quite place, fight in and around a "sanitorium" in the Swiss Alps.  It's kind of formulaic, but still a satisfyingly creepy horror/thriller.

Okja -
Supposed to be some big statement about the ethics/cruelty of industrial food production, I think. 

Giancarlo Esposito (Gus M'Fing Fring), Steven Yuen (Glenn from The Walking Dead), Paul Dano (Brian Wilson in Love and Mercy), Tilda Swinton (x2) and Jake Gyllenhaal (who is pretty fucking awesome in his role) combine to make a predictable, if somewhat nuanced, look at corporate greed...whether it's cloaked in touchy-feely "laudable" goals (Lucy) or naked profiteering (Nancy).

Did you like Okja? Saw it on the Netflix "recently added" section yesterday.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on July 01, 2017, 02:37:42 PM
Did you like Okja? Saw it on the Netflix "recently added" section yesterday.

Eh.  It's ok.  Some decent individual performances, but overall pretty weak film.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on July 05, 2017, 09:12:37 AM
I saw Transformers: The Last Knight. Uhm, yeah.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on July 05, 2017, 09:39:04 AM
Wanted light and disposable entertainment last night, so watched CHiPs.

I ended up liking this movie a lot more than I wanted/expected to.  I'm lukewarm to hostile on Dax Shepard but I like Pena in almost everything he's done.  They have a surprising chemistry in this flick and I wasn't expecting Vincent D'Onofrio at all.

Not high art by any means, but better than average stab at raiding my childhood tv memories.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 05, 2017, 04:51:07 PM
Jason Bourne

Did not give the minimum amount of fucks.

Seen it all before.  Completely unnecessary.   

Waste of my time
Troof...shameful
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on July 06, 2017, 12:08:27 PM
Baby Driver

Wow.  See this one.  Great cast (Spacey, Hamm, Bernthal and Foxx...plus the eponymous Baby), loads of action (it's a heist movie, essentially), and a kick ass soundtrack.

If you look closely, you can see Big Boi and Killer Mike in one of the Bacchanalia scenes.

The kid playing Baby should be the young Han Solo.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on July 06, 2017, 12:48:55 PM
Baby Driver

Wow.  See this one.  Great cast (Spacey, Hamm, Bernthal and Foxx...plus the eponymous Baby), loads of action (it's a heist movie, essentially), and a kick ass soundtrack.

If you look closely, you can see Big Boi and Killer Mike in one of the Bacchanalia scenes.

The kid playing Baby should be the young Han Solo.

Loved the movie.  One of the best action movies I've seen in a while, but Jesus could they have found a dumber name for a movie?

Will say that I nearly cried when they fucked that challenger up though.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on July 06, 2017, 02:53:22 PM
Loved the movie.  One of the best action movies I've seen in a while, but Jesus could they have found a dumber name for a movie?

Will say that I nearly cried when they fucked that challenger up though.


Spoilers, yo
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Token on July 06, 2017, 07:09:34 PM
Spoilers, yo

It's a movie about a getaway driver with previews showing multiple car chases. Surely everyone knows that a throwaway car is going to get trashed in this movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on July 06, 2017, 08:59:29 PM
It's a movie about a getaway driver with previews showing multiple car chases. Surely everyone knows that a throwaway car is going to get trashed in this movie.

We were just about to leave for the 9:00 p.m. showing.  Thanks for ruining it for us.  Asshole!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 07, 2017, 09:46:45 AM
We were just about to leave for the 9:00 p.m. showing.  Thanks for ruining it for us.  Asshole!

They crashed a car in an action movie.

Got danged spoilers!!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on July 07, 2017, 09:50:52 AM
They crashed a car in an action movie.

Got danged spoilers!!

Not listening....Not listening....Can't hear you....LA LA LA LA LA LA....
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on July 09, 2017, 11:12:21 PM
Spider-Man: Homecoming

Fun movie. 

The new kid is the best Peter Parker they've found and the movie had enough Tony Stark/Happy Hogan to keep it grounded in the Marvel universe.  Keaton finally gives them a villain worthy of the challenge:he's complex and ruthless and not of some supernatural origin.  As a bonus, Aunt May is the eternally smoking Marisa Tomei.

You'll recognize everyone in this movie.  Without spoiling anything, look for: Martin Starr (Gilfoyle from Silicon Valley) Bokeem Woodbine, Hannibal Buress, Nacho (from Better Call Saul), Donald Glover/Childish Gambino, Louis (from Last Man on Earth).

It doesn't break new ground, but it's a fun ride.

Also, saw Baby Driver again today.  Goddamn, that is a good fucking movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 10, 2017, 10:32:05 AM
Life
For a movie titled "Life" there was surprisingly little of it.  Never really invested in any of the characters. Deadpool proved that he is not a dramatic actor.  Failed to generate legitimate reactions.

The "unexpected" ending was telegraphed.

Shooting a movie that looked realistically weightless was the chief accomplishment here.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 10, 2017, 10:37:04 AM
Life
For a movie titled "Life" there was surprisingly little of it.  Never really invested in any of the characters. Deadpool proved that he is not a dramatic actor.  Failed to generate legitimate reactions.

The "unexpected" ending was telegraphed.

Shooting a movie that looked realistically weightless was the chief accomplishment here.

More proof that in today's movie world, the people working on the tech stuff behind the movie have more talent than those on the set.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 10, 2017, 11:55:05 AM
The Belko Experiment

Interesting premise.  Office full of people locked in with no escape.  Disembodied voice demands kill or be killed. 

Some lazy storytelling and a cast so large it didn't have enough time to give background or a reason to be invested in the life or death of most. Still, an interesting cast. Merle from Walking Dead, John mcginley, tony Goldwyn, a hot Colombian chick and best of all THE Nelson "Big Head" Bighetti. 

The movie was better as a conversational starting point for whether you would kill or die than it was in actual execution.  Still had some good moments. 

There was no way it could have a satisfying ending. It didn't.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 21, 2017, 11:23:31 PM
Train to Busan

I've been looking for the next great horror movie for quite a while.  This one comes close. Really really close.  It also comes from South Korea. 

It's not horror in the Michael Myers/Jason Voorhees slasher style.  It's the psychological horror of dealing with a zombie outbreak in a confined space. 

It's well done.  Well acted (for Koreans) and the story has enough turns to keep you interested.  Of course having to read the subtitles does that too. 

Very good movie.  I really hope they don't take this and try to make it into an Americanized version starring Tom Cruise, Dafne Keen, Dakota Fanning, John Cena and Alec Baldwin.

It's a familiar story but well told, well laid out and well paced.  Worth watching. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on July 23, 2017, 02:39:01 PM
Dunkirk

Beautifully shot: wide panoramic beach and sea scenes.

Excellent cast of mostly unknowns.

The plot?  Meh.  Except for Nolan's trademark timeline-futzing, it's a straight forward story.  Another WWII movie.  Meh.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on July 23, 2017, 03:56:02 PM
Dunkirk

Beautifully shot: wide panoramic beach and sea scenes.

Excellent cast of mostly unknowns.

The plot?  Meh.  Except for Nolan's trademark timeline-futzing, it's a straight forward story.  Another WWII movie.  Meh.

Did you see it in 70mm?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on July 23, 2017, 03:57:57 PM
Did you see it in 70mm?

IMAX
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: WiregrassTiger on July 23, 2017, 09:03:44 PM
IMAX
IMARVIN. Please to meet.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 28, 2017, 11:31:39 PM
Wish Upon
Another attempt to find quality horror. 

Some mid-level talent including Ryan Phillipe, Elisabeth Rohm, and a very weird cameoish appearance by Jerry O'Connell.

Story is basically a variation on the time-tested Monkey Paw theme. Make a wish but be careful what you wish for. There is always a price to be paid.

The film was geared toward a teen/tween audience as much of the wish angst centered on the stereotypical teenage need to be acknowledged, loved and respected.

The cast was adequate but not stellar. The musical choices were 80s-ish and badly out of place. The storyline was muddled, rushed in place, not fleshed out well, too predictable and occasionally superfluous. But it wasn't all bad.

It didn't reach for the cheap cat-out-of-a-garbage can jump scares. It didn't lean on a blaring soundtrack to create faux suspense.  It just told a predictable, choppy story.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 31, 2017, 08:25:53 AM
Pet

I like a movie that has the capacity to surprise.  This film managed that and managed it well. 

From the trailers I expected a story about a lovelorn guy who captured the object of his affection, locked her away in a cage and tried to figure out how to turn imprisonment into love. 

I got that, but I also got that turned completely on its head. 

Ksenia Solo plays the titular Pet and she does so with a combination of bitchy bitch face and wide-eyed seduction that's pretty convincing.  A really good performance.  Her motivations aren't always obvious but they come into focus over time. 

Dominic Monaghan takes on the role of the Pet's temporary owner and while he's okay, he wasn't able to match the psychotic Solo and faded as a result.  Wasn't bad, but just didn't paled in comparison to his Pet. 

As with all movies, especially those made outside the mainstream, there are a couple of dangling plot threads.  The most glaring here is the question of what happens to the detective and his obvious suspicions.  Why even open that storyline door if you're not going to look in that room again? 

I didn't really expect much from this and got way more than I bargained for.  I enjoyed the movie and was impressed with Solo in particular. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 31, 2017, 08:32:36 AM
#1 Serial Killer -

Awkward skinny JapaChinese nerd is fascinated by girl in the office while simultaneously having an obsession with Ted Bundy and other serial killers.  Her rejection -- which doesn't even actually come from her -- sets him on a path to surpass Bundy as the nation's most notorious serial killer.

Along the way he extracts revenge on those who've wronged him, gets seduced by the paramour of his boss and continues a long, unfunny running gag about not being Asian when he obviously is. 

The movie has some similarities to Pet, but fails to deliver on every level.

The lead is creepy acting but overdoes it.  The boss is a buffoning caricature. The paramour is the only truly interesting character in the film but her continually shifting personality -- and her unbelievable attraction to the lead character -- destroys that. 

The girl he's mooning over is pretty hot, though. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on August 03, 2017, 10:14:52 AM
The Emoji Movie

If you're sitting around the house with nothing to do, I recommend this movie to take your kids to.  Make sure it's really balls hot outside, and that the movie theater you pick has the A/C cranked up, this way, you can enjoy a nice, cool 90 minute nap.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 14, 2017, 01:54:26 PM
Guardians of the Galaxy 2

I finally got around to seeing this. 

It's pretty much what I expected.  It falls into the same pattern (to a lesser degree) that's plagued other great unexpected first films.   Take Pirates of the Caribbean for instance.  I didn't expect much when I went to see it. But it was a really enjoyable film full of surprising performances.  Same with the first Guardians.  Went hoping it would be okay and it far exceeded expectations. 

The sequel to Pirates, though?  Trod a lot of the same ground with a bigger budget and less focused story. 

Same with this one. 

Familiar characters doing essentially the same things but with a bigger budget and more forced humor. 

Not saying it wasn't good or that I didn't enjoy it.  It was and I did. 

It just crept right up to the edge of sensory overload.  The whole Sgt. Pepper planet that was Peter's dad?  Too much.  All the slo-mo rainbow action sequences? Too much.

The movie reeled it in at the end for a predictable, but satisfying resolution.  But it was so special effects heavy and so blindingly colorful that it almost lost me. 

The first film was a four and a half star effort.  This one only rated three and a half at best.  Not because it wasn't good, but because it didn't break any new ground. It merely threw more special effects money at the same tilled field.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on August 14, 2017, 02:10:09 PM
Guardians of the Galaxy 2

I finally got around to seeing this. 

It's pretty much what I expected.  It falls into the same pattern (to a lesser degree) that's plagued other great unexpected first films.   Take Pirates of the Caribbean for instance.  I didn't expect much when I went to see it. But it was a really enjoyable film full of surprising performances.  Same with the first Guardians.  Went hoping it would be okay and it far exceeded expectations. 

The sequel to Pirates, though?  Trod a lot of the same ground with a bigger budget and less focused story. 

Same with this one. 

Familiar characters doing essentially the same things but with a bigger budget and more forced humor. 

Not saying it wasn't good or that I didn't enjoy it.  It was and I did. 

It just crept right up to the edge of sensory overload.  The whole Sgt. Pepper planet that was Peter's dad?  Too much.  All the slo-mo rainbow action sequences? Too much.

The movie reeled it in at the end for a predictable, but satisfying resolution.  But it was so special effects heavy and so blindingly colorful that it almost lost me. 

The first film was a four and a half star effort.  This one only rated three and a half at best.  Not because it wasn't good, but because it didn't break any new ground. It merely threw more special effects money at the same tilled field.

Congrats you've broken Hollywood's code.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on August 14, 2017, 02:20:31 PM
Dunkirk

Beautifully shot: wide panoramic beach and sea scenes.

Excellent cast of mostly unknowns.

The plot?  Meh.  Except for Nolan's trademark timeline-futzing, it's a straight forward story.  Another WWII movie.  Meh.
Plus, no female heroes.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 14, 2017, 03:22:01 PM
Plus, no female heroes.
What like Wonder Woman?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 14, 2017, 03:50:06 PM
What like Wonder Woman?

As hot as anything I've ever seen. 

(http://media1.santabanta.com/full1/Global%20Celebrities(F)/Gal%20Gadot/gal-gadot-0a.jpg)

Was Wonder Woman good?  Yeah.  I think so. Pretty sure it was.  But I didn't breathe the entire time she was on screen.  Transfixed is what I was.  Betwitched. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 14, 2017, 04:05:30 PM
I don't think that picture is her.

and Wonder Woman was horrible.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 14, 2017, 04:10:04 PM
I don't think that picture is her.

and Wonder Woman was horrible.

It's her. 

And your little brain must be on vacation.

(http://images.suburbanmen.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/women-love-wonder-womans-gal-gadot-106.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 14, 2017, 05:11:43 PM
It's her. 

And your little brain must be on vacation.


No doubt she's hot, movie still sucked
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 14, 2017, 05:21:09 PM
No doubt she's hot, movie still sucked

And I suppose she puts her make up on with a  trowl....trowel.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on August 15, 2017, 07:45:08 AM
Was Wonder Woman good?  Yeah.  I think so. Pretty sure it was.  But I didn't breathe the entire time she was on screen.  Transfixed is what I was.  Betwitched.

I said almost the exact thing: she was distractingly hot.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 15, 2017, 10:07:07 AM
And I suppose she puts her make up on with a  trowl....trowel.
She does not appear to ....no
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 15, 2017, 11:09:36 AM
Two random Australian movies

Watched two movies over the weekend.  Both Australian.  Both attempts at horror.  Both horrific.  Both so badly done I can't remember their names. 

I had to go look them up. 

Killing Ground was the first. 

Two weirdo psychos 'hunt' unsuspecting campers near an ugly, dirty stream in some random Australian forest. 

It had some disturbing elements -- a callous attempt to murder a baby, a naked and raped 16-year old, some cavalier violence. But there was never any true payoff because the characters were superfluous and there was no emotional attachment to any of them.  Included weak ass protagonist who crumbles under pressure and fails to do any of the normal things a movie hero would be expected to do.  The entire story was undone by underdeveloped characters, muddy motivations, a confusing (for a while) bounce back and forth in time, and some bad performances. 

I might have rated it higher if the ending weren't such a complete cop out.  If I wanted to write my own endings to movies, I'd just write the whole movie and watch it in my head.  It would be better than this.

Open Water 3: Cage Dive
Horrible "found footage" movie about a trio of overacting assholes who travel to Australia seeking the adventure of getting in a shark cage to see Great Whites up close and personal... and then... gasp!1.... the unthinkable happens. 

I was openly rooting for the sharks to eat these jackfucks and get this thing over with.  Hated all three major characters and their ridiculous love triangle that played out in the open sea. 

The sharks were the best actors in this film.  By far.  I'd let a shark eat me rather than watch this one again. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 18, 2017, 11:54:25 PM
Aftershock

Eli Roth is supposed to be the king of gore horror.  He's developed a reputation for on-screen brutality in movies like Cabin Fever, Hostel, Green Inferno (reviewed in this thread), Last Exorcism and 2001 Maniacs. 

What he is, however, is a low-rent hack.  This piece of predictable crap confirmed it. 

Horrible effects, stilted acting, fakest blood you've ever seen, ridiculous time gaps and "plot twists" that Stevie Wonder saw coming were the hallmarks of this terribly done piece of crap.  The guy is terrible.  I could have written a better movie.

The film starts with three assholes partying in Chile.  One of the assholes is apparently the son of somebody important so they get into all the best parties.  But their efforts are wasted because one of the assholes is stupidly and annoyingly pining over a cheating girlfriend and the other asshole has no game.  The gameless asshole is portrayed by Roth himself in a brilliant casting decision. If by brilliant you mean shitty.

The one asshole whose dad is somebody is a weird-looking chubby little turd.  Kind of a Zach Gaffilnaniakiisa retread but without any of the talent and a mouth that would fit a gar.  Hated him.  He was also murdered in Green Inferno.

So the three guys party.  They connect (who knows how) with a trio of whorish chicks.  There are two sisters and their Ruskie friend.  The Russian you might have seen in a lesbian romp called Habitación en Roma. If you're into that. 

One of the other whores who overacts to the point of distraction is Roth's wife.  You might have seen her playing a whore in Green Inferno or a whore in Knock Knock (with which Roth was also involved). 

The third whore doesn't matter.  She's Hungarian (playing the sister of a Chilean) who hasn't done anything you'd know.

So after the extended party sequences, interrupted by some of the worst acting imaginable, there's an earthquake.  Then people run amok. Throw in a severed hand, an immolation, an ax murder, two gratuitous rape sequences, a pair of bare male asses, some ridiculous dialogue, a couple of gunshots and some illogical gaps (Run, they're right behind us!!! Wait, let's have this extended stupid scene at a gate!! Ok, that's over. They're right behind us!!)  and you've got a stinking turd of a movie.   

The fact that the big "surprise" reveals were so obvious pretty much cinches how ham-fisted the writing and direction of this movie -- thanks Eli -- were. 


Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on August 19, 2017, 11:20:55 PM

 a lesbian romp. If you're into that. 


Well who ain't.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 20, 2017, 01:49:40 AM
House on Willow Street

Kidnappers snatch the wrong person.  Spoiler!  She's a demon. 

That gives the writers of this crap license to toss in an exorcism inside a found footage movie inside a kidnapping/hostage movie. 

It was like turducken.  Minus the ducken.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: jmar on August 20, 2017, 09:27:56 AM
House on Willow Street

Kidnappers snatch the wrong person.  Spoiler!  She's a demon. 

That gives the writers of this crap license to toss in an exorcism inside a found footage movie inside a kidnapping/hostage movie. 

It was like turducken.  Minus the ducken.
No lesbians huh?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on August 20, 2017, 10:08:19 AM
The Dark Tower

Despite awful reviews, I've been waiting too long for this movie to not see it.

Did not hate it.  I understand why the book-nerds are up in arms: given the temporal limitations, the movie gave short-shrift to too many important people/places/events.  It could not (and certainly was not intended to) be a visual representation of the entire epic story.

That said, there is a lot to like about this movie.  Elba did a pretty great job at capturing the flawed/conflicted Roland.  MM wasn't the perfect villain (and lacked Walter's manic gaiety) but he was a menacing presence hidden by a smile and restrained himself enough to avoid the echoes of Wooderson he brings to many of his roles.

The gunslinging is standard rampage movie fare with a touch of Deadshot.  I was worried they'd get a little too superhero/cartoonish with the fight scenes, but just as it was about to go too far the director reined the acrobatics back in.  The "winning" gunshot is a little dab of brilliance with Roland exploiting Walter's arrogance. 

If you went into this one hoping or expecting to see sweeping panoramas and to experience the long days and nights on foot that were the hallmarks of the series, then you've set yourself up for disappointment.  The nature of the walking quest spanning 7 books is that it imbues the story with a pace to match the physical progress of the characters.  This movie is rushed from the beginning as the director tried to get the broad, sweeping narrative to fit into 95 minutes.  For that matter, I don't know why they didn't Pete Jackson it and double the run time to give the story more room to breathe.

The look/style of the movie was also a bit of a betrayal of the source material.  While not a "western" by any stretch, the books feature a man that, in my  mind's eye, is more cowboy than time/multiverse traveling merc.  The book's scenes, unless a particular backdrop is required (eg - Lud), trend to a "western" aesthetic with a dystopian varnish when I envision them.  The movie is more sci-fi styled than I would have chosen and there is a heavy focus on the events in NYC.  These are jarring when compared to the relatively pastoral pictures in my head.

I think, though, it is a fine effort and lays the foundation for additional movies (I don't think Walter died from a few bullet wounds, no matter how tricky the shot that did him in) and the rumored television series that will serve to fill in backstory and develop characters beyond the limitations of the 90 minute features.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 20, 2017, 06:47:03 PM
The Hit Man's Bodyguard

Did you like Deadpool? If yes, then you'll love this one.  Ryan Reynolds plays a professional bodyguard and winds up having to single-handedly get Samuel L. Jackson, a professional assassin, to court in Amsterdam to testify against a former communist dictator who slaughtered villages.  No spoiler alert because that's revealed from the get-go.  Besides, the plot adds nothing to the flick.  It's simply about the smart ass back and forth between Reynolds and SLJ. 

They could have cut it by 20-30 minutes and left out a couple of mind numbingly unbelievable car chase, shoot-em-up scenes.  But it's worth putting up with them for the scenes between the two.  I checked to see if there was any relation between the writers of Deadpool and this one because it's just DP with a different plot.  And I laughed my ass off in DP. Oh, don't take the kiddies.  They take the phrase "Mother fucker" to Al Borges/Rick Trickett-esque levels.  All in all, a very entertaining watch.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 21, 2017, 09:24:42 AM
The Hit Man's Bodyguard Deadpool Saves Nick Fury

Did you like Deadpool? If yes, then you'll love this one.  Ryan Reynolds plays a professional bodyguard and winds up having to single-handedly get Samuel L. Jackson, a professional assassin, to court in Amsterdam to testify against a former communist dictator who slaughtered villages.  No spoiler alert because that's revealed from the get-go.  Besides, the plot adds nothing to the flick.  It's simply about the smart ass back and forth between Reynolds and SLJ. 

They could have cut it by 20-30 minutes and left out a couple of mind numbingly unbelievable car chase, shoot-em-up scenes.  But it's worth putting up with them for the scenes between the two.  I checked to see if there was any relation between the writers of Deadpool and this one because it's just DP with a different plot.  And I laughed my ass off in DP. Oh, don't take the kiddies.  They take the phrase "Mother fucker" to Al Borges/Rick Trickett-esque levels.  All in all, a very entertaining watch.

FTFY
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on August 21, 2017, 09:32:24 AM
The Hit Man's Bodyguard Deadpool Saves Nick Fury Green Lantern saves Mr Glass
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on August 21, 2017, 10:17:58 AM
I don't think that picture is her.

and Wonder Woman was horrible.

Sadly, the X has its final gay hijack!!!!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 25, 2017, 12:34:07 AM
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/8857d6dbbf53ee78e44e35895ff4f90bc0d83539/c=386-0-2614-1675&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/2017/07/05/USATODAY/USATODAY/636348650724374682-XXX-IMG-WONDER-WOMAN-EXCLUSI-1-1-70IDATAK-91378198.JPG)

Ok.  So I'm trying to be honest and objective here.  Somebody's criticism of Wonder Woman had me wondering (ha, a pun) if it was really as good as I initially thought it was.  Then today James Cameron -- who can pretty much kiss my ass because Avatar was blue fucking cluster and I hate the blazing fuck out of Titanic -- unloaded on the movie as a setback for women or something.

So I tried to remember the movie.  I tried to remember the plot. Tried to remember what was good about it.  I tried to literally remember a single thing that happened.  I couldn't recall much.

This is what I keep coming up with...

She was in that uniform, walking into the line of fire. In that uniform.  Yummmm. I mean, ummm..

Then a lot of stuff blew up and there was some guy or something crashing around and destroying pavement.  I think.  Was it a guy or another girl? 

I just don't know. 

The only thing I do know is that Gal Gadot was utterly captivating.  She filled the screen and I didn't want to take my eyes off her.  I forgot to breathe while she was up there.  I've seen her in other movies and she didn't have that effect.  In this, though, she hypnotized me. 

Was it a good movie? Be damned if I know.  I remember it as one and I'm going to keep pretending it was. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 05, 2017, 11:06:07 AM
Fist Fight

Paper-thin premise. 

What a waste of talent.  Charlie Day, Ice Cube, Dinesh from Silicon Valley, Tracy Morgan, Ugly unfunny bitch from 22 Jump Street, Hank from Breaking Bad, red-head big titty girl from Mad Men.  All squandered in a stupid movie that had zero laughs. 

So much wrong with it.  The timeframe was ridiculous for one.  High school teachers using that much profanity in class was another.  Teachers continuously wandering up and down the hallways and never being in class.

The only potential comedy this awful movie had came in the form of complete awkwardness.  Teacher commenting on student's fuckability? Not funny, just awkward.  Elementary school girl profanely rapping in a talent show?  Not funny, just cringe-worthy. 

When it got to the actual fight -- after a series of events that should have taken several days, not just one four-hour span -- the film actually had a little something to say.  All the other classless, humorless shit that preceded it rendered it moot, however. 

I am dumber for having wasted my time on this.  All involved are dumber for being a part of it.  There should be a movie board that suspends actors for sub-par performances.  Everybody in this movie should get a one-year ban. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 10, 2017, 11:22:55 PM
IT

Stephen King is one of my favorite writers.  He has a way with words that paint a vivid mental picture.  For me, that's always been one of the most daunting parts of creating a film from one of his works.  Nothing on film can capture the same tension and imagery that you've imagined yourself during reading it.  Most of the films that tried to stay true to his work fail because they can't hold up to that burden.  My imagination is always infinitely better than anything a director can produce. 

That maxim holds true particularly for horror.  King's non-horror works (Green Mile, Shawshank, Stand by Me) bear the movie treatment far better than films based his horror  (Carrie, Pet Sematery, The Stand) because horror is truly subjective.  What scares me isn't going to scare you necessarily. 

IT is one of the more difficult films to do properly.  As much as I appreciate Tim Curry the TV mini-series version from 1990 starring Venus Flytrap, John Boy Walton, Jack Tripper, Judge Harry Stone, Elaine from 48 Hours, a random gay guy and the little sister from Ginger Snaps was crappy.  That movie got, to me, a great deal of undeserved praise.  It was poorly acted, the CGI was ridiculously hokey and the way the director interspersed present and past was awful.  I never liked that version. 

For that reason I was a little hesitant to give the current incarnation a shot.  But I'm glad I did. 

IT has never really been a horror movie.  It's more a story of a pack of lost and lonely kids finding their way in a world that's stacked against them.  The clown isn't the true horror.  The terror that really grips these kids comes from being picked on by bullies, being abused by parents, being ignored and devalued, being forced to live by an artificial code they don't understand or appreciate.  The horror is life.  The horror is being afraid to stand up for yourself when you're being taken advantage of.  The horror is being weak and alone. 

I've often argued that the clown doesn't even really exist, it's just their collective device to deal with the real horrors of their personal lives.  The demon they fight lives inside them only. 

This movie did a fantastic job of capturing that dynamic.  Oh, sure, the clown was probably terrifying in its own right.  But the film reached into the souls of the Losers Club in a way the 1990 version never came close to capturing.  It made you feel their pain and frustration.  The confrontation with Pennywise was part of the story, yes, but the true story was in the relationship between the loser kids.  It was about them learning to face their fears and stand them down.  Not the clown.  I contend that was really just a metaphor, they stood down all the other things that tormented them.  They found their strength in their collective weaknesses.

The movie was never scary to me (few truly are any more) but it was still fantastic.  I was really impressed with the carefully layered performances of the unknowns who starred in the movie, particularly the girl who played Beverly Marsh. 

It was an honest, attentive recreation of a Stephen King story, something I've honestly never seen done this well for any of his "horror" works.  Really impressed. 

If I had to complain at all, I thought the movie could have tacked on a little more gore and a touch more of the clown.  If it lacked anything it lacked enough vicious bite.  But that's a ticky complaint. 

I thought the movie was great.  It honored King's work and I have a great appreciation for that. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 16, 2017, 10:15:52 AM
It Comes At Night

No.  It doesn't.  Nothing does. 

I'm not smart enough to like this movie apparently. 

Boo. BOO.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on September 18, 2017, 12:13:19 PM
It Comes At Night

No.  It doesn't.  Nothing does. 

I'm not smart enough to like this movie apparently. 

Boo. BOO.

I come at night....and sometimes in the morning.



Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on September 18, 2017, 12:18:34 PM
I come at night....and sometimes in the morning.

Real fuckin' smart answer! Why don't you fuckin' aim, huh?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on September 18, 2017, 06:57:48 PM
I come at night....and sometimes in the morning.

The first hour of work just got real relaxed
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on September 26, 2017, 07:12:25 PM
The new Kingsman is a predictably good time.

Same basic setup as the first film (devious supervillain threatens the mass of humanity), lots of great action and some exciting new American faces.

A really fun cameo in the jungle and the return of a former character (not Harry) help make this the most fun you'll have between Guardians 2 and Star Wars.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 29, 2017, 06:24:40 AM
Saw I - IV

As much as I watch horror movies, you'd think I'd be a student of Saw.  Before last week, though, I'd never seen a single one of the films.  I avoided them fearing they'd be little more than gratuitous commercialized torture porn.  With the new Jigsaw movie coming this October I finally decided to delve into the Saw franchise and watch them all in order.   

Finished four installments so far.  Each of the four movies has its own merits, but the series overall is uneven.  I like the way the movies tie all the threads together in the end but I'm sometimes thrown by the constant jumping around in time. 

One thing that also nags at me is the complexity of the traps that Kramer sets.  There's no way all of that could be done, no way some of the events could be predicted. Take the final sequence in III.  How could you possibly predict that one person would be shot, but not fatally?

Watching them over successive days -- or with only a few days in between -- helps make sense of the whole puzzle.  If I'd had to wait a year between III and IV, for instance?  I don't think I would have remembered how all of that played out. 

I and IV were my least favorite.  I disliked the first one primarily because Cary Elwes is such a terrible actor.  I thought the story and the set up were  really good but his overacting came close to ruining it for me. 

IV was just too convoluted.  The traps and tricks reached the point of absurd and the denouement at the end was a little silly.  It strayed into absurdity and didn't do an adequate job of explaining why that made any sense.  I did like seeing Betsy Russell.  Her face hasn't held up well, but she's kept that nice body that was made famous in Private School where she displayed a near perfect set on horseback (http://videocelebs.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/image1_temp-844.jpg -- don't click at work!) 

II was the best so far.  It made the most sense to me and wrapped the game up very neatly at the end.  I like a movie that has the capacity to surprise and Saw II did exactly that.  The rules are simple, but you've got to pay attention to each word. I didn't. And I didn't see that coming.  I literally had none of that figured out.  The traps were much simpler and actually fairly plausible unlike the absurdly improbable setups in IV.

III lost me until the last 15 minutes where it brought everything together in a manner I didn't entirely expect.  The only thing that kept it down were the "there's no way that could possibly have been anticipated" moments. 

Looking forward to the next three -- or is it four? -- and curious how they'll keep the Kramer character alive.  I saw his brain come out of his head so there's that.  I just hope the next few hew closer to telling a better story and spend less time on impossible, improbable, ridiculously outlandish traps. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on September 29, 2017, 12:08:08 PM
Saw I - IV

As much as I watch horror movies, you'd think I'd be a student of Saw.  Before last week, though, I'd never seen a single one of the films.  I avoided them fearing they'd be little more than gratuitous commercialized torture porn.  With the new Jigsaw movie coming this October I finally decided to delve into the Saw franchise and watch them all in order.   

Finished four installments so far.  Each of the four movies has its own merits, but the series overall is uneven.  I like the way the movies tie all the threads together in the end but I'm sometimes thrown by the constant jumping around in time. 

One thing that also nags at me is the complexity of the traps that Kramer sets.  There's no way all of that could be done, no way some of the events could be predicted. Take the final sequence in III.  How could you possibly predict that one person would be shot, but not fatally?

Watching them over successive days -- or with only a few days in between -- helps make sense of the whole puzzle.  If I'd had to wait a year between III and IV, for instance?  I don't think I would have remembered how all of that played out. 

I and IV were my least favorite.  I disliked the first one primarily because Cary Elwes is such a terrible actor.  I thought the story and the set up were  really good but his overacting came close to ruining it for me. 

IV was just too convoluted.  The traps and tricks reached the point of absurd and the denouement at the end was a little silly.  It strayed into absurdity and didn't do an adequate job of explaining why that made any sense.  I did like seeing Betsy Russell.  Her face hasn't held up well, but she's kept that nice body that was made famous in Private School where she displayed a near perfect set on horseback (http://videocelebs.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/image1_temp-844.jpg -- don't click at work!) 

II was the best so far.  It made the most sense to me and wrapped the game up very neatly at the end.  I like a movie that has the capacity to surprise and Saw II did exactly that.  The rules are simple, but you've got to pay attention to each word. I didn't. And I didn't see that coming.  I literally had none of that figured out.  The traps were much simpler and actually fairly plausible unlike the absurdly improbable setups in IV.

III lost me until the last 15 minutes where it brought everything together in a manner I didn't entirely expect.  The only thing that kept it down were the "there's no way that could possibly have been anticipated" moments. 

Looking forward to the next three -- or is it four? -- and curious how they'll keep the Kramer character alive.  I saw his brain come out of his head so there's that.  I just hope the next few hew closer to telling a better story and spend less time on impossible, improbable, ridiculously outlandish traps.

the next couple have a lot to do with pre recorded tapes, his understudies and things he's already set in motion.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 02, 2017, 07:57:24 AM
The new Kingsman is a predictably good time.

Same basic setup as the first film (devious supervillain threatens the mass of humanity), lots of great action and some exciting new American faces.

A really fun cameo in the jungle and the return of a former character (not Harry) help make this the most fun you'll have between Guardians 2 and Star Wars.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle

I can't entirely agree with your assessment. 

The first movie was such a pleasant surprise that it set the bar too high for any sequel to reach.  This one tried, but (almost predictably) failed to achieve the effortless smirking charm of the first original. 

I get that it's a spoof of the James Bond movies with the ridiculously exaggerated villains, exotic set pieces and snappy repartee.  The problem with this one is that it was really overdone.

The movie ran 2:20 with bloated subplots, butterflies, and assorted other wastes.  It could easily have been trimmed to 90 minutes and been cleaner and probably more enjoyable.

I didn't care for any of the American side of the story.  I can't stand the way Jeff "I got me ah gret big ol' dip" Bridges talks.  That mumble mouth, bulldog jaw shit just pisses me off.  Channing Tatum is a waste of flesh.  The fake Burt Reynolds guy was caricature. 

That doesn't mean I wasn't entertained.  I was but just a little.   It either swung too hard or didn't swing hard enough and kept on whiffing. 

The "cameo" in the jungle was the best part of the movie.  The whole jungle set and most of what occurred there was the worst.  Julianne Moore was terrible as the big bad. 

I have no idea who the "not Harry" character was that wes referred to.  Obviously didn't register with me. 

It was a decent movie that suffered from its own infatuation with itself as well as a desire to somehow top what it had previously done.

I think I'll pass if there's a third. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on October 02, 2017, 08:18:37 AM

I have no idea who the "not Harry" character was that wes referred to.  Obviously didn't register with me.

Then you weren't paying attention.  He had a robotic arm.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 02, 2017, 08:35:01 AM
Then you weren't paying attention.  He had a robotic arm.

Oh.  Gotcha. I didn't care enough about that to consider it.  I knew he was in the first film, but from your comment I was expecting something bigger. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 04, 2017, 01:32:01 AM
SAW V and VI

I thought the series had jumped the shark with Episode V.  It suffered from the almost unavoidable lag and build up of problems that accompanies a film or TV series that's outlived its usefulness. 

In each of the previous versions there was some cleverness and skill involved in the traps. There was an underlying meaning, a reason for the madness so to speak.  Saw V was basically just meanness.  Of course there was a reason for that, but without the background it was more like running in place.  Here are some traps, watch people struggle with them, but leave out the behind the scenes rationales. I did enjoy the fact that Rita (from Dexter) was in it, but I'm reminded again just how limited she is. 

Saw VI got the bus back rolling.  In all of the movies except V there's been this moment of "wait... what the FUCK?"  That makes all the rest of the slog through the torture worth it.  Of all the things I admire most in a movie or TV show, it's attention to detail. Finding some small seemingly insignificant thread from an episode back at the beginning and tying it to a broader, bigger event later in the series shows good writing and an ability to craft a cohesive narrative.  Sopranos was one of the best at this.  Breaking Bad also great at it. 

I wonder sometimes if there was a seven (or eight) movie plan or if they just start from where they were and create shit on the fly when they start filming each subsequent movie.  Either way, the writer and directors do a really good job of maintaining continuity.  Each piece fits. 

Saw VI answered a lot of questions I had and answered them in a way I didn't expect.  The end of the road for Easton was not what I assumed.  I did not see that coming.  That's good storytelling.  I got my "what the fuck" moment.  While I correctly surmised what was in Envelope 6, I did not anticipate what was in the letter left for Amanda.  That was another "ohhhhhhh, now I get it" event.

Costas Mandylor is a terrible actor.  He hasn't done anything worth a crap since Picket Fences. He's the weakest part of the series (well, except for the FBI cop who may be worse).   I do like seeing Shawnee Smith and Betsy Russell, though.  They interest me. 

By the time you've reached Saw VI, it's left the minimal psychological torture of the original in the dust and transitioned to the overly complex (to the point of ridiculous) mega traps.  They are so complicated and involved and rely on a near-impossible sense of timing that it kicks me out of the movie and makes me think.  That's not a good thing. 

I expect more of the same in the final chapter (before Jigsaw). 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 10, 2017, 03:03:00 PM
Saw VII

Major disappointment.  Even the reveal that Larry had been in on the game all along (which was improbable) didn't overcome the dreadful mix of sadistic murder in this poorly acted, poorly shot, poorly made film.  If it wasn't the worst of the series, it definitely bumped the bottom. 

First, the traps were too elaborate. To imagine that one person, or even a small team, could design and monitor all those working parts and the precision it would take to create each separate component is stretching the bounds of credulity.  It's just not possible. 

Saw (the original) was brutal in its simplicity.  Saw VII was an over-engorged splatterfest that in its quest to layer gore missed the entire point of the exercise.  People were supposed to learn lessons.  There was no real lesson for Dagan, only as series of unsolvable traps that inflicted deadly harm on others. 

Then there was the murder.  Over and over and over.  The parade of killing perpetrated by Hoffman was not typical of the series.  Stabbing, shooting, stabbing -- not as part of the games but in pursuit of his own objectives.  That was never part of the equation.  It wasn't clever, it wasn't poetic, it wasn't justified.

I did not like them killing Jill at all. 

The movie very clearly highlighted some of the problems that have been part of the entire series, just in this case there wasn't anything nearly intelligent or surprising enough to cover for it. 

Exhibit a:  Costas Mandylor is a terrible actor.  One of the worst.  He was okay in Picket Fences but has he ever done crap else that was worth even a second look?  Having him tasked with carrying the series was just to much for his complete lack of range. 

Betsy Russell is not good.  I give her a pass, however, because of her astonishingly fantastic work alongside Phoebe Cates in Private School. 

No matter what she does in film or how she ages, she will always be this to me:
(http://www.catsafterme.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/jord1.jpg)

The rest of the cast was B-movie level or worse.   The quality of this movie was so bad it almost had a "grindhouse" schlock feel to it. 

It was not a fitting end to the franchise and I have some slim hope that Jigsaw will revive the original's spirit. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on October 17, 2017, 10:14:35 PM
The new Blade Runner is really good.

It runs long and isn't particularly fast-paced, but the visuals and the throwback characters are engaging.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 26, 2017, 09:48:47 AM
Annabelle: Creation

The creepy doll movies have always seemed a little slow-moving to me and this one was no different. 

There were some good moments, but also some very cliched horror staples.  If a demon is really going to take you, why does it bother to futz around with blinking lights, shifting shadows, middle of the night noises and other time-wasting efforts? 

The spirit that possessed the doll -- and then the child -- didn't have to wait several days and then capture the kid hiding under a barn platform.  The fact that it took more than 2/3 of the movie to get around to the actual possession while it did random clicks, clanks, boos and hoots really took a lot of the steam out of the film.  The blue/black goat look of the demon was also laughable. Really bad choice there.

I found the whole "12 years later we decided to take in a whole orphanage full of girls while we still have a demonic dealio locked up in the house" concept a little shaky. 

I did like how it circled back to the original, but I really hope that in doing so it closed the loop on this horror series.  It never quite achieved its potential.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 26, 2017, 11:21:20 AM
Annabelle: Creation

The creepy doll movies have always seemed a little slow-moving to me and this one was no different. 

There were some good moments, but also some very cliched horror staples.  If a demon is really going to take you, why does it bother to futz around with blinking lights, shifting shadows, middle of the night noises and other time-wasting efforts? 

The spirit that possessed the doll -- and then the child -- didn't have to wait several days and then capture the kid hiding under a barn platform.  The fact that it took more than 2/3 of the movie to get around to the actual possession while it did random clicks, clanks, boos and hoots really took a lot of the steam out of the film.  The blue/black goat look of the demon was also laughable. Really bad choice there.

I found the whole "12 years later we decided to take in a whole orphanage full of girls while we still have a demonic dealio locked up in the house" concept a little shaky. 

I did like how it circled back to the original, but I really hope that in doing so it closed the loop on this horror series.  It never quite achieved its potential.

pretty good synopsis - I thought by today's standards it was solid and better than the original (sequel). Compared to the original Halloween or the first couple of Saws? Nah. But still decent. I didn't feel like it was a waste of time like I do with most horror movies.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 27, 2017, 12:16:39 AM
Boo 2: A Madea Halloween

I sort of enjoyed the first Boo (reviewed on page 113 of this thread).  I enjoyed Madea's irreverent cracking on father/daughter relationships and the things that scared her and her miscreant crew then. 

This DOA sequel, though?  Everything that sucked about the first one was magnified to the extreme in this. 

The whore bitch daughter?  Unbearable.  Detestable. Hate her with a volcanic passion.
The crusty twerking whore friend? Unwatchable.
The dad of one of the whore bitch daughter's friends? The guy must have pictures of Tyler Perry fucking donkeys or else he'd never have been cast in anything.
The frat fucks? Unspeakably bad.
The lead frat guy who is apparently some YouTube star (whatever that is)? Fucktarded Muslim with a dick for a nose.  Zero humor, just a complete assclown.  What is Perry thinking with this jackoff?
Perry as Brian, the dad? I've seen dead chinchillas give better performances.

Even the things that worked in the original -- Madea's sass, her rag tag friends, Joe's misguided advice -- was flat and stale here. 

I've watched a ton of horrible movies.  I rarely bail, I sit it out in the hopes that something, somehow will save it in the end. 

I left this movie just over halfway through.  There is no excuse for the bottom of the barrel performances, the lame story and the forced dialogue that made up this shit burger of a film. 

I could literally take my iPhone out right now, film random shit for the next 90 minutes, do no editing whatsoever and turn out a better movie than this one was. 

Boo was a mild Halloween treat.  Boo 2 was a hateful trick that sucked so badly it reached back and ruined the original. 

It's among the worst movies I've ever seen.  Me and my crew walked the fuck right out of the theater and that's unusual.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on October 27, 2017, 09:45:40 AM
You know I love you, and I have much respect for you.

But seriously!!!  NO seriously you wasted money to see that.  Next time give me the money and I will drive up and punch you in the nuts.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 27, 2017, 10:06:23 AM
You know I love you, and I have much respect for you.

But seriously!!!  NO seriously you wasted money to see that.  Next time give me the money and I will drive up and punch you in the nuts.

Can I film that and do a way behind review?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 27, 2017, 10:46:36 AM
You know I love you, and I have much respect for you.

But seriously!!!  NO seriously you wasted money to see that.  Next time give me the money and I will drive up and punch you in the nuts.

The first one was bad, but had an innate niceness to it.  And it had some funny moments.  I gave the sequel a shot on a weekday matinee. 

This one made the fatal mistake of focusing primarily on the bitch-whore hateful daughter, the unfunny dick-nose muslim and the junior-high play level actors that made up the rest of the cast. 

Madea didn't have much to do and even when she, Hattie, Joe and Bam were on screen, they were completely off.  It was a half ass effort. 

Sadly, it did win the weekend box office and looks likely to battle Jigsaw for the top spot again. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 27, 2017, 11:41:53 PM
Jigsaw
When I review a movie it's usually with the understanding that my other half feels essentially the same way I do. We're almost always of like mind on films. On Jigsaw we dissent. 

She found it stretched the bounds of reason beyond repair.  For that reason the best she could give it was "meh." 

I, on the other hand, sort of gave up on the traps, plans and schemes of John Kramer fitting into any rational world.  Yes, it bothers me to a degree but after the first seven films, I knew what I was going to get into when I walked into the theater.  I left satisfied.  Not Morton's satisfied, but Wendy's sated. 

I agree with her that this one was a real reach.  Resurrecting the almost certainly dead John Kramer was a huge gamble. Unless it wasn't.  Adding another assistant into the elaborate web of 5849 other assistants from the prior sequels was another risk.  Unless it wasn't. 

There was some exposition that was a little clumsy.  Some of the rationale for placing victims in the games was extremely weak. The opportunity to learn (a cornerstone of the series) was muddled. 

Matt Passmore is one of the most benign actors on the planet.  He wasn't bad enough to make me wish for Costas Mandylor, but he was just flat enough emotionally to suck the life out of many of his scenes.  There were times I was really, really, really wishing that Michael C. Hall (aka Dexter) had taken his role. 

The plot was just a touch too convenient and clever for its own good.  It suffered from some awkward pacing and sloppy execution (execution, get it?).  The rationale/reasoning was a bit too much. Why go to all that trouble for the final payoff? 

But it was what it was.  It put people at peril in insane ways. It breathed life into John Kramer, unless it didn't.  In the end it was bogged down in the complexity and in the same way many of the sequels imploded, this too was impaled on the stake of convoluted twists.  It, like many of its predecessors, failed to understand that the simplicity of the original (now 13 years old) was what made it work as well as it did. 

I thought it was a reasonably decent attempt to reboot an iconic horror series.  It had its faults, but I got what I wanted out of it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 30, 2017, 11:20:45 AM
Magnificent Seven

Denzel Washington. Chris Pratt. Vincent D'Onofrio. Ethan Hawke. Matt Bomer.

How could this possibly go wrong?

All I know is that it did.  It was plodding, brooding and slow.  It was improbable.  It probably trashed any possible Western renaissance, if there ever was such, with its drudgery.

Denzel looked old and bored.  Not believable at all as a guntoter. Just wandered through this with no direction, no intensity, like he was tired of being there.

What the hell was the bloated Vincent doing with that ridiculous voice?

Hawke seemed completely ill at ease in his own skin and was a terrible choice. He's not a good actor. At all. If you watch this, watch him on the horses. He appears terrified and awkward.

Pratt just smirked and mugged. That's his forte apparently and he did himself no favors here.

The only remotely interesting character in the entire crew was the Asian hairpin guy.

Not even the curiously chastely attractive heaving breasts of Haley Bennett could elevate this dull turkey. 

I wanted to see this movie in the theater but held off based on some tepid reviews.  After finally giving it a shot, I'm glad I waited until it didn't cost me. 

Boo2 has set the new standard for awful movies and this didn't come close to that wretchedness, but by the midpoint I didn't care if I finished watching it or not.  There was no reason to care.

Except for Haley Bennett's breasts.

(http://style.gq.com.au//media/articles/4/8/4/0/48449-1_l.jpg?165826)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 06, 2017, 09:31:50 AM
The Dark Tower

Hey. I’ve got an idea.  Let’s take all of George R R Martin’s Ice and Fire books and condense them down into one episode of Blossom. 

It’s not going to work.

Neither did this.

In trying to squeeze a complex and nuanced story into a 90 minute sprint, so much was lost that what was left struggled to make any sense whatsoever.  The motivations for any character were never clear or reasonable. The emotional hooks that are supposed to make you care about the players, their objectives or their plights were given a perfunctory swipe and then discarded.

What Walter hoped to achieve was never really given the heft it deserved. Nor was Roland’s solitary role in denying it.  It so briefly touched on the myriad pieces that gave the story its resonance that it failed on every level to connect.  It started, it ended and there was nothing much of substance in between. 

It was like somebody giving a tour of the Smithsonian and going “there’s a dinosaur bone, over here is a shiny rock, there’s a plane somebody flew, that’s a mummy and if you look at that building across the way there are some birds in so just imagine that part. Now bye!”

The performances were fine, I guess. Some of the gun tricks were cool but the rest of the film was so empty they didn’t even really register.

I didn’t hate the movie. There wasn’t enough there to hate. It was the cinematic equivalent of eating a rice cake. You ate something you’re pretty sure. But it had so little flavor it made no impression at all.



Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on November 06, 2017, 11:14:46 AM
The Dark Tower

Hey. I’ve got an idea.  Let’s take all of George R R Martin’s Ice and Fire books and condense them down into one episode of Blossom. 

It’s not going to work.

Neither did this.

In trying to squeeze a complex and nuanced story into a 90 minute sprint, so much was lost that what was left struggled to make any sense whatsoever.  The motivations for any character were never clear or reasonable. The emotional hooks that are supposed to make you care about the players, their objectives or their plights were given a perfunctory swipe and then discarded.

What Walter hoped to achieve was never really given the heft it deserved. Nor was Roland’s solitary role in denying it.  It so briefly touched on the myriad pieces that gave the story its resonance that it failed on every level to connect.  It started, it ended and there was nothing much of substance in between. 

It was like somebody giving a tour of the Smithsonian and going “there’s a dinosaur bone, over here is a shiny rock, there’s a plane somebody flew, that’s a mummy and if you look at that building across the way there are some birds in so just imagine that part. Now bye!”

The performances were fine, I guess. Some of the gun tricks were cool but the rest of the film was so empty they didn’t even really register.

I didn’t hate the movie. There wasn’t enough there to hate. It was the cinematic equivalent of eating a rice cake. You ate something you’re pretty sure. But it had so little flavor it made no impression at all.

Why is the tower dark?  Did they forget to pay the electric bill?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 06, 2017, 11:19:51 AM
Why is the tower dark?  Did they forget to pay the electric bill?

I just flew in from Boston.  Boy, are my arms tired.   :rimshot:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on November 06, 2017, 01:50:28 PM
Saw Thor Ragnarok.
Big dumb fun unless you pay attention to the subtext which I can summarize as:
"Hey, America! F*** you! You're the reason the world sucks you bunch of tyrannical bastards!
Why don't all the old white men DIE so the wominz can take over? Also, men are mostly stupid or evil."
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 06, 2017, 05:52:22 PM
Suburbicon

Took off today. The wifey is out of town. Took my balls with her.  Kid is in school.  I think I'll check out a movie.  I had seen the previews to this one several times and thought it looked at least minimally entertaining.  I walked out at exactly the 40 minute mark. Only the second time in my life I've walked out in the middle of a movie.

Who in the blazing, blue-ball fuck thought this would be....well....good?  I don't know what to say? Set in the 60's.  Suburbicon is the quintessential all-white town.  Cookie-cutter houses, 15X15 lawns etc.  It starts with a black family moving in.  The neighbors don't like it.  They complain.  They keep showing the black mother and her son out in the yard and people staring at them.  And that, my friends, is as far as they developed that story line in 40 minutes.

Matt Damon lives next door with his wife, her sister (Because wife is paralyzed) and their son.  A couple of thugs break in wind up killing the wife.  Damon and sister start fucking. And that, my friends, is as far as they developed that story line in 40 minutes.

That would be the sum total of what happened in 40 minutes of Suburbicon.  I don't care if at the 41 minute mark, it turned into an all out orgy in the neighborhood, Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared and started banging the black chick on a Harley while chasing the Predator alien through the countryside and Jennifer Lawrence also appeared and suddenly could act. I would rather watch Bama/Mississppi State highlights from 2005-2008 than spend another minute with this piece of shit. 

Again...who said, "Yeah, we've made a good one.  Unleash it on the public."
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 06, 2017, 06:07:21 PM
Suburbicon

Took off today. The wifey is out of town. Took my balls with her.  Kid is in school.  I think I'll check out a movie.  I had seen the previews to this one several times and thought it looked at least minimally entertaining.  I walked out at exactly the 40 minute mark. Only the second time in my life I've walked out in the middle of a movie.

Who in the blazing, blue-ball fuck thought this would be....well....good?  I don't know what to say? Set in the 60's.  Suburbicon is the quintessential all-white town.  Cookie-cutter houses, 15X15 lawns etc.  It starts with a black family moving in.  The neighbors don't like it.  They complain.  They keep showing the black mother and her son out in the yard and people staring at them.  And that, my friends, is as far as they developed that story line in 40 minutes.

Matt Damon lives next door with his wife, her sister (Because wife is paralyzed) and their son.  A couple of thugs break in wind up killing the wife.  Damon and sister start fucking. And that, my friends, is as far as they developed that story line in 40 minutes.

That would be the sum total of what happened in 40 minutes of Suburbicon.  I don't care if at the 41 minute mark, it turned into an all out orgy in the neighborhood, Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared and started banging the black chick on a Harley while chasing the Predator alien through the countryside and Jennifer Lawrence also appeared and suddenly could act. I would rather watch Bama/Mississppi State highlights from 2005-2008 than spend another minute with this piece of shit. 

Again...who said, "Yeah, we've made a good one.  Unleash it on the public."

George Clooney said it. 

Also. Wife out of town. Kids occupied. The best you can come up with is going to a movie?  I want to party with you, cowboy.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on November 06, 2017, 06:12:42 PM
Suburbicon

Took off today. The wifey is out of town. Took my balls with her.  Kid is in school.  I think I'll check out a movie.  I had seen the previews to this one several times and thought it looked at least minimally entertaining.  I walked out at exactly the 40 minute mark. Only the second time in my life I've walked out in the middle of a movie.

Who in the blazing, blue-ball fuck thought this would be....well....good?  I don't know what to say? Set in the 60's.  Suburbicon is the quintessential all-white town.  Cookie-cutter houses, 15X15 lawns etc.  It starts with a black family moving in.  The neighbors don't like it.  They complain.  They keep showing the black mother and her son out in the yard and people staring at them.  And that, my friends, is as far as they developed that story line in 40 minutes.

Matt Damon lives next door with his wife, her sister (Because wife is paralyzed) and their son.  A couple of thugs break in wind up killing the wife.  Damon and sister start fucking. And that, my friends, is as far as they developed that story line in 40 minutes.

That would be the sum total of what happened in 40 minutes of Suburbicon.  I don't care if at the 41 minute mark, it turned into an all out orgy in the neighborhood, Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared and started banging the black chick on a Harley while chasing the Predator alien through the countryside and Jennifer Lawrence also appeared and suddenly could act. I would rather watch Bama/Mississppi State highlights from 2005-2008 than spend another minute with this piece of shit. 

Again...who said, "Yeah, we've made a good one.  Unleash it on the public."

If you were paying attention...and doesn't look that way...there were articles out last week on the stink bomb it did in the box office.

You should have entertained yourself with Thor you would have been less gay for it.  I suppose.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 06, 2017, 06:30:28 PM
If you were paying attention...and doesn't look that way...there were articles out last week on the stink bomb it did in the box office.

You should have entertained yourself with Thor you would have been less gay for it.  I suppose.

You may be somewhat correct.  In all seriousness, I'm very hesitant about reading any movie reviews.  Movies, like music, are subjective.  It's all about personal taste. And it really doesn't take much to entertain me.  I readily admit that.  I'll probably go see Daddy's Home 2.  I enjoyed the first one.  Just slapstick, Will Ferrell brainless comedy. I'm good with that.

Predator is my favorite all-time movie.  Seriously bad dudes blowing shit up and making dude jokes and wise-cracks while being stalked by a badder-ass alien.  Jeez you got a big pussy.  Jeez you got a big pussy. Why'd you say it twice?  I didn't.

Come on, you can't top that.

I wasn't looking for much here.  Just keep me interested and entertained.  Holy fuck, I've never seen anything that bad.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 06, 2017, 07:05:14 PM
You may be somewhat correct.  In all seriousness, I'm very hesitant about reading any movie reviews.  Movies, like music, are subjective.  It's all about personal taste. And it really doesn't take much to entertain me.  I readily admit that.  I'll probably go see Daddy's Home 2.  I enjoyed the first one.  Just slapstick, Will Ferrell brainless comedy. I'm good with that.

Predator is my favorite all-time movie.  Seriously bad dudes blowing shit up and making dude jokes and wise-cracks while being stalked by a badder-ass alien.  Jeez you got a big pussy.  Jeez you got a big pussy. Why'd you say it twice?  I didn't.

Come on, you can't top that.

I wasn't looking for much here.  Just keep me interested and entertained.  Holy fuck, I've never seen anything that bad.   

I promise you.  Boo 2 is worse.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on November 06, 2017, 09:35:17 PM
Suburbicon

Took off today. The wifey is out of town. Took my balls with her.  Kid is in school.  I think I'll check out a movie.  I had seen the previews to this one several times and thought it looked at least minimally entertaining.  I walked out at exactly the 40 minute mark. Only the second time in my life I've walked out in the middle of a movie.

Who in the blazing, blue-ball fuck thought this would be....well....good?  I don't know what to say? Set in the 60's.  Suburbicon is the quintessential all-white town.  Cookie-cutter houses, 15X15 lawns etc.  It starts with a black family moving in.  The neighbors don't like it.  They complain.  They keep showing the black mother and her son out in the yard and people staring at them.  And that, my friends, is as far as they developed that story line in 40 minutes.

Matt Damon lives next door with his wife, her sister (Because wife is paralyzed) and their son.  A couple of thugs break in wind up killing the wife.  Damon and sister start fucking. And that, my friends, is as far as they developed that story line in 40 minutes.

That would be the sum total of what happened in 40 minutes of Suburbicon.  I don't care if at the 41 minute mark, it turned into an all out orgy in the neighborhood, Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared and started banging the black chick on a Harley while chasing the Predator alien through the countryside and Jennifer Lawrence also appeared and suddenly could act. I would rather watch Bama/Mississppi State highlights from 2005-2008 than spend another minute with this piece of shit. 

Again...who said, "Yeah, we've made a good one.  Unleash it on the public."

Can you judge a Coen script in 40 mins?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 06, 2017, 09:40:56 PM
Can you judge a Coen script in 40 mins?

That was almost half the movie.  Please, go see it, then come back and post.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on November 06, 2017, 10:24:23 PM
That was almost half the movie.  Please, go see it, then come back and post.

I'll watch it at my buddy, Vlad's, house and report back.  Rubles in pocket.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on November 07, 2017, 12:01:51 AM
If you were paying attention...and doesn't look that way...there were articles out last week on the stink bomb it did in the box office.

You should have entertained yourself with Thor you would have been less gay for it.  I suppose.


Thor was a fun movie.
Several characters missing in this one though. I guess the budget was lower.
Now that the local movie house has reclining cushioned seats and assigned seats, I don't mind as much.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 07, 2017, 07:36:32 AM
I'll watch it at my buddy, Vlad's, house and report back.  Rubles in pocket.

MAGA hat on head.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 09, 2017, 01:22:35 PM
Donnie Darko

Ummm.  Well.  Uhhhh.

Wait.... what?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on November 09, 2017, 09:39:18 PM
Thor Ragnarok

They've amped up the camp and silliness and it makes for a fun fucking movie.

Funny cameo in the theater scene.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 09, 2017, 10:37:59 PM
Live By Night

Ben Affleck’s ode to the gangster epic. 

Holy shit this is bad.  It’s drab, flat, lifeless, plodding. Affleck as the lead is completely bland and ineffective. Affleck the director is ham fisted. The lines are cliched and delivered in cringing fashion.

What a waste of Brendan Gleeson, Zoe Saldana, Chris Cooper and the rest.

I gave up and turned this turkey off.  It’s Boo2 bad.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 13, 2017, 12:27:05 PM
Better Watch Out

Billed as a fun little Christmas home invasion movie where the trailer led you to believe the kids and their babysitter might run a modified Home Alone game on some intruders. 

The trailer was misleading.  It didn't really play out like that at all. 

The movie was interesting, pretty well acted and had a touch of violently sick humor.  It wasn't really a "Christmas" horror, per se.  The Christmas aspect was really only tangentially connected to the film in any way whatsoever.  It could have been Easter, Halloween, Fourth of July or Guy Fawkes Day.  "Christmas" played a part only in how the set was decorated. 

It comes out of Australia, most of the players were relatively unknown (and Australian) so it missed just a touch in translation, but was still fairly entertaining.

Levi Miller did a really good job playing a kid whose parental pampering left him spoiled and just a little too used to getting exactly what he wants.  The joy he took in violence and the whimpering, sniveling brat he became with the tables were briefly turned were well done.

Olivia DeJonge, also Australian and the babysitter, was cute and believable as the intensity of the situation ebbed and flowed.

Ed Oxenbould, who played DeJonge's brother when both were in film The Visit, was the unfortunate nerdy go-along-with-the-plan friend who couldn't find the exit as events spiraled beyond what he anticipated. 

A good story, probably aimed more for 15-18 year olds than for me, but I can still appreciate the effort put into the production and the way the actors handled their respective parts. 

It's not a cinematic masterpiece, but it was a cheap and easy romp with a couple of twists and turns you'll probably see coming.  Or maybe not.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 07, 2017, 04:12:33 PM
Godfather I & II

I've probably watched these movies 30 times.  Every single time I figure out something I didn't know before.

In my mind they are the two best films of all time.  Every single frame, every shot, every line are all perfect. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on December 12, 2017, 03:04:41 PM
Godfather I & II

I've probably watched these movies 30 times.  Every single time I figure out something I didn't know before.

In my mind they are the two best films of all time.  Every single frame, every shot, every line are all perfect.

interested to know what you figured out this last time. 

i have a feeling Wes will tell us these movies are overrated. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 12, 2017, 03:33:47 PM
interested to know what you figured out this last time. 

i have a feeling Wes will tell us these movies are overrated.

Shit.  I don't remember now.  It was something to do with Frank Pentangeli.  I always have a hard time understanding him. 

I've always debated what bringing his brother to the trial meant.  I go back and forth on it.  Was it a threat that Michael would harm him if Frank testified?  Or was it his brother shaming Frank into backing out of ratting because it would bring shame to the family? 

There are always little things that I catch, though.  It's just so well structured and told so well.  I don't see how you could possibly watch the film once and have any real idea what was actually going on. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on December 12, 2017, 04:08:47 PM
Shit.  I don't remember now.  It was something to do with Frank Pentangeli.  I always have a hard time understanding him. 

I've always debated what bringing his brother to the trial meant.  I go back and forth on it.  Was it a threat that Michael would harm him if Frank testified?  Or was it his brother shaming Frank into backing out of ratting because it would bring shame to the family? 

There are always little things that I catch, though.  It's just so well structured and told so well.  I don't see how you could possibly watch the film once and have any real idea what was actually going on.

I agree...I've watched this as many time as you have.

I finally found the closed caption isn't only for the deaf...keeps me from hitting the back button.

As far as the brother coming to the hearing...I think both your thoughts correlate with each other.   The brother is old school Sicilian mafia.  You don't go against the "family".  I'm not so sure Michael would have hurt Frank as much as hurting Frank's relatives. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on December 14, 2017, 08:23:55 AM
Brother shaming is wrong, don't make me lock this thread
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on December 15, 2017, 02:17:13 PM
The Last Jedi

It's OK, I guess.  Better than Force Awakens.  Not really a fan of what they have done with Luke, Leia, and Han in this new trilogy.  Middle part of the movie is pointless and boring.

 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 15, 2017, 09:53:26 PM
The Last Jedi

It's OK, I guess.  Better than Force Awakens.  Not really a fan of what they have done with Luke, Leia, and Han in this new trilogy.  Middle part of the movie is pointless and boring.

 

I enjoyed the shit out of it.

Diff'rent strokes, I guess.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on December 16, 2017, 01:30:45 AM
I enjoyed the shoot out of it.

Diff'rent strokes, I guess.

I really think if they had made this trilogy 100 years in the future from the end of Jedi, I'd like it a lot more.  I just can't get over that when I watch the end of Return, I see the heroes at the end, and I know that one will be a shitty father, and leave his kid, one will be a shitty instructor, and run and be a hermit on some island, and the other will be so shitty at her job, that the organization she devoted her life to fighting comes back bigger and badder.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 16, 2017, 08:08:43 AM
I really think if they had made this trilogy 100 years in the future from the end of Jedi, I'd like it a lot more.  I just can't get over that when I watch the end of Return, I see the heroes at the end, and I know that one will be a shitty father, and leave his kid, one will be a shitty instructor, and run and be a hermit on some island, and the other will be so shitty at her job, that the organization she devoted her life to fighting comes back bigger and badder.

Those damned strokes again.  I think they've done a pretty masterful job of tying the old and new together.  It brought in the old fans and is creating a new generation of Star Wars geeks.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on December 16, 2017, 09:48:51 AM
Those damned strokes again.  I think they've done a pretty masterful job of tying the old and new together.  It brought in the old fans and is creating a new generation of Star Wars geeks.

Yep. At least we can agree on Fuck Bama and UGA.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 16, 2017, 09:49:20 AM
Yep. At least we can agree on Fuck Bama and UGA.

Indeed, sir.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 16, 2017, 10:16:53 AM
The Arrival

Words can't express how right Wes is about this movie. Jesus Christ, I'd rather spend the 2 hours hitting refresh on the sga board than watch this piece of shoot again.
Just saw this.

Thought the first 80 mins or so was good. It was rolling along in a nice linear fashion. Then it just goes off the rails with the past, the present and the future, with the random and complicated flashbacks and premonitions and that being the basis for the whole purpose of the aliens visit. It just got weird.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 17, 2017, 12:26:18 AM
A few more thoughts on TLJ:

SPOILERS:

I'm glad we got the question of Rey's parentage resolved.  I like the "reveal," as it shows the Universe to be a bit more egalitarian than previously portrayed.  You don't have to be born of the Skywalker lineage to get the biggest, baddest Jedi balls around.

I have turned a 180 on Kylo Ren.  I thought he was a bit too tortured and overwrought in TFA, but I think he nailed the conflict this go 'round.  I was, by turns, convinced that he'd turn away from the Dark Side and that he'd murder-kill everyone in arm's reach.

I really loved the casino scene for all the extra dimension it added to the Star Wars universe.  Heretofore, these movies have featured a binary struggle: you're either with the Empire or the Rebellion.  There was a brief interlude where Lando introduced us to the possibility that business might motivate an actor more than ideology, but his selling out was necessitated by his running afoul of the Empire with his business affiliations.  He was forced to pick a side.

The casino folk are different because they are the working elite; the apolitical profiteers of war.  Benicio Del Toro's character reminds us that there are those who don't give a shit which way the war goes, as long as the money train keeps rolling.  The arms dealers sell to both sides and Benicio steals from both sides...it's a big step back from the close-up light saber battles and interstellar dog fights to remind us that politics are personal and as long as these rich fuckers can vomit on their slot machines in peace they don't give a shit about either Empire or Rebellion.

The Porgs didn't put me in a diabetic coma as I'd feared.  I enjoyed their contribution to the movie, mostly.  The ice foxes were also a fun addition.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on January 01, 2018, 10:42:09 PM
The Last Jedi...sucked monkey balls.

Tie in with the new and old ...pfft.  Clunky, no compassion or animosity.  Tofu Yoda’s cameo was not like any other appearance...no cheering or ohs and ahs from the audience.

This movie continues Hollywood’s fear of heroic masculinity. 

Honestly, this is a franchise that should have never gone beyond the original trilogy. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 02, 2018, 12:11:37 AM
Blood Widow

Filmed on somebody's iPhone I think.  I've seen better acting in a sixth-grade performance of Harvey.  Tried to be different with an unexpected ending. Failed because nobody cared. 

I don't mind low budget films.  I don't think it's unreasonable regardless of budget to have some continuity. 

For example:

1) Girl has fresh blood all over her legs and crawls through sand.  None of it sticks to the blood.
2) Girl is dragged from the room by her hair. Barefoot, kicking and screaming. A few minutes later she kicks out a grate.  And has shoes on.
3) Girl is tied up -- hands in front -- and manages to escape. At no point does she bother to remove her gag.
4) Guys are talking about what to do next in the face of a possible massacre.  During the discussion, it is light outside. They go on the porch and it's pitch black. Then they cross the street and it's noon-time bright again. 

A mug full of dumb in this one. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 02, 2018, 06:37:25 PM
Blood Widow

Filmed on somebody's iPhone I think.  I've seen better acting in a sixth-grade performance of Harvey.  Tried to be different with an unexpected ending. Failed because nobody cared. 

I don't mind low budget films.  I don't think it's unreasonable regardless of budget to have some continuity. 

For example:

1) Girl has fresh blood all over her legs and crawls through sand.  None of it sticks to the blood.
2) Girl is dragged from the room by her hair. Barefoot, kicking and screaming. A few minutes later she kicks out a grate.  And has shoes on.
3) Girl is tied up -- hands in front -- and manages to escape. At no point does she bother to remove her gag.
4) Guys are talking about what to do next in the face of a possible massacre.  During the discussion, it is light outside. They go on the porch and it's pitch black. Then they cross the street and it's noon-time bright again. 

A mug full of dumb in this one.

What's wrong with Harvey? He's awesome on family feud and a likeable guy.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 04, 2018, 03:17:44 AM
Little Evil
What if you found the woman of your dreams, but her child just might be the anti-christ? 

That's the premise of this fair little movie from Netflix.  Stars Adam Scott, Evangeline Lily,  Clancy Brown, a dude from Scrubs and a few other B-level comedy guys. 

It's not great, but it is an amusing little movie.  The water park and ice cream store scenes are pretty well done.

It's worth a watch when you're bored.

Another Evil
Nothing like Little Evil.

Guy has ghosts.  Hires goofy and possibly unhinged ghost hunter to remove the spirits.  Alleged hilarity ensues.  There are a couple of good scenes, but they're wasted in meandering unspooled plot threads and a stupid ending that brought nothing to the film. 

The problem here is that it builds and builds and builds (sort of)... no... actually it drags and shuffles and stumbles toward some hopeful big reveal, twist or something.  But nothing ever really happens.  It's awkward. It's occasionally uncomfortable. But that's about it.

The demon hunter guy had a completely unremarkable turn as Nate on The Office back in the final season. You'll recognize his face from other stuff.  He tries here, but the material is just so shoddy he can't do anything much with it.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 07, 2018, 03:39:13 AM
American Assassin

I had such high hopes for this movie.  I really like the late Vince Flynn's series of novels about Mitch Rapp.  They're not epic prose, but considering Flynn's background they're pretty good. Usually well structured, a decent story that's easy enough to follow.  Yeah, some of the situations from which Rapp escapes are ridiculous and sometimes there's a dearth of character development and occasionally the coincidences are just too much, but still Rapp makes for a fairly compelling character and one I've enjoyed reading about.

The film American Assassin takes the Rapp origin story (which was pieced together from a number of the books until the novel AA itself was finally written by Flynn in about 2010 -- and was actually the eleventh book in the series) and tries to bring it to life on the screen. 

Oh, how they ruined this.  The casting was abysmal and the film could not overcome it. They also altered the origin story enough to destroy that.  And finally, Taylor Kitsch proves once again that if he's in a movie it's going to suck dirty balls.  The guy is a destroyer of worlds.  He's the worst.

Let's deal with the casting. 

Mitch Rapp is supposed to be the ultimate badass.  An All American athlete in like lacrosse or something. He's big, strong as an ox and super intelligent.

Dylan O'Brien is an emo worm.  He did not have the physical or charismatic weight to carry the part in any way, shape or form.  Casting him was a total whiff and one of the poorest choices I can remember.

Rapp's training mentor Stan Hurley is a small, grizzled hard ass man. They cast Michael Keaton who tried really hard but just couldn't make it work.  Is there anybody out there who truly believes Keaton as a stone killer who can break a man with one hand? 

Rapp's biggest supporter in CIA where he does contract work is Irene Kennedy.  She's stylish, smart and intense.  They cast Sanaa Lathan.  Another horrible choice.  She delivered her lines with all the authenticity of Pee Wee Herman playing the Secretary of Defense.  She was just awful.  In no way believable.

And then there was Kitsch who has all the screen presence of a block of wood as the "big bad."  Worthless.

Throw in a muddled storyline full of plutonium mumbo jumbo, some ridiculous plot devices and a bunch of other wasted garbage and that's the movie you have. 

No thanks.  It was a disgrace to the books that spawned it.  Changing the basics of the incident that turned Rapp from a regular college student into a globe-roaming killing machine was a foolish decision and very badly managed.  Everything about the movie was just a major letdown. It dragged where it should have sped up the pace.  It rushed through things that should have been further examined.  It was just a bust in every conceivable manner.

If they're going to continue with the Rapp series I hope they completely recast it. 

Here's how it should go really:

Mitch Rapp: Maybe Miles Teller or Kit Harrington or Aaron Taylor Johnson
Stan Hurley:  Ed Harris
Irene Kennedy: Maybe Thandie Newton

Words cannot convey my profound sense of disappointment with this movie. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: WiregrassTiger on January 07, 2018, 09:20:06 AM
Don’t forget to call me about giving me the Auburn gear.

I wear petite but can have altered.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 08, 2018, 11:47:04 AM
The Disaster Artist

I had no idea what this was about going in.  I think it's better that way in hindsight.  The movie is the (mostly true) tale of the making of the world's worst movie.  The film was adapted from a book authored by the co-star and best friend of the producer/star, Tommy Wiseau.

Going in, I thought it was a joke movie made by the Franco brothers (with assists from their Hollywood friends: Seth Rogen, Paul Scheer and his wife June, Judd Apatow and others).  Then Franco hits the screen with his ridiculous hair and accent and I am convinced that I'm watching at best a Hollywood inside joke or at worst a deliberate attempt to make a horrible movie a la Sandler's Jack and Jill.

Long story short: Wiseau is a curious figure about whom very little is known.  He makes friends with a guy from his acting class, Greg (the co-author of the book), and they move to Hollywood to pursue their shared dream of stardom.  Failing to catch a break, Greg wistfully wishes that they could just make their own movie.  Tommy ponies up the cash (estimated to run in excess of $6M) to produce a script he self-authors and casts himself and Greg as the leads.

The production is, naturally, a fiasco and the film premieres to a packed house who laugh riotously at Tommy's very serious production (the movie is about a love triangle and the betrayal of Tommy's character.)  The movie grossed $1800 during its two week run (Tommy paid to run the movie in one theater for two weeks to qualify for Academy consideration) and disappeared into the annals of film history.  Except that it has become a cult-classic with a rabid audience.  Tommy hosts midnight screenings, signs autographs and generally relishes the star-role he envisioned for himself even if his route there was more circuitous than he dreamed.

Ultimately, no one but Tommy (despite repeated attempts to suss out the truth) knows where he's from, how old he is or how he financed his movie.

Watch the split screen moments at the end when the current cast's performances are laid alongside the original footage.  During the Disaster Artist I was convinced that Franco was deliberately laying an acting egg...until I saw the original scenes with Tommy.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on January 08, 2018, 12:03:54 PM
The Disaster Artist

I had no idea what this was about going in.

You need to go watch The Room and report back. Shame you haven't exposed yourself to that.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 08, 2018, 12:24:47 PM
You need to go watch The Room and report back. Shame you haven't exposed yourself to that.

It's on the list.  Though, to be honest, after seeing the actual "You're tearing me apart, Lisa!" scene, I'm not in a giant rush to track this down.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: WiregrassTiger on January 08, 2018, 12:33:19 PM
You need to go watch The Room and report back. Shame you haven't exposed yourself to that.
As far as we know, he only exposes himself to men that are over 18.

We don’t always agree but he’s no pedo. I don’t think. Well, I’m not sure at all but he’s probably not.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on January 08, 2018, 01:12:16 PM
It's on the list.  Though, to be honest, after seeing the actual "You're tearing me apart, Lisa!" scene, I'm not in a giant rush to track this down.

If you want to see something beyond explanation, look up a flick called After Last Season. Budget: $5 million. Box Office: $24 dollars as best I can find. It's amazingly bad.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 08, 2018, 01:18:44 PM
It's on the list.  Though, to be honest, after seeing the actual "You're tearing me apart, Lisa!" scene, I'm not in a giant rush to track this down.
Can't believe you have never heard about The Room. Color me disappoint. 

It's is like watching a bad accident, you can't look away.

Honestly, when I first saw it, I thought it was John Travolta in makeup and a wig.

Best Scene Evah!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOWCMuwZVVQ

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 08, 2018, 01:37:20 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQWpA-9kmJQ
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 08, 2018, 06:30:34 PM
Okay, now I have to see The Room.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 08, 2018, 11:49:25 PM
Why Him

I only watched the last half of this.  My problem with the film is that it never really put a foot firmly on either side of the fence. 

Was it a good-hearted film about the trials and tribulations of parents coming to terms with their daughter's inevitable maturation, need to make her own choices and the unenviable task of a father to "swallow the whistle" and learn to respect her decisions?  It wanted to be, but it was too profane and far too often went for the cheap gag.

Was it a rowdy multi-generational romp through the tortured relationships that define a family -- whether it be a work family or the one you create with your wife and kids?  Nope.  Just didn't stretch the edges enough to make the cut there. 

This lack of commitment shackled the movie into a middle ground of muddled nothingness. In doing so it also whiffed at finding an audience. 

You add that to the horrible casting of James Franco -- why in the hell does this worthless hack have a career -- and you have a movie that stumbles on and off the screen leaving little for which to remember it. 

The only redeeming feature of this film is the numerous references to KISS. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 10, 2018, 11:18:20 PM
Before I Wake
This is one of those movies that slipped through the cracks.  i remember the trailer coming out several years ago.  Good cast including Thomas Jane, Kate Bosworth, Annabeth Gish and the cutest little guy (Jacob Tremblay). A pretty intriguing premise.   Kid dreams things to life but not all of them are good.  When a couple that lost their only son in an accident adopts him all their lives change.

Story turned out to be pretty good. His good dreams bring surprises including bright butterflies and visions into the past. In his nightmares the Kanker Man eats the people he cares about.  He lives in fear of sleeping lest the Kanker Man come into being.

The way it was all tied together at the end put the pieces of the puzzle into place in a way I didn't completely see coming.

Like all movies, there were a couple of things that just didn't make sense including a lack of empathy at the end on the part of the new mom, the ease with which she gained access to asylum patients and a few other oddities but overall it didn't stray too far into the absurd and improbable.

It was well shot, fairly well acted (Tremblay is an adorable kid and a pretty good little actor).  The production values are quality.  It's obvious this is a major studio production and a lot of effort was put into how it looked.

But it never made theaters. I wondered why I never saw it come out despite the trailers that had sparked my interest.  After watching it tonight I did some checking.  When the film wrapped, the distribution company went under.  The movie was completed in 2014 with the title Somnia.  It was changed to Before I Wake prior to its release.  Several release dates were scheduled, but none ever happened.  Netfilx got the rights in April and released the film for the first time in the US on the 5th.   

During the release drama, the director moved on and did other things like Oculus and Hush.  Neither were as good as this film.

In an interesting side note (and something I did not know) the movie was filmed in Fairhope with some of the pieces also done in Mobile.  If you look closely at the paperwork during part of the film you'll see numerous references to Alabama.  That just makes it better.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 11, 2018, 09:07:32 AM
Before I Wake
This is one of those movies that slipped through the cracks.  i remember the trailer coming out several years ago.  Good cast including Thomas Jane, Kate Bosworth, Annabeth Gish and the cutest little guy (Jacob Tremblay). A pretty intriguing premise.   Kid dreams things to life but not all of them are good.  When a couple that lost their only son in an accident adopts him all their lives change.

Story turned out to be pretty good. His good dreams bring surprises including bright butterflies and visions into the past. In his nightmares the Kanker Man eats the people he cares about.  He lives in fear of sleeping lest the Kanker Man come into being.

The way it was all tied together at the end put the pieces of the puzzle into place in a way I didn't completely see coming.

Like all movies, there were a couple of things that just didn't make sense including a lack of empathy at the end on the part of the new mom, the ease with which she gained access to asylum patients and a few other oddities but overall it didn't stray too far into the absurd and improbable.

It was well shot, fairly well acted (Tremblay is an adorable kid and a pretty good little actor).  The production values are quality.  It's obvious this is a major studio production and a lot of effort was put into how it looked.

But it never made theaters. I wondered why I never saw it come out despite the trailers that had sparked my interest.  After watching it tonight I did some checking.  When the film wrapped, the distribution company went under.  The movie was completed in 2014 with the title Somnia.  It was changed to Before I Wake prior to its release.  Several release dates were scheduled, but none ever happened.  Netfilx got the rights in April and released the film for the first time in the US on the 5th.   

During the release drama, the director moved on and did other things like Oculus and Hush.  Neither were as good as this film.

In an interesting side note (and something I did not know) the movie was filmed in Fairhope with some of the pieces also done in Mobile.  If you look closely at the paperwork during part of the film you'll see numerous references to Alabama.  That just makes it better.

Saw this last night as well.

And have about the same opinion. Seemed well done but did find myself confused at times during the movie and at the end. Which I usually am not during these types. They wrapped it up well at the end with the birth mother and "his gift" but I still had questions. More logical questions than anything.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 20, 2018, 01:28:58 AM
The Girl on the Train

In the middle of watching it. I'm really confused by this movie.  I don't think I like it at all.  The problem is that I just don't care about the characters.  I also don't like the constantly shifting timelines. It makes an already hard to follow movie essentially impossible to keep straight.

Emily Blunt is trying really hard with her no makeup, disheveled attempt to look constantly drunk.  Her character's clearly got mental issues and a sick obsession with a concept of "love" that doesn't truly exist. Taken in by the fairy tale as it were. She's struggling with betrayal and coping badly.  I get that. Even when whatever you might once have had is gone, being betrayed in the way she was is psychologically crippling.

My distaste for all the characters in this movie, though, is overriding whatever strength her performance might have.

I don't like the sad little tramp. I don't like the cheater who's with the ex husband. I don't like the ex husband. I don't like the sad little tramp's husband.  Every character in this movie is awful. 

At this point there's still about 30 minutes left.  I'm sure there's some twisty ending coming.  Truth is, I really don't care what it turns out to be.  And I don't want to watch anybody else having unrealistic or bored sex.

Epilogue:
Okay, I finished it.  Big surprise - (that's sarcasm).  Twist was pretty obvious. So obvious, in fact, that it was almost a surprise because it was such an obvious, lazy choice.

The problem with this movie in large part is that the intrigue/suspense is not in really actually caring what happened but is created by an awful storytelling methodology that bounces around in time so much that what happened is almost lost. The actuality of what happened is also stupid.  What was done (and I'm not going to spoil it) was really, really stupid.  People don't leave witnesses.

Had the story been told in some semblance of chronological order, there wouldn't have been any suspense or intrigue at all really.  None of it would have mattered.  When the way a story is told has more to do with its impact than the story itself, you've got a bad story. 

This was like Shitty Shades of Slightly Grey or something.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on January 20, 2018, 02:13:37 AM
Forever My Girl


Hallmark movie your wife forces you to spend money on!



Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on January 20, 2018, 10:59:30 AM
Forever My Girl


Hallmark movie your wife forces you to spend money on!

So much for being an Alpha male.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: WiregrassTiger on January 20, 2018, 11:14:17 AM
Forever My Girl


Hallmark movie your wife forces you to spend money on!
Great review.

I can tell K has been a big influence on your writing.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 20, 2018, 12:43:25 PM
Forever My Girl


Hallmark movie your wife forces you to spend money on!

Uh huh.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 20, 2018, 11:04:20 PM
The Vault

James Franco is a terrible actor.  Good thing that he wasn't much in this movie except for having his billing above the title.  Sadly enough he was one of the better things in the film.

Basic plot:

Group of bank robbers with motives that are hinted at but never fully explained get entangled with spiritual remnants a decades old bank robbery gone massacre.

REALLY bad script plagued with numerous pointless rabbit holes.  It didn't spend enough time on the robbery proper (nod to Raising Arizona) to be a good heist movie and it didn't given enough resonance to the horror aspect to achieve anything there. 

It wasn't bad, it was just immediately forgettable. Didn't really hit any of the marks at which it aimed.

Couple of tidbits.

Featured Francesca Eastwood (Clint's daughter) as the lead bank robber. She was fair at best.  Also had a big role for Orange Is The New Black's Taryn Manning, proving that her career begins and ends in Orange. She was gratingly terrible here. Also had a minor wasted role for Clifton Collins, Jr. who you'll know but likely won't be able to remember from where.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 22, 2018, 09:02:22 AM
Unleashed

Silly little movie, the cinematic equivalent of a funnel cake. But it wasn't bad. 

Stars Kate Micucci as a quirky nerdy loner loser whose pets become human and help her find her place in the world.  Lots of other people you'll recognize including one of the Lords of the Rings people and the Asian from Pitch Perfect.  There's also a brief sighting of Cissy from A Family Affair (for those of you old enough to know who that is).

It's not a perfect movie. There are some big plot holes and it requires some serious suspension of logic. A dog innately knows how to ride a bike?

Kate is so ugly and awkward she's cute.  She can't carry the film, but she doesn't have to.  Justin Chatwin, probably best known for Shameless or Orphan Black attacks the role of Ajax the cat with unleashed (unleashed, get it?) abandon and no self consciousness.  He and Steve Howey (Sons of Anarchy and also Shameless) as the dog Summit/Sam give the movie enough to make it enjoyable. 

It's not high comedy, it's not going to win any awards.  It's not going to change your life. It's just a weird little movie that ends up being a pleasant waste of 90 minutes. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: bottomfeeder on January 22, 2018, 07:42:25 PM
GET OUT

Not sure if this film has been reviewed, but I watched it last night and it's definitely a must-see.

Jordan Peele has a bright future in writing and directing films.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRfnevzM9kQ
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 22, 2018, 07:56:44 PM
GET OUT

Not sure if this film has been reviewed, but I watched it last night and it's definitely a must-see.

Jordan Peele has a bright future in writing and directing films.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRfnevzM9kQ

A little birdie, not Buzz' dick, told me K met Mr. Peele during or around the filming.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 22, 2018, 08:35:26 PM
A little birdie, not Buzz' dick, told me K met Mr. Peele during or around the filming.

I heard that rumor.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 22, 2018, 08:47:18 PM
I heard that rumor.

Someone from the Auburn or Phenix City area sent me a pic.  Can't recall who.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 22, 2018, 09:30:06 PM
Someone from the Auburn or Phenix City area sent me a pic.  Can't recall who.

Kaos has skreet cred now.

But is the movie good? Would he dare give it a bad review ?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 22, 2018, 09:51:01 PM
Kaos has skreet cred now.

But is the movie good? Would he dare give it a bad review ?

See Page 117.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 23, 2018, 07:58:08 AM
See Page 117.

Here you go bottomfeeder:

Quote
Get Out

Went to see this primarily because a) it was written and directed by someone I have seen in person and b) it was filmed in Fairhope so I was interested to see if I recognized anything.

First Fairhope.  99.74% of the movie takes place at one house. It could have been anywhere. So zero Fairhope flavor.  That was a disappointment.

The rest of the movie was well done.

The dynamic between the black boyfriend and the white bread daughter wasn't entirely convincing but that may have been purposeful. There was less humor than I expected given that jordan peele wrote and directed.

The movie can't really be classified as horror given that any horror aspects didn't really begin until the last 15 minutes or so.  Instead it was a slow burn of "what's wrong with this picture" until Peele put all the pieces together in the short (in comparison) final act. 

A little slow in places. And some small things that bothered me which I can't discuss without revealing too much. 

Still a quality effort for a first time writer/director known primarily for dumb football names. 

Worth a look.  Don't know if it's theater worthy though.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 25, 2018, 10:41:13 PM
The Open House

One of the weirdest things ever.  I had just watched a murder show (one of those killers on ID things) about this guy who researched houses for sale, went to them without an appointment and when he ran across one with a woman at home alone he'd use some story about passing through town, only had one day, was going to pay cash and weasel his way inside. He'd always try to pick rainy days so they'd be more likely to let him in. Then during the tour of the home, he'd murderize the owner and then leave.  He was traveling four or five hundred miles from home to hunt and would have probably gone on for years, but in one of the houses where he killed a woman, she fell on the towel he'd used to dry off a little and he left it there. 

Then I watched this movie, a Netflix original.  It wasn't the same, but it sort of was. 

Basic concept of the film? Mom and son grieving the accidental death of the dad are house-sitting at a home for sale.  There are open houses. They don't end well. 

The film featured Dylan Minette as the son and some woman named Piercy Dalton as the mom.  Minette is a pretty good actor and did a decent enough job in his role.  Dalton was in desperate need of some makeup -- even though the lack of it conveyed the grief and weariness of the mourning period -- and there was a completely unnecessary shot of her unremarkable showering butt.  She didn't bring as much to the film as she could have.

It was a Netflix movie so it had its flaws.  One of the things that frustrates me the most about movies is continuity and this one suffered badly from failures to maintain it.  For instance it's pitch black when they run into their next door neighbor at a store.  Moments later when they pull up to the door, it's at least two hours later (judging by the level of sunlight).  This one had several other gaps like that, and there were quite a few rabbit holes that seemed to just be filler.  Even the death of the dad seemed superfluous and irrelevant. Could have given a thousand reasons for them to be there without adding that weak emotional hook.

It took its time getting to the truth, dropping possible clues along the way.  Then it left all those clues behind and offered a denouement that provided more questions than answers.  In doing so it turned some of the behavorial clues into tattering rags, flapping in the breeze. 

It wasn't bad, but failing to let the natural progression of learning about the house, neighborhood and residents bear the fruit it could/should have left me flat.  It was a really strange turn of the usual 'things aren't as they seem' trope. 

And it sort of gave me pause coming on the heels of watching a real-life murderer that exhibited some of the same characteristics.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 26, 2018, 07:50:51 AM
The Open House

One of the weirdest things ever.  I had just watched a murder show (one of those killers on ID things) about this guy who researched houses for sale, went to them without an appointment and when he ran across one with a woman at home alone he'd use some story about passing through town, only had one day, was going to pay cash and weasel his way inside. He'd always try to pick rainy days so they'd be more likely to let him in. Then during the tour of the home, he'd murderize the owner and then leave.  He was traveling four or five hundred miles from home to hunt and would have probably gone on for years, but in one of the houses where he killed a woman, she fell on the towel he'd used to dry off a little and he left it there. 

Then I watched this movie, a Netflix original.  It wasn't the same, but it sort of was. 

Basic concept of the film? Mom and son grieving the accidental death of the dad are house-sitting at a home for sale.  There are open houses. They don't end well. 

The film featured Dylan Minette as the son and some woman named Piercy Dalton as the mom.  Minette is a pretty good actor and did a decent enough job in his role.  Dalton was in desperate need of some makeup -- even though the lack of it conveyed the grief and weariness of the mourning period -- and there was a completely unnecessary shot of her unremarkable showering butt.  She didn't bring as much to the film as she could have.

It was a Netflix movie so it had its flaws.  One of the things that frustrates me the most about movies is continuity and this one suffered badly from failures to maintain it.  For instance it's pitch black when they run into their next door neighbor at a store.  Moments later when they pull up to the door, it's at least two hours later (judging by the level of sunlight).  This one had several other gaps like that, and there were quite a few rabbit holes that seemed to just be filler.  Even the death of the dad seemed superfluous and irrelevant. Could have given a thousand reasons for them to be there without adding that weak emotional hook.

It took its time getting to the truth, dropping possible clues along the way.  Then it left all those clues behind and offered a denouement that provided more questions than answers.  In doing so it turned some of the behavorial clues into tattering rags, flapping in the breeze. 

It wasn't bad, but failing to let the natural progression of learning about the house, neighborhood and residents bear the fruit it could/should have left me flat.  It was a really strange turn of the usual 'things aren't as they seem' trope. 

And it sort of gave me pause coming on the heels of watching a real-life murderer that exhibited some of the same characteristics.

Good take.

It had me into it until the ending which left me a bit deflated. Still not bad. I think the rabbit holes were all there by design though. The neighbor, the black guy, the dad. It was their own paranoia.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 27, 2018, 12:15:54 AM
68 Kill

Matthew Goose Gobbler from CSI, NCSI, or one of those shows in an unhinged movie that focuses on the lengths a man will go in pursuit of that golden snatch. 

Gobbler is hooked up with a bitch who's got a little bit of a mean streak and a whole lot of crazy.  We've all known them.  She uses her powers to convince him to go along with a harmless little scheme that quickly goes awry. 

She's certifiably nuts, so is her family and so is pretty much everybody else they run across in the aftermath of the botched and bloody scheme. 

There's almost enough goofy and violent gore to satisfy Quentin Tarrantino. 

Not something I'd necessarily recommend unless you're invested in watching almost gleeful and violent insanity.

It's the cinematic equivalent of spending a couple of hours at a really trashy strip club.  Like Wesley's Boobie Trap . 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: bgreene on January 29, 2018, 05:08:06 PM
Has anyone else seen the movie Mother?  I can say with all honesty that it was the worst movie I have EVER seen in my life.  Nothing, and I mean nothing, made one bit of damn sense. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 29, 2018, 09:51:34 PM
Has anyone else seen the movie Mother?  I can say with all honesty that it was the worst movie I have EVER seen in my life.  Nothing, and I mean nothing, made one bit of damn sense.

I'll see your Mother and raise you one Suburbicon.  The most outrageously horrible film ever made.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: bgreene on January 30, 2018, 08:09:37 AM
I'll see your Mother and raise you one Suburbicon.  The most outrageously horrible film ever made.

I can promise you that Mother is the worst of the two.  2001 Space Odyssey is a better movie
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: WiregrassTiger on January 30, 2018, 09:18:37 AM
Has anyone else seen the movie Mother?  I can say with all honesty that it was the worst movie I have EVER seen in my life.  Nothing, and I mean nothing, made one bit of damn sense.
I have not. But I have called several posters on here a mother. On many occasions.

Mostly Wes and Chizzy. Of course, Token.

Just the ones that it actually applies to.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 03, 2018, 12:09:43 AM
The Snowman

Michael Fassbender plays a drunken Oslo (Norway) detective with a history of drinking in this snow-bound slog.  His character's name is Harry.  Harry Hole.  And that's all you need to know to rate this movie. 

By the time the killer is revealed in this sullen slog through the slush, trust me, you won't give a single snowy damn. 

The premise is so promising.  A serial killer takes someone out on the first heavy snowfall of the year and leaves grim snowmen as his calling card.  The cast is solid including Fassbender, J K Simmons (who is in damn near every movie these days, where does he find the time?), Rebecca Ferguson (who will recover from this debacle), Toby Jones, Chloe Sevigny and a fucked up looking Val Kilmer whose voice didn't even match what was happening on screen (clearly overdubbed and I don't know why).  It was sad to see all that wasted in this god awful whiteout. 

I can forgive a bad movie.  I have a harder time forgiving a movie that obviously put a lot into production only to flub it up this badly.  The herrings that were strewn throughout and, I suppose, put there to keep you guessing were idiotic and pointless.  The Oslo Olympics side story was, again, pointless.  The inclusion of Simmon's character (they all had stupid names like Artne Slovekkos and Deeter Beetlebrosk which made it even harder to follow) was an absolute waste and added nothing to the story at all.  Kilmer's storyline was a dead end, even when his relation to the current situation was curtly broached and then essentially abandoned.

I'm telling you not to watch it, so it doesn't matter if I slightly spoil some of it.  Toward the end, Fassbender comes up behind the killer who has this wire ratchet device around a woman's neck.  Fassbender has a gun.  The guy has a wire that requires him to spin a dial and click it slowly closed.  Fassbender could emptied an entire clip into the guy's face, reloaded and emptied a second clip before he could have done any damage with his pissy little wire.  But what does Fassbender do?  Surrenders the gun. 

The end of the killer is so stupid and nonsensical that it is completely laughable.  Like a really bad joke. 

None of the motivations for any of the characters are clearly explained.   Why is fassbender such a drunk that he sleeps on the sidewalk when he has an apartment?  Who gives a fleeing flap about any of the hideously ugly kids that are sprinkled here and there?  What makes Fassbender's character a good detective? Was it his bleary eyes or his never-changing schlub wardrobe?

This was a bad movie, one of the worst I've seen in a while. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 04, 2018, 12:41:45 AM
Happy Death Day
I didn't expect much from this movie.  I was pleasantly surprised.  Don't get me wrong, it's no cinematic classic, but it does what it does well enough to be entertaining. 

The basic storyline is exactly as the trailers show:  Birthday girl dies every day and then wakes back up where it all began to start the day over again.  Yes.  Groundhog Day but with a murder tossed in.  The movie smartly even references its own ancestor toward the end. 

Along the way this trifling little film offered some deeper observations about how a person might view his own life if given the chance to fix the little mistakes that plague our everyday relationships. 

The central character, played by Jessica Rothe (who will soon star as Julie in the remake of one of my favorite 80s teen movies Valley Girl) does a pretty adequate job of displaying the appropriate emotions as she gradually transitions from self-absorbed sorority whore to a more selfless, honest, real person over the course of the same day on repeat.  It's a pretty neat trick for a character you want to just die early on to bring you around to her side and even move you just a little with some contrived emotional scenes.  Watching her grow from a miserable bitch to a reasonably happy person was well done. 

The movie has a handful of amusing moments and keeps the identity of the true villain under wraps about as long as it possibly can. 

Not a great movie.  Had its flaws.  But it was better than I expected.  I'm glad I watched it.  It's assloads better than The Snowman. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 04, 2018, 10:32:59 PM
The ball-less wonder and a friend of mine had to promise our ladies a movie.  Their pick.  Long story but suffice it to say, we owed them.  And boy did we pay.  Forever My Girl was their choice.  If any of you have been forced into a Nicolas Sparks flick, you get where I'm coming from.  It wasn't a Sparks film but it may as well have been.  Bottom line, it was a Hallmark Christmas movie on steroids.

Mildly entertaining.  Even funny at times.  A couple of moments where you, as a guy, excuse yourself to go to the bathroom so nobody will see you teared up.  Damn renovations in the theater and sheetrock dust getting in your eyes.

Young couple about to get married.  He gets a country recording contract just before the wedding and leaves her at the alter.  Tours for 8 years and winds up back in small, Louisiana hometown, finding out he has a little girl.  You take it from there.

The only positive thing I will say about this movie, is if your girl likes uterus flick love stories...you will get laid later that night if you suffer through it. 

Thus ends the review. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on February 05, 2018, 07:59:55 AM
Forever My Girl


Hallmark movie your wife forces you to spend money on!

This was already reviewed.
Welcome to the club!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 05, 2018, 08:47:53 AM
This was already reviewed.
Welcome to the club!

Yeah. But he cried.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 05, 2018, 09:04:29 AM
The ball-less wonder and a friend of mine had to promise our ladies a movie.  Their pick.  ...
The only positive thing I will say about this movie, is if your girl likes uterus flick love stories...you will get laid later that night if you suffer through it. 


By the wife or the friend's wife? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 05, 2018, 09:05:07 AM
Yeah. But he cried.

Did NOT!!!  I told you how dusty it was with all those renovations going on.  Just floating everywhere.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on February 05, 2018, 09:08:42 AM
By the wife or the friend's wife?
Yes
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 07, 2018, 09:05:47 AM
The New Daughter

Newly divorced Kevin Costner moves to isolated South Carolina mansion with his two children.  The daughter finds an Indian burial mound and strange events follow. 

It's an average thriller.  There are some of those cringe worthy moments where you go "he'd never think, say, do, understand that."  There's also some mumbo jumbo about ancient spirits and their need for a new queen and how that relates to an anthill or something.  It was clunkily handled. 

It was well-shot, acted well enough and despite a bevy of continuity errors at least tried to tell a coherent story. 

Why did the guy move out in the boondocks because he got divorced?  That was the original question that was never really answered.  I think the director intended to tell a broader story but ran out of film/time. 

I've seen worse, but there's no compelling reason to watch this movie unless you just really like Costner.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on February 07, 2018, 01:22:22 PM
...there's no compelling reason to watch this movie unless you just really like Costner.

Do...do these people exist?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 09, 2018, 11:17:37 PM
The Guardian

Apparently it's Kevin Costner week. 

I liked this movie a lot better when it was called An Officer and a Gentleman and Richard Gere played Ashton Kutcher.  And when it was on land instead of water.

I've never minded movies that take inspiration from other movies.  I'm less impressed when they recreate entire scenes just with different people. 

This wasn't a bad movie, but I couldn't ever get involved because I kept thinking "I saw this in An Officer and a Gentleman..." 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 12, 2018, 11:41:42 PM
Blood Shed

Blood Shed. BloodShed. Bloodshed.  Get it? 

Too bad the writers and directors didn't.  When you spend more time thinking up a clever name for you film than you do actually storyboarding it?  Yeah, this is what you get.  Muddled pile of smelly shit.

Stupid story with huge gaps that left too much unexplained.  Terrible, horrible acting.  Awful cinematography.

Apparently filmed with a 90s era VHS camcorder which had a microphone with a short in it.

Absolutely zero reason to recommend that anyone with a single functioning brain cell watch this movie.  So Prowler, this is a good one for you.  #trumpslam
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 13, 2018, 10:25:56 PM
The Ritual

Netflix made thriller/horror movie. 

Four guys head off into the wilderness, decide to take a short-cut and end up in the crosshairs of a mysterious woods-creature. 

Take Predator, add in a healthy dose of Deliverance (minus squeals) / Southern Comfort (minus cajuns), sprinkle in a splash of King Kong (minus the damsel) and stir it up with a smidge of The Village.  Viola!  You've got The Ritual. 

Reasonably well acted. There's one pretty funny "Indiana Jones" moment.  The movie did a passable job of conveying the helplessness and hopelessness of wandering lost through the woods but it held back just enough of the gore to keep it from reaching the true level of terror it could have. 

It wanted to tell a bigger story about a man's quest to overcome his own historical demon but despite its best efforts, that ball was fumbled away. 

Not a bad movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 02, 2018, 10:31:33 PM
Game Night

Jason Bateman has a history of making movies that come pretty close to being really funny but end up sliding just short of the base.  This is another in that vein. 


Two hyper-competitive people meet during a trivia contest, fall for each other, continue their competitive ways with regular game nights until one night the games get out of hand.  


Rachel McAdams plays the wife, some people we're supposed to semi-recognize (I guess) play the friends who participate in the frequent games. I think one was in New Girl. Kyle Friday Night Chandler shows up at the Bateman's overachieving brother with some secrets. Todd from Breaking Bad acts all weird. Then there's a welcome semi-cameo from a serial killer I very much miss. One of my favorites.  


McAdams is sorta quirky cute, but she didn't bring much to the role here.  Her best moment was a short-lived burst where she channeled Honey Bunny.  


There are some ridiculously improbable events which are sort of par for the course for Bateman comedies.  No amount of planning could actually bring the events together.  Just not possible.  The movie borrowed more than a litte from movies like Date Night -- which was a better movie (although less funny). 


Still, there were some pretty amusing moments.  One particular sequence with a squeaky toy was almost by itself worth the investment. 

It's not the kind of movie you'll be talking about three weeks from now.  It's not the kind of thing you'll want to watch again and again.   But as a silly, harmless way to spend a little time, it's not that bad.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 11, 2018, 09:42:00 AM
The Strangers: Prey at Night

I was going to try to write a review of this movie, but why?  

It was just bad. It lacked authenticity. It failed to generate any tension. This was a fizzling dud of a horror film. 

Cardboard people in which no emotional investment was generated made repetitively stupid decisions as they dealt with a trio of heartless killers who had an unrealistic/unbelievable knack for anticipating where the losers would go next so they could get there first and hide in the shadows.   Just full of dumb. 

The actors -- such as they were -- were B-movie at best.  

Christina Hendricks has always let her boobs act for her and distract from the fact that she has no appreciable talent.  Here, the boobs remain covered in a frumpy frock and her lack of ability is clearly exposed. 

Bailee Madison, a child actress trying to make the leap into more grown up films, struggles and is annoying as bloody hell.  I wanted the Strangers to take her out.  I didn't much like her when she was a kid and I damn sure don't like her now. She's awful. 

The dad looks like somebody I should know, but I don't know where from.  He's completely forgettable and worthless. 

The brother does a fair job.  He gets the most interestingly filmed scene in the movie as he battles a stranger while a series of neon colors change the shadows on his face.  The problem with that is that the scene actually shows how good the movie could have been if the same attention to detail was paid to the other hour and twenty-two minutes. 

A film about a trio of stoic. masked oddballs who stalk a family for no apparent reason is a premise that has boundless potential.  Unfortunately that potential is completely wasted here.  It's a shame. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 14, 2018, 06:02:20 PM
See No Evil 2

Kane as a somewhat immortal murderer raising hell in a morgue. 

Danielle Harris, the Ginger Snaps werewolf and some other random people.  

Terrible. The first was average.  This -- despite squeal queen Harris -- crawled across the bottom of the barrel.  

Stupid decisions made by stupid people, ridiculous coincidences. There are 500 rooms on multiple floors in this building but somehow this barely-functioning muscle-clogged dolt can get from chasing people to way ahead of them and also in the random room they pick down an entire hallway?  Pffffttt.  tsic, FX.... all of it was third rate at best.  

Really lazy effort. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 15, 2018, 08:51:56 AM
I would like to request a review of "The Belko Experiment"

Currently airing on Cinemax OD
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 15, 2018, 09:30:51 AM
I would like to request a review of "The Belko Experiment"

Currently airing on Cinemax OD
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews (http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=5634.msg441306#msg441306)
« Reply #2439 on: July 10, 2017, 11:55:05 AM »


The Belko Experiment

Interesting premise.  Office full of people locked in with no escape.  Disembodied voice demands kill or be killed.  

Some lazy storytelling and a cast so large it didn't have enough time to give background or a reason to be invested in the life or death of most. Still, an interesting cast. Merle from Walking Dead, John mcginley, tony Goldwyn, a hot Colombian chick and best of all THE Nelson "Big Head" Bighetti.  

The movie was better as a conversational starting point for whether you would kill or die than it was in actual execution.  Still had some good moments.  

There was no way it could have a satisfying ending. It didn't.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 15, 2018, 10:13:37 AM
Annihilation.

MEH.

Loads of flash, total lack of substance.  It's Avatar Redux in that respect.  You've seen this plot done better and with more skill.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 15, 2018, 10:13:46 AM
Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews (http://www.tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=5634.msg441306#msg441306)
« Reply #2439 on: July 10, 2017, 11:55:05 AM »


The Belko Experiment

Interesting premise.  Office full of people locked in with no escape.  Disembodied voice demands kill or be killed.  

Some lazy storytelling and a cast so large it didn't have enough time to give background or a reason to be invested in the life or death of most. Still, an interesting cast. Merle from Walking Dead, John mcginley, tony Goldwyn, a hot Colombian chick and best of all THE Nelson "Big Head" Bighetti.  

The movie was better as a conversational starting point for whether you would kill or die than it was in actual execution.  Still had some good moments.  

There was no way it could have a satisfying ending. It didn't.

Well fuck me

Honestly, it just depressed the hell out of me.  

The one thing I kept thinking about was the new chick, they really never went into any explanation on her, she didn't have a chip in her head.  She saves the mass execution...sort of.  Doesn't really do anything else then after hiding all damn day decides to just ride around in the elevator in the open and gets blasted the first time the doors open.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 15, 2018, 09:07:24 PM
Annihilation.

MEH.

Loads of flash, total lack of substance.  It's Avatar Redux in that respect.  You've seen this plot done better and with more skill.
Another theory on the end of humanity. And only Natalie Portman can save us. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 15, 2018, 11:04:47 PM
Another theory on the end of humanity. And only Natalie Portman can save us.
Welp.  We're fucked. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 16, 2018, 12:48:17 AM
Justice League
Watching it now.  Notes along the way.

1) REALLY shitty opening.  Godawful song.  Fits very well with Zack Snyder's equally shitty musical choices from stuff like Sucker Punch.  Whoever was singing that must have been kin to somebody.  There's no excuse for that.  Horrible.  Just horrible. Completely out of place and set a terrible tone for the film.

2) Martha Kent's home is foreclosed on?  Seriously?  I'm calling double bullshit there.  

3) The action sequences to this point are poorly done.  Even the hottest woman on the planet didn't generate any fire in the bank scene.  But holy jizzbag she's hot.    

4) Oh good GRIEF.  Have we learned nothing?  The CGI at Thermopalye is atrocious. The CGI in Game of Thrones is 1000 times better than this pail of shit.

5) Damn, damn, damn. Having the "big bad" be 100% CGI (and not even good CGI) is a balls out disaster.  

* Note: I'm barely 20 minutes in and I'm ready to give up now.  I'm going to stick around hoping it gets better, but this movie is already a monument to just how completely tone-deaf the entire DC universe is.  It's not interesting, it's poorly rendered, it's just a hodgepodge of dumbfuckery.  


6) Oh hell. More shitty CGI as Wonder Woman explains what the stupid boxes are.  This is as bad as a SyFy movie. Or worse maybe.  

7) Mercedes product placement overload.

8) I hope like hell Bro-quaman gets better. I'm not behind his portrayal at all.  And here we go with incredibly shitty music again.

9) Shitty, shitty dialogue.  This is not even Beastmaster quality.  If you've never seen Beastmaster do so.  At least it's fun.  If I'm being honest?  If'd paid for this in the theaters I would have walked out.  The only thing keeping me now is the occasional glimpses of Gal Gadot's ass ad cleavage.  

10)  How is it possible to so completely fuck up entertaining, dynamic characters?  Batman is like somebody's granddad.  Gordon is fucked up. Alfred is fucked up. Flash is fucked up. Broquaman is fucked up. The only character with any resonance is Wonder Woman and that's only the result of her personal magnetism.

11) Good fuckity FUCK.  Cyborg is horrible.  Add another layer to the shitty CGI cake.

12) I'm done.  Time of death?  54:28. These characters mean too much to me to watch them be bungled so horribly.  Everything Marvel gets right, DC gets completely wrong.  Maybe if there had never been Iron Man or Avengers this turd wouldn't stink so terribly.  But it would still be a turd.  It makes Nolan's three Batman films look like The Godfather, To Kill a Mockingbird and Gone with the Wind. It's historically bad.  

I'm disappointed beyond words.  I so hoped not to be let down, but the near hour I survived of this shit was so maddeningly awful I can't abide it.

Still.

(https://img.cinemablend.com/filter:scale/quill/6/d/f/0/d/3/6df0d3dc3bb14d7035199b59d4fbdb6541042a57.jpg?mw=600)


Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on March 16, 2018, 08:04:42 AM
Damn, damn, damn. Having the "big bad" be 100% CGI (and not even good CGI) is a balls out disaster.  


I recommend avoiding Avengers Infinity War in case you hadn't already planned to skip it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 16, 2018, 10:14:50 AM
I recommend avoiding Avengers Infinity War in case you hadn't already planned to skip it.
Coincidentally a new trailer for Infinity dropped today.  I'm not deterred. 

The stark contrast between that film and Justice League couldn't be more evident.  Yes, there's CGI in IW and yes, Thanos is all CGI but it isn't so badly rendered that it looks like a copy of Madden for Sega circa 1999.

This is Justice League
(https://web-vassets.ea.com/Assets/Resources/Image/madden-1999-4.jpg)
This is Infinity Wars
(https://www.madden-school.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/madden-17-panthers.jpg)
The CGI was so bad in Justice League there were times I wondered if it were taken from a video game.  In fact, the CGI in Call of Duty: WW2 was better than Justice League.  

I don't object to CGI in general.  I mean I know that there's no trained raccoon in Guardians and there's not a giant walking tree either.  But in a movie of this magnitude I don't expect it to be so bad that it makes me laugh. 

 It has to make me forget that it's CGI.  

The scenes at Thermopalye?  Absolute joke.  It was community college level animation.  The capes that looked like they were made of warm fondant?  Mind bogglingly bad. The fake corn with the fake sky and fake house?  Good lord that was bad.  King Kong 1933 version was better.

The only saving grace in this entire movie was Wonder Woman.  When she was on screen it was like a completely different director took over and framed her scenes.  

This waddling sack of duck shit was worse than Man of Steel, worse than Batman v. Superman and teetered into Suicide Squad atrocity.  One of the most disappointing efforts I've ever scene.  

It kills me because I'm Batman over Iron Man, Superman (even though I can't stand the character) over Captain America all day long.  DC > Marvel.  

It's so bad, Warner should be enjoined from making any further efforts.  I'd like to see all the characters taken away from them and given to another studio entirely.  Or to an independent.  Give it to Vince Gilligan.

And still.... 

(http://www.yojackets.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Wonder-Woman-Suede-Jacket.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on March 16, 2018, 11:39:21 AM
Jeez. It wasn't that horrible. Just grab some popcorn and watch. Forget your comic book details for a moment and just watch. I've seen much worse.

Your freaking out is unwarranted.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 16, 2018, 12:05:55 PM
Jeez. It wasn't that horrible. Just grab some popcorn and watch. Forget your comic book details for a moment and just watch. I've seen much worse.

Your freaking out is unwarranted.
In context it is the worst movie I’ve ever seen.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 16, 2018, 12:09:19 PM
In context it is the worst movie I’ve ever seen.  
It was pretty fucking bad.
The horrible Aquaman dialogue ("MY MAN!!!!") and acting was the most egregious offense for me, somehow.

Hard to pick a least favorite part of this one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 16, 2018, 12:19:45 PM
On a Turd scale (100 turds) that is DC since the end of Bale it ranked second to Wonder Woman

100 Turds - Steel
99 Turds - Batman vs. Superman

85 Turds - Green Lantern
84 Turds - Superman (Man of Steel)
80 Turds - Suicide Squad

75 Turds - Justice League

60 Turds - Wonder Woman





30 Rainbow Unicorns - The Losers
50 Rainbow Unicorns - The Watchmen
100 Rainbow Unicorns - Batman Begins
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 16, 2018, 02:17:34 PM
On a Turd scale (100 turds) that is DC since the end of Bale it ranked second to Wonder Woman

100 Turds - Steel
99 Turds - Batman vs. Superman

85 Turds - Green Lantern
84 Turds - Superman (Man of Steel)
80 Turds - Suicide Squad

75 Turds - Justice League

60 Turds - Wonder Woman





30 Rainbow Unicorns - The Losers
50 Rainbow Unicorns - The Watchmen
100 Rainbow Unicorns - Batman Begins
I could maybe agree with this except for two things.  

1) The CGI.  It was beyond amateurish.  It was like first cut with no cleanup.  A movie of this scale should look better than Sharknado.  It absolutely didn’t.  It was just as bad or worse.  I was completely stunned at how half ass most of it was.  Even if the writing, story and performances were stellar (they weren’t) the insulting CGI laid at least 20 extra turds on this one.   It was as bad as the stunt doubles in KISS Meets the Phantom.  It was MS-Paint bad.  

2) Characters. Batman was a boring dud. AquaBro (as wes noted) was a total miss.  Cyborg should have been left out.  Useless. Was only there for “diversity”.  Flash?  Come on. If you’re going to have a character noted for speed don’t let his running motion look like somebody tased the younger brother of Tom Cruise.
  
It’s mainly the CGI that lost me.  It was Rankin Bass Rudolph bad.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 17, 2018, 09:00:39 PM
Thor: Rageincock

Watched on a plane.  A perfect illustration of just how bad the DC product is. 

I don’t even like the Thor character.  But the movie was fantastic. 

The right amount of humor delivered at the appropriate times.  The movie knew exactly what it was and made the most of it.  

Thor was Saks Fifth Avenue to JL’s Prichard Dollar General.  It was a pair of Brooks running shoes to JL’s Payless sneakers. 

Thor good.  JL suck.  

That is so hard for me. Because I love the DC characters so much more.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 22, 2018, 08:30:29 PM
Three Billboards

Movie on a plane.  Watched because I've always liked Frances McDormand's performances even if I think her political viewpoint is misguided.  I thought she was great in Raising Arizona.  

The film's acting performances are pretty fantastic.  McDormand is good, but frankly Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell were probably better.  

The story was good but despite the weight a little light overall.  

Much as in real life there was no meaning to some events and there was no real resolution to any of the story arcs.  We got a hint of where the arcs might go but don't really know how most of the characters fared.  That's how real life works I guess, but leaving so many threads unraveled -- from the estranged familial relationships of McDormand's character all the way to the dwarf dating -- isn't how movies usually work.  There should be some answers at least.

Quick summation:  Girl is raped and killed, mom doesn't think the police are doing enough so she puts up three billboards on a rarely-traveled road asking why nothing has been done.  Those billboards set a string of events in motion that divide a small town and turn its citizens against each other.

She's right, but she's also wrong.  She doesn't care about anything but her daughter, blinded to the realities that finding out what happened isn't the same as an hour of CSI.  In her singleminded determination to force what might be impossible she ends up damaging a lot of people's lives.  

The people who oppose her are a similar mix of right and wrong. Each make questionable decisions but each has some redeeming quality.  

Without the strong efforts by the lead actors/actresses this would have been a piffle of a story and immediately forgotten.  

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 26, 2018, 09:00:15 AM
Going in Style

Three old dudes strike back at a mean bank.  Felt derivative. 

Then I realized it was a remake.  There was a 1979 movie of the same name starring George Burns, Art Carney and Lee Strasberg. 

Not a great movie, not a bad movie.  Just a movie.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 26, 2018, 09:19:06 AM
Logan Lucky

Take Raising Arizona, add in NASCAR references, make it not funny, then add in a girl who looks pretty hot in trashy white boots.  Theres's your movie.

It wasn't terrible but it tried too hard to come up with stupid deadpan lines that would become quotes.  You know, like "not unless round is funny..." (Raising Arizona) which is completely quotable versus "I know all the twitters" which could be but isn't (Logan Lucky).

Movie was supposed to be hilarious.  It was just idiots making dumb comments.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on March 27, 2018, 10:39:31 AM
Logan Lucky

Take Raising Arizona, add in NASCAR references, make it not funny, then add in a girl who looks pretty hot in trashy white boots.  Theres's your movie.

It wasn't terrible but it tried too hard to come up with stupid deadpan lines that would become quotes.  You know, like "not unless round is funny..." (Raising Arizona) which is completely quotable versus "I know all the twitters" which could be but isn't (Logan Lucky).

Movie was supposed to be hilarious.  It was just idiots making dumb comments.
Disagree. This was a "redneck Ocean's 11" movie and I loved it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on March 27, 2018, 02:00:12 PM
"I can only imagine". See it. Good movie. Take the wife. Earn many points.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 29, 2018, 09:19:15 PM
"I can only imagine". See it. Good movie. Take the wife. Earn many points.
It hit home with me a little too close. The part with him and his dad anyway. But glad it had a happy ending. Cool that it was a true story. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on April 02, 2018, 08:42:36 AM
Ready Player One

This movie is tailor-made for the Imax/3D experience.

Loads of action via video-game style play or battle scenes and more brand/icon callbacks than you can count (seriously, I think you'd have to watch this 20 times to catch every reference they made.)  It was a fun, popcorn movie (disclaimer: I have no relationship with the source material) and I'd encourage you to see it on the big screen if you're inclined to see this one at all.

My biggest takeaway: the brand-licensing had to be the single biggest line-item on the budget.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 04, 2018, 11:11:11 PM
Star Wars: The Last Jedi

I'm not done with it.  But this is the dumbest thing I’ve watched in a while.

EDIT:  I finished the movie, the level of dumbness never really abated.  I was really stunned at how consistently lazy this movie was.  

It has none of the charm or simplicity of the original trilogy.

Finn sucks.  Rey is tolerable but that’s it.  Poe is a caricature.  Luke is an overacting ham. Kylo is about as intimidating as a cashier at Target.  

At least the original trilogy had some self-effacing flair.  This was just a bubble-gum wad of overwrought faux earnestness and hokum.  Everything seemed staged, forced and calculated.  The 'emotional' scenes didn't have a scintilla of honesty. The "clever quips" fell completely flat. Even the stupid little bird/bears were designed for a specific marketing purpose and lacked honesty.  

Don't get me started on the "they're tracking us, we only have a few hours left... let's get into a shuttle and fly across the galaxy where we can ride goofy horse creatures and crash a big party" storyline stupidity.  Just a complete lack of cohesiveness.  

Not worth the hype. A big old pile of DUMB.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on April 07, 2018, 02:35:54 AM
I’m 90% sure that Matt Nook is Kylo Ren. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: jmar on April 07, 2018, 01:22:01 PM
Took some time off and watched the Ken Burn's 7 part film The War. Found myself getting teary eyed many times through the accounts of those who lived it. It was incredibly long with recurring themes of which two in particular seemed purposefully employed as a means to illicit guilt about racial inequality. Nevertheless it was both educational and honest as a historical account of the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.  


Also watched Spielberg's Lincoln which I really enjoyed. 
SPOILER ALERT:
Negroes fought in this one as well.
There were however no oriental folk present in this picture.
Seriously though... Daniel Day Lewis captured the mood of how I always imagined Abe to be and the well placed humor make this one a new favorite even though it was made in 2012.  


Others:
The Ritual **
A Futile and Stupid Gesture *** 
Inglourious Basterds **



  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 08, 2018, 01:04:21 AM
The Quiet Place

A very different movie.  Not horror per se,  but more of a situational tension.  

There were some glaring holes, but I won't bother with detailing them.  To make this movie work you just have to sort of say "ehhh, well... whatever" and move on.  

Jim Halpert was pretty good.  So, too, was Emily Blunt.  She's hit or miss and here she was more hit than miss.  

The gaps in logic kept it from really reaching where it could have.  

Worth the look, though.  Better in a theater than it will be at home. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 09, 2018, 08:55:26 AM
Insidious: The Last Key

Blum House keeps churning out mediocre, lukewarm horror and this is no exception to their formulaic slog through threadbare horror tropes.  

The movie lost me when the elderly Elise traveled back to her childhood home -- and found it dusty but exactly as it had been 84 years (or whatever) before but just covered with dust.  Same chair, same beds, same pictures on the wall, same toys, same canned food in the basement.  No.  I couldn't get past that.  The rest of the movie was ruined for me because of that. 

This was a muddled mish mash of yawn-inducing nonsense. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on April 09, 2018, 01:45:43 PM
Happy Death Day
I didn't expect much from this movie.  I was pleasantly surprised.  Don't get me wrong, it's no cinematic classic, but it does what it does well enough to be entertaining.  

The basic storyline is exactly as the trailers show:  Birthday girl dies every day and then wakes back up where it all began to start the day over again.  Yes.  Groundhog Day but with a murder tossed in.  The movie smartly even references its own ancestor toward the end.  

Along the way this trifling little film offered some deeper observations about how a person might view his own life if given the chance to fix the little mistakes that plague our everyday relationships.  

The central character, played by Jessica Rothe (who will soon star as Julie in the remake of one of my favorite 80s teen movies Valley Girl) does a pretty adequate job of displaying the appropriate emotions as she gradually transitions from self-absorbed sorority whore to a more selfless, honest, real person over the course of the same day on repeat.  It's a pretty neat trick for a character you want to just die early on to bring you around to her side and even move you just a little with some contrived emotional scenes.  Watching her grow from a miserable bitch to a reasonably happy person was well done.  

The movie has a handful of amusing moments and keeps the identity of the true villain under wraps about as long as it possibly can.  

Not a great movie.  Had its flaws.  But it was better than I expected.  I'm glad I watched it.  It's assloads better than The Snowman.
I agree...glad I watched it.  RedBox $2.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 12, 2018, 09:07:52 AM
I agree...glad I watched it.  RedBox $2.  
1 down,   753 classics left to go.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 14, 2018, 01:18:56 PM
Star Wars in general

TNT has the whole series on "in order" I suppose.  

Revenge of the Sith has major flaws in the acting and dialogue.  It's really, really, really bad.  It is, however, really well done from a visual standpoint.  It's a far superior overall visual product than the two most recent.  

So I'm going to now rank them.  

8. Worst overall -- despite some occasionally really good visual effects -- is Phantom Menace.  The kid playing Anakin was the first to be drummed out of the craft for his awful efforts.  Trying to jam in the fraudulent note that baby Darth actually built 3PO is obnoxious. Racist Jar Jar was a major blunder.  If this had been the first Star Wars movie, there would be no others to rank.  It was that bad.  

7. The Last Jedi - Stupid story, horrible acting, a major step backward in visual effects.  This movie had NOTHING.  Nothing but hokey lines delivered poorly and asinine storylines that defied even suspended sense.  Kylo Ren was almost Hayden-level bad.  Clearly is now a story so in love with its own mythology that it can't get out of its own way and make a fun movie.  Far too long and overcome with dumb. 

6. Attack of the Clones - Far too much going on.  A CGI fascination that bubbled over into cacophony. No real story to care about, noting but business and noise.  And jar jar.  Thank God there was the noise because the story was so bad it reminded me of something a love-sick eighth grader would write.  Wooden lines delivered woodenly by wooden actors.  Boo. 

5. Force Awakens - Without the nostalgia of Han and Chewie, this would have fallen way back in the pack.  It's essentially a retelling of A New Hope (let's blow up a Death Star) with worse dialogue, less fun and more overwrought silliness.  The new Vader was a horrible choice.  Neither Rey nor Finn resonated.  It's not going to hold up over time. 

4. Return of the Jedi - Would have been higher without the stupid Ewoks and the eventually re-configured ghostly images at the end.  Would have been much worse without the slave-Leia which sustained me for years.  With all the crazy characters, it was like Jim Henson had bought the rights.  All that was missing was Elmo and the two old grouchy guys up in the balcony ridiculing it. 

3.  Revenge of Sith -  I hate to put this here because the script was terrible and the acting was worse than a porno parody.  Hayden Christensen became the second actor all but hounded out of the business for his awful effort playing Anakin. But the concept was good.  Even though the story was stupid, the overly busy CGI of Attack of the Clones was reined in.  Yoda was given a story that tied things together (and was rendered pretty well). Vader's creation was shown -- even if horribly acted by Hayden and McGregor who both looked like they were choking on their clunky lines -- and that story needed to be told.  I still refuse to believe Obi would have just walked away from a flaming Anakin leaving him to roast in agony, so that was dumber than diddly squid, but still at least it gave faux credence to Vader's heartless hate.  Every performance in this movie was hack-level bad. Still, the movie looks good and it contained pieces that were important to the pantheon in general, so with reluctance, I land it here. 

2. New Hope - One of the most important movies of its time. A game changer on so many levels.  It introduced so many things that are iconic to the series: X-wings, storm troopers, wookies, Milennium Falcon, Tie Fighters, Death Stars, Vader, Leia, Luke, Solo, death stars, 3PO, R2, the empire, the rebellion.  It was, and remains, a fantastic movie.  No it doesn't have the same impact 30 years later probably, but it was a marvel in its day. It was a near perfect mix of drama and comedy,  It created an entire world.  In terms of importance, it's clearly number one in the series.  It would even be the best overall if not for.....

1. Empire - It wasn't as important, wasn't as fun, wasn't as life-altering.  But it was a better movie with better lines, better performances and a grandeur that A New Hope didn't have.  That's the only reason I put it here. It was deeper, broader and had a bigger story to tell. 




Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 15, 2018, 03:04:17 PM
Dr Strange 

Figured I'd better watch this because it's part of the Marvel tapestry and Infinity Wars opens in about two weeks. 

Humperdink Difflebatch looks the part, but I really didn't connect with his character.  

It didn't hit all the marks like Thor Raginicrocook did, but it at least tried to have some humor here and there.  It just didn't land. 

When it was over I was like:  "Well, that wasn't bad but I have no idea what I just watched."  

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on April 16, 2018, 04:51:55 PM
Star Wars in general
I'd swap Jedi/Sith, and I think I would have TPM over AOTC and TLJ, simply because of Maul.  
I'd also throw Rogue One in between Sith and TFA.
Not sure what to think about Solo... Trailer has me interested.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 21, 2018, 12:34:56 PM
I'd swap Jedi/Sith, and I think I would have TPM over AOTC and TLJ, simply because of Maul.  
I'd also throw Rogue One in between Sith and TFA.
Not sure what to think about Solo... Trailer has me interested.
One of the reasons I have TMP so low is because Maul was -- at least to me -- ridiculous.  It was a guy painted up in red KISS makeup.  He wasn't intimidating, he wasn't much of anything really.  And then he was gone.  No other character in any of the entire series looks like that again.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 21, 2018, 12:55:08 PM
Paterno

HBO movie featuring Michael Corleone as Joe Paterno.  

The film starts as the Sandusky revelations break and follow the story to the end of Paterno's tenure (and a little beyond).  

Tony Montana does a pretty credible job of capturing Paterno's look and feel.  The voice is a little off, but it's easy to buy him as the elderly coach shuffling stoop shouldered through the end of his days.  

The film sticks mostly to the middle of the road. It stops short of really condemning anybody, but lays out the basic timeline and the internal efforts to make it go away --  or at the very least hope it would just fade away.  

It portrays Paterno as so focused on football that he really didn't care much what was going on outside the lines. Assault a couple of kids in the shower?  What?  We have to play Iowa this week, can we focus on that please? He defended Sandusky far longer than he should have and did so primarily to preserve his own perception.    

It also portrays the Penn State fanbase as somewhat culpable and complicit.  They were willing to look the other way until forced to deal with the realities. There's still a fairly large contingent that wants to separate Paterno from this scandal and restore his legacy and reputation.  This film is not going to help their cause.  

It does leave some room to have sympathy for Paterno although I'm not really sure any longer that he deserved it.  If the movie is accurate he probably didn't do anything you could categorize as completely wrong, but he definitely washed his hands of it when he was probably the only person in the mix who could have done something meaningful about the situation. It's my personal opinion that everything comes back to him. He should have done more.

The cast is uniformly good. The short shorts girl from Logan Lucky (who is Elvis' granddaughter) proves she's more than just an ass in white boots with a quality job as the lead reporter.  Alexandra Borgia from Law and Order has little to do but look concerned as Paterno's daughter.  Jill Brock from Picket Fences stands by her man as Paterno's wife. But it's Sonny Wortzik as Paterno that carries the film.  He's so absorbed in the role that you forget Serpico isn't Paterno.  


In watching this I was drawn to wonder how far the state media and fans would go to defend Saban if it were discovered that Scott Cochran was murdering puppies, kittens and unicorns and Saban knew about it all along. I honestly believe they'd first try to bury it.  I'd be surprised if word ever even got out.  But if it did? They'd then defend it until their last breath.  He's just keeping the animal population down. Those poor creatures were going to suffer until he humanely interceded.  

Had this happened at Alabama there would have been no intrepid, dogged reporter digging out the story.  There would be a horrific accident and a dead body. The reporter would choke on a salad and fall up a flight of stairs to her death.  There would be a trail of cash payoffs to possible victims the size of which would choke a small country, but nobody would bother to investigate them.  In Alabama, at Alabama, this story would simply have vanished and the statues would still stand.  

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 21, 2018, 11:42:37 PM
War For the Planet of the Apes

I was heavily invested in the old movies.  Loved the original with Charlton Heston and Roddy McDowell.  Also Nova.  Yes. Nova.  

I was ambivalent about the Mark Wahlberg - Tim Burton remake.  I didn't like the reboot with James Franco very much at all, but was encouraged by the second installment.  I thought it was pretty good and struck a nice balance.  

This one?  I just couldn't get behind.  I'd rather have Roddy McDowell or Tim Roth wearing prosthetics than the complete over-reliance on CGI that muddled up this movie.  When you have to do so much of it I understand the need to just get by in some areas.  But some of the CGI in this film was completely atrocious.  Some of the movie had a basic realism in the CGI laden scenes, some of the time it was an absolute marvel to behold. Then at other times it looked like a bad version of Shrek or some other Pixarish film.  That's a major issue for me.

This is a very dark story that takes from a number of movies from the past -- Josey Wales, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, and more -- and gives those pieces an ape twist.  It also seems to be trying to reach back to the original Heston version in some of the directions it takes and the imagery it presents. The apes ties to the X-cross is a direct callback to the Heston film. And they tossed in a little nod to Nova, too.  

It's just not a fun movie.  It's very serious and obviously trying to make some larger statement about the world as a whole.  I'd rather my apes movies be fun.   This was just bleak.  Not bad, per se, but bleak and inconsistent.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 28, 2018, 02:01:10 AM
Avengers: Infinity War

Marvel finally succumbed to its own (perphaps inevitable) bloat.  This was a disappointing movie.  Not disappointing on the scale of Justice League, but disappointing nonetheless.  

Iron Man was a near perfect superhero movie.  It told a single focused story built on credible real-life situations. It had emotion, it had heart, it had humor. Same for Guardians I.  Same for the first Avengers movie, although it stretched the seams a bit even then.  

This was a massive swollen morass of multiple somewhat interconnected storylines. It was too much. It took things too far.  Way too many stories, far too many characters to adequately manage, just too much going on.  And so much of it was silly.  This should have been three or four separate movies each telling just a part of the story.  

It took everyone and everything away from what makes them watchable and shoehorned them into sets where their strengths were wasted.  Iron Man creating a suit of nano-tech that is essentially skin?  And flying off into space with Spiderman?  Thor hanging out with Groot?  It was just wrong.  All of it.  

These films are the best when they allow the fantastic actors who inhabit the characters to play off each other and solve world problems that could ostensibly exist.  This swelled up muddle?  Nope.  

I didn't hate it.  I simply didn't like it.  Between the previews and the stupendously long end credits that led up to a less-than-satisfying post-scene I was sitting in a packed theater for over three hours.  This wasn't the Godfather.  Not worth that investment in time.  The guy behind us was snoring. Several people around me lost interest and started checking their phones.  

I want a fun story where people become better together than they were apart, and a story that provides a satisfying resolution.  I got none of that.  Instead I got to the end of this overly-long slog through the mumbo-jumblo bag of tricks and thought "what the piss did I just watch?"  IMO, this is one of the worst entries in the Marvel pantheon.  

Speaking of Pantheon?  Watching this film convinced me that there is no way I will ever, ever, ever, ever watch Black Panther.  His suit looked stupid as balls.  And there's no way I could sit through hours of that stilted "meesa wanna ooola boola" fake tribal babble.  The lines delivered by the Wakandians in this movie were cringe-worthy.  I can't imagine a full movie of that.  Won't.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on April 29, 2018, 09:49:55 PM

Had this happened at Alabama there would have been no intrepid, dogged reporter digging out the story.  There would be a horrific accident and a dead body. The reporter would choke on a salad and fall up a flight of stairs to her death.  There would be a trail of cash payoffs to possible victims the size of which would choke a small country, but nobody would bother to investigate them.  In Alabama, at Alabama, this story would simply have vanished and the statues would still stand.  
You forgot the part where Auburn gets nailed (not for any actual cheating we are doing like everyone else) but for some third string linebacker getting an extra large fries with the team meal which results in forfeiting 40 wins and 6 years probation. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 01, 2018, 11:55:10 PM
Le Mis

I think that's the french word for "terrible."  

Maybe the Broadway show is great.  I don't know and now have no interest in finding out.  

The movie gargles dirty hairy balls.  I hated it.  I hated every single second of it.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 02, 2018, 08:27:08 AM
Avengers: Infinity War

Marvel finally succumbed to its own (perphaps inevitable) bloat.  This was a disappointing movie.  Not disappointing on the scale of Justice League, but disappointing nonetheless.  

Iron Man was a near perfect superhero movie.  It told a single focused story built on credible real-life situations. It had emotion, it had heart, it had humor. Same for Guardians I.  Same for the first Avengers movie, although it stretched the seams a bit even then.  

This was a massive swollen morass of multiple somewhat interconnected storylines. It was too much. It took things too far.  Way too many stories, far too many characters to adequately manage, just too much going on.  And so much of it was silly.  This should have been three or four separate movies each telling just a part of the story.  

It took everyone and everything away from what makes them watchable and shoehorned them into sets where their strengths were wasted.  Iron Man creating a suit of nano-tech that is essentially skin?  And flying off into space with Spiderman?  Thor hanging out with Groot?  It was just wrong.  All of it.  

These films are the best when they allow the fantastic actors who inhabit the characters to play off each other and solve world problems that could ostensibly exist.  This swelled up muddle?  Nope.  

I didn't hate it.  I simply didn't like it.  Between the previews and the stupendously long end credits that led up to a less-than-satisfying post-scene I was sitting in a packed theater for over three hours.  This wasn't the Godfather.  Not worth that investment in time.  The guy behind us was snoring. Several people around me lost interest and started checking their phones.  

I want a fun story where people become better together than they were apart, and a story that provides a satisfying resolution.  I got none of that.  Instead I got to the end of this overly-long slog through the mumbo-jumblo bag of tricks and thought "what the piss did I just watch?"  IMO, this is one of the worst entries in the Marvel pantheon.  

Speaking of Pantheon?  Watching this film convinced me that there is no way I will ever, ever, ever, ever watch Black Panther.  His suit looked stupid as balls.  And there's no way I could sit through hours of that stilted "meesa wanna ooola boola" fake tribal babble.  The lines delivered by the Wakandians in this movie were cringe-worthy.  I can't imagine a full movie of that.  Won't.  
I liked the movie.  The only part I thought was forced and kind of crammed into it was Thor making Stormbreaker.  Thought they could have probably done that at the end of Ragnarock.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 02, 2018, 01:42:20 PM
Avengers: Infinity War

Marvel finally succumbed to its own (perphaps inevitable) bloat.  This was a disappointing movie.  Not disappointing on the scale of Justice League, but disappointing nonetheless.  

Iron Man was a near perfect superhero movie.  It told a single focused story built on credible real-life situations. It had emotion, it had heart, it had humor. Same for Guardians I.  Same for the first Avengers movie, although it stretched the seams a bit even then.  

This was a massive swollen morass of multiple somewhat interconnected storylines. It was too much. It took things too far.  Way too many stories, far too many characters to adequately manage, just too much going on.  And so much of it was silly.  This should have been three or four separate movies each telling just a part of the story.  

It took everyone and everything away from what makes them watchable and shoehorned them into sets where their strengths were wasted.  Iron Man creating a suit of nano-tech that is essentially skin?  And flying off into space with Spiderman?  Thor hanging out with Groot?  It was just wrong.  All of it.  

These films are the best when they allow the fantastic actors who inhabit the characters to play off each other and solve world problems that could ostensibly exist.  This swelled up muddle?  Nope.  

I didn't hate it.  I simply didn't like it.  Between the previews and the stupendously long end credits that led up to a less-than-satisfying post-scene I was sitting in a packed theater for over three hours.  This wasn't the Godfather.  Not worth that investment in time.  The guy behind us was snoring. Several people around me lost interest and started checking their phones.  

I want a fun story where people become better together than they were apart, and a story that provides a satisfying resolution.  I got none of that.  Instead I got to the end of this overly-long slog through the mumbo-jumblo bag of tricks and thought "what the piss did I just watch?"  IMO, this is one of the worst entries in the Marvel pantheon.  

Speaking of Pantheon?  Watching this film convinced me that there is no way I will ever, ever, ever, ever watch Black Panther.  His suit looked stupid as balls.  And there's no way I could sit through hours of that stilted "meesa wanna ooola boola" fake tribal babble.  The lines delivered by the Wakandians in this movie were cringe-worthy.  I can't imagine a full movie of that.  Won't.  
I will say you do bring up one point which made me think more about the presentation of the movie.  Since the movie is nearly 3 hours long and filled with multiple story arcs you wonder if it could have been split into 2 movies.  One now and one in December before the final conclusion next year.  Would it have made more money? 

A logical arc break could have been
May Movie -Thor and Guardians, Making of Stormbreaker, and search for 2 stones [BREAK]
Dec Movie - 5th stone, Battle on Titan, Final battle.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on May 02, 2018, 01:49:27 PM
I will say you do bring up one point which made me think more about the presentation of the movie.  Since the movie is nearly 3 hours long and filled with multiple story arcs you wonder if it could have been split into 2 movies.  One now and one in December before the final conclusion next year.  Would it have made more money?

A logical arc break could have been
May Movie -Thor and Guardians, Making of Stormbreaker, and search for 2 stones [BREAK]
Dec Movie - 5th stone, Battle on Titan, Final battle.
ugggghh your scenario would have added 2 movies to my list.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on May 02, 2018, 02:25:29 PM
ugggghh your scenario would have added 2 movies to my list.
Like you would watch them, anyway.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 07, 2018, 04:11:58 PM
Jumanji

Been told over and over how awesome this movie was, how funny it was, how this and that.  

It wasn't bad, but it wasn't exactly great either.  Some cute fish-out-of-character moments, some occasional decent action scenes, a funny line or two.  Harmless bubble gum movie.  I'd watch it again, but wouldn't buy it. 

The best part of the movie was Nebula Croft.   Ummm, whatever her name was.   I sort of forgot what she called herself, lost in the looking at her.  

She's not shockingly beautiful or classically stunning but the movie would have been imminently less watchable without her on the screen.  I always sort of figured Nebula was hot, but never really looked beneath the blue and purple machinery.  My mistake!  

 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on May 07, 2018, 04:41:59 PM
Jumanji

Been told over and over how awesome this movie was, how funny it was, how this and that.  

It wasn't bad, but it wasn't exactly great either.  Some cute fish-out-of-character moments, some occasional decent action scenes, a funny line or two.  Harmless bubble gum movie.  I'd watch it again, but wouldn't buy it.

The best part of the movie was Nebula Croft.   Ummm, whatever her name was.   I sort of forgot what she called herself, lost in the looking at her.  

She's not shockingly beautiful or classically stunning but the movie would have been imminently less watchable without her on the screen.  I always sort of figured Nebula was hot, but never really looked beneath the blue and purple machinery.  My mistake!  

 
Nebula croft? Cute.
It was a fun movie. Nobody said it was "Gone With the Wind"!
My god man, what does it take to give you basic entertainment.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 07, 2018, 05:23:05 PM
Nebula croft? Cute.
It was a fun movie. Nobody said it was "Gone With the Wind"!
My god man, what does it take to give you basic entertainment.
Ummm... I said the movie was pretty good.  I liked it well enough.  

That's about the best you get around here.  

Please note that I did not utilize the easy "ask your wife" response to the third line of questions.  I'm not going to be the one who picks all the low hanging fruit.  

BTW?  This is just adorable. 

(http://www.gotceleb.com/wp-content/uploads/celebrities/karen-gillan/selfie-1st-season-promos/Karen-Gillan---Selfie-1st-Season-Promos-2014--15-300x420.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 07, 2018, 05:54:04 PM
Dallas Buyer's Club

Really tough subject matter.  

It sort of disgusts me to see these actors (Christian Bale and Charlize Theron included, even though neither was in this) lose and/or gain all this weight to play a part.  I really don't think McBongahey has been the same since he dropped the weight.  The dude was 185 (healthy) and dropped down to 130ish.  That's ridiculous.  Same with Leto.  It messed up their minds.  

From what I've read, the story was essentially true with the exception of the fact that Jared Leto's character didn't really exist and some of the other incidents were either fabricated or repurposed to make the story move.  

Again, really tough subject matter.  Can't argue with any of the performances as difficult to watch as they were.  The story was compelling, the characters, as disgusting as some of them sort of were, resonated.  The fight to get the proper medicines and treatments for AIDS patients was difficult. Any time you're dealing with a disinterested obstructionist government that's the way things go. 

Decent movie. Good acting. Difficult to watch. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on May 08, 2018, 12:22:31 AM
Ummm... I said the movie was pretty good.  I liked it well enough.  

That's about the best you get around here.  

Please note that I did not utilize the easy "ask your wife" response to the third line of questions.  I'm not going to be the one who picks all the low hanging fruit.  

BTW?  This is just adorable.

(http://www.gotceleb.com/wp-content/uploads/celebrities/karen-gillan/selfie-1st-season-promos/Karen-Gillan---Selfie-1st-Season-Promos-2014--15-300x420.jpg)
Yeah well. About the wife comment, you pull that off and you'll be helping with the bills buddy!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 08, 2018, 09:26:17 AM
Yeah well. About the wife comment, you pull that off and you'll be helping with the bills buddy!
(http://popminute.com/photo/1/karen_gillan_swimsuit_selfie10.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 08, 2018, 12:00:09 PM
Watched Black Panther, I thought it was a whole lot of meh myself.  Personally, I thought the character was good in Civil War and Infinity War, but just didn't do much for me as a stand-alone character.  Would much rather have seen a Hulk standalone/reboot with Mark Ruffalo.  Lots of people liked it though so.

and even though you have already said this I will concur, Kaos you will not like this movie whatsoever.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: ssgaufan on May 08, 2018, 01:06:08 PM
Ummm... I said the movie was pretty good.  I liked it well enough.  

That's about the best you get around here.  

Please note that I did not utilize the easy "ask your wife" response to the third line of questions.  I'm not going to be the one who picks all the low hanging fruit.  

BTW?  This is just adorable.

(http://www.gotceleb.com/wp-content/uploads/celebrities/karen-gillan/selfie-1st-season-promos/Karen-Gillan---Selfie-1st-Season-Promos-2014--15-300x420.jpg)
I've seen that look many times, it's the look of shock from seeing a tiny penis.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 18, 2018, 09:20:54 AM
Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey 

Excellent Adventure was a quirky, dumb, clever, funny movie with a silly simplistic plot. Two doofuses need help passing a history course so they take a bumbling trip through time showing their ignorance and learning along the way.  

Bogus Journey was none of that.  It was strained, it was forced, it was dumb without any of the clever or quirky and not much of the funny.  

The best part of the movie was Death.  Beating Death at Battleship, Clue and Twister was amusing.  The rest of the film struggled to find its footing.  

There were a lot of great teen movies in the late 80s and early 90s.  From Taps to Fast Times to Last American Virgin to Valley Girl to Excellent Adventure to Breakfast Club to Ferris.  Bogus Journey just wasn't one of them. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on May 19, 2018, 05:53:57 PM
No Deadpool 2 review?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 20, 2018, 10:56:14 AM
No Deadpool 2 review?
It's awesome.  It's everything you expect (unless you're a meganerd, I'm sure those folks have plenty to whine about.)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on May 21, 2018, 02:44:22 PM
No Deadpool 2 review?
Some people have Timberlake and 7th grade basketball.  Geez ...
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on May 21, 2018, 02:49:01 PM
Some people have Timberlake and 7th grade basketball.  Geez ...
As of about one hour ago, she's in 8th grade, fuck you very much.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 29, 2018, 11:28:32 AM
The Commuter 

Telegraphed twists.  Illogical setups.  Another pedantic "one man against the world" boiler.  

Leesom Neesom is getting too old to play the heroic brawler.  

Big, talented cast wasted in fringe roles.  

And oh?  When that train went off the rails?  They all died.  Anything after that was just somebody's dream or something.  They all died.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 29, 2018, 11:35:29 AM
Solo

Meh.  Long movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 01, 2018, 12:27:43 AM
Raw

Still in search of a good horror movie.  The trailer showed some gruesome promise, the reviews were generally good.  

Raw is a French entry in the genre.  Meme les francais font de mauvais films. Pourquoi la bonne horreur est-elle si difficile? 

The basic storyline: 

Sixteen year old Justine heads to universite to be a veterinarian like her mom and dad.  She's the good student, the promised one, the brilliant child.  Her sister is already there a year or two ahead.  The entire family are strict vegetarians, a fact established in a silly and overlong restaurant scene. 

During the first week or so, the new vet students are relentlessly hazed by the upper classmen.  Who knew hell week was a thing for French vets to be?  Justine finds her sister at a rave-type party on the first night during a far-too-long hazing scene and it's pretty apparent that big sis Alexa is not quite in control.  She's definitely not meek and studious like her baby sister. 

As part of a one of the near constant hazing scenes, Justine the vegetarian veterinarian is forced to eat a piece of rabbit kidney.  

Things go off the rails after that.  Justine finds out she likes meat.  Raw.  Thus the title.  

During an uncomfortable bikini waxing scene (one that featured a dog twice sniffing Justine's crotch in sequences that appeared to be unscripted and just left in for no reason) little Justine gives in to her newly formed taste by snacking on a finger sandwich.  

Despite the gushing reviews that called this film groundbreaking, genre-defining and other superlatives, nothing that happens in this film hasn't been done elsewhere and in many cases done better.  The series Zombie is a much more clever take on this whole concept.  

The film was badly cut in the editing room.  There were random scene threads that simply didn't go anywhere or mean anything.  One in particular dealt with the question of who was cheating on a vet paper.  There was no point to include that scene, it had no correlation to anything else in the movie.  The pacing was terrible.  And there were so many things that just didn't make any sense at all.  No way would any universite allow much of the behavior on display.  

It was a French film so there were some weird components like underarm hair, a random boobs popping out, people wandering around in panties and cutoff shirts, etc.  And a sorta gay dude with another rabbit hole side story. 

French movies are awful.   

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 02, 2018, 12:55:18 AM
Deadpool 2 

Was it as good as the first Deadpool film?  

No. But only because the comedic value of seeing "Directed by: Some Asshole" is less impactful the second time you see it done.  While the movie continued to tread the same joyous 'wink at the camera' debauchery that made the original so unexpectedly entertaining, it never really stepped out of those tracks.  

It was more of the same which -- while wildly entertaining at times -- didn't break any new ground. 

Holy PISS Morena Baccarin can be hot. Hard to believe she was married to some dick-ugly Islama-Guido douchebag and is now married to the dude from Gotham.  

Sorry. Got sidetracked.  

Ryan Reynolds is perfect for this part.  I don't think I much like him or would like him in anything else.  It's a perfect marriage of character and actor. 

The movie was really creative. It trampled all over hundreds of pop culture references.  What was odd to me was that some of the ones I caught and laughed at went right over the heads of the teens/twenties in the theater audience and then there were things they thought were hilarious that I didn't really get.  He skewered most of the DC and Marvel universes and did so with reckless abandon.  

The story was decent, but I had a problem with the fat kid.  I had no sympathy for or empathy with him at all.  Mostly wanted him to die in a horrible way for a good part of the movie.  And still for that matter.  

All in all, it was a very entertaining film.  I'd watch it again.  But it doesn't touch the original simply because the original was so.... original.  This edged close to almost being a parody of a parody of itself at times.  

There will be a Deadpool 3, but I don't know that it's the best idea.  Better to go out while people still want you.  Like George Costanza.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on June 02, 2018, 01:23:37 AM
Mostly agree with the above.  Didn't break any new ground but it managed to keep it wildly entertaining for 2 hours. 

One thing about DPI and 2.  They were both funny as hell.  But 5 years from now, we won't be quoting anything from either movie.  This is fast moving, quick hitting one-liners that you laugh at and quickly prepare for the next one.  We quote Caddyshack, Blazing Saddles, Coming To America and numerous other comedy standards.  These don't fit the mold. 

Not a put down of either DP movie.  Loved the hell out of both.  It's just that neither will be a "Classic" in the sense of comedy movie legends.  But damn, that was 2 hours of fun.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 02, 2018, 01:31:52 AM
Dunkirk

Could have been a really good war movie.  

Good acting, a story that deserves telling.  Just not like this.  

Christopher Nolan isn't as smart as he thinks he is.  Give me a consistent narrative told in some semblance of natural order and I'm on board with this.  But his mind-trippy bouncing back and forth in stories without keeping them in an order that makes logical sense can kiss my entire ass.  

I liked Memento because it was different.  Then Nolan twisted stuff all around with the not-nearly-as-brilliant-as-people-pretended-it-was Inception.  It was like Emperor's New Clothes.  Everybody was afraid of looking uncultured so they heaped praise on something they didn't understand because it was 'daring.'  No. It was stupid.  Interstellar was overstuffed garbage, again wrongfully praised.  

I give Nolan credit for making the single best Batman film in history (the second of his trilogy) but he still made numerous missteps in that series.  Like all his movies they were too long and the final one was a mass of bloated puffery. It doesn't hold up at all.  It's bad, actually.  

I quit on Dunkirk and won't ever go back to finish it.  The failure of this movie to resonate falls squarely on the squirrely time-fiddling machinations of Nolan. Somebody needs to get hold of him and rein his tendencies in.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 02, 2018, 01:50:21 AM
Mostly agree with the above.  Didn't break any new ground but it managed to keep it wildly entertaining for 2 hours.

One thing about DPI and 2.  They were both funny as hell.  But 5 years from now, we won't be quoting anything from either movie.  This is fast moving, quick hitting one-liners that you laugh at and quickly prepare for the next one.  We quote Caddyshack, Blazing Saddles, Coming To America and numerous other comedy standards.  These don't fit the mold.

Not a put down of either DP movie.  Loved the hell out of both.  It's just that neither will be a "Classic" in the sense of comedy movie legends.  But damn, that was 2 hours of fun.
There may be some catchphrases that survive.  I've already seen a few floating around.  

You want quotes that stand the test of time?  Watch Raising Arizona.  That's a quotable classic.   There's hardly a day that goes by that I don't use at least one line from that movie.  

Just yesterday I was trying to help my daughter get her immunization records together and I went "You got to get them dip tet boosters yearly else you'll develop lock jaw and night vision. You got to have your dip tet, honey..."  
And she says "what's wrong with you?"

And I says "Well, sometimes I get them menstrual cramps real hard." 
 
She snatched the paper away and left the room.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 09, 2018, 11:50:29 AM
The Circle

I keep giving her movies a chance because I absolutely adored her in Dexter, but I keep coming to the same conclusion.  Julie Benz isn't very good. 

She adds nothing, absolutely nothing, to this movie.  Her part could have been played by any random person yanked off the street and been just as effective.

Here's what happens.

Bunch of people standing on red spots in a circle in a room.  Leave your spot, you get zapped and die.  Every few minutes you "vote" and somebody gets killed. 

It's an interesting concept, but it was so emotionally vacant and woodenly acted that it never generated the sense of fear and dread that it could have. 

It needed some rationale for why it was happening.  And it desperately needed some legitimate reactions.  Real people wouldn't have stood around calmly discussing each other's racist tendencies or forming murder alliances.  There was little discussion of how to disarm the game, just who should be killed in each turn.  Real people would have tried to figure a way to stop it, they wouldn't just acquiesce to the killings. Plus, the rules of the murder game kept changing in order to meet whatever argument was going on.  You have to vote, but some don't, so you don't.  Stupid. 

Good idea. Piss poor execution.  How many times have we heard that? Julie should give up acting and just come live with me.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 09, 2018, 12:01:35 PM
Possession of Michael King

Low budget horror movie. 

Delivered to a degree.  The guy playing Michael King was good, but the script he had to work with left him stranded in some cases. 

Like the movie I just reviewed (The Circle) there was an emotional flatness here that seriously handcuffed the film.  Too many things were left dangling. 

Atheist's wife is killed in an accident --  why they dragged out the circumstances of her death in piecemeal flashbacks across the span of the film is a bad mystery -- so the atheist decides to summon demons to either prove or debunk a life beyond this realm.  He's gonna make a documentary.

Atheist was pretty good in doing the interview for his film. Right level of smug disbelief.  Then, of course, he gets what he wants and one gets all up in him. 

The movie stops well short of the full monty so his possession doesn't have the horrific weight it could.  Still, there are a few decent cutaways before it just collapses into its own dullness.  The end was, I guess, a callback to the greatest possession movie of all time but even that was flatly rendered and without resolution. 

The few good scenes were not worth the overall journey. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 10, 2018, 12:56:13 AM
Hereditary

Really looked forward to this movie.  Good early buzz. 

Two hours and seven minutes.  Every single time I thought "oh, yeah, now it's about to get good..." the film turned away.

Tony Collette did a really good job.  The guy who needed a haircut from Jumanji still badly needed a comb. The poor girl who you assumed was the focal point of the movie with her clicking tongue is so god-awful hard to look at. 

I never really knew what was going on and you weren't given enough character history to really care much either way what happened to them. 

The ending was laughable, silly, contrived and ridiculous.  It didn't explain any of the hours and hours and hours of odd little twitches, it only more confused them. 
u
There were just way, way too many square pieces that didn't fit into round holes. 

1) What was the point of the tiny houses?
2) What was the point of the mom's sleepwalking or the paint thinner story?
3) What was the point of the little girl's oddities, including the bird head?
4) What was the point of all the screaming at each other?
5) In what world would a mother send a 13-year old to a party with her 17-year old brother?  Stupid.
6) What was the whole point of the grandmother?
7) What was the point of "she wanted me to be a boy?"
8) What was the point of the stupid words scrawled in the walls?

I could go on for two hours and seven minutes.  

It was a web spun in all so many directions that few of the threads stuck.  So few that the entire web fell apart and the spider died. 

I won't say it was a bad movie because all of the set pieces, the lighting, the cinematography, the acting and even the music was quality.  Too bad a muddy, unconvincing and in the end asinine story marred it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 10, 2018, 04:56:27 PM
Hereditary

Really looked forward to this movie.  Good early buzz. 

Two hours and seven minutes.  Every single time I thought "oh, yeah, now it's about to get good..." the film turned away.

Tony Collette did a really good job.  The guy who needed a haircut from Jumanji still badly needed a comb. The poor girl who you assumed was the focal point of the movie with her clicking tongue is so god-awful hard to look at. 

I never really knew what was going on and you weren't given enough character history to really care much either way what happened to them. 

The ending was laughable, silly, contrived and ridiculous.  It didn't explain any of the hours and hours and hours of odd little twitches, it only more confused them. 
u
There were just way, way too many square pieces that didn't fit into round holes. 

1) What was the point of the tiny houses?
2) What was the point of the mom's sleepwalking or the paint thinner story?
3) What was the point of the little girl's oddities, including the bird head?
4) What was the point of all the screaming at each other?
5) In what world would a mother send a 13-year old to a party with her 17-year old brother?  Stupid.
6) What was the whole point of the grandmother?
7) What was the point of "she wanted me to be a boy?"
8) What was the point of the stupid words scrawled in the walls?

I could go on for two hours and seven minutes. 

It was a web spun in all so many directions that few of the threads stuck.  So few that the entire web fell apart and the spider died. 

I won't say it was a bad movie because all of the set pieces, the lighting, the cinematography, the acting and even the music was quality.  Too bad a muddy, unconvincing and in the end asinine story marred it.

Sigh....

I really had high hopes for this one. But I've heard your same review from several others. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 10, 2018, 11:07:40 PM
Sigh....

I really had high hopes for this one. But I've heard your same review from several others.
Plagarists!! 

The media reviews were jerk offy in praise.  Found it telling, though, that it got an opening night D+ CinemaScore.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 10, 2018, 11:21:16 PM
Wildling

If you hadn't figured out the big "twist" in the first 45 seconds of the movie, you should ban yourself from watching movies for at least six months. 

It was so obvious a pack of butterscotch chips would have seen it coming. 

Here's an idea:  Let's steal a term from Game of Thrones to get people's attention.  Then let's bring in Liv Tyler to star and executive produce. But make sure she never once looks remotely attractive.  Then let's borrow from Ginger Snaps (a far superior movie), Teen Wolf, and a hundred other creature out of water movies.  Bang!  Instant hit.  Or not. 

The girl at the center of the movie's story wasn't terrible, but she was burdened with a trope-fest of tired cliches and a heavy dose of dumb storylines. 

I get tired of saying this, but there were too many idiotic events that didn't make sense.  I'm tired of movies that lazily use conveniences to push the story in ways it probably wouldn't naturally go.  I'm sick of characters having these absurd motivations that bear no similarity to how a real person might react. 

Here's a big wad of stupidity: 

Girl and highly unlikely suitor steal a police car.  Run though the woods and nobody can catch them despite building a roaring fire to have sex by.  Girl is running "north" and in something like two month's time, she's managed to get maaaaybe 20 yards from where she started.  Gaping logical faults like this peppered the movie and defied all sensibility. 

Don't rent. Don't buy. Don't bother.

Liv?  Do better.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 11, 2018, 01:52:15 PM
Wildling

If you hadn't figured out the big "twist" in the first 45 seconds of the movie, you should ban yourself from watching movies for at least six months. 

It was so obvious a pack of butterscotch chips would have seen it coming. 

Here's an idea:  Let's steal a term from Game of Thrones to get people's attention.  Then let's bring in Liv Tyler to star and executive produce. But make sure she never once looks remotely attractive.  Then let's borrow from Ginger Snaps (a far superior movie), Teen Wolf, and a hundred other creature out of water movies.  Bang!  Instant hit.  Or not. 

The girl at the center of the movie's story wasn't terrible, but she was burdened with a trope-fest of tired cliches and a heavy dose of dumb storylines. 

I get tired of saying this, but there were too many idiotic events that didn't make sense.  I'm tired of movies that lazily use conveniences to push the story in ways it probably wouldn't naturally go.  I'm sick of characters having these absurd motivations that bear no similarity to how a real person might react. 

Here's a big wad of stupidity: 

Girl and highly unlikely suitor steal a police car.  Run though the woods and nobody can catch them despite building a roaring fire to have sex by.  Girl is running "north" and in something like two month's time, she's managed to get maaaaybe 20 yards from where she started.  Gaping logical faults like this peppered the movie and defied all sensibility. 

Don't rent. Don't buy. Don't bother.

Liv?  Do better.
Liv gave her political opinion on the x?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 12, 2018, 11:14:03 PM
Den of Thieves

Gerard Butler, 50 Cent, Pornstache, Ice Chip, Victor Newman (for you Young and Restless fans), and a few other people in an ultra-violent heist film.

Borrowing various big chunks from The Town, Training Day, American Gangster, Oceans 11 and a number of other implausible 'shoot up the entire town' robbery movies, this overly long film wasn't bad, but it just didn't break any new ground. 

Ice Chip showed he might have a career in this acting game.  50 Cent showed he really doesn't.  Gerard Butler showed that his time has passed.  He hasn't really done squidooly since 300 anyway and he wasn't that good even in that.

The movie wasn't bad. The whole way through I knew there was a story that was hiding beneath the surface, but I didn't really figure out what it was.  So that was good. 

Some of the rest was just too convenient from a timing standpoint.  No way some of the things could have happened in the timeframe they did. And there was a whole throwaway storyline about a wife and kids that was utterly unnecessary and could have shaved at least 15 minutes off the too-long running time. 

It was good enough to waste some time on, but won't live on in the pantheon of good action movies.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 12, 2018, 11:22:39 PM
Atticus vs. The Architect: The political assassination of Don Siegelman

If you live in Alabama and haven't watched this, you need to do so.  It makes me utterly ashamed to be an Alabamian.  It's on Amazon.

I was never a big Don Siegelman fan.  I know for a fact that he, like all politicians, had some back alley areas that were a little bit gray.  He had his cronies. But I also know for a fact that he was shot down by a fearful state/national establishment. 

What Bob Riley brought us was an unprecedented wave of corruption.  He and his machine politically murdered anyone from the Democratic side who might be a challenge to them. They did it by strong-arming the legal system, taking truckloads of money from the Mississippi casinos, and flat out stealing votes.  

It also mirrors in many ways the politically motivated attacks on President Trump right now, particularly in terms of the incestuous relationships between the people going after him legally.  It's hard to ignore the parallels between the "investigation" of Siegelman and that of Trump. 

If I have to pick a party, I'm likely to pick Republican.  But after watching this and remembering again just how corrupt the party became under Bob Riley.... I'm probably going to vote for the Maddox guy this year.
 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on June 13, 2018, 12:13:35 AM
Riley was Saban level corrupt.  Fucking horrible.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 14, 2018, 11:17:24 AM
Atticus vs. The Architect: The political assassination of Don Siegelman

If you live in Alabama and haven't watched this, you need to do so.  It makes me utterly ashamed to be an Alabamian.  It's on Amazon.

I was never a big Don Siegelman fan.  I know for a fact that he, like all politicians, had some back alley areas that were a little bit gray.  He had his cronies. But I also know for a fact that he was shot down by a fearful state/national establishment. 

What Bob Riley brought us was an unprecedented wave of corruption.  He and his machine politically murdered anyone from the Democratic side who might be a challenge to them. They did it by strong-arming the legal system, taking truckloads of money from the Mississippi casinos, and flat out stealing votes. 

It also mirrors in many ways the politically motivated attacks on President Trump right now, particularly in terms of the incestuous relationships between the people going after him legally.  It's hard to ignore the parallels between the "investigation" of Siegelman and that of Trump. 

If I have to pick a party, I'm likely to pick Republican.  But after watching this and remembering again just how corrupt the party became under Bob Riley.... I'm probably going to vote for the Maddox guy this year.
 
That's because smiling Bob is a lifelong democrat. He simply switched parties for electability not too long ago. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 15, 2018, 11:35:24 PM
Incredibles 2

Sentimentality is a dangerous drug.  My youngest kids (18) wanted to go see this one because they'd loved the original back when they were four.  Nostalgia and whatnot.  

I used to be a big fan of the whole Disney thing. Lion King is remains in my all-time favorites list.  I've got a really deep attachment to Little Mermaid because of my oldest daughter.  I remembered the first Incredibles movie and thought I remembered that I'd enjoyed it. 

I guess it's been too long since I had kids small enough to take them to these animated films.   This one just failed to keep me engaged.  It was bright. It was noisy. It was bombastic. It tried to squeeze a little emotion here and there.  But it just left me completely flat.  The story was a retread of a retread of a retread.  Nothing surprising.  The theater was packed and people applauded (because I think they thought they had to maybe?) but it was all I could to do to keep from checking my phone every five minutes to see what time it was.  

The little animated short that came on prior to the movie (I think it was called Bao?)  That thing had heart, humor and life.  That one touched me. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 18, 2018, 09:28:25 AM
Veronica

Spanish horror movie.  

Watched because I saw articles where people were turning it off midway through because it was so scary they couldn't handle it.  

Pfffttt.  Yawn.  Not scary at all.  

Okay movie.  I figured the "big reveal" pretty early.  It wasn't bad per se, but it was really just a big ball of meh.  

Same story we've seen time after time.  Teenagers mess with Ouija board, teenagers accidentally invite demon. Cue benign jump scares and shadowy figures dashing across in the background.  

Scary factor of zero.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 18, 2018, 09:33:32 AM
Anna
Good cast including Tassia Farmiga and Mark Strong.  

Cop who "reads memories" (Strong) hired to help girl who might be a murderous psychopath (Farmiga).  

Less than ten minutes in, we all knew what was happening rather than what was allegedly happening.  Because of that, the movie lacked the resonance it might have had.  

The whole "read memory" angle lent an air of silliness to a movie that was supposed to be tense.  Little Farmiga is a decent actress, but on the verge of being pigeonholed as "that weird horror girl."  She needs to find a different genre.  

I wouldn't bother with this.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 10, 2018, 09:00:12 AM
Winchester 

Reasonably average horror movie.  Used to like Jason Clarke, but his performances have degraded over time.  He's the weakest part of this movie.  

Better than I expected. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 10, 2018, 09:06:31 AM
The Cleanse 

Could you destroy your worst traits/behaviors if they were implanted in a critter that was sort of cute? 

That's the goofy premise of this weird movie.  

Really interesting premise completely mishandled and bungled by a cast that includes Anjelica Houston, Rusty Griswold, Oliver Platt and a couple of other people you'd recognize.  

Could have been a good movie but that opportunity was fumbled.  Rusty Gris is a terrible actor and sucks as badly here as he does in Bang Bing Theory. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 11, 2018, 01:04:00 AM
Fuck Heston.  Fuck him for his shitty acting and his political activism.  I want my actors to act and leave their fucking politics at home.
Hmmm. Ran across this wes quote from 2011.  

Belongs in the SGA but, hmmmm.  

So how does wes feel about Clooney, Meyers, and the rest of the whole bleating pack? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 11, 2018, 10:46:17 AM
Hmmm. Ran across this wes quote from 2011. 

Belongs in the SGA but, hmmmm. 

So how does wes feel about Clooney, Meyers, and the rest of the whole bleating pack?
Don't you know different rules apply when self interest and ideology rule Supreme? Do as I say not as a do. That's the left. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on July 11, 2018, 11:51:45 AM
Hmmm. Ran across this wes quote from 2011. 

Belongs in the SGA but, hmmmm. 

So how does wes feel about Clooney, Meyers, and the rest of the whole bleating pack?
They're entitled to their opinions, just as anyone is, but their stature in the American entertainment industry doesn't lend them any insight or make their opinions any more credible.

Heston is still a shitty actor, though.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 11, 2018, 11:59:22 AM
They're entitled to their opinions, just as anyone is, but their stature in the American entertainment industry doesn't lend them any insight or make their opinions any more credible.

Heston is still a shitty actor, though.
You damn dirty ape!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on July 11, 2018, 12:17:36 PM
Hmmm. Ran across this wes quote from 2011. 

Belongs in the SGA but, hmmmm. 

So how does wes feel about Clooney, Meyers, and the rest of the whole bleating pack?
At that time, Heston was mostly retired from acting. 

And many would disagree with his assessment of Heaton's acting.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 11, 2018, 02:31:42 PM
They're entitled to their opinions, just as anyone is, but their stature in the American entertainment industry doesn't lend them any insight or make their opinions any more credible.

Heston is still a shitty actor, though.
Why haven’t you joined me in condemning their shitty opinions, shitty activism and shitty performances then? Did it only offend you because he promoted a conservative view?  

Are you not equally offended by the violent activism promoted by deniro, Madonna, griffin, baldwin, Carrey, etc?  Are you not offended by the arrogant disrespect for the man and the office displayed by Noah, Colbert, that ugly freckled bitch, Kimmel, etc.? 

Where is your outrage? 

You may have the final word in this thread on the topic.Will return to movie reviews after you reply.   Ok 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 11, 2018, 04:40:10 PM
Why haven’t you joined me in condemning their shitty opinions, shitty activism and shitty performances then? Did it only offend you because he promoted a conservative view? 

Are you not equally offended by the violent activism promoted by deniro, Madonna, griffin, baldwin, Carrey, etc?  Are you not offended by the arrogant disrespect for the man and the office displayed by Noah, Colbert, that ugly freckled bitch, Kimmel, etc.?

Where is your outrage?

You may have the final word in this thread on the topic.Will return to movie reviews after you reply.  Ok
Because those guys are considered information sources by the skinny jean wearing millenials. It's news for them. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on July 11, 2018, 11:28:06 PM
Why haven’t you joined me in condemning their shitty opinions, shitty activism and shitty performances then? blahblahblah

Are you not equally offended by blahblahblah

Where is your outrage?
blahestblah
Because an off-the-cuff verbal loogie in Chuck's general direction doesn't define my political worldview in total.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 13, 2018, 08:38:21 AM
Back to regularly scheduled programming. 

The Hollow Child

Creature in the woods takes possession of little kids.  The town is somewhat complicit. When it takes Olivia, her stepsister (the somewhat interesting Jessica McLeod) decides to fight back.  

Canadian horror movie. I've seen worse, but this -- like so many horror efforts -- always seemed to step back from the edge when it could have really turned up the horrible.  

Some bad acting (typical) some half-baked story threads (also typical), a dash of silly (just look at it! which is again, typical), some slow-played exposition (sadly, also typical) plagued this film.  

It borrowed from IT (monster comes back once a generation to snatch kids) and lifted bits and pieces from half a dozen other horror films. Nothing new in the toolbox. 

It also suffered from a weak lead, but that's part of the issue with any film that relies on a child. Hard to find a good child actor who can pull off the menace.  This kid wasn't awful, but she wasn't very good either.  Too fake. 

The biggest problem, though?  When the big bad emerged at the end I was reduced to laughter.  "I am Grooooot" came immediately to mind.  

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 13, 2018, 11:08:08 PM
The First Purge

Went to see The First Purge.  Instead Black Panther broke out. 

I think I'll purge my dinner. 

The hero of this movie is a neighborhood drug dealer.  (If you watched The Wire, he's akin to Avon Barksdale or Marlo Stanfield). 

The bad guys in this movie are the white folks. 

A terrible entry in the Purge pantheon. 

So forget the movie.  I have questions in regard to the whole Purge concept. 

Primarily, why all the killing?  If all crime is forgiven, I'm going to be a stealing son of a gun.  I'd spend all year building tools to bust into bank vaults, jewelry safes and museum security. I'd make sure I had the best body armor so that it would be hard to take me down without a bazooka.  I'm getting a squad together and I'm stealing Bugattis, McLarens, Maseratis.  I'm stealing priceless art. Forget a bunch of worthless killing. 

And if you DO steal a bunch of stuff, do the rules of Purge say you get to keep it? 

If you can't keep it and all you can do is kill, then I have a list.  I guess I'd start with that. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 15, 2018, 12:07:37 PM
The Devil's Doorway

What's worse than a "found footage" film.  A found footage film from the 1960s. 

What's worse than another movie about a possessed pregnant girl?  A film about a possessed pregnant girl set in a 1960s Irish Catholic home for society's female dregs that's run by a bunch of nuns.

What's worse than another movie about a priest struggling with his belief in the face of mounting evidence of demonic possession?  A film about two priests struggling with their beliefs in the face of mounting evidence of demonic possession.  Half the movie consisted of them calling each other's names in their Irish brogue. "Jawn"  "Tawmas"

What's worse than another derivative movie that does little more than rehash a handful of cliched movie tropes?  A derivative movie that rehashes a handful of cliched movie tropes and then fails to provide any semblance of meaningful closure. 

Keep this doorway closed.  Board it up. Nail it shut. Concrete over it. 

To be fair, I'm giving Justice League another look on HBO while I finish my homemade brunch of belgian waffles, corned beef hash and fried eggs.  It's a vomit of horrible acting, incredibly bad CGI and hokey dialogue.  It is a bucket full of chum.  I'd rather watch a dozen bad horror films than watch my beloved DC universe tortured in this way.  The only redeeming feature AT ALL is Wonder Woman -- and that's just because she triggers me in a non-SJW way.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on July 20, 2018, 11:47:14 PM
Equalizer 2

This is why I love me some Denzel.  He killed it...and a lot of bad guys too.  More ass kicking action than the first but it still kind of jumps around during the first one-third or 247/735th of it.  Instead of working at the Home Depot, he's an Uber driver in this one.  They spend the first part of it with him continuing to help random people in need and they don't get to the real story for a bit.  Some of the parts would normally seem a little slow but his acting more than makes up for it. 

Kind of predictable as far as the plot and who-dunnit, but I'm such a fan of the indestructible, one-man army flicks, I don't really care.  Overall a pretty decent watch.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 22, 2018, 01:02:21 PM
A Dark Song 

A dumb movie.  

BOOOOOOO.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 23, 2018, 08:49:45 AM
Death Wish

In 1974 Charles Bronson cut the crime rate in New York by more than half when he became judge, jury and executioner over the city's criminal class. The pacifist liberal turned into a vigilante when his wife and child were attacked. He began conflicted, but gradually gained a taste for the vengeance game. In the end he was exiled by a quasi-grateful NYPD to Chicago with the promise that he'd give up his crusade to clean up the streets.  It was a near perfect Bronson movie and fit in well in an era that had given us two Dirty Harry movies (Eastwood), Mr. Majestyk (Bronson),  Black Caesar (Fred Williamson), Shaft (Roundtree) and a host of other good guys with a gun films -- including the series of spaghetti westerns that built Eastwood's rep.  

In 2018 Bruce Willis squint-walked through a soulless remake of the Bronson's Wish under the direction of the highly overrated Eli Roth. Start with the fact that in Roth's version Willis was a "highly skilled" surgeon and stumble steadily down from that asinine premise.  The movie wasted the talents of Elisabeth Shue (still hot at 55 bless her babysitting soul) and Vincent D'Onofrio (a slimy walrus-looking piece of shit) in roles that could have been played by department store mannequins. The movie also included Dean Norris (Bad's clueless Hank) in a role that made him look like a stand-in who stumbled in off the street.  Awful performance from a guy who may not be capable of much more than this. I think Bad was his zenith, he's sucked in everything else I've seen him in -- and he was the weakest link of Bad to be honest. 

Not a single line of this movie was delivered with any sense of truth or conviction. Willis squints and mumble-whispers through the role looking every inch the guy who just wants to get paid and doesn't care at all if the work is worth it. Didn't even look like he had any fun doing it. As genre fulfilling and badass cool as the 1974 Wish was, this crusty turd was equally dry and lifeless.  It lifted scenes and set pieces from the Bronson film and then delivered them with all the credibility of Flex Seal Phil Swift, The Alabama Hammer, Tommy Tuberville for Golden Flake and Eli Manning sitting down for a cold first time table read of the script.  

Oh, remember how Bronson was exiled to Chicago by a NYPD that appreciated his work and didn't want to have to take him down?  Well, this movie takes place in Chicago!  How cool is that?  Exactly.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 05, 2018, 10:57:07 AM
Ant Man and The Wasp

This is the cinematic equivalent of a Krispy Kreme donut.  It’s good at the time, isn’t a meal on its own and is pretty quickly forgotten. 

Paul Rudd doesn’t have the presence of Downey or Thor.  The romantic chemistry between Rudd and the Wasp has less spark than the dead flatness of Thor and Portman.  

But it’s still a fun time waster and hits just enough comedic and dramatic notes to fit well enough into the Marvel pantheon.  It’s not something I’m going to rush out to buy but I’d watch it again probably 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 08, 2018, 03:55:18 PM
The Exorcist

This movie came out 45 years ago.  It remains one of the few films with the ability to make me cringe.  Perhaps it's because I was eight or nine years old the first time I watched it and was shell shocked. Perhaps it's because it's just well executed.  Either way, even 45 years later and after all the hundreds/thousands of imitators, the movie still holds up.  

Yes, some of the acting is cringingly bad, particularly that of the mother and the young priest.  But the special effects -- considering the time and the limited availability of CGI -- are masterful.  Linda Blair couldn't act a lick as the daughter, but as a demon she was fantastic.  I can't imagine a scenario where that film doesn't scar her, though.  That performance would have to screw up her mind. 

The only thing that doesn't work now that did work in the 70s is the head rotation.  They tried to make it real, but that's clearly a doll head.  Good try and lauded in its time, but weak now.  

Still, a fantastic film.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 08, 2018, 04:07:40 PM
https://youtu.be/B8dKnFU5LUE (https://youtu.be/B8dKnFU5LUE)

THE BED...IS ON...MY FOOT!!!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chityeah on August 08, 2018, 09:54:53 PM
The Exorcist

This movie came out 45 years ago.  It remains one of the few films with the ability to make me cringe.  Perhaps it's because I was eight or nine years old the first time I watched it and was shell shocked. Perhaps it's because it's just well executed.  Either way, even 45 years later and after all the hundreds/thousands of imitators, the movie still holds up. 

Yes, some of the acting is cringingly bad, particularly that of the mother and the young priest.  But the special effects -- considering the time and the limited availability of CGI -- are masterful.  Linda Blair couldn't act a lick as the daughter, but as a demon she was fantastic.  I can't imagine a scenario where that film doesn't scar her, though.  That performance would have to screw up her mind.

The only thing that doesn't work now that did work in the 70s is the head rotation.  They tried to make it real, but that's clearly a doll head.  Good try and lauded in its time, but weak now. 

Still, a fantastic film. 
I still haven't seen this. I'm 56 and skeered.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on August 09, 2018, 06:33:43 PM
I still haven't seen this. I'm 56 and skeered.
Everytime I see it, I'm at confession in about a day.

I read a book by one of the Catholic Church's chief exorcists.  It wasn't quite what I was hoping, but he did talk about how one exorcism he did, the young girl vomited glass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 09, 2018, 10:19:19 PM
Everytime I see it, I'm at confession in about a day.

I read a book by one of the Catholic Church's chief exorcists.  It wasn't quite what I was hoping, but he did talk about how one exorcism he did, the young girl vomited glass.
You need to get into some lighter reading.  Maybe a Nicholas Sparks romance novel or two.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 10, 2018, 01:29:03 AM
Semi Pro

When you're looking for evidence that Will Ferrell should never make movies (Elf being the lone exception) this enormous dog turd of a flim should be Exhibit One.  Blades of Glory should be Exhibit Two.  Case closed. 

There are a hundred other actors who could take the story of a basketball franchise that's headed toward oblivion and resorts to stunts in an effort to save itself and make that story funny.  In Ferrell's braying, clumsy, vulgar, humorless hands that became impossible. 

We all saw Major League.  It had its crude moments, but it was a funny, endearing and involving story.  This film -- which was essentially the same thing but in gym shorts -- spread its dirty butt cheeks and scatted all over the premise. 

Scads of alleged talent was wasted in this film including Woody Harrelson, Andre from Outkast, Maura Tierney (who I usually like), Rob Corddry, Will Arnett, Matt Walsh, Andy Richter, Todd Packer, Andrew Bernard, Jason Sudekis, Jackie Earl Haley, and Andrew Daly among others. 

It was maggot infested garbage.  I'd rather have barbed wire drug across my nuts than watch this again. 

Ferrell is a chump. Give me an iPhone, $40 and a half bottle of vodka and I could make a better movie in about two days.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 10, 2018, 11:19:08 AM
The Exorcist

This movie came out 45 years ago.  It remains one of the few films with the ability to make me cringe.  Perhaps it's because I was eight or nine years old the first time I watched it and was shell shocked. Perhaps it's because it's just well executed.  Either way, even 45 years later and after all the hundreds/thousands of imitators, the movie still holds up. 

Yes, some of the acting is cringingly bad, particularly that of the mother and the young priest.  But the special effects -- considering the time and the limited availability of CGI -- are masterful.  Linda Blair couldn't act a lick as the daughter, but as a demon she was fantastic.  I can't imagine a scenario where that film doesn't scar her, though.  That performance would have to screw up her mind.

The only thing that doesn't work now that did work in the 70s is the head rotation.  They tried to make it real, but that's clearly a doll head.  Good try and lauded in its time, but weak now. 

Still, a fantastic film. 
THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!

Oh does it!  Does it compel me? 

THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!

Really...Really Jay, cause I don't really find it all that compelling!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on August 11, 2018, 10:43:38 AM
THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!

Oh does it!  Does it compel me? 

THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!

Really...Really Jay, cause I don't really find it all that compelling!


What does Michael Cera's butthole look like?   Is it as cute as I imagine?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on August 11, 2018, 08:58:44 PM
Who did this?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 12, 2018, 12:13:11 AM
Pyramid

Supposed to be a moderate-budget horror answer to the Mummy franchise.  

It had its moments, but when it got to the Big Bad denouement it completely fell apart.  It was Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy herky jerky bad.  Just not compelling.  If it had simply allowed the creature maintain itself in shadow it would have been so much better.  Bringing it into the light was a huge mistake.  

Story was a little oofy and there were some continuity screw ups of the kind that really, really annoy me (like the disappearing and reappearing flashlights).  There was also a pointless "you're infected" rabbit hole.  

Worth watching?  Not really.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 13, 2018, 11:04:14 AM
Who did this?
Who did what?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on August 13, 2018, 11:09:27 AM
Who did what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiZHNw1MtzI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiZHNw1MtzI)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 13, 2018, 11:16:46 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiZHNw1MtzI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiZHNw1MtzI)
-129
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on August 13, 2018, 11:22:35 AM
-129
Still better than the landshark
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on August 13, 2018, 01:52:29 PM
Still better than the landshark
+100

-29 aggregate
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on August 16, 2018, 12:24:24 PM
I still haven't seen this. I'm 56 and skeered.
damn bro, even I've seen it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 19, 2018, 04:19:36 PM
I, Tonya
This movie is worth the watch for the soundtrack alone. Too bad the rest of the film doesn’t quite live up to the premise of the impressive array of nostalgic musical interludes.

It tries to play like a black comedy, presenting caricatures of most of the main players — Tonya, Jeff Gilooly, Shawn Eckhardt and Tonya’s acerbic Mom.  In the caricature it gets the basic notes of the white trash outsiders crashing the rich kid’s party right.  And it was a good movie — one that if you didn’t know it was basically true you’d never believe it could have happened.  

Margot Robbie was terrific.  So was the rest of the cast.

It’s just that....it’s too soon.  Too soon to recast it as broad comedy. All these people are still alive.  And I personally think the bigger story is the hell tonya created and overcame in rising to the top of a sport that didn’t want her and didn’t love her back. Even in this comedic effort it was tough watching her try to fill her gaping need to be loved — a need that started with her bitch of a mom.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 21, 2018, 11:14:19 AM
Sharknado 6

What made Sharknado tolerable through five increasingly bizarre outings was its complete lack of pretension.  It wasn't trying to be great, it was bad and it embraced that badness. The CGI was slap-dash, the dialogue purposely stilted, the plot choked with the ridiculous and improbable. 

Atmospheric re-entry in the body of a shark?  Why not?  The constant slaughter of B, C and D list stars was absurdly entertaining.  Where else could you go to watch Todd Chrisley, Chris Jericho, Lou Ferrigno, Maria Menuous, Jerry Springer, Dance Mom, Kelly Osborne, Brett Michaels and a sea of others get wiped out.

I enjoyed them for what they were.  In an odd way they reminded me of the 60s Batman series (which I loved for what it was) in their self-aware campyness.

This sixth and final episode, though?  It took the ridiculous and absurd and stretched it beyond what it could bear.  The time-tripping, scene skipping, butterfly effecting lost me.  Sharknado was always a movie franchise where you'd find yourself drifting, but this last effort never set the hook.

Tara Reid should have stayed dead.  She's difficult to look at and her acting -- even purposely bad can't explain what she put on the screen.  She's a total zero.  She's the worst part of this movie (and when the CGI is this bad, that's saying a lot).  Unfortunately she was also a big part of the movie which made it even less palatable.  There are bad performances sprinkled throughout the entire 1-6 saga -- Chris Kataan as a British Prime Minister is gratingly bad, for instance.  He should stick to gobbling apples and grunting. But little rivals the awful work from Tara. 

The ending was a cop out, too.  It was Bobby in the shower weak.  Didn't like the wrapup at all.

Edited to add:  Somebody forgot to tell Tori Spelling she died ten years ago and her corpse has been rotting since. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 31, 2018, 11:58:44 AM
Bad Ass

Had one of those sleepless nights last night.  So, after I stopped worrying about your problems, I sat down with the remote and looked for a movie to watch.  Do you ever come across something so incredibly bad, that you just have to stop and watch, asking yourself, "Is this fo' realz?"  This was one of those times.  Handsome Danny Trejo plays a Vietnam War vet looking to get revenge for his best friend's murder. He spends every day trying to track down the killer, leaving a path of really beat up bad guys in his wake.  Oh, the bumps and bruises he dishes out.  And being that he's about 4'3" and was around 70 when the film was made, his character is 100% believable.  His love interest in the movie was a girl named Amber Lamps.  So.....there's that. 

I finally quit watching when the bad guy stole a city bus from the terminal to escape.  Trejo tells one of the bus drivers he needs his bus.  The driver says, "You're that Bad Ass guy.  We've all been following you.  We love what you're doing. Here, take my bus." I finished up an episode of Gun Smoke after that.    
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 05, 2018, 11:30:18 PM
Bad Ass

Had one of those sleepless nights last night.  So, after I stopped worrying about your problems, I sat down with the remote and looked for a movie to watch.  Do you ever come across something so incredibly bad, that you just have to stop and watch, asking yourself, "Is this fo' realz?"  This was one of those times.  Handsome Danny Trejo plays a Vietnam War vet looking to get revenge for his best friend's murder. He spends every day trying to track down the killer, leaving a path of really beat up bad guys in his wake.  Oh, the bumps and bruises he dishes out.  And being that he's about 4'3" and was around 70 when the film was made, his character is 100% believable.  His love interest in the movie was a girl named Amber Lamps.  So.....there's that.

I finally quit watching when the bad guy stole a city bus from the terminal to escape.  Trejo tells one of the bus drivers he needs his bus.  The driver says, "You're that Bad Ass guy.  We've all been following you.  We love what you're doing. Here, take my bus." I finished up an episode of Gun Smoke after that.   
In case you didn’t know, this movie was  â€œa true story loosely based” on the bus incident where the Bad Ass left the guy leaking.  And we never found out who the hot girl was.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on September 06, 2018, 08:48:55 AM
“a true story loosely based” 
*snicker*
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 07, 2018, 04:53:50 PM
The Last Movie Star

I don't think I would have felt the emotion of this movie as much if I'd seen it when I was younger.  It's only when you've reached that age where you look in the mirror and are sometimes surprised by what you see looking back at you that it will hit home quite as hard.  It's only after your kids are grown and gone and you face that empty, echoing house that you really understand the depth of the void that was staring back at Vic Edwards in this movie. 

The film tells the story of aged one-time A-lister Edwards (Burt Reynolds playing a version of himself) who gets invited to be the honoree at a Film Festival which really turns out to be just a bunch of nerds in a bar doing it on the cheap for their own just for fun. No prestige, no glamour.  Edwards accepted the invite based on some misleading info (and on the advice of a badly aging Chevy Chase) hoping to get one last ride on the carousel of fame.  He's not happy with what it turns out to be, but over the course of a few days he gets to examine his life and the choices he made.

So much of it could have been a documentary on the real Burt Reynolds as it interweaves clips from his movies throughout.  It's hard to watch the once vibrant, wise-cracking, charismatic Edwards stagger through the waning stages of his life, bitter over the mistakes he made.

This film did a wonderful job of capturing that desolate, helpless feeling that sometimes grips you as the world rushes by and leaves you behind.  They got that right.  Sometimes the world moves on and you're still just standing there. 

It's not a great movie. It's got its flaws.  But it's a much better film than I expected.  If you liked Burt, please see it. 

The one thing that I most took away from this film is recognizing again what a great actor Reynolds could have been.  Even as a withered shell of what he used to be, he still has an energy and presence that is hard to deny. The roguish leers and smirks that defined him are still there lurking underneath skin and bones that struggle to express them.  Had he made different choices, he'd have a chance to be remembered as one of the all time greats alongside Brando, Pacino, etc.  Instead he made movies that were fun.  I don't see how you could watch this film and not see how good he could have been.

This is a much sadder movie than I expected it to be.  If this was his last film (and I think it was), it's a pretty decent way to go out.  I wish more people were aware of it and/or had seen it. 

Yeah.  I liked a movie. Sue me.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 07, 2018, 11:29:23 PM
Upgrade

Take a half box of RoboCop, stir in a pound of of Death Wish, add three tablespoons of 2001: A Space Odyssey, blend with a dash of Terminator, a swirl of Six Million Dollar Man and a pinch of Batman and you've got Upgrade.  

In a so crazy we're almost there futuristic world where virtually everything seems voice-activated and cars drive themselves, a throwback to the good old days who still loves muscle cars and is sorta baffled by technology loses his family and his mobility.  We can rebuild him. We can make him better than he was before. Better. Stronger. Faster. 

Once Upgraded he goes after the bad guys who took his family away.  Sorta predictable.  You could see where the path of revenge was going to lead. It was violently interesting and occasionally humorous as he got there, though.  You could almost even see his Hal moment coming.  

I'm sorry, Grey, I'm afraid I can't do that. 

It was an entertaining enough movie.  I think it would have benefited from a stronger overall cast and a bigger budget.  The lead was fair enough, but there wasn't much to work with around him.  

I'm glad I didn't go to the theater to see it, but it was worth the mind-numbing watch. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 11, 2018, 01:08:09 AM
Minutes to Midnight

One of the random Baldwin brothers and a badly aging Richard Grieco slumming hard in a movie that featured a fringe member of the WWE crew and a badly used Ilithiya (if you watched Spartacus, you'll know her). 

Group of teens travel to some weird "lodge" that was the source of some of the worst sets since 70s porn. Guy with a backpack keeps identifying himself "Travis Crenna" who's stomping about looking for a missing/murdered brother. Stringy-haired Grieco mumbles and mopes through his role as the sheriff, constantly referencing a storm that never arrives and making dire pronouncements. He's the worst part of a horrible movie.  Completely unconvincing, looked like he'd rather be sitting in a corner sucking on a bong. 

This is one of those movies that makes me wonder why I don't take about $800 and a cell phone and go make my own horror movie.  It would have looked better than this.  

A long series of continuity errors, random scenes that didn't fit, garbage dialogue, and some of the worst "acting" ever to grace a screen. 

Here's an idea of how bad it is.  Grieco plays a Sheriff but apparently there wasn't enough budget to get sheriff costumes or even badge stickers for the vehicles.  He's just driving around in a Toyota FJ or whatever in his jeans.  Apparently the entire budget was wasted on creating a mask for one of the 'bad guys.'  The mask was cool enough, but completely wasted in this joke. 

One of the absolute worst movies of all time.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 11, 2018, 01:17:28 AM
Delirium

Topher Grace in a moderate-budget thriller. 

He's been locked away for 20 years.  He might be crazy.  He's on meds.  Are all the things he's seeing and hearing actually happening? 

The movie left a lot of open holes and unraveled threads.  Grace was ok.  Where the movie really flopped was in the casting of his "does he really exist?" brother.  The rest of the cast is adequate enough.  The bro is completely out of place and pretty much ruins a movie that had some decent setups. 

Dude is released from a 20-year sentence, is on house arrest, can't leave his house and within three days two different women throw themselves at him.  Yeah, that's how that works. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on September 11, 2018, 10:00:24 AM
The Last Movie Star

I don't think I would have felt the emotion of this movie as much if I'd seen it when I was younger.  It's only when you've reached that age where you look in the mirror and are sometimes surprised by what you see looking back at you that it will hit home quite as hard.  It's only after your kids are grown and gone and you face that empty, echoing house that you really understand the depth of the void that was staring back at Vic Edwards in this movie. 

The film tells the story of aged one-time A-lister Edwards (Burt Reynolds playing a version of himself) who gets invited to be the honoree at a Film Festival which really turns out to be just a bunch of nerds in a bar doing it on the cheap for their own just for fun. No prestige, no glamour.  Edwards accepted the invite based on some misleading info (and on the advice of a badly aging Chevy Chase) hoping to get one last ride on the carousel of fame.  He's not happy with what it turns out to be, but over the course of a few days he gets to examine his life and the choices he made.

So much of it could have been a documentary on the real Burt Reynolds as it interweaves clips from his movies throughout.  It's hard to watch the once vibrant, wise-cracking, charismatic Edwards stagger through the waning stages of his life, bitter over the mistakes he made.

This film did a wonderful job of capturing that desolate, helpless feeling that sometimes grips you as the world rushes by and leaves you behind.  They got that right.  Sometimes the world moves on and you're still just standing there. 

It's not a great movie. It's got its flaws.  But it's a much better film than I expected.  If you liked Burt, please see it. 

The one thing that I most took away from this film is recognizing again what a great actor Reynolds could have been.  Even as a withered shell of what he used to be, he still has an energy and presence that is hard to deny. The roguish leers and smirks that defined him are still there lurking underneath skin and bones that struggle to express them.  Had he made different choices, he'd have a chance to be remembered as one of the all time greats alongside Brando, Pacino, etc.  Instead he made movies that were fun.  I don't see how you could watch this film and not see how good he could have been.

This is a much sadder movie than I expected it to be.  If this was his last film (and I think it was), it's a pretty decent way to go out.  I wish more people were aware of it and/or had seen it. 

Yeah.  I liked a movie. Sue me.

I have to echo this review 100%. 

If youre a Burt fan - this one is a requiem, autobiography, final chapter, happy, sad - all rolled into one. Very fitting end for him. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 04, 2018, 02:13:40 PM
Molly's Game

Jessica Chastain in a "based on a true story" film about a crashed skiing star (Molly Bloom) and her rise and fall in the world of big time underground poker games. 

Fairly interesting, pretty well acted and a story I didn't know.  Cast also included Kevin Costner, Michael Sera and Idris Elba.

Where the movie fell short was in failing to identify -- even if just in flipbook style clips -- some of the Hollywood elite who rotated in and out of her high stakes games.

Worth watching just for the story.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 04, 2018, 02:16:37 PM
Solo 

I feel about this movie about like I do Better Call Saul.  It's not bad, but it's unnecessary and it sort of twingles (a mix of twist and tangle) some of the mythology of the originals.  

If there were no Star Wars I wouldn't have cared about this story at all.  It was too light and glossed over backstory the viewer was just expected to know.  

It wasn't bad, it wasn't good.  It was just there.  

Danerys?  She needs to stick to being Danerys.  She hasn't been good in anything else I've seen her in.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 04, 2018, 02:22:52 PM
He's Out There 
It is now October and that means a minimum of 31 movies over the next 31 days.  All horror.  

Dexter's last girlfriend heads out into the woods with her two daughters.  Daddy's delayed a couple of hours.  This irked me because he was literally leaving just a few hours behind the wife and kids and the house was way the hell out in secluded nowhere, with absolutely nothing to do so why couldn't she just freaking wait?  That ill-conceived plot device threw me from the start and cast a shadow of dissatisfaction over the rest of what was a reasonably decent "some creepy guy is after us" story.  

So they get out there, the girls find some treats in the woods, one eats of the goodies and gets sick.  Then there's some weird guy in a weird mask who wants to kill them all.  

Pretty standard shriek and stab fare, right down to the "where did he go?" fade to black.  

Good marks for the little kids, good marks for the bad guy's outfit, bad marks for the dumb "we're going now" plot device and really bad marks for the expository scene where the bad guy attempts to explain his existence. That was just dumb.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 04, 2018, 02:34:54 PM
Terrifier

Oh how well this could have gone.  This was an idea and an execution (pun) that could have thrived so well with a bigger studio budget. 

The bad guy in this off-beat slasher film is a clown dressed in black and white who never says a word.  That in its own right is extremely creepy and lends an air of menace to the character. 

(https://www.fullblownpanicattack.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Terrifier.jpg)

The guy playing the clown is magnificent in the role.  He brings savage life to the character with nothing more than his eyes and some hand gestures.  He adds notes of comedy that are well worth the trip.  Watching him prance and preen after one murder is as good or better than anything the moth guy in Silence of the Lambs did. I think it's better because if anything, it's even more unhinged. 

It's a real shame that this crazily nuanced performance was wasted in a film that looks like it was filmed with an iPhone on a $200 budget. 

It's one of the quirkiest most unusual horror films I've seen in a while. 

For what it's worth, the lead gal isn't beautiful per se, but she's trashy hot in a way that makes it hard not to watch her. 

(https://pm1.narvii.com/6847/77f19d8a448cefaebd12b43f9ab3f20f69bcccdev2_hq.jpg)

Don't get me wrong.  It's not a good movie.  But sometimes an individual performance is worth wading through the rest of the crap and in my opinion this is one of those cases.  The guy playing the clown is insanely good (pun). 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on October 04, 2018, 02:38:08 PM
Terrifier

It's not a good movie.  But sometimes an individual performance is worth wading through the rest of the crap and in my opinion this is one of those cases.  The guy playing the clown is insanely good (pun). 
Mimes need jobs too!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 04, 2018, 02:52:31 PM
The Book of Eli

You may have reviewed this one a while back.  It's just that I had seen about 3/4 or 73.7229% of it until last night, when I finally watched it until the end.  Denzell normally does such a good job as a one man wrecking crew.  Set in a post apocalypse world, Denzel is told by a voice to go (walk) across country and deliver a book (The Bible) to a group that's trying to re-establish humanity.

It's got a lot of Mad Max type action with a bunch of bad guys in homemade armored trucks trying to steal the book, and lot of Denzell offing bitches with various weapons.  Overall, pretty meh.  How's that for a review?  However, it had an ending that really made me glad I watched the rest of it.  It wasn't where I expected it to go and made me look at the rest of the movie differently.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 04, 2018, 02:52:51 PM
A mime is a terrible thing to waste.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on October 05, 2018, 03:47:01 PM
Molly's Game

Jessica Chastain in a "based on a true story" film about a crashed skiing star (Molly Bloom) and her rise and fall in the world of big time underground poker games. 

Fairly interesting, pretty well acted and a story I didn't know.  Cast also included Kevin Costner, Michael Sera and Idris Elba.

Where the movie fell short was in failing to identify -- even if just in flipbook style clips -- some of the Hollywood elite who rotated in and out of her high stakes games.

Worth watching just for the story.
Side Note: The guy that was the big time poker player celebrity asshole is widely figured to be Tobey Maguire.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on October 05, 2018, 03:50:00 PM
The Book of Eli

You may have reviewed this one a while back.  It's just that I had seen about 3/4 or 73.7229% of it until last night, when I finally watched it until the end.  Denzell normally does such a good job as a one man wrecking crew.  Set in a post apocalypse world, Denzel is told by a voice to go (walk) across country and deliver a book (The Bible) to a group that's trying to re-establish humanity.

It's got a lot of Mad Max type action with a bunch of bad guys in homemade armored trucks trying to steal the book, and lot of Denzell offing bitches with various weapons.  Overall, pretty meh.  How's that for a review?  However, it had an ending that really made me glad I watched the rest of it.  It wasn't where I expected it to go and made me look at the rest of the movie differently. 
Yep and once you know the twist watch the movie again and see how brilliant a job Denzel actually did, because it's obvious from the start.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on October 05, 2018, 03:51:35 PM
Solo

I feel about this movie about like I do Better Call Saul.  It's not bad, but it's unnecessary and it sort of twingles (a mix of twist and tangle) some of the mythology of the originals. 

If there were no Star Wars I wouldn't have cared about this story at all.  It was too light and glossed over backstory the viewer was just expected to know. 

It wasn't bad, it wasn't good.  It was just there. 

Danerys?  She needs to stick to being Danerys.  She hasn't been good in anything else I've seen her in. 
I'm done with all things Star Wars...you need to read and learn who Kathleen Kennedy is.

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/c/ca/TMYK1996.png/revision/latest?cb=20141218011320)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 05, 2018, 04:03:53 PM
Yep and once you know the twist watch the movie again and see how brilliant a job Denzel actually did, because it's obvious from the start.
Denzell is in my top 3.  Can't recall anything he's been in that I didn't like.  I was a little bummed by the first Equalizer, but more because there wasn't nearly the offing a bitch as I was expecting.  Not because of his acting, though.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on October 05, 2018, 05:48:41 PM
Side Note: The guy that was the big time poker player celebrity asshole is widely figured to be Tobey Maguire.


Molly's brother, Jeremy, was the U Colorado football player who got DQd by the NCAA because of his skiing sponsorships.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 05, 2018, 06:00:24 PM
The Unspoken 

Relatively decent B-level horror movie.  Cast featured a number of Hallmark movie veterans which gives you an idea of the level of quality. 

How many times do we have to watch the same story?  Family moves to house with a history, weird things start to happen.  

The weirdness part of it was done well.  The creepy mute kid was creepy enough to make that part of it work.  A few worthless jump scares (really loud music mostly). And then at the end it veered off into Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull territory.  Pretty much trashed everything that had come before with a really dumb denouement.  

Far from the worst I've ever seen, but didn't move the needle. Really just one to check off the list and move on to something better.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 05, 2018, 10:13:54 PM
The Book of Eli

You may have reviewed this one a while back. 

====

Page 10 of this thread if you care

====

It's just that I had seen about 3/4 or 73.7229% of it until last night, when I finally watched it until the end.  Denzell normally does such a good job as a one man wrecking crew.  Set in a post apocalypse world, Denzel is told by a voice to go (walk) across country and deliver a book (The Bible) to a group that's trying to re-establish humanity.

It's got a lot of Mad Max type action with a bunch of bad guys in homemade armored trucks trying to steal the book, and lot of Denzell offing bitches with various weapons.  Overall, pretty meh.  How's that for a review?  However, it had an ending that really made me glad I watched the rest of it.  It wasn't where I expected it to go and made me look at the rest of the movie differently. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 06, 2018, 12:44:52 AM
Really obscure side note.  Anyone see the first Rambo?  First Blood?  Love that movie BTW.  As much for the setting and scenery as anything else.  Not for Stallone's "stellar" acting.

For those that did, Jack Starrett played the bad cop who fucked with Rambo to get the whole movie started.  Beat him up in the jail and later, Rambo sent him plunging to his death from a helicopter.  Anyway...Jack Starrett also said, as Gabby Hayes....

"The Sheriff is a NNNN....."  BOOOOONG


(https://www.picsofcelebrities.com/celebrity/jack-starrett/pictures/large/jack-starrett-family.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjPr-TNgfHdAhUK4oMKHYyxASkQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.picsofcelebrities.com%2Fcelebrity%2Fjack-starrett%2Fpictures%2Fjack-starrett-family.html&psig=AOvVaw0bzkj7AOThKHOvdkBIqMAn&ust=1538887678326944)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 08, 2018, 12:29:39 AM
Cynthia
The reviews of bad Halloween horror movies continues with 2018's Cynthia.  In this case, the previews for the movie were incredibly misleading.  Previews played it as a straight horror when in actuality it was a lot of other things, none which worked very well. 

Scout Taylor Compton has built a fairly crappy horror resume since she showed up in the Rob Zombie Halloween reboot.  Apparently she can do other genres well enough, but when she chooses horror she chooses badly.

This is another horrific choice.  Bad movie, poorly rendered. 

Basic story is that STC and hubby want a baby and for reasons unknown she births one regular child and a disgusting cyst which contains a murderous malformed twin that the docs miss.  Cynthia is the twin.

Some incredibly dumb dialogue, some really idiotic lapses in time references, and some laughable puppetry are sprinkled throughout a film that doesn't know if it wants to be schlock, straight horror, soft porn or comedy-horror.  So it did a little of all of it poorly.  The creature in a birthday hat was woefully funny.  There wasn't a truthful moment or reaction in the entire howevermany minutes this thing labored on.

There was no mention of Rob Zombie being involved but the film did feature a haggard Sid (Captain Spaulding) as a detective who unbelievably hooks up with the hottest woman in the story and Bill Moseley (in a stupid, wasted scene). Haig and Moseley are both of Devils Rejects fame and Compton from Zombie's Halloween reboot. 

So much was bad with this movie.  So, so much. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 17, 2018, 10:08:24 PM
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom

Dinosaurs.  Blah blah blah.  People run.  Woo woop.  Aaahh, dinosaur chomps.  

Bad science. Really dumb storyline. 

We've seen the fake dinos before.  It was amazing in 1993. It was nostalgic in 2015.  It was tired and pedestrian in 2018.  

No new ground broken.  None.  

We can end it now unless somebody makes real dinosaurs and there's a documentary.  

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 17, 2018, 10:20:57 PM
Malevolent

Made for Netflix movie about some fake ghost hunters who try to scam the wrong haunted family. 

No real dark scares.  A few "whoah" moments.

The film was set in 1986 for no apparent reason. It was about Americans in Scotland for no reason that made sense.  There was a lot of backstory that was glossed over and not fully explained.  Some of the sets and set ups were a little awkward.  

There was a silly throwaway storyline about some drug dealers or something that was probably a lot meatier before editing left it on the cutting room floor.  

There was a wasted scene with a Scottish grandfather that was supposed to explain things about the mother of the ghost hunters  -- and the mother storyline was in and of itself another empty and unfulfilling rabbit hole.  

There were also some random and completely unrelated/unnecessary scenes where the lead guy was listening to self-help tapes.  No explanation or exposition. Had nothing to do with the movie and meant absolutely nothing to the story. This again probably was intended to be a bigger part of the story before editing cut all that fluff out. 

The lead in the movie, Angela, (played by 22-year old Florence Pugh) wasn't even what you'd call pretty but there was an odd sexiness about her that made her scenes easier to endure.  The guy playing her brother was smarmy enough and fairly believable. 

You could pretty much see what was coming for the most part.  Definitely not something to add to annual the Halloween viewing list.

But for a Netflix movie it was reasonably well done. 

(https://i0.wp.com/www.heyuguys.com/images/2018/10/Malevolent.jpg?fit=1200%2C604&ssl=1)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 23, 2018, 03:01:15 PM
A Place In Hell

Yet another in the pantheon of movies that are filmed on somebody's iPhone using actors that are plucked randomly from the street.  

College students charged with making their own short subject film elect to visit an abandoned haunted house and film a horror movie.  You'll be rooting for them all to die quickly.  There's also a laughable side story about a disgraced drunk detective and his pissed off ex boss who spar over finding the "real killer" and bond at the end.  

Interesting concept (again) butchered beyond all comprehension (again).  Incomplete storylines, unnecessary rabbit holes, piss poor scene transition, asinine setups.   

Example:  For no reason that makes any sense the crew traipses through a blacklight haunted room when they are trying to escape the bad guy.  The room is full of strips of sheet plastic.  Suddenly none of them can find each other and begin shouting "hello?" (which is my pet peeve).  Then suddenly there is some random noise and they all immediately converge on the exit door.  Waaaaait... ten seconds ago they couldn't find their own assholes in the room, but now they're all in the exact same spot?  

Just a terrible movie with absolutely no redeeming features other than the place where it was filmed is actually a haunted attraction which can currently be visited.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 23, 2018, 03:03:32 PM
House of Wax

Elisha Cuthbert had a period where she was achingly sexy.  This movie fell right in the heart of that brief period.  She just oozes it.  From every delicious pore. 

Other than that?  What a dumb movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 23, 2018, 03:43:12 PM
House of Wax

Elisha Cuthbert had a period where she was achingly sexy.  This movie fell right in the heart of that brief period.  She just oozes it.  From every delicious pore.

Other than that?  What a dumb movie.
She’s on The Ranch now. And she’s still hot to me. Now she’s a woman instead of a girl. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 23, 2018, 03:57:17 PM
She’s on The Ranch now. And she’s still hot to me. Now she’s a woman instead of a girl.
I'd do her if she was a grandmother.  When she is a grandmother.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 23, 2018, 04:25:16 PM
(https://thewondrous.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Elisha-Cuthbert-short-hair.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjG9Nbbsp3eAhUhT98KHaAIC2kQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthewondrous.com%2Felisha-cuthbert-pictures%2F&psig=AOvVaw2fTXc6BjwNjQ1RY0cTgIEL&ust=1540412714741387)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: ssgaufan on October 23, 2018, 04:29:40 PM
(https://thewondrous.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Elisha-Cuthbert-short-hair.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjG9Nbbsp3eAhUhT98KHaAIC2kQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthewondrous.com%2Felisha-cuthbert-pictures%2F&psig=AOvVaw2fTXc6BjwNjQ1RY0cTgIEL&ust=1540412714741387)
Snaggs, you've been doing a fine job around here lately, and I applaud your efforts!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 23, 2018, 04:39:28 PM
Snaggs, you've been doing a fine job around here lately, and I applaud your efforts!
Why thank you for the kind words.  I'm into the arts.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 23, 2018, 06:41:35 PM

Still looks damn good. It’s been what 15-18 years since that first time we saw her? There’s something about the older version I like more. 

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_V5Ay7_2LnU/maxresdefault.jpg)

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: bgreene on October 24, 2018, 09:10:41 AM
I'd do her if she was a grandmother.  When she is a grandmother. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 01, 2018, 04:07:47 PM
The Good Neighbor

James Caan in a slightly dysfunctional tale of pranking gone wrong.  

Caan's teenage neighbors decide to high-tech prank his surly character as a test of what people will believe.  Their plan is to rig his home so as to appear haunted and then see how he responds.  The technical explanation and installation of the devices was both intriguing and a little scary.  

For a movie with tons of exposition spoken directly to the camera there remained some pretty big gaps and plot holes that could have used some filling.  

It wasn't a bad movie.  It kept circling around the real issues and did that part of it fairly well.  There were motivations that didn't come out until it was time for them to do so.  There were plot points that stayed hidden well enough that you maybe didn't see what was coming next.  

The bouncing timelines sometimes gave me problems.  So too, did the introduction of a legal proceeding randomly in the middle of the movie, even though that proceeding eventually led to the point of the film.  

I think the movie was trying to say something profound, particularly in its final scene, but that message wasn't really borne out by what preceded it and seemed artificial. The ending scenes also seemed rushed and out of touch with the rest of the movie. 

Also in this movie was an underutilized Anne Dudek.  For reasons I can't explain I've always found her extremely appealing.  On the rare occasions she appeared in the movie, she was mostly in baggy sweats, messy hair, no makeup, just plain.  I sort of like that too. 

(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/b0/c0/16/b0c0161a4fd3f8e2274726b0f72959ed--anne-dudek-rachel-hunter.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 01, 2018, 04:10:34 PM
Stephanie 

Build the wall daddy, a monster's coming.  

This movie didn't play out the way i expected it to at all.  

The little girl is creepy and the story is slowly played out very well.  You're not really sure where the harm is coming from until the story decides to tell you.  I liked that.  

Not the best horror movie I've ever seen, but it was compelling enough to keep watching to see how it would turn.  

So yes.  I liked it.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 01, 2018, 06:13:06 PM
Stephanie

Build the wall daddy, a monster's coming. 

This movie didn't play out the way i expected it to at all. 

The little girl is creepy and the story is slowly played out very well.  You're not really sure where the harm is coming from until the story decides to tell you.  I liked that. 

Not the best horror movie I've ever seen, but it was compelling enough to keep watching to see how it would turn. 

So yes.  I liked it. 

Prime? Netflix?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 02, 2018, 11:38:24 PM
Halloween 2018

I expected to dislike this movie just on principle.  I did not dislike it. 

Knowing ahead of time that the film essentially trashed everything from Halloween 2 to Halloween 37: Michael on the Space Shuttle helped.  After viewing this version I think rebooting by pretending that none of that ever happened was exactly the right move.  Josh Hartnett never existed, LL Cool J didn't die, Busta Rhymes never tased Michael's junk, Paul Rudd never stole a baby.  All of the big three franchises (Halloween, Friday the 13th and Nightmare) skidded off the rails with sillier and sillier premises.  Making Michael some supernatural immortal creature (as in Halloween Resurrection) was ridiculous.  Resetting the series back to square one was, in my opinion, a brilliant move.  It allowed the film to flow naturally without having to conform to the asinine spirals of the sequel storylines.  I liked it. 

If we're being honest, the first film really wasn't great cinema.  The Omen and The Exorcist were far superior films.  But Halloween was in a class all to itself. It was sort of hokey in a lot of ways. But it was great for what it was.  It completely changed the horror genre. No, it basically created a new genre.  I loved it then and I respect it now.  And while we're being honest, part of my adoration for the film was the sight of PJ Soles exceptional frame.  I absolutely adored her.  Love, love, loved her. 

Back to 2018.  This film was pretty much standard slasher fare.  The same slasher fare that Halloween spawned 40 years ago.  Serial killer escapes, takes out his frustrations on some random teens and goes after the one that got away.  No new ground was really broken. 

I did think it was telling that one of the characters said (paraphrased) "So he killed five people 40 years ago.  By today's standards that's nothing."  I gotta tell you, I've thought the same thing about Charles Manson for years. 

What I liked most about this film was how much love it showed the original (and even some of the ignored sequels).  Not going to spoil it all, but here's a for instance.  In one scene Michael tosses Laurie off a balcony where she hits the ground with a thud and lies there motionless.  He looks down at her from the railing, looks backward at a noise in the house and when he turns to look down at the ground again, Laurie's gone.  It was a note-perfect homage to the climactic scene of the original.  Just beautiful.  There was no doubt the people directing and guiding this film had a real affection for the series.  So, so many callbacks to the original it would take a book to catalog them all.

Now, the few complaints.

1) This is a constant complaint for me.  How. The. Hell. Does. Michael. Know. How. To. Drive?/  I've been asking that since 1978 and nobody can answer me. 
2) The ending felt rushed and out of place.  Like a lot of films it felt to me like they said "Oh hell, we're at 88 minutes, got to close this out now."  It was less ambiguous than the original, but still left far too much unanswered. 
3) There were pieces and parts of the film that seemed unnecessary and/or tacked on.  The cheating boyfriend/lovelorn pal rabbit hole didn't yield any fruit and really only served to make the granddaughter look like a bitchy twat.  Also badly done and completely unnecessary was the New Loomis turn. 
4) The killings seemed a little too random.  In the first there was some sort of rationale for who he chose to take down.  Here, some of the targets seemed just to be objects of convenience rather than purpose.  That seemed out of character.  

During October I ALWAYS watch Halloween, Halloween II, Halloween III (an underappreciated film), Rocky Horror, Friday the 13th 1, 2 and 3 (my favorite because of the girl in it), The Exorcist and Trick or Treat. I've started mixing in some of the Saw movies, Hellraiser and others. 

I expect I will add this one to the mandatory list.  It's a nice bookend to the first.  I'm actually looking forward next year to watching them back to back. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on November 03, 2018, 08:46:25 AM
Halloween 2018
1) This is a constant complaint for me.  How. The. Hell. Does. Michael. Know. How. To. Drive?/  I've been asking that since 1978 and nobody can answer me. 
In the novelization, it is explained that Michael was very persuasive and DID con a guard into teaching him how to drive. That was cut from the movie for budget (they had none) and time, but Loomis gets some cursory line about "maybe someone gave him lessons" to another admin. 

Quote
2) The ending felt rushed and out of place.  Like a lot of films it felt to me like they said "Oh hell, we're at 88 minutes, got to close this out now."  It was less ambiguous than the original, but still left far too much unanswered.  
That's because it was reshot after bad test screening with the original ending. Michael and Laurie get into a knife fight on the front lawn with all the flood lights, the daughter shoots him with a crossbow, the granddaughter stabs him and he falls. They run away and the last shot is him doing the famous sit up and he turns to look at the screen. End credits. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 04, 2018, 08:15:38 AM
In the novelization, it is explained that Michael was very persuasive and DID con a guard into teaching him how to drive. That was cut from the movie for budget (they had none) and time, but Loomis gets some cursory line about "maybe someone gave him lessons" to another admin.
That's because it was reshot after bad test screening with the original ending. Michael and Laurie get into a knife fight on the front lawn with all the flood lights, the daughter shoots him with a crossbow, the granddaughter stabs him and he falls. They run away and the last shot is him doing the famous sit up and he turns to look at the screen. End credits.

Well if it isn’t bill nye the science guy. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 07, 2018, 05:56:46 PM
Motel Hell
I loved this goofy, campy, silly horror movie back in the 80s.  It was the cheesy answer to Friday the 13th/Halloween.  Not to the level of, say, Rocky Horror, but still pretty dosed up on the absurd.  

It doesn't completely hold up 38 years later, but it's still better than so much of what's out there today that it's worth the trip back to the past.  

Rory Calhoun plays the owner of a motel and smokehouse, known far and wide for his delicious meat products.  Known mostly for serious roles and westerns, his turn here is like Leslie Nielsen when Leslie became Airplane! Leslie.  The movie also features the future Beulah Ballbricker of Porky's fame and the future Officer Arthur Grossman of CHiPS.  

The real reason I'm willing to watch this is the girl playing Terry (Nina Axlerod).  Much like PJ Soles did it for me in Halloween, Stripes and Carrie, Nina does it for me in a big way here.  I love the 80s look of her. She makes me think of days gone long by.  Wonder where she went?  

Back to the movie. 

Rory 'rescues' a young woman (Nina) who has a motorcycle accident near his farm and takes care of her.  She grows fond of him and his sister (Ballbricker).  But Rory has some family secrets and their April-December romance may be doomed.  

Watch for a budding Cliff Claven and an oddball Elaine Joyce (if you watched the old Match Game, you know who this is) just for fun.  

Yeah.  I know it sucks.  But I like it.  Sue me. 

(http://i0.wp.com/comicsbulletin.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/donhorror6.jpg?resize=650%2C347)

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 07, 2018, 06:06:26 PM
Nice pencil erasers 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 07, 2018, 11:27:01 PM
Motel Hell. 
So a movie that ends with a fight scene featuring a maniac wearing a pig's head, wielding a chain saw and trying to hack up someone whilst they fight among a cooler of human bodies hanging from meat hooks, has a closing line of...."I guess we should call the police." 

You reviewed that.  And kind of liked it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 08, 2018, 01:05:50 AM
Motel Hell.
So a movie that ends with a fight scene featuring a maniac wearing a pig's head, wielding a chain saw and trying to hack up someone whilst they fight among a cooler of human bodies hanging from meat hooks, has a closing line of...."I guess we should call the police."

You reviewed that.  And kind of liked it.
That's not the last line, is it?  

The movie took me back.  It took me back to drive ins and the soft glow of bucket seat simulated sex.  It took me back to late night movies in the basement where Kavanaugh-esque groping occurred.  It took me back to hands under the afghan her mom knitted while we sat on the couch with her parents in the room and pretended to watch said chainsaw fight (my eyes were blurring, hard to focus...)  

So year.  I liked it.   For nostalgia's sake at least.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 08, 2018, 01:20:12 AM
Bohemian Rhapsody 

Fantastic movie.  

If Rami Malek isn't nominated for an Oscar (yes, a worthless award but still) for his performance as Freddie Mercury, just shut the Academy down.  Incredible job at capturing Mercury's mannerisms.  

The film had its flaws.  All do.  There was no way it could tell that complicated personal story and get enough of each of the myriad versions in to appease them all.  It was too gay, not gay enough, too condemning of the gay lifestyle, not condemning enough, didn't focus enough on the drugs, focused too much on the drugs.  Whatever.  There were probably parts that were fabricated or exaggerated and others that were glossed over or left out.  

The movie did an absolutely stunning job of somehow making you both loathe and pity Freddie's tortured soul. It made you both understand and despise the self-destructive excesses to which he went to tame his demons.  

For what shall it profit a man to gain the entire world and lose his own soul?  If this version of his life is to be believed, that quote directly applies to Mercury.  Fame, fortune and everything that goes with it yet still completely empty and utterly alone.  Malek was outstanding in portraying that vulnerability.  

Less of the music than I would have liked, probably, but otherwise a just a really good film.  Good pace, good performances, well-crafted story.  

My favorite part was a sly nod to Wayne and Garth (which I didn't really like) during a scene when a record executive (look hard and you'll recognize who it is) is debating the viability of releasing Bohemian Rhapsody as a single.  I got the joke.  Think I was the only one in the theater who did though.  

Should you see it in a theater?  I vote yes, because I just don't think the movie will have quite the same resonance at home.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 08, 2018, 09:17:28 AM
That's not the last line, is it? 

The movie took me back.  It took me back to drive ins and the soft glow of bucket seat simulated sex.  It took me back to late night movies in the basement where Kavanaugh-esque groping occurred.  It took me back to hands under the afghan her mom knitted while we sat on the couch with her parents in the room and pretended to watch said chainsaw fight (my eyes were blurring, hard to focus...) 

So year.  I liked it.  For nostalgia's sake at least. 
(https://d2ycltig8jwwee.cloudfront.net/reviews/987/fullwidth.68c7f01f.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjkpY-Y_sTeAhUFzFMKHedNBy4QjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthedissolve.com%2Freviews%2F987-motel-hell%2F&psig=AOvVaw3lyQp_fT2XLlXt3Hpw5wIP&ust=1541773008613456)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 17, 2018, 08:42:27 AM
Thankskilling

A movie about an ancient Indian curse that manifests itself as a profane murderous turkey.  What could possibly go wrong?  

Everything. 

Campy is fine. Corny is fine. This never rose to that level.  It was just bad. Bad bad. It was a turkey. (And that's a better line than anything in this film). 

You know they're trying to make a bad movie -- which sometimes works -- but it's not so bad it's good, it's just so bad.  

Five friends in Ohio -- which destroys the whole premise of the curse which allegedly dates back to the first Thanksgiving, which was not in Ohio -- leave school to do something for Thanksgiving.  Stereotypical jock, fat ass, nerd, whore and nice girl cross paths with the killer poultry and ignorance ensues.  Sheriff with the worse stuck-on moustache in the history of bad costuming laying in the kitchen floor with his face pecked off?  No problem, let's watch a movie and make popcorn.  Friend disemboweled on the sidewalk?  Oh well, let's go for a ride.  Stilted dialogue, poorly conceived and executed characters, horrible acting.  It's all terrible. It's like they were writing the script ten minutes before filming it. Actors can survive bad performances in bad movies early on.  See Matthew McBongahuey and Rene Zellwigging who both overcame Texas Chainsaw: Next Generation to win Oscars.  None of the flat, one-note duds in this movie have any chance of surviving this.  

The only things to recommend it?  An interesting opening theme song which combines typical horror-type music with cackling turkey gobbles. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=VxpAE7BJ4hg

As hard as it is for me to believe, there are two sequels to this dud, neither of which I will watch.  Gobble gobble, motherf!@#$*. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 21, 2018, 01:11:27 AM
Exorcist II: The Heretic

As iconic, masterful, powerful and captivating at The Exorcist was?  Take that number, whatever it was, divide by a thousand, put a negative sign in front of it and multiply that to the third power.  That would get you close to the ragged depths to which this movie plunged. 

What a dopey load of horseshit.  Caba-Regan and Richard Burton gamely muddle through this mix of laughable CGI, stupid dialogue, Squeelin Bobby from Deliverance and Mufasa in an African headdress, but even a growed up pre-Rick James bitch Linda Blair tarting it up with her 18-year old self could save this warbling turkey from the gutter.   

This is one of those movies you have to just pretend didn't exist.  The original was so good and this was just so shittily done it doesn't bear further discussion. 

Garbage. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on November 21, 2018, 09:18:03 AM
Exorcist II: The Heretic

As iconic, masterful, powerful and captivating at The Exorcist was?  Take that number, whatever it was, divide by a thousand, put a negative sign in front of it and multiply that to the third power.  That would get you close to the ragged depths to which this movie plunged. 

What a dopey load of horseshoot.  Caba-Regan and Richard Burton gamely muddle through this mix of laughable CGI, stupid dialogue, Squeelin Bobby from Deliverance and Mufasa in an African headdress, but even a growed up pre-Rick James bitch Linda Blair tarting it up with her 18-year old self could save this warbling turkey from the gutter. 

This is one of those movies you have to just pretend didn't exist.  The original was so good and this was just so shoottily done it doesn't bear further discussion. 

Garbage.
Ever seen the 3rd one? Much better sequel than Kukumo-laden trash that is part 2.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 28, 2018, 02:06:27 AM
The Voices

Extremely odd movie with a strong cast featuring Ryan Reynolds, Anna Kendrick and Gemma Arterton (she's hot). 

It's part Dexter, part American Psycho, part Dr. Doolittle.  It tries to be comedic while it mixes in some pretty gruesome horror elements.  It never can quite figure out which fence it wants to straddle so it ends up doing neither very well. 

Pre-Deadpool Reynolds is creepy and weird.  Post Pitch Perfect Kendrick seems purposely looking to avoid being typecast.  I don't understand her.  She's not hot in any way whatsoever, but there's a quirky adorability about her I just can't pin down.  She's goofy here.  Gemma doesn't do much, but she's puffy-lipped hot. 

Mr. Whiskers and Bosco, Reynold's pets, really drive the story.  They're the animal manifestation of good and evil perching on his shoulders and giving him (really bad) advice and some profanely cruel insults. 

It's a weird one.  Any movie that features talking severed heads stored in a refrigerator has possibilities.

This film, which teetered between a Mike Judge comedy and a Wes Craven slasher, never managed to deliver on any of those intriguing possibilities.   

The tacked on ending is one of the worst final scenes I've ever encountered.  It didn't fit with the movie, its tone or anything else related to the film.  The final three minutes took at least one rating star away from a movie that had few stars to spare. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on November 28, 2018, 03:38:45 AM
Halloween 2018

I expected to dislike this movie just on principle.  I did not dislike it. 

Knowing ahead of time that the film essentially trashed everything from Halloween 2 to Halloween 37: Michael on the Space Shuttle helped.  After viewing this version I think rebooting by pretending that none of that ever happened was exactly the right move.  Josh Hartnett never existed, LL Cool J didn't die, Busta Rhymes never tased Michael's junk, Paul Rudd never stole a baby.  All of the big three franchises (Halloween, Friday the 13th and Nightmare) skidded off the rails with sillier and sillier premises.  Making Michael some supernatural immortal creature (as in Halloween Resurrection) was ridiculous.  Resetting the series back to square one was, in my opinion, a brilliant move.  It allowed the film to flow naturally without having to conform to the asinine spirals of the sequel storylines.  I liked it. 

If we're being honest, the first film really wasn't great cinema.  The Omen and The Exorcist were far superior films.  But Halloween was in a class all to itself. It was sort of hokey in a lot of ways. But it was great for what it was.  It completely changed the horror genre. No, it basically created a new genre.  I loved it then and I respect it now.  And while we're being honest, part of my adoration for the film was the sight of PJ Soles exceptional frame.  I absolutely adored her.  Love, love, loved her. 

Back to 2018.  This film was pretty much standard slasher fare.  The same slasher fare that Halloween spawned 40 years ago.  Serial killer escapes, takes out his frustrations on some random teens and goes after the one that got away.  No new ground was really broken. 

I did think it was telling that one of the characters said (paraphrased) "So he killed five people 40 years ago.  By today's standards that's nothing."  I gotta tell you, I've thought the same thing about Charles Manson for years. 

What I liked most about this film was how much love it showed the original (and even some of the ignored sequels).  Not going to spoil it all, but here's a for instance.  In one scene Michael tosses Laurie off a balcony where she hits the ground with a thud and lies there motionless.  He looks down at her from the railing, looks backward at a noise in the house and when he turns to look down at the ground again, Laurie's gone.  It was a note-perfect homage to the climactic scene of the original.  Just beautiful.  There was no doubt the people directing and guiding this film had a real affection for the series.  So, so many callbacks to the original it would take a book to catalog them all.

Now, the few complaints.

1) This is a constant complaint for me.  How. The. Hell. Does. Michael. Know. How. To. Drive?/  I've been asking that since 1978 and nobody can answer me. 
2) The ending felt rushed and out of place.  Like a lot of films it felt to me like they said "Oh hell, we're at 88 minutes, got to close this out now."  It was less ambiguous than the original, but still left far too much unanswered. 
3) There were pieces and parts of the film that seemed unnecessary and/or tacked on.  The cheating boyfriend/lovelorn pal rabbit hole didn't yield any fruit and really only served to make the granddaughter look like a bitchy twat.  Also badly done and completely unnecessary was the New Loomis turn. 
4) The killings seemed a little too random.  In the first there was some sort of rationale for who he chose to take down.  Here, some of the targets seemed just to be objects of convenience rather than purpose.  That seemed out of character. 

During October I ALWAYS watch Halloween, Halloween II, Halloween III (an underappreciated film), Rocky Horror, Friday the 13th 1, 2 and 3 (my favorite because of the girl in it), The Exorcist and Trick or Treat. I've started mixing in some of the Saw movies, Hellraiser and others. 

I expect I will add this one to the mandatory list.  It's a nice bookend to the first.  I'm actually looking forward next year to watching them back to back.
I love Friday the 13th 2,3,5. Debbi Sue Vorhees in 5 is worth watching the movie. The girls in Friday 2 we’re smoking hot which girl did you like in 3?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on November 28, 2018, 07:38:13 AM
I love Friday the 13th 2,3,5. Debbi Sue Vorhees in 5 is worth watching the movie. The girls in Friday 2 we’re smoking hot which girl did you like in 3?
Did you know she got fired from a teaching job YEARS later once they discovered she was nude in Part 5? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on November 28, 2018, 01:22:03 PM
Did you know she got fired from a teaching job YEARS later once they discovered she was nude in Part 5?
I didn’t know that but she was a smoke show back in the day.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 28, 2018, 05:23:10 PM
I love Friday the 13th 2,3,5. Debbi Sue Vorhees in 5 is worth watching the movie. The girls in Friday 2 we’re smoking hot which girl did you like in 3?
(https://cdn.moviestillsdb.com/i/500x/c1npync3/friday-the-13th-part-iii-lg.jpg)

There's a particular look that just gets me and she has it. 

Agree strongly with Debbie Sue, too. Ball blasting hot. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 29, 2018, 11:08:08 AM
The Family Man

What keeps this 18-year old movie from joining the ranks of must-see Christmas classics?  It's got all the trappings.  Story takes place in the holiday season, it's got a sappy-sentimental message about enjoying the little things in life, it features an angel, it's got a reverse style It's a Wonderful Life flavor.  All the pieces are there.  

That's part of the problem.  Despite a cute/sexy performance by Tea Leoni and the inclusion of a pre Avengers/Oceans Don Cheadle as the gun-toting angel the whole process is too formulaic.

The set up of granting the wish to change lives doesn't make sense even in the backward IAWL mode.   

But the real reason this film can't rise to the level of Christmas classic?  Two words.  Nicholas Cage.  The man simply cannot act.  He's goofy, over-emoting, giving the wrong expression for every emotion. He's just a terrible wooden actor who has zero range.  He drags this film down with his bunny in the box contortions.  

I wanted to like it for the message and for Tea, but I was buried in schmaltz and cage and couldn't get past it.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on November 29, 2018, 12:28:00 PM
The Family Man

What keeps this 18-year old movie from joining the ranks of must-see Christmas classics?  It's got all the trappings.  Story takes place in the holiday season, it's got a sappy-sentimental message about enjoying the little things in life, it features an angel, it's got a reverse style It's a Wonderful Life flavor.  All the pieces are there. 

That's part of the problem.  Despite a cute/sexy performance by Tea Leoni and the inclusion of a pre Avengers/Oceans Don Cheadle as the gun-toting angel the whole process is too formulaic.

The set up of granting the wish to change lives doesn't make sense even in the backward IAWL mode. 

But the real reason this film can't rise to the level of Christmas classic?  Two words.  Nicholas Cage.  The man simply cannot act.  He's goofy, over-emoting, giving the wrong expression for every emotion. He's just a terrible wooden actor who has zero range.  He drags this film down with his bunny in the box contortions. 

I wanted to like it for the message and for Tea, but I was buried in schmaltz and cage and couldn't get past it. 
I disagree. Tea Leoni in her prime pushes this one just enough to overcome the negatives.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on November 29, 2018, 01:20:49 PM
(https://cdn.moviestillsdb.com/i/500x/c1npync3/friday-the-13th-part-iii-lg.jpg)

There's a particular look that just gets me and she has it. 

Agree strongly with Debbie Sue, too. Ball blasting hot.
Kris was a hottie for sure. Even Jason thought so since part of the plot of Part 3 is him getting busy with her and that being the cause of her drama and trauma.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on November 29, 2018, 02:05:21 PM
I disagree. Tea Leoni in her prime pushes this one just enough to overcome the negatives.
I also have to say as much as I hate Cage, I think he pulls the part off well.  It is one of the few films I like him in. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 29, 2018, 02:27:06 PM
I also have to say as much as I hate Cage, I think he pulls the part off well.  It is one of the few films I like him in.
I like a few of his movies like The Rock and probably his first flick, Valley Girl.  Conair is a fun movie to me but I blame the writers/directors...or whoever thought it was an even remotely good idea to have him try that horrible southern accent. After the first line, they should have said, "You know what?  Just talk normally." His character would have been pretty decent had they just dropped it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on November 29, 2018, 03:04:55 PM
I like a few of his movies like The Rock and probably his first flick, Valley Girl.  Conair is a fun movie to me but I blame the writers/directors...or whoever thought it was an even remotely good idea to have him try that horrible southern accent. After the first line, they should have said, "You know what?  Just talk normally." His character would have been pretty decent had they just dropped it.
Puuuuut da Bunnahe in tha baux.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 29, 2018, 04:18:02 PM
Puuuuut da Bunnahe in tha baux.
(http://prisonmovies.nfshost.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/con-air-3-300x168.jpg) (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiM_eWaw_reAhUNq1MKHcooDRoQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prisonmovies.net%2Fcon-air-1997-usa&psig=AOvVaw1tfGcfALNGZruIe60iseDf&ust=1543612555846028)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 29, 2018, 10:26:00 PM
I also have to say as much as I hate Cage, I think he pulls the part off well.  It is one of the few films I like him in.
In my book Cage made three good films.  

Valley Girl
Fast Times at Ridgemont High (as Nicholas Coppola, which is the only reason anyone ever hired him)
and
Raising Arizona  (that there is a masterpiece)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 29, 2018, 11:32:23 PM
whoever thought it was an even remotely good idea to have him try that horrible southern accent. After the first line, they should have said, "You know what?  Just talk normally." His character would have been pretty decent had they just dropped it.

That. All of it ^^


but what about Cyrus the virus?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on November 30, 2018, 12:44:07 AM
In my book Cage made three good films. 

Valley Girl
Fast Times at Ridgemont High (as Nicholas Coppola, which is the only reason anyone ever hired him)
and
Raising Arizona  (that there is a masterpiece)
Drive angry! That reunited me with my high school days of our lives sweetheart!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on November 30, 2018, 12:41:11 PM
That. All of it ^^


but what about Cyrus the virus?
Cy-anara?


(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/oQE0n94_w7U/maxresdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on December 03, 2018, 11:18:08 AM
Rewatched Goldfinger this week. Still works.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on December 03, 2018, 11:49:27 AM
Rewatched Goldfinger this week. Still works.
Rewatched House of Whores 4, Return of Cumzilla.


You never told me your mom was in that.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on December 03, 2018, 01:24:02 PM
Rewatched House of Whores 4, Return of Cumzilla.


You never told me your mom was in that.

We celebrate all her titles.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 03, 2018, 02:09:10 PM
We celebrate all her titles. 
You misspelled titties. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on December 03, 2018, 02:20:05 PM
You misspelled titties.

Titles, Mr. Connery, not titties.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on December 03, 2018, 02:25:13 PM
Titles, Mr. Connery, not titties. 
Suck it Trebek!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 03, 2018, 02:29:07 PM
Suck it Trebek!
I’ll take The rapist for 400. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 09, 2018, 07:32:00 PM
Rampage

Garbage.  

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 09, 2018, 07:41:06 PM
Tag

Don't know what I expected, but it was barely fair.  A couple of mildly funny moments and that's about it.  Instantly forgettable.  

I have the same problem with almost all "comedies" these days.  Awkward, forced discussions of sexual acts, the repetitive use of profanity are indications of just plain laziness from the writers.  The story didn't need a scene where each character discussed whether oral sex was a part of the negotiation ploy.  

I blame Judd Apatow for the turn from true efforts at comedy to the laziness of just saying vulgar things as if those were funny alone.  They're not.  

I watched Beverly Hills Cop today.  Yeah, Eddie dropped the f-bombs here and there but the story was smart, the delivery was on-time, the action was well choreographed.  That was a good comedy.  

Tag could have been, but it took the easy route and failed to deliver on the story's promise.  

Frankly, the movie just sucked.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 09, 2018, 10:05:29 PM
Tag

Don't know what I expected, but it was barely fair.  A couple of mildly funny moments and that's about it.  Instantly forgettable. 

I have the same problem with almost all "comedies" these days.  Awkward, forced discussions of sexual acts, the repetitive use of profanity are indications of just plain laziness from the writers.  The story didn't need a scene where each character discussed whether oral sex was a part of the negotiation ploy. 

I blame Judd Apatow for the turn from true efforts at comedy to the laziness of just saying vulgar things as if those were funny alone.  They're not. 

I watched Beverly Hills Cop today.  Yeah, Eddie dropped the f-bombs here and there but the story was smart, the delivery was on-time, the action was well choreographed.  That was a good comedy. 

Tag could have been, but it took the easy route and failed to deliver on the story's promise. 

Frankly, the movie just sucked. 

Caught Beverly Hills Cop 3 last night.....geez, even it was better than most shit today. And it was bad compared to I and II. Eddie was great in his heyday- sometimes I forget that. Same with Burt Reynolds. Just fun guys to watch, clever stories. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 09, 2018, 11:18:40 PM
Caught Beverly Hills Cop 3 last night.....geez, even it was better than most shit today. And it was bad compared to I and II. Eddie was great in his heyday- sometimes I forget that. Same with Burt Reynolds. Just fun guys to watch, clever stories.
Well, I liked the first Beverly Hills Cop in part because Lisa Elibacher made me uncomfortable in personal spaces.  She hypmotized me. 

Thought she was hotter than 50 fucks. 


(https://musicorspaceshuttle.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/jenny-summers.jpg)

She left the business not long after this.  I really thought she had that "it" factor that was going to make her break big.  I read somewhere that she didn't really want the fame and left to be a mom.  Also don't think she aged particularly well, but I have no evidence to support that. 

Googly damn she moved my mountain back then. 

But yeah, that Eddie (BHC 1 and maybe 2, Coming to America, Trading Places, 48 Hours) was awesome.  It's like he got some bad career advice when he got into Boomerang, Harlem Whatever, Nutty Professor, Meet Dave, Pluto Nash era (even though he still tossed in good work around that).  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 10, 2018, 08:23:33 AM

But yeah, that Eddie (BHC 1 and maybe 2, Coming to America, Trading Places, 48 Hours) was awesome.  It's like he got some bad career advice got caught with a tranny hooker and has been doing a bunch of kiddie shit as penance ...


Corrected.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on December 10, 2018, 08:41:24 AM
The first BHC works as just a cop story. The antics are a side, small part of the cop mystery going there. Hard to imagine what that would have looked like with Stallone as Axel Foley. BHC 2 does not hold up as well. It's got too much of the "Johnny Wishbone" shit in it. Also, the central crime is kinda dumb. The first one made sense, at least. That third one is trash.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 10, 2018, 09:12:55 AM
The first BHC works as just a cop story. The antics are a side, small part of the cop mystery going there. Hard to imagine what that would have looked like with Stallone as Axel Foley. BHC 2 does not hold up as well. It's got too much of the "Johnny Wishbone" shit in it. Also, the central crime is kinda dumb. The first one made sense, at least. That third one is trash.
But at least it was funny.   

I imagine the writers for Tag being 12 years old sitting in a room going “what if Jon Hamm said ‘suck a dick’?” Hehehe. Hahaha.  Suck a penis. That’s hilarious. Put that in there.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 10, 2018, 09:35:51 AM
The first BHC works as just a cop story. The antics are a side, small part of the cop mystery going there. Hard to imagine what that would have looked like with Stallone as Axel Foley. BHC 2 does not hold up as well. It's got too much of the "Johnny Wishbone" shit in it. Also, the central crime is kinda dumb. The first one made sense, at least. That third one is trash.

True. But I’ll still sit down and watch all 3 over most anything being made today.  The Wally World wannabe theme park premise of 3 was silly but entertained me in a weird way. How is it that Hector Elizondo looks the same in 1991 and he does in 2018?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on December 10, 2018, 09:50:35 AM
True. But I’ll still sit down and watch all 3 over most anything being made today.  The Wally World wannabe theme park premise of 3 was silly but entertained me in a weird way. How is it that Hector Elizondo looks the same in 1991 and he does in 2018?
Easy. He's a Vampire.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 11, 2018, 03:18:40 PM
While we’re at it? The whore from Crocodile Dundee 1 and 2?   

Something about that blew my fuses too.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 11, 2018, 04:07:42 PM
While we’re at it? The whore from Crocodile Dundee 1 and 2? 

Something about that blew my fuses too. 

I’ll be frank (you can still be Kaos) - those movies were so horrific I don’t even remember anyone else in them not named Paul hogan. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 11, 2018, 04:16:42 PM
While we’re at it? The whore from Crocodile Dundee 1 and 2? 

Something about that blew my fuses too. 
Linda Kozlowski?

(https://i.makeagif.com/media/3-31-2017/gFeGIj.gif) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi7t6WA2ZjfAhUGVd8KHRFuCaAQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmakeagif.com%2Fgif%2Fthen-now-linda-kozlowski-wearing-a-black-thong-in-crocodile-dundee-gFeGIj&psig=AOvVaw3Scl383AeNSVEcVukYKryw&ust=1544649196401410)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 11, 2018, 04:18:10 PM
I’ll be frank (you can still be Kaos) - those movies were so horrific I don’t even remember anyone else in them not named Paul hogan.
That dirty, whurish mouf.  You shut it.

2 was a whole lot of meh, but 1 was the bizzomb when it came out.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 11, 2018, 08:52:34 PM
That dirty, whurish mouf.  You shut it.

2 was a whole lot of meh, but 1 was the bizzomb when it came out.
Atts nawwt a knoiyfe. ATTTS a knoiyfe!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 11, 2018, 09:44:01 PM
It wasn’t great art but it was a fun/enjoyable movie.  Nice mix of humor and story.  

Movie came out in 86.  I was fairly new to the ways of the fucking. Was really just starting to graduate from the backseat, hiding from parents, get it in before somebody catches you sort of sex to the more mature long-term relationship sort of sex. Attraction gravitating from ‘girl’ to ‘woman’ 

That red dress she wore in the party scene?  That was a grown ass woman.  When she pretended to be the maid and rubbed her bare leg on the door when Mick was in the bathtub? That was one of the sexiest grown woman things I’d seen.  

I thought she was crazy hot.  I’d still watch the movie just for her.  A little disappointed they wrecked his marriage. Cut them both down a little to the idealistic 20 year old me. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on December 12, 2018, 06:39:12 AM
It wasn’t great art but it was a fun/enjoyable movie.  Nice mix of humor and story. 

Movie came out in 86.  I was fairly new to the ways of the fucking. Was really just starting to graduate from the backseat, hiding from parents, get it in before somebody catches you sort of sex to the more mature long-term relationship sort of sex. Attraction gravitating from ‘girl’ to ‘woman’

That red dress she wore in the party scene?  That was a grown ass woman.  When she pretended to be the maid and rubbed her bare leg on the door when Mick was in the bathtub? That was one of the sexiest grown woman things I’d seen. 

I thought she was crazy hot.  I’d still watch the movie just for her.  A little disappointed they wrecked his marriage. Cut them both down a little to the idealistic 20 year old me.
Agreed on all points but the last.  You see his old wife?  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 12, 2018, 07:50:53 AM
Agreed on all points but the last.  You see his old wife? 
No.  I never did.  Don't guess I considered that.  It was more just the "she stayed with his broke ass and supported him for years, but then as soon as he makes it big he dumps her" feeling.  Seems like I read somewhere they were like on welfare or something in Australia while he tried to make it.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on December 12, 2018, 08:32:54 AM
No.  I never did.  Don't guess I considered that.  It was more just the "she stayed with his broke ass and supported him for years, but then as soon as he makes it big he dumps her" feeling.  Seems like I read somewhere they were like on welfare or something in Australia while he tried to make it. 
Although not homemade sin ugly, it was definitely a trade up!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on December 12, 2018, 09:17:21 AM
I’ll be frank (you can still be Kaos) - those movies were so horrific I don’t even remember anyone else in them not named Paul hogan.
Pump your brakes boy that man's a National Treasure!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 12, 2018, 09:35:19 AM
Pump your brakes boy that man's a National Treasure!
(http://bcheights.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Cage-online.jpg)


I believe you have the wrong movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 12, 2018, 10:51:09 AM
(http://bcheights.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Cage-online.jpg)


I believe you have the wrong movie.
I’ll take “actors that Paul Hogan is better than” for 500 Kaos. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 12, 2018, 11:00:49 AM
I’ll take “actors that Paul Hogan is better than” for 500 Kaos.
You put that bunny back in the box, beyotch.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 12, 2018, 11:08:44 AM
You know, I'm getting damn tired of you people putting down a great talent like Nicolas Cage and his versatility as an actor.  Name me another actor that can turn their head into a blazing skull.  Go ahead.  Yep, just what I thought.  Stop the hate.


(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9e/14/f4/9e14f4ddd270cdae53c701b63bfcf0b9.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiBpt_g1ZrfAhWNT98KHYRcC-YQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F564146290807039687%2F&psig=AOvVaw2CyzZdqdx86h7m1ofNvWwU&ust=1544717072224198)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on December 12, 2018, 01:09:14 PM
You know, I'm getting damn tired of you people putting down a great talent like Nicolas Cage and his versatility as an actor.  Name me another actor that can turn their head into a blazing skull.  Go ahead.  Yep, just what I thought.  Stop the hate.


(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9e/14/f4/9e14f4ddd270cdae53c701b63bfcf0b9.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiBpt_g1ZrfAhWNT98KHYRcC-YQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F564146290807039687%2F&psig=AOvVaw2CyzZdqdx86h7m1ofNvWwU&ust=1544717072224198)
That movie sucks. It tries and fails at being a "love story."
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on December 12, 2018, 01:36:31 PM
That movie sucks. It tries and fails at being a "love story."
Not true....I totally fell in love with Eva Mendes

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/53/04/f9/5304f9c42c40b249a052dacf3c2d5b75.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on December 12, 2018, 01:55:57 PM
(http://bcheights.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Cage-online.jpg)


I believe you have the wrong movie.
Pump yo brakes...I think you have the wrong movie.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 12, 2018, 02:32:07 PM
Not true....I totally fell in love with Eva Mendes

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/53/04/f9/5304f9c42c40b249a052dacf3c2d5b75.jpg)
Those are some lush us titties.  Nom nom nom nom nom....
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 20, 2018, 12:01:31 PM
Mile 22

Mark Wahlberg as a super intelligent, super-focused genius assassin.  How could that fail?  Well, Mark Wahlberg as a super intelligent, super-focused genius assassin for one.  

Lots of action, lots of bodies.  Maggie from Walking Dead as a divorced, put-the-job-ahead-of-family killer.  Wasted storyline there.  Several other names and faces you'd know. 

Muddled storyline, often incomprehensible action, mumbo jumbo, jumbo humbo. Dis Could have been a fun movie, but it took itself way too seriously to stay in the fun zone. 

While it's true that what was actually going down was kept well hidden until the final denouement the frenetic pace of the movie and the herky-jerky editing made it hard to really care.   I'm still not exactly sure what the end result was.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 21, 2018, 01:14:00 AM
Borg vs. McEnroe

Tells the story behind the story of the classic 1980 match between four-straight Wimbledon champion Bjorn Borg and enfant terrible upstart John McEnroe. 

Some guy who looked astonishingly like Borg played Borg and Lewis Stevens Sam Witwicky Shia Lebouf took the role of McEnroe. 

I vividly remember what it was like at that time.  Tennis was front and center in the national consciousness. Courts were everywhere. Everybody played.  Even Kaos played a few tournaments -- and played nearly every weekend and most of the summer when he wasn't playing baseball or golf.  There was one glorious summer where Kaos played 18 holes of golf in the morning, hit the pool, played a three-set tennis match mid-afternoon and then closed out the day with 18 more holes of golf.  That was his schedule at least five days a week. But I digress.

Everybody had a favorite.  Borg, McEnroe or Connors basically (or Chrissy or Martina in the women's bracket).  I wanted to be Connors. I wanted Chrissy. Played with the same Wilson T2000 racket that Connors used for a lot of years when most people I knew were still using wooden rackets.  My T2000 and a wooden Dunlop my dad used to use (he was a Rod Laver fan) turned to twisted ash up in my dad's garage when their house burned a few months ago but I digress again.

This film didn't really pay much attention to the brief rise of tennis as the American pastime. It focused instead on the angst suffered by the morose and moping Borg while briefly dabbling in the "can't please dad" emptiness of McEnroe.  It portrayed Borg as a man tortured by his own superstitious rituals and the training he endured when he was barely a teen to rid himself of the mercurial emotional responses that were much more in line with the chaos and rage that fueled McEnroe. It played McEnroe as a ruthless competitor who cared about nothing but winning, that passion fueled by a constant need for approval from a father who was never satisfied.

The film hinted that Borg probably saw a lot of who he wished he could be in the antics of McEnroe. The fact that they became (and remain) close friends attests to that possibility.

Shaia was okay, but he never really completely got the McEnroe mannerisms right.  There were moments when he was almost there, but it never completely gelled.  I forgot the other guy wasn't Borg.  I could never get past the knowledge that it was LeBouf pretending to be McEnroe.  That same staccato, frenetic Lewis Stevens voice energy that he brought to the Witwicky role carried over here. 

It was a good film, but it fell well short of joining the pantheon of great sports films because it was just too much sad Borg moping. Maybe Borg was in the extreme emotional pain this movie portrayed.  He walked away from the game (at 26) about a year after the events of this movie occurred.  It was just hard to generate much sympathy for him when he seemingly had it all in the palm of his hand and I never really understood exactly why he was so eaten up with it -- even though the movie did try to explain it. 

For those of you who don't know (or care) the 1980 Wimbledon battle between Borg and McEnroe was one of the greatest tennis matches in history.  The two best players in the world leaving their heart and soul out on the grass. McEnroe survived countless set points. There were times Borg looked done, and then he'd come fighting back. It was mesmerizing watching it then on a tiny little 19" TV. It played large as a film. If America didn't have tennis fever before that, it certainly did afterward. 

This movie worked well as the singular story of this one tournament, but it wasn't complete enough to be a really great sports movie.  I enjoyed it because I remember living it and thought this movie did an extremely credible job of capturing the mood of the tournament and the passion of the games.  I really wish the movie had been the story of Borg v. McEnroe in total. They played 14 times. Won seven each. Played in two Wimbledon finals and two US Open finals.  McEnroe won three of those.  He broke Borg mentally in the 1981 US Open.  They guy never recovered. Was never the same.

If you don't know or remember that 1980 match, the movie is definitely worth watching.  If you do, it will take you back to that time pretty easily.  It's worth the watch.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 21, 2018, 08:49:54 AM

I vividly remember what it was like at that time.  Tennis was front and center in the national consciousness. Courts were everywhere. Everybody played.  Even Kaos played a few tournaments -- and played nearly every weekend and most of the summer when he wasn't playing baseball or golf.  There was one glorious summer where Kaos played 18 holes of golf in the morning, hit the pool, played a three-set tennis match mid-afternoon and then closed out the day with 18 more holes of golf.  That was his schedule at least five days a week. Followed up by a hot tub session with Jacklyn Smith, But then he woke up.
Fixt
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 21, 2018, 09:54:33 AM
Fixt
You wish..  I was a Prowler back in those days.  The company I was working for went out of business unexpectedly right before the summer.  The guy who owned the place told me I could draw unemployment.  I never imagined that was possible.  I spent several months living on the dole. 

Every week for the entire summer I got an unemployment check. I did manual labor on the weekends for straight cash that didn't go against my unemployment draw.

My dad was a member at the little country club where we lived and I was still young enough to be on his tab.  Golf/tennis/pool all free.  Lunch tab went to my dad. All I had to pay every month was my car note ($75), my gas (less than $1 a gallon) and whatever I did with my girlfriend (and you could do movies and dinner for less than $30 usually).  For the time?  I had plenty of money.  I was rich!

I'd show up at 6:30 or 7 play 18 with the old guys, be done by 10 or so.  Pool until 11.  Burger or chicken salad at the bar.  Try to find somebody to play tennis with and sweat through two and a half hours.  Be ready to run 18 more with the people getting off work at 3 or 4.  Done by 7:30 (darkish), hit the shower and go to GF's house.  

Best shape of my life.  

Then I grew up.  Got off the unemployment.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 21, 2018, 10:04:46 AM
Miracle on 34th Street 

1947.  I'd never watched the movie.  Knew the story of course but over all these Christmases I'd managed to somehow avoid it.  Not intentionally, but it was just never part of the regular rotation. 

It was on yesterday (the colorized version, blah) and having just been to NY and in Macy's on 34th I stuck with it for a minute when I realized that the 34th street mentioned in the title is because of the address of Macy's.  

Baby Natalie Wood, grown up Maureen O'Hara.  And Santa Claus.  

It was a very endearing movie, sweet and sentimental. It was really interesting to me to see some of the same things in that 1947 movie that I'd just seen in real life. Things that are still there in the same manner they were nearly 80 years ago.  Like the iconic wooden escalators that still carry people up and down the floors in Macys, for one.  

Enjoyed the movie and don't know how I missed it all these years.  

Santa won an Oscar for it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 22, 2018, 01:50:31 AM
Venom

Didn't expect much from this movie.  Don't really like Tom Hardy all that much and don't know anything about the Venom franchise other than that he's a bad guy in the Spiderman pantheon.  So I really wasn't sure how they'd play it.  

Turns out it was a pretty fun movie.  Oh, the plot was ridiculous, the logic of so many people betting killed and maimed while Venom/Brock was allowed to just wander around was absurd, the idea that Brock and the researcher could just wander into the research facility because it was "closed for the night" was laughable (I mean really, the guy has no security cameras?), Hardy seemed to be doing his best to channel Shia Lebouf's mannerisms and speech patterns, Michelle Williams is seriously hard to look at (she's one ugly chick), and they wiped their collective butts with the entire Venom history that I half-way researched before I watched it.  

But it still had its moments. 

It isn't in the same orbit as the tentpole Marvel movies, but it was still better than most of the soggy slate of staid and ponderous DC offerings (save WW).  I'd much rather watch Venom than SvB or JL. It at least had a sense of breezy fun to it. 

I can't figure out how in the world they could tie Venom into the broader Marvel universe, though, given the way they completely trashed the origin story and the rationale for his being.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 22, 2018, 09:34:06 AM
You wish..  I was a Prowler back in those days.  The company I was working for went out of business unexpectedly right before the summer.  The guy who owned the place told me I could draw unemployment.  I never imagined that was possible.  I spent several months living on the dole.

Every week for the entire summer I got an unemployment check. I did manual labor on the weekends for straight cash that didn't go against my unemployment draw.

My dad was a member at the little country club where we lived and I was still young enough to be on his tab.  Golf/tennis/pool all free.  Lunch tab went to my dad. All I had to pay every month was my car note ($75), my gas (less than $1 a gallon) and whatever I did with my girlfriend (and you could do movies and dinner for less than $30 usually).  For the time?  I had plenty of money.  I was rich!

I'd show up at 6:30 or 7 play 18 with the old guys, be done by 10 or so.  Pool until 11.  Burger or chicken salad at the bar.  Try to find somebody to play tennis with and sweat through two and a half hours.  Be ready to run 18 more with the people getting off work at 3 or 4.  Done by 7:30 (darkish), hit the shower and go to GF's house. 

Best shape of my life. 

Then I grew up.  Got off the unemployment. 

hey I was trying to hook you up with Jaclyn. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 22, 2018, 10:03:13 AM
hey I was trying to hook you up with Jaclyn.
I did that on my own many times.  Also Farrah.  She lived on my wall.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 26, 2018, 11:14:23 PM
The Dark Place (aka Bird Box)

Take The Quiet Place, switch it up so that instead of sound it's sight that summons the demons, don't make the mistake of showing the big uglies and then swirl in a dose of Book of Eli and you've got this Netflix movie. 

I never really quite understood the concept of how the madness/sickness was spread or why and I didn't much care for the way the story skipped back and forth in time until it caught up with itself. Felt that was an amateur move by whoever directed the movie. 

It didn't skimp on the star power, drawing in a number of faces you'd recognize including the American Michael Caine, John Malcovich, BD Wong and more. But the seasoned cast couldn't save it from its own missteps. 

I'm going to alienate a significant portion of the base with what I have to say next, but it has to be done.  Sandra Bullock played the lead in this film and she was absolutely painful to look at.  Her surgically butchered nose, her sickeningly doctored Michael Jackson mouth, the 61 pounds of makeup she caked on just to appear somewhat human.... Her rank ugliness was terribly distracting from the tension of the film.  She made me cringe.  Good lord she was putrid.  The idea of her dusty cooze bag being filled with a child?  Laughable. She's 54 years old or something like that.  And that plastic-faced wench is dropping a kid?  Pffffffttt.  Casting her (and she was executive producer so it was her choice) was an awful decision.  One of the worst. Literally anyone would have been better in the role.  Clay Aiken would have been preferable. 

I might have enjoyed this movie much better if I hadn't already seen it done and done better (for the most part) in The Quiet Place and if it didn't star a deformed, ancient plastic fake barbie.  It wasn't bad, but since it trod so much of the same ground as the much better Quiet Place it can't help but suffer in comparison. 

I wouldn't say avoid it, but I wouldn't put it at or near the top of any list. 


Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 27, 2018, 01:09:18 AM
The Santa Chronicles

Ginned up sentimentality, Kurt Russell as a too cool for his suspenders Santa and the occasional "surprise" cameo. 

Another Netflix original.  At this rate, I'd prefer that they stick to showing other people's movies and spend less time trying to make their own stale and stilted duds. 

Just didn't resonate whatsoever.  I'm a sucker for Christmas movies.  Vacation, Story, Grinch, Home Alone, Die Hard, Gremlins, Elf, Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th (now), Christmas Carol, Charlie Brown, Scrooged, Jingle All the Way, Deck the Halls and on and on.

This one? 

I don't see it ever making it onto anybody's must-see Christmas list, except for the parents of the cookie-cutter kids from the movie and maybe Mr. Russell.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 27, 2018, 09:47:18 AM
Aquaman is surprisingly good.  But I went in with more than a bit of trepidation given DC's gift for mangling these movies.

I was also extremely hesitant based on the Arthur Curry scenes in Justice League, but the bro-heavy dialogue didn't make its way into Aquaman.

Remember how stunning Avatar was when you saw it for the first time?  Aquaman takes that visual overload and dials it to 11.  Visually stunning...to the point of overkill at times, even.  

Watch this one in the theater (preferably in IMAX and/or 3D), I don't think it'll hold up on the small screen.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 27, 2018, 10:50:47 PM
Venom

Didn't expect much from this movie.  Don't really like Tom Hardy all that much and don't know anything about the Venom franchise other than that he's a bad guy in the Spiderman pantheon.  So I really wasn't sure how they'd play it. 

Turns out it was a pretty fun movie.  Oh, the plot was ridiculous, the logic of so many people betting killed and maimed while Venom/Brock was allowed to just wander around was absurd, the idea that Brock and the researcher could just wander into the research facility because it was "closed for the night" was laughable (I mean really, the guy has no security cameras?), Hardy seemed to be doing his best to channel Shia Lebouf's mannerisms and speech patterns, Michelle Williams is seriously hard to look at (she's one ugly chick), and they wiped their collective butts with the entire Venom history that I half-way researched before I watched it. 

But it still had its moments.

It isn't in the same orbit as the tentpole Marvel movies, but it was still better than most of the soggy slate of staid and ponderous DC offerings (save WW).  I'd much rather watch Venom than SvB or JL. It at least had a sense of breezy fun to it.

I can't figure out how in the world they could tie Venom into the broader Marvel universe, though, given the way they completely trashed the origin story and the rationale for his being. 

I liked this much more than I expected I would.

It was interesting to see Hardy play a character without an outrageous speech affectation.

Fun movie and I disagree about Ms. Williams.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on December 28, 2018, 08:48:26 AM
I liked this much more than I expected I would.

It was interesting to see Hardy play a character without an outrageous speech affectation.

Fun movie and I disagree about Ms. Williams.
You are both right about Williams.  I think she is the girl from the Seinfeld episode... she's a two face. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFeUrC2gR30

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on December 28, 2018, 10:19:17 AM
You are both right about Williams.  I think she is the girl from the Seinfeld episode... she's a two face.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFeUrC2gR30
Festivus was last week.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on December 28, 2018, 10:46:47 AM
Festivus was last week.
It's a Festivus miracle.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 31, 2018, 01:23:27 AM
Bandersnatch 

Nope.  This is not a movie about Dr. Strange.  It's a movie-length episode of Black Mirror.  

One of the twistiest movies I've ever seen.  It cannot be reviewed.  Very self aware, and requires interaction and attention.  

I want to watch it again and see if I get to the same end.  Is the path really controlled?  

Intriguing.  I'd be interested in how others take it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 31, 2018, 10:01:35 AM
Bandersnatch

Nope.  This is not a movie about Dr. Strange.  It's a movie-length episode of Black Mirror. 

One of the twistiest movies I've ever seen.  It cannot be reviewed.  Very self aware, and requires interaction and attention. 

I want to watch it again and see if I get to the same end.  Is the path really controlled? 

Intriguing.  I'd be interested in how others take it.
 

Not a bad first attempt at this format, but it needs lots of work.  Overall the story was ho hum, I thought.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 31, 2018, 10:41:47 AM
Not a review, but I vegged out for several hours yesterday with two classics back to back.  Tombstone and Full Metal Jacket.  Tombstone is similar to Shawshank Redemption for me.  It's one of those that if I'm flipping channels and come across, I go, "Yep, I'll be here for a while."

Hadn't seen FMJ in years and forgot how many great lines came out of that one.  One line that was not so great came when Snags Lite and his babe were walking through the den just as Gny. Sgt. Hartman sings out during a run, "I don't know but I've been told, Eskimo pussy is mighty cold."

Say, you kids have fun.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 31, 2018, 10:57:37 AM
Not a review, but I vegged out for several hours yesterday with two classics back to back.  Tombstone and Full Metal Jacket.  Tombstone is similar to Shawshank Redemption for me.  It's one of those that if I'm flipping channels and come across, I go, "Yep, I'll be here for a while."

Hadn't seen FMJ in years and forgot how many great lines came out of that one.  One line that was not so great came when Snags Lite and his babe were walking through the den just as Gny. Sgt. Hartman sings out during a run, "I don't know but I've been told, Eskimo pussy is mighty cold."

Say, you kids have fun.
Excellent movies, both.  Time well spent.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 31, 2018, 11:07:08 AM
Excellent movies, both.  Time well spent.
One of the best moments.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9e/cd/67/9ecd671b37f99e118fefb69284cef866.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjTmv7-uMrfAhUhU98KHQ3LDKEQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F471259548497501124%2F&psig=AOvVaw1NT_kmCBh-xrfEkgwAxY_Y&ust=1546358458710932)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 31, 2018, 11:09:05 AM
One of the best moments.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9e/cd/67/9ecd671b37f99e118fefb69284cef866.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjTmv7-uMrfAhUhU98KHQ3LDKEQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F471259548497501124%2F&psig=AOvVaw1NT_kmCBh-xrfEkgwAxY_Y&ust=1546358458710932)
That movie could just be a 15 minute super-cut of Doc Holliday's lines and it would still be cinematic gold.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 31, 2018, 11:18:00 AM
That movie could just be a 15 minute super-cut of Doc Holliday's lines and it would still be cinematic gold.
Indeed.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 31, 2018, 11:56:45 AM
Excellent movies, both.  Time well spent.
Full Metal Jacket yes, just because it was so weird.  

Never seen Tombstone.  Or if I have, it didn't resonate. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 31, 2018, 12:17:05 PM
Full Metal Jacket yes, just because it was so weird. 

Never seen Tombstone.  Or if I have, it didn't resonate.
FMJ is just over 30 years old now.  You had a young Matthew Modine (Loved him in Vision Quest) and Vincent D'Onofrio.  I had to check and see who played "Gomer Pyle" and when I saw it was D'onofiro, I realized this guy has to be one of the more versatile actors out there.  A shit load of bit parts but he's played about every role imaginable.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on December 31, 2018, 12:47:39 PM
Not a review, but I vegged out for several hours yesterday with two classics back to back.  Tombstone and Full Metal Jacket.  Tombstone is similar to Shawshank Redemption for me.  It's one of those that if I'm flipping channels and come across, I go, "Yep, I'll be here for a while."

Hadn't seen FMJ in years and forgot how many great lines came out of that one.  One line that was not so great came when Snags Lite and his babe were walking through the den just as Gny. Sgt. Hartman sings out during a run, "I don't know but I've been told, Eskimo pussy is mighty cold."

Say, you kids have fun.
Is he dating an Eskimo?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 31, 2018, 12:51:07 PM
Full Metal Jacket yes, just because it was so weird. 

Never seen Tombstone.  Or if I have, it didn't resonate.


It's awesome.

So....you'll hate it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 31, 2018, 12:52:16 PM
Is he dating an Eskimo?


Well, when he asked to put it in her pooper she said she was Inuit.

I'll be here all week.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on December 31, 2018, 12:52:44 PM
FMJ is just over 30 years old now.  You had a young Matthew Modine (Loved him in Vision Quest) and Vincent D'Onofrio.  I had to check and see who played "Gomer Pyle" and when I saw it was D'onofiro, I realized this guy has to be one of the more versatile actors out there.  A shit load of bit parts but he's played about every role imaginable.
The fact that you didn't mention Animal Mother (Adam Baldwin) when speaking of this movie makes you very wrong.

Animal Mother is a fine human being, he just needs someone to throw grenades at him the rest of his life.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 31, 2018, 12:58:00 PM
Is he dating an Eskimo?
MMM, good.
Tastes good.
Feels good.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 31, 2018, 01:00:10 PM

It's awesome.

So....you'll hate it.
*snicker*
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on December 31, 2018, 01:11:09 PM
MMM, good.
Tastes good.
Feels good.
I wouldn't worry about it.  These days his gf has probably eaten more pussy than he has.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 31, 2018, 01:17:20 PM
I wouldn't worry about it.  These days his gf has probably eaten more pussy than he has.
That's hawt.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 02, 2019, 04:01:03 PM
Alpha 

The story of man's first dog.  I guess.  

Made up language and really a story we've seen like a hundred times before.  Man injures animal, animal becomes his friend.  You've all seen those movies.  Gentle Ben, Life of Pi, Racing Stripes anyone?  

Lots of really pretty scenery, a dialogue that consisted of grunts and made up words. I had a problem here, because when characters are using a fake language I try to look for continuity and is the same word said the same way throughout.  Like Dothraki or Klingon, both of which stick to the standard across the board.  Here?  Not so much I don't think.  Whatever grunting sounds occurred at the time were good enough.  But anyway... 

This was like a low-rent version of Revenant mixed with a little Clan of the Cave Bear and a little Born Free. 

I didn't hate it, but I don't think it told the gripping story it intended to tell.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 05, 2019, 12:51:36 AM
Possum

One of the weirdest, least understandable movies I've ever seen.  

It was like scary Mr. Bean carries a spider around in a bag. 

That's literally all I got.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 05, 2019, 09:39:17 AM
Southern Comfort

Powers Boothe at the height of his powers. Fred Ward. Keith Carradine. Alan Autry (you won't know the name but you'll recognize the guy).  

Louisiana National Guardsmen get lost in the bayou and stupidly run afoul of the cajuns who inhabit the swamps. The weekend warriors pay a heavy price for mucking around in things they don't understand. 

It's sort of a cross between First Blood and a heavy dose of Deliverance (both movies I liked) with maybe a smidge of Predator mixed in.  

This is one of those 80s movies that's always been on my favorites list and I'd forgotten about it until it popped up on Amazon Prime.  

I love the Louisiana scenery, the spanish moss covered swamp trees, and the cajun music.  This film was actually my first introduction to the zydeco sound and it's remained one of my favorite genres ever since. 

It's not a great movie and the dialogue is cheesy in a way only an 80s movie could evoke, but it's also good in a way only an 80s action movie could be.  

Highly recommend.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on January 05, 2019, 11:08:58 AM
Southern Comfort

Powers Boothe at the height of his powers. Fred Ward. Keith Carradine. Alan Autry (you won't know the name but you'll recognize the guy). 

Louisiana National Guardsmen get lost in the bayou and stupidly run afoul of the cajuns who inhabit the swamps. The weekend warriors pay a heavy price for mucking around in things they don't understand.

It's sort of a cross between First Blood and a heavy dose of Deliverance (both movies I liked) with maybe a smidge of Predator mixed in. 

This is one of those 80s movies that's always been on my favorites list and I'd forgotten about it until it popped up on Amazon Prime. 

I love the Louisiana scenery, the spanish moss covered swamp trees, and the cajun music.  This film was actually my first introduction to the zydeco sound and it's remained one of my favorite genres ever since.

It's not a great movie and the dialogue is cheesy in a way only an 80s movie could evoke, but it's also good in a way only an 80s action movie could be. 

Highly recommend. 
Alan Autrey was QB of the Packers in the early 70s. You may also remember him from Sparta!

I remember watching this movie on HBO when HBO first came out, as a kid. Don't mess with the locals, they can hide behind every tree!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 09, 2019, 01:08:39 AM
Ready Player One

Sort of had the same feel as one of Speilberg's 80s movies. 

I wish the film had paid more attention to story and detail than it did to cramming a million kitschy pop culture references into every frame.  It reached the point to where I felt like they were just throwing things up on the screen to amuse themselves rather than use those millions of references to advance the story.

The 80s were a different time.  This throwback movie felt a little out of place.  It wasn't mean/dirty enough to really be an action movie and it had a little too much splash and menace to hit the spot as a kid's movie.  In that way it was similar to say... Gremlins (not Speilberg but of the same era).  I didn't hate it, but it was ultimately unsatisfying.

The main bad guy (the CEO of IOI) vacillated between cartoonish hyperbole and glaring threats.  He runs a corporation that wants to take over control of The Oasis -- a vast virtual reality where pretty much everyone exists for the majority of time.  The creator of The Oasis died and left behind control to whoever solved a series of three in-game puzzles.  The IOI CEO has huge teams of gamers working every angle, trying to figure out the answers to the three puzzles.  

I'd be remiss if I didn't state that the solutions to these puzzles would have been figured out by the IOI teams long, long, long before some random kids unlocked them.  

The movie suffered a bit from the blandness of the lead.  The kid tried, but he had very little charisma. Might have been better if the focus was on the girl he became smitten with as opposed to him.  

As for the story it was a little ridiculous.  The technology seemed muddled and the way it breezed through an explanation of how the world reached the place we found it was somewhat lacking -- although I see how it potentially could at some future point. 

Hang on... Alexa?  Turn off the kitchen lights and lock the door. 

It was an ambitious movie, but the tent pole wasn't strong enough for it to bring back the Speilberg blockbuster magic in my opinion. 

I liked the soundtrack that was loaded with 80s song references.  And even though it was too much, I enjoyed seeing essentially 3/4 of my early teenage years as background set pieces.  So there's that.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on January 09, 2019, 11:21:34 AM
Ready Player One

Sort of had the same feel as one of Speilberg's 80s movies. 

I wish the film had paid more attention to story and detail than it did to cramming a million kitschy pop culture references into every frame.  It reached the point to where I felt like they were just throwing things up on the screen to amuse themselves rather than use those millions of references to advance the story.

The 80s were a different time.  This throwback movie felt a little out of place.  It wasn't mean/dirty enough to really be an action movie and it had a little too much splash and menace to hit the spot as a kid's movie.  In that way it was similar to say... Gremlins (not Speilberg but of the same era).  I didn't hate it, but it was ultimately unsatisfying.

The main bad guy (the CEO of IOI) vacillated between cartoonish hyperbole and glaring threats.  He runs a corporation that wants to take over control of The Oasis -- a vast virtual reality where pretty much everyone exists for the majority of time.  The creator of The Oasis died and left behind control to whoever solved a series of three in-game puzzles.  The IOI CEO has huge teams of gamers working every angle, trying to figure out the answers to the three puzzles. 

I'd be remiss if I didn't state that the solutions to these puzzles would have been figured out by the IOI teams long, long, long before some random kids unlocked them. 

The movie suffered a bit from the blandness of the lead.  The kid tried, but he had very little charisma. Might have been better if the focus was on the girl he became smitten with as opposed to him. 

As for the story it was a little ridiculous.  The technology seemed muddled and the way it breezed through an explanation of how the world reached the place we found it was somewhat lacking -- although I see how it potentially could at some future point. 

Hang on... Alexa?  Turn off the kitchen lights and lock the door. 

It was an ambitious movie, but the tent pole wasn't strong enough for it to bring back the Speilberg blockbuster magic in my opinion. 

I liked the soundtrack that was loaded with 80s song references.  And even though it was too much, I enjoyed seeing essentially 3/4 of my early teenage years as background set pieces.  So there's that.

you zap the fun out of watching movies...glad I watched it before you reviewed.   i fully enjoyed the movie.  it was fun, simple movie.  



Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 10, 2019, 01:37:08 AM
The Neighbor

William Fichtner as a lonely (why, who knows?) and meek middle aged man who develops an obsession for his new neighbor -- a lithe young thing with a douchebaggy husband and a flirty smile. 

The movie intended to smolder, I suppose, but what it did instead was drag maddeningly and slowly along before crawling to an end that didn't even really end.  None of the story threads were closed, no answers were provided. 

The neighbor girl is alluring enough but it's a little hard to see how she might have been attracted to the painfully awkward Mike.  And make no mistake, he was creepily, painfully, cringingly awkward. 

The new neighbors move in, Mike develops an instant mid-life lust for Jenna (Jessica McNamee, who you might recognize from Sirens or The Meg).  From that point on the movie basically rambles through scene after scene of Mike making odd faces, shuffling along, looking at plants, staring out windows and doing other creepy things.  Sometimes he weirdly interacts with Jenna and sometimes he awkwardly interacts with his wife Lisa (I knew I knew her, but had to look it up... she was the teenage daughter in Uncle Buck). Rarely he has stilted conversations with his estranged son (an estrangement that's never really explored). 

I kept waiting for something to happen, waiting, waiting, waiting.  And then in the eight point five seconds that something sort of did happen, there was no payoff. 

I liked the cast. I thought Fichtner overplayed the part, but the rest was decent enough.  The movie just ended up having nothing at all to say and took seemingly forever not to say it.  Runtime was 1:45.  It felt like 5:41. The trailer is the entire movie and it does it better. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 10, 2019, 05:14:04 PM
Uncle Buck

Seems fitting that since the movie I reviewed yesterday had the teenager from Uncle Buck as one of its leads, I should go back and give my take on Uncle Buck itself -- as I had watched that movie a week or so ago as well. 

I'm a sucker for John Hughes movies.  He knew how to do subtle, intelligent humor that still maintained an immature, childish bent at times.  He also knew how to layer on the schmaltz and sentimentality that hides at the core of who Kaos really is. 

Doesn't matter how many times I watch Christmas Vacation there's something about Clark sappily watching the home movies in the attic that touches me.  I get a little hitch when he looks at the sky and says "I did it.." at the end.  Same thing when the old neighbor reunites with his son in Home Alone.  Same when Del is at Neal's home at the end of Planes, Trains and Automobiles.  Hughes knows where Kaos lives and grabs me in those moments.

Uncle Buck fits that same mold even if it is a little more uneven around the edges.  Hughes knew how to draw the best out of John Candy (Vacation, Great Outdoors, Planes, etc.) and give his larger than life persona room to breathe. 

In Uncle Buck as the emergency babysitter for his brother's kids, Candy is perfect in the role of a guy who never really quite made it, but has enough real world living experience to be a valuable source of knowledge and understanding for the rebellious teen and her bratty but funny siblings (one of whom is Kevin McAllister before he ran the house in Home Alone).

The movie is heavy on family-focused sentiment as each of the characters in the film learn what being a family is all about.  It's sweet, it's funny, it's endearing.  It's like the comfort food of movies.  And I enjoy the heck out of some comfort food.

It's the kind of movie Hughes specialized in and that gently sentimental touch is something that's sorely missing in filmmaking today.  Uncle Buck isn't the best of the Hughes library, but it's still a pretty good representation. 

Here's a quarter. Now buy a rat to chew that thing off your face!

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 11, 2019, 12:32:01 AM
Our House

A lukewarm attempt at horror probably aimed more toward the 18-21 set than an older demographic. 

The movie took elements of Pet Semetary, Flatliners, Back to the Future and splashed them around in the Blumhouse template (even though this was an IFC release and not Blum) to concoct a story about portals into the netherworld. 

In an effort to develop wireless electricity a college kid unwittingly creates an electromagnetic (I think) field that allows evil spirits from another realm to slowly work their way into the world of the living.  The death of his parents and their subsequent supposed ghostly reappearance as he tinkers with the machine that creates the electric pulse provides the impetus for him to continue trying to make it work. 

The little sister who first sees the apparitions is fantastic.  She's got a natural presence that separates her from the sack full of other child actors who've been haunted in other movies. 

It's a decent movie, but it reins in the scares to the point that it's a little bland.  There wasn't enough meat for the bare bones of the story.  No, let's be honest. It's a lot bland.  It just didn't offer enough tension or spookiness to stand out in any way. 

On top of that, the science was a little wonky and that bothered me throughout.  He had a lightbulb clipped into a test tube stand in order to see if his electric-generating contraption.  But if the device was supposedly firing off wireless electricity that could light up a random bulb just sitting there, wouldn't that same force field have also set every other electrical device within its sphere aglow?  What possibly could have made it focus on that single bulb in a room filled with things that ran on electric power?  I honestly missed parts of the movie puzzling that in my head. 

No sex. No profanity (that I can remember) and just a few random vapors that, while well done, didn't generate much fear.  Lukewarm is the best word to describe it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on January 12, 2019, 01:32:07 AM
Into the Spiderverse is so fucking fun.

I'm not a huge fan of the character.  Peter Parker's nebbish anti-hero just doesn't ring my bell.  I like the latest cinematic iteration with Tom Holland, though, but mostly because of Tom and the shift in the groundhog-day marketing strategy to finally bring him into the Avengers storyline.  But I digress.

The animation is stellar.  The soundtrack is fun.  The voice cast is perfect.

Lots of familiar villains to go along with (for a verrrrrrrrrrrrry casual comic fan) a fun cast of Spiderpeople.

Good story...lots of heart...fun jokes...AND a post-credit scene that will make anyone familiar with popular internet memes laugh audibly.  Or, at least I did.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on January 12, 2019, 10:27:08 AM
Uncle Buck.

I use that line all the time when watching movies!

Here's a quarter. Now buy a rat to chew that thing off your face!
https://youtu.be/-H-cWXr-n5I
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 14, 2019, 02:53:02 PM
Happy Death Day
I didn't expect much from this movie.  I was pleasantly surprised.  Don't get me wrong, it's no cinematic classic, but it does what it does well enough to be entertaining. 

The basic storyline is exactly as the trailers show:  Birthday girl dies every day and then wakes back up where it all began to start the day over again.  Yes.  Groundhog Day but with a murder tossed in.  The movie smartly even references its own ancestor toward the end. 

Along the way this trifling little film offered some deeper observations about how a person might view his own life if given the chance to fix the little mistakes that plague our everyday relationships. 

The central character, played by Jessica Rothe (who will soon star as Julie in the remake of one of my favorite 80s teen movies Valley Girl) does a pretty adequate job of displaying the appropriate emotions as she gradually transitions from self-absorbed sorority whore to a more selfless, honest, real person over the course of the same day on repeat.  It's a pretty neat trick for a character you want to just die early on to bring you around to her side and even move you just a little with some contrived emotional scenes.  Watching her grow from a miserable bitch to a reasonably happy person was well done. 

The movie has a handful of amusing moments and keeps the identity of the true villain under wraps about as long as it possibly can. 

Not a great movie.  Had its flaws.  But it was better than I expected.  I'm glad I watched it.  It's assloads better than The Snowman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeXqWDFJZiw

BTW I'm in love with this girl.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/filmguide/images/a/a1/JessicaRothe.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20171015140811)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 16, 2019, 12:08:42 AM
The Predator 

This recycled reboot doesn't approach the cheesy 80s magnificence of the Arnold Schwarzenegger original.  That film boasted Arnie, Apollo Creed, Bad Bill Duke, Governor Ventura, Sonny Landham, a good looking latino woman, the Sandman from Metallica's Enter Sandman video.  It also gave us our first look at one of the baddest creatures ever to grace the screen. Arnie's ultimate battle of wits and brawn with the Predator was one of the best action sequences ever filmed.  Amazingly very little CGI was used to create the creature or the sprawling brawl.  

This film recycled the background music of the original (which was great) and kept the basic sound of the Predator which ranks up with Chewbacca's roar as one of the most distinctive creature sounds ever created.  It retained some of the same weaponry, particularly the hand knives and the triangle laser sights from the shoulder and helmet weapons.  Kept the basic physical structure of the predators.  

It also contained a few sly references to the original including a polar opposite "mother-f***er" reaction to seeing the creature's actual face.  Arnold called it "one ugly mf" while Olivia Munn termed it "one beautiful mf" 

Beyond that?  It was a completely different movie altogether.  Arnie, Apollo, Bill, Body and the Chief oozed muscular testosterone.  The A-Team here relied far more on comedy than it did on beef and brawn.  It gave us an unintelligible (and wasted) Theon Greyjoy, a tourette's-laden Thomas Jane, a possibly psycho hipster, a suicidal CO, and Key (not Peele).  I wasn't expecting comedy but I got a lot more of it here than I could ever have imagined possible.  And it wasn't bad.   I also got super scientist Olivia Munn (yeah.. right, not buying it) and the always charming child actor Jacob Trembelay.  He wasn't bad with a pretty weak script.  

Other than Munn's laughably lightweight scientist performance, one of the biggest problems was the lead.  He didn't have the gravitas to effectively carry the role. And his hair was bad. He was supposed to be some cocky badass super soldier but he just wasn't believable at all.  

Another problem was some of the ridiculous stunts.  Nobody jumps on top of a moving bus that's sliding around corners and maintains their feet.  The third problem was an unnecessarily bumpy script. It didn't need to be nearly as convoluted or murky as it was.  It could have been a lot tighter. 

Further, the movie was dragged down by a bug-eyed one-note effort by Stirling Brown as the government baddie.  I don't know who that guy is, but I've seen him around and he's absolutely terrible here.  Utterly worthless. He costs the movie half a star or more by himself. 

The asinine horse manure about global warming killing all of earth's population in a generation or two and heat-loving predators coming to take over the planet could shove it where the sun doesn't shine.  I don't appreciate the subtle political push of a fake crisis.  

And finally... CGI.  There were places where it was really obvious and jarring.  Just don't.  

It may sound like I hated it, but I didn't.  I enjoyed the movie overall. It was enjoyable enough on the whole that I'd maybe watch it again if I run across it. It just wasn't what I was expecting and because of the flaws I listed it didn't have near the impact of the original.  Not that it could. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 16, 2019, 09:50:45 AM
12 Skrong

May have been reviewed a while back.  Just my take on it.  Chris Hemsworth plays a soldier leading a team into Asscrackastan immediately after 9-11. Their mission is to hook up with an anti-Taliban group and locate pockets of terrorists, then call in air strikes to that position.  Semi-okay, nothing special war flick until the end when it just lost me.  If you haven't seen it, what I'm about to say doesn't ruin it for anyone. It's a war movie.  They kill bad guys.  But it turns into a Marvel/DC super hero action scene when they come riding into the Taliban camp on horses, facing hundreds of sheet heads with machine guns, tanks, and various other weapons of mass destruction.  9 million rounds are fired and the only ones who get shot are the terrorists...by U.S. soldiers.....on horses. 

Look, if it's Rambo, you know that's what you're getting.  If this is loosely based on a true story, then it's veerrrrry loosely based....with a side order of cheese.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 16, 2019, 10:40:16 AM
12 Skrong

May have been reviewed a while back.  Just my take on it.  Chris Hemsworth plays a soldier leading a team into Asscrackastan immediately after 9-11. Their mission is to hook up with an anti-Taliban group and locate pockets of terrorists, then call in air strikes to that position.  Semi-okay, nothing special war flick until the end when it just lost me.  If you haven't seen it, what I'm about to say doesn't ruin it for anyone. It's a war movie.  They kill bad guys.  But it turns into a Marvel/DC super hero action scene when they come riding into the Taliban camp on horses, facing hundreds of sheet heads with machine guns, tanks, and various other weapons of mass destruction.  9 million rounds are fired and the only ones who get shot are the terrorists...by U.S. soldiers.....on horses.

Look, if it's Rambo, you know that's what you're getting.  If this is loosely based on a true story, then it's veerrrrry loosely based....with a side order of cheese. 
http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/12-strong/
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on January 16, 2019, 10:50:25 AM
http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/12-strong/
I had heard it was based on the real deal.  The movie was okay, not worth watching again by any means.  However, my "very loosely" comment was aimed more at the final scene than anything else. 

Is the final battle in the movie depicted accurately?
No. "The battle at the end was not depicted accurately," says the real Bob Pennington. "We dispersed the team at several positions along the ridges of the Tiangi." He points out that the word "Tiangi" actually means gap, so when they refer to the "Tiangi gap" in the movie, they're actually saying the gap, gap.

Pennington said that with regard to the enemy vehicle (BM-21) launching rockets in and around the Tiangi, it did happen, several times. "They weirdly are a formidable force that will continue to fight, no matter what."

The last battle scene was epically stupid.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 17, 2019, 11:08:47 PM
Mandy

Nicholas Cage going all Nick Cagey in a twisted tale of bloody revenge.  I was actually looking forward to his over-the-top performance in an unhinged splatter fest.  I figured it would be campy, gory and fun.  

Oh holy balls was I wrong.  This was the worst melted crayola smear attempting to be a movie to which I've ever been subjected. It set standards for pure awfulness that may never, ever, ever, ever, ever be reached again.  It was so creatively bad that I'm struggling to come up with words to describe just how stunningly horrible it was. 

It's so weird because this movie was positively reviewed by the majority of reviewers.  I saw four and five star raves all over the place before I made the leap into this eleventh level of roaring hell.  Here's the thing. I think it was so unapologetically awful that all those positive reviews were people just telling themselves that nothing could possibly have been that bad on purpose so let's praise it so we don't look stupid.  

I was in that camp.  It was so weird and horrible I wondered if maybe I missed something and needed to be high to really get it.  So I got that way and gave it another shot.  The high didn't improve the movie at all. 

It was bad. Bad bad.  So bad. 

If you want to torture yourself with this be my guest.  Before you do, let me give you a dozen reasons to opt out. 

1) Cage is a bad actor.   Here they let him uncage the Cage and that resulted in some of the worst performances of his career.  The goofy faces, the lunatic grins.  It was just horrible. 

2) Mike Cutter's baby bird.  Cutter, the former Law and Order Assistant DA (Linus Roache) plays the long-haired leader of a religious cult (think Charlie Manson with a dash of Jim Jones).  He's nearly as bad as Cage, but the crowning achievement of his hideous performance is a semi-jesus pose with his nest, baby bird and eggs just flobbed out there.  

3) Quentin Tarrantino.  Q didn't direct this garbage, but the guy who did was clearly influenced by his style. The movie's visual style was a palette of over-tinted grainy cuts. It was intended to look like a pulpish film from the 70s or 80s. It just looked like a smeary mess. The director also stole Tarrantino's penchant for having chapters in his movies, but there was no continuity or cohesion (or sense) in the chapter segments. 

4) The Beastmaster.  I loved the Beastmaster. Terrible movie with forced dialogue, but I used to love it.  The crazy snarling bad guys loyal to Maax (pronounced Ma-axe and performed by Rip Torn) were recreated here and mixed with a little Mad Max and a splash of Hellraiser.  Blow some weird rock and they show up on four wheelers to drink blood and do bad things.  Yeah, that. 

5) Overly cliched bad guys.  Some of the worst acting ever. 

6) Mandy.  She looked like Olive Oyl had a baby with Skratt from Ice Age.  Nothing to rationalize Cage's adoration of her or the obsession Mike Cutter had with her when he saw her staggering wide-eyed along the side of the road in what may or may not have been a dream sequence. She was a soft-spoken, mumbling weirdo. 

7) Zack Snyder.  No, Zack didn't direct the movie.  But the amateur who did clearly borrowed some of the worst traits Snyder displayed in Sucker Punch.  Sucker was not a bad movie, but all the director of Mandy took from it were the very worst parts. He retained none of the good. 

8) Heavy Metal.  Ever gotten high and watched that 80s classic?  It's a trip. Hearing John Candy's voice coming out in various parts of that surreal cartoon is trippy just by itself. The rest of Heavy Metal is a total mind bender.  This Mandy movie inexplicably bounces off into occasional super funky Heavy Metal-esque cartoon sequences that are useless and senseless. 

9) Wait, multiple multi-colored moons?  Whaaaattt..  I need more drugs. 

10) The boredom.  This movie lasts more than two interminable hours.   The vast majority of it is spent wandering around slowly in mind-altering splashy color palettes that are so poorly acted and so choppily filmed that they make no sense. They don't connect. The dialogue doesn't connect.  Even when high, you just sit there awash in color wondering why any of it exists.  The first hour and a half could honestly have been condensed to maybe 15 minutes and lost nothing.  

11) Bill Duke. I honestly thought Duke had died years ago.  Hadn't thought much about him since his glorious turns in Commando, Predator and Action Jackson.  He's wasted here in a scene that has no connection to anything that happens before or after he pops up.  Bill looks bad and this color-soaked turd did him no career favors.  

12) The regret.  To maybe, possibly, potentially get anything out of this movie you'd have to drink a lot more than I did or take a big bucket of drugs.  And you'll STILL regret the time you spent getting over-saturated color washed in the glow of this terrible thing.  About 30 minutes in we considered pulling the plug but decided to ride it out in the hope that the vengeance payoff at the end might be worth it.  We were horribly disappointed.  This movie is so bad, I've been barred from picking a movie for 45 days.  I cannot recommend, suggest or select the movies we watch until my sentence is up.  

I suffered through this so none of the rest of you have to.    
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 18, 2019, 08:26:47 AM
You had me at Nicholas Cage
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on January 18, 2019, 01:49:57 PM
You had me at Nicholas Cage
I like how Kaos is so suck sink and to the point!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 18, 2019, 02:51:35 PM
The Last Laugh

Chevy Chase and Richard Dreyfuss as a manager and a comedian who worked together 50 years ago bolting from the retirement home where they find each other and hitting the road for one last tour.  Dreyfuss' character walked away from his one big shot (a berth on Ed Sullivan) leaving his agent Chase holding the bag.  Each made their own lives before they stumble on each other at the assisted living facility and grow bored with the pampered waiting-to-die lifestyle.  

It's tough seeing Chase this old. Dreyfuss, too. But both are in their mid to late 70s and it's just the reality.  

Chase can still rustle up some of the befuddled goofiness that made his career.  Dreyfuss can still channel some of the frenetic smirk/anger that was his schtick all the way back to Jaws and What About Bob.  

I enjoyed seeing the two work together.  The problem is that the humor just isn't there.  Dreyfuss' jokes are so stale and flat that buying him as a comic, even one who was out of the game for 50 years, clunks really badly and limits the believability.  

We've seen the old guy tries drugs act before. We've seen old guys trying to recapture their glory before.  

I'll say this.  There's enough of the old Chevy Chase glimmer to remind you of why he was so good as Clark Griswold and Irwin Fletcher, but the flashes are so inconsistent that they can't elevate the film above the weak script.  

It wasn't a horrible movie, but it was just so limited by the material that it didn't resonate more than, say, a glass of warm milk.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 18, 2019, 04:55:21 PM
How It Ends

Some end of the world as we know it madness. 

Will, a lawyer, leaves his pregnant fiance in Seattle to meet in Chicago with her stern and disapproving father (the almost always good Forest Whitaker) and get permission to marry. The two spar, their animosity toward each other barely restrained.  While there, some apocalyptic event takes place and the two (along with the rest of the world) are cut off from communication.  They decide to put aside their differences and take a road trip to find the girl. 

Along the way they meet human disaster after human disaster as the world reacts predictably poorly to the end times.  We've seen it before.  Bad guys with shotguns blocking the road and taking supplies.  Women posing as damsels in distress to lure people into a trap.  That doesn't mean the situations the two encounter are any less dramatic. 

The movie was critically panned, so of course I liked it.  While some of the tropes were trite, the performances by Whitaker and whoever played Will were strong enough to keep them from being rote.  Some of the critical scorn was reserved for the fact that the movie never really explained what the apocalyptic event was.  We saw crashed jets, a ruined Seattle covered in ash, ash clouds, trembling earth, loss of satellite communication, and eventually a massive pyroclastic flow but none of the cause.

To me, that was one of the stronger points.  I didn't need to know what destroyed Seattle to appreciate the gravity of its annihilation.  The fact that it was wiped off the map was enough to sustain the narrative.  I also appreciated the fact that the movie didn't wallow around in character development beyond what was necessary to move the plot.  It gave us the basics of the relationships and then let them simmer as the road trip unfolded. 

Movie critics?  Pfffft.  The movie was shot well, the performances were solid and the CGI (while not spectacular) wasn't as jarringly bad as, say, Justice League (which was a to the b to the YSMAL).  I appreciated it for what it was even if it didn't really break any new ground. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 19, 2019, 01:15:58 PM
Bad Day For the Cut 

Nobody you've ever seen in a story about a middle-aged guy taking revenge on some mid-level gangsters that beat his mother to death.  

It's a UK film so it carries some of that lean, gray simplicity that characterizes those exports and that's not a bad thing.  The understated characters and almost morose sense of inevitability that comes with having to do unpleasant tasks are both hallmarks of UK action movies and this one definitely fits the mold.  There's no maniacal bloodthirst or sense of enjoyment that dads/sons/brothers out for vengeance in American films seem to typically exude.  It's more of a "well, *sigh*, I got to go kill them now, so hold tight and maybe we'll grab a pint after?"  

That tends to work for me and so does this movie.  The story was pretty good with a midway exposition that I didn't really anticipate.  Twisting from what appeared to be a simple case of a break-in gone wrong to something with longer tentacles was a little contrived, but it made sense.  When those tentacles grew deeper towards the end it still worked.  

It's not what you'd call great cinema but when you compare it to the typical American fare (say Bruce Willis in Death Wish or even John Wick, Peppermint or -- help me -- anything with Nicholas Cage)?  It's a definite step above.  

Enjoyed it.  Not quite In Bruges (which remains one of my favorites) but you could easily see Brendan Gleeson playing the lead in this as well.  Had that same tenor.  I thought it was a solid movie.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 25, 2019, 11:00:32 AM
Ocean's Eight

Hey, remember when they did Ghostbusters but had an all female cast?  Remember how great that was?  Yeah.  This was a lot like that. 

Ocean's 11 had a breezy, jazzy cool and a well-matched ensemble that played off each other's quirks brilliantly. 

Ocean's 8 has a face full of collagen, cake pans of makeup, very little chemistry among the players and a mis-matched ensemble that fails to reach cohesion. 

Basic storyline:  Danny Ocean is dead (beginning of the ruination) and his sister (Sandra Bullock) is fresh out of jail after being semi-framed by her semi-boyfriend.  She's looking for revenge and sets up a jewel heist that will a) net millions and b) get revenge on the rat boyfriend.  She recruits this supposedly crack group of accomplices that includes Cate Blanchett, Kelly Kapoor, Rhianna, some chinese dude named Aquafina, Helena Bonham Carter Weirdo, and Sarah Paulson to pull it off.  Tedium ensues. 

You cannot change my mind on just how hideous Bullock looks today.  Botox renders her face essentially expressionless. Whatever she's injected into her lips and cheeks combined with the obvious butchery on her nose creates a rigid plastic mask that's eerily reminiscent of Michael Jackson toward his creepy end.  Kelly Kapoor (whatever her name is) also has a face apparently full of plumping injections.  Hers is so bad I spent half the movie unsure whether it was actually her or not.  Paulson is also toting a smaller bag of lip injections but hers at least doesn't completely distort her face. Rhianna appears collagen free, but she cannot act as she clearly proved in Battleship and reinforced here. 

The only person who pulls off the cool vibe this movie needs at all is Cate Blanchett. Don't care much for her in general,  but she did the best she could here with a clunky script and a half-baked backstory.  Bonham Carter wasn't bad and has aged so much better than the rest in this film (because she hasn't resorted to face altering mutilations) but her natural off-beat weirdness had a hard time fitting with the flow the movie wants to create. 

Anne Hathaway contributes some badly scenes but doesn't do anything to elevate the movie.  It was like she was fun constipated and tried really, really hard to squeeze some out but just couldn't in the end.  Also like she thought she was in a completely different film than the rest. 

The movie attempted to capture the glib fun of the Ocean's 11 remake but it failed to get there. Where 11 gave you a reason to care that the criminals got over on the casino (Terry Benedict was a crook and screwed over their pals) here the theft had no altruistic motivation. It was just bitchy greed with revenge tossed in as a secondary plot point.  Ripping off jewels without a noble reason to do so -- or a noble purpose for them after the fact -- turned the "heroines" of this movie into nothing but criminals.  Chopping up historic pieces of jewelry with a wire cutter also seemed utterly wrong.  

At the end, Plasti-face stares at Danny's crypt, takes a drink and says (without moving a single plasticized muscle in her entire face) "you would have loved it."  Wrong.  He would have hated it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on January 25, 2019, 11:53:02 AM
Ocean's Eight

Hey, remember when they did Ghostbusters but had an all female cast?  Remember how great that was?  Yeah.  This was a lot like that. 

Ocean's 11 had a breezy, jazzy cool and a well-matched ensemble that played off each other's quirks brilliantly. 

Ocean's 8 has a face full of collagen, cake pans of makeup, very little chemistry among the players and a mis-matched ensemble that fails to reach cohesion. 

Basic storyline:  Danny Ocean is dead (beginning of the ruination) and his sister (Sandra Bullock) is fresh out of jail after being semi-framed by her semi-boyfriend.  She's looking for revenge and sets up a jewel heist that will a) net millions and b) get revenge on the rat boyfriend.  She recruits this supposedly crack group of accomplices that includes Cate Blanchett, Kelly Kapoor, Rhianna, some chinese dude named Aquafina, Helena Bonham Carter Weirdo, and Sarah Paulson to pull it off.  Tedium ensues. 

You cannot change my mind on just how hideous Bullock looks today.  Botox renders her face essentially expressionless. Whatever she's injected into her lips and cheeks combined with the obvious butchery on her nose creates a rigid plastic mask that's eerily reminiscent of Michael Jackson toward his creepy end.  Kelly Kapoor (whatever her name is) also has a face apparently full of plumping injections.  Hers is so bad I spent half the movie unsure whether it was actually her or not.  Paulson is also toting a smaller bag of lip injections but hers at least doesn't completely distort her face. Rhianna appears collagen free, but she cannot act as she clearly proved in Battleship and reinforced here. 

The only person who pulls off the cool vibe this movie needs at all is Cate Blanchett. Don't care much for her in general,  but she did the best she could here with a clunky script and a half-baked backstory.  Bonham Carter wasn't bad and has aged so much better than the rest in this film (because she hasn't resorted to face altering mutilations) but her natural off-beat weirdness had a hard time fitting with the flow the movie wants to create. 

Anne Hathaway contributes some badly scenes but doesn't do anything to elevate the movie.  It was like she was fun constipated and tried really, really hard to squeeze some out but just couldn't in the end.  Also like she thought she was in a completely different film than the rest.

The movie attempted to capture the glib fun of the Ocean's 11 remake but it failed to get there. Where 11 gave you a reason to care that the criminals got over on the casino (Terry Benedict was a crook and screwed over their pals) here the theft had no altruistic motivation. It was just bitchy greed with revenge tossed in as a secondary plot point.  Ripping off jewels without a noble reason to do so -- or a noble purpose for them after the fact -- turned the "heroines" of this movie into nothing but criminals.  Chopping up historic pieces of jewelry with a wire cutter also seemed utterly wrong. 

At the end, Plasti-face stares at Danny's crypt, takes a drink and says (without moving a single plasticized muscle in her entire face) "you would have loved it."  Wrong.  He would have hated it.
So I agree the movie pales in comparison to any of the other Ocean movies, but at least it was watchable.  You can't compare it to Ghostbusters (female cast) that turd is horrible, I have only stomached 5 mins of it before I changed the channel.  The rest of the review I'm good with.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 25, 2019, 02:17:55 PM
So I agree the movie pales in comparison to any of the other Ocean movies, but at least it was watchable.  You can't compare it to Ghostbusters (female cast) that turd is horrible, I have only stomached 5 mins of it before I changed the channel.  The rest of the review I'm good with.
Agreed.  Not as bad as Gutbusters starring angry black woman with no talent whatsoever.  

It just gave me the same sort of vibe.  Here's a perfectly good story with a great cast that's a pretty fun, intelligent and clever.  Let's water it down and redo it with a bunch of women!  Can't go wrong.  Championship!! 

Without the novelty of it being all women, the movie would have been a much harder fail.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 27, 2019, 11:34:15 PM
Ouija: Origin of Evil 

Having had an extremely creepy and disturbing interaction with an Ouija board about 25 years ago, I tend to find movies about those truly evil devices more interesting and compelling than, say, possessed dolls (Anabelle) or nuns or clowns.  I don't know for sure that all Ouija boards are connected to something out of the natural realm, but I don't trust them at all.  I won't be in a house or a room that has one in it.  

This movie did a good job of developing some suspense and horror as the damnable thing inserts itself into the life of a grieving family with a spiritual bent.  

Elizabeth Reaser plays the mom, a recently widowed sham fortune teller who ekes out a living performing scam seances and spiritual readings with the help of her two daughters.  Reaser is really odd. Sometimes she looks incredibly hot, others not so much at all. Can't figure that out and she vacillates between hot and not throughout this whole movie. 

Reaser mom eventually decides to include an Ouija board into her act, fails to follow the three simple instructions (never alone, never in a graveyard and always say goodbye) that are required for "safe" use.  In doing so, she unleashes some demonic hell through the younger of the two girls.  The possessed child is Lulu Wilson who is making a serious career out of playing a creepy kid.  She had a part in Deliver Us From Evil, was in Annabelle: Creation, plays in Haunting of Hill House, and had the primary role here.  She's a cute girl, but does the weird pretty well.  

The story has some conveniences -- why is it they live in a house with a horrific backstory, did the dead husband not have any insurance, how is it lightbulbs still burn after 50 years? -- but it has enough PG-13 frights and disturbing behavior to stand half a notch above the other forumulaic Blumhouse offerings.  

It probably wouldn't have been as good to me without the very personal loathing I have for Ouija boards, but it was still pretty decent.  Well acted and shot well.  

It's not the next great horror offering, but it wasn't awful.  I enjoyed it well enough. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 03, 2019, 10:07:15 AM
The Upside

Kevin Hart and Bryan Cranston in the semi-true story of a quadriplegic (Walter White), his unlikely ex-con caretaker (Hart) and Cranston's protective assistant/friend Nicole Kidman.

Somehow the film was simultaneously overly long and not deep enough.  Hart and Cranston were likeable enough but the intimate exploration of their evolving relationship and how they inadvertently made each other better human beings seemed to only hit the surface.  Much like a sitcom, each little storyline wrapped up neatly and in sometimes improbable/too convenient ways.

The movie also chased rabbits without the proper payoff. For example there was a thread about a stolen book that was given the attention that would indicate it was a significant plot/turning point but then it was so quickly and unrealistically resolved that it felt unfulfilling to even explore.  It wanted to speak to the redemption of man through Hart's checkered past.  It wanted to speak to the invisibility of the handicapped through Cranston's public interactions. It wanted to speak to the healing power of love through the awkward dance between Cranston and Kidman. It wants to speak to classism, racism and bigotry in the reactions of the wealthy friends of Cranston to the ragged edges of Hart. It wants to speak to the difficult relationship between fathers and sons.  It wants to speak to the temptation of the street and the difficulty kids face in resisting its financial pull. It wants to do so many important things that it can't do any of them justice despite the movie's interminable nine hour run time. 

I get that Hart is trying to expand his brand and establish himself as an actor and not just a one-note comedian.  He moves the needle a little, but not enough.  Cranston wants to prove his versatility -- and he's done that.  But this movie didn't let either achieve the emotional impact that it needed.  Maybe it was Hart, maybe it was Cranston, maybe it was an odd/gawky Kidman turn, maybe it was a cliched brief appearance by Juliana Margulies but the film just never quite got there.  It could have used more focus.

The smooth chemistry between Hart and Cranston kept the film from descending into treacle.  The almost natural ebb and flow between the two made it easy to digest -- at least when they weren't wedged into conveniently forced situations designed to propel the film to its next act. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 08, 2019, 10:59:34 AM
Johnny English Strikes Again 

Johnny English (aka Mr. Bean, aka Rowan Atkinson) is one of those characters you either love or hate.  If you enjoy Mr. Bean's awkward, clumsy (Clouseauish) physical comedy, this moderately entertaining film will have a few moments that will appeal to you.  If not... stay away.  

It's breaks no new ground, just wanders around in the same wacky setups in which you typically find a Bean or an English.  Some are funny, some fall flatter than intended.  

I like this kind of British comedy (Fawlty Towers, Benny Hill) and this innocuous film worked for me for the most part.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 09, 2019, 10:00:45 PM
Cold Pursuit

Liam Neeson's latest action flick.  Set in the dead of winter just outside of Denver.  Let me get to the bottom line.  Horrible.  Terribly written.  Unbelievably predictable story line with 4 or 5 blatant loose ends that never get reconciled.  

Are you wanting some one man army Neeson action?  Forget it.  He offs a few guys in less than spectacular fashion early on and the last 3/4 of the flick....nada.  Admittedly its mildly humorous.  Some fairly funny parts.  That's about it.  Not a good movie and a huge let down for anyone looking for Neeson to revive some of his kick ass persona.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 10, 2019, 12:51:19 AM
Cold Pursuit

Liam Neeson's latest action flick.  Set in the dead of winter just outside of Denver.  Let me get to the bottom line.  Horrible.  Terribly written.  Unbelievably predictable story line with 4 or 5 blatant loose ends that never get reconciled. 

Are you wanting some one man army Neeson action?  Forget it.  He offs a few guys in less than spectacular fashion early on and the last 3/4 of the flick....nada.  Admittedly its mildly humorous.  Some fairly funny parts.  That's about it.  Not a good movie and a huge let down for anyone looking for Neeson to revive some of his kick ass persona. 
Fun fact. 

This is a shot by shot remake of a Norwegian film called In Order of Disappearance.  It came out about two years ago.  Same guy who directed that directed this. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 11, 2019, 12:47:47 AM
The Prodigy 

R-rated movie about a kid who's got a demon inside him.  Can't be bad, right?  

Truth be told? I spent a good chunk of the movie considering the approachable sexuality of Taylor Schilling (Piper from Orange is the New Black).  She's not hot, really.  She doesn't have a killer body, but there was just something about her normalcy that was sexy.  I forgot what was happening for long stretches of the film while I just considered her.  

She did a reasonably good job of playing the mom of a kid who is maybe possessed by or has become the reincarnation of a weirdo bad guy. 

I have problems with how quickly movie parents are willing to accept some theory that their misbehaving child might have demon issues and this movie hits that same tone.  

The kid was creepy enough. 

Problem here is this movie for its R rating just moved too slowly and never really paid dividends.  Very little gore, not enough of the demon kid, pretty much zero frights.  

And again I'm left to wonder what could have been with this decent concept in the right hands. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 21, 2019, 06:19:16 PM
Uncle Drew 

Difficult to review this movie without being accused of racism, but reality is reality.  Comedies written by, for and with essentially all black casts tend to have a much different resonance than comedies done for a broader audience.   

This movie was intended to appeal to a certain demographic and I am not a part of that target audience.  That doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy the occasional gags or appreciate the random trips into funk/R&B nostalgia that were sprinkled throughout this movie.  I did find the execution of those musical interludes choppily handled and not savored as they should be, but the old tunes were nice. 

There's only so much humor you can wring from a cast comprised almost entirely of current/former basketball players (none of whom can really act) layered in old-man prosthetics.  Give this movie's creators credit, they milked just about every possible nugget of comedy they could out of the ridiculously contrived setups.  

Just to make sure the film hit all the 'black comedy' notes, there was the stereotypical loud-ass, sassy ex girlfriend who bellowed everything she said.  The really smart and sweet young girl who adores her family is also there -- both characters essentially stolen whole cloth from any number of Madea entries.  

Stolen too from Madea was the idiotic and abrasive honky clown (a clear case of reverse racism).  If a white director put a black shuck and jive character in a movie with the same lizard-like reprehensible qualities that black directors seem to often ascribe to their moronic token white characters?  Twitter would be all outraged.  

But I digress.  Predictable story. Telegraphed ending (stolen partially from Grownups).  The same bevy of road-trip tropes we've seen recycled in countless movies.  There was nothing new to be seen here, but still.... it didn't offend.  It just coasted along to the prescribed end and the people populating the film seemed to enjoy themselves enough that the movie was pleasant enough.  

I expected essentially a 90 minute commercial of fake old men playing basketball, which really wasn't good enough for the 90 seconds the commercial got, but in the end it delivered something that, while trite, was a little bit more.  

Note to all filmmakers?  No more of Shaq's big ass.  And I mean that literally.  Please?  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on February 22, 2019, 12:20:12 AM
But, did the white man actually jump?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 22, 2019, 09:24:11 AM
But, did the white man actually jump?
We goin' Sizzler.  We goin' Sizzler.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 22, 2019, 10:02:34 AM
Uncle Drew

Difficult to review this movie without being accused of racism, but reality is reality.  Comedies written by, for and with essentially all black casts tend to have a much different resonance than comedies done for a broader audience. 

This movie was intended to appeal to a certain demographic and I am not a part of that target audience.  That doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy the occasional gags or appreciate the random trips into funk/R&B nostalgia that were sprinkled throughout this movie.  I did find the execution of those musical interludes choppily handled and not savored as they should be, but the old tunes were nice.

There's only so much humor you can wring from a cast comprised almost entirely of current/former basketball players (none of whom can really act) layered in old-man prosthetics.  Give this movie's creators credit, they milked just about every possible nugget of comedy they could out of the ridiculously contrived setups. 

Just to make sure the film hit all the 'black comedy' notes, there was the stereotypical loud-ass, sassy ex girlfriend who bellowed everything she said.  The really smart and sweet young girl who adores her family is also there -- both characters essentially stolen whole cloth from any number of Madea entries. 

Stolen too from Madea was the idiotic and abrasive honky clown (a clear case of reverse racism).  If a white director put a black shuck and jive character in a movie with the same lizard-like reprehensible qualities that black directors seem to often ascribe to their moronic token white characters?  Twitter would be all outraged. 

But I digress.  Predictable story. Telegraphed ending (stolen partially from Grownups).  The same bevy of road-trip tropes we've seen recycled in countless movies.  There was nothing new to be seen here, but still.... it didn't offend.  It just coasted along to the prescribed end and the people populating the film seemed to enjoy themselves enough that the movie was pleasant enough. 

I expected essentially a 90 minute commercial of fake old men playing basketball, which really wasn't good enough for the 90 seconds the commercial got, but in the end it delivered something that, while trite, was a little bit more. 

Note to all filmmakers?  No more of Shaq's big ass.  And I mean that literally.  Please? 

Actuallly enjoyed it. Maybe because that’s the type movie I was expecting and nothing more. It was playful. Light hearted. Had some funny bits. Like you said nothing new and crazy. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 27, 2019, 10:38:49 AM
Equalizer 2

A paint-by-numbers old-guy-kicks-all-kinds-of-ass movie.  

Other than Denzel's performance -- one which he essentially phones in, aka sleepwalks through -- there's nothing really new or innovative in this film.  

Ex military butt kicker Denzel does personal and private revenge, the kind that if it happened in real life would have him incarcerated within a week.  Friend gets killed (and the person behind the killing was clumsily telegraphed, you'd have to be blind not to see it coming) and Denzel takes it murderously personally.  

I tend to like Denzel, but he's low-renting it here.  Sort of like Liam Neeson in the similar cadre of movies he's done where one old guy wipes out battalions of bad guys with a toothpick and a bottle opener.  It's just a payday, nothing more.  

Oh there were some well meaning side stories about taking care of your neighborhood and a hilariously unrealistic interjection about walking away from the gangbanging life, but those were just time-stretching filler in order to get to the requisite 90-plus minutes it takes to have a movie.  

I just got nothing out of it.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 27, 2019, 12:07:24 PM
Equalizer 2

A paint-by-numbers old-guy-kicks-all-kinds-of-ass movie. 

Other than Denzel's performance -- one which he essentially phones in, aka sleepwalks through -- there's nothing really new or innovative in this film. 

Ex military butt kicker Denzel does personal and private revenge, the kind that if it happened in real life would have him incarcerated within a week.  Friend gets killed (and the person behind the killing was clumsily telegraphed, you'd have to be blind not to see it coming) and Denzel takes it murderously personally. 

I tend to like Denzel, but he's low-renting it here.  Sort of like Liam Neeson in the similar cadre of movies he's done where one old guy wipes out battalions of bad guys with a toothpick and a bottle opener.  It's just a payday, nothing more. 

Oh there were some well meaning side stories about taking care of your neighborhood and a hilariously unrealistic interjection about walking away from the gangbanging life, but those were just time-stretching filler in order to get to the requisite 90-plus minutes it takes to have a movie. 

I just got nothing out of it. 
I reviewed it about 10 pages ago so respect my authoritie.  Actually, I enjoyed this one far more than the first.  I thought the first Equalizer was far too slow.  As I've said, I'm a big fan of the one-man demolition squad, if they're done right, which this one was IMO.  Just enough action and just enough quality Denzelness. 

If you want to see one-man demolition done WRONG, see Cold Pursuit, which I reviewed above.     
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 27, 2019, 12:09:14 PM
Can you give us a rundown of every movie you have seen in the theatres, I have always wanted to know. I need the year as well.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 27, 2019, 12:11:29 PM
I reviewed it about 10 pages ago so respect my authoritie.  Actually, I enjoyed this one far more than the first.  I thought the first Equalizer was far too slow.  As I've said, I'm a big fan of the one-man demolition squad, if they're done right, which this one was IMO.  Just enough action and just enough quality Denzelness. 

If you want to see one-man demolition done WRONG, see Cold Pursuit, which I reviewed above.   
I liked the movie, I just don't buy where one badass could take out an army of badasses.  The first one to me at least made logical sense, here's a badass CIA/Spook against Russian Mob Guys.  Plausible he could take out 6 in a room.  But put 5 CIA/Spooks up against one, meh.

The guy on the tower had one entry point, and he didn't think to cover the ladder...OKay!

Like I said it was a decent watch but I liked the first one better.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 27, 2019, 12:46:49 PM
I liked the movie, I just don't buy where one badass could take out an army of badasses.  The first one to me at least made logical sense, here's a badass CIA/Spook against Russian Mob Guys.  Plausible he could take out 6 in a room.  But put 5 CIA/Spooks up against one, meh.

The guy on the tower had one entry point, and he didn't think to cover the ladder...OKay!

Like I said it was a decent watch but I liked the first one better.
Well to be fair, 99% of the one-man flicks are total fantasy and hardly even remotely believable.  But I accept that going in.  I'm not a huge fan of the one guy taking on 15 baddies at one time, all of whom are packing heat and he wipes them all out with a long, lead pipe that just happened to be laying close by.  Jason Statham did too many of those.  But here's one of my favorite Statham scenes.  Calm, cool and reserved....until you push it too far. 

https://youtu.be/dg0xnlEHbMw (https://youtu.be/dg0xnlEHbMw)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: WiregrassTiger on February 27, 2019, 01:35:20 PM
Equalizer 2
I just got nothing out of it. 
So, it’s like sex with Wes?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 27, 2019, 01:50:09 PM
I liked these movies better when Steven Segal did them.  

It’s the same thing.  

Above the Law > Equalizer 1&2 > Death Wish (Willis version). 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 27, 2019, 02:21:39 PM
I liked these movies better when Steven Segal did them. 

It’s the same thing. 

Above the Law > Equalizer 1&2 > Death Wish (Willis version).
I'm still waiting on the list of movies you have seen in theatres with dates.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 03, 2019, 10:43:15 PM
The Vanishing 

Remember A Simple Plan with Bill Paxton, Billy Joe Bob Thornton and Bridget Fonda?  

This is basically the same story except on a lighthouse island and without Bridget.  

Trio of lighthouse keepers who are on a six week on, six week off rotation run across a beached lifeboat, it's presumed-dead occupant and his little chest of mystery.  

Jacob Snell (Ozark), Gerard 'Stroke Face' Butler (any number of crappy movies +300) and some wispy kid are the three keepers of the light who speak in occasional accents that I assume are intended to be Scottish(?), Irish (?) but the accents disappear from time to time and sometimes change tenor so it's hard to keep track.  

The movie is based on a true story in a way.  There were three keepers named Donald, Thomas and James who vanished from Flannen Island (a tiny bit of rock about 20 miles off the coast of Scotland) in the early 1900s.  When the light was discovered to be unattended and people went to check, the lighthouse was abandoned. The gate and door were both closed, the lamps were cleaned and filled, the table was set for dinner, and a single chair overturned. The gear used by the three for inclement weather was still in building.  To this day, no one knows what truly happened to the three men.  

This movie offers one theory, one stolen almost directly from A Simple Plan.  Once the three decide to keep the mystery chest they found (and they break it open to see what's in there), they have to slide further and further into a personal abyss and end up paying the price for their decisions.  

The story really doesn't hold together well, partly because of Butler's goggle-eyed overacting, partly because the pieces just don't really fit.  

Turn the captions on if you watch it.  The accents are usually unintelligible.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 03, 2019, 11:56:40 PM
The Possession of Hannah Grace.   

This one boasted some pretty good possessed-demon action that made me consider how more amazingly fantastic The Exorcist could have been with the luxury of today's special effects. 

The rest of the movie really just chummed out of the same well-worn bucket of exorcism tropes that have populated countless other movies of the same vein.  

Reasonably attractive young woman with a slowly-developed backstory takes a job as a mortuary attendant.  A twisted and charred corpse shows on her second night. Also appearing is the corpse's father who intends to incinerate his daughter's body and release her from the demon that controls it.  

Nobody wants the dad to immolate the remains, least of all the remains themselves (which are restored with each fresh kill).  

Hannah Grace does a good job as the animated corpse and the possessed demon.  That was the best part of the movie.  The gross crunching sounds as it twisted its joints, the creepy crawling on walls and ceilings all made for a reasonably horrific demon.  Too bad the rest was cookie cutter.  

The film earned an R rating, primarily due to an early exorcism/crucifixionish scene.  Production values were good. The movie clearly had a big enough budget to do a lot of things right.  

But in the end, despite the effectiveness of the demon gal, it left me flat.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 08, 2019, 03:16:14 PM
Overlord 

I liked this movie.  I liked it a lot more than I expected to.  

A band of US soldiers drop in behind enemy lines ahead of D-Day with a mission that will help save the Allied effort.  

Their planes are hit with heavy artillery and few of the original crew make it to the ground or escape German soldiers once they do.  Those that survived continue with the original mission and work their way into a French village where they encounter a sympathetic young, attractive French villager girl.  For reasons that the movie explains, she ends up helping their attempt to complete the almost certainly suicidal mission.  

In the course of executing the mission they run afoul of a nasty SS officer and also encounter some top-secret Nazi experiments.  Experiments on humans.  

Kind of a cross between World War Z and Saving Private Ryan.  Some pretty interesting effects and well paced action sequences make the movie extremely watchable.  The little brother of the French gal was great.  

Thoroughly enjoyed the movie, liked the mix of two genres.  Liked the Frenchie.  

Recommend.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 09, 2019, 02:02:16 AM
Captain Marvel

The Marvel team really understands how to do the superhero movie.  This isn't a great movie, say on the level of Iron Man, Guardians of the Galaxy or Thor Ragingcrock, but it is better by far than the massively overhyped Black Panther or Thor Dark World or even Dr. Strange. 

It's amazing to me how the entire Marvel Universe fits in bits and pieces in the wide expanse of movies.  This one, in particular, backfilled so many holes and gaps in the overall storyline and each mini reveal made perfect sense.  I was left to wonder if they truly sat down in 2006 or so and scripted this entire thing out to the end, figuring out which movies would contain the tidbits of exposition. My hat is off to whoever is orchestrating this. 

Captain Marvel started off in a ball of confusion that lasted a good 20 minutes, but all the things that didn't make initial sense were all tied together in the end.  And it was worth it. 

The story doesn't fit in the timeline of the current Marvel pantheon.  It's a throwback to the 1990s complete with a Blockbuster Video.  It's the origin story for the character and by the end it circles all the way back to the end of Avengers: Infinity War as it sets up the final Avengers showdown (coming in April). By the end you know where Captain Marvel came from, how she got her powers and how she and her story dovetail seamlessly into the overall story arc. 

There's not a whole lot I can tell you without giving away critical plot points.  Captain Marvel (aka Vers, aka Carol Danver) is part of a Cree team of warriors in pursuit of the shape-shifting Skrulls. Eventually captured, she struggles through a series of memories that may possibly be planted.  She escapes to 90s era earth. The Skrulls pursue with her Cree compatriots right behind.  As Cap/Carol/Vers sorts through her memories to figure out what's real and what's not, she discovers who she truly is, how she got there and the source of her own strength.

Definitely worth the journey. 

There were so many good things about this movie.  Agent Coulson for one. A young Nick Fury for another.  A cat named Goose.  Callbacks to a handful of characters from previous entries; guys like Ronan and Korath from Guardians. Like so many Marvel movies it struck a perfect balance between pathos, action, story and humor.  I'm truly in awe of how well the Marvel team typically finds that balance.

I got to admit when the obligatory Stan Lee cameo showed up, there must have suddenly been a lot of dust and smoke in the theater because my eyes started stinging.  I wasn't expecting it and it punched me in the feels.

Some have complained about the performance of Brie Larson in the title role.  She was a little bland and flat but I think that may have been on purpose.  For all the immediate magnetism her physical appearance generates, she struggles a bit to elevate the personality beyond a cardboard cutout -- but again that may have been a creative (director's) choice.   She doesn't have the glib grace of Tony Stark.  But then again, how many movies did it take for Thor to finally be anything other than a stiff and stilted meat suit?  Four?  Brie is already much more comfortable in her space than Thor was in his for several films.  Plus I really liked looking at her.  Like a lot.  A lot a lot.

If you're invested even a little bit in the Marvel pantheon Captain Marvel is an absolute must.  I enjoyed the shining blue crap out of it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 09, 2019, 08:00:16 PM
Captain Marvel

The Marvel team really understands how to do the superhero movie.  This isn't a great movie, say on the level of Iron Man, Guardians of the Galaxy or Thor Ragingcrock, but it is better by far than the massively overhyped Black Panther or Thor Dark World or even Dr. Strange. 

It's amazing to me how the entire Marvel Universe fits in bits and pieces in the wide expanse of movies.  This one, in particular, backfilled so many holes and gaps in the overall storyline and each mini reveal made perfect sense.  I was left to wonder if they truly sat down in 2006 or so and scripted this entire thing out to the end, figuring out which movies would contain the tidbits of exposition. My hat is off to whoever is orchestrating this. 

Captain Marvel started off in a ball of confusion that lasted a good 20 minutes, but all the things that didn't make initial sense were all tied together in the end.  And it was worth it. 

The story doesn't fit in the timeline of the current Marvel pantheon.  It's a throwback to the 1990s complete with a Blockbuster Video.  It's the origin story for the character and by the end it circles all the way back to the end of Avengers: Infinity War as it sets up the final Avengers showdown (coming in April). By the end you know where Captain Marvel came from, how she got her powers and how she and her story dovetail seamlessly into the overall story arc. 

There's not a whole lot I can tell you without giving away critical plot points.  Captain Marvel (aka Vers, aka Carol Danver) is part of a Cree team of warriors in pursuit of the shape-shifting Skrulls. Eventually captured, she struggles through a series of memories that may possibly be planted.  She escapes to 90s era earth. The Skrulls pursue with her Cree compatriots right behind.  As Cap/Carol/Vers sorts through her memories to figure out what's real and what's not, she discovers who she truly is, how she got there and the source of her own strength.

Definitely worth the journey. 

There were so many good things about this movie.  Agent Coulson for one. A young Nick Fury for another.  A cat named Goose.  Callbacks to a handful of characters from previous entries; guys like Ronan and Korath from Guardians. Like so many Marvel movies it struck a perfect balance between pathos, action, story and humor.  I'm truly in awe of how well the Marvel team typically finds that balance.

I got to admit when the obligatory Stan Lee cameo showed up, there must have suddenly been a lot of dust and smoke in the theater because my eyes started stinging.  I wasn't expecting it and it punched me in the feels.

Some have complained about the performance of Brie Larson in the title role.  She was a little bland and flat but I think that may have been on purpose.  For all the immediate magnetism her physical appearance generates, she struggles a bit to elevate the personality beyond a cardboard cutout -- but again that may have been a creative (director's) choice.  She doesn't have the glib grace of Tony Stark.  But then again, how many movies did it take for Thor to finally be anything other than a stiff and stilted meat suit?  Four?  Brie is already much more comfortable in her space than Thor was in his for several films.  Plus I really liked looking at her.  Like a lot.  A lot a lot.

If you're invested even a little bit in the Marvel pantheon Captain Marvel is an absolute must.  I enjoyed the shining blue crap out of it.
I agree with pretty much all of this.

I'll add that I enjoyed the period-appropriate soundtrack.  The opening riff of "Just a Girl" drops at just the right time.

My only beef with the movie, and it is minor: the interior fight scenes were very poorly lit and the action indistinct.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 09, 2019, 08:25:41 PM
I finally got around to watching Jonah Hill's mid90s and really enjoyed it.

The title seems a little off the mark, though, because most of the musical references skewed late 80s-early 90s, but that's a minor quibble.

There are some scenes that are a little uncomfortable to watch due to Stevie's very youthful appearance, but ultimately the story was relatable and earnestly told.  I enjoyed the "look" of the movie as well.  It captured an almost memory-like quality with SoCal bathed in a golden haze.  Plus you have to love a movie with a central character named "Fuckshit."

I think Hill has a bright future behind the camera if he sticks with it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on March 09, 2019, 09:48:17 PM

My only beef with the movie, and it is minor: the interior fight scenes were very poorly lit and the action indistinct.
Hint. She wins...even in the dark.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 10, 2019, 02:09:23 PM
The Hole In the Ground

Irish horror film.  

Apparently the "color by numbers" horror palette exists across the Atlantic.  

Mother and son fleeing a (possibly?) bad relationship move into an enormous mansion in need of repair in a remote location.  Kid spooks mom when he runs out into the woods alone, kid encounters something unusual. Kid starts acting weird.  Is he possessed?  Is he a clone?  Oh no, he has to be stopped.  Yawn.  

Of course there's the obligatory creepy neighbor who knows what's up.  

Five major problems that plague all of these type of films: 

1) Mom and son flee in a crappy car that barely runs but somehow have money to buy an enormous mansion and the money to repair it?
2) When a parent sees a child doing something unusual, what parent retreats quietly in horror rather than slamming the door open and going "what the hell are you doing in there?" 
3) When a parent sees a child doing something unusual, why is the first inclination to suspect demonology? 
4) Why would the parent not report to somebody, anybody, the unusual thing they find in the woods?  In this case it's a gigantic tree-swallowing block-sized sinkhole in the property behind the house.  And she doesn't mention it to anybody.  
5) Why do they always, always go to some oddball little town in the middle of nowhere at the end of a deserted road?  

The mom in the movie was interesting.  Unable to decide if she was attractive or not.  It was like Erin from The Office had a baby with April from Parks and Rec who was cousins with Wendy from The Shining. Sometimes I'd think she looked reasonably attractive, sometimes I'd almost recoil.  She had a real affinity for wearing overalls which was sometimes hot and sometimes not.  Decent performance with what she was given to work with.  

The kid looked like a plainer version of Haley Joel Osment. 

There was absolutely nothing in this movie you haven't seen before.  There was nothing done in this movie that hasn't been done better in other films.  But that said, there have been worse efforts than this.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on March 11, 2019, 09:48:43 AM
Captain Marvel

Definitely worth the journey. 
See, I thought it was the weakest of any MCU movie (and prior to this, I thought the weakest was either the Hulk or Strange movie).  And a lot had to do with her.  I think she's just bland.  When they played "Just A Girl" during her fight scene, my eyes rolled.  I thought her action scenes were boring.  Loved the cat, loved Fury and Coulson, loved the Skrulls.

But Captain Marvel?  Meh.  Didn't care one shit about her.

And yes, the Stan Lee cameo was awesome.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 11, 2019, 09:59:37 AM
See, I thought it was the weakest of any MCU movie (and prior to this, I thought the weakest was either the Hulk or Strange movie).  And a lot had to do with her.  I think she's just bland.  When they played "Just A Girl" during her fight scene, my eyes rolled.  I thought her action scenes were boring.  Loved the cat, loved Fury and Coulson, loved the Skrulls.

But Captain Marvel?  Meh.  Didn't care one shit about her.

And yes, the Stan Lee cameo was awesome.
I don't disagree with the fact that she's probably the weakest of the characters (personality wise) with maybe the exception of that dude who has a bow and arrows.  She's also (in some ways) the least interesting. 

I'm hoping that's a creative choice, however.  Her only personality trait (that she remembered) from the beginning was to be an emotion-free warrior.  How many times did Jude Law (and I can't stand that guy) harp on the fact that she had to be emotionally flat?  Like 50 times?  So there was that blank wall that was created from the start that she was saddled with and struggled to get much past.  Kind of like the Dragnet "just the facts" guy.  

Thor had no personality at all in the first couple of movies, but he finally got to be entertaining.  My hope is that she will follow the same sort of path.  

I sort of like the way she looks.  She's not what you'd call smoking hot, but she's pretty pleasant to look at.  

And when I say "worth the journey" it's not necessarily because of her, but it's because of all the things from all the other movies that are tied up and/or illuminated by the stops along the way.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on March 11, 2019, 10:10:43 AM
And when I say "worth the journey" it's not necessarily because of her, but it's because of all the things from all the other movies that are tied up and/or illuminated by the stops along the way. 
My biggest concern is that up until now, I think of these Marvel heroes as having some weakness, and they just introduced a character that is the most powerful in the MCU, and they are just going to lean on her to beat Thanos (which is also the reason I never really enjoyed Superman comics).

I hope I'm wrong, I'm really looking forward to Avengers Endgame.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 11, 2019, 01:18:32 PM
My biggest concern is that up until now, I think of these Marvel heroes as having some weakness, and they just introduced a character that is the most powerful in the MCU, and they are just going to lean on her to beat Thanos (which is also the reason I never really enjoyed Superman comics).

I hope I'm wrong, I'm really looking forward to Avengers Endgame.
I don't think it will go that way.  Would be a cop out if they did.   

And yes, that's why I've always liked Batman best.  He has his weaknesses. If we're being honest, he probably needed a therapist more than he needed all that weight training.   And he's mortal.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on March 18, 2019, 08:12:05 AM
I don't think it will go that way.  Would be a cop out if they did. 

And yes, that's why I've always liked Batman best.  He has his weaknesses. If we're being honest, he probably needed a therapist more than he needed all that weight training.  And he's mortal. 
Yeah, they gave him one in Batman Forever but they made that character some kind of kickboxing, sleeps in the nude, nymphomaniac instead of psychotherapist. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 18, 2019, 08:44:17 PM
Inconceivable

Nick Cage, Gina Gershon, Faye Dunnaway, Nicki Whelan (the stripper from Wedding Ringer).

So some people were sitting around and one said "hey, you remember that movie The Hand that Rocks the Cradle?  What if we make that movie all over again."  And then some drunk hobo wandering by heard that conversation out the window and bellowed "Nick Cage is available!" 

And then it happened. 

Nicholas Cage is as good as any other actor in this movie.  Enough said. 

I like Gina.  Always have.  There's something sultry, smoky hot about her.  I even think it was sorta hot when she did it KFC style in Killer Joe. I'd bust one all over her and not think twice. And I think she's got a natural ease on camera.  She could have been a good actress. But she has a long history of abysmal career choices. Add this turd log to that fire. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 24, 2019, 01:40:11 PM
The Dirt 

Always liked Motley Crue.  Well, let me amend that.  I didn't care much for Motley Corabi, but that was a short-lived experiment.  It's not that it wasn't "good" music, but  it was missing that semi out of control vocal chaos that Vince lent to the sound.  The Corabi album was too bland, too pasteurized, too tame. He's a better vocalist than Vince, but so is Pavarotti. I don't really want to hear Pava singing Kickstart My Heart either.  

As far as the band goes, I always felt they borrowed heavily from KISS even down to the scene where Nikki tells the rest of the band he "wants to create something people have never seen before"  Well, that's the KISS mantra and has been for decades, well before Crue arrived in '81.  And everything -- literally everything -- Crue did, KISS did it or did a version of it first.  (That even applies to the groupie humping, hotel destroying excess). 

This movie?  Not really a fan.  At various points, starting from the very first scene, I felt it existed in some ways simply as a vehicle to display joyous debauchery with no real attached story.  And even at that it barely brushed the story that was the hedonistic rise and fall of Crue.  

It played more like a series of "can you believe we really probably did this shit" vignettes than it did as a cohesive story of the band.  The film was also extremely lacking in introspection.  

I wanted to know why Nikki was in so much emotional pain and see his addiction and recovery played out.  I wanted to get a deeper understanding of Vince's resentment of the band and how he dealt with the horrific tragedies (both self-inflicted and natural) that were part of his life.   

I didn't need to see Nikki snorting coke off a chick's ass to know that he did that.  Showing that (and numerous other scenes of over-the-top behavior) kept the film from reaching deep enough into who the members really were, what drove them, what fed their private demons (and how those demons guided the music).  Why not tell the story of Shout at the Devil being written because Nikki's drug-induced dabbling in Satanism took an allegedly bizarre turn (including levitating silverware) -- and how that spooked him out of continuing the satanic imagery.  

This movie only dealt with the consequences of their out-of-control behavior in a superficial manner.  It didn't give us the story behind the band, it just gave us snippets of glossed over stories from within the band.  The entire thing felt like it was just dabbing paint at various dots that had to be connected with no real sense of structure or cohesion.  

I didn't hate it.  The guys playing the band members -- with the exception of Ramsay Bolton as Mick Mars -- were decent enough.  I just didn't feel as if the film cut deep enough to give us the real story. It only gave us the broad brushstrokes of what those of us who know anything about the band already knew.  There were no revelations and no real reason to watch it unless you just like Crue music and want to see other people pretending to perform it. 

If (when) there is a KISS movie I hope whoever does it will be willing to probe deeper into the real story behind the rise, fall, rise, fall and rise again of my painted heroes.  Or maybe I'd really rather not know. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 28, 2019, 09:13:17 AM
The Dirt

Always liked Motley Crue.  Well, let me amend that.  I didn't care much for Motley Corabi, but that was a short-lived experiment.  It's not that it wasn't "good" music, but  it was missing that semi out of control vocal chaos that Vince lent to the sound.  The Corabi album was too bland, too pasteurized, too tame. He's a better vocalist than Vince, but so is Pavarotti. I don't really want to hear Pava singing Kickstart My Heart either. 

As far as the band goes, I always felt they borrowed heavily from KISS even down to the scene where Nikki tells the rest of the band he "wants to create something people have never seen before"  Well, that's the KISS mantra and has been for decades, well before Crue arrived in '81.  And everything -- literally everything -- Crue did, KISS did it or did a version of it first.  (That even applies to the groupie humping, hotel destroying excess).

This movie?  Not really a fan.  At various points, starting from the very first scene, I felt it existed in some ways simply as a vehicle to display joyous debauchery with no real attached story.  And even at that it barely brushed the story that was the hedonistic rise and fall of Crue. 

It played more like a series of "can you believe we really probably did this shit" vignettes than it did as a cohesive story of the band.  The film was also extremely lacking in introspection. 

I wanted to know why Nikki was in so much emotional pain and see his addiction and recovery played out.  I wanted to get a deeper understanding of Vince's resentment of the band and how he dealt with the horrific tragedies (both self-inflicted and natural) that were part of his life. 

I didn't need to see Nikki snorting coke off a chick's ass to know that he did that.  Showing that (and numerous other scenes of over-the-top behavior) kept the film from reaching deep enough into who the members really were, what drove them, what fed their private demons (and how those demons guided the music).  Why not tell the story of Shout at the Devil being written because Nikki's drug-induced dabbling in Satanism took an allegedly bizarre turn (including levitating silverware) -- and how that spooked him out of continuing the satanic imagery. 

This movie only dealt with the consequences of their out-of-control behavior in a superficial manner.  It didn't give us the story behind the band, it just gave us snippets of glossed over stories from within the band.  The entire thing felt like it was just dabbing paint at various dots that had to be connected with no real sense of structure or cohesion. 

I didn't hate it.  The guys playing the band members -- with the exception of Ramsay Bolton as Mick Mars -- were decent enough.  I just didn't feel as if the film cut deep enough to give us the real story. It only gave us the broad brushstrokes of what those of us who know anything about the band already knew.  There were no revelations and no real reason to watch it unless you just like Crue music and want to see other people pretending to perform it.

If (when) there is a KISS movie I hope whoever does it will be willing to probe deeper into the real story behind the rise, fall, rise, fall and rise again of my painted heroes.  Or maybe I'd really rather not know.
While I agree that this wasn't a deep-dive into their respective psychoses, I enjoyed it quite a bit.

If you think they didn't beat us over the head with Nikki's underlying family issues (presumably the genesis of his addictions), then you really weren't paying attention.

I thought Ramsay Bolton was pretty great as Mick...his lines are perfectly timed codger-gold.  Figured you'd appreciate that about him.

I liked the narrative style, with each member getting some voice-over time and a chance to share their perspective.

It wasn't serious art, but it was a fun ride (with occasional solemnity) through the 80s with one of my favorite bands of that era.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on March 28, 2019, 09:40:28 AM
While I agree that this wasn't a deep-dive into their respective psychoses, I enjoyed it quite a bit.

If you think they didn't beat us over the head with Nikki's underlying family issues (presumably the genesis of his addictions), then you really weren't paying attention.

I thought Ramsay Bolton was pretty great as Mick...his lines are perfectly timed codger-gold.  Figured you'd appreciate that about him.

I liked the narrative style, with each member getting some voice-over time and a chance to share their perspective.

It wasn't serious art, but it was a fun ride (with occasional solemnity) through the 80s with one of my favorite bands of that era.
Too bad 3/4 of it was fiction unlike the book which is incredibly raw and honest. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 28, 2019, 01:53:55 PM
Too bad 3/4 of it was fiction unlike the book which is incredibly raw and honest.
I tell you what wasn't fiction.  The boobs I got to see.  I give it two thumbs up.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 28, 2019, 02:25:30 PM
I tell you what wasn't fiction.  The boobs I got to see.  I give it two thumbs up.
The man cuts through the superficial bullshit and gets right to the core of the matter.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 28, 2019, 02:32:59 PM
The man cuts through the superficial bullshit and gets right to the core of the matter.
Oh and I have been with a chick like what was in the opening scene with Tommy Lee.  That is some fucking funny assed shit!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on March 28, 2019, 03:45:55 PM
Oh and I have been with a chick like what was in the opening scene with Tommy Lee.  That is some fudgeing funny assed shoot!
Sweaty Betty in Barstow?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 29, 2019, 06:55:35 AM
Sweaty Betty in Barstow?
Negative.  This was actually after the Corps if you can believe that.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 07, 2019, 10:18:16 AM
Us

Jordan Peele is being hailed as the great visionary in the horror genre.  He made a complex, layered film in Get Out that was much deeper than the usual chop-em-up, possessed-by-a-demon fare that qualifies as horror.  His new film, Us, follows a similar path in that it's got so many different levels and reflects a much deeper meaning. 

Problem is that neither Get Out or Us are truly exercises in horror.  They're both psychological puzzles designed not to scare necessarily, but to get the viewer thinking about societal issues in a different way.  Peele makes good movies, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the manipulation to promote his own personal/philosophical/political views.  

In Us a very white black family takes a vacation trip to a seaside town where the wife grew up.  The wife is hiding a horrible history in the town from her husband, and predictably the history comes back to haunt them. 

The problems begin when a mirror-image family appears in the driveway of the vacation home.  Doppelganger dad, mom, son and daughter then attempt to murder the originals in an effort to take their place.  

The movie then morphs into an extended series of hand-to-hand brawls.  As the whiteblack family fights back against their identical attackers, they discover that they are not alone in the fight.  Everyone in the world is battling their own duplicates. As the bloody, brutal fights rage on,  the story of where these duplicates come from is slowly unspooled.  

That part of the film is less than satisfying.  Where the duplicates were for years, how they were created, why they exist, how they live, and why they decided to emerge to confront the originals doesn't really make sense, is poorly portrayed and generates more questions than it answers.  It seems contrived and almost tacked on because Jordan decided at the last minute he needed to explain them somehow.  Might have been better if their origin had been left a complete mystery.  I think it made more sense in Jordan's head than it did on the screen. 

I also didn't understand or agree that the vengeance of one would be transformed into the vengeance of many.  The rationale for that massive undertaking by the duplicates was not given enough exposition.  

The movie was fairly well acted, had a good mix of drama and comedy, and almost kept the big twist from being obvious.  Granted, I suspected what was coming less than 15 minutes along, but I don't think everyone saw it coming.  

It still wasn't what I'd consider horror.  It felt more like an extended episode of the Twilight Zone.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on April 08, 2019, 09:32:23 PM
Peele won't hire white guys to lead. Peele can kiss my racist ass!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 13, 2019, 11:54:05 PM
Pet Semetary

The 1989 film adaptation of Stephen King's Pet Semetary was one of the worst versions of a King novel in a long history of shoddy efforts to capture his eerie writing on screen.  For whatever reason the deep, rich demonic flavor of King's words rarely translate well to film.  Maybe it's because his style is so familiar that the visions you had in your head as you read it can never be fully visualized by someone else.  Maybe it's because his stories are so layered and complex in their narrative that there's no way a movie can fit it all in there so things that matter end up getting left out.  

So there was a Pet Semetary in 1989.  It was bad.  The acting was bad (and this seems to be a consistent trait in all King adaptations), the story was choppy, the dialogue that felt so natural in print came out wooden and hackneyed on film.  And the special effects were laughable.  Just terrible. 

On the heels of the success of the "It" reboot, someone decided to bury the dead and decaying 1989 version of Pet Semetary in an ancient Indian burial ground and allow it to come back to life. 

While better acted than the 1989 effort, this attempt at bringing a King novel to screen fumbled in much the same manner as the first.  In fact, some of the 89 movie was probably better than this.  

My biggest problem?  

Pet Semetary is one of the few King novels that was satisfying in the way it ended.  So many of his other books I felt like he just ran out of things to say and rushed to the finish line.  Pet Semetary (the novel), on the other hand, offered a nearly perfect ending.  It was fully finished and provided a one-word cold knife of horror.  

This movie took extreme liberties with the end and crafted the most ridiculous possible closure.  It completely ruined it in my opinion.  It destroyed the entire premise of the story and everything that came before.  It was stupid. If I'd had any popcorn I would have hurled it at the screen.  

I love Stephen King's books. Nobody tells a better story.  His films are, unfortunately, mostly B-movie schlock.  This attempt doesn't ascend much higher than that. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 15, 2019, 11:02:15 AM
Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins

I may have gone over this before.  I really don't know how this movie flopped.  I just think maybe it missed its time.  It came out in 1985 in the middle of the Rambo/Commando/Mad Max box office brawn-fest.  It was intended as the first in a series of action adventures featuring the reconditioned former street cop re-named after his hospital bedpan and trained by a quirky martial artist.  

It floundered at the box office.  I just don't get that.  It's a fun piece of modern-day Indiana Jonesish action/adventure film.  It moves along at a good clip, the performances are good (including a youngish and still hot Kate Mulgrew).  Maybe it was that star Fred Ward lacked the muscle-rippling bulk of Stallone or Schwartzenegger.  Maybe it was that a PG-13 action romp couldn't find traction in a world that had turned to R-rated versions. 

It's one of those movies that I've always liked and feel is truly under appreciated.  Fred Ward learns Shinjuto (or something) and battles wits with a shady government-backed organization.  The bad guys are cartoonish, the action outlandish. But it's still an easy, no-thought-required sprawl. 

Couldn't be made today, though.  Joel Grey's Korean Shinjuto master would trigger the entire cultural appropriation warrior class. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 15, 2019, 11:56:40 AM
Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins

I may have gone over this before.  I really don't know how this movie flopped.  I just think maybe it missed its time.  It came out in 1985 in the middle of the Rambo/Commando/Mad Max box office brawn-fest.  It was intended as the first in a series of action adventures featuring the reconditioned former street cop re-named after his hospital bedpan and trained by a quirky martial artist. 

It floundered at the box office.  I just don't get that.  It's a fun piece of modern-day Indiana Jonesish action/adventure film.  It moves along at a good clip, the performances are good (including a youngish and still hot Kate Mulgrew).  Maybe it was that star Fred Ward lacked the muscle-rippling bulk of Stallone or Schwartzenegger.  Maybe it was that a PG-13 action romp couldn't find traction in a world that had turned to R-rated versions.

It's one of those movies that I've always liked and feel is truly under appreciated.  Fred Ward learns Shinjuto (or something) and battles wits with a shady government-backed organization.  The bad guys are cartoonish, the action outlandish. But it's still an easy, no-thought-required sprawl.

Couldn't be made today, though.  Joel Grey's Korean Shinjuto master would trigger the entire cultural appropriation warrior class.
What the hell happened?   Did we go back in time?

I can't wait till you review The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension.  It looks so great I can't wait to see it in theatres.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on April 15, 2019, 12:47:44 PM
What the hell happened?  Did we go back in time?

I can't wait till you review The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension.  It looks so great I can't wait to see it in theatres.
Granted, that movie is better than Captain Marvel or Last Jedi.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on April 15, 2019, 12:57:43 PM
What the hell happened?  Did we go back in time?

I can't wait till you review The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension.  It looks so great I can't wait to see it in theatres.
You shut your dirty whorish mouth.  This movie was good and the books are even better.

You move like a pregnant yak.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 15, 2019, 01:17:17 PM
You shut your dirty whorish mouth.  This movie was good and the books are even better.

You move like a pregnant yak.
I love that movie.  Why you giving me grief?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on April 15, 2019, 01:48:33 PM
I love that movie.  Why you giving me grief?
You never said you liked it.  You didn't call.  I was hurt.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 15, 2019, 02:19:51 PM
What the hell happened?  Did we go back in time?

I can't wait till you review The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension.  It looks so great I can't wait to see it in theatres.
What part of "way behind" is lost on you?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 15, 2019, 02:22:01 PM
What part of "way behind" is lost on you?
all of it
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 15, 2019, 02:23:04 PM
all of it
perhaps I should have added another "way"
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on April 19, 2019, 08:11:26 AM
Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins

I may have gone over this before.  I really don't know how this movie flopped.  I just think maybe it missed its time.  It came out in 1985 in the middle of the Rambo/Commando/Mad Max box office brawn-fest.  It was intended as the first in a series of action adventures featuring the reconditioned former street cop re-named after his hospital bedpan and trained by a quirky martial artist. 

It floundered at the box office.  I just don't get that.  It's a fun piece of modern-day Indiana Jonesish action/adventure film.  It moves along at a good clip, the performances are good (including a youngish and still hot Kate Mulgrew).  Maybe it was that star Fred Ward lacked the muscle-rippling bulk of Stallone or Schwartzenegger.  Maybe it was that a PG-13 action romp couldn't find traction in a world that had turned to R-rated versions.

It's one of those movies that I've always liked and feel is truly under appreciated.  Fred Ward learns Shinjuto (or something) and battles wits with a shady government-backed organization.  The bad guys are cartoonish, the action outlandish. But it's still an easy, no-thought-required sprawl.

Couldn't be made today, though.  Joel Grey's Korean Shinjuto master would trigger the entire cultural appropriation warrior class.
Fun story. I've never made it through this movie without falling asleep. Not as a kid, not as a teenager, not in college, not as an adult. I liked it, but something about it always zonks me out.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 19, 2019, 08:50:20 PM
Fun story. I've never made it through this movie without falling asleep. Not as a kid, not as a teenager, not in college, not as an adult. I liked it, but something about it always zonks me out.
Breathe out... slowly... do not gulp. If you do not breathe correctly, you do not move correctly. Pitiful. I can see the deadly hamburger has done its evil work.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-1rfCS7kwK8/hqdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on April 22, 2019, 12:21:31 PM
Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins

I may have gone over this before.  I really don't know how this movie flopped.  I just think maybe it missed its time.  It came out in 1985 in the middle of the Rambo/Commando/Mad Max box office brawn-fest.  It was intended as the first in a series of action adventures featuring the reconditioned former street cop re-named after his hospital bedpan and trained by a quirky martial artist. 

It floundered at the box office.  I just don't get that.  It's a fun piece of modern-day Indiana Jonesish action/adventure film.  It moves along at a good clip, the performances are good (including a youngish and still hot Kate Mulgrew).  Maybe it was that star Fred Ward lacked the muscle-rippling bulk of Stallone or Schwartzenegger.  Maybe it was that a PG-13 action romp couldn't find traction in a world that had turned to R-rated versions.

It's one of those movies that I've always liked and feel is truly under appreciated.  Fred Ward learns Shinjuto (or something) and battles wits with a shady government-backed organization.  The bad guys are cartoonish, the action outlandish. But it's still an easy, no-thought-required sprawl.

Couldn't be made today, though.  Joel Grey's Korean Shinjuto master would trigger the entire cultural appropriation warrior class.
In college, we had free HBO (hehehe). Every day after class and before work, this movie was on. I think I saw this movie and The Last Starfighter 15 times.
The running on water scene was hilarious. Like nobody could see the underwater dock!

Still a fun movie. His best..till Tremors!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 23, 2019, 12:15:22 AM
Beaster Day: Here Comes Peter Cottonhell

Anybody but me remember Night of the Lepus?  Came out in the early 70s.  Had Rory Calhoun (of Motel Hell fame), Bones from Star Trek and Janet Leigh.  Essentially these bunnies got radiated and terrorized the southwest.  I remember watching it on the CBS Late Movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CfpCf-wWeY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CfpCf-wWeY).

(https://cinemassacre.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/26-Lepus.jpg)

Anyway, decided to watch a movie called Beaster Day where this giant rabbit terrorized a town.  It was Easter.  So.... 

Beaster Day makes Night of the Lepus look like The Godfather in comparison.  I've watched some really, really bad movies but Beaster takes the cake.  You could not make a worse movie if you tried.  I think they were trying to make a movie so bad it was good, but it turned out only being bad with no redeeming value whatsoever.  

Here's a still from the film.  

(https://i2.wp.com/vulturehound.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/beaster-day-4.png?resize=750%2C400&ssl=1)

This is one of the better scenes.  The rest are worse.  This is a complete abomination.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 23, 2019, 09:52:16 AM
You underestimate the sheer savagery of a rogue bunny.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YWTJ8iZr7ro/hqdefault.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjEw9PVrObhAhVJvFkKHVCKDFQQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DYWTJ8iZr7ro&psig=AOvVaw3BgL4c4ZZt7BAz1YJ2j3Sg&ust=1556113481834554)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on April 23, 2019, 10:03:54 AM
You have way too much time on your hands if you can throw away a couple of hours on a movie that is 99.9% likely to suck sour ass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on April 23, 2019, 10:08:33 AM
You have way too much time on your hands if you can throw away a couple of hours on a movie that is 99.9% likely to suck sour ass.
He should have put the bunny back in the box.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 23, 2019, 11:33:16 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo7jvDhv5nY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo7jvDhv5nY)

This is what happens when you fuck the bunny in the ass, Larry.    You see what happens Larry.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 23, 2019, 02:33:43 PM
You have way too much time on your hands if you can throw away a couple of hours on a movie that is 99.9% likely to suck sour ass.
I love movies.  All movies.  I can usually find some small glimmer of redemption in anything.  

I'm old.  We don't go clubbing, we don't go dancing.  A good evening for us is dinner, a movie (any movie), some wine and just hanging out.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 23, 2019, 03:36:25 PM
I love movies.  All movies.  I can usually find some small glimmer of redemption in anything. 

I'm old.  We don't go clubbing, we don't go dancing.  A good evening for us is dinner, a movie (any movie), some wine and just hanging out. 
and you have this thread post to maintain
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 26, 2019, 10:12:06 PM
Aquaman

Everything wrong with the DC Universe and Zac Snyder's direction was highlighted in this waterlogged turd. 

It was absolutely terrible.  Words cannot describe its blatant awfulness. From the very first scene to the mid-credits sequence this movie was a fish-eyed fool.

What about it was bad you say?

Everything.

Dialogue:  Clunky. Stilted. Corny. Cheesy. Worse than an average episode of Batman from 1966.

Music: Every musical choice was the worst possible selection that could have been made. It was so bad it interjected the dramatic squirrel music when "bad things" occurred.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Kyi0WNg40 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Kyi0WNg40)

Acting (both choices and performance):  Amber Heard was wooden and monotone.  Jason Moomoo is large and (I assume) attractive but he has the screen presence of a moldy piece of bread.  Patrick Wilson was awful. So was Nicole Kidman. When the best actor in your film is, by far, Dolph Lungdren you have clearly missed the boat.

Script: Lots of ridiculous mumbo jumbo, conversation about things that happened that I guess we were supposed to know.  Random silliness. Plot points stolen verbatim from other films (and any random episode of Power Rangers).

CGI: They spent so much time and money making sure people looked like they were swimming and their hair moved under water I guess they just didn't have time to put much effort into anything else.  CGI in DC movies has typically been bad (see the joke that was Justice League) and this continued that downward trend.

I love the genre.  I hate pretty much everything DC has done.  This went right into that pile of scrap for me.  If the franchise was already taking on water, this titanic dud should sink it. I'd like to find something nice to say about it, but it's really hard to find anything.  The colors were pretty, I suppose.  The jellyfish dress was interesting.  Yeah, that's about it.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 28, 2019, 12:10:09 AM
Avengers: End Game 

Marvel still knows how to do superhero movies better than anyone ever.  This movie is light years better than Aquaman, Justice League, Dawn of Justice or anything in the DC pantheon except possibly Wonder Woman. 

But for all the noise and crashing and bashing and loop closing; for all the praise and money it's going to get, it was -- to me -- second tier Marvel.  I know you have to suspend the rules when you're watching a movie where a woman can fly, a guy can shrink himself to the size of an ant, a guy can turn himself into an angry green ogre, a guy sails in from space with a magic hammer and another wizardy guy can spin travel portals with his fingers.  Even so, I had a major problem with the basic concepts of this movie. I was unmoved by the motivations. 

You'll either see it or you won't so I'm not going to recap the film.  Not going to give any hints as to the ending.  I'm just going to fit it into my own pecking order.  

There are top tier films.  The movies that left me awed and agape; the films that I didn't really want to end. 

Iron Man
Thor: Ragingcrocs
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Avengers

Those movies were note-perfect in my mind.  Completely satisfying.  

Then there's the second tier.  Good, but not great movies.  Enjoyed them, but they weren't the epic masterpieces the others were.  Some were just too busy, some had too much noise, some thought too much of themselves. All had something that kept it from being elevated. 

The movies I put here are
Ant Man 1 and 2  (although both were closer to the top tier than some of the others)
Guardians 2
Iron Man 2 and 3
All Captain Americas
Captain Marvel
Spiderman Homecoming
Thor: Dark World
Infinity Wars (Although this is probably closer to the bottom)

And then there were the ones I considered sort of duds.  Not duds in the Aquaman/Justice League abysmal sense, but just not quite there.  Either essentially forgettable, mishandled or completely overhyped.  

Black Panther was a terrible Marvel movie.  It was stupid. It was insulting. I'll never watch it again and I could have done without it completely. 

Age of Ultron was a misstep.  A hugely successful misstep but an overly busy, excessively noisy, outlandishly destructive error. 

Thor just didn't work.  I really appreciate how they've retooled the character and given him humor and life but the first Thor movie didn't even really hint at that promise.  Some bad directorial choices and a bust with the choice of Natalie Portman. 


Endgame falls somewhere toward the bottom of the second tier.  It's going to make ass tons of money.  It will be praised to the high heavens by almost everyone.  My truth, however, is that in comparison to Iron Man, Guardians and those others at the top of the list it just falls way outside the cut.  I've seen it, I'm glad I did, but (like Ultron) I have no interest in sitting through it again.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on April 29, 2019, 10:18:00 AM
Don’t worry. She’s got us. 

Give me a fucking break. 

They base phase 4 around Captain Marvel, they will ruin marvel like they did Star Wars. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 29, 2019, 11:17:58 AM
Don’t worry. She’s got us.

Give me a fucking break.

They base phase 4 around Captain Marvel, they will ruin marvel like they did Star Wars.
You didn’t just love the girl power moment where everybody from Michonne from Walking Dead to the green gal to stupid ass Gwyneth Paltrow as Ironbitch all got together to carry the ball?  

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 29, 2019, 11:23:56 AM
You didn’t just love the girl power moment where everybody from Michonne from Walking Dead to the green gal to stupid ass Gwyneth Paltrow as Ironbitch all got together to carry the ball? 
You forgot Hope Van Dyne, (the Wasp) who apparently left Ant Man who at the time was working on their only plan to be in that little scene.  $1 to Jarhead
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on April 29, 2019, 11:32:41 AM
You forgot Hope Van Dyne, (the Wasp) who apparently left Ant Man who at the time was working on their only plan to be in that little scene.  $1 to Jarhead
Don’t get me started on the kids going back to school. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on April 29, 2019, 12:09:07 PM
Don’t get me started on the kids going back to school.
We have already discussed this, they have been off from school for 5 years.  That is a long enough break.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 29, 2019, 01:14:12 PM
Breathe out... slowly... do not gulp. If you do not breathe correctly, you do not move correctly. Pitiful. I can see the deadly hamburger has done its evil work.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-1rfCS7kwK8/hqdefault.jpg)

Weird fact - that is Jennifer grey’s (dirty dancing) father. And now he’s gay. And old. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 29, 2019, 02:01:19 PM
Weird fact - that is Jennifer grey’s (dirty dancing) father. And now he’s gay. And old.
And Korean
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 03, 2019, 07:53:14 AM
Escape Room 

What would happen if Final Destination merged with Saw?  

This mildly entertaining, instantly forgettable weave through the world's most detailed escape room, that's what.  

Wasn't bad. Wasn't good.  Just was. 

Some interesting setups as a group of mismatched participants attempt to escape a series of traps.  When the film veered off into some secret society mumbo jumbo in the last unnecessary third it really lost its way.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 06, 2019, 10:44:25 AM
Zac Efron's Ted Bundy Movie

Zac completely inhabits Bundy.  

Other than that, there's  not much to recommend here.  The timeline skips, the lack of any real meat, the lengths to which the producers went to fabricate situations/events all combined to make a muddled mess of a movie with almost no tension.  It just failed to generate the urgency and intensity it needed to. 

Other than one brief scene, it didn't let Efron be the Bundy that did all the things that Bundy did. And I think it needed that.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 06, 2019, 11:57:27 AM
Primal Rage

A bunch of reeeeally bad actors go in the woods and get their faces ripped off by a Sasquatch.  That about covers it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on May 06, 2019, 07:30:06 PM
Zac Efron's Ted Bundy Movie

Zac completely inhabits Bundy. 

Other than that, there's  not much to recommend here.  The timeline skips, the lack of any real meat, the lengths to which the producers went to fabricate situations/events all combined to make a muddled mess of a movie with almost no tension.  It just failed to generate the urgency and intensity it needed to.

Other than one brief scene, it didn't let Efron be the Bundy that did all the things that Bundy did. And I think it needed that. 
Mark Harmon forever
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 08, 2019, 08:28:19 AM
Zac Efron's Ted Bundy Movie

Zac completely inhabits Bundy. 

Other than that, there's  not much to recommend here.  The timeline skips, the lack of any real meat, the lengths to which the producers went to fabricate situations/events all combined to make a muddled mess of a movie with almost no tension.  It just failed to generate the urgency and intensity it needed to.

Other than one brief scene, it didn't let Efron be the Bundy that did all the things that Bundy did. And I think it needed that. 
I'd also say was this really a movie that needed to be made?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 19, 2019, 09:23:23 AM
Happy Death Day 2 U

The sequel to the surprisingly appealing Happy Death Day. 

As before, the movie really lives and dies (and lives and dies again, ha) on the easy, graceful allure of star Jessica Rothe.  She transitions so naturally between comedy, drama and pathos that she completely carries the movie and everything and everyone else in it are just set pieces for her to move around with her charm.  Without her, this movie doesn't exist.  

As for the movie itself?  Really wonky science that ties back to the original and flips things around.  If you didn't watch the first film, you'll be utterly confused by this one.  And there's a good chance you'll be confused anyway because a lot of it just doesn't make sense if you bother to think about it in the slightest.  

I assume the producers and director simply hoped that you'd be so taken in by Rothe's performance that you'd ignore everything else that collapses all around her.  They're not wrong.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 20, 2019, 12:03:18 AM
The Convent 

Hey. Let's capitalize on the interest in the Nun movies from the Conjuring franchise.  Make a set with three rooms, a couple of hallways -- like an ambitious porn shoot. That'll be good. 

Hire a guy with an American accent to play a 15th century English magistrate and tell him not to bother trying an accent!  Get some plain girls with british accents and put them in heavy outfits for the duration.  Throw in some 'horror' effects, some ridiculously bad acting and a chase scene down one of the hallways that's so short it actually requires the actors to walk instead of run.  Success! 

Bad movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 20, 2019, 01:04:51 PM
Happy Death Day 2 U

The sequel to the surprisingly appealing Happy Death Day.

As before, the movie really lives and dies (and lives and dies again, ha) on the easy, graceful allure of star Jessica Rothe.  She transitions so naturally between comedy, drama and pathos that she completely carries the movie and everything and everyone else in it are just set pieces for her to move around with her charm.  Without her, this movie doesn't exist. 

As for the movie itself?  Really wonky science that ties back to the original and flips things around.  If you didn't watch the first film, you'll be utterly confused by this one.  And there's a good chance you'll be confused anyway because a lot of it just doesn't make sense if you bother to think about it in the slightest. 

I assume the producers and director simply hoped that you'd be so taken in by Rothe's performance that you'd ignore everything else that collapses all around her.  They're not wrong. 
mmmm Jessica Rothe... something about her makes my pee-pee maker ti..ti..tingle.


(https://i.imgur.com/0lOeHWe.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 20, 2019, 02:36:19 PM
Something about her????  Where would you like me to start?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on May 30, 2019, 07:25:28 AM
Something about her????  Where would you like me to start?
Sorry but she looks like a chain-smoking drowned rat. 2 at 10, 6 at 2 on best day. Pass. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on May 30, 2019, 09:29:54 AM
Sorry but she looks like a chain-smoking drowned rat. 2 at 10, 6 at 2 on best day. Pass.
Son....I'm only gonna tell you this once.   Lay off the drugs.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on May 30, 2019, 09:43:43 AM
Sorry but she looks like a chain-smoking drowned rat. 2 at 10, 6 at 2 on best day. Pass.
(http://www.funnybeing.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WTF-Lol.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 30, 2019, 11:58:01 AM
Sorry but she looks like a chain-smoking drowned rat. 2 at 10, 6 at 2 on best day. Pass.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/cf/cf51ba70c7379ebae7bd25d37c37ec95dde7ecb694ffad12e319a1b7a7c58967.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on June 01, 2019, 07:35:19 AM
Saw Aladdin last night. Hey, we watched the cartoon version about 25 times.  Happens when you're raising kids. Pretty much spot on remake with a few tweaks.  Will Smith played the Genie and while no one could match what Robin Williams brought to the role, Smith was pretty entertaining.  It was nostalgic for me and the skirt and if you have young kids, this would be a good one to take them to.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 01, 2019, 08:51:03 AM
Saw Aladdin last night. Hey, we watched the cartoon version about 25 times.  Happens when you're raising kids. Pretty much spot on remake with a few tweaks.  Will Smith played the Genie and while no one could match what Robin Williams brought to the role, Smith was pretty entertaining.  It was nostalgic for me and the skirt and if you have young kids, this would be a good one to take them to.
I was in that same wheelhouse.  Aladdin, Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Pocahontas, Lion King, Hunchback, lilo and stitch, Mulan.... 

We watched those hundreds of times.  Completely wore out two mermaid VHS tapes.  (And I still have one of the golden penis vhs covers) Mermaid was my oldest daughter’s favorite.  Still is I guess.  I can’t watch the scene where Triton says “I guess there’s just one problem left...how much I’m going to miss her” without almost breaking down.  

That’s why I don’t want, need or appreciate these live action remakes.  Jungle Book was my favorite movie as a kid.  The new one was fine I guess but it doesn’t hold a prickly pear to the 1966 version.  Didnt watch the new gay-friendly Beauty.  Can’t make myself watch this. Gonna pass on Lion King (which was IMO the greatest animated movie of all time and worthy of an Oscar for Best Pic).  I’m just gonna leave the past in my behind. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on June 03, 2019, 10:42:50 AM
That’s why I don’t want, need or appreciate these live action remakes.  Jungle Book was my favorite movie as a kid.  The new one was fine I guess but it doesn’t hold a prickly pear to the 1966 version.  Didnt watch the new gay-friendly Beauty.  Can’t make myself watch this. Gonna pass on Lion King (which was IMO the greatest animated movie of all time and worthy of an Oscar for Best Pic).  I’m just gonna leave the past in my behind.
How will there be enough room for the jelly dong?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 04, 2019, 09:44:06 AM
Rocketman

This was not the movie I expected to see.  Where Bohemian Rhapsody was a fairly straight(ha!)forward telling of Freddie Mercury's life (with the occasional dramatic embellishment) this film played much more like an old style musical.  The movie often broke away from the storytelling to use Elton John's songs to push the plot.  When characters break into song during dramatic moments, trading Elton lyrics, and when events devolve into fully choreographed song and dance numbers, what you've got is a full-blown musical -- not a movie.  That wasn't what I thought I was going to see. Musicals should come with a warning. 

It's a little hard for me to understand why somebody who literally had it all could be so completely miserable. See: Nikki Sixx, Freddie Mercury, Elton John, etc.  In the case of Elton and Freddie, the misery was compounded by a deep-rooted need to be loved and a circle of sycophants incapable of providing that.  I have theories related to how that abject loneliness manifested itself in the turn to gayness but that I will keep to myself. 

Tareyton Eggetson (what is that guy's name?) of the Kingsman fame did a credible job of inhabiting John's persona.  That he's playing John at all is a clever inside Kingsman joke anyway.  But the movie was so odd and the residual hangover of Rami's performance as Mercury will probably keep this performance out of the "Best" category when it comes award time. Had this come first, it might have overshadowed Malek if only because Tarelyton did his own singing throughout the movie. 

It was whitewashed, of course, because that's the nature of history.  The victors get to write it.  Had the same film been made through the eyes of Bernie Taupin, John Reid or Dick James it would likely have been a vastly different story. 

It was good. But in comparison to Bohemian (and those comparisons are inevitable) it's not great.  The main reason for that is the way it was played.  Turning it into a quasi-musical, which required enormous creative license with the timeline of song creation and performances, was problematic.  As I reflect on it, though, I tend to think that another story of a self-absorbed, self-pitying mega-rich emotionally bankrupt star wasn't compelling enough on its own. Crue was rowdier (and more fun).  Freddie was more tragic. Elton was just sorta bland.  Oh, poor you.  Dad wasn't emotionally invested and Mom was a little whorish.  Poor poor pitiful you.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 10, 2019, 01:34:35 PM
Glass

McAvoy's performance(s) as all the personalities that struggled for control of his facade was (again) outstanding.  

The rest of the movie was somewhat lacking.  Shamalamalingbing tried to add a twisty tie at the end, but the way it played out really cheapened the characters and sort of turned them into cardboard cutouts of who/what they could have been.  

Lots of dramatic music when nothing was happening.  Moved very slowly.  I just didn't think the payoff was worth the wait.  

But McAvoy was really good. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: bgreene on July 03, 2019, 02:36:06 PM
Saw Aladdin last night. Hey, we watched the cartoon version about 25 times.  Happens when you're raising kids. Pretty much spot on remake with a few tweaks.  Will Smith played the Genie and while no one could match what Robin Williams brought to the role, Smith was pretty entertaining.  It was nostalgic for me and the skirt and if you have young kids, this would be a good one to take them to.
We were able to watch here at St. Jude and I was pleasantly surprised.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 07, 2019, 11:49:56 PM
Annabelle: Coming Home

Short on scares, short on drama, short on story.  Big on cash grab from a franchise that was not that good to begin with and has really lost its way.  

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 08, 2019, 12:04:01 AM
The Highwaymen

Netflix moving teaming Kevin Costner and Woody Harrelson as the former Texas Rangers who teamed up to take down Bonnie and Clyde.  

The film tried really hard to de-romanticize the killer duo and in doing so took some creative liberties.  While it's cool and all to portray Bonnie as a stone-cold killer the truth was she may never have even fired a gun.  Where prior Bonnie and Clyde films have all been shot from the perspective of the doomed couple, this film stayed almost exclusively with the viewpoint of Frank Hamer and Maney Gault, the two retired Texas Rangers who were brought back into play for the express purpose of tracking down -- and killing -- the two outlaws.  In fact, Bonnie and Clyde are little more than bit players in this film. No speaking lines. Their nondescript faces don't even show except for a brief second when they realize what's coming at the end. 

The film meandered along to its already well known conclusion, adding nothing new but fabricated details.  Gruff Costner and broken Harrelson had an easy old-man chemistry that carried what was otherwise a pretty lightweight film.  That's about all there was to it, really.  Costner and Harrelson playing off each other in what could have been a movie about practically any road trip. 

Kathy Bates shows up looking like boiled hell as the Texas Governor. 

Just not that much to recommend. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 08, 2019, 12:06:02 AM
Spiderman: Into the Multiverse

Not sure what I expected, but I was pleasantly surprised.  It was funny, it was dramatic, it was touching.  Marvel/Sony really knows how to make superhero movies -- even when they're animated. 

One of the better movies I've seen in a while. Don't know why it took me so long to watch it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 08, 2019, 09:51:02 AM
The Highwaymen

Netflix moving teaming Kevin Costner and Woody Harrelson as the former Texas Rangers who teamed up to take down Bonnie and Clyde. 

The film tried really hard to de-romanticize the killer duo and in doing so took some creative liberties.  While it's cool and all to portray Bonnie as a stone-cold killer the truth was she may never have even fired a gun.  Where prior Bonnie and Clyde films have all been shot from the perspective of the doomed couple, this film stayed almost exclusively with the viewpoint of Frank Hamer and Maney Gault, the two retired Texas Rangers who were brought back into play for the express purpose of tracking down -- and killing -- the two outlaws.  In fact, Bonnie and Clyde are little more than bit players in this film. No speaking lines. Their nondescript faces don't even show except for a brief second when they realize what's coming at the end.

The film meandered along to its already well known conclusion, adding nothing new but fabricated details.  Gruff Costner and broken Harrelson had an easy old-man chemistry that carried what was otherwise a pretty lightweight film.  That's about all there was to it, really.  Costner and Harrelson playing off each other in what could have been a movie about practically any road trip.

Kathy Bates shows up looking like boiled hell as the Texas Governor.

Just not that much to recommend.

From what ive read, this version above is much closer to how it actually was. Romanticized is probably not a strong enough word for the tale of Bonnie and Clyde. 

Even more romanticized is the fight at the OK Corral. It was seriously much of nothing. Hollywood does a good job of making it the stuff of legend. Much disappoint to all the Tombstone fanboys of the world.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on July 08, 2019, 10:05:42 AM
Spiderman: Into the Multiverse

Not sure what I expected, but I was pleasantly surprised.  It was funny, it was dramatic, it was touching.  Marvel/Sony really knows how to make superhero movies -- even when they're animated. 

One of the better movies I've seen in a while. Don't know why it took me so long to watch it.
Good to hear this.  I had seen it on teh netflix and breezed past it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 08, 2019, 12:05:11 PM
Good to hear this.  I had seen it on teh netflix and breezed past it.
It’s different.  Requires you to just sit back and enjoy it without thinking too much about how it fits into the pantheon or the logical possibilities.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on July 09, 2019, 08:59:59 AM
From what ive read, this version above is much closer to how it actually was. Romanticized is probably not a strong enough word for the tale of Bonnie and Clyde.

Even more romanticized is the fight at the OK Corral. It was seriously much of nothing. Hollywood does a good job of making it the stuff of legend. Much disappoint to all the Tombstone fanboys of the world. 
I took a tour of Tombstone a few years ago, and was disappointed to learn that the Gunfight at the OK Corral actually occurred in the vacant lot behind the OK Corral, but that didn't fit on a Hollywood marquee.

Boothill is pretty much exactly how you would imagine.  Although some of the more famous headstones that you've seen in movies are fake, and put there purely to drive tourism.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 09, 2019, 09:08:20 AM
I took a tour of Tombstone a few years ago, and was disappointed to learn that the Gunfight at the OK Corral actually occurred in the vacant lot behind the OK Corral, but that didn't fit on a Hollywood marquee.

Boothill is pretty much exactly how you would imagine.  Although some of the more famous headstones that you've seen in movies are fake, and put there purely to drive tourism.
I was as disappointed as anyone at the  OK coral story. Fuckin Hollywood. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 09, 2019, 09:12:46 AM
I was as disappointed as anyone at the  OK coral story. Fuckin Hollywood.
Wait until you hear about the Nurrahmaid. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 12, 2019, 11:22:41 AM
Robin Hood (2018)

Tried to watch it.  Tend to like Eggsy or whatever his name is.  

This is nothing but pro-Islam propaganda.  Very disappointed in it.  Glad it bombed.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on July 12, 2019, 11:48:51 AM
Robin Hood (2018)

Tried to watch it.  Tend to like Eggsy or whatever his name is. 

This is nothing but pro-Islam propaganda.  Very disappointed in it.  Glad it bombed. 
I haven't seen it, but do tell how they work that agenda in a Robin Hood story.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on July 12, 2019, 11:51:48 AM
I haven't seen it, but do tell how they work that agenda in a Robin Hood story.
Robin's mentor/trainer is a Moor seeking revenge for the execution of his son by Crusaders.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 12, 2019, 02:55:36 PM
Robin's mentor/trainer is a Moor seeking revenge for the execution of his son by Crusaders.
Yeah, they screwed all that up.  Jamie Foxx is Lil John.  Pfffftttt. 

The Sheriff of Nottingham is portrayed as what Hollywood probably sees as Trump.  The threat of the Islamic invasion is dismissed as the ranting of a paranoid schemer.  There's one speech in particular where he sneers about the Muslims infiltrating and taking over the neighborhoods and the government. 

Fucking idiot. That would never happen. 

Oh wait.


(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/Ilhan_Omar%2C_official_portrait%2C_116th_Congress.jpg/220px-Ilhan_Omar%2C_official_portrait%2C_116th_Congress.jpg)

The Crusaders were the bad guys, the evil murdering thugs who tortured, abused and murdered prisoners.  The Moors (Islamic Jihad) were the mighty and noble people, defending themselves against an invading force.  Bullshit. 

Did "Robin Hood" really exist?  No, probably not.  But his story is of the working people rising up against an oppressive interim King who did not rule with a just hand.  It's not some apedung about fighting side by side with the fucking Muslims. 

Whatever Hollywood insists on telling you, they want to kill us.  They are currently playing the long game.  Infiltrating cities until they have a majority and begin to impose their own culture over the American way.  So it is written!  It's why you have towns in Michigan and Minnesota that have replaced church bells with that five-times-a-day blaring ass-horn.  It's how somebody like the above got elected in the first place.

This is not the place for this discussion, but what they did with the Robin Hood story was an absolute abomination.  The "Moors" were not the good and noble people.  The English were not the bad guys.  Just another example of demonizing Christianity. 

BOOOOOOOOOOOOO! 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on July 13, 2019, 09:47:45 AM
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhasaaahhshshshshahahahaahahaa
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 13, 2019, 11:47:00 AM
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhasaaahhshshshshahahahaahahaa
Won’t be funny when they kill you first. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 14, 2019, 02:17:55 AM
The Beastmaster
Back in the 1980s, HBO had a limited catalog and hadn't yet branched out into original programming.  As a result, this cheaply made sci-fi fantasy fiction was a semi-permanent fixture on the network.  It aired so often that HBO was known back then as "Hey, Beastmaster's On!"  Later TBS picked it up and played the movie so frequently the network was nicknamed The Beastmaster Station.


The guy who made it was clearly earnest.  He wanted to make a sweeping bare-chested heroic sword-fighting epic, He peppered it with wild animals, attractive people, mystic sorcery, lots of peril and sweeping vistas. He put his heart and soul into it. But there were so many issues that kept it from reaching the heights the director clearly desired.  The dialogue was terribly cheesy and delivered so flatly by the entire cast. The Beastmaster himself, Marc Singer, (while very fit) was a terrible actor. Rip Torn, as the antagonist Priest Maax, hammed it up to the point of ridiculousness. Tanya Roberts (Beastmaster's cousin/lover-to-be) was terrible.  The animals were difficult to work with. The budget/creative choices/decisions were highly questionable. All this led to some of the most unintentionally funny scenes in the history of the heroic fantasy genre that was strong at that time.  The dialogue and action was so clumsy and cheesy that it bears comparison with the cornball antics of Batman in the 1966 TV series.  It was that hokey. 

Despite that, I watched this movie so many times in various stages of intoxicated stupor and/or fervent ardor (with a variety of 'dates' invited over for meal and a movie before Netflix and Chill was invented) that I grew to love it.  Maybe I love it precisely because I know it's terrible.

Over the years I've learned a few things about the film that I find interesting.  Some things to look for that add to the hilarity.

1) Singer (Dar/Beastmaster in the movie) had a sidekick that was originally supposed to be a black panther.  Unfortunately panthers proved difficult to work with so they painted an aged tiger black instead.  At various times the tiger was thirsty and washed the black off his face. Others he rubbed it off.  Sometimes you can see his stripes through the paint.  There are also numerous shots of his eagle pal soaring around.  The eagles didn't cooperate either and in order to get those shots, they had to throw them out of hot air balloons (true story).

2) At one point Dar is unconscious and his dog is dragging him to safety.  The dog gets tired of performing and takes a break, but Dar/Singer's inert body keeps on sliding along.  Later the dog is supposed to be dead but is clearly breathing.

3) John Amos.  Big Daddy James from Good Times is in fine form here as Dar's eventual traveling companion/ally in battle.  His big fake laugh is worth the price of admission alone.  But you've also got his wooden dialogue and serious steely glares as added benefits.


4) Tanya Roberts' boobs.  She can't act a lick, but she boob flops early on just because.



5) Inspiration for George R.R.R.R.R. Martin.  One of Dar's talents is that he can occupy the mind of animals (Beastmaster, duh) and see through their eyes.  So yeah, Martin simply stole that and called it 'warging' for Game of Thrones.  Unlike GoT, however, the ability to warg actually serves some real purpose in Beastmaster.  In GoT it was just another plot device abandoned without ever really paying off.  Here, his abilities help drive the narrative and provide meaning to the final showdown.  The fiery moat also looked really familiar.

6) Kodo and Podo.  Weasel thieves.  When they chew through branches and thick ropes to advance the plot... ha!



7) Really bad action choreography.  There's a lot of sword-on-sword battling here.  But it's bad.  The battle with Rip Torn (Priest Maax) and his minions at the top of the temple is particularly hideous.  Watch in wonder as Maax whirls away from killing the girl to threating somebody else. And then stare in amazement as one of the minions stands there with his sword raised waiting an interminable time for Dar to execute some not-so-deft move and get around to staubing him.  And then Big Daddy James bellows "fight to the top" when there's nobody left to fight, so they just sort of squat there. 


8) Sexy snake women.  There are three witches who writhe around a bubbling pot and spew prophecies.  One of the witches is the future bride of Wayne Gretzky, the mega hot Janet Jones of the 80s (look it up), her facial features obscured by an awful leathery mask.

9) Eye Ring - The eye ring utilized by Maax to spy on Dar and his band of rebels was probably the best special effect in the film.  The eye in the ring moved and looked real.  The shot of Big John Amos glaring down into it and being seen in the cauldron of the witches is epic.

10) We must fight!  No! We must flee!  Fantastic dialogue. Fantastically bad.  So many horrible awful quotes from this movie, some of which I keep in my bag of verbal responses (much like lines from Raising Arizona) to drag out when I wish to amuse myself and confuse others.  Well. Okay, then. 

This movie is bad from start to finish.  And yet somehow, I love it. I love it for nostalgic reasons that I'm unable to clearly define.  I know it's terrible, but I'd gladly watch it right now again. 

Currently available on Amazon Prime.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on July 15, 2019, 09:06:45 AM
Couldn't sleep and at 2:00 a.m. Saturday morning, I came across the most glorious B- movie evah, Piranhaconda.  Yep, a bunch of 40 foot snakey things with a piranha face.  The movie was such a bad B flick that the plot was that the mutant snake was attacking a bunch of actors and directors on location in Hawaii...making a B movie.  The plot went even went deeper into B'ness when the "bad guys" were all Mexican....in Hawaii.  There were classic lines like:

Guy:  I heard about some genetic mutation experiments around here years ago.

Girl:  Yes, I read that on the internet.

Guy:  So then it's true.

The big chase scene was also a classic with the actors speeding down the road at 90 m.p.h. and off in the distance behind them, you can see a stretched out, toy snake photoshopped into a field.  Glorious.  I couldn't stop watching.  Beware the Piranhaconda.

(http://www.californiaherps.com/films/filmimages/piranhaconda5.jpg) (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiArdq9_bbjAhWE1lkKHet9CX0QjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.californiaherps.com%2Ffilms%2Fsnakefilms%2FPiranhaconda.html&psig=AOvVaw2879ecV-KJFJmS47C2DpOv&ust=1563281945823160)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on July 16, 2019, 08:06:47 AM
Rewatched 1997's I Know What You Did Last Summer last weekend. After a first act/setup that sets mood, tension, and characters, this movie totally unravels. Second act is too long and full of stupid red herrings. Third act is too full of implausibilities and undercuts first act character and tension. Fail. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 21, 2019, 04:12:14 PM
Crawl

If you've seen the trailer for this hurricane and gator-infested horror thriller you know exactly what you're getting.  The trailer spells it out for you in paint-by-numbers fashion and there there are approximately zero surprises as the protagonists battle mother nature and father gator. 

Father and daughter are trapped in the crawlspace of a Florida home as a Category 5 hurricane bears down and the nearby lake's massive gators swarm in the rapidly rising floodwaters.  Both battle the lizards and endure some pretty gruesome injuries over the course of the fight. 

The movie did a good job of keeping you in the moment except for when it strayed into the father-daughter fractured relationship tripe.  I guess that was supposed to make you care about the characters, but it didn't at least for me.  It was tight and tense from the moment the girl found her injured dad under the house.  Some of the action was improbable enough to scoff at, but the dual battle against the flood and the big gators provided constant peril with little break over the final two thirds of the film.  The choice between drowning and fighting a massive reptile was a difficult one and done well. 

The hurricane was fairly well represented.  I was reasonably impressed with the manner in which they were able to somewhat accurately portray the wind, rain, flooding and destruction that would take place.  Only beef was the level of chaos was more like a Cat 2 at best.

Also pretty impressed with the CGIgators.  At first I was skeptical of the roaring noises, but a little research showed that they do roar.  Probably not as much as the ones in this film, but they do. 

All in all a relatively entertaining movie with enough peril to keep you interested. 

Complaints?  What house has that much going on under it?  And the enormous Batman-sized tunnel to the outside?  Really?  Also, the ending was abrupt and seriously failed to deliver after such a protracted battle. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on July 22, 2019, 09:05:12 AM
Men in Black International

Almost went to see this in the theatres, glad I didn't.  Wasn't bad just wasn't really anything, just another Men in Black movie nothing stood out and I thought it was kind of missing the campiness of the Will Smith ones.  Verdict: watch it on cable.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on August 02, 2019, 12:47:57 PM
Men in Black International

Almost went to see this in the theatres, glad I didn't.  Wasn't bad just wasn't really anything, just another Men in Black movie nothing stood out and I thought it was kind of missing the campiness of the Will Smith ones.  Verdict: watch it on cable.

i don't have cable.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 10, 2019, 09:08:42 AM
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
I have a fondness for Quentin Tarrantino movies.  Res Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, Django are all fun, fantastic films.  Among the reasons I like them so much are the borderline brilliant dialogue exchanges, the over-the-top characters who deliver that dialogue, the unconventional pacing, the attention to detail in the settings and backgrounds, the quirky musical choices and the way he inserts his love of the old spaghetti-western into the overall feel of the movie. 

Unfortunately for this movie has very little of what made Tarrantino's prior films great. 

Oh, he showcases his love for women's feet more than once.  There's a ham-fisted homage to the Italian western movie genre. But the rest?  Pffffffttttt. 

The story allegedly focuses on the relationship between Leonardo DiCaprio's Rick Dalton and his stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt, looking way too much like Robert Redford for comfort).  Dalton is at the beginning of the end of his career and the film follows his descent and how he and Booth navigate that decline.  Instead it just meanders all over the place and never really gives credence or substance to any of it. 

The problem with the movie is that it just doesn't reach that Tarrantino-level of clever back and forth dialogue that could have given its interminable (nearly three hour) run-time any substance.  It just slowly meanders to a revisionist conclusion that makes the murder of Hitler in Inglorious Basterds seem minor in comparison. 

When somebody like QT does a movie, the tendency is to give them more credit or benefit of the doubt, but if you strip away his involvement and the gravity it should lend, what you really have is an overly, overly, overly long movie about absolutely nothing, one that goes nowhere for hours upon hours before screeching to an utterly bullshit, batshit history-trashing end. 

It's a beautifully shot, beautifully acted film that in the end offers the viewer nothing of value.  If you watch it, do so only for the nostalgic drift through a pretty perfect representation of 1969 Hollywood that is the background of the movie and the constant references to the cultural icons of that era (including Mannix, Batman, cigarette ads, Big Valley, Paul Revere and the Raiders, etc.).  The rest is just overstuffed, nonsensical fluff.  It's not worthy of a place in the QT canon.  Not by a long shot.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 15, 2019, 12:50:07 PM
Widows

How do you take a movie with Michelle Rodriguez, Liam Neeson, Shane from Walking Dead, Viola Davis, Robert Duvall, Colin Farrell, the impossibly delicious Elizabeth Debicki, Carrie Coon, the guy from Get Out, and Lukas Haas and completely screw it up? 

Believe it or not?  They found a way. 

This was an absolutely terrible, horrible, worthless movie.  Dumb and unrealistic plot. Bad action sequences. Contrived and nonsensical. 

I'd like to give you a summary, but that would mean actually  being able to do so.  Essentially the widows of a gang of criminals get together to pull off the next heist in their dead husbands planner.  There are side stories about elections, black preachers, political nepotism, a naked Mike McClintock from Veep getting spanked, a wheelchair guy in a bowling alley, escort services, a surprise resurrection, relationship racism and white dogs.  None of it fits cohesively into anything resembling a coherent film. 

I could make a better movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 21, 2019, 08:47:55 AM
Creed 2

We’ve seen this exact same movie before when it was called Rocky 4. We’ve seen variations of this exact same movie called Rocky, Rocky 2, Rocky 3, Rocky 5, Rocky Balboa and Creed.  

So little is new here that the entire film seems to sag heavily under the weight of its predecessors.  If you haven’t guessed the plot then you haven’t been paying attention for the last 43 years. 

Rocky 4 was a great movie.  This pale imitation doesn’t pay homage to its ancestors so much as it traces over the outline of their image and then randomly scribbles in a few colors like a first grader doing a coloring book page of a bird. 

Rocky 4 had heart.  It was blood and guts, man against machine. This has an artificial valve pumping sugar water and sham emotion. Rocky 4 had great music.  This has some god awful screeching by the shittiest excuse for a musician since Zamfir the pan fluter.  Her “songs”’sound like 60s beatnick trash poetry set to Mariah Carey warbling random notes. It’s terrible. 

I love the Rocky franchise. The little guy overcoming great odds by sheer determination and occasional dumb luck.  But it’s tired.  It looks tired. It feels tired. Interjecting shit music and deaf babies doesn’t bring it to life.  

It’s time to bury Rock, bury Creed and put an end to this story. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 21, 2019, 08:18:39 PM
Peppermint 

What if Jennifer Garner were Batman?  What if Jennifer Garner were Batman without the being rich part that gives Batman his awesome tools? What if Jennifer Garner were Batman without being rich and without a costume that preserves a secret identity?  

Somebody apparently had that conversation with themselves and decided it would be a good movie.  

I like Jennifer.  She's ageless and perpetually cute.  She was a killer in Alias. 

But she can't act.  She's cute, but she can't act.  Elektra proved that she can't carry the role as a solo badass without a solid team. This movie solidified it.  

Basic story: 
Horrific family tragedy, corrupt system, vengeful former soccer mom Jennifer raining bullet-riddled hell on the perpetrators.  

A couple of Hallmark-movie level guys float through.  In fact I think they were in Hallmark movies.  Method Man dips in late in what I suspect was intended to be a bigger role.  And John Ortiz, who continually makes bad movie choices and then sleep walks through the roles, was in there.  

Even if you sorta enjoy watching Jennifer improbably massacre hundreds of latinos, this movie just doesn't cut it. It's just too clumsily handled and blunderingly directed to have the impact it aspired to have.  

Even if Jen is adorable. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on August 23, 2019, 02:37:55 PM
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
I know that up until the final 20 minutes, I kept wondering why I hadn't seen Margot Robbie's tits yet.  And then the final 20 minutes happened, and I forgot about not seeing her tits, until the credits rolled and then I was mad her tits hadn't shown up (spoilers).
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 24, 2019, 12:03:27 AM
Ready Or Not

Gory and twisted little film about a wealthy family that has a ritual to welcome new members.  You simply have to pick a card and play the game selected.  Just don't draw Hide and Seek because that one's a killer. 

It wasn't great primarily because the movie couldn't decide if it wanted to play the blood-soaked chase through the foreboding mansion as a gruesome splatter fest or a dark, dark comedy.  So it did both to the detriment of each.  There weren't enough laughs (although there were some decent moments) for it to qualify as a comedy.  When it forced the comedy into the mix, those silly moments took away from the crazy terror rained by the demented family.  Should have picked a lane and stayed there.

Some of the alleged twists were predictable and too much of the story was given away in the trailers.  It was also hard to miss the idiotic liberal bias oozing throughout a film where the rich are demonic morons who have no respect for human life. 

What elevated this movie far above what it might have been was the performance of Australian soap opera veteran Samara Weaving.  She looks like a Margot Robbie stunt double. Unfortunately she doesn't get naked at all, but her guttural, screaming portrayal of terror, particularly toward the end is pretty great. 

This is no Happy Death Day, but it wasn't terrible.

Editor's Note: 
Weaving is also an underwear model for the Australian brand Bonds. 

(http://www.zengarage.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/959x531_Homepage_Womens-New-In_22-759x500.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on August 24, 2019, 06:47:26 PM
(https://i.redd.it/4zn7r22cubi31.png)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 25, 2019, 02:15:30 PM
The Mule

Clint Eastwood has made a career playing taciturn crusty guys who grunt their way through the day. 

Same guy. 

This time he’s a flower purveyor who loses the business for which he neglected his family to the “damn Internet.”  To make ends meet he starts running drugs for the kindly neighborhood cartel.  Crushing 40s-music backed boredom ensues. 

Clint can be a decent director but he just has zero sense of subtlety. For that reason the film lacks any tension.  There’s nobody to root for. 

Bradley Cooper, Michael Pena, Andy Garcia, the little Farmiga. Larry Fishburne, and Diane Weist (almost unrecognizable) churn through with emotionally hollow performances. None of their efforts had a hint of authenticity.  Even the one harrowing death scene seems so micro managed that I could envision somebody standing just out of sight with a stopwatch going “aaaaaannnnddddddd DIE!”

Could have been an interesting story. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 29, 2019, 12:38:32 AM
Cold Pursuit 

A very tepid remake of In Order of Disappearance. IOD came out in 2006, a Norwegian film that starred Stellan Skaarsgard and nobody else you've ever heard of with the exception Tormund Giantsbane in a very short role.  

IOD was superior to Cold Pursuit in almost every way.  Liam Neeson took on the Skaarsgard role in Cold Pursuit and those two were fairly equal in their performances.  Still think Skaarsgard's was the best.  Cold Pursuit also wasted Emmy Rossum in a nothing role, tossed a bone to a worthless Laura Dern, propped up John Doman (The Wire), squandered William Forsythe and torpedoed Domenick Lombardozzi.  None of them rose to the level of the no-name, non-descript characters who played those roles in the original film.  

Maybe it was because CP was a essentially a shot-by-shot remake of the Norwegian film and some of it didn't translate to the Americanized version.  

Maybe because it was exactly the same movie I'd seen before now only with no subtitles and different actors I was inclined to judge it unfairly.  

Maybe it was because the cartoonish mayhem of the primary bad guy was done so much better by the actor in the Norwegian version than it was by the American guy.  Had all other things been equal, the Norwegian bad guy was so much better than the American version, it pushes IOD over the top. 

I much preferred In Order of Disappearance (I thought I had reviewed it, but maybe not) to the newer version.  If you intend to watch one or the other, watch In Order instead of Cold Pursuit. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 29, 2019, 12:49:57 AM
Greta

An intriguing, tension-building film about the perils of living in a big city and not really knowing exactly who it is you've befriended.  

Frances (Chloe-Grace Morentz) is slogging through an unfulfilling life in her new NYC apartment with her fabulous roommate.  She finds a purse on the subway and decides to return it to its owner, a lonely older woman named Greta (Isabelle Huppert), who seems as much in need of a friend as Frances herself is.  The two strike up an unlikely friendship, one that starts to intrude on other aspects of Frances' life.  

When Frances accidentally discovers something which causes her to question Greta's sincerity and motives, the budding friendship between the two spirals into desperation, stalking and perhaps even something more sinister.  

Everything about this movie was fine except for Chloe-Grace.  She's got a really cute face and a really long resume, but she really came off as a light-weight here.  Other than her dad (a character actor who added little but a mangled side-story about death and "moving on") the other actors in the film carried his or her part solidly.  

Greta was good and so was the breezy roomie.  Both settled easily and believably into the roles.  But Chloe-Grace never did.  When an actor is clearly consciously trying to "act" it's really disconcerting.  And that's what we got here.  She seemed like she was trying to make sure she got the lines right more than she was dissolving herself into the part.  And that was enough to derail the film and keep it from reaching the level the rest of the cast could have taken it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 05, 2019, 11:21:18 PM
Cold Moon

Check out the big brain on Brett as a small town Florida sheriff dealing with the supernatural after-effects of the death of a 16-year old hottie found tied to her bicycle at the bottom of a "river."   Note that I put the word 'river' in quotations because even though there are character mentions that this little stream is 20-feet deep, it's pretty obvious that the muddy little creek in the shot is a few inches deep at best.  

That's one of the production problems that plague this film.  It's not the only one.  

A sweet young girl from a failing blueberry farm is attacked by a masked stranger. Her vengeful spirit rises from the murk and haunts the town.  There were a couple of moments that could have really elevated the film, but they were handled so poorly the effect was ruined.  In more capable hands it could have been a solid entry in the horror genre.  Instead it just meandered around the edges. 

It mentions Pensacola a couple of times. It mentions Mobile once or twice. That was curiously interesting. It was set in 1989 for no particular reason that I could ascertain.  

Whatever promise the movie might have had, the mumbling, slipshod performance of Josh Stewart drags the film to the bottom of that murky crick and buries it deep in the sludge. He was so awful the movie was barely watchable.  

Who is Josh Stewart, you ask?  He's the mush-mouthed hangdog asshole who supposedly had a relationship with Jennifer Jarreau (the incredibly sexy A J Cook) on Criminal Minds.  No way in hell.  Here, he's supposedly the rich ass banker boy banging his way through the high school senior class.  Double no way in hell.  This guy should be banned from the craft forever.  

You'll also see Christopher Lloyd slumming it for a paycheck in the movie.  

Rachele Brooke Smith, a 32-year old playing a 16-year old has an impressive physique but very little screen presence.   

The guy who write Beetlejuice also wrote the book on which this movie is based.  There's a blink-and-you'll-miss-it homage to that film buried in this muddle. 

I didn't hate it, but I hated Josh Stewart.  It pained me to see a pretty decent concept so clumsily handled.  WHY was it clumsily handled you might ask?  It was directed by Griff Furst, the son of Kent "Flounder" Dorfman.  Among the other films under Mr. Furst's directorial belt?  Trailer Park Shark, Nightmare Shark, Ghost Shark, Swamp Shark, Alligator Alley, Arachnoquake and Lake Placid 3.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 05, 2019, 11:28:43 PM
Annihilation
I remember watching 2001: A Space Odyssey when I was a kid.  I thought it was pretty and the colors, tone, feel and music were all mesmerizing. But I had no freaking idea what was going on.  

Well. Here I am again.  

Annihilation was a pretty movie with dreamy visuals. It felt nice. But I had no idea what was going on.  Mutated plants were taking over?  Mangy bears learned to talk?  People turned into bushes, or bushes turned into people?  It was a metaphor for cancer, as in the world got cancer and you had to nearly kill everything to get rid of it -- but did you really get it all or is it coming back?  Was it a metaphor for shattered relationships?  Did any of that crap even happen? 

Fact is?  I really don't care.  There just wasn't enough about this movie to make me care about any of the people or what happened (or didn't) to them.  

All it really has to recommend it is some trippy visuals.  And that's not nearly enough. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on September 06, 2019, 09:59:38 AM
Annihilation
I remember watching 2001: A Space Odyssey when I was a kid.  I thought it was pretty and the colors, tone, feel and music were all mesmerizing. But I had no freaking idea what was going on. 

Well. Here I am again. 

Annihilation was a pretty movie with dreamy visuals. It felt nice. But I had no idea what was going on.  Mutated plants were taking over?  Mangy bears learned to talk?  People turned into bushes, or bushes turned into people?  It was a metaphor for cancer, as in the world got cancer and you had to nearly kill everything to get rid of it -- but did you really get it all or is it coming back?  Was it a metaphor for shattered relationships?  Did any of that crap even happen?

Fact is?  I really don't care.  There just wasn't enough about this movie to make me care about any of the people or what happened (or didn't) to them. 

All it really has to recommend it is some trippy visuals.  And that's not nearly enough.
I liked that movie much more when it was called Guardians of the Galaxy 2.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 07, 2019, 11:52:55 AM
It: Chapter 2

There are very few movies that fall into the "perfect" category.  This, the second chapter of Stephen King's story of the sewer clown Pennywise, doesn't quite reach perfection but it's so close it can taste it. Taste it like the sweet, sweet blood of innocent children. 

I've seen the criticism.  It's too long (nearly three hours).  There's not enough of the clown. It's not really scary.

I disagree on all counts.  Yeah, the movie takes quite a while to get to the end, but I think it would be incomplete without all of the pieces.  Yes, Pennywise is a supporting player, but the reality is that the clown himself is really only peripheral to the story.  Is it scary?  Yes, in places, but the story is so much deeper than some clown that eats kids.  The real horror isn't there, it's in the heads and hearts of the people at the center of the movie. 

If you go in expecting to be terrorized by a clown that gnaws on children's heads, you've gone to the wrong movie. You're only going to get a little of that.  The real story of It is a story of a misfit group of kids overcoming their own internal weaknesses, flaws that followed them into adulthood.  Bev was abused (maybe sexually) by her father and has fallen into the same pattern of abuse as an adult.  Eddie was smothered by his mother and married her domineering mirror. Ben was a fat kid who felt like an outsider, losing weight and gaining success hasn't diminished that insecurity. Inside he's still a fat kid looking for cake.  Richie uses humor to cover his own repressed and confusing feelings, as an adult he's the same guy, wisecracks obscuring internal agony. Mike is the child of abusive addicts, afraid to rise above his past, stuck where he is. Stanley is a picked on Jewish kid who can't see himself as anything but a loser and is the weakest link.  Bill stutters, can't get to the end of a sentence and blames himself for the death of his little brother. 

Alone, each of them is weak, trapped in their own personal miseries.  Together, they improbably bring out the best in each other -- in the process killing the personality traits that bring them down. 

It's a common theme for King, who must have been tortured as a child.  Weak, odd, peculiar, misfit people find a way to overcome their insecurities and fight back against the bullies that torment them.  Carrie, Christine, the Shining, Dr Sleep, The Stand.. so many of his books deal with variations of this same concept. 

It: Chapter 2 stays true to the theme of King's original book. 

Pennywise?  He's* really just a physical manifestation of the internal horrors that torment the main characters.  They return to Derry, Maine as adults and confront the people and events from their childhood who made them who they are.  To live, they must defeat and overcome those boogeymen.  That's the real story.  Pennywise is just a supporting player in that drama. 

You could actually make the argument that Pennywise really doesn't even exist.  He's* a stand-in for the bigotry, cruelty, ignorance, meanness, small-mindedness and hate of the town in which they were raised, the environment that shaped them growing up and the people who inhabited that space.  I could buy that.  Because that's what the real story is.  It's not defeating some clown and saving the town, it's burying their own internal demons. 

There was so much about this movie I liked.  The actors were adequate but didn't overpower the material.  Glaring exception?  Ben.  I thought he was poorly cast.  In a crew that included McAvoy, Chastain and Hader he stood out as being out of his depth.  Speaking of Hader, I was surprised and impressed by his performance.  Don't think he'll ever be a leading man, but he's proven himself able to rise above the bit part characters he was on SNL (something so few of the show's veterans are ever able to do).  He was really good as Ritchie (so much better than Harry Anderson was in the TV version of this story). 

Pennywise was also fantastic when he was on screen.  Just the right mix of menace and charm, the antithesis of Tim Curry's Brooklyn bus driver take on the character in the 90s TV miniseries.  This Pennywise was superbly done.  Award-worthy if you ask me.  Like the critics, I wish I'd seen a little more of him* but the story went where the story went and that's just the reality.

This movie seamlessly blended some really funny moments with tension with drama with pathos with fear with hope. It was, like life, a continuous confounding mix of emotions and it all hit with reality. 

Thing I also liked?  The predictable King cameo. The first one that made him look like an actual human, not some stand-out-like-a-sore-thumb weirdo (think the preacher in Pet Semetary, the gooby ATM guy in Maximum Overdrive).  His cameos are typically such a jolt they take you out of the movie -- because he's a funky looking guy and cannot act in the least. Here the director reined him in and he fit.  That?  impressive. 

I also LOVED, loved, loved the repetitive inside joke.  Good story, just didn't like the ending.  If you're a fan of Stephen King's work and of this book in particular (and I am, although I've come to detest him as a moronic political entity) you'll get it.  If you're not, it just seems like a throwaway line.  It was awesome to me. 

This isn't a movie I'll watch over and over and over again (like Godfather, Pulp Fiction, etc.) but it was one that I thoroughly enjoyed from start to finish.  I get that Pennywise didn't have enough screen time, but he* was so good during the time he* was there I really hope the character earns recognition.  Really, really good.

As an aside, my movie-watching partner didn't have the same reaction.  She thought it was way too long and short on horror.  She liked the humor, but said it "just wasn't scary enough"  and moved so slowly she was getting bored.  I respect that.  I think we went to see different movies based on our expectations.  She likes King's work but isn't as immersed in it as I am. 

I say that to say that if you're going to this movie expecting to spend a couple of hours being frightened to death by a bloodthirsty clown, this isn't really that movie at all. 

* I asterisked the he and him references because in this triggered culture some ridiculous assholes are bitching and howling because they object to Pennywise being referred to with a masculine pronoun.  Since the clown is not the "real" personality of the entity, but merely a projection It has taken on, these sensitive twigs are "offended" that people discount that the true entity could be female, trans, pan, genderless  or some other mutation we haven't created yet.  Well, fuck those douchebags. 

FWIW: Part 1 of this franchise is reviewed on Page 124 of this thread.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on September 11, 2019, 12:59:07 AM
i want to fuck your review.  awesome take and agree on all accounts. 

i rarely go to the theater and my movie catolog is well below the norm for members of the X.  this franchise could very well be creeping in my top 25 movies watched though as a collective unit.

Pennywise for an Oscar with the defining scene underneath the bleachers. legit.

i read the book 25+ years ago and appreciate the director’s adaptation of it...almost Shining-ish.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 12, 2019, 07:53:16 AM
Night Hunter

Superman, Gandhi, Stanley Tucci and Alexandria DDDadarrio in a washed out, dull, incomprehensible, garbage bag of a film. 

Cops and vigilantes track sexual predators.  That was the basic storyline. Started with an interesting opening and then immediately disintegrated and wallowed in a morass of gobbeldy gook. So badly done. 

It had grand aspirations, and clearly took itself very seriously, but was peppered with abysmal performances from all involved.  DDDadarrio, playing a criminal psychologist (I think) at one point screams at a suspect "you want to see my tits?" as she pulls her shirt slightly open.  Yes. Yes, please. Now!  That's the only thing that could have possibly helped this movie at all. But no. We don't.

The movie had some good ideas and a reasonably strong performance by from the actor playing the mentally-addled perpetrator but the entire movie was so poorly done that it was wasted. 

The plot was impossible to follow, the character's behaviors were nonsensical.  Nothing about this movie felt grounded in truth or reality. 

It SUCKED. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on September 12, 2019, 10:51:43 AM
this franchise could very well be creeping in my top 25 movies watched though as a collective unit.
When will you give us a Pennywise movie quote on the text string?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on September 12, 2019, 11:36:58 AM
When will you give us a Pennywise movie quote on the text string?
Wait....you guys have a text string? 

I mean, not that I care or anything.



I certainly wouldn't care anything about being a part of it.  That would be lame.  Because you guys are lame.


So...it doesn't bother me at all.  Good for you.  Have fun....texting.


BTW....who all is on it?  I'm just curious who all would be on such a lame text stringy. 


Can I PM you my number?  I mean, just for emergencies and stuff.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 12, 2019, 12:02:26 PM
Hatchet
Missed (been ignoring) this film from 2006 because I knew it was bad.  It had to be.  And it was. 

BUT...

It was bad in a really good way.  It wasn't bad like Night Hunter, which took itself so very seriously and was a rotten turd of a movie.  This one started with the premise that it was going to be a rotten turd with really bad acting and hammed up performances. Then it reveled and wallowed in that turdiness. 

The end result was a really funny, extremely entertaining semi-parody of the slasher movies that dominated the 80s.  It traded in all the elements  that made Friday the 13th, Halloween, Freddy Krueger and all of those films simultaneously awful and great. 

There were the obligatory bimbos and their woo-woo boobs.  The story of the disfigured creature haunting the woods, kids trapped at the cabin (sort of), the big ugly humanoid freak.  It was all done with a clear realization of just how terribly awful it was.  And still, the carnage was some of the best I've seen in a horror movie in years.  The ode to Friday the 13th at the end was sheer perfection. 

Look for Freddy himself early in the film and a starring role from one of the long-time Jasons. There's also a brief Candyman cameo. The woo-woo-boobs girls were disposable (pretty much literally) as were just about every other character in the film.  Tom Smykowski's here because I guess his Jump to Conclusions mat took off and he can take a vacation.

Just a dumb (fun to me) movie that embraced all the campy, blood-soaked chaos of the horribly great chop-em-up films that defined my teen movie years. 

I laughed. I cringed at some of the bad performances. I appreciated the joyous mayhem and creative carnage. 

It's not for everybody, but I really enjoyed it. The movie knew exactly what it was supposed to be and had fun being just that and nothing more.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 19, 2019, 12:01:39 PM
Beautiful Boy

I like Michael Scarn. I'd like to see him have a career beyond the goofy Michael Scott type persona. I thought he was pretty good in Foxcatcher.  Not great, but good enough.  I thought he was decent enough in The Big Short.  But he was also atrocious in both Burt Wonderstone, Schmucks, Seeking a Friend and The Way Way Back. I heard he was awkward and offputting in Marwen. 

In Beautiful Boy, a film about a family struggling with a son's addition, Michael Scarn is completely out of his depth.  His interactions with his ex wife (coincidentally Holly Flax), his current wife (coincidentally Robert California's wife), and his other kids seem artificial and forced.  He can't do anger, he can't do pathos, he can't do anguish well.  It's just out of his range. 

I've watched Intervention for years.  I really felt like this movie soft-pedaled the harsh realities of addiction.  While it showed little Eve Baxter (from Last Man Standing) suffering the effects of an overdose, none of the addicts portrayed in the movie seemed broken enough to be as involved in the life as they were supposed to be. 

Combine the failure to establish the desperation of addition with Scarn's inability to find the needed emotional depth with a horrifyingly bad and jarring score and you end up with a movie that strains for authenticity but ends up coming off as less than light weight.  Like asking your dad for a pair of Underarmour shoes and he shows up with Dollar General bobos that he insists are just as good.  Or going to see Goldfinger and the theater shows Threat Level Midnight instead. 

It's "based on a true story" and could have been a compelling piece of work in the right hands.  This movie rose and fell on the strength of Michael Scarn as the lead role. Unfortunately, it fell. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 19, 2019, 12:30:45 PM
Carrie
Of all the movies based on a Stephen King book, Carrie should have been the simplest to pull off.  It's very straightforward, simple to tell and doesn't require billion-dollar special effects or a whole lot of the supernatural.  

Why, then, has it proven so difficult to be adequately portrayed?  

Carrie 1976 was plagued by the same afflictions that haunted so many movies of that era (even Halloween, if we're honest).  Truly awful performances by grown ups pretending badly to be teens.   I love PJ Soles (dearly) but she was horrible here. Amy Irving, William Katt and Nancy Allen were all hammy and phony.  Piper Laurie is particularly fraudulent as the mom.  The worst of all is a leaden and mugging John Travolta, proving early on that he has zero talent whatsoever. 

Sissy Spacek, however, was the perfect choice as Carrie.  She was hindered by some terrible directing, but she fit the part extremely well.  She was able to effectively convey the awkwardness of the overprotected Carrie and flipped the switch to vengeful convincingly.  

Despite all its 70s-influenced flaws, it's still the best overall version.  

In 2002, a TV adaption of the novel came out.  Utterly worthless. Not even worth mentioning. The less said the better. 

Carrie 2013 may be the least necessary reboot/remake in the history of cinema.  Oh, there is probably a good reason to try to get it right, but this was the wrong way to go about it.  Again the teens in the film are cardboard caricatures of real teenagers, but that's not the worst.  No, it's Chloe Grace Moretz.  I really thought I liked her, but after this and Greta (reviewed recently) I've come to realize that she is a talent-limited hack.  She brings nothing to this film. In fact she detracts from it, destroying any chance it has to succeed.  Her every reaction, every effort at emotion, every response, every glance, every word is completely wrong.  She has all the charisma of a dust mite.  The rest of the film is adequate (even if some of the effects -- stuck in the windshield, really? -- are hokey and stupid) but Chloe Grace mangles every scene she's in.  She completely ruins the movie with her gross over and under acting, never coming close to finding the balance in between. 

The special effects are good -- much better than the 1976 version -- but they're overwhelmed by Chole's dead-eyed performance. 

In this one, though, they sort of got the mother right.  Freckle puss (I can't think of her name, but she did a lesbian scene with Amanda Seyfried in some other movie that was interesting) did a pretty decent job of portraying the mental issues that controlled Mrs. White's existence. 


Maybe in another ten or fifteen years somebody will give this movie another shot.  I hope that if/when they do, they'll have the sense to hire some real teenagers as consultants so that the behavior of the main characters can at least resemble what real life looks like.  I still think there's a good movie in there somewhere. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on September 19, 2019, 01:26:36 PM
Beautiful Boy

I like Michael Scarn. I'd like to see him have a career beyond the goofy Michael Scott type persona. I thought he was pretty good in Foxcatcher.  Not great, but good enough.  I thought he was decent enough in The Big Short.  But he was also atrocious in both Burt Wonderstone, Schmucks, Seeking a Friend and The Way Way Back. I heard he was awkward and offputting in Marwen.

In Beautiful Boy, a film about a family struggling with a son's addition, Michael Scarn is completely out of his depth.  His interactions with his ex wife (coincidentally Holly Flax), his current wife (coincidentally Robert California's wife), and his other kids seem artificial and forced.  He can't do anger, he can't do pathos, he can't do anguish well.  It's just out of his range.

I've watched Intervention for years.  I really felt like this movie soft-pedaled the harsh realities of addiction.  While it showed little Eve Baxter (from Last Man Standing) suffering the effects of an overdose, none of the addicts portrayed in the movie seemed broken enough to be as involved in the life as they were supposed to be.

Combine the failure to establish the desperation of addition with Scarn's inability to find the needed emotional depth with a horrifyingly bad and jarring score and you end up with a movie that strains for authenticity but ends up coming off as less than light weight.  Like asking your dad for a pair of Underarmour shoes and he shows up with Dollar General bobos that he insists are just as good.  Or going to see Goldfinger and the theater shows Threat Level Midnight instead.

It's "based on a true story" and could have been a compelling piece of work in the right hands.  This movie rose and fell on the strength of Michael Scarn as the lead role. Unfortunately, it fell.
Michael Scarn?  Steve Carell
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 19, 2019, 01:33:12 PM
Unbelievable 
Not a movie, but still.  

This is an eight-part Netflix stand-alone series.  Since it's a single story with no sequels or prequels or second seasons, it played more like an extended movie than anything.  So it stays here.  

Unbelievable starts with the assault -- or was it -- of Marie Adler, played by Kaitlyn Dever (Eve Baxter from Last Man Standing) in Washington State.  Bullied by the police, including a drop in from Dawber (Coach) / Patrick (Spongebob) / Tom M-o-o-n Cullen (The Stand), Marie stumbles on some of the details and is eventually pushed into confessing that maybe she made it up, or didn't remember or dreamed it or something. The dismissive cops charge Marie with filing a false report, further exacerbating her already fragile state of mind. 

This long-form film follows her psychological torment while she struggles with the mental, physical and legal struggles as she tries to recover from aftermath of the event that either did or didn't happen. In episode 2 it veers off into a tangentially related story of assault investigations hundreds of miles away.  

As Marie's trying, and largely failing, to keep her life under control the film shifts perspective and brings us into the world of Colorado detective Karen Duvall, played with understated flair by Merritt Weaver.  I knew her from a flaccid performance as a possibly lesbian doctor-in-training on The Walking Dead.  Duvall is investigating an assault that sounds a lot like the one perpetrated on Marie, but as it's hundreds of miles away there's no connection.  Duvall accidentally discovers another attack in a different jurisdiction and eventually teams up with seasoned investigator Grace Rasmussen -- Toni Collette -- who's looking into that case.  

Over the course of the series the victims pile up and their stories circle the same rotten, perpetually traumatic ground as Adlers.  Could the assaults be related?  Will the detectives make the long leap to connect Adler's story and vindicate her? Was Adler lying?  Watch and find out.  

Let me first say that the performances from the primary characters in this film were fantastic.  

Dever portrayed an emotionally vulnerable, traumatized victim with conviction and clarity.  If all you knew of her was the wisecracking tomboy Eve from Last Man Standing, you'd never believe she had this much depth to her.  She brought a level of desperate intensity to her role that truly elevated the entire work. 

Collette was good as she usually is.  She's one of those who can drop into a role and you almost immediately forget she's acting. Same here.  She put on the Grace Rasmussen suit and was right on.  

Weaver enthralled me.  Given her nondescript performance in The Walking Dead, I really didn't expect much.  When I saw that she was going to be responsible for carrying a large part of this eight-hour exercise once the story spun to her investigation, I considered bailing on it.  But I was already hooked by Dever's work and decided to wait it out.  Glad I did.  Weaver was compelling without being overbearing. She maintained a low-key even keel while simultaneously pushing herself to the limit.  It was just a great effort on her part.  

There are other people in this series you've seen in other things, but make no mistake this was carried by Dever, Weaver and Collette. 

I've already seen all three mentioned as possible Emmy nominees for their work in this piece. I'd support any or all of them.  

Yes it was eight hours, but it never seemed like it.  The episodes moved slowly through the evidence but never lacked for tension or drifted into boredom.  I thought it was extremely well done.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 19, 2019, 01:33:53 PM
Michael Scarn?  Steve Carell
Somebody never watched Threat Level Midnight.  Goldenface, is that you?  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 10, 2019, 10:50:54 AM
How’s the obama joint venture Netflix company doing these days?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on October 16, 2019, 07:48:47 AM
How’s the obama joint venture Netflix company doing these days?
Waiting for Disney+ to get into range and fire. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 16, 2019, 11:24:03 AM
El Camino 

I loved Breaking Bad (although I feel it got to almost parody by the end).  Still it was one of the greatest shows in the history of episodic television.  It somehow managed to glide to the end without completely crapping the bed (like Sopranos).  The end was fitting. While it provided closure, it also left some threads dangling -- and that was fine. 

This month, creator Vince Gilligan added El Camino, essentially a two-hour coda to the end of a show that had already come tantalizingly close to perfection. 

I have to admit, I enjoyed seeing the characters on screen again, but the reality is that this movie added absolutely nothing to the overall canon.  In truth, it just wasn't necessary.  It didn't break any new ground, really.  

The movie bounced around in time, enough so that it was occasionally disorienting. It added pieces that fleshed out events that had happened in the series -- none of which was really that illuminating or valuable.   It debunked one long-held theory (Walt is alive) and gave us an almost schmaltzy "happy ending" that wasn't true to the series at all.  

It was fun to see Mike, Badger, Skinny Pete, Jane and a few others for the fleeting moments they were on stage, but the payoff just wasn't there.  

Not a bad movie, but so utterly and completely unnecessary that it felt forced/fake.  Like some bad fan fiction or something.  I get that Aaron Paul has no other career path and that there may some day be an entire Jesse Pinkman series/film/whatever to keep him employed.  I just think in this case it was better left alone.  It provided "closure" I didn't want or need. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 16, 2019, 11:27:26 AM
Death Wish
Charles Bronson. 1974. 

Sort of a Dirty Harry lite.  Far better than the Bruce Willis remake.  Bronson's wife is killed by some young predators, cops can't do anything and he takes on the task of exacting revenge.  

I only bring this one up to note the horrible, grimacing, leering performance by Jeff Goldblum as a pervy rapist.  Hard to believe the guy had a career -- and a long, distinguished one -- after this abomination.  

It's worth watching just for the gritty 70s vibe and to see Goldblum ham it up badly.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on October 17, 2019, 07:27:41 AM
El Camino
 I get that Aaron Paul has no other career path and that there may some day be an entire Jesse Pinkman series/film/whatever to keep him employed.

I thoroughly enjoyed it.  You got some color on the psychological breaking of Jesse...and what an utter black hole of a human Todd turns out to be.  

Your quote above, though, is dead fucking wrong.  AP has 3 season's worth of The Path as lead, he's star/producer of 5-6 seasons of BoJack Horseman, and he's in the upcoming season of Westworld.  

Jesse stays working.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 17, 2019, 07:41:17 AM
Your quote above, though, is dead fucking wrong.  AP has 3 season's worth of The Path as lead, he's star/producer of 5-6 seasons of BoJack Horseman, and he's in the upcoming season of Westworld. 

The what?  Bo which? West where? 

The only one of those things I've heard of is Westworld.  Tried it, didn't like it, thought it was canceled. 

Is this a 'get off my lawn' moment?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on October 17, 2019, 08:28:03 AM

Is this a 'get off my lawn' moment?


Yes.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 17, 2019, 08:36:58 AM
Waiting for Disney+ to get into range and fire.
I think you have that backwards 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on October 17, 2019, 09:51:00 AM
The what?  Bo which? West where? 

The only one of those things I've heard of is Westworld.  Tried it, didn't like it, thought it was canceled. 

Is this a 'get off my lawn' moment?
I loved West World.

Yul Brynner was badass!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 17, 2019, 09:59:44 AM
I loved West World.

Yul Brynner was badass!
Little known Biblical fact.  The reason Moses was able to get those people out of Egypt was because Yul Brynner was only 5'8".  Charlton Heston was 6'3".  He would have kicked Pharoah's ass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 19, 2019, 01:33:51 PM
Cursed

Jesse Eisenberg, Christina Ricci,  Josh Jackson, (the oddly attractive to me) Judy Greer, Nick Offerman, Craig Kilborn and Shannon Elizabeth in a movie about becoming werewolves.  How could it miss? 

Slow-moving story, bored performances, very little werewolf action -- that's how.  Should have been killer, was a snoozer instead.  

Polaroid 

Antique camera, whoever is in the photo is subject to being killed by some wheezing ghosty thing.  

It wasn't bad until it veered off into the final act.  Does anyone really believe an enormous photo lab in a high school would remain there for 40 years after an act of savagery was perpetrated there? And that pictures would still be hanging from strings above the enormous, unused chemical baths? Hugely stupid contrivance of convenience.  

Half-decent movie, filled with unknowns. As good as any of the endless parade of brain-dead Blumhouse tripe that's spun out over the last few years.  Somehow flew under the radar and vanished on release. 

It did throw in three or four instances of my horror movie pet peeves, though.  

When someone is alone at home why: 
1) Do they stand around in the dark and never turn on any lights?
2) Even when they hear an unexplained noise, why don't they reach for a light switch?
3) When there's some random crashing, banging, howling, growling noise of some kind why in the FUCKITY FUCK does the person who is alone always go "hello...?"   I absolutely hate that, but it appears to be a standard horror event that is required to be in every single movie.  

Other peeve?  Where do all the flashlights magically come from?  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on October 24, 2019, 03:57:50 PM
I thoroughly enjoyed it.  You got some color on the psychological breaking of Jesse...and what an utter black hole of a human Todd turns out to be. 

Your quote above, though, is dead fucking wrong.  AP has 3 season's worth of The Path as lead, he's star/producer of 5-6 seasons of BoJack Horseman, and he's in the upcoming season of Westworld. 

Jesse stays working.
Mr. Peanut Butter sucks though.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on October 24, 2019, 04:26:30 PM
Anyone see Zombieland 2?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on October 24, 2019, 04:30:42 PM
Anyone see Zombieland 2?
Is that the one with Bill Murray?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 24, 2019, 04:50:44 PM
Anyone see Zombieland 2?
Have not, but it's definitely on the list. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on October 25, 2019, 10:04:30 AM
Have not, but it's definitely on the list.
The cut a bitch list?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 27, 2019, 01:20:23 AM
3 From Hell

Always liked Devil’s Rejects.  It’s an outlandish tale of unexplained mayhem. Liked House of 1000 Corpses too but not as much. 

This is a continuation of the Devils Rejects storyline.  And it’s awful. 

It’s up there with the worst movies I’ve ever seen.  Rob Zombie can make some creepy great music. Some of his stuff i enjoy a lot.  He can occasionally hit the random mark with a movie (Rejects). This?  Total dog shit.

He has no feel for story, no sense of pacing, no concept of plot. It’s just a mish mash of ridiculously bad dialogue, horrible performances and idiotic mayhem for the sake of mayhem.  The man should never make another movie.

It’s bad.  I’m going to try to forget I watched it so it doesn’t shit on the legacy of the two I did like. 

Damn that was awful. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 27, 2019, 08:47:56 AM
3 From Hell

Always liked Devil’s Rejects.  It’s an outlandish tale of unexplained mayhem. Liked House of 1000 Corpses too but not as much. 

This is a continuation of the Devils Rejects storyline.  And it’s awful. 

It’s up there with the worst movies I’ve ever seen.  Rob Zombie can make some creepy great music. Some of his stuff i enjoy a lot.  He can occasionally hit the random mark with a movie (Rejects). This?  Total dog shit.

He has no feel for story, no sense of pacing, no concept of plot. It’s just a mish mash of ridiculously bad dialogue, horrible performances and idiotic mayhem for the sake of mayhem.  The man should never make another movie.

It’s bad.  I’m going to try to forget I watched it so it doesn’t shit on the legacy of the two I did like. 

Damn that was awful.


so bad it made the game seem better?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 27, 2019, 11:31:03 AM

so bad it made the game seem better?
Different level of hell. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 28, 2019, 08:41:29 AM
After K reviewed the new Pet Semetary I decided to watch it. I was indifferent to it. Like any other King novel-to-movie there is probably more to it than the movie is able to convey. Or just refuses to display. I knew going in it wouldn’t be a blockbuster so I just enjoyed it. Also enjoyed the differences in the original. Not good. Not bad. Just meh. 

So it being Halloween - and it being a time I like on the calendar - I decided to catch the original two Pet Semetary movies last night on some channel. Dare I say they were both better than the new one. This was only the second time I had seen #2. Which I had no idea was filmed in newnan ga - right up 85 from auburn. 

Like K says a lot - it’s very hard to do a king novel and be able to convey the multiple dimensions and levels of the dudes head. Knowing that helps to enjoy his movies more not expecting as much. 

My Halloween party also is better than his. Regardless of what he says. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 28, 2019, 10:20:22 AM
After K reviewed the new Pet Semetary I decided to watch it. I was indifferent to it. Like any other King novel-to-movie there is probably more to it than the movie is able to convey. Or just refuses to display. I knew going in it wouldn’t be a blockbuster so I just enjoyed it. Also enjoyed the differences in the original. Not good. Not bad. Just meh.

So it being Halloween - and it being a time I like on the calendar - I decided to catch the original two Pet Semetary movies last night on some channel. Dare I say they were both better than the new one. This was only the second time I had seen #2. Which I had no idea was filmed in newnan ga - right up 85 from auburn.

Like K says a lot - it’s very hard to do a king novel and be able to convey the multiple dimensions and levels of the dudes head. Knowing that helps to enjoy his movies more not expecting as much.

My Halloween party also is better than his. Regardless of what he says.
I'm sure yours is.  I'm Hallow Claus.  I don't have a party.  Just hundreds of people show up at my house to get treats. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 28, 2019, 08:49:01 PM
I'm sure yours is.  I'm Hallow Claus.  I don't have a party.  Just hundreds of people show up at my house to get treats.
I kid. From the tales I’ve heard and seen in pics, I can’t touch it. Its getting better each year but still not K level Halloween fest.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 29, 2019, 12:17:11 AM
Banana Splits Movie

Full disclosure:  When I was a little kid, I freaking LOVED The Banana Splits.  The show only lasted two years, but those two years were in my little kid sweet spot. 1968-70. 

It was corny, it was goofy.  It was Hanna Barbera's first attempt at live action.  A big dorky dog, a groovy monkey, a dopey lion(?) and a snorky elephant made up the cast that was some sort of faux band with a hippie vibe.  They wore weird red and yellow helmets and sunglasses. It was essentially an hour long kid's variety show.  There were cartoons, a live action cliff-hanger serial (starring Jan Michael Vincent) and skits by the big puffy animal band.  What's not to like?

(https://clickamericana.com/wp-content/uploads/Banana-Splits-TV-show-characters-750x500.jpg)

This year, the Splits got a movie.  And it's nothing like what you'd think. 

In this new world, the Splits have been running continuously since 1969.  The costumed characters have been replaced by animatronics.  And in a twist worthy of KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park/Westworld, the robots turn deadly. 

The Banana Splits turn from a fun-loving, slapstick troupe of humanimals into a blood-lusting band of killers. 

It's not the direction I would have taken it, but I've seen worse movies (3 From Hell comes to mind).  It's also not something you'd probably enjoy unless you were at least somewhat versed in the antics of the original Banana Splits. 

Tra la la, la la la laaaaaa.  And if you're not singing that in your head?  Don't bother with this one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 12, 2019, 10:24:57 AM
Van Helsing
I respect the hell out of Universal's original monster lineup.  Those old Frankenstein, Wolfman, Mummy and Dracula movies are pretty bad in retrospect, but for their time they were ground-breaking.  Boris, Bela, Lon (Chaney Jr, walking with the queen) set the standard for horror.  Throw in classics like Phantom of the Opera and Creature from the Black Lagoon and Universal became the original godfather of the genre. 

In fits and starts, they've tried to resurrect that status.  But movies like the unwatchable Tom Cruise Mummy abortion and the Jackman/Beckinsale misfire Van Helsing prove that the studio no longer has the vision and just can't be trusted with the future of the monster mythology. 

They had a really good start with Brendan Fraser's 1999 Mummy movie which was just the right mix of humor, action and pseudo history.  Mummy 2 wasn't bad either. But the studio fumbled away the goodwill and potential franchise-builder by shoehorning a "let's make The Rock a Star" sword and sandal Scorpion King mess in there.  They'd have been better off using the Mummy springboard to revive a Dracula or Frankenstein offering. 

Actually, maybe that's what Van Helsing was come to think of it.  It came out in 2004 and perhaps it was Universal's lame ass attempt to reinvigorate the Dracula mythology.  If so, it pissed its own pants. 

The movie had so many problems. 

1) The casting of Dracula was horrible. Terrible, terrible choice.
2) Beckinsale's terrible here-and-gone accent. 
3) Dismal storytelling. Hinted at backstory but never delivered. Squeezed in multiple cliches.
4) No sense of time. 
    4a) Beckinsale's brother turns into a werewolf and there's a full moon.  Three days (roughly) later, Jackman gets bitten and he's a wolf.  With another full moon.  The second in less than a week.  Bullshit.
    4b) Inject this cure by the stroke of last stroke of midnight!  The clock begins to chime.  A 20-minute battle ensues, people cross lengthy foot bridges and swing through the air.  And yet we still haven't gotten to that 12th stroke.
5) No sense of space.  Burst through a magic wall and walk into a snowscape.  Flakes drifting softly from the sky.  Minutes later?  It's pouring rain and lightning is hammering the castle they enter. 

I could go on. 

The point is that Universal had bankable stars in Beckinsale and Jackman as well as the budget to create a franchise launching blockbuster. Rather than breathe life into the monster genre, it layered it in mounds of cheese, slathered it in nonsense and simply pissed the opportunity away. 

The rumor is that the studio is planning an enormous homage to the monster movie at its new theme park in Orlando.  Supposedly the focal point will be a recreation of Dracula's castle.  As a fan of the monster movie I'd really like to see that. Based on how badly they've misused the coin and goodwill they have as the originator of the monster movie genre?  I don't have much hope for it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 21, 2019, 04:30:20 PM
Earthquake Bird

Alicia Vikander is Lucy, an American trying to assimilate into Japanese culture for reasons that are eventually explained.  She's accused of murdering a friend and romantic rival.  The movie details her involvement with a man and a friend who eventually became her enemy over the affections of the guy and maybe also someone she was privately attracted to and wanted to wiggle on. 

How they made this woman I think is extremely attractive look so plain and frumpy, I'll never know.  But they did.   

The story moves very slowly, painstakingly showing all the events that led to a dead body and the assumption that Lucy might have done her harm. 

The problem is that it's just boring.  There are a few twists at the end (and if you're paying attention, you'll see them coming from miles away) but by the time you get there it's moved so slowly -- like a small rowboat paddling along a river of syrup -- that it doesn't have the payoff it might. 

So much of the movie is in Japanese, that you can't really look away because you're missing some subtitle that might be important (or not). 

Best part of the movie is Vikander. She does a really good job of portraying an emotionally fragile woman who might or might not be driven to murder.  She also speaks a lot of Japanese in the movie, which couldn't have been easy.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 04, 2019, 11:05:22 AM
The Irishman

I was really looking forward to this Netflix release.  Martin Scorsese bringing together Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, Al Pacino, Harvey Keitel, Bobby Canavale, Katherine Narducci (who I LOVED as Charmaine Bucco in Sopranos), and Jesse Plemons in a mob movie.   What could possibly go wrong?  It seemed like a combination of Godfather + Casino + Pulp Fiction + Sopranos + Oz + Breaking Bad.  If they'd just tossed in Ray Liotta and Goodfellas, it would have been perfect -- or so I would have thought. 

I didn't make it past the first 30 minutes.  Horrible.  Just awful.  

1. I couldn't separate DeNiro the actor from DeNiro the deranged asshole who spouts anti-American rhetoric and is a vulgar, ignorant fuckwad.  I despise him personally.  Can still watch Godfather, Casino and Goodfellas and keep those separate because that came before, but I simply couldn't make that distinction here.  Fuck this guy.  

2. They used some really tacky and ill-fitting CGI age transformation techniques that tried to turn old crusty DeNiro into a younger version of himself.  All that accomplished was to come off looking like the dead-eyed creepy kids in Polar Express.  It was really bad and distracting.  

3. Pesci looks really sick.  He's shriveled, wrinkled and wasted away.  Something was weird about his face and mouth.  Again, really distracting and I just couldn't get past it.  

4. It's three and a half hours long.  Maybe it gets better later, but the first 30 minutes were mind-numbingly boring.  I just didn't want any more of it. Turned it off. 

5. If I could have gotten past my absolute loathing of DeNiro, the shockingly bad CGI and the disturbing look of Pesci their performances (or what I saw of them) were awful.  Like caricatures of the people they used to be; ill-fitting suits they once wore and tried on again just for fun.  They are so far past their prime that the performances I saw seemed more like actors trying to pretend to be them and coming across as wooden imitators rather than the real thing.  DeNiro was particularly awful, mugging and shrugging and smirking like any one of a hundred comedians who've done a DeNiro "you talkin' to me?" take.  

I know there are people who love this movie and will defend it as the glorious bookend to the Godfather, Casino, Goodfellas pantheon.  I'm not one of them.  

I was truly excited to watch this movie and bitterly, bitterly disappointed in the god-awful trudge I endured for what little I could stand.  

Also?  Fuck Robert DeNiro.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 04, 2019, 01:51:30 PM
The Irishman

I was really looking forward to this Netflix release.  Martin Scorsese bringing together Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, Al Pacino, Harvey Keitel, Bobby Canavale, Katherine Narducci (who I LOVED as Charmaine Bucco in Sopranos), and Jesse Plemons in a mob movie.  What could possibly go wrong?  It seemed like a combination of Godfather + Casino + Pulp Fiction + Sopranos + Oz + Breaking Bad.  If they'd just tossed in Ray Liotta and Goodfellas, it would have been perfect -- or so I would have thought.

I didn't make it past the first 30 minutes.  Horrible.  Just awful. 

1. I couldn't separate DeNiro the actor from DeNiro the deranged asshole who spouts anti-American rhetoric and is a vulgar, ignorant fuckwad.  I despise him personally.  Can still watch Godfather, Casino and Goodfellas and keep those separate because that came before, but I simply couldn't make that distinction here.  Fuck this guy. 

2. They used some really tacky and ill-fitting CGI age transformation techniques that tried to turn old crusty DeNiro into a younger version of himself.  All that accomplished was to come off looking like the dead-eyed creepy kids in Polar Express.  It was really bad and distracting. 

3. Pesci looks really sick.  He's shriveled, wrinkled and wasted away.  Something was weird about his face and mouth.  Again, really distracting and I just couldn't get past it. 

4. It's three and a half hours long.  Maybe it gets better later, but the first 30 minutes were mind-numbingly boring.  I just didn't want any more of it. Turned it off.

5. If I could have gotten past my absolute loathing of DeNiro, the shockingly bad CGI and the disturbing look of Pesci their performances (or what I saw of them) were awful.  Like caricatures of the people they used to be; ill-fitting suits they once wore and tried on again just for fun.  They are so far past their prime that the performances I saw seemed more like actors trying to pretend to be them and coming across as wooden imitators rather than the real thing.  DeNiro was particularly awful, mugging and shrugging and smirking like any one of a hundred comedians who've done a DeNiro "you talkin' to me?" take. 

I know there are people who love this movie and will defend it as the glorious bookend to the Godfather, Casino, Goodfellas pantheon.  I'm not one of them. 

I was truly excited to watch this movie and bitterly, bitterly disappointed in the god-awful trudge I endured for what little I could stand. 

Also?  Fuck Robert DeNiro. 
I still like the Deer Hunter. Only because he’s so young in it that I forget it’s him. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: bgreene on December 11, 2019, 02:08:32 PM
The Irishman

I was really looking forward to this Netflix release.  Martin Scorsese bringing together Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, Al Pacino, Harvey Keitel, Bobby Canavale, Katherine Narducci (who I LOVED as Charmaine Bucco in Sopranos), and Jesse Plemons in a mob movie.  What could possibly go wrong?  It seemed like a combination of Godfather + Casino + Pulp Fiction + Sopranos + Oz + Breaking Bad.  If they'd just tossed in Ray Liotta and Goodfellas, it would have been perfect -- or so I would have thought.

I didn't make it past the first 30 minutes.  Horrible.  Just awful. 

1. I couldn't separate DeNiro the actor from DeNiro the deranged asshole who spouts anti-American rhetoric and is a vulgar, ignorant fuckwad.  I despise him personally.  Can still watch Godfather, Casino and Goodfellas and keep those separate because that came before, but I simply couldn't make that distinction here.  Fuck this guy. 

2. They used some really tacky and ill-fitting CGI age transformation techniques that tried to turn old crusty DeNiro into a younger version of himself.  All that accomplished was to come off looking like the dead-eyed creepy kids in Polar Express.  It was really bad and distracting. 

3. Pesci looks really sick.  He's shriveled, wrinkled and wasted away.  Something was weird about his face and mouth.  Again, really distracting and I just couldn't get past it. 

4. It's three and a half hours long.  Maybe it gets better later, but the first 30 minutes were mind-numbingly boring.  I just didn't want any more of it. Turned it off.

5. If I could have gotten past my absolute loathing of DeNiro, the shockingly bad CGI and the disturbing look of Pesci their performances (or what I saw of them) were awful.  Like caricatures of the people they used to be; ill-fitting suits they once wore and tried on again just for fun.  They are so far past their prime that the performances I saw seemed more like actors trying to pretend to be them and coming across as wooden imitators rather than the real thing.  DeNiro was particularly awful, mugging and shrugging and smirking like any one of a hundred comedians who've done a DeNiro "you talkin' to me?" take. 

I know there are people who love this movie and will defend it as the glorious bookend to the Godfather, Casino, Goodfellas pantheon.  I'm not one of them. 

I was truly excited to watch this movie and bitterly, bitterly disappointed in the god-awful trudge I endured for what little I could stand. 

Also?  Fuck Robert DeNiro. 
Agreed!!
I watched maybe 20 min of this and couldn't get past the failed age transformation.  On top of that, they tried to make RD a tough guy buy kicking the crap out of some fella, which failed because RD couldn't move that fast without breaking a hip.  Every one of them need to remember how old they are, and take rol...retire, they need to retire.  I don't know how anyone could watch this crap and think it was worth releasing.  Hallmark and Lifetime have better actors, stunt doubles, director and special effects!!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 22, 2019, 02:35:55 AM
Rambo: From First to Last Blood

The original Rambo (which didn't have Rambo in the title) was an undervalued movie.  It told the story of a war hero struggling to adapt to life in the civilian world who was pushed beyond his limits and retaliated against a system that was stacked against him.  Good action sequences. Sylvester Stallone at his best. Jumping off the cliff, bouncing through the tree limbs and then sewing up his own arm?   

Rambo: First Blood II was a completely different movie.  Same guy, but a vastly changed scenario.  This was Stallone at his steroid-fueled peak, chiseled and freakishly cut. Here he mowed through pretty much all of Vietnam and a military establishment that considered him expendable -- and sent him on a suicide mission.  

Rambo III?  I don't remember it at all. By the time it came out, the genre had worn thin. The world was a different place in 1988.  Die Hard was the only "action movie" (and its a classic) that moved the needle.  Bankable action star Arnold had moved on to Twins with Danny Devito rather than continue his Predator/Commando career arc. It did big box office, finishing top 20 for the year, but was pretty derivative.  Felt like the character had run its course.  

Rambo disappeared for 20 years when the better-than-I-expected film simply titled 'Rambo' showed up.  This film found the beleaguered warrior wrestling cobras in the jungle, hiding from his past, trying to bury the violence that was his legacy.  He was forced back into the fray by a vicious warlord and a naive but well-intentioned group of missionaries that were captured by his thugs.  It was one of the more violent movies I've ever seen toward the end with multiple shots of legs, arms and torsos being blown apart. But I enjoyed it far more than I probably should have.  I could actually see the Rambo character ending up exactly where he did, ditching society for a stripped-down jungle life. 

That brings us to Rambo: Last Blood which, in my opinion, should never have been made.  It begins with Rambo on some sort of ranch, wearing a fucking cowboy hat, riding a fucking horse.  There's some half-baked backstory about how he took on the role of surrogate father for this hispanic teenager when her dad abandoned her.  No explanation of how he left the jungle to become Josey Wales, no real exposition on how he met this family, how he came to take on the parental role, why he dug a bunch of fucking rat-tunnels on his property -- other than all those set pieces were needed to provide convenient plot points. It didn't come close to explaining how the guy got from sweaty jungle cobra wrangler to prancing cowpoke with an adopted family in the span of ten short years. It just didn't fit.  

The story-telling was incredibly lazy.  Doors were opened and then half closed without any realistic or rational motivation. It was just stupid.  Particularly jarring was the "journalist" who rescued him from his first botched (and ignorant) effort to free his sorta-daughter from a dangerous group of pimps and gangsters. Other than allegedly moving the plot along, her character was a waste. Nothing but cheesy lines badly delivered.  

Basic storyline:  Teen quasi-daughter ignores "Uncle John's" ominous warnings and heads to Mexico to find her deadbeat dad and confront him over running out on her.  Once there, she runs into trouble with a sex-trafficking ring headed by some cartoonish yahoos. Rambo heads across the border to start some shit. Things go badly.  Sex traffickers are pissed off.  Rambo does a Home Alone montage as he booby-traps his property and the traffickers are polite enough to wait until he's set all the Kevin-ish traps before they come after him.  People die in creative ways. 

I've always liked the Rambo character.  This was just a complete affront to the history.  Cowboy Rambo was a murderous, raging fuck. He mutilated people for sport. He made stupid decisions that cost people around him dearly.  

This movie has no place in the Rambo pantheon.  It should be scrubbed from existence and never mentioned again.  It's the Caddyshack 2, the Christmas Vacation 2, the Christmas Story 2 of the Rambo series. It was just lazy, sloppy and pointless.  I'm going to have to go back and re-watch First Blood to get this shit stain out of my mind.  

It's time for Rocky, Creed and Rambo to go away and never return.  

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on December 22, 2019, 12:11:40 PM
Whatever!
If he dies...He dies!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on December 23, 2019, 10:33:21 AM
Rambo: From First to Last Blood

No explanation of how he left the jungle to become Josey Wales, no real exposition on how he met this family, how he came to take on the parental role, why he dug a bunch of fucking rat-tunnels on his property -- other than all those set pieces were needed to provide convenient plot points.

I was expecting this movie to be contrived and a paycheck for the nearly unwatchable bloated piece of chewed up meat that is Stallone.  At least Arnold still has facial features and can actually speak.  Your review was on point save for one critique, the above. 

It was his dad's horse ranch.  It's where he was trying to get home in the original.  In Rambo (Burma/Snake Guy) he realizes no matter where he goes he will never outrun his past so he decides to head home.  The last cuts scene of Rambo (Burma) he is shown walking down the road that leads to the horse ranch with the house in the background.  This movie is supposed to 10-11 years after those events.  He has a successful horse ranch with the old woman who is his business partner, that's all we really know about her other than she was a family friend because she worked with Rambo's dad as well.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 23, 2019, 11:00:40 AM
First Blood is one of my "Flipping channels and Hey, First Blood is on." movies.  Kind of like Shawshank.  (No, First Blood is not on that level).  It's just one of those that I'm going to stop and watch just about every time.  I think the setting, presumably in the mountains of Washington/Oregon, somewhere like that, is what brings a lot of the appeal for me.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on December 23, 2019, 11:19:21 AM
https://youtu.be/Z-8vsTw4yQ4?t=105
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 23, 2019, 01:09:58 PM
https://youtu.be/Z-8vsTw4yQ4?t=105
Well damn.  I had forgotten the end.  Thanks for reminding me how it ties in. I retract that portion of the review. 

Man he got old over the last decade though.    
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on December 23, 2019, 01:43:16 PM
Well damn.  I had forgotten the end.  Thanks for reminding me how it ties in. I retract that portion of the review.

Man he got old over the last decade though.   
My biggest gripe of the movie was when he was in Mexico and those guys didn't shoot him.  I would have rather they made some stupid non-sensical impossible Rambo goes off and rescues the girl at that time, then they go after him and try to get her back (cue to underground mines). 

Rather than hey lets beat the shit outta this guy and not kill him....tha fuck....you are in Mexico.  Shoot the motherfucker in the head.  /rollcredits
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 23, 2019, 06:45:42 PM
My biggest gripe of the movie was when he was in Mexico and those guys didn't shoot him.  I would have rather they made some stupid non-sensical impossible Rambo goes off and rescues the girl at that time, then they go after him and try to get her back (cue to underground mines). 

Rather than hey lets beat the shit outta this guy and not kill him....tha fuck....you are in Mexico.  Shoot the motherfucker in the head.  /rollcredits
Mine really started before that.  In what world does Rambo just roll up in the middle of that, completely unprepared, and get the shit kicked out of him anyway?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 23, 2019, 09:30:20 PM
Klaus

Netflix ventures into animation with a Christmas movie.  

It's a re-imagining of the creation of the Santa Claus phenomenon.  It all starts with a postmaster and ends with a little unanticipated magic.  

I've got to be honest, I wasn't a big fan of the animation style.  I think the whole exercise could have benefited from a different look to the characters. I had a real problem with the look of the old granny and the big bloated kids of the feuding family clans that were central to the movie's plot.  But once I settled into it and forgot the weird way some things looked, it was a pretty easy movie to digest.  

It moved along pretty well, kept the story going even though a lot of the events were fairly predictable.  You could see most of it coming from the beginning, just maybe not the particular manner in which it played out.  

Most of the way I sort of felt like it was just innocuous -- another well-meaning addition to the lengthy pantheon of animated Christmas movies.  I figured it fell somewhere in the Arthur Christmas, Rise of the Guardians territory.  

But then the last five minutes or so -- and particularly the last line of the film -- hit me in the feels area.  That brief final act elevated the movie.  I won't watch it over and over and over again like I do Charlie Brown Christmas or Grinch (60s version, not that Jim Carrey abomination or the dumtarded Benzoprene Cumpledump garbage), but I will add it to my regular holiday rotation.  I'll hit it once every season at minimum. It's something I hope to one day sit down to watch with my grandkids (if I ever have any).   


Sidebar:  In a curious strategy, movie merchandise was marketed almost exclusively through Old Navy.  You didn't see it in Target, Wal Mart, Kohls, Dillards, Macys, Nordstroms or much of anywhere else.  As it happens, I was in Old Navy on the 15th looking for something and the place was literally stuffed with Klaus merchandise.  It was everywhere and I had no idea what it was. I had to take back what I'd gotten today and there was hardly any of it left.  The entire store was basically stripped of the tie-in merchandise (primarily socks and pajamas).  I'm talking empty shelves.  I asked the clerk what happened and her theory was that people had finally gotten around to watching the movie over the weekend once school was out for the holidays. That led to a serious run on it.  She said that over a span of about two days they went from thinking they'd have to send back more than half of what they'd gotten to having people freak out because they didn't have more.  Odd.  All the way around.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 24, 2019, 01:14:19 AM
Godzilla: King of the Monsters

The star power was lined up for this sequel to Godzilla (2014) which was a relatively decent movie.  Kyle Chandler (Friday Night Lights), Horseface Farmiga (Lots of stuff), Bradley Whitford (West Wing), Ken Watanabe (Inception), O'Shea "Ice Chip" Jackson (Straight Outta Compton), Sally 'Fish Fucker' Hawkins (Shape of Water), Charles 'Lannister' Dance (Game of Thrones), Thomas 'Pied Piper' Middleditch (Silicon Valley) and David 'I bagged Carmella' Stratharian (Sopranos, etc.) were among those assembled to deal with Gojira and the MUTOS.  

This was supposed to be the jumping off point for a planned Godzilla/Kong crossover which might also possibly include Mothra, Rodan and other legendary Japanese monsters.  

Boy, did they screw it up.  It was almost like Zack Snyder's idiot ass got hold of it and befouled it with his moronic 'vision.' 

First let me say that I've always had an affinity for the Godzilla genre.  I used to watch the terrible old Japanese black and white movies (which were just a guy in a suit stomping on cardboard cities).  I've always thought the Godzilla roar was pretty cool. In fact, I've had it as a ringtone in the past.  I didn't loathe the 1998 Ferris Bueller version as many did.  I kinda sorta liked seeing the big guy rampaging through NYC. And that movie gave us a soundtrack which featured Puff Daddy rapping over Jimmy Page and Kashmir as well as the Wallflowers covering Bowie's song Heroes (which was a great cover). But I digress. Allow me to return now to King of the Monsters, the 2019 follow-up to the Godzilla reboot that rolled out in 2014.  

In the first place, the movie was just boring.  There was so much muddled mumbo jumbo about the ORCA, which was supposed to transmit some kind of telepathic waves (or something) to the creatures.  Chandler struggled to express any emotion other than malaise. The film relied far too heavily on wonky science and dramatic doomsday proclamations. The majority of that was nonsensical. Many times I found myself drifting off, thinking of other things and paying little to no attention to what was happening on the screen. It just wasn't compelling. It should have been. 

Yeah, the big monsters fought and fought. Unfortunately so much of that fighting occurred amid clouds of dust or in blue night-time haze making the action difficult to discern, much less follow.  Doing it in slow motion (which seemed to happen frequently) didn't clear any of that up.  I was completely underwhelmed by the one thing in the film that HAD to be right.  The dragons in GOT were better rendered. 

And another thing.  NO movie should have TWO dramatic self-sacrifices set to somber music and tearful slow motion responses.  One is typically overload.  But two?  Seriously.  Try something else.   

I expected to be entertained.  When I saw that the film was directed by the same guy who helmed Krampus (a Christmas favorite) I was looking forward to seeing what he could do with this material.  The answer is apparently nothing.  This had none of the humor or humanity that Krampus does. It's just a slow, noisy, destructive slog to nowhere.  

I'm still holding out hope that somehow, somewhere somebody can breathe new nuclear life into this genre.  I want to see Kong face off against Gojira -- or the two team up to stop Mothra.  But it has to be better than this soggy, sloppy, dull effort.  

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 26, 2019, 02:53:29 PM
6 Underground

Deadpool out of costume leading a crew of forgotten (aka dead to the world, aka underground) against a global menace.  It's a Netflix film with Ryan Reynolds in the lead and a cast that includes the hot Frenchish girl from Now You See Me, the fake Dr. Dre from Straight Outta Compton and Dave Franco among others.

Bay knows how to make a movie where things blow up constantly and in creative ways.  This movie could be Transformers in the flesh given the amount of carnage and destruction on the screen.  The film opens with an extended, violent, blood-soaked, speaker-rattling, explosion-filled chase scene through the streets of Italy.  The scene introduces us to the characters in the movie.  And it takes 18 minutes.  The first 18 minutes of the film are taken up by a single concussive chase sequence.  It's Michael Bay.  Boom. 

Here's the kicker. It was a fun chase scene.  Well shot, lots of insanity going on (including the line "she's squirting!") and people being slaughtered in clever ways.  It layered humor on top of the carnage, which is a Bay trademark. 

There are people who don't enjoy the bombast of a Michael Bay film.  I'm not one of them.  It's not great cinema, it's not going to win any awards or bring about change in society. It doesn't have any ulterior motives.  Things blow up, the "good guys" unleash flame-filled hell on the bad folks, chaos ensues.  It's almost as if Bay (and the cast) are winking at the camera going "I know this isn't Gone With the Wind, but just watch this guy's teeth explode from his mouth!  Cool, right?  Fuck yeah!" 

Letting Reynolds essentially play deadpan Deadpool without the outfit was a good choice. There were enough inside jokes, outside jibes and wisecracks to keep the movie moving.  Digs at other movies, quotes from Eminem, constant chatter from Reynolds all blended to add levity to a movie where the fate of the world (or at least a country) was at stake.  The rest of the cast was solid.  It looked like they were having fun making this movie and that's a rarity these days. 

I love the fact that Bay's movies don't take themselves seriously.  It's the cinematic equivalent of eating a hot dog and riding a rollercoaster.  I like hot dogs and coasters.  So there. 

So yeah, sue me.  I liked this movie.  I liked it enough to watch it again to see how many of the inside jokes I might have missed. 

PS:  I wish Michael Bay was in charge of the Godzilla/Kong franchise.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on December 27, 2019, 07:13:18 AM
Agreed on all points.  It was a good ride and I'll watch it again to see the same.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 27, 2019, 08:37:57 AM
Always usually enjoy Bays movies. They are what they are which are fun action movies. He gets critiqued a lot for it but much of that I think comes from the media because of other reasons I won’t go into (racial, sexist, you name it - although not actually true). In other words, he’s not woke enough for the Hollywood class. 

I like his stuff. It’s fun. People need to Stfu and enjoy. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 31, 2019, 01:04:54 AM
Peanut Butter Falcon

There are a couple of actors I think are personally flawed but who can rise above their personal issues to turn in some pretty good performances.  Robert Downey, Jr. for one.  Johnny Depp for another (at one time).  Depp's gone off the rails and has completely lost his way at the moment. 

Then there's Shai Lebouf.  He's a nut. He's playing bongos in the nude on top of St. Peter's goofy.  But he's also a pretty good actor when he wants to be.  

He's good in this simple, sweet movie about a drifter to needs his tag along Down's Syndrome buddy more than he realizes.  

Lebouf plays a fisher/boat guy who is emotionally adrift and occupationally stunted after the death of a brother he worshiped. After a rash decision puts him on the run, he encounters a guy with Down's who's escaped a nursing home and is on a quest to find meaning for his life.  The two team up and take off together like a wacky version of Tom and Huck -- running from the guys chasing Lebouf and dodging the kind-hearted caretaker from the nursing home (Dakota Johnson).  

Oh, the events of the movie are fantastical, improbable and unlikely.  The story is a little predictable.  But Lebouf carries it with such effortless charm that it all works.  He's great with his traveling partner and he's really good with Johnson, too. Toss in a part for Thomas Hayden Church as a washed up wrestler and add in some cameos by Jake the Snake and Mick Foley and it's just a nice, easy movie.  

Even though you're pretty sure how things are going to go, it's still worth watching.  

I enjoyed it.  

Tyler...Tyler...Tyler...Tyler...Tyler...uhhh...Tyler. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 04, 2020, 07:21:00 PM
Knives Out

Throwback movie and one I really enjoyed.  Like all movies it has flaws, but it was fun to watch the cast enjoying themselves and hamming it up --- each of them CLEARLY hamming and having a good time playing off each other. 

What a good cast, too.  Jamie Lee Curtis (looking old), Don Johnson (still looking good), Toni Collette, Christopher Plummer, Chris Evans, Michael Shannon, M. Emmett Walsh (who I thought died YEARS ago), Jaeden Martel (young Bill from IT), Daniel Craig and last but definitely not least, the delectable, delicious Ana de Armas. 

There were no explosions. No scenes of anybody running from a fireball in slow motion. No real car chases.  The drama was over the top and very personal and intimate. 

Basic storyline:  Crazy rich family patriarch commits suicide.  Or does he?  Investigator Daniel Craig (putting on a here and gone 'southern' accent) is hired to get to the bottom of his death as his family and friends squabble over their respective inheritances.  The film plays out in a series of flashbacks as Craig slowly pieces together the true story of what happened to the dearly departed and which (if any) of his family had a hand in his demise. 

Some of it's predictable. Has to be, because of the sadly low relative intelligence of today's moviegoer.  But there are enough twists and turns to keep the story moving and keep the audience from ever having a complete grasp on how things are going to end up. 

Evans is good in his role as is Johnson.  It's enjoyable enough to watch the pampered family fall apart at the seams as all of their pathetic secrets are gradually exposed. 

This was a movie from another time.  It reminded me of one of the big-cast type movies they made back in the 60s. My old ass enjoyed it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 18, 2020, 12:03:36 AM
(Sympathy for the) Joker

I held off reviewing this movie because I wanted to see it a second time through.  Glad I did.

My first impression was that the movie was beautifully shot.  It’s not a masterpiece but it does a credible job of providing a completely revised but perfectly viable and reasonable origin story for two of the greatest characters in comic history.  Joaquin Phoenix was really good but I’m not convinced he wasn’t just being himself. The tone and color was immersive. As a lifelong Batman fan and someone who knows entirely too much about the Dark Knight/Clown Prince mythology I was mesmerized at first by the final act. 

But then....I watched it again.  

Freed from the constraints of not knowing how it all played out, I was able to see the film for what it really is.  This movie is a Bernie Sanders wet dream.  It's what Elizabeth Warren and AOC scissor to.  

Masked citizens take to the streets, chant profanities at the wealthy elite, attack the police with impunity. They're energized by a downtrodden man who's had enough of being taken advantage of and who inspires them by a random act of murderous mayhem.  

I know the Joker.  I know him just as well as Bruce Wayne.  The Joker is not some fed up guy in makeup moved to action by twisted mommy issues and a hatred for the rich folks who have the nice things he wishes he had.  

The Joker is a straight psychopath.  He doesn't hate the elite, he wants to BE the elite.  He's not motivated by sorrow or anguished rage. He's motivated by greed, pride, lust and the lunatic voices in his head.  

Turning Joker into the defacto head of Antifa is pathetic.  

But this is what Hollywood is.  It's what it has been for years.  When they can't win the war against conservatism, pragmatism, capitalism and patriotism directly by beating us over the head with it, they revert to subtlety like this.  It's hard to watch this movie and not feel bad for sad sack Arthur Fleck and his downtrodden life.  

I know The Joker. The last thing that insane motherfucker would want is your sympathy. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on January 18, 2020, 09:49:35 AM
I’ve been holding off watching Joker, because, like you, I’ve been a Batman fan my whole life. And I don’t think the Joker needs an origin story, even though I really enjoyed Killing Joke (the comic, haven’t seen the movie). Quite frankly, I don’t believe the Joker knows his own origin, since he’s insane. That’s why I believe it changes in the comic. Is Killing Joke his origin? Could be, depending on Joker’s mood at the time. 

I supposed I’ll eventually watch it, though. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 19, 2020, 05:00:01 PM
I’ve been holding off watching Joker, because, like you, I’ve been a Batman fan my whole life. And I don’t think the Joker needs an origin story, even though I really enjoyed Killing Joke (the comic, haven’t seen the movie). Quite frankly, I don’t believe the Joker knows his own origin, since he’s insane. That’s why I believe it changes in the comic. Is Killing Joke his origin? Could be, depending on Joker’s mood at the time.

I supposed I’ll eventually watch it, though.

Killing Joke is a very good graphic novel.  Somewhere around here I've got an original printing from the 90s.  That was when I was still hitting the comic stores occasionally looking for treasure.  

Best things I have (although not necessarily the most valuable)?  A set of Kamandi in really good shape.  Pristine copy of Batman 400.  A VG Batman comic from about 1960. Entire first year of The Dark Knight series (including variant covers).  But I'm getting off track.  

I've heard many people say this version of the Joker origin was based on that novel. But it wasn't.  It took a tiny piece of it -- pre-lunatic joker was a failed comedian -- and layered all the Bernie Sanders/AOC socialist, rise up against the evil rich people nonsense on top of it.  

If you remember Killing Joke, the guy who became Joker had a decent job and a family.   He QUITS his job to pursue the dream of becoming a comedian.  He fails spectacularly and in an effort to survive agrees to help some thugs rob the place where he used to work.  While he's setting that up, his wife and child are killed in an accident.  He wants to grieve, but the thieves force him to continue his role in their caper.  The robbery goes awry, the dude gets disfigured and the combination of that and the loss of his family pushes him over the edge into insanity. 

This movie?   ENTIRELY different.  

The insanity is already there, but the evil rich people don't let him have access to satisfactory treatment.  (Free healthcare!!).  The rich people don't care about the plight of the poor! (Every Bernie/Elizabeth/AOC/Islamihan rally ever).  The only solution is to wear masks and rise up against the 1%!  Take their shit by any means necessary.  Riot! Attack the rich people!  Attack the police.  (Antifa). 

The first time I watched it I was too busy following the story to really grasp all the underlying socialist bullshit it's filled with.  The second time, it overwhelmed me.  I saw it for what it really, truly is.  

Every Batman film or story I've ever seen has portrayed Thomas Wayne as a decent, honorable, philanthropic man of integrity.  This movie?  He's a bullying, narcissistic, snobbish, brutish asshole.  That's not the Gotham we want or need.  It's not the reality (I know it's not real, but still...).  It's a twisted perversion of the mythology.  How long before it's spun around so that Batman's the bad guy? 

It's not a superhero/super-villain movie.  It's nothing but socialist propaganda.  

But don't listen to me.  Watch it for yourself and see what you see.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTiger1 on January 21, 2020, 03:09:26 PM
(Sympathy for the) Joker

I held off reviewing this movie because I wanted to see it a second time through.  Glad I did.

My first impression was that the movie was beautifully shot.  It’s not a masterpiece but it does a credible job of providing a completely revised but perfectly viable and reasonable origin story for two of the greatest characters in comic history.  Joaquin Phoenix was really good but I’m not convinced he wasn’t just being himself. The tone and color was immersive. As a lifelong Batman fan and someone who knows entirely too much about the Dark Knight/Clown Prince mythology I was mesmerized at first by the final act. 

But then....I watched it again. 

Freed from the constraints of not knowing how it all played out, I was able to see the film for what it really is.  This movie is a Bernie Sanders wet dream.  It's what Elizabeth Warren and AOC scissor to. 

Masked citizens take to the streets, chant profanities at the wealthy elite, attack the police with impunity. They're energized by a downtrodden man who's had enough of being taken advantage of and who inspires them by a random act of murderous mayhem

I know the Joker.  I know him just as well as Bruce Wayne.  The Joker is not some fed up guy in makeup moved to action by twisted mommy issues and a hatred for the rich folks who have the nice things he wishes he had. 

The Joker is a straight psychopath.  He doesn't hate the elite, he wants to BE the elite.  He's not motivated by sorrow or anguished rage. He's motivated by greed, pride, lust and the lunatic voices in his head. 

Turning Joker into the defacto head of Antifa is pathetic. 

But this is what Hollywood is.  It's what it has been for years.  When they can't win the war against conservatism, pragmatism, capitalism and patriotism directly by beating us over the head with it, they revert to subtlety like this.  It's hard to watch this movie and not feel bad for sad sack Arthur Fleck and his downtrodden life. 

I know The Joker. The last thing that insane motherfucker would want is your sympathy.
Well Shit!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 03, 2020, 05:37:55 PM
Gretel and Hansel

Bizarre, dark RIDICULOUS take on the Hansel and Gretel fairy tale.  

Plagued by mumbled dialogue, terrible acting, a dreadfully slow pace and incoherent themes this attempt at horror fell flatter than a pancake.  

It tried to swirl some dark background into the familiar Hansel and Gretel story by adding a desolate and cursed medieval era town, zombies (maybe ?), a mentally unhinged mother, a predatory and prissy pedophile, a subtle anti-Trump slam, and some random gore.  None of it worked.  Zero percent.  

In the Grimm Fairy Tale, the two kids are lured into the clutches of a hungry witch by an array of tasty cakes and candies.  She then proceeds to fatten them up with the intent of dining on them later.  

Here?  Deranged and despairing mom throws the two on the street after Gretel declines the sleazy advances of a potential employer.  

Off they go.  Along the way they're saved from a zombie I guess. No explanation was really given for his appearance or behavior.  Nor was any background or exposition given for the deus ex machina hunter who appeared out of nowhere to save them and make grave pronouncements about this, that or the other.  And then disappeared. 

In the fairy tale (or at least the version my grandmother told and the one I told my own kids), the witch's house is tempting because it's literally made of food. Gingerbread and gumdrops. Frosting on the eaves. Lollipop flowers and window panes made of sugar glass. The witch is young and attractive, pleasant to be around and fun.  

Here?  The house is a dark and dank piece of modern art jammed smack in the middle of a dreary forest.  The witch is a withered and creepy crone.  She's exactly the sort of thing that would make kids lost in the forest run like hell. 

And then she tries to entice Gretel to learn the ways of the force. For reasons unknown she takes the youngster under her wing and tries to lead her on the path to magical powers and cannibalism.  It doesn't make any sense. 

It's garbage. 

The movie stars the young version of Bev from the It franchise as Gretel.   She's abysmal here.  Just awful.  Granted, she's given little to do but stare at things and babble nonsensical dialogue.  But here here and gone accent (british?) is distracting as is her goggle-eyed glare.  The girl was hard to look at.  She could not carry this turkey. She should fire her agent for getting her cast in this turd.  I don't know who Hansel was, but I didn't care about him either.  

The witch was fine, but poorly suited to this garbled tale.  

I'll stick to my version.  This one can suck it.  I knew it was going to suck medieval zombie balls when they made the pig noise at each other.  Just another abandoned worthless interjection.  



Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 03, 2020, 05:44:04 PM
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/77/5f/4e/775f4ece26b83907f03c863a269b93b6.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F507569820494366725%2F&psig=AOvVaw08LfXeij5Vg764PZEWzUsn&ust=1580855478597000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCKjy3ty3tucCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 03, 2020, 06:58:36 PM
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/77/5f/4e/775f4ece26b83907f03c863a269b93b6.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F507569820494366725%2F&psig=AOvVaw08LfXeij5Vg764PZEWzUsn&ust=1580855478597000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCKjy3ty3tucCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE)
Far superior to this movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on February 04, 2020, 11:33:33 AM
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/77/5f/4e/775f4ece26b83907f03c863a269b93b6.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F507569820494366725%2F&psig=AOvVaw08LfXeij5Vg764PZEWzUsn&ust=1580855478597000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCKjy3ty3tucCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE)
Das gute, ja....ja ja das gute!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 10, 2020, 07:00:10 PM
Midway
First in a short series of Movies on a Plane. 

Historically significant story of how America's military strategists turned the tide of the war in the Pacific and opened the door to winning World War II.  It's one of the most important battles in this nation's history.  It's a battle had America not had the courage and insight to win?  We might all be speaking a different language today.  

If you want to see this story done right?  Watch Midway from 1976 with Charlton Heston, Robert Wagner, James Colburn, Glenn Ford, Robert Mitchum, Cliff Robertson and more.  

If you want to see battle scenes shit upon by atrocious casting choices, bad acting and asinine side stories?  Watch this.  All I should have to tell you to completely explain the failure here?  A Jonas with a moustache is one of the "heroes."  

Epic failure.  

Doubled down on its shittiness by praising the "brave Japanese soldiers who lost their lives" at the end. Man, fuck that.  They were the enemy.   

Go back and read how those "brave" Japanese treated American POWs during the war.  

Too bad this movie is so disastrously awful.  The story needs to be told for a fresh audience, but just not in this haphazard, slipshod way.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 11, 2020, 10:49:03 AM
Terminator: Dark Fate
Second in a short series of Movies on a Plane

The Terminator was a great movie for its time.  It was visually stunning, brutal and vastly different from anything we'd seen before.  

Dark Fate was a recycled femi-power movie that tried to gin up nostalgia for the original by tossing in a few twists on some old catch phrases. bleh. 

It dredged up a Linda Hamilton, looking worse for wear, and hauled back Arnold as a kinder, gentler version of the T-1000.  Which T this Arnold was and from which movie he originated, I can't really say.  

Then it layered on the twisted time travel, butterfly effect, new future, old future, past present wonkiness that never made sense even from the beginning.  In the original you could forgive the goof science just because the story was compelling.  

Here?  Just a bunch of furious fighting noise.  

There probably was a time for this movie, but it wasn't now.  Too late or too early, I dunno.  It just didn't work.  

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 11, 2020, 10:49:57 AM
The Gentlemen

Don't trust the trailer. This one was nowhere near what I expected, which was much more of a straight up comedy.  It had it's moments but leaned far more toward the dry, witty English humor.  Really disappointed about half way through, but when I came to accept what it was, I actually got into it the rest of the way.  Let me just say, if you know what to expect going in, it's not a bad watch.

Not giving anything away because they pretty much let you know early on that the plot is as follows:

Matthew McConaughey plays a kingpin drug dealer in Europe, focusing only on marijuana.  Charlie Hunnam is his right hand man and much of the movie centers around a meeting between he and Hugh Grant, who plays a private eye/journalist trying to blackmail Macunnahay and Hunnam.  The meeting between the two, has Grant laying everything out for Hunnam as to what has happened and why they should pay him off.  His story telling is actually a narration of the movie itself.

Makoneehee has 12 growing stations and is trying to sell and get out of the business.  There is an attack on one of them and he spends most of the flick trying to figure out who is behind it and why.  From there, you have a good bit of twists and turns and whodunnit. It's a decent mix if action, intrigue and some comedy.  Like I said, if you know what to expect going in, it's not too bad.       
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 11, 2020, 11:06:14 AM
Zombieland: Double Tap
Third in a short series of Movies on a Plane

I didn't have really high expectations for this movie.  The first one was so close to being that perfect mix that it would have been nearly impossible to recreate that chemistry.  The original was fun and surprising.  Did you see the double cross coming in the grocery store when the girls swiped the car?  Did you anticipate Bill Murray's entry and arc?  

There was no way this movie could live up to that standard.  And it didn't.  

It wasn't bad. It had its moments.  But it just didn't rise to the level of the original.  

It was more benign.  

The addition of one of those insufferable Wilson brothers and Richard from Silicon Valley as Tallahassee/Columbus doppelgangers didn't elevate the script like I think they expected it to.  The bubble-head girl and beatnick guy (who was on Victorious if you had girls in the 90s, you'll know him) really didn't add the punch I assume they were supposed to provide.  

If I'd never seen Zombieland I probably would have liked this better.  Zombieland was a tasty pizza filled with great ingredients and properly baked.  This was more like a cone of cotton candy.  It was good, but sort of forgettable.  

Didn't hate it.  Didn't love it.  Pretty much forgotten it.  I can tell you much more about the original than I can about this one.  It just didn't stick with me.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on February 11, 2020, 03:29:21 PM
Zombieland: Double Tap
Third in a short series of Movies on a Plane

I didn't have really high expectations for this movie.  The first one was so close to being that perfect mix that it would have been nearly impossible to recreate that chemistry.  The original was fun and surprising.  Did you see the double cross coming in the grocery store when the girls swiped the car?  Did you anticipate Bill Murray's entry and arc? 

There was no way this movie could live up to that standard.  And it didn't. 

It wasn't bad. It had its moments.  But it just didn't rise to the level of the original. 

It was more benign. 

The addition of one of those insufferable Wilson brothers and Richard from Silicon Valley as Tallahassee/Columbus doppelgangers didn't elevate the script like I think they expected it to.  The bubble-head girl and beatnick guy (who was on Victorious if you had girls in the 90s, you'll know him) really didn't add the punch I assume they were supposed to provide. 

If I'd never seen Zombieland I probably would have liked this better.  Zombieland was a tasty pizza filled with great ingredients and properly baked.  This was more like a cone of cotton candy.  It was good, but sort of forgettable. 

Didn't hate it.  Didn't love it.  Pretty much forgotten it.  I can tell you much more about the original than I can about this one.  It just didn't stick with me. 


I look forward to your review of Zombieland 2.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on February 11, 2020, 03:44:13 PM

I look forward to your review of Zombieland 2. 
Which one is that?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 11, 2020, 03:47:44 PM
Which one is that?
Yep
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on February 11, 2020, 03:58:31 PM
Which one is that?
Anybody seen that one?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 11, 2020, 04:53:53 PM
Anybody seen that one?
Must have missed it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on February 11, 2020, 04:54:41 PM
:yallfu:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on February 11, 2020, 08:34:02 PM
Must have missed it.
Gate A
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on February 12, 2020, 08:29:25 AM
Gate A
2:30
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on February 12, 2020, 09:58:05 AM
2:30
Mountain time?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on February 12, 2020, 10:24:11 AM
Mountain time?
GMT
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 03, 2020, 04:35:31 PM
Midsommar

I really wasn't sure about watching this movie.  I should have trusted my instincts.  

I took a chance on it because I thought I might like Florence Pugh.  Hadn't made up my mind on her as an actress.  She's done some stuff that is intriguing and has a major part on the upcoming Marvel film Black Widow. This was her movie to carry.  

The plot is essentially this:  A bunch of Americans join their Swedish college friend at his hometown's summer solstice celebration, a nine-day affair that he promises to be fun, food and song. 

Weird food, weird song, no fun at all.  

The movie was a long, slow, torturous slog through some of the oddest rituals on screen.  I won't bother to spoil it for you in case you want to subject yourself to this horseshit.  But it's weird.  

The movie opened with something like a suicide and then a bawling, screaming crying scene by Pugh that was horrifying and not in the manner in which the director likely intended.  I wanted it to stop, and not because I had any sympathy or empathy for her character.  Just stop, please stop.  And it's repeated more than once through this film, including one scene that's a billion times worse.  

At the end, I decided that I do not like Florence Pugh.  Not one little bit.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 03, 2020, 04:56:03 PM
The Invisible Man

For years (decades) Universal Studios has tried to breathe life into its Monsters Universe.  They've got an entirely new Orlando park in the development stages that's rumored to lean heavily on their monster lineage. 

But they keep misfiring.  For those who don't remember, Universal was the king of the monster realm in the early days with The Mummy, Dracula, Wolfman, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Jekyll/Hyde and Invisible Man among the mainstays.

They tried with Van Helsing to revive it.  Dud.  Dracula Untold. Middling. Tom Cruise in The Mummy. Absolute shit, should have built on the Brendan Fraser series. The Wolfman (2010) that nobody watched.

And then last week, they brought back The Invisible Man. 

The movie is going to do good box office.  It's going to get positive reviews.  It was an entertaining (if at times slow) film.  But....

Universal shot themselves in the dick AGAIN. 

They picked the right person to direct the film, tapping Leigh Wannell who played a major part in building the Saw franchise.  Where they screwed the pooch was the script. 

Universal just HAD to glom on to the female empowerment/me-too movement.  Instead of a story where the invisible man was a tortured genius with a slightly unhinged thirst for world domination, this version of the film neutered the character by turning him into nothing more than a one-dimensional domestic abuser. 

It's not about a guy who tries to use the power of invisibility which he created to do some crazy big world-wide shit.  Nope, he uses it to torment his dumpy ass wife.  It's completely limiting.

You can't build a monster movie franchise, much less a whole theme park, based an asshole who's one step removed from being a baggy-jort, tank-top T and backward hat wanna-be gangsta pimp who be slappin' his ho' around.  You just can't. 

I would have enjoyed the movie much, much more without the Invisible Man baggage. 

Elizabeth Moss was okay in it, but there was so much of the story they left out that it really didn't work as well as they expected emotionally.  They didn't give us anywhere near enough evidence that her potentially bullshit claims of "abuse" were even remotely true.  Never a mark on her.  Nothing but her unvalidated claims. 

Okay as a movie.  Bullshit as The Invisible Man.  It's got nowhere to go from here.  Nowhere good, anyway. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 03, 2020, 05:09:50 PM
If I had the invisible powers, I'd sneak in and look at Jennifer Aniston's t-t hole.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on March 03, 2020, 06:01:53 PM
If I had the invisible powers, I'd sneak in and look at Jennifer Aniston's t-t hole.
But what would you do with a million dollars?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on March 04, 2020, 07:46:48 AM
Midsommar

I really wasn't sure about watching this movie.  I should have trusted my instincts. 
Wrong. It's a piece of art along the lines of 2001: A Space Odyssey or Citizen Kane. You need a few passes through it to get it completely. This movie should have been the Oscar front runner but the stodginess of the academy prevented it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 04, 2020, 09:15:52 AM
Wrong. It's a piece of art along the lines of 2001: A Space Odyssey or Citizen Kane. You need a few passes through it to get it completely. This movie should have been the Oscar front runner but the stodginess of the academy prevented it.
It’s a piece alright.  A fucked up piece of shit.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 04, 2020, 09:35:14 AM
It’s a piece alright.  A fucked up piece of shit. 
They don't call him the best movie critic in the business for nothin', folks.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 04, 2020, 10:16:42 AM
Midsommar

I really wasn't sure about watching this movie.  I should have trusted my instincts. 

I took a chance on it because I thought I might like Florence Pugh.  Hadn't made up my mind on her as an actress.  She's done some stuff that is intriguing and has a major part on the upcoming Marvel film Black Widow. This was her movie to carry. 

The plot is essentially this:  A bunch of Americans join their Swedish college friend at his hometown's summer solstice celebration, a nine-day affair that he promises to be fun, food and song.

Weird food, weird song, no fun at all. 

The movie was a long, slow, torturous slog through some of the oddest rituals on screen.  I won't bother to spoil it for you in case you want to subject yourself to this horseshit.  But it's weird. 

The movie opened with something like a suicide and then a bawling, screaming crying scene by Pugh that was horrifying and not in the manner in which the director likely intended.  I wanted it to stop, and not because I had any sympathy or empathy for her character.  Just stop, please stop.  And it's repeated more than once through this film, including one scene that's a billion times worse. 

At the end, I decided that I do not like Florence Pugh.  Not one little bit. 

This movie was like deep sea fishing: long periods of interminable boredom punctuated by moments of sheer panic/terror.

Was not expecting this one to be a graphic/gross as it was.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 04, 2020, 10:53:15 AM
This movie was like deep sea fishing: long periods of interminable boredom punctuated by moments of sheer panic/terror.

Was not expecting this one to be a graphic/gross as it was.
I never got the panic/terror.  Fucko weirdness, yeah.  But not the other.  It was so slow moving anything that could have been reached that level was telegraphed well before it came to pass.  

In your esteemed opinion:  Art or shit?  

There are movies I don't like initially that I end up loving on second or third pass (Pulp Fiction comes to mind).  But Midsommar?  I'd rather watch a three hour marathon of the Bear Bryant show dubbed over in German or Portuguese than even half an hour of that nightmare.  I absolutely despise Florence Pugh now. She grated on me that much. Not sure I want to ever see anything else she's in.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 04, 2020, 11:05:15 AM
I never got the panic/terror.  Fucko weirdness, yeah.  But not the other.  It was so slow moving anything that could have been reached that level was telegraphed well before it came to pass. 

In your esteemed opinion:  Art or shit? 

There are movies I don't like initially that I end up loving on second or third pass (Pulp Fiction comes to mind).  But Midsommar?  I'd rather watch a three hour marathon of the Bear Bryant show dubbed over in German or Portuguese than even half an hour of that nightmare.  I absolutely despise Florence Pugh now. She grated on me that much. Not sure I want to ever see anything else she's in. 
I was referring to the characters' panic/terror.  The movie was gross (suicide jumping/face bashing...plus  the flayed living lung-boy in the barn) but not terribly scary.

Not a binary choice for me: it's on an artistic spectrum of some sort, but not total shit.

The middle-aged sex assisters was an odd moment.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 04, 2020, 11:18:11 AM
Good Will Hunting is one of those movies that I've come across 100 times and never watched more than 10 minutes of.  I finally took the time to take in the whole movie last night.  I'm sure most have seen it so no need for any kind of review, just a few takeaways. Robin Williams was a talented, tormented individual.  Amazing, to me anyway, how the guy could go from bouncing off the walls, ad lib comedy to effectively playing such serious roles.  Good Morning Vietnam was a perfect example of both ends of the spectrum.  Crazy, outrageous radio personality, to dealing with some serious shit.  Anyway, like him or not, I always enjoyed his work. 

I didn't realize that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck wrote this and won some Academy Awards for it.  Not bad for a couple of 20 somethings.  I enjoyed it overall.  The only drawback was the overdone Bahstan accents.  Not a fan of everyone talking like they work on one the Wicked Tuna boats.  Ya' wicked pissah.      
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 04, 2020, 11:22:28 AM
The middle-aged sex assisters was an odd moment.
Really?  That was exactly like my first time.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 04, 2020, 11:35:13 AM
Really?  That was exactly like my first time. 
That would explain so so much.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 04, 2020, 12:05:44 PM
The middle-aged sex assisters was an odd moment.
I thought you liked Snaggle?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 04, 2020, 12:06:47 PM
Good Will Hunting is one of those movies that I've come across 100 times and never watched more than 10 minutes of.  I finally took the time to take in the whole movie last night.  I'm sure most have seen it so no need for any kind of review, just a few takeaways. Robin Williams was a talented, tormented individual.  Amazing, to me anyway, how the guy could go from bouncing off the walls, ad lib comedy to effectively playing such serious roles.  Good Morning Vietnam was a perfect example of both ends of the spectrum.  Crazy, outrageous radio personality, to dealing with some serious shit.  Anyway, like him or not, I always enjoyed his work.

I didn't realize that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck wrote this and won some Academy Awards for it.  Not bad for a couple of 20 somethings.  I enjoyed it overall.  The only drawback was the overdone Bahstan accents.  Not a fan of everyone talking like they work on one the Wicked Tuna boats.  Ya' wicked pissah.     
:facepalm:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 04, 2020, 12:09:36 PM
:facepalm:
I will punch you in the arm hard enough to leave a mark. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 04, 2020, 04:18:14 PM
I will punch you in the arm hard enough to leave a mark.
There was so much facepalm in what you said I had to use Senator Tubs facepalm because I don't want to comment about all of it.  However, I have to make comment about your Boston accents remark, you do know that MATT DAMON and Affleck are originally from Boston right?  You also do realize that the area that the characters are from Southie, the people really sound like that.  Those aren't overdone accents, it's legit the accent.  I know several people that sound like that.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Buzz Killington on March 04, 2020, 04:31:55 PM
There was so much facepalm in what you said I had to use Senator Tubs facepalm because I don't want to comment about all of it.  However, I have to make comment about your Boston accents remark, you do know that MATT DAMON and Affleck are originally from Boston right?  You also do realize that the area that the characters are from Southie, the people really sound like that.  Those aren't overdone accents, it's legit the accent.  I know several people that sound like that.
Yeah, he got that SMATPAK
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on March 04, 2020, 04:39:47 PM
The middle-aged sex assisters was an odd moment.
Could have just said "Snags."


Edit:  Goddammit, that's what I get for not reading the rest of the thread before I respond.  GF beat me to the alley oop.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 04, 2020, 05:08:10 PM
There was so much facepalm in what you said I had to use Senator Tubs facepalm because I don't want to comment about all of it.  However, I have to make comment about your Boston accents remark, you do know that MATT DAMON and Affleck are originally from Boston right?  You also do realize that the area that the characters are from Southie, the people really sound like that.  Those aren't overdone accents, it's legit the accent.  I know several people that sound like that.
Yes I do know.  Okay, maybe not "overdone" but my point is, I don't like it.  It's a fucked up accent and irritates the hell out of me.  Same thing with shows like Goodfellas and yes, The Sopranos.  Different accent but I don't care how good the story is if I have to listen to hours and hours of a bunch of guidos going, Fuck youz guyz.  Fuck ya' mutha and fuck you.  Capeesh?   

And you don't have to yell Matt Damon's name. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Godfather on March 04, 2020, 08:18:30 PM
Yes I do know.  Okay, maybe not "overdone" but my point is, I don't like it.  It's a fucked up accent and irritates the hell out of me.  Same thing with shows like Goodfellas and yes, The Sopranos.  Different accent but I don't care how good the story is if I have to listen to hours and hours of a bunch of guidos going, Fuck youz guyz.  Fuck ya' mutha and fuck you.  Capeesh? 

And you don't have to yell Matt Damon's name.
I wasn’t. 

(https://i.imgur.com/m7ECjPb.gif)

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 04, 2020, 09:49:50 PM
That would explain so so much.
The only real difference was the old lady at mine licked her finger and diddle doodled in the asshole. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on March 09, 2020, 03:47:58 PM
There was so much facepalm in what you said I had to use Senator Tubs facepalm because I don't want to comment about all of it.  However, I have to make comment about your Boston accents remark, you do know that MATT DAMON and Affleck are originally from Boston right?  You also do realize that the area that the characters are from Southie, the people really sound like that.  Those aren't overdone accents, it's legit the accent.  I know several people that sound like that.

Snags do you like apples?

How do you like them apples.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 18, 2020, 11:11:27 AM
Star Wars: Episode IX The Bloat of the Absurd

Hokey, overwrought tripe.  

Adam Driver is the worst choice ever to play Darth Mendelbaum.  Just didn't like him in particular or really like any of the other characters, but that's an ongoing problem since baby Anakin and Jar Jar days.  Poe and Finn are the fucking worst.  I wish they'd both been disintegrated by a death ray two movies ago. The whole "I am your father" shit repeated time after time loses effectiveness.  

Enormous, ridiculous plot black holes.  Hokey stilted dialogue.  

If you kill me I will rise!  Oh you killed me, we all die!  

The first three movies were space blasting fun and perfect for that era.  But they don't even hold up over time.  And then, because they were successful, Lucas (I guess?) started to take the "mythology" seriously with the mumbo-iest jumbo imaginable.  

That led us to this wheelbarrow full of manure.  It wasn't a dump truck load of manure like the film before this one, but it was a pretty stinky load.  

I spent far too much of the film laughing at the ridiculous overacting and hammy plot (when I wasn't openly scoffing at the planet-sized plot potholes).   

Take away the Star Wars nostalgia overlay and this was a terrible movie.   Just terrible.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on March 18, 2020, 02:13:02 PM
Star Wars: Episode IX The Bloat of the Absurd

Hokey, overwrought tripe. 

Adam Driver is the worst choice ever to play Darth Mendelbaum.  Just didn't like him in particular or really like any of the other characters, but that's an ongoing problem since baby Anakin and Jar Jar days.  Poe and Finn are the fudgeing worst.  I wish they'd both been disintegrated by a death ray two movies ago. The whole "I am your father" shoot repeated time after time loses effectiveness. 

Enormous, ridiculous plot black holes.  Hokey stilted dialogue. 

If you kill me I will rise!  Oh you killed me, we all die! 

The first three movies were space blasting fun and perfect for that era.  But they don't even hold up over time.  And then, because they were successful, Lucas (I guess?) started to take the "mythology" seriously with the mumbo-iest jumbo imaginable. 

That led us to this wheelbarrow full of manure.  It wasn't a dump truck load of manure like the film before this one, but it was a pretty stinky load. 

I spent far too much of the film laughing at the ridiculous overacting and hammy plot (when I wasn't openly scoffing at the planet-sized plot potholes). 

Take away the Star Wars nostalgia overlay and this was a terrible movie.  Just terrible. 
So, you're saying the movie sucks?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 18, 2020, 02:23:33 PM
So, you're saying the movie sucks?
I get paid by the word 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on March 18, 2020, 03:17:03 PM
"Altered Carbon"

I feel like this should have already been touched on but I searched and did not find it. 

Netflix show that is based on a novel or maybe it's a trilogy I forget. 

Set 300 years in the future where technology allows people to download their consciousness into other bodies (or sleeves). 

There are two seasons on Netflix and I suggest you give it a go.  I think the writing and story are solid. 

Our resident Ebert may not agree.  I just don't pick out the nuances like he does.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 06, 2020, 11:09:51 PM
Yesterday

Harmless fluff of a movie.  

English Indian has a bike accident and wakes up to a world where The Beatles (and a lot of other things) never existed.  So he steals all their songs and becomes famous.  

Not a big fan of the ending, but the movie flowed easily along and had a funny moment or two.  Nothing groundbreaking.  

It does make you realize just how much those four guys created in a decade or so.  Unbelievable music catalog.  And that's just taking into consideration what was the collective, not the individual projects of each of the four.  Love them or hate them, you can't deny the legacy.  So much music that will resonate as long as there are people to hear it.  

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on April 07, 2020, 07:28:16 AM
Yesterday

Harmless fluff of a movie. 

English Indian has a bike accident and wakes up to a world where The Beatles (and a lot of other things) never existed.  So he steals all their songs and becomes famous. 

Not a big fan of the ending, but the movie flowed easily along and had a funny moment or two.  Nothing groundbreaking. 

It does make you realize just how much those four guys created in a decade or so.  Unbelievable music catalog.  And that's just taking into consideration what was the collective, not the individual projects of each of the four.  Love them or hate them, you can't deny the legacy.  So much music that will resonate as long as there are people to hear it. 
"Hey Dude"  reaffirmed why I don't like the ginger.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 07, 2020, 11:50:34 AM
"Hey Dude"  reaffirmed why I don't like the ginger.
I miss the old days of nickelodeon
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 29, 2020, 12:13:30 AM
Bad Education

Hyped as Hugh Jackman's greatest role!!1!  Yes, I know.  That's not saying much.  He's not much of an actor, but he tries.   

So here's the plot.  Greedy school administrators (who are otherwise good at their jobs) start with little, probably innocent-ish and maybe even accidental, scams and work their way up to multi-million dollar graft.  

Fake contractors, lovers getting paid while disguised as 'consultants', beach houses, vacations, facelifts, cars.... it got out of hand.  

Two inside stories.  

I once knew a guy who went to prison.  White collar, bribery prison.  I saw it all.  Started with a no-show job for a customer's son in order to get a bid.  That was the price.  And it steamrolled from there. The way he described it to me was that 'if you turn the water up a degree at a time, the frog never knows he's boiling.'  

I also knew a banker who should have gone to prison, but didn't.  Just got quietly fired.  He started small. One day he was $20 short for something.  Took it out of a big customer's account, put it back the next day.  Over time that mushroomed to the point that when he finally got busted, he was shoving thousands of dollars around among a bunch of different accounts trying to stay ahead of his game.  What was stupid about it was he wasn't really doing much of value with it.  He upgraded from Dockers to Hilfiger pants, to Brooks Brothers suits.  Not college for his kids or bills or anything, just self-centered idiocy.  

So... when I watched this based-on-a-true-story HBO film, I wasn't entirely surprised by the behavior of the primary participants.  You see it all the time.  People get caught up in little schemes that get out of hand. I also wasn't surprised to see that they got away with it for years because they were successful.  People will overlook a hell of a lot of red flags if you're winning and you present a good public front.  These guys were.  The school was ultra successful and the kids who went there gained advantages.  

The movie was hyped as Jackman's huge performance or whatever because he played a closeted gay and performed gay scenes.  I could have done without that.  Taking a role that calls for that does NOT make you brave or elevate your performance for that reason alone.  

He was okay.  So was Alison Janney was the school bookkeeper who was running her own schemes while Jackman's character was running his.  

It wasn't a great movie, though, because it focused in the wrong direction.  The real story here should have been the fact that one of the students did the research, uncovered the corruption, reported it and brought the whole thing crashing down on top of them.  That story was told, but the focus was far too much on the thieves than on the kid who laid them low (in my opinion).  

It's not a terrible movie and it laid all the pieces of this real-life story out there, but it just didn't do so in a compelling way.  It seemed more like a paint-by-numbers effort that was more concerned with making sure it checked off boxes than it was a real effort at interesting storytelling.  

The one thing I did get out of it, though, is that if they ever do a film about Ronald Reagan, Jackman might be a great choice to play him -- at least looks wise.   I don't think he can act his way out of a wet paper bag. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 16, 2020, 12:14:32 AM
Valley Girl: 2020

I have a soft spot in my heart for the teen coming-of-age films of the 80s.  These were the films that had enough romantic-ish stuff to appease girls and still enough crude humor to appease a teenage guy.  They were the right movies for early stage dates, particularly when shown on HBO in somebody's basement. 

They hit that sweet spot in the middle of the immature raunch of Porky's the gooey schlock of Endless Love and the rawer, slicker sexuality of Risky Business. 

I know they're not great movies, but I retain an emotional attachment to Fast Times at Ridgemont High (very much so, it's probably forever in my Top 10), Last American Virgin, Private School, and of course Valley Girl. 

I've probably watched Valley Girl 25 or 30 times.  It used to come on HBO or Showtime or one of those in the early days night after night after night.  I was a kid.  I adored Deborah Foreman (Julie), thought Suzi was hot and her mom even hotter. (*sidebar, your honor.  Suzi's mom retained her relative hotness longer than the rest of the cast.  I'd probably still smack it today.) I even knew a girl who fit the Loryn role (and looked a little like her) and who got used in a similar way. 

The music was great.  Melt With You by Modern English still holds up even after all this time. One of the best uses of a song not meant for a movie IN a movie in cinematic history.  

SOOOO.... It was with no small amount of trepidation that I accepted the challenge from my girls, who were looking for some mental cotton candy to pass the time, to watch this new version.  They've steadfastly refused to watch the original Valley Girl because they felt like I sold them a bill of goods when I forced them to watch Fast Times (in their terms, a movie about teenage sex, drugs and abortion), but this new version appealed to them because they recognized some of the cast members (from YouTube I think, hell, I don't know) and because they know I liked the lead -- Jessica Rothe who was in Happy Death Day. 

I should have passed.  They found it to be moderately charming fluff.  It kicked me in my 80s nuts. 

Problems:
1) It's a musical.  Yes the songs are 80s semi-classics and the selection was great, but they dropped in and out of them with the cast (which can't really sing all that well) doing them.  They mixed them with out-of-place dance routines that seemed lifted directly from High School Musical. 
2) It took the original story and re-told it, twisted it around, made it something it kinda, sorta wasn't.  And then they added in some idiotic codas -- the kind that worked fantastically well in Fast Times and in Animal House, but that just fell with a cringy thud here.
3) They way the story was re-told was through a mother-daughter conversation where the grown up Julie (played by a slumming Alicia Silverstone) used the story of her whirlwind romance with Randy to explain to her now teenaged daughter how cool she used to be. That contrivance was clunky and didn't feel authentic.
4) Hideous casting.  Rothe was good in Death Day, but I didn't get much out of her here.  She's 33 years old, playing 17 and it flopped.  The guy that took Nicholas Cage's part (girls liked him, but I found him completely wrong).  Hey, let's add in a chunky lesbian, too!  Because that was such a thing in 1982. 
5) Most of the cast from the orginal made cameos and good googly they looked bad. One who didn't cameo, the one who will make ANY movie for a plate of grapes and $3.80, the one who could have made this sad urination on nostalgia bearable, Nicholas Cage, did not appear. 

It was just a bad idea, poorly cast, poorly executed and (in my case) poorly received.  I'm going to try to forget that I ever saw it and just hang on to the original. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on May 18, 2020, 07:52:07 AM
 but I retain an emotional attachment to Fast Times at Ridgemont High (very much so, it's probably forever in my Top 10),
I still contend that from top to bottom the soundtrack for Fast Times is one of the most solid that has ever come out.  Most soundtracks these days (and for a long while) do not even include all of the songs in the movie.  I assume because of licensing fees.

There are almost none if any of what anyone would consider A sides but almost every one of them is a deep look into the 80's by some artists that were pivotal before, during, and after then.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 27, 2020, 02:30:29 PM
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 shitty 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. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 08, 2020, 04:30:51 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 08, 2020, 05:34:02 PM
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 shitty 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"
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 24, 2020, 08:07:56 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on June 27, 2020, 01:45:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 28, 2020, 02:53:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on June 29, 2020, 09:59:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 29, 2020, 10:53:46 AM
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.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 29, 2020, 11:38:16 AM
Honeyboy

Shia Lebouf is an enigma.  The guy clearly had issues, but from his first appearances on Even Stevens as the goofy Louis Stevens it was obvious he had talent.  

Yeah, he kind of pissed it away with some bad role choices (Transformers, while good didn't give him much to do and he was flat in the Wall Street do-over) and some even worse personal decisions.  But it was still there.  This movie is a semi-autobiography that helps explain so much of why he turned out the way he did.  

Lebouf plays his own father, an erstwhile rodeo clown and a hovering stage-nanny who drove the child actor in an effort to validate his own sad existence.  

The movie doesn't quite get to the razor edge it should given the lunacy Lebouf experienced as a child, due primarily to his eventual reluctance to portray his own father as the monster he probably really was.  But it's bad enough.  Drugs, alcohol, hookers, abject poverty, violence, rage and abandonment were all part of Shia's formative years.  It's a wonder the kid is still alive, honestly.  

My take is that he's a vastly underrated actor primarily because he brings an easy nonchalance to almost every role.  You forget he's acting, and isn't that the point?  This movie and Peanut Butter Falcon are two that really give him a chance to stretch a little beyond the comedic goofiness that was Louis Stevens and Sam Witwicky and exhibit a little humanity.  

I liked the film and I'm impressed with his chops. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 29, 2020, 11:55:31 AM
Vivarium  and
The Room 

Two very similar movies, but told completely differently.  

In Vivarium, Imogen Poots (who walks like a man, trust me) and Jesse Eisenberg go house hunting and end up in a cookie-cutter neighborhood where all the houses look alike.  And there's no way out. 

In The Room, two Belgians pretending to be American purchase a new secluded home in Belgium which is pretending to be upstate New York and discover a strange room hidden behind the wallpaper.  

Jesse and Poots try their damndest to get out, driving, walking and digging only to continually end up in front of the same house.  An attempt to burn it down fails and they wake up amid the ashes to discover a baby delivered to their home with instructions to raise it to gain their freedom.  

The Belgian couple discover that the room can grant wishes and after a decadent spree where they wallow in champagne, cash, clothes, rare paintings and other craziness, the childless woman decides to ask the room for a baby... which it promptly provides.  

From there the stories sort of run parallel tracks.  Both couples are raising a child that isn't theirs.  Both children (for different reasons) age much quicker than normal and neither has appropriate human behaviors or reactions.  Both children develop odd sexual attraction to their mothers.  Both mothers are initially defensive of the child, both fathers immediately reject it and want it gone. After a series of battles with the un-human faux kids, both parents eventually determine to find a way to escape the monstrous children and the trap of their existence.  

While escape from the home and the child is the object for both, each set of parents devises a different method to achieve it.  Neither completely find their way back.  

Of the two, I probably liked The Room better, but only because it took a slightly different path.  The final act of both movies is somewhat lackluster given the situations created that led up to it.  The Room does suffer from Belgians trying to pretend to be Americans and getting the feel of it all wrong.  I still don't understand the decision to set a movie in upstate New York when it was filmed entirely in Belgium, directed by Belgians, with Belgian actors and a Belgian interpretation of how Americans must surely behave.  Vivarium, on the other hand, suffered from the colorless, flat constant monotony of existence in the cookie cutter world.  I know it was done for effect, but the effect was numbing.  I think Vivarium would have been much better had there been other families fighting the same battle for Eisenberg and Poots to interact with. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 23, 2020, 11:42:41 AM
no one seen any movies since Labor Day eh?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 23, 2020, 12:00:51 PM
no one seen any movies since Labor Day eh?
I watched Anna Does Anal I, II and III last night.  Didn't see the need to review any of them because "Anna" taking a lot of cock up the ass is pretty much the plot in all 3. I thought the titles were self-explanatory.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 23, 2020, 12:39:23 PM
I guess Ana liked it the first two times.

Threes a charm
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on October 23, 2020, 02:35:27 PM
Not a movie, but anyone watched The Right Stuff on Disney+ yet?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on October 23, 2020, 03:36:25 PM
I watched Anna Does Anal I, II and III last night.  Didn't see the need to review any of them because "Anna" taking a lot of cock up the ass is pretty much the plot in all 3. I thought the titles were self-explanatory.

You spelled Andy wrong.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 23, 2020, 09:21:26 PM
You spelled Andy wrong. 
Well. He USED to be Andy. 
Title: High Domain Authority website for advertising space
Post by: CurtisEvorm on November 13, 2020, 10:40:51 AM
Hi,
 
I am contacting you today because i have Jackpotbetonline.com site for advertising.
 
Please check the website where you place link or article post.
 
Jackpotbetonline.com are evryday updated & have good Domain Autority (DA=62)  & Good Domain Rating (DR=72).
 
The Following advertising Options are available:
 
Text Link Space
Article post (Max of 3 links per article)
Advertising Banner Space (460x60 or 250x250)
Best " Online casino Slots (https://www.jackpotbetonline.com/) " Review
 
Regards,
Title: Re: High Domain Authority website for advertising space
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 13, 2020, 10:45:39 AM
Hi,
 
I am contacting you today because i have Jackpotbetonline.com site for advertising.
 
Please check the website where you place link or article post.
 
Jackpotbetonline.com are evryday updated & have good Domain Autority (DA=62)  & Good Domain Rating (DR=72).
 
The Following advertising Options are available:
 
Text Link Space
Article post (Max of 3 links per article)
Advertising Banner Space (460x60 or 250x250)
Best " Online casino Slots (https://www.jackpotbetonline.com/) " Review
 
Regards,
I saw this movie in the theater several years ago.  Got up and walked out in the middle.  Your taste in movies is for shit.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 13, 2020, 11:31:43 AM
Spell

Still in search of the next great horror movie.  This one hit  close, but (not being racist)with an all black cast and a black director there was a level of flow, some narrative gaps and some logical stupidity that fit the framework of a Tyler Perry type movie. And that limited the film. I don't know why all black movies struggle to portray realistic human reactions and interactions, but they do.  And they always jam nonsensical racial tropes in there.  Movie was written by a white guy, so there's that. 

Basic story: Super successful black attorney Marquis and his super cool upper crust urban family get called to the mountains of West Virginia (not sure) for the reading of his estranged father's will.  Plane goes down. Guy wakes up in the home of some voodoo cultists who control him to a degree with a boogity (voodoo doll made of hair, skin and other bodily fluids collected from Marquis) and their hoodoo magic. 

There are elements of the far superior Misery in the story of the chuckling hoodoo priestess Eloise's confinement of Marquis.  Eliose is great, but the director kept her far too reined in.  The boogity was potentially terrifying but completely underused. 

The guy playing Marquis was also pretty good, but the whole time I kept thinking he was a low-rent Idris Elba and it would have been so much better with the real thing. He was really good in a few scenes, but just not consistently good overall. 

The idea of being at the mercy of someone deranged who may or may not have magical hoodoo power seriously works for me.  It's a good setup.  It's a shame the execution was just so ham-fisted.  

All the pieces were there, but Madea-level performances by the kids and wife and some significantly lazy storytelling (really stupid decisions) kept this from making the cut.  

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 13, 2020, 12:07:57 PM
Porky's 

I watched this movie in theaters when I was a teenager and remember laughing so hard at parts of it, I had to go back and watch it again to catch up on what I missed. 

I don't think I've watched it in its entirety since. Until this week. 

It was a much more solid movie than I remembered.  The first thing I noticed is that the movie is from the same family as A Christmas Story.  Bob Clark helmed both of them.  They were his "life stories" from what I understand. 

Once I found that out, it was very easy to see the similarities in the two movies in the pacing, the casually authentic interactions of characters who were caricatures to a degree but realistic enough that you knew those guys when you were growing up.  You might not have been a Mickey or Meat, but you knew them. 

It's not great cinema. But there's an easy natural flow to it that is reassuring. Yeah, it's gross and vulgar in places. It's bawdy and lewd.  And it's so politically incorrect in today's asinine climate.  I have to admit, it did my heart good to see boys being boys/girls being girls and not having the police called, their lives ruined and #metoo social media war being waged against them. It did my heart good to see men/boys being men/boys and not being branded as some kind of deviant. It reminded me that there was a time not so long ago that we weren't all so up-fucking-tight that damn near everything was an affront.  Maybe I miss that. Maybe I wish it would come back. 

Porky's set the table for a series of similar-genre films that followed.  Fast Times. Last American Virgin. Private School. Breakfast Club. Valley Girl. Weird Science. Risky Business. Zapped. Ski School. Real Genius and so on.  Some of those were great. Some were awful. But all owe a debt of gratitude to Porky's for blazing the trail.  

A few things stand out: 

Kim Cattrall is at the absolute height of her (long since waned) sexiness. Not beautiful, just sexy.  OoooooowwwwOOOOOOHHHHH!  

If you can get through the scene where Beulah is asking for a tallywhacker lineup while the coaches break up in the background without laughing at all?  We're not going to agree on much. 

Embedded in the layers of over-the-top comedic setups are some subtle lessons in racism and friendship. Not treacle and without beating the viewer over the head with it.  This movie really shows you how that can be done. 

Despite the naked bushes, the hinted penii, the bare asses and other vulgarity, the film really deserves to be remembered in a much better light than it probably is.  Again, it's not a great movie but it struck a much needed nostalgic tone with me.  


"I've done this so many times I'm practically a doctor."
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on November 13, 2020, 02:46:51 PM
Porky's



If you can get through the scene where Beulah is asking for a tallywhacker lineup while the coaches break up in the background without laughing at all?  We're not going to agree on much.


Top 10 comedy scenes for me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 14, 2020, 10:39:17 AM
Top 10 comedy scenes for me.
Can’t disagree.  

Today, though?  Tommy is charged with sexual harassment, expelled from school and branded as a “sexual predator.”   He can run for president one day as a democrat but he better not be nominated to the Supreme Court by a Republican.  Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein and Harris would call every girl from the shower as well as Beulah to testify about the time he raped them with his eyes.  

Meanwhile the principal and all three coaches would be investigated for fostering an atmosphere of systemic sexual abuse.  Pussy hat wearing Madonna, Rose McGowan and Alyssa Milano would descend on Angel Beach and ring bells outside the school chanting “our vaginas deserve respect!”All four would be fired and their careers destroyed on social media.  

Beulah would do guest spots on The View and be hailed as a hero of the new #nomoretallywhacker movement. She’d eventually move to Portland, undergo a sex change operation where she was allowed to have both organs simultaneously and then be elected mayor. 

As much as I sorta enjoyed watching that movie again it really made me sad thinking about the world we’ve lost.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 14, 2020, 12:39:28 PM
Hollow Man

Probably reviewed this before.  Second look gives me a different perspective, particularly when compared to the recent Invisible Man film. 

Much better film than I remembered. 

Rhona Mitra's glorious titties.
Elisabeth Shue's sultry fuckable everything.  Her hair is atrocious in this, but I'd put it in everything else she has.  Nose holes, ear holes, knee joints, elbow joints... like all of it. 
Superior CGI -- for the most part the invisibility is carried off almost flawlessly.  There are just a couple of herky-jerky unhuman movements, but beginning to end, the invisibility is done stupendously well considering this is a 20-year old flick.  Especially good is the part where dude is killing Sarah and you can see through his body to hers.  Impressive work, honestly. 

You've also got baby Thanos, pre-bloat Snap Wexley (Greg Gunberg), Joey Slotnik (a guy you think you know from a lot of things he's never been in), Joanie Stubbs from Deadwood, and William (Rosland Capital) Devane in it.  Kevin Bacon (he's in everything isn't he?) owns the role of the guy you can't see.

Yeah, the story is a little silly at times. It's going to require you to suspend logic and ignore the technical fallacies that permeate it. There are a thousand "why?" questions I could ask, not the least of which is why all the rage?  In this case I'd rather ignore it and go with the flow.  I bitch so much about execution, it's sort of weird to see stellar execution marred by a weaker story so just let it ride. 

THIS is what Invisible Man should/could have been.  Done like this, maybe with a little sprucing up, the whole Universal Monsters Dark Universe could possibly get off the ground. 

Nope. 

Universal gave us strident #metoo Invisibility that turned potential horror into a pathetically weak "abusive husband" story.  That they did this on the heels of a shitty and essentially unwatched/unwatchable Tom Cruise mummy movie may have driven a stake through the heart of a franchise that has so many great stories to tell -- Dracula, Wolfman, Mummy, Frankenstein, Creature, Invisible Man, Phantom, Bride.  I wish they'd let me direct one.  I know I could make a better movie than Cruise's Mummy or that female-empowerment horseshit of Invisible Man.

Back to Hollow Man.  I mean, seriously...

(https://preview.redd.it/tn0uh2uc9jy51.jpg?auto=webp&s=54ba738533b60454b72c87784ac73149277ddee6)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 12, 2020, 05:13:50 PM
Black Christmas (2019)

Bob Clark essentially gave the world three films.  The Christmas classic A Christmas Story, the father of the teen sex comedy Porky's and in 1974 he helmed Black Christmas.  That movie, while lightly regarded at the time of its debut has grown in stature over the years.  It's rightfully credited for giving rise to the entire slasher movie genre that followed. John Carpenter acknowledges that it had a major influence on his ideas for Halloween. 

That movie isn't perfect (drunken Lois Lane Kidder is awful in it) but it does have a delicious Olivia Hussey and in an odd turn a pre-SCTV Andrea Martin.  THAT movie tells the story of a shadowy figure that stalks a sorority house at Christmas slaughtering the co-eds. When you watch it now, you can see clearly the influence on Halloween, Friday the 13th and innumerable other "stalker in the house" films. 

So when I saw the movie had been remade I thought that was cool. Be interesting to see it updated. 

Well FUCK THAT.  The new version --re-written and directed by a mommy part/whore named Sophia Takal -- is total bullshit.  It's fucktard level horse manure.  THIS film?  It features a strident, militant piece of shit spouting off about white privilege.  It features an asinine side story about a sexual assault.  And the crux of the film is a fem-power assault on a fraternity, which just happens to have the statue of a former slave owner as its centerpiece -- a statue that leaks black goo which turns frat boys into rapist-murderers. 

The trash bitch Takal actually said in an interview she based the devil-rapists in the fraternity "on Bret Kavanaugh."  I fucking hate that whore.  I'd punch her in the face and in the mommy part if I could.  If I'd known that before we picked the movie I would never have watched it.  Fuck her, her mother, her grandmother, and everybody else in her shit-stain of a family. 

It's offensive on about 1,974 levels to me.  All I actually wanted for Christmas in this movie was for every single one of the whores in it to be decapitated. 

It's as awful and mis-guided a movie as I've ever seen.  I loathe the fact that I wasted money to watch it.  I detest every person in it and everyone associated with the film.  Fuck them all. 

There was one 70s/80s style throwback girl in it who looked pretty good. But the "star" was Imogen Poots who desperately needs both a hair stylist and an acting coach.  She was abysmal.  Also abysmal was the BLM mommy part/slut/bitch/whore.  I wanted to watch her get burned alive.  That's the only thing that could have possibly saved this #metoo shitfest.  No such luck. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 21, 2020, 11:59:29 PM
Christmas two-fer

Took in a pair of Christmas-ish movies today while working on some projects.  

Anna and the Apocalypse
Started this not knowing what it was. Turns out it was - get this - a Scottish Christmas Zombie Teen Musical.  That's right. High School Musical with zombies. When the first song broke, I almost turned it off thinking "how could this possibly be any good." 

Fatman
Mel Gibson as a world-weary Santa pursued by a hit-man (Walton Goggins) with a score to settle. Watching Mel channel his elder Lethal Weapon as Jolly Ol' Saint Nick?  That had to be fun.  

I couldn't have been more wrong about either.  

I stuck Anna out at first mainly because the lead was intriguing and solid.  So many teen movies are so stupid in how they portray kids, getting the behaviors and interactions completely wrong. This one didn't. It missed a little with the stereotypical bullying act, but it wasn't completely over the top. The song and dance numbers were more than I needed and some of the parts were gleefully/purposely over-acted but this wasn't a bad little film. I probably won't watch it again, but it was better than I expected. Didn't always anticipate the action that was coming, enjoyed watching the lead actresses (including a blonde in a beiber haircut).   Just a little puff of a movie that hit enough of the right notes to surprise. 

Fatman I stuck out because I kept hoping it would improve.  It did not. A flimsy story, carried dourly along by Gibson and Goggins. No joy, no fun.  I think they were aiming for dark humor but they failed miserably to achieve it.  It was pretty awful, honestly.  I won't watch it again and I don't recommend it.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 22, 2020, 08:47:06 AM
Christmas two-fer

Took in a pair of Christmas-ish movies today while working on some projects. 

Anna and the Apocalypse
Started this not knowing what it was. Turns out it was - get this - a Scottish Christmas Zombie Teen Musical.  That's right. High School Musical with zombies. When the first song broke, I almost turned it off thinking "how could this possibly be any good."

Fatman
Mel Gibson as a world-weary Santa pursued by a hit-man (Walton Goggins) with a score to settle. Watching Mel channel his elder Lethal Weapon as Jolly Ol' Saint Nick?  That had to be fun. 

I couldn't have been more wrong about either. 

I stuck Anna out at first mainly because the lead was intriguing and solid.  So many teen movies are so stupid in how they portray kids, getting the behaviors and interactions completely wrong. This one didn't. It missed a little with the stereotypical bullying act, but it wasn't completely over the top. The song and dance numbers were more than I needed and some of the parts were gleefully/purposely over-acted but this wasn't a bad little film. I probably won't watch it again, but it was better than I expected. Didn't always anticipate the action that was coming, enjoyed watching the lead actresses (including a blonde in a beiber haircut).  Just a little puff of a movie that hit enough of the right notes to surprise.

Fatman I stuck out because I kept hoping it would improve.  It did not. A flimsy story, carried dourly along by Gibson and Goggins. No joy, no fun.  I think they were aiming for dark humor but they failed miserably to achieve it.  It was pretty awful, honestly.  I won't watch it again and I don't recommend it. 
He’s pretty damn funny in Daddy’s Home 2 if you can get past your disdain for will ferell. Ferell actually isn’t his silly normal self in this one. He’s a beta male who is shamed by both Gibson and wahlberg’s alpha male roles. Good stuff. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on December 22, 2020, 09:34:49 AM
He’s pretty damn funny in Daddy’s Home 2 if you can get past your disdain for will ferell. Ferell actually isn’t his silly normal self in this one. He’s a beta male who is shamed by both Gibson and wahlberg’s alpha male roles. Good stuff.
Did not see II, but the first one was pretty good.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 22, 2020, 10:45:04 AM
Did not see II, but the first one was pretty good.
It's hard to get past Ferrell's dumbassity.  He ruins every movie he's in except for Elf. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 24, 2020, 09:11:57 AM
It's hard to get past Ferrell's dumbassity.  He ruins every movie he's in except for Elf.
Total change in direction for him in daddy’s home. I would not steer you wrong maestro. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 27, 2020, 11:21:44 PM
Wonder Woman 1984

HBOMax comes through.  I'd been sort of looking forward to this for a while, at least since it was originally scheduled to come out as a summer blockbuster.  Guess they just got tired of waiting.  

Overall the movie was something of a disappointment.  The storyline, such as it was, was completely asinine and had no connection to anything remotely possible.  

Good lord, she's something to look at.  

The two main bad guys (Pedro Pascal from Game of Thrones and Kristin Wiig from SNL) were horribly, atrociously, miserably miscast.  Pascal, who sort of sucked as Oberyn Martell to begin with, was even worse here.  He leered and mugged his way through his misbegotten role in one of the worst efforts in a superhero movie I've ever seen.  He made nerd twig's Lex Luthor in Justice League look Shakespearean in comparison. It was almost as bad as Tobey McGuire's "emo Spidey" from Spiderman 3.  It was just awful. Wiig was flat and never really drew her poorly defined character out.  Neither of them worked at all. 

But good GAWWWD, Gal Gadot is delicious. The way she moves, I'm gonna dream about that. 

One of the biggest expectations I had was setting the movie in 1984, which is in my teenage wheelhouse. Recapturing that vibe (like, say, Fast Times did) was a huge draw.  But they didn't do it.  The whole 1984 setting was really only used to give Chris Pine a chance to do some wardrobe shots, for a brief opening scene with a red Firebird that was actually a 1981-82 model (and did the damn things even COME in red because I remember black, white and gold but not red) and a quick battle sequence with some thieves in a mall.  Other than that it could have been set in 1974, 1994, 2004 or any other random year.  The 84 was superfluous.  

But damn almighty, that woman looked spectacular in that white dress.  Holy fucking lassos.  I can't get that out of my mind. 

The story itself was so utterly ridiculous and contrived that it just had no weight at all. It's the same story I told my kids about the woodcutter and his three wishes, the same story I told my kids about the Monkey's Paw.  But my stories were better and they didn't last almost three hours.  

Damnation, Gal Gadot is hot. 

I just don't think this movie is going to wear as well as the first one.  It was bloated, the villains were buffoonish, the story absurd and the whole 1984 angle a complete letdown.  

I think it was maybe trying to say something, but who knows?  

Great googly moogly that woman is delectable.  I could watch her move for hours.  She's got a lithe, athletic, graceful way of moving every part of her body that makes my hope spring eternal.  

(https://www.goldenglobes.com/sites/default/files/media/01-rev-1-ww84-14304r_high_res_jpeg_0.jpeg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 21, 2021, 10:03:14 AM
Promising Young Woman 

I had some reasonably high expectations for this based on the trailer.  It was portrayed as a murderously fun romp through a field of cads by a woman bent on righting some past wrong.  

It didn't get there.  It's not those things.  

The film took too long to draw out the motivations.  The lead murderer was unconvincing emotionally and her resolutions were so completely improbable that it just didn't make logical sense.  

The end?  Nah.  

I wasted money on this one.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 31, 2021, 11:39:47 PM
The Little Things 
HBO Max again.  I sort of like getting new movie releases that I don't have to gag up $20 buck to "rent."  I just wish the movies were better.  

The Little Things brought Denzel "damn he's getting old" Washington, Rami "Mercury" Malik and Jared "weirdo" Leto in a movie that wanted to be S7ven but just lacked the gravity and power.  

Washington's performance was about on par with his turn as Equalizer. He wasn't bad, but you know he's capable of so much more.  By the way, they're remaking Equalizer with freaking Queen Latifah.  I've got a few other ideas that might work just as well!  How about Vivica Fox as Perry Mason?  Kerry Washington as Magnum PI? Angela Bassett as Andy Griffith, with Wanda Sykes as Barney Fife?  Pathetic. But I digress.  

Rami is, I think, going to struggle beyond the Queen biopic.  He's a weird-looking guy and that oddness didn't lend it self to this character in the least.  He just didn't resonate.  He wasn't believable. I could think of a thousand other guys who would have brought more to the role. 

Leto, on the other hand, was almost too weird.  He fit the role very well. 

The movie just felt very flat to me.   The storytelling was sloppy, the issues raised were dealt with poorly in this "new reality."  

It just didn't live up to its promise. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 01, 2021, 12:17:08 AM
The Omega Man

Also available on HBO Max:
One of Charlton Heston's greatest roles, this 1971 film was the bridge between his time on Planet Ape and "Soylent Green is peeeeeeopllleee!!"  It's a somewhat forgotten movie, although it was the basis for the infinitely inferior Will Smith vehicle I Am Legend. 

Stop me if you've heard this:
Germ warfare, in the shape of a virus unleashed from China, decimates the globe. The government declares martial law, restricting citizens to their homes. But it doesn't work.  People drop dead in the streets. 

Military doctor Colonel Robert Neville is working on a vaccine, and as the plague starts to take him, he injects himself -- thereby becoming the last living man on earth (or so he thinks). 
(Side note:  I sometimes wonder if Bill Gates grew up watching this and jerking off to visions of himself as Neville)

Some of the scenes in this pre-CGI vision are striking and in light of today's world a little eerie.  Deserted Los Angeles streets, empty buildings, vacant shops.  Looks a little too familiar. 

Side note 2: To achieve the 'deserted city' look, crews filmed in the very early morning in LA's business district which was typically empty then.  If you look really closely, though, you can occasionally see people and cars in the distant background. Having watched this movie many, many times it's still not easy for me to always spot them.

Turns out the plague doesn't kill everybody.  Some people it just turns into light-sensitive, almost albino destructive night creatures.  As was the habit in 70s era movies, the creatures form a quasi-religious cult with a messianic leader and don dark robes. They're literate, organized, and rational. Able to carry on conversations. They want to punish Heston because they blame him for the plague and hate him because he represents the evils of the past. Because of their light sensitivity, Heston has relative freedom during the day. When it's dark, however, he has to barricade himself in his apartment and ward off the creatures (led by a former newscaster) who are determined to destroy him.

The early part of the movie follows Heston as he (shirtless as usual) prowls the empty city in cars he picks up off the street, stalks the empty stores, dines alone, talks to himself and plays his 8-track tapes. 

During one of his daytime forays he discovers another human. A black woman hiding in a store.  Later that day the creatures break through his defenses and capture him.  The leader (who also played the diabolical robot creator in KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park) delivers a long winded-harrangue about the Heston's curse because he didn't catch the plague and sentences him to death.  Just as they're about to set him on fire in Dodger Stadium, the black chick (think foxy afro momma) shows up to rescue him.  She's part of a band of people (mostly kids) who have a natural immunity and have been hiding in the hills. (A little Manson Family-ish almost) 

The rest of the movie is their fight to recreate the vaccine using their natural antibodies, avoid the creeshtures, and build a new world.  It doesn't all go as planned and sacrifices (literaly) are made along the way, but this is dystopian 70s cheese at its absolute best.  Watching Chuck skeevily seduce the last living woman on earth with candles, music and wine is unintentionally hilarious.  I mean, really. Only two people in the world... what else you gonna do?

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on March 11, 2021, 10:21:09 AM
Coming 2 America

I was texting with the cool group, GF and GH, when I was about 20 minutes in.  GF said he turned it off about that time and GH hit the nail on the head. 2 is just a walk down memory lane.  That's exactly what it was and seemed more like what they were trying to do rather than make the sequel even half as funny as the original.  It wasn't!  They made sure to bring back every character from the first that I guess was still alive.  That's one of the biggest things that hurt it in my opinion because they just tried too hard to give everyone at least a cameo, including the twin rapper girls.  My name is Peaches, and I'm the best.  All the DJ's want to feel my breasts.

Eddie looked swole and old.  But then, you think about the fact that the original was released in 1988.  I imagine I'm swole compared to my Greek God-like physique of the late 80's.  John Amos had a small part in it, but I'd rather not have seen him.  Amos has always been the the hard ass dad in Good Times and the Cleo McDowell who wanted to break his foot off in the King's royal behind.  He's in his early 80's now and looks every bit of it.  They introduced some new characters in Jermaine Fowler, who played the "Bastard son" of Murphy, and Leslie Jones, who played his street-wise mom from Queens.  She was one of the few comedy bright spots.  Wesley Snipes was pretty solid in his role as dictator of a neighboring land that was on the verge of war with Zamunda.

Again, this absolutely pales in comparison with the original, most notably from the fact that they treated it more like a family reunion than anything else.  It had the occasional funny spot, which is inevitable when you bring the Barber Shop characters back in tact.  I'm actually glad I watched it so I can say I did.  I won't do it again.     
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 11, 2021, 08:28:56 PM
Biden’s Speech to the Nation


Lame as fuck. Incoherent. What a dumbass. Wont watch again. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 11, 2021, 08:37:58 PM
Coming 2 America

I was texting with the cool group, GF and GH, when I was about 20 minutes in.  GF said he turned it off about that time and GH hit the nail on the head. 2 is just a walk down memory lane.  That's exactly what it was and seemed more like what they were trying to do rather than make the sequel even half as funny as the original.  It wasn't!  They made sure to bring back every character from the first that I guess was still alive.  That's one of the biggest things that hurt it in my opinion because they just tried too hard to give everyone at least a cameo, including the twin rapper girls.  My name is Peaches, and I'm the best.  All the DJ's want to feel my breasts.

Eddie looked swole and old.  But then, you think about the fact that the original was released in 1988.  I imagine I'm swole compared to my Greek God-like physique of the late 80's.  John Amos had a small part in it, but I'd rather not have seen him.  Amos has always been the the hard ass dad in Good Times and the Cleo McDowell who wanted to break his foot off in the King's royal behind.  He's in his early 80's now and looks every bit of it.  They introduced some new characters in Jermaine Fowler, who played the "Bastard son" of Murphy, and Leslie Jones, who played his street-wise mom from Queens.  She was one of the few comedy bright spots.  Wesley Snipes was pretty solid in his role as dictator of a neighboring land that was on the verge of war with Zamunda.

Again, this absolutely pales in comparison with the original, most notably from the fact that they treated it more like a family reunion than anything else.  It had the occasional funny spot, which is inevitable when you bring the Barber Shop characters back in tact.  I'm actually glad I watched it so I can say I did.  I won't do it again.   
If "Loudmouth Leslie" was one of the movie's bright spots I will NOT EVER be watching.  She's obnoxious.  

And fuck Biden's pre-recorded ramble.  Standing there shitting in his pants.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on March 13, 2021, 04:28:22 PM
If "Loudmouth Leslie" was one of the movie's bright spots I will NOT EVER be watching.  She's obnoxious. 

And fuck Biden's pre-recorded ramble.  Standing there shitting in his pants. 
All that jello and cream of wheat gave him the runs. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 22, 2021, 12:27:12 AM
Justice League: The Snyder Version

Let's get the bad out of the way first. The film suffered from the usual Zack-isms.  

1) Absolutely TERRIBLE musical choices, particularly the end title with some tone deaf whore caterwauling the song from Shrek.  That was ear-melting. Some of the other song selections were jarringly out of place as well. 
2) The color palette was his usual combination of washed out blues and greys. That odd preference is part and parcel of any film he's ever done, including Sucker Punch.  He's never really grown from that. This movie bears a striking visual resemblance to that one. 
3) Slow motion. He loves slow motion. There was too much of it. Just too much. 
4) Good lord it's long. It's so, so, so long.  It's over four hours.  It should really have been three or four separate movies ... Flash origin, Cyborg origin, JL team-up, JL fights silver horny dude and gray Thanos. 

Now for the good. 
1) If you saw the theater release of Justice League you can watch this four-hour movie and only recognize a small handful of parallel scenes. It's almost like a completely different movie. 
2) If you saw the theater release of Justice League, you were probably confused by the motivations and emotional responses.  Almost all of that was cleared up.  It didn't just throw characters at the wall without exposition. This movie actually made sense, something JL in the theaters didn't come close to doing.  You understood what the DC versions of the Tesseract were. You understood why silver horn wanted them. You understood why Cyborg was a surly bitch.  It filled in the cornucopia of blanks that the theater-release left steaming on the floor. 
3) The expanded exposition gave you reason to be invested in the journey. It made the interactions more realistic. 
4) Gal Gadot is the most mesmerizing woman on the planet and she was not wasted here. Good lord, she's amazing.  Like all the rest of the characters (Batman and Alfred included) she's given enough to do. It does a good job of fitting all the particular skills of each of the characters into the narrative of a cohesive unit.  
5) It minimized many of the things I hated about the theater version. It toned down AquaBro for one. 

If I had seen this version first? I would have maintained a lot of hope for the DC Universe. It was a franchise builder. It created enough momentum that I would have had interest in seeing the planned (and now scrapped) follow ups with Angry Gray semi-Thanos bringing his army to earth.  I would have been willing to see this whole group -- even BattFleck -- together again.   

My big criticism of both the Marvel and DC Universes, though, is why do we have to dwell on these enormous galaxy-threatening alien conquerors assaulting the earth.  Thanos, angry gray DC-Thanos (Darkseid)....  why can't we just deal with real earth situations?  

Pay attention and you'll see several character cameos and references to characters sprinkled throughout this movie.  

I still think Snyder is a terrible director and an horrible, awful, fatal choice to helm the franchise.  I blame him for the sickening betrayal that was Dawn of Justice. Aquaman was almost certainly the worst superhero movie I've ever seen. Suicide Squad was an absolute abortion. Man of Steel blew. The reason the franchise crashed and burned while Marvel soared is almost entirely because of him.  His washed out palette of darkness leached all the fun out of the entire cast of characters across the whole spectrum of films.  It was no surprise to see his stupid name attached to WW:1984 which was a colossal misstep.  It set that character to scratch almost.  

But this one?  It was so far superior to the franchise death knell of the theater release of Justice League that it's almost a shame the dangling storylines that remain from this revised version will likely never be explored.  

It's too bad Flash can't actually turn back time so we could get a DC reset even if it were only for this one film (and not a reset that includes a twinkling fucking vampire as Bruce Wayne).  If we could go back and erase the theater turd that was Justice League, DC (and these particular characters) might still have a future.  

I've read that Snyder is sniveling around trying to cajole DC into bringing him back to do Justice League 2 and 3.  While this movie did ignite my curiosity I hope they never do.  He's a fucking hack.  Get him as far away from the franchise as possible.   He came very close to killing it.  Yeah, this film is better.  But it wouldn't have to do much to be better than the frothy character-killing turd that was the theater version of JL.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 22, 2021, 10:23:09 AM
I agree with pretty much all of this, actually.

Also, as to why do we have to fight Thanos/DarkSeid/etc...

It would get so tiresome watching the JL just trounce every pissant human-based villain they came across.  They need a challenge.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on March 22, 2021, 10:31:55 AM
I agree with pretty much all of this, actually.

Also, as to why do we have to fight Thanos/DarkSeid/etc...

It would get so tiresome watching the JL just trounce every pissant human-based villain they came across.  They need a challenge.
A Legion of Doom would be pretty badass, though.

And I'm hoping Doctor Doom makes a Marvel appearance soon.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 22, 2021, 11:46:32 AM
Added note: 

The tone-deaf caterwauling at the end was Snyder's homage to his daughter who'd committed suicide. They had that played at her funeral.  

I'm sorry.  

But that choice only amplifies just how out-of-touch he is musically.  The score for JL is just dreadful.  It's horrendous.  The Islamic wailing every time WW was on screen?  Her "theme" is so much more compelling than that and would have been a better selection.  I wouldn't suggest listening to it, but if you doubt my perception of this cattle-prod to the labia rendition of this song, here it is for your agony: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUKoUaapK9A

If you want to projectile vomit as your eardrums turn to dust, push forward to 4:44 of this god awful disaster of a song.  This bellowing woman should have her vocal cords ripped out.  I cannot sing a lick, but I could do a better version than this.  

There's no getting around the fact that this selection certifies Snyder's poor decision making.  It's just awful and out of place.  It's horrible. It sucks. I'm sorry for his loss and pain, but this is just the worst. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 30, 2021, 09:10:41 PM
I Care A Lot

Misguided story about a shark (Gone Girl) who preys on the elderly until she meets another  predator (Tyrion Lannister) who's inclined to destroy her plans when she chooses the wrong old lady to fleece. 

It's not a bad movie, but there are a handful of problems.  

1) Gone Girl plays the cold-blooded reptile extremely well. But when called on to emote as a human, she fails miserably.  The "steamy" lesbian love angle between Gone Girl and a delicious piece of Michelle Rodriguez-looking sweetness (See below) has all the spark of a campfire in a tsunami.  None.  There's not an authentic exchange between them.  They were flat as a flitter. 
2) Tyrion just doesn't have the menace you'd need to see from the character he portrays. I kept laughing when he was supposed to be seriously threatening. It just didn't play. Good actor, wrong here. 
3) There's nobody to root for. You don't want any of them to win in the end. When all the players are bad and there's not even a degree of badness you can support, the end result just doesn't have any resonance. 

The basic storyline: 
Gone Girl (I can't remember her name and don't care to look it up) bilks the elderly by colluding with doctors to have wealthy older people declared unfit to care for themselves.  A dimwit judge rules that Gone Girl should be their legal guardian and she then proceeds to sell everything off to pay for "care".  Houses, cars, jewelry, furniture, all of it. Gone.  It's a nice scam until she picks a sweet old lady who isn't exactly who they think she is.  

Would I watch it again?  Probably not.  But I also wouldn't tell you not to watch it.  Just don't expect much. 

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/0c/f8/070cf8ccecec9750fdb97aa0588a8262.png)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 31, 2021, 01:42:27 PM
That's Vincent Gallo in drag.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 02, 2021, 12:53:53 AM
That's Vincent Gallo in drag.
Let's change the hairstyle just a bit... 


(https://i.pstimaj.com/img/78/0x275/5bc4376b66a97cc3fed6f28f.jpg)

I know sexy when I see it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 04, 2021, 07:22:57 PM
Godzilla vs. Kong 
First off, this is a complete coincidence, but the sexy in the post above also plays a part in this film as the daughter of a mad scientist.  She's a caricature (as are most human parts of this film), but gives the hint of an extremely impressive rack.  

Now onto the review. 

Love the Godzilla mythos. Love King Kong too.  All the way back to the old black and white rampaging on cardboard cities.  I did watch the King Kong one with Jessica Lange (which wasn't great in retrospect).  Also watched the one with Jack Black and the follow up Skull Island with Loki, Captain Marvel, Nick Fury, Dr Dre and Eazy E (review here: http://tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=5634.msg437123#msg437123). I've also watched the unfairly panned Ferris version of Godzilla (which spawned that great Puff/Jimmy Page mashup), the one with Walter White and the overwrought middle one where horse face farmiga dies several times (reviewed here: http://tigersx.com/forum/index.php?topic=5634.msg482134#msg482134)

This movie promised to erase all the mistakes of the prior films and bring the two biggest titans in cinematic history face to face in an epic quest for domination.  Which it did, sort of.   

There are always problems. You know that.  Always.   

Here are a few: 
1) The science was so wonky it was hard to swallow, even in a film that featured a giant ape and an snarling sea beast laying waste to block after block. Hollow earth? Sheesh. 
2) The human characters are all caricatures. The dialogue was stilted and emotionless. It was cheesy. "Kong bows to no one!" Their motivations were suspect.  "Your brother was killed by the gravitational flip.  I'm sorry.  But we have a machine that can minimize that. You in?"  Brief moment of sadness. "I'm in!  And can I bring a bunch of other people and maybe a kid with us? That would be cool." 
3) This film was a continuation of the prior Godzilla movie and as such it pulled characters over. But it pulled the ones nobody gave a shit about and handed them far too much screen time. 
4) You had to have watched King of the Monsters -- the "middle film" -- to know who the people were or what they were doing. It was extremely confusing to someone who hadn't seen that film. 
5) Contrived situations. So there's this massive fight between the rivals. Skyscrapers are leveled. City blocks reduced to rubble. Yet somehow two people who are in the city of Hong Kong, completely unaware that the other was there, run out into the street and find each other immediately.  Bullshit. 
6) The cost.  I lost track of the number of multi-story buildings that were demolished. How in the world are they going to pay for all that?  How did thousands not die?  C'mon man! 
7) I'm big on musical choices. Some of these were pretty off base. Bad. 

Some of what they did right? 
1) The film started with Godzilla blasting Pensacola. I found that amusing. 
2) In the past, particularly in King of the Monsters, the fight scenes were always at night in some fog or haze that obscured the action. That wasn't the case here. The fights were straight WWE and everything was clearly visible. It's a pretty impressive spectacle -- even if the final fight isn't at all what you expect. 
3) They try with the muddled science and ridiculous leaps of logic to at least explain the motivations of the two titans -- even if it is incredibly hard to follow.  I watched with someone who didn't see King of the Monsters and there were a lot of "what the hell?" moments. 

This really isn't the movie I expected to see. It's more -- and it's less. It honestly hews closer to the Japanese version of the series. Like the black and white Japanese versions it throws asinine, ridiculous, preposterous scientific exposition in merely as a vehicle to move the main protagonists into conflict.  I sort of respect and admire the fact that they just said "ok, we're going to take this utterly absurd concept and run with it, so you guys play it seriously and we're good, kk?"   A lot of it feels extremely rushed and glossed over -- to the point that about two thirds of the way in I started to wonder if there would ever be a four-hour director's cut that would bring back all the scenes that were left on the cutting room floor. 

The little deaf kid is good. I liked her.  She's adorable. Rebecca Hall needs to eat a box of sandwiches. 

Of all the movies I've watched that debuted on HBOMax (including WW1984 and Little Things) this is far and away the best.  I'm going to watch it again just so I can ignore the laughable science and focus only on the battles between Kong and his ancient rival. Those are done about as well as you could hope for.  

The city-destroying battle in neon is sheer destructive spectacle and good enough on its own to carry the movie.  

Watch it for what it is.  Leave your brain at the door and revel in the two biggest and baddest monsters in movie history deciding once and for all who reigns  -- or do they? Hmmm....  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on April 05, 2021, 10:59:08 AM
Does it stand alone alright or do you need that first turd to make sense of it?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 07, 2021, 09:43:19 PM
Does it stand alone alright or do you need that first turd to make sense of it?
It can stand alone.  You just might not know where the characters came from or why they (particularly a teenage twit) were over acting. 

I’m watching it again.  The music is way worse than I remembered. Really, really bad choices. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 11, 2021, 10:02:44 AM
Unhinged

Russell Crowe in the story of a guy having a really bad day who collides with someone else who is also having a bad day and expresses it with her horn at a traffic light. Mayhem ensues. 

Crowe is fat.  Like wheezy fat. That’s part of his character I guess. But he’s fat.  

This movie is far more violent than I expected.  There were several “oooohhhh, damn....” moments of carnage. That’s good. 

It’s a little unrealistic and over the top in places, but it was a better and more engrossing movie than I expected.  

Russell Crowe is fat 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 03, 2021, 08:45:07 AM
Tomorrow War
You think the science in Kong v. Godzilla is contrived and wonky? Take a look at the Amazon movie Tomorrow War.  

Chris Pratt, Dexter's last (and only really hot) girlfriend, Schillinger from Oz (he's been in a thousand other movies, but he'll always be the ass-tattooing prison Nazi to me), and some other people you sorta recognize leap into the future to help fight a war to preserve the past. 

No worries about the reverse butterfly effect here.  When they start this circular shit, though, I lose the movie thinking about whether what I'm seeing happen actually happened or happens if they change the future and the past to prevent the future you're seeing unfold.  It gives me a headache.  

In this movie the future is overrun with violent alien creatures.  They are so invasive and deadly that future warriors come back into the past to recruit soldiers to make the jump forward to help fight the beings.  What?  

Oh, but wait!  There's some muddled time-crossed family dynamic storyline that includes time hopping to develop a method to kill the creatures.  

Hang on, let's ask a high school science kid what to do and DAMN!  wouldn't you know it?  Al Gore warned us.  Global warming is the real problem here.  

It was a really stupid movie.  It was clumsily done.  Not Pratt's best work.  Or anybody else's.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 03, 2021, 05:38:27 PM
Independence Day: Regurgitation

I may have reviewed this before.  I don't remember.  

All I have to say is:  We waited 20 years and THIS is the best they could do?  What a big crock of biden.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 04, 2021, 10:12:21 AM
Lansky

Meyer Lansky is one of the most fascinating stories in mob history. Arguably more influential and powerful than any politician, Lansky was the primary basis for Hyman Roth's character in Godfather II.  Lansky controlled politicians across the globe, was instrumental in the US effort in WWII, made significant contributions to Israel's self-preservation efforts, helped build Las Vegas and was critical in the consolidation of the criminal empire that is the Mafia. 

Portrayed in this movie by Winston Wolf himself (looking older than hell), Lansky's story is told in a series of voice-overs and flashbacks.  

Mr. Wolf is a fine actor and he inhabits the character well.  Unfortunately the remainder of the cast is far beneath him. That paucity of talent drags what could/should have been a fascinating story into something that resembles an elementary school drama class writing and performing a play about the mob. It's trite, it's superficial and it fails to remotely convey the power Lansky held. 

Sam Worthington as a journalist hired to tell Lansky's story is particularly bad, unable to generate a single realistic emotion or reaction. Paired with Harvey Keitel in many scenes, he's clearly out of his depth.  He's like a piece of drywall with a stupid expression drawn on it. 

John Magaro tries, but he's ineffective and unconvincing as the young Lansky. 

Minka Kelley is completely flat as a druggie informant, a cardboard cutout of a person.  The dude from Jag is a caricature as the FBI agent surveilling Lansky.  The people playing Bugsy, Lucky and the rest of the mobsters are jokes.  So bad. It's like they spent all their money on Keitel and had to pluck actors rejected for roles on REELZ "The Autopsy of:" recreations to round out the cast. In fact, that's about the quality you get with this.  It's as bad as a Breaking the Band episode acting-wise. 

Part of it is that they are fed corny, phony lines and expected to deliver them convincingly. Part of it is they are simply terrible in the roles.  The arrogant director also casts himself in one minor role, and he sucks like a Hoover in it.  

What's strangest about this film is seeing the City of Mobile substitute for Chicago and Havana, to see Gulf Shores pretend to be Miami. There are scenes on a wooden pier which is so clearly Eastern Shores with the skyline of Mobile visible in the background. Didn't even try to hide it.  I know most of those places. When I saw them pop up regularly it was jarring. It made it harder for me to connect with the thin, poorly-acted threads in this film. 

It's bad.  If you know anything about mob history, it tells you nothing you didn't already know and it tells you in a shuffling, stumbling manner.  Pass. Wait until it's free on some late night channel and then watch only to marvel at the audacity of trying to pass Mobile off as the Windy City. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 04, 2021, 06:16:26 PM
Above Suspicion

Pretty bleak tale of an FBI informant played by a surprisingly salty sexy Khaleesi (Emilia Clarke) who embarks on a misguided affair with her handler, played by the half-face guy from Boardwalk Empire. How do you know it's a bleak tale? You can tell this just by the hazy blue overlay that tints every scene like Zac Snyder had a bluegasm. 

The best part of the film is Clarke who prances and struts just like a trashy Appalachian whore probably would.  She did a good job with that and even managed a passable hillbilly twang, although the ackuseeyunt sometimes strayed into caricature. Where she struggled most was in convincingly conveying her supposed drug addiction. Still, she was solid enough that anybody who's ever lived in a dying deep south town could put a name with the character. We all know who she was in our town.  

The rest of the cast does her no favors. Half-Face is numbingly robotic (for the record, he was the worst part of American Hustle, too) and his pie-eyed wife doesn't bring much to the role either even though there was something oddly sexy about her too.  Johnny Knoxville basically played a version of himself so that's hard to judge.  

What's fucked up is that this is a true story and unlike so many, it allegedly didn't stray far from the source material.  It's just a shame that Khaleesi's spitting, snarling redneck bobcat was smothered by an oatmeal-bland supporting cast. It kept the movie from being all it could be. 

It was fun to watch her, though.  She's really struggled to find her footing outside of Game of Thrones and it's interesting to get a glimpse of her potential.  


(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrCK6fKW4AA040B.jpg)

Tell me you don't know that same sassy southern tramp from where ever it is you live. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on July 06, 2021, 08:44:40 AM
Above Suspicion


(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrCK6fKW4AA040B.jpg)

Tell me you don't know that same sassy southern tramp from where ever it is you live.
That girls usually drove an IROC-Z Camaro or a Chevy Malibu.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 06, 2021, 10:24:28 AM
That girls usually drove an IROC-Z Camaro or a Chevy Malibu.
By the late 90s, that had morphed into a jeep.  I'm thinking of one in particular, actually.  Had a kid when she was 18-19.  Late 20s, early 30s by when I knew her.  Still single. Still hitting the bars, fucking to Guns and Roses on the stereo, kid stayed with mom when she was out.  Sundress and boots or jeans and a cami.  I called her RedneckRedJeep.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 11, 2021, 11:55:08 PM
Werewolves Within 

Ever since Tucker  and Dale v. Evil, I've been waiting for the next film to successfully merge horror and comedy.  Fear and laughter aren't really that far apart when you consider the physical manifestations. Many people use laughter/humor to escape situations of fear, so it only makes sense that a marriage of the two is a formula for success.  

Unless it doesn't.  Like in the disappointing Werewolves Within.  

The film stars Lily from AT&T and Richard Splett from Veep (who's played a variation of the exact same guy in every film he's ever been in) and a host of other D-level actors.  And it does not deliver.  It fails dismally on the horror front and flops drearily in the comedy area.  There are a few moments here or there, but it's just a slow boat ride to nowhere.  

Short synopsis: 
Splett comes to a small New England town as the new park ranger and befriends the town's other newcomer, mailcarrier Lily from AT&T.  The tiny town has one hotel which is playing host to a prominent environmentalist and a oil/gas executive on opposite sides of a proposed gas pipeline that could change the town's fortunes or ruin it forever. A snowstorm, a potential werewolf attack, and a quirky cast of characters settle in to survive the night.   

By the time they get around to revealing the truth of the werewolf legend, you really won't give a shit. Although it does explain a thing or two, maybe.  

AT&T girl occasionally looks cute, occasionally doesn't. Watching her isn't enough of a draw to recommend. Neither is watching Richard Splett do Richard Splett in a funny hat.  

It's a D-minus movie pretending to be a B movie.  Doesn't get there. 


(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/06/23/arts/werewolves1/merlin_189502284_baa4d2b9-b8a5-4e39-b593-6fa7fea4f508-superJumbo.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 12, 2021, 12:00:38 AM
Unholy

Lifeless, dickless, pointless, poorly edited story of religious possession.  

Deaf/mute has a vision of what she thinks is the Virgin Mary and gains the power to heal.  The Catholic Church rushes to set up shrine.  But Mary isn't the Mary she thought.  

Bad CGI, poorly executed jump "scares" and "get me out of this turd" emotionless acting for Jeffrey Dean Stanton (Negan from Walking Dead) and the dude that cut his leg off in Saw shoved this movie even further into the dumpster.  

It's just bad.  The deaf girl isn't bad and in the right movie, she might be something.  Here?  Nope. 

You've seen better movies. There's nothing new or interesting here.  Could have been, maybe, but no.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 12, 2021, 01:38:38 PM
Unholy

Lifeless, dickless, pointless, poorly edited story of religious possession. 

Deaf/mute has a vision of what she thinks is the Virgin Mary and gains the power to heal.  The Catholic Church rushes to set up shrine.  But Mary isn't the Mary she thought. 

Bad CGI, poorly executed jump "scares" and "get me out of this turd" emotionless acting for Jeffrey Dean Stanton (Negan from Walking Dead) and the dude that cut his leg off in Saw shoved this movie even further into the dumpster. 

It's just bad.  The deaf girl isn't bad and in the right movie, she might be something.  Here?  Nope.

You've seen better movies. There's nothing new or interesting here.  Could have been, maybe, but no. 

Jeffrey Dean Morgan?

Funny because I saw him in another similar movie this weekend - The Possession I believe it was called. He and Kyra Sedgewick. It was "ok" I guess. Possession type movies are getting as oversaturated as zombie stuff now. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 12, 2021, 09:26:54 PM
Jeffrey Dean Morgan?

Funny because I saw him in another similar movie this weekend - The Possession I believe it was called. He and Kyra Sedgewick. It was "ok" I guess. Possession type movies are getting as oversaturated as zombie stuff now.
Yeah.  That guy.  
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 20, 2021, 11:37:10 PM
Arthur

I haven't seen this movie in years.  Ran across it tonight and sort of fell into watching it. 

I'd forgotten how easily this movie flowed. The essence of it became a Christopher Cross yacht rock staple - a cheesy, schmaltzy slice of the 80s that won an Oscar for Best Song. 

It's not Shakespeare. It's not Christopher Nolan.  It is, however, a breezy, funny, sweet, sentimental, touching movie. It's the kind of thing Hollywood didn't know what to do with then and would never consider making now. 

It didn't rely on exploding assholes, dogs jerking off, schlubs fucking, piss/shit/dick jokes or anything like that for comedy. 

John Gielgud was outstanding as Arthur's Butler, Hobson.  His stuffy, dry wit was the perfect counterbalance to Arthur's chaos. Won him an Oscar.

**side note: He may have been gay. I don't know. The thing is I don't care, because his entire existence wasn't predicated on his gayness or lack thereof. **

Dudley Moore was a better Arthur than the people first approached for the role (Pacino, Belushi, Travolta). He was really good.  I can't think of anything he was in before or after, though. 

The movie has one huge, glaring, almost unrecoverable error.  Liza Minelli. Hollywood was so set on making her a star they put her in the role of Arthur's object of affection and she's just terrible. Difficult to look at.  Zero authenticity. No chemistry with Arthur.  When I think of who was originally offered the role -- Deborah Winger -- it saddens me to think of just how much better the movie could have been had she taken it.  Hell, anybody but ugly ass Liza would have been an improvement. She breaks every scene she's in. 

Forgotten how much I enjoyed it.  I remember watching it in theaters on a date. It almost got lost coming out within a week or two of the release Raiders of the Lost Ark, Superman II, Stripes, Endless Love (jeeez, Brooke Shields was hot), For Your Eyes Only, Cannonball Run, Wolfen, The Empire Strikes Back, Escape From New York, Nice Dreams...

Funny thing.  It debuted in ninth place and looked poised to slide off the map.  Instead, it became one of those few movies that builds over time.  Ninth, three weeks at sixth, two weeks at third, a week at second and then sliding all the way up to first in September -- ahead of Stripes, ahead of Raiders, ahead of Private Lessons.  It remained in the top four all the way until Christmas, something none of the other blockbusters that dominated that summer were able to do.  It stayed in the top 20 releases all the way through March of the following year --36 weeks. FWIW, Star Wars - as big as it was - stayed 44.

It's a shame movies like this aren't in the pipeline any more. 

Death watch:  Most of the cast of this movie is dead.  Hobson. Bitterman. Arthur. Burt. Martha. Ralph. The only ones still around are Susan (LA Law's Jill Eikenberry) and ugly ass toad face Liza. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on July 21, 2021, 11:18:43 AM
I disagree re: Minelli.  She had the annoying/brassy NYer thing down pat.  She was a good foil to Moore's urbane (if besotted) character.

Never a huge fan of her, but she was pretty great as Lucille 2 in Arrested Development.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 21, 2021, 11:45:41 AM
I disagree re: Minelli.  She had the annoying/brassy NYer thing down pat.  She was a good foil to Moore's urbane (if besotted) character.

Never a huge fan of her, but she was pretty great as Lucille 2 in Arrested Development.
Good foil, but those very attributes invalidated any alleged chemistry. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 21, 2021, 08:14:57 PM
I disagree re: Minelli.  She had the annoying/brassy NYer thing down pat.  She was a good foil to Moore's urbane (if besotted) character.

Never a huge fan of her, but she was pretty great as Lucille 2 in Arrested Development.
Agree with k here. It isn’t that she’s terrible in general. She’s just more a theater or Broadway show type. A poor caricature of her mother really trying to be a big screen actor. Granted she never asked to be her mother. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 24, 2021, 12:03:44 PM
Spiral

The Saw movie series is one of the better horror/gore franchises in existence. Yes, it's uneven in places and some of the set ups are hard to believe.  Not all of the seven original films are classics, but they all fit into the same world.  Even the stretching-the-premise Jigsaw tied into the history pretty well.  

And then there's Spiral.  

Chris Rock was trying really hard to show he has range.  Guess what?  He. fucking. does. not.  His performance is abysmal.  A-BYS-mal.  He fails to generate a single emotion with even a hint of authenticity. When he's trying to look serious -- like for one long scene where he grimly stalks down a hall in slow motion -- it's all I could do to keep from laughing.  

The rest of the cast is even worse.  Vegas Vacation Audrey (who was kind of cute then) is like a stalk of cauliflower pretending to be the chief detective.  Samuel L. Jackson just got some money and didn't even give a half-ass effort.  Everybody else is worse than car dealership commercial.  Terrible. Just terrible and not a single hint of realism. 

I've seen porn movies that were substantially better.  Hell, a Madea version of Saw would have been better than this.  By far.  

Everything about this movie sucks. Every single second of it blows unrealistic chunks.  Good God it was horrible.  It's one of the worst things I've ever seen.  Trying to tie it to John Kramer and Jigsaw when it has NOTHING to do with that is an abomination.  It would be like making a movie about a guy who bakes dead raccoons into cupcakes and calling it "From the Book of Breaking Bad" because the baker wears glasses and is named Walter.  

The ending was asinine and abrupt and had zero -- no, negative zero-- credibility.  

Chris Rock came up with this concept, produced it and had a hand in every scene.  He clearly never understood what made the Saw movies work.  He obviously does not have the creativity or cleverness to devise the kind of mind-warping, decision-based traps that were the hallmark of the series. If he ever tries something like this again, he should have a scalpel sewn into his lower intestine and his eyes sewn shut while being dangled over a pit of alligators by hooks skewered through his hands.  If he can free his hand, remove the scalpel, open his eyes and swing to the other side of the pit from the remaining hooked hand.... then he can ...... no.... no.... no.... he can't ever be allowed to dabble in the Saw world again.  Ever. Ever. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 25, 2021, 12:23:08 AM
Fear Street 1666, 1978, 1994 

Movie trilogy detailing the curse that plagues the town of Shadyville and its residents while neighboring Sunnyvale basks in the glow of prosperity and success. Films based on the work of RL Stine, the Goosebumps guy.  

It wasn't Happy Death Day which I loved.  It wasn't quite American Horror Story 1984 (which I enjoyed a lot). But it dabbled in the same self-aware horror those movies did.  

The series starts in 1994 in a neon and blacklight bathed typical suburban 90s mall with the random murder of a store clerk. 

It then delves into the town's historic curse, allegedly cast by a witch that was hanged back in the 1600s and cut off her own hand in the process. Some Scooby-Doo teens get caught up in unraveling the mystery.  

The first two films are entertaining.  After 1994, the series skips back to 1978 for a Friday the 13th-style camp massacre and some exposition into the origins of the curse.  The trilogy concludes with a trip back to 1666 before wrapping it up with a return to the 1994 mall setting.  

The 1666 entry is easily the weakest of the three partly because none of the cast (recycled from the prior two films) is able to carry off a passable Olde Aenglish accent.  But the real ruination of the series as a whole comes when the writers decide to turn the entire storyline from witches, curses, hexes, murders (you know, the fun stuff) into a not-subtle LGBR549QWERTY empowerment story.  That was a betrayal.  

Both the 1994 and the 1978 entries were able to do something few films are ever able to do and catch me off guard with a twist/variation I didn't see coming.  1666 tried, but I already had THAT piece of the puzzle figured out from about mid-way through the first one.  

Complete cast of unknowns.  Most were composites of characters you've seen in a hundred other horror/slasher movies.  The ensemble did an adequate job.  

It's not genre-defining, it's not breaking any new ground.  But it told a fairly interesting story in a creative way even as it tromped over ground that's been tromped many times before.  That's solid. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 20, 2021, 11:44:09 PM
Peanut Butter Falcon

Pretty sure I reviewed this before, but maybe not. 

This is one of the best movies I've seen in a long, long time.  Watched it again today.  More impressed the second time around. 

No buildings blow up. The world isn't saved from alien invaders.

It's just a sweet, simple story that's told really well. 

Shia Lebouf shows why he might be one of the best actors of this generation.  His friends-through-necessity relationship with the Falcon (a guy with Down's Syndrome looking to make a place in the world) seems natural and real.

Yeah, some of the story is unlikely and improbable, but it's done with such charming ease that you don't really mind. 

Don Johnson's daughter looks 50 times sexier in this than she did in all the Shades movies combined. I loved her and loved watching her languid grace in this film.  

It's not hilarious, it's not shockingly dramatic, it's not wrapped up in itself. It's just a nice, breezy, easy story of two lost souls finding strength and comfort where they least expect it. If you make it through the birthday wishes on the boat scene without getting a little sniffy, you're soulless.

This is what movies should be.  If you haven't seen it, you should.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on August 21, 2021, 01:54:04 AM
Peanut Butter Falcon
Good movie. Not great but really enjoyable.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on August 21, 2021, 01:57:04 AM
I Care A Lot

Misguided story about a shark (Gone Girl) who preys on the elderly until she meets another  predator (Tyrion Lannister) who's inclined to destroy her plans when she chooses the wrong old lady to fleece.

It's not a bad movie, but there are a handful of problems. 
British Bond girl that has gone downhill since. Horrible movie in which the bitch did not suffer enough dying!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on August 21, 2021, 02:00:06 AM
Tomorrow War
You think the science in Kong v. Godzilla is contrived and wonky? Take a look at the Amazon movie Tomorrow War.  

It was a really stupid movie.  It was clumsily done.  Not Pratt's best work.  Or anybody else's. 
I actually enjoyed it. It was a different take than most sci-fi movies. 
Not an Oscar winner, but a good watch.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 22, 2021, 01:22:25 AM
The Woman In the Window

It wanted to be Rear Window for the modern age.  It wasn't.

Amy Adams is a psychologist/psychiatrist having a mental meltdown of her own, afraid to leave her house.  She's been there for almost a year, watching the world from her window. She sees the neighbors move in, meets the wife and their socially awkward teenage son. Or does she? 

The movie wallows around in what's real and what's not real for a while. Then it firmly establishes what wasn't before flipping that around to maybe what was. 

It took its time getting to nowhere, really.  There were a couple of "big twists" both of which we figured out well before their "shocking" unveiling.  They were so obvious, we were hoping our supposition was wrong and that the writers would actually give us something surprising. They didn't.

Amy Adams looked horrible here. She was supposed to, I guess, but she was the polar opposite of the attractiveness she presented in American Hustle.  What I take away from it is that THIS grungy schlub is probably closer to her reality than the glamour of AH.  That being the case?  I wouldn't touch her with your pogo stick.

Gary Oldman overacted badly -- as he has a tendency to do.  Birdman (or whatever from the Marvel movies) was wasted in a secondary role.  Also wasted were Stacy from Fast Times at Ridgemont High (gotta go, Stace) looking horribly old, the football jock from 22 Jump Street (or was it 21?) who was also the fake Captain America before Birdman took the suit away, and a bleh looking Julianne Moore.

This movie wanted to badly to be taken seriously that it lost its overbearing way. 

Watch Rear Window instead of this poser.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 27, 2021, 09:29:40 AM
Galaxy Quest 
Pretty sure I've done this one before, too but I don't see it.  

I can't understand why this movie wasn't one of the biggest hits of its time.  Amazing cast, clever story, spot-on performances, perfect mix of humor and drama.  I think the studio failed to market it properly because the suits didn't bother to understand what it was.  

It simultaneously mocks and honors Star Trek and its fans without ever directly referring to either.  Tim Allen (his best role ever) as the star of a space-based series (ala Kirk) who can't ever live the role down. Alan Rickman as an alien second in command (ala Spock) who kills with dry humor.  Sigourney Weaver in a blond wig and fake boobs. Tony Shaloub as a befuddled head of engineering. Sam Rockwell as the expendable red shirt cast member.  

The story is pretty simple. Typecast by their long-ago television series, Galaxy Quest, the stars are relegated to humiliating public appearances at Comic-Cons and store openings to make a living. They've grown weary of the fanatic fans who quote their lines and dress in character. 

A race of aliens who studied the 'historical documents' shows up and takes the crew to the real-life ship up in space with the idea that Captain Taggart and his crew can save them from a hostile enemy.  

There are subtle nods to Trek and its fans all along, but it never stoops to satire. 

It's a great movie, one of the best. I'm not a Tim Allen or Sigourney Weaver fan but both are excellent. Rickman is fantastic. The rest of the cast is just as good. 

If you ever had any affection for Star Trek at all, it's worth watching. If you didn't, it's still worth watching, you just might not get some of the sly references.  It gets my highest recommendation. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on August 27, 2021, 09:38:56 AM
I actually totally agree with your take on this one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 11, 2021, 02:18:20 PM
Malignant
The search for the next great horror movie continues without success. 

Interesting premise. Kind of a clever way to disguise the identity of the big bad (although you'll probably figure out the basic premise if not the actual manifestation well before the reveal).  

Basic storyline: Woman (Madison) with a murky history she can't remember is seized by visions of carnage. As the story unravels with the help of her thick ass sorta cute sister, her links to the carnage are uncovered. 

There are problems.  Lazy storytelling abounds.  Porno-movie level performances (particularly by the cop) Allow me to detail a few issues. 

1) Madison and her sister go to the cops to describe one of her visions.  The police agree to go check it out and TAKE Madison and her sis along with them. 
2) Huge brawl leaves the police officer bruised and cut, but the person with which he fought is unscathed, not sore. No impact. 
3) The entire police force took shooting lessons from Stormtroopers. Close range, emptying clips and nothing hits the bad guy.  
4) Dozens (many dozens) of people are brutally slain, but we gonna get us a happy ending!  That's fucking infuriating to me.  You can't have a character slaughter an entire city block of people and then end it with a sweet hug and an "I've always loved you" moment with dad.  There are consequences to behaviors. Electric chairs, lethal injections, federal pound me in the ass prison type consequences.  The end was gallingly saccharine and absurd. 

The sassy black cop character was good in a "let me do my Wanda Sykes impersonation" manner.  

In a curious aside, you'll see an almost unrecognizable Tia from Uncle Buck in a few scenes (damn she got old!) 

It's just not good overall, though.  It's just not.  


Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on September 12, 2021, 08:17:16 AM
Saw Malignant as well Friday afternoon. I thought it was different. Not what I was expecting for sure. To preface - it’s James wan. He’s a solid director. But like jason Blum and M Night - he follows a template. And I’ve come to expect that to a degree. This one was no different.

The cinematography and score was good. Effects were ok. But yeah the plot had big holes. Was all over the place. I liked the sister as well. And the black cop. She was prob the best piece of acting in the movie. Overall, the ending just didn’t match up with the carnage that took place. It was like none of the carnage ever happened.

Quick useless fact- “tia” from uncle buck is also playing goose Bradshaws widow in the new top gun (now pushed into next year for a release). 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 12, 2021, 11:38:58 PM
The Inheritance

Searching for a good horror movie. Still.

Moderately sexy Russian chick pretending to be from Chicago inherits an imposing castle-ish structure in the middle of Kyiv Ukraine. (How you know this is a Russian film and not an American one as it proports to be is that Kyiv isn't spelled Kiev, which is the way we'd do it).

Once she and her husband arrive at the location.... nothing happens.  Oh, there's theoretically a story about discovering a dark family secret, but it really doesn't matter because it means nothing. There's a long list of dangling threads that are never explained, but you won't give a shit either way. 

Here are the top five doors that were opened but never closed:

1) Why won't the driver go into the house, but his wife will?
2) Who is the only person she can sell the house to?
3) Who are the "important people" who want it to be sold?
4) Who are the guys watching the house?
5) Where did the dumbass husband go and for how long?

The time gaps were baffling.  There wasn't a single scare (jump or psychological) to be found.  What was his connection to the lawyer? It was a shit burger mashed into a box of shitaroni and cheese.

This movie fucking suckkkkkkkkked. 

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZjk1NDY2MjYtMzUwYS00MmRjLTk4ZTYtMjA3Njc2ZjVjOWQzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjQwMDg0Ng@@._V1_.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 23, 2021, 01:31:50 PM
Candyman 2021

Reboot of one of  the dumber (but good) horror franchises.  Remember when Candyman had those bees in his mouth and on his face in the original?  Those were real freaking bees. 

This version? 

Sucks to be whitey.  It's all your fault.  Honky. 

I like Jordan Peele, but he's whipped the racism horse far too long.   This movie added nothing to the Candyman legacy other than blaming everything on them nasty ass crackers. 

I could do without it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 23, 2021, 01:37:33 PM
Shangri La and the Legend of the Rings

I don't know what the title is.  Sorry. 

I didn't want to see this movie.  But it was Marvel and they all tie together so you sort of have to.  It's not great.  It's not Ironman or Thor:Ragingcock.   But it's good. 

Once again, Marvel proves it knows how to make superhero movie. 

This was a little slow in parts, it skipped around the timeline (but never left you wondering where you were) and there were some threadbare holes, but it's so much more entertaining than the typical DC effort.  It was just a quality movie.   Funny in parts, lots of action, dramatic in parts, surprising in parts.  I was blown away by the characters who returned and how effectively they were used for the purposes intended. 

I'm getting a little tired of seeing Alka Seltzer (or whatever her name is) but her brassy Danny DeVito impersonation in Jumanji 2 and her brassy Danny DeVito impersonation here didn't overwhelm the movie.  She held her role pretty well. 

Yes.  Go see it.  Go back to the movies. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on September 23, 2021, 01:56:15 PM
so I bought the AMC Premium Membership a while back and been trying to catch 1-2 movies a week....even when not great, I just enjoy being in the theater. Much like Nicole Kidman says in the preview before every AMC movie....the lights, the screen, the pop corn, the sounds....all of it. Just can't beat it. Im tired of watching shoot at home the last 18 months. But any who.....Some of K's reviews have crossed paths with the ones ive seen as well......

- OLD - No, its not a movie about Snags. Typical M Night twist type thriller. Middle of the road for him but I enjoyed it.
- The Inheritance - I literally fell asleep. Not good. Not even remotely good.
- Malignant - went from thriller, to horror, to Sci Fi all in about 25 mins. Got weird, went off the rails. I elaborated a little more above.
- Candyman - would have been a solid movie if not for all the constant mention of whitey and gentrification. I get it. Ok, lets move on. Nope, It never did. K is right Whitey bad. That was the constant theme. Sucks because otherwise it was well done. Screenplay, filming even the acting seemed all solid.
- Nighthouse - it was "ok". Had loose ends. Many never got resolved by the end. Wasn't terrible, wasn't good either.
- Jungle Cruise - pretty good. Rock and the cute British Chick did well together. Good story too. Nothing fancy but just solid.

Future ones coming up ill catch:

Cry Macho (a 91 year old Eastwood is still better than most of todays crap)
Shang Chi
Saints of Newark (Sopranos prequel)
New Bond (Daniel Craig reprising)
Eternals (Marvel again)
Halloween Kills (Blum + Carpenter)
Antler - looks weird but interesting
The Tammy Faye movie - im intrigued here.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 02, 2021, 12:42:50 AM
The Many Saints of Newark

You know my affection for The Sopranos.  I firmly believe it to be the greatest television show in history.  Amazing writing, great casting, superb acting. 

That's why I approached this new prequel with some trepidation.  Just like I didn't really ever want or need a sequel, I wasn't sure I needed to see the story I had already pieced together from the bits and pieces that were told over the series run played out in movie fashion. 

I was right.  I wish I'd never heard of this instantly forgettable poorly acted, poorly plotted, poorly conceived, poorly executed clusterfuck. 

Cory Stoll is a fine actor in his own right.  He wasn't convincing at all in an effort to channel Dominic Chianese's Uncle June. There were occasional flashes, but not enough to carry the part.

Vera Horse-face Farmiga is allegedly a good actress. She wasn't convincing at all with a shittily obvious fake nose in her effort to channel Livia Soprano. There were occasional, brief flashes but she couldn't carry the part.

The guy playing Dickie Moltisanti was a worse actor than the manson-lamp fuck that played Richie Aprile in the series. He brought zero gravity. The part required him to show duality, to be part good/part bad (like Tony Soprano) and be conflicted about it but he was a flat one-note dumbass. Terrible casting decision. 

Stunt casting with Ray Liotta/Ray Liotta who's a shell of his Henry Hill self. Painful to watch.

The clowns mimicking the characters Paulie, Pussy and Sil were like a super shitty SNL skit.  Fucking terrible. Just fucking terrible even though their screen time was thankfully limited.

And then there's Michael Gandolfini.  He might be a good actor one day, but not if he's given no more than this.  There was one five-second burst where I saw a glimmer of what his dad brought to the role, but the rest?  The poor kid got no help, piss poor direction and nothing to work with.  I felt sorry for him.

It was so bad it was almost like parody.  Let's check all the inside joke boxes and call it a day. 

> Dickie wasn't getting a crib, he was getting TV trays! Check
> He never had the makings of a varsity athlete! Check
> Hey, there's Carmela! Check
> Baby Christopah is scared of Tony! Check

The Sopranos (minus season six) was the best series in the history of episodic television.  This film?  A shitty excuse for a companion piece. It should have been shitcanned.  None of the things that made The Sopranos great were in evidence here.  None. Not a single fucking one. I can't figure out how Chase -- who guided the original series with a masterful hand -- could have birthed this foul pile of rancid jizz. 

If you love The Sopranos?  Skip it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on October 04, 2021, 03:23:55 PM
thanks kaos...i'll skip it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 16, 2021, 10:34:53 AM
Halloween Kills

I don't go to a Halloween movie looking for the next great horror franchise.  I go for the familiarity. I go because I know what I'm going to get for the most part.  Michael kills in a brutal, unfeeling manor.  People try to stop him.  And he dies. Or does he?   This movie checked all the boxes.  It wasn't ground-breaking or transformational. It didn't try to say anything (like the race-baiting recent incarnation of Candyman).  It just let Michael breathe and expanded on some of the things we thought we knew from 1978. 

If I could suggest anything, you should watch the 2018 Halloween movie immediately prior to seeing this one.  Why?  Because this film is really just another episode in the same story.  It takes place on the same night, picking up at the exact moment the prior film ends.  I did it backward.  I watched Halloween Kills last night at the theater and when I got home noticed that the 2018 movie was playing on FX. So I watched it.  In doing so, I saw so many characters and settings that carried over.  Throwaway moments like a couple getting into a car and that couple later becomes involved in the story.  Or a group of kids out trick-or-treating who later play a part in a critical scene.  Had I remembered any or all of that, it would have fleshed out this movie even more. 

Halloween has an interesting arc.  There was the original (which was semi-groundbreaking although Black Christmas really set the table), and then there was Halloween, two which (like this one) picked up mere moments after the original ended.  Then there was the much maligned, Michael-less Halloween III: Season of the Witch.  After that came three cash grabs that sullied the series' reputation, and a two-movie Rob Zombie arc.  Then in 2018, the series was re-booted.  It ignored everything from Halloween III to both Zombie films and served as a continuation of the original two films. 

I realized last night that Michael Myers has reached the level (like Batman, Superman, etc.) as a character where different directors can tell different stories at different times using him as the central figure.  So it's okay for Zombie to have his version. It's okay for 4, 5, and 6 to tell completely different stories.  And it's okay to continue the original two with this new incarnation. 

For what it's worth, I liked this movie. I liked it much more than the critics who have dismissed it as nothing more than filler.  Because it's part of a story arc that remained in the same day I don't really even look at it as a separate movie. I see it just as the continuation of the 2018 version.  It's like another episode.  As such it gave me exactly what I expected and set up the expected third episode. It is well filmed, relatively well acted and it clearly has a great affection for that oh-so-awful, but oh-so-good 1978 game-changing film. 

One of the things I liked best was the homage paid to one of the films in this series that gets much (in my opinion unwarranted) scorn.  I caught it.  I loved it.  I thought it was fantastic.  I think I was the only one in the theater who noticed. 

I don't want to spoil that.  But just remember kids, only 15 more days to Halloween! 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on October 17, 2021, 11:57:22 AM
Thanks for this.  Probably my fave horror franchise...including 3.  Silver Shamrock, bitches.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 17, 2021, 07:05:41 PM
Thanks for this.  Probably my fave horror franchise...including 3.  Silver Shamrock, bitches.

I’m one of the few known fans of Halloween 3.  I thought it was a brave decision to take the series in a completely different direction and begin the process of creating different stories in the same horror world.  Carpenter gave us They Live The Thing, Philadelphia Experiment, Christine, and more - many of which could have been branded with a Halloween tag. 

I liked the movie from the start. And found myself on an island.  But the girl was hot - though I found her opting to fuck old grumpy a bit contrived.  She was hot. 

Funny how over the years I’ve seen references to that movie snuck into everything from Knight Rider to Mr. Robot.  Always get a kick out of seeing it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 18, 2021, 10:08:29 AM
Caught Halloween Kills yesterday as well.

I echo Kaos here. I loved it. Meaning - for what it is and what I was expecting. It does a great job with continuity and going back the 2018 and 1978 movies as K mentioned. Very few plot holes and very few complaints from me. It's just solid. Especially by todays horror/thriller standard. I really enjoyed it.

And I don't think this works without Jamie Lee, Carpenter and Blum all being involved and steering it in the correct direction. Jamie Lee understands the dynamic of Laurie Strode well and really gets that across to the audience well. Her character is truly the only one who understands Michael and what its gonna take to off his ass. Because no one else ever does - for various reasons, some explained in this movie. But JLC does a great job in that regard. It was also an interesting tie in with Officer Hawkins in 2018, 2021 and also 1978 and how it ties into the overall arc - even reaching further into the teenager who helps him and who that teenagers dad is in the 1978. Just well sewn up.

Revealing anything else at this point would be a spoiler. Go see it. Worth the 8-13 bucks depending on where you live and what time of day you go.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on October 25, 2021, 11:57:35 AM
Dune was really well done.

Didn't know until a few minutes before walking in that it was planned as a two-parter, though.

See it on the IMAX screen if you can.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 25, 2021, 01:13:40 PM
Dune was really well done.

Didn't know until a few minutes before walking in that it was planned as a two-parter, though.

See it on the IMAX screen if you can.

it looks visually appealing.....albeit the story looks complex as hell. I want to go see it in Big/Imax just for the visual piece of it. At least they were smarter than Zack Snyder not to try and make a 4-5 hour movie in one sitting.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on October 25, 2021, 01:44:22 PM
it looks visually appealing.....albeit the story looks complex as hell. I want to go see it in Big/Imax just for the visual piece of it. At least they were smarter than Zack Snyder not to try and make a 4-5 hour movie in one sitting.

The benefit to breaking it into two pieces is that the story has some room to breathe.  Lynch's Dune (which I loved) tried to cram it all into one feature.  I don't think you'll have any problems with the plot line...it's not particularly convoluted. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 25, 2021, 07:49:32 PM
The benefit to breaking it into two pieces is that the story has some room to breathe.  Lynch's Dune (which I loved) tried to cram it all into one feature.  I don't think you'll have any problems with the plot line...it's not particularly convoluted.

Duly noted. I’ll try and catch it close to the weekend. Just need to find 2.5 hours to squeeze it in at some point.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 26, 2021, 08:43:32 AM
Escape Room: Tournament of Champions

The first Escape Room wasn't that bad.  Walked a group of participants through increasingly complicated and deadly puzzles where escape meant you got to live. 

The problem with this film is I recently finished Squid Games which rendered ERTOC lifeless, absurd and emotionally bereft. 

It wasn't a good movie.  It wasn't well acted.  Do not recommend.  Squid Games or Alice in Borderland are better.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on October 26, 2021, 09:35:55 AM
Dune was really well done.

Didn't know until a few minutes before walking in that it was planned as a two-parter, though.

See it on the IMAX screen if you can.

About as good a movie you could do with that storyline, although a good bit cut out from the book that helped explain things.  Didn't feel like Yueh's choices made a lot of sense to the average viewer.  Also felt like Thufir and Gurney were very under utilized.  Didn't mind Feyd, Fenring, The Emperor, or Irulan not being in the movie - although Fenrig's wife did help further the "who is the traitor" subplot along - which may have added 30-45 minutes onto the run time had it been included. 

Wonder if we will get a director's cut with deleted scenes like we did for the LOTR trilogy.

Always thought Dune was better suited to a Game of Thrones type series on HBO, though.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 01, 2021, 09:18:16 AM
AntlerS

Weird. Very weird. Based off a book by a different name apparently. Some parts were good. Some were sloppy. They left a lot of things unexplained. But it was a well shot movie cinema wise. Just thought both the story and screenplay were choppy. It could have been better. They also left it open to a sequel but not sure if that’s in the plans for them.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 01, 2021, 02:40:12 PM
AntlerS

Weird. Very weird. Based off a book by a different name apparently. Some parts were good. Some were sloppy. They left a lot of things unexplained. But it was a well shot movie cinema wise. Just thought both the story and screenplay were choppy. It could have been better. They also left it open to a sequel but not sure if that’s in the plans for them.

I started seeing trailers for that movie in like 2017-2018 or so.  That's not usually a good sign. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on November 01, 2021, 03:02:03 PM
The Many Saints of Newark<Valid critiques>

Gotta say, I didn't hate it.  I didn't expect the Sopranos.  The cast wasn't there, the writing wasn't up to snuff...basically there was no spark to start any fire other than your prior knowledge the characters (or prior knowledge of their older selves....trippy).

I thought the casting worked, though, in the sense that the current cast took pains to pick up some mannerisms of their character's older versions.  You could see Livia hiding behind Vera's smile sometimes; Uncle June's insecurity and pettiness dripped off Stoll in a couple of scenes; Bernthal was an inspired choice for Johnny Boy, given Jonny's propensity for violent solutions and JB pretty much owning that character in whatever he's cast; There wasn't much resemblance, but Magaro did a pretty passable Silvio...though it's pretty much just an over-the-top guido.

I enjoyed the slightly different perspective about the day that Tony followed Janice and Johnny to the amusement park and witnessed his dad getting cuffed. 

The Gandolfini kid wasn't awful...but he certainly wasn't good.  It's like watching Jason Bonham play Zep songs.  You see the echoes of the lineage, but it's still a poor substitute.  That's harsh and I hope the panning of this show doesn't discourage him, but taking an iconic role (that your father owned) as your first major gig?  Maybe slap your agent.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Hogwally on November 04, 2021, 08:35:38 PM
Any Wheel of Time fans here?  Amazon has supposedly dumped a fuck-ton of money into doing it Game of Thrones style, with the lawyer from the Jack Reacher movie playing Moraine.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Saniflush on November 05, 2021, 06:09:57 AM
Any Wheel of Time fans here?  Amazon has supposedly dumped a fuck-ton of money into doing it Game of Thrones style, with the lawyer from the Jack Reacher movie playing Moraine.

Never heard of it but will give it a look
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 07, 2021, 10:32:28 AM
Night Teeth

Vampires are back. Re-imagined. Of all the traditional cinematic monsters vampires are, to me, the most intriguing. Could there really be a secret cabal of immortal hunters living in the shadows who prey on society?  When you consider that more than 600,000 people a year go missing in the US alone maybe it's not completely out of the realm of possibility.

Over the years we've seen multiple variations of the vampire theme.  Interview with the Vampire, Near Dark, The Lost Boys, Underworld, 30 Days of Night (to me the most horrifying version and an underrated movie), Let the Right One In, Byzantium, the idiotic Twilight films, and even Dark Shadows all gave us different (and still similar) versions of the mythos. 

Night Teeth doesn't so much add another layer as it borrows from pieces and parts of various previous incarnations.

This movie wasn't made for me.  Garish neon colors, swimmy camera angles, thumping shitty rap soundtrack.  Most of the acting was pretty bad, too. 

There's a war in LA because one splinter group of vampires led by Game of Thrones eunuch Theon Greyjoy (who can't act) has decided to break a centuries old truce and take over the city.  Basically vampires are allowed to exist after agreeing to feed only on the willing in sanitized blood extraction centers where people go to be bitten. 

Theon and his two female minions (one of whom is Debby Ryan from Disney Channel) kick off a night of terror by hiring a limo driver and going from party to party creating chaos. 

The storyline is muddled and doesn't make a lot of sense.  The blood and gore is toned down presumably for a PG-13 audience of kids who grew up watching Ryan as Jessie. Ryan's a weird one.  One minute she just looks horrible,  then seconds later you think 'hmmm, she could be pretty hot'   then she abruptly switches back.  (She's almost 30 so it's okay to speculate, dammit) Kind of reminded me of the Seinfeld episode with the two-face girlfriend. 

It was an easy, cheesy movie that sort of gnawed its way through a senseless story to what was a predictable end.  It wasn't groundbreaking, it was/is instantly forgettable and nobody's building a career from their participation in it. 

Still.... I've seen much worse. 

(https://www.looper.com/img/gallery/the-underrated-vampire-thriller-thats-slaying-it-on-netflix/intro-1634831661.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 09, 2021, 08:32:37 AM
Mario Puzo's The Godfather, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone

Godfather 3 was an abomination, better left forgotten. I and II are cinematic masterpieces, among the greatest films of all time by any standard.  III? It was an affront to the greatness of its predecessors. It was burdened with an almost incomprehensible storyline, a boatload of shitty acting choices (Joe Mantegna, Andy Garcia, Bridget Fonda, and of course the worst choice of all... Sophia Coppola), and a self-inflated sense of importance that are anchors around its neck.  It should never have been made. 

The question now is whether it should have been "re-made".

This version is Coppola's effort to re-cut the movie and resolve the sins of the first. 

It does help streamline the muddled story -- it jumps straight into the deal with the Vatican which helps explain the story and the motivations.  That much was okay.  But it did nothing to correct the remainder.  In fact, it may have only amplified those grievous flaws.

Sophia Coppola was the worst part of the original version of the movie, her wooden acting, lack of range and inability to express a single realistic emotion or deliver a single line with authenticity jarringly horrendous.  Coppola originally cast Winona Ryder and then had options to cast Madonna, Julia Roberts or any other number of budding actresses but instead chose his own worthless, fugly, talentless daughter who was hanging around the set while on spring break.

She's not minimized in this version. If anything her dreadful performance is amplified.  That's like a shitty band deciding that turning the volume up to 11 will improve their act.  It doesn't.

She's so fucking awful that everyone else in the film seems determined to act just a little bit harder to overcome it.  Every performance is over-the-top, overacting at its worst, turning the film into almost parody.  To the point of caricature almost. 

Andy Garcia is particularly grating. He's a lightweight. The decisions made in regard to his character by Michael have no basis in reason.  For that matter, this Michael bears little resemblance to the shrewd, calculating Michael that was formed by the events of the first two films.  That Michael would never have trusted his business or interests to an impetuous, volatile street-level punk like the character portrayed by Garcia.  That was a glaring flaw, one that destroys whatever validity this film hoped to have.

I hated G3 and have basically ignored it like it didn't exist.  I saw it once back in the day and despised it. I watched it again later in life to see if my feelings changed (they didn't).  I gave this re-cut version a chance to see if it could erase some of the sins and more gracefully resolve the story.  It did not. It sucked hairy, sweaty balls. 

Oh, it could have been better. It had some potential. I get what it's trying to say about a man who lost everything (including his soul) in his quest to gain everything. I can even accept the moping, beaten down version of Michael given the choices he's made and the emptiness it brought him.  But the rest -- Garcia, dick nose Coppola, and pretty much everything else in this film -- is broken and not salvageable. 

If you have any questions let me leave you with this.  Father Guido Sarducci (if you know your SNL history, you'll know that name) has a part in this film.

I've seen it.   I must turn my back on it again. It's out of the family business. That's its punishment.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on November 09, 2021, 01:17:43 PM
Night Teeth

Debby Ryan
(https://www.looper.com/img/gallery/the-underrated-vampire-thriller-thats-slaying-it-on-netflix/intro-1634831661.jpg)


She's got that "Jersey-hot" thing going. Movie was fine; exactly what I expected.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 12, 2021, 11:12:58 PM
Blood Red Sky

Okay, so the motivations and story were a little wonky.  But it is a German film so I assume something may have been lost in translation.  Doesn't matter. 

Plenty of action and a moderately different take on a familiar horror theme. While the story may have been a little gappy the attention to detail in the design and development of the protagonist was outstanding. 

Basic storyline.  Young child travels with his mom from Germany (I guess) headed toward the US where she's to receive a new treatment for her blood disease.  The leukemia has her really sick and struggling to make the trip. 

Except she doesn't have leukemia.  It's worse.  And she might be contagious.

That's all I'll say because you might want to watch it and I don't want to destroy the narrative. 

It's one of the better movies in this genre I've seen in a while.  Whoever was in charge of designing the look of her illness was out-fucking-standing. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 13, 2021, 09:50:29 AM
Red Notice
What if you could have Deadpool, Wonder Woman and Central Intelligence version of The Rock in the same movie.  What if you did?  You'd have Red Notice.

It's a fun movie with a lot of action and a healthy dose of snark (from Deadpool).  I think there's a story but I'll be honest. I couldn't tell you what it was about. 

Every second Gal Gadot is on the screen my mind short circuits.

There's this one scene where she's wearing this amazing red dress slit up to there.  She kicks her shoes off to engage in a fight and...

Clean up on aisle me. 

(https://images.jpost.com/image/upload/f_auto,fl_lossy/t_JM_ArticleMainImageFaceDetect/486941)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 15, 2021, 02:07:54 PM
In Bruges

I thought I'd reviewed this movie before, but it's apparently lost to the ages.  So I'll give it a go, as long as you retract that bit about my mommy part fuckin' kids.  That's going overboard, mate!

If you asked me to describe the perfect movie I'd say quality actors, intelligent dialogue, engaging story (writing), the ability to entertain in multiple genres (action and comedy, for instance) and outstanding cinematography.  This film has every single bit of that.  It's brilliant and one of my favorite movies. 

The film follows the efforts of a pair of hired killers who are trying to lay low in the medieval town of Bruges after a botched job puts them and their employer at risk.

Actors
Collin Farrell - I'm not a huge Colin fan, but in the right role he's done some good work. This is the right role, by far his best.  As one of the hired thugs in hiding, he delivers a simultaneously funny and morose performance that tops anything he's done before or since.

Brendan Gleeson - One of the best character actors around, he is the perfect straight-man for Colin's manic performance. He's got his own issues and job to carry out, one that weighs on his conscience.

Ralph Fiennes - The irate, vulgarity-spewing boss who set up the hideaway and over-reacts angrily to any deviation in plan. A load of serious-funny lines delivered perfectly. 

Clémence Poésy - At the height of her lanky hotness, she plays a con artist who ends up falling for the vulnerable danger of Colin's character.

Every single performance is about as good as you can get.  Throw in a racist dwarf, some languid prostitutes and a bunch-a fuckin' elephants and the cast is solid.

Cinematography
Bruges is gorgeous. It's a beautiful town full of history. It's like a fairytale. Watching Gleeson and Farrell navigate it with varying degrees of interest and disdain was extremely well done, even if you grew up on a farm and was retarded.

This movie put that town on my bucket list.  I want to go there at some point before my time is up.

Dialogue
The constant banter between Farrell, Gleeson and eventually Finnes is some of the best ever put on the screen.  It rivals and is probably better than anything Tarantino has ever done (and I have great affinity for the dialogue of his movies).

Story/Entertainment
The story, the background, the decisions that have to be made and the challenges along the way are told in near-perfect fashion.  It has everything. 

There's the humor that permeates the interactions between the characters, there's the pain of remorse from both Gleeson and Farrell for the things they've done and will do, there's the playful sweetness of Farrell and Clemence discovering their affection for each other (an affection that breaks the boundaries of who they are supposed to be), there's action.  It's drama, comedy, action, romance, bromance and pathos all rolled up into a thoroughly entertaining package. 

I can't understand why anyone wouldn't like this movie.  It's one of my favorites of all time.  Highest recommendation.

Don't even try to tell me it's not your thing.  It's a fairytale town, isn't it? How's a fairytale town not somebody's fucking thing?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 15, 2021, 09:24:22 PM
Bruges is one of the most solid movies in a long time. It and peanut butter falcon are high a top my list of movies from the last 15 years.

Finnes is an absolute riot.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTiger1 on November 17, 2021, 11:28:35 AM
Have I missed a review on 'The Eternals"?   "Shang Ra La,La,La and the Billbo Baggins Ring Legends" was pretty solid.  The kids want to watch "The Eternals" and I need to know if it is something I will need to pay a lot of attention to or if I can catch up on Solitaire Suite on my phone while it's going on. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 17, 2021, 12:29:44 PM
Have I missed a review on 'The Eternals"?   "Shang Ra La,La,La and the Billbo Baggins Ring Legends" was pretty solid.  The kids want to watch "The Eternals" and I need to know if it is something I will need to pay a lot of attention to or if I can catch up on Solitaire Suite on my phone while it's going on.

it JUST came out so not sure anyone has seen it on here. I plan on catching it, and the new Ghostbusters in the next 2-4 days.

Its MCU so its probably gonna be solid. Even if its bad by their standards. Their movies just don't suck.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 17, 2021, 02:07:16 PM
Have I missed a review on 'The Eternals"?   "Shang Ra La,La,La and the Billbo Baggins Ring Legends" was pretty solid.  The kids want to watch "The Eternals" and I need to know if it is something I will need to pay a lot of attention to or if I can catch up on Solitaire Suite on my phone while it's going on.

Marvel stepping into wokeness.

It’s off my radar.  I don’t like watermelon even with sugar on it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on November 17, 2021, 03:29:18 PM
Have I missed a review on 'The Eternals"?   "Shang Ra La,La,La and the Billbo Baggins Ring Legends" was pretty solid.  The kids want to watch "The Eternals" and I need to know if it is something I will need to pay a lot of attention to or if I can catch up on Solitaire Suite on my phone while it's going on.

Saw it with my daughter.  I didn't really care about the characters, I didn't read the Eternals, so only really went to see how it ties into the MCU as a whole.  I thought the bonus scene in Shang Chi was going to drive the Eternals, but it didn't.  Bonus scene in Eternals could set something up that is pretty interesting, but we will see what happens.

I'd put it in the bottom tier of the MCU films, along with Captain Marvel, Thor 2, and Hulk (the last two I enjoyed more than Eternals, though - and CM had Nick Fury and that cat).
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 05, 2021, 10:08:22 AM
The Power of the Dog

Bunkledip Clumperskin as a Montana cowboy in 1925. With Todd from Breaking Bad - Jesse Plemon - as his brother, one of the Mary Jane Watson's - Kristen Dunst - as a hotel owner, and other people you know from other things along the way (Girl Next Door nerd - Paul Dano, Chester from Law and Order the SUV - Adam Beach, Handmaid June - Elisabeth Moss, old Moria from American Horror Story-Frances Conroy, Agent Lundy- Keith Carradine- from Dexter, etc.) 

I'm not done with it, but it's (so far) not very good.  Stilted dialogue, Crimpledung's shit accent (although I've heard worse), terrible (horrible, awful, jarring) score, stupid commentary about Bronco Harry or some shit.

Several recent films have tried to revive the western genre.  There's the all black western with Idris Elba in it -- because, of course, the old west was just chock full of black folks.  (You know how I feel about re-writing history and the all of a sudden brand-new claim that a quarter of the west was settled by blacks). There's the 194-year old Clint Eastwood creaking vehicle Cry Macho.  There's the recent Apache Junction - which had some  hillbilly ass country singer in it. It's not not working. The western is dead.  Cowboys are over.

This film lumbers along, stifled by cripplingly bad performances from Crusterlump and Plemon (and frankly this guy hasn't been good in much of anything but Breaking Bad).

Basic story - Breaking Bad Todd becomes infatuated with and marries Mary Jane from Spiderman who has a freaky weirdo son much to the dismay of a badly over-acting Crinkleditch.

They try, but I don't give a tin fuck about Bronco Harvey, every relationship in the film is a caricature, and it's dimly shot which is another problem.

And finally when the warning at the beginning said full nudity -- I truly didn't expect it to be Curdleclink's tiny weiner flopping in the mud.

If I were you I'd saddle up and ride right on past this one.

Edited to add:  Way past the point of no return this one nibbles around in Brokeback range.  Why it waited until 20 minutes left in the film to veer in that direction is a mystery.  Although now that I think about it, I may have completely misread one scene because I didn't exactly grasp what was going on (was thinking Clutterditch had a hard on for his brother's wife, essentially, but maybe not).  Either way..... This overly long film wasn't worth the effort.  BECAUSE it flirted around the homo path I'm willing to bet it gets assloads of unmerited praise from woke reviewers.  It gets none here.  Boring.  Late alleged twist doesn't justify the overly boring slog to get there.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 06, 2021, 01:28:10 PM
I think we can go on record saying K doesn't like Benedict Cumberbatch.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 06, 2021, 02:06:03 PM
I think we can go on record saying K doesn't like Benedict Cumberbatch.

Wrong.

I liked Blinkerduck Crinkledbitch in the Sherlock series.  Liked that a lot actually. Cumpleflag is also a good choice for Dr. Strange. 

I didn’t care for him much in the gay code breaker movie and he was the worst part of the Whitey movie with Johnny Depp.  Why ask that guy to play a short, heavyset Southie?  Thought he was a really odd and ultimately flaccid choice to play Khan in the Star Trek reboot.  The hell does he know about rich Corinthian leather anyways? 

I’m ambivalent about him generally.  He was just bad in this.  He didn’t even walk right.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on December 06, 2021, 05:08:02 PM
Wrong.

I liked Blinkerduck Crinkledbitch in the Sherlock series.  Liked that a lot actually. Cumpleflag is also a good choice for Dr. Strange. 

I didn’t care for him much in the gay code breaker movie and he was the worst part of the Whitey movie with Johnny Depp.  Why ask that guy to play a short, heavyset Southie?  Thought he was a really odd and ultimately flaccid choice to play Khan in the Star Trek reboot.  The hell does he know about rich Corinthian leather anyways? 

I’m ambivalent about him generally.  He was just bad in this.  He didn’t even walk right.

Hell...he ain't even ole timey!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 06, 2021, 05:11:05 PM
Hell...he ain't even ole timey!

I happen to know that this band of miscreants here interfered with a Lynch mob in the performance of its duty!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 02, 2022, 10:53:47 AM
Black Widow
The first time I watched this movie I did so on a plane and the volume didn't work.  I may have reviewed it after, but don't recall if I did. I watched it again over the weekend with the volume on.  It was better that way. 

Marvel has a way of making even the most ridiculous, mundane stories palatable.  Fun even. And this was no exception.  The origin stories for the female characters -- first Captain Marvel and now Black Widow -- don't have the same fire as those of the male characters (think Iron Man for instance, a near perfect superhero movie) but they try. 

Part of it is the choice for actors - Bree and Scarlett are both kind of bland after you get past their surface good looks. Part of it is because the stories are either outlandish or kind of boring.  But both are still good movies (and sadly better than anything DC has offered to date with the lone exception of WonderWoman).

Black Widow sort of jumps into the middle of the Marvel timeline and then fills in the back story by allowing her and her 'sister'  to interact with their long-lost 'parents'.  The sister is played by the gratingly worthless and despicable Florence Pugh who tarnished her watchability for all time with her noxious performance in Midsommar -- i can't stand looking at her.  Mom is Evie from the Mummy franchise (and a lot of other things).  Dad is the new Hellboy and was apparently in Stranger Things.  His blundering faux-Russian attempts at human emotion and his need to be recognized for what he imagined himself to be were some of the best parts of this movie. 

The film's backstory is pretty flimsy and the fight scenes are over-extended, but as with all Marvel movies they figured out a way to mix drama, humor and sentimentality in a nearly perfect combination.

It's not the best Marvel movie, but it's not disappointing. I'd watch it again.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 02, 2022, 11:08:29 AM
The Unforgiveable

Overly long. Overly dour. Overwrought. The Unwatchable. 

A Sandra Bullock vehicle, one I'm sure she hopes will bring her Oscar consideration.  She plays a woman incarcerated for 20 years who wants to reconnect with her baby sister upon release. 

What great acting!  She wears no makeup!  She doesn't wash her hair!  She frowns and pouts through the whole movie!  She looks like the dirty lovechild of Toy Story's Woody and Joan Rivers!  And she brings just as much realism to the role as a dirty string puppet would. 

The few times she breaks out of her dour mope and explodes in some "heartfelt" outburst have zero authenticity.  There's not a single character interaction that has any legitimate emotional resonance.  It's all manufactured and bogus. 

Terrible movie that wastes a lot of moderate talent as it watches her slog drearily through her sad existence. She's supposedly convicted of murder in this movie.  She should be convicted of killing Walking Dead Shane, L&O:CI Detective Goren, Abileen from The Help, and John Boy Walton -- all victims of appearing alongside her in this dull tromp.

Have I mentioned that her surgically butchered pinch face visage is sickening to look at?  I've seen enough of her.  No plans to watch anything she's ever in again.  She's a worthless turd. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 10, 2022, 12:05:54 PM
Ghostbusters: Afterlife

I despised the "reboot" of the franchise with the doughy, unfunny turd, the leering lesbian and the shrieking black woman. I hated everything about it.  That being the case, I was inclined to appreciate this course correction - one that completely ignores that abomination and veers back into the original lane. 

It wasn't a bad movie. It wasn't a great movie. It was a leisurely nostalgic stroll through all the pieces and parts that made the original Ghostbusters the cinematic icon that it is.  Truth be told, the original Ghostbusters wasn't a great movie either, it was dragged into significance by the performances of Ramis and Murray (see also Stripes) and to a lesser degree Dan, Ernie, Sigourney and Rick.  That and the epic (for the time) special effects carried the film. 

This movie suffers a bit because while the kid characters are pretty good, they don't have the easy, snarky charm of Murray, the deadpan absurdity of Dan, or the nerdy focus of Ramis (although the girl channels that extremely well).  When the orginals show up ready to get back into the fight -- some in an extremely odd way -- it's the same kind of emotional charge us old timers got when Han and Chewie walked into the Falcon. I wish they'd been given more to do, but they did look pretty old and stiff so....

Storyline is pretty simple:  Egon disappears into the spirit world leaving all his possessions (a decrepit house and weird farm) to his daughter and her two nerdy kids.  Financially bereft and facing eviction, they move to his dilapidated digs, the nerdy daughter meets Ant Man, and they discover that all these years good ol' estranged dad/grandpa was obsessed with Gozer and her minions.  His life was dedicated to preventing her return even as almost everyone decided he might be crazy.  But maybe he was right. 

Along the way, the movie folds in almost every facet of the 1984 touchstones -- Ecto1, the traps, Gozer, the dogs, "are you a god", proton packs -- there are so many references it would be impossible to list them all.  That's what keeps this movie afloat.  It will be interesting to see if a planned sequel can hold up on its own without the nostalgic trappings. 

The cast is solid.   The nerd girl kid was completely believable as a Spengler grandchild.  She was the best part of the movie. She and her snarky podcasting sidekick held it all together. The nerd boy I didn't like as much.  The mom (Carrie Coon) I found oddly attractive even though she's really plain. She wasn't bad.

I generally don't care for reboots or re-launches.  This one, though, was done about as well as it could possibly have been.  It was faithful to the original and crafted a story that honored that legacy while opening doors to a future beyond it.  In a lot of ways it felt like a legitimate passing of the torch. 

NOTE:  The one thing I didn't see in the film was Slimer -- which leads me to believe he held out for more money and is waiting on the inevitable sequel. 

With this one in the books, I hope the shit-splattered Chubs McFarty version from 2016 will be burned from existence and never shown again.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on January 10, 2022, 12:48:41 PM
Ghostbusters: Afterlife
It was faithful to the original and crafted a story that honored that legacy while opening doors to a future beyond it.  In a lot of ways it felt like a legitimate passing of the torch. 

To quote you: Pffffffffffffttttttttttttttt!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 10, 2022, 01:05:41 PM
To quote you: Pffffffffffffttttttttttttttt!

Somebody missed the after credits scenes. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 18, 2022, 10:02:22 AM
Candy Corn

Somebody wants to be John Carpenter.  And his name is Josh Hasty.  Who is Josh Hasty?  He's the writer, director and star of this horror film that borrows (steals perhaps is a better term) from Carpenter. 

Why did I watch it, you ask?  Because PJ Soles is in it, I loved her in Stripes (like loved loved) and thought she was adorable in Halloween (78). She's coming to Pensacon where I plan to see her in all her current swollen, aged non-glory so I decided to give this a try.  The film also features the original CandyMan(92) Tony Todd and Malachai from (84) Children of the Corn.  So it's got that era of horror as a pedigree.

Here's the thing.  It had some good points.  The production values are really good.  It doesn't look or sound like it was shot on somebody's Iphone 3 like so many low-rent movies do.   The acting isn't terrible.  It's bad, but not terrible.  And the story isn't completely asinine as so many are.  It has some gruesome and creative potential.  Even with all that it's just not good/compelling.  With most horror movies there's somebody to sort of root for.  There's nobody here.  There's nobody to identify with. 

Story:
For reasons unknown a bunch of kids (30-year olds playing teens) decide to torment a mentally handicapped guy.  It goes awry and the abused guy dies.  He's resurrected by the dwarfish leader of the circus freak show that's in town (played by the dwarfish Hasty) and becomes an avenging pumpkin who seeks out and slaughters the people who abused him. 

Toward the end, in one of the kill scenes, you understand the movie's title. 

So much was ripped off from Carpenter's Halloween that it detracted from the film.  Hasty tried to write his own soundtrack, but he's no Carpenter and it doesn't have the eerie resonance of the Halloween themes.  He borrowed the Halloween font for the titles, borrowed the colors, borrowed the way the shots were staged.  There is a point where an homage (which I think little Hasty intended this to be) becomes a ripoff and this crossed that rubicon. 

Still, it showed potential.  I think Hasty should stay out of the music studio, stay off the screen and hire some additional writers for his next project.   Stay behind the camera and be a part of the process -- not THE process.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 30, 2022, 10:34:22 PM
Blow The Man Down

I had some expectations for this.  From the trailers I expected a Fargo type, fast moving black comedy.  Instead I got a kind of slow-moving, not really engaging slog though the snows of coastal Maine.  The story didn't elevate itself past familiar, telling a story that's been done better in other films before. Repeatedly.

Two just orphaned twenty-something sisters in a going-nowhere town run into trouble and run afoul of a local business woman, who's conducting the oldest business in the world.  They get some unexpected "help" with their predicament from a cadre of old biddies who used to be agreeable to the town's business but have since become tired of the shenanigans. 

The old biddies are good enough -- including a 92-year old June Squibb, formerly attractive (I think?) Annette O'Toole, and Marceline Hugot who you've seen but you won't remember where -- and the "lady of the house" Margo Martindale, who you will also know but not remember where you've seen her, is better than that. 

The problem is that the sisters are emotionally flat, the hooker - you only really see one - have zero presence and the rest of the cast is vastly underwhelming.  There was the opportunity to make this fun, but it just laid there like a dead cold fish and didn't wiggle. 

I wanted to like it but it didn't come close to living up to its promise.  It wasn't funny when it should/could have been. There was never any real sense of peril, which was necessary.  Margot's performance was so understated she didn't carry the weight of menace she absolutely had to have for it to work. And if you've seen her (and you have) before, you know she has it in her. The emotional resonance it required just wasn't there. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 30, 2022, 10:44:59 PM
Antlers
Finally got around to watching this movie (reviewed on pg 159 by GH). 

Horror is my genre.  Because of that it's where I'm the most critical.  It wasn't an awful movie.  It didn't paint by numbers. It left enough to your imagination that the story spun out in ways you might not have expected. 

Like the prior review noted, though, it was sloppy in places.  I have a real problem with movies that have characters behave in ways their personality or position would never actually perform.  No school teacher is leaving the school in the middle of the workday to go out to a student's home in the middle of nowhere and that teacher is not going into the open house to look around -- no matter what.  No principal is going to a student's house in the middle of the school day and even if he/she did they would not go into the house, not open locked doors, not go up blood soaked stairs saying "hello" and using their cell phone flashlight.  Fuck almighty no. As soon as they saw the blood, they'd nope the fuck right back out the door to call the cops.  Those kind of unrealistic things always, always, always kick me out of the movie. 

Another huge problem here is Todd from Breaking Bad. The guy is horrible. In everything but Breaking Bad he's swollen hot garbage.  No exception here. 

It had a lot of potential.  The whole "wendigo" angle was kind of wasted. The creature effects weren't terrible, but they were amateurish at times. 

Still... even with all that, it was a lot better than many of the horror films I've seen over the years. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 31, 2022, 09:49:02 AM
The Eyes of Tammy Faye
Kind of hard to forget the smarmy, greedy, oozing piousness of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker if you were around to witness that makeup and gay smeared spectacle. 

I could never, ever, ever, ever understand how anyone with a modicum of awareness could be taken in by those obvious hucksters -- then again, people allegedly voted for Potato Joe and Cackling Ho, so I guess you shouldn't underestimate the ignorance and gullibility of some portion of the population.  How these two charlatans were able to build a tens of millions of dollar empire on the backs of poor people who coughed money they couldn't afford to support their "ministry."  That whole bunch (Falwell, Robertson, Swaggart, etc.) of evangelical phonies did more to damage the public perception of Christianity than anyone in history with the possible exception of the corrupt medieval popes.

This film chronicles the rise and fall of Tammy Faye (played by an unrecognizable Jessica Chastain) and her evangelist husband Jim (played by a former Spiderman).  Chastain does an admirable job of channeling the faux naivete of Tammy but the film isn't nearly, nearly hard enough on her.  It portrays her in a more flattering light than she deserves.  Forgettable Spiderman is far less convincing as skeevy Jim. He doesn't radiate nearly enough of the vulgar oiliness the real-life Bakker oozed.

This film also glosses over much of the story, never getting deep enough into their real lives. It doesn't provide any truths, it only airs the questions and leaves them unanswered.   Was Bakker a closet homosexual? The movie doesn't give a definitive answer.  Everything it showed could have been done better simply by airing newsreel footage.

Tammy Faye was a freakshow.  I understand that she somehow became a gay icon (perhaps because she looked like a drag queen?) and that this film was heavily influenced by that adoring sect. Still, it should have given a more honest portrayal of who she really was.  In that, it failed miserably.  Great makeup, flimsy story.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 27, 2022, 11:06:42 AM
Free Guy

About what I expected from the trailers. 

Video game minor character breaks out of doing the same exact loop every day and shakes up the game.  Ryan Reynolds attempts to escape being Deadpool by being a  subdued, much less profane, blue-shirt wearing version of Deadpool.  The thing is, though, Reynolds does that act so effortlessly that makes an easy watch. 

The movie didn't change the world. It didn't speak anyone's truth. It didn't have some great deeper meaning. It just told a relatively entertaining story in a reasonably fun way.  That was appreciated. 

The heroine of the film - Millie - was played by Jodie Cormer of Killing Eve who somehow magically vacillated between kind of hot and well, maybe not.  I liked her, though.

It was a sweet, simple story of finding your heart in the both real life and virtual reality. It's not something I'm putting on my shelf to watch over and over, but it was an enjoyable watch once. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 28, 2022, 07:48:32 AM
The King's Man
Origin story to the first Kingsman movie. 

The first was a surprising treat, elevated by the performances of Samuel Jackson, Knife Leg Girl, fake Elton John, and the other Colin (Firth, not Ferrell). It was better than expected. The concept of nattily attired British poofs brutally brawling was new.

The second wasn't quite as good - or make that nearly. It veered into almost parody with the real Elton John, robot dogs, Mandalorian cowboys, mumble mouth Bridges and Magic Mike. It was so overstuffed with kitsch it failed to deliver the story. 

This one just sort of slid through without really making an impact.  The pieces and parts were good enough.  The WWI historical references were pretty much on target. But the choice of a terribly bland and uninspiring face to play the central character Conrad really hurt. Couldn't get invested in his fate.  Voldemort was okay.  The Nanny was mildly interesting. Djimon Honsu (?) was his usual self. The film would have been better if it had filled in more of the Rasputin story and maybe toned him down just a bit.  The fight scene with the Russian Rasputin was the best exchange of the film.

Maybe if this had come out first, before the far superior first Eggsy one, it would have fared better. But it didn't so instead of plowing new ground, it just sort of wallowed in its past and showed things we've already seen done better by others.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on February 28, 2022, 10:39:40 AM
Free Guy

About what I expected from the trailers. 

Video game minor character breaks out of doing the same exact loop every day and shakes up the game.  Ryan Reynolds attempts to escape being Deadpool by being a  subdued, much less profane, blue-shirt wearing version of Deadpool.  The thing is, though, Reynolds does that act so effortlessly that makes an easy watch. 

The movie didn't change the world. It didn't speak anyone's truth. It didn't have some great deeper meaning. It just told a relatively entertaining story in a reasonably fun way.  That was appreciated. 

The heroine of the film - Millie - was played by Jodie Cormer of Killing Eve who somehow magically vacillated between kind of hot and well, maybe not.  I liked her, though.

It was a sweet, simple story of finding your heart in the both real life and virtual reality. It's not something I'm putting on my shelf to watch over and over, but it was an enjoyable watch once.

Taika Waititi continues to be the source of all fun in Hollywood; behind the camera, in front...whatever.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 28, 2022, 02:18:59 PM
Inventing Anna

What the fucking goat bleating fuck?  I know Ruth from Ozark was doing her best to mimic the odd vocal intonations of the real life Anna Delvy (Sorokin) but it was so, so, so bad and distracting that it made the limited series (I'm treating it as a film) extremely hard to watch.  It was just horrible.  I hope she can find her footing somewhere other than this.  She only sort of captured the bizarre story of the wannabe who came close to scamming her way into the upper strata of New York society. 

There were so many potentially entertaining angles to take with this story, but of course the director skewed in the completely wrong direction.  What else would you expect from the massively overhyped Shonda Rhimes who brought us such shitty pulpy, over-dramatized, over-acted, tripe as Scandal and How to Get Away With Murder.  Garbage heaped on top of garbage.  In the hands of literally ANYONE else, this could have been a really compelling story of greed begetting greed and just how close Anna (whoever she was) came to getting away with it.  And if she had?  If her scheme had actually worked and her dreams of a super posh gallery taken off like she imagined and made the profits she envisioned... would there even be a story?

Nah.  Shonda fucked ALL of that up by spending too much time on the giant dick swinging around in Laverne Cox's bikini underwear, Ruth's hideous accent, and a constantly shifting timeline that essentially destroyed the narrative flow.  Where she fucked up even worse was spending so much focus on the bug-eyed histrionics of the journalist who allegedly wrote the story that exposed Anna.  She -- as embodied by Anna Chlumsky -- was a simply horrible, hysterical, piece of garbage as a person. 

I really wanted to get a sense for how Anna was able to charm her way to the cusp of a $40 million dollar financial investment from some of New York's biggest players when she essentially didn't (and never did) have a pot to piss in.  Ruth wasn't solid enough to give that to me and Shitty Shonda absolutely and unequivocally flopped in every directional decision she made.  That includes an absolutely and completely out of place koong... well..."musical score" which literally destroyed every scene in which she opted to interject it.

I hope that awful troll goes back to slinging shit on networks nobody watches any more. 



Trailer below so you can hear Ruth's bizarre take on the accent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65xa8TG2G8o

There's a 60 Minutes - Australia interview with the real Anna out there on the you tubes if you want to look it up.  I see what Ruth (ok, ok, Julia Garner) was going for but that layer of Arkansas hillbilly she layered in - I guess because of Ruth - just really took it off the rails.  It was jarringly bad. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 05, 2022, 12:32:10 AM
Arthur (again)
I've reviewed Arthur - the 1981 version, not the unnecessary and obnoxious Russell Brand remake - before. But after just watching it again I realized how much of the nuance I missed.

It's always been among my favorite movies, living on the masterful performances of Dudley Moore and John Gielgud as Arthur and his servant Hobson respectively. I've always thought the only flaw - and it was near fatal - was the casting of Liza Minelli as Linda, Arthur's love interest. 

What I realized after watching it again was the depth. Yes, it's a slapstick comedy. Yes it's broad humor. 

But at it's heart it's a story about fear and loss. Arthur's crippling fear of being alone, of missing out on love and being loved, a fear of death and the void it leaves in your life.  Lost in the his hilarious, drunken antics was the vast and overwhelming loneliness that pervaded his entire existence. Lost in his pursuit of Linda was the fear of being trapped in an empty, loveless marriage with a person with which he had no emotional connection. Most of us (the divorced ones at least) have found ourselves trapped in that same empty wasteland, emotionally adrift, empty, barely treading water.

I never had a billion dollars at stake like Arthur did, but I made awful and terrible decisions, I chased bottles and smoke to numb the agony of a life mired in nothingness and little hope on the horizon. I couldn't afford to be as perpetually drunk as he was, but I leaned into it and found my own solace there. 

It may only resonate with me in that way, but watching the movie again tonight I found myself identifying with the pain Arthur endured, the central ache that neither money, booze nor drugs could salve. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 06, 2022, 10:42:04 AM
Sorry to Bother You

I'm occasionally drawn to odd, quirky films that don't fit inside the big-box hollyweird model.  Sorry to Bother You fell into that spectrum.  From the trailers it looked like a 70s-hued technicolor romp through the rise and fall of a successful telemarketer. 

It wasn't at all what I expected. I think the director possibly thought he had something important (and negative) to say about capitalism, race relations, corporate America, worker's rights, slavery and the human condition. The main problem is he only sees things through his narrow, historically-ignorant, self-righteous prism and (sadly like far too many) only has a superficial radical's perception of any of it. His point of view has all the depth of a caricature.  It doesn't reach the level of importance he believes it does.  Unfortunately his desire to make some kind of statement and his belief that he's tapping an important vein drains the film of the absurdist fun it should deliver.

LaKeith Stanfield (probably best known as Snoop from Straight Outta Compton is really good as Cassius Green, a struggling kid from Oakland who rockets to the top of the telemarketing world by unleashing a secret talent he didn't know he had.... "using a white voice."  As a young black guy he's going nowhere in the pits of a telemarketing sales floor. But after Danny Glover shows him how to affect a white voice, he's suddenly racking up the sales. 

As his friends in the pits (including his shallow and cliched militant artist girlfriend played by Tessa Thompson -- Valkyrie in the Avengers universe) -- struggle to gain a living wage, Green abandons them as he's elevated to 'power caller' status with access to million-dollar deals and all the trappings that go with them.  Suits, cars, houses.  Odd how capitalism is evil until it works for you. One of the firm's biggest clients is Worry Free -- a new paradigm in labor.  It's sort of a mix between Apple, Google, Facebook -- the whole silicon valley concept (except the director doesn't understand how that works).

Apparently the director is keenly unaware of American history.  He has no recollection of how mill towns or steel towns worked. Guess he's never heard Sixteen Tons by Tennessee Ernie Ford. I'm old enough to remember when the cotton mill would buy tracts of land and build houses for their workers, allow them to purchase food, clothes, necessities at the 'company store', exchanging your labor for goods. It wasn't that long ago.

That's the basic concept behind the big bad corporation at the heart of this film's conflict. You work for tWorry Free Corporation (helmed by Armie Hammer in a skirt) and the company takes care of all your needs.  It provides housing, food, clothes, entertainment.  All the necessities for basic sustenance. In exchange the company produces products at a cheaper rate, dominating the market.  In all honesty?  It's not the worst idea. There are a whole fucking lot of people in this country who would be better off in a situation of that nature.

This film, though, equates that with slavery. It also takes it a step further. Working -- working at all -- makes you a slave.  Green wallows in his success, losing friends and his girlfriend. He only steps back when he realizes he's a pawn in the game of the rich folks at Worry Free. Invited to a party (which becomes an orgy) with the bosses they get him to drop his white voice and do ghetto things. "Do a rap, you can rap, right?" 

Once it's exposed that Green is shilling for Worry Free and now has reservations about the work he does, the film veers off into stupidity. It's not enough to just control the workforce, Boss Armie Hammer is using his wealth to design a genetically altered race of super workers.  Really stupid concept, poorly executed.

The director of this film tries so hard to say something meaningful that he ends up ranting like a blowhard Al Sharpton and says nothing at all despite using many superfluous, enormous, splendiferous words in the process.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on March 07, 2022, 07:50:20 AM
No Batman review yet, Kaos?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 07, 2022, 11:10:15 AM
No Batman review yet, Kaos?

Debating whether I can stomach "woke, twinkle Batman"   I'm seriously considering passing on it completely.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 07, 2022, 11:44:38 AM
Debating whether I can stomach "woke, twinkle Batman"   I'm seriously considering passing on it completely.

If it helps you decide: I thought it was great.  Pattinson is legit.  Ran a bit long, but great cast and story.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 07, 2022, 12:50:38 PM
If it helps you decide: I thought it was great.  Pattinson is legit.  Ran a bit long, but great cast and story.

Hard pass.   :poke:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 07, 2022, 02:34:57 PM
Hard pass.   :poke:

As expected.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on March 07, 2022, 02:58:19 PM
If it helps you decide: I thought it was great.  Pattinson is legit.  Ran a bit long, but great cast and story.

Is it part of the larger DC universe, or just stand alone?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 07, 2022, 04:24:10 PM
Is it part of the larger DC universe, or just stand alone?

Stand alone.  The nerds tell me it's a storyline called "The Long Halloween" or somesuch.

Wayne has only been operating "Project Gotham" (read: playing batman) for two years at this point.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 07, 2022, 04:38:31 PM
Stand alone.  The nerds tell me it's a storyline called "The Long Halloween" or somesuch.

Wayne has only been operating "Project Gotham" (read: playing batman) for two years at this point.

Yeah.  And BvS was “based on” The Dark Knight Returns. 

I don’t buy that part of it.  I own Long Halloween. 

Just another reason to skip it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 14, 2022, 12:51:35 AM
The Batman

Couldn't help it.  Had an invitation to go see the film at one of those movie and dinner places.  Good food delivered to you while you lounge in a recliner during the film. Hard to pass up.  I had a shrimp po-boy and sweet potato fries in case you were wondering. And a Batman cocktail.

On to the film. If you know me, you know I wasn't looking forward to this.  I don't think much of twinkle the twinky vampire and don't trust DC to get anything about a super hero movie right.  They've shit on so many opportunities to unfuck what was fucked that I just didn't have much hope.  If you're reading this you also know that I am and have always been a Batman fan.  I keep waiting for the movie (a film like Ironman) that captures the essence of the character.  Something always fucks it up. 

My favorite of the 'new' Batman movies was The Dark Knight but in retrospect not for Christian Bale's stupid-voiced Batman, but for Heath Ledger's incredible take on the Joker. That took the place of the 1989 Michael Keaton vehicle - which really hasn't aged that well.  The rest -- B&R, Returns, Begins, Rises, Forever, BvS, Justice League -- all fumble around in the worlds of just okay to fucking awful.  None compare to the outrageously silly Batman Movie from 1966 which remains the gold standard. 

So where does this one rank?  As much as it pains me to admit it, it hangs out right behind The Dark Knight.  In some ways it's the best of them all.  So what went right and what went wrong? 

The Right:
1. This film captured Gotham City as I've seen it in my mind for all my life.  No other Batman film ever made Gotham as real and as right as this one did.   THAT was the Gotham I always knew existed but that no film could ever re-create.  I can't stress that enough. That really won me over.
2. The Batman.  As surprising as I found it to be, Twinkle Twink wore the armor, walked the walk, exuded the quiet menace, and projected the aura of the character better than anybody but Adam West.  His Batman was better than Bale's to me - in no small part because he didn't do that stupid fuck voice. Way better than Clooney or Kilmer.  Better than Affleck for sure.
3. The story. Okay it was way too fucking long and should have excised the entire seventh act... basically everything after the diner to Arkham scene. But other than that, it told a Batman story that you could follow, one that didn't involve monsters from outer space or corny one-liners or bat nipples. Somewhere in this long thread I complained about the nature of superhero movies requiring magic, extraterrestrial beings and all that stuff. This ignored that. It was just Batman in the dirty and gritty underworld of Gotham trying to solve a violent riddle. I appreciated that probably more than anyone else will.  It was what I wanted to see.
4. Falcone. John Turturro added a quality performance as the Gotham mob boss Falcone. He's a staple in Batman movies and usually cast as an afterthought.  I thought Turturro brought the right amount of reserved evil to the role. Although every time he talked I kept trying to figure out who he was imitating with the voice.  I think Paulie Walnuts, but I could be wrong.
5. It trusted us.  This is the first Batman movie I can remember that didn't subject us to a flashback "parents in the alley" segment. At this point we all know the guy's parents were murdered.  They trusted us as an audience to figure that out for ourselves without the flashback trope.  Several times I thought to myself "oh, here we go. here comes the flashback" but the film never stooped to that.

The Wrong:
1. Bruce Wayne. As good as Twinkie was in the Bat suit, he was equally bad playing the man under the cowl.  That part of his performance just didn't work at all. It's weird.  Almost everyone before him was decent enough as Wayne, but struggled in the suit. This guy was the exact opposite.
2. The length.  Clocking in at just under two years, seven days, nine hours and 44 minutes this film was like the Energizer Bat. It kept going and going and going and going. As I remember, there were three specific points where the film could have been wrapped up and still had plenty of material for a second, third and fourth installment.  It should have been shorter. I don't know how long it was for sure, but it was way too fucking long.
3. The obligatory "woke moment."  Thankfully there wasn't much of it, but they had to throw the one impassioned woke speech -- which to be fair drew little reaction from Batman -- from Catwoman. It stood out and was out of place.
4. The characterization of Wayne's parents.  It's Batman canon that his parents were altruistic, decent, honorable people but this film cast doubt on that. It eventually walked it back some, but let the perception linger too long.
5. The darkness.  Okay, I get it. The Batman franchise is never going to reach the level of, say, Ironman. So much of that movie (and all of the entries in the Avengers world) takes place in the light of day.  The Avengers fight in the daytime, they fuck in the daytime, they eat, sleep, shit and piss in the daytime.  Batman only exists at night. If for no other reason, Batman films are destined to be darker. That darkness bleeds over to the overall tone.  This movie didn't just acknowledge the dark it embraced it.  Everyone and everything in it was dour, serious, grim.  It didn't even try for the slightest iota of lightness or humor. The Batman was serious business.  It pulled it off, but it was so fucking hard and dark, there's not much room to lighten it up any at all if there are future installments.  And I'm sure there will be. 
6. Catwoman.  She wasn't bad, necessarily.  Way better than Anne Hathaway's version.  Not sure why, but I just didn't buy her in the role. 

There were no major cameos or big surprises in the cast other than a completely unrecognizable Collin Farrell in a very different (but not unwelcome) take on Penguin. 

Long story short, this movie was shit tons better than I expected.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on March 14, 2022, 10:05:36 AM
Movie had more endings than Return of the King, and felt longer.

The Bruce Wayne character was the only thing I didn't really like.  I thought he really nailed Batman.  But his take on Wayne isn't what I've always envisioned him as. 

Can't figure out if the HUSH that you see in the unlocked video is a nod to the next villain, or if they are going to go with the the "unamed arkham inmate" that the Riddler is talking to at the end (or maybe they use the Hush storyline for part 2).
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on March 14, 2022, 12:13:29 PM
felt longer.

I saw it with a friend at the 11:30 am showing.  There were easily 20 minutes of previews (Dr. Strange, Morpheus, Harry Potter, and maybe a couple more).

We got into his car after the show at 2:38.

Felt like two hours longer than that.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 14, 2022, 12:54:16 PM
Movie had more endings than Return of the King, and felt longer.

The Bruce Wayne character was the only thing I didn't really like.  I thought he really nailed Batman.  But his take on Wayne isn't what I've always envisioned him as. 

Can't figure out if the HUSH that you see in the unlocked video is a nod to the next villain, or if they are going to go with the the "unamed arkham inmate" that the Riddler is talking to at the end (or maybe they use the Hush storyline for part 2).

BTW, other than the reference to Day One being Halloween, the Riddler being part of the cast and references to Falcone, Penguin and Maroni this movie had nothing in common with The Long Halloween comic series.  There is an animated movie from 2021 that follows the comic fairly faithfully. 

That being the case, even if it does refer to Hush, I don't think there will be much crossover. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 27, 2022, 12:13:27 AM
Spider-Man: No Way Home

There will come a time when Marvel movies jump the shark. This isn't quite it, but the motorcycle was idling and the great white was circling the tank.

On one hand you've got The Batman battling humans in a world that could exist (before they run that off the rails with the upcoming multi-verse driven Flash film).  On the other you've got magic, multiple variations of the same character, silliness and lunacy that drive Spider-Man.  Batman's return to reality plays much better than this time-bending and logically twisted excursion.

Briefly, everybody knows Peter Parker is Spider-Man and he wishes they didn't.  So Dr. Strange cooks up some hoodoo voodoo that goes awry. 

It was supposed to be a rollicking fun reunion of a host of familiar characters. Instead it lacked life.  There was just too much going on. 

Part of the problem is the absolute lack of chemistry between the Parker and MJ characters - who are I'm told dating in real life.  If their real-life partnership has the same wet paper bag spark of this one?  Their bedroom must be duller than a rusty jackknife.

Up to this point almost every Marvel movie (except the ridiculous Black Panther) kept me engaged and involved. This one just left me flat. It was like the film was trying too hard. It was forced. 

All good things come to an end.  Hope not, but this one felt like the beginning of that end. 

I like Holland as Spider-Man, but even he seemed to be just staggering through the paces hoping to get to the end.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 27, 2022, 12:21:39 AM
Scream

On the topic of reuniting characters, Scream got booted up again. 

It wasn't bad, but it wasn't good either.  Courtney Cox is shockingly butchered. She looks like a laboratory experiment that was a failure.  Neve still looked like Neve, but even she had some age on her. 

This is not nearly as good as the version that came out with Hayden Pantytearer and Emma Roberts in it.   

If you've watched the movies, you already knew who the killer was almost from the start. The rest of the film was just the slow slog of getting to the reveal.

It tried to be clever, it tried to be deft but those efforts failed for the most part.  Cox was bad, Neve was kind of tired, nobody gives a shit about doofy dewey. 

There were some reasonably gruesome slaughters, but nothing that allows this film to overcome the layer of rust that covers it.  As a franchise it's old. The gimmick looks threadbare now.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 28, 2022, 12:06:17 AM
While We Sleep

Horror movie set in Ukraine.  Yet another demon possession story that rips off every other demon possession story that's come before.  Nothing new whatsoever.

It's not the biggest pile of shit I've ever seen, but it's a pretty big pile of shit.  I don't have any idea how garbage like this ever gets made. Zero redeeming qualities and a whole lot of cringe.

Pass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 24, 2022, 09:47:51 AM
Today we profile a pair of major missteps by successful comedians with lengthy careers.  Both of these films had solid supporting casts and the star power of the lead. Both are indicative of how the two main stars spent time wandering the desert of failure that could have left them in the dust of obscurity. Both of these films also make me think that the longevity of these two comedic actors is more due to fortunate casting in the right roles than it is to any transformative, great talent.

First, Steve Martin.

My Blue Heaven
Martin made a name for himself with the white-suited arrow-through-the-head skits on variety shows.  Cemented his status with appearances on Saturday Night Live. Moved on to film and gave us The Jerk ,Parenthood, Roxanne, Planes Trains, and Three Amigos (along with some other pretty massive turds like Pennies from Heaven and Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid).

In all honesty if you look at his career as a whole, most of what he's been involved in is pure un-funny shit. He's not Will Ferrell bad, but he's pretty awful in a lot of things.  Think the two abysmal Pink Panther reboots if you want a frame of reference.  Or think My Blue Heaven. 

How hysterical!  Nora Ephron was can't miss on the script. The guy who directed Steel Magnolias was at the helm.  In addition to Martin, you've got Joan Cusack (who was at the height of her limited hotness), Daniel Stern, Rick Moranis, Melanie Mayron, Bill Irwin, and William Hickey. And it's absolute garbage.

Martin plays a gangster turned federal witness. With a ridiculous pompadour and mannerisms/accent copied from his Wild and Crazy Guy schtick, he's completely unwatchable. Every second he's on the screen is cringe inducing. The rest is just a garbled mish-mash of idiotic nonsense with no redeeming value.


Which beings us to Tim Allen and ...

Crazy on the Outside
Allen has done some good work, mostly in television.  But he's also done good things with Santa Claus, Buzz Lightyear and was absolutely perfect for the part in Galaxy Quest, which remains one of the most underrated films in history.

And then there's this turd in the sandbox which clearly shows that when Allen is left to his own devices (he was fully in charge of this film as director) he can't carry the load.  This movie felt much more like a TV pilot that wasn't picked up than it did an actual movie.  It squandered Sigourney Weaver, Jeanne Tripplehorn, JK Simmons, Julie Bowen (at the peak of her hotness), Ray Liotta and Kelsey Grammer.  How is that even possible?  Watch and find out. Actually don't.  It's bad. 

It's nothing more than a series of failed attempts at humor, stale setups, unconvincing and rushed plot devices, abandoned story threads, and improbable events. 

Allen plays a "charming" ex-con, out of prison after a three-year stint for video piracy.  Every character in the film is a caricature and each has a trait that appears and disappears as needed for "comedic impact."  It's a jumbled mess of shit.  Weaver is a compulsive liar. Simmons is her horny husband (except the horniness is dropped mid-film and never re-visited), Tripplehorn (never liked her) is the probation officer who immediately falls head over ass for Allen. Bowen is his thought-to-be dead ex girlfriend (who is way too hot for him and 20 years younger on top of that) who is engaged to Frasier Crane (utterly wasted in this role).  Liotta is essentially a ridiculous version of Henry Hill - supposedly making billions pirating DVDs to the Chinese (something that Hollywood apparently thinks is a 'thing'). 

It's all unconvincing and dreadful, drained of any charm. Nothing about the film works.  Nothing.

-------

Saw these two films on the same day quite by coincidence. Just kind of reinforced to me how the film makes the actor and not vice versa in a lot of cases. Maybe most. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on April 24, 2022, 02:06:16 PM
I still love My Blue Heaven.

Tim Allen can pound sand.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 24, 2022, 05:57:51 PM
I still love My Blue Heaven.

Tim Allen can pound sand.

Wrong (as per usual). Dead wrong.

Steve Martin really doesn't have a great overall record.  My Blue Heaven is abysmal shit. 

Tim Allen?  National treasure for having the guts to stand up for his conservative values.  Not really a great actor, but Galaxy Quest is significantly better than everything Steve Martin ever did combined (with the lone exception of Planes, Trains and Automobiles which which was more John Hughes than him). 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 29, 2022, 01:33:36 PM
El Camino

I loved Breaking Bad (although I feel it got to almost parody by the end).  Still it was one of the greatest shows in the history of episodic television.  It somehow managed to glide to the end without completely crapping the bed (like Sopranos).  The end was fitting. While it provided closure, it also left some threads dangling -- and that was fine.

This month, creator Vince Gilligan added El Camino, essentially a two-hour coda to the end of a show that had already come tantalizingly close to perfection.

I have to admit, I enjoyed seeing the characters on screen again, but the reality is that this movie added absolutely nothing to the overall canon.  In truth, it just wasn't necessary.  It didn't break any new ground, really. 

The movie bounced around in time, enough so that it was occasionally disorienting. It added pieces that fleshed out events that had happened in the series -- none of which was really that illuminating or valuable.   It debunked one long-held theory (Walt is alive) and gave us an almost schmaltzy "happy ending" that wasn't true to the series at all. 

It was fun to see Mike, Badger, Skinny Pete, Jane and a few others for the fleeting moments they were on stage, but the payoff just wasn't there. 

Not a bad movie, but so utterly and completely unnecessary that it felt forced/fake.  Like some bad fan fiction or something.  I get that Aaron Paul has no other career path and that there may some day be an entire Jesse Pinkman series/film/whatever to keep him employed.  I just think in this case it was better left alone.  It provided "closure" I didn't want or need.

Over the past month or so maybe more, I've rewatched all of Breaking Bad. All of Better Call Saul. So I rewatched this too. 

It's like Saul in a way because I get lost in the timeline. People are older, heavier....different.... when they should be younger.  I know they did the best they could with it.

It's not a terrible movie. It's not a bad movie. I still don't know that it was necessary.  The biggest failure in my opinion is that it just doesn't have the same amazing attention to detail that both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul do.  It doesn't paint from the same stunning palette of colors, quirky camera angles, odd points of view that those two other series wallow in. It didn't drop hints and breadcrumbs in odd places that somehow show up in the most unexpected ways. It was far more straightforward. 

Regardless of whether Jesse has a life outside the Breaking Bad universe - my original review didn't change much.  Unlike my feelings toward Better Call Saul which changed significantly.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: bgreene on May 12, 2022, 02:52:40 PM
No Batman review yet, Kaos?
All 3 hours of it were a waste of time.

Review, done!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on May 22, 2022, 12:37:23 PM
Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

You can definitely tell that Sam Raimi directed this one: more horror/gore than your typical Marvel outing.

Lots of fun visual effects and a heavy dose of the Scarlet Witch.

Alternate universe Avengers were interesting and they (don't think this is a spoiler) set the stage for all the X-Men and Fantastic Four crossovers you could ever want.

Fun times, but not a very strong entry in the pantheon (though they do a Raimi-signature ending for Strange that I wonder if they'll carry through to the future Marvel movies and they introduce Charlize "Rowr" Theron at the end.)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 29, 2022, 08:34:52 AM
X

The search for the next great horror movie continues.  This isn't it. 

The buzz on this film was that it would take the whole horror genre in a new direction, etc. etc.  New! Fresh! Shocking!

It was, instead, a porn soaked, weiner riddled, occasionally funny, cringe loaded failure to connect. Written and directed by the same guy who wrote In A Valley of Violence - a weird, quirky, unusual semi-comedic western with John Travolta, Ethan Hawke, Tassia Farmiga and (hot as fuck) Karen Gillian. So he knows how to bring 'big stars' into a sprawling production. But like IAVOV, X doesn't quite land.

In the 70s a group of budding porn purveyors head to a rural farm in Texas to make a movie they hope will put them on the road to fortune and fame in the brand new x-rated home video market that's exploded in the crossover success of Debbie Does Dallas. 

The two-person film crew (a cameraman and his boom operator girlfriend - Jenny Ortega who is supposed to be somebody I guess?) are interested in making a work of erotic art. The sleazy executive producer (think Andy from WKRP mixed with a little Matthew McBongohey and a dash of Owen Wilson) and his barely-teen girlfriend (the lanky and loose is she ugly or is she potentially hot Mia Goth - who seems to have no eyebrows) and a couple of pals from a grungy strip club (Brittany Snow and a young, skinny Apollo Creed looking dude) just want to get to fuckin' so they can make money and get famous.

They rent a place way out in the country owned by a decrepit old geezer and his creepy wife. 

The production values are great. There are some occasionally funny scenes (just like in Valley), including one that helps drive the final nail of the final act.  The acting is good enough.  It has a fairly quality soundtrack with some songs you know. You can tell it's not supposed to be your typical straight-to-video B-level cookie cutter horror churn.

The problem is that it never rises above that bottom of the barrel dredge when it comes to the story.  Other than some repetitively gratuitous and overly long to the point of being boring porn scenes there's nothing new.  We've seen the creepy old farm family recluse trope done better in many other films -- Texas Chainsaw, House of 1000 Corpses, House of Wax, etc.  It's just stale. 

The movie was 80% cringey porn, 5% gore-horror, and 15% extraneous pointless rabbit holes that were barely explored.

The one thing the movie got right was the raw 70s feel. Goth, in particular, nailed it all - hair, makeup, dress and even the way she walked.  When she wasn't naked and writhing on top of the movie's buck, she walked around in a set of overall shorts with no top on underneath. The first girl I ever thought I loved used to wear those same overall shorts with baseball sleeves underneath all the time.  I will never ever forget her meeting me at the door when her parents were out of town wearing those overalls minus the sleeves. That image and the feeling that came with it is burned into my memory for all eternity. Sexiest thing I've ever seen in my life.  So thanks for bringing that back to the top of my mind at least. 

As for the rest of the film? Unless you just want to watch Snow and Goth fake-railed by faux Apollo for extended periods of time, you can skip this one. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 29, 2022, 10:58:57 PM
Emergency

Three college roommates -- two black, one hispanic -- find a white girl drunkenly passed out on the floor of their apartment as they're preparing for a pre-spring break night of parties.

Call 911?  Yeah, no. Three brown guys and a drunken goldilocks?  That's a recipe for incarceration according to the more street-wise of the three. Better figure something else out. 

How the three handle the situation and try to get the girl somewhere she'll be safe and they'll avoid questions leads to a comedy of misunderstandings. 

But it's much more than that. This movie says more about the current state of race relations and how people perceive each other -- and says it with more impact and resonance -- than six months of bullshit CNN/msnbc babbling; than any angry, bellowing activist; than any blowhard politician; than any nonsensical rambling by Biden or cackling by Kalama; than any march or riot; than any BLM protest; than any race-baiting film.  It has more authenticity than all of that combined. 

It did it without stooping to caricature. It did it without tropes. It did it without hyperbole. It did it without beating the viewer over the head with the issue. It did it without characters spouting phony narratives just to make sure you saw it.  Even The Batman was guilty of that.  This film wasn't.  Every situation it addressed was done so in the natural course of events, in a way that was subtle and 'real' enough to lay the topic out there in a way that made sense. It didn't succumb to hysteria, offering valid arguments for various positions and perspectives both in word and action.

Beyond that, it's also a layered examination of the nature of friendship. It speaks to the entirely human inclination toward self-preservation and how sometimes we put that aside when we're needed, even if that means our own peril. 

I may be the only person on the planet who does, but I liked this movie.  I liked it a lot more than I expected to.  A lot more.

The rest of the cast is solid, but the guy playing Baby Sean -- RJ Cyler -- is fucking outstanding.  Every single second his character was on screen was real. I've known guys exactly like that, with the same mannerisms, the same patterns, all of it.  He did a really great job in that role.  I've never heard of him before, but if that's an indication of his ability?  Hope I do. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 12, 2022, 10:50:40 AM
Monstrous

I find Christina Ricci oddly, weirdly, sexually attractive.  Not visually attractive, necessarily.  Sexually.  I don't know what it is, but it's just there.

So I watched this alleged horror movie. 

It allowed her to channel her quirkiness; the same cheerful insanity she exhibits in the funky-weird Showtime series Yellowjackets in which she's probably the best part. 

Other than that, this 'horror' movie has nothing to offer.  Muddled storyline? Disposable, uninteresting characters? Zero scares? Zero horror? A fraudulent ending that doesn't pay off? Confusion about motivation? All of that is piled to the metaphorical rafters. 

Unless you just want to take a look at Christina Ricci in some super cute 50's era strap shoes while she drives around in a beautiful vintage Chevy station wagon?  Passsssss hard on this one. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 12, 2022, 12:02:36 PM
Hustle

*sigh*

1. Adam Sandler is a terrible actor.  He plays the same mumble-mouth schlub character whether he's trying (and failing miserably) to be funny or trying (and failing miserably) to be dramatic.  Here?  Same character. The only difference between this movie and all his others is that he didn't cast some woman he could never attain in any known universe (Kate Beckinsale, Jennifer Aniston, Salma Hayek, Bridgette Wilson, Paz Vega, Jessica Biel, Brooklyn Decker, Teresa Palmer, etc.).  Nope, in this one he cast Queen Latifah.  No chemistry whatsoever. 

2. This is a movie about the NBA.  Other than Shaq, Barkley, Kenny Smith, and Dr. J (and Dirk Novitzki's name), I didn't recognize any of the multitude of alleged 'stars' of the league that were in this film. Never heard of any of them.  Kind of shocking how completely disconnected from the NBA I am at this point.  Ask me to name 10 current NBA players on penalty of death and you might as well go ahead and kill the shit out of me.  I couldn't do it. 

3. Sandler's character did scream the name 'Lebron' once and after I found out after the fact, that the Chinese bought-and-sold double-stuffed moron was an 'executive producer' of this film I guess that's why.  If I'd known from the start that overhyped waste of flesh was involved in this project I would never, ever have watched it.  Fuck him and every word that comes out of his ignorant piece of shit mouth.  Fuck him. 

4. Story-wise, it wasn't necessarily awful.  Sandler's character, an NBA scout, discovers a hidden gem on a pick-up court in Spain and schemes to get him to the league.  The problem is that the acting is so wooden, the film is completely flat, totally lifeless, absolutely devoid of realistic emotion.  The only one in the film that even has a modicum of believability and presence is the kid who played at Georgia a year or two ago -- Anthony Edwards.  The rest are just stiffs. It took what could have been a good, compelling, moving, and inspirational film, interjected hack Sandler and a bunch NBA punks who can't act, and completely fucked it up.  Put anybody else -- literally anybody, even Nicolas Cage - in the lead role and you might have something. 

If you run across this film and consider watching it?  I advise you to do the one thing LeDumbass James would never consider..... pass.

I'll be glad when Sandler finally decides to give up his lengthy con game on the American populace.  There's a rumor that he purposely makes shitty movies just to see (and laugh) at how stupid we collectively are.  After seeing this, maybe the rumor is true. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 16, 2022, 08:28:11 AM
Studio 666

Always liked Foo Fighters.  Dave Grohl seemed like a regular, relatable guy, the least likely star to rise out of the ashes of Kurt Cobain's tortured Nirvana.  Foo Fighters always made straightforward rock, never seemed pretentious and had a better and more enjoyable catalog than Nirvana in my opinion. Not ground-breaking or genre shattering, but quality. 

Their music videos were some of the more creative. Really good, self-effacing stuff.  Kind of gave the vibe that they were normal guys, a garage band that you'd enjoy hanging out with, one that would be just as comfortable playing your back yard bbq as they would doing a stadium tour. 

Given that I like their music and that they made some pretty amusing self-aware music videos, I figured their foray into horror/gore/comedy - Studio 666 couldn't be all bad and had potential.  The idea of mixing Foo music with Monkees-esque horror antics seemed like a promising concept.

Good lord.  It was bad.  So, so, so fucking bad.  Dave is funny in ten-second bursts in music videos.  He absolutely cannot act in the least.  The rest of the band is worse. Tossing in the worst SNL alum in history (Will Forte) and the overrated and unfunny as fuck Whitney Cummings (whose entire career apparently consists of being a whore) and you've done the film no favors. It was already shitty, those two made it even worse. Add career-ending-level performances from Leslie Grossman (American Horror Story 1984) and Jeff Garlin (who knows?) and a profane/worthless cameo by Lionel Ritchie and you've got a noxious stew that isn't horror, isn't humor.  It just lays there and stinks.

Basic story, such as it is... Foo Fighters rent a mansion to get the right sound to record their 10th album.  Mansion is haunted by the demonic souls of a band that never finished its satanic song.  I think.  Idiocy, bad acting and ill-conceived scenarios ensue, including one where Grohl literally cannibalizes one of his bandmates.  I don't know who thought it would be a great gag to show Dave snacking down on the steaming, bbq'd bones of his guitarist, but that person just doesn't get it. 

It's not fun. It's just cringe-inducingly bad at every turn.  Really horrible. 




Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 26, 2022, 09:12:13 AM
Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

You can definitely tell that Sam Raimi directed this one: more horror/gore than your typical Marvel outing.

Lots of fun visual effects and a heavy dose of the Scarlet Witch.

Alternate universe Avengers were interesting and they (don't think this is a spoiler) set the stage for all the X-Men and Fantastic Four crossovers you could ever want.

Fun times, but not a very strong entry in the pantheon (though they do a Raimi-signature ending for Strange that I wonder if they'll carry through to the future Marvel movies and they introduce Charlize "Rowr" Theron at the end.)

Bloated pile of unintelligible garbage. 

Shark.  Jumped. 

Terrible movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 04, 2022, 11:20:05 AM
The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent
Other than Raising Arizona (one of the greatest movies of all time) and Valley Girl (perhaps the best of all 80s teen comedy/dramas) I don't think much of Nicolas Cage movies.  In even his best (according to others) films his overacting and spasmodic facial gyrations completely ruin the performance.

He's one of the worst.  For every tolerable The Rock or Con Air there are a dozen straight-to-DVD, filmed-in-Mobile crapfests. 

In this movie you've got the awful Cage and his heir apparent, Pedro Pascal, a TERRIBLE actor who for some reason yet known (perhaps he has photos of Hollywood execs fucking goats) has appeared in numerous films and performed dismally in all.  Two mugging, over-actors who spread feces on the screen with glee headlining the same movie! It would have to be one of the worst things ever, right? 

Actually no.  It's not great, but it's pretty good.  It was funny to see Cage lean into who and what he is and accept that he's not a very good actor.  It's funny to watch Pascal also accept that he's not very good either and just over-act and over-emote with no reservations. 

It's silly. It's stupid. It's not deep. It doesn't try to offer some woke or non-woke lesson.  It's just a couple of really bad actors showing just how stupid they and the business are. 

General synopsis:  Washed up Cage takes a gig as a birthday party guest because he's broke, spends too much money and blew an audition just by being himself. 

His host (Pascal) turns out to possibly be the head of an international drug cartel being hunted by the two most inept CIA agents in the universe.  Had to be joke casting with Ike Barinholtz and Tiffany Haddish in those roles.  Cage gets recruited by these two clowns to infiltrate the organization and help the agents solve a kidnapping. 

The remainder of the movie is just Pascal and Cage deciding to make a movie together which over the course of the film includes bonding, solving family issues, turning on each other, turning to each other and surviving the war between the cartel and the CIA. 

It's kind of amusing to hear them talk about 'what the movie needs' in terms of script -- like a psychedelic drug scene -- and then follow that by doing what they decided the script needs.  The paranoid LSD-laced drive into town is one of the funnier bits. 

It's pretty clear that Cage doesn't have a lot of reverence for the Hollywood process.  He addresses his spate of direct-to-the-toilet money-grab films and his career arc in general. 

Seeing it played out like this kind of makes me like him a little bit more.  It doesn't make the god-awful Mandy or the cringe-inducing Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans any better, but it does take the overall hate for him as an actor down a couple of notches.  The next time I watch something with him in it -- and he's terrible as usual -- I'll do so at least knowing that he knows just how bad he is too -- and he doesn't care.  That I can accept and even grudgingly admire.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 05, 2022, 06:54:31 PM
Morbius

So much potential.  So completely squandered. 

This is a bad movie.  It's not bad by Marvel standards (the studio to which it belongs), it's bad by any and every standard imaginable. 

Let's check all the boxes.

1. Stunt casting with actor who has already proven to be incapable of handling roles of this nature.  Jared Leto is atrocious.  Exceptionally poor casting choice.  Equally bad was Tyrese Gibson.
2. Ridiculous story.  Lots of stupidity on display.  Tons of unrealistic interactions and exchanges.  All the emotional depth of a mosquito bite.  The backstory doesn't fill in enough gaps, the current story lacks in plausibility.  What exposition there is, is non-sensical.  And nobody in the film has the gravitas to pull it off. 
3. Muddled motivations.  Why any of the characters behave as they do remains a mystery. 
4. A forced protagonist.  There's no logical explanation for the immediate "I'll kill you" hatred between Leto's paper-thin character and his friend/nemesis Milo (or whatever).  That guy was another awful, terrible choice. 
5. Blurry action sequences.  Want to hide what's going on?  Just make all the "action" a big swirl of loud noises. 
6. Jared Leto.  He fucking sucks.
7. Leto, Jared.  Fucking sucks, he does. 

This pile of purple shit had end credits scenes that drew Michael Keaton in and tried to make connections to Spiderman.  Best thing Marvel could do is pretend this never happened. 

It was bad.  Makes the excruciatingly bad Dr. Strange Muddled Up Madness movie look like high art in comparison. 

This movie SUCKS.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 07, 2022, 01:50:09 PM
Last Night in Soho

I've wanted to watch this movie for a while and finally loaded it up last night.  I knew from the trailers that it was going to have a psychedelic 60s vibe merged with downtrodden 2020s grit.

It wasn't really what I expected.  It was somewhat more, somewhat less. 

Basic story:
Semi-psychic Ellie lives in the present but immerses herself in a past her mother loved -- 1960s London -- which also happens to be where her mom committed suicide when Ellie was seven.  She follows in her mom's footsteps and heads to London to pursue her dream of being a fashion designer.  She doesn't fit in with the other students and moves to a rooming house where she begins to have vivid dreams of a neon siren from the 60s.  Those dreams gradually take a dark turn and begin to intrude on her daytime life.  Eventually the visions/dreams help her unravel a mystery from that past - but not in the way she expects. 

Visually?  Very creative and engaging.  Anna Taylor-Joy?  Hot in a 60s way.  The girl playing Ellie?  Kinda annoying.  Everything else? Bullshit.

Why?

There were far too many underdeveloped, unexplored elements. Among the many, many doors opened but never truly explored were the psychic angle, what caused mom to go over the edge, and what granny was talking about when she says 'if it happens again.'  That's only a fraction of the side trails that needed to be fleshed out.  Motivations were suspect.

One of the lead bad guys was that same hatchet-faced asshole who sucked like a Dyson in the Morbius movie. Matt Smith or some such shit.  He looks like what would happen if that eagle-faced fuck from Criminal Minds had a baby with Max Headroom and Herman Munster.  Just awful. 

Ellie started out good but just got worse and worse. 

Ellie basically accuses some goofy ass black guy (in whom her character would have absolutely ZERO interest) of rape and then he's all concerned over her fate and rushes to help her.  Fuck that. 

This movie couldn't decide whether it wanted to be Inception, Austin Powers, Sinister, or Mean Girls.  So it did none of that well at all. 

Visually striking, but absolutely no substance.  Color me disappointed - in neon. 


EDIT:
The musical choices were really intriguing.  A strong infusion of 60s pop.  What was interesting to me was discovering songs I like that are actually covers of older songs.  Got My Mind Set On You, for one.   I had no idea George Harrison was covering an obscure 1963 song. There's Always Something There to Remind Me is another one. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k68Fob0QA_k

If I got nothing else from this movie, it was worth it for that to me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 08, 2022, 05:43:34 PM
Ambulance

Take a dash of ER, swirl it around in a big bowl of Fast&Furious, toss in some CHiPs, and roll it around in some memories of OJ, swizzle a swirl of Speed and you’ve got Ambulance. 

Say what you want about Michael Bay but I like his movies.  He knows what he’s making and that’s what he makes.  Action. Explosions. Guns. Bombast.  You don’t have to think.  You don’t have to figure out the ending. His movies have an ending that you understand.  You don’t sit there when it’s over and go “what the hell was that.”  His films are popcorn. Pure adrenaline escapism. 

If you leave your brain at the door and try not to think too hard, this is a really enjoyable movie. 

Jake G gnaws on the scenery as an unhinged bank robber. The guy from Candyman is solid as his “brother”.  The EMT Eiza Gonzalez is stupidly hot. 

The film follows a botched bank robbery and an ambulance taken hostage as half of the city of LA is littered with crashed police cars, bullet casings and broken bodies. 

There’s even one great scene with a Christopher Cross song that doesn’t really fit but works. 

You aren’t going to learn anything.  But it’s a great waste of time. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on July 08, 2022, 09:45:30 PM
I enjoyed Ambulance for what it was.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 14, 2022, 10:38:26 AM
Dick Long is Dead
Ran across this accidentally. Didn't know much about it other than the description which says 'Alabama-born director' and small-town Alabama mystery.

I've seen so many elitist asshole takes on the South that I figured I'd give it a chance, hoping that for once someone who was a native would give a realistic interpretation of what life is like here without all the country-ass stereotypes. 

Colossal mistake. The director (shown below in what is, amazingly, one of his less-creepy pics) clearly hates his roots. This "i could suck a golf ball through a garden hose" looking asshole looks down on the South and its people. He wasn't born an elitist asshole, but he definitely identifies as one. He bent over backward to curry favor with the elite crowd by smearing the South with the same disdain a Cali or NYC filmmaker who's never been anywhere near here would.

Among the touchstone tropes this bucket of fucked-up fruit made sure he included:
- atrocious fake accents
- Christmas trees decorated with beer cans
- Rebel flags
- references to "Meth Mountain" (one of many trailer parks)
- all characters live either in a trailer or in a tract home with broken toys, disabled cars and trash in the front yard
- all characters drive beat to shit cars with mismatched body parts
- every character is dumb, particularly the idiot cops
- all characters constantly have a cooler close by with cold Pabst Blue Ribbon in it
- furniture is early 80s trailer park chic -- wooden couches with brown flowery velvet cushions
- dimly lit bar with men in cowboy hats, plaid shirts and suspenders danchin' wif girls to country music

Every single frame of this film reinforced one negative southern stereotype or another.  It was offensive.

- Spoiler -
I hope you won't waste your time with this shit, so I have no qualms about spoiling the "big surprise."  The 'mystery' is a pair of stereotyped southern bumpkins who try to cover up the death of their friend.  They're horse fuckers. The friend died when his asshole was pounded by a stallion (one that whinnied up an ejaculation, of course) and he bled out. Horse fuckers. 

"Hey, Lyd, it don't mean nothin'.  Me and the boys been doin thangs wif dat hoss since afore me and you even met."

Horse fuckers.

Here's the kicker.  This film is actually based on a true story.  As I was informed by an esteemed member of this exclusive club, the real-life event took place in one of the elite enclaves in the northwest. A man was actually fucked to death by a stallion; his asshole exploded by the big-dick pony.  Could this film have been set where it actually happened?  Of course, but who's going to believe that? 

Let's put it in the south! They down thar fuckin' horses, and cows, and goats, and hawgs and everthang! Hay, let's get that gay alabammer director!! He kin make it all authentic and shit. 

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNDg5ZWFmMDYtNTZlNC00NTE4LWFjNDEtNmQ4NjliNzc3ODE5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTExNDQ2MTI@._V1_UY264_CR8,0,178,264_AL_.jpg)

Fuck this guy.  Fuck this movie. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 15, 2022, 07:24:34 AM
John and The Hole

Dexter Morgan and the younger, somewhat better looking Farmiga girl in a story of a family being trapped in a hole by the psycho son. 

I don't mind movies that make you think.  I don't mind movies that have a deeper meaning. I don't mind movies that don't rely on jump scares to build tension.

But this?  It was a slow boat to nowhere.  There was no basis in reality and maybe there wasn't supposed to be.  Who knows.

Extremely weird.   Nothing happened.  I didn't care.  I'm not sure what it meant, if it meant anything.

I think maybe it was supposed to say something about death and loneliness (because of the absurd and off-putting interjection of a completely different story/characters near the beginning and at the end.)  But I'm not sure of that. I'm sure I didn't give a damn. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 15, 2022, 09:37:36 AM
Dick Long is Dead
Ran across this accidentally. Didn't know much about it other than the description which says 'Alabama-born director' and small-town Alabama mystery.

I've seen so many elitist asshole takes on the South that I figured I'd give it a chance, hoping that for once someone who was a native would give a realistic interpretation of what life is like here without all the country-ass stereotypes. 

Colossal mistake. The director (shown below in what is, amazingly, one of his less-creepy pics) clearly hates his roots. This "i could suck a golf ball through a garden hose" looking asshole looks down on the South and its people. He wasn't born an elitist asshole, but he definitely identifies as one. He bent over backward to curry favor with the elite crowd by smearing the South with the same disdain a Cali or NYC filmmaker who's never been anywhere near here would.

Among the touchstone tropes this bucket of fucked-up fruit made sure he included:
- atrocious fake accents
- Christmas trees decorated with beer cans
- Rebel flags
- references to "Meth Mountain" (one of many trailer parks)
- all characters live either in a trailer or in a tract home with broken toys, disabled cars and trash in the front yard
- all characters drive beat to shit cars with mismatched body parts
- every character is dumb, particularly the idiot cops
- all characters constantly have a cooler close by with cold Pabst Blue Ribbon in it
- furniture is early 80s trailer park chic -- wooden couches with brown flowery velvet cushions
- dimly lit bar with men in cowboy hats, plaid shirts and suspenders danchin' wif girls to country music

Every single frame of this film reinforced one negative southern stereotype or another.  It was offensive.

- Spoiler -
I hope you won't waste your time with this shit, so I have no qualms about spoiling the "big surprise."  The 'mystery' is a pair of stereotyped southern bumpkins who try to cover up the death of their friend.  They're horse fuckers. The friend died when his asshole was pounded by a stallion (one that whinnied up an ejaculation, of course) and he bled out. Horse fuckers. 

"Hey, Lyd, it don't mean nothin'.  Me and the boys been doin thangs wif dat hoss since afore me and you even met."

Horse fuckers.

Here's the kicker.  This film is actually based on a true story.  As I was informed by an esteemed member of this exclusive club, the real-life event took place in one of the elite enclaves in the northwest. A man was actually fucked to death by a stallion; his asshole exploded by the big-dick pony.  Could this film have been set where it actually happened?  Of course, but who's going to believe that? 

Let's put it in the south! They down thar fuckin' horses, and cows, and goats, and hawgs and everthang! Hay, let's get that gay alabammer director!! He kin make it all authentic and shit. 

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNDg5ZWFmMDYtNTZlNC00NTE4LWFjNDEtNmQ4NjliNzc3ODE5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTExNDQ2MTI@._V1_UY264_CR8,0,178,264_AL_.jpg)

Fuck this guy.  Fuck this movie.

That's weird part about Hollywood elites is they takes the bad stories about the south....and put them in the south. They also take the even worse stories NOT from the south....and still put them in the south. I guess it helps them sleep at night, or is just self affirmation. But at the end of the day, its self serving propaganda. Because you know.....every person here lives in a trailer and likes slavery and is cousins with their spouse. Yeah, lets repeat that tired old stereotype and see how good it sells. Ive met more rednecks and truly racist people from NY and Upper Michigan than I have from AL, and that's actually saying a lot.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 22, 2022, 09:11:26 PM
The Incredible Hulk

I admit.  I'd never watched this movie.  Part of it was because Edward Norton annoys the shit out of me.  Part of it was because it came out about a month after Iron Man - which was so good and almost perfect that it dwarfed everything around it.  Part of it was because it was pretty quickly disavowed as Marvel canon and disappeared.  Part of it was because it drew less at the box office than Horton Hears a Who and Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian.

Stumbled on it today, decided to watch.  I'd seen the Eric Bana version from about five years prior to this and the CGI on that was so laughingly awful that I was pleasantly surprised that this was much better. 

Other positives:
-- Liv Tyler.  She can't act a single lick, but there's something oozingly sexy about her, particularly the little bit of her body you get to see.
-- Like all Marvel films there were little details inserted that tied to other things.  I appreciated pretty greatly the inclusion of the TV Hulk theme, shots of Bill Bixby in his other primary television role (Eddie's Father), a cameo by Lou Ferrigno, a joke about giant purple pants and a few other asides.  (Even these were often ruined by Norton's reactions.  The guy's effort at human relatability come off lizard-like. He just can't do it.  It feels forced, fake and disingenuous).

That's about it. 

So what went wrong?
-- Edward Norton, Tim Roth, Tim Blake Nelson.  I like two of the three.  All three were exceptionally poor casting choices and their inability to effectively fill their roles completely wrecked the entire exercise.
-- William Hurt. He can be a good actor, but (maybe he was already sick) he absolutely phoned this performance in.  Beyond his utterly ridiculous hairpiece, Hurt had trouble hitting his marks and was looking in the wrong direction often enough that it was noticeable. 
-- The story.  Nothing about it fits within the Marvel universe, even with a last second Tony Stark cameo tacked on in an effort to establish a tie-in. 
-- Did I mention Edward Norton?  I dislike Tony Romo or whoever the current guy doing Hulk is, but he's a good Hulk. If they'd stuck with Norton as part of the Avengers ensemble, he would have screwed every bit of that up.  Just a terrible fit.

I don't regret watching it, but the only reason I'd ever go back to it would be to fast forward to about 11 total seconds of Liv Tyler's bomb-ass legs.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 24, 2022, 07:30:15 PM
Umma

Sandra Oh. 

Poorly plotted. Poorly told.  Terrible effort at "horror." 

So much of what little action there was occurred in the dark. Couldn't tell what was going on.  Oh, Sandra, wait.  Nothing was. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 22, 2022, 08:28:17 AM
Geostorm

If you are a globalist climate-change screamer grab a big jug of hand lotion and a box of tissues. Prepare to jerk your private regions in furious orgasmic spasms for an hour and a half.

If you're the kind of sad and lonely cat-owning woman who finds stroke-face Gerard Butler attractive and/or talented and who could believe that he is the smartest man on the planet? Do some finger exercises, get a tub of vaseline and get ready to pick that thing like Hendrix playing Woodstock.

If you're not a moron, pathetic and have five functioning brain cells, on the other hand, run (don't walk) away from this load of horse shit before the first word is spoken on screen. 

Everything about this movie from its 'we are the world' globalist preaching to its Democrats save the world stupidity to its asinine science, script, dialogue, CGI and other bullshit is absolutely terrible. 

Absolute garbage. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 22, 2022, 09:05:23 AM
Honor Society

Movie for teens about a girl scheming to get out of her 'hellhole' small town and away from parents she sees as trapped and clueless.

Stars some schlub from Stranger Things (Gaten Matarazzo) and the chunky Asian guy's girlfriend from the newish Spiderman (Angourie Rice).

Rice's Honor Rose is angling for a recommendation for admission to Harvard from her skeevy school guidance counselor. As one of his final four, she develops and implements a plan to derail the chances of her competitors by distracting them to the point they tank midterms.

Along the way she plays and gets played by her friends and learns lessons about herself and the people around her.

It's not great cinema. It isn't anything stunningly new.  It's just another teen movie with a sentimental core and a lesson or two about human nature. The entire movie lives and dies on the strength of Angourie Rice -- and she absolutely owns it.  Without her? This is probably a dead fish, floating in a stagnant river that nobody would ever hear of.  With her? It's worth watching. 

She's absolutely adorable and crazy cute even as she manipulates her way through the GW Bush High School student body in an effort to get what she wants. Even when you know you shouldn't support her carefully crafted plot, you can't help it. 

She's not Gal Gadot in WonderWoman mesmerizing, but she shows an ability to carry a film and elevate everyone around her that I never would have expected from anything else she's ever done.  The rest of the cast is pretty much plug and play, non-descript, instantly forgettable (including the Stranger Things blob of goo). Rice absolutely drags them along for her ride. 

She's a baby - only 21 - and it remains to be seen if she can carry over the adorability on display here to something deeper and more adult but she's really good. 

Even if the movie isn't great, it's got a sweetness about it (despite the obligatory gay stuff), and girl is damned enjoyable to watch.

(https://s1.dmcdn.net/v/U2D5a1Yj-kxmNVOQs/x1080) 



Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on August 22, 2022, 09:24:20 AM
Honor Society

(https://s1.dmcdn.net/v/U2D5a1Yj-kxmNVOQs/x1080)

Would ^^
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 28, 2022, 02:33:12 PM
Me Time
Wahlberg and Kevin Hart.  Buddy movie.  Netflix.

They’re supposed to be lifelong best friends who’ve grown apart.  Spent their youth in reckless adventures. As Hart settled down into the role of house husband to his ultra successful wife (calling bullshit on this part) Wahlberg stayed on the path of exuberant excess.

It was a fair movie. With some pretty funny parts. But it also contained some unnecessary components.  For instance: a completely nude marky mark did nothing to advance or enhance the plot. 

The chemistry between mark and Kev just didn’t feel authentic either. 

Not buying sassy loud ass as an amazing architect. That just didn’t fly.  But most of it was ok.   

It tried to say something about the nature of families and friendships but it didn’t have enough comic or emotional depth to say it well. 

I did really like seeing a guy I honestly thought was dead again.  And hearing him say “baby” in the way only he could ever say it was a nice touch. 

Not a bad movie.  Just an improbable series of events strung together with a little humor and a dollop of schmaltz.  If a John Hughes movie was a Mountain Dew this would be like a Diet Mountain Lightning. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on August 29, 2022, 10:46:56 AM
Me Time
Wahlberg and Kevin Hart.  Buddy movie.  Netflix.

They’re supposed to be lifelong best friends who’ve grown apart.  Spent their youth in reckless adventures. As Hart settled down into the role of house husband to his ultra successful wife (calling bullshit on this part) Wahlberg stayed on the path of exuberant excess.

It was a fair movie. With some pretty funny parts. But it also contained some unnecessary components.  For instance: a completely nude marky mark did nothing to advance or enhance the plot. 

The chemistry between mark and Kev just didn’t feel authentic either. 

Not buying sassy loud ass as an amazing architect. That just didn’t fly.  But most of it was ok.   

It tried to say something about the nature of families and friendships but it didn’t have enough comic or emotional depth to say it well. 

I did really like seeing a guy I honestly thought was dead again.  And hearing him say “baby” in the way only he could ever say it was a nice touch. 

Not a bad movie.  Just an improbable series of events strung together with a little humor and a dollop of schmaltz.  If a John Hughes movie was a Mountain Dew this would be like a Diet Mountain Lightning. 

disagree on one part there. The nude Marky Mark scene. Women still adore the guy. When he is cast they know this. That was candy for the ladies, nothing more nothing less. But it had a purpose.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 30, 2022, 11:50:16 PM
Samaritan

Stallone as an aged super hero. 

It’s not bad but it would have been so much better 20 years ago. 

Good lord he’s old.  Painfully old. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 21, 2022, 11:37:13 PM
Thor: Love and Thunder

Don’t really understand why anybody would bash this movie. 

Yeah it was silly in places.  Yeah it was sappy in others.

But it was utterly entertaining.  It was vibrant and full of color. 

Thor (1&2) were some of my least favorite Marvel films.  But Ragingrocks and this one?  Love them both.  Movies I can and will watch more than once. 

It’s not quite Raggedcock. It’s a little weaker, but it’s still a really good ride. 

I could do without the gay rocks, that was absurd. It’s hard to find much other fault.

Damned good film.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 01, 2022, 11:41:36 PM
The Munsters
Rob Zombie's paean to the 60s television series. 

It is abysmally, unwatchably bad.  Took me three different sittings to get through it. 

I don't have enough words to describe just how terrible it is.  So I won't waste any more.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 02, 2022, 12:40:42 AM
Blonde
Ana de Armas as Marilyn. 

I'm sure the reviewers will jerk each other off spasmodically over how great and brave and edgy and daring and visionary and riveting and mermerizing this film is.  I'm sure they'll start whispering Ana's name as an Oscar front-runner. 

Just shows how pretentious and moronic the entire industry has become. 

This movie is absolute fucking TRASH.  It's not even worth suffering it long enough to see de Armas' exposed titties (or the absurd camera angle inside her twat). 

The movie is so bad, you'll feel sorry for those tits and twats.  And you won't care about seeing them at all. 

I never saw the twat cam.  I didn't make it to the extended scene where she's sucking off JFK.  I lasted exactly 14 minutes before I turned this load of garbage off.  Coincidentally, I could make sweet, sweet love to de Armas three separate times in that span.  Unless I was forced to watch this shitfest of a movie in its entirety, at which point I'm not sure I could manage even once.

There are too many problems to list, not the least of which is de Armas inability to cull the Cuban from her speech.  She was clearly trying to mimic Marilyn's vocal patterns, but her Cuban accent is so strong she could never completely leave it behind.  Marilyn wasn't from fucking Cuba and the Little Mermaid ain't black. 

This is a horrible movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 09, 2022, 10:52:31 AM
Orphan: First Kill

Prequel to the barely memorable Orphan - which I'm pretty sure is reviewed here but I didn't find it.

I'll give it this.  About a third of a way in the movie shifts in a direction that was completely unexpected.   Problem is?  The acting is just so flat and monotone, it doesn't really cover the thin and implausible storyline. 

It's not bad, but it doesn't rise to the level of what it could have been. 

Julia Stiles is part of the problem.  She has zero emotional range.  The orphan is pretty decent but the rest of the cast of unknowns doesn't add much. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 09, 2022, 11:28:10 AM
13 Fanboy

One of the actresses in the Friday the 13th movie series directed this self-referential film.  It brings back many of the characters who lived and died through the movie's life cycle including:

Lar Park Lincoln - New Blood (Part 7)
Tracie Savage - Part 3, blue bikini
Judie Aronson - Final Chapter
Jennifer Banko - New Blood
Cory Feldman - Final Chapter
CJ Graham - Part 6
Ron Sloan - New Beginning
Kane Hodder - Jason in five movies
-and-
the aptly named Deborah Voorhees - New Beginning, the clubhouse leader in absolute best titties in a horror franchise.  If you haven't seen them in New Beginning, they're real and they're SPEC-TAC-ULAR.

Voorhees directed this film which is really short on budget.  It's a kind of great concept, actually.  An obsessed fan of the franchise is stalking the actresses from the films because they ignored him as a child when he wrote fan letters to them. 

It was kind of sad seeing these people now and remembering how they used to look.  Voorhees and Savage were really worse for wear.  Judie Aronson is the exception. She's hotter now than she was back then if that's possible. Way hotter, actually.  If you don't remember her from Friday 13th, she was also in Weird Science.

It was also easy to see why most of these people had no career beyond these one-note horror franchises. They're terrible at the craft. 

The movie suffers from the lack of stars that made the franchise.  I would have loved to see Amy Steel and Dana Kimmel in particular.  It also suffers from the lead, a butter faced Haley Greenbauer, who is a terrible actress, worse than any in any real Friday the 13th film.  Body is good, but that's the extent of it. 

It is what it is.  Fan fiction, basically.  Dee Wallace Stone is in it slumming for the $8 paycheck but she doesn't add a whole lot other than a small smidge of actual acting talent.

Would like to see something like this in capable hands.  Loved those Vorhees knockers - even at 62, I bet they aren't bad -  but they cannot direct a movie. 

(https://morbidlybeautiful.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/EAm4LvsWwAEVjE2.jpeg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 13, 2022, 01:54:46 PM
Significant Other

New horror-ish movie on one of the streaming services.  Guy takes girlfriend on a camping trip with the intent of proposing.  Things go sideways because she isn't ready.  Then they go waaaay more sideways. 

It's not a great movie.  But I give credit where it's due. 

Cinematography, camera angles, visuals -- all extremely good.  The way it frames the forest, in particular, is fantastic. Far, far better than what you normally see. 

Liked the fact that when you think you know where it's going, it skids in a different direction.  When a movie veers onto an unexpected path, it impresses me.  This one did. 

The near end is a little hokey - almost like the Star Trek episode where Kirk disables the androids holding him hostage using the Liar's Paradox - but it could have been worse. 

Like any good horror-ish movie, it has a somewhat open-ended final act.  Or maybe not.  I also think it might have been trying to say something profound about the nature of humans and our capacity for love and hurt, but I didn't really care enough to heed that.

It's hard for two actors to carry most of a film, particularly when the majority of it is just those two and the woods.  They pull it off really well.  Their chemistry was natural even in disagreement. 

Jake Lacy (Pete, AKA New Jim, AKA Plop from The Office) and Maika Monroe (a Jan Brady-looking woman who also headlines another movie out now called Watcher) are both good in the roles of the Significant Others. 

It's not a must watch, tell everybody film but it is effective, well shot, well (enough) acted and decently plotted.  I've seen things a million times worse. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 22, 2022, 10:03:47 AM
Firestarter

After the success of Carrie in the 70s, moviemakers dove into the Stephen King catalog looking for the next big horror hit. When The Shining scored big, the chase intensified.  Cujo (really good), The Dead Zone (ehh....) and Christine (so badly acted) came out in 1983. Part of the problem with '83 is that it was a fantastic year for movies.  Return of the Jedi, Flashdance, Trading Places, War Games, Risky Business, Vacation, 48 Hours, E.T., The Verdict, Big Chill, Scarface, Terms of Endearment, The Outsiders, A Christmas Story, Officer and a Gentleman, and Valley Girl are just a few of the movies that hit screens that year.  Cujo finished 35th in domestic box office.  Dead Zone was 38th. Christine was 66th.  Movies based on King novels proved hard to adapt and harde to cast.  Christine was really bad cast-wise.  As a result King adaptations started to gravitate toward schlock.

Still, 1984 brought Children of the Corn and then Firestarter.  That film starred David Keith, fresh off a well-received effort in Officer and a Gentleman and a baby Drew Barrymore who'd captured the nation's attention with an adorable performance in E.T.  And it wasn't good.  It wasn't necessarily bad, but it was good. Like far too many King films, it's wooden, stilted and feels completely phony. Keith proved that his big dumb Okie act in OandG wasn't an act, it's just who he was.  Barrymore wasn't given much to do.  George C. Scott was an Indian -- yes, an Indian! -- with a ponytail.  Every decision made in the development, casting, filming and direction of this movie was the wrong one. 

Fast-forward to 2022.  Let's remake it!  With Zac Efron!  Believe it or not?  As flat and lifeless as the 1984 version was?  This is even worse.  It's a lot worse.  Not a single believable note is struck.  It's bad on an epic scale.  It's terrible.

That's two swings and misses at what is a fairly compelling novel, one I haven't read in years but plan to go back and read again now ... just to get the bad taste of this boring film out of my mind. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUTiger1 on October 27, 2022, 12:16:17 PM
Gonna need someone to tell me if watching the new Halloween is worth the watch or did they fuck it up like they usually do with franchise movies?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on October 27, 2022, 12:19:46 PM
Gonna need someone to tell me if watching the new Halloween is worth the watch or did they fuck it up like they usually do with franchise movies?

http://www.tigersx.com/index.php/topic,35671.0.html (http://www.tigersx.com/index.php/topic,35671.0.html)

Full length podcast coming Monday FilmStripPodcast.com (http://FilmStripPodcast.com)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 28, 2022, 09:05:21 AM
Gonna need someone to tell me if watching the new Halloween is worth the watch or did they fuck it up like they usually do with franchise movies?

If you want something on the level of quality as the previous "true" versions with Jamie Lee? No.

If you want to see how the whole arc ends? Yes.

Im not quite as bearish on it as Six, although we usually agree on movies for the most part - hes right in that it is not good and there are a lot of unnecessary characters and plot lines in this one. They needed to get from point A to point B - which was about 50 feet. Instead, they left point A, went around the block, took a detour, went over a bridge, through the woods, over a mountain, through some mud, and then circled back around to getting to Point B, and went about 2.5 miles in the process. I would have rather them just tack that extra 50 feet needed onto the end of the last movie and call it a day. That would have been good.

80% of this one was just uneccessary to me. I know the director THOUGHT he had some good ideas and was perhaps trying to make a more broad point about humans and inherent evil and how it manifests....but it fell flat IMHO.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 30, 2022, 09:32:00 AM
Halloween Ends

Tried to ignore what others said and make up my own mind.  I did. 

Whenever you think Halloween 6 with Paul Rudd is the worst entry in the Halloween saga?  Remember that Halloween Ends exists. 

Whenever you get the idea that Halloween 5, which gave us a baby Danielle Harris, is the worst of the Halloween catalog? Keep in mind that Halloween Ends exists.

When you're ranking all the films in the Michael Myers pantheon and start to debate whether Resurrection (with Busta Rhymes, Tyra Banks and Katee Sackhoff) or Rob Zombie's Halloween 2 or H2O (the first return of Jamie Lee Curtis) scrape the bottom of the barrel? Don't forget that Halloween Ends was made.

When you're dismissing the only film in the series that doesn't feature Michael, the unfairly maligned, daring creative choice that was Halloween III - Season of the Witch?  Stop and recall that Halloween Ends is a thing. 

This was the worst of them all.

It channeled Halloween 5 with the psychic connection angle. It embraced Season of the Witch by not really being about Michael at all. Every other film in the entire spectrum offered something (except maybe Resurrection) of value to the overall storyline.  Except this one.  It was less a Halloween movie than a film that sort of existed in the same universe but took a left turn at Albuquerque. Stupid. Hackneyed. Unrelated. Unnecessary. Ridiculous.

Everything about this film was wrong.  All of it.  It missed the mark in so many ways there isn't space to fit it here.

Not since lumberjack Dexter stared back into the abyss have I felt a series flubbed its finale any worse than this. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 30, 2022, 11:04:06 AM
Halloween Ends

Tried to ignore what others said and make up my own mind.  I did. 

Whenever you think Halloween 6 with Paul Rudd is the worst entry in the Halloween saga?  Remember that Halloween Ends exists. 

Whenever you get the idea that Halloween 5, which gave us a baby Danielle Harris, is the worst of the Halloween catalog? Keep in mind that Halloween Ends exists.

When you're ranking all the films in the Michael Myers pantheon and start to debate whether Resurrection (with Busta Rhymes, Tyra Banks and Katee Sackhoff) or Rob Zombie's Halloween 2 or H2O (the first return of Jamie Lee Curtis) scrape the bottom of the barrel? Don't forget that Halloween Ends was made.

When you're dismissing the only film in the series that doesn't feature Michael, the unfairly maligned, daring creative choice that was Halloween III - Season of the Witch?  Stop and recall that Halloween Ends is a thing. 

This was the worst of them all.

It channeled Halloween 5 with the psychic connection angle. It embraced Season of the Witch by not really being about Michael at all. Every other film in the entire spectrum offered something (except maybe Resurrection) of value to the overall storyline.  Except this one.  It was less a Halloween movie than a film that sort of existed in the same universe but took a left turn at Albuquerque. Stupid. Hackneyed. Unrelated. Unnecessary. Ridiculous.

Everything about this film was wrong.  All of it.  It missed the mark in so many ways there isn't space to fit it here.

Not since lumberjack Dexter stared back into the abyss have I felt a series flubbed its finale any worse than this.

Other than the first 5-10 mins. And the last 10 mins? It felt like a really bad indy college film project. Where the people making it were so full of themselves and their own ideas. They thought they had brilliance. I seriously think they had a huge amount of hubris in their own story writing. When in reality, it was complete garbage.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 04, 2022, 11:35:17 PM
The Northman

What in the Icelandic blue FUCK was that? 

What a turd.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on November 07, 2022, 09:47:14 AM
Told y'all Halloween Ends sucked.

Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers/Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers/Halloween 666: The Origin of Michael Myers is like The Third Man compared to the mid-off that was Ends.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 07, 2022, 10:27:36 AM
Told y'all Halloween Ends sucked.

Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers/Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers/Halloween 666: The Origin of Michael Myers is like The Third Man compared to the mid-off that was Ends.

Other than the initial flashback and the absurd final 10 minutes, this was essentially a bad Hallmark/Lifetime Movie with a splash of blood, starring re-enactors from an Investigation Discovery episode of Primal Instinct.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 08, 2022, 07:42:27 AM
31
Rob Zombie knows how to do dirt. No filmmaker in the world does a better job of conveying the dirty, trashy actually dirt-covered sub-strata of human existence.  From House of 1000 Corpses to Devil's Rejects to his Halloween entries to this entry, 31, he's incredibly effective at capturing that dirty, seedy look.

31 is a redneck horror movie, filled with dirty, seedy characters and his wife.  It's what you'd have if you took Squid Game, threw in a little Saw, added a splash of Purge and rednecked it all up.

Zombie has a habit of plucking former stars off the scrapheap of time.  This film throws in aged porn star Ginger Lynn, Dottie from Valley Girl (who is in several of his films), Washington from Welcome Back Kotter (and not much else), Jeff Daniel Phillips (who's in a lot of Zombie projects including playing Herman in Zombie's abysmal take on the Munsters), and Malcom McDowell (who will apparently do anything for a dollar). 

The worst/best of all here is Meg Foster, the ice-blue eyed heroine of They Live (sexy there) who looked like she'd spent the last 15 years in an alley smoking meth.  Never seen an actress go that far downhill.  She was stringy and wrinkled, the eyes about the only recognizable remnant of who she used to be.  She looked horrible. 

Basic premise: A bunch of cross-country travelers get kidnapped and forced to compete in a game called '31' by a group of powdered-wig weirdos who bet on who will survive.  The captured have 12 hours to make it through a series of sicko murderers - all of whom have stupid names like Doom-Head, Sicko-Head, Psycho-Head.  There's a midget, a rebel flag, nazi imagery, gross clowns, chainsaws, a duo of murderers called Sex-Head and Death-Head, and the final murder clown played by Richard Brake.

In the right hands, Brake's super-intense psycho clown could actually have the potential to stand alone and kick start its own series.  It's way more intense and horrible than Terrifier.  Zombie almost gets it right.  The look is great, Brake's intensity is over the top, his kills appropriately joyful.  It's like a cognizant and expressive version of Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees who toys with his victims. The movie just didn't give it enough room to breathe.

Like all Zombie movies it soars and suffers from his unique touch and relentless need to showcase his wife. 

It's not a great movie, but I've seen way worse - and way worse from Zombie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 08, 2022, 11:17:46 AM
Other than the initial flashback and the absurd final 10 minutes, this was essentially a bad Hallmark/Lifetime Movie with a splash of blood, starring re-enactors from an Investigation Discovery episode of Primal Instinct.

the last 10 mins is what I have been envisioning Laurie (or SOMEBODY) doing for the last 30 years. Thats all that was needed at the end of the last one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 08, 2022, 12:51:14 PM
the last 10 mins is what I have been envisioning Laura (or SOMEBODY) doing for the last 30 years. Thats all that was needed at the end of the last one.

We're all too stupid to understand.  Michael wasn't the killer.  This unseen evil entity that possessed him was.  Chew up his body, so what?  It will find another host in another time or universe.  Maybe in space!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 28, 2022, 06:07:50 PM
The Black Phone

From the mind of Stephen King('s son Joe) comes this tale of kidnapping with a supernatural element. 

The story itself is fairly short.  Granted, some of King's best adaptations have come from short stories, so maybe it'll work the same for his kid?  Nope.

There were too many things going on.  The whole kidnapping weirdo stuff would have been fine even with the ghosts calling the phone, but the movie lost its way with the psychic sister. 

The King family must have been bullied unmercifully at some point by biker-boot wearing greasers because it seems like every single one of their collective films features one of these character caricatures beating up on somebody.  And it's always wrong.  Same here.  Just another added, useless layer to the film. 

It really felt like a half-hour episode that was stretched far too long, while at the same time not letting Ethan Hawke really lean into the meaty nastiness of his character.  There was so much to tell, so much to do there and it ended up just being flat and one-dimensional.  Not Hawke's fault at all. 

Could have been good.  Wasn't. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 28, 2022, 06:09:16 PM
Smile
Not as creepy as I hoped. 

When your main horror focus is a drone that turns shots upside down for no reason at all?  You've humped the goat. 

Not really much to say about this other than it was a huge disappointment.  Failed on almost every level.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 29, 2022, 11:32:38 AM
Smile
Not as creepy as I hoped. 

When your main horror focus is a drone that turns shots upside down for no reason at all?  You've humped the goat. 

Not really much to say about this other than it was a huge disappointment.  Failed on almost every level.

Kevin and Kyra's daughter is a decent actress.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 29, 2022, 03:08:57 PM
Kevin and Kyra's daughter is a decent actress.

She has man hands. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 12, 2022, 06:46:14 AM
8 Bit Christmas

Tries to be “A Christmas Story” for kids who grew up in the 80s. 

Instead of a BB fun the quest is for a Nintendo, and to a secondary degree, a cabbage patch kid. 

I lived through the cabbage patch craze.  Was working retail, watched people brawl in the aisles, made side money black marketing a few I got off the truck.  That was fun. 

This movie wants really badly to be Christmas Story for the next generation.   It doesn’t fail completely but it doesn’t have the same comedic or sentimental chops as Ralphie’s search. 

It follows many of the same themes as ACS, down to milquetoast kid taking down the class bully.  It just couldn’t quite get there. 

One of the bigger problems is Steve Zahn in the old man role.  Another is the bully, a guy who was equally problematic in Mr Harrigan’s Phone in a similar role. 

It really needed to lean a lot harder into the look and feel of the 80s.  It missed the boat there. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 12, 2022, 07:04:32 AM
A Christmas Story Christmas

Some things are better left in the past. 

I wish it had been good to see Flick and Schwartz and Randy and Ralph and even Scut Farkas.  Not really. They all aged so poorly.  None but Farkas and Ralph have been on screen since the 80s.  And there’s a reason. 

They’re all pretty bad.  Randy in particular. 

The story is a little wonky.  It has its moments but can’t hold a candle to its parent.

Worth watching once just for the quality nostalgia. The dishes and storage containers some of which I still have). The outfits. 

I did like the way it ties into the original, but you have to churn through a lot of contrived and hokey scenes to get there. 

The timeline gives me a bit of a headache.  How long after somebody dies do you write an obit? And is the wife of a deceased spouse gonna just be perfectly okay the day after?   

If there had been no Christmas Story?  This would be a terrible movie.  It could not stand alone.   

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 13, 2022, 08:52:38 AM
Christmas With the Kranks

Christmas movies are my favorite (well, after Halloween movies). This one, though?  It's bad.  Don't enjoy it much at all. 

It's contrived. It's hokey. The music isn't good. The casting is terrible.  I'm typically okay with Jamie Lee Curtis. Tim Allen has some quality performances (Galaxy Quest comes to mind).  Neither is good here. No chemistry together. It's forced and fake. It's saccharin.

If I'm ranking Christmas movies, this one is way down the list.  Behind Deck the Halls. Behind Jingle All the Way.  Behind a lot of Hallmark films.

Speaking of lists, I'm taking this one off mine. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 24, 2022, 12:49:18 PM
The Night Before

Garbage.  Crude. Crass. Typical for what passes for humor in this Apatow/Rogen world.  Had some decent moments but was undone by the associated garbage.


Klaus
Reviewed before.  The more I watch it, the higher on my list it goes.  When/if I have grandkids it will be close to the top of the list.  Not a fan of the animation choice, wish it had been done old style, but that’s really the only flaw.  A funny and creative Santa origin story.  Gets you in in the feels at the end. 

Miracle on 34th Street
The original version.  Maureen O’Hara at her statuesque hotness height and a perfectly jolly Santa.  With a baby Natalie Wood. 

Amusing story, one that has a hard time fitting in a new America where everything Christmas is slowly deemed offensive. 

Some scenes are a little outdated.  The black kitchen help, working mom letting her daughter disappear with some random guy across the hall, for instance.  For those of us who still enjoy Christmas and don’t too much give a fuck if your non-chick-fil-a eating, rainbow haired, non-binary, buddhist , soy sucking, joyless, triggered, bitch ass gets offended or not?  It’s a feel-good, nostalgic movie.  A good one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 24, 2022, 10:13:04 PM
The Night Before

Garbage.  Crude. Crass. Typical for what passes for humor in this Apatow/Rogen world.  Had some decent moments but was undone by the associated garbage.


Klaus
Reviewed before.  The more I watch it, the higher on my list it goes.  When/if I have grandkids it will be close to the top of the list.  Not a fan of the animation choice, wish it had been done old style, but that’s really the only flaw.  A funny and creative Santa origin story.  Gets you in in the feels at the end. 

Miracle on 34th Street
The original version.  Maureen O’Hara at her statuesque hotness height and a perfectly jolly Santa.  With a baby Natalie Wood. 

Amusing story, one that has a hard time fitting in a new America where everything Christmas is slowly deemed offensive. 

Some scenes are a little outdated.  The black kitchen help, working mom letting her daughter disappear with some random guy across the hall, for instance.  For those of us who still enjoy Christmas and don’t too much give a fuck if your non-chick-fil-a eating, rainbow haired, non-binary, buddhist , soy sucking, joyless, triggered, bitch ass gets offended or not?  It’s a feel-good, nostalgic movie.  A good one.

Caught Miracle earlier this week. Watched it for the first time start to finish. I liked it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 28, 2022, 07:18:00 AM
Glass Onion: Knives Out Story

Knives Out was a fun, better-than-expected throwback mystery. No gore, no nudity, no crudity, little profanity. Just a well-written story and a strong cast to carry it off (and keep you guessing).   That film featured Jamie Lee Curtis, Don "Sonny Crockett" Johnson, Captain America, Ana de Armas, Christopher Plummer, Toni Collette and Michael Shannon with Daniel Craig (and his bad southern accent) as the mystery-solving detective.  The cast really made the movie work. 

The second episode of the Knives Out saga The Glass Onion (which is a Beatles song, something I didn't know) features the same quality writing, the same manner of exposition, the same snappy dialogue and the same bad Daniel Craig accent. Where it lacks is the cast.  There's a significant drop-off in quality here.  Kate Hudson, It was Agatha All the Time, Dave Bautista, Edward Norton and a bunch of unknowns (at least to me) populate the film.  It's not quite B-movie parody, but it leans that way.  Even Craig's detective character comes way too close early on to overplaying its hand.

The saving grace is the story. It's entertaining enough once it gets rolling to overcome the glaring cast deficiencies, even if it is a little ridiculous. 

It did lose me a little when the script allowed for the destruction of a treasured piece of history to satisfy one character's need for revenge.  That, to me, felt really wrong. 

If there's a third Knives Out film, I hope they choose a better cast.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 02, 2023, 01:54:22 AM
Beast

Should have named this Lujo.  It's Cujo with a lion basically.

Idris Elba protects his kids from being eaten by a pissed off lion.  It's honestly a ridiculous movie and I wish the older daughter had gotten eaten.

Just not that good.

Terrifier 2
Art the Clown is one of the best horror characters of all time. His murderous clown antics, the deranged glee with which he goes about his bloody work is different, unique, outlandish, absurd and funny as hell.

Art originally shows up in All Hallow's Eve, which is a low-budget, barely B-level movie of short films the director had made cobbled together in an incoherent storyline.  But the Art character was memorable enough that it got its own stand-alone film. Terrifier was a different kind of movie, a blood-soaked surprise that was way better than it should have been. It achieved cult status and helped bring Art's gory antics into the mainstream.

Terrifier 2 tries to lean into the things the director apparently thought made the Terrifier a surprise hit. He leans way, way too far. The violence was gratuitous and the level it was taken to was really beyond what was needed. It also goes full bore into the Halloween-ish immortality of the character extending the supernatural elements (Art committed suicide in Terrifier but was resurrected by some unnamed evil). It takes it two steps further with a half-baked, poorly explained arc about a magical sword that somehow heals instead of kills (nobody got that until the director explained it after the fact) and a kind of avenging angel that the lead girl becomes (I think).  All of that was too much. 

What the Terrifier series needs are 1)a budget so they don't have to hire anybody they meet off the street to take most of the roles.  2) A budget so they can spend money on set decoration. It was supposed to be Halloween and none of the houses were decorated. It was supposed to be Halloween and the school re-used the same three paper pieces of decoration whether it was the classroom, the office or the hallway.  It was supposed to be Halloween, but it people were sweating. 3. A budget so they could spend money on locations. 4. A budget so they could spend money on production values so the movie doesn't look like two assholes filmed it on their iPhone 3.  5. A budget so they could hire a director and a production staff.  6. A budget so they could hire writers (not the ones who wrote Halloween Ends) who could take the story elements and craft them into something that didn't require the creator/director to go "oh, that was a healing sword" after the fact.   

The character is lunatic. That much is without question.  Got to give the guy who created it credit.  But at this point he needs to step back and let more creative people bring some direction and focus to it. I'd like to see it get an adequate treatment. 

Basic story:
Art the Clown is back. He didn't die at the end of the prior film.  And he's on another rampage. Because his kills are apparently random and because the motive behind his attacks and the people he targets is never given any room to breathe there is no coherence to the movie at all.  It's over-the-top gory, but other than Art's comedic aspects and the semi-hot lead actress, the ludicrous carnage is all this film has going for it.  When it tries shoehorn the Michael Myers/Jason Voorhees 'can't be killed' aspect it really begins to lose its way. Art's not the only one overcoming what should be fatal wounds either.  It doesn't sink the film entirely, but it drags it down.

The main girl is kind of hot in a weird way.  Other than the semi-hot main girl and the off-the-wall campy carnage of Art, the rest of the cast and the story were straight ass, especially the supernatural components.

It's got moments that are worth watching just for the insanity.  The laundromat scene, for instance, is outrageously unhinged - a perfectly deranged mix of horror and comedy.  The dream commercial is equally unhinged but is poorly conceived, too long and a major misfire.

I hope some day they reboot Art and give the character the kind of attention it deserves, not this second-rate hack job.

Side note: Don't blink or you'll miss it but there's a brief appearance by the youngest LaRusso offspring.   Not sure why he was slumming here in a bit part, but there he was.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 05, 2023, 08:57:29 AM
Banshees of Inisherin

Collin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson as best friends on an isolated island off the coast of Ireland in 1923. 

Best friends until Gleeson’s character arbitrarily decides he doesn’t like Farrell any more and doesn’t want to speak to him any longer.

Gleeson and Farrell were perfect in In Bruges, one of my favorite movies of all time.  Their interaction made that movie.

They play off each other well here too.  Farrell’s Padriac is a lonely milk farmer living with his sister.  Gleeson’s Colm is a depressed would-be composer, living alone trying to write a song on his fiddle.  It’s the custom for the two to head to the local pub together at 2 pm.  When Colm decides he no longer wants to be Padriac’s friend it sets off his quest to find out why - with dire consequences when he refuses to accept it. 

It’s nowhere near as good as In Bruges. The island setting was stunning.  Gleeson and Farrell play off each other effortlessly. Beyond that?  I didn’t really understand the movie.  I assume it has some greater meaning behind what I saw but I didn’t get it.   

It was bleak sadness and misery set against a beautifully desolate island existence. 

It’s not something I will watch again. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 13, 2023, 10:56:58 PM
The Marksman

Another crusty Liam Neeson is a badass movie. 

Here he’s a rancher and former marine saving a kid from the Mexican cartel after he runs across him trying to cross the border on his ranch.

Improbable situations. Unrealistic coincidences.  Sham emotional resolutions.

Boilerplate stuff. 

Buy a pack of hot dogs, don’t be disappointed they don’t taste like steak, right?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: CCTAU on January 14, 2023, 01:07:14 AM
The Marksman

Another crusty Liam Neeson is a badass movie. 

Here he’s a rancher and former marine saving a kid from the Mexican cartel after he runs across him trying to cross the border on his ranch.

Improbable situations. Unrealistic coincidences.  Sham emotional resolutions.

Boilerplate stuff. 

Buy a pack of hot dogs, don’t be disappointed they don’t taste like steak, right?

Screw that anti gun asshole making money off of  guns.
Not one red cent!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 14, 2023, 09:27:36 AM
Screw that anti gun asshole making money off of  guns.
Not one red cent!

He pees his pants a lot in real life.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 15, 2023, 06:23:32 PM
He pees his pants a lot in real life.

Same with Costner. The gun part. Not sure if he pees his pants.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 17, 2023, 06:30:02 PM
Jurassic Something: Dumbination somwhere

One of the worst movies I've ever seen. 

I'd rather watch VelociPastor. 

It was so, so, so, so, bad. 

Laura Dern and Sam Neill looked like they were ashamed to be there, but needed the paycheck. 
Chris Pratt looked like he'd be happier with a fake raccoon.
Dallas Howard looked like Opie. She chubby.
Goldblum's eccentricity was the only thing that held it together and even that felt forced. He's better in the apartments.com ads.
BD Wong? C'mon man. Don't debase yourself.

Story:
Giant bugs eat all the crops, dinosaurs, clones who get pregnant without a man, afterthought dinosaurs.  Oh, the movie is over so let's do a voice-over for five minutes to wrap it up. 

GARBAGE.   Give me $93 and two rolls of toilet paper and I could draw a film better than this.  They had $93 million and this giant pile of bronto turds is what we got?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 24, 2023, 02:04:03 PM
 Oscar Nominations

Once again I've seen almost none of the nominated films/actors.  Of the ten films nominated for Best Picture, I've seen one.  Banshees if Inisherin (reviewed on Pg 164 of this thread). 

Avatar? No. Elvis? Fuck no. Top Gun? No, but probably will. All Quiet on the Western Front? Maybe in the 70s or something. Everything Everywhere All At Once? Nope, never heard of it. The Fablemans? Nope, sounds shitty. Women Talking? Fuckity fuck fuck no. Triangle of Sadness? Or whatever Madonna calls her poon these days....NO. 

Small blessing that Disney's disastrous Wakanda wasn't given a sympathy nod I suppose. 

But back to Banshees. 

It's taking all the glory that In Bruges truly, honestly, deeply deserved.   It's 10x the movie this one is.  Banshees is nominated not only for Best Picture, but also Best Actor (farrell), Supporting Actor twice (Gleeson and some other dude), Supporting Actress (Kerry Condon), Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Editing, Original Score... a total of nine nominations. 

All of that belonged to In Bruges.  Actor Gleeson or Farrell, Supporting Actor Fiennes, Supporting Actress Posey, and so on.  That film got ONE nomination -- Screenplay -- while Oscars that year went to Slumdog Millionaire and fucking Jeff Spicoli for playing a gay guy named Milk. 

I won't watch the Oscars - what's the point.  This film will win nothing, and even if it did, it can't make up for the failure to honor it's better older brother In Bruges.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on January 25, 2023, 09:40:26 AM


Avatar? No. Elvis? Fuck no. Top Gun? No, but probably will. All Quiet on the Western Front? Maybe in the 70


FWIW - I didnt think any of these were bad.

Oscar worthy? No. But not bad at all. The Elvis one is...."different" but if you've ever seen or heard anything Baz Luhrman has ever done, its about on par with his MO. Ironically, I thought Tom Hanks was the WORST part overplaying Col Parker.

Top Guns decent nostalgia that did its job.

Avatar gets props simply for creativity and the visual spectacle.

All Quiet was solid to me albeit old fashioned. It is prob the best of those 4.

But Banshees should win among all those listed.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 05, 2023, 08:35:20 AM
Violent Night

Rarely do you watch a film thinking you know what you're going to get, but once it gets rolling you end up with something so much greater, more fun, more surprising. Movies like Pirates of the Caribbean and Krampus come immediately to mind. Add Silent Night to the list. I thought I knew what it was going to be, but it went so far beyond that. It was significantly more entertaining than I anticipated. It was so much better than I hoped. 

Christmas and horror aren't always a good mix. I've seen so many films that tried to make it work. Black Christmas - only the first was any good and it could have been set at any time of the year. Red Christmas, Silent Night (two versions), Silent Night/Deadly Night, Mercy Christmas, All Through the House, Christmas Bloody Christmas, All the Creatures were Stirring all tried to find the combination and failed for various reasons -- usually a $4 budget and crap actors.

Then there was Krampus. Really good film and now part of my standard Christmas fare. Violent Night now joins that rotation. It's one I'll watch again when the holidays roll around.

David Harbour was a great Santa. He's the Santa we need, not the Santa we deserve.  His performance truly elevated the film.

The film was funnier than I expected, wedged in a unique (but somehow believable) Santa origin story, had some saccharine moments (required in any Christmas movie) and possessed a depth I wasn't prepared for.  It wasn't just "oh, how shocking! Santa's a killer!!"  Violent Night gave a reason and rationale for it and made Saint Nick's run as a bludgeoning marauder something the audience could get behind. 

Good production values, beautifully shot. I loved how it wove in elements from other Christmas movies - particularly another favorite - Home Alone.  Any film that can make you laugh and cringe simultaneously at over-the-top mayhem gets huge credit in my book. That happens multiple times over the course of this movie.

The only flaw was the obligatory and forced injection of the bi-racial family. That part just didn't work at all. Everything else? Simply fantastic.

The villains - Scrooge, Krampus, Gingerbread, Peppermint, Candy Cane, Jingle, Frosty - were all humorously violent, particularly Krampus. 

It was so much more fun that I could have hoped for.  I avoided it during the holidays because I was afraid it would be another failed entry in the Christmas Horror genre. Another film where a blood-soaked Santa was all it had to offer.  That was a mistake. I wish I'd watched it while the tree was still up and the smell of evergreen lingered. Exponentially better than I ever imagined it could be. 

Highly recommend.

THIS is the kind of movie that should win Oscars. Harbour's turn as jolly old Saint Nick is far better than Collin Farrell being Collin Farrell in Banshees (although I love Farrell). 

In case you missed it, I really/really/really/really like this movie.  I'm going to watch it again tonight. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 21, 2023, 09:33:42 AM
The Harder They Fall

I don't mind a little creative license. I understand that sometimes you have to change a few things up to give a film a compelling narrative. But this? No.  It's too much.

The director plucked a bunch of names from history and then blackwashed the entire thing.  Filled old west towns with nothing but black people. Turned American Indians into black characters. Created an entire history that simply didn't and doesn't exist. It's too much. The Old West wasn't rife with black trans/les characters. The Old West wasn't loaded with black sheriffs, black outlaw gangs, or any of that. It's absurd to pretend it was. 

That's bad enough, but the director (or directors) apparently think of him(them)selves as a modern day Quentin Tarrantino. The problem is they don't understand at ALL what makes Tarrantino films work.  It's not overly long, and overly verbose soliloquies.  It's not slow motion blood sprays. It's not camera angles and lighting.  But that's all they've got here.

It's kind of sad, really, because I like many of the actors in this movie. 

Idris Elba? Goes without saying. He's done some great work. This? Was ridiculous. He's playing Rufus Buck, head of a real gang in the Old West, but who was also an Indian - Elba isn't that.

Lakeith Stanfield? Thought he was great in Sorry to Bother You. Here? He's a black guy playing a character who was white/Indian in reality and doing it badly.

RJ Cyler? Outstanding in Emergency. Completely miscast here. There was a real Jim Beckwourth, but he wasn't a cowboy gunslinger. He was a fur trader and explorer.

Zazie Beetz? Sweet work in Deadpool. She plays Stagecoach Mary. In real life, Mary was an ugly, foul-mouthed disgraced nun who made a living washing clothes and running a mail route. She was NOT a top-hat-wearing, saloon-owning, singing, gun-slinging siren of the west.

It goes on and on.  Nothing in this film bears any resemblance to the reality of the times.

Even so, take the utterly absurd historical blackwashing out of the equation and the movie is STILL completely unwatchable. I won't get to the end.

The overly verbose and emotionally fraudulent script, the over/under acting performances (among the worst of every character on the screen), and the poorly plotted and vacant plot put this movie in the pile of the immediately forgettable. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 17, 2023, 10:58:33 PM
Babylon
Margot Robbie. Brad Pitt. Looked like a fun caper type movie about Hollywood.

Instead, in the five or six minutes I watched before I gave up in disgust, I was treated to a very clear reminder that Hollywood has always been subversive, perverted and warped. For the last 100 years, it's subverted our culture and our values while it wallowed in filth and degradation.

I didn't and won't finish this movie. If you find degenerates randomly fucking, women pissing in men's faces, fat bastards beating whores to death and orgies set to jazz-era swing?  Knock yourself out. 

Fuck Hollywood. Bunch of sick freaks.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on April 18, 2023, 08:43:02 AM
If you find degenerates randomly fucking, women pissing in men's faces, fat bastards beating whores to death and orgies set to jazz-era swing?

Nook, how was Amsterdam?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 26, 2023, 09:50:32 PM
Black Adam

I tried. I really, really did.  I tried to watch this movie.  Five different times I tried.  I've yet to finish it and I never will. 

Don't get me wrong, I've been strongly attracted to Sarah Shahi for years.  Ever since I saw her in L Word and then Sopranos for one episode. Never envied Tony more.  But even that wasn't nearly enough to get me to the end of this. 

There just are no words at all for how bad this is.  Rock is TERRIBLE.  It's like somebody decided to make a superhero movie parody but forgot it was a parody and played it straight. 

I'm at a loss for words.  It is simply atrocious.  Possibly the worst superhero movie in the history of the genre. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on April 27, 2023, 05:43:25 AM
Black Adam

I tried. I really, really did.  I tried to watch this movie.  Five different times I tried.  I've yet to finish it and I never will. 

Don't get me wrong, I've been strongly attracted to Sarah Shahi for years.  Ever since I saw her in L Word and then Sopranos for one episode. Never envied Tony more.  But even that wasn't nearly enough to get me to the end of this. 

There just are no words at all for how bad this is.  Rock is TERRIBLE.  It's like somebody decided to make a superhero movie parody but forgot it was a parody and played it straight. 

I'm at a loss for words.  It is simply atrocious.  Possibly the worst superhero movie in the history of the genre.

I watched 10 minutes when it came out on whatever App and had to turn it off. Would rather rewatch Ernest Goes to Camp as an adult.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on April 27, 2023, 11:50:56 AM
I watched 10 minutes when it came out on whatever App and had to turn it off. Would rather rewatch Ernest Goes to Camp as an adult.

(https://media.tenor.com/lpOWG6YjTfYAAAAM/ew-eww.gif)

Now, Ernest Scared Straight....thats where it's at man.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 27, 2023, 10:46:17 PM
Rocky IV: Rocky vs. Drago

I'm not ashamed to admit that I love Rocky IV.  I first watched it from the balcony of a downtown theater in its initial run. Still gives me chills to remember the entire audience standing up and cheering at the end, my date in Adrian-like tears. I don't care that it's cheesy, I don't care that it's covered in late 80s glitter.  Ronald Reagan was my president, it was a new day in America, people were proud to love this country and wave its flag. And Rocky Balboa singlehandedly won the Cold War by doing what no one on earth thought he was capable of doing. 

There are some who say that movie hasn't aged well, primarily because it wrapped itself so heavily in 80s Glamour Shot glory. One of those who felt this way is apparently Sylvester Stallone, Rocky himself. Even though the movie was a colossal success (and remains beloved by millions, me included) the harsh reaction of critics stung. So he decided to take a second stab at it; to give it more emotional resonance and dial back the 80s sheen.

In the end, he cut out about 40 minutes of film, added 42 minutes and came out with a story that is different while remaining the same.  Was it worth it?  I don't know.  For someone who can quote almost verbatim the entire script of the  original film, the pacing was odd and it threw me.  Imagine Guns and Roses decided to redo Welcome to the Jungle, added a new verse, moved Slash's guitar solo to the beginning and then layered in something that had the feel of a ballad as a bridge. It's kind of the same thing here. 

The biggest things I noticed? 


I get what he tried to do. He tried to give the film an emotional depth the original didn't have. The thing is, I don't think it was necessary. I love ALL Rocky films (except 5, which never happened). But I'm not watching them looking for that depth. I watch them to see the guy fight the odds and become a better version of himself.  None of us are there for introspection, I don't think.

Would Stallone's version have made the same bank at the theaters the original did?  Yeah, probably. 
Was it interesting to see the story he wanted to tell versus the one that ended up on the screen, despite their undeniable similarities?  Yep.
When I decide to watch Rocky IV again (and I will, many more times assuming I live that long) will I choose the Stallone version over the one that enthralled me in the beginning?  Probably not.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on April 29, 2023, 11:45:04 AM
Scream VI

The original was unique and self-aware.  A great addition to the horror genre.  The final reveal(s) weren't obvious. The various sequels and reboots haven't been as good. 

Scream 5 tried to bring the franchise to a new generation by building a bridge between the old (a hacked up Courtney Cox, still attractive Neve Campbell, the Arquette dude)  and a new set of stalked teens (black lesbo, some hispanic girls who absolutely cannot act, and the obligatory super cool, smart, nerdy black guy).  It had potential and also weaknesses. 

Scream 6 tries to move on, focusing only on the new group with some involvement by an even worse-looking Cox and adding another plank to the bridge by hooking in Hayden Panty-something who was in the middle span with Emma Roberts - which was actually pretty good and could have stood on its own.

They stole the "aging" of the mask from Halloween Kills and ends, giving it some gray crackling. Was a good look. They also added an element of meanness and violence that hasn't always been a part of the franchise.  Ghostface is brutal and violent in a way far more reminiscent of a Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers than any of his prior incarnations. 

The biggest difference between Ghostface and Myers, Krueger, Voorhees is that the latter three are to some degree immortal. Always the same person under the mask. Ghostface is immortal, too, but only in that a different person - or usually more than one person - takes up his robes every time.

I didn't hate it. But I hated all the characters.  Jenny Ortega is a complete waste of flesh.  Useless. Is she supposed to "be" somebody?   Her "sister" is decent to look at, but also can't act for shit.  In what world is she really "dating/fucking/whatever" the old man from across the hall? The blesbian who takes on Jamie Kennedy's frantic 'let me explain the rules' part? The one who's also in Yellowjackets?  Worthless.  The acting is so bad, you almost wonder if it's purposeful. They can't be serious with this shit.

When Delmott Mulrooney is far and away the best actor in the film? Yeah. that's what you've got. It's hard to look at Cox remembering how damn cute she was in the Springsteen video.   

Product placement was pretty funny.  Coors. Cheetos. Mountain Dew.  Others.

Seeing references to Michael Myers, Jason Pinhead, Freddy Krueger, Pennywise, The Shining, Svengooolie, Midsommar and more slicing through the crowd in a subway scene was interesting.  Filmmakers live in this crazy alternate world where everybody in the universe puts on costumes for days around Halloween and then wander the streets. I've seen it played out in movie after movie, including this one. It's not true and never has been. I always, always, always roll my eyes when I see that.

The 'twist' ending doesn't pay off in this one, unfortunately.  It's kind of obvious, really.  Or at least part of it is. All you have to do it look.

There are also a LOT of people getting their guts re-arranged with a knife who get up and keep on going. That's kinda not realistic.

The biggest problem is there's no emotional connection to the characters.  Just don't care about them and SERIOUSLY don't want the final girls to be the final girls.  There's no way they can build a franchise around these two zero-talent hookers and their cliched friends. I figure they'll try.

Time to die already.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 01, 2023, 08:52:26 AM
Captain America: Civil War

The less said about this the better. 

I just didn't enjoy it. 

Oh it was better than Batman v Superman while grappling with similar "where is the oversight" themes but that's not saying much. 

I literally didn't give one single fuck about the cat person.  I could do without fire fingers and red face too. And also spider twit. 

The "villain" such as he was added nothing and his knowledge, access, financial resources and expertise defied logic. 

Bear in mind that I don't much care for the Thor movies -- except for Loki --nor did I like either previous CA. Fuck Bucky. 

This movie just didn't have the easy elan of the great ones.  Avengers and Iron Man 1 and 3.   

This entire genre is losing its touch.  It's almost become ponderous self parody. 

It needs to end soon before it eats itself. 

My wife is dead. My mom is dead. Oh boo fucking hoo.

I was wrong. About many things.  This is one. 

Much better film than I gave it credit for.  I was going through a difficult time apparently.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 06, 2023, 10:08:49 AM
Guardians of the Galaxy 3

It helps if you watched the Christmas special.  If you didn't, there are a few little things you'll miss, including one kind of amusing bit in the final end credit scene. It's not required, though. The movie stands alone just fine. 

This film really should have been given a sub title: The Search for Rocket because it's really the racoon's story. It's a story of discovery for Rocket as he (and we) discover who he is and why he is. 

That's not all the movie is, though. The film is completely stuffed with characters.  Quill, Gamora, Nebula, Drax, Mantis, Groot, Stallone's Reaver, and Kraglin are all given plenty to do and each has his/her own place in the broader story of saving Rocket.

The Guardians are united in a common cause after the megalomaniac psychopath who made Rocket who he is attempts to kidnap the racoon. The attempt injures Rocket and the crew comes together in an effort to find the key to saving his life.

The film starts where the Christmas special left off with the Guardians adrift on Knowhere: Quill numbing the loss of Gamora with booze, Rocket glumly musing his self perception as a weirdo, Nebula learning to fit in and Drax, Mantis and Groot hanging around looking for purpose.

They find it when Rocket is injured and a determined Quill decides his friend isn't going to die on his watch. 

The movie is much darker and deeper than the first.  It's a little too long and a little too noisy but overall it's a really good, possibly great movie.  It gives each of the characters (except one, Golden Boy) a fitting end to the trilogy. Unlike almost every Marvel movie ever, it doesn't set up anything, doesn't tease the broader universe. It stays out of the whole confusing (and failing) multiverse concept that has driven the entire MCU off the rails -- with the exception of the alternate Gamora.

Even though there is the obligatory mountain of destruction and things that go boom, this is a character-driven story with heart. 

I enjoyed it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 08, 2023, 10:50:26 PM
Cocaine Bear

"Based on a true story" 

Guy dropped cocaine out of a plane and jumped. Parachute didn't open, he died. Bear later found dead in the woods from cocaine overdose, bags of powder all around.   That's the story. 

Embellished here as rampaging bear that rips apart hikers, flings body parts around for fun and chews the scenery.  So based on a true story essentially means "what would happen if...." as opposed to "what had happened was." 

It was supposed to be comedic, I assume. There was some mildly funny gore along the way. I just didn't find the joy in it that others apparently did. It wasn't the broad, campy romp I think the directors were aiming for. I didn't enjoy it like I thought I would.

The film never found the balance in what it wanted to be. Was it a comedy? A horror movie? A drama? It did a little of it all and did none of it well.
 
Lots of mid to lower-level talent wasted here, including Kerri Russell, the gay ginger from Modern Family, Baby Ice Cube, pretend Han Solo, Tormund Giantsbane, Senator Clayton Davis from The Wire (and a thousand other things), and Margot (I'm in everything now, I'm the white Samuel L. Jackson)  Martindale.  Last but not least, this was the farewell performance of Ray Liotta - really only good in Goodfellas - who died after this was filmed.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 14, 2023, 08:53:56 AM
All Quiet on the Western Front

Watched about 3/4 of this in German, reading subtitles, until I realized I could switch it to English.  It was probably better in German.

It's the story of a group of young men, swept up in nationalistic fervor, who sign up for the German effort in World War I and are thrust into the middle of brutal fighting at the western front.

The movie does a good job of portraying the physical horror of ground war as it was waged at that time. As the end credits state, several million men died over the course of a few years, their entrenched positions changing no more than a few feet either way. 

Other than the rampant brutality and the general stupidity of it all, the film is actually pretty predictable.

It's a long, dirty, bloody, degrading, demanding slog through a series of horrifying deaths interspersed with scenes of utter bleakness. 

It was like the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan ran for almost two hours.

Not sure it deserved all the award buzz it got.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 20, 2023, 11:33:35 AM
Dungeons and Dragons
Don't know what I expected.  The trailers made it seem like a fun romp, kind of a cross between Guardians of the Galaxy and Game of Thrones.  Whatever it was supposed to be, it wasn't. Oh, I realize the paid critics will strongly disagree and likely praise the performances - particularly of Chris Pine and Michelle Rodriguez. 

i'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree. Pine was flat. Flat as a week old Dr. Pepper sitting on the counter. He had less life than the dead-eyed animated freaks in Polar Express. Rodriguez wasn't much better. The filmmakers did a terrible job of creating characters that resonated. They always felt like they were at a table reading and not really putting much into it. 

Hugh Grant tried - a little - but even he didn't add much. 

Maybe it would have helped if I knew anything at all about D&D, but I don't. Less than nothing, honestly. I've heard the term and know some nerds obsess over it. But I've never seen the game, never touched a board piece (if there are any?), never known a rule.

I don't think knowing the game would have made any difference other than seeing potential easter eggs and wink/nods to the game embedded along the way - and that wouldn't have added much. 

All I got out of this movie is a bunch of noise, a poorly-acted and badly sketched 'family' plot, long stretches of boredom, and some CGI that I've seen done better elsewhere. Nothing about it really worked at all.   

I can't fathom who the target audience for this movie was.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 22, 2023, 10:39:03 AM
Ant Man and the Wasp: Quadrophenia (whatever)

Ant Man is the blandest of the the Marvel lineup.  It's not absurd and tangled like the almost unwatchable Dr. Strange entries. It's not outrageous and campy like the last two Thor entries. But it also doesn't rise to the level of Ironman or Captain America. 

Part of that is the general genial blandness of Paul Rudd. That's not a condemnation, it's just what he is. It fits the part. He  doesn't have the same charisma as Downey, Hemsworth, Evans, or even Johannsen. That everyman blandness helps make the character work, though. Rudd as Scott actually leans into it, accepting that Antman is fourth or fifth banana on the Avengers tree, at best.

The rest of the ensemble is reasonably strong. The girl from Freaky (who I like) stepping into the daughter role, Michelle Pfieffer and Michael Douglas sliding back into the Pym family slots. And Evangeline Lily (with an atrocious hairdo, gross) returning as the love interest/sidekick.

Two problems:
1 - the story.  All that "big, little, big, tiny, other universe, crazy alien" stuff is too much. It gets muddled after a while. I will say that Star Wars could have used some of the alien creation here, rather than the raggedy ass muppets it relies on. The creatures were well rendered.
2 - Kang. That guy, whoever he is, was pretty awful. 

The film teased way more of him/it to come but if I had to guess, I'd say that will be one of those threads that will be dropped and forgotten as Marvel moves forward. They're already scrapping their entire planned M-She-U due to audience fatigue and indifference - although I feel confident they'll blame Trump and DeSantis for their failures.

That brings me to a point I made years ago when the media declared that the entire nation was "in love" with a racehorse as they bombarded us with stories about it.  In reality, few cared. They WANTED us to care. It's the same thing with this whole female/LGBRQ549+-% agenda Disney/Marvel decided to pursue. It wasn't what people actually wanted or would support. It was what a very small number of people decided that we wanted. And when it failed (spectacularly), those same people chose not to accept the reality, but affixed a series of "ism" and "phobe" tags to anyone who dared to think differently.

I don't think Antman Quadrophonic was a bad movie. It just didn't move the needle. And it had to throw in one little "socialism is a great idea, just look at the ants" line.  I know it performed poorly at the box office (not as poorly as crap like SheHulk and Eternals), and I expect it will probably just fade into anonymity over time.  It definitely didn't advance the Marvel story and if I had to guess, it will be the last time we see Antman in a lead role.   (Rudd is looking a little old, to be honest). I think their plan was to prop up the daughter as the next Ant hero - as part of that entire SheIron, SheHulk, LadyThor, ChickHawk, lineup they were trying to build -- but that will never work. It just won't. So pick an "ism" or "phobe" to tar me with and let's move on. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on May 23, 2023, 09:49:12 AM
Ant Man and the Wasp: Quadrophenia (whatever)

Ant Man is the blandest of the the Marvel lineup.  It's not absurd and tangled like the almost unwatchable Dr. Strange entries. It's not outrageous and campy like the last two Thor entries. But it also doesn't rise to the level of Ironman or Captain America. 

Part of that is the general genial blandness of Paul Rudd. That's not a condemnation, it's just what he is. It fits the part. He  doesn't have the same charisma as Downey, Hemsworth, Evans, or even Johannsen. That everyman blandness helps make the character work, though. Rudd as Scott actually leans into it, accepting that Antman is fourth or fifth banana on the Avengers tree, at best.

The rest of the ensemble is reasonably strong. The girl from Freaky (who I like) stepping into the daughter role, Michelle Pfieffer and Michael Douglas sliding back into the Pym family slots. And Evangeline Lily (with an atrocious hairdo, gross) returning as the love interest/sidekick.

Two problems:
1 - the story.  All that "big, little, big, tiny, other universe, crazy alien" stuff is too much. It gets muddled after a while. I will say that Star Wars could have used some of the alien creation here, rather than the raggedy ass muppets it relies on. The creatures were well rendered.
2 - Kang. That guy, whoever he is, was pretty awful. 

The film teased way more of him/it to come but if I had to guess, I'd say that will be one of those threads that will be dropped and forgotten as Marvel moves forward. They're already scrapping their entire planned M-She-U due to audience fatigue and indifference - although I feel confident they'll blame Trump and DeSantis for their failures.

That brings me to a point I made years ago when the media declared that the entire nation was "in love" with a racehorse as they bombarded us with stories about it.  In reality, few cared. They WANTED us to care. It's the same thing with this whole female/LGBRQ549+-% agenda Disney/Marvel decided to pursue. It wasn't what people actually wanted or would support. It was what a very small number of people decided that we wanted. And when it failed (spectacularly), those same people chose not to accept the reality, but affixed a series of "ism" and "phobe" tags to anyone who dared to think differently.

I don't think Antman Quadrophonic was a bad movie. It just didn't move the needle. And it had to throw in one little "socialism is a great idea, just look at the ants" line.  I know it performed poorly at the box office (not as poorly as crap like SheHulk and Eternals), and I expect it will probably just fade into anonymity over time.  It definitely didn't advance the Marvel story and if I had to guess, it will be the last time we see Antman in a lead role.   (Rudd is looking a little old, to be honest). I think their plan was to prop up the daughter as the next Ant hero - as part of that entire SheIron, SheHulk, LadyThor, ChickHawk, lineup they were trying to build -- but that will never work. It just won't. So pick an "ism" or "phobe" to tar me with and let's move on.

I watched last night, typed up my review, and realized I was mimicking a lot of what you have already said. 

Evangeline Lily is a natural beauty, but that Classic Western young boy haircut kills it for me. 

The quote on Socialism being a desired outcome made we want to throw up.  I guess I am just tired of the repetitive agenda pushing in film.  You can't watch anything these days without it being laced with extreme leftist ideology.  It truly is a hive mind.  Diversity is the most important thing unless it is diversity of thoughts/ideas.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on May 25, 2023, 09:22:52 AM
Anyone see Nefarious?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 25, 2023, 09:28:11 AM
Anyone see Nefarious?

Only in theaters correct?

I do want to see it and Hypnotic.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on May 25, 2023, 09:35:59 AM
Only in theaters correct?

I do want to see it and Hypnotic.

Yep, I want to see it the more I hear about it, but I may wait for streaming services.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on May 25, 2023, 11:06:38 AM
I'm keen to see that Blackberry movie but it's nowhere near where I live. Tetris was good on the Apple+.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 28, 2023, 10:45:31 AM
Poker Face
Australian movie with Australian cast.  Russell Crowe (who directed) and a Hemsworth.  Some boxy-looking women who weren't bad to look at. 

Basic story:  Crowe is mega rich from playing poker and inventing some government spy program.  When the spy program was first developed he distributed shares to all his poker-playing pals - millions of dollar's worth - who promptly proceeded to squander them.

Now he's dying. So he sets up a winner-take-all poker battle and invites all of his ex pals to play. Cue some shenanigans initiated by his down-on-their-luck ex pals who are desperate for money, wedge in a farcical storyline about his wife banging one of the friends, swizzle a trio of brutal, but bungling burglars who would have easily been thwarted by Kevin from Home Alone, and cap it off with a saccharin ending.

It just didn't have the weight it wanted to. And because it was Australian, it was weird.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 28, 2023, 11:24:46 AM
Blood

I watched this because it was categorized as a horror film and because it starred Michelle Monaghan, who I've liked for a long time.  She's around 50 and still looks really, really good to me. She first got my attention in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (a highly underrated movie, BTW) and has been solid in pretty much everything I've ever seen her in - including True Detective. To my knowledge her only on-screen nudity was KKBB, although there was perhaps some in True Detective - which was possibly a body double. Alexandra DDarrio was not body doubled in that however, a fact you should never forget.

She's the best part of this movie, too.

Premise:

She's divorcing Skeet Ulrich, and moves into an old farmhouse out in the middle of nowhere with her two kids. She is a nurse and apparently used to be a drug addict (never really properly fleshed out). Some weird tree (never explained) somehow (never explained) infects the dog, who bites her kid.  Kid develops a taste for the movie's title (why? never explained).  Mom Michelle goes to great lengths to provide for the ever hungry kid as it gets further and further removed from its human roots (why? never explained).  Eventually its a battle for survival. 

Wasn't bad. Wasn't good. I struggled with how quickly mom figured out psycho boy's need and how quickly she shifted into straight up psycho mode to supply it. 

Just another average horror movie where the only horror was the cringe inducing "poor Cadbury spokesman" moments and the possibility of a baby being eaten (I actually almost wish they'd gone there). 

Recommend? Not really.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on May 28, 2023, 03:25:54 PM

Alexandra DDarrio was not body doubled in that however, a fact you should never forget.


And Woody Harrelson had the honor of touching them. Pretty sure she’s one of the most beautiful women to ever exist.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 28, 2023, 04:36:15 PM
And Woody Harrelson had the honor of touching them. Pretty sure she’s one of the most beautiful women to ever exist.

Her face ain't a world beater, really.  Gal Gadot has a much more attractive face.  Like mesmerizingly hot. Margot Robbie... There are several.

But them American titties!  Oh my lord.

Right up there with Teresa Palmer's exquisite ass!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on May 28, 2023, 06:24:59 PM
Her face ain't a world beater, really.  Gal Gadot has a much more attractive face.  Like mesmerizingly hot. Margot Robbie... There are several.

But them American titties!  Oh my lord.

Right up there with Teresa Palmer's exquisite ass!

She is the only reason to watch I Am Number Four and Take Me Home Tonight (it does have its funny moments).

Still hard for any of ‘em to beat Kate Beckinsale.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on May 28, 2023, 10:06:26 PM
Her face ain't a world beater, really.  Gal Gadot has a much more attractive face.  Like mesmerizingly hot. Margot Robbie... There are several.

But them American titties!  Oh my lord.

Right up there with Teresa Palmer's exquisite ass!

Her blue eyes are actually pretty spectacular. She’s damn near perfect to me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on May 28, 2023, 10:15:55 PM
Bama Rush

If every single one of these vapid, clueless airheads disappeared from the face of the earth it would be a better place to live. 

They are despicable. They are dumber than a box of coat hangers.  They are nothing more than self important cum dumpsters. 

As bad as they are and this is?  The stupid filmmaker who inserted herself artificially into the narrative with her No Ho Hank looking head makes it exponentially worse. There’s no reason for her to put herself into the middle of the story (what little there is it it) or talk to the camera.  She’s as awful as the morons from the sororities. She’s a stupid, self-involved mommy part, honestly. This is less about Rush than her stupid wiggy ass.

Every single person in this film is one of the most useless sacks of flesh to ever breathe. 

Good lord this us atrocious.  Social media is the ruination of this country. 

I’m going to quit watching it because I don’t want to see the ugly, fat ass dancing hippo from Illinois get into one.

EDITED TO ADD:

The more I think about this, the more it bothers me. This was an absolute waste of time. 

The narcissistic director was no better than the brain-dead, drama-loving/creating trash whores she profiled. 

You learn ABSOLUTELY nothing from this worthless production.  It's all surface-level information, that a hamster could glean from the newspaper that lines its cage.  The fact that NoHo Sally thinks she's making some profound statement with this is insulting.

She bases her "documentary" (aka vanity project so she can talk about her fucking head) on four girls - all of whom are wrapped in drama they fabricate. 

One is a drama-soaked wanna-be tramp who claims to have body issues and also claims she has been roofied "multiple times."  I've known whores like this all my life who are so desperate for attention that they are ragingly drunk after two beers and then throw their stinking pussy on anybody who'll stick a dick in it.  After, they claim to have been taken advantage of.  Midway through, on discovering that she was unlikely to be picked up by any sorority because she has no social skills other than being loud and drunk, she drops out of Rush. 
One down.

One is a mixed race, very confused, girl who sees everything through a racial lens.  I think the Knobhead director thought she'd get to make a case for how racist the school is when this mousy girl got dropped. Instead, she dropped herself out of Rush after going to a "rush coach" and looking gawky in her dresses.
Two down.

One is a fat ass, self-involved, no talent, utterly annoying cow from Illinois who chose to go to Bama 'because.'  She's the worst. Videos of her bloated ass thundering around on a dance stage, videos of her trying on dresses that make her look like the Hindenburg after it hit the powerlines. Absolutely zero self awareness.  She dropped out of the "documentary" after learning the sororities were cautioning pledges not to be involved.
Three down.

The fat ass hippopotamus was the reason I quit watching it initially.  I didn't want to see her "excited" face if she got a bid. I finally went back and finished it and the pig squealing when she opened her bid packet was just as grating as I imagined it would be.  That she was tapped to pledge Phi MOO was fitting. Her claiming it was "one of the top tier sororities" was also laughable. Phi MOO is literally one of the bottom rung houses on campus. It's not THE bottom, but it is in the bottom 5%. And this ridiculous bitch squealed like Ned Beatty with a mountain man up his ass when she "got in." 

One is a complete self-absorbed girl from California who claims to have been raped just before coming to Rush. She's pretty, but has an IQ of about 4. She does make it through rush. 

So out of the four rushees, the thing ends up with one who finishes the project. Over the course of it, viewers are given ZERO insights into what actually happens during the interviews, ZERO real examination of the power sororities have on campus, ZERO consideration of what impact Sorostitute life has on past members (good and bad), ZERO discussion of alcohol abuse or drugs, ZERO inspection of the Stepford Wife conformity the societies enforce, ZERO information about how rule breakers are treated, ZERO real exposition of how sisters who date "outside" the system are treated.  I was there, saw all of that in real time. I briefly dated a girl who was in one of the ones that started with Alpha when I was in Tuscaloosa. I liked her, but we couldn't survive the "nobody can know I'm dating a GDI!!" or the regular forced swaps where where she had a required date with some douchetwat from a frat. I think part of the allure for her was that I wasn't a frat boy and I was "forbidden" by her sisterhood. When she'd show up my apartment in a hat and sunglasses worried that somebody had followed her off campus... I got tired of that. 

The biggest thing is there was ZERO real investigation of The Machine *which should have been a completely separate documentary and one that a REAL investigative reporter, not NoHo Hootenanny, should undertake. The Machine exists and what everybody fails to understand is that it isn't limited to the UA campus. It has controlled state politics for decades. Like the mafia, it needs to end.  Yes, No Ho Sally awkwardly touched on it, but did nothing but rehash stale newspaper headlines and dug no deeper. 

This is a TERRIBLE documentary from which you will discover absolutely nothing other than the fact that this stupid ass NoHo bitch put on a wig.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on June 01, 2023, 12:12:12 PM
Bama Rush = Nothing Burger

The Jared from Subway documentary? Disturbing.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on June 01, 2023, 12:32:21 PM
The Jared from Subway documentary? Disturbing.

Did the blonde who was secretly recording him really play a role in his arrest?  Because it looks like the Indy police who got the tip about bestiality on his buddy and his buddy's wife is what led to them arresting him.  So this documentary could really have been about 45 minutes.

And I agree, very disturbing.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on June 01, 2023, 02:37:08 PM
Count me in on the disturbing take.  That's a sick dude. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on June 01, 2023, 05:30:52 PM
you guys are fucking up the format.

:yallfu:
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 01, 2023, 05:40:30 PM
Count me in on the disturbing take.  That's a sick dude.

Oh sure he was sick.  Fat ass loser loner loses weight, becomes more famous and rich than he could ever imagine and comes to believe he can indulge in whatever whim occurs with no repercussions. What’s sad is it’s not surprising.

He was just stupid about aping the behavior he saw all around him from the celebrity set.  Just doing what they do burn without the shield of invincibility.  Do you honestly believe his predelectios are worse than those of “shower with me”  Biden or his “hold this cocaine” son?   

Jared was just dumb about it. 

The only question I have was did he wear a wig?  I mean because that’s like the worst.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 03, 2023, 10:44:54 AM
The Old Way

Nic Cage western. 

Quentin Tarrantino movies are almost always dialogue heavy. He gets away with it because the dialogue is creative, interesting, well-paced, natural and typically informative. 

This film is also dialogue heavy, but not in the tradition of Tarrantino. It's stilted, forced, ponderous, poorly-paced and bloated.

I'd say about 92% of this film is heavy-handed dialogue, delivered poorly.  The "good guys" talk and talk and talk and talk.  The bad guys talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk.  The people in the middle, particularly an aged sheriff, deliver lengthy monologues that I'm sure the writer and director thought were brilliant.  They weren't.  They were boring. Dry as dust.

All the talking, talking, talking leached any possible drama out of the roughly seven minutes of "action" in this two hour film.

A dour Nic moped through the film before delivering one final Cagey moment of hysterically bad acting and delivery at the end. Good lord, he's a terrible actor. 

If you want to listen to people prattle on and on in monotone, this is the film for you.  If not?  Get on your horse and ride the fuck away from this one. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 18, 2023, 09:35:53 PM
Reinfeld

I thought I knew what I was getting when I started this.  I was partly right. 

I expected Nic Cage “niccaging” it up as a modern day Dracula. I got that. And if we’re being honest it was pretty great. He knows what he is and he leans hard into it, overacting to the point of under acting almost. 

I expected Nick Hoult to dourly look for a way out of serving his undead master.  Got that too.  Better than I expected. 

What I didn’t expect was a joyous romp through some brutally clever mayhem and gore.  This movie had five or six “oh SHIT!” moments of outlandish bodily destruction. 

What I didn’t expect was a pretty decent Akwafina as a cop that gets embroiled in the carnage.  I kinda liked her in this. 

The sheer level of gory brawling - clearly done for the raw joy of doing it - was so beyond what I expected that I really (really)  liked it. 

It’s not for everybody.  But Cage’s outrageous (and perfectly cast performance) combined with the unrestrained and unbridled blood fest (have you ever seen people beaten to death with severed arms?) made this movie a much more enjoyable watch than I hoped.

Enjoyed it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on June 19, 2023, 09:31:25 AM
Anxiously awaiting K's "Extraction 2" review.  I was a fan.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on June 19, 2023, 10:26:25 AM
Finally caught Nefarious and The Boogeyman last week....

Nefarious - decent, nothing crazy. Sean Patrick Flannery does a good job playing the weird convict who claims he is possessed before he heads off to the electric chair. Slight little twist at the end. Nothing that hasn't been done before but decent enough.

The Boogeyman - this one is based off a Stephen King story - and as K and most know, that's an extremely hard thing to pull off in Screenplay. I never read this story by him so I don't know. It wasn't bad. It wasn't good. Frankly, it was vanilla. I could have slept through it. Just blah. I expected better, and more.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 24, 2023, 11:03:34 AM
Take Care of Maya

Documentary on how a family was falsely accused of child abuse by arrogant doctors and a court system that is fucked up beyond anything you could possibly imagine. 

I'm not a violent person normally, but if this had happened to me with my kids?  There would be dead judges, dead lawyers, and dead doctors littering the state of Florida.  It's horrifying how much control the state thinks it should have over your children. It's terrifying now to think how deep that descends into this "gender affirming" mutilation and madness as well (even though this documentary has nothing to do with that particular insanity). 

It's also pretty frightening to think of how close something this fucked up came to coming to fruition in my life.  When my oldest daughter was six, she was a Power Rangers fanatic.  She WAS the Pink Ranger in her mind. That meant that one day at school she leaped off the top of a swing set to tackle a "putty" and broke her elbow so badly she had to put pins in it. Two days at the hospital. A week later she climbed on top of my car with the plan of sliding down the windshield.  Caught her foot in the wipers, went face first into the concrete.  Back to the hospital.  About ten days after that, she want to a friend's house and flipped sideways off the trampoline.  Broke the other arm.  Back to the hospital. 

Not long after a "case worker" showed up at my house. Thankfully I knew the one line that should always be said in situations like that.  "Talk to my lawyer."   Refused to answer questions and asked them to leave.  Never heard from them again. 

That these idiots have the power to take your children away from you with little to no recourse is lunacy.  If I'm Maya's dad today?  People are in a world of hurt.  I'd have a backache from digging holes in the desert. It would be worth the prison sentence to exact revenge. 

This documentary distressed me.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on June 25, 2023, 10:30:35 AM
Creed 3

End it.  End it now. 

Without Stallone? this film, this series has no heart.

Complete unintelligible TRASH. 

The guy playing Anderson is horrible.  I think he’s the same guy who played Kanga in Ant Man.  He must have pictures of studio execs blowing baby goats. 

I disliked almost everything about this movie.  From the recycled storylines that were done so much better before to the choppy editing that made portions of the film nonsensical to the absurdly amateurish boxing “style” of Kanga to the poorly choreographed fight scenes - of which there were too few.  This movie - without Stallone’s influence - basically ignored all the things that elevated his Rocky films.  Evidence? Creed’s badly edited training montage that ended with him standing above the Hollywood sign and roaring. Intended as a tip of the cap to Stallone’s “up the mountain Draaaaagooooo” scene from IV, I suppose, having “Hollywood” lit up below him just illustrated how far from the heart, grit, guts, and glory that are Rocky hallmarks this film strayed. 

Even the ring announcer was a piece of shit.  The whole thing was empty, hollow, drained of any and all emotional resonance.  It was just plain trash.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on June 25, 2023, 11:17:48 AM
Creed 3

End it.  End it now. 

Without Stallone? this film, this series has no heart.

Complete unintelligible TRASH. 

The guy playing Anderson is horrible.  I think he’s the same guy who played Kanga in Ant Man.  He must have pictures of studio execs blowing baby goats.

He’s Mos Def without the excuse.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 02, 2023, 10:45:21 PM
Flaming Hot

An exaggerated, entirely fabricated version of how Flaming Hot Cheetos, Fritos, etc. came into being and "saved" the Frito-Lay company. 

The lead actor is engaging, his wife is decent enough. The kids are cute.  It could have been a great story except for the fact that it dipped off into liberal/leftist fantasy. 

Fritos wasn't suffering because Ronald Reagan kept the brown man down.  Reagan's roaring economy wasn't the cause of the chip maker's woes, but they laid it all at his feet. 

I also didn't appreciate the fact that every single white person in the film was either an idiot or incompetent or a racist or a bully -- or in some cases all of these at once. 

Nothing about this movie was true. Not the parts about the lead character, not the parts about the economy or the struggles Frito-Lay faced and not the part about every single white person in the world being a dumbass. 

All of that renders the movie as worthless as cheeto dust. The orange kind.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 08, 2023, 12:56:45 PM
Power Rangers - Once and Always

The original team is back - well, almost - in this cheese-laden, badly acted, poorly scripted reunion 30 years in the making. 

Billy - the Blue Ranger, Zack - the Black Ranger - and Trini - the Yellow Ranger - are still protecting the world, fighting putties, checking in with Zordon from their hometown of Angel Grove.  Trini is killed (the first Ranger on-screen death) by a robot version of Rita Repulsa, prompting Billy to
a) get the old crew (well. some of them) back to fight the revived nemesis
b) figure out how to explain to Trini's daughter that her mom was a Ranger and died in the line of duty. 

Missing from the crew were:
> Amy Jo Johnson, the still adorable original pink ranger, who declined and was replaced by the second Pink Ranger, Katherine, (Catherine Sutherland, looking all the worse for wear) who we learned married Tommy, the Green Ranger.
> Austin St. John, the original red ranger who is currently out on bond and prohibited from travel due to his part in a $3.5 million scheme to defraud the PPP program.  This movie dragged in the second red ranger, Steve Cardenas, now a kinda slobby, bloated blob.
> Jason David Frank, the original green/white ranger who also declined and then committed suicide before the movie was released.  He was not replaced.
> Thuy Trang, the original yellow ranger, who was killed in a car accident in 2001. Her suit was eventually inhabited by the girl who played her daughter in the film - Charlie Kersh - who's about 16 and in the story has been living with black ranger Zack since her ranger mom was killed. 

The film also tacked on some semi-silly interaction with the second black ranger Johnny Yong Bosch (also kinda bloated) and the second yellow ranger Karan Ashley.

There were some fun elements I guess. Learning Billy's last name is Cranston (a nod to Breaking Bad's Bryan who played Zordon in a reboot movie and also was the voice of villian Snizzard in the first season of the show) was kinda cool. A fleeting reference to comic relief foils Bulk and Skull was kinda cool as well. 

The movie hewed very closely to the tropes of the original.  The Rangers battle puttles, they fight Rita and her henchmen (sadly, not Goldar). When things seem lost, they team up in the battle zord and win the day.  Nothing new. But there's something vastly different in watching people in their teens/early 20s in action versus people in their late 50s, early 60s creak and groan through the same steps -- in Billy's case with the worst hair dye job in history. The dye was so bad I half expected it to leak down his face at any point.   

Other than a few brief moments of nostalgia, there's little reason to waste the 55 minutes this movie takes to unfold.

The final scene, lifted from the original power rangers series, was really all that needed to be shown. That brief scene with Kimberly playing guitar and featuring all the original cast was a sappy, sentimental dose of treacle and the best part of this well-intentioned film that just missed its mark. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 11, 2023, 12:02:31 AM
Evil Dead Rises

What this movie did well: makeup, gore, blood, shock carnage.

What it did poorly: script and acting. 

It wasn’t bad. But the story was sketchy, it didn’t have enough depth to make you care about the characters. 

Oddly enough, the lead girl wasn’t hot until she was completely covered in blood.  Then she looked pretty good. 

The visual effects were good but beyond that I didn’t get much. 

Aged
One of the most piss poor attempts at horror in a long time. 

The lead girl is so bad she didn’t quit her regular job as a bartender at a hillbilly Texas mega bar. 

Everything in the movie was poorly done. It was clunkingly obvious.  All of it was terrible including the tub of blood that looked a lot like watered down red koolaid.  Weak. Garbage. 

So so bad.  Nothing at all to recommend. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 11, 2023, 02:52:26 PM

Aged
One of the most piss poor attempts at horror in a long time. 

The lead girl is so bad she didn’t quit her regular job as a bartender at a hillbilly Texas mega bar. 

Everything in the movie was poorly done. It was clunkingly obvious.  All of it was terrible including the tub of blood that looked a lot like watered down red koolaid.  Weak. Garbage. 

So so bad.  Nothing at all to recommend.

Sounds like it ripped off Old from two years prior.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 11, 2023, 03:10:06 PM
Sounds like it ripped off Old from two years prior.

Not that it’s worth the follow up but no.  Nothing like Old.

Desperate girl (aforementioned bartender who kept her day job) is convinced to take a position as a caretaker for an old woman who lives way out in the woods. 

Odd things begin happening. None of it matters or has any real cohesion. Just odd scraps and pieces of a story that are loosely tied together.  Narratives are opened and then abandoned. Massive holes in the story are never filled in.  Random occurrences that seem like they should be relevant are never explored and then see ignored. 

Stupidly predictable end. 

I’ve seen better acting from the pizza delivery boy in porn movies.  Every line is uttered with dead-eyed monotony like they are reading from cue cards just off screen.  There’s not a single authentic emotion conveyed. 

It’s just bad.  I only stuck around to see if the bartender was gonna flop a tit.  She did not.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 16, 2023, 02:35:14 PM
Nefarious

First, this movie was not anything like what I expected.  I hadn't really watched the trailers and didn't know about the background or source material going in.  Agree and disagree with GH in that it is something we've seen before but at the same time, it isn't at all. 

Yes, we've seen possession movies and idea that evil survives the original host by finding new vessels.  As far back as The Exorcist we've seen that same theme. But we haven't seen it explained or displayed in the thoughtful, analytical way this movie expresses it. 

There were no scenes of the possessed writhing on a bed, spewing invectives in ancient tongues, or vomiting up wads of hair, blood, flies or bees. There was no demonic growling voice or rotting of the flesh of the possessed.  Any demonic transference that occurred happened without smoke, fire, eyes changing color, screaming or any of the tropes we've always associated with that event. All of it was carried out with a calm and rational, slowly simmering menace.

He'll never get the credit he deserves but Connor McManus from Boondock Saints (Sean Patrick Flanery) is extremely good in the role of the possibly possessed/certainly condemned man.  It could just be that his performance was so much better than the stilted stiffs around him, but he was superb. 

Why will he never get credit for it?  Because this film is at its core a rejection of the current world view. It's a condemnation of the slippery slope that has allowed humanity to grow more and more distant from God as we slowly accept and celebrate the mockery of our Creator. This is a film of the type Hollywood won't back, won't promote and won't acknowledge. Ridicule Christians? Sure. Mock Christianity as outdated and its adherents as rubes? Absolutely. Show Christians in the most unflattering light possible? Definitely.  Give any credence to Christian themes? No way. That's why no matter how good Flanery's performance is (and it's extremely good) he's more likely to find himself blackballed by the industry for taking part in a film like this than he is to be celebrated or honored for it. 

If you are a Christian; if you truly believe there is a war raging between the forces of Good and Evil (capital letters on purpose); if, in your heart, you know that the things we see, do, tolerate, accept, celebrate, and ignore are driven by the forces of chaos and destruction, then this film will resonate in ways you probably didn't anticipate. 

I am one of those. I believe in God and I believe in Christ. I am appalled at what I see in the world today. It sickens me. I believe that all it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing - and we have done nothing of late. The things I see emanating from our political system, from our media outlets, from entertainment disgust me. I do believe that a large segment of our political/media/corporate structure pursues an agenda that is driven by evil. Many of the "leaders" who have wormed their way into power (legitimately or not) may not sit around drinking the blood of sacrificed children, but they ARE in cohort and are certainly evil at heart, even as they pretend not to be.

This isn't a great film. The sets are sparse, there's no CGI, the acting is wooden at best (other than Flanery, who is outstanding), and the production is lacking.  There is, however, the core message that all of us need to hear and heed. 

Maybe demonic possession isn't actually a thing. Maybe it is. Using that as the basis, though, this film touches on the broader struggle of our own selfish, base desires, mankind's own need to elevate our thoughts and beliefs above those of our Creator, and the notion that we are losing the battle against the forces of evil when we are distracted by and focus on idiotic things like those the psychiatrist ticks off as symbols of man's "progress." 

I've really only been scared by three movies in my entire life.  The Omen, The Exorcist and now this. The terror invoked by both Omen and Exorcist was different than this.  Nefarious provided no jump scares, no shock/horror, no gore, no 'final girl', no brutality. Instead, it slowly unspooled a much deeper examination of where humanity currently resides in relation to God. That is frankly terrifying to consider. The film has, at least, given me pause and caused me to re-examine some of my own positions.

I already know there are some on this board who will pish-posh the entire film as demented, right-wing, psychobabble. I can hear Flanery's evil, knowing laugh even as you do.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 16, 2023, 03:26:30 PM
Nefarious

First, this movie was not anything like what I expected.  I hadn't really watched the trailers and didn't know about the background or source material going in.  Agree and disagree with GH in that it is something we've seen before but at the same time, it isn't at all. 

Yes, we've seen possession movies and idea that evil survives the original host by finding new vessels.  As far back as The Exorcist we've seen that same theme. But we haven't seen it explained or displayed in the thoughtful, analytical way this movie expresses it. 

There were no scenes of the possessed writing on a bed, spewing invectives in ancient tongues, or vomiting up wads of hair, blood, flies or bees. There was no demonic growling voice or rotting of the flesh of the possessed.  Any demonic transference that occurred happened without smoke, fire, eyes changing color, screaming or any of the tropes we've always associated with that event. All of it was carried out with a calm and rational, slowly simmering menace.

He'll never get the credit he deserves but Connor McManus from Boondock Saints (Sean Patrick Flanery) is extremely good in the role of the possibly possessed/certainly condemned man.  It could just be that his performance was so much better than the stilted stiffs around him, but he was superb. 
Why will he never get credit for it?  Because this film is at its core a rejection of the current world view. It's a condemnation of the slippery slope that has allowed humanity to grow more and more distant from God as we slowly accept and celebrate the mockery of our Creator. This is a film of the type Hollywood won't back, won't promote and won't acknowledge. Ridicule Christians? Sure. Mock Christianity as outdated and its adherents as rubes? Absolutely. Show Christians in the most unflattering light possible? Definitely.  That's why no matter how good Flanery's performance is (and it's extremely good) he's more likely to find himself blackballed by the industry for taking part in a film like this than he is to be celebrated or honored for it. 

If you are a Christian; if you truly believe there is a war raging between the forces of Good and Evil (capital letters on purpose); if, in your heart, you know that the things we see, do, tolerate, accept, celebrate, and ignore are driven by the forces of chaos and destruction, then this film will resonate in ways you probably didn't anticipate. 

I am one of those. I believe in God and I believe in Christ. I am appalled at what I see in the world today. It sickens me. I believe that all it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing - and we have done nothing of late. The things I see emanating from our political system, from our media outlets, from entertainment disgust me. I do believe that a large segment of our political/media/corporate structure pursues an agenda that is driven by evil. Many of the "leaders" who have wormed their way into power (legitimately or not) may not sit around drinking the blood of sacrificed children, but they ARE in cohort and are certainly evil at heart, even as they pretend not to be.

This isn't a great film. The sets are sparse, there's no CGI, the acting is wooden at best (other than Flanery, who is outstanding), and the production is lacking.  There is, however, the core message that all of us need to hear and heed. 

Maybe demonic possession isn't actually a thing. Maybe it is. Using that as the basis, though, this film touches on the broader struggle of our own selfish, base desires, mankind's own need to elevate our thoughts and beliefs above those of our Creator, and the notion that we are losing the battle against the forces of evil when we are distracted by and focus on idiotic things like those the psychiatrist ticks off as symbols of man's "progress." 

I've really only been scared by three movies in my entire life.  The Omen, The Exorcist and now this. The terror invoked by both Omen and Exorcist was different than this.  Nefarious provided no jump scares, no shock/horror, no gore, no 'final girl', no brutality. Instead, it slowly unspooled a much deeper examination of where humanity currently resides in relation to God. That is frankly terrifying to consider. The film has, at least, given me pause and caused me to re-examine some of my own positions.

I already know there are some on this board who will pish-posh the entire film as demented, right-wing, psychobabble. I can hear Flanery's demented, knowing laugh even as you do.

Pretty spot on actually. I got the deeper meaning out of it the second go round. And yes even more than the 1st time, reflecting back Sean Patrick’s performance was stellar.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on July 17, 2023, 07:25:56 AM
Excellent review, K.

I spoke to my priest about it, and he highly recommended it, but said his biggest issue with it is that the devil wouldn't be so upfront with his plans, but that he understood why they presented it as such in the movie.

One of the priests who was consulted for this movie is a Father Carlos Martins, an exorcist for the Archdiocese of Detroit.  He has a podcast, The Exorcist Files, that is worth a listen if you're on a long road trip.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 17, 2023, 09:16:36 AM
Excellent review, K.

I spoke to my priest about it, and he highly recommended it, but said his biggest issue with it is that the devil wouldn't be so upfront with his plans, but that he understood why they presented it as such in the movie.

One of the priests who was consulted for this movie is a Father Carlos Martins, an exorcist for the Archdiocese of Detroit.  He has a podcast, The Exorcist Files, that is worth a listen if you're on a long road trip.

I’m a Methodist.  When I went to talk to my preacher about it they was busy at Sephora getting some new lipstick to match their dress. They had to officiate a marriage between a man who used to be a woman and a woman who used to be a man.  He, I mean they, wanted to make sure the lipstick hue highlighted the purple in the dress. 

So we never got around to it. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 17, 2023, 01:59:45 PM
I’m a Methodist.  When I went to talk to my preacher about it they was busy at Sephora getting some new lipstick to match their dress. They had to officiate a marriage between a man who used to be a woman and a woman who used to be a man.  He, I mean they, wanted to make sure the lipstick hue highlighted the purple in the dress. 

So we never got around to it.

I am as well.....I'm 4th generation and may not be much longer.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on July 17, 2023, 02:02:28 PM
I’m a Methodist.  When I went to talk to my preacher about it they was busy at Sephora getting some new lipstick to match their dress. They had to officiate a marriage between a man who used to be a woman and a woman who used to be a man.  He, I mean they, wanted to make sure the lipstick hue highlighted the purple in the dress. 

So we never got around to it.

This got me thinking of a stuttering Pentecostal pastor I once met.  Hilarious.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on July 17, 2023, 02:06:04 PM
This got me thinking of a stuttering Pentecostal pastor I once met.  Hilarious.

Praise the Lord and pass me a copperhead....

(https://californiaherps.com/films/filmimages/campaign4.jpg)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on July 17, 2023, 03:30:25 PM
Been a Methodist all of my adult life. I’m not any longer.  I can’t support it.  It was a painful decision.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 03, 2023, 11:14:33 PM
Two for the scrapheap

Lyla
Take one of the ugliest, stick figure, un-fuckable women on the planet, make her central to the tired ass story of a family moving to a remote cottage so daddy can write a book - except he can't write (haven't we seen that in several other films?) add in the improbable and implausible storyline that every male within 100 miles of this female is horndogging for her, scramble in repetitive time-jumping so jarring that you typically have no idea where you are at all and you've got this rotting pile of caribou feces. 

Terrible movie.  Slow, stupid, and boring. 

Crucifixion

I hate fake accents.  Here it's a British girl - the plain one from Kingsman - doing her best American accent and failing spectacularly.  She slips in and out of the Brit regularly. 

Story... she's a hotshot American journalist (not remotely believable) who begs her uncle/editor who's supposed to be the editor of some New York newspaper (his come-and-go British accent is as bad as hers) to run off to Cruxton Yugoslavia or some such to investigate an exorcism gone wrong. 

She's a despicable twat. Her purpose is to prove that her dead mother didn't go to heaven because she herself is an atheist. So the movie plods along and of course there's some demon stuff. 

What knocked me completely out of the film was that she goes to this village stuck in the 1500s thousands of miles away from "home" and after tromping around all day she goes to the motel and asks "do you have any rooms?"  STUPID.  That would have been arranged well in advance.  And FWIW?  No newspaper is going to foot the bill for some twatwaffle to go halfway around the world for something like this. 

Movie ends stupidly.  This girl's acting career should end with it. She was terrible. 

This film is based on a true story. There was an exorcism in some small town stuck in medieval times. The priest who performed it and several of the nuns who assisted were sent to prison for their part in it.  Family of the girl who died remain convinced there was a possession. De-frocked priest is back doing exorcisms on the side after he got out of prison. i might actually want to watch a documentary or a movie about that.  Just one without the twiddle snatch fake reporter. 

Shitcan both of these films. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 06, 2023, 08:51:20 AM
Twilight

No! Not that one.  No Twinkly vampires. Just an old school potboiler from another era.

Had insomnia and ran across this film.

My first question is how do you take a movie with Paul Newman, Susan Sarandon, Gene Hackman, Liev Schreiber, Margo Martindale, Giancarlo Esposito, Reese Witherspoon, Stockard Channing, and James Garner and not even have it be accidentally entertaining?

Somehow they did. 

Newman mopes sadly along. Sarandon overacts.  Esposito channels the limo driver from Die Hard. 

It’s just bad.  Add a relatively incomprehensible storyline about missing people, money, accidental and intentional shootings to a morass of jumbled moviations and you drag this slow-moving piece to a near standstill.

I only kept watching because every few minutes I’d go “holy shit is that (insert actor’s name here)?  I think I saw a few others - including Ron Howard’s ugly brother - in this as well.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 13, 2023, 08:44:15 PM
Three movies while I'm escaping global warming, holding in farts so the oceans stop boiling, eating a bag of bugs to save the environment, being grateful for all those Africans toiling in lithium pits 24/7 so I can spend $60,000 on a glorified golf cart, and wondering why - if the oceans truly are rising - John Fraud-ass Kerry allowed his BFF Odumba to spend $12 million on a mansion mere feet from the beach. 

The Outlaws
I've seen this film made WAY better when it was called The In-Laws and starred Peter Falk and Alan Arkin.

When I saw the Happy Madison logo, I should have immediately expected shit laced with turd peanuts. Sandler is worthless. I don't know how much input he had in this, but it was pretty awful.

Basic storyline... nerd doofus schlub is getting married to somebody out of his league and with whom he has zero chemistry. To be honest, the schlub - played by Adam Devine who -  is pretty shitty in nearly everything he's in and plays the exact same babbling fool in each role he takes and has never had chemistry with any co-star - is only doing the one trick his pony knows. It's annoying and grating. Skin-crawlingly bad. 

So the doofus meets his bride's family for the first time and they're possibly master criminals involved in some feud with a female gangster. 

Whoever directed this thinks he's way more clever than he is.  It's sad to see Pierce Brosnan degrade himself by appearing in this half-baked gooey pile of mess.  Every gag misfires. Every setup flops. There are a few mildly funny moments, but this movie is nothing but one cringe after another. 

Devil Conspiracy
Heavy handed interpretation of Biblical end times. 

St. Michael has to return to the earth to prevent Satan from resurrecting Jesus as the dark-side Christ , and bringing all the dark angels up from Hell through a hole in the ground managed by a lumbering, poorly rendered beast. 

So much mumbo jumbo. Film takes itself seriously. You should not.  It isn't horror. 

It's kind of like the director ate The Omen, Rosemary's Baby and Terminator 2 and then threw up the digested contents into a cracked wooden bowl. 

Horrible acting. Laughable CGI. Ridiculous story.

The only thing the film has going for it at all is the over-the-top evil Cruella DeVille ooze of Eveline Hall. Oh, she's awful, but at least she looks like she knows she's overacting and hamming it up. 

Heart of Stone
There's a lot going on here. 

So there's actually a shadow organization running global ops outside government control, but trust us, it's a GOOD thing. They only do GOOD things! They have a giant self-aware computer that (hahaha!) resides in the clouds, literally. This computer "The Heart" can hack into and see anything. Your Alexa, your phone, every camera, every computer and instantly analyze what it "sees" and calculate options.

Gal Gadot is one of their agents. Like Wonder Woman without the bracelets. She flies! She fights! She's an expert driver! A master of languages! She can kick all kinds of ass.

Some counter-agent, for a supremely flimsy reason and against all possible realistic odds, decides to hack into and take over/take down The Heart. It's Gal's job (as Rachel) to stop him. 

This is a more than anything, a Gal Gadot vehicle. That's about it.  She's hot and can kick your ass in the blink of an eye.  She's hot. And she's hot. Then again, she's hot.

But even her hotness can't overcome some of this film's flaws.  Nomad for one. Who the fuck is going to put their trust and lives in the hands of a screeching, inept black woman with shitty teeth and a bad accent.

The storyline gets a little/lot muddled as the film bounces from one chase/action scene to the next.
There's a flight scene with squirrel suits
There are TWO parachute scenes
There is a motorcycle chase and a snowcycle chase
There's an exploding zeppelin
There's a lengthy car chase/shootout
There are multiple fist-fights and gun battles
There are foot chases and cliff dives
There are explosions

So much action.

Gal Gadot is ridiculously hot, but to be completely honest, her almost sleepy, bemused, banal acting style, her tone-mangled english and her slow, lanky, liquid hotness really don't work well for her in a role of this intensity. 

She's stupid hot, but believe it or not, the spunky little opposition played by Indian newcomer Alia Bhatt pulled some of the attention away from her hotness. The thick little 30-year old had a heat factor of her own that held up well against Gadot's all-time epic smoke.

Is it a good movie? Not so much. It's more like one somewhat interconnected action vignette tacked on to another.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on August 13, 2023, 09:08:48 PM
Three movies while I'm escaping global warming, holding in farts so the oceans stop boiling, eating a bag of bugs to save the environment, being grateful for all those Africans toiling in lithium pits 24/7 so I can spend $60,000 on a glorified golf cart, and wondering why - if the oceans truly are rising - John Fraud-ass Kerry allowed his BFF Odumba to spend $12 million on a mansion mere feet from the beach. 

The Outlaws
I've seen this film made WAY better when it was called The In-Laws and starred Peter Falk and Alan Arkin.

When I saw the Happy Madison logo, I should have immediately expected shit laced with turd peanuts. Sandler is worthless. I don't know how much input he had in this, but it was pretty awful.

Basic storyline... nerd doofus schlub is getting married to somebody out of his league and with whom he has zero chemistry. To be honest, the schlub - played by Adam Devine who -  is pretty shitty in nearly everything he's in and plays the exact same babbling fool in each role he takes and has never had chemistry with any co-star - is only doing the one trick his pony knows. It's annoying and grating. Skin-crawlingly bad. 

So the doofus meets his bride's family for the first time and they're possibly master criminals involved in some feud with a female gangster. 

Whoever directed this thinks he's way more clever than he is.  It's sad to see Pierce Brosnan degrade himself by appearing in this half-baked gooey pile of mess.  Every gag misfires. Every setup flops. There are a few mildly funny moments, but this movie is nothing but one cringe after another. 

Devil Conspiracy
Heavy handed interpretation of Biblical end times. 

St. Michael has to return to the earth to prevent Satan from resurrecting Jesus as the dark-side Christ , and bringing all the dark angels up from Hell through a hole in the ground managed by a lumbering, poorly rendered beast. 

So much mumbo jumbo. Film takes itself seriously. You should not.  It isn't horror. 

It's kind of like the director ate The Omen, Rosemary's Baby and Terminator 2 and then threw up the digested contents into a cracked wooden bowl. 

Horrible acting. Laughable CGI. Ridiculous story.

The only thing the film has going for it at all is the over-the-top evil Cruella DeVille ooze of Eveline Hall. Oh, she's awful, but at least she looks like she knows she's overacting and hamming it up. 

Heart of Stone
There's a lot going on here. 

So there's actually a shadow organization running global ops outside government control, but trust us, it's a GOOD thing. They only do GOOD things! They have a giant self-aware computer that (hahaha!) resides in the clouds, literally. This computer "The Heart" can hack into and see anything. Your Alexa, your phone, every camera, every computer and instantly analyze what it "sees" and calculate options.

Gal Gadot is one of their agents. Like Wonder Woman without the bracelets. She flies! She fights! She's an expert driver! A master of languages! She can kick all kinds of ass.

Some counter-agent, for a supremely flimsy reason and against all possible realistic odds, decides to hack into and take over/take down The Heart. It's Gal's job (as Rachel) to stop him. 

This is a more than anything, a Gal Gadot vehicle. That's about it.  She's hot and can kick your ass in the blink of an eye.  She's hot. And she's hot. Then again, she's hot.

But even her hotness can't overcome some of this film's flaws.  Nomad for one. Who the fuck is going to put their trust and lives in the hands of a screeching, inept black woman with shitty teeth and a bad accent.

The storyline gets a little/lot muddled as the film bounces from one chase/action scene to the next.
There's a flight scene with squirrel suits
There are TWO parachute scenes
There is a motorcycle chase and a snowcycle chase
There's an exploding zeppelin
There's a lengthy car chase/shootout
There are multiple fist-fights and gun battles
There are foot chases and cliff dives
There are explosions

So much action.

Gal Gadot is ridiculously hot, but to be completely honest, her almost sleepy, bemused, banal acting style, her tone-mangled english and her slow, lanky, liquid hotness really don't work well for her in a role of this intensity. 

She's stupid hot, but believe it or not, the spunky little opposition played by Indian newcomer Alia Bhatt pulled some of the attention away from her hotness. The thick little 30-year old had a heat factor of her own that held up well against Gadot's all-time epic smoke.

Is it a good movie? Not so much. It's more like one somewhat interconnected action vignette tacked on to another.

You throw out a review on heart of stone, but not the Extraction movies? It feels like it’s on purpose at this point!

Gal doesn’t do it for me. This comes from a guy who favors the Middle Eastern look above all others. I do think it’s because she plays into her looks to compensate for subpar acting.   The chick in Haywire/Mandolirian is a better actress, and more of a believable badass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 14, 2023, 12:01:35 PM
You throw out a review on heart of stone, but not the Extraction movies? It feels like it’s on purpose at this point!

Gal doesn’t do it for me. This comes from a guy who favors the Middle Eastern look above all others. I do think it’s because she plays into her looks to compensate for subpar acting.   The chick in Haywire/Mandolirian is a better actress, and more of a believable badass.

Say you adore the gift of the penii without actually saying it.


(https://media.tenor.com/oZFVuhH9n4YAAAAM/gal-gadot-pose.gif)(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ArcticHideousHoneyeater-size_restricted.gif)

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on August 14, 2023, 12:10:02 PM
Say you adore the gift of the penii without actually saying it.


(https://media.tenor.com/oZFVuhH9n4YAAAAM/gal-gadot-pose.gif)(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ArcticHideousHoneyeater-size_restricted.gif)

Okay.  That moved the needle.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 15, 2023, 11:09:36 PM
The second season of Paramount's Strange New Worlds Star Trek show was entertaining enough to prompt me to revisit the original series on Pluto.  That led me to boldly going to...

Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Lots went wrong here.  It was good to get the band back together, but well... damn. 

The muted color pajama-looking uniforms were atrocious. Everybody was in some shade of beige or off-white.

Series creator Gene Rodenberry was an avowed athiest, so it wasn't surprising to see this movie tackle the concept of God - which in his mind couldn't possibly exist.  It was a theme often visited on the original series as various other-worldly beings attempted to take the mantle of some sort of God.

It was so bad and so cheese-filled, I'm surprised the remainder of the films were green-lit. The nostalgia factor that drove fans to the theaters made up for a lot of shortcomings. You'd have to understand the cult-level status the three uneven seasons of the original series earned to get why this movie was such a big deal in 1979. Fans were willing to overlook a lot of craptastic nonsense to see Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Checkov, Sulu, Scotty, and Bones together again.     

In a weird trivia note, the theme for this film was repurposed as the theme for Next Generation.  That never made sense. I guess they just didn't want to pay for new music.   

The Wrath of Khan
The best of the Star Trek films (from what I remember) still has some faults, but it's the only one of the original cast efforts that sort of holds up and also hews truer to the original concept. 

Ricardo Montalban (Khan) was a bulked up son-of-a-bitch at 60 in this film.  Bulked to the point that people have often accused him of wearing a prosthetic chest.  He didn't. 

No question the special effects were rudimentary.  The ear worm closeup was amazing for its time but really doesn't measure up.  I remember watching it in theaters and being grossed out, but now it's just cringe-inducing for its sheer awfulness.

Still, this was what the series was about.  Kirk using his wits and relying on his team to defeat a stonger, more powerful opponent.

Montalban really made this movie, though. His performance elevated the entire exercise.   

Enjoyed this one.

The Search for Spock
Leonard Nimoy (Spock) directed this transporter full of tribble shit. 

Wrong in so many directions.  Everything from Checkov's pageboy-collared pepto bismol pantstuit to Miguel Ferrer sitting at a control deck on the bridge to Christopher Lloyd channeling Doc as a Klingon was bad.  Just so bad. 

The bar scene where McCoy/Spock is looking for a transport stole directly from Star Wars IV: New Hope while simultaneously foreshadowing Jar Jar Binks was cringeworthy.

I know there are more, but this is easily my least favorite so far. 

This whole movie came about because Nimoy regretted demanding his character to die at the end of Khan and decided the perpetual paydays might not be such a bad idea.  So they made an entire film to allow him to resurrect himself using some tacked on footage from Khan.

Everything about this movie looked cheap, too.  The original series was well known for its cheapness. Cardboard sets and Christmas lights. A big budget movie shouldn't give that feel.   

- Reviews for 4, 5, 6, etc. - coming as soon as I get around to watching them.  FWIW, I have never watched TNG and I have no intention of ever watching it or any of the movies it spawned. I'm less interested in Deep Space Nine, Voyager, or Discovery.  I've heard Enterprise is possibly worth a look, but I'm not sure I'll ever get to that either.   

Couple of odd notes:

Kirk is a TERRIBLE actor. All of them are, frankly. 

Spock (perhaps purposely) did not age well at all. He was just 48 when Star Trek: TMP was aired and looked at least a decade older.

The would have been better off sticking with the original uniforms and color schemes.  They were almost as bad as KISS
going from the streamlined early look to the bat wings to the demon suit that looked like chewed up tinfoil to the enormous capes to the lycra From the Elder era to the fruity neon glam and then back to the beginning again.  The unis in The Motion Picture were the worst, but they got progressively more complicated and bulky as each film came out.  Should have just hung on to the blue, red and yellow originals. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 16, 2023, 11:45:37 PM
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Shed of some of the cheapness, and devoid of the unintentional farce of Christopher Lloyd mugging it up as a Klingon, this film fares a little bit better. 

The uniforms are ... uniform... and mesh with what came before. The oompa loompa poofy curved elf hats on the Vulcan workers were asinine, though.

This movie's primary flaw is that it seems to take it self way too seriously, a mis-step which drains all the fun out of what should be a fun exercise in the early going. And then we get to the whales.

THAT part of the movie felt like "old" Star Trek. Fish-out-of water (pun!) time-traveling story that only gets a little bit preachy about saving the environment.  I figure climate fear-mongers like Al Gore probably jerked his dick raw over that part of it. Oh GOD, man destroyed ALL the whales by the early 21st century (yet another dire warning that had no merit).

Some of the CGI is truly bad. Seems like Trek had a problem keeping up with the times.   This was also the first "fat Scotty" edition.

The Vulcan chick with the curly mullet is back briefly in this one and she's just YICK.  I don't know what she looked like without the pointy ears, but she's definitely no Kirstie Alley.

I hear people talk about diversity all the time. Trek was way ahead of that curve. In IV and in III, there are crowd scenes with everything you can imagine. American Indians, even. It's done to the point of absurdity. 

All in all, not a TERRIBLE movie - like III.  Once it finally got into trekking like the old days it was actually kind of fun.  If I'm ranking in watchability, this one falls just behind Khan.   

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
A muddled morass of mangled story and motivations that at times descended into almost parody. 

Trying to get Spock to sing Row Your Boat in a frivolous and unnecessary extended camping in the woods scene?  What a waste of time.  The laborious, silly sequence was, I suppose, intended to evoke a sense of fun and whimsy but all it did was drag the movie to a near standstill before it even really got started. 

Uhura freaking FAN DANCING?

This is one of the worst of all Star Trek films. How it made it to the screen is a mystery. 

One glaringly apparent major flaw?  The CGI budget was apparently trimmed to $18.32.  And that was wasted on neon. Character makeup was really bad.   

Yes, of course, this is another where the existence and meaning of God is pondered.  That seems to happen a lot. But this film really felt like five or six different writers died along the way and the next one in line didn't bother to read or watch what had come before and took the story in a different direction.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on August 17, 2023, 08:52:14 AM
My favorite memory of Star Trek IV was in Mad Magazine..

“Uhura, we are in need of some 20th century money. Go hustle some money from those sailors over there.”

“Captain, need I remind you we are in San Fransisco?”

“You’re right!  Sulu, you and Chekhov go hustle some money from those sailors over there.”
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 17, 2023, 10:24:39 AM
My favorite memory of Star Trek IV was in Mad Magazine..

“Uhura, we are in need of some 20th century money. Go hustle some money from those sailors over there.”

“Captain, need I remind you we are in San Fransisco?”

“You’re right!  Sulu, you and Chekhov go hustle some money from those sailors over there.”

Loved Mad Magazine when I was bumping up against the teenage years. 

Skewering social commentary.  They skewed Star Trek often.

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51nBKDWf4aL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg)

Was a big thing for a while. Spawned competitors Crazy and Cracked magazines.  Wonder where all of them are these days?  I still see Mad occasionally in Books and Noble, but haven't picked one up in decades.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on August 17, 2023, 11:29:24 AM
MAD was the titz.  I always loved the Spy vs Spy strip.  I pulled for the black dude.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: wesfau2 on August 17, 2023, 11:40:40 AM
MAD was the titz.  I always loved the Spy vs Spy strip.  I pulled for the black dude.

Was a huge fan.  Asked my grandma for a subscription for my sixth birthday.  She obliged.  It spoke to the subversive parts of me that standup comedy was awakening (shoutout to HBO in the early 80s).  Was hooked until I discovered girls, beer and weed.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 17, 2023, 01:25:35 PM
Was a huge fan.  Asked my grandma for a subscription for my sixth birthday.  She obliged.  It spoke to the subversive parts of me that standup comedy was awakening (shoutout to HBO in the early 80s).  Was hooked until I discovered girls, beer and weed.

I always went to the drugstore with my grandma looking for new issues of

Kamandi
Batman
Werewolf by Night
Plop!
Fangoria

and, of course Mad. 

I caught onto Mad when I found a box of them under my uncle’s bed when he went to college. I was probably six or seven.   Those magazines  and a box of records including The Stones, Beatles, and Paul Revere and the Raiders changed my life. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 19, 2023, 10:46:34 AM
Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country

The last film with the full crew. 

Kim Cattrall plays a Vulcan in this one, about a decade removed from her howling turn as Lassie in the underrated Porky's movie. She aged well. Widely repeated rumor is that Cattrall held a fully nude photoshoot on the last day of filming. Naked Vulcan on the bridge. Spock found out and had the film destroyed before any of the shots were printed. Cattrall was still relatively hot at the time and it's a shame the world was Spockblocked from seeing that.

As for the movie?  It's a lot better than Final Frontier.  Roddenberry was dead and didn't interject his "they have to face God" atheism so the film was freed to become more of a straightforward "let's battle the Klingons and our own traitors" drama.

Yes, there was a brief "green" moment when Spock pronounced that the Klingons had destroyed their own empire via conspicuous consumption and a lack of conservation efforts.  That was quickly forgotten as the movie moved on to the physical and mental battles with the Klingon horde.

One thing I've noticed throughout the series (TV and movies) is that creating the Klingons is an iffy proposition.  Their look changes and it's rarely realistic. The makeup is horrible.  In this one, Christopher Plummer is a good actor and does a credible job as the Klingon nemesis,  but he looks more like a subdued version of Sarris from Galaxy Quest than he does a Klingon. 

The only one that "looks" right is the guy who played Worf in TNG - who plays Worf's grandfather here. 

Just as an aside, it was an extremely shitty idea to recycle an actor (David Warner) who played a human in 5 to portray a Klingon in 6.  Bad form. 

The story is a Cold War metaphor as two rival empires - the Federation and Klingons - search for a way to co-exist in peace when there are those on both sides of the "wall" (aka the neutral zone) who conspire to prevent the accords.

Once again, the CGI leaves a lot to be desired. That's frustrating because the movie was made in an era when special effects were improving dramatically. This one looks like it stuck with effects not much better than those of the original 1960s series - and in some cases were worse. I know ILM was on the cutting edge of SFX in those days but I don't get the sense that ILM was involved in the god awful CGI that infected most of the Trek films.

Things to watch for?  Christian Slater in a brief appearance as a red shirt.  Red Forman (before his career-building turn in Robocop) as a double-dumbass Federation president who doesn't do much but look like the blind martial arts master who trained Beatrix Kiddo in the second Kill Bill.

All in all, it wasn't the triumphant sendoff the cast and writers probably hoped for but it wasn't a bowl of horse shit like the prior film was, so that was something at least. 

It's weird to me that this short-lived TV show that was poorly scripted, done on a shoe-string budget with ridiculously cheap and phony sets, that was so badly acted that the cast (other than Shatner) really hasn't been able to do a single other thing in the craft in their lives, managed to generate the cult status it has, It's beyond baffling that it was also able to spawn six movies of varying quality. To be honest none of the movies were great cinema. All of them struggled with absurd scripts, atrocious overacting, cheap SFX, and fucked up casting choices - particularly among the Klingons (and Kirk's afro-haired son). 

In terms of quality, the three (rumored to be 4 eventually) Chris Pine prequels are massive improvements on anything in the original Trek world or in any of the six films. The acting is substantially better and so are the sets and CGI.  For that matter, so, too, is Strange New Worlds.

I wish I fully understood why people - me included, I guess - have such an affinity for this concept and these characters.  I just watched six movies, several of which can rightly be categorized as utterly awful. Why? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 20, 2023, 08:09:16 AM
The Pope's Exorcist

Inspired by a true story.  There was a guy who was the chief exorcist for the Vatican and this film was loosely adapted from some of his writings.

Claims to be a horror movie, but there's precious little of that.  It's more ponderous and slow moving.  Almost everything we see here we have seen before.  It's like it took the Possession checklist and ticked all the boxes.

1. Kid gets possessed- Check
2. Kid's face scars up - check
3. Crosses turn upside down - check
4. Levitation - check
5. Kid spews profanity - check
AND so on...

The only thing that really makes it worth watching is the dash of humor Russell Crowe brings to the role of the chief exorcist.  Without that, this is just a paint-by-numbers movie about the devil inside that we've seen done (literally) hundreds of times since Exorcist shocked the world 40 years ago.  Fact is that this film stole a lot directly from the Exorcist as it ladled every demonic inhabitation trope into the script.

Speaking of, there's a new version of that series coming out in October.  Hope it has something more/different to add.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 20, 2023, 08:58:06 AM
Cold Comes the Night

Breaking Bad was over and Bryan Cranston was looking for his first post-Bad project. 

So he chooses a mostly-blind Russian criminal and opts to adopt the worst Russian accent ever captured on film.

This isn't a great movie, isn't a good movie, isn't a terrible movie. It's just a moderately effective hillbilly-ish potboiler about a trashy motel owner in a trashy town that gets involved with Cranston's unintentionally hilarious faux Russkie's efforts to get back some bag of money. 

Alice Eve (who continuing the Star Trek theme plays Carol Marcus, the eventual mother of James T. Kirk's only son in Star Trek: Into Darkness) is the trashy motel owner.  Without makeup she's pretty schlumpy and her jaw deserves its own billing.

Cranston survived this abysmal career choice, but there are a lot of actors who wouldn't have.  It was pretty bad and Cranston's performance was a big reason the film washed up dead on the beach.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 20, 2023, 11:05:29 AM
Star Trek
Star Trek: Into Darkness
Star Trek: Beyond

These movies got a lot of undeserved criticism primarily because people don't take JJ Abrams seriously.  All three are in many ways far superior to the original series or any of the six films in which the original cast participated. These are fun, fast-paced movies that pay more than enough respect to the source material and also do a great job of capturing (and in some cases elevating) the characters. These films remain mostly within canon while still telling quality and engaging stories.   

Pine isn't a great actor, but he's a great Kirk. He imbues the character with the self-assured swagger and rampaging libido Shatner exuded even in a world where that kind of alpha-male behavior is frowned on. 

The rest of the cast is just as good.

Gamora fleshes out Uhura and gives the character depth.  Karl Urban is close to perfect as McCoy.  Harold and Kumar's Sulu is so far superior to Takei's freaky oddness. Simon Pegg's Mr. Scott is a decent addition.  When I first watched these I thought Zach Guinto was a masterful Spock, but on further reflection his characterization is probably the worst of the bunch.  The late Anton Yelchin is a little weak as Checkov, too, though.

These films had what none of those three seasons and six movies had. Good actors, decent scripts and a budget of more than $11.82 for special effects.  Everything about these films is bigger, deeper, broader, more fully-realized than what came before. These are real movies, not cheaply-made cash grabs with sets made out of cardboard and styrofoam. 

There are, of course mis-steps.  But they are few.

1. Tyler Perry as a Star Fleet big shot
2. Jamming an improbable Spock/Uhura romance into the mix
3. Most egregious of all, the misfire of casting Bumblebitch Crinklesnag as Khan.  Don't necessarily disagree with the story needing to be told/re-booted/refreshed but Cumbershart was completely wrong for the role.  It really could have been done without the Khan reference by changing a few minor details.

Ranking them is hard.  The first is probably the best overall.  But all three are more watchable than any of the original cast films which is good and sad at the same time.  All three are enjoyable films. 

Rumor is there will one day be a fourth.  Count me in.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 21, 2023, 09:34:19 AM
Devil's Knot

It must be accidental Reese Witherspoon week. 
First, I watched Election again, where she's a completely hateable character.

Then, I seent her cute little titties bouncing around[/i] wide open in that Twilight movie with Paul Newman when I accidentally ran across that film (See brief review Pg 167). Didn't hate that so much.

A day or two later I came across a movie called Devil's Knot.  It's a bleeding heart re-telling of the "Memphis Three" story. She's the mom of the murdered kid and falls so deep into her (likely real) southern accent that it slides into mockery.  Colin Firth is in it too, doing his Southern British accent. 

It's not a good movie, it's one of those celebrity causes where they "band together" without knowing anything about the facts and decide how justice should be dispensed. So they twist the story to suit whatever narrative they're shoveling.

It's not really worth watching.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 23, 2023, 10:10:37 AM
Plane

Gerard Butler improbably lands a plane that's crashing not once, but twice.  And he improbably gets it back up in the air once, too. 

In between there's the tired trope of the black bad guy prisoner with a heart of gold, some kidnappings and muggings, a lot of shooting and running, and a lot of other outrageous fighting action. 

It's a movie that doesn't really take itself seriously as it creates situations for sprawling action scenes.  It's not a great movie. It isn't going to give you any great insight or change your view of the world.  But it's not going to bore you either. 

I may have reviewed this before, I don't even know. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on August 27, 2023, 02:21:57 PM
Saturday Night Double Feature of disappointment. 

Swallow
Presented as a gripping thriller as the lead character descends into madness.

No.  It was not. It was a slow-moving story of a bored housewife who is trying to make please her business-focused husband and his rich family by adopting the meek persona of a 50s era wife.  She vacuums in a dress and heels.  She puts on a gown to present him dinner she’s worked on. 

She feels unseen and unheard.  She copes by swallowing random objects.  Not dicks.  Marbles.  Thumbtacks.  Batteries.  Screwdrivers.  Dirt.  Rocks. And then puts on gloves and digs through her own shit to retrieve them. 

Husband and family find out.  Try to take control of her life (and protect the baby she’s carrying).  Just makes her want to eat more weird things. 

In the end she sort of escapes.  And then swallows something else. 

The lead actress was attractive in a “looks like a real person”  way.  Seemed to have some decent sweater puppies but they never popped out. 

A movie that seemed like it was just trying to make some kind of profound statement.  It failed. Even the swallowing was a fail. Only showed her putting two or three things in her mouth.

Audition
Heard the buzz for years about this “brutal” Japanese movie.  Went to the well hoping to get some of the bad taste from Swallow out of my mouth. 

Another fail.  Another very slow moving film until the last six minutes. 

Japanese widower uses a friend in the film industry to set up a mostly fake audition for the lead role in an upcoming film (that will never be made) to search for a potential wife.

Told by his exec friend to narrow the hundreds of applications down to 30 candidates.  In doing so he fixates on one. She’s not the best looking.  She doesn’t have the best body.  But she’s the one.

He uses his position to contact her and gradually — really gradually — make his move on a weekend getaway.   

Things go wrong after that.  Her backstory unravels.  Or does it?  Past suitors spill her secrets. Or do they? 

The final few minutes of desperate carnage are intercut with flash backs and flash forwards that undercut most of the film’s previous 14 hours or runtime. 

Take away that last scene and all you’re left with is an overly long meet-cute tentative romantic comedy. 

The juice of those last few chaotic and surreal moments - even if you accept that they aren’t a fever dream - are not worth the plodding squeeze to get there
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 04, 2023, 02:19:31 PM
Been sick for a couple of days.   Congestion, etc.  I angered my parents (and a few others) because I refused to "get tested. To what end?  What would a "positive" result provide other than an opportunity for someone to pad statistics and for the alarmists to shriek "SPIKE!"  Tested?  Fuck all that.

The down time allowed me to watch a number of movies when I wasn't asleep.  Ditching football opened to door to watch even more.  Let's start with...


Big George Foreman

I had high hopes for this.  I really wanted to understand a little better how George went from a snarling, raw brawler to genial Grandpa George. I already knew the basic outline, I was looking for something to provide color.  I didn't get that here. 

The movie tried. But it felt superficial. It barely scratched the surface the man, the times, and the journey. The lead actor didn't have enough charisma to pull it off. 

The Collective

No.  I turned it off after 8 minutes.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 04, 2023, 02:31:02 PM
Pearl
Mia Goth is terrifying.  Just in general, not as a character.  If the credits scene of this movie doesn't make you cringe? Something is wrong with you.

This is a prequel to the film X (reviewed on page 162 of this thread) and oddly sets up Mia Goth as a different character than she plays in X.

This was an extremely weird movie with sporadic moments of mayhem that was way more cringe inducing than horrifying.  It played almost like a SNL parody of American Horror Story.

An early scene in a cornfield should have been enough to get me to turn it off, but I didn't.

I did not enjoy this movie and I do NOT like Mia Goth.  Plan to avoid anything she's in from here on out.

The Invitation
This was not a bad movie. It was just out of place. Had this movie come out in, say, 1965?  It would probably be more highly regarded.

Instead it just felt tired. Everything that was done in this film has been done in others before it and in most cases done better.  There was nothing to set it apart.

Not really worth watching.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 04, 2023, 02:48:22 PM
Pinball
I didn't expect to enjoy this movie.  The only reason I watched it is because I own a working pinball machine (one of my prize possessions) and I was curious about the history of the game. I'm glad I did because it was a very easy, charming film that I ended up enjoying more than I would have thought possible.

The movie tells the story of Roger Sharpe, a struggling writer for GQ magazine who was a pinball aficionado. He helped lead the fight to overturn former Mayor LaGuardia's ban on the machines in New York City.

Mike Faist (who I've never heard of) is extremely likeable as the Sharpe. He carries himself with an unwarranted confidence and earnest humble goofiness that works extremely well. 

It should be noted that the glued-on mustache Faist wears should have billing of its own. It's ridiculous but seems an essential part of the character.

Along the way it wedges in a slow-burn romance in (with someone who'd never be interested in the lead actor in real life).  Crystal Reed plays the single-mom love interest and she brings believable sweetness to the role. I found myself liking her a lot and enjoying when she was on screen. She completely inhabited the late 70s mod chic look and owned it in a way most girls of that era tried but weren't able to do. 

Turned out to be a sweet, sentimental movie  that I'm glad I watched. Not something I'll go back to again and again, but good to watch. 

Crack
Netflix documentary about the epidemic of crack cocaine that swept the US in the 80s. 

All you need to know about what this pile of garbage tries to say is that it was all Regan's fault and black people were persecuted. 

This is a mass of lies wrapped around a crack-rock-sized sliver of truth.  It's not a documentary, it's inDOCtrination. 

Pass.


Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 04, 2023, 03:07:38 PM
A Quiet Place II
The first Quiet Place film was a surprise.

The second, not so much.  It's not that it was bad, it's just that we already knew the deal and that leeched some of the suspense out of it. 

This film started exploring - just a little - outside the farmhouse and one family that was the focus of the first.  But it also felt like it forgot a lot of what it learned from the first one.  If feedback whine renders the damn things powerless, why aren't there feedback broadcasting stations? 

I had no idea this movie roped Oppenheimer and Korath as lead stars (although the whiny "I can't make money in Hollywood" Dijimon who is in more movies - more major movies - than anyone around) isn't in it for a great length of time.  But here they were.  Scarecrow and Juba, fighting giant ears. 

I didn't hate the movie, but all it really seemed to do was expand the map slightly and build an obvious set up for Quiet Place III: The Quietest. 

Is it terrible?  No.  It's worth watching if only because I finally figured out what it is that keeps Emily Blunt from being as attractive as my mind says she should be.  She has an enormous upper lip.  You can almost never see her top teeth, but her bottom ones are constantly exposed.  I think it's an affectation primarily for this movie. Maybe it's what she thinks her "serious" face should look like.   I dunno.  But it's unnerving.

(https://static1.colliderimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/a-quiet-place-part-2-trailer-emily-blunt-social-featured.jpg)

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on September 04, 2023, 06:52:20 PM
A Quiet Place II
The first Quiet Place film was a surprise.

The second, not so much.  It's not that it was bad, it's just that we already knew the deal and that leeched some of the suspense out of it. 

This film started exploring - just a little - outside the farmhouse and one family that was the focus of the first.  But it also felt like it forgot a lot of what it learned from the first one.  If feedback whine renders the damn things powerless, why aren't there feedback broadcasting stations? 

I had no idea this movie roped Oppenheimer and Korath as lead stars (although the whiny "I can't make money in Hollywood" Dijimon who is in more movies - more major movies - than anyone around) isn't in it for a great length of time.  But here they were.  Scarecrow and Juba, fighting giant ears. 

I didn't hate the movie, but all it really seemed to do was expand the map slightly and build an obvious set up for Quiet Place III: The Quietest. 

Is it terrible?  No.  It's worth watching if only because I finally figured out what it is that keeps Emily Blunt from being as attractive as my mind says she should be.  She has an enormous upper lip.  You can almost never see her top teeth, but her bottom ones are constantly exposed.  I think it's an affectation primarily for this movie. Maybe it's what she thinks her "serious" face should look like.   I dunno.  But it's unnerving.

(https://static1.colliderimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/a-quiet-place-part-2-trailer-emily-blunt-social-featured.jpg)

Emily Blunt in Looper, seducing JGL…. She had me wanting seconds.

Life (2017) also was a surprise. I watched that one without a preview or idea of what was to come, which made it so much better. The problem with movies in my lifetime is the marketing that’s attached to them. They give it all away in the previews, let folks acquire leaked information, etc… I purposely avoid previews of all films I am interested in. I didn’t watch a single one for the new Mission Impossible, and am anxiously awaiting its release on streaming services.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on September 05, 2023, 09:10:07 AM
Always wanting seconds from Blunt....yum.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 18, 2023, 10:25:45 AM
The Offering

Jewish possession movie.   

הסרט הזה היה גרוע ונגזר. ראיתי הכל בעבר. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on September 19, 2023, 07:38:06 PM
Ready for a new review, please. Nook, sorry for fucking with the format.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 19, 2023, 09:11:56 PM
Ready for a new review, please. Nook, sorry for fucking with the format.

The fuck you talkin bout?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on September 19, 2023, 09:18:55 PM
The fuck you talkin bout?

I never really know. Kind of just throw stuff out there to see what sticks.

Ready for one of your reviews again!
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 19, 2023, 09:24:26 PM
I never really know. Kind of just throw stuff out there to see what sticks.

Ready for one of your reviews again!

I gotta watch sumpin.  Soon. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on September 22, 2023, 11:27:55 PM
Nobody Will Save You

If you liked Kaitlyn Dever, the tomboy child of Tim Allen on Last Man Standing, this is the movie for you. 

Dever, now 26, carries the entire movie.  For 95% of the film, she's the only person on the screen.  And for 99.5% of the film, she doesn't say a single word.  Not one.

She's a recluse, dealing with some past trauma. Living alone, isolated in her childhood home (I think). One night her home is assaulted. Not by burglars or by rapists or anything like that, but by extra terrestrials. 

The film borrows from many others. There's a little bit of Signs, a dash of ET, a smidge or two of Close Encounters, a dollop of A Quiet Place, and maybe even a splash of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

The entire movie is Dever's Brynn fighting off the aliens as it slowly - very slowly - reveals the childhood trauma she's suffered.

I'll say this, Dever is a delight to watch. She does a more-than-credible job in the role and given that the entire story is told through her facial expressions, grunts and groans makes it even more impressive.  She's fantastic.

The no dialogue thing was interesting. Part of it was natural because there was nobody for her to talk to. The cutesy things where she'd pick up the phone and take that inhale of a breath to begin speaking and then stop were funny - at least to me.

The complete lack of dialogue forced you to pay attention because if you looked away, you couldn't follow a conversation to know what was going on.  I liked that because I'm sick to death of watching friends and family sit there scrolling on their phone while they are allegedly "watching" a movie.  That won't happen here.

Dever elevated this film far beyond what it could have been. Without her performance, it's not much more than an average forgettable SyFy movie.  I'm interested in seeing her in different, bigger roles. She should get that opportunity.  It was a huge burden to carry an entire movie using little more than her (albeit cute) face. Somehow she did. 

It's a different type of movie, probably not one for everybody but I've seen so many worse than this.  Watch it for nothing more than curiosity, but give it (her) a shot.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 03, 2023, 12:07:36 AM
Cobweb

I watched this primarily for the two leads.  Lizzy Caplan and Antony Starr. 

Caplan I can't figure out. Sometimes she is achingly hot and others she doesn't look that good at all. I think I like her and her pretty spectacular bazoomers (which are not on display in this film AT ALL), but then again, I'm not sure.  In this movie she plays a weird and stilted acting mom who dresses like it's 1964.  No heat. I think I like her as an actress. There's something about the expression on her face or the look behind her eyes that draws me. I really have no idea what it is.

Starr plays Homelander on The Boys (which I like).  I'm a Homelander fan. I wanted to see in this film if he had any range. He didn't have enough to do in it, though, to really tell me if he has the wings to fly beyond The Boys.

Basic story:
Kid living in a old, decrepit house hears noises in the walls and eventually discovers a (supposedly horrifying) family secret that has deadly consequences.  Caplan plays his mom, Starr his dad. Both are weird and act accordingly.

There are so many rabbit holes and dangling threads the movie fails to explore. So many things that need more exposition and background to make even the smallest amount of sense. There are gaps and leaps and twists that fall apart under the slightest scrutiny.  It wanted to be so much - and it was filmed well - but it just left way too much dangling to be even remotely effective. 

There's a late "what the hell are they eating?" twist that could have paid off extremely well but it lacked something.

I've seen far worse movies, but there's nothing to really recommend watching this.  Now if there were Caplan titties to consider, that might be worth it. There aren't. 

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/06/24/21/29EF110500000578-3138055-image-a-55_1435176076500.jpg)

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on October 03, 2023, 07:13:36 AM
Lizzie Caplin is the embodiment of 2 at 10, 10 at 2.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 03, 2023, 07:45:57 AM
Lizzie Caplin is the embodiment of 2 at 10, 10 at 2.

But would you?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 03, 2023, 09:10:28 AM
Nobody Will Save You

If you liked Kaitlyn Dever, the tomboy child of Tim Allen on Last Man Standing, this is the movie for you. 

Dever, now 26, carries the entire movie.  For 95% of the film, she's the only person on the screen.  And for 99.5% of the film, she doesn't say a single word.  Not one.

She's a recluse, dealing with some past trauma. Living alone, isolated in her childhood home (I think). One night her home is assaulted. Not by burglars or by rapists or anything like that, but by extra terrestrials. 

The film borrows from many others. There's a little bit of Signs, a dash of ET, a smidge or two of Close Encounters, a dollop of A Quiet Place, and maybe even a splash of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

The entire movie is Dever's Brynn fighting off the aliens as it slowly - very slowly - reveals the childhood trauma she's suffered.

I'll say this, Dever is a delight to watch. She does a more-than-credible job in the role and given that the entire story is told through her facial expressions, grunts and groans makes it even more impressive.  She's fantastic.

The no dialogue thing was interesting. Part of it was natural because there was nobody for her to talk to. The cutesy things where she'd pick up the phone and take that inhale of a breath to begin speaking and then stop were funny - at least to me.

The complete lack of dialogue forced you to pay attention because if you looked away, you couldn't follow a conversation to know what was going on.  I liked that because I'm sick to death of watching friends and family sit there scrolling on their phone while they are allegedly "watching" a movie.  That won't happen here.

Dever elevated this film far beyond what it could have been. Without her performance, it's not much more than an average forgettable SyFy movie.  I'm interested in seeing her in different, bigger roles. She should get that opportunity.  It was a huge burden to carry an entire movie using little more than her (albeit cute) face. Somehow she did. 

It's a different type of movie, probably not one for everybody but I've seen so many worse than this.  Watch it for nothing more than curiosity, but give it (her) a shot.

I liked this one. It was different. The Zero dialogue or anyone else in the movie made you really pay attention.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 03, 2023, 09:11:55 AM
But would you?

At 2, sure.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on October 03, 2023, 09:28:13 AM
But would you?

Pass. I like my waif brunettes to have more personality than eternally pissed.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 03, 2023, 10:19:33 AM
Pass. I like my waif brunettes to have more personality than eternally pissed.

I don't get eternally pissed from her at all.  I get sarcastic playful. I also don't get waif. She's got outstanding bombardiers.   

And I would do her so hard. I'd do her on a Dr. Pepper schedule.  10, 2 and 4. 

(https://www.fashiongonerogue.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Lizzy-Caplan-Playboy-July-August-2015-Photo-Shoot01.jpg)


What about Kaitlyn Dever? 

Capable of seeing her as an almost-30-year old? 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on October 03, 2023, 10:23:40 AM
What about Kaitlyn Dever? 

Capable of seeing her as an almost-30-year old?

She plays for the other team. So, no.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 03, 2023, 09:45:00 PM
She plays for the other team. So, no.

I think that was only a movie role.  Never heard it was a thing. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on October 04, 2023, 09:24:24 AM
I think that was only a movie role.  Never heard it was a thing.

Dever came out https://www.sdlgbtn.com/is-kaitlyn-dever-gay-in-real-life/  (https://www.sdlgbtn.com/is-kaitlyn-dever-gay-in-real-life/) as gay in 2020 during an interview with The Timeshttps://www.thetimes.co.uk/ (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/). She said that she had been in relationships with both men and women, but that she is now in a relationship with a woman.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 04, 2023, 09:51:30 AM
Dever came out https://www.sdlgbtn.com/is-kaitlyn-dever-gay-in-real-life/  (https://www.sdlgbtn.com/is-kaitlyn-dever-gay-in-real-life/) as gay in 2020 during an interview with The Timeshttps://www.thetimes.co.uk/ (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/). She said that she had been in relationships with both men and women, but that she is now in a relationship with a woman.

I'm not buying some lgbtbr549 rag that wants to out everybody from Thomas Jefferson to George Jefferson in an effort to promote their agenda.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on October 04, 2023, 11:20:04 AM
I'm not buying some lgbtbr549 rag that wants to out everybody from Thomas Jefferson to George Jefferson in an effort to promote their agenda.

Anna Kendrick>Dever all day, every day, twice on Saturday.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 04, 2023, 01:22:07 PM
Anna Kendrick>Dever all day, every day, twice on Saturday.

Why not both?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on October 04, 2023, 02:29:57 PM
Quote from: Kaos link=topic=5634.msg507880#msg507880date=1696440127
Why not both?

At the same time? Sold.

Sydney Sweeney has a nice set of lungs, too.

(https://www.usmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/5-Things-To-Know-About-Sydney-Sweeney-After-Anti-Bullying-Video-001.jpg?quality=86&strip=all)
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snaggletiger on October 04, 2023, 03:27:28 PM
Breathe in, breathe out.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on October 04, 2023, 03:56:30 PM
Breathe in, breathe out.

Got a machinehead?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 08, 2023, 10:05:18 AM
Totally Killer

As I was watching this Amazon Prime 'horror' film I thought to myself that it was trying too hard to rip off Happy Death Day and Happy Death Day 2 You, both of which were really enjoyable films. This one wasn't quite there. Turns out the same people who did HDD and HDD2Y were also behind this, which explains the vibe. Unfortunately it wasn't nearly as good.

The film folded so many of the same concepts that made HDD and its sequel good, but it didn't have the same appeal. It was like buying Great Value brand. It's okay, but it's not the same. Something's missing. Happy Death Day took the idea from Groundhog Day and flipped it on its head. It even referenced its Groundhog Day source material in a moment of unexpected self-awareness. Apparently that's the director's one trick. Here he tries the same feat with Back to the Future, with greatly diminished returns. Once again, the characters directly reference the movie he's re-imagining. This time, more than once. I wonder what's next for this guy? A teenage slasher movie loosely based on Bill and Ted?

The lead girl was a low-rent copy of Jessica Rothe, but she was good enough. Essentially the same character. Same sarcastic/sardonic deadpan stroll through an oddly changing landscape. Instead of the same day over and over, this time it was the same places, but at a different time.  Same "kids come up with some wacky science that bends the space-time continuum."  This time instead of just redoing the same day, you can go back 35 years and redo that day. Same kids who don't act like real kids ever would.

Basic premise is that a high school girl trips back in time to 1987 to try to stop a serial killer from one day murdering her mom (Julie Bowen).  Her mom dies 35 years after the never-caught killer first (and last) struck, so her reasoning is that if she can get back to 1987 and catch him then, he won't eventually return to his slaughter and her mom will be spared.

Biggest problem I had with it is that the film seemingly had no idea whatsoever what happened in 1987. The look was wrong, the feel was wrong, and other than the repetitive "joke" that things then didn't abide by today's ridiculous "it hurts my feelings" sensitivity, the entire 1987 storyline was wasted. 

The main girl wasn't bad. But the movie overall was like you went to Dollar General and bought a DVD copy of what you thought was Happy Death Day, but when you popped it into the VCR you discovered that you'd actually bought "Happy Dearth Day" which was kind of the same, but in the end?  Not.

It's not a bad movie, but in the reflected light of Happy Death Day - and the similarities are too close not to make that comparison - it's just a pale shadow.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 08, 2023, 10:49:02 AM
The Boogeyman

I've read everything Stephen King's every written - in book form, that is, I won't waste my time on his moronic political tweeter views.  I remember this short story from one of the anthology collections because it was a) really short and b) dealt with an event so horrific - child sacrifice -  it was difficult to fathom.

Boogeyman was in Night Shift, which came out in the late 70s, early 80s and was his publisher's effort to jump on the bandwagon of sudden popularity by recycling anything it could find with his name on it.  By the time Night Shift was published, he'd put out Carrie, Salem's Lot, and The Shining. His publisher, having no idea how prolific he would turn out to be, cobbled together every short story of his they could find and rushed this anthology to print with the idea of cashing in on his name before it likely fizzled out. Most of the stories in the book had been previously published in porn magazines, including several in Penthouse. Shortly after Night Shift came The Stand. And then in rapid-fire succession, The Dead Zone, Firestarter, Cujo, and Christine.   

Many of the stories in Night Shift eventually became schlock King films, including Children of the Corn, The Mangler, Trucks (which became the film Maximum Overdrive), Graveyard Shift, and Cat's Eye (which incorporated several of the entries from the book).  And now almost 40 years later, we have the Boogeyman. 

Like many of the Night Shift entries, Boogeyman was first published in a porno mag ($1 to Beastie Boys) before finding its way to the anthology book's pages. I remember reading the 12 pages that made up Boogeyman. It was a short (very short) and quickly efficient bare bones horror tale.  One of those ideas that popped into his head, he wrote the basic frame down, and it he explored it no further.  In a future world, King might have taken this idea and added several hundred thousand words of extraneous fluff and turned it into a novel. Quite honestly, the original Boogeyman story had a better foundation than many of the ideas he did give full novel treatment.

I remember reading this story (and I've re-read it several times over the years) mostly because it was so short and so effective. It was good.

ALL that to say that the movie, other than the names and the basic idea that there's a boogeyman in the closet that murderizes kids, strays so far from the original story that it might as well have been a different work entirely. 
 
Yeah, it tries at the very end to circle back to the 12th page of this brutally efficient horror tale, but by the time it does it's lost its way amid an extraneous pile of additional characters and improbable events to the point that it fails.  And it does so in such a haphazard, half-ass way that it drains all the potential horror out and leaves it in a puddle of pudding on the floor.
 
It's a shame. The film features my favorite member of the Yellow Jackets cast - the girl who plays young Natalie (Sophie Thatcher). She's amazing in Yellow Jackets, but isn't given much to work with here.  She's a much better actress than the bumbling director allowed her to show. She could have done so much more here, but all of her interactions were so astonishingly fake and trite, she just floundered.

The Boogeyman character is fairly well rendered, but the cast and the meandering (made nonsensical from a locational standpoint, when one time you need a ride to get somewhere and the next you can run there in less than two minutes) storyline bleeds too much of the taut effectiveness of the original story out.

Didn't hate it, have seen far worse, but knowing the source material  - as well as knowing what Thatcher is capable of - really took away from what this film could have been. It was never about failing dads or girl power daughters like the film was. It was about Lester's character (relegated to little more than backstory here) being pursued by a relentless boogeyman, and the horrific choices he made to avoid it, only to see it come out of unexpected shadows to stalk its prey. THAT was a much better story.   

I'll never understand why directors and screenwriters look at a King story and go "let's change all this" instead of taking what clearly works on the page and putting it on the screen.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 13, 2023, 04:58:09 PM
Exorcist III

The original Exorcist movie was an experience that changed everything for me.  It terrified me on first watch. It's one of the few horror movies that stand up over time. Even after hundreds upon hundreds of imitators, many with better special effects, that first Exorcist film maintains its place as one of the greatest. It has not diminished. Yes, the initial shock has worn off after seeing it dozens of times, but it is as good as it gets.

Exorcist II?  Umm. No thanks.

Exorcist III tries to right the wrongs of II, which is a monumental task. It tries to get us back to the vibe of the original. It doesn't quite get there, but it's a trippy 70s movie watch.  It's a little like what would happen if you mashed Death Wish (Bronson) with a horror movie.

Want to know how trippy? There's a middle bridge dream sequence that flashes across Samuel L. Jackson briefly (before he was known) and then settles on a somber Patrick Ewing wearing angel wings for a very long beat. 

Scott is his usual snarling, bombastic, dismissive self. He over-emotes with his facial grimaces to the point of farce. But he's still an undeniably powerful presence on the screen. 

Is it worth watching?  Once, maybe.  It's not the kind of thing I'll go back to over and over.  I've seen it. It was a lot to unpack. I can move on.

It's not a bad film, but it leaves a lot to be desired. It doesn't carry near the weight or shock value of the original - but then again, nothing does.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 13, 2023, 10:24:18 PM
Wrath of Becky

Becky was a crazy gory surprise that featured Kevin James as a tattooed neo-nazi skinhead. It starred horror mainstay Lulu Wilson (Ouija, Haunting of Hill House, Annabelle, and Deliver Us From Evil) as Becky, who got murderous revenge on a pack of thugs who attacked (and kilt) her family.

Now 18 (in the movie and in real life) Lulu's Becky has grown into a self-reliant, smart ass, kinda bitch honestly, who's just trying to make it.  She's an eye-rolling, sassy waitress who doesn't take any crap from her customers.

Her brassy attitude crosses the wrong people who strike back at her later and ignite her blood-soaked murdery rage yet again.

I could have 100000% done without the "white people are terrorists and the biggest threat to our nation" angle they tossed in completely unnecessarily. In fact, that pretty much ruined the movie for me. Made sure they dropped the word "insurrection" in there just in case we missed the "white men bad" club they were beating us over the head with.

Becky was a surprise. Knowing Becky, this one wasn't.  It was instantly forgettable. In fact it was so forgettable that after I went in the kitchen, got a drink and came back to write this, I had a really hard time even remembering what movie I'd watched. I had to think about it for a while. 

I don't know what Lulu's career path is going to be. She's an attractive girl, but she really needs to find some material outside the horror genre that isn't Becky-related. 

The way this ended, though? Looks like there will most likely be a Becky III.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 16, 2023, 09:17:07 AM
The Burial

Movie about a Mississippi funeral home owner who hired a flashy black lawyer to help him win a case against a corporation intent on smothering his business and sending him to ruin. 

Jamie Lee Foxx is the lawyer.
Tommy Lee Jones is the funeral home owner.
Cameron from Ferris Lee Bueller is Tommy Lee Jones' racist family lawyer
Jussie Lee Smollet's sister plays the opposing counsel.  Can't we get rid of that entire family? 

Basic story.  Foxx channels Deion Sanders' self-serving bombastic hype.  Pretty much everybody white in Mississippi is racist and has ties to the bad ol' KKK. Corporation is ripping off poor ol' black folks and gets its comeuppance.


 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on October 16, 2023, 09:38:18 AM
The Burial

Movie about a Mississippi funeral home owner who hired a flashy black lawyer to help him win a case against a corporation intent on smothering his business and sending him to ruin. 

Jamie Lee Foxx is the lawyer.
Tommy Lee Jones is the funeral home owner.
Cameron from Ferris Lee Bueller is Tommy Lee Jones' racist family lawyer
Jussie Lee Smollet's sister plays the opposing counsel.  Can't we get rid of that entire family? 

Basic story.  Foxx channels Deion Sanders' self-serving bombastic hype.  Pretty much everybody white in Mississippi is racist and has ties to the bad ol' KKK. Corporation is ripping off poor ol' black folks and gets its comeuppance.

I think I’ll skip this movie. Thank you for the warning.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 16, 2023, 10:09:53 AM
Elvira: Mistress of the Dark

Imagine Footloose if Kevin Bacon had enormous ghostly boobs and a gigantic black beehive hairdo.  And was an accidental witch.  That's the basic premise of Mistress of the Dark.

Elvira slinks into a small Massachusetts town to claim her inheritance after her aunt Morgana dies. Her aunt left her a creepy mansion, weird ass dog, and a book of spells. Her uncle wants the book as part of his plan for world domination.

Of course Elvira doesn't mesh well with the staid townspeople and corrupts their youth.  Eventually the town - at the urging of Elvira's evil uncle and the behest town busybody Edie McClurg - schedules her for execution by being burned at the stake.  Who will save her?

If you ever watched any of Elvira's Movie Macabre, you pretty much know what to expect. This is just a bigger set with a broader setup.  It's still slinky, barely covered boobs, big hair and tongue-in-cheek sexual innuendo.  Like when a letter from a movie marquee falls and hits her and the guy on the ladder who dropped it asks "How's your head?"  Elvira answers "haven't have any complaints." 

Eventually she saves the town from the creepy uncle, gains acceptance and then motors off in her (admittedly pretty awesome) black Thunderbird for new adventures. 

Some things you didn't know:

> This film was originally supposed to be part of the Pee-Wee Herman universe. Cassandra Peterson (Elvira) had played a biker chick in Pee Wee's Big Adventure.  Tim Burton (who directed Big Adventure) was supposed to helm this film but bailed on her to do Beetlejuice. It could have been a much different film if he'd stayed.
> Vincent Price - who was friendly with Cassandra - was supposed to play her uncle but backed out because he wanted her to tone down the sexual overtones - including the boob-swinging tassel dance finale. She declined.
> The movie was supposed to be the precursor for a NBC television series and was produced by Brandon Tartikoff. But he left NBC and it never went further.

It wasn't a terrible movie. It was campy, not intended to be taken seriously. Elvira did Elvira things.  She's interesting to look at. If you like her puns, innuendo, and quips, this is silly and palatable. If not, you won't like it.

For those who care, she's a natural redhead. All over. Prior to becoming Elvira, she did a photo shoot for High Society magazine which features some mind-numbing ding-tingling sexy shots of the then-23-year old. They're easy to find with the googles. Couldn't find a one clean enough to give you a taste here. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 16, 2023, 10:53:57 AM
Skinnamarink - finally got around to watching this start to finish last night. I don't think it's terrible. But it may be the weirdest most differently formatted horror or thriller movie I've ever seen. In the vein of found footage type movies, set in what I assume to be the early mid 90's. Like a yesteryear's version of Paranormal Activity but much grainier (think an RCA Camcorder circa 1989), the story centers around 2 kids around 5-7 years of age I assume, who wake up in their home and wander around saying random shit in the dark in the middle of the night. No one Is there, no doors, no windows, no nothing, except the OLD cartoons on the tube. I do not think this movie is at face value....I do think it's suppose to be exploring the dream sequence (or nightmare) of a childs mind. That kind of dream where you maybe took a dose and a half of NyQuil and went to bed. Again - weird but I have to give the creator credit for trying something different. There were some parts in it that were thoroughly creepy. But it's mostly vanilla and boring.


The Tank - Saw this one dropped on Hulu in their HULU-Ween collection. Guy's dad dies, Will gets probated, dude finds out dad left him a big chunk of land/island off the Oregon coast. Dude and his wife are shocked but what the hell, let's go check it out. Terrain looks like that in the Goonies. Man and his old lady find a big storage tank under the house deep inside the earth and apparently awaken a creature from there that has evolved over time beneath the earth. Predictable plot, not really scary. Not terrible, not good, but it was free and about 90-100 mins which is my sweet spot for thrillers.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on October 16, 2023, 11:59:43 AM
The Fall of the House of Usher

Pretty smart reimaging of this (and several other Poe) properties. Hedging it around the entertainment media's fixation with "Big Pharma" and "Oxy" is a choice, but it mostly works. Sure, there's the heavy-handed neo-socialist bull shoved in there, but can be ignored. This thing works because the cast is phenomenal. Carla Guigino is phenomenal. Bruce Greenwood and (surprisingly) Henry Thomas really sell it.

Worth burning 8 hours or so if you are so inclined.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 16, 2023, 03:07:28 PM
I think I’ll skip this movie. Thank you for the warning.

Don’t let me dissuade you.  It’s pretty well acted except for the out-of-her-depth Smollet woman. 

I’m just sensitive to and tired of the ‘black savior’ movies and white characters all being racists wirh KKK ties. 

The Klan was not the all encompassing boogeyman it’s made out to be by idiot yankee/west coast directors. Just a convenient spectre.

Yeah, it was a thing.  Yeah, a lot of your grandparents and great grandparents were involved. 

But as someone here said recently… not all klansmen were terrorists. There were some good ones. Peaceful. They were just fighting to hold on to their land and against outside oppression. 

The klan hasn’t been widespread, organized or effective in over 60 years.  But let’s keep trotting out those white sheets and covering every white southerner with them. 

That irritated me. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Damn Six on October 16, 2023, 03:45:55 PM
Don’t let me dissuade you.  It’s pretty well acted except for the out-of-her-depth Smollet woman. 

I’m just sensitive to and tired of the ‘black savior’ movies and white characters all being racists wirh KKK ties. 

The Klan was not the all encompassing boogeyman it’s made out to be by idiot yankee/west coast directors. Just a convenient spectre.

Yeah, it was a thing.  Yeah, a lot of your grandparents and great grandparents were involved. 

But as someone here said recently… not all klansmen were terrorists. There were some good ones. Peaceful. They were just fighting to hold on to their land and against outside oppression. 

The klan hasn’t been widespread, organized or effective in over 60 years.  But let’s keep trotting out those white sheets and covering every white southerner with them. 

That irritated me.

Clayton Bigsby was a badass.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on October 16, 2023, 08:43:48 PM
The Fall of the House of Usher

Pretty smart reimaging of this (and several other Poe) properties. Hedging it around the entertainment media's fixation with "Big Pharma" and "Oxy" is a choice, but it mostly works. Sure, there's the heavy-handed neo-socialist bull shoved in there, but can be ignored. This thing works because the cast is phenomenal. Carla Guigino is phenomenal. Bruce Greenwood and (surprisingly) Henry Thomas really sell it.

Worth burning 8 hours or so if you are so inclined.

Not a huge fan of modern adaptations of old classics. Especially that Christmas Carole bullcrap several years ago. But I admit I’ll watch Gugino in almost anything. Yum.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 18, 2023, 06:47:35 AM
Heist 88

Problem with streaming is you end up watching things out of boredom. 

This film wanted to be Ocean's 11.  More like Puddle 2. 

Based on true story supposedly.  Back in 88, master criminal ropes in his estranged nephew and a bunch of his friends in a scheme to rob a bank of a couple hundred million. 

Should have been entertaining but it was just so flat and dry it failed to connect. 

It was like a bowl of oatmeal with no cinnamon, sugar, milk, cap'n crunch, or anything else with flavor.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on October 26, 2023, 05:35:43 AM
No Hard Feelings

Jennifer Lawrence is hot and hilarious in this one. I watched the whole movie waiting for and expecting woke agendas to be shoved in my face, but it was really quite the opposite. Crude humor (my favorite kind), outlandish plot points that were littered with well timed punch lines, Andrew Barth Feldman playing the role of a nerdy, awkward teen so well, and Jen’s chesticles making a guest appearance put this movie in the “worth a watch” category. Netflix original, and could make your eyes wet with joy if paired with a treat from Wes’s brown bag.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on October 26, 2023, 07:23:14 AM
Pet Semetary: Bloodlines

Didn't hate it. Didn't love it.

A kind of decent but ultimately not really necessary backstory for Judd Crandall and the whole "well, they're back" Semetary storyline. 

Turned Judd from a helpful old neighbor who's seen things into a watchful gargoyle - which, in a way, changes how you'd see/think of him in the movies that happen later. 

If you know Pet Semetary, you pretty much know what's going to happen - with a few minor tweaks here and there.

Several people you've seen before in other things.  Like a REALLY puffy Pam Grier (Foxy Brown), Samantha Mathis, David Duchovny, and Henry Thomas.

All of the younger characters are relative unknowns. Part of the problem with the film is the guy playing Judd. Wife-beater, muscle car Judd just lacks charisma. That hurts the film. 

Probably worth watching.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on October 27, 2023, 09:20:24 AM
Five Nights at Freddy's

Never played the games, but I remember the Showbiz/Chuck E. Cheese era of life so I thought this could be fun or, at least, amusing. It's neither. Caught somewhere in limbo between wanting to be a true-crime story and PG-13 nostalgia spooky, this movie excels at neither. Instead, the dull, morose, plodding story was like trying to watch paint dry high on Nyquil.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Damn Six on October 27, 2023, 09:34:27 AM
watch paint dry high on Nyquil.

You just described my weekend plans.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 07, 2023, 08:56:59 AM
Five Nights at Freddy's

Really didn't get this movie.

There was a Banana Splits movie several years ago where the animatronic Fleegle, Drooper, Snorky, and Bingo came to murderous life. 

That movie was bad. It knew it was bad. It leaned into the bad. That made it kinda good.

This movie didn't know it was bad. That made it worse. 

Josh Hutcherson is a terrible actor.  So, unfortunately, is Shaggy from Scooby Doo.  Those two drained any hope this film had to connect its flimsy, ridiculous story in any entertaining manner.

I didnt get the movie. Didn't care about any of the characters and other than a miniscule dose of musical nostalgia, got nothing out of it.

Watch Banana Splits instead.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 07, 2023, 09:11:25 AM
Cop Land

Watched the Stallone documentary and saw him lament that Cop Land wasn't a major hit.  He couldn't understand how it missed. I'd never watched it and because AI can read our minds it popped up today on "Movies I Might Like." 

When I saw the cast, I was thinking the same as Stallone... how could this have possibly misfired.   

DeNiro
Stallone
Harvey Keitel
Ray Liotta
Catherine Moriarity
John (West Wing) Spencer
John (The Wire) Doman

And half the cast of The Sopranos:
Carmela (wasted in two brief scenes)
Paulie Walnuts (cameo in newsprint)
Artie Bucco (basically an extra)
Phil Leotardo (wasted in a throwaway scene)
Carlo Gervasi
Gloria Trillo
Beansie
and
Davey Scatino (aka Terminator, Robert Patrick)

How could that possibly go wrong? 

It did. There were so many storylines it to cram into a single entry, it did none of them justice.  Partially deaf Stallone mooning over a girl he saved from drowning for one. 

The tone was all wrong, the score was all wrong. Stallone moping dumbly through the entire film was all wrong.  None of it registered or felt like it had any authenticity.

There was a good story (or three) buried in the mismanaged layers of this movie.  None of them were effectively told.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 07, 2023, 09:16:25 AM
No Hard Feelings

"Romantic" comedy where Jennifer Lawrence is hired to bang a 19-year old nerd by his helicopter parents. 

Jennifer looks bad.  Not aging well, IMO. 

There were some relatively amusing moments and a couple of sorta sweet moments mixed in with some nudity and a little crudity. 

It wasn't bad. It wasn't good. It was just there. 

If you want to watch Jennifer Lawrence go Karate Kid while completely nude, this might be the movie for you. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Damn Six on November 07, 2023, 09:49:09 AM
No Hard Feelings
If you want to watch Jennifer Lawrence go Karate Kid while completely nude, this might be the movie for you.

I’m in.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 07, 2023, 09:50:40 AM
No Hard Feelings

"Romantic" comedy where Jennifer Lawrence is hired to bang a 19-year old nerd by his helicopter parents. 

Jennifer looks bad.  Not aging well, IMO. 

There were some relatively amusing moments and a couple of sorta sweet moments mixed in with some nudity and a little crudity. 

It wasn't bad. It wasn't good. It was just there. 

If you want to watch Jennifer Lawrence go Karate Kid while completely nude, this might be the movie for you.

Some of you are gay as hell and don't even know it.

And yes, because of that last assumption, this was the movie for me. BOINNNGGG.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 07, 2023, 09:52:02 AM
Five Nights at Freddy's
 other than a miniscule dose of musical nostalgia, got nothing out of it.
 

I hear...the secrets that you keep.....
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on November 07, 2023, 09:56:28 AM
Rewatched The Hunger Games last night (because the MNF game was a snoozer). Wow, what a boring movie. Had a lot to work with, world build, interesting characters, and at every turn, the movie chose the most boring route possible. It's like someone invites you to a nice steak dinner, order whatever you want. You go with hamburger steak, well-done, broccoli on the side, no salt, and room temperature tap water. This thing coasted by on the strength of the book's fans. If memory serves, movie #2 was a lot better.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 07, 2023, 10:01:22 AM
Don't Look Up

I avoided this movie for a long time because I seriously hate left-wing propaganda and I was sure this was full of it. 

It wasn't really.  You could pretend the idiot politicians were demoncrats with a little effort, just as you could assume they were Republicans if you wanted (clearly the intent, but never specifically spelled out). 

Basic premise:  Comet on its way to destroy the earth.  Scientists figure it out. Try to warn the world and come up with a plan to destroy or divert it. 

Breads and circuses regular citizens care more about pop culture. Politicians care only about how it impacts their electability.  Business only cares about how it could be monetized. Media only cares about how it impacts ratings.

It's a pretty spot on representation of how this idiotic world would likely react and respond. The thing it got wrong is the roles.  The right/conservatives (citizenry, not politicians) would take it seriously and try to cut through the lies - and probably be branded conspiracy theorists.  The left-leaning citizens would fall in sheepish line behind the lies of the political class.  The movie got that part of it backwards.  Completely backwards. 

The rest?  Pretty depressingly accurate I'm afraid. Were an extinction-level comet really coming, I could see things playing out pretty much like they did here.  It did really miss the global turn to faith I'd expect to see. Full churches, prayer vigils, etc.  What else would you expect from essentially Godless Hollywood?

It wasn't what you'd call an enjoyable movie and the final act was pretty grim.  People suck. Especially those in power.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 07, 2023, 12:02:09 PM
Rewatched The Hunger Games last night (because the MNF game was a snoozer). Wow, what a boring movie. Had a lot to work with, world build, interesting characters, and at every turn, the movie chose the most boring route possible. It's like someone invites you to a nice steak dinner, order whatever you want. You go with hamburger steak, well-done, broccoli on the side, no salt, and room temperature tap water. This thing coasted by on the strength of the book's fans. If memory serves, movie #2 was a lot better.

I don't care how much money it made......terrible choice for JLaw there. I hated her acting at that point.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on November 07, 2023, 12:35:22 PM
I don't care how much money it made......terrible choice for JLaw there. I hated her acting at that point.

I put all of that on the first director. That was a lazy job. The next ones, she did stuff. Her best stuff though was Winter's Bone. That's a solid flick.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 07, 2023, 05:05:31 PM
I put all of that on the first director. That was a lazy job. The next ones, she did stuff. Her best stuff though was Winter's Bone. That's a solid flick.

I like her in non vapid/expressionless roles.

And ones with boobies.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Damn Six on November 07, 2023, 05:33:52 PM
And ones with boobies.

You had me at hello.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 09, 2023, 07:37:22 AM
Pain Hustlers

A torn from the headlines story about a pharmaceutical company pushing doctors (by paying and seducing their egos) to prescribe their drugs. Emily Blunt, Chris Evans and Andy Garcia lead a cast of unknowns.

It's a disgusting business, apparently.  Corporate owners and reps driven by raw greed and a hurricane of available cash. Doctors whose medical decisions are driven not by patient needs, but by a desire to write prescriptions that provide kickbacks.

If the movie were better acted, more engaging, less bland?  It's something everybody should know - and consider when talking to their doctor.  Wonder WHY the doc is pushing medicines on you.  Is it because they get a cut of the prescription that's being forced on you 'for your own good?' 

Too bad this movie was completely flat. 

Blunt isn't great. In fact, she's kinda terrible. Starts off as a not-at-all convincing stripper with a half-black kid who overnight turns into a marketing genius pushing a drug that's apparently mostly fentanyl.

There was a series with Matthew Broderick (Painkillers) that dealt with a very similar situation - all the way down to the company owner's bizarre eccentricities - but handled it in a different matter.  Neither were truly effective in giving this practice and scandal the public awakening it needs.  This movie, in particular, missed more than it hit - largely because Blunt's performance was robotic and dead.

Watching this, and knowing that the current administration paid doctors to give the "vaccine" and also paid them to disavow treatments that were cheap and worked?  Kind of sickening, actually. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on November 09, 2023, 09:37:27 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFtdbEgnUOk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFtdbEgnUOk)

From what I understand, this isn't a sequel. It's a remake AND a musical for the GenZ. Fey is heavily involved as are a few other original cast members. Interesting choice.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 09, 2023, 10:18:15 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFtdbEgnUOk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFtdbEgnUOk)

From what I understand, this isn't a sequel. It's a remake AND a musical for the GenZ. Fey is heavily involved as are a few other original cast members. Interesting choice.

That's a no from me, dawg. 

But if we're transitioning from reviews to trailers here?  And I think that should be a separate topic, actually, but here are a few that I have some interest in seeing where they go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7jPnwVGdZ8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wpiTXNmsPU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ_HvTBaFoo
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 09, 2023, 10:20:19 AM
Pain Hustlers

A torn from the headlines story about a pharmaceutical company pushing doctors (by paying and seducing their egos) to prescribe their drugs. Emily Blunt, Chris Evans and Andy Garcia lead a cast of unknowns.

It's a disgusting business, apparently.  Corporate owners and reps driven by raw greed and a hurricane of available cash. Doctors whose medical decisions are driven not by patient needs, but by a desire to write prescriptions that provide kickbacks.

If the movie were better acted, more engaging, less bland?  It's something everybody should know - and consider when talking to their doctor.  Wonder WHY the doc is pushing medicines on you.  Is it because they get a cut of the prescription that's being forced on you 'for your own good?' 

Too bad this movie was completely flat. 

Blunt isn't great. In fact, she's kinda terrible. Starts off as a not-at-all convincing stripper with a half-black kid who overnight turns into a marketing genius pushing a drug that's apparently mostly fentanyl.

There was a series with Matthew Broderick (Painkillers) that dealt with a very similar situation - all the way down to the company owner's bizarre eccentricities - but handled it in a different matter.  Neither were truly effective in giving this practice and scandal the public awakening it needs.  This movie, in particular, missed more than it hit - largely because Blunt's performance was robotic and dead.

Watching this, and knowing that the current administration paid doctors to give the "vaccine" and also paid them to disavow treatments that were cheap and worked?  Kind of sickening, actually.

This is one of the stories that has hit Hollywood a lot recently, and also one of the few that isn't exaggerated very much. The story of big phrama and the racket they have, especially with Purdue and the opioid epidemic - is just plain sickening. Shows how much the govt (FDA and Justice Dept) are in bed with these sleezebags.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on November 13, 2023, 10:23:51 PM
Who is going to be playing the part that Heather Thomas played in Fall Guy?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 13, 2023, 11:36:11 PM
Who is going to be playing the part that Heather Thomas played in Fall Guy?

A black trangender midget.  Duh.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 15, 2023, 10:22:40 AM
Wind River

Pretty decent cast including Hawkeye and Scarlet Witch (aka, the only talented Olsen), Dexter's Bloodlines girlfriend, and a brief almost-cameo from Shane from Walking Dead.

Very slow moving story.  The story was kind of muddled. It hints at things that I guess it sort of expects you to figure out along the way.  It opens several cans of worms and then doesn't sufficiently explore or close  many of them, including a whole "here there be lions" arc.   

The motivations are sometimes (often) unclear, there wasn't enough exposition, it didn't really give you enough meat to make the whole meal worth it.

The final act didn't really make a lot of sense, particularly the whole  OK Corral scenario that was supposed to provide answers to the overarching mystery. It didn't.  Seemed forced and was really a stupid resolution. It didn't really answer anything in a way that was satisfactory. 

Olsen briefly shows her thong-chewing ass.  So there's that.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 15, 2023, 02:08:46 PM
Slotherhouse

Wow. Just wow. 

Take Mean Girls, Prom Night, and Black Christmas mix them together and swirl them around. Then and add a dash of Zombeavers, perhaps a sprinkle or two of Eight Legged Freaks and a dollop of Sharknado (pick one).  Bake at 150 for 25 minutes - leaving the middle raw and gooey - and you've got this outlandish movie.

Ever wondered what happens when you add a homicidal sloth... yes, a sloth... to a sorority house and make the mistake of hurting its feelings?  Wonder no more.  This film shows you in blood-soaked detail the carnage that would ensue.

The movie is particularly, purposefully bad.  Every actor/actress in it is completely aware that the film is bad, but they all play it straight.  The directors - also knowing it was bad - tossed in subtle references to a number of great horror films including one obvious nod to The Shining.

The killer sloth is so ridiculous that every time the blatantly obvious puppet pops up on screen it made me laugh.  BUT... the film never landed squarely enough in either horror or comedy to fully embrace a genre.  It just wasn't quite funny enough or scary enough to make a clear mark.

That in the books, I've seen movies that were far, far, far worse -- movies that aspired to be serious.  I've seen comedies that fell much flatter. I've seen horror films that were much less effective. 

Is it worth the time?   Possibly.  Just seeing a slaughterous sloth was probably payoff enough to make it worth the waste of time.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 15, 2023, 02:20:08 PM
Slotherhouse

Wow. Just wow. 

Take Mean Girls, Prom Night, and Black Christmas mix them together and swirl them around. Then and add a dash of Zombeavers, perhaps a sprinkle or two of Eight Legged Freaks and a dollop of Sharknado (pick one).  Bake at 150 for 25 minutes - leaving the middle raw and gooey - and you've got this outlandish movie.

Ever wondered what happens when you add a homicidal sloth... yes, a sloth... to a sorority house and make the mistake of hurting its feelings?  Wonder no more.  This film shows you in blood-soaked detail the carnage that would ensue.

The movie is particularly, purposefully bad.  Every actor/actress in it is completely aware that the film is bad, but they all play it straight.  The directors - also knowing it was bad - tossed in subtle references to a number of great horror films including one obvious nod to The Shining.

The killer sloth is so ridiculous that every time the blatantly obvious puppet pops up on screen it made me laugh.  BUT... the film never landed squarely enough in either horror or comedy to fully embrace a genre.  It just wasn't quite funny enough or scary enough to make a clear mark.

That in the books, I've seen movies that were far, far, far worse -- movies that aspired to be serious.  I've seen comedies that fell much flatter. I've seen horror films that were much less effective. 

Is it worth the time?   Possibly.  Just seeing a slaughterous sloth was probably payoff enough to make it worth the waste of time.

What about that Winnie the Pooh one? Where he and Piglet fuk people up and draw blood.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on November 15, 2023, 02:21:26 PM
Slotherhouse

Wow. Just wow. 

Take Mean Girls, Prom Night, and Black Christmas mix them together and swirl them around. Then and add a dash of Zombeavers, perhaps a sprinkle or two of Eight Legged Freaks and a dollop of Sharknado (pick one).  Bake at 150 for 25 minutes - leaving the middle raw and gooey - and you've got this outlandish movie.

Ever wondered what happens when you add a homicidal sloth... yes, a sloth... to a sorority house and make the mistake of hurting its feelings?  Wonder no more.  This film shows you in blood-soaked detail the carnage that would ensue.

The movie is particularly, purposefully bad.  Every actor/actress in it is completely aware that the film is bad, but they all play it straight.  The directors - also knowing it was bad - tossed in subtle references to a number of great horror films including one obvious nod to The Shining.

The killer sloth is so ridiculous that every time the blatantly obvious puppet pops up on screen it made me laugh.  BUT... the film never landed squarely enough in either horror or comedy to fully embrace a genre.  It just wasn't quite funny enough or scary enough to make a clear mark.

That in the books, I've seen movies that were far, far, far worse -- movies that aspired to be serious.  I've seen comedies that fell much flatter. I've seen horror films that were much less effective. 

Is it worth the time?   Possibly.  Just seeing a slaughterous sloth was probably payoff enough to make it worth the waste of time.

You ever see "Rubber" or "Hobo With a Shotgun" ?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: The Six on November 15, 2023, 02:28:54 PM
What about that Winnie the Pooh one? Where he and Piglet fuk people up and draw blood.

Can confirm that one sucks but not as bad as that FNAF bullshit
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 17, 2023, 11:36:57 PM
The Call 

Korean.  Not horror. 

First let me say that Korean film and television is FAR superior to anything done by Americans. It just is.

This film is well acted, well scripted, gory (sometimes cruelly so), and engaging.  Every time you think you know how something is going to go, it dodges in a different direction.

Storyline:  Old phone connects two girls who lived in the same house 20 years apart.  The girl from the past figures out that she can change the future by intervening in events. She grants her friend from the present a re-do of a particularly tragic event, changing her life significantly. Over time she grows resentful of the new life her phone friend has and becomes angry that she can't escape her cruel step mother.  Her religious stepmom has visions that this girl will become a serial killer and decides to end her before she can unleash her mayhem on the world. 

Future friend does past friend a solid and warns her of her potential demise, allowing past girl to surprise step mom and put a knife in her.  Now free to live her life, she kinda fulfills dead step mom's prophecy.

Sounds confusing, but it's not really as you see it all play out. Even though at one point there are seven or eight different time-line threads that the main characters cycle through.

Jeon Jong-seo plays the girl from the past and she's ridiculously good in the role. The nonchalant cruelty, the arbitrary decisions to let the bodies hit the floor, the rage killings, are all portrayed very well. She carries the film. 

I love the Korean way of NOT stopping when you think they should.  There's no deux ex machina event to save the day and prevent the bad guy (or girl) from doing something truly heinous.

There are no happy endings. Literally. Even when you think there are. 

Good movie all around.  I wish I spoke the language so I didn't have to rely on subtitles.

For the pervs:  No tits. No ass. No sex. Not even much innuendo. Little profanity.  Just a good story told and acted well.

(https://resizing.flixster.com/W9Zmaf-R0E25bj8iLfBVJXWAf3M=/ems.cHJkLWVtcy1hc3NldHMvbW92aWVzLzk0MzlhNGUwLWY5N2QtNGIzOC1iZGZjLTE5OGFmN2Y3MDkyMS5qcGc=)

She's 30.  I got a huge thing for Korean women.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 17, 2023, 11:54:24 PM
You ever see "Rubber" or "Hobo With a Shotgun" ?

No, but I saw Hobo With a Rubber once.  It wasn't as much fun as I hoped.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on November 18, 2023, 07:29:59 AM
No, but I saw Hobo With a Rubber once.  It wasn't as much fun as I hoped.

Hobo with a Shotgun is a decent one. Violent Night is a similar film.

Rubber is as outlandish as the Sloth flick you mentioned. Wondering if they had some of the same writers.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on November 27, 2023, 10:23:32 AM
Well holy hell, I may have seen it all now.

Mother God: Love Has Won

On MAX, HBO whatever it's called now.

3 part series on a cult in Colorado, not a big cult mind you. But perhaps one of the strangest, illogical ones I have ever seen. I have watched a lot of documentary type films over the years on various cults and dictators because they are truly a study in human psychology. And the power of mental control, domination, taking advantage of and preying on the vulnerable.

Many of them I have watched over the years you could almost see why they had followers. Not that I agreed with it but you could see the bait n switch. The appeal of some promise of something greater that didn't materialize. With this one, I never saw why anyone would have joined this one, or followed this lady. It was out there - some crazy new age garbage that made zero logical sense. I know every religion, theology or even ideology relies a lot on the promise of something, a concept or even just pure faith to a degree. But this one made NO sense in that regard. It's like they were all high 24/7 on bad mushrooms spitting out verbal vomit.

The first 2 episodes are out there now. 3rd one drops soon this week I think. Its a good watch and will more than likely make you feel a little more normal while at the same time giving you depression about how naive humanity can be.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 27, 2023, 06:19:09 PM
To Catch a Killer

Day six of the sickness. Flu. Whatever.  Missed Thanksgiving. Unable so far to even get much done decorating for the holidays. Isolated in the house with DoorDash and Instacart as my only connection to the outside world other than my dog, which just farted on me and dared me to say anything about it.

Most of that time was spent in a medicine-induced fog. I know I watched some documentaries, series, and movies to pass the time but the only movie that I can really remember anything about is this one.   

Shailene Woodley (former fiance of Aaron Rogers) and the leader of the Skrulls (some guy I don't recall) are hunting a serial killer who used a sniper rifle on New Year's Eve to eliminate 29 random people.  He used the sound of fireworks to mask the gunshots, allowing him to take out more than if he'd just been popping caps at some other random time.  Once he's done shooting, he bombs the vacant apartment where he'd set up his perch. 

Woodley plays a beat cop who responds to the incident, has the presence of mind to try to film everyone fleeing the building and then races upstairs to see what she can come up with in regard to the shooter's identity. 

The Skrull dude sees some "talent" in her and hires her away from the police force to be part of his killer hunting team. She ends up being a low-energy Monk or Shawn from Psych type character who sees little things that others miss which helps the team track down the killer. She also gets randomly yelled at, chastised and belittled, which I ......guess?...... is part of the character's backstory or something?   

This might have been a good movie, but Woodley is just so numbingly flat and brings absolutely nothing to the part. She's like a cold bowl of oatmeal.  She's like the girl who just lays there and occasionally grunts and then wonders if it was good for you.  NO, it wasn't. 

It's not a terrible procedural (other than Woodley's wooden performance) but the final act is so stupidly absurd and out of place it does a major injustice to everything that came before it.  It's ridiculous.

I watched it, so you don't have to. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on November 30, 2023, 11:54:42 AM
Khandar
Part of the Home Sick and Bored collection

To say that Gerard Butler is now as typecast as Liam Neeson would be an understatement.  He's devolved to cookie cutter, plug and play at this point. 

The movies are all the same.  Butler is a good-hearted divorced dad whose relationship with his long-distance daughter is fractured by the job to which he's dedicated. His ex-wife has moved on, but is still clearly in love with him and he wearily understands that it's the job that drove them apart. He's coming home, but fate intervenes and now he's got to lone-wolf fight his way through hundreds intent on killing him.  Somebody will be sacrificed in a heart-rending moment, he'll get wounded, and will eventually find his way home to repair all the relationship damage with his estranged daughter via a stroke-face grimace and a hug.  Awww. 

Just change the locale, switch his vocation, alter the accent a little, swap around a few forgettable side characters and roll it out there. 

This time Butler is in the desert, fighting his way through the entire Taliban. 

In real life he'd have died 50 or 60 times. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 10, 2023, 08:03:32 PM
Monk:  The Last Case

It was never "must see" but I used to like Monk.  I thought the girl who played Natalie Teager was cute enough to pay attention to.  And there was something easy and likeable about Tony Shaloub's quirky, nerdy, germ-phobic, and excessively OCD detective Adrian Monk who was successful because he saw things other people typically missed.  It was part of a companion package with another USA Network series - Psych - that followed a similar "only he sees it" pattern. 

The show was over by the time Covid came along, but there was a time or two when I wondered how Monk's obsession with hand-wipes would have played in the pandemic world. 

Fifteen years or so since the show went off the air, Peacock resurrected the character with a one-off movie.

They should have skipped it.  Monk moped over the death of his wife for the entire series, but it was never heavy or maudlin. This new movie was nothing but heavy, dark, plodding, depressing and maudlin.  It essentially trashed the entire series in suicidal drudgery. 

Most of the old cast (that worked so well together originally) including Natalie,  Leland (the chief), and his nebbish deputy Randy.   It was kind of like finding an old t-shirt you loved in the bottom of a closet and trying it on only to realize it no longer fit, had lost its shape, and stunk of age. 

I liked the old Monk.  This ode to the edge of suicide, I did not.   It had none of the fun and spry banter of the original. And nobody wanted the stupid ghosts. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 11, 2023, 03:02:54 PM
Leave the World Behind

I made it all the way to Exexutive Producers: Barack and Michelle Obama and then noped my way right back out. 

No thank you.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 13, 2023, 06:56:52 PM
Gone in the Night

Winona Ryder has done some really good stuff in her career. 

This isn't that. 

It's a weird story of a woman searching for her jackass younger boyfriend who went missing.  It unspools in time jumps which really don't add much to the story.  Then it dives off into an unpredictable side story -- one that you see coming from miles off, except for an added dash of twist. 

Just didn't do it for me despite some moderately interesting moments and the specter of Winona aging somewhat badly.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 13, 2023, 10:04:06 PM
The Exorcist: Believer

The Exorcist remains one of the most terrifying movies of all time. It’s one of the few movies that ever actually scared me.

Exorcist 3 was a trippy, muddled slew through the genre.

This? Absolute trash. The kind of trash that does a poop splattering flyover of the greatness of the original and then returns to ass piss on it again. 

Horrible film. Should not be considered as part to the original’s family tree. 

HORRIBLE.  Hated it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: GH2001 on December 13, 2023, 10:51:15 PM
The Exorcist: Believer

The Exorcist remains one of the most terrifying movies of all time. It’s one of the few movies that ever actually scared me.

Exorcist 3 was a trippy, muddled slew through the genre.

This? Absolute trash. The kind of trash that does a poop splattering flyover of the greatness of the original and then returns to ass piss on it again. 

Horrible film. Should not be considered as part to the original’s family tree. 

HORRIBLE.  Hated it.

Agreed.

In fact- I found it…..boring. I wasn’t remotely interested.

You have to really fuck up to make exorcist unappealing in that way.

The trailer looked so promising.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on December 22, 2023, 09:57:24 AM
Wanting to save you the trouble. Don’t watch Rebel Moon. What a fucking waste of time.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 22, 2023, 09:59:59 AM
Wanting to save you the trouble. Don’t watch Rebel Moon. What a fucking waste of time.

Since I assumed it was a comedy with Fat Amy exposing her cottage cheesed buttocks, it wasn't on my list. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on December 22, 2023, 10:12:35 AM
Since I assumed it was a comedy with Fat Amy exposing her cottage cheesed buttocks, it wasn't on my list.

Seeing that would have probably been better.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 23, 2023, 10:13:38 AM
Run Bitch Run!

Background...  If you fall asleep in front of the TV, it will just keep playing whatever is next in the list.  In this case, I had been watching an old horror film and when I woke up, the message on screen asked if I wanted to continue watching Run Bitch Run!  Well. Why not?  So I started at the beginning. 

I have an affinity for the grindhouse type films, and even the parodies of them that Tarantino and Rodriguez generate.  I love Machete and Machete Kills and I enjoyed the one where Rose McGowan has a machine gun for a leg.  They're gritty, they're over-the-top in the sexualization of characters, and they're so bad they're good. 

The set-up in this 2009 film?  Two catholic school girls are trekking through a desolate stretch of dusty, desert America selling Bibles door-to-door to pay their tuition.  They run into a bunch of sex-crazed rednecks who abuse them and then the survivor of that abuse returns to exact her revenge.

Good lord, this was bad.  Biggest problem is the lead.  She looks like an albino Mia Goth if Mia Goth had mated with a Morlock.  She's ugly - pretty good body, though, which is on display. 

Ok, no, she's not the biggest problem.  There are many.

Every single woman in the film is naked at some point.  Not that that's bad, but in this film it turns out to be.  There are also multiple rape scenes.  A woman uses a toilet plunger for a sex toy. Woman uses the barrel of a pistol as a sex toy. There are probably 140 different sex scenes.  So much dirty sex.  A dude takes a machete up his poop chute. 

I get where the film was going, but it was like the director (if there was one) watched Grindhouse and said.... "hey, what if we put in way more screwin' and some twisty rapey stuff?  What could be better?"

Literally anything would have been better.  After putting so much effort into the rapey, cringey, dirty sex scenes, the revenge aspect was almost perfunctory.  Poorly done.  Creepy, rapey, cringey sex for 87.98349% of the movie, random dialogue for 2% revenge for 9%.  Stupid, contrived, hokey ending for the remainder. 

I won't say don't watch it, maybe you get turned on by a plunger up the snatch.  Maybe you're into a filthy foot being licked.  Maybe ripping off the musical score of other films is your thing.  But be forewarned. It's bad. Even knowing it's purposely bad doesn't elevate it.   

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 26, 2023, 09:45:15 AM
Christmas Trilogy

Spirited


Will Ferrell and Ryan Reynolds in a musical takeoff on A Christmas Carol.

Ryan is an unredeemable social media influencer without a conscience who is targeted by the spirits of Christmas for a conversion. 

Ferrell is the Ghost of Christmas Present who has his own past baggage.

It’s not as bad as I feared.  There are some truly funnny moments, and it’s got heart. There’s even a clever nod to Ferrell’s Elf along the way. 

You know where it ends up but it’s a decently fun ride getting there. 


Its a Wonderful Knife
Good lord at the gay in this twisted take on the Jimmy Stewart/Donna Reed (love her) classic.

The film lives in the same sphere as Freaky, Happy Death Day, and Totally Killer but it’s not nearly as good as any of them. 

Good lord at the sheer amount of gay. 

Girl saves the town from a serial killer but is haunted by the event and her own teenage ‘nobody loves me angst.’  Wishing she were never born, she’s transported to a reality where the killer got away and continiued his rampage. 

The lead girl is like the Five Below knockoff of the Dollar General version of Tree (Jessica Rothe) from Death Day. She’s not awful but she lacks charisma.

Good LORD at the gay. 

A Creature Was Stirring
Put this in she category of “what the hell did I just watch?”   

Either I’m too dumb to understand what the director/writer(s) intended to say with this messy, meandering story or they are completely inept at crafting a cohesive a narrative. 

I have no idea what happened or what it meant. 

It may have been an allegory.  It may have been a dream inside a nightmare.  None of what you saw on screen may have occurred.

What I think I know:
Excessively, disgustingly, morbidly obese Chrissy Metz is a nurse, maybe with a heroin addiction.  She has a daughter who lives with her who… at certain body temperatures … turns into a …. Ummmm… porcupine(?!) due to being “quilled”’due to an unfortunate zoo incident. 

During a blizzard on Christmas Eve a brother-sister team of Christian missionaries (including Scout Taylor-Compton of Rob Zombie Halloween scream game) appear seeking refuge — or do they?

The rest is a muddled mass of trapdoor plot devices, bizarre porcupine references, and morbidly obese waddling. 

I think the writers and directors thought they were creating some operatic masterpiece about the perils of addiction. Or maybe not.  Either way, in their bumbling hands, all they left me with was a sense of confusion and regret. Regret that I wasted my time on this porker.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 26, 2023, 10:53:18 PM
Lower tier Christmas movies

Surviving Christmas


James Gandolfini made some poor choices during and after his iconic turn as Tony Sopano.  This is one. 

But you can’t blame him.  I mean… Christina Applegate. Catherine O’Hara. Bill Macy. Jennifer Morrison. Ben Affleck.  All in a Christmas movie that’s supposed to, at its heart, highlight the importance of family. 

Except it has no heart.  Gandolfini is okay as Soprano with a beard.  But Affleck is so gratingly bad he destroys the entire thing. 

This is, in the end, a cringey, steaming, stinking pile of shit.  It can’t be rescued. 

How bad? There’s an incest scenario played for laughs. 

This film should get whacked.  It’s a monstrous turd.

Fred Claus
One of two Vince Vaughn entries in this list. 

Another great cast squandered.  Paul Giamatti, Elizabeth Banks, Kevin Spacey, Kathy Bates, Ludacris, and ridiculously sexy Rachel Weisz.  How could you go wrong?

In just about every way possible.

It has a few decent moments. And it has an idea where its heart should be.  Vaughn ruins it.  Him and a shitty script that doesn’t find its way until the final ten minutes.  By then it’s too late.

Four Christmases
Five too many. 

There’s not a single moment of emotional authenticity in this entire film.  Vince Vaughn plays the only note he knows as an actor (monotone babbling bullshit that isn’t as funny as he imagined it is) and it sucks the life of the entire exercise.

More wasted cast including Reese Witherspoon, Mary Steenburgen, Jon Voight, Kristen Chenowith, Robert Duvall, and Sissy Spacek. 

It’s absolutely, flatly, terrible.  I award it no points and am dumber for watching it.

Deck the Halls
The first film in this set worth watching more than once. 

Danny DeVito, Matthew Broderick, Chenowith, and Kristin Davis (always thought she was sweetly sexy) in a tale of combative neighbors. 

DeVito moves in across from Broderick and wrecks his staid, traditional Christmas routines. Their conflict leads DeVito to squander his life trying to light his house with enough Christmas cheer to be visible from space. 

It’s awkward in places. It’s cheesy in others.  The pacing is sometimes weird. The setups are ridiculous. Most of the jokes don’t land as hard as they could.

 Broderick is off his game and comes off way too odd for the role sometimes.  But this film is so much better than the rest of the turds in the eggnog bowl that it looks like classic cinema in comparison. 

I don’t watch it every year, but I could.

Jingle All the Way
Going against the grain.  I really like this film.  It’s silly and stupid.  It’s part of the Arnold arc where he was trying to shed the muscle-bound meat head image.

The main thing that works for me and what elevates (and literally saves) the movie is the lecherous next door skeeze played by Phil Hartman.  He’s great.

Having worked retail during the height of the Cabbage Patch craze I have to say the brawl for the one remaining TurboMan isn’t too far from reality.   

It also features the debut of future WWF(WWE) superstar Big Show as a gigantic Santa. 

It’s on my list for every season.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 31, 2023, 10:26:16 AM
Last Voyage of the Demeter

Dracula on a boat. He’s tapped out the village where he resides so he’s shipping himself to England for better hunting grounds.

So much promise.  And did a lot of things right. But couldn’t get past the things it did wrong. 

The tone is good. The acting isn’t bad. The creature is well rendered. It does an adequate job of building tension.  But there were so many missteps and plot blunders.

1. Let’s artificially insert a racial angle for no reason and in an unrealistic manner. 
2. They know the creatures haunting the ship only comes out at night. So they only attempt to deal with it—- at night. 
3. They find a woman buried in dirt in a broken shipping container and alleged Cambridge grad Dr. Dre deduces immediately and with only superficial examination that she “needs a transfusion.” 
4. They know the creature(s) live in the crates in the hold.  They could have thrown them overboard and ended the threat. They didn’t.
5. Instead they develop a cockeyed plan to sink the ship.  And continue with it even when they learn Dracula has developed wings. 

It looked like at the end they were setting up for either a black Van Helsing or the possibility that Dracula prowled London as Jack the Ripper.  Neither should happen. 

It wasn’t a bad movie but it just left so many turds in the bed they were hard to ignore. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on December 31, 2023, 10:36:35 AM
Saw X

I heard so many good things about this.  How it was true to the nature of the story, how it added so much to the narrative, how it was a necessary addition to the saga.

No. No. No. 

It was unnecessary and superfluous.  Almost all of it seemed out of sync.

Yeah, it was cool to see Amanda and Billy again. It was awesome to hear that iconic music as a trap was sprung. 

But everything else … and especially the ending … felt completely off. 

The first Saw was brilliant.  This one seemed tired, stale, and out of touch. 

The traps were uninspired, the tasks to escape unnecessarily arbitrary and cruel.

I like the the series and hope this is the end, even though I hate for it to end in this flat fizzle.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 01, 2024, 09:13:38 AM
There’s Something In The Barn

This was the third of a new Christmas horror slate that I wanted to try, the others being A Creature was Stirring and Wonderful Knife.  I should have started here.  It’s so much better than either of those.  It’s not quite Krampus or Violent Night level but it’s in the same general area code. 

It mixes a little bit of a lot of other Christmas fare in creating a solid, gory-ish, funny, violent, and engaging story.  You’ll see dashes of Gremlins, Vacation, Elf, and more. But it’s never derivative.

Martin Starr, the satanic, deadpan coder from Silcon Valley, stars as a nerdy dad who inherits a farm in Norway and moves his kids and his new wife to the frozen north in a misguided effort to help hold the family together. 

In addition to the house, they inherit a ramshackle barn where a barn elf resides.  It’s like a gnome.  His son discovers the little guy and also learns the few simple rules for keeping it happy. When the rules are followed, it does chores for the family like shoveling the walk, chopping wood, etc.  Of course everyone thinks the kid is imagining the elf. 

His dad, in griswoldish fashion, breaks every   single elf rule, eventually pissing it off to the point that it ignites a bloody, deadly war between the family and a horde of diminutive elves.

The film was helmed by Norwegians so there are some deadpan running jokes about clueless Americans including one about our love of guns and the lack of firearms in their town.  “We don’t go around carrying guns to shoot each other in the face….This isn’t Detroit.”  There’s another about the Oslo Accords (which given the current administration’s foreign policy bumbling hasn’t aged well).

It’s uneven in places and the war drags on a little too long.  I’m pretty sure the wife, son, and daughter are all Norwegian because the accents slip occasionally. 

But it’s got enough humor and horror that I enjoyed it. May not go into full holiday rotation but I will 100% watch it again.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on January 02, 2024, 09:42:21 AM
Leave the World Behind

I made it all the way to Exexutive Producers: Barack and Michelle Obama and then noped my way right back out. 

No thank you.

It's not that bad, to be honest.  Wasn't a fan of the ending, but it was worth the 2 hours.  Lots to make you think about, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 02, 2024, 01:58:00 PM
It's not that bad, to be honest.  Wasn't a fan of the ending, but it was worth the 2 hours.  Lots to make you think about, that's for sure.

I saw it described somewhere as “liberal foreshadowing”. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: AUJarhead on January 02, 2024, 04:26:01 PM
I saw it described somewhere as “liberal foreshadowing”.

Could be where we are headed, yes.  I heard Obama used his notes as POTUS with the screen writers to give them ideas, that honestly could be scary if some of the scenarios play out.

Movie ends with lots more questions than answers.

But also the first movie I've seen with the new Blade in it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 14, 2024, 12:57:20 PM
Oldboy

I don’t agree with Wes very often. But that was a twisty movie and took more than one turn I didn’t see coming.   

It’s hard to say you “enjoyed it” given the final act, but it kept your attention. 

Thankfully I’ve never read anything about it.  Didn’t bother with the Americanized version.   So I wasn’t prepared for the last 15 minutes. 

You’ve seen revenge movies done time and time again.  Just not like this. 


Yes some of the set ups are almost preposterous.  But so is everything in Saw if you think about it.  And the acting has that almost frantic Korean expression and pace. But that doesn’t matter either. 

Watched it.  Glad I did.  Not sure I could again given that final act.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on January 15, 2024, 07:25:19 AM
Oldboy

I don’t agree with Wes very often. But that was a twisty movie and took more than one turn I didn’t see coming.   

It’s hard to say you “enjoyed it” given the final act, but it kept your attention. 

Thankfully I’ve never read anything about it.  Didn’t bother with the Americanized version.   So I wasn’t prepared for the last 15 minutes. 

You’ve seen revenge movies done time and time again.  Just not like this. 


Yes some of the set ups are almost preposterous.  But so is everything in Saw if you think about it.  And the acting has that almost frantic Korean expression and pace. But that doesn’t matter either. 

Watched it.  Glad I did.  Not sure I could again given that final act.


This one is one of those that’ll stick with you. I saw this movie once, back in 2012. Incredible movie, but once was enough.

On the subject of Korean made films, my personal favorite is The Good, the Bad, the Weird. Very entertaining movie.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 17, 2024, 06:20:55 PM
Lift

Imagine George Clooney was short and black. Imagine Catherine Zeta Jones was black.  Imagine Matt Damon and Brad Pitt were women of various ethnicities.   Imagine Don Cheadle was white.

Imagine? Thanks to the magic of movies, you don't HAVE to imagine!  The film Lift brings this fantasy world to full fruition.

Kevin Hart takes the Clooney role as a leader of a rouge band of art thieves, who o escape Interpol prosecution, agree to steal a massive shipment of gold (conveniently contained in a square block). 

It's not bad. It has entertaining moments. But the comparisons to Oceans 11, 12 and 13 render it a weak and washed out version of those caper films.  The fact that it steals so much from them is impossible to overlook. 

I like Kevin Hart as a general rule, and I respect his desire to squirm out of the loud comic pigeonhole in which he resides.  But it's a really ludicrous stretch to see him as some kind of hard-fighting action hero.  It just doesn't play.

The rest of the cast (unknowns except for the weird Vincent D'Onofrio in the role of Saul Bloom from Ocean's, and Jean Reno in a cookie cutter bad guy role that required no effort on his part) was adequate, but nothing special. 

They didn't have the panache or breezy cool camaraderie that the Ocean's cast had, but it wasn't a terrible film.  Wish they'd done it as a homage rather than a sloppy copy.   
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 21, 2024, 11:13:07 AM
A Haunting in Venice

Ok. Kenneth Branagh does a really good job in the role of Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot.  He was good in Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile. He was good here, too.

The cast in each of those films is really strong.  This was no exception.  Kelly O'Reilly (not playing an oversexed cowgirl) alone should elevate the film.  The production values are top-notch.

The problem is the pacing. It's so slow to the reveal. It just plods along as Poirot deduces things with only a passing idea of how he figured it out. 

I'm sure the films are fairly loyal to the books (or in this case a loose interpretation of the book) but I really wish Branagh had taken the time to watch Robert Downey's Sherlock Holmes films and used them as a template for breathing life into these efforts. But he didn't.

The story is fine, the acting is fine, the locations are kind of great. But the very slow burn left me dry. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 21, 2024, 11:43:19 AM
Had a long day at the dentist Friday.  Lots of smoke, needles and pain.  The place I go to is staffed by extremely attractive women - literally ALL of them - which I like.  Each treatment room is equipped with a television.  So during the entire ordeal I was hostage to what was playing on Netflix.  I should have asked them to put on another movie, but when I got there, I only expected to be there a few minutes, not over two hours.  I was stuck with what was on when things got started. So I ended up being "treated" to the second half of one film and the first half of another.  Both were bad.   

Feel the Beat
Another one of those rag-tag bunch of kids with no coordination or presence win a dance competition type efforts.  They checked all the boxes. Uncoordinated sassy ass chubby wearing glasses. Ugly uncoordinated black girl (the ugly one from the new Exorcist movie). Diminutive uncoordinated Asian. Preppy white girl snob. Deaf girl.  Etc. Sprinkle in a few flamboyant gays, which they did, and you get the gist.

The girls are being coached by a blacklisted Broadway dancer hoping to revive her career. In a script that would make the most earnest Hallmark Movie writer roll their eyes and gag, she has to choose between getting her career back and helping the girls (and one little guy) at their competition.  It was so saccharin.  It was so completely predictable.

At the end, the motley assortment of girls do their "big dance number" which looks like a bunch of untalented kids being tased repeatedly. They were flopping and jerking all over the stage. The dance number featured a too-long shot of the chubby girl's wide ass jammed straight into the camera.   It was absolutely atrocious. Of course the on-screen audience cheered and cried at its greatness. I was horrified.

You've seen this movie done a million times and done far better than this trash.

Home Team
Kevin James attempting (poorly) to portray then-New Orleans Saints coach Sean Payton.

This was ABC After School Special bad.  James was horrifically awful (and he kind of is awful in pretty much everything).  I know he's trying to broaden his scope beyond the fat-ass Mall Cop.   He played a Nazi home invader in Becky. And this. Both are abject failures. All he is and all he can be is a shrugging schlump.  He's not meant for this. 

As bad as he is, the film is dragged to the burning pits of hell by Rob Schneider. Leaning into the man-bun-wearing dopey loser that he's done in several films now, he's the ruination of the movie. The proverbial silk-robe-wearing, shoeless straw that snapped the camel's back in half. Having that hack portray Payton's ex-wife's new husband (actually a normal and relatively wealthy real estate broker in real life) was clearly a case of Payton (or someone) taking a huge and vindictive swing at his ex.

Taylor Lautner is also atrocious. So bad.  In fact, the entire cast was struggling and awkward to find the rhythm.  BAD.

I only saw roughly the last hour of Feel the Beat and the first hour of Home Team.  I have no interest in catching the parts I missed of either.   I'd prefer more dental work to having to watch any part of either of them again.  Well.... except the broadway dancer who couldn't act a lick (not one lick) was pretty in a way.  She also couldn't dance (if in fact that was her trying and not a stunt double).
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Jumbo on January 21, 2024, 03:53:57 PM
Kaos, have you watched Tulsa King with Sly Stallone?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 21, 2024, 06:11:55 PM
Kaos, have you watched Tulsa King with Sly Stallone?

I have.  I think I put stuff about it in another section.  Maybe the Broun Hall one.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 27, 2024, 10:08:53 AM
Killers of the Flower Moon

I know this got all kinds of praise, attention, and awards.  In truth? I've never seen a compelling story told in such a boring and slow-moving fashion. 

The movie (almost FOUR hours long) outlines the story of the oil-rich Osage Indians and how the white men took advantage of them - primarily through the ruthless scheming of King (Robert DeNiro) and his nephew Ernest (Leonardo DiCaprio).  It tells it slowly. Painfully slowly.

It's basically the Beverly Hillbillies if Mr. Drysdale was a murderous banker with designs on eliminating Jethro, Elly Mae, Granny, Pearl, and Shorty in order to take control of Jed's fortune.

It was a tedious slog through people talking in fake country monotone and looking morose.

DeCaprio apparently decided that Marlin Brando's greatness was contained in cotton balls, because he did the same thing - stuffing his cheeks with cotton and then mimicking Jeff Bridges' jut-jawed mumble.

DeNiro I hate personally with great intensity. I get that he's supposedly a good actor, but every role he takes is just a variation on what he does in every role. This is no different. Same role. 

On top of that, the score was intrusive, headache inducing and rarely matched what was happening on the screen.  That, in itself, wrecked this film.

The story of the Osage and the greed-based murders that dogged their community deserved better treatment than this. 

It was too long, too boring, poorly told, and deadened by a head-pounding score. 

I do not recommend.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 27, 2024, 10:25:42 AM
Wonka

Got roped into going to the theater to see this. 

First, let me just say I didn't realize how much I have missed going to theaters. Got out of the habit over the last few years. Too convenient to wait on streaming. But it's not the same. There are things you just can't get at home. The dirty squeaky floor. The smell of popcorn. Watered down drinks. Previews. Before the movie even started, I decided the trip was worth it, and I decided I'm going to go more often.

I hope others do the same. It was a Friday night, and at a theater with 16 screens I bet there weren't two-dozen people there. I'm using this platform to encourage all five of you who might peruse this review to make the theater a part of your routine again. I don't want them to die. Yes, even though I believe Hollywood to be full of perverts and pedophiles; even though I suspect the Hollywood elites of even far worse than that; even though far too many films are used to promote anti-Christian, anti-American bias, there is still something about the "magic" of movies.  So go. Just be particular about what you choose to see (not Barbie, for instance. Don't watch that).

Now on to Wonka.

Completely unnecessary movie that nobody wanted. But look! It's got artificially inserted DI-versity! 

It wasn't terrible. It had a few humorous moments. It just had no purpose, no reason for being.

I didn't hate it. I didn't like it. I didn't not like it. It was like a piece of bland Wonka candy.  It's not Hershey, it's not Mars, it's not Lindt. It's like one of those non-descript bars schools sell for fundraisers or the Christmas bars you find in your stocking. Unwrap it, eat it, forget it.  I can't recommend. I guess if you like run-of-the-mill chocolate it's okay. There were lots of colors. And Hugh Grant as an Oompa. The rest I really don't remember.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on January 28, 2024, 02:11:08 AM
Talk To Me

Horror-ish Australian film about a group of kids that use a plaster hand to connect with tormented souls. Not necessarily bad, but a couple of things were problematic.

The lead was awful. I've never wanted a character in a horror movie to bite it in a brutal way any more than this one. Die. Please. Just die already. Just a bad character all the way through.

Also didn't much care for the OBVIOUSLY trans trying to be a dude, but quite clearly used to be a girl. Just a bad addition to the cast. 

All told, though, it was a pretty decent movie. Yeah, there were predictable setups, some really asinine logical leaps, a complete inconsistency in motivation and behavior, and some clunky dialogue but it had its moments.

There are worse horror films out there.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 04, 2024, 02:10:08 PM
Haunting of the Queen Mary

When a movie's over and you have to go find somebody to explain what exactly it was you just saw happen?  That means the director did an inadequate job of presenting the events in a manner which was understandable. When no one is quite sure what they witnessed? The director or storywriter has failed completely.

That's where the Haunting of the Queen Mary sunk.

Yes, Alice Eve has some impressive yaboobos. But they don't get any further than a flash of cleavage. That's about all I fully understood from this time-flipping exercise.

The film took place in two timeframes. There was a storyline about a voyage in the 1930s which contained murderous passengers, Fred Astaire, and an allegedly talented tap-dancing moppet.  That was intercut with a current-day storyline about saving the anchored Mary from "something" by writing a 3D interactive story from a child's perspective and focusing that story on the haunted history of the vessel.

None of it really made sense. Neither did the dwarf kid who played Alice's son or the brown man who either was or wasn't the dwarf's dad.

There was so much that was left unexplained. So many random turns and events that were rendered nonsensical.

I think the story itself could have been good. I think - and stress think here - the idea was that a modern day storyteller gets into the ship's history.  One by one, they are possessed by the souls of the passengers trapped there for years, essentially swapping bodies. Then the ocean liner's ancient passengers depart the ship in the bodies of the family they possessed.

That still doesn't cover about two dozen other stories left open. At least that many cryptic comments that just hang there, never to be resolved. Like, for one, why does one of the passengers have a mangled, gaping maw that's covered with a Halloween mask. If that's explained, I never got it.

This whole thing was just a muddled mess from a story standpoint. Visually, it was pretty good. Definitely had a decent production budget. Too bad some of that wasn't spent on hiring decent writers.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 10, 2024, 11:03:19 AM
Fall of the House of Usher

Let’s morph elements of all of Edgar Allen Poe’s works into a single disjointed time-hopping narrative.  And then slather gay all over it.  And then make sure to get a few woke digs in. 

Worthless. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 17, 2024, 11:07:46 AM
Spinning Gold

This story meant something to me.  I already knew a lot of it and was interested in seeing it played out on-screen. It's the story of 'go-for-broke' record executive Neil Bogart.

Bogart created Casablanca Records. On the advice of Bill Aucoin and perhaps due to his infatuation with Aucoin's business partner Joyce, he signed KISS, the first band on his new label. Not only did he sign the band, he stuck with them through three albums that sold poorly, stuck with them to the point of near bankruptcy, and then changed the world with a last-ditch desperation hail mary -- Alive! 

Bogart and Casablanca also brought us Donna Summer, George Clinton/Parliament, and the Village People. Before Casablanca he helmed Buddha Records and developed music that stands the test of time:  Isleys, Bill Withers, Gladys Knight, Charlie Daniels as well as a handful of one hit wonders like O-oh Child, Put Your Hand in the Hand, One Toke Over the Line, and more.

It's an interesting story of rags to riches to rags to riches to rags. Unfortunately this film does little to capture the essence.

It's more of a vanity piece, written, directed, produced, funded and overseen by Bogart's surviving family.  For that reason, the faults and quirks that made him interesting are glossed over.  It's more of a hosanna to his brilliance and includes Forrest-Gump-like scenes that almost certainly did not happen.

He did not teach Gladys Knight to sing Midnight Train. He did not dangle a microphone like a floating phallus to get a moaning performance out of Donna Summer. He did not have a heart-to-heart with Gene on a bus.

 It also fiddled and fudged with the timeline for convenience.  For reasons that make no sense, Donna Summer was credited with pulling Casablanca back from the brink and erasing mountainous debt when in actuality it was Alive! that was Casablanca's savior.  Bogart was weeks away from complete financial ruin when Alive! broke and gave his label new life.  Why the film shaded that an pretended Summer filled the coffers I don't know.

Bogart's is a story that would make a great movie. This isn't it.  Too much of his life was sanitized, bleached of substance, and excused.  We needed to see those personal failures without the sheen.  Glorifying Bogart robbed the film of so much depth.

Other things that damaged the film:

> KISS wouldn't license the actual makeup design so that looks bad. Really bad. 
>Ridiculous CGI used in several scenes. The scene outside a horse track between Bogart and his dad (portrayed by Lucius Malfoy/Col. Tavington) was worse than a used car commercial. It was atrocious.
> Horrible wigs and outfits. Jay Pharoah's was particularly bad.  Like they just ran out of wardrobe money and raided the prop room of an eighth grade play.
> The lead.  It was the guy's first film, taking over a role that was supposed to be Justin Timberlake's (before he wisely backed out).  He was a Broadway star and it was obvious he played it like he was on Broadway. That rarely translates well to film.
> Donna Summer was not a short, fat ball of lard. That was distracting.

Reasons to recommend:

> The closing song is really interesting in how it weaves portions of many of the songs that made Bogart's career. But, like the lead's overall performance it has a real Broadway quality to it.
> Lyndsy Fonseca is nice to look at and carried the 70s/early 80s vibe well
> Michelle Monaghan is also nice to look at (not so much here, and not given enough to do).
> The music is great throughout, even though in most cases they used knockoffs sung by the actors in the film rather than the originals

Those reasons are not enough to put this film on anybody's watchlist.

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 17, 2024, 11:19:25 AM
Oppenheimer

Ridiculously overstuffed cast.  So many people you know from other things.  Florence Pugh's natural little misshapen titties. I'm really sad for her that she chose to be all naked in THIS atomic turkey.

It's the most boring thing I've ever seen by a long shot.  I'm roughly an hour in. I will not make it another two hours.  I don't think I can stand one additional second of Cillian Murphy's mugging, monotone mumbling, staring, depressed moping, and over-acting. I cannot tolerate one more scene with Emily Blunt.  She's better than this.  I cannot sit through another three minutes of people sitting around over-emoting and bloviating.  I will not endure any more of the Oppenheimer dream flashes.   

FWIW, the jangling and discordant score is headache-inducing.

I don't care if that makes me uncultured.  This is a boring, tedious, dreary slog that bounces cack and forth in time and makes my entire skull numb fromg its drudgery.  Anyone who pretends to like this is just being pretentious.  The emperor has no clothes, just a massive cloak of boredom. I'm willing to point that out.

This is zero fun. Zero interest.  A bomb about a bomb. 

I will not finish this movie.  Not now, not ever.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 23, 2024, 03:05:34 PM
The Good Nurse

This is a very dark movie.  No, I mean actually dark. It's almost like Batman should be somewhere in the murky shadows. Every room, every scene, every situation is devoid of light and washed out. Sometimes, like Batman, it was so dark it was difficult to tell what was going on.

Jessica Chastain stars as a nurse who figures out that a colleague is possibly poisoning patients by adding insulin and/or digoxin to their IV bags. Doing it for sport, mainly.

The hospital where they work doesn't want to know or run the risk of litigation so they usher him out for a different reason. So he just lands at another hospital.

That's what spurs Chastain to help police get the evidence they need to put the guy away. As the look into his history he's worked at numerous hospitals, each tenure beset by patients who die unexpectedly.  When it all gets wrapped up, they estimate he may have killed 400-500 people this way over 16 years, and any time he was suspected, the hospital where he worked sent him packing, closed the file, and declined to record a reason. Liability, you know.

Eddie Redmayne played the murdering nurse. I've never liked the guy, don't understand the hype. He looks like what Google AI would create if you asked it to cross a weasel and Michael Cera (assuming that is they didn't make him black like nazi soldiers, black like the Founding Fathers, black like the Vikings, or black like Albert Einstein).  Whatever "talent" Redmanye has was dwarfed by Chastain. He just didn't measure up.

All in all, it's a pretty sobering story. We trust doctors and nurses to inject shit into us -- except the Vax, which was never to be trusted -- and assume it is going to improve our situation. It would be, and is, extremely simple for one of them to change the mix and poison us in a way no one would ever expect or think to discover.  Like with the phony vax. Most of the time he was just dosing bags of glucose, which almost all of us have had pumped in at various times.

I did not know when I started this film that it was a true story.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: chinook on February 23, 2024, 03:44:34 PM
Oppenheimer

Ridiculously overstuffed cast.  So many people you know from other things.  Florence Pugh's natural little misshapen titties. I'm really sad for her that she chose to be all naked in THIS atomic turkey.

It's the most boring thing I've ever seen by a long shot.  I'm roughly an hour in. I will not make it another two hours.  I don't think I can stand one additional second of Cillian Murphy's mugging, monotone mumbling, staring, depressed moping, and over-acting. I cannot tolerate one more scene with Emily Blunt.  She's better than this.  I cannot sit through another three minutes of people sitting around over-emoting and bloviating.  I will not endure any more of the Oppenheimer dream flashes.   

FWIW, the jangling and discordant score is headache-inducing.

I don't care if that makes me uncultured.  This is a boring, tedious, dreary slog that bounces cack and forth in time and makes my entire skull numb fromg its drudgery.  Anyone who pretends to like this is just being pretentious.  The emperor has no clothes, just a massive cloak of boredom. I'm willing to point that out.

This is zero fun. Zero interest.  A bomb about a bomb. 

I will not finish this movie.  Not now, not ever.

not to say you are wrong because you are not.  i liked the imperfect titties. 

anyway...i'm on day three of trying to finish this movie.  i hit the pause button on the remote thinking i have 20 minutes left...not 2 hours.  fuck.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 23, 2024, 04:38:02 PM
not to say you are wrong because you are not.  i liked the imperfect titties. 

anyway...i'm on day three of trying to finish this movie.  i hit the pause button on the remote thinking i have 20 minutes left...not 2 hours.  fuck.

I never finished (that’s what she said) and I do not regret walking away. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: War Damn Six on February 23, 2024, 07:13:54 PM
I never finished (that’s what she said) and I do not regret walking away.

I never started. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on February 25, 2024, 09:50:58 AM
Thanksgiving

Holiday's over. But it was there, so I sat down expecting a turkey.

It wasn't exactly a gobbler, but it wasn't a full horror meal anyway.  I wish Eli Roth was half as good at making horor movies as he thought he was. He's done a few that had substance.  Cabin Fever was fairly decent. Hostel was essentially torture porn, but it has a following. He's also done some absolute low-rent, trash-ass garbage. Same for his acting career.

How the guy sticks around, has a career, and gets people to give him money mystifies me. His movies are heavy-handed, idiotically gory, and typically take things a step too far.

Thanksgiving was his effort to get himself back from the "you're a sick bastard" fringe to the mainstream with a slasher movie that harkens back to the Jason/Freddy/Michael heights of the 80s and 90s.

Too bad the plot is unreasonably stupid. Too bad he doesn't care about structure, pacing, sense, or anything that could have elevated this movie beyond barely sticking its nose above the schlock swamp. It should have been a fun movie, but Roth's need to slather on gory kills above any desire to create a valid emotional motivation for the carnage keeps it mired in his infantile muck.

Yes, there were some creative murders. Yes, the lead girl had pretty eyes and a slight resemblance to a young Julia Roberts, and yes, he managed to snare Patrick Dempsey as one of the main characters, but the rest was a murky miasma of bland and lumpy mashed potatoes, cold gravy, dry ass stuffing, cranberry sauce from a can, and a badly undercooked bird.

It's not Thankskilling - which truly was a turkey - but it's not going to fill that "every holiday needs a slasher film" void.

I didn't hate it, but Roth clearly needs some medication.  Start with an ego deflater. He can't even make B-movies, it's more D-level.  That he rates himself as an expert on horror is kind of insulting to those of us who have a real affinity for the genre. He's a hack. This film, which could have been great in more skilled hands, proves it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 08, 2024, 04:46:55 PM
Ricky Stanicky

Amazon "comedy."  Zac Efron (who looks surgically ruined), John Cena. A terrible Jeff Ross cameo. William H. Macy looking old as shit. 

There was a whole lot of box-checking in lieu of funny.

Ginger soy sucker. Check. White guy married to black woman. Check. Weed smoking black gay slacker best friend (completely unrealistic pairing). Check.  Black guy's boyfriend - crippled and walks with those arm crutches.  Check. Another guy on crutches. Check. Disabled (badly) woman in a wheelchair who's an executive at a financial firm. Check. And now there's a dwarf. Check.

My first reaction is that it's unnecessarily crude. It's another flailing effort that choses crudity/vulgarity in the mistaken idea that comedy only exists in the gutter. 

If you have a desire to see John Cena dressed as Britney Spears, Alice Cooper or Boy George? This might be the movie for you. I mean it's mildly amusing in a place or two, but that's about all it holds. Just a second or two of brief amusement.

Cena's performance is really the only thing that keeps this from  drowning under its own cringey weight.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 09, 2024, 11:40:17 AM
Poor Things

I've now seen the three major Oscar contenders. Oppenheimer (overstuffed, overacted, underwhelming BORE). Killers of the Flower Moon (pedantic plod through history, poorly acted, poorly told).  And now this.  What an unmitigated, bizarre disastrous pile of nonsense. 

Emma Stone as a horny Frankenstein's Monster. Wilhelm Dafoe as the evil doctor himself. Mark Ruffalo as the gigolo lothario inexplicably attracted to the freakish Stone -- who turns into a mewling cuck.

Stone is getting widespread accolades for her portrayal.  This, is to me, a clear-cut example of Hollywood jerking itself off.

Her "performance" is terrible. Most of it consists of making (absolutely disgusting) o-faces while she humps her way around the world, shoves cucumbers up her twat, and rambles in in-effective, stilted speech.

It's supposed to be "Victorian England" but (pet peeve) the accents are come and go.  Dafoe occasionally croaks like Mrs. Doubtfire, but mostly doesn't.  Stone's flat accent has little to no British lilt, except every once in a while she does try to affect one and ends up sounding like a fourth-grader pretending to be Mary Poppins. Ruffalo's is even worse. It's there, it's not, it's BAD. 

Everything about this movie is weird and twisted from the score to the lens choices to the surreal visual palettes.

It's a horrible movie.  I think it's supposed to deliver some "feminist empowerment" message about a woman finding her strength in a world dominated by men - by using her twat as a weapon and a means of commerce.  It failed at that, too.

It's a vulgar abomination -- and I'm frankly not surprised to see Hollyweird falling all over themselves to gushingly jerk off to it.  It's not art. It's closer to porn.  The "performances" are porn movie level.  The story is porn movie quality.  I'd rather watch actual porn than be subjected to this. 
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 17, 2024, 12:18:55 AM
Damsel

How do you mess up a fairy tale so that it appeals to no one?

This is the way. 

Too violent for kids.  Too goofy and plot deficient for adults.  I could never figure out who the target audience for this poorly scripted, poorly acted cgi mush. 

Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on March 17, 2024, 06:48:07 AM
Damsel

How do you mess up a fairy tale so that it appeals to no one?

This is the way. 

Too violent for kids.  Too goofy and plot deficient for adults.  I could never figure out who the target audience for this poorly scripted, poorly acted cgi mush.


The best part of the movie was the dragon. Whoever did the voice did a good job of creeping me out at certain points of the film. Very devilish.

Millie Bobby Brown is welcome to take my Stranger Thing from the Upside Down. However, I do agree that it was poorly scripted. Hell, some parts were even dumb. For instance:

-Why did she cut her hair to fight the dragon? Speed boost? Did I miss her sprinkling it about to throw the beast off her scent?
- Tips and tricks left by previous girls in her situation accompanied with very detailed flashbacks of what they went through… dumb.
- The narrative of the movie is “Girl Power!”, which is fine… but most of the audience for an action movie with a dragon in it are going to be dudes that just want to see action & a badass dragon (could’ve been designed better). Purely my opinion.
- I counted maybe 10-11 times that she would’ve been dead had the dragon actually tried to kill her based on how overpowered it was killing everyone else. No consistency… “Let’s watch you climb up a crystal well and not breathe fire up your chimney!”

Just a one-time watch for sure.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 17, 2024, 07:54:44 AM

The best part of the movie was the dragon. Whoever did the voice did a good job of creeping me out at certain points of the film. Very devilish.

Millie Bobby Brown is welcome to take my Stranger Thing from the Upside Down. However, I do agree that it was poorly scripted. Hell, some parts were even dumb. For instance:

-Why did she cut her hair to fight the dragon? Speed boost? Did I miss her sprinkling it about to throw the beast off her scent?
- Tips and tricks left by previous girls in her situation accompanied with very detailed flashbacks of what they went through… dumb.
- The narrative of the movie is “Girl Power!”, which is fine… but most of the audience for an action movie with a dragon in it are going to be dudes that just want to see action & a badass dragon (could’ve been designed better). Purely my opinion.
- I counted maybe 10-11 times that she would’ve been dead had the dragon actually tried to kill her based on how overpowered it was killing everyone else. No consistency… “Let’s watch you climb up a crystal well and not breathe fire up your chimney!”

Just a one-time watch for sure.

The map on the wall was the stupidest one. 

They climbed their ass back in the lair to scratch it on there after reaching the end? 

As far as MBB? She’s a child.  With big man monkey paddles for feet.

Also the come and go British accent annoyed me.

By the way, when did dragons learn to speak. 


Another unrelated note.  The movie lost me to the point that I started thinking of other things.  Many cultures had winged dragons spitting fire as part of their lore. I wonder if those were actually ancient alien fighter jets and the scribes had no other frame of reference ?
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Snakebite on March 17, 2024, 09:15:46 AM
Another unrelated note.  The movie lost me to the point that I started thinking of other things.  Many cultures had winged dragons spitting fire as part of their lore. I wonder if those were actually ancient alien fighter jets and the scribes had no other frame of reference ?

You ever listen to Graham Hancock? He’s a little out there, but has dedicated his adult life to the theory that we are not the first advanced civilization on Earth. That we're the children of survivors from a time long forgotten. Technology and minds greater than our own lost to unknown cataclysmic events. Pole’s shifting, great floods, ice age, meteor impacts. It’s a cool thought experiment.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 17, 2024, 09:43:11 AM
You ever listen to Graham Hancock? He’s a little out there, but has dedicated his adult life to the theory that we are not the first advanced civilization on Earth. That we're the children of survivors from a time long forgotten. Technology and minds greater than our own lost to unknown cataclysmic events. Pole’s shifting, great floods, ice age, meteor impacts. It’s a cool thought experiment.

I have not. But I think about this stuff occasionally. 

 -- The Nazca Lines in South America.
 -- Brunelleschi's dome, that centuries of engineers couldn't understand (most of Roman engineering, actually)
-- Pyramids (and those in central America as well)

There are sudden technological leaps throughout history that are almost inexplicable.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 18, 2024, 11:19:06 PM
The Royal Hotel

Two party girls on holiday run out of money in Australia and have to get a job to put some cash back.  They're assigned by the job agency (I guess) to a really remote mining town where they can live and tend bar. 

Some mildly threatening things happen as the rowdy, horny miners vie for attention and then the two completely and totally overreact, leaving a mess in their wake.

Another glaring example that Ruth from Ozark can only be Ruth from Ozark. That was her one and only part. She was abysmal in that one where she played the fake girl and she's raw ass terrible here too.

Bad, stupid, dusty movie. Gets zero stars. I am dumber by far for watching it.
Title: Re: Kaos' way behind movie reviews
Post by: Kaos on March 24, 2024, 10:26:19 AM
Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning

Beautifully shot.

Incomprehensible.