Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It: Part XXIX

[Spring in Fialta]

I mean, I didn't think of those as being a aggressively bro-humor as Deadpool, but even so, you have to think alot of it is that those guys are the self-deprecating butt of the jokes in those movies, especially in Pineapple Express.

To be fair I haven't watched Deadpool and nor do I plan to but I always thought of bro humor as easy jokes relating to and solely about stuff like *****, crass sex, drugs etc.which the Rogen clique does in bunches. For example, you can take Danny McBride and see him what he is: a one-note shtick but an extremely effective one.

 

[Shareefruck]

To be fair I haven't watched Deadpool and nor do I plan to but I always thought of bro humor as easy jokes relating to and solely about stuff like *****, crass sex, drugs etc.which the Rogen clique does in bunches. For example, you can take Danny McBride and see him what he is: a one-note shtick but an extremely effective one.

Not that I love that stuff either, but to me, Bro-humor is worse than that. It's that kind of sophomoric humor that you're talking about (which the pre-teen in me actually somewhat relates with and loved at one point) combined with the c*ck-sure bravado/come-at-me-bro/trolling mean-spiritedness of a Guido/bully/college frat boy rich kid. That whole "Do you even lift, brah?" thing is a full order of magnitude worse than the Rogen clique, IMO. The Rogen stuff just gives me feelings of "this is dumb and adolescent in a mostly harmless way and I've gotten sick of it", whereas listening to bro-humor actually makes me angry and somewhat irrationally despise people.

I think there's also a difference when it comes to whether you're intended to laugh with someone or at someone, too.

Now, admittedly, I don't know if it would be fair of me to label Deadpool as that exactly, but the style of humor did give me those kinds of vibes that put me off instantly.

 

[OzzyFan]

Ghost in the Shell
2 out of 4stars

Visually cool with good action, but the rest of the story just felt so bland and stale. I mean, the story is there to have made this a good to great film, but they turned it into something average overall somehow. The ending was so abrupt and underwhelming also, which didn't help. It just feels like anytime there wasn't action or over the top visuals involved, it felt like a predictable going through the motions thing and a tad too long. Not ruining anything, but I think possibly the "finding oneself" angle hurt it a bit. There was no edge, no feel of adventure, no attachment, barely verbal dipping into the created world and scar-jo's situation beyond the intriguing and "on the surface" visuals, sparse adrenaline, no true feel of drama, even the villain(s) are incredibly underwritten and underutilized, etc. Just a mess beyond the eye flair. ScarJo and the acting were fine though.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Ghost in the Shell
2 out of 4stars

Visually cool with good action, but the rest of the story just felt so bland and stale. I mean, the story is there to have made this a good to great film, but they turned it into something average overall somehow. The ending was so abrupt and underwhelming also, which didn't help. It just feels like anytime there wasn't action or over the top visuals involved, it felt like a predictable going through the motions thing and a tad too long. Not ruining anything, but I think possibly the "finding oneself" angle hurt it a bit. There was no edge, no feel of adventure, no attachment, barely verbal dipping into the created world and scar-jo's situation beyond the intriguing and "on the surface" visuals, sparse adrenaline, no true feel of drama, even the villain(s) are incredibly underwritten and underutilized, etc. Just a mess beyond the eye flair. ScarJo and the acting were fine though.

My assessment of Ghost in the Shell (2017): it required the big money only a studio could provide, but it was also cursed by being attached to the studio system. The movie ended up being pretty to look at, but the story is stuck between two pillars: trying to be Hollywood safe while reminding everyone that it is Ghost in the Shell, all of which added nothing to the conversation. Can't say I'm disappointed in terms of quality level (I was expecting this), but I still feel like this was a major missed opportunity.

Next up on anime adaptations is Death Note. Hopefully it embraces its new setting and creates a true alternative take to its source material.

 

[Mrb1p]

My assessment of Ghost in the Shell (2017): it required the big money only a studio could provide, but it was also cursed by being attached to the studio system. The movie ended up being pretty to look at, but the story is stuck between two pillars: trying to be Hollywood safe while reminding everyone that it is Ghost in the Shell, all of which added nothing to the conversation. Can't say I'm disappointed in terms of quality level (I was expecting this), but I still feel like this was a major missed opportunity.

Next up on anime adaptations is Death Note. Hopefully it embraces its new setting and creates a true alternative take to its source material.

I have more faith in Netflix than I have in Hollywood.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I have more faith in Netflix than I have in Hollywood.

The trailer for Death Note looked absolutely awful.

 

[Shareefruck]

2017 (Louis CK Standup Special) - 2.5 (Good)
Somewhat of a return to form after a few fairly solid but slightly auto-pilot specials done while he was clearly focusing on better and more interesting projects. I thought it opened really strong and got a bit weaker as it went along, though.

The opening firm but wishy-washy abortion bit is just perfect. Gave me vague flashes of Carlin the way he juggled those ideas.

 

[Mrb1p]

The trailer for Death Note looked absolutely awful.

True enough.

 

[OzzyFan]

Not that I love that stuff either, but to me, Bro-humor is worse than that. It's that kind of sophomoric humor that you're talking about (which the pre-teen in me actually somewhat relates with and loved at one point) combined with the c*ck-sure bravado/come-at-me-bro/trolling mean-spiritedness of a Guido/bully/college frat boy rich kid. That whole "Do you even lift, brah?" thing is a full order of magnitude worse than the Rogen clique, IMO. The Rogen stuff just gives me feelings of "this is dumb and adolescent in a mostly harmless way and I've gotten sick of it", whereas listening to bro-humor actually makes me angry and somewhat irrationally despise people.

I think there's also a difference when it comes to whether you're intended to laugh with someone or at someone, too.

Now, admittedly, I don't know if it would be fair of me to label Deadpool as that exactly, but the style of humor did give me those kinds of vibes that put me off instantly.

I completely understand what you mean. I blame nobody for disliking the type of sarcasm Ryan Reynolds uses, which seriously toes the line between funny and annoying. He's so hit and miss with likability for me. When he does his sarcastic shtick freely, in half of his movies I like it to find it hilarious, and the other half of the movies he's allowed to use it I find it repetitive, off putting, and annoying. Add in a vulgar R-rated range of allowance for it, and I see what you mean.

I found Deadpool hilarious, but 1000% understand when people say it's over the top and in your face teenage/college/shock humor and not their cup of tea. It's definitely more impulsive popcorn teen flick than anything else.

My assessment of Ghost in the Shell (2017): it required the big money only a studio could provide, but it was also cursed by being attached to the studio system. The movie ended up being pretty to look at, but the story is stuck between two pillars: trying to be Hollywood safe while reminding everyone that it is Ghost in the Shell, all of which added nothing to the conversation. Can't say I'm disappointed in terms of quality level (I was expecting this), but I still feel like this was a major missed opportunity.

Next up on anime adaptations is Death Note. Hopefully it embraces its new setting and creates a true alternative take to its source material.

Agreed. I mean, it just sucks that the story and pieces for this to have become a great classic movie that interests and engages the brain also were so easily there for the picking and writing, but instead we are given mediocrity.

 

[Mrb1p]

The problem with any Deadpool critic, is that if you are not familiar with the source material, youre probably not gonna like it. (And that can be said for a lot of superhero/manga/book related moviea or wtv.) Or if you know about the source material, then youre going to be harsh on the movies if its bad, doesnt represent your view of said material well enough, case in point, Dr. Strange.

The Deadpool movie did great in introducing a concept that is alien to movies, breaking the 4th wall. Deadpool is the only character that knows hes a comic book character, hence the jokes and the Stan Lee acknowledgement. Though I can totally understand why this doesnt make it a good movie, and to be faire, if the movie was about an assassin with powers and a funny nature named Killwater (sorry ), it would be a terribly bad movie and no one would like it.

Its incredibly hard for me to rate a movie based on source material, I feel its not a movie but a tribute or an extension of the source material, but I understand people ranking it as a movie, like Shareefruck, and if you do rate it as such, it doesnt warrant a score of more than a 4 on ten.

On the flipside, a movie like Logan would beneficiate a lot from a departure from his source material. Make the movie about an old man called Lenny who has a violent past and tweak the world a bit and you really do have a kickass western/doomsday movie.

 

[Osprey]

I found Deadpool hilarious, but 1000% understand when people say it's over the top and in your face teenage/college/shock humor and not their cup of tea. It's definitely more impulsive popcorn teen flick than anything else.

Comedy is very often more about the delivery than the humor, itself, IMO. I wonder if it's not so much the humor in Deadpool that puts some people off, but Ryan Reynolds' delivery. He's so sure of himself, acts superior to everyone else, sounds so rehearsed and delivers everything to maximum biting effect (rather than toning things down to be more funny than mean). He very much comes across as an adolescent boy who's never been punched and never learned to watch what he says and does and to whom. I'm reminded of that YouTube video of that Australian twerp who's bullying the big kid until the big kid finally fights back and body slams him.

I think that that's what turns people off. They see this grown man who's acting like an adolescent boy who, even after being "body slammed" (by being horribly burnt), gets up and resumes the immature schtick as though nothing was learned... and we're meant to cheer for him. That's hard for many to swallow. I, personally, found the humor in Deadpool kind of funny, but the character, himself, rather repugnant, which seriously hurt my enjoyment. I suspect that I'm not alone and that a lot of people who say that they didn't like the humor may've been more put off by the character and the delivery of the humor.

BTW, it doesn't matter if it was a faithful portrayal of the comic book character. I'm just speaking of the regular movie watcher who is likely unfamiliar with the character and would be approaching and critiquing it as any other movie.

 

[nameless1]

I am actually very familiar with the Deadpool comics, because I like the comic character a lot, and I have read a number of his comics. However, I did not like the movie all that much either, but it is because I am too familiar with the character.

Now, to be fair, the movie does capture the spirit of the character, and it does stand out amongst tidal wave of superhero movies, because it, like the comics, goes for lowbrow comedy first and foremost, and that is pretty much the essence of comic books. However, I find that the filmmakers actually did not go far enough. In the comics, Deadpool goes insane due to the experiments to cure him of his cancer, so his antics is a lot crazier, and a lot of times, sadistically bloody. Thus, Ryan Reynolds' take is really tame, and only barely scratches the surface of who the character is. That said, the movie will never be made if it is a completely faithful adaptation, because it could very well be seen as torture porn, so I understand why the filmmakers really watered it down, but that does not mean I am not disappointed though.

My main problem with the movie is the treatment of Death. Deadpool is actually in love with the personification of Death, who he saw and fell for during the experiments, but because he cannot die once he got his healing factor, it becomes a case of star-crossed lovers, which is a really interesting take on the concept, and gives the character even more depth. Then there is Thanos, the god-like villain shown in the Avengers series, who is also in love with Death, so he curses Deadpool with life, a sort of immortality, which, again, gives the character another interesting angle, since that means Deadpool can be tied to the Avengers franchise. Unfortunately, that aspect is completely omitted, and not even hinted at, in the movie, so that is a big missed opportunity, which has so much potential.

Despite my misgivings, I will probably still go see Deadpool 2 next year though. Mindless fares have some merits, and it is different enough to warrant a trip to the theatres.

 

[Shareefruck]

The problem with any Deadpool critic, is that if you are not familiar with the source material, youre probably not gonna like it. (And that can be said for a lot of superhero/manga/book related moviea or wtv.) Or if you know about the source material, then youre going to be harsh on the movies if its bad, doesnt represent your view of said material well enough, case in point, Dr. Strange.

The Deadpool movie did great in introducing a concept that is alien to movies, breaking the 4th wall. Deadpool is the only character that knows hes a comic book character, hence the jokes and the Stan Lee acknowledgement. Though I can totally understand why this doesnt make it a good movie, and to be faire, if the movie was about an assassin with powers and a funny nature named Killwater (sorry ), it would be a terribly bad movie and no one would like it.

Its incredibly hard for me to rate a movie based on source material, I feel its not a movie but a tribute or an extension of the source material, but I understand people ranking it as a movie, like Shareefruck, and if you do rate it as such, it doesnt warrant a score of more than a 4 on ten.

On the flipside, a movie like Logan would beneficiate a lot from a departure from his source material. Make the movie about an old man called Lenny who has a violent past and tweak the world a bit and you really do have a kickass western/doomsday movie.

Can you clarify what you mean by that-- if you don't rate it as a movie, what do you rate it as? You mean assessing it based on how faithful it is to the source material or how well it does fanservice? Personally, I don't like to do that even for things that I am a familiar fan of.

For the record, I was aware of the comic books, didn't read them, but liked the general idea/found some of the random snippets amusing and was sort of anticipating/hopeful about the idea of a more subversive/anything goes/rule-breaking superhero movie (anything to break us out of this trend of mediocrity). Like nameless sort of alluded to, I thought a lot of that potential for unhinged insanity was lost and replaced by a more typical and annoying/snot-nosed high school kid personality.

On a positive note, who knows, maybe its success will open up a path to give better directors free reign/inspiration to do something interesting with the genre (I actually really like the idea of someone talented and insane like an Edgar Wright or Sion Sono type tackling the genre and giving it their own spin).

 

[Mrb1p]

Its exactly as I said, I understand someone not giving it a good score, because if taken as is, the movie is subpar. Its just not a good movie, but I feel it plays just enough on the positive emotions we have towards the main character to be relevant to the viewer.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Dr.Strangelove: How I Learned to Stop Worriying and Love the Bomb (1964) - Full Metal Jacket is my favorite Kubrick but this one falls solidly in 2nd place ahead of A Clockwork Orange. While I had a bit of difficulty understanding some of the accents (Strangelove's and the English guy) and the military lingo I thought the movie was an absolute blast with some masterful editing cuts. There's some great performances in there too (the jingoist general's physical comedy was perfect) and the shots of the airplane flying through the sky (as well as the shot general Kong acting like a cowboy on that nuclear missile) were beautiful (it had a sort of messy, low-budget, school project quality to it that really resonated with me). I can understand why it's considered one of the greatest comedies of all-time and how it still seems fresh today despite the cold war political content. Every major character in the movie is hilarious (the way Sellers portrayed the American president as a weak, mild-mannered man was a nice touch, as well as Ripper's wild conspiracy theory). The last scene with Dr.Strangelove spazzing out was great too. He's got the perfect last line. " Mein Fuhrer! I can walk! ". I loved it.

 

[NyQuil]

I liked Deadpool better the second time.

Probably because I had a better understanding of the tone of the movie.

I'll admit that the first time was a bit off-putting and I found that some of the humour missed.

 

[Nalens Oga]

Prisoners (2013) - 8.5/10

Denis Villeneuve is messed up in the head man. I'd say it's his most entertaining films but probably not the best. Visually it looks the best from scene to scene, very clean and very cold (Arrival had a cold pallet too but that was just mostly grey and didn't work as well for me).

edit: Oh yeah and I hate Hugh Jackman's acting.

 

[Tenshi]

Beauty and the Beast: 4 out of 7 xP

 

[Nalens Oga]

True Romance (1994) - 7/10

It's written by Quentin Tarantino but it's not directed by Tarantino which is a bit of a problem. It has a weird tone, a weird romance shoehorned into a Tarantino movie and without any of the better dialogue of his usual stuff but you get the usual bang bang and **** being stolen and random chance determining the outcome.

 

[OzzyFan]

Kong Skull Island
2.5 out of 4stars

About what you'd expect from a blockbuster action adventure monster movie: great visuals/action, well shot/directed, a good amount of fun(including a lot of fun with the time period stuff), and it keeps your attention throughout it's long 2hrs duration. That said, it did have it's weaknesses you generally see with the pieces it use. Those mainly were it's a bit scattershot tones/character development(because it has a zillion characters), and has more style than substance. I enjoyed it though.


And Then There Were None
2.75 out of 4stars

Isolation style(remote island) murder mystery with a good blend of humor and suspense. The majority of the characters were appealing and quirky also. Based off the Agatha Christie novel, directed by Rene Clair.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

The problem with any Deadpool critic, is that if you are not familiar with the source material, youre probably not gonna like it. (And that can be said for a lot of superhero/manga/book related moviea or wtv.) Or if you know about the source material, then youre going to be harsh on the movies if its bad, doesnt represent your view of said material well enough, case in point, Dr. Strange.

The Deadpool movie did great in introducing a concept that is alien to movies, breaking the 4th wall. Deadpool is the only character that knows hes a comic book character, hence the jokes and the Stan Lee acknowledgement. Though I can totally understand why this doesnt make it a good movie, and to be faire, if the movie was about an assassin with powers and a funny nature named Killwater (sorry ), it would be a terribly bad movie and no one would like it.

Its incredibly hard for me to rate a movie based on source material, I feel its not a movie but a tribute or an extension of the source material, but I understand people ranking it as a movie, like Shareefruck, and if you do rate it as such, it doesnt warrant a score of more than a 4 on ten.

On the flipside, a movie like Logan would beneficiate a lot from a departure from his source material. Make the movie about an old man called Lenny who has a violent past and tweak the world a bit and you really do have a kickass western/doomsday movie.

I've always subscribed to the idea that you judge a movie as a movie. Can it sink or swim on its own merits? Is it entertaining or informative on its own? I really can't stand the arguments from people that you can't judge a certain movie unless you've read 600 comic books/lived with the natives of Borneo for a year/experienced gender reassignment surgery, etc etc etc. I'm not saying that it's okay to go in to a theatre with zero context of what you're about to see, I just don't like the fanboy argument that a particular movie can only be judged by fans who have done hundreds of hours of back work on the story (not saying that you're making that argument, person I quoted, but that's usually what this kind of thing degenerates into).

Classic case for me is the movie Naked Lunch. Now me, I've read the book, I've read the Beat Writers, took a class on them at college, I know the history of Bill Burroughs, Joan Vollmer, Jack Kerouac, Allan Ginsberg and a whole host of their friends and I know how David Cronenberg likes his weirdness and metaphors...so I can watch Naked Lunch the movie and enjoy it (as much as one can, I guess). But I have no problem admitting that someone who didn't do all that groundwork before watching the movie would have no idea what the hell is going on. If you don't know who William Burroughs is and don't know his writing or personal history, you'd be utterly lost within minutes and I shouldn't expect you to enjoy it.

Oh, and Deadpool didn't invent breaking the 4th wall. Asides to the audience have been going on since forever. Deadpool was just the first movie to abuse it so obnoxiously.

 

[Osprey]

Oh, and Deadpool didn't invent breaking the 4th wall. Asides to the audience have been going on since forever. Deadpool was just the first movie to abuse it so obnoxiously.

Deadpool didn't even have a 4th wall, at least not for the main character. I think that that's what's rather "alien" to movies, as he put it, so I'd agree with him there. That said, I think that the concept works best when the wall is there and is broken through only a very limited number of times. For example, if the actors respect the 4th wall for half of the movie and then one of them, out of the blue, suddenly gives a curious look to the camera, it can be one of the most hilarious things, since it was completely unexpected. If the actors are always looking at or talking to the audience, it loses its effect very quickly and can get tiring.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Deadpool didn't even have a 4th wall, at least not for the main character. I think that that's what's rather "alien" to movies, as he put it, so I'd agree with him there. That said, I think that the concept works best when the wall is there and is broken through only a very limited number of times. For example, if the actors respect the 4th wall for half of the movie and then one of them, out of the blue, suddenly gives a curious look to the camera, it can be one of the most hilarious things, since it was completely unexpected. If the actors are always looking at or talking to the audience, it loses its effect very quickly and can get tiring.

Oh yes. Yes it can.

If you didn't know Deadpool's shtick is addressing the audience directly, don't worry. It'll only be about thirty seconds before he reminds you.

And it kind of missed the point of it in the movie. IIRC it was always supposed to be a symptom of Deadpool's insanity.

 

[Nalens Oga]

Lion (2016) - 7.5/10

A bit sappy but in a good way. Have you heard of this program called "google earth"? 2008, what a time.

And shut up about Deadpool it's not a deep enough movie to be holding arguments about an year later lol.

 

[McGhostbuster]

Split: 7.5/10 - M. Night's best movie since Unbreakable (plus a nice twist at the end)

Kong: 7.9/10 - Pretty forgettable however had some nice set pieces. Script was weak on the development side of things.