Printable View
How could they beat the original ~1976? It had Henry Fonda (Nimitz), Charleton Heston, Glenn Ford (Spruance), James Coburn, Hal Holbrook (Rochefort), Robert Mitchum (Halsey) and others. My only complaint was they added human interest stories, but otherwise it was well done.
Birds of Prey
Waited a day to think of what I thought. It was bad and way more boring than it should have been. Think Batman vs Superman and Justice League boring, but worse. It also decided to some of the worst elements about those movies and Suicide Squad and amplify them.
There were some bright spots where you could tell there was a potentially great movie that could have been told. McGregor was great and chewed scenery the best I've seen in a few years, though. It is hard to say how Robbie did because she was superb when she to actually act, but her action scenes were terrible and unbelievable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
The thing that PO'd me severely was a credit at the end of the movie stating (somewhat paraphrased), "Many thanks to the brave fighting men of the American and Japanese forces during this air and navel battle." :furious3::bomb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Houston Techsan
Space Jam 2 was bad and kids might like it, but I doubt they would get most of the references. They might get the Looney Tunes characters, of course. And the Harry Potter reference. That's probably it. It's a giant ad for HBO Max that does nothing. The first Space Jam had heart and knew what it was. This one didn't.
Snake Eyes was disappointing. It's not bad, just bland and unnecessarily bloated.
The Green Knight is terrible. The worst movie I've seen since True Grit. I considered walking out, but just couldn't bring myself to do it since I was so bored I was too tired to get up. Absolutely nothing happens or is understandable. The movie is entirely atmosphere and bad visuals with minimal dialogue (feels like I have put more words in this post than there is in the whole movie) and no action. Apparently this is a book or poem or something. That must suck, too. Reading it is likely the only way to know who and what is going on. But apparently the director changed most of that so the movie loses all meaning, too. This is the type of movie that gets made and proves why everything else is sequels, spin-offs, etc.
It's kind of a big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Ga...e_Green_Knight
Movie looks good to me, but I also liked both versions of True Grit (and the book I liked very much).
Space Jam 2 is solely a continuation of the baby boomers love of the Looney Tunes.
Jam 1 was the first renewal.
My 2nd grade granddaughter, wants to be a cheerleader and golfer . . . no hoops hope -- laughed throughout the movie.
Bugs Bunny? Always a favorite.
The binary story line a little wild. But no harm done with our afternoon at the movies.
The previews we saw for fall kids movies was very intriguing.
Dune is hard to really place. It is disappointing to me, but that only really comes down to Villeneuve being so full of himself. But, if you can ignore Villeneuve being Villeneuve, it is somewhat faithful to the story. But the changes took me out of the immersion because I couldn't understand why the change was made. Maybe that's more on me than the movie for being a fan of the book. If you haven't read the book, your biggest gripe might be how unnecessarily long it is and boring it can be (both points that also take a person out of the immersion).
The cast is absolutely amazing and did amazing work on their characters, though. I will probably never like Chalamet, but he did okay. The weakest performance, which was still stellar a few times.
I don't get why Villeneuve is so popular. I knew going in it was going to be a very beautiful movie, and it was visually stunning. But he's not a good story teller. Or editor. And Zimmerman didn't help. And I'm probably also mad because the cover to my digital version of the book was changed to a movie poster.
Still, I hope Part II gets made. I didn't have a problem with the "weak" ending, though it leaving us hanging I'm sure is going to be one of the parts most don't like. And it might have been better served to end the story at the "real" halfway point. But I get why it needs to get to the point it does.
So, again, it's hard to place (also to explain without going into "spoilers"). It's not amazing but not terrible. It has problems it shouldn't have but it's still (mostly) faithful to the story. The cast is amazing but Villeneuve made some questionable changes.
The most sure thing that can be said is it's stunningly beautiful, the cast is amazing, and the music is bad (I think I did hear at least one callback to the Lynch version, but that could have been more wishful thinking than an actual thing).
I remembered enough of the book to stay engaged and not enough to make me upset at plot changes. The visuals were wonderful. I enjoyed watching and was disappointed that Part 2 hasn't even been greenlit.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
Matrix Resurrections is not good.
The King's Man was okay. Still, had too much exposition, nothing going on and dragging some dumb aspects out for far too much of the film, and talent was absolutely wasted. Come to think of it, this all could apply to Matrix 4, too.
Looking forward to Sing 2 with the kids. Then I want to see the show about Kurt Warner.
The Northman
Terrible movie for such a promising (if old) premise.
The Old Man on FX
I have watched three episodes and I was hooked with the first episode. They don't tell you a lot. You get it as it goes and it goes to places you didn't expect from the first episode.
Jeff Bridges, John Lithgow, Amy Brenneman. This is on a level with Breaking Bad. You can thank me later for this tip.