Man, The Little Hours was surprisingly lame. It has a really talented cast with a variety of comedic styles, but instead is resigned to just using its own format as a prolonged sigh of a joke. Modern mannerism and speech contrasted with period trappings (and a couple more mannered performances); that's about it. Once the nuns start screaming and swearing it's already played all of its cards. It's also really slow, borrowing the pace of the pious period film, but not doing anything inventive formally or structurally to upset the framework. It all plays from the page.
As a modern(ized) adaptation of The Decameron, Pasolini's film from '71 isn't just more faithful, but much bolder, more transgressive, and I even found it funnier---and I wouldn't call it a comedy. It's probably not a fair comparison given Pasolini was out to accomplish a lot more, but his film (particularly his adaptation of the tale that The Little Hours spends most of its running time telling) kept entering my mind.
I watched this over the weekend and don't even have the willpower to write up a review. It felt like it was trying so hard to copy 60's/70's film style it completely whiffed on any substance. A comedy that can't achieve being a comedy even with generic modern cheap humor (REALLY LOUD AND REALLY CRUDE BECAUSE LOLZ), it's bad times. The scene with Paul Riesen and Allison Gouda was about the only good little scene.
I also watched Idle Hands, and that movie suuuuuuuucked. Oh the late 90's, you are so terrible. Deadbeat twenty something Junior Floyd washed out as QB of the Little Giants who does nothing but smoke weed and be typical 90's try hard slacker and therefore gets his idle hand possessed by the devil (get it?!), there's a good idea here for a horror movie, it's just horribly executed and characters make no sense in how they act or just trying to deal with the whole situation. So many parts hinge on trying to hide the possessed hand or not seeing the obvious that has happened but it never makes sense as presented. And then you have Vivica Fox show up to try and resolve the story but they treat her character more as a means to an end than actually caring why she shows up sporadically until the third act.
Man, The Little Hours was surprisingly lame. It has a really talented cast with a variety of comedic styles, but instead is resigned to just using its own format as a prolonged sigh of a joke. Modern mannerism and speech contrasted with period trappings (and a couple more mannered performances); that's about it. Once the nuns start screaming and swearing it's already played all of its cards. It's also really slow, borrowing the pace of the pious period film, but not doing anything inventive formally or structurally to upset the framework. It all plays from the page.
As a modern(ized) adaptation of The Decameron, Pasolini's film from '71 isn't just more faithful, but much bolder, more transgressive, and I even found it funnier---and I wouldn't call it a comedy. It's probably not a fair comparison given Pasolini was out to accomplish a lot more, but his film (particularly his adaptation of the tale that The Little Hours spends most of its running time telling) kept entering my mind.
I watched this over the weekend and don't even have the willpower to write up a review. It felt like it was trying so hard to copy 60's/70's film style it completely whiffed on any substance. A comedy that can't achieve being a comedy even with generic modern cheap humor (REALLY LOUD AND REALLY CRUDE BECAUSE LOLZ), it's bad times. The scene with Paul Riesen and Allison Gouda was about the only good little scene.
I also watched Idle Hands, and that movie suuuuuuuucked. Oh the late 90's, you are so terrible. Deadbeat twenty something Junior Floyd washed out as QB of the Little Giants who does nothing but smoke weed and be typical 90's try hard slacker and therefore gets his idle hand possessed by the devil (get it?!), there's a good idea here for a horror movie, it's just horribly executed and characters make no sense in how they act or just trying to deal with the whole situation. So many parts hinge on trying to hide the possessed hand or not seeing the obvious that has happened but it never makes sense as presented. And then you have Vivica Fox show up to try and resolve the story but they treat her character more as a means to an end than actually caring why she shows up sporadically until the third act.
Idle Hands existed only to show Jessica Alba in that angel costume.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Man, The Little Hours was surprisingly lame. It has a really talented cast with a variety of comedic styles, but instead is resigned to just using its own format as a prolonged sigh of a joke. Modern mannerism and speech contrasted with period trappings (and a couple more mannered performances); that's about it. Once the nuns start screaming and swearing it's already played all of its cards. It's also really slow, borrowing the pace of the pious period film, but not doing anything inventive formally or structurally to upset the framework. It all plays from the page.
As a modern(ized) adaptation of The Decameron, Pasolini's film from '71 isn't just more faithful, but much bolder, more transgressive, and I even found it funnier---and I wouldn't call it a comedy. It's probably not a fair comparison given Pasolini was out to accomplish a lot more, but his film (particularly his adaptation of the tale that The Little Hours spends most of its running time telling) kept entering my mind.
I watched this over the weekend and don't even have the willpower to write up a review. It felt like it was trying so hard to copy 60's/70's film style it completely whiffed on any substance. A comedy that can't achieve being a comedy even with generic modern cheap humor (REALLY LOUD AND REALLY CRUDE BECAUSE LOLZ), it's bad times. The scene with Paul Riesen and Allison Gouda was about the only good little scene.
I also watched Idle Hands, and that movie suuuuuuuucked. Oh the late 90's, you are so terrible. Deadbeat twenty something Junior Floyd washed out as QB of the Little Giants who does nothing but smoke weed and be typical 90's try hard slacker and therefore gets his idle hand possessed by the devil (get it?!), there's a good idea here for a horror movie, it's just horribly executed and characters make no sense in how they act or just trying to deal with the whole situation. So many parts hinge on trying to hide the possessed hand or not seeing the obvious that has happened but it never makes sense as presented. And then you have Vivica Fox show up to try and resolve the story but they treat her character more as a means to an end than actually caring why she shows up sporadically until the third act.
Idle Hands existed only to show Jessica Alba in that angel costume.
Decided to watch It Follows on a whim last night as we were perusing Netflix for spooky movies.
Am I the only one who got the impression this movie is a sad male fantasy? A supernatural STD monster chases you relentlessly and the only way to stave it off is to fuck as many people as you can? I'm pretty sure the writer inserted himself as the loser guy who guilt trips this poor girl into fucking him the whole movie, and then she finally does after he's the one to "kill" the monster.
Aside from that it just wasn't scary. Another movie that confuses startling with scary. Nothing but "jump scares."
Also, way too many overly drawn out tension building shots where frankly there is little to no tension. The only tension came from me wondering when the hell they are going to move it along. The abundance of these scenes made the movie feel like a 3 hour snooze fest when really the run time isn't even close to that.
TL;DR: Not a fan.
This seems a really really fundamental misread of the entire point of the movie and the ending in particular.
Like, do you really think anyone is having fun here? Are they enjoying themselves? Is it titillating? Is anyone even having much sex? I mean, the only sex throughout the whole movie that seems fun and enjoyable is the first round with Jay and Hugh/Jeff and that ends with Jay talking about how reality is nothing like the fantasies she imagined as a child and then a horribly traumatic experience with some serious rape-esque vibes.
The only sex after that is once with Greg (the guy across the street) just to get rid of the thing and at the end with Paul (the sad-sack wannabe boyfriend and protector). Oh, and I guess when the monster, in the shape of Greg's mother, grinds on his crotch after killing him. Fun times had by all.
I mean, in the end how much does she really like Paul do you think? How much does she looks like she really wants him? How sexy was their sex? It begins with a door barred shut with a chair and looks of worry and ends kinda awkward with both wondering if anything is different. And then Paul goes to fuck a dirty prostitute while Jay sits at home staring at a picture of her family looking certainly not-happy. Does she really like Paul or does she just feel something towards him because he's willing to save her?
The movie ends not with some sort of male fantasy but with the two of them walking down the street, holding hands but without any feeling of intimacy or happiness, while behind them somebody follows. The monster or just a random pedestrian? It's unknown.
Nothing about the film supports this idea that it's about a girl being forced to fuck a ton of people as some sort of sexual fantasy or that it's about some sort of author insert getting the girl. There's not much sex and no one is happy by the end.
I mean, if anything, the more I thought about the film and watching it a second time, the more obvious to me it becomes that the movie is more about
adulthood, how that's bound up with sex and how that transition into adulthood brings with it the impending understanding of our inescapable mortality. Not as some sort of direct allegory or anything, just thematically.
Weirdos aren't necessarily interested in sex where everyone is having a good time. It still reads as a sad male fantasy to me. And a crappy horror movie.
You are desperately trying to hammer this round peg into a square hole here. Maybe it's not some strange male fantasy about how a guy can totally unhappily get with a girl. Maybe a movie where there's really very little sex isn't about concocting some fantasy scenario where lots of sex can happen. Maybe it's just what it actually looks like on the face.
Rewatch it. Lots of sex. At one point it's heavily implied 3 dudes in a boat run a train on her. You'd think it was a parody but no, just an overrated movie.
Yeah, an orgy so awesome it's only implied off-screen and framed in a way that is fucked up rather then sexy. There really is almost no sex dude. First round, both guys, the boat, the mother. That's pretty much it.
Your read here doesn't make sense or fit with what happens on screen. You can just not like the movie. You don't have to invent some crazy reason why.
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
My man. You really missed the point of the movie. Sex is in no way a good thing in It Follows.
Like, I can't even fathom the psychology you're leveraging here. Don't get me wrong, you not liking it is a-ok. In no way is it a titillating sex romp horror movie though.
I never said it was. I said it came across as a sad male fantasy. Sad being the key word there. You injected the fun and titillating bits to shore up your argument. You are free to disagree with my interpretation, of course. I will still think the movie sucked.
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
Decided to watch It Follows on a whim last night as we were perusing Netflix for spooky movies.
Am I the only one who got the impression this movie is a sad male fantasy? A supernatural STD monster chases you relentlessly and the only way to stave it off is to fuck as many people as you can? I'm pretty sure the writer inserted himself as the loser guy who guilt trips this poor girl into fucking him the whole movie, and then she finally does after he's the one to "kill" the monster.
Aside from that it just wasn't scary. Another movie that confuses startling with scary. Nothing but "jump scares."
Also, way too many overly drawn out tension building shots where frankly there is little to no tension. The only tension came from me wondering when the hell they are going to move it along. The abundance of these scenes made the movie feel like a 3 hour snooze fest when really the run time isn't even close to that.
TL;DR: Not a fan.
This seems a really really fundamental misread of the entire point of the movie and the ending in particular.
Like, do you really think anyone is having fun here? Are they enjoying themselves? Is it titillating? Is anyone even having much sex? I mean, the only sex throughout the whole movie that seems fun and enjoyable is the first round with Jay and Hugh/Jeff and that ends with Jay talking about how reality is nothing like the fantasies she imagined as a child and then a horribly traumatic experience with some serious rape-esque vibes.
The only sex after that is once with Greg (the guy across the street) just to get rid of the thing and at the end with Paul (the sad-sack wannabe boyfriend and protector). Oh, and I guess when the monster, in the shape of Greg's mother, grinds on his crotch after killing him. Fun times had by all.
I mean, in the end how much does she really like Paul do you think? How much does she looks like she really wants him? How sexy was their sex? It begins with a door barred shut with a chair and looks of worry and ends kinda awkward with both wondering if anything is different. And then Paul goes to fuck a dirty prostitute while Jay sits at home staring at a picture of her family looking certainly not-happy. Does she really like Paul or does she just feel something towards him because he's willing to save her?
The movie ends not with some sort of male fantasy but with the two of them walking down the street, holding hands but without any feeling of intimacy or happiness, while behind them somebody follows. The monster or just a random pedestrian? It's unknown.
Nothing about the film supports this idea that it's about a girl being forced to fuck a ton of people as some sort of sexual fantasy or that it's about some sort of author insert getting the girl. There's not much sex and no one is happy by the end.
I mean, if anything, the more I thought about the film and watching it a second time, the more obvious to me it becomes that the movie is more about
adulthood, how that's bound up with sex and how that transition into adulthood brings with it the impending understanding of our inescapable mortality. Not as some sort of direct allegory or anything, just thematically.
Weirdos aren't necessarily interested in sex where everyone is having a good time. It still reads as a sad male fantasy to me. And a crappy horror movie.
You are desperately trying to hammer this round peg into a square hole here. Maybe it's not some strange male fantasy about how a guy can totally unhappily get with a girl. Maybe a movie where there's really very little sex isn't about concocting some fantasy scenario where lots of sex can happen. Maybe it's just what it actually looks like on the face.
Rewatch it. Lots of sex. At one point it's heavily implied 3 dudes in a boat run a train on her. You'd think it was a parody but no, just an overrated movie.
Yeah, an orgy so awesome it's only implied off-screen and framed in a way that is fucked up rather then sexy. There really is almost no sex dude. First round, both guys, the boat, the mother. That's pretty much it.
Your read here doesn't make sense or fit with what happens on screen. You can just not like the movie. You don't have to invent some crazy reason why.
Please point to the post where I said anything was awesome.
You can disagree with me but you don't need to invent some crazy reason why.
You don't think that male fantasies, whether sad or not, would be enticing? If anything, It Follows presents a life of celibacy as the more enticing option. That'd be the male fantasy of a guy who's really, really bad at male fantasies.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Yeah man, you keep calling it a 'fantasy'. I don't see how what is portrayed in that movie is a fantasy in anyway. My mentions of titillation are in reference to you calling it a fantasy as fantasies are typically meant to be titillating in some way. It's why they're fantasies. Why am I explaining this?
In fact, the curse in this is very much a metaphor for an STD. One that causes you to push your trauma onto others in order to survive which creates a circle of violence. Like abuse. Which isn't really sexy at all.
I'd be curious to hear what your take is on movies like Contraction which is similar in that sex is a theme but really ultimately only a metaphor for something more sinister.
Decided to watch It Follows on a whim last night as we were perusing Netflix for spooky movies.
Am I the only one who got the impression this movie is a sad male fantasy? A supernatural STD monster chases you relentlessly and the only way to stave it off is to fuck as many people as you can? I'm pretty sure the writer inserted himself as the loser guy who guilt trips this poor girl into fucking him the whole movie, and then she finally does after he's the one to "kill" the monster.
Aside from that it just wasn't scary. Another movie that confuses startling with scary. Nothing but "jump scares."
Also, way too many overly drawn out tension building shots where frankly there is little to no tension. The only tension came from me wondering when the hell they are going to move it along. The abundance of these scenes made the movie feel like a 3 hour snooze fest when really the run time isn't even close to that.
TL;DR: Not a fan.
This seems a really really fundamental misread of the entire point of the movie and the ending in particular.
Like, do you really think anyone is having fun here? Are they enjoying themselves? Is it titillating? Is anyone even having much sex? I mean, the only sex throughout the whole movie that seems fun and enjoyable is the first round with Jay and Hugh/Jeff and that ends with Jay talking about how reality is nothing like the fantasies she imagined as a child and then a horribly traumatic experience with some serious rape-esque vibes.
The only sex after that is once with Greg (the guy across the street) just to get rid of the thing and at the end with Paul (the sad-sack wannabe boyfriend and protector). Oh, and I guess when the monster, in the shape of Greg's mother, grinds on his crotch after killing him. Fun times had by all.
I mean, in the end how much does she really like Paul do you think? How much does she looks like she really wants him? How sexy was their sex? It begins with a door barred shut with a chair and looks of worry and ends kinda awkward with both wondering if anything is different. And then Paul goes to fuck a dirty prostitute while Jay sits at home staring at a picture of her family looking certainly not-happy. Does she really like Paul or does she just feel something towards him because he's willing to save her?
The movie ends not with some sort of male fantasy but with the two of them walking down the street, holding hands but without any feeling of intimacy or happiness, while behind them somebody follows. The monster or just a random pedestrian? It's unknown.
Nothing about the film supports this idea that it's about a girl being forced to fuck a ton of people as some sort of sexual fantasy or that it's about some sort of author insert getting the girl. There's not much sex and no one is happy by the end.
I mean, if anything, the more I thought about the film and watching it a second time, the more obvious to me it becomes that the movie is more about
adulthood, how that's bound up with sex and how that transition into adulthood brings with it the impending understanding of our inescapable mortality. Not as some sort of direct allegory or anything, just thematically.
Weirdos aren't necessarily interested in sex where everyone is having a good time. It still reads as a sad male fantasy to me. And a crappy horror movie.
You are desperately trying to hammer this round peg into a square hole here. Maybe it's not some strange male fantasy about how a guy can totally unhappily get with a girl. Maybe a movie where there's really very little sex isn't about concocting some fantasy scenario where lots of sex can happen. Maybe it's just what it actually looks like on the face.
Rewatch it. Lots of sex. At one point it's heavily implied 3 dudes in a boat run a train on her. You'd think it was a parody but no, just an overrated movie.
Yeah, an orgy so awesome it's only implied off-screen and framed in a way that is fucked up rather then sexy. There really is almost no sex dude. First round, both guys, the boat, the mother. That's pretty much it.
Your read here doesn't make sense or fit with what happens on screen. You can just not like the movie. You don't have to invent some crazy reason why.
Please point to the post where I said anything was awesome.
You can disagree with me but you don't need to invent some crazy reason why.
You literally claimed it was an author-insert sexual fantasy dude. So stop this silliness. You said it. You claimed the movie was some sort of sexual fantasy where the girl has to fuck a lot of people and then eventually the supposed author insert character. Except none of that is supported by the movie which neither makes the sex or the relationship in question a thing someone would fantasize about.
Better than the first two, but not as good as I was hoping.
Some weird cuts that seem very obviously made in desperation to bring the runtime down, and some others made to keep the 12A rating, make it feel a little unpolished. It's also kind of relentlessly silly. Like GOTG2 trying to force 3 jokes into every single scene, Ragnarok inserts something incredibly silly into almost every scene. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it just undercuts the stakes and the drama.
A fair few story/character hooks are opened but then just never really addressed, so you'll probably walk out thinking 'but what about that, and that, and that guy?'.
Overall, some good jokes, is very silly, some great visuals (though they didn't lean into that side enough in my opinion), and if you didn't like the first two Thor movies you might actually like this one.
If you like the MCU it's an easy recommendation.
Steam / Xbox Live: WSDX NNID: W-S-D-X 3DS FC: 2637-9461-8549
+1
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
Decided to watch It Follows on a whim last night as we were perusing Netflix for spooky movies.
Am I the only one who got the impression this movie is a sad male fantasy? A supernatural STD monster chases you relentlessly and the only way to stave it off is to fuck as many people as you can? I'm pretty sure the writer inserted himself as the loser guy who guilt trips this poor girl into fucking him the whole movie, and then she finally does after he's the one to "kill" the monster.
Aside from that it just wasn't scary. Another movie that confuses startling with scary. Nothing but "jump scares."
Also, way too many overly drawn out tension building shots where frankly there is little to no tension. The only tension came from me wondering when the hell they are going to move it along. The abundance of these scenes made the movie feel like a 3 hour snooze fest when really the run time isn't even close to that.
TL;DR: Not a fan.
This seems a really really fundamental misread of the entire point of the movie and the ending in particular.
Like, do you really think anyone is having fun here? Are they enjoying themselves? Is it titillating? Is anyone even having much sex? I mean, the only sex throughout the whole movie that seems fun and enjoyable is the first round with Jay and Hugh/Jeff and that ends with Jay talking about how reality is nothing like the fantasies she imagined as a child and then a horribly traumatic experience with some serious rape-esque vibes.
The only sex after that is once with Greg (the guy across the street) just to get rid of the thing and at the end with Paul (the sad-sack wannabe boyfriend and protector). Oh, and I guess when the monster, in the shape of Greg's mother, grinds on his crotch after killing him. Fun times had by all.
I mean, in the end how much does she really like Paul do you think? How much does she looks like she really wants him? How sexy was their sex? It begins with a door barred shut with a chair and looks of worry and ends kinda awkward with both wondering if anything is different. And then Paul goes to fuck a dirty prostitute while Jay sits at home staring at a picture of her family looking certainly not-happy. Does she really like Paul or does she just feel something towards him because he's willing to save her?
The movie ends not with some sort of male fantasy but with the two of them walking down the street, holding hands but without any feeling of intimacy or happiness, while behind them somebody follows. The monster or just a random pedestrian? It's unknown.
Nothing about the film supports this idea that it's about a girl being forced to fuck a ton of people as some sort of sexual fantasy or that it's about some sort of author insert getting the girl. There's not much sex and no one is happy by the end.
I mean, if anything, the more I thought about the film and watching it a second time, the more obvious to me it becomes that the movie is more about
adulthood, how that's bound up with sex and how that transition into adulthood brings with it the impending understanding of our inescapable mortality. Not as some sort of direct allegory or anything, just thematically.
Weirdos aren't necessarily interested in sex where everyone is having a good time. It still reads as a sad male fantasy to me. And a crappy horror movie.
You are desperately trying to hammer this round peg into a square hole here. Maybe it's not some strange male fantasy about how a guy can totally unhappily get with a girl. Maybe a movie where there's really very little sex isn't about concocting some fantasy scenario where lots of sex can happen. Maybe it's just what it actually looks like on the face.
Rewatch it. Lots of sex. At one point it's heavily implied 3 dudes in a boat run a train on her. You'd think it was a parody but no, just an overrated movie.
Yeah, an orgy so awesome it's only implied off-screen and framed in a way that is fucked up rather then sexy. There really is almost no sex dude. First round, both guys, the boat, the mother. That's pretty much it.
Your read here doesn't make sense or fit with what happens on screen. You can just not like the movie. You don't have to invent some crazy reason why.
Please point to the post where I said anything was awesome.
You can disagree with me but you don't need to invent some crazy reason why.
You literally claimed it was an author-insert sexual fantasy dude. So stop this silliness. You said it. You claimed the movie was some sort of sexual fantasy where the girl has to fuck a lot of people and then eventually the supposed author insert character. Except none of that is supported by the movie which neither makes the sex or the relationship in question a thing someone would fantasize about.
Edit: I can see how I wasn't explicitly clear but I never claimed anything was titillating and fun for anybody. Suffice it to say I disagree and I'll leave it at that.
Man, The Little Hours was surprisingly lame. It has a really talented cast with a variety of comedic styles, but instead is resigned to just using its own format as a prolonged sigh of a joke. Modern mannerism and speech contrasted with period trappings (and a couple more mannered performances); that's about it. Once the nuns start screaming and swearing it's already played all of its cards. It's also really slow, borrowing the pace of the pious period film, but not doing anything inventive formally or structurally to upset the framework. It all plays from the page.
As a modern(ized) adaptation of The Decameron, Pasolini's film from '71 isn't just more faithful, but much bolder, more transgressive, and I even found it funnier---and I wouldn't call it a comedy. It's probably not a fair comparison given Pasolini was out to accomplish a lot more, but his film (particularly his adaptation of the tale that The Little Hours spends most of its running time telling) kept entering my mind.
I watched this over the weekend and don't even have the willpower to write up a review. It felt like it was trying so hard to copy 60's/70's film style it completely whiffed on any substance. A comedy that can't achieve being a comedy even with generic modern cheap humor (REALLY LOUD AND REALLY CRUDE BECAUSE LOLZ), it's bad times. The scene with Paul Riesen and Allison Gouda was about the only good little scene.
I also watched Idle Hands, and that movie suuuuuuuucked. Oh the late 90's, you are so terrible. Deadbeat twenty something Junior Floyd washed out as QB of the Little Giants who does nothing but smoke weed and be typical 90's try hard slacker and therefore gets his idle hand possessed by the devil (get it?!), there's a good idea here for a horror movie, it's just horribly executed and characters make no sense in how they act or just trying to deal with the whole situation. So many parts hinge on trying to hide the possessed hand or not seeing the obvious that has happened but it never makes sense as presented. And then you have Vivica Fox show up to try and resolve the story but they treat her character more as a means to an end than actually caring why she shows up sporadically until the third act.
Idle Hands existed only to show Jessica Alba in that angel costume.
And out of it.
Yes. New, young Alba. Also, watch Angelina Jolie in Hackers. Hot stuff.
+2
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Yes. New, young Alba. Also, watch Angelina Jolie in Hackers. Hot stuff.
That whole red-hued raccoon look shouldn't have worked, but 13 year old me was fascinated. Especially during the dream sequence when she unzips the motorcycle jacket.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Hackers is so, so awesome. Partially of course for its camp value, and batshit depiction of... well... everything.
"Never fear, *I* is here."
"Disappointed white male, crossdresser, looking for discrete friend, to bring dreams to reality. Leather, lace, and watersports. Transvestites welcome..."
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
+1
Options
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
Yes. New, young Alba. Also, watch Angelina Jolie in Hackers. Hot stuff.
That whole red-hued raccoon look shouldn't have worked, but 13 year old me was fascinated. Especially during the dream sequence when she unzips the motorcycle jacket.
Better than the first two, but not as good as I was hoping.
The first one was alright, the second one was just so bad. When they added Karl Urban as the executioner, my assumption was they were going to try to lift his most memorable scene from the post Ragnarok and Roll story arc. Best of luck doing that one page in a comic any justice!
It was and it wasn't. More than anything it was a celebration of the Bay Area hacker scene. Overall a lot less surreal than watching Silicon Valley, but it definitely has its moments.
A surprising amount of Hackers is, not accurate, but let's say heavily dramatized versions of real events and people. As research for the movie the writer attended a bunch of 2600 meetings and going over the script with the attendees. It was the most true to the spirit of the culture depiction of the hacker community for a long time because the people involved in its production genuinely loved the community and what they were creating.
Better than the first two, but not as good as I was hoping.
The first one was alright, the second one was just so bad. When they added Karl Urban as the executioner, my assumption was they were going to try to lift his most memorable scene from the post Ragnarok and Roll story arc. Best of luck doing that one page in a comic any justice!
Thor: Ragnarok spoilers
They do.
+1
Options
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
Is this going to be more like the Broadway musical with costumes or more like the Jungle Book / Beauty and the Beast remake (with loads of CGI)
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
And that is the whole problem with this comedian, Michael Meyers. Yes he is creative and talented but he gets into too much of a mathematical type formula with his humoring. All the characters have to have jokes that are reworkings of jokes they did before. The new character has to have a different nationality and accent, this time it’s supposed to be dutch instead of scottish or british. I think arguably this one has more new material than the second one but it is still too much of a greatest hits type of sequel.
I will say this though, there is alot of dancing. I don’t know why but it can be refreshing when people are just dancin all through their movies. DEATH TO THE SMOOCHY was pretty dumb but it had a couple gratuitous dance numbers in there that made it more enjoyable. This one has more. There are a couple of full fledged dance numbers and then there are several characters who do a little dance out of the blue for no reason. It is kind of infectious and actually before the movie was over a couple people in the theater got up and started dancing around. At first people tried to ignore them, then they started to laugh at them, then with them, then they started to join them one at a time. Before you know it everybody, even me, got up and started dancing together, all around the theater, over the chairs, down the halls and back. People were tossing their garbage around and into the garbage cans, passing around crumpled up popcorn buckets like a bucket brigade, working together to clean up the mess. The theater employees came in and started tap dancing, spinning their brooms and dustpans around, tipping the garbage cans sideways and spinning them around on their wheels. It was fuckin amazing. A genuine communal movie going experience.
Actually that is kind of exaggerated, what really happened was during the credits everybody got up and started to leave, even though obviously there was gonna be outtakes. Then the outtake started and they stood there confused, then some of them sat back down. Then the outtake ended so they started to leave again but then a different one came on. These fuckers can’t figure it out. Either stay for the credits, don’t stay for the credits, or learn to recognize the patterns of what types of movies will have shit during the credits. Or dance. Those are your choices assholes.
Posts
I watched this over the weekend and don't even have the willpower to write up a review. It felt like it was trying so hard to copy 60's/70's film style it completely whiffed on any substance. A comedy that can't achieve being a comedy even with generic modern cheap humor (REALLY LOUD AND REALLY CRUDE BECAUSE LOLZ), it's bad times. The scene with Paul Riesen and Allison Gouda was about the only good little scene.
I also watched Idle Hands, and that movie suuuuuuuucked. Oh the late 90's, you are so terrible. Deadbeat twenty something Junior Floyd washed out as QB of the Little Giants who does nothing but smoke weed and be typical 90's try hard slacker and therefore gets his idle hand possessed by the devil (get it?!), there's a good idea here for a horror movie, it's just horribly executed and characters make no sense in how they act or just trying to deal with the whole situation. So many parts hinge on trying to hide the possessed hand or not seeing the obvious that has happened but it never makes sense as presented. And then you have Vivica Fox show up to try and resolve the story but they treat her character more as a means to an end than actually caring why she shows up sporadically until the third act.
Idle Hands existed only to show Jessica Alba in that angel costume.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Idle Hands never existed
And out of it.
Yeah, an orgy so awesome it's only implied off-screen and framed in a way that is fucked up rather then sexy. There really is almost no sex dude. First round, both guys, the boat, the mother. That's pretty much it.
Your read here doesn't make sense or fit with what happens on screen. You can just not like the movie. You don't have to invent some crazy reason why.
I never said it was. I said it came across as a sad male fantasy. Sad being the key word there. You injected the fun and titillating bits to shore up your argument. You are free to disagree with my interpretation, of course. I will still think the movie sucked.
Please point to the post where I said anything was awesome.
You can disagree with me but you don't need to invent some crazy reason why.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
In fact, the curse in this is very much a metaphor for an STD. One that causes you to push your trauma onto others in order to survive which creates a circle of violence. Like abuse. Which isn't really sexy at all.
I'd be curious to hear what your take is on movies like Contraction which is similar in that sex is a theme but really ultimately only a metaphor for something more sinister.
You literally claimed it was an author-insert sexual fantasy dude. So stop this silliness. You said it. You claimed the movie was some sort of sexual fantasy where the girl has to fuck a lot of people and then eventually the supposed author insert character. Except none of that is supported by the movie which neither makes the sex or the relationship in question a thing someone would fantasize about.
Yeah, I don't think the STD analogy thing works at all.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Better than the first two, but not as good as I was hoping.
Some weird cuts that seem very obviously made in desperation to bring the runtime down, and some others made to keep the 12A rating, make it feel a little unpolished. It's also kind of relentlessly silly. Like GOTG2 trying to force 3 jokes into every single scene, Ragnarok inserts something incredibly silly into almost every scene. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it just undercuts the stakes and the drama.
A fair few story/character hooks are opened but then just never really addressed, so you'll probably walk out thinking 'but what about that, and that, and that guy?'.
Overall, some good jokes, is very silly, some great visuals (though they didn't lean into that side enough in my opinion), and if you didn't like the first two Thor movies you might actually like this one.
If you like the MCU it's an easy recommendation.
Edit: I can see how I wasn't explicitly clear but I never claimed anything was titillating and fun for anybody. Suffice it to say I disagree and I'll leave it at that.
Yes. New, young Alba. Also, watch Angelina Jolie in Hackers. Hot stuff.
That whole red-hued raccoon look shouldn't have worked, but 13 year old me was fascinated. Especially during the dream sequence when she unzips the motorcycle jacket.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
"Never fear, *I* is here."
Steam | XBL
"Disappointed white male, crossdresser, looking for discrete friend, to bring dreams to reality. Leather, lace, and watersports. Transvestites welcome..."
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
Don't tell me you've forgotten Kelly Monaco.
The first one was alright, the second one was just so bad. When they added Karl Urban as the executioner, my assumption was they were going to try to lift his most memorable scene from the post Ragnarok and Roll story arc. Best of luck doing that one page in a comic any justice!
She wasn't in any great movies, but was in Command & Conquer and Sliders.
I'm still waiting for the internet to be as cool as portrayed in Hackers.
Once that Gibson gets hacked we're all set.
It's just a waiting game.
Eight Legged Freaks wasn't a spider slaughtering good time?
It totally was. Best David Arquette starring movie, narrowly beating out Ready to Rumble.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Ah, good. Wuhrer did have a memorable movie.
It was and it wasn't. More than anything it was a celebration of the Bay Area hacker scene. Overall a lot less surreal than watching Silicon Valley, but it definitely has its moments.
A surprising amount of Hackers is, not accurate, but let's say heavily dramatized versions of real events and people. As research for the movie the writer attended a bunch of 2600 meetings and going over the script with the attendees. It was the most true to the spirit of the culture depiction of the hacker community for a long time because the people involved in its production genuinely loved the community and what they were creating.
Thor: Ragnarok spoilers
Honestly that cast list is ridiculous. Very excited to see that movie now.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
Eh. Voice casts are basically never worth getting excited about imo.
I mean, Beyonce, Chiwetel, Keygan, and so on. The cast is pretty great.
More importantly is John Oliver going to do a new rendition of i've got a lovely bunch of coconuts?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
http://outlawvern.com/2002/07/27/austin-powers-in-goldmember/