BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
I have not. It's not a director I care about and her as the star is just going to make it as a movie I don't want to watch.
So a self fulfilling prophecy
I have not. It's not a director I care about and her as the star is just going to make it as a movie I don't want to watch.
So life has this weird limitation of being finite, therefore I have to prioritize how I spend my time. I'm willing to try new things with positive buzz (Age of Adeline gets at most tepid recommendations, but that's beside the point). As a shorthand - if Fincher, Bong, Wong Kar-Wai, Coens, etc. come out with a new movie? Yeah I'm going to make an effort to see that. If it stars actors I'm really fond of? Yeah I'll prioritize that as well.So a self fulfilling prophecy
You know that's a blind spot of mine. Hear it's pretty good but that cast is basically a grab bag of "eh I'll pass" for me.
So my wife made me watch Leprechaun last night.
I will be filing for divorce shortly.
What a terrible movie. The villain alternates between always fleeing (so as to not be caught, you see), to chasing, and there seems to be no internal logic between why he can be chased away and chasing. Warwick Davis is, no offense, not a threatening figure. But it also doesn't have enough jokes to make it "so bad it's good". Jennifer Aniston doesn't pop, per se, but she at least reads her lines like there isn't someone off screen with a gun to her dog's head. It's just so bad. So so so bad.
1/10
It’s a surprisingly decent if by the numbers crime movie.
I also describe myself as "goofily conceived, visually competent."
The Beekeeper (2024) Directed by David Ayer 3A
Killing time between tennis matches on the weekend, I watched The Beekeeper, a goofily conceived, visually competent thriller about a former member of an elite, super covert CIA outfit called The Beekeepers. Jason Statham plays Adam Clay who takes revenge on a bunch of ultra-rich scammers with political connections whose corporation is responsible for the suicide of a nice black woman who they ripped off, the only person to befriend the now retired Beekeeper. Does anyone doubt what happens next? The Beekeeper is the kind of movie that requires only part of you to be there when watching it. About 70% of your consciousness can be excused to ponder other things. The Beekeeper held my attention because something interesting would emerge from the predictability for just a brief moment before slinking back into the primal slime, such as Jeremy Irons opening scene, where he blissfully dismisses his psychopath's stepsons attempts to involve him in his cash cow scam efforts. Oh, boy, I thought, Irons will be fun. Nope, the moment passes and future Irons appearances are just stock stuff. But I was still sitting there watching this product, wasn't I? I hadn't moved or turned it off. In retrospect I felt a little irritated at myself. The Beekeeper plays on the fact that I have already sold out, already been sufficiently dumbed down by similar stupid movies that I don't even try to resist anymore.
How have my standards stooped so low that I flip this thing on even as a time killer? Statham has settled once again for a grumpy pit bull persona that is as charmless as it is boring. He's hardly the only problem, though. The fact that a beehive analogy is made so often by so many characters in the movie just seemed like the AI got stuck on a single note and repeated it too frequently. The twist that comes nearing the conclusion is a howler, one so bad that briefly the movie seems actually more engaging because of it. But then the lights dim again, as from there on out, things just get dumber and dumber. As in so many of these movies, our ostensible hero is just another superhero who can never really be threatened, defeated or killed because presumbably a dumb audience fears uncertainty, even a tiny drop, more than anything else in their movies. The Beekeeper doesn't dumb you down as much as it assumes that you have already been dumb-downed and are an easy target for more twaddle.
Wait until you watch the one where they go to space!
Deep Cover is a Fishburne and Goldblum movie I'd say is worth a watch. I quite liked it.Death Wish II (Winner, 1982) - The ancestors of the Taken films, but with gloom and grit (2 rapes, a third attempted one, and probably some offscreen inappropriate conduct on set too), this one makes a very compelling case in favor of the death penalty for stiff acting. It has Fishburne as a thug (first one had Goldblum), 2/10
Thank you for this, Kallio, you nailed it. Just finished the movie and loved it. What a ridiculous and stupid but fun film.If you enjoy The Room and Neil Breen then I've never been more confident in a recomendation than saying you'll enjoy Samurai Cop.
Watched it last night too. I liked it quite a bit, it walked the line between "serious" and silly like the best b-movies do. It's self-awareness is a little dumb (the notorious, the road house in two words), but otherwise the film is often funny and only miss on a few one liners that tried too hard. I really don't care for the original, I guess it helped me appreciate this one. And I thought McGregor was fantastic, your description of his performance is right on. Whatever people say, he's certainly a much better actor than GSP. I would tend to go for something like a 5 too, maybe 4,5, I have a feeling that the film will age just as well as the original (following-wise).View attachment 839790
Road House (2024) - 5/10
A former UFC fighter (Jake Gyllenhaal) takes a job as a bouncer at a rowdy Florida Keys bar and quickly makes friends with the locals. There are many differences from the 1989 cult favorite, especially the setting, but also many similarities and it's basically the same story. Gyllenhaal does an admirable job as Dalton, I'd say. He has the physique, calm demeanor and smirk. He's even cheekier than Swayze's version and mocks the tough guys before and after breaking their arms and fingers. The movie really doesn't take itself seriously and frequently leans into humor like that. It's especially seen when it comes to actual UFC fighter Conor McGregor, who plays the ultimate heavy and is probably the most memorable thing about the movie. He's so over the top, strutting around with a huge grin all of the time, like the happiest Irish thug or a cartoon villain come to life. I've read others calling his acting horrible, presumably because it's so cartoonish, but I think that that was the point. His character is a lunatic and supposed to be outrageous. If it isn't acting, then he's just a lunatic in real life, which he may be, for all I know. Either way, he's bound to be either one of the best or one of the worst things about the movie, depending on how amusing you find him. Speaking of bad acting, though, some of the side actors are especially weak, but it doesn't help that the dialogue throughout isn't good, either. The movie has a good bit of action, mostly hand-to-hand fight scenes that seem well choreographed, though I wasn't a fan of the overly stylized camerawork and CGI. Overall, the movie wasn't as bad as I feared, but it wasn't as good as I would've liked. If you don't have a fondness for the original, you may find it to be a fun movie. If you do compare it, though, you may be disappointed. I'm giving it a generous score because I found it watchable, but I'd much rather re-watch the original in the future. Both are on Amazon Prime.
I couldn't get over how much the ineffectual villain looked like Joe Burrow.View attachment 839790
Road House (2024) - 5/10
A former UFC fighter (Jake Gyllenhaal) takes a job as a bouncer at a rowdy Florida Keys bar and quickly makes friends with the locals. There are many differences from the 1989 cult favorite, especially the setting, but also many similarities and it's basically the same story. Gyllenhaal does an admirable job as Dalton, I'd say. He has the physique, calm demeanor and smirk. He's even cheekier than Swayze's version and mocks the tough guys before and after breaking their arms and fingers. The movie really doesn't take itself seriously and frequently leans into humor like that. It's especially seen when it comes to actual UFC fighter Conor McGregor, who plays the ultimate heavy and is probably the most memorable thing about the movie. He's so over the top, strutting around with a huge grin all of the time, like the happiest Irish thug or a cartoon villain come to life. I've read others calling his acting horrible, presumably because it's so cartoonish, but I think that that was the point. His character is a lunatic and supposed to be outrageous. If it isn't acting, then he's just a lunatic in real life, which he may be, for all I know. Either way, he's bound to be either one of the best or one of the worst things about the movie, depending on how amusing you find him. Speaking of bad acting, though, some of the side actors are especially weak, but it doesn't help that the dialogue throughout isn't good, either. The movie has a good bit of action, mostly hand-to-hand fight scenes that seem well choreographed, though I wasn't a fan of the overly stylized camerawork and CGI. Overall, the movie wasn't as bad as I feared, but it wasn't as good as I would've liked. If you don't have a fondness for the original, you may find it to be a fun movie. If you do compare it, though, you may be disappointed. I'm giving it a generous score because I found it watchable, but I'd much rather re-watch the original in the future. Both are on Amazon Prime.
I also watched it last night. I thought McGregor was bad but not to a detrimental degree. Otherwise pretty much agree with your assessment. (Though I am a fan of the original).Watched it last night too. I liked it quite a bit, it walked the line between "serious" and silly like the best b-movies do. It's self-awareness is a little dumb (the notorious, the road house in two words), but otherwise the film is often funny and only miss on a few one liners that tried too hard. I really don't care for the original, I guess it helped me appreciate this one. And I thought McGregor was fantastic, your description of his performance is right on. Whatever people say, he's certainly a much better actor than GSP. I would tend to go for something like a 5 too, maybe 4,5, I have a feeling that the film will age just as well as the original (following-wise).
Like most, in fact, almost all remakes, Road House never really found a sense of purpose, nor, in this case, did it even seem to seek one. It brought less to the original, not more or better or different. Remakes can at least tenuously stand with their originals, but it takes something--a manic performance in Scarface; a reconstruction of the material in The Magnificent Seven and A Few Dollars More; imaginative set pieces that the original lacked in Sorcerer; even respect for the craftsmanship of the original, 3:10 to Yuma and The Thing. Road House has none of these things. The characters could be played by cartoon characters just as effectively. Dalton could be played by a wily fox ala Zootopia, the villains by various Roger Rabbit-type weasels and McGregor could be cast as Warner Brothers' Tasmanian devil. Probably would have worked just fine, maybe better. Road House is just product trying to attract the MMA crowd.Alright so I watched Road House (2024).
This was really f***ing bad. I am basically the target audience minus I'm not an MMA fan. But give me a dumb plot with good action and I'm f***ing in.
This fails on every level. Too much plot and the plot is terrible. Jake is the only actor worth a damn but the script gives him nothing to work with. McGregor is bad but whatever if the action was better I would not give a shit.
I didn't care about the backstory. It was just boring. Action was too sparse and not great. I want to watch the old one as a palate cleanser.
3/10
I think there's more people watching the WNBA playoffs than the UFC PPVs (they can't even pay their fighters), maybe not that great of a business plan.Road House is just product trying to attract the MMA crowd.