MetalPSI™
TCBF Member
I don't make the internet, I just report it
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 2,742
|
Post by MetalPSI™ on Jul 31, 2018 9:03:26 GMT -8
I dont like the seperation from the novel storyline and the way the story was told. To me it makes more sense to mix the two eras, childhood and adulthood, because it was so cohesive to the tension and thrills.
It is a decent update to the made for TV version, but besides Bill Skarsgard being creepy, it still feels very much for TV. The scenes that kept me awake at night as a kid reading the book is just not present in either screen version, and that dear friends, is a crying shame, because the book was fantastic.
The only King movie that has translated well so far has been Pet Semetary. As a teenager I had actual nightmares from that film
|
|
orius
TCBF Member
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 140
|
Post by orius on Jul 31, 2018 9:46:51 GMT -8
"The world has enough superheroes." You're goddamn right.
That said, this still looks like a generic anti-hero movie. Not really enthusiastic about Eddie being this soft wet towel making goofy remarks about the actions of his 'evil' side, the symbiote itself. I mean, the great thing about Venom was his thirst for vengeance. He's not supposed to be some anti-hero trying to do good. The very reason for his existence - the murder of Peter Parker - is removed entirely from the film, so now you're left with some cheesy anti-hero spitting lame one-liners. Considering how cringey Sony's one-liners were in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 ("It's my birthday, and I'm going to light some candles!"), I don't expect these "quips" to be remotely amusing, merely eye-rolling.
And is that supposed to be Carnage at the end? What the actual f***? It's like someone just had a massive diarrhea all over my screen.
|
|
MetalPSI™
TCBF Member
I don't make the internet, I just report it
Joined: March 2016
Posts: 2,742
|
Post by MetalPSI™ on Jul 31, 2018 10:30:19 GMT -8
According to google search, Carnage is indeed the "villain" of this movie.
Sony has proven time and again, they have no idea how to make comic movies. Just stop already.
Hopefully the Spawn reboot will be worth watching.
What someone should do, is make a Dredd sequel, or perhaps Pitt? I feel that would make an entertaining movie, if well done. At least it's a fresh story, if rated R. This dumbing down of cinema to appeal to the masses is killing the entertainment industry. I refuse to pay for movies anymore, I get my kicks on Andriod instead of going to the theater. I will continue to do so until the studios start making more R rated movies with some feeling and toss giving a what people think out the window.
|
|
|
Post by Bats on Jul 31, 2018 11:32:54 GMT -8
What someone should do, is make a Dredd sequel...
|
|
orius
TCBF Member
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 140
|
Post by orius on Aug 1, 2018 3:27:07 GMT -8
Finally, someone who actually hates this stupid overrated film. But Adam Johnston of YMS also loves Marvel films I find overrated, so meh. Kinda a hypocrite that he finds M:I films to be shallow and Marvel films like Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy to be good, when they both have similar traits of conventional storylines. But whatever.
|
|
orius
TCBF Member
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 140
|
Post by orius on Aug 1, 2018 9:39:01 GMT -8
The Invitation (2015) Disclaimer: This review does not contain spoilers for the movie.Finally, a great movie. Not just a "good" movie, but a great one that I could remember for years to come. I love suspense thrillers. When done well, they can pull strings on your mind, manipulate your logic, and just really make you question everything that's going on in the movie. The problem with it is that if it's done too well, you would learn the plot through the word-of-mouth and spoil the entire movie for you. But much like another splendid thriller I love, "The Gift" by Joel Edgerton, "The Invitation" by Karyn Kusama (known for "Æon Flux" and "Jennifer's Body") is obscure enough that it's a nice little gem that hits you by surprise. I won't spoil the plot for you, period. Because of the way the film gradually unfolds and reveals itself by the end, you really have to discover the plot yourself by watching the movie and not let it be spoiled to you by external factors (like the trailer, reading the premise on Wikipedia/IMDB, or just the word-of-mouth). I will say that its themes are things that most thrillers deal with; paranoia, grief, and fear of the unknown. You also have to pay quite a bit to the details if you want to be fully satisfied. It's not just the dialogue exposition, but also the ambiguous imagery cluing you into what's going on in the movie. As they say, "The devil is in the detail." Do be aware that the movie starts off as quite a slow burn for at least an hour or two, but this build-up is absolutely necessary, as the pay-off is so worth it. Finally, I will also say that the plot deals with a trend that made some headlines around 2015 and the few years before it. That's all I'm going to say, aside from the fact that I greatly enjoyed this movie. The mind-trip was satisfying. 9/10
|
|
orius
TCBF Member
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 140
|
Post by orius on Aug 2, 2018 9:11:06 GMT -8
Dancer in the Dark (2000) "OK, I'm a Nazi." - Las von TrierIt takes a certain mindset to enjoy the films of Lars von Trier - you have to hate people. If you examine his list of films, from "Dogville" to "Melancholia", there's a common misanthropy throughout these works, showing humanity at its ugliest and most irredeemable. There's no glorified happy ending where the hero wins. And I think it's because of such a negative extremity that I've enjoyed his works. They're unconventional and they're spiteful. In a way, I think it satisfies the spite within me too. For those who hate musicals, you'll probably like this film. This film spits in the face of musicals, calling it out on its idealistic bull , an idealism that ultimately brought our protagonist to her inevitable doom. On a similar note, it's also about the familiar tale of the American dream. You've seen the story before in many movies: Foreigner imagines a glorious future awaiting her in the land of the free, only to find herself betrayed by such foolish idealism in the most horrific manner. In a way, it's like a darker version of "La La Land". Both of them were anti-musical deconstructions that tore down the idea of idealism in musicals, but at least La La Land doesn't kick you while you're down as you mourn for the protagonist. Lars von Trier, however, holds no punches. But while I love the symbolism of the movie itself and what it represents, I have to admit that it is a tad long, and dragged a little towards the end. I felt like the movie could have ended 30 minutes earlier and leave the rest to audience speculation. That being said, these last 30 minutes were probably necessary in order to build up towards that grim final shot, to really set in the cynicism of the film, to remind you that no song and dance would bring any light at the end of that tunnel. In particular, when I saw the final parting words on the screen, it made me felt like I was watching a holocaust film, something akin to "The Diary of Anne Frank". It's bleak and joyless. I love it. I also like how the coloration of the film was used. For at least the first hour of the movie, everything was sepia-toned, as if to separate the idealism from the later (normal-colored) reality. And in spite of how bleak it all might seem, I think that it's still an ambiguous film where you might find a "glass half full" side to the story, that our dear tormented protagonist, appropriately named "Selma," has served her role and found her peace. Just a small little side note to end this review: people have often exaggerated that this film would tear you apart. I find the film to be quite tame myself, honestly, compared to the likes of "Grave of the Fireflies". I think it's largely because most of the protagonist's suffering isn't attributed to just her own foolishness, but also the inhumanity of others. Almost everything bad that happened in "Fireflies", on the other hand, was Seita's fault. Like at least 90%. But that's a review for another day. On the scale of how much I enjoyed this film, I liked it more than Melancholia, but not as much as Dogville. Dogville was really brutal, and really holds no punches in ripping against our ugly human nature. 8/10
|
|
|
Post by Bats on Aug 2, 2018 9:41:54 GMT -8
Dancer in the Dark (2000) You lost me at "Björk "...
|
|
orius
TCBF Member
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 140
|
Post by orius on Aug 2, 2018 9:45:49 GMT -8
Dancer in the Dark (2000) You lost me at "Björk "... Eh, as annoying as she might be, she didn't exactly get a heroic end. Worth to watch her suffer if you don't like her.
|
|
orius
TCBF Member
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 140
|
Post by orius on Aug 2, 2018 9:49:26 GMT -8
So this film, right? I've seen "Martyrs", I've seen all the "Saw" movies, I've seen "The Human Centipede" 1 and 2, and I've also seen "Salo: 120 Days of Sodom". None of them really fazed me that much and have been exaggerated to death (well, except Martyrs; that one was up ). So yeah, I heard a lot of people said how "A Serbian Film" was supposed to be the most up film of all time. What the ever, man. I'm kinda sick of watching films for pure shock value. Watching Salo did nothing for me except bored me to tears. I mean, if I wanted to watch that , I would just watch porn or some . So yeah, you can include that film as one of those films I'll never watch, but not because it's too up or anything, but because I'll probably be yawning.
|
|
|
Post by Bats on Aug 2, 2018 9:49:48 GMT -8
You lost me at "Björk "... Eh, as annoying as she might be, she didn't exactly get a heroic end. Worth to watch her suffer if you don't like her. But is it worth over 2 hours of my suffering to get there?
|
|
orius
TCBF Member
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 140
|
Post by orius on Aug 2, 2018 9:52:13 GMT -8
Eh, as annoying as she might be, she didn't exactly get a heroic end. Worth to watch her suffer if you don't like her. But is it worth over 2 hours of my suffering to get there? Well, technically, she's already suffering midway through, not only near the end. And besides, she doesn't exactly sing 'till at least halfway through. And she sung for only like... five times maybe? Anyway, you'd be missing the point if you focus on the singing. It's mocking the singing and dancing in musicals. It's an antithesis for them.
|
|
|
Post by Bats on Aug 2, 2018 10:05:52 GMT -8
I just don't bother with those sort of movies anymore. I watched all the Saws but got bored around 3. I've always preferred my horror to be supernatural. Ghosts, vampires, monsters, zombies, demons, magic, occult, etc. Hack and slash has just gone overboard. Way too much of it with very little substance. Gore for gore's sake. If I were John Carpenter, I'd stab my keyboard with a butcher's knife...
|
|
|
Post by Bats on Aug 2, 2018 10:08:22 GMT -8
But is it worth over 2 hours of my suffering to get there? Well, technically, she's already suffering midway through, not only near the end. And besides, she doesn't exactly sing 'till at least halfway through. And she sung for only like... five times maybe? Anyway, you'd be missing the point if you focus on the singing. It's mocking the singing and dancing in musicals. It's an antithesis for them. My God, I can't stand her singing! Even if it's anti-singing. Nope, she can save her drama for airport security.
|
|
orius
TCBF Member
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 140
|
Post by orius on Aug 2, 2018 10:14:12 GMT -8
I've always preferred my horror to be supernatural. Ghosts, vampires, monsters, zombies, demons, magic, occult, etc. Hack and slash has just gone overboard. Way too much of it with very little substance. Gore for gore's sake. If I were John Carpenter, I'd stab my keyboard with a butcher's knife... Ack, that's even worse. That's even more overdone. I'm even more bored with ghosts and supernatural monsters. They're so unrealistic and unoriginal. It's always the same ol' cliched ways of eliminating them and just humans acting like complete that make them deserving of getting killed in the first place. Yawn. Now, humans acting like scumbags against humans, that kind of film is much more horrifying because it can happen in real life. And I'm not talking about psychopath serial killers/hillbillies - that's stupid and boring too - but just selfish people tearing each other up. That's much more entertaining. You know, just films like "Funny Games" or Las von Trier films where the ugly side of people is shown, where nihilism meets misanthropy, where the movie tells you that there's really no meaning in life and when you die, nothing happens. Now that, that is some scary . Basically, my preferred kind of horror is more of the psychological kind, not the obvious scary like an obviously scary vampire or some creature from the black lagoon. Yawn. Maybe scary for a three year old and it makes for some fun creature design, but I personally find them to be a snoozefest. It's funny you should mention John Carpenter. The scariest thing in "The Thing" wasn't even the alien creature, but our human nature, our tendency to kill each other because we're suspicious of each other. Same with Halloween. Just a guy in a mask. No vampires, no blood-sucking crocodile monster. The only time supernatural monsters are entertaining to watch for me is when a film is mocking them and their tropes, ala "Cabin in the Woods", mocking all the horror tropes of dumb blonde and having sex. Great fun, but not the kind of horror film you would take seriously. I think Wes Craven's "Scream" movies had a special place for me because of this. It could be anyone wearing a mask and wielding a knife. No supernatural stuff. It hearkens back to the days of Halloween, when the scariest thing was that someone could just take a knife and stab you for the fun of it. Or how about "The Strangers"? Way too long and draggy for its own good, and the acting kinda sucks, but I liked the concept of the antagonist. "Because you're home." BAM! Very nice. Under better hands, it would have been more thrilling.
|
|