Rate the last movie you watched

[FoolofaTook]

pennis is errekt

[vixnix]

I find Adam Driver pretty hot but whether or not he is actually hot, we'd have to agree that he needs to be measured on a different scale to say, Hayden Christensen, who was the un-sexiest Star Wars character of all time.

Next to him and Mark Hamill, Adam Driver with the Jedi powers and a conflicted soul is like

[LaBelle]

Lots of Girls fans would agree with you, I suppose.

[LaBelle]

He was naked a lot on that show if that's your thing.

[FlamingGlobes]

But did they ever show Adam's Driver?

[LaBelle]

I never seen the show only heard about it, so i'm gonna guess no.
Even though it's an HBO show.

[pinetree]

Originally Posted by LaBelle

I never seen the show only heard about it, so i'm gonna guess no.
Even though it's an HBO show.

do u like this song https://youtu.be/Ouem6cFXJvA

[LaBelle]

Yeah that song is pretty good actually.

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by FlamingGlobes

But did they ever show Adam's Driver?

I've watched a snippet that I think I found because someone posted it here....and it was brilliant, but like...way too real.

In the end because I wanted to know more about it I just read all the episode synopses at Wikipedia and that triggered me enough. I'm not mentally and emotionally strong enough to watch a better looking version of my younger self make all the same terrible choices I did.

It even ends in the same way that my youth did, truly, with learning to breastfeed a baby. Too real. Just... too real.

[vixnix]

I fell for Adam Driver when I watched Frances Ha and I was like OMG who is that

Though, if I had to choose between Adam Driver and Greta Gerwig I think I would actually choose Greta Gerwig. I love her so much that when I think about her work, my stomach actually hurts. I'm not sure if it's jealousy or lust...

[FlamingGlobes]

Greta Gerwig is wonderful. That said, I had a really hard time pushing through to the end of Frances Ha.

[vixnix]

I love every minute of Frances Ha, but I can imagine it trying someone's patience.

[Tchocky]

A Vewwy Vewwwy Quiet Place

Not quite as scary as I hoped it would be, but still a well-made film with great atmosphere. John Krasinski out-Shamalyan's M. Night in his directorial debut. Also, Emily Blunt is a badass.

B

Avengers: Infinite Protagonists

Ten years and 18 movies in the making, would this be the crown Infinity Stone of the MCU that Marvel has been hyping it up to be?

Almost.

Thanos is a compelling villain but still seemed a bit underdeveloped, and I hope his backhistory is touched on a little more in the next movie (Josh Brolin, whom I normally don't like, did a great job). This movie is long but its pace is so brisk, moving from climax to climax, that it did feel a bit rushed at times. Also, while the movie was quite funny, some of the humor felt a little forced.

However, I give kudos to Marvel for a successful balancing act with the protagonist characters . Though the "bigger" heroes obviously got more screen time, almost none of them actually felt marginalized, and Marvel should be commended for the way they handled the ensemble cast (minor spoiler: a pity that Thanos's "children" were ultimately red-shirt cannon fodder, because they actually showed promise early on in the movie as a powerful team of bad guys).

And that ending...WOW. Wasn't expecting it, but it packs a wallop and makes you realize how much you care about this hodgepodge of characters. That said, I'm going to feel disappointed and a bit emotionally cheated on if the next movie goes too far toward reversing what happened at the end of this movie. The ending of this movie proved that Marvel has some balls...but I have a feeling that audiences are gonna get MacGuffin'd in a big way with the next movie.

Overstuffed, rushed, but entertaining and surprisingly emotional.

Black Panther was still better though.

B+

[FoolofaTook]

Blade Runner (the first) B

Overrated.

[Skradgee]

Stooper Trooperz, Part Deux. It was worth the wait...

I live in VT, so I'm inherently biased, but please, allow me to explain:

(Re)watch the first one before seeing Super Troopers 2...lots of great references to the first movie.
Farva is all kinds of lol
Living just south of Canada is one of the nicest things about living in VT, when you want to get away for a while.

A-

[Shallowed]

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

Blade Runner (the first) B

Overrated.

That's still a pretty generous rating

[Disco King]

Just saw The Cloverfield Paradox [Spoilers]

At first, it wasn't clear what Paramount was doing with this "Cloverfield" franchise, what with their equivocal labeling of entries as "spiritual sequels" and cryptic description of premises. Was it to be a Twilight Zone-esque anthology series? Was there some deeper connection that it would take close watching and investigation to discover?

With the third entry, it's pretty clear what the name "Cloverfield" means; If you see "Cloverfield" in the title, it means that J.J. Abrams took somebody else's undercooked-but-promising spec script and ruined it by shoving unnecessary references and tacking his branding onto them. I can understand why they're doing this. Maybe in today's climate of movies only making money if they're carrying familiar brands, the larger studios can only hope to find an audience for original scripts by shoehorning them into a established franchises. When you look at it that way, it's no worse than another Transformers film.

10 Cloverfield Lane wasn't bad. But was the movie served by the twist ending of "actually is sci-fi!!!" that was obviously an eleventh-hour rewrite? I don't think it served any purpose other than making the audience go "huh, I guess I didn't see that coming."

But the added Cloverfield elements of Paradox somehow sit even less comfortably, despite the fact that this one was actually a sci-fi flick to begin with, and not a psychological thriller with a sci-fi surprise. Okay, so messing with the spacetime continuum is what brought about the Cloverfield monster in the first film... except... the first film didn't take place in a dystopic near-future at the brink of global war. So, the Cloverfield monster we see in this film must have nothing to do with the monster in the first film, correct? Sure, you could say that the timeline of the first film was just one of the many alternate ones screwed up by the events in the third film, but does that really even do anything to change our understanding of the story? No, it's nothing but a nerd-bait Easter egg.

I feel like the actual plot of the film raised some interesting ideas, and that this could have been a good film if maybe given another rewrite and not tainted by Abrams, but the ideas are never taken anywhere, and the film is just stuffed with predictable cliches and bad dialogue. Characters responding with dull snark and mild bemusement to losing both an arm and a planet. A character pulls another character closer, and you can already tell that her next words will be "don't trust X" in order to foment drama and paranoia.

The second act of the film is literally just "weird shit happens on the space station because of reasons to do with the experiment." It's never explained why conflicting time lines would cause weird shit of this particular nature occurring. Characters from different timelines interacting and having conflicting memories and histories, okay, that makes narrative sense. Arms moving of their own volition? Magnetic putty becoming sentient? Why does that stuff happen? If the story just had physics work differently because the alternate universe had different physical constants, sure, that would make sense.

A lot of bad science, too. "What we know about quantum entanglement tells us that firing up the accelerator should bring us back to our dimension." What about entanglement would tell you how to shift back into your old universe, when you didn't even know universe-shifting was possible until moments ago? Why wouldn't repeating the action just send you to yet another alternate timeline? How do you know there aren't an infinite number of them? There are only the two? The regular one and the one where everybody wears cowboy hats? Why does the space capsule full of water flash-freeze as soon as its breached? In the vacuum of space, there's not a lot of matter for the water to transfer its heat from through conduction or convection, so it would take a long time to cool down as the heat slowly radiates away.

The film, through bringing up alternate timelines, could have addressed so many interesting questions. Should one have an interest in the suffering in a parallel timeline? Should the crew have cared about the war engulfing the new timeline they visited? If there are infinite timelines in which every possibility is realised, would this by extension mean that we should have a moral interest in every possible timeline? Including a hypothetical parallel timeline in which, say, Hitler won WWII? At which point would you draw the line? Should one be concerned about the welfare of an alternate version of one's self? Alternate versions of one's loved ones? To what extent could an alternate version of you actually be you in any meaningful way? Lets say in your timeline, your loved ones are in danger. Would saving them from perishing be meaningfully different from just traveling to a timeline in which people identical to your loved ones are safe, and you can carry on your relationship with them? These would be interesting philosophical questions to explore.

But instead, the movie is content to just have a string of barely connected horror tropes happen aboard a space station, and re-tread things done better in other sci-fi movies, like Interstellar and probably Alien. Even the characters barely seem interested in the weird shit that's going on.

Cool, you explained how monsters and aliens show up in another film. So, someone altered reality so that a monster always existed in the bottom of the ocean in the first film. How's that a meaningfully different answer from "a monster always existed in the bottom of the ocean" in the first film? Retroactive causality does practically nothing, storywise. Hell, I could use it to explain any event in any movie. Dracula was made possible by the events in The Cloverfield Paradox. So were the monsters from Monsters, Inc. The reason Patrick Bateman is a psychopath is that people on a space station in an alternate timeline rewrote history to make him an evil baby. It's all very arbitrary.

[FoolofaTook]

Originally Posted by Shallowed

That's still a pretty generous rating

I thought it was a cult classic or something.

[FoolofaTook]

I don't know. I had two glasses of wine and got fuzzrocked LOL.

The bad guy was pretty senescent.

[Mooney]

Lynne Ramsay's 'You Were Never Really Here' B+ Delightfully fucked up.

[FoolofaTook]

Coco A+

This movie is the shit.

[FoolofaTook]

Almost missed my bus because this godawful movie. The Holy Spirit was beautiful tho. And asian. Let me google her.

[FoolofaTook]

From left to right: the Father, the Spirit, the Son.

[FoolofaTook]

Not really a film. More an instructional video designed to be shown to teens at a Christian summer camp and earnestly discussed afterwards with a T-shirt-wearing group leader whose smiley tolerance for dissent is finite. (I incidentally imagine him resembling the church-going best buddy of the film’s hero.)

The Shack is based on a self-published Christian bestseller from 2007 by Canadian author William P Young: literal, righteously pedagogic and unsubtle – with some truly silly stuff about walking on water. Sam Worthington plays Mack, a Christian husband and father who is haunted by memories of a drunken, abusive dad whom he murdered as a kid by slipping (huge flashback closeup on the clearly labelled bottle) into his whisky. Did the police not, erm, suspect anything? Evidently not. Anyway, as a grownup he takes his family on a lakeside vacation where something terrible happens to his young daughter in a shack at the hands of a psycho killer. The cops seem as useless at detecting the culprit as they were in the days when Mack was bumping off his dad. In the depths of despair, he receives a mysterious summons to spend a redemptive crisis/visionary weekend in this very shack as the guest of God the father (Octavia Spencer), God the son (Avraham Aviv Alush) and God the Holy Spirit (Sumire Matsubara) and they all have the same kindly, enigmatic smile that in any other sort of film would mean they were playing Satan. (The Evil One is not represented.)

The Trinity talk Mack through his issues, including his judgmental rage at his daughter’s killer: a figure denoting Wisdom has a bizarre and illogical scene challenging Mack to a make a Sophie’s Choice decision about which of his surviving kids he would wish to send to hell. Huh?

The film could have been just crazy enough to be brilliant, but it winds up looking like a wet weekend at Christian Disneyland. Some potentially interesting material about forgiveness is swamped by the bad writing, cardboard characterisation and intelligence-insulting kiddiespeak theology.

[FoolofaTook]

really bummed about no satan. sasha baron cohen would of been perfect.

[teh b0lly!!1]

Originally Posted by FoolofaTook

From left to right: the Father, the Spirit, the Son.

i dunno who those people are supposed to be, but the guy on the right looks precisely and uncannily like some Israeli actor

[teh b0lly!!1]

actually i think it's him but i'm puzzled as to why you'd post his picture

[FoolofaTook]

my relatives forced me to watch The Shack: A Weekend With God. Those three play the Trinity.

It was a horrifying experience.

[FoolofaTook]

my aunt is watching elif a turkish soap.

[vixnix]

I got to choose a movie for the family to watch, seeing as it was mothers' day. I went with something that they wouldn't normally watch with me, and something I haven't watched in at least 20 years.



Still giving this A-, because there are too many classic Eddie Murphy moments, to go lower. I really appreciated how much of an impact an actor can make, on the action-comedy movie formula, watching it this time. Scenes that could have just been ordinary story-setup, or structural, were far more engaging to watch just because Eddie Murphy was in them. Like when he goes to the Harrow Club and he's stopped at the door, and then morphs into the "Well, tell him I went to the clinic..." character.

This is a really fuzzesque movie review and I'm going to go full fuzzard here and say that in retrospect, the idea of someone like Jim Carrey in a role like Ace Ventura, is really just a shitty copy of Eddie Murphy in Beverley Hills Cop.

And I'm not a Jim Carrey hater. I really enjoy Jim Carrey....but he doesn't have the range of Eddie Murphy - I think half of the pleasure of this movie comes from him effortlessly slipping from one character into another. Jim Carrey just has that one super neurotic emotional volume.

Coming to America was the next step, where they broke out the costumes and makeup, and I love that movie, too. But seeing him shape shift with none of those aids...is actually more engaging to me, in some ways.

Fuck you haters. Eddie Murphy has no scandals!