Movie Review thread.

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
I'd appreciate it if you would both keep your word. Back to reviews, please.
I complied, oh ban-stick wielder.

However, I think we should establish beyond doubt just what a drunken, stupid, ignrnant, myzogyunistikk, cisnormyhetermonsterative kind of person I am:

I think this looks damn good, at least potentially. I still haven't bothered to see the WUMMINZZ! remake of 2016, and I'm not interested in this purely because I love the idea of poking SJW fascists in the eye and making them wail in anguish (that's just a side benefit).

Most of the complaints appear to be "Meh Stranger Things", particularly due to Finn Wolfhard but honestly, there's nothing *really* wrong with derivative works if they're well done. I think it's smart to not try to out-funny the original, which starred many of the contemporary comedy greats, in the modern comedy-hostile environment and instead go for more subtle gags & a light-hearted nature.
 

Dredd

D3 Off Topic Moderator
I guess we're doing spoilers? Okay... you drunk. :D

I still haven't bothered to see the WUMMINZZ! remake of 2016, and I'm not interested in this purely because I love the idea of poking SJW fascists in the eye and making them wail in anguish (that's just a side benefit).
1/10. The now infamous trailer accurately summarizes the entire film. It gets 1 point because Chris Hemsworth actually is funny.
[SYS: You have gained +1 MISOGYNY.]

I think it's smart to not try to out-funny the original, which starred many of the contemporary comedy greats, in the modern comedy-hostile environment and instead go for more subtle gags & a light-hearted nature.
I'm still salty that we never got a proper Ghostbusters 3 and considering that Harold Ramis is gone forever, I have mixed feelings about this film. Still, good reviews/word-of-mouth could potentially get me into the cinema.

Speaking of Ramis, that one second bit in the trailer where Wolfhard discovers Egon's spores, molds and fungus collection got a genuine laugh out of me.
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
I guess we're doing spoilers? Okay... you drunk. :D
Not yet, but I'm working on it.

In point of fact, I'm enjoying "Critical Drinker" Youtub reviews, not only because he does decent summaries but because he cited Father Jack from one of my favorite Britcoms. He's pretty psyched about "Afterlife". There's also a nerd who ran through the trailer's spoilers, if you can believe such things, and he identified the relevance of the mining company's name. So yeah, I'm very likely to see Afterlife in theatre - though I was planning to see Harriet and have been sufficiently scared off that I'll just watch it on Netflix instead.
 

atomicpunk

Diabloii.Net Member
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.
Director: Quentin Tarantino (QT)
Staring: Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio and Margot Robbie

I enjoy QT movies, so I'm biased.

The film has multiple story lines, one is based on actual events. This particular story line always left me with a sense of doom and hoped the end would never come. I didn't want QT's idea of how the actual event went down in my mind's eye, I endured the impending event for almost two and half hours. This movie is a long one - 161 minutes.

Other stories lines made me wonder if some of these side skits are also based on actual events, and it wasn't until about half way into the movie that I understood how the different story lines starting to correlate. I'm reminded of the multiple story lines of season 3 of Stranger Things. I'm wondering if Maya Hawke being in this movie and Stranger Things 3 is an indication that QT is friends with the Duffer brothers.

The ending for me was epic, absolutely incredible. I want to say more about it, at least, I want to say what I think QT was thinking when he wrote it, but I'll leave it for those who would see it to find out for themselves.

Dicaprio was very good, excellent in fact, but Pitt was incredible, by far my favourite movie of his.

The music was good, the sets and cars were awesome, and the driving scenes were awesome QT style.

I give it a 9 out of 10, but there were some deliberate and patented QT editing blunders that I didn't like.
 
Last edited:

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
OK, someone is gonna have to take one for the team, & it won't be me in the immediate future (I'm not a furry aficionado)...

Reviewers: Cats is weirdly erotic nightmare fuel that will give you the ‘heebie jeebies’

Quoted from the article: “This is the worst thing I’ve ever seen. This is what death feels like. This is the worst ketamine trip. This is awful. This is not a film, this is chaos. This is the CGI from Scorpion King. I don’t know if I’m five minutes in or five hours. Nothing matters anymore. This is the death of all things. F**k it.”
 

Dredd

D3 Off Topic Moderator
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.
Director: Quentin Tarantino (QT)
Staring: Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio and Margot Robbie
I keep meaning to check that one out. Thanks for the reminder. Speaking of DiCaprio, The Aviator is another film I keep forgetting to watch.

OK, someone is gonna have to take one for the team, & it won't be me in the immediate future (I'm not a furry aficionado)...
Reviewers: Cats is weirdly erotic nightmare fuel that will give you the ‘heebie jeebies’
Not me, guv. I have to suffer through Rise of Skywalker tomorrow night. My psyche can only take so much nonsense (even with a booze buffer).
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
I got 15 minutes into The Joker a couple days ago. Gave up.

I have literally forgotten how to watch movies/ TV.
I never imagined you as being one of the "short attention span theatre" types. Joker is worth it, though it's extremely grim; it's IMDB's #1 movie of the year. There's even talk of awards for J.Phoenix & they're probably deserved... it's really nothing like the puerile garbage nearly all "superhero" movies are.

P.S. Speaking of hypocrisy, I'm probably reviewing M. Nighty Shamalaymadingdong's Glass next, which is the third installment in his superhero trilogy. I picked it up in the discount bin at WallyWorld. I hadn't been watching Vikings season 3 as devotedly as before, but apparently they've got another season out now so I was watching the last couple of shows that had been on my DVR almost a year. I'm starting to fast forward through commercials & sure enough, I see Glass as "coming soon"!

Doesn't bode well, methinks.
 
Last edited:

LozHinge the Unhinged

Diabloii.Net Member
I never imagined you as being one of the "short attention span theatre" types. Joker is worth it, though it's extremely grim; it's IMDB's #1 movie of the year. There's even talk of awards for J.Phoenix & they're probably deserved... it's really nothing like the puerile garbage nearly all "superhero" movies are.

P.S. Speaking of hypocrisy, I'm probably reviewing M. Nighty Shamalaymadingdong's Glass next, which is the third installment in his superhero trilogy. I picked it up in the discount bin at WallyWorld. I hadn't been watching Vikings season 3 as devotedly as before, but apparently they've got another season out now so I was watching the last couple of shows that had been on my DVR almost a year. I'm starting to fast forward through commercials & sure enough, I see Glass as "coming soon"!

Doesn't bode well, methinks.
Whereas I could have predicted you'd misinterpret my comment, thick old poopyhead that you are.

I have been unable to watch almost any movies for months now. Oddly enough, today I managed to watch 6 Underground, which was mindlessly diverting, plus I am currently wading through In the Tall Grass, which is a bit like the most excellent film Triangle but not nearly as good.

That'll be me movied out for a while.
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
Whereas I could have predicted you'd misinterpret my comment, thick old poopyhead that you are.

I have been unable to watch almost any movies for months now. Oddly enough, today I managed to watch 6 Underground, which was mindlessly diverting, plus I am currently wading through In the Tall Grass, which is a bit like the most excellent film Triangle but not nearly as good.

That'll be me movied out for a while.
Yet you still make me do all the heavy lifting in this thread. Figures, you layabout.
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
Might as well get this out of the way, since I was DRUNK enough to say I would.

Glass
Superhero drama
Starring: James McAvoy, Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson
Writer/Director: M. Night Shyamalan
3.5/10

Checking my 'little game' - I rated this substantially lower than IMDB, which gave it a 6.7/10. I don't know why IMDB supported it, though I suspect the bell curve of their reviews centers on the high side.

Glass wasn't painfully awful, but it bordered on being so. "I am disappoint" because I want to like Shamalamawhatsit and I have very much enjoyed all three principals in other roles. I think that M.Night simply doesn't have the capability he imagines he does, and doesn't do well with any of the three; Jackson's performance is the best but it's always easy to play the over-the-top villain.

I realized I hadn't seen the second of the trilogy, apparently called Split. In short, the plot is more or less X-Men fare, with Bruce Willis' character having discovered his superpowers in Unbreakable. In Glass, he, Jackson, and the new super-villain enter a final showdown, most of which occurs in an asylum setting as a psychologist (played by Sarah Paulson, another actress who I think can occasionally turn out a top-notch performance) tries to convince them all that they are suffering delusions abetted by frontal lobe damage.

SPOILERED IN CASE YOU DECIDE TO SEE THIS DRECK
The psychologist is part of a gang of normals who know that superheroes exist and attempt to defuse or nullify them. Again, very much from the X-Men tradition. Jackson's character claims, dying, that this is an origin story - because he knew what was going on and ensured that everything was streamed to the Internet

So, what is wrong with it? Shouldn't be worse than a mediocre X-Men movie, you imagine. Wrong. First, all three capable actors do a really bad job. Half of Jackson's performance is while his character is pretending to be high on Valium or what-have-you; there's only so much you can accomplish with facial twitches. Willis' character was fairly uninspired in the first movie, & he doesn't do anything with it here; he's a door post even though there's an attempt to add a human element with his son as 'boy wonder'.

Worst of all is McAvoy, who plays a multiple personality with one, "The Beast", having super-powers. Even if he gave it his best, his best isn't good enough. I suspect that M.Night decided to pile on the "personality" part without realizing how difficult it would be to actually perform. Real MPD doesn't often exist in the first place (to the point that some professionals claim it doesn't actually exist at all, though that's contested). McAvoy comes off more like what often is confused with MPD (really being the same individual underneath). You know how some people will put on different mannerisms in different racial or cultural environments? McAvoy flips through them, supposedly triggered by light, but he fails to have enough differentiation between the supposed changes.

The special effects ought to be fairly easy, but they are unconvincing. Willis bends & dents steel simply enough, but McAvoy looks totally artificial climbing walls & running animal-like across ground. There's really not much more in the way of effects, so to have those do poorly just doesn't help immersion.

I was going to say "worst of all" again... but there's two more. The supporting actors (Jackson's mother, Willis' son, & McAvoy's girlfriend of sorts) are used in a very pedantic fashion to explain Joseph Campbell in the comic setting, to the point that they are in danger of stumbling through the "fourth wall" in addressing the audience directly. Deadpool got away with it, but it's quite uncomfortable here.

Lastly - though I could probably go on - is the plot & writing itself. It's very slow & plodding, unevenly paced with heavy-handed focus to make sure you st00pids in the audience are practically drowning in the foreshadowing so that M.Night can congratulate himself on the ending which none of you ever saw coming. Ugh.
 

LozHinge the Unhinged

Diabloii.Net Member
Might as well get this out of the way, since I was DRUNK enough to say I would.

Glass
Superhero drama
Starring: James McAvoy, Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson
Writer/Director: M. Night Shyamalan
3.5/10

Checking my 'little game' - I rated this substantially lower than IMDB, which gave it a 6.7/10. I don't know why IMDB supported it, though I suspect the bell curve of their reviews centers on the high side.

Glass wasn't painfully awful, but it bordered on being so. "I am disappoint" because I want to like Shamalamawhatsit and I have very much enjoyed all three principals in other roles. I think that M.Night simply doesn't have the capability he imagines he does, and doesn't do well with any of the three; Jackson's performance is the best but it's always easy to play the over-the-top villain.

I realized I hadn't seen the second of the trilogy, apparently called Split. In short, the plot is more or less X-Men fare, with Bruce Willis' character having discovered his superpowers in Unbreakable. In Glass, he, Jackson, and the new super-villain enter a final showdown, most of which occurs in an asylum setting as a psychologist (played by Sarah Paulson, another actress who I think can occasionally turn out a top-notch performance) tries to convince them all that they are suffering delusions abetted by frontal lobe damage.

SPOILERED IN CASE YOU DECIDE TO SEE THIS DRECK
The psychologist is part of a gang of normals who know that superheroes exist and attempt to defuse or nullify them. Again, very much from the X-Men tradition. Jackson's character claims, dying, that this is an origin story - because he knew what was going on and ensured that everything was streamed to the Internet

So, what is wrong with it? Shouldn't be worse than a mediocre X-Men movie, you imagine. Wrong. First, all three capable actors do a really bad job. Half of Jackson's performance is while his character is pretending to be high on Valium or what-have-you; there's only so much you can accomplish with facial twitches. Willis' character was fairly uninspired in the first movie, & he doesn't do anything with it here; he's a door post even though there's an attempt to add a human element with his son as 'boy wonder'.

Worst of all is McAvoy, who plays a multiple personality with one, "The Beast", having super-powers. Even if he gave it his best, his best isn't good enough. I suspect that M.Night decided to pile on the "personality" part without realizing how difficult it would be to actually perform. Real MPD doesn't often exist in the first place (to the point that some professionals claim it doesn't actually exist at all, though that's contested). McAvoy comes off more like what often is confused with MPD (really being the same individual underneath). You know how some people will put on different mannerisms in different racial or cultural environments? McAvoy flips through them, supposedly triggered by light, but he fails to have enough differentiation between the supposed changes.

The special effects ought to be fairly easy, but they are unconvincing. Willis bends & dents steel simply enough, but McAvoy looks totally artificial climbing walls & running animal-like across ground. There's really not much more in the way of effects, so to have those do poorly just doesn't help immersion.

I was going to say "worst of all" again... but there's two more. The supporting actors (Jackson's mother, Willis' son, & McAvoy's girlfriend of sorts) are used in a very pedantic fashion to explain Joseph Campbell in the comic setting, to the point that they are in danger of stumbling through the "fourth wall" in addressing the audience directly. Deadpool got away with it, but it's quite uncomfortable here.

Lastly - though I could probably go on - is the plot & writing itself. It's very slow & plodding, unevenly paced with heavy-handed focus to make sure you st00pids in the audience are practically drowning in the foreshadowing so that M.Night can congratulate himself on the ending which none of you ever saw coming. Ugh.
Thanks, Merv.

Unbreakable trod a line between mediocre and forgettable for me, Split did not appeal at all and so Glass will be something for which I won't need a small chunk of my life back.
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
Thanks, Merv.

Unbreakable trod a line between mediocre and forgettable for me, Split did not appeal at all and so Glass will be something for which I won't need a small chunk of my life back.
I enjoyed Unbreakable to an extent but my wife literally despises it. It was neither Willis' nor M.Night's finest work.

I'll probably... "find"... Split at some point just to ensure I haven't any preconceptions. Yes, I'm that annoying pric... DRUNK!... who insists on smashing every crate & grabbing every collectible.

Some of us aren't as mature & sophisticated as, say, potion barbs.

P.S. It seems like Split may not have been an obvious sequel to Unbreakable. If that's valid, I have to wonder what M.Night was thinking. Or smoking.
 
Last edited:

LozHinge the Unhinged

Diabloii.Net Member
I enjoyed Unbreakable to an extent but my wife literally despises it. It was neither Willis' nor M.Night's finest work.

I'll probably... "find"... Split at some point just to ensure I haven't any preconceptions. Yes, I'm that annoying pric... DRUNK!... who insists on smashing every crate & grabbing every collectible.

Some of us aren't as mature & sophisticated as, say, potion barbs.

P.S. It seems like Split may not have been an obvious sequel to Unbreakable. If that's valid, I have to wonder what M.Night was thinking. Or smoking.
Split is to Unbreakable as Spiderman is to Thor. Separate story arcs that eventually converge.
 
Top