Mike O

suspiciouscoffee said:

I haven’t seen the reboot, but I have no strong feelings on it or II.

I don’t see why II is hated if it is. It’s a pale shadow of the original, but a fun enough special effects comedy by itself.

Universal Soldier- Future blockbuster helmer Roland Emmerich’s first Hollywood feature, a 90s Jean-Claude Van Damme vehicle. A tolerable mid-budget Terminator knock-off about re-animated soldiers. Emmerich has yet to master the more-is-more aesthetic he’d later wield in films like Independence Day; by today’s standards, the pacing is slow and most of the action sequences are dated and lack much bite. Dolph Lundgren has fun as the psychopathic villain, but the requisite car chases, stunts, and fights are primitive by modern standards. Still, Emmerich is already developing his mixture of action and comedy, and it’s mildly interesting genre fare.

Universal Soldier: Regeneration- Straight to DVD (though shot in scope), director John Hyams, son of veteran journeyman director Peter Hyams, here the director of digital photography, makes this DTV fare way, way, better than it has any right to be. Eschewing Emmerich’s blockbuster silliness to play by his own rules, Hyams and Hyams shoot in Bulgaria like most Nu Image productions, but the grimy industrial parts of the city they choose-with the look of burnt out train tracks and abandoned chemical plants-have a bleak beauty. Having filmed documentaries about MMA fighters, Hyams casts them in the lead roles, and his fights and action sequences, in contrast to Emmerich’s slapstick, are quick, lean, and brutally violent. JCVD returns as a damaged shell of his former self, as does an unnerving Lundgren. Mix in some Bourne-esque car chases and shootouts, and you’re left with a brutal, utterly relentless straight-to-DVD sequel that’s better than it needs to be or has any right to be.

And they totally fucked up the chance to fix Duck, You Sucker. It’s beginning to look like unless someone licenses them in the UK, proper releases are a pipe dream 😦.

According to the folks over at Blu-ray.com, saying that Kino’s releases are disappointing would be the understatement of the week.

Green Arrow: Year One- Diggle’s writing is solid, and the influence it had on the television show is pretty clear, but the real treat for me was Jock’s art: jagged edges, hard faces. This is my first taste of him outside of his film design work and I have to say, I really dig him. Sparse, raw, impressionistic, some his drawings look almost incomplete. It’s an odd, minimalist sort of beauty. Diggle’s writing is solid too, and gives a nice psychological edge to the character’s backstory, though full disclosure, this is the first Green Arrow comic I’m familiar with.

Edit: I didn’t realize I’d posted this already. Mods, feel free to delete.

You have more strength than I can imagine to be fighting this.

lurker77 said:

Very surprised to see this much praise of Lucas’s use of digital cameras and CGI.

They (digital motion picture technologies) are useful tools, but not all-purpose ones. The way Lucas used them, and the way Hollywood has generally used them since they became widespread, are as crutches. Because storage space is cheap, settings can be changed quicker, the final result can be previewed in real time, and digital editing has so many more bells and whistles, there is less motivation to put effort into getting a good shot. This applies moreso to effects, as the digital world does not have the limitations of the physical world, allowing thought out and naturalistic shots to be replaced by hyperactive, sensory overloading flash and impossible scale. Early CGI like Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 looked better because effort was taken to get it to fit in with live action footage by not shoving it in your face and often augmenting it with practical effects. Now it’s the other way around, with the live action being an afterthought.

As for digital cameras, they’re best used in situations that demand a small, lightweight, or remote camera.

Sounds good on paper, but money is king. If Kodak survives much longer, I’ll be very surprised.

darthrush said:

DominicCobb said:

darthrush said:

Nice to see you enjoyed it. I also find it very nice. One of the plot threads felt a little cliche but the core of the movie was about her relationship with her mother which was very interesting and touching. Overall, it’s a very genuine film with great acting and though it’s not my favorite of the year, I’d be fine with it taking home Best Picture. I just can’t accept Shape of Water winning.

Why though

I mean of course, whatever wins will win, I just find Shape of Water overrated. Not nearly as much as Darkest Hour which has no place in the nominations whatsoever in my opinion. I find CMBYN or Three Billboards deserving of the award. If they nominated BR 2049 then I’d give it to that in a heartbeat.

As a major-league del Toro fanboy, I liked Shape of Water, though I didn’t find it his best work. But I’d love to see him take home the gold, especially as a genre filmmaker. Darkest Hour was OK, but I think Oldman will take home Best Actor.

So how does the new Kino compare to the MGM mess? I’m hoping Kino’s new remasters of the rest of the trilogy and DYS are good enough that I can chuck my German and Italian releases and my old Anthology boxed set and finally save some space!

I guess outside of a fan restoration, we’re never getting OUATIW with lossless mono.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

darthrush said:

Napoleon Dynamite > Nacho Libre

Equivalent of saying Conquest of the Planet of the Apes > Battle For the Planet of the Apes

Yes, Conquest is good. Battle is not.

paja said:

MOON (2009) – Thumbs up!
No words Fantastic!

ALIEN - (1979) - Thumbs up!

The First Half is terrific and Fantastic! No Problems.

The Second Half is Basically looking around. SPOOKY ALIEN! Looking around… SPOOKY ALIEN! And that’s the rest of the film pretty much.

I love Alien, but for all of its sophisticated production design and lavish budget, it’s essentially just a haunted house movie in space, albeit a really, really good one.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Only exception to your PotA ratings is that I think Escape is the most watchable sequel. But not by much.

Beneath is pulpy fun, Escape has a nice satirical edge, and Conquest is pretty subversive for mainstream SF. It’s Battle that’s the glorified TV movie weak spot because the budget got slashed to hell.

ray_afraid said:

Especially the original Cloverfield.
And check out the hidden backstory with this guide to the viral marketing and this retrospective on the whole thing first.
10 Lane is good, but would’a been better without the Cloverfield tag on the end.

That marketing tie-in stuff is kind of cool.

Delete this double post, mods. Damned iPhone.

ray_afraid said:

Especially the original Cloverfield.
And check out the hidden backstory with this guide to the viral marketing and this retrospective on the whole thing first.
10 Lane is good, but would’a been better without the Cloverfield tag on the end.

That marketing tie-in stuff is kind of cool.

When you look at just how bad some of the CGI is, it’s amazing to think that it cost $300 million.

Collipso said:

did batman kill in JL?

Just against Parademons, which aren’t human.

ChainsawAsh said:

Tried watching Justice League tonight.

Tried. Holy shit is it bad.

And this is coming from someone who genuinely liked Man of Steel and didn’t think BvS was quite the abomination many saw it as (though it’s not exactly good).

I’m going to try to finish it someday, but I’ll need lots more booze first, if only to be able to see past the mustache removal (which isn’t even the worst of the CGI I’ve seen so far).

I thought that Justice League was better than I was expecting, though majorly flawed. WB want to hurry to catch up with Marvel, and they’re trying to do something fast that you just can’t rush.

The Magnificent Seven- It ain’t Sturges, and it sure as hell ain’t Kurosawa, but director Antione Fuqua’s remake/retelling/reimagining/whatever is a lots of fun as a straight action flick with some good performances from a a team of cool stars. It has little or the social depth of either of the previous versions and is light on character development, but has a couple of impressive action set pieces and some striking cinematography. Denzel Washington is a commanding screen presence, Chris Pratt has fun as his usual wisecracking hero, Ethan Hawke is terrific as a self-loathing PTSD-rattled soldier, and Vincent D’Onofrio has a blast chewing the scenery. Nothing like a masterpiece, but a solid, entertaining action movie-Western that has no delusions about what it is or wants to be. Lots of fun.

Damn, the DVD special feature spoiled that BEFORE the movie came out?! That’s pretty low.

ChainsawAsh said:

Yeah, it was really disappointing, especially given how good the first three were.

No kidding. It was basically just more of the same, just not as good.

Alas, no more invites. I have no doubt that you did excellent work though 😉.

LordZerome1080 said:

Collipso said:

TV’s Frink said:

Collipso might be a green robot but I’ll still read his posts.

Is it just me or is that robot possessed?

Isn’t it just plugged in?

Predator 2- Many sequels, even good sequels like Rocky II, Terminator 2, Evil Dead II, are essentially remakes with a bigger budget. Predator 2 isn’t. It actually does something genuinely different. That said, that doesn’t mean it does it well. Like it’s predecessor, the characters are pretty thinly written (though Bill Paxton, remains ever lovable), and they don’t have the iconic cast to carry them or as many memorable lines. The main problem though is director Stephen Hopkins, who has none of John McTiernan’s skill at crafting suspense. Predator 2 thus instead comes across as an excercise in excess. Sometimes fun excess, admittedly, but with little of the taut tension or atmosphere of the first film. There are nonetheless a few fairly impressive set pieces, and the bigger budget means that the FX teams of R/Greenberg and Stan Winston have a lot more room to flex their muscles and create cool stuff, like the Predator’s new arsenal. That’s not really enough to make it a very good movie, but it is enough give it a few interesting elements that make it worth watching.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I just realized I failed to include Mother! in the list of last movies I’d seen. I guess I should say something about it.

I sympathize with the allegory, but the allegory was eclipsed by the imagery. If I never see Jennifer Lawrence brutally beaten to within an inch of her life — or an innocent baby killed, butchered, and eaten — in a movie ever again, it’ll be too soon.

4 sober Barnies out of 9 (5/10)

He’s unquestionably a technical virtuoso, but his films always make me feel like someone is shouting at me.

SilverWook said:

IIRC, the blank bullets scene was taken from a screen test, they never got around to filming the scene proper as the production concentrated on finishing the first film.

Yep, Donner says that on the disc. You’ll notice during the scene that among other things, Reeve’s hairstyle keeps changing.

ray_afraid said:

Mike O said:

Return of the Jedi- …sidestepping… Han Solo and Lando’s redemption arc

Why would Lando, the guy who saved an entire city and his friends (woulda’ saved Han on the spot if not for a certain wookie and lady) need a “redemption arc”?
It’s a personal peeve that this is so misread by audiences.

I guess I am misreading it then; I suppose even as a kid, it always played to me like he sold them out to Vader. I do see your point though.

I enjoyed Pitch Perfect. It’s cliched to the point where the plot is a step away from being an ABC Family original movie, but I found the toe-tapping musical numbers and the cast quite charming. It’s not exactly great art, but I liked it a lot more than I thought I would. The second definitely suffered from the law of diminishing returns, but still had elements of fun. I hear the third is way, way, way too much of a mediocre thing.