Movies you've recently watched

Sorry for the late reply, I would have replied earlier if I hadn't been busy these past few days with other more urgent matters.

Aazealh said:
1984 - 1991 was James Cameron at the top of his craft. Hell, I'll include up to 1997 because Titanic was an filmmaking achievement.
Click to expand...
Wait, you're not counting True Lies either? It may have not aged well after 9/11 and with that one questionable dance scene but it still remains an excellent mixture of various genres and it's as entertaining and spectacular as it can get, not bad for a first venture into comedy territory :guts:
I can't argue that his films of the 80s and 90s are golden, especially for how consistently great he's been in doing them and his contribution to push the visual effects technology.

My impression with both Titanic and Avatar is that both films do as great as they can with these massive budgets to offer an iconic moviegoing experience but that they are weaker in the writing compared to his earlier films. Then, it's not like Cameron has ever had a ton of nuance, his films at the end of the day are more fueled by spectacle and aren't really excellent character studies.

Aazealh said:
But Avatar!? I was unimpressed even then and I can't imagine that it has aged well.
Click to expand...
Wow, I wonder what films you were watching back in the 2000s whose CGI surpass this! And by this I mean a live action movie which is 80% generated on a computer from main characters to whole environments. Honestly, I find it nonsense to say that Avatar is not a filmmaking achievement, at the very least on a technical point of view.
I want to specify that I don't consider Avatar to be Cameron's best movie, and if we go by writing or the characters, probably not by a long shot. What really elevates this movie (definitely not for you somehow, but not for all considering the massive box office numbers it did) is the experience that it offers, especially when viewed on the big screen. I can't think of other films that have such an extensive use of CGI that feature so many moments of awe like this film does (I'm thinking of scenes like Jake with the tree spirit seeds, the first flight we see in the film, Jake and the other Na'vi climing the flying mountains, etc.) which honestly are the type of scenes movies don't do anymore. Usually we're all too caught up in the plot, in the explosions, in the fights to have scenes that in their simplicity are just captivating and a feast for the audience even if not much is really happening. I think it takes a really talented and expert filmmaker to be able to deliver this type of awe in such a vast scale, regardless of the flaws or lack of depth of the script. It's even more true when we consider that most of this film was shot with the actors wearing grey pajamas and interacting with sticks and mattresses instead of being in actual sets, since aside for the human / military sets, it was all created digitally. I'm not entirely sure, but I also think that the camerawork for the Na'vi scenes was completely artificial, yet Cameron frames all these scenes as if there was a physical camera (handheld, helicopter shots, etc.) and it really contributes to making the experience more cinematic and authentic. Scenes like this feel like shot on location, with actual plants and a physical camera, but it's all digitally created and it blows my mind.
I would also ramble about how the film is effective in its exploration of a new culture / biology, the theme of nature vs. technology, or about humanity's relationship with nature, finding a new identity, but that would be too much I fear. For all that, I would say that despite being so ambitious it is a film filled with genuinity and passion, not an easy thing in a modern movie landscape where blockbusters are rushed, produced half-heartedly, messy and with repetitiveness of a factory product.

In any case I had a great, great time watching the film on the big screen. I'm confident that James Cameron still got it, and as for the sequels at worst it'll still be a feast for the eyes and for me an absolute priviledge to be in a theater completely in the hands of an expert filmmaker like him. There aren't many filmmakers I feel the same way, Denis Villeneuve, Matt Reeves... maybe a few others.

Sorry for the unexpected wall of text Aaz, I hope I didn't annoy you too much :ganishka:
 
Imperivm97 said:
Wait, you're not counting True Lies either?
Click to expand...

It's an alright movie, but I like the original better. Anyway if we go up to 97 it's included. :shrug:

Imperivm97 said:
My impression with both Titanic and Avatar is that both films do as great as they can with these massive budgets to offer an iconic moviegoing experience but that they are weaker in the writing compared to his earlier films. Then, it's not like Cameron has ever had a ton of nuance, his films at the end of the day are more fueled by spectacle and aren't really excellent character studies.
Click to expand...

I'd say Titanic has stronger writing than Avatar, even though at its core lies a very simple story. In any case, his earlier movies were definitely more thoughtfully written and featured less simplistic characters and story beats.

Imperivm97 said:
Wow, I wonder what films you were watching back in the 2000s whose CGI surpass this! And by this I mean a live action movie which is 80% generated on a computer from main characters to whole environments. Honestly, I find it nonsense to say that Avatar is not a filmmaking achievement, at the very least on a technical point of view.
Click to expand...

Avatar came out in December 2009. That's hardly "the 2000s". George Lucas was doing the whole "70% CGI" thing ten years earlier. The Matrix was released in 1999. The Lord of the Rings was 2001-2003. And so on. The use of computer graphics was impressive as a technical effect when Jurassic Park came out, but it was mostly over by 2010. And in fact, when Avatar released, what was put forward was the 3D element, something no one cares about anymore.

But really, that's not important. CGI in and of itself doesn't make a movie good. Just like nice graphics don't necessarily make a video game fun. As far as I'm concerned, Avatar overpromised and underdelivered on all counts. Personally I found it utterly forgettable, and I think that's why Cameron is hedging his bets on the sequel, which he delayed by 10 years to begin with.

Anyway, good for you if you like the movie! I hope you enjoy the sequel too. Can't be worse than all the Marvel shit we're inundated with. I'd add that I hope you bought the Blu-ray so you can enjoy that glorious 3D TV at home, but I have a feeling I'd better not. :troll:
 
I went into theaters thinking I would find Avatar unimpressive and I left surprised at how disappointed I was. (Maybe this is some revisionism on ny part but time hasn't improved my opinion if Avatar.) With that said, like Aazealh I'm glad others enjoyed it. But I will pass on the sequel(s).
 
I guess to each his own with CGI technology. What I mean by how Avatar pushed the technology (beside 3D, for which I genuinely don't care) was how it further pushed the technology already developed by Weta Digital to capture actors performance for a digitally created character. It began with LOTR's Gollum and then King Kong, Cameron really pushed the existing tech at the time to an extreme and massive scale, while also introducing a new way to capture the facial performance which impacted the industry since. I think that it also helped open more possibilities for lead performances in blockbusters using this technology such as in the recent Planet of the Apes trilogy and in general, an important step in crafting new ways of developing the VFX art.
But I guess I might be more interested in these geeky things than most here :guts:


Aazealh said:
I'd add that I hope you bought the Blu-ray so you can enjoy that glorious 3D TV at home, but I have a feeling I'd better not. :troll:
Click to expand...
You have good instincts! All jokes aside, 3D isn't much my thing (I find it somewhat cool but also distracting at the same time, I prefer 2D) but when I'll be able to afford it and living on my own, that's one of the films I'd love to have in my collection. I gotta say though that no matter how big a TV screen is, nothing matches the experience of going to the theater! That's my favourite way of experiencing a movie like this.
 
Halloween Bads - Woof! In tribute to the latter films in previous Halloween trilogies, this movie SUCKS! If you thought Halloween Kills was bad, it's like an all encompassing magnum opus compared to this; I mean, at least they were going for it. This is like they knew they dialed things up way too much in the previous movie so instead of doing the work of trying to effectively top it or tightly reign it in like the 2018 edition they just lazily turned it down to half power and hoped that was decent enough, and that's a generous description. This movie is like they overfilled a balloon and then just let it go so it flies wildly around the room blowing a long continuous fart sound. The basic dialogue and acting is actually cringingly bad at times, all the scenes with Laurie and Hawkins make Kills look, again, like some kind of art movie masterpiece. The new character and his premise was actually ok, but they didn't pay him off in much of a satisfying way, and a lot of the setup was painful to get through, which pretty much describes every other character and plot in the movie, including poor old Michael, who is basically reduced to an afterthought because he's literally too tired after the last one (he needs some performance enhancers; nothing to be ashamed of for a man his age =). The nicest thing I can say about this is at least it's trying to be a real movie and not a mess of a conclusion like Rise of Skywalker or even the aforementioned Kills, it's just not a very good one.

Spoilers for a specific element of the movie: So the "bold choice" here is there's another killer, someone that forms a vague connection to Michael (more on that later). He does most of the killing actually, as Michael is acting his age in this one after seemingly being literally immortal in the last one (I guess he blew his wad). Now, this is a trope of the genre going back to the first Friday the 13th where Jason isn't the real killer, which they repeated in 5 to much worse effect, and there's various copycat scenarios in these franchises (it's like a ubiquitous sitcom plot that pops up in every series, "the vacation episode!"), but everyone basically hates it, and this mixes that with the "next generation" cliche. Actually, I liked the new guy and the whole idea of Michael having an heir of evil, and they're doing Christine too, I get it, where Michael seemingly gets stronger as he kills again, but the reason it's not really a bold choice is because they never commit to anything concretely. Is there some supernatural evil connection here, is Corey gaining Michael's power, could the shape live on in Corey somehow? Or are they just men in Halloween masks? The movie doesn't formally have it either way, so it's no choice at all. It seems more like Michael fanboyism by the filmmakers making it into the film after they already had him kill everything possible last time, " "Wouldn't it be cool if WE could turn into Michael Myers and kill our enemies!?" That was another thing, Corey was basically just out for revenge, not killing randomly, or on sight like Mike by the end. Anyway, I think it would have been interesting if they'd had Michael formally become some sort of more sinister evil figure here, basically like an immortal Sith lord with his apprentice/new shape, but if anything in this one he just seems lamer and more pathetic by the end (the magic is literally gone, apparently). So if you're not going to say what you do, or do what you say, don't just gesticulate at this stuff. Maybe I should just be relieved and careful what I wish for, because if the half measure sucked how much would they have fucked up fully formalizing these ideas? It probably would have been Halloween VI all over again.

Now, this brings this whole reboot trilogy to a disappointing conclusion, and solidifies, or even exacerbates, some flaws I felt going back to the first one. First and foremost, this series should not have been a direct sequel to Halloween, but Halloween II. You don't want to follow the classic, but the sequel to the classic, and spiritually these movies are really successors to II and beyond. Otherwise, it just doesn't make sense because they're basically treating Michael like the unstoppable monster that's murdered countless people in Halloween II and 10+ movies, not the one that killed three teens one Halloween. Secondly, they never effectively established the Laurie/Michael connection or relationship, or didn't establish it enough (as a matter of fact, the first of these implied it was almost completely one-sided, which is ok!), there's no reason for Laurie to believe Michael can't be held after he has been for four decades, and it's not even clear if, how or why Michael cares about killing Laurie. They may as well have been siblings, at least that just makes the connection obvious. Also, after there being thin justification for Laurie's previous extremism, in the latest movie, despite Michael actually coming back and murdering like 50 or more people, including her daughter, and remaining free out there, she's basically gotten over it! Lastly, after taking great pains to remove the sibling and supernatural "samhain" element, they basically revived it in the last movie and toyed with it here, but vaguely enough to kind of pretend they didn't, "Is Michael an immortal, supernatural monster?*shrugs*We don't know...*wink wink*" I mean, if you thought that was dumb before, why flirt with it again? Because they couldn't think of anywhere else to go, so they inevitably rebuilt and fell into the trap they meant to avoid altogether.

Anyway, it's all very incongruous and muddled and now feels like they really didn't know what to do after the respectable 2018 revival, which served as a much better series ending if it hadn't been too successful to leave it at that. Halloween Kills was the unrespectable one, but as I said, at least they went all the way and basically made a whole fan service movie about Michael, an all-out, ultimate Halloween movie, which might actually be the standout of this project. And this... this was like an off-ramp, like if they knew if they did this nobody would be clamoring for another one for a while. This is how horror series end, for a while anyway, with a whimper...
 
Last edited:
So, I watched Avatar: The Way of Water last Friday.
It definitely feels different from the "usual" Cameron experience. Some traits are still 100% him, both visually and narratively, but there is a new vein in here, creatively. It was hard for me to figure that out and tap into that exactly, but I think it's because of the co-writers Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver, who have handled the incredible new Planet of the Apes trilogy. The first Avatar feels very quintessential, classic and running on narrative tropes and epic on a massive scale. It works (at least for me) because it's simple but applied at a huge scale like never done before and used very smartly. The second Avatar feels more grounded, the scale is reduced and it introduces a number of dynamics and topics that Cameron simple-epic-action films don't go into, so that was surprising. Such topics include exploration of biases, complex family dynamics, being outcasts in a new environment, adoption, etc. so it kinda took me off guard. Also, Cameron usually would have a single main protagonist (or a duo) and at some point introduce a romantic plot and his films function as very good standalone experiences, but here there's more of an ensemble cast (Jake and Neytiri aren't ever the real protagonists surprisingly) and it's not very standalone, since this is the first of 4 sequels (planned, if box office goes wrong they'll close it on Avatar 3).
Overall I left the theater feeling mixed about all those things, mainly compared to my expectations of a "typical James Cameron movie" with all his usual ways of entertaining that I love a lot. I definitely need a second viewing to absorb it and make my mind a little better. Maybe I shouldn't have skipped the trailers after all! :ganishka: I would have had a better picture of how it was going to be.

The film itself I think it very solid. I also rewatched the first one last week, so I noticed a good number of connections (both visually and tiny details or foreshadowing / parallels) that I appreciated a lot. One weakness of this film is that it feels like a new beginning rather than a straight sequel. But other than that, it's a great new setting of characters and many possibilities are opened. Visually it's (as expected) incredible, the water / sea sequences in particular are jawdropping.
I think I still prefer the first one for its classic Cameron feel and on some visual aspects, it has a different quality to it. There's a new director of photography (Russel Carpenter, who worked on Titanic) and the motion capture technology has evolved a lot, so I guess it's that. Oh right... Sigurney Weaver is playing a 14 year old this time around and she's having a hell of a good time, that was great to see.
The music was decent to good. I wasn't too focused on that myself, maybe my brother could answer on that better than me. Maybe his music is less remarkable than James Horner, but I think Simon Franglen did a good work in filling his shoes for this franchise.
 
Just finished watching Pus in Boots: The Last Wish. I normally dislike these types of movies. I don’t think I watched any of the other Shrek movies besides the first. Not that they have much in common. Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised by how good it was. Not only the story, but the action. The fight choreography had no right to be as good as it was.
 
Synchronicity wasn't a complete waste of time and it also felt like it was because of the many time travel movies that covered the gist of what they were trying to do ... while it isn't a stand-out good film, it may be a pretty decent gateway drug for Primer, Moon, Triangle (all better movies). Clear influence of Blade Runner when it comes to wide overhead shots of the city in the dark, always raining and the soundtrack. Mediocre acting, but they spent their money on fleshing out the story and other parts of production - understandable.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 surprised me a bit, I didn't expect not to complain about the length or goofiness or just not being into it at all like movies 1 and 2. This was also a darker movie because of
the Rocket's origin story and the experiments on animals thing
. Overall, not amazing, but it was entertaining and I think what saved it for me was the dynamic between Nebula, Drax and especially, Mantis. Check it out, if you can.

A Man Called Otto was Tom Hanks being old, grumpy, but not in the same way as Clint Eastwood's character in Gran Torino. This was a warm drama with a lot of heartfelt moments right until the end of the film. Marisol stole the show, as the new neighbor she's the life of the movie.

John Wick 4 was a movie I went to thinking this would be the end of the franchise but a week after it came out, studios were like "Nooo, we want to make more" which I get but come on, let this thing end. Movie 4 isn't bad at all, it's a lot better than movie 3, but there's only so much you can do. All John wants is to get revenge and once that's done, to get out of the game. That's it. Goes back to movie 1 when he quit that whole world of assassins. And I get that it's a movie, he's the hero and he can always get right up. There's something about those low stakes that took the edge off for me like Dom from the Fast n Furious movies - his head can go through arches and walls but there's not a scratch. I thought it was OK, and I have no urge to watch it again, ever.

Ant-Man and the Wasp - Quantumania was visually fun to watch on the big screen from a visual perspective or the fun looking action, but it has no staying power or substance. It was a bit boring and again, I don't see myself watching it again, ever. The movie is a springboard for the multi-verse apparently and I preferred the latest Doc Who movie by a whole lot. Kang, as a villain was also kinda fun to watch and who knows what becomes of the actor playing that character, given his recent troubles post Creed III release.

The Kareem documentary movie on, I think HBO Max (?) is fantastic. I knew some parts of his life, but this's really well done.

Other movies I liked a lot include Eo, Decision to Leave, Call me Chihiro and cult classic Where Eagles Dare (cos why not! Let's add an oldie I re-re-re-re-rewatched when I can :p). Fast X this Friday and there's a lot coming through this year with the new Indy, Oppenheimer, Spideyverse.
 
Last edited:
The John Wick movies keep getting bigger, longer and more bloated. I enjoy them but I seriously checked out of the 4th one an hour in. It gets boring, no one needs a 3h John Wick movie. Actually, no one needs 3 hours of most movies that get released these days. At one point during John Wick 4, to keep myself from falling asleep, I just started editing the movie in my head.
 
Creed 3 was fantastic in my opinion, especially for a directorial debut for Michael B. Jordan.

As for John Wick 4, I have to say that I liked it more than the third and maybe the second one as well. It could have been shorter, but at least it has some closure and more interesting dynamics with other characters.

Edit: since I'm here I'll add that recently I watched The First Slam Dunk in theaters and (keep in mind, I haven't read the manga or watched the previous anime) found it amazing. The way the gameplay was animated and has (good) breakneck pacing is jawdropping. For this I can perfectly justify the usage of CG (doesn't work much in a few places, but 95% it's great). The various flashbacks of the main character were also great to add more drama to it.
Also, yesterday I watched Whispers of the Heart and found it delightful and exquisite, more balanced, focused and with an overall better impression than other Ghibli films I saw earlier. It's a pity that the director passer away just a couple of years earlier, and by the same heart condition that hit Kentaro Miura.
 
Last edited:
Adding to the Creed 3 discussion, it was a great movie but not as good as the second one. The second was just much more grandiose: the antagonist being drago’s son, the birth of creed’s daughter, Rocky’s inclusion, better training montage, etc. The anime inspired cinematography in Creed 3 was pretty cool, but it did feel weird at times. Stuff like that doesn’t fit live action in my opinion. Still a solid movie and I enjoyed watching it a lot
 
Last edited:
Maco_2000 said:
Adding to the Creed 3 discussion, it was a great movie but not as good as the second one. The second was just much more grandiose: the antagonist being drago’s son, the birth of creed’s daughter, Rocky’s inclusion, better training montage, etc. The anime inspired cinematography in Creed 3 was pretty cool, but it did feel weird at times. Stuff like that doesn’t fit live action in my opinion. Still a solid movie and I enjoyed watching it a lot
Click to expand...
Facts

I forgot to add but ive also seen the new mario movie liked it wasnt too crazy but it was enjoyable to watch with the fam.
 
Having seen the whole Creed trilogy in theaters, I'd consider the third on par with the first as for personal preference, I really loved it so much. The second one wasn't bad per se but it didn't feel incredibly strong either and I think it's kinda forgettable, but I definitely need to rewatch it. Despite all the Sly drama about the third film, I personally feel that he didn't need to appear in it since he pretty much exhausted his story with the first Creed for me and his presence was already redundant (as in, he didn't have much purpose other than "being there since he's Rocky") in the second one.

As for the anime influence in the third film, I think it was incredibly neat and fitted well in live action. It might have been pushy to have those cage visuals during the final fight, but I think it's very exciting to see a film go beyond the accostumed style of its genre. It didn't go much overboard with this anime influence imo.
 
Fast X - it's just as dumb and ridiculous as I expected it to be. Also easily forgettable like John Wick 4.

12 Angry Men - I caught maybe 4-5 mins of it because someone in front of me on a flight was watching it, which was a nice way to discover this gem. It's amazing.

The Little Mermaid - while I appreciate and acknowledge that there's good music talent (composition, singing, etc) behind this project, the story + visuals + pacing + acting fell completely flat for me. I was also in the minority in that view because the group I went with loved the film and didn't mind all the things I nitpicked about it.

Avatar: The Way Of The Water - technological awesomeness but I will not watch again. The plot's simple enough to remember 10+ years from now when the sequel comes out.

65 - when I saw the trailer months ago, it looked fun/ cool but watching it changed that view. There's nothing new and it's fairly predictable. I think what stands out, which I learned after watching it + not liking it, was the fact that it was made on a low loooww budget and somehow made more at the box office. It was one of those "Huh" moments when I found that out. So kudos to them.

Spiderman: Across the Spider-verse - brilliant.

Dungeons and Dragons - forgettable and the final boss fight with the big-bad was underwhelming. Did watching it on a flight have anything to do with my view - NOPE.

Past Lives - this was a solid rom-drama.

Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part One - I had a blast. So far, this is THE best (non-animated) action movie of 2023.
 
Resident Evil Death island. I watched it last night, it's a complete waste of time don't bother with it. The only upside to it is that it features all of the big characters in one movie, Leon, Chris, Jill Claire and Rebecca it's basically the resident evil avengers. I was honestly shocked how formulaic it was, almost like it wasn't made by an actual person but a bot or something that's how terrible and predictable the script is. I hoped it would have a little something to it, but it has nothing, no character development no emotion, it's just completely soulless.

Spoilers for the movie i guess? Not really much to spoil really.

So a new virus is created by a former disgruntled umbrella soldier Dylan blake that kinda looks like Kevin Bacon, basically he was ordered to kill his best friend during the umbrella outbreak and it was covered up that's literally it, that's his entire motivation, its very shallow and doesn't warrant his actions at all. anyway he wants to start "anew" and he wants to abolish the heirarchy of power and he wants the world to feel his pain blah blah blah we've heard it all before. he created tiny bio drones that can infected anyone he wants, and his reasoning is he wants power over who he infects even though you literally have no control over an outbreak once the virus starts spreading so it makes absolutely no sense. And for some reason he starts out infecting people in a remote isolated area of Alcatraz prison for no reason, if he really wanted to have an impact why not release it in a city first, but anyway...can you guess what happened to him... yes he turns into a bio weapon, and the ending is basically the crew running around a sandbox with conveniently placed weapons fighting Dylan ending with "He's dead right?" "Yeah super dead".

So for Some reason in the beginning it focuses on Jill when she was brainwashed by Wesker in RE5, i thought it was going to lead to something interesting, because she regrets harming her friends in that state, for example i thought we could deal with the lingering trauma of those events and have Jill overcome it during the movie but no it's never mentioned again, it's never explained what she was doing during re6 and all the subsequent cg movies either, she's just there now. Ughh this movie is just complete trash there I said it :ganishka:
 
Lawrence of Arabia - Yeah, super late to the party here. Wish I didn't wait so long. The ending was wonderfully melancholy. Really have to appreciate what they captured in camera here back then and the meticulous timing & attention to detail. They really don't make 'em like they used to.

The Lighthouse - Total blast. Loved it.

Tenet - watched it for the first time with subs and was able to track the plot. Heard watching it without was annoying due to the sound mixing. Didn't expect to like it, had a great time. The track 'Protagonist' on the OST. So good.

Bullet Train - dumb fun, but fun nonetheless.

Dunkirk - good enough. Need to rewatch. Saw it on a plane in total potato quality.

The World of Kanako - wanted to love it, the beginning goes hard, but then it quickly becomes overly self indulgent and gratuitous. It's shame because Koji Yakusho is firing on all goddamn cylinders here.

Still need to finish: The Northman, Enemy and The Green Knight

*crawls back under rock*
 
Finished all the six Lone wolf and Cub movies and enjoyed them so much! I started reading about the trope it produced in other stories and had so many realizations. Would you agree that Miura used that trope as well? It's so intresting.

I am currently watching the Zatoichi movies. Since I don't like to read too much about what I am about to watch the first movie caused a great confusing and funny experience. Of course the narrative might change but still so far the story is so charming...
 
Last edited:
sama said:
Finished all the six Lone wolf and Cub movies and enjoyed them so much! I started reading about the trope it produced in other stories and had so many realizations. Would you agree that Miura used that trope as well? It's so intresting.

I am currently watching the Zatoichi movies. Since I don't like to read too much about what I am about to watch the first movie caused a great confusing and funny experience. Of course the narrative might change but still so far the story is so charming...
Click to expand...
I looked up Lone wolf and cub and it seems to be a great samurai epic. Will definitely check out the manga and maybe the movies if I can get my hands on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top