RULES HERE >>1
Check for weekly movie nights >>6
Last decade was a giant ocean of putrid shit. But every now and then a good film would pop out. Let's talk about them.
Off the top of my head:
>Mad Max: Fury Road
>Ford v. Ferrari
>Blade Runner 2049
>Toy Story 3
I heard Birdman and the Hara-Kiri remake are good but I haven't seen them yet.
>I heard Birdman and the Hara-Kiri remake
My experience with vidya thought me that remakes are always shit no matter what, either way is Blade Runner 2049 heard some neat things about it.
And also just finished the Godzilla 2019 it's ok but I enjoyed Shin Godzilla more.
and what's with western movies always having the same OST you know the ones that goes BOOOOUUUUM I'm not sure how to describe it but it's kinda like trailer music
Birdman is a god damn experience. Not the best, but certainly unique. It's like one of those indie films in concept, except made competently with talented (or at least well paid) actors.
Fury Road was plain old fun.
Hardcore Henry could have been better, I'm still amazed they put a film like that in theaters, good on them rooskies.
Nightcrawler got creepy in a unique way, reminded me of a friend I used to have who behaved in a similar fashion.
Bladerunner 2049 was good.
John Wick was great and should have ended then and there, sequels got sillier and sillier and took me out of it every couple of minutes.
In this past decade or so I've developed a newfound hatred for low-budget or low-key sci-fi. Maybe it's the characters portrayed within them, but I can't shake the feeling of hipsterdom when I watch movies like Coherence and Ex-Machina.
>Blade Runner 2049 heard some neat things about it.
I personally liked it better than the original. I recommend it. The scenery specially is amazing. Appropriate for a Blade Runner.
Oh, fuck, I forgot about it. It's fucking great. I also enjoyed La La Land.
I wish I had seen other recent movies that weren't already said to talk good about and add to the conversation, and not just shit on fury road. Oh well.
Seriously, Fury road was lame. Like the whole movie is just the following rant and some stunts filmed through a bright orange lense.
"WE'RE NOT OBJECTS!!!" screams one of the breeding women, these women who are like the only people who aren't covered in radiation and get to live nice healthy lives. Other women exist in that place, you had the milk women who are just stuck in place being milked the rest of their lives lik, or what about the ugly homeless slave-ish women in the town? Is anyone in this town not an "object" or subject to the main biker guy? Fuck that, I, strong independent woman, have to save the attractive healthy women from being "objects" and from the evil of men by taking them to our man free paradise far away. She comes back to save the town only after she finds out the paradise just some old ladies in an empty desert with no water.
That witnessme guy sacrificed his life to help save one of those breeding ladies and both her and the movie treat him like the most disposable shit. Like they give him attention like hes going to be a character, and some scenes with the girl like maybe they were an item, and then throw him away and let the viewer know that they throw him away. Who does he think he is, just because he died to help us that he deserves anything? I was just being nice to him, its only right that he doesn't act like an asshole and die to help me escape. Hes not entitled to anything!
But hey its got some crazy visuals and explosions thats why all the citics loved it. Max mad movies are a live action cartoon! Its not like the first 3 mad max movies were about anything anyway. They were all just long car stunt action movies in the desert, just fun romps. From beginning to end, every one of them.
LONG TAKES AND ONE SHOTS ARE A GIMMICK
What makes this impressive? NOTHING! Certainly not the camera movements because it's no different than what you can find on a feature length music video full of CG tricks. You think it's impressive that people rehearse blocking, where the actors should be moving to which position? You think it's impressive that actors can memorize their lines and recite them on film? WHY should that be impressive for film? This shit's been going on for over 2500 years, to the time of ancient Greeks and their theatrical stage plays. Long takes and one shots are rooted in the theatre and the stage. It's not innovative to film.
The future of film is the montage and Sergei Eisenstein realized this a hundred years ago. Eisenstein perfected the montage and took it to such advanced concepts, filmmakers of today remain so far behind Eisenstein. Take one image, logically place a different image after it, then you give these two different images one whole new meaning. You can say so much with montage. THIS is what moves film forward, as a medium. You can't do this montage on a theatre stage.
A theatre hack like Sam Mendes wouldn't understand. It's not surprising to see that he's done a bunch of stage musicals. He's a buffoon, and the Producers Guild of America are buffoons for giving 1917 their award for best motion picture of 2019. These smart asses are holding back the medium of film.
Fuck you Anglophiles, you're all bug-men who don't think about images, you only receive like a beta bitch, receive receive receive
>La La Land
I saw it in theaters knowing nothing about it other then my girlfriend wanted to see it usually a sign that something is shit. Expecting a bad movie I was presently surprised, but I doubt I'll ever go back to it and honestly I don't think I'd like it.
You're clearly retarded. Pic related
bless your autism and ignore the other two schizos
>LONG TAKES AND ONE SHOTS ARE A GIMMICK EXCEPT WHEN IT'S AN EXHIBITION OF MANLY THINGS LIKE PUNCHING SHIT AND DRIVING FAST
If you like animated films, then Missing Link is probably worth your time. There's some minor poz and bad writing (old Christian men = bad guys, lovable rogues and Darwin = good guys), but the stop-motion animation is beautiful and more than makes up for it. I was very pleasantly surprised by how smooth everything is and how consistent it all looks. If I hadn't seen a clip of the animation process, I'd never have guessed so much of it was greenscreened and done using stick stands.
I can attest that one. It's really good, and a rare example of a tightly written, no-frills movie made in the modern era. It's just a lot of good character interaction and occasional comedy.
>western movies always having the same OST you know the ones that goes BOOOOUUUUM I'm not sure how to describe it but it's kinda like trailer music
You may have heard of this obscure movie called Inception. It had a really good trailer and really distinct trailer music.
Thus, every film made since then has used this style of music for its trailers and OSTs. This also extends to video games since many of them are trying to ape movies.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people profoundly misunderstood MM:FR and how deeply that misunderstanding still runs. It's a real lesson in the dangers of identity politics and how they can cause terminal art poisoning among people who aren't aware of their effects.
without naiming titles already posted, i did enjoy:
>the hunt 2012
>13 assassins(prefer the 1963 one)
>let the bullets fly
>dredd 3d (also the raid)
>a touch of sin
>silence (inferior to the mission lmao)
most of these were released in the first half of the decade tbh
cba naming more
also 1917 is retarded
If everyone misunderstands a movie, isn't that the movies fault?
1917 sucked it was like watching someone running a race and right before the finish line he takes a ten minute nap, then wakes up and crosses the line after a good few hundred of his teammates die due to his unscheduled nap time
I didn't get anything messaging out of it at all. Just an action movie with wacky sets and good editing. Do you think there's anything else going on underneath the surface?
>Do you think there's anything else going on underneath the surface?
I don't, and that's what I mean. Fury Road is an action movie whose inciting event happens to be that some women want to escape a harem in a post-apocalyptic setting. People these days are so hyperfocused on realism/story (and there's so much money to be made in outrage politics) that they can't separate fictional events from real life events.
<brave and stunning women break away from a patriarchal oppressor!
>in a REAL post-apocalypse those women wouldn't act like that!
Then a few minutes later we see war wagons with guitar flamethrowers and bass drums hooked up to speakers the size of a house, and our protagonist is strapped to the front of a dune buggy as a human blood bag. It's not a movie interested in realism, the setting making sense, or even believability: it's an onslaught of cool stuff and action scenes that are held together with simple character beats.
>Immortan Joe is a warlord who rules his area of the desert with an iron fist and has a harem of women whom he sires children with.
>One group of women wants to escape because they don't like being prisoners.
>Later in the movie we learn that Joe's selective breeding actually did amount to something, because one of the women who escaped actually bore a healthy human child, which is a rarity in the setting.
>However, both she and her child died as a direct result of her attempting to escape.
That moment isn't meant to be a scornful indictment of the women's actions, it's meant to be a brief break from all the chaos and mayhem that forewent it. The viewer realizes that Joe's eugenics were actually onto something, and that he isn't quite as evil or as one-dimensional as the viewer likely thought he was. We can see that Joe's soldiers genuinely believed in the hope of the selective breeding producing non-mutants, and that the child being stillborn is a great emotional wound to them. Then we get more car chases and explosions. The action wouldn't be meaningful without the characters, but that doesn't mean the characters are more important than the action.
One particular example that made me realize people were either idiots or deliberately dense about the movie was the scene at the beginning where Joe opens his floodgates and warns his subjects "not to become addicted to water." This is obviously a joke, because you can't be addicted to water any more than you can be addicted to breathing air; drinking water is a necessity, not a luxury. I remember one video (I think it was by E;R) that totally misunderstood the scene: the author truly seemed to think that Joe was looking out for his subjects and the line about becoming addicted to water was meant to imply he was rationing it - even though the viewer can see hundreds of gallons of water falling to the ground and being wasted in that very scene.
The whole situation is just another type of nitpicking like the Nostalgia Critic and other hacks make/made livings from ("uh, excuse me, are we REALLY supposed to believe . . .", except because it's nitpicking related to identity politics people think it's untouchable.
is Jojo rabbit pretty or is it another shitty (((hollywood))) movie.
Joe did nothing wrong.
I think that's overselling it a bit, but we can certainly say that his actions did lead to a good outcome and that he did genuinely care about the people close to him.
>Ford v. Ferrari
But why? It was tremendously dull.
The Paddington movies were very heart warming and one of the few animation movies that I found moving. Knives Out was exceptional. Isle of Dogs was absurd but it worked in its favor. Lighthouse was extremely atmospheric and immersive.
Sorry for the simple reviews, I'm not a critic by any means.
I liked 2049 more than the original too, but I thought the second half of the movie was mediocre at best due to riding on the coattails of the first and somehow "changing protagonists" so the movie is centered around Deckard... Close, but no cigar.
Agreed. The story was okay but otherwise the movie has little to no rewatchability.
>10 cloverfield lane
>a quiet place
>crazy rich asians (nice comedy flick about asians being racist to each other w/o idpol)
>both kingsman movies (highly recommend)
>both now you see me movies (highly recommend)
>secret life of pets 1 & 2
What do you think of Uncut Gems? It was a weird film watching it, but in retrospect it was quite good and Adam Sandler's performance was actually fitting and elevated the movie. It was the soundtrack that really threw me off because I was expecting something a lot more trippy, but I want to rewatch it knowing what to expect to see if anything has changed.
I've only yesterday watched OPN's other movie Good Time which I really liked, and was planning on pirating this next. Let's both watch it and see how it goes, yeah?
OPN's score for GT was undoubtedly a big part of why I liked the movie, as it successfully produced tension which I haven't felt watching a movie in a long time. The music is trippy and obviously very experimental but works great, which is what I expect of OPN, as you can hear influences of familiar ambient scores that keep the experience from getting too surreal, while still teasing new musical elements usually not heard on film.
Moving on from the score, I think the cinematography was spectacular. First 2010s movie since Spring Breakers that portrayed the neon dystopia correctly without eye cancer and a visual orgy of clashing colors. Robert Pat's performance was good and memorable, but that didn't surprise me since I've already seen The Lighthouse. The character with the fucked up face sounded a little... amateur? It seemed like this was his first/second movie. Overall a very good film and hence I'm adding it to this thread.
Ok so you actually watched it, I need to get my eyes checked...
Anyway, what a mess. That was so fucking frustrating. You think there would be some kind of relief at some point, but it's just Murphy's law, jew fucks over nigger and vice-versa over and over till the very last second.
Sandler was good, despite some of his "signature mannerisms" coming out every now and then, but nothing too bad. The score was very disappointing though, unlike Good Time there's barely any music, and almost no memorable OPN pieces. Overall a disappointing movie that's unlikely to be rewatched.
That's a pretty big part of the film. An essential aspect of the main character is his inability to quit while ahead. He's a gambling addict. If you didn't enjoy the frustration of watching the film then the film wasn't for you or you didn't quite get it.
The performances were great in this, I can't remember last time an Adam Sandler performance stuck out for me like this one did (Probably Punch Drunk Love would be the last one I can think of). It's a good movie to watch, but I don't think I'll watch it again any time soon. Uncut Gems felt really claustrophobic through out the whole thing, and there was always this persistent unending anxiety, like a constant rise of tension. It reminds me of the stress living in a city will give you, just compounded over and over again as Adam Sandler's character digs himself a deeper hole. Of course, it was executed this way on purpose, and was worth watching at least once for the experience. I just won't be playing it on repeat any time soon.
My gripe with 1917 was the "woah did you know the movie is just three takes" gimmick that was marketed and the German pilot who stabs the guy for no reason because he is le evil kraut who just got his life saved.