On September 16 2018 04:20 Manit0u wrote: Solo: A Star Wars Story Was not as bad as I thought it would be. Quite enjoyable actually.
5 months between Star Wars movies and a dislike for the previous Star Wars movie killed Solo at the box office. Opie/Richie Cunningham is a great director.
it was always 3 years between Star Wars movies. This gave "the community" 2.5 years to bitch, whine, moan and complain about the previous Star Wars movie and six months to get hyped for the next movie. Its hilarious watching these "culture warriors" label the complaining about Star Wars movies as latent racism or latent sexism. People having been bitching, moaning, and whining about Star Wars movies ever since they found out Leia and Luke couldn't be a romantic couple.
They are putting these Star Wars movies so close together with 1 movie every year...its a bad idea... i've posted this elsewhere...
you can sheer a sheep many times ... you can skin it only once. The Star Wars IP is getting skinned as I type this.
Yeah, I think the downtime was really important for building up hype between films. I thought Solo was alright, but that Star Wars was no longer an event. It's just another blockbuster among others. I also think it was a mistake to try and check off so many backstory plot points, as they never really dig into any one and so each check mark feels perfunctory at best. Does there really need to be a plot point for his gun? Probably not. But his Imperial days and the rescue of Chewie are so quick- blink and you'll miss it. Probably better if they ended with him leaving the Academy or something and leave more of the backstory out so it feels less like they are just connecting as many dots as possible.
On September 16 2018 13:34 Falling wrote: I thought Solo was alright, but that Star Wars was no longer an event. It's just another blockbuster among others.
To add to your point. Star Wars is just another movie with top notch special effects. In 1977?, 1980, and 1983 there were no other movies with special effects anything close to what Star Wars offered. Superman and Superman2 had special effects budgets similar to Star Wars, However, these were not space action movies. Having a monopoly on spectacular outer space special effects gave these 3 movies extra cache.
I think the 77,80, and 83 movies are very good, very above average movies. However, the incredible never before seen special effects allowed fan boys to gloss over any weaknesses in these 3 movies. These Star Wars movies do not belong in the class of great movies like Carrie , Absence of Malice, or The Godfather. Hell, I'd even say "Bad News Bears" was better than the Star Wars movies of that era.
As for, 2015/2017 Star Wars: there are plenty of movies that look just as good; there are a dozen video games that come close to Star Wars level visuals. Video games are now a legit "space sci-fi fantasy" outlet for the market of sci-fi fans. This splinters the market and forces LucasFilms to appeal to the fan boys who are 45+ and were around for the original movies.
2015/2017 Star Wars weaknesses are getting picked apart by a increasingly skeptical audience that can get great graphics and visuals any where: on their TV or by turning on their PS4 or PC.
Maybe so. But I didn't watch the original trilogy in theatres during that time period, being not alive yet. So whatever technical proficiency it had over other films of a similar era, it had no bearing on my liking the films. I've since seen Carrie and Godfather of your four listed, and I still like the OT more than those, though I quite enjoy The Godfather for a second. Carrie was alright, but I don't have a desire to rewatch it any time soon.
This splinters the market and forces LucasFilms to appeal to the fan boys who are 45+ and were around for the original movies.
I don't think that's what they did, considering all the old timer characters show up as failed losers. Hardly, an appeal to nostalgia. Stories get picked apart due to Story Collapse (a critical mass of inconsistencies that eventually ejects you from the engaging with story. You are on the outside looking in (see Secondary World, Tolkien). The key component is a loss of trust in the storyteller. As long as you trust the storyteller, story inconsistencies aren't noticed or if are dismissed if noticed. Once the story collapses, you notice all the inconsistencies- they leap out at you because you are no longer swept up in the storytelling. The OT had inconsistencies too, but not a critical mass where the story collapsed for a large number of people during their first viewing.
Very enjoyable movie. Anna Kendrick is amazing. If you like her go for it: This might be her best performance yet. So good.
Plot is alright. Very typical murder mystery, nothing extraordinary. Could see any twists a mile away. But in the end it didn't matter, movie was entirely carried by Anna.
Star Wars was the first "summer blockbuster" and began the tradition of large, action filled movies coming out during the summer. Among other things. Star Wars rise in as pop cultural was due to its broad appeal and themes. Much like Terminator 2 and the Matrix after it, its themes related to the era is was created while also transcending them.
Also, people would tell stories about folks in their seats staying to watch the movie again. Most theaters didn't sell out in those days, so it was never a concern until star wars. This is also in pre-VHS era, so theaters were the only place to see many films.
I recommend the IMAGINARY WORLDS podcast titled 1977 on the topic. It goes into great detail about the release of Star Wars and how the movie industry sort of didn't know what it was doing. Or at least was very different from the cold, polished media machine of today.
by the time Empire Strikes Back was done in the theatres there were tonnes of video stores renting movies. Toronto and its suburbs had dozens of video stores and they even rented Intellivision video games.
The "Video Connection" in the TO suburb of Mississauga was a pretty big chain with not just movies but a big selection of mainly Intellivision video games. At the time Mississauga only had a population of about 100,000 people. So its not like it was some giant city.
i have a whole collection of Intellivision cartridges for games that released in 1980 and 1981 with the old "Property of Video Connection" sticker on them. The Intellivision tanked in 1982 and rentals stopped... so these were 1980 and 1981 rentals.
in 1980 a VHS//VCR was ~$200 USD with prices falling fast. By comparison the 2 major video game systems of the time were the Atari 2600 at ~$200 USD and the Mattel Intellivision at $300 USD and $400 in Canada. in, 1980 a VHS//VCR was a reasonable buy because VHS tapes were dirt cheap and Atari and Intellivision games were at least $40.
Saw "Searching". 7/10, where an average movie is 5/10. This is the first movie I've seen where most of the movie takes place on the computer and is actually good. There were some solid performances in the film, with the main actor doing a really good job. The use of social media was outstanding compared to other movies that use it. The plot itself was engaging, and I honestly did not see the twist coming, even though it was foreshadowed well.
On September 19 2018 12:08 Dark_Chill wrote: Saw "Searching". 7/10, where an average movie is 5/10. This is the first movie I've seen where most of the movie takes place on the computer and is actually good. There were some solid performances in the film, with the main actor doing a really good job. The use of social media was outstanding compared to other movies that use it. The plot itself was engaging, and I honestly did not see the twist coming, even though it was foreshadowed well.
Saw it last week. Agree with you it is a pretty good movie, I would recommend it :-) And it's an asian american actor playing in the main role for once in a non martial arts movie
Just saw Thoroughbreds. The movie is slow paced. It's focused on dialogue, but doesn't ramble. It plays a lot with sound, often in symbolic ways. Sometimes reminds me of Hannibal (series). The very last sentence in the film will make you think. But not like think in a deep, meaningful way, more like in a binary, simplified Memento kind of way. Sincerity and cynicism are definitely themes handled here. It's reflected in the dialogue, but also in the portrayal of characters. Definitely a recommendation from me. 8/10.
When I first watched it, I had the uneasy feeling the script was still being hashed out just as principal photography started. It turns out the script was merely rewritten, but that only highlights the disjointed mishmash of plot elements duct taped together to maintain a steady stream of action. Fallout is essentially a sequence of set pieces with very weak/irrelevant connective tissue and character motivations. You get your quintessential Tom Cruise(TM) performance, but beyond the movie's reverent myopia on Hunt the focus is as scatterbrained and spastic as a ADHD child. The supporting cast with the exception of Ilsa are all but ignored. The main villain has no buildup and no thematic relevance to his existence. The grand action climaxes lack imagination and urgency. Half of the driving elements in the main plot arise from contrivance. The movie is devoid of the style and excellent composition of Ghost Protocol; it doesn't possess the compelling subplot and main villain of Rogue Nation. In the end Fallout turns out to be a middling action movie and nothing more.
I can confirm. This was metal as fuck. But also mind bending in a way only Panos Cosmatos can bring. The soundscapes/FX were just awesome. Loved it. I can understand why people will hate it though.
In the Fade - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5723272/ Not a lot of fun in this movie about a woman experiencing grief and looking for justice. It was interesting to see the trial in the German court. Diane Kruger acted well but the story is just too boring. The ending feels a little too neat.
On September 25 2018 02:32 CosmicSpiral wrote: Mission Impossible: Fallout
When I first watched it, I had the uneasy feeling the script was still being hashed out just as principal photography started. It turns out the script was merely rewritten, but that only highlights the disjointed mishmash of plot elements duct taped together to maintain a steady stream of action. Fallout is essentially a sequence of set pieces with very weak/irrelevant connective tissue and character motivations. You get your quintessential Tom Cruise(TM) performance, but beyond the movie's reverent myopia on Hunt the focus is as scatterbrained and spastic as a ADHD child. The supporting cast with the exception of Ilsa are all but ignored. The main villain has no buildup and no thematic relevance to his existence. The grand action climaxes lack imagination and urgency. Half of the driving elements in the main plot arise from contrivance. The movie is devoid of the style and excellent composition of Ghost Protocol; it doesn't possess the compelling subplot and main villain of Rogue Nation. In the end Fallout turns out to be a middling action movie and nothing more.
5.5/10
McQuarrie needs to finish the trilogy so that Ethan Hunt's transformation into the Messiah will be completed.
On September 25 2018 02:32 CosmicSpiral wrote: Mission Impossible: Fallout
When I first watched it, I had the uneasy feeling the script was still being hashed out just as principal photography started. It turns out the script was merely rewritten, but that only highlights the disjointed mishmash of plot elements duct taped together to maintain a steady stream of action. Fallout is essentially a sequence of set pieces with very weak/irrelevant connective tissue and character motivations. You get your quintessential Tom Cruise(TM) performance, but beyond the movie's reverent myopia on Hunt the focus is as scatterbrained and spastic as a ADHD child. The supporting cast with the exception of Ilsa are all but ignored. The main villain has no buildup and no thematic relevance to his existence. The grand action climaxes lack imagination and urgency. Half of the driving elements in the main plot arise from contrivance. The movie is devoid of the style and excellent composition of Ghost Protocol; it doesn't possess the compelling subplot and main villain of Rogue Nation. In the end Fallout turns out to be a middling action movie and nothing more.
5.5/10
how do you account for the fact that most critics thought this was a great version of the mission impossible genre