What movies have you seen recently?

[lowpaiddonkey10]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Oppenheimer pretty good. Barbie not so hot. Mission Impossible always at least decent. I like 1 and 3 granddaughter gives Barbie thumbs up.

[Kramer5150]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Watched an all time favorite of mine last night...Clint Eastwood in the 1979 great, Escape from Alcatraz.

An absolute masterpiece of a film and one I could watch over and over again.

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Barbenheimer

These two movies couldn't have been any more different, and that was an absolute delight.

On the one hand, Barbie feels like a summer movie in every sense of the word. It is (for the most part) light on its feet, fun, obviously Barbie associates with beachy/vacation vibes and sunny days, and it brought people in droves with families and people of all ages. It was shot digitally, everything is clean and vibrant, and the young(er) cast overwhelms the majority of the screen time with beauty, curves, and muscles. It will mostly overjoy the audience with smiles and laughs, poking fun at the source material as much as it embraces everything that it has evolved to be over time.

On the other hand, Oppenheimer is a long, serious, chatty biopic overwhelming by its score and editing. You endure the film in a state of cold, and you might leave horrified about our world. The cast ranges much older minus a few players, and is generally male-driven as Nolan can only write best for. Nolan is also known for shooting on film with sequences in IMAX, with not a single visual effect to be found and everything shot in-camera. It mutes any luscious tones in the color timing (with some sequences in black-and-white), and the audience hangs on every word of dialogue as the score flows from scene to scene marking the film's heartbeat. Where it lacks in fun, it makes up for in sheer impact. This feels absolutely nothing like a summer blockbuster, because it isn't.

Both films were wins, and as much as I have found films to be 'thumbs up' for the most part this summer these two really fall on a weekend where I think they are going to explode onto the scene for really any moviegoing demographic. Having a choice of either of these two as well as something like Mission: Impossible or Indiana Jones (which I also saw but forgot to leave impressions) is making for a splendid July.


Barbie

Margot Robbie envelops the stereotype and is fantastically cast. Ryan Gosling perhaps even outperforms her as Ken, and leads most of the film's laughs. America Ferrera really caught up with the cast at the end and delivers some of the more powerful messages, and any time Michael Cera was cut to on screen I couldn't help but laugh. I didn't think Simu Liu added very much for being as heavily billed as he was, and Will Ferrell didn't seem to be well written either for comedic bits or for how the character was supposed to serve the movie.

I think this works well whether you're a fan of Barbie or not, but even if you're not I think your awareness of the doll (or how people play with them) is good for many of the physical jokes you see on screen. I laughed quite a bit, but don't know if I would as much on repeat viewings. I was wowed by the production design of Barbie World, though. I bet the actors had such a fun time shooting this movie, and many scenes required a lot of people on camera at a time so I hope they appreciated their time regardless.

I found it to be a little uneven at parts as they go back-and-forth from Barbie World, wishing that they stayed in some places longer/shorter than others. I also wonder if maybe 5 minutes could've been cut out when delivering messages as a bit of low-hanging fruit for the audience, because this is most fun when just being a Barbie movie. Maybe if this was written and filmed a decade ago you'd get something slightly different hammering that message down. I'd say if they cut out some of the Will Ferrell scenes that would have helped as well.

I enjoyed watching this movie though, and think Greta Gerwig has just made hit after hit with Lady Bird, Little Women, and now Barbie. I'm not a big Narnia fan, but I wish her luck in that franchise.


Oppenheimer

When the credits rolled, I sat stunned. I was drained yet filled at the same time, because I got all the movie that I needed but it exhausted me too. You'd think that a three-hour movie would make people ask what could've been cut out of it, but I literally don't know where they could've cut anything out of this and told the same story.

Make no mistake, this moves at a breakneck pace. The dialogue is fast-moving, the scenes cut quickly and jump around in time, and if you don't keep up with it this film will unapologetically leave you behind. I will say though that they will intentionally cliffhang some moments, so in case you're wondering how something resolved or what something's purpose is, just trust that it will use time later to revisit those things and that you should just keep with the movie in the meanwhile.

If you're going into this movie expecting loads of action or spectacle though, you're in the wrong film. This is almost entirely dialogue-driven, and even though Oppenheimer made the atomic bomb don't expect that to be its punchline. This is a biopic about the man himself, indeed including the creation of the bomb and the unintended consequences of its creation. It's funny because I avoided all marketing this film not wanting to be spoiled, and yet I don't really see much of what could be spoiled. It seems rather historically accurate, and essentially only the words drive the plot, for which there are many.

There are also many characters, and it seems every character is portrayed by an actor you somehow know. Off the top of my head I can name Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey Jr., Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett, Kenneth Branagh, Alden Ehrenreich, Jason Clarke, Benny Safdie, Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Dane DeHaan, Matthew Modine, Tom Conti, and even Gary freakin' Oldman. Many of them don't get too much screen time at all, but in the three-hour runtime they may play a part earlier and then come back later or be referenced again so having a face that you know well is important for that reason, though hearing the character name sometimes not so much (sometimes Nolan makes a quick cut back to that character when they say the name in passing to remind you, which is nice). There were standouts throughout, but I'm speculating Murphy and Downey will receive Oscar recognition. Heck, this whole movie will likely be receiving Oscar recognition. Picture, director, adapted screenplay, cinematography, score, editing, and sound will likely be nominated alongside a couple of actors.

This movie felt extremely "important," and I don't know how else to put it other than to say it. It has been living rent-free in my mind the past 24 hours, and I have really thought of the technology this world bears to suddenly feel entirely horrifying. This is definitely something I'll need to watch again to be able to take everything in, but within here is world-class filmmaking, and I feel like Nolan has been practicing a lot of elements in his craft for the past few films to lead to this.

It is not without some negatives, though. I didn't feel much emotional drama as Oppenheimer interacts with Pugh and Blunt's characters, the IMAX aspect ratio switching was far too frequent and jarring, it definitely is an overstuffed film that is hard to keep up with and remember characters with (or their overall function), although the actors lend some recognition they can throw you out of the movie when they first show up, and I wonder how some of its impact will hold up without playing Ludwig Goransson's score in a massive theater. Even still, I think this film will stand the test of time and be talked about in the same breath as Oliver Stone's JFK. This may be Christopher Nolan's magnum opus.

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Okay, so this post is a couple of weeks overdue, so it's best I post it before I'm forgetful of everything.

To brush up on the latest Indiana Jones film in theaters, I binged all of the previous four films beforehand. I had only seen Raiders of the Lost Ark long, long ago, perhaps almost 25 years ago now. I only remembered one or two moments within the whole film, minus times it has been referenced or meme'd since in pop culture. I hadn't seen the others (though I see how some of those were also referenced in the past), so the rest was fresh for me.

I love how each film was able to have the Wilhelm scream, though.


Raiders of the Lost Ark

This movie dazzled. Adventure, charm, wit, and intrigue were all present, with extra kudos given to Spielberg, Ford, and Williams (which remains unchanged for the original trilogy). I thought some of the hand combat action looked pretty fake and silly, but that's par for the course from that time period and you can appreciate the less edits needed to achieve the shots they still wanted. The pursuit toward the end was great stunt work that almost makes you forget any other potential negatives in the action. As a six-year-old kid when I believed I could fly with a cape on or run as fast as Sonic, this movie would've made me believe I could swing anywhere with a lasso.

The final act was a bit of a drawback for me, though. Personally, I found it extended the film worse than The Lost World: Jurassic Park did once it reached San Diego (of course, both directed by Spielberg). I also wasn't ready for any supernatural elements, which I suppose is something they wanted to have and carried over to the sequels, but that wrench was thrown in without me being prepared for it, and I think it's all a part of the final act that went awry for me. Other than that, this is a true winner.


Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

I will chalk it up to being my fault for blinking or straight up not paying attention when they showed the year this movie takes place, at least compared to Raiders, because when watching this I did not know this was a prequel and it was making me upset time and again. I was wondering where Marion was, and even though Indy closed his eyes during the opening of the ark he had to have known that the concept of "magic" should exist in his universe with all of the Nazis being wiped out. Of course, it made more sense learning that it was a prequel, so I can forgive it for those. I can't forgive it for the rest, though.

Willie was unbearable. I feel for her situation in every which way, but she is not fun to watch on screen. Then her seduction came absolutely out of nowhere. Short Round was "fun" to be added in, but there is a point of believability that was lost when he was taking out baddies. I guess I should've known how unrealistic they'd go with the rest of this though after seeing the raft moment. Then the movie is inconsistent with its own rituals (didn't take Willie's heart out), and overall having the entire movie pretty much take place in this temple was just kind of boring. It took away the adventure, and was just really dark overall even when it tried to add levity.

All that being said, man was that cart chase the tits. That was probably some of the most thrilling action of any Indy film, and I was all for that. I can't expect the rest of the movie to live up to that level, but instead it lulled, grossed, confused, or annoyed me a little too much following up from Raiders. I'm just glad this wasn't a sequel as to not disrupt that continuity like I imagined it had.


Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

This was *chef's kiss* phenomenal. Easily my favorite one of the series. The opening with young Indy starts off incredibly, Sean Connery was a welcomed addition to the story, any supernatural elements didn't override the overall adventure, it was funny when it needed to be, the action felt diversified and dangerous, and although it was again missing Marion the stakes remained high for characters so that you car the whole way through.

A couple of moments were telegraphed, but their revelations were so early that it's okay enough because I feel like it's something that a trailer today would show the development for anyway. I think the only cheesy moment was the umbrella/pigeons bit, but it seemed in-character with Henry. This followed up greatly from Raiders and even had a lot of callbacks, and despite not actually being the final film, it felt like a good capper all the same.

I just think this is the film where everybody figured out what they wanted this franchise to be, and they maxed out here. Ford understood Indy most here and had fun with it, and the tandem of Spielberg and Williams made peak moments feel earned through every take. I have very little to say about this movie that would constitute as a negative.


Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Although this was still shot on film, everything about its production felt digital. Maybe it was the way it was finished with a DI as well, but when you combine the CGI, green screen, and color timing, it had the licks of feeling modernized where it maybe shouldn't have been. I guess the better way of putting it is that although it takes place in the 1950s, it feels like it's set in the 2000s, but with people wearing older clothes and driving older cars. Many historical films made in this century seem to have this problem, and you can chalk this up to the aforementioned reasons as well as things like dolly/crane shots and whatever else is done in post to "clean up" the image, as well as quicker edits. There was something tangible about seeing Harrison Ford hanging from a tank or going toward a ship propeller that you just don't feel here. That is just me going off on a rant, though. Many movies today have a problem of losing that aspect of practicality, so it's just a shame that Indy shares that same fate.

The rest of the movie doesn't do much better, though. Cate Blanchett is an uninteresting villain, Shia LaBeouf did okay but was not someone you'd want to see moving forward, and don't get me started on the jungle/waterfall sequences or the ending "reveal." It completely lost me there, but it never grabbed me either with the crystal skull itself. It was by far the worst McGuffin of the franchise, and what it led to was even worse. Ray Winstone felt like he was in the wrong movie, and I hated stringing Oxley along or taking up screen time to deal with his situation. Harrison Ford was still great, though.

This was even a big step down from Temple of Doom, and I had hopes for seeing the positives where maybe others wouldn't but they just weren't there. I will say, however, that the fridge scene didn't bother me as much as others, or at least it didn't bother me as much as the raft scene in Temple of Doom (this movie had worse moments in the jungle).


Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

I think this was more true-to-form for Indy. James Mangold out-Spielberg'ed Spielberg from his 2008 entry. The opening was a fun act, though having seen Dead Reckoning before it it was funny to see another train action sequence (though with more greenscreen and CGI, not talking about the de-aging). Even still, it brought me back some. Phoebe Waller-Bridge was tolerable as being an intolerable character and was a nice foil to Indy and his roots. I wasn't ever quite as annoyed with Teddy as I was with Short Round, but I just didn't think Teddy was needed as an inclusion and it should have been completely without him. The horse, car chase, and underwater sequences were fun. The ending act was very weirdly interesting, but I ate it up and thought it was a nice way to suit Indy as a character.

This had some big problems, though. For one, it was too long. There are scenes where I can easily see they should have trimmed down (some I already mentioned actually), and characters could've been eliminated with zero impact to the overall story, especially the CIA agent and Boyd Holbrook's character (you can keep Boyd, but his nuances added time that amounted to nothing overall). Another problem was it felt like they were going to lead to several different payoffs that never happened, and as a closing chapter for Indiana Jones you wish some of them occurred. It ended sweetly, but for the final bang such as The Last Crusade did, this just felt like a middle chapter ending. Harrison Ford got right back into the role though, and had more emotional scenes in this one than any of the previous films.

This film exists in my head canon for the Indiana Jones franchise overall though, and if I buy them on UHD I would only be getting 1-3-5 (Raiders, Crusade, and Dial). This doesn't stand up as the best of the best, but I think it was a worthy addition that did a lot right and I had fun watching it.


If my impressions weren't obvious enough or were skipped, my ranking from best to worst is:

1) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
2) Raiders of the Lost Ark
3) Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny
4) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
5) Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[Master Live 013]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Oppenheimer:

Spoiler

After the Trinity test the movie was meh, best scene after that was when they gathered to pick the target for the bombing with the Secretary of State.

For whatever reason, I felt the fact that the movie had a "villain" kind of insulting. Like one of those bad "whodunit" scenes in a Humphrey Bogart movie where they explain everything at the end.

Also, they made such a big deal of what Oppenheimer had said to Einstein in "that" meeting that I expected something memorable like "you either die a hero or you live long enough to be the villain" or "peace has cost you your strength, victory has defeated you" and it was blah.

Might need to rewatch some of his catalogue, but I'll say I liked this the least among all of his films.

This better not be the film he gets recognized for by the Academy.

[Master Live 013]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

For those that don't wanna see the spoilers:

TLDR: thumb down.

[dubcity]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

This had some big problems, though. For one, it was too long.

I know that there movies out there that are long but don't drag, but I wonder if, when a budget is past a certain point, and a project is considered big enough, they will even allow these movies to be less than 2.5 to 3 hours. Can a movie like this come out and be 100-120 minutes? Idk.

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

I know that there movies out there that are long but don't drag, but I wonder if, when a budget is past a certain point, and a project is considered big enough, they will even allow these movies to be less than 2.5 to 3 hours. Can a movie like this come out and be 100-120 minutes? Idk.

This is all found out pretty early on, you'd have to imagine. The production budget is set when the film is greenlit, preproduction is used to storyboard and determine what is going to be shot, and then editing takes place after the fact. I'm sure many producers would like to see shorter films whenever possible to entice more crowds, but they of course would also not like to spend money on something that won't make the cut either.

But it's funny that you mention some longer films not necessarily feeling longer, because that's how I felt with Oppenheimer (which I just saw for a second time today, followed by Gran Turismo, which I will write about tomorrow). It's all about pacing and whether the story can be told in less time. I don't think Oppenheimer could tell its story any shorter, but Dial of Destiny very much could have.

[helmbreaker]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

The Flash
Meh overall, I expected more... Fun movie, but I wouldn't watch it again

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Gran Turismo

If this wasn't a true story, I wouldn't have believed its premise. For those who don't know, what happened was the best global GT sim racers were offered to compete against each other and become an actual professional race car driver in the circuit. Thankfully the movie adaptation has vast commentary on the safety concerns behind the competition with no need to get into the legalities and paperwork, and the movie has some of those concerns brought to life on screen. I will admit to not following up with the true story itself (largely because part of me doesn't want to know), but for a movie that wants to emulate the true story, it seems to have taken creative liberties when it wanted to and then missed out on opportunities to take more creative liberties where it could have.

Before I get into any of that, let me start off by saying that if in the audience's eyes a film is a win if it gets seemingly better as it progresses, then Gran Turismo did its job. Moments at the end were paid off by what was set up earlier on, scenes had the chance to breathe (including racing moments), and characters all came together when earlier on they spent most of the time apart from each other. I'll also say that I had trepidation entering this film because if they had decided to integrate a lot of the video game into this adaptation (which they did), I don't know how it would translate for audiences who don't know of or care about the game; I'm here to say that I think it does enough to let casual moviegoers to be subservient to its entertainment value while being aware of the virtual entertainment this thing is based around, so long as you are entertained by the story itself.

Gran Turismo does this cool thing where, when the character is playing the game early on, they sometimes use visual effects to simulate that of a real life driver (or kind of go into "replay mode" of the game when it can), and conversely in some of the real life driving/racing scenes, they use many of the game's audial/visual elements and sometimes make it a game-like experience. Whether it's the classical red-yellow-green start sounds, the racer's position showing above their car in the shot (sometimes in a freeze-frame, which I'll get to why they do that later), the race leaderboard and track layout interface you're familiar with from the game's HUD, the suggested driver lines including brake zones, and sometimes (albeit rarely) they show the follow cam that the game is known for having. Whenever there is a scene in a different part of the world, they show it in the same classic way as the game does with its font and its country's flag.

The only real nitpicks I have with that though is that they do frantic jumping around early on in the film like you see in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, and literally every place that you go to there is some sort of indicator immediately thereafter that you're there anyway. This isn't verbatim, but for example if the movie transported us to Tokyo and the text reads TOKYO, JAPAN, ten seconds later a character will say: "Thanks for inviting me to Tokyo." I get you're following the game, but I say in that case do one or the other. They also had a non-racing moment where they use a video game-like cue (I do not know if this is a part of GT or not), and they had a golden opportunity to use it as a comedic punchline immediately after but never did, which is too bad. In all, I think they melded a lot of the video game in post-production moments and it should entice gamers without distracting too much from others who maybe haven't played the game.

There is an act of this movie focused on training the gamers to compete against one another which has shades of what Top Gun: Maverick delivered, but it only lives in its shadow. Yes, they make the audience aware of forces on the body, real life consequences versus simulation resets, and a few debriefs between sessions, but it doesn't evolve very well with a lot of training/racing coverage, and instead stays with quick-cut montages. I suppose if you know where the rest of the story goes and the film's actual runtime (which I didn't, another fault of this portion which TG:M is clear on), then maybe you'll be more accepting of this in the moment, but by me not being aware this is an instance where I would be forgiving if the movie was longer in favor of it. Instead, some of this runtime is spent developing some characters who you'll never see again later. One could argue this would have worked better as a limited series, but as a cinema aficionado I prefer its big-screen gamble. I just think there is more story to embellish on that had to be cut away.

And by the way, speaking of the training, I have a hard time believing that a game which makes 60% of its sales in international markets (and 25% in Asia) would only feature victors which are nearly all perfect English speakers or from the UK. Maybe that actually happened or maybe this is where they take their liberties, but I found that to be a bit far-fetched when this is a game source from Japan as I am willing to bet the majority of elite GT racers are Japanese. Maybe I am wrong. They also made a mistake in their competitive race giving all of the drivers the same car color; you can take creative liberties here, but the only way you know who our protagonist driver is is by them freeze-framing and pointing it out to us.

Also, Gran Turismo is known as "the real driving simulator," which is their excuse when we don't get things in the game such as damage modeling or overzealous senses of speed through depth of field or car engines as something like Forza Motorsport does. It is for the love of the cars. Yet, this film does not seem to do that as much. I suppose this is where I have a bit of a disconnect being a fan of the game, because the movie never gives those moments that the game (or this real life story) should best be known for. The movie makes a big stink about these gamers who have spent thousands of hours on certain tracks, yet they never key into discussion on their prowess of it, which would be really vindicating cinematic moments. Instead, the majority of their training is running, which I no doubt believe is something they have to do a lot of but we could be better educated on what they are doing to mentally improve as racers as well. These little details help better inform the audience, especially what it means to commit to a line, build draft behind another car (which they never do), and even when the movie points out the resentment that other professional racers had against gamers entering the circuit it doesn't become a bigger plot point or focus afterward. Our protagonist gets one moment to see some social media reels about commemorating him for entering professionally, but never ran into any of the blowback which would show some of the emotional struggle he has to go through. You also see weird inconsistencies like drivers depressing clutch pedals when they are paddle-shifting instead of using a gearbox.

As I said before, save the final race the shooting coverage is very quick and minimalized, and largely incoherent. It's a shame too, because this could have been a great 4DX/D-BOX experience overall but I don't know if it will fall to the fray of seats "moving because things are happening." For the action they have to tell more than show as a result, but it's hard to figure out this movie's pacing too because you don't know where it's leading to until it gets there. As far as you're concerned, the gamers are going to compete in a race together and it could imply that you'll see its winner race professionally. So that happens and they do, then you get into a professional race, and then afterward you're suddenly now informed that it's just race one of seven? Then even after that seventh race, it's revealed that there is another big-big race that would need loads of prep work beforehand? Maybe I want the story focus to be elsewhere, but these are the things that movies like Ford v Ferrari did so excellently in its storytelling (not to mention the way the races were shot and edited). Thankfully, that last act of the movie really did improve what was shown before, but the first 2/3 of the movie sometimes felt like 90-minute an AI-written trailer.

You'd think that a lot of what I said makes me come out of this movie with a negative experience, but that is not the case at all. In the end (no pun intended) it as a net-positive experience, but this is a movie that I see either could have been great or had a lot of missed opportunities despite its true story. Although I admittedly was okay on Chappie and never saw Elysium, based on critic and audience response alone, this will easily be Neill Blomkamp's best effort since District 9, a movie which I very much enjoy. David Harbour and Djimon Hounsou bring fun and powerful performances, respectively, and the racing shots all seem practical (with a lot of drone shots that can look video game-y which is cool), save one shot that required CGI and for good reason. The real person this story is based on even got to be a stunt-double for the actor portraying him, which was a nice touch. I think this movie ends up being a celebratory crowd experience which makes it worth seeing in theaters, and I think many people will have fun with where this movie goes overall. I just see a movie that will sometimes pale to other movies that compare to it especially when it is so close to them in narrative and release timing, but on its own merits it's absolutely a fun experience both for GT fans and casual moviegoers. If nothing else, it's absolutely a ringing endorsement for Gran Turismo as a video game and Sony as a corporation. I wish nothing but success for this film and maybe later I'll get to look up the passage of time for the actual true story.

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Strays

If the recent bout of comedies has taught me something, it's that a movie can be funny, good (on its merits minus the comedy), have a likable cast... but if the promotional marketing doesn't entice you in believing that the comedy has at least two of those three, then it's unlikely to gain any traction or attention. Because we were graced with a red band trailer, we would know exactly what kind of comedy it would provide. The plot felt basic enough to not expect Academy-level storytelling, so it is all up to that cast. We have dogs. Do you love dogs? Combined with the comedy, this may be just the movie for you.

I don't want to oversell things too much, as what you see in the red band trailer is the kind of comedy that you get. Jokes are surface level with sex, drugs, and plenty of foul language, mixed with plenty of dog antics. You might not laugh the hardest you've ever laughed, but it just makes sure that you laugh enough plenty of times. Jokes aren't ever cringy, just crude/try-hard enough to keep the smiles permeating.

The sell for me however was the dogs. I know that if we had the choice to hear dogs' thoughts we'd prefer not to, but we have ways of communicating for them ourselves and this movie does exactly that. Because they do, for dog owners and dog lovers out there, this can bring certain emotions that'll make you want to go home, hug your dog, and reassure them that they the greatest joy of your life. For all of the moments that bring you levity, somewhere Sarah McLachlan may be lurking around in your mind singing "Angel" and reminding you that dogs (and many other domesticated animals) tell us everything about what they're feeling without saying a word, and a raunchy slapstick comedy such as this one does so easily in about 90 minutes.

I never saw The Adventures of Milo and Otis or the live-action version of Lady and the Tramp, and I fast-forward through those other dog food commercials where they use CGI to open their mouths, but color me amazed when you have a film with animals as the stars. Half of the time I was watching, I sat there wondering how they achieved the shots that they wanted. It's quite adorable to think of these dogs as a cast of actors and they are trained to do certain things on command when the word "action" is called; in fact, this brings me back to feeling bad for some of the pooches when you put a funnel on them or shove them off of a couch for the sake of our entertainment. There are times where I'm sure they use visual effects trickery outside of mouth movement, but for the most part it seems you are seeing real dogs do real action. Speaking of which, I almost feel there would be a unique innocence if they didn't bother to move their mouths, so they speak more in "thought" than anything else. I think it would've worked just fine to anthropomorphize them a little less. That's neither here nor there, but it would save them on budget if they gave it a shot and it should still have good effect.

Will Ferrell was in where I find him best: portraying a fish-out-of-water character. In this case, a dog being a stray for the first time. Jamie Foxx was hilarious, but Randall Park as Hunter was my favorite and will probably be the most for others as well. Rob Riggle seems like an obvious choice to voice a dog but I felt his was a little more out of place, though he's not in it much to matter. Will Forte plays our main human character, and is the perfect jackass to motivate our strays. In fact, any time humans were around they really did help bring together that wholesome touch that remind us about the connection that makes dogs special as our best friends. This movie isn't written with tons of heart in mind, but in its very own nature you will find it if you care for our canine comrades as much as I do.

To bring it all together, it's funny enough without splitting your sides and cheats by throwing animals in your face as the cast, and yet because it is short and simple it is effective. They could've contained themselves more on the R-rating, but they have my blessing as a comedy if they think it'll make the audience laugh. This works, and I enjoyed myself.

[Majingir]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Avatar 2

A much darker movie than the first. 3+ hour long movie, it really feels like 2 movies packed into one.

The part I hated the most was probably intentional since they want that sad moment but...

Spoiler

Killing one of the main characters (one of Jake's kids) was sad.

Then they had to go and do the funeral scene while playing "flashbacks" of Jake and his son when he was a baby and little kid!

The whole Spider thing was weird, especially at the end. He saves the guy who is the reason for all these problems, simply because he has the memories of his dad?

[lowpaiddonkey10]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Avatar 2

A much darker movie than the first. 3+ hour long movie, it really feels like 2 movies packed into one.

The part I hated the most was probably intentional since they want that sad moment but...

Spoiler

Killing one of the main characters (one of Jake's kids) was sad.

Then they had to go and do the funeral scene while playing "flashbacks" of Jake and his son when he was a baby and little kid!

The whole Spider thing was weird, especially at the end. He saves the guy who is the reason for all these problems, simply because he has the memories of his dad?

I thought the first one was fairly good the second not good at all. But there is money in sequels so they had to make it. Average at best.

[Majingir]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

I thought the first one was fairly good the second not good at all. But there is money in sequels so they had to make it. Average at best.

There was no need to make a sequel from a story perspective, but obviously money perspective there is.

And finding out that the villain in future movies will be

Spoiler

The same guy as the first two, it just feels like each movie will just feature them vs him until someone finally dies.

The good thing about this one is that it's made for modern technology. First one was targeted for 3D, obviously it still looks great in HD, but even watching the first one, you could tell the moments where the 3D effects would've popped.

This one is made for HD/4K and it shows.

Some of those underwater scenes, especially glowing ones, looked real good.

Their hair looks TOO realistic if that makes sense.

[lowpaiddonkey10]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

A movie looking good and a movie being good are two different things. I still watch a ton of BW films from the 30's 40's and 50's. Most of the stuff today is crap. Not all but a lot.