@aquamanpunch
I watched
Kung Fu vs Yoga yesterday. Hands down one of the nuttiest movies I've ever seen.
europe, you should head over to Youtube and check it out. Two martial artists fight a blind criminal, a psycho Shaolin monk, a tranny hooker named "The Yin Yang Shemale," and a double-jointed Gumby-esque yoga master. Need I say more?
Time to hear if The Gauntlet really is an hidden Eastwood classic or a film that saddly stumbled a few meters into the sprint.
I actually watched that one for the first time a few years ago on
@aquamanpunch's recommendation. I don't really remember much, though, other than thinking it was decent (better than his late Dirty Harry movies but not his early ones) so it'll be on the rewatch list. He also recommended
The Rookie, which will be on the watch list. I've also never seen
Coogan's Bluff,
The Eiger Sanction (super stoked for this one),
Tightrope,
City Heat (Eastwood's squint and Burt Reynolds' mustache on the same screen
),
Pink Cadillac, or
A Perfect World. I can't have that many outstanding Eastwood films on my list.
Of all the exploitation trends out there, Brucesploitation may be the weirdest.
I'll be watching
Fists of Bruce Lee,
Golden Dragon Silver Snake,
Return of Bruce,
Bruce Lee's Greatest Revenge, and
Bruce's Deadly Fingers. I can't say I'm excited at the prospect, but I'm definitely curious
It's been over a decade since I saw most of John Woo films, but "sucks"? "Sucks"!? Seriously!? Sucks!?
I watched
A Better Tomorrow and its sequel because of
True Romance. They both stunk ("stink" is one rung higher on the ladder than "suck"). I watched
The Killer because of
@aquamanpunch and it was fucking abysmal, seriously one of the worst movies ever (now that I'm thinking about it, I tore into that movie in a similar fashion to the
Mad Max heresy, which may have contributed to his leaving
). I watched
Hard Target because of JCVD (with an added Lance Henriksen bonus). Decent but not very good, definitely near the bottom of the JCVD pile. I watched
Broken Arrow for Travolta. It stunk. I used to love
Face/Off for Travolta and Cage. Now it's literally unwatchable, although still not as bad as
The Killer. And
Mission: Impossible II is good in the beginning when he's ripping off Hitchcock's
Notorious but it nosedives
hard the second Woo switches from stealing from Hitchcock to doing his own shit.
As for
Hard Boiled, I've only seen that hospital scene in a Youtube clip. Didn't make me want to watch the movie and risk another Woo catastrophe.
So yeah, he sucks.
Bullet in the Head is superb as well (but no... you probably luuuuuve the Stallone film with the same name, you evil-minded philistine
).
Haven't seen (and probably never will see) Woo's film, but yes, I did luuuuuve Stallone's film. And I'm not just saying that to piss you off. I actually did really like that one.
I'm starting to suspect that my pacing-senses are just unortodox somehow. For example: I've always been majorly annoyed by the pacing and rythm in some of Orson Wells films like Citizen Kane or Touch of Evil (despite really liking them past that).
You're getting on my case for saying John Woo sucks and then you go on to bash
Citizen Kane?
There is definitively a disconnect between the Iron Man who gave the goverment the finger when they demanded that he'd hand over the tech for his armour, and the Iron Man who now wants regulations and state-control and all that.
I was worried about this. However...
Tony does come off as someone who has been traumatized in a way, due to the close-calls during Manhattan and Sovakia (not to mention that it was he who created the AI in the Second film, so blame for that kinda falls on him), as well as his failling love-life. He's also guilt-ridden due to all the collateral damage that the Avangers has caused. They have the obligatory scene where a mother of one of the victims come up and says "my baby died becuse of you blablabla!" Tony's desire to place the Avengers under the UN's thumb is basically a way for him to ease his guilty conciouss. It was he that took the decisions that cost innocent people their lives (through collateral damage), so if the decision would have been called by the UN instead, there wouldn't be any guilt over the dead since it wouldn't be them that took the decision. So responsibility for the dead and all the emotional repercussions that come with it would fall to the UN instead.
This makes it seem like the treatment of the contradiction is extremely fucking shrewd. I've noticed that terrorism is
the lynchpin of the MCU. Doesn't matter the film, doesn't matter the realm. The plot is terrorism. Every time. And, strangely enough, it's yet to prove stale. The alien invasion in
The Avengers, the flamers in
Iron Man 3, the darklovers in
Thor 2, HAL 2015 in
The Avengers 2. Based on this description, it sounds like
Civil War is dealing with worries prevalent in today's insufferably PC climate where Big Sticks are anathema despite the escalation of terrorism on a global scale.
I'm actually more interested in seeing it now. Thanks for the info.
I just find this stupid and short-sighted by Stark. Even assuming the UN is uncorrupt and well-meaning (which, as seen in the previous films, big-state organizations never seem to be), the end results would be the same. Even if the Avangers decided to fight in Sovakia on their own accord, or where ordered there by the UN, collateral damage would still occur. Those innocent civilians would still be dead. The only difference would be if the Avangers decided to go there by their own will or if they where ordered there. Who takes responsibility does not change who ends up dead.
Also (and this may just be conjecture on my part) Stark may be fine with being completely autonamous and accountable-only-to-himself. But I don't know if he would be fine extending that ultimate freedom to everyone else. He trusts himself to handle ultimate freedom, not sure he trusts everyone else with the same privilige.
I'll definitely come back to these points once I check it out for myself.
Basically, it's Stark's trying to atone for his sins so to speak.
Well, I loved him dealing with PTSD in
Iron Man 3, and evidently much more than most people, so I'm hoping I'll enjoy his arc in
Civil War.
Hope you get a chance to see this in the cinema. Airport scene was just bonkers.
I'm busy this week prepping for a talk and then I'm grading essays next week. If it's still showing the week after, I'll try to make it to a screening. I've yet to see anything from the MCU on the big screen, and given the way I've come around to these movies lately, this seems like the one to see.
That's why I'm going to mildly get into it with Friday Night Lights. Even though I'm kind of cool with you not liking it and the reasons why.
You just robbed me of a throwdown. But I'll say this:
It's pretty gay that you don't love Back to the Future.
I may rob you of another one, but as far as
Back to the Future goes: Those were movies that, like
Star Wars, eluded me for much of my childhood. It wasn't until I was almost done with high school that I first watched them. Not only that, but that first time I watched them nearly a decade ago is to this day the only time I've watched them. They were awesome, I'm not denying that, but I didn't become obsessed with them,
Back to the Future marathons didn't become an annual thing for me. For all I know, the next time I watch them, I'll love them even more. All I do know is that, when I first watched them, they didn't take over my world the way my favorite stuff tends to.
My computer mostly collects dust
The way people are with their phones today is the way I am with my laptop. The only time I've ever posted from my phone was last year when my laptop was being repaired. And it was a hell I never want to go back to.
Do platinum accounts not exist anymore?
They still exist. I just meant he was one way back in the day.
It's funny, he's one of the things I love about it.
Let's take a trip down memory lane:
I watched The Assassination of Jesse James last night and wow, what a mixed bag.
First of all, I think this is the perfect film to showcase Brad Pitt's limitations as an actor. I've never thought he was that great and is FAR from deserving consideration even as one of the best actors working today, let alone of all-time, and this film is an example of what he can't do.
However, I'm not blaming him for the performance. Andrew Dominik made a lot of mistakes in that film and I think the biggest one was the way he handled the Jesse James character. I don't even really know what he wanted from the character. Was he trying to juxtapose the mythical nature with his troubled human side? I honestly don't know. All I know is that, if that's what he was trying to do, he needed a better actor because Pitt couldn't pull it off.
The scene where Pitt is going to kill Garret Dillahunt is probably the best piece of acting I've ever seen from Pitt and I don't know why the director didn't make the character like that for the whole film. He should've used the mythical qualities of Jesse James instead of bringing them out for a scene or two and then switching back to making him a weird mix of a tough front hiding a troubled soul.
When Pitt was quiet, pensive, and menacing, it was really something else. A marvel to watch, but then he's given tons of lines and has to flip out like he did on the train and at the farm with the kid and with Casey Affleck near the end and he's not a good enough actor to pull off those scenes in a believable fashion and he brings the character down and the film down, too.
I also thought Affleck was pretty poor casting. I don't think he did a very good job and considering how important the character was to the film, a better actor would've helped a lot.
Overall, I'll say the film was a disappointment since there were so many choices made by the director that I didn't agree with at all, but I'll also say that I think the film should've won for Cinematography over There Will Be Blood. I can't recall ANY film over the last five or ten years shot better than this one, and the opening train robbery was one of the most magnificent scenes I've ever seen.
The whole film was a how-to when it comes to lighting and easily the best lighting in film since Barry Lyndon, and the combination of the lighting and the cinematography made the film a visual treat. Not enough to make me think any higher of the film, but the visuals definitely deserve all of the praise that they can possibly be given.
The way in which Robert Ford attaches himself to the James gang and idolises Jesse is perfectly executed and their relationship is one I found hard to take my eyes off.
This I disagree with. I thought their relationship left way too much to be desired. Where the director succeeded was in letting us see how strong Affleck's idolatry was. The scene where Sam Rockwell and Jeremy Renner are making fun of him and his book collection is great, but the scenes where Affleck and Pitt were actually together and were forming some semblance of a relationship were poor IMO.
Jesse seems increasingly aware of his impending death but lets events unfold, almost like he is painting his own picture. Although I'm not sure he could possibly have known his demise would come at the hands of Bob Ford.
I got this, too, but I think it could've been done better by doing a better job handling the character throughout. Scenes like when he's on the ice or about to cry after giving Affleck the gun seem random and out of place, and the randomness coupled with Pitt's weak performance hurt the resonance.
The acting in this movie is really top drawer. Brad Pitt as the eponymous Jesse is fantastic. He plays crazy rather well as seen in fight club and there is an air of instability about Jesse throughout the movie. Pitt though is unquestionably outshone by Casey Affleck (Robert Ford). Ford's eery and ambitious persona are pulled off perfectly. His study and obsession with Jesse subtle and unsettling and his character one that somehow you find yourself sympathising with. The supporting cast is also immense.
This I just disagree with vehemently since I don't think the acting was top drawer at all, and when Pitt "plays crazy" is when he's at his worst in the film. It's when he's quiet and staring through you as if he sees the gears in your mind working and knows what you're going to think of before you come to the conclusion yourself is him at his strongest---and scariest---and again, the fact that that wasn't played up more is the fault of the director, not Pitt himself.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'crazy' as it is ambiguous in this context and doesn't do the positives of the performance any justice, I really mean unhinged.
I think I got pretty accurately what you meant and I just disagreed with it. If you liken his character to a coin, he had the heads down---the bad ass outlaw, the terrifying killer---while the tails side of the coin was lacking severely---the wild man who can't control his emotions under stress, as evidenced in the train robbery or at the farm with the young boy, and the unraveling outlaw waiting and hoping for death.
His character was, essentially, two different people, and he only had the capability to pull off one of the two sides of the coin.
Pitt did a great job in Jesse James. Bullitt is digging a bit too deep to find flaws in his performance
But I agree, the scenes where Jesse "goes crazy", Pitt didn't impress me that much. Overall his performance was top notch.
No digging was required. It was plain as day to me where his shortcomings were. I gave full praise where I felt it was deserving, namely the seen with Garret Dillahunt, which I seriously believe is possibly the best piece of acting in his entire career and brought to mind my recent post about not seeing too many looks as evil as Kevin Gage before he kills the prostitute in
Heat. I think I've got another contender in Pitt when Jesse James stared daggers at you with those oddly and arrestingly piercing eyes.
That's what should've been highlighted by the director but I don't think he noticed what he had in Pitt's ability at slow, deliberate speaking and nonverbal acting. The more lines he's given and the more over-the-top he has to go, the worse he does. Writers and directors need to play to his strengths and as an actor he needs to know his strengths and weaknesses.
He shouldn't be going into DDL territory of big scale power emotion scenes. He doesn't have the range for it.
The acting was top notch, and I don't get how people can say Casey Affleck was a bad actor in this movie, he did EXACTLY what the character needed. Someone you at times felt sorry for, sometimes got annoyed with, and in the end hated. Robert Ford was a coward, and Affleck made him a coward.
First of all, I resented his being called a coward the whole time. What was cowardly about him? He seemed an okay kid who had a hero who wasn't deserving of his idolatry and when he feared he would be killed by said hero, he got him first.
If the director wanted to portray him as a coward with whom you couldn't possibly sympathize with, he failed miserably, and if he wanted us to identify with and feel sorry for Jesse James, he again failed miserably.
Like I said: He was all over the place and I'm not entirely sure what he wanted out of his characters, and the weak acting in places didn't help him any.
Pitt is best when he's "hysterical" imo, the end scene in Se7en where he's going from crying to anger is fucking excellent. Not to mention 12 Monkeys and Fight Club.
I don't think it's possible for me to disagree more vehemently than I do with this. Brad Pitt is TERRIBLE when he has to act like that. He ruined the emotional impact of that final scene in
Seven. It's so horrific that it packs a hell of a punch anyway, but his acting almost ruined it.
The less dialogue he has to say and the more he can use facial expressions and body language, the better.
We went a few more rounds, but that's all that's left from the original thread.
And BASEketball is hilarious.
Hands down one of the funniest movies ever made. Still don't really like
South Park, but movie-wise, those guys are fucking geniuses.
One thing I still can't get on board with is the appalling glut of super hero movies. For every half watchable one there are 10 awful ones. They make a fortune and so you can expect X-men 12. It's become a really tired genre.
Eh, I've recently embraced this genre. And the MCU and the X-Men franchise are responsible for some of the strongest offerings. What do your rankings look like for the superhero movies you've seen?
It's absolutely brilliant. Really top drawer tarantino and really any criticism about the pacing early on is unimportant as the film as a whole is so brilliant.
Oh, and Walton Goggins is quality.
He was great in
The Shield, but in a Tarantino movie surrounded by all those heavy hitters, I sure as shit didn't expect him to steal the show the way he did. Other than the Dingus story, the hardest I laughed was when he called Russell "Mr. Face." It was such an odd line but the way he punched it out caught me completely off-guard
https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/a403a3b2-b29d-47a8-bf10-66ac0a236a23
Hardy was cool but I still feel he hasn't quite found a role that really explores his potential. The Krays movie he did was close but the movie as a whole was so bad he was up against it.
Oh, God,
Lawless was a fucking disaster.
Lawless was one of the most frustrating movie experiences I've had in a while. The premise was great, the cast was great, but the entire script is nothing but bad decisions. Every way they could've botched a character or a plot point, they not only succeeded in botching it, but they botched it as badly as anyone could've imagined in their worst nightmare. First off, they made Shia (who bulked up for the role so he could better fit in alongside Tom Hardy) a whiny little wannabe bitch, which was a retarded dynamic, and second, they made the ultimate revenge payoff one of the dumbest scenes in contemporary cinema. Hardy's character was consistently cool, but even his character got royally fucked by the film's end. I was so infuriated by the end of it, what was at the start one of my most anticipated movies became by the end an entirely forgettable crapfest.
As for Hardy finding a "key" role, I still think his Bane is the shit. Obviously, Ledger's Joker will always be pretty much the only role anyone will ever talk about in Nolan's entire Batverse when it comes to great acting, but Hardy did a tremendous job bringing Bane to life. Everything about that character, you can see it in Hardy's eyes. I loved the little quirks he gave the character (his polite manner, the way he'd hold his collar, etc.), but the fact that he was able to do so much with his face despite so much of his face being covered by that mask never ceases to amaze me. That look he shoots Dr. Pavel in the plane in the beginning ("We had to find out what he told you" / "Nothing, I said nothing" / *Bane Death Stare*), if it were possible to kill somebody with a glance, that's the glance that'd do it. And I love that his eyes move to him before he actually turns his head, such a predatory move where the second he hears his prey, he's got eyes on him. Little shit like that is what makes that character, and it's Hardy's brilliance that made it happen. It's too bad the haters were out in full force for TDKR, otherwise more people might've recognized his - and the film's - brilliance.
Dark Knight isn't even the best Batman film.
Either I forgot or I blocked it out, but please don't tell me you're one of those
Batman Begins geeks who prefer ninjas and Liam Neeson speaking fortune cookie to Batman-meets-
Heat
Talk to me about Oldboy. What about it don't you like? Do you not enjoy the fight scene? The story line? The beautiful score? The performances? The craziness of the whole thing? What's the beef specifically?
See, this is where access to the original thread would come in handy, as I only watched it once, hated it, ranted about it, got shit for it, and never looked back. All I remember is I thought it was stupid as fuck, boring as fuck, and the hallway fight was retarded as fuck. Since that lone viewing, I have rewatched the hallway fight scene on more than one occasion, and it's still retarded as fuck. The only good part is the possible
Enter the Dragon reference with the elevator at the end (I say "possible" because that movie sucked so hard that I can't imagine it being cool enough to even reference something as cool as
Enter the Dragon).
I haven't seen Looper but I will put it on my list as my first recommendation from SMD in about 6 years! Pressure is on for it to be good!
And on that film, at least,
Flemmy and I are in almost complete agreement (we both think it's awesome, he just thinks it's way more awesome).
What did you think of Mad Max Fury Road? Edge of Tomorrow?
*Waiting for answer*
