Dexter Morgan

Movies, Movies, and Movies

2,417 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

On 21/05/2017 at 3:00 AM, Cosmic said:

 I could nitpick, but the zords were really the only thing that I didn't like. Maybe they can get blown up in the sequel. :lol:

 

I really dug the individual Zords. The Megazord grew on me and I like that there's some vague resemblance to the original in the head and chest area, but it's a shame they cheated with the combination and you can't see how it comes together. Still, no reason they can't be redesigned for the sequel*. Gotta sell those new toys somehow :P

 

Speaking of Zord designs, Mauricio Ruiz has a gallery of the concept art he produced for the movie, including some earlier or rejected versions of the Zords. The only ones he hasn't posted yet are the T-Rex and Megazord. A part of me prefers these, but both visually and in terms of what they're supposed to be, the final designs fit better.

 

*If there is a sequel.

 

EDIT: Just realised I basically made the same post earlier in the Power Rangers thread. Ay yi yi.

Edited by wildwing64
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw Alien Covenant. It was good. I liked it. It was not perfect. Spoilers below so don't read if you haven't seen it. 

 

Here's my relationship with the Alien franchise to give a little backstory to my thoughts on Covenant: I saw Prometheus in the theater not realizing it was part of the Alien canon until the very end and to that point had never seen an Alien movie so I missed all the easter eggs and references subtle and not-subtle. As a kid with an overactive imagination I had accidentally watched a scene from Alien 3 on cable while at a sleepover at a friend's house and then had nightmares for weeks. I chose as a youth not to watch "scary" movies because they made me insomniatic. I grew out of this in my late teenage years. It wasn't until I saw Prometheus that I went back and watched the other films. I love Alien and Aliens, not a big fan of the other movies. After watching them I started to poke holes in Prometheus, that while visually very well done, made very little sense both to someone new and now as someone who has rewatched it as a person familiar with the ALIEN story. 

 

Here's what I liked:

- The hits start coming pretty soon into the movie. It jumps right into crisis and some characters you think are going to stick around are killed off early on so there's surprise and you learn nobody is safe. 

 

- David was the real villain and you figure this out pretty quickly whereas Prometheus' antagonist is muddier. Is it Charlize Theron? Is it the rubber gray guy? Is it the fake old man? We're never really sure. The aliens were David’s creation and so the protagonists have two enemies and they actually gave David a motive this time and it's more interesting than the other films’ previous motive of "those creatures want the people so they can eat and breed". He wants to create this race of creatures that he calls "superior organisms" and he needs hosts to do that. In Prometheus he infects the doctor with the black goo and they never explain why. In this film they use the newer model android Walter to provide exposition that the David model was too emotional, lacked empathy, and that he holds curiosity, which means he can try things just to see what happens, which explains why he did what he did in Prometheus and why he fully broke bad when they got to the new planet. 

 

- The David/Walter dynamic was cool. Michael Fassbender is one of the best actors on earth and having him play two roles was a good choice.

- visually interesting. Very well shot from all technical points of view.

 

- kept to some horror tropes: Smoking = bad and you will die because of it. Trying to take a shower? You’re going to die naked. Selfish, cowardly character won’t let someone out of the locked room. Everyone dies because of it.

 

Here's what I didn't like:

- I hate hate hate when they kill a character offscreen from a previous movie if they lived through the previous movie. They did the same thing when they killed off Newt for Aliens 3. Shaw died at the hands of David so he could use her body as a host, which makes our rooting for her to get off the planet in Prometheus completely pointless. This would've been much more interesting - they find Shaw, living in the jungle, escaped and hiding from David. After 12 years or whatever it was of survival on her own she's skitchy, a bit loony tunes, but can kill an Alien like nobody's business. She planted the wheat. She knows to avoid the plants with the parasitic gas, and she reveals that David the android they befriended is evil and they have to get back to warn the others. I would've used her and Daniels as co-Ripleys and have Shaw sacrifice herself to take down the alien on the shuttle.

Fully possible that the actress that played Shaw didn’t want to do it or Ridley Scott didn’t want her back and that’s why she wasn’t in this movie.

 

- You had to cast James Franco as the guy we barely see who dies in the sleeping pod fire? That role would've been more effective if played by a more unknown actor so the audience doesn't go "lol that's James Franco". I had the same theater experience when Matt Damon woke up in Interstellar. 

 

- I saw that David was the surviving android at the end coming from a mile away and because of that why would he in character as Walter help Daniels and Kenny Powers kill the Alien on the ship? The only reason is so they could have the big reveal when she’s in the pod at the end and that’s lame.

 

- at the end when Kenny Powers is flying the shuttle with the alien on it why'd the girl have to go outside to kill it?

 

- It will never stop bothering me that the scientists in Prometheus take their space helmets off. Nobody would do that and a lot of problems come from it. In this one they explore an entirely new planet without safety gear which is how the parasitic gas gets into those two characters. There’s got to be better ways to implant the organism than just not having them take basic precautionary measures.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, McCarthy said:

You had to cast James Franco as the guy we barely see who dies in the sleeping pod fire? That role would've been more effective if played by a more unknown actor so the audience doesn't go "lol that's James Franco". I had the same theater experience when Matt Damon woke up in Interstellar. 

I spent that entire scene going "is that James Franco? Why?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I spent that entire scene going "is that James Franco? Why?"

Worst part was because of the beard and being in a cyrochamber you couldn't tell if was him until the recording played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I spent that entire scene going "is that James Franco? Why?"

The stranger next to me said out loud "haha that's James Franco!" and that was the only peep the guy made the whole movie. It was supposed to be a sad moment and I thought they kind of ruined it with a really weird casting choice. Took me out of that moment.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King Arthur is the first film in a long time that I've walked out on.

 

Fortunately, nobody else came to our screening so I was able to do that.

 

Seeing Baywatch tomorrow night. I'm hoping that it's at least funny enough to make it worthwhile.

 

Recent things I've seen and really micro-reviews of each:

 

T2 Trainspotting - A nice, but much mellower affair than the original, but I enjoyed seeing where these characters went in the last 20 years.

 

Colossal - Much darker than I was expecting. A film where you think you have it figured out, and then it throws you for a loop. I didn't love this as I saw it, but it's one that's definitely stuck with me as I've thought about it since. Jason Sudeikis is really good here, really off kilter.

 

Kong: Skull Island - I enjoyed most of my time with this, even if it felt really inconsequential. John C. Reilly's character was great, and exactly what the movie needed, as a lot of the other characters were... more than a little thin.

 

I'm hoping to see Sleight this week before our key expires. Maybe Wednesday evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mania said:

King Arthur is the first film in a long time that I've walked out on.

 

Fortunately, nobody else came to our screening so I was able to do that.

 

Seeing Baywatch tomorrow night.

 


Hope you've got your walkout shoes on for that one, too.

 

What was rubbish about King Arthur? It looked like just another film that nobody wanted to be made, so I'm curious if it was as hollow as its premise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time to see how powerful Dwayne Johnson really is as a box office draw. If he can make Baywatch happen, he can do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, CS85 said:

What was rubbish about King Arthur? It looked like just another film that nobody wanted to be made, so I'm curious if it was as hollow as its premise.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was surprisingly...not mindless in execution. 

That's not exactly glowing praise, but they did a lot of little things right re: the source material that helped propel the movie from a harmless "film that nobody wanted to be made" to an enjoyable reinvention of the Arthur myth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DG_Now said:

It's time to see how powerful Dwayne Johnson really is as a box office draw. If he can make Baywatch happen, he can do anything.

I think The Rock would be the only reason why I'd see Baywatch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gary. said:

I think The Rock would be the only reason why I'd see Baywatch. 

Well, that and Alexandra Daddario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Baywatch. It's not a good movie by any stretch but it's well cast and there were some decent comedic scenes. The issues are a tone that has a lot of issues. It can't decide if it wants to be a 21 Jump Street style send up or a genuine tribute to the corny original, and because of that it doesn't really do either.

 

It's also way way too long at just around 2 hours. A 90 minute version might have fared much better.

 

I get the feeling it added some serious action scenes for international markets, particularly China.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I like The Rock as an actor, but Jesus he does not need to be in so many damn movies year in year out. It's getting old fast. Hopefully when he gets cast as Black Adam (presumably) in the DCEU, his movie load takes a slight drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-05-24 at 7:10 PM, DNAsports said:

Look, I like The Rock as an actor, but Jesus he does not need to be in so many damn movies year in year out. It's getting old fast. Hopefully when he gets cast as Black Adam (presumably) in the DCEU, his movie load takes a slight drop.

I don't know. If all of these studios wanted to pay me a lot of money to be in movies? I'd probably say yes.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally checked out Everybody Wants Some!! on demand on Epix HD last night.  

 

It was...okay, pretty good.  But something about it just wasn't up to par.

 

For those who may not know, the movie was made by Richard Linklater, and was described as a "spiritual successor" to his 1993 classic Dazed and Confused (which, in turn, is pretty much an homage to George Lucas' American Graffiti). While Graffiti was set over the course of one night (basically sundown to sunrise) right before the start of school in 1962, Dazed was set over about a 24 hour period on the last day of school in 1976.   Everybody Wants Some!! is set over an extended weekend prior to the start of college, 1980.   Like Dazed and Graffiti, there is a great sense of the time and place delivered (especially via a great soundtrack) and a "coming of age" / " transition in life" focus to the story. 

 

But unlike the other two movies, I think it's kind of hard to identify or empathize with any of the characters, which was one of the movie's drawbacks. Both of the previous movies had memorable characters.  Some of them were almost caricatures (John Milner in Graffiti and Matthew McConaughey's Wooderson, for instance, were basically the same character-- the hot rod greaser a few years removed from high school).  But all of the characters showed signs of something everyone could identify with-- the wary incoming freshmen, the nerds, the all-american guys with girlfriend issues, etc.   Everybody kind of has a variety of "types" as well, but it's different because all of the primary characters are college baseball players, something that Linklater knows well (the film draws a lot on his experience playing freshman ball at Sam Houston State in '80-'81)  but which most of us can't identify with.  

 

linklater-baseball-1980.thumb.jpg.f7391a51eb7ad0a300155bfae2a2ba55.jpgActual photo of Linklater's 1980-81 Sam Houston State baseball team.  He's 3rd from the right, bottom row (seated).  Just like in the movie, apparently there was only one black guy on the team.

 

Other than a lot of bimbos, there's only ONE female character of note in the film.  And none of the guy characters have much to endear them to the viewer, nothing that makes a viewer empathize with them or relate to them.  It comes off as a bit of watching a bunch of meathead jocks chase tail, compete with one another, and party.  Not that there's anything wrong with that for a fun movie, but with Linklater I had hoped for something better, something a little bigger in its outlook and story, perhaps. 

 

Plus, rather than being a "spiritual successor" I wish he had just gone all out and made the central character Mitch Kramer (the high school freshman in Dazed) rather than "Jake Bradford". They were both pitchers (Mitch in Little League in Dazed); the age matched up (Mitch was an incoming high school freshman in 1976, which makes him a college freshman in 1980) and both are essentially Linklater in disguise.  It would have just added a better "level",  I think to the movie.  As it is, I didn't really give a rat's ass about Jake Bradford on his own as he settles in at fictional "Southeast Texas University"; but if it was Mitch I'd already be rooting for him. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2017 at 6:10 PM, DNAsports said:

Look, I like The Rock as an actor, but Jesus he does not need to be in so many damn movies year in year out. It's getting old fast. Hopefully when he gets cast as Black Adam (presumably) in the DCEU, his movie load takes a slight drop.

As quickly as the prime offers can dry up, I don't blame him for getting, while the getting is good.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now