|
Post by CharlesX on Aug 5, 2023 12:53:39 GMT
I guess it won't happen because of the disappointing box office, but I would have liked to see that; if you stop calling it Indiana Jones and stop using the classic characters, then it paves the way for a new series that doesn't have the inherent problems I mentioned above (can't please everyone because you can't change the holy recipe too much, stars are too old, etc.). Yeah, that was also the idea with Mutt in Crystal Skull. Unfortunately, no-one liked him! It seems a successor for Indy is hard to find. ot but i think that was their idea with Billy and Thea in the unrelated Bill And Ted Face The Music. And that film seem to have quite a few enthusiasts but made a hefty loss (not only because of the pandemic). Rebooting an eighties film with all-female leads, where have I heard that before ?
|
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,547
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Aug 5, 2023 14:46:28 GMT
Rebooting an eighties film with all-female leads, where have I heard that before ? They weren't really the leads. Secondary leads maybe. Definitely not on the same level as the Lady Ghostbusters. I thought they were pretty good though. Wouldn't mind a Little Bill and Ted film. Then again, I also liked the Lady Ghostbusters.
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Aug 5, 2023 15:14:45 GMT
Rebooting an eighties film with all-female leads, where have I heard that before ? They weren't really the leads. Secondary leads maybe. Definitely not on the same level as the Lady Ghostbusters. I thought they were pretty good though. Wouldn't mind a Little Bill and Ted film. Then again, I also liked the Lady Ghostbusters. I know, perhaps I clumsily phrased this or you misunderstood or both, but the plan was\is to have Billy and Thea as leads in any sequels rather than Bill and Ted (who probably would be back seat\cameo), the cast of BATFTM have said this in interviews. The Lady Ghostbusters had some good premises and jokes but also some poor ones, it's like Ghostbusters 2 in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Jan 1, 2024 16:26:40 GMT
Saw Scott's Napoleon in December. The lead was really good, the action was amazing, I didn't mind about its many historical inaccuracies (although they were a minus point). I did feel there was too much emphasis on his relationship with Josephine at the expense of military and political work - perhaps there was some of this in the 4 hour cut, where I saw the cinema cut. It seemed like they were portraying Napoleon as rather buffoonish, evil and a charismatic military genius, which felt overloaded and unreal, especially combined with the number of things they made up for the film. I lean more to the view Napoleon was egocentric than socially awkward or naive. I thought it was average, 5.5 out of 10, but I'd see it again if I could see the 4 hour cut.
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Feb 6, 2024 16:26:36 GMT
Got around to seeing Oppenheimer on DVD. I definitely didn't realize how much politics was involved around developing and using nuclear weapons. I was less surprised by the Americanism of the film (such as denigration, dislike and phobia of even mild socialism, faint agression and imperialism and a high view of America 'American exceptionalism'), and with the toughness and opposition of the decision to use them. I thought the film was dramatic and got across the gravity of developing and using nuclear weapons but didn't have a voice or message about whether and when they should be used or abandoned (something it probably couldn't). I have immense respect for CND who suggest we should nuclear disarm but I'm concerned that would leave the Russians with too much power.
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Feb 6, 2024 18:44:03 GMT
Saw Scott's Napoleon in December. The lead was really good, the action was amazing, I didn't mind about its many historical inaccuracies (although they were a minus point). I did feel there was too much emphasis on his relationship with Josephine at the expense of military and political work - perhaps there was some of this in the 4 hour cut, where I saw the cinema cut. It seemed like they were portraying Napoleon as rather buffoonish, evil and a charismatic military genius, which felt overloaded and unreal, especially combined with the number of things they made up for the film. I lean more to the view Napoleon was egocentric than socially awkward or naive. I thought it was average, 5.5 out of 10, but I'd see it again if I could see the 4 hour cut.
Everything I have heard about this film means I am going to avoid it like the plague. It sounds like utter garbage. The only good thing to come of it (for me) was that I finally went out and bought a book on the man written by a proper historian.
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Feb 6, 2024 19:07:05 GMT
Saw Scott's Napoleon in December. The lead was really good, the action was amazing, I didn't mind about its many historical inaccuracies (although they were a minus point). I did feel there was too much emphasis on his relationship with Josephine at the expense of military and political work - perhaps there was some of this in the 4 hour cut, where I saw the cinema cut. It seemed like they were portraying Napoleon as rather buffoonish, evil and a charismatic military genius, which felt overloaded and unreal, especially combined with the number of things they made up for the film. I lean more to the view Napoleon was egocentric than socially awkward or naive. I thought it was average, 5.5 out of 10, but I'd see it again if I could see the 4 hour cut.
Everything I have heard about this film means I am going to avoid it like the plague. It sounds like utter garbage. The only good thing to come of it (for me) was that I finally went out and bought a book on the man written by a proper historian. You enjoy Napoleon if you don't mind very Hollywood films in the vein of Titanic. I hated The Favourite which makes Napoleon look faithful. Where The Favourite makes up entire lying narratives about keeping pet rabbits at a time when they didn't and a monarch having massive lesbian relationships when there's no evidence that would have happened, Napoleon at least tries. Yes, I actually regret seeing The Favourite.
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Feb 22, 2024 18:39:07 GMT
Not a new one by any means but i recently rewatched a French film called The Horseman on the Roof which I enjoyed a great deal. Set in the 1830's, it starts with agents of the Habsburg Empire tracking down and killing Italian revolutionaries in southern France, whilst a horrendous cholera outbreak is going on.
In case people haven't seen it, I won't go into detail about what happens.
I noticed the hero having to make all sorts of tactical and moral choices.
With regards to gamebooks where choice of action is so key, are the latter sorts of choices [moral ones] well-represented in them?
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Mar 7, 2024 16:38:18 GMT
I'm relieved to see others less than impressed with nuTrek. Say that on TrekBBS and you'll immediately get flamed and trolled - even by moderators.
I made a similar point to this in roidhun's thread about superheroes where I mentioned I didn't think the world of Star Trek Strange New Worlds. It is like with the films where you're supposed to prefer the even numbered ones (they're less experimental than the odd-numbered ones). You're meant to dislike ENT and DIS and I've lost track of whether you're meant to like or dislike Picard and Strange New Worlds.
Regardless of things like particular episodes.. Subjectivity, let alone objectivity..
As for oldTrek, some of the episodes and sentiment hasn't aged the best (like TNG).
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Mar 7, 2024 18:25:22 GMT
I've seen both 2021 Dune and Dune Part Two. Strongly recommend them both. If anything the sequel might be better than the original - it has a very epic feel, not just from writing and performances, but costumes, scenes and special effects are all spectacular.
|
|
|
Post by petch on Mar 8, 2024 10:23:21 GMT
I fell asleep in the cinema during the first one. That's not really a comment on the quality of the film, more of an indictment of my own stupid aging and decaying body and brain.
For the second one I think I'm going to need to wear a big badge or something emblazoned with the phrase: 'Wake me up when there's a sandworm'.
|
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,547
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Mar 8, 2024 10:36:51 GMT
I fell asleep in the cinema during the first one. That's not really a comment on the quality of the film, more of an indictment of my own stupid aging and decaying body and brain. For the second one I think I'm going to need to wear a big badge or something emblazoned with the phrase: 'Wake me up when there's a sandworm'. I didn't fall asleep in the first one but my bladder couldn't take it. Nipped out at a 'quiet moment' only to come back to find a massive sandworm on the screen.
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Mar 8, 2024 16:51:40 GMT
Well, my mate seeing Dune 2 sitting next to me fell asleep for bits of the film (even snoring), waking up just after giant sandworms rather than just before. It's pretty dense so I don't think there's a technical point you could nip out for a pee. Not like when my brother nipped out during one Disney Star Wars fest.
|
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,547
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Mar 8, 2024 16:55:49 GMT
Not like when my brother nipped out during one Disney Star Wars fest.
I don't think I've ever come closer to an unfortunate accident than during the finale of The Last Jedi. In the end I had to sprint to the toilets in the middle of the Luke stand-off. And that's probably enough of my cinema-based urinary anecdotes for this forum.
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Mar 22, 2024 18:51:18 GMT
Saw Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire. I thought it was the best of the post Ghostbusters 2 films, enjoyable if not brilliant (basically, its an old-school adventure). So I'm mystified at the 4 out of 10 consensus by critics, especially when Ghostbusters 3 was liked at the time by critics and I disliked before it was fashionable (apologies to its fans). I imagine now the original's cast are old, very old or dead they will finally use a new cast in future sequels, as constantly bringing them back as fan service is becoming grating.
|
|
Klea
Wanderer
Writing Lyssia Ulmer's marriage for Camp NaNoWriMo (based on King's Heir: Rise to the Throne)
Posts: 57
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy (Sorcery!)
|
Post by Klea on Mar 26, 2024 9:18:14 GMT
I'm relieved to see others less than impressed with nuTrek. Say that on TrekBBS and you'll immediately get flamed and trolled - even by moderators.
I made a similar point to this in roidhun 's thread about superheroes where I mentioned I didn't think the world of Star Trek Strange New Worlds. It is like with the films where you're supposed to prefer the even numbered ones (they're less experimental than the odd-numbered ones). You're meant to dislike ENT and DIS and I've lost track of whether you're meant to like or dislike Picard and Strange New Worlds.
Regardless of things like particular episodes.. Subjectivity, let alone objectivity..
As for oldTrek, some of the episodes and sentiment hasn't aged the best (like TNG).
I've never actually seen more than a clip or two of Strange New Worlds. I no longer subscribe to the channel it's available on in Canada, so to me Christopher Pike will always be Jeffrey Hunter. The thing about the odd-numbered movies being experimental is that it was more by necessity than by choice. Well, sort of. The first one didn't have a finished script when they started filming, plus the director was generally unfamiliar with Star Trek and really didn't care. Robert Wise may have done a wonderful job with The Sound of Music, but he made some really strange choices on TMP. For another perspective on that movie, I highly recommend reading Chekov's Enterprise by Walter Koenig. It's a fascinating look at the behind-the-scenes events of that movie from the pov of an actor who's part of the main group, but not The Big Three. He mentions the good stuff, the bad stuff, and the weird stuff, like being told to go for costume fittings for scenes that were shot and "in the can" (finished) a week or two previously. The only thing I consider seriously wrong with The Search for Spock is Saavik (well, that and Walter Koenig's costume; what were they thinking?). Kirstie Alley knocked it out of the park as far as that character was concerned. She made it believable that Saavik was half-Vulcan, half-Romulan and was still struggling with emotional control. But Leonard Nimoy told Robin Curtis to play Saavik as completely emotionless, full-Vulcan, and the result was a character with less personality than a piece of cardboard. I was part of Interstat back then, a monthly letterzine that was like a forum is now, just in print-and-snailmail form. If you wanted to reply to someone, you had to physically send a letter to the editor, who would hopefully have room for it in the next issue. Some simple conversations took months. And as I recall, not very many people liked Robin Curtis' interpretation of Saavik. Star Trek V... yikes. William Shatner's daughter wrote a "making of" book about it, which I thought should have been titled "William Shatner's Whiny Excuses Why This Movie is Awful." Though I will admit that there was one part of it that did ring true and was well done. That was the part about McCoy's father having a terminal illness and McCoy's giving him an assisted death... and the cure being found a year or two later. That's an issue that was current in the '80s and is still current, at least in Canada. Of course without Star Trek V, we couldn't have the "Shatner of the Mount" music video, or the Star Trek Continues parody. As for what we're "meant" to dislike... well, I gave DiscoTrek an honest try and gave up. Same for Picard. That episode with Seven and Icheb was the last straw. I haven't watched one minute of Trek that was produced after that. For me, Star Trek ends with Voyager, and the movies end with VI. I spend most of my online time on a Civilization forum, and a friend there became interested in Star Trek last year. We've been having a very long PM conversation about it, and she's worked her way through TOS, TAS, part of TNG, and has seen a bit of Voyager. She's working on some fanfiction stories, too. It's been a fascinating trip down memory lane, seeing some of this through a new perspective - someone who's half my age, and quite a bit older than I was when we both had our first Star Trek viewing experiences (she's nearly 30 and I was only 12). I've seen both 2021 Dune and Dune Part Two. Strongly recommend them both. If anything the sequel might be better than the original - it has a very epic feel, not just from writing and performances, but costumes, scenes and special effects are all spectacular. I have to admit that I really have nothing positive to say about Villeneuve's version of Dune. I love Dune, but he really missed a lot of points, making nonsensical changes while claiming to have been faithful to the book.
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Mar 26, 2024 10:20:45 GMT
Of course without Star Trek V, we couldn't have the "Shatner of the Mount" music video, or the Star Trek Continues parody. I've seen Star Trek Continues (albeit only one episode) and I wouldn't use the word parody, because while it has some comedic elements it is mainly done straight, and I reckon its both well-intentioned and perhaps even well-written sometimes. Tribute? Homage? Amateur production?
|
|
Klea
Wanderer
Writing Lyssia Ulmer's marriage for Camp NaNoWriMo (based on King's Heir: Rise to the Throne)
Posts: 57
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy (Sorcery!)
|
Post by Klea on Mar 26, 2024 11:44:54 GMT
Of course without Star Trek V, we couldn't have the "Shatner of the Mount" music video, or the Star Trek Continues parody. I've seen Star Trek Continues (albeit only one episode) and I wouldn't use the word parody, because while it has some comedic elements it is mainly done straight, and I reckon its both well-intentioned and perhaps even well-written sometimes. Tribute? Homage? Amateur production? I don't mean that STC parodies the series in general. Actually, they're the best of the fan film productions. I'm referring to one specific music video, "Shatner of the Mount." It was filmed during production of Star Trek V at El Capitan, and starts out "Captain Kirk is climbing a mountain, why is he climbing a mountain?" The Vic Mignogna parody was filmed at the Grand Canyon, and starts out "Captain Kirk is building a fountain, why is he building a fountain?".
|
|
|
Post by Pete Byrdie on Mar 26, 2024 17:41:24 GMT
Trek has had a lot of good and a lot of bad, as one would expect of a franchise spanning six decades, but to my taste, it's never topped Deep Space Nine. Voyager never really worked for me, and nor did Enterprise. I haven't particularly liked any of the Kelvin timeline movies. However, a lot of the new stuff (Discovery, Strange New Worlds, Lower Decks) I'm enjoying. It feels fresher to me, almost a different thing from older Trek. On its own terms, not comparing it to previous iterations, I like a lot of it.
I thought watching Dune Part 1 was one of the few true cinematic experiences I've had for years. The Batman also felt that way to me. I'm looking forward to seeing Dune Part 2.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife was better than it should have been given the lack of originality in the story. It's with trepidation I look forward to seeing Frozen Empire which, from the trailer, looks similarly unoriginal. However, if reactions to aren't exactly gushing love, they're at least mostly lacking vitriol. Everyone seems to think it's okay.
|
|
|
Post by scouserob on Jun 7, 2024 18:20:39 GMT
Watched Furiosa yesterday and loved it. If you enjoyed Fury Road then I would imagine you would enjoy Furiosa.
I thought Anya Taylor-Joy was fantastic, commanding the screen, as she did back in The VVitch, Split and ,especially,The Queen’s Gambit (still her best).
I recommend it. 😀
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Jun 9, 2024 17:06:28 GMT
Watched Furiosa yesterday and loved it. If you enjoyed Fury Road then I would imagine you would enjoy Furiosa. I thought Anya Taylor-Joy was fantastic, commanding the screen, as she did back in The VVitch, Split and ,especially,The Queen’s Gambit (still her best). I recommend it. 😀 Hi
I feel the same way about Fury Road. I liked seeing more of the Mad Max universe, exploring the backstory of one of the lead characters, and some of the scenes as well as the whole feel about it. The lead was definitely good, as were the villain and even the 'mooks' who were appropriately crazy and cheap.
I read a dominantly negative review in Private Eye which I'm going to debunk (no, I don't always agree with this student satire), raising these points. Private Eye also wrote a negative review of Dune Part Two, which I felt was well-founded even though I disagreed with its points (you know, scenes without enough action, too much CGI, not true enough to the book, not as good as the amazing part one).
Because it's a prequel, viewers will know everything that's going to happen - OTOH Because its a prequel, viewers get an insight into characters, history and reasoning they wouldn't get from the main series. It focuses on a single character, not on the series, which is a welcome change from the "world will end if the good guys don't win", which you know tends to happen in entertainment anyway, especially big Hollywood films. As a prequel, it can't\doesn't innovate - Wrong, the Star Wars prequels added lots of things to the lore, Furiosa doesn't add that much that I remember (was there a new villain?) but not everything has to have a reason or justification, certainly not Mad Max which is a thrilling franchise first produced for a few thousand Australian dollars. It just isn't as good as Mad Max Fury Road - I enjoyed it hugely as did most audiences and critics, Mad Max Fury Road is seen as one of the best movies made so, high bar. Excessive CGI - Hadn't noticed this, it seems appropriate for an action film (even more so than a film based on a novel). The narrative takes too long to get going and when it does it isn't speedy enough - I did prefer the second half of the film, but I was absorbed in the characters and scenes in the first hour and got to know the history. Kingdom Of The Planet Of the Apes had a bit of a slow start, but that is storytelling. Mad Max mythos isn't worth exploring - This is an amazing mythos, of course it is! It doesn't make sense to have warriors of the wasteland battle over limited resources, then waste them in endless pyrotechnic displays - That's artistic license though. It doesn't make sense either for poor countries to spend billions on their military and nuclear weapons. Waterworld didn't make any sense at all, and that was definitely a film .
As a reader of Private Eye I have a positive opinion about it, but it tends to be one-sided and more inclined to present points of view that are entertaining rather than critical analysis.
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Jun 15, 2024 13:13:39 GMT
Hi
Saw Inside Out 2 yesterday. It's absolutely amazing, more than a worthy sequel and around the quality of the original (possibly, better). I'm not the sort of person who normally rates sequels, or Disney\Pixar's (I thought Toy Story sequels weren't brilliant, even though audiences and critics liked them).
Couldn't say what makes it so great without big spoilers, but if you see it in the frame of mind I was, expecting a simple story that's a bit of a retread of the original - it very much isn't.
Animation is also top-notch as you expect from big-screen Disney and Pixar. I recommend seeing it in the Cinema or on Bluray to experience the rich colour.
My opinion of Inside Out by the way is high, its a great coming of age story that is as well-written as it is original. Inside Out 2 gets a different tone and story right and succeeds in most ways (I'm not writing a full-length IMDb review, but if I were I'd bring up technical, personal criticisms which would be spoilers).
In case anyone's interested I will put my criticisms of this film below in a spoiler, I want to emphasize I think Inside Out 2 is a 4.5 out of 5 star film, and that below is strictly for those who have seen the film:
The tone is deeply different from Inside Out, there are quite a few laugh-out-loud jokes along with a few that don't work as brilliantly, where Inside Out was more dry and rarely took the humorous angle. Some of the characters introduced are quite one-note, the "Inside Out" scenes in other people's heads work as does Nostalgia, the preschool cartoon is a bit cheap and crude and the video game even more so, even if they're fitting. Where I liked most of the new emotions I wasn't sure about Ennui's French accent, which absolutely made me wonder if a Polish German Spanish etc. accent would be right for another emotion. Probably, actually. There were a lot of downbeat bits but the ending seems to disregard the coach's criticism of Riley and have her make the team, a competitive, Americanish message I'm not sure I concur with. OTOH I might be reading too much into this kids' movie, but it seemed to have more heart where Inside Out had more soul. My final criticism is the movie could have been longer, allowing for credits just under 1 hour 35 minutes which meant everything was point after point without flesh, sideplot, subtext or a well-developed threat as was the case in the original. As I mentioned above I thought it was brave they told a different story and great they managed to do so well.
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Oct 4, 2024 20:05:30 GMT
Saw Joker: Folie A Deux. I feel like giving a balance review after critics gave it a majority negative review (despite giving Napoleon a positive review, which is escapist, historically inaccurate and mindless).
Positives: The lead is just as brilliant as before, Lady Gaga is a good actor and beautiful. Like the previous film there's a brave, dark undertone. There are some brave songs which are original and well-written. There is an exploration of psychology which I relate to.
Mixed messages: I like Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn but she is often a co-star and is more sparing than dominant. I didn't think it was as good as the very high bar set by Joker.
Negative: There wasn't the high drama and thrill of the original. I didn't feel like there were big plot-points or even arcs. There was a lot of courtroom scenes and talking. In a related point, a lot of it went over points in the previous film.
My ratings:
(Napoleon generous 3 stars out of 5). Joker 4 stars out of 5. Joker: Folie A Deux 3.5 stars out of 5.
|
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,547
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Oct 4, 2024 22:05:29 GMT
Joker: Folie A Deux 3.5 stars out of 5. Hopefully I'll get round to seeing it as I'm a Lady Gaga fan. I did enjoy the first Joker though I felt it borrowed quite a bit from both Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy.
|
|
|
Post by petch on Oct 5, 2024 8:55:42 GMT
Joker: Folie A Deux 3.5 stars out of 5. Hopefully I'll get round to seeing it as I'm a Lady Gaga fan. I did enjoy the first Joker though I felt it borrowed quite a bit from both Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. I actually enjoyed the nods to those films. It kind of helped move the film away from cartoonish depictions of the Joker and into a wider, more literary cinematic tradition or I dunno, something poncey like that. I'm torn on whether I want to see part deux. On the plus side: Phoenix, Gaga and Coogan. On the other hand, some of those negative reviews are very off-putting, and after sitting through Russell Crowe's rendition of Stars in Les Mis I'm not sure if I'm ready to witness another Hollywood actor burst into song.
|
|