An excellent action film, marred only by the fact that the last part seemed a bit superfluous; I can buy an unstoppable ball of revenge blasting its way through the movie, but once revenge on the primary target has been achieved there's no need to keep going. I also wish I had gotten to learn more about
the hotel
, although I understand that will come up in the second movie.
In post 42, VashtaNeurotic wrote:Also does NOT feature several woodland creatures flying an airship disappointingly.
Is this a Once Upon a Forest reference???
Yes, yes it is. I'm debating making him watch it again at some point this month if he's going to casually reference it like this.
Xalxe: this is xofelf sometimes we call each other names and other times we share emotions
MattyP: Ur an enigma tho when it comes to circadian rhythm and the traditions we hold dear when it comes to the sun and the moon Get to reknow a xofelf here
Discord is faster than PMs or sitechat: xofelf#1697
Random thought, would it be weird to change the tv show/other media rules to be 160 or 180 minutes per point going foward? Atm despite being similar runtimes, watching 4 movies of about 100 minutes each scores less than watching 10 40 minute episodes of a tv show. Not to mention watching a movie like seven samurai would count half as much as watching tv equal to its length.
I get this is a casual thing, and more for just sharing what we watch/opinions on it, but if this is meant to be more of a movie challenge than a media challenge the rules should probably reflect that more than charlie chaplin and shorter animated features always being counted?
In post 52, VashtaNeurotic wrote:Random thought, would it be weird to change the tv show/other media rules to be 160 or 180 minutes per point going foward? Atm despite being similar runtimes, watching 4 movies of about 100 minutes each scores less than watching 10 40 minute episodes of a tv show. Not to mention watching a movie like seven samurai would count half as much as watching tv equal to its length.
I get this is a casual thing, and more for just sharing what we watch/opinions on it, but if this is meant to be more of a movie challenge than a media challenge the rules should probably reflect that more than charlie chaplin and shorter animated features always being counted?
I'm not super stoked about changing rules mid-challenge, but you make a good point. I wasn't sure how much interest there would be and I kinda feared restricting it to a more rigid definition of movies might discourage participation.
One of my backup ideas was scoring it as a point per minute. So watching 4 100 minute movies scores the same as 10 40 minute episodes since they both took the same time to watch. What do you think?
In post 52, VashtaNeurotic wrote:Random thought, would it be weird to change the tv show/other media rules to be 160 or 180 minutes per point going foward? Atm despite being similar runtimes, watching 4 movies of about 100 minutes each scores less than watching 10 40 minute episodes of a tv show. Not to mention watching a movie like seven samurai would count half as much as watching tv equal to its length.
I get this is a casual thing, and more for just sharing what we watch/opinions on it, but if this is meant to be more of a movie challenge than a media challenge the rules should probably reflect that more than charlie chaplin and shorter animated features always being counted?
I'm not super stoked about changing rules mid-challenge, but you make a good point. I wasn't sure how much interest there would be and I kinda feared restricting it to a more rigid definition of movies might discourage participation.
One of my backup ideas was scoring it as a point per minute. So watching 4 100 minute movies scores the same as 10 40 minute episodes since they both took the same time to watch. What do you think?
Yeah that over granulizes things. Reason I offered the change I did is it only makes people work if they're watching a lot of something not a movie (which can just be a know it when you see it deal that people classify themselves, like maybe 1 thing someone posts about might be controversial and even then it's mostly for fun), and 95% of the time that's a tv show, and since most comedies are 20-30ish minutes and dramas 40-60, should be easy to count vs movies which have highly varying runtimes. Just figured I'd float the idea.
I think I'm indifferent since I ultimately watch a lot more tv than movies. Plus if I'm only counting watching a whole season I definitely am not getting any benefit watching a season vs watching a movie. But again I'm not really caring about points or winning and just catching up on stuff I want to watch. Since I'm not winning anything from doing this, I'm just having fun. Whatever y'all want to do I don't really care.
So I'm kind of doing this out of order, but I watched this movie today. It's easy to see why this series continued beyond just the 1st. A wholly original concept to the horror genre and a really good cast to boot, this was the epitome of the series. Figuring out "death's design" and how it comes back to slowly pick off people who were supposed to die in an airplane is unique. In addition, there were trope rules, and stupid drama, and just everything you want in a movie. The standout moments were the bus incident, the house explosion, and the confrontation with the electric line. There was so much to enjoy about this film, however some of the characters were very superficial. Like there was "a delivery guy" who despite lasting awhile, I barely got to know, but it was Sean William Scott who I enjoy so I tolerated it. In addition I love Ali Larter, but man did I not relate/understand her character. Like she herself is an icon, but Clear Rivers is equal parts amazing as she is frustrating. The decision making by some of the characters was also kind of irritating. Overall though, this is such a classic start for the series and I loved the two leads despite their flaws. A captivating movie where Death literally is out to get you! I approve. 4/5
I am finally done with my rewatch of all the Final Destinations. All-in-all I'm both happy and sad that I ended on this movie. It reminded me that the twist I thought was unique to the 4th movie was actually not that unique as it had been brought up already. So cool, I actually have a reason to go back and give the 4th movie a lower score for literally not introducing anything. Anyways, there were things about this movie I loved. Some of the death sequences, unlike the first film, were downright hilarious. I forgot that despite having the best introduction of all of the FD movies, some of the deaths were unintentionally hilarious. The Fence slicing one and the grill deaths I still laughed out loud at. This was a turning point for the series because it could have easily been a more serious toned cult classic, but parts of this movie played on a dark comedy which is seen a lot more throughout the rest of the series. I really was excited to see Ali Larter back, and then as the movie went on, I kind of wasn't. I love her, but again Clear just bugs me throughout this movie. Like she's so arrogant that it's clouded her judgement over the two movies, which I guess makes some sense, but she's way less likable in this movie than the other. In addition AJ Cook, who I love in Criminal minds, was just okay as Kimberly the main protagonist. There weren't any real stand outs in the rest of the cast either. It was kind of just a continuation of the first movie really. It wasn't great, it wasn't awful, it's just painfully average aside from the really incredible opening sequence. 3.4/5
I have been DYING to have any excuse to watch this movie and finally took the plunge tonight. And hoo boy this was sure a movie. Wow there were so many twists and turns that I had whiplash by the end. A coffee barista who still lives at home has a vendetta against men by pretending to be helpless and then catching them off guard when they try to take advantage of her. I'm not sure what I expected when this movie started, but it wasn't this. Carey Mulligan was INCREDIBLE. Wow. This is a potentially career defining role. I'm just in shock because there was so much of this movie that both made me cheer loudly, and then gasp. I don't want to spoil too much for those who haven't seen it. But the ending sequence made my jaw drop. I've never felt both vehemently disgusted, and more proud in my entire life. Everything about this movie was just everything I needed. There was exactly 1 predictable moment in the movie, but otherwise I had no idea where they were going with the plot until the eventual end. I can't recommend this movie enough. 4.9/5.
The first film explores what happens when an unstoppable force focuses all of its energy on one target. The sequel could have easily done the same thing but wisely chose to invert the formula by forcing Wick to shift from unstoppable force to immoveable object. The mythology is fleshed out in a way that doesn't feel hamfisted, and while it does raise a few questions (how many elite hitman freelancers ARE there?) they aren't the sort of thing that detracts from the movie. The John Wick films aren't high art, but they are still well-crafted entertainment.
Particular props go to the editing decision to show several non-contemporaneous fights at once instead of having them be setpieces one after the other. It not only kept up the pace but also contributed to the feeling of being targeted by an endless enemy.
Some mixed feelings here. In terms of pacing this movie does a fine job of not wearing out its welcome, the action scenes have fantastic fight choreography, and things are varied enough with different styles of martial arts and improvised weapons that it never feels like the same old same old from the first two movies. However, the writing in this one falls flat. I'm reminded of The Dark Knight Rises, where the third movie in the trilogy squandered it with a whole bunch of philosophy. This movie feels the same way at times only it somehow doesn't even commit to that. I can tell the writers want to discuss What Does It Mean To
Be
A John Wick? until they've gone up their own ass, but even their attempts at asking and answering this question feel rushed.
There are still entertaining parts, and this isn't a bad movie. However, the first two were great and this one is merely okay.
Okay so overall, this was a delightful movie and once again glad I had time to finally get through some of my backlog. This wasn't like the most amazing movie I've seen, nor am I very fond of the script of little women. It's not horrible, I just feel like there are times that the pacing is off and sometimes there are things that are there that don't need to be. However, this is a well acted, well directed movie. It's very much a period piece and very much a product of it's time. It sort of has a Pride & Prejudice feel, but really dives into the background of the sister's lives. I loved Meryl Streep, I loved Saiorese Ronan (sp?), I loved Emma Watson...and the rest of the actors were very good too. I think sometimes this movie has a tendency to sugar coat the actual times that this movie represents. While it's not bad, I just found myself wishing for bigger emotional reactions or bigger reactions in general. There were a lot of heavy topics covered. But at the heart of this movie was a story about ownership, figuring out who you are, and learning to make amends with the past. I'm glad I saw it, and I applaued Greta Gerwig for a job well done. I just think it could have gone farther with it's message, might be a little nitpicky on my part. It's Little Women. If you know the story, you have the basic understanding of what's in the movie and although I've never read it myself, it seems like a reasonably faithful rendition given what I do know about it. 4.2/5
You know what? This was actually pretty good. I was worried based on what people told me that this would be a total drag and make me hate it. Was it cheesy and unbelievable at times? Yeah. But it's freaking Power Rangers. I thought the cast was more likable than I was expecting and even though it's a little "reformed punks" and "forced leadership" like all the characters filled their roles and they did pretty good. Having seen Naomi Scott in Aladdin first, I was not sure what to think and she actually was rather likable in this. Hearing those old special effects and seeing some twists such as Goldor and the putties, were really really fun! I actually had a lot of fun with this movie, even though I probably wouldn't call it AMAZING or CLASSIC. But it was a good way to spend 2 hours tonight. I have to bow to the masters though, Elizabeth Banks and Bryan Cranston were phenomenal as Rita and Zordon. Honestly if the cast was more up to their level I honestly would have called this a romping success. Elizabeth Banks in particular was GENIUS in this. Her portrayal of Rita was not your old school Rita, but a fun new grimey raw Rita who was power hungry. I kind of was here for it and she sort of carried most of the plot for me which is pretty incredible and it was fun seeing her do some of her finest work which I hope people appreciate her for. I also loved the cameo by the original pink and green rangers towards the end, a really nice nod for the series. I enjoyed this more than I thought it was going to! But again it's probably not something worth watching multiple times. 4/5.
Oh! I really liked that Power Rangers movie. It could have been a lot worse than it was, it was acceptable.
Xalxe: this is xofelf sometimes we call each other names and other times we share emotions
MattyP: Ur an enigma tho when it comes to circadian rhythm and the traditions we hold dear when it comes to the sun and the moon Get to reknow a xofelf here
Discord is faster than PMs or sitechat: xofelf#1697
the other day and thought it was ok. The reviews on it are mostly positive (6.7 on IMDB and 92% on RT) but I've never heard of it despite it being a 2013 movie and winning an award at Sundance. It calls itself a comedy and yes there are maybe some funny scenes but it feels more like a drama to me.
5
Of all tyrannies,a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Of all tyrannies,a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Also, I just got done re?watching Major League (1989) since it was on tv and I was too lazy to turn on Hulu or Amazon. I could have sworn I've seen this before but I only remembered the beginning and the end. Nevertheless, I think it's a funny film with colorful characters. It's fun and enjoyable to watch.
6
Of all tyrannies,a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
4. Alice in Wonderland (1951)
Somehow had never seen it before. Felt like watching something mindless and upbeat. Got exactly what I was looking for.
Then got really confused why the Disney+ starring section for the film in the details section casually leaves off Kathryn Beaumont's name. You know, the person who voiced Alice. Who the movie is named after. But no, she's not a star in it or anything.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -
I wonder if it's because they left that largely out of credits at the time cuz she was a child and Disney just... didn't update it? The early voice contracts for Disney were pretty shit for a long time.
Xalxe: this is xofelf sometimes we call each other names and other times we share emotions
MattyP: Ur an enigma tho when it comes to circadian rhythm and the traditions we hold dear when it comes to the sun and the moon Get to reknow a xofelf here
Discord is faster than PMs or sitechat: xofelf#1697
