What are you watching?
- Thread starter Maschbot
- Start date
For the first time, or a rewatch?
I'm planning on watching both Seven Samurai and the original Magnificent Seven again before I check it out. It's fun watching Seven Samurai and Magnificent Seven back to back, as there are so many scenes that are shot for shot the same, just with cowboys instead of samurai, but also some stark differences. Partially due to cultural and setting differences.
It'll be interesting to see how the new film compares to the two originals. Less whether it was better or worse, and more what the similarities and differences are to the other two films.
I'm planning on watching both Seven Samurai and the original Magnificent Seven again before I check it out. It's fun watching Seven Samurai and Magnificent Seven back to back, as there are so many scenes that are shot for shot the same, just with cowboys instead of samurai, but also some stark differences. Partially due to cultural and setting differences.
It'll be interesting to see how the new film compares to the two originals. Less whether it was better or worse, and more what the similarities and differences are to the other two films.
Saw the Magnificent Seven. I haven't seen any of its previous incarnations. The film was extremely competent and fun in the beginning, most of the middle, and most of the end. The last fight is where the film falls apart, because most of the start of that fight is just continuous quick cuts of a protagonist doing something, and then a nameless villain falling over. The repetitive nature of the shots, extended out over 20 or so minutes made the larger gunfight around the protagonists incomprehensible, and I just had to settle myself in and let it wash over me until the editors decided I'd had enough and wanted to move the fight forward.
The closest comparison I think I can make between what I want to see in a gunfight type scene that they were going for, would be Saving Private Ryan, which at some point features a very similar battle: A group of people has to defend a small town against a much larger, much deadlier army. In that battle, it has plenty of gratuitous shots of the protagonists pointing at people who then fall over. But the battle always seems to be changing, moving forward too. So it works better than this.
But that's the only thing I didn't like about the Magnificent Seven. It actually features great gunplay in every other fight in the film.
The closest comparison I think I can make between what I want to see in a gunfight type scene that they were going for, would be Saving Private Ryan, which at some point features a very similar battle: A group of people has to defend a small town against a much larger, much deadlier army. In that battle, it has plenty of gratuitous shots of the protagonists pointing at people who then fall over. But the battle always seems to be changing, moving forward too. So it works better than this.
But that's the only thing I didn't like about the Magnificent Seven. It actually features great gunplay in every other fight in the film.
Saw Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders.
It's kind of an odd duck. It wasn't bad per say, but it's also not really what I was expecting.
Some of the humor is a bit more adult than you'd expect, yet still silly in a kids cartoon kind of way as well. It's kind of an awkward mix.
There's a running gag gay joke for example. It's not direct, but a rib poking allusion that will go over most kid's heads. It plays coy with it at several points actually. The Joker also has a rather oddly placed fart gag that doesn't really work.
It's nice hearing the original actors back in their roles, including Julie Newmar, the first of the three actresses to play Catwoman on the show. However, the rest of the cast sounds kind of off as a result. The white bread hero worship is there, but it seems more like a satirical poke at it rather than the innocent kid friendly simplicity it was in the original show.
It does work on some level, but is kind of a deconstruction of the show as well. They do make good use of animation to pull off stuff the live action show could never have done, and there are plenty of bat puns throughout it.
It isn't really 60s Batman reborn, but rather a lukewarm satire of it. That's not bad per say, and it's not really cynical about it, but it does feel off. There's plenty of camp to be had here, and it's not really a bad movie, just a little too modern with how it handles certain elements to be a true 'return' of these characters.
It's big, stupid, and fun despite that, but don't go in expecting a 'lost episode' from the original TV show, or Batman: The Movie 2. It has elements of those things, but never really quite manages to emulate that sense of silly innocence without seeming like it's also making fun of it.
Worth a look if you're a fan, there is some nostalgia to be had here, but doesn't quite manage what it seemed to want to be.
It's a shame Ertha Kitt died. She was the best Catwoman of the three. That voice, and she had that purr.
It's kind of an odd duck. It wasn't bad per say, but it's also not really what I was expecting.
Some of the humor is a bit more adult than you'd expect, yet still silly in a kids cartoon kind of way as well. It's kind of an awkward mix.
There's a running gag gay joke for example. It's not direct, but a rib poking allusion that will go over most kid's heads. It plays coy with it at several points actually. The Joker also has a rather oddly placed fart gag that doesn't really work.
It's nice hearing the original actors back in their roles, including Julie Newmar, the first of the three actresses to play Catwoman on the show. However, the rest of the cast sounds kind of off as a result. The white bread hero worship is there, but it seems more like a satirical poke at it rather than the innocent kid friendly simplicity it was in the original show.
It does work on some level, but is kind of a deconstruction of the show as well. They do make good use of animation to pull off stuff the live action show could never have done, and there are plenty of bat puns throughout it.
It isn't really 60s Batman reborn, but rather a lukewarm satire of it. That's not bad per say, and it's not really cynical about it, but it does feel off. There's plenty of camp to be had here, and it's not really a bad movie, just a little too modern with how it handles certain elements to be a true 'return' of these characters.
It's big, stupid, and fun despite that, but don't go in expecting a 'lost episode' from the original TV show, or Batman: The Movie 2. It has elements of those things, but never really quite manages to emulate that sense of silly innocence without seeming like it's also making fun of it.
Worth a look if you're a fan, there is some nostalgia to be had here, but doesn't quite manage what it seemed to want to be.
It's a shame Ertha Kitt died. She was the best Catwoman of the three. That voice, and she had that purr.
Shin Godzilla.
So. Reviewers were right about how heavily the Fukushima nuclear disaster influenced the script--much of the first half of the movie is focused on the political indecision and bureaucratic drift that simply exacerbates (and worsens) an ongoing crisis. The second half switches to yet another pro-Japanese examination on the heavy-handedness of US influence on Japanese interests (economic, military, etc.).
Anno brought some of the same techniques he employed on the Evangelion franchise to the movie: captions galore, walls of text sometimes superimposed over the image, and unconventional camera angles (e.g., filming with a laptop cam, or more likely a cam attached to its lid, as the machine is being passed around by various cast members as they goggle at its screen). In some ways, it offers insight on how Anno would go about filming a live-action Evangelion piece--the timing and framing of the edits as the military tries to stop Godzilla's rampage play out much like how the military would try to stop an invading Angel. The fact that Shirou Sagisu recycled some of his Evangelion music cues for the film only reinforces that impression, though to be fair, most of the themes that play when it's Godzilla himself on-screen are original. (Sagisu doesn't stop at Evangelion either--I recognized some themes from Bleach and Skull Man as well).
So. Reviewers were right about how heavily the Fukushima nuclear disaster influenced the script--much of the first half of the movie is focused on the political indecision and bureaucratic drift that simply exacerbates (and worsens) an ongoing crisis. The second half switches to yet another pro-Japanese examination on the heavy-handedness of US influence on Japanese interests (economic, military, etc.).
Anno brought some of the same techniques he employed on the Evangelion franchise to the movie: captions galore, walls of text sometimes superimposed over the image, and unconventional camera angles (e.g., filming with a laptop cam, or more likely a cam attached to its lid, as the machine is being passed around by various cast members as they goggle at its screen). In some ways, it offers insight on how Anno would go about filming a live-action Evangelion piece--the timing and framing of the edits as the military tries to stop Godzilla's rampage play out much like how the military would try to stop an invading Angel. The fact that Shirou Sagisu recycled some of his Evangelion music cues for the film only reinforces that impression, though to be fair, most of the themes that play when it's Godzilla himself on-screen are original. (Sagisu doesn't stop at Evangelion either--I recognized some themes from Bleach and Skull Man as well).
10 Cloverfield Lane.
Hot DAMN, this is one creepy movie. John Goodman really pulls off the disturbed, mentally-ill villain really well. (He's always been one of my favorite actors.)
Just when I think the film's done, they pull that bit at the end. A really well-done film, one of the better horror films I've seen recently.
Hot DAMN, this is one creepy movie. John Goodman really pulls off the disturbed, mentally-ill villain really well. (He's always been one of my favorite actors.)
Just when I think the film's done, they pull that bit at the end. A really well-done film, one of the better horror films I've seen recently.
I've seen the movie and I would agree with this assessment. The combat was pretty creative, and visually impressive, the actors did a fine Job bringing their characters to life, and the overall plot was fun and did a good job of introducing 'Magic' to the MCU. I also like that science (to the sorcerers) is not laughed at or looked down upon, it's just another part of the whole.
SPOILERS
I feel like if you asked any scientists in Thor's realm what they thought about magic versus science, they'd look at you as if you asked which of the four fundamental forces are more real than the other. Magic is just another set of laws to be analyzed and theorized about to a sufficiently advanced scientific civilization.
The movie is good. Cumberbach finally played a character other than "smug bastard", at least in the later half. The magical side of the marvel universe is intriguing. My only complaint is that the first half of the movie is kind of boring, since it's just an origin story and a training montage. IMO, origin stories can be done well, but not the way they tried it in Dr. Strange. Ant Man is the best example of an origin story done late in the MCU that I can think of (maybe the only one besides Dr. Strange), because the transformation into superhero is done while an otherwise interesting heist movie is playing.
If they could have dropped the training scenes, and instead just shown Strange completely out of his depth, desperate to learn anything about magic that he can while the world is collapsing around him, I think that would have been better.
The visuals are the best MCU has gotten yet, and this is the first time I've felt extremely interested in the Marvel world, with all the artifacts, spells, and rituals displayed. It was very immersive.
The one big problem I have with the film is that introduced time travel as a plot device to the marvel universe. The groundhog day spell was neat, but now that time travel can of worms is open, I guarantee you at some point in watching the rest of the MCU, I'm going to be wondering why thanos, or dr. strange didn't travel through time to fix some huge problem in their plans.
I feel like if you asked any scientists in Thor's realm what they thought about magic versus science, they'd look at you as if you asked which of the four fundamental forces are more real than the other. Magic is just another set of laws to be analyzed and theorized about to a sufficiently advanced scientific civilization.
The movie is good. Cumberbach finally played a character other than "smug bastard", at least in the later half. The magical side of the marvel universe is intriguing. My only complaint is that the first half of the movie is kind of boring, since it's just an origin story and a training montage. IMO, origin stories can be done well, but not the way they tried it in Dr. Strange. Ant Man is the best example of an origin story done late in the MCU that I can think of (maybe the only one besides Dr. Strange), because the transformation into superhero is done while an otherwise interesting heist movie is playing.
If they could have dropped the training scenes, and instead just shown Strange completely out of his depth, desperate to learn anything about magic that he can while the world is collapsing around him, I think that would have been better.
The visuals are the best MCU has gotten yet, and this is the first time I've felt extremely interested in the Marvel world, with all the artifacts, spells, and rituals displayed. It was very immersive.
The one big problem I have with the film is that introduced time travel as a plot device to the marvel universe. The groundhog day spell was neat, but now that time travel can of worms is open, I guarantee you at some point in watching the rest of the MCU, I'm going to be wondering why thanos, or dr. strange didn't travel through time to fix some huge problem in their plans.
It's mentioned that manipulating time can lead to paradoxes, fixed time loops and other temporal difficulties.
What if by manipulating time, you cause events to not happen? Sure, we'd all like it if Hitler hadn't risen to power and tried to exterminate the "untermensch", but what would his absence do for Soviet aggression? Without the catalyst of World War 2, a number of technologies don't get developed in the 1940s. Sure, we'd have eventually gotten around to jet engines, radar and nuclear weapons, but not until much later.
And that's just one event that has significant consequences. What if it's something minor, like Howard Stark's parents suddenly being unable to have children?
What if by manipulating time, you cause events to not happen? Sure, we'd all like it if Hitler hadn't risen to power and tried to exterminate the "untermensch", but what would his absence do for Soviet aggression? Without the catalyst of World War 2, a number of technologies don't get developed in the 1940s. Sure, we'd have eventually gotten around to jet engines, radar and nuclear weapons, but not until much later.
And that's just one event that has significant consequences. What if it's something minor, like Howard Stark's parents suddenly being unable to have children?
To be fair, it's not time travel...so much as a rewind button...kind of like the Sands of Time from the Prince of Persia game of the same name. Difference here is that a powerful/connected being could sense you rewinding time, step outside time with you...and make you cut that '****' out, and I don't just mean Dr. Strange or the Ancient one. At a point in the film Mordo mentions that his preferred weapon/artifact is the 'Staff of the Tribunal'.....which made me realize 'THE LIVING TRIBUNAL' might actually be a thing in the MCU (Ego the living world apparently is) which also implies 'Eternity' might be around as well. Either one being powerful enough to stop a being from rewinding time to far.