What movies have you seen recently?

[TripleCrown9]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Yeah it's hard to play a big part in a sequel when you died in the previous movie.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

I wanna preface this by saying that I love The Dark Knight and it's my favorite superhero movie ever, but looking back in retrospect, Two-Face was wasted. You could remove him from the movie and not much would change from it. The character deserved more shine in the movie then ultimately being an A- Joker henchman.

He wasn't the character Two-Face deserved, but he was the character Harvey Dent needed.

Harvey Dent in TDK is interesting to me because he serves two purposes (shocked face):
1) He is the personification of Gotham's resilience
2) As such, he is the primary macguffin for The Joker.

The whole film is following The Joker trying to sow chaos in Gotham in order to break Batman's philosophy and code. It isn't enough for The Joker to simply have Batman kill him and cross that line, but to show Batman that Gotham isn't worth sacrificing yourself and his faith in the goodness of the people misplaced.

Harvey's arc is fascinating because on a smaller scale it's effectively how The Joker wanted to break Batman. Make him lose his morals and his code of laws and make him one man out for vengeance and personal retribution. The fate of Harvey Dent is the core of the film and the story. Like Gotham he is caught in the middle of Batman and Joker's tug-of-war over the soul of the city and its people.

Does The Joker win or lose ultimately? That is a point worthy of discussion I think.

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Ready Player One

I think I'll try and get the 3D Blu-ray someday if it doesn't come at such a premium price (seriously, I can't even find it under $40). For an A/V enthusiast, this definitely has some good punch to it. That plus the amounts of gaming lore and cinematic references make this a very enjoyable 2+ hours of viewership. There is one sequence in particular that Speilberg just wowed me with; I can't believe he was actually able to achieve that, and take some creative liberties with it along the way. Many who have seen the film probably know what I'm talking about. I also really liked what Mark Rylance did with the Halliday character, doing something in a throwback Speilberg kind of way with that small touch of childhood magic. I even was very concerned about the CGI before going into this movie from the trailers, but then when I realized the fact that it really needs to have that video game feel, I bought it pretty quickly and was okay with it.

Unfortunately, that's mostly where the good parts of this movie end though. I had a ton of problems with this movie, and I mean a ton. With all that was explained through expository means (and I had no trouble buying and suspending disbelief of), there were too many other things that could not be explained because otherwise the film couldn't use what it did. I'd probably have to re-watch the film to go through the list again, but it's filled with many plot holes, plot conveniences, and things where if you are a gamer you are calling total lack of realism with regard to how this movie underestimates gamers. I was shaking my head way too much, and I tried to turn off my brain but even then it was just too much at times. I can't believe that when drafts of this film were submitted or when an actual take happened, that nobody turned around and said: "Wait a minute, but wouldn't [insert issue here] happen?" They either deliberately ignored them, were oblivious to them, or hoped people wouldn't catch onto them. And I gave this movie a long leash for that. If Cinema Sins makes an "Everything wrong with Ready Player One" video, it's going to be like twenty minutes long.

Thankfully I guess I don't dig this film for the tight writing, and if there wasn't a 3D version I probably wouldn't bite the bullet to purchase. However, even if I do buy it I have to find it for much cheaper than it's selling for. Very cool movie, but very very insulting to the gamer audience out there. It's not enough to just pander with a bunch of character cameos and such, you really have to do your research and know how we think (and I say that loosely, because I am nowhere near the level of a hardcore gamer so I'm really speaking for those who I am aware of that are). Speilberg also played extremely safely with this flick, and that's not a good thing. I can't get into specifics without spoiling anything, but let's just say that his grasp was well within reach on many levels. I don't even know how the book played out but I'm willing to bet that didn't play as safely as this did. I guess that's just modern-day Speilberg for you, though.

Recommended for those who were interested before seeing the trailers, even if you were turned away afterward. At least there is a story involved and it was not dreadful in those respects, but the microcosms of the film really make you question how the heck they got into the final draft of the screenplay is all.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tomorrow I am planning on seeing Ant-Man and the Wasp, Crazy Rich Asians, and Slender Man.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Hadn't seen any of the MI movies, but my dad is a fan so I've watched one everyday since Saturday getting ready for Fallout (showing times suck today, probably gonna see it tomorrow):

MI: if I had seen this a long time ago, I'm not sure I would've felt compelled to keep going. It's almost like Assassins Creed 1 or Fast and Furious 1 before they went balls to the wall. Reminded me more of an old Bond movie.

2: Opens with long hair Tom Cruise doing his best Nathan Drake impression, has Thandie Newton as the female lead... Thought it improved on the first in every way, except the main plot maybe. The chimera thing was kinda lame.

3: I knew this one would be great because Phillip Seymour Hoffman was the villain. Dude is just too intense (in a good way). At this point I was convinced the series would just keep ramping up.

Ghost Protocol: Paula Patton... Long hair Tom Cruise again, Hawkeye being a bad ***. Intense top to bottom, really enjoyed it, just not quite as much as 3.

Rogue Nation: Really gives 3 a run for its money, Rebecca Ferguson was great in her role, the villain Lane, I couldn't remember seeing him before in anything but his facial structure kept making me think of Voldemort, so great villain lol. The whole scene in the Prime Ministers office... "Ethan Hunt is the living manifestation of destiny, and he has made you his mission." Too good. Can't wait for Fallout. Don't know why I didn't check these out before, I love spy stuff.

5/3>4>2>1 for me.

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Slender Man

Much like the Blair Witch, the Slender Man has always been scarier as an idea within the lore built around it than a literal and physical presence of it. We laud what the Creepypasta community has done to up the ante with the character originally created by Victor Surge (and properly credited at the end of the film as an early billing), and there have been positively freaky spins on the subject matter such as the YouTube project Marble Hornets, yet there have also been negative effects attributed to the character in the attempted murder in Wisconsin by prepubescent female friends. The tormenting figment of our minds is spooky enough to carry throughout 90 minutes of film with flashes here and there. Apparently Sylvain White (director) and David Birke (screenwriter) didn't get the memo.

I won't pretend like I could have written or made a better film, but I don't know if the right plot was chosen here. This is a story where SM is already embedded in the national consciousness and skeptical friends decide to attempt to summon him, only to bear the burden of his haunting, kidnapping and/or killing. I personally would have liked to see this have gone in one of two different directions: (1) have a tone more like The Ring where the demonic evil is not known as a figure but simply as a watched video with a curse (they even mention "virus" that would be a lot like the Ringu series and get into the anatomy of it), with no alias or concrete image in association to it; (2) let it play out more like a psychological horror, even if it means recapturing elements inspired by the stabbing incident four years ago. There would be larger opportunities to provide a certain cloud of mystery and intrigue to explore something further, rather than simply to have too tangible of a grasp on the subject matter. Idea #2 might glorify and inspire that notion a little more than we need though, and since idea #1 would tie more closely to the film's actual events I'd say that #1 would be my personal go-to. In fact, when the girls watch the video it actually reminded me of The Ring to begin with, and that was a good thing; too bad they did not continue much down that path.

Characters also never really had any kind of realistic dialogue. The opening conversation between two schoolmates just has you thinking: "This feels like they're reading a script." That's never a good thing. Like many horror movies, characters have trouble elaborating what they see and feel with each other, and it comes at an unnerving level here. Only one character ever tries to really cope with what's going on in a verbal manner, but she simply doesn't push enough to bring the others to her side and it feels like a lost cause. I'll admit that she tries, but she doesn't articulate herself well enough and from the outside looking in just comes off as sounding irrational. Well-written horror movies have characters who can actually think and speak rationally, yet still have trouble being able to overcome their villainous adversities.

The way it was shot was another concern of mine. This film is dark, and by that I mean it is dimly lit to a fault. I know they probably opted for more natural lighting at times, but even then there are no carefully-constructed shots to contrast silhouetted characters with some sort of lighter background from a light or a dusk evening sky. Even many interiors seem like people forget to pay their electricity bills as they only light up the bare minimum amount. Forget tone, this was just a slighted level of realism that probably could have resolved a lot of the characters' dumb moments if they just turned on a couple of more lights at times. They're also always going out on their lonesome after sunset, which tends to be a recipe for disaster. White chose to let sound play a major role in the film, but often did not establish a shot for us to sense our place in the scene. Everything looked too same-ish to lack the feeling of impact moments take place as they should. I think the choice of shots got better as the film went on, but at that point it was too little too late.

There were three scenes in the middle of the film that are almost back-to-back-to-back that probably provide the best overall tension. All three scenes have great buildup, but unfortunately only one executes strongly and the other two flatten out rather quickly. This mostly has to do with the fact that they try too hard to show more, and the effect is lessened as a result. That, or like many horror films it is just poorly edited (sorry to stray off-topic, but speaking of poorly edited... in the beginning of the film there is a "One week later" moment that shows up in the bottom right corner of the screen and it fades away the moment it comes on that you might actually miss it). The scene that pulls off its moments well works because of SM really only appearing soft in the background if that, and a lot of mentally-jarring moments for the character that make the sequence feel nightmarish. If more scary moments in the film were like this or if there were less attempts at scaring the audience in general, it would have heightened these moments much more and become extremely effective. Alas, it was not meant to be and we are resorted to cheap thrills. What makes matters worse is that I think some moments would have been great without inserting eerie music alongside them, and I don't want to call them jump-scares because to be honest there aren't too many here (most times they are intentionally telegraphed as they creep into the frame, but the ones that are there could have served better without the score).

Before those three scenes that I mentioned (and outside of watching the main video), the story really had trouble grabbing me; past those three scenes (outside of a great 'mentally disturbing images' sequence and one of the visual shots near the end of the film), the story really begins to whimper out. It tries to work in two other characters to an extent and does not deliver on carrying out their arcs throughout (add in one of the main characters as well), parent involvement is set to a bare minimum and they are useless when present (in fact, there's a weird bit where someone thinks they are at the wrong address because they didn't see any cars in the driveway... ever hear of a garage??), there is little to no conveyed emotion for the loss of people near and dear to the main characters to feel their motivation as a great driving force, nobody ever listens to anybody in the film except when it's a detriment to their cause, and for some strange reason the girls all know the passwords to each others' laptops (just a small nitpick on my end). Worst of all, Slender Man was only slightly imposing and just not very scary, and he appears far too often. When I watch the Marble Hornets series on YouTube and he rarely appears in a quick couple of frames, I get the most unsettling chill in my body. When I play Slender and am traveling the forest as the stomps begin happening, the tension ramps up and gets me in the right mood to freak me out when something actually happens, no matter how scary. As a constant, Joey King was the only onscreen redeeming quality of this abhorrent mess.

They should have gone with "less is more," and they instead went for the reverse tactic. That did not work for Blair Witch (2016), and it's no surprise that it didn't work here as well. This wasn't even in the "so bad it's good" camp unfortunately, and I am someone who will be curious to watch this regardless of any ratings. I do ask that you try and heed my warning when I say there is not much you are going to get from this movie. It wasn't scary, gripping, fun, exciting, or anything like that. Just a morose form of cinematic poppycock that probably came out five years later than it should have, and with the wrong story to boot. I just feel like they missed the mark on what makes Slender Man spooky, or they tried too heavily to rely on his spookiness to tell the story that they did.

Oh, and the first trailer ending shots of the girl in the dress is not in the film. I don't even know who that girl is suppose to be, because she is not in the film either heh. Sorry to spoil you there (more of an anti-spoiler).

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Getting tired and IMDb doesn't have the review section available yet for this film, so I'm going to leave a brief snippet here.

Crazy Rich Asians

An extremely solid romantic comedy entry that treads lightly on both the romance and comedy, and instead delivers a story built around culture, respect and trust, taking pages from Meet the Parents and The Devil Wears Prada. It is an absolutely accessible film for all audience members, even if they might have ehem so good of a time that I can't hear some lines because of the overdrawn laughter from others.

Through framing, editing and choice of music, director Jon Chu finds a way of bringing about action in a film that is entirely devoid of it. He really highlights Singapore as a character in the film full of vibrancy and vivacity, and we get to see the crazy-rich snobbishly entertain us as side-characters such as Awkwafina hilariously basks it all in and takes nothing for granted. We envy their possessions even if we may not envy their lifestyle.

Our main protagonist couple is a duo worth rooting for even though they let those around them bring us most of the character and laughs, and there is nice high tension built between our lovely lady Rachel and her boyfriend's mother. There are over a dozen characters which get the limelight with their own romantic subplots so you have a lot to take in, and even though it lets off the gas pedal after the first third of the film it coasts to a nice even pace where values begin to be established. There is something to be learned from both sides of the fence of rich vs. poor, Chinese vs. American, and want vs. need.

2018 in cinema is strong with Asian persuasion in this film and Searching, which both come out within merely weeks of each other. Make sure to check both out when you can!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I also saw Ant-Man and the Wasp, but since everyone else has already seen that I'm not going to get too deep into it. It was pretty good, not extremely heavy on the laughs or action but played nicely as a standalone from the rest of the Avengers stuff happening. Kind of a safe choice of film that really seems to work okay. Just like the first film I really don't much care for the ants themselves, and although the blowing up big thing seemed a little off in Civil War I liked when it was used here. Ghost started off interesting but kind of got annoying by the end. This whole film is pretty much carried by Paul Rudd's charm and wit (with shades of Michael Peña); without him I don't think I would much care at all.

Interesting to see how the events in this film carry into Avengers 4!

[ODogg]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Slender Man

Much like the Blair Witch, the Slender Man has always been scarier as an idea within the lore built around it than a literal and physical presence of it. We laud what the Creepypasta community has done to up the ante with the character originally created by Victor Surge (and properly credited at the end of the film as an early billing), and there have been positively freaky spins on the subject matter such as the YouTube project Marble Hornets, yet there have also been negative effects attributed to the character in the attempted murder in Wisconsin by prepubescent female friends. The tormenting figment of our minds is spooky enough to carry throughout 90 minutes of film with flashes here and there. Apparently Sylvain White (director) and David Birke (screenwriter) didn't get the memo.

I won't pretend like I could have written or made a better film, but I don't know if the right plot was chosen here. This is a story where SM is already embedded in the national consciousness and skeptical friends decide to attempt to summon him, only to bear the burden of his haunting, kidnapping and/or killing. I personally would have liked to see this have gone in one of two different directions: (1) have a tone more like The Ring where the demonic evil is not known as a figure but simply as a watched video (more can be explored as the film goes on), with no alias or concrete image in association to it; (2) let it play out more like a psychological horror, even if it means recapturing elements inspired by the stabbing incident four years ago. There would be larger opportunities to provide a certain cloud of mystery and intrigue to explore something further, rather than simply to have too tangible of a grasp on the subject matter. Idea #2 might glorify and inspire that notion a little more than we need though, and since idea #1 would tie more closely to the film's actual events I'd say that #1 would be my personal go-to. In fact, when the girls watch the video it actually reminded me of The Ring to begin with, and that was a good thing; too bad they did not continue much down that path.

Characters also never really had any kind of realistic dialogue. The opening conversation between two schoolmates just has you thinking: "This feels like they're reading a script." That's never a good thing. Like many horror movies, characters have trouble elaborating what they see and feel with each other, and it comes at an unnerving level here. Only one character ever tries to really cope with what's going on in a verbal manner, but she simply doesn't push enough to bring the others to her side and it feels like a lost cause. Well-written horror movies have characters who can actually think and speak rationally, yet still have trouble being able to overcome what's against them.

The way it was shot was another concern of mine. This film is dark, and by that I mean it is dimly lit to a fault. I know they probably opted for more natural lighting at times, but even then there are no carefully-constructed shots to contrast silhouetted characters with some sort of lighter background from a light or a dusk evening sky. Even many interiors seem like people forget to pay their electricity bills as they only light up the bare minimum amount. Forget tone, this was just a slighted level of realism that probably could have resolved a lot of the characters' dumb moments if they just turned on a couple of more lights at times.

There were three scenes in the middle of the film that are almost back-to-back-to-back that probably provide the best overall tension. All three scenes have great buildup, but unfortunately only one executes strongly and the other two flatten out rather quickly. This mostly has to do with the fact that they try too hard to show more, and the effect is lessened as a result. That, or like many horror films it is just poorly edited (sorry to stray off-topic, but speaking of poorly edited... in the beginning of the film there is a "One week later" moment that shows up in the bottom right corner of the screen and it fades away the moment it comes on that you might actually miss it). The scene that pulls off its moments well works because of SM really only appearing soft in the background if that, and a lot of mentally-jarring moments for the character that make the sequence feel nightmarish. If more scary moments in the film were like this or if there were less attempts at scaring the audience in general, it would have heightened these moments much more and become extremely effective. Alas, it was not meant to be and we are resorted to cheap thrills. What makes matters worse is that I think some moments would have been great without inserting eerie music alongside them, and I don't want to call them jump-scares because to be honest there aren't too many here (most times they are intentionally telegraphed as they creep into the frame, but the ones that are there could have served better without the score).

Before those three scenes that I mentioned (and outside of watching the main video), the story really had trouble grabbing me; past those three scenes, the story really begins to whimper out. It tries to work in two other characters to an extent and does not deliver on carrying out their arcs throughout, parent involvement is set to a bare minimum and they are useless when present, there is little to no conveyed emotion for the loss of people near and dear to the main characters, nobody ever listens to anybody in the film except when it's a detriment to their cause, and for some strange reason the girls all know the passwords to each others' laptops (just a small nitpick on my end). Worst of all, Slender Man was only slightly imposing and just not very scary, and he appears far too often. When I watch the Marble Hornets series on YouTube and he rarely appears in a quick couple of frames, I get the most unsettling chill in my body. When I play Slender and am traveling the forest as the stomps begin happening, the tension ramps up and gets me in the right mood to freak me out when something actually happens, no matter how scary. As a constant, Joey King was the only onscreen redeeming quality of this abhorrent mess.

They should have gone with "less is more," and they instead went for the reverse tactic. That did not work for Blair Witch (2016), and apparently they did not get the memo from there. This wasn't even in the "so bad it's good" camp unfortunately, and I am someone who will be curious to watch this regardless of any ratings. I do ask that you try and heed my warning when I say there is not much you are going to get from this movie. It wasn't scary, gripping, fun, exciting, or anything like that. Just a morose form of cinematic poppycock that probably came out five years later than it should have, and with the wrong story to boot.

Oh, and the first trailer ending shot of the girl in the dress is not in the film. I don't even know who that girl is suppose to be, because she is not in the film either heh. Sorry to spoil you there (more of an anti-spoiler).

It sounds to me like, after reading this, you 100% get it and I wish you or people like you would go to Hollywood and write horror films. Your description of the #1 and #2 ways to make this film better is exactly what I would have written.

Now granted, I have not seen this film (but want to) but reading your analysis does not surprise me at all, it looks like they really missed some good opportunities here just by the first part of your review.

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

It sounds to me like, after reading this, you 100% get it and I wish you or people like you would go to Hollywood and write horror films. Your description of the #1 and #2 ways to make this film better is exactly what I would have written.

Now granted, I have not seen this film (but want to) but reading your analysis does not surprise me at all, it looks like they really missed some good opportunities here just by the first part of your review.

Should you decide to watch it I'll allow you to provide your own insight as to whether they miffed at the potential it could have had from a cinematic standpoint, because remember I am also the person who suggested rewrites for Creed (read the discussion that JayBee and I had on that).

I just didn't see what good this movie would serve by not ramping up the scares after basically showing us what they told us. A part of horror films being scary is the fear of the unknown that the characters have, even if the audience is well-versed with it (good use of dramatic irony). There is not much mystery to be had here, and the mystique of Slender Man feels extremely hollow as a result.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Anyway, now that I am awake again and I see that the IMDb review page is open so I can leave my own lengthy review there, I'm going to give this a second shot here for you all:

Crazy Rich Asians

The romantic comedy genre is a flavor that gets a bad rap for being one-note and heavily playing on sappy/silly tropes, even if that is not always the case. I have learned to expand my horizons when it comes to the genre and fit more good titles in there that don't necessary hit that mark, including Deadpool (I mean why not?). Last year, we were graced with the best of the genre staple I've seen in a long time in The Big Sick because of its strong writing. I am pleased to say that we have a winner again this year, and a lot of it has everything to do with how the editing complements the writing and directing.

Crazy Rich Asians is an entry that treads lightly on both the romance and comedy (there are plenty of laughs to be had, I just never got an abs workout or fell out of my chair is all) and instead delivers a story built around culture, respect and trust, taking pages from Meet the Parents and The Devil Wears Prada. It is an absolutely accessible film for all audience members, even if they might have had *ehem* so good of a time that I couldn't hear some lines because of the overdrawn laughter from others. Through framing, editing and choice of music, director Jon Chu finds a way of bringing about action in a film that is entirely devoid of it. He really highlights Singapore as a character in the film full of vibrancy and vivacity, claiming set-pieces to dictate entire acts of the story. There is a lot of symbolism that is foreshadowed very subtly, and almost everything has a payoff instead of making the audience question what a certain setup was meant for. We get to see the crazy-rich invite us to their fantastical routines as side-characters like Awkwafina hilariously bask it all in and takes nothing for granted. We envy their possessions, even if we may not envy their lifestyle.

The first 1/3rd of the film is wide-open throttle on the gas pedal. There are colorful overlays to indicate locations and text messages that mesh with what is going on in the image, and they feel as if they want to arrive to the story about as fast as Get Out. Characters are introduced so fast that you will want to bring a pad and pen to web-diagram the whole thing, but Chu made a smart choice in having the audience remember characters less by their names and faces and more with their actions, like when you play a name game icebreaker with a large unfamiliar group. You start to figure out where people stand on the totem pole (us audience members are clearly at the bottom) and get to enter Rachel's mind as she's absorbing things at a breakneck pace, and we have to do the same. This representation may be that of the 1% end of things, but the wealth is only in your face from a glamorizing perspective and is not too in your face with snobbery constructed from their wallet and purse sizes.

Once this is all enacted we reach the second 1/3rd of the film, which lets off of that gas pedal and coasts for quite a while. It hit me rather fast like brake lights and I wasn't expecting it, so I called the film out a bit on its inconsistent pace and didn't feel the typical story arc of "rising action." Thankfully, what was lost in that art was found in character chemistry and intensity. Our main protagonist couple is a duo worth rooting for as they yearn for a cathartic endgame with one another, despite what morals stand in their way. They drive the story's purpose, but they are on the bland end of personality when it comes to delivering the comedic goods, and this is totally okay; they let those around them bring us most of the character and laughs. A couple of them are thrown in for the cheap shtick, but there are nearly a dozen characters which get the limelight with their own romantic subplots. This ends up being more than just one love story, and normally I would consider this a detriment but this drawn out middle act of the film spends a lot of time establishing tangible and intangible values, and these characters' interactions are a big part of that. We get a lot of conversation regarding the betterment of characters from each side of the proverbial fence that separates rich versus not-rich, Chinese versus American cultures, and wants versus needs. In a movie that could have easily only stated messages for an elite class of individuals or specific ethnic group, they spend a long time catering to the other 99% so we can be a part of the journey and not just seeing it from a particular lens.

I am purposely leaving out the story's pulse of tension between Rachel and Nick's mother, because I would like for you to strap in and see it all for yourself. As the film puts it at one point: it basically starts to feel like the two characters are playing chicken and they want to see who swerves away first. It doesn't quite reach Stiller vs. DeNiro or Hathaway vs. Streep in their respective film roles, but these two characters have a lot more to say that speaks to us and possible predicaments that we may encounter, especially regarding the ideas of family and what it means to be a part of one beyond the surface level.

We transition into the final 1/3rd of the film where I feel the story arc had found its footing again. I was recognizing aspects of resolve taking place, affect brought personal emotions within me to rise more (I started to get the feels when a scene took place where the only thing you hear are the sultry echoes covering an Elvis Presley gem), and although this is a romantic comedy that may hit some of the stereotypes that other ones do, you don't dismiss it as a negative thing because the way we arrive at those points feels organic and validating. I could not predict where this story was going to go or what it wanted me to come home with earlier on, but by the time we hit the credits (there is one minor "mid-credits" moment thirty seconds in, in case you intend on leaving your chair immediately) I was completely understanding of Chu's conveyed intent that he displayed within the two-hour runtime.

Ironically, his statement exceeds that of the film reel and the novel that this film adaptation is based upon. He is playing chicken with Hollywood, and I think he will strike victory here. Like Black Panther earlier this year and The Big Sick last year, we are beginning to realize that 'serving the underserved' is a good business strategy when there is a story to be told that requires exactly that. I am excited that both this film and Searching (please give that a look in a couple of weeks) is garnishing Asian leads without it feeling like an intolerable offense. Yes, one film is based upon that culture and the other just so happens to utilize characters of that background, but it just goes to show that mainstream audiences are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and come out the other side with smiles on their faces, saying that the film is "good" and not needing to bat and eye over the fact that they were not graced on screen with a white male lead. I could have done my review without stating any of this, but I really think this is one part that separates this from many other romantic comedies.

From the earlier marketing, I did not expect this movie to win me over. It did, and I think you will feel the same if/when you decide to check this one out. Story-wise I felt some unevenness, but Jon Chu strikes enough visual flair to make a duvet out of a blanket. What could have been a tedious sitting was instead a raucously good time, and I really feel like there is something for everybody here. It is a recommended watch, and so far stands as my romantic comedy of the year. Go check it out.

[Dave_S]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Deadpool 2. It was much better than I expected. I had low expectations going into the movie.

[Majingir]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

On the flip side, despite the good ratings for the movies, I don't like the Deadpool series. It has funny lines/moments, but it's not my kind of movie.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Saw MI Fallout last night.

I should probably see it outside of the excitement of having just watched the whole series in a week, but I loved it. Continuing on with the same gang from what is already tied for my favorite in the series (Rogue Nation), they continue to up the stakes. Tom Cruise is a madman and I love him for it. Lane with the scruff looks like a completely different guy. Benji in the field was awesome. THEY GOT ME AGAIN WITH THE MASKS, HOW DO I KEEP FALLING FOR THIS?!?!? My little brother trying to figure out who was on whose side after they took off the masks might've been my favorite part of the experience lol. Superman, awesome in his role. I was wondering where Brandt/Hawkeye was. And I've got one question:

Spoiler

is Alec Baldwin dead? If so, is Angela Bassett going to be the new Secretary? I'm very into that.

I think just because I made such a big deal out of the rock climbing in 2, when Hunt is hanging from the mountain I just immediately thought of that scene. And the end, without spoilers, basically being "We don't know if he did what he had to do but we actually do know he did what he had to do because he's Ethan Hunt" was perfect. It's long, but reminded me of Infinity War in that it felt exactly as long as it was, but I could've watched it for another hour.

Now my rankings are looking like 1a. MI:3, 1b. MI:F (6), 1c. MI: RN (5), 2. MI:4, 3. MI:2, 4: MI:1.

Great movie. I think I loved it enough to read Blzer's 8 page thesis on it when I get the chance.

[tdawg3782]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Saw MI Fallout last night.

I should probably see it outside of the excitement of having just watched the whole series in a week, but I loved it. Continuing on with the same gang from what is already tied for my favorite in the series (Rogue Nation), they continue to up the stakes. Tom Cruise is a madman and I love him for it. Lane with the scruff looks like a completely different guy. Benji in the field was awesome. THEY GOT ME AGAIN WITH THE MASKS, HOW DO I KEEP FALLING FOR THIS?!?!? My little brother trying to figure out who was on whose side after they took off the masks might've been my favorite part of the experience lol. Superman, awesome in his role. I was wondering where Brandt/Hawkeye was. And I've got one question:

Spoiler

is Alec Baldwin dead? If so, is Angela Bassett going to be the new Secretary? I'm very into that.

I think just because I made such a big deal out of the rock climbing in 2, when Hunt is hanging from the mountain I just immediately thought of that scene. And the end, without spoilers, basically being "We don't know if he did what he had to do but we actually do know he did what he had to do because he's Ethan Hunt" was perfect. It's long, but reminded me of Infinity War in that it felt exactly as long as it was, but I could've watched it for another hour.

Now my rankings are looking like 1a. MI:3, 1b. MI:F (6), 1c. MI: RN (5), 2. MI:4, 3. MI:2, 4: MI:1.

Great movie. I think I loved it enough to read Blzer's 8 page thesis on it when I get the chance.

Blzer's 8 page thesis hahahahahahahaha. It is well written though.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Caulfield]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

finally got around to 3 Billboards. It was better than Oscar-worthy. It should qualify as a Gene's Picks.

[Dave_S]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

finally got around to 3 Billboards. It was better than Oscar-worthy. It should qualify as a Gene's Picks.

I cried like a little baby.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Now my rankings are looking like 1a. MI:3, 1b. MI:F (6), 1c. MI: RN (5), 2. MI:4, 3. MI:2, 4: MI:1.

Somehow I've managed to not see a single Mission Impossible movie in the 22 years the franchise has been in existence. This past weekend we started watching them to gear up for the new one. We've only made it through the first two so far, though.

Anyway, MI:1 is definitely dated special effect wise. It's not distracting nor does it take away from the action sequences. The story is tight and tense - as are the action sequences. By today's standards it all feels a little underwhelming, but inside the world the movie creates it's entertaining and memorable. It's serious, but playful and when the movie goes over-the-top it feels within reason.

MI:2. Sweet baby Jesus is this a late 90s/early 00s movie. I actually remembering some of the marketing for this and the opening cliffhanging/climbing is seared into my mind thanks to the music video to Metallica's "I Disappear" which is truly an epic representation of early 00s rock (uninspired riffs and lyrics, overproduced videos, LEATHER, and highlights). Coming off of De Palma's at times understated flair on MI:1 John Woo's MI:2 comes in with STYLE and smacks you in the ****ing face with it every damn time. There is an enjoyable movie in here, but it comes in moments and personified in Thandie Newton's beautiful presence. Ethan Hunt is more serious than ever apart from the time he takes to do aerial kung fu, his parachuting flair, and his knack for biking skills. It is a fun movie, but you have to lose yourself in the over-the-top style of Woo. I lost count how many flying and back-flip kicks Ethan performed on his foes. Tricks are used repeatedly throughout the movie so that by the end any tension is undercut by an obvious "twist."