Movie Discussion

Discussion in 'Entertainment' started by Guest, Apr 27, 2017.


Best Stoner Comedy

Poll closed Jul 27, 2019.
  1. Up In Smoke

  2. How High

  3. Half Baked

  4. Dude, Where's My Car?

    0 vote(s)
  5. Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle

  6. Dazed and Confused

  7. Pineapple Express

    0 vote(s)
  8. Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

    0 vote(s)
  9. Reefer Madness (lol)

    0 vote(s)
  10. Friday

    0 vote(s)
  11. Saving Grace

    0 vote(s)
  12. The Big Lebowski

Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Ebonyslayer

    Ebonyslayer Well-Known Member

    I grew up with the animated Justice League series, so I'm being reminded of the reasons why that version of the characters worked so well. It feels so nostalgic in a good way.
    Schizm and BrainBlow like this.
  2. Gens

    Gens Database Moderator

    The Perfection:

    This was extremely trashy, so trashy I want to wash my eyeballs out now. And an EXTREME what the fuck, but not in the good way though. I lost brain cells watching this.
    ZetsubouKaiji likes this.
  3. ZetsubouKaiji

    ZetsubouKaiji Forum Moderator Database Moderator

    The film plays out like an over serious modern day exploitation film. It's slickly filmed and has a decent cast. The script is just a dumpster fire of bad ideas. The film's twists don't make any sense. They're just there to be shocking for the sake of it. The script is also full of clunky dialogue trying to bear the weight of all the non-sense twists. The end result is a film that left me feeling irritated. Not hammy enough to be fun trash and not smart or interesting enough to be arty trash.
    Gens likes this.
  4. Schizm

    Schizm Well-Known Member

    The Beyond (1981)

    Only my second Fulci and I liked it just as much if not better than City of the Living Dead. Another gorefest with unintentionally hilarious overdubs and a fantastic score by Fabio Frizzi. It's zombies again but with the neat addition of the occult and the gates of hell. Definitely a more surrealist film than City and better when just letting the images speak for themselves. It was filmed on location in New Orleans and is beautiful to just look at.

    Iconic kills abound in this with nails through the back of the head, eye gouges and a really long scene where spiders eat a man's face. The Italians sure had a knack for gory horror and mechanical crocodiles in those days.

    ZetsubouKaiji and Gens like this.
    Last edited: May 22, 2020
  5. Gens

    Gens Database Moderator

    Forget the eye gouging man, this is the most terrifying kill of them all to me.

    Schizm is a man of fine nasty taste. :drinking:
    Schizm likes this.
  6. Schizm

    Schizm Well-Known Member

    Liked it so much in fact that The House By The Cemetery and Zombie Flesh Eaters moved up quite a few spots on my watch list.
    The second one has the infamous zombie zombie vs shark scene and no way am I gonna miss out on that :D

    Dark Age (1987)

    Underrated ozploitation horror adventure about a sacred man-eating crocodile and one ranger's efforts to find a non-lethal solution regarding it to appease his Aborigine friends. Beautiful shots of the Outback, entertaining plot with a mystical quality to it at times and a different approach to filmmaking really made this a stand-out killer animal movie for me. Thankfully the Jaws references were kept at a relative minimum here and the main villains in this are actually trigger-happy poachers. It definitely sparked my interest in actively seeking out more Australian movies in the future, good thing I have an unwatched ozploitation documentary lying around. Hidden gem.

    Gens likes this.
  7. Magonosaurus

    Magonosaurus Member

    Enemy of the State (1998)
    They just don't make Hollywood movies like this anymore.

    In spite of the plot-holes and some dated technology inconsistencies, Enemy of the State holds up much better than many other technophobia takes made in the '90s. In fact, I dare to even say that it was so far ahead of its time that made Snowden's leaks look like Wikileaks.

    I think when it comes to movies, particularly Hollywood movies like Tony Scott's, there needs to be a certain level of suspension of disbelief. When one pokes around too much and says, "When the movie shows the surveillance camera rotate around the shopping bag, it lost me," I just think he's missing the forest for the trees. I've seen maybe four Tony Scott films by now (Top Gun, Domino, Crimson Tide and this film), and in spite of certain dated misses like Cruise's cruising in the air force, I thoroughly enjoyed Crimson Tide for the kind of dramatic blockbuster it tried to offer between the two big names, Denzel and Hackman. I liked what Scott has to offer in terms of blockbusters, a nice balanced of adrenaline action thrills with enough intelligence and cleverness (nitpicks about its dated references aside) to keep audience both entertained and thinking. That's the ideal kind of film for me. Check out my top favorites list; they are all movies like this, entertainment with enough smarts. Emphasis on "enough." Unlike many critics of this film, I don't demand for the unreasonable, especially when I know how difficult it is to make damn good entertainment.

    But with that aside, let's get on talking about the actual film. For starters, this was easily one of Will Smith's most underrated performances. Technically, he didn't do anything here that he hadn't already done in Independence Day (another favorite of mine), but I feel that the role of an average but good man who's just trying to get home to the kids is an ideal casting for Smith, considering his squeaky-clean background. I think Bob Chipman said it best in his video defending Independence Day, that Will Smith was your average action star; he says cool lines while doing cool things and he's nice but not a wuss. And growing up with Smith myself, I could always get behind the idea of him being an action star in spite of the fact that black action stars weren't a thing in the '90s, certainly not black rappers, a career still associated with the term, "gangster" back then.

    And if you've seen footage of Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, particularly that one famous scene where Smith really acted the hell out of, the famous "Why didn't he want me, man?!" scene, it makes a lot of sense when you see Smith being just as good in a dramatic role like this. The man might be an action star, but he's also compelling enough as a dramatic actor starring alongside the heavyweight of Gene Hackman.

    It's appropriate that we should see Hackman in this film, considering that he starred in yet another movie about government surveillance back in the '70s, The Conversation. And thinking back to that film just makes me realize how much Scott's works entertained me, specifically his works that hearken back to '70s political thrillers about government conspiracies and national paranoia. On a similar note, The X-Files was also portrayed in such a style, and it too received the rather unfair backlash in later years that it's become "dated." Watching The X-Files for the first time recently and having seen this film today, I just don't really share the same resentment or frustration. I had a really good time, and maybe that's enough to ask from a movie.

    There are a number of reasons Scott's films work on a level many newer works from the likes of Michael Bay don't. Other than just describing them as "smarter films," there's just a bigger emphasis on the human element. While not completely devoid of the occasional lewd humor, Enemy of the State places its focus on making us care about the characters and their principles. There have been a number of favorite movies of mine that, in spite of their cheesy plot, have excelled greatly because of their excellent character writing, one of which being the aforementioned Independence Day. When you have great relatable characters with values you might care about, I think most of the other stuff hardly matters because they're the connection with your audience, the windows to your story. And I found the idea of a simple man who's just trying to do the right thing having his whole life torn apart, it's just a compelling story that hooks you from the start.

    The other reason is just the style of action Tony Scott is famous for. Scott knows how to film action efficiently with its tight frames and fast-paced movements, but he also knows how to utilize the music score just as well. There's a thing I've missed from Bruckheimer-produced blockbusters of old that you just don't see anymore, that big dramatic score hamming things up, making what might already be an intense scene an even more exhilarating experience, just this super-serious music blasting away. Yes, it's cheesy, but it also feels larger-than-life, amplifying these events unfolding on-screen that's a matter of life-or-death for the characters. That same dramatic style can be found in Crimson Tide, where two soldiers played by legendary actors opposes one another on a decision that might decide the start of WWIII.

    That's just the kind of overdramatic epic I would go to the movies for, to escape from my boring mundane life for a moment for such an epic adventure on the big-screen. And I think Tony Scott nailed that Hollywood blockbuster experience perfectly for us to escape to these thrillers and confronted by thought-provoking subjects that would have us discussing among ourselves long after the movie was over.

    To make a long review short, it's like it doesn't even matter if its accusations about the NSA and government surveillance are completely accurate or not; it matters that it's just accurate enough to make us think and feel excited and be thoroughly entertained by antagonists that mirror the fears and paranoia we face in real life, even now in 2020. That's movies for you.
  8. Thrawn


    The Harder They Come (1972)

    Di fos yardie feature movie An di most influential outta jamrock Ar even di Caribbean. An really get reggae inna di scene even before Bob Marley.

    An authentic portrayal ah yardie life widout glamor ar sheen Di corruption an greed Collie an di yardie Pathos. Di fos English movie weh subtitles did needed fi USA! Ih a as raw as ih gets even eff ih nuh ave di bess acting bloodwork Wul heap ah everyting. Buh ih a authentic. Dis a jamrock. Buh di muzik oh di music! fram all kinds ah reggae artists buh listen tuh di title track mon! Plays wul heap inna movie buh eh speaks wul heap an a super criss. An di musicians ramp sum addi actors! How cool a dat.

    Gets ah bit uneven at di end buh well wut checking out Ar at least di soundtrack. Eh more well-known dan di movie by fur.

    7+/10, Authentic lakka curry rammy ar jerk senseh fowl mon.
    Schizm and ZetsubouKaiji like this.
  9. Magonosaurus

    Magonosaurus Member

    A Reflection on '90s Action Thrillers (and how they've dated horribly)
    I remember that as a kid, the Keanu Reeves starring action movie, Speed, was one of my favorite action films of all time, so much so that I played pretend trying to dismantle a bomb beneath my bed (there was technically no access to the bottom of my bed, so I had to improvise and work on the side frame instead). And then there was that movie with that cheesy pop song that I remembered so well because it was performed at my primary school too, "How Do I Live" by Trisha Yearwood; the movie was a little-known film called Con-Air.

    Both films were exactly the kind of over-the-top films I grew up to love, being an adrenaline-junkie. But something happened during my rewatches about five, maybe six years ago; the films dated, horribly. I just wasn't entertained any more, bored by the predictable action sequences as I awaited for the next bombastic set-piece to come. On the same note, the same thing occurred to my rewatch of the '90s Mummy remake as well starring Brendan Fraser, another ex-favorite film of mine from my childhood.

    Thinking back to Enemy of the State and why I was entertained by it, I think it's all about the novelty of watching such a film for the first time, not knowing what's gonna happen and how are things gonna turn out for our hero, the thrill of that danger feeling real. For those of us who have seen countless movies, enough to easily predict how an action film is gonna unfold according to our knowledge of film structures and film theory, it would make sense as to say that cliched scripts might bore us, especially when their only appeal only lies within the unexpected to surprise the audience, or rather, "thrill" the audience. Hence the term, "thriller." So it also makes sense, therefore, that I would be bored rewatching these films, when their sole appeal is gone, invalidated. I know that a large number of people still find entertainment value in such predictable sequences, but to me at least, it feels like I'm watching a series of movements that are there for the sake of pushing the plot forward and having no deeper meaning than that. There's no surprise or deeper thought than that, and it's become boring.

    This becomes even more frustrating if the characters are thin, shallow, because all that's left that would feel interesting is the dialogue that might still be witty enough to humor us now and then, like the case with Speed, one of the films that was doctored by script doctor, Joss Whedon. But even then, Speed's humor was still not enough to hold my attention for nearly 2 hours (1h 56m runtime).

    But with that being said, I hope you wouldn't misunderstand the point I'm trying to make - I loved those movies... past tense, when I was watching them for the first time. And I think there's something to be said when a movie could enthral you in such a manner, even if for only once. I still remember fondly the experiences I had watching them, the adrenaline pumping through my veins as I let myself feel the danger the characters are feeling without regards for how the plot is gonna turn out. I think that's what I meant when I said in my review for Enemy of the State, "the suspension of disbelief." The thrill of being chased down by federal agents hunting down dirty secrets that could expose government corruption, that kind of dramatic tension that you could only experience in movies or similar visual narrative, I do miss those experiences. In fact, I can't get enough of it, still ever the junkie craving for the thrill and the speed.

    So yes, they might have dated horribly, but you never forget your first time. It's a memory that will always have a special place in my heart.
    Last edited: May 23, 2020
  10. BrainBlow

    BrainBlow Well-Known Member

    Seeing this video has made me somewhat reconsider Jurassic World, though it doesn't improve the experience I had with it. It's a shame that a film with surprisingly well thought-out themes and narrative had such... generic execution.

    And I refuse to see the other Jurassic World film, and why the fuck are they making another one?!
    Unless Dominion is going to be "humanity easily gets rid of dinosaurs from nature", it's the dumbest idea in a while.
    Magonosaurus and ZetsubouKaiji like this.
  11. Schizm

    Schizm Well-Known Member

    Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation! (2008)

    Great documentary about 70s and 80s Australian low budget genre films. Tons of smut, gore, explosions, car chases and guerilla filmmaking with insightful and outrageous stories/interviews and Quentin Tarantino pops in ever so often to gush about his favourite ozploitation movies (because of course he's the biggest fan of the genre outside of Australia). I admit that the movie gets more interesting after they move away from the raunchy 70s sex comedies and get to the genre films like Howling III and Mad Max.

    I really loved the format of this documentary as it was entertaining and had a lot of heart. Mark Hartley also did a similar film on the history of Cannon Films which is just as good and I can't recommend it enough to the movie buffs here. Definitely have some newfound respect for Australian filmmaking now and can't wait to get my hands on some of those movies.

    ZetsubouKaiji likes this.
    Last edited: May 24, 2020
  12. Magonosaurus

    Magonosaurus Member

    The themes were pretty clear to me when I first saw it, which was why I gave it 2.5/5 instead of a lower score during my first viewing. Looking back now, they weren't really themes that were so intelligent or clever that it's hard to decipher from the movie. It's clearly inserted by someone trying to be clever, but clearly wasn't.

    It's easy to subvert something; it's hard to actually say something meaningful out of the subversion. Saying, "Hurr duhh the first Jurassic Park was clearly the best of the franchise" wasn't something revolutionary or thought-provoking, nor was "Hollywood movies are just lazy cash-ins."

    Also, nothing is more insulting than having a movie tell you that you've wasted your time and money watching yet another Hollywood's lazy attempt to steal your money, especially when all I could think about wasn't its supposedly subversive message, but why the fuck that lady was running from a T-Rex on high heels.

    It's almost as dumb as Spec Ops: The Line's message, telling its gamers that FPS games are just platforms for gamers to feel like a hero about killing people... while being a game about killing people. It's fucking stupid.

    On that same note, stop trying to use "deconstruction" as a means to make your movie seem like it's trying to say something clever either, Hollywood. Especially you, Hack Snyder. You're not being smart by being edgy. You're about as smart as Mark Millar and his more appalling works like The Unfunnies, bearing the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

    Actual filmmaking that has actually meaningful things to say like the works of Stanley Kubrick takes years of efforts, if not a whole decade. It takes time to pour that blood and sweat into crafting individual shots 127 times just to get the right shot that defines your vision. That's why making actually good movies people will actually remember for decades to come is so freaking hard.
    Last edited: May 24, 2020
  13. BrainBlow

    BrainBlow Well-Known Member

    It's not about "FPS games", it's about the "modern military shooter" oversaturation. Yes it's a game about killing people, but the intent and thematics in it is completely different from in almost all other, as yathzee would put it, spunkgargleweewee games. Holdings its shooter theme against it is like saying greek tragedy is not a valid genre.
    The killing in spec ops is inherently about how it doesn't make you a hero, so there's nothing hypocritical about it criticizing a genre that glorifies you playing superpowers crushing hilariously underpowered enemies, typically portrayed as non-white and especially non-american. It's a shooter game, but its main appeal is the story, and the gameplay even feeds into it even if it does seem clunky. There's nothing hypocritical with a greek tragedy usually being a spin on the conventions of the greek epics. Similar themes and tropes, vastly different intent and purpose.
    The problem is you can't really advertise that sort of story without robbing it of that first impact. No story remains unspoiled forever, but the first impressions are still important for how it gets discussed and remembered. And it would be quite the stance for someone to say a genre product can't also savagely criticize the genre while also being a product people consume. By that logic Watchmen couldn't exist. Or more relevant to spec ops, books like Heart of Darkness couldn't exist, a book also accused of doing the same thing as the genre it attacked. That book has flaws, but its flaw was not how it took the fun out of the at the time quite popular "civilized white man doing adventure among savage primitives" genre(or whatever the name for it was).
    Similarly it is not stupid that spec ops made people feel no heroic catharsis by the end. If people reject that because they want more of the genre then I guess that's that, but for many including me, it had the effect of making them never play games with these themes again. Not because spec ops was bad, but because it made me reevaluate my own values and motivations for having engaged with the genre in the first place.
    If anything the game only became more relevant, almost immediately. Medal of Honor Warfighter came out just a few months later, and it was basically everything spec ops condemned, right down to the enemy using rocks to fight your futuristic murder robots, because they're actually that pathetically outmatched, and the genre kept getting more pathetic to try to justify itself. Like that one Black ops game where the enemy (which I think was "all of south america" or some shit) is bad because they're trying to take away your doomsday weapon you had pointed at them. Only you get to have that!
    I really had to ask myself how me engaging with the genre for power fantasy was actually any less insidious than when people read stories about noble white men thwarting the evil schemes of buck-toothed rapist Chinese men in the late 19th century onward that helped foster the public mindset that made imperialism seem like a kindness to those oppressed by it.
    (oh and of movie relevance, American Sniper came out just a few years later, where a real-life murderous, racist sociopath is posthumously presented as this solemn hero and war is baed u guise *vomit*)
    Claptrap and ZetsubouKaiji like this.
  14. Magonosaurus

    Magonosaurus Member

    I mean, it's entertainment, dude. Maybe take a chill pill or something. I'm all for forcing your political message, but making people pay good money just so you could criticize them is hypocritical no matter how you spin it.

    If people want to play FPS games where they kill innocent people just for some power fantasy trip, that's their prerogative. But to go on and say that people are somehow morally or ethically wrong for having a little escapism, I just think it's a little arrogant and self-righteous. It's the same train of thought about how comics beget violence from young children, or on the same note, how violent video games bring about violent behaviors. It's one of the oldest and most cliched sophistries of all time.
  15. ZetsubouKaiji

    ZetsubouKaiji Forum Moderator Database Moderator

    I don't think challenging the audience or asking them to reflect on their preconceived notions is a bad thing at all. Both versions of Funny Games do the exact same thing by starting out as a typical home invasion movie then making the audience complicit in the violence. It doesn't make all violence in movies to all be bad, but it does call for people to question what they are consuming and why. I still shamelessly consume slasher movies after watching Funny Games, but I do appreciate what Michael Haneke was trying to get across. It made me more harsh on senseless cruelty in films especially ones trying to be taken seriously.

    Fair enough if that's not what you want from media, but just calling it bad outright because you didn't like the message is closed minded. There's all kinds of media for all kinds of folks. Subversive and media that deconstruct genres can teach an audience a lot about their own tastes even if those things aren't always flattering.

    I still can't believe Medal of Honor: Warfighter is the real title of a real game that's not a parody.


    I watched The Love Witch

    It's an over long and tedious throwback to the sexploitation films of the 70s. It's fun to see that style for about 20 minutes, but the film drags on for nearly 2 hours. After the initial setup the movie becomes a repetitive softcore porn with lots of boring T&A on display. The film has some light feminist themes that don't go anywhere. The acting is appropriately exaggerated to match the style of the genre and the time period. The filming style matches that of the era, but it gets spoiled when character pull out cell phones or you see modern cars in the background.

    Overall, a boring flick not worth watching unless you're hard up to see some ass. 4 out of 10
  16. BrainBlow

    BrainBlow Well-Known Member

    Maybe rein in the unnecessary personal attack and realize that all media since the beginning of storytelling has always been used to tell the consumer something, be that a grand moral or just the passive reinforcement/glorification or rejection of societal norms. We do not and have never existed independent from the power social norms has over us, and media is a huge part of it right down to the ancient tales around the campfire, especially when forces with vested interests about how you should perceive the world involve themselves, as we'll get to later.

    This is a bizarre mindset I see pop up a lot on certain corners of the internet, and when distilled to its components it basically just means:
    - Things I like: Apolitical.
    - Things I don't like: Political.

    How are modern military shooters and movies like American Sniper not "forcing politics"? Do you actually believe they're apolitical and make no statements about what is or isn't correct to the audience? How does that work?

    Media doesn't "make people violent", but it absolutely can help foster norms that makes violence or other negatives more acceptable, such as towards specific groups. Unless you're going to come with the huge take that propaganda has no effect on people, and apparently the United States' military is wasting its resources when it subsidizes blockbuster films in exchange for favorable portrayals of American armed forces and foreign politics. Or as Elmer Davis the head of the Office of War Information said:
    The united states government has used Hollywood as its propaganda arm since WW2, and that never stopped and has had a considerable effect on culture. Practically every foreign villain stereotype that has ever originated in Hollywood appeared because of this influence, like the "emotionless Russian" trope. Or remember that time Rambo glorified the Afghan Mujaheddin because they fought the soviets? That movie sure is one people have avoided since 2001, huh?
    Oh and by the way, one of the writers on COD in 2014 got called up to washington as a military adviser because they liked the games so much for how realistic they seemed.
    Just because media doesn't make people violent doesn't mean it has no influence on our attitudes and subconscious assumptions about people and the world. Trying to equate those is fallacious. Media literally colors our perception of the world, and many things we take for granted morally are only "obvious" because we grew up being bashed over the head by media about it.
    A piece of media doesn't need to bring out the podium and graphs to tell you something about the world, and thinking it has to in order to qualify as "political" is the sort of thing that creates bizarre attitudes like the idea of Call of Duty being apolitical.
    ZetsubouKaiji likes this.
  17. Magonosaurus

    Magonosaurus Member

    I mean, if you're so sensitive that you take it as a personal attack, then we have nothing to discuss about, because any thing I say will just come off as bearing some sort of personal agenda against you instead of being, you know, a frivolous remark casually made for the sake of lightening the heavy discussion. If you think that's a personal attack, you're gonna have a rough time on the Internet.
  18. BrainBlow

    BrainBlow Well-Known Member

    You're gonna have a rough time in real life if you think you can arbitrate how others take the things you say to them, especially strangers. And in no way is "take a chill pill" not an insult, especially when paired with another statement that tells me that you think the entire topic is completely trivial and not even worth discussion(that's called dismissal). It's at best is the sort of passive-aggressive insult I expect from a moody teenager who has held off cleaning their room too long. As if being rude online is a virtue, and I should be thankful you're not even worse. Wait, weren't you literally the person complaining about other people being arrogant and self-righteous?
    Don't open a conversation if you're going to get snippy when someone does something other than just reaffirm what you already believed. That's what actually being "sensitive" looks like, and it's and annoying waste of time when people are trying to have actual discussions only get passive-aggressive, childish quips in return.
  19. Gens

    Gens Database Moderator

    Funny games is a movie I'd never watch again to be honest, but I do appreciate media like that sometimes. Auteurs sometimes don't even make movies that the audience is necessarily going to enjoy as a piece of entertainment and solely do it for themselves and nothing but themselves. But hell, I can derive some enjoyment from that too.
    Claptrap and ZetsubouKaiji like this.
  20. Magonosaurus

    Magonosaurus Member

    Alright, stay triggered and git mad, boi. lol Whatever, blocked. I don't have the time or the inclination to talk to someone so hopping mad with steam over a dumb remark over the Internet. It's not worth it, and you're not worth it.

    I'd reiterate my initial advice: take a chill pill.
    Last edited: May 24, 2020

Share This Page