Today I saw The Good Dinosaur. It was... interesting.
First of all, this is in no way a bad movie. It's not Inside Out good, or anything, and it's probably a lower tier Pixar movie, but this is from someone who loves almost all Pixar films.
There are two striking things about this film. The first is that it's absolutely fucking gorgeous. Just slackjaw, tongue on floor beautiful. Even if the story was utter garbage, it'd be worth seeing for the sumptuous visuals. Luckily,the story isn't utter garbage!
The film itself, visuals aside, is actually quite good, but this takes us to the second striking thing: how completely un-Pixar-like this film feels. Every other Pixar movie has a certain tone, a certain rhythm, a certain essence. The balance of drama and comedy, the way characters speak and act, it all has a distinct feeling. The Good Dinosaur lacks that. This very much feels like the work of a different production house. There are a few Pixary scenes, notably some of the vignettes of Arlo learning his environment after he becomes lost, but these often feel like bits of a different movie that were accidentally spliced in as a result of an editing room mishap.They're fun and funny, but I wonder if they weren't added after the fact, after somebody realized how uncharacteristically sober this thing was.
One other conspicuous thing is how desperately this movie wanted to be The Lion King. Entire swaths of plot and character beats are pulled right from that script, though there are admittedly worse movies to ape.
Overall, it's definitely worth your time, as long as you don't go in expecting what everyone was almost certainly expecting from a movie from the prestige arm of the House of Mouse. Honestly, after seeing this one, I wouldn't mind a few more in that vein. Though the frosty reception of The Good Dinosaur means that probably won't be happening anytime soon.
Shame, that.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Enjoyable, not great, nothing really special if you're not watching it on a huge screen in 3D.
The main character is kind of a giant, pretentious dick, which is a strike against it, and it didn't help that the movie didn't seem to know what a dick he was.
I don't regret watching it, but I wouldn't recommend it, either.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I liked Man on Wire, the documentary about the same story, quite a bit, but I never came away from it feeling that I needed a movie. I did come away from it thinking that Philippe Petit must be quite insufferable in person.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
You know, I finally thought about it, but I realized I've never seen a Friday the 13th movie. I've watched Elm Street, Halloween, but none of the Jason movies.
I would recommend 4, 6, and 7.
4 is highly regarded amongst fans as the best of the series. It has Crispin Glover and Corey Feldman.
6 is the spoof of the series, handled with absolute love and respect by a director who gets it. It finishes the Tommy Jarvis trilogy started in 4. And opens with a James Bond reference.
7 starts the Kane Hodder era, the man who gave Jason personality and presence. It's also basically Jason vs Carrie. Sports some of the best kills in the series, and has the absolute best Jason look.
Today I saw The Good Dinosaur. It was... interesting.
First of all, this is in no way a bad movie. It's not Inside Out good, or anything, and it's probably a lower tier Pixar movie, but this is from someone who loves almost all Pixar films.
There are two striking things about this film. The first is that it's absolutely fucking gorgeous. Just slackjaw, tongue on floor beautiful. Even if the story was utter garbage, it'd be worth seeing for the sumptuous visuals. Luckily,the story isn't utter garbage!
The film itself, visuals aside, is actually quite good, but this takes us to the second striking thing: how completely un-Pixar-like this film feels. Every other Pixar movie has a certain tone, a certain rhythm, a certain essence. The balance of drama and comedy, the way characters speak and act, it all has a distinct feeling. The Good Dinosaur lacks that. This very much feels like the work of a different production house. There are a few Pixary scenes, notably some of the vignettes of Arlo learning his environment after he becomes lost, but these often feel like bits of a different movie that were accidentally spliced in as a result of an editing room mishap.They're fun and funny, but I wonder if they weren't added after the fact, after somebody realized how uncharacteristically sober this thing was.
One other conspicuous thing is how desperately this movie wanted to be The Lion King. Entire swaths of plot and character beats are pulled right from that script, though there are admittedly worse movies to ape.
Overall, it's definitely worth your time, as long as you don't go in expecting what everyone was almost certainly expecting from a movie from the prestige arm of the House of Mouse. Honestly, after seeing this one, I wouldn't mind a few more in that vein. Though the frosty reception of The Good Dinosaur means that probably won't be happening anytime soon.
Shame, that.
I was delighted with every interaction that Arlo had with the T-Rex ranchers.
My main takeaway from The Good Dinosaur was a single scene:
When Arlo and the boy were drawing circles in the dirt and putting up sticks to show their family, then knocking over those sticks to show that someone close to them was gone. It struck me that it is really difficult to communicate loss even when people are speaking the same language. There's just nothing that you can say.
+2
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
So I just found out that Tu Dors Nicole is streaming on Netflix. It's great to see something I liked so much in festival back in 2014 now available for anyone to see. Here's my original capsule review:
Other than the animated Song of the Sea, this is the most beautiful film I saw all festival. Lush but naturalistic black and white cinematography pervades the film, drawing you into Nicole’s lazy summer. “Tu Dors” translates to “You Are Sleeping”, and that’s precisely Nicole’s problem. Afflicted with insomnia, it seems as though her sleeplife has invaded her days, causing her to move through her summer as if underwater–lethargic, unambitious, alternately depressed and angry. Psychologically, insomnia is a symptom of a more general malaise; it’s hard to sleep when you feel as if you did nothing of value all day. Nicole does little of value, working a dead-end job at a thrift store (although we see she has excellent sewing skills and could probably find something better) and ignoring the chores her vacationing parents left for her in favor of lounging, swimming, and watching her older brother’s band play in their living room. She moons over the new drummer, she tries to avoid Martin, whom she used to babysit and who is in love with her, and she plans a foolishly expensive trip to Iceland, perhaps just because it sounds cold and far away. But isn’t Iceland green, and Greenland where all the ice is?
The film’s sound design is excellent and often whimsical (in the film’s best comic invention, puberty has dropped Martin’s voice but hasn’t gotten to the rest of him, so that a 12-year-old child is dubbed over by a deep-voiced man), and it’s directed with a careful casualness that sometimes has Nicole disappearing off the edge of the frame, as if she can scarcely be bothered to be in her own movie. It’s hard to describe what makes the movie feel so perfectly attuned to the needs of its story and characters; perhaps the best way to put it is that at one point I thought to myself, “This is good, but I really wish it had more music” and the movie right that second cut to her brother’s band playing. This excellence carries through all the way to the end, which doesn’t try to provide any forced catharsis, but does suggest that Nicole will finally be able to do something, and even if it’s the wrong thing, that’s still better than nothing.
Tu Dors Nicole was a pretty fun movie, like a french new wave Ghost World or something? But rather than serious and angsty it has a grounded feel of everyday life, spruced up with small portions of humorous exaggerations. The characters feel humane, sympathetic even though acting like asses sometimes because it's what people do. I'd never rate it 5/5 but it's def a film worth seeing.
So my local theatre had sold out of tickets for Room, so instead I took my lady friend to see Spotlight, a movie I saw a trailer for about a year ago and thought looked interesting, then proceeded to completely forget about.
Turns out it's probably my favourite movie of the last year. It's brilliantly acted, tightly paced, and utterly gripping (which is amazing considering it literally consists of investigative journalists just doing their job). The 2 hours flew by. There really wasn't a weak part for me.
It's possible I was particularly engaged by the subject matter (I was trained as a journalist and worked as a reporter for a couple of years) but I don't think so. It was just straight-up a damn good movie.
So my local theatre had sold out of tickets for Room, so instead I took my lady friend to see Spotlight, a movie I saw a trailer for about a year ago and thought looked interesting, then proceeded to completely forget about.
Turns out it's probably my favourite movie of the last year. It's brilliantly acted, tightly paced, and utterly gripping (which is amazing considering it literally consists of investigative journalists just doing their job). The 2 hours flew by. There really wasn't a weak part for me.
It's possible I was particularly engaged by the subject matter (I was trained as a journalist and worked as a reporter for a couple of years) but I don't think so. It was just straight-up a damn good movie.
Mark Ruffalo man-crush intensifies.
I heard good things about it and I like most of the people in it.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Speaking of Spotlight, I don't think I ever mentioned when my review went up last week. It's not a bad film but I did end up being pretty critical of its understated nature. Check it out.
Spotlight certainly has tension, stemming from the real life issues at play, but the film isn’t interested in dramatizing that; its subject is journalism, not child abuse. Okay, but a film about journalism is by nature a procedural, and procedurals are typically enjoyable because you want to know how the story comes out (like the wonderfully twisty British miniseries State of Play), because of the texture of the filmmaking (Zodiac comes to mind), or because of great performances (The Insider, Frost/Nixon). But here, we already know the story: that, working in relative isolation, a small team of investigative reporters at the Boston Globe reported a massive story about the Catholic Priest sex abuse scandals and the Church’s role in covering them up. No suspense there. And the film is so low-key in terms of performance, writing and direction that it’s hard to find much at all there to make this a worthwhile entertainment.
Director and co-writer Tom McCarthy effectively and intentionally crafts a film that looks and sounds so realistic that it might as well be a documentary–although a doc would more honestly come by the film’s collection of blatant Aesoping (“If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse it” is one pithy example)–but realistic is not the same thing as compelling.Spotlight has been lauded for more things it doesn’t do than what it does, it seems; yes, it is to be commended for resisting the temptation to overly dramatize the story, or to push its characters too far, or to turn the paper’s new editor** into a penny-pinching villain, or… but other films do those things for a reason, because they’re trying to build a story. Spotlight doesn’t feel like a story to me, just a number of things that happen, some of them more difficult or interesting than others.
0
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Just finished Kingsman
I come down on the "brilliant" side
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+3
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Oh, this weekend tried to watch Our Brand is Crisis, and I just quite thirty minutes in. It felt super smug, and no one is really likable. Anthony Mackie needs to stop being the safe, bland supporting actor he seems to be doing in a lot of movies now and be willing to play a bad guy or be silly or something (I didn't see it but that Rogen/JGL/Mackie Christmas comedy trailers seemed like he was being the straight man the whole time), and Sandra Bullock seemed to be more like she wanted to put some comedy in this drama about some retired lady James Carville who will probably undergo a transformation to make Bolivia a better place and fight for convictions or something plot twist I don't care.
Speaking of Spotlight, I don't think I ever mentioned when my review went up last week. It's not a bad film but I did end up being pretty critical of its understated nature. Check it out.
Spotlight certainly has tension, stemming from the real life issues at play, but the film isn’t interested in dramatizing that; its subject is journalism, not child abuse. Okay, but a film about journalism is by nature a procedural, and procedurals are typically enjoyable because you want to know how the story comes out (like the wonderfully twisty British miniseries State of Play), because of the texture of the filmmaking (Zodiac comes to mind), or because of great performances (The Insider, Frost/Nixon). But here, we already know the story: that, working in relative isolation, a small team of investigative reporters at the Boston Globe reported a massive story about the Catholic Priest sex abuse scandals and the Church’s role in covering them up. No suspense there. And the film is so low-key in terms of performance, writing and direction that it’s hard to find much at all there to make this a worthwhile entertainment.
Director and co-writer Tom McCarthy effectively and intentionally crafts a film that looks and sounds so realistic that it might as well be a documentary–although a doc would more honestly come by the film’s collection of blatant Aesoping (“If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse it” is one pithy example)–but realistic is not the same thing as compelling.Spotlight has been lauded for more things it doesn’t do than what it does, it seems; yes, it is to be commended for resisting the temptation to overly dramatize the story, or to push its characters too far, or to turn the paper’s new editor** into a penny-pinching villain, or… but other films do those things for a reason, because they’re trying to build a story. Spotlight doesn’t feel like a story to me, just a number of things that happen, some of them more difficult or interesting than others.
Interesting that I feel was the movies biggest strength was what you found to be it's glaring weakness! I felt the story, writing and performances were compelling enough to carry it.
Watched The Friends of Eddie Coyle over the weekend. It's a pretty great crime flick, and clearly the inspiration for most of the Boston gangster stories of the last 40 years. It also made me miss the era where people in movies could be unattractive. I miss the era where guys like Ernest Borgnine and Warren Oates could be lead actors, and people in films could look like normal people you'd see on the street. Blue Ruin might be one of the few recent films that I've seen do that.
Watched The Friends of Eddie Coyle over the weekend. It's a pretty great crime flick, and clearly the inspiration for most of the Boston gangster stories of the last 40 years. It also made me miss the era where people in movies could be unattractive. I miss the era where guys like Ernest Borgnine and Warren Oates could be lead actors, and people in films could look like normal people you'd see on the street. Blue Ruin might be one of the few recent films that I've seen do that.
Elmore Leonard was a huge fan of that story, as were the writers of Justified.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
No matter how good Hail Caesar performs, the Coens aren't in danger of not getting to make any more similar movies. Whereas Deadpool will affect...
Actually, fuck if I know what it'll affect.
Graphically violent, fourth-wall breaking, Ryan Reynolds comic book passion-projects?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Phoenix is gorgeous and shattering, so haunting and so sad.
I found Phoenix too distant and too unwilling to meet the viewer halfway in terms of following the whos and whats of the story, which undercut my enjoyment just a smidge. But the performances were great and the ending legendary, and it was overall a damned good film.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
On the subject of trans stereotypes, have there been any good movies with that subject in it?
I remember the two big drag queen films made in the 90s (To Wong Foo and Priscilla, Queen of the desert), but Im wondering if those films portrayed the same shallow superficiality that most 90s movies did about girl power and mental illness.
(Side note: Ive totally been to the town they filmed To Wong Foo at. That wasnt a set.)
Well, for starters, transgender people aren't drag queens.
@Atomika one of the characters in Priscilla is transgendered, and I thought one of the ones from To Wong Foo was as well.
I'm guessing that's a no.
0
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Phoenix is gorgeous and shattering, so haunting and so sad.
I found Phoenix too distant and too unwilling to meet the viewer halfway in terms of following the whos and whats of the story, which undercut my enjoyment just a smidge. But the performances were great and the ending legendary, and it was overall a damned good film.
I can respect that. It takes a little while to get a handle on the particulars of the story, but once you get into it it's really a very absorbing film.
What's interesting is that the film is basically the third act of a much longer story.
Specifically, it's the third act of Vertigo.
But I can imagine a more classical film telling the whole thing straightforwardly--Nelly and her husband getting squeezed out of German society until she has to hide; his arrest and interrogation, with the outcome left ambiguous; her capture and time in the camps, his memory the only thing keeping her going; and then her rescue and recovery, leading to the psychologically twisted, emotionally affecting climax as the two lovers are reunited yet separated by a case of un-mistaken identity. That film might have been more accessible, more traditionally dramatic; but I like the way this version loads it all up as backstory and makes itself into a noir (a genre where the past is always more important than the present). Like Nelly reassembling her identity, we have to pull the puzzle pieces together to figure out what happened and why. It's not quite a mystery, because the answer is fairly obvious and also depends on information we're not given (the divorce); but the feeling of our having to recreate remains.
I actually thought it was a great place to start the story. I liked that what most people would make as a sprawling epic, was instead made as a tight little noir thing.
I probably would have just added a few explanatory sentences here and there. Like, an extra 30-60 seconds of screen time on the front end, because I spent the first half of the movie grappling with some of the basic relationships between characters, and I don't think it was in the way the film intended.
Minor complaint, though. The atmosphere was great, and by the time things clicked for me at about the 45 minute mark, I was sold.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Christian Petzold is pretty good in general, and he ususally (perhaps even always) works with Nina Hoss, the lead in Phoenix. Yella's a bit corny in the plotting, but he does very well in terms of characterisation and he's obviously great with his actors.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
0
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
Today I saw The Good Dinosaur. It was... interesting.
First of all, this is in no way a bad movie. It's not Inside Out good, or anything, and it's probably a lower tier Pixar movie, but this is from someone who loves almost all Pixar films.
There are two striking things about this film. The first is that it's absolutely fucking gorgeous. Just slackjaw, tongue on floor beautiful. Even if the story was utter garbage, it'd be worth seeing for the sumptuous visuals. Luckily,the story isn't utter garbage!
The film itself, visuals aside, is actually quite good, but this takes us to the second striking thing: how completely un-Pixar-like this film feels. Every other Pixar movie has a certain tone, a certain rhythm, a certain essence. The balance of drama and comedy, the way characters speak and act, it all has a distinct feeling. The Good Dinosaur lacks that. This very much feels like the work of a different production house. There are a few Pixary scenes, notably some of the vignettes of Arlo learning his environment after he becomes lost, but these often feel like bits of a different movie that were accidentally spliced in as a result of an editing room mishap.They're fun and funny, but I wonder if they weren't added after the fact, after somebody realized how uncharacteristically sober this thing was.
One other conspicuous thing is how desperately this movie wanted to be The Lion King. Entire swaths of plot and character beats are pulled right from that script, though there are admittedly worse movies to ape.
Overall, it's definitely worth your time, as long as you don't go in expecting what everyone was almost certainly expecting from a movie from the prestige arm of the House of Mouse. Honestly, after seeing this one, I wouldn't mind a few more in that vein. Though the frosty reception of The Good Dinosaur means that probably won't be happening anytime soon.
Shame, that.
Nice to hear some positive thoughts on the movie. The new Pixar movie each year is one of the things my family looks forward to each year. For some reason though we never got to go see The Good Dinosaur at the theater. Can't wait to finally see it when it hits blu-ray.
On the subject of trans stereotypes, have there been any good movies with that subject in it?
I remember the two big drag queen films made in the 90s (To Wong Foo and Priscilla, Queen of the desert), but Im wondering if those films portrayed the same shallow superficiality that most 90s movies did about girl power and mental illness.
(Side note: Ive totally been to the town they filmed To Wong Foo at. That wasnt a set.)
Well, for starters, transgender people aren't drag queens.
@Atomika one of the characters in Priscilla is transgendered, and I thought one of the ones from To Wong Foo was as well.
I'm guessing that's a no.
But it's still a movie about drag queens, trans or not. It still plays into that harmful, regressive trope.
Yes, there are trans people who do drag. But most drag performers are cis, and many of them aren't gay.
On the subject of trans stereotypes, have there been any good movies with that subject in it?
I remember the two big drag queen films made in the 90s (To Wong Foo and Priscilla, Queen of the desert), but Im wondering if those films portrayed the same shallow superficiality that most 90s movies did about girl power and mental illness.
(Side note: Ive totally been to the town they filmed To Wong Foo at. That wasnt a set.)
Well, for starters, transgender people aren't drag queens.
@Atomika one of the characters in Priscilla is transgendered, and I thought one of the ones from To Wong Foo was as well.
I'm guessing that's a no.
But it's still a movie about drag queens, trans or not. It still plays into that harmful, regressive trope.
Yes, there are trans people who do drag. But most drag performers are cis, and many of them aren't gay.
Still has a pretty positive "be yourself, fuck the haters" message.
PSN: Canadian_llama
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
On the subject of trans stereotypes, have there been any good movies with that subject in it?
I remember the two big drag queen films made in the 90s (To Wong Foo and Priscilla, Queen of the desert), but Im wondering if those films portrayed the same shallow superficiality that most 90s movies did about girl power and mental illness.
(Side note: Ive totally been to the town they filmed To Wong Foo at. That wasnt a set.)
Well, for starters, transgender people aren't drag queens.
@Atomika one of the characters in Priscilla is transgendered, and I thought one of the ones from To Wong Foo was as well.
I'm guessing that's a no.
But it's still a movie about drag queens, trans or not. It still plays into that harmful, regressive trope.
Yes, there are trans people who do drag. But most drag performers are cis, and many of them aren't gay.
Still has a pretty positive "be yourself, fuck the haters" message.
That's not really relevant or rebutting to what I'm talking about.
I've heard good things about Laurence Anyways, a Canadian romantic drama about a transwoman, but haven't seen it myself to confirm if it plays into stereotypes or not.
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I've heard good things about Laurence Anyways, a Canadian romantic drama about a transwoman, but haven't seen it myself to confirm if it plays into stereotypes or not.
I've seen it, and it's pretty good for the most part. There's a middle bit after Laurence and her wife separate that skews kinda weird when she's taken in by this cabal of total weirdos that definitely skirt the edge of those stereotypes, but it's a pretty minimal part of the movie. It's actually really well-done and much more realistic about the social and emotional challenges transition put onto trans people and their loved ones.
Though I never could figure out why Laurence never changed her name.
Wait are you saying that drag queens are a harmful regressive trope?
Cuz that's pretty ignorant if so...
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
0
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I think the conflation of drag queens with trans peeps is the issue. I could be wrong though.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+4
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think the conflation of drag queens with trans peeps is the issue. I could be wrong though.
nope
this
0
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Crimson Peak, it is the living embodiment of Striker Eureka; great concept, super cool look, both jazz up their shoulders like what, but it's all totally snuffed out by a boring, predictable robot I mean story.
I do appreciate everyone here giving their reviews, so I went in with lowered expectations, but even then it felt like such a tease of a movie, pretending it had something special to the story and then nope. The setup is so nice, as is the entire world being built in 1911 America and even making Wackywowska a go-getter aspiring writer who doesn't fit in with the other girls, it worked here despite being a standard trope. But I guess it just adds even more to the anticipation of a twist when really, nah, it's all right there, hidden behind the lovely sets and atmosphere. There really isn't much more to say in terms of story because there just isn't anything there, other than I guess you should realize when a house has a hole in it forever, there's something going on, don't be dumb. At least Tom Hanks and Shelley Long attempted to fix their money pit.
The ghost designs are beautiful and do what I wish more gothic movies would do, dialing down the emo and horror and turning up the Tim Burton just a little bit, because it creates these lovely designs that stay with you more than just seeing something pushing for an "ewwwwww" effect. It reminded me of Ghostbusters in that regard. And the contrast in set designs, especially in the last 15 minutes, just looks intriguing like all get out, you're drawn to the screen like a moth to a flame (super obvious analogy foreshadowing). Yet for all that work, it doesn't seem like anyone other than Hiddleston brought their A-game. Wasikowska is perfectly fine but did a vastly superior role in Stoker like she knew it deserved a great performance which was then snubbed by everyone, Chastain phoning it in because she probably thought she had an oscar in the bag for Interstellar beforehand, and I still do not understand what accent Charlie Hunham is using and looks completely not of the time period compared to every other man in the movie in terms of stature and appearance. Probably stayed in shape ready to film Pacific Rim 2 before it got shut down. I did like the dude playing Wasikowska's father, for a small role he really played dismissive dad well.
So in the end, it's not really worth a rental, but more an HBO type movie if you have nothing else on your to watch list. There's got to be a better way to harness the Del Torro away from his own scripts.
+1
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
edited February 2016
Since this seemed like the only somewhat entertaining parody-esque movie in ages, I bit on Pride & Prejudice & Zombies.
(Pun intended)
This is seriously just what the title says: It is Pride and Prejudice. With zombies. This is more of a romance movie with elements of action, comedy, and legit horror.
Go into it knowing that and you'll have fun, and maybe even get a little teary-eyed.
I think Austen would approve. Maybe.
My biggest complaint is that this feels majorly hampered by the PG-13.
It would be far more entertaining with a hard R and lots of blood and gore. But they manage, for the most part.
The cast plays it refreshingly straight, which I appreciated. Without the zombies, this could easily pass for Pride & Prejudice.
cj iwakura on
0
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
I saw Turbokid
I didn't really get into it, though I like 80s movies. I liked the aesthetic, the actors all did great, the sets and costumes were all pretty cool. I think my problem was the script and dialogue. It didn't really humanize these characters to the point that I cared greatly. I liked the characters, but I didn't feel attached to them.
Posts
First of all, this is in no way a bad movie. It's not Inside Out good, or anything, and it's probably a lower tier Pixar movie, but this is from someone who loves almost all Pixar films.
There are two striking things about this film. The first is that it's absolutely fucking gorgeous. Just slackjaw, tongue on floor beautiful. Even if the story was utter garbage, it'd be worth seeing for the sumptuous visuals. Luckily,the story isn't utter garbage!
The film itself, visuals aside, is actually quite good, but this takes us to the second striking thing: how completely un-Pixar-like this film feels. Every other Pixar movie has a certain tone, a certain rhythm, a certain essence. The balance of drama and comedy, the way characters speak and act, it all has a distinct feeling. The Good Dinosaur lacks that. This very much feels like the work of a different production house. There are a few Pixary scenes, notably some of the vignettes of Arlo learning his environment after he becomes lost, but these often feel like bits of a different movie that were accidentally spliced in as a result of an editing room mishap.They're fun and funny, but I wonder if they weren't added after the fact, after somebody realized how uncharacteristically sober this thing was.
One other conspicuous thing is how desperately this movie wanted to be The Lion King. Entire swaths of plot and character beats are pulled right from that script, though there are admittedly worse movies to ape.
Overall, it's definitely worth your time, as long as you don't go in expecting what everyone was almost certainly expecting from a movie from the prestige arm of the House of Mouse. Honestly, after seeing this one, I wouldn't mind a few more in that vein. Though the frosty reception of The Good Dinosaur means that probably won't be happening anytime soon.
Shame, that.
Enjoyable, not great, nothing really special if you're not watching it on a huge screen in 3D.
The main character is kind of a giant, pretentious dick, which is a strike against it, and it didn't help that the movie didn't seem to know what a dick he was.
I don't regret watching it, but I wouldn't recommend it, either.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I would recommend 4, 6, and 7.
4 is highly regarded amongst fans as the best of the series. It has Crispin Glover and Corey Feldman.
6 is the spoof of the series, handled with absolute love and respect by a director who gets it. It finishes the Tommy Jarvis trilogy started in 4. And opens with a James Bond reference.
7 starts the Kane Hodder era, the man who gave Jason personality and presence. It's also basically Jason vs Carrie. Sports some of the best kills in the series, and has the absolute best Jason look.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
My main takeaway from The Good Dinosaur was a single scene:
Turns out it's probably my favourite movie of the last year. It's brilliantly acted, tightly paced, and utterly gripping (which is amazing considering it literally consists of investigative journalists just doing their job). The 2 hours flew by. There really wasn't a weak part for me.
It's possible I was particularly engaged by the subject matter (I was trained as a journalist and worked as a reporter for a couple of years) but I don't think so. It was just straight-up a damn good movie.
Mark Ruffalo man-crush intensifies.
Steam: adamjnet
I heard good things about it and I like most of the people in it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
pleasepaypreacher.net
Interesting that I feel was the movies biggest strength was what you found to be it's glaring weakness! I felt the story, writing and performances were compelling enough to carry it.
Steam: adamjnet
That movie is actually pretty good!
Elmore Leonard was a huge fan of that story, as were the writers of Justified.
pleasepaypreacher.net
(I swear this better not be another Edge of Tomorrow or Pacific Rim situation)
An R-rated comic book movie will make money but not $TEXAS like a PG-13 movie can.
You should be hoping that Hail Ceaser doesn't turn out like that.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Actually, fuck if I know what it'll affect.
Graphically violent, fourth-wall breaking, Ryan Reynolds comic book passion-projects?
I found Phoenix too distant and too unwilling to meet the viewer halfway in terms of following the whos and whats of the story, which undercut my enjoyment just a smidge. But the performances were great and the ending legendary, and it was overall a damned good film.
@Atomika one of the characters in Priscilla is transgendered, and I thought one of the ones from To Wong Foo was as well.
I'm guessing that's a no.
I can respect that. It takes a little while to get a handle on the particulars of the story, but once you get into it it's really a very absorbing film.
What's interesting is that the film is basically the third act of a much longer story.
But I can imagine a more classical film telling the whole thing straightforwardly--Nelly and her husband getting squeezed out of German society until she has to hide; his arrest and interrogation, with the outcome left ambiguous; her capture and time in the camps, his memory the only thing keeping her going; and then her rescue and recovery, leading to the psychologically twisted, emotionally affecting climax as the two lovers are reunited yet separated by a case of un-mistaken identity. That film might have been more accessible, more traditionally dramatic; but I like the way this version loads it all up as backstory and makes itself into a noir (a genre where the past is always more important than the present). Like Nelly reassembling her identity, we have to pull the puzzle pieces together to figure out what happened and why. It's not quite a mystery, because the answer is fairly obvious and also depends on information we're not given (the divorce); but the feeling of our having to recreate remains.
I probably would have just added a few explanatory sentences here and there. Like, an extra 30-60 seconds of screen time on the front end, because I spent the first half of the movie grappling with some of the basic relationships between characters, and I don't think it was in the way the film intended.
Minor complaint, though. The atmosphere was great, and by the time things clicked for me at about the 45 minute mark, I was sold.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Nice to hear some positive thoughts on the movie. The new Pixar movie each year is one of the things my family looks forward to each year. For some reason though we never got to go see The Good Dinosaur at the theater. Can't wait to finally see it when it hits blu-ray.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
But it's still a movie about drag queens, trans or not. It still plays into that harmful, regressive trope.
Yes, there are trans people who do drag. But most drag performers are cis, and many of them aren't gay.
Still has a pretty positive "be yourself, fuck the haters" message.
That's not really relevant or rebutting to what I'm talking about.
I've seen it, and it's pretty good for the most part. There's a middle bit after Laurence and her wife separate that skews kinda weird when she's taken in by this cabal of total weirdos that definitely skirt the edge of those stereotypes, but it's a pretty minimal part of the movie. It's actually really well-done and much more realistic about the social and emotional challenges transition put onto trans people and their loved ones.
Though I never could figure out why Laurence never changed her name.
Cuz that's pretty ignorant if so...
nope
this
I do appreciate everyone here giving their reviews, so I went in with lowered expectations, but even then it felt like such a tease of a movie, pretending it had something special to the story and then nope. The setup is so nice, as is the entire world being built in 1911 America and even making Wackywowska a go-getter aspiring writer who doesn't fit in with the other girls, it worked here despite being a standard trope. But I guess it just adds even more to the anticipation of a twist when really, nah, it's all right there, hidden behind the lovely sets and atmosphere. There really isn't much more to say in terms of story because there just isn't anything there, other than I guess you should realize when a house has a hole in it forever, there's something going on, don't be dumb. At least Tom Hanks and Shelley Long attempted to fix their money pit.
The ghost designs are beautiful and do what I wish more gothic movies would do, dialing down the emo and horror and turning up the Tim Burton just a little bit, because it creates these lovely designs that stay with you more than just seeing something pushing for an "ewwwwww" effect. It reminded me of Ghostbusters in that regard. And the contrast in set designs, especially in the last 15 minutes, just looks intriguing like all get out, you're drawn to the screen like a moth to a flame (super obvious analogy foreshadowing). Yet for all that work, it doesn't seem like anyone other than Hiddleston brought their A-game. Wasikowska is perfectly fine but did a vastly superior role in Stoker like she knew it deserved a great performance which was then snubbed by everyone, Chastain phoning it in because she probably thought she had an oscar in the bag for Interstellar beforehand, and I still do not understand what accent Charlie Hunham is using and looks completely not of the time period compared to every other man in the movie in terms of stature and appearance. Probably stayed in shape ready to film Pacific Rim 2 before it got shut down. I did like the dude playing Wasikowska's father, for a small role he really played dismissive dad well.
So in the end, it's not really worth a rental, but more an HBO type movie if you have nothing else on your to watch list. There's got to be a better way to harness the Del Torro away from his own scripts.
(Pun intended)
This is seriously just what the title says: It is Pride and Prejudice. With zombies. This is more of a romance movie with elements of action, comedy, and legit horror.
Go into it knowing that and you'll have fun, and maybe even get a little teary-eyed.
I think Austen would approve. Maybe.
My biggest complaint is that this feels majorly hampered by the PG-13.
It would be far more entertaining with a hard R and lots of blood and gore. But they manage, for the most part.
The cast plays it refreshingly straight, which I appreciated. Without the zombies, this could easily pass for Pride & Prejudice.
I didn't really get into it, though I like 80s movies. I liked the aesthetic, the actors all did great, the sets and costumes were all pretty cool. I think my problem was the script and dialogue. It didn't really humanize these characters to the point that I cared greatly. I liked the characters, but I didn't feel attached to them.