Movies are awesome

A general discussion forum, plus hauls and silly games.
User avatar
138 Scourge
Supreme-Class
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:27 pm
Location: Beautiful KCK

Re: Movies are awesome

Post by 138 Scourge »

JediTricks wrote:They probably brought in trucks of the actual authentic clay, Hollywood used to do weird stuff like that back in the day. It's what probably killed The Duke.
Either the radioactive sand from just downwind of an atomic test in site or the vengeful ghost of the mighty Khan. Either way, making The Conqueror was a horrible idea.
Dominic wrote: too many people likely would have enjoyed it as....well a house-elf gang-bang.

User avatar
andersonh1
Moderator
Posts: 5563
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:22 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Movies are awesome

Post by andersonh1 »

JediTricks wrote:I saw what it was about, but thought it took place in the west, my mistake.
Considering all the westerns Jimmy Stewart was in, it's an easy mistake to make! :lol:

User avatar
Onslaught Six
Supreme-Class
Posts: 7022
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:49 am
Location: In front of my computer.
Contact:

Re: Movies are awesome

Post by Onslaught Six »

JediTricks wrote:This is my first post in this thread.

Gone With the Wind was filmed on my property, the condo complex I live in was part of the MGM backlot, the next complex over is named "Tara Hill" because it was where Tara was built for the film.


Saw Ant-Man on Monday, I'd give it a solid 7.5 out of 10, it was pretty good and had some unique touches other Marvel movies don't. The one area that slightly let me down was the villain, and only because he was inconsistent - at some points he was sympathetic, others he was maniacal, others he was justifiably angry, etc. - it turns out because they had him shoot scenes multiple ways intending to find the film in the edit when they didn't have a finished script, so he didn't know his character's final motivation. Oh, and for some reason they vastly underestimated the audience in a few parts, looping in wholly unnecessary extra dialogue to make sure the dumb dummies who didn't understand what a character who mastered shrinking and growing things
Spoiler
holding a tank keychain and a cut to a shot of a full-sized tank busting out of a wall with a giant keychain on its tail
meant. But Michael Douglas was good as an older Hank Pym, who let fear and doubt and anger and pain change who he was over the last 26 years, and timing was forcing him to take action. Paul Rudd was solid as Scott Lange and seemed intent on not staying in the film's way, he didn't try to force being the main star character and it almost felt like he could have gotten away with more. Evangeline Lilly as Hope Pym wasn't bad, but it took the mid-credits scene to complete her arc. The movie also was shockingly easy, it never felt rushed or slowed, it got away with everything it was attempting, and it knew to leave the audience at the 2 hour mark rather than overstay its welcome. And it looked really great, the visual effects got so much incredibly right despite the relatively smaller budget, a lot of thought was put into how it'd look to be that small - I'm not a fan of 3D, but the 5 minutes I saw in 3D last month were really good and the rest of the film would likely be just as good in 3D.

Editing quotes on mobile is a pain in the ass. Live with it.


I think the "solid, enjoyable but not huge" nature of the film is a deliberate choice especially given how little mainstream audiences will know of this character and how huge Avengers is (and most of the city-destroying, helicarrier-crashing Phase 2 films) so I think doing a deliberately small scale (both literally and figuratively) film gives audiences a nice breather before Civil War kicks all of our collective balls next year.

It's interesting you mention that about the villain though! I agree he was the worst part of the film, feeling tacked on and underdeveloped; he's a bad guy because the movie needs a bad guy. A LOT of the Marvel films suffer from this though; vague undefined cipher villains who don't have motivation beyond (and I'm sorry to use this comparison) comic book villain "I'm EVIIILLL and want to destroy/control the world and kill/control the protagonist because PLOT." Like, I never got invested in this guy as a villain, the same way I didn't care about that guy in Thor 2, or that dude working for Thanos in GOTG. Shit, I don't even remember these guys' NAMES. IM and Cap tend to do this a little better (although Bucky is a character we learn fuck all about in his own movie) but even then it's only a step above that--they go from "I'm bad because," to "I'm bad because this; now watch me be bad!" Rarely do the Marvel villains motivations actually transcend into being truly compelling or interesting. Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins is great. Zod in MoS even was pretty good for this. (Of all the problems I had, Zod wasn't one of them.) And Loki in all his movies are good. But, y'know.
BWprowl wrote:The internet having this many different words to describe nerdy folks is akin to the whole eskimos/ice situation, I would presume.
People spend so much time worrying about whether a figure is "mint" or not that they never stop to consider other flavours.
Image

User avatar
JediTricks
Site Admin
Posts: 3728
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:17 pm
Location: LA, CA, USA

Re: Movies are awesome

Post by JediTricks »

138 Scourge wrote:Either the radioactive sand from just downwind of an atomic test in site or the vengeful ghost of the mighty Khan. Either way, making The Conqueror was a horrible idea.
Yuppers. I think trucking the radioactive sand back to Hollywood to use it for shooting the rest of the movie on soundstages miiiiight just have been the most horrible idea. The mighty Genghis Khan got his revenge by letting John Wayne try to play him.

Onslaught Six wrote:Editing quotes on mobile is a pain in the ass. Live with it.


I think the "solid, enjoyable but not huge" nature of the film is a deliberate choice especially given how little mainstream audiences will know of this character and how huge Avengers is (and most of the city-destroying, helicarrier-crashing Phase 2 films) so I think doing a deliberately small scale (both literally and figuratively) film gives audiences a nice breather before Civil War kicks all of our collective balls next year.

It's interesting you mention that about the villain though! I agree he was the worst part of the film, feeling tacked on and underdeveloped; he's a bad guy because the movie needs a bad guy. A LOT of the Marvel films suffer from this though; vague undefined cipher villains who don't have motivation beyond (and I'm sorry to use this comparison) comic book villain "I'm EVIIILLL and want to destroy/control the world and kill/control the protagonist because PLOT." Like, I never got invested in this guy as a villain, the same way I didn't care about that guy in Thor 2, or that dude working for Thanos in GOTG. Shit, I don't even remember these guys' NAMES. IM and Cap tend to do this a little better (although Bucky is a character we learn fuck all about in his own movie) but even then it's only a step above that--they go from "I'm bad because," to "I'm bad because this; now watch me be bad!" Rarely do the Marvel villains motivations actually transcend into being truly compelling or interesting. Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins is great. Zod in MoS even was pretty good for this. (Of all the problems I had, Zod wasn't one of them.) And Loki in all his movies are good. But, y'know.
Yeah, don't worry about it on mobile especially, I've been there.

I think you're giving the producers, director, and writers a little too much credit - this film deliberately aimed down the Iron Man 1 pipeline and that movie did insane business, plus GOTG was an unknown yet audiences embraced it anyway, aiming low isn't exactly Marvel Studios' bag. You are right that making this the last film of phase 2 was deliberate though, that's definitely what was intended on that end.

I actually liked Ant-Man's bad guy, that's the most frustrating part, there was a sympathetic character buried in there that also had some justification for his choices which made sense to lead him to evil. Yet he's all over the map. It's a little stale that many of the individual movies use bad guys who are just the evil version of the hero - Iron Man 1 with the Iron Monger, Iron Man 2 with the Whiplash suit and the drones, Cap 2 with the Winter Soldier (who yeah, sucked in that film, one of the many reasons I didn't love it the way most do). Red Skull at least went above and beyond as a bad guy, um... hmm... can't say anything good about Adrian Killian and his crew... Loki! Yeah, Loki was great.

Zod's motivation makes NO SENSE in Man of Stink. There's no strategic thinking, no attempt to engage with the population, he just magically has the exact right tools to devastate a whole planet and make it livable for him and his handful of dinks. Weren't those dinks sent up to a PRISON SHIP though? Why do they have access to world devastators? Fuck I hate so much of that movie. Zod was so unbalanced that his competence at the beginning ruined him for the rest of the story.
Image
See, that one's a camcorder, that one's a camera, that one's a phone, and they're doing "Speak no evil, See no evil, Hear no evil", get it?

User avatar
Sparky Prime
Supreme-Class
Posts: 4844
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Movies are awesome

Post by Sparky Prime »

JediTricks wrote:Zod's motivation makes NO SENSE in Man of Stink. There's no strategic thinking, no attempt to engage with the population, he just magically has the exact right tools to devastate a whole planet and make it livable for him and his handful of dinks. Weren't those dinks sent up to a PRISON SHIP though? Why do they have access to world devastators? Fuck I hate so much of that movie. Zod was so unbalanced that his competence at the beginning ruined him for the rest of the story.
Zod actually did explain all of that in the film... After they were freed from the Phantom Zone on the prison ship due to Krypton's destruction, they decided to seek out the Kryptonian colony worlds which had long ago been abandoned by Krypton. They discovered none of the colonies they visited had survived after being cut off from Krypton, but Zod's crew did manage to salvage equipment, such as weapons and an operational "world engine". Although there was still one thing Zod was missing to bring Krypton back... The codex Jor-El took containing all of the genetic codes of Kryptonian life. That's when they got the automated distress call from the Kryptonian ship Superman discovered on Earth.

And I think Zod being so unbalanced was actually part of a big theme in the film. Zod, like most Kryptonians, was literally produced to fulfill a specific role in Kryptonian society. He became so single minded about his role as Krypton's protector that he lost perspective on everything else. Thus, his only motivation is to bring Krypton back to be its protector and savior as he was born to do. While Jor-El contrasts this by actively undermining Kryptonian society in having a natural born son with Lara, which they hope will have a better future, free to find his own path in life. Which is what the movie is mainly about, Clark finding where he fits in on Earth.

User avatar
andersonh1
Moderator
Posts: 5563
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:22 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Movies are awesome

Post by andersonh1 »

My current fascination with Civil War history led me to pick up "Gods and Generals" on Friday after seeing a $5 blu-ray copy on the shelf. I had never seen it, but a friend of mine had recommended it as one of his favorite movies. The version I bought is the four and a half hour long director's cut, covering Stonewall Jackson's participation in the Civil War from the day that Virginia seceded in 1861 up until his death after the battle of Chancellorsville in May 1963. I really enjoyed it, though I ended up watching it in three sittings due to the length.

The movie opens with Robert E. Lee, played by Robert Duvall, turning down command of the United States Army, because he feels that his highest loyalty is to his home of Virginia, and he cannot lead an army that will invade it. That same day, Virginia votes to secede, and they give command of their military to Lee, who accepts it. Virginia did not secede when the initial seven southern states did. It took anger over Lincoln's calling up of the military to "put down the rebellion" that caused Virginia, NC, Tennessee and Arkansas to leave as well.

From that point on, the main focus of the narrative is on Colonel Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, who begins the movie as an instructor at VMI, before he is called to serve in the Virginia military. The narrative follows his life as he meets his officers and the unit that he will command. It also demonstrates how deeply painful the division of the United States was, as several of his friends chose to go north and remain with the Union. There's no anger or recrimination between Jackson and his friends, only sorrow at the circumstances they find themselves in. Jackson's deep religious faith is also depicted as well. After the first battle of Bull Run, one of his officers asks him how he can be so calm with all the bullets and death around him, and he replies (in an apparent actual quote from Jackson) that God has fixed the time of his death, so he doesn't concern himself with it. He's "as safe in battle as he is in bed".

The movie does a great job depicting the contrast between Jackson's deep faith, and deeply caring nature towards his wife and the affection he has for his men, and the other side of his personality. When it came to a fight, the man had no problems with trying to kill as many of the enemy as possible. He would weep over all the death one day, and talk about killing every last invader the next.

Oddly enough, the movie skips Jackson's most famous exploits, the Shenandoah Valley campaigns. It follows him through First Bull Run, Antietam, Fredricksburg, and finally Chancellorsville, where he wins against a much larger Union Army with a small force, only to be shot in a friendly fire incident while returning to his lines after dark. Jackson has his left arm amputated, and seems on the road to recovery, only to die 10 days later of pneumonia. The famous quote from Robert E. Lee is included: "Jackson lost his left arm, but I have lost my right."

The movie also follows Joshua Chamberlain, a Union Colonel from Maine, played by Jeff Daniels. One of the things this film does so well, even though it's primarily a Stonewall Jackson biography, is to give both sides their due. Men from the North like Chamberlain were fighting to preserve the Union, while men from the South were fighting "the second American war for independence". The director goes out of his way not to designate anyone as a villain, but to present the heartfelt beliefs of men from both sides. Chamberlain, another real historical figure, is a teacher who begins to feel that he cannot sit by while men are dying, so he offers his services to his home state and ends up in the 20th Maine. The high point of the movie for him is the real incident at Fredricksburg where his unit is decimated, and he ends up with several others on the field all night, lying among the dead and wounded, hiding behind the bodies to avoid getting shot. He survives, and if I recall, the actual Chamberlain was present at Appomattox when Lee surrendered, and he had his men salute the Confederates as they surrendered their flags and guns. In the movie he's shown to respect the other side, while disagreeing with them.

The third plot strand follows John Wilkes Booth, and shows him slowly becoming "radicalized" as we'd term it today. He's an actor, so he's seen acting in various Shakespeare plays around the country and discussing the war with his friends. There are also scenes throughout the film with a couple of infantry from both sides so that the common soldier's point of view is represented. There are two sergeants for the Union, and a couple of privates for the Confederates, and we get to see their perception of the events as they live through them. They get to winter in tents and sit around the fire while the officers are put up by some of the locals and have fine places to live. They complain about having to walk everywhere, and wonder what they will do when their shoes wear out, a reference to how many of the poorly supplied Confederates often went barefoot for weeks or months until they could be issued replacement uniforms and footwear.

It's reasonably accurate historically, though not overly gory. Considering the horrific injuries and terrible death rates those men suffered, the restraint is much appreciated. I've been told it's not as good as Gettysburg (which I haven't seen yet, though I'd like to after seeing Gods and Generals), but I really enjoyed it, and despite the length, would gladly have seen more of the story if they had chosen to tell it.

User avatar
andersonh1
Moderator
Posts: 5563
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:22 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Movies are awesome

Post by andersonh1 »

Batman (1966)
One of my Christmas presents was the 1966 Adam West Batman movie, which I hadn't seen in forever. I distinctly remembered Batman running along the pier with the giant bomb trying to find a place to dispose of it, but not much else. The movie is pretty much just a bigger episode of the tv series with more villains and more vehicles. And we actually get to see Batman and Robin climbing down the side of a real building, so hey! The bigger budget pays off. :mrgreen:

The plot is pure 1960s Silver Age goofiness. The Joker, the Penguin, the Riddler and Catwoman all work together in order to kidnap world leaders and hold them for ransom. To do this, they steal a dehydrator invented by Commodore Schmidlapp. They kidnap the world leaders by turning them to dust with the dehydrator, but of course they can restore them by just adding water. Built around this plot are various action sequences involving the new Bat-copter, the Batboat and Batcycle, as well as a romantic subplot for Bruce Wayne, who is defintely unlucky in love as the woman he's fallen for is Catwoman's secret identity, Ms. Kitka. This is the second Catwoman by the way, played by Lee Meriweather rather than Julie Newmar. All the other villains are the same as the tv series: Burgess Meredith as the Penguin, Cesar Romero (complete with mustache) as the Joker, and Frank Gorshin as the Riddler, who is crazier than the Joker in this version. Indeed, the Joker tries to calm the Riddler down on more than one occasion, telling him to just give out straight information rather than riddles.

So what else happens? Batman fights off a shark with the use of shark repellent. He holds a press conference in full costume. He tries to dispose of a bomb somewhere along a pier and is stopped by nuns, two lovers in a boat, a brass band, and finally some baby ducks. "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb!" He manages to survive a crash landing in the Bat-copter by the fortunate happenstance of a foam rubbers wholesale convention being in town. The key to all of this humor is watching Adam West and Burt Ward play all of the absurdity dead straight, as if it's all perfectly normal. Late in the movie they're running down the city streets toward the ersatz United Nations building, and there's a surreal shot of West and Ward in their bright Batman and Robin costumes surrounded by extras on some actual New York street, or a reasonable facsimile. Just like the tv series, neither the heroes nor the villains quite realize just how absurd they are when juxtaposed against the real world. They just carry on with their crazy schemes.

Even with this silly environment, the Cold War politics of the era seep through into the story. Ms. Kitka is played with a Russian accent, since she's a Soviet reporter on assignment in America. There's Polaris missiles and submarine warfare, and all the various nationalities hashing things out at World Headquarters. None of it is remotely serious of course, but it's still a reflection of the time in which the movie was made.

Overall: how much you'll enjoy this movie depends on how much you like the Adam West Batman. I find the series a lot of fun, even though this Batman is so far from my usual conception of Batman that they hardly seem like the same character at all. The movie is just the tv series with a bigger canvas, so it's more of the same. Some of the comedy is a little broader and more obvious. I got the Blu-ray, and the picture and color are pretty good.

User avatar
andersonh1
Moderator
Posts: 5563
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:22 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Movies are awesome

Post by andersonh1 »

Batman v. Superman
Overall, pretty well done. It's pretty much a blend of three things: a sequel to Man of Steel with Dark Knight Returns mixed in and
Spoiler
Death of Superman
. All the elements work well together, and though I wasn't impressed with Eisenberg as Luthor based on the trailers, he's actually not too bad. Cavill is still very good as Superman, Affleck makes a very good Batman, and I really enjoyed Wonder Woman's role in this movie. She doesn't get a ton of screentime, but what she does get is great. Cameos from future Justice League members appear. Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman are briefly seen, though there's no sign of Green Lantern. There are hints of Darkseid, and Parademons are seen. It's a lot to put into one plot, but overall it works well and everything makes sense in the end. The highlight is watching live action Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman fight
Spoiler
Doomsday
.

User avatar
Sparky Prime
Supreme-Class
Posts: 4844
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Movies are awesome

Post by Sparky Prime »

Captain America: Civil War

Going to try to do this spoiler free...
First and foremost, because I can't tell you how many people I've seen that seem to be confused on this point: Despite sharing the name with a comic book event from a few years ago, this movie has absolutely nothing to do with a Registration Act. All of the Avengers identities in the cinematic universe are already public knowledge so that would be pointless. The legislation in this movie, called the "Sokovia Accords", that causes a divide in the Avengers is basically that the U.N. wants to form a panel that gets to decide when to call the Avengers into a situation and how much they get to do, rather than the team calling their own shots. To make matters worse, Bucky Barns is implicated in bombing the ratification of the Sokovia Accords. Captain America of course wants to try and help his friend, but because of the Accords, with out their approval that means he'd have to break the new law. All the while, Zemo is trying to learn about one of the Winter Soldier's missions back in 1991. This very much felt like it could have been an Avengers movie, but yet somehow they managed to maintain the focus on Cap and his mission. All of the characters got their chance to shine. Spider-Man btw was perfect in this film. I was actually surprised with how much screen time he got. I thought they might give us a bit more of his background than they did, but I suppose they wanted to save that for his solo film.

Overall, I thought it was an amazing film.

User avatar
andersonh1
Moderator
Posts: 5563
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:22 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Movies are awesome

Post by andersonh1 »

I bought another classic movie that I haven't seen in years, and of course the title is about the most awesome movie title ever. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's my name, no....


Shane
1953
Everyone knows how this movie ends, right? "Come back, Shane!" Except the kid actually says "Shane, come back!".

First off, the landscape shots in this movie are gorgeous. I can see why the homesteaders would fight so hard to keep their land. If I had the Grand Tetons in my backyard, I wouldn't want to give up that view either. The basic story is set in a valley out west in the 1880s, where homesteaders have settled on land that was formerly controlled entirely by Ryker, a cattle rancher. Ryker is not at all happy about this, and has been attempting to run the homesteaders off using intimidation by his hired hands. The de facto leader of the settlers is Joe Starret, who lives with his wife and son Joey on a homestead outside of town. He's the glue that holds the small group of families together against Ryker's harassment, though as the film begins, the others are already beginning to talk about leaving.

Into this situation rides Shane. No last name is ever given. He was heading north and didn't expect to "find any fences". He arrives about the same time as a group of Ryker's thugs come to threaten Starett, and ends up siding with him. The two become friends, and Shane ends up staying on as a hired hand. It becomes clear over time that Shane has a background he's trying to leave behind, and the film visually depicts this by showing him exchanging his buckskins and gun for some "store bought" clothes as he helps Joe Starett around the farm. Little Joey is fascinated by him and comes to idolize him.

The conflict between the homesteaders and the ranchers comes to a head in a big bar fight as Shane and Joe Starett fight Ryker's men in town. Ryker decides that he's done "being reasonable" and calls in a gunfighter named Wilson, played by a very young Jack Palance. One of the homesteaders, Torrey, who likes his whiskey a bit too much, gets in a verbal altercation after being provoked by Wilson, and is shot dead. This just about finishes all resolve to stay by the rest of the homesteaders, but Starett convinces them to give him a little time, and he decides that he has no choice but to confront Ryker and put an end to all of this... which is just what Ryker wants. Wilson will be able to kill Starett, and all the homesteaders will leave.

Shane is able to prevent Starett from going into town, and goes himself, back in his buckskins and with his six shooter. He knew Joe's wife from years ago, and the two discuss the fact that he was a gunfighter but had been trying to leave that life behind him. Circumstances have forced his hand. He heads into town, and in the ensuing gunfight manages to kill Wilson and Ryker. When Ryker's brother ambushes him, he's hit but still kills Ryker's brother as well. Joey had followed him to town, and Shane sends him home while riding on and leaving the valley behind, having failed to "break the mold" and leave his past behind.

I was surprised at home many familiar tv actors are in this film. There's Jack Palance of course, but among the supporting cast are Nancy Kulp (Jane Hathaway from the Beverly Hillbillies), Ellen Corby (Grandma Walton) and Edgar Buchanan (Uncle Joe from Petticoat Junction). Elisha Cook, who plays Torrey, is a familiar face as well. I remember him playing Captain Kirk's lawyer in the episode where Kirk is court-martialed.

This is an excellent movie, well paced and well directed, and the landscape used as the backdrop is amazing. The acting is dated of course, and is an older style than we're accustomed to today. This is a western where the violence is unpleasant, and both hero and villain get bloodied up in the fistfight. The plot may be a little well-worn these days, but even so the story is well told, and the director gives all the characters plenty of moments that allow the audience to care for them and their plight. The movie even takes the time to give Ryker a reasonable point of view and motivation for his actions, elevating him beyond a cardboard cutout villain. This movie is a long way from the stereotypical western, and is well worth watching if you've never seen it.

Post Reply