|
Post by lurker on Jan 16, 2019 14:06:00 GMT -5
Well what do we have here...
|
|
|
Post by windfisch on Jan 24, 2019 13:22:23 GMT -5
I don't know - Ghostbusters 3 could be fun. But at this point it seems a bit desperate and confused from the studio (a bit like they handled post-Raimi Spiderman). And it's especially awkward as the reboot had the same name as the original. And frankly, the 2016 film was okay, not great and sometimes a bit "meh", sure. But I think there was enough potential there for an improved sequel.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Alien on Jan 24, 2019 17:59:13 GMT -5
I don't know - Ghostbusters 3 could be fun. But at this point it seems a bit desperate and confused from the studio (a bit like they handled post-Raimi Spiderman). And it's especially awkward as the reboot had the same name as the original. And frankly, the 2016 film was okay, not great and sometimes a bit "meh", sure. But I think there was enough potential there for an improved sequel. The teaser had me moderately interested, but to be honest, it's way too late now; while I liked the two original films I'm not saying they were the best thing ever made so I'm not afraid of no ghost that this sequel will ruin their legacy or something like that, at the same time I don't think that GB is still going to be relevant 30 years later while the world has drastically changed. So I don't really care either way.
I saw recently the 2016 reboot and I think it sucked balls. It's not a question of the cast being female, I didn't really care about it: I just found it painfully unfunny, stretched out, with most things being rehashes (rather than homages) from the 2 movies and the cartoon, shitty SFX that costed millions and looked like they came from the Scooby-Doo films, the only interesting things (New York turning into its 1970s self) put there with no real reason and quickly forgotten about, and a terrible villain. If you're a misanthrope that wants to exterminate all humanity, and manage to mind control dozens of soldiers, policemen and special forces, what are you going to do with them? Murder everyone? No, just make them stay in place and dance! Sorry, what is this, The Mask? It had the same problem that plagued several reboots of the past years, turning the original source into a parody of itself: I don't understand what the point is, just managing to piss off both old and new fans?
|
|
|
Post by lurker on Jan 24, 2019 18:16:47 GMT -5
I don't know - Ghostbusters 3 could be fun. But at this point it seems a bit desperate and confused from the studio (a bit like they handled post-Raimi Spiderman). And it's especially awkward as the reboot had the same name as the original. And frankly, the 2016 film was okay, not great and sometimes a bit "meh", sure. But I think there was enough potential there for an improved sequel. The teaser had me moderately interested, but to be honest, it's way too late now; while I liked the two original films I'm not saying they were the best thing ever made so I'm not afraid of no ghost that this sequel will ruin their legacy or something like that, at the same time I don't think that GB is still going to be relevant 30 years later while the world has drastically changed. So I don't really care either way.
I saw recently the 2016 reboot and I think it sucked balls. It's not a question of the cast being female, I didn't really care about it: I just found it painfully unfunny, stretched out, with most things being rehashes (rather than homages) from the 2 movies and the cartoon, shitty SFX that costed millions and looked like they came from the Scooby-Doo films, the only interesting things (New York turning into its 1970s self) put there with no real reason and quickly forgotten about, and a terrible villain. If you're a misanthrope that wants to exterminate all humanity, and manage to mind control dozens of soldiers, policemen and special forces, what are you going to do with them? Murder everyone? No, just make them stay in place and dance! Sorry, what is this, The Mask? It had the same problem that plagued several reboots of the past years, turning the original source into a parody of itself: I don't understand what the point is, just managing to piss off both old and new fans?
Honestly, if it didn't have those things, people probably would have complained that it wasn't enough like Ghostbusters.
|
|
|
Post by windfisch on Jan 24, 2019 19:58:13 GMT -5
I saw recently the 2016 reboot and I think it sucked balls. It's not a question of the cast being female, I didn't really care about it: I just found it painfully unfunny, stretched out, with most things being rehashes (rather than homages) from the 2 movies and the cartoon, shitty SFX that costed millions and looked like they came from the Scooby-Doo films, the only interesting things (New York turning into its 1970s self) put there with no real reason and quickly forgotten about, and a terrible villain. If you're a misanthrope that wants to exterminate all humanity, and manage to mind control dozens of soldiers, policemen and special forces, what are you going to do with them? Murder everyone? No, just make them stay in place and dance! Sorry, what is this, The Mask? It had the same problem that plagued several reboots of the past years, turning the original source into a parody of itself: I don't understand what the point is, just managing to piss off both old and new fans?
Well, it had some moments where I was just rolling my eyes and the jokes that worked for me were rather mildly amusing than laugh out loud funny. But it did not offend me the way many recent Hollywood-blockbusters do.
What I honestly don't get is why people complain so much about the special FX. They're certainly nowhere as charming as the ones from the first two movies, but to me they looked just fine. I'm normally easily annoyed by the fake-ness of modern SFX, but in this film I can't remember seeing anything stand out as terrible. Would you like to elaborate on what you specifically did not like about them?
|
|
|
Post by eatersthemanfool on Jan 24, 2019 22:28:55 GMT -5
I just saw First Man, the Neil Armstrong movie.
Frankly it sucked. The cinematography was beautiful but the film itself was just a string of missed opportunities and janky editing. It jumped around and skipped all the stuff that I most wanted to see.
|
|
|
Post by jackcaeylin on Jan 25, 2019 14:56:08 GMT -5
I watched two movies.
-Suspiria 2018
What an awful movie. The only thing that I liked are the transition scenes, but everything else was really lacking and weak. I didn't understand why the old man had such a weird voice. Did he get a female dub? It was quite irritating in certain scenes. The visuals were really boring. I can understand, if the director didn't want to make colourful scenes like in the original, but doing nothing is kinda worse. It had this plain grey filter. The dialogue was so weak. The ending didn't really surprise me, especially because we learn nothing about the characters. This is an instrument for poor writing and doing a lame character twist in the end. The ballet could be great. I don't know, because of these annoying edits. I don't really understand the directors intention. The pacing is really glacial and that would work, if they would throw/bait some interesting points, but they did literal nothing. The teachers were great, but kinda wasted in this movie. This is the first time where a movie wasted my time. I really hate the line, but in this case it really feels appropriate.
-Scarface 1983
This movie was great. The main character was perfect in his role. I watched the movie when I was 10 years old, thus I decided to revisit the movie. It is better than I thought. Although the ending wasn't that memorable. The restaurant scene with the line "you need guys like me" was much stronger and had a strong impact and it explains a bit the mind of the depressive Toni. The architecture was great too as well as the dialogue.
Yours sincerely
Jack Caeylin
|
|
|
Post by toei on Jan 25, 2019 17:38:54 GMT -5
Yeah, Scarface as a movie IS Al Pacino. The accent is maybe not accurate, but in this case it doesn't matter cause the character is so vivid and larger-than-life that you don't care. I do like the ending, if only for the coked-up "I TAKE ALL YOUR FUCKING BULLETS" line, but I agree it's not the best part of the movie or anything.
Also, I'm pretty sure every single line of Tony Montana's dialogue in that movie has been sampled in a rap song.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Alien on Jan 29, 2019 13:16:26 GMT -5
What I honestly don't get is why people complain so much about the special FX. They're certainly nowhere as charming as the ones from the first two movies, but to me they looked just fine. I'm normally easily annoyed by the fake-ness of modern SFX, but in this film I can't remember seeing anything stand out as terrible. Would you like to elaborate on what you specifically did not like about them?
They were well done, but in my opinion they were a bit too polished and turned out to be somewhat "videogamey", especially the final fight with the giant ghost, and standed out too much with the rest of the scenes. The FX from the old films were more artisanal obviously, but I think they somewhat blended better with the rest of the film.
About the ghosts: I get they had to create a sense of familiarity, but the female ghost at the beginning was just the Library Ghost + Vigo, and the electrocuted man was a more realistic Scoleri Brother. The giant ghost at the end was just lifted from the cartoon's opening. The ghost at the concert wasn't inspired by anything but it had a very generic demon/dragon design that reminded me somewhat of the flying gremlin from "Gremlins".
|
|
|
Post by Snake on Jan 29, 2019 13:37:33 GMT -5
Detective Conan: Zero the Enforcer
The usual Conan plot. A crime mystery, where the criminal is the type to get revenge for the sake of someone they felt responsible for. Fan service via giving each main character some kind of role. The ending goes particularly over the top, with the RX-7 chase scene. Fun to see once, but I don't have any particular desire to rewatch it anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by windfisch on Jan 29, 2019 16:33:44 GMT -5
What I honestly don't get is why people complain so much about the special FX. They're certainly nowhere as charming as the ones from the first two movies, but to me they looked just fine. I'm normally easily annoyed by the fake-ness of modern SFX, but in this film I can't remember seeing anything stand out as terrible. Would you like to elaborate on what you specifically did not like about them?
They were well done, but in my opinion they were a bit too polished and turned out to be somewhat "videogamey", especially the final fight with the giant ghost, and standed out too much with the rest of the scenes. The FX from the old films were more artisanal obviously, but I think they somewhat blended better with the rest of the film.
About the ghosts: I get they had to create a sense of familiarity, but the female ghost at the beginning was just the Library Ghost + Vigo, and the electrocuted man was a more realistic Scoleri Brother. The giant ghost at the end was just lifted from the cartoon's opening. The ghost at the concert wasn't inspired by anything but it had a very generic demon/dragon design that reminded me somewhat of the flying gremlin from "Gremlins".
Thanks for clarifying. And to some degree I agree with your "too polished" and "somewhat videogamey" sentiments. Special effects arguably were at their best during the 80s and early 90s, when not everything you see on screen had to be created and composited by hopelessly overworked and underpaid 3D-artists (there seem to be some parallels to the games industry..).
|
|
|
Post by lurker on Jan 29, 2019 17:17:39 GMT -5
Granted the original's effects could be iffy at times (like when the demon dog at Lewis' party takes out the table).
|
|
Preki
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by Preki on Jan 30, 2019 15:14:26 GMT -5
Akira. Yep, you'll probably be like: "where have you been all the time? Under a rock!?". I was aware of the movie for quite a long time but I never really had much time to watch it, among doing other things. And no wonder why this one is considered to be a damn classic. The animation aged pretty well (talk about those cityscapes!) and I absolutely enjoyed the story, even if it would be better off being anime series rather than a single movie - the story in manga is much more elaborate, but I don't have time for that.
|
|
|
Post by Snake on Jan 30, 2019 16:49:11 GMT -5
Akira. Yep, you'll probably be like: "where have you been all the time? Under a rock!?". I was aware of the movie for quite a long time but I never really had much time to watch it, among doing other things. And no wonder why this one is considered to be a damn classic. The animation aged pretty well (talk about those cityscapes!) and I absolutely enjoyed the story, even if it would be better off being anime series rather than a single movie - the story in manga is much more elaborate, but I don't have time for that. It's okay, I was also living under a rather large rock for a while. I didn't get around to watching Akira until like, 5 years ago. I'm particularly impressed by how well the animation quality holds up. It was pretty high budget, and Otomo spent a lot of work on the film and animation cels. I might be of the unpopular opinion of preferring the film to the manga. The manga felt like it dragged on longer than it needed to, though I do prefer the manga's ending to the film's. The film is better paced, plus I enjoy seeing all the psychic powers and grotesque forms in action. Akira and Kimagure Orange Road are the two 1980's series that made good use of psychics/ESPers as plot points.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Jan 30, 2019 18:02:29 GMT -5
IIRC, the manga wasn't finished when the movie was made, so they ended up with very different final acts. Which is good, cause it actually justifies watching the movie AND reading the manga. I'd say it's a good thing it was made into a movie rather than an anime series - the animation wouldn't have been nearly as spectacular, and there would've inevitably been some dumb filler along the way.
|
|