i give parasite a 6/10.
i'm all for original / different movies but it's far from best picture.
it felt like a korean version of jordan peele's us tbh. parasite is better than us. but not better than 1917.
I'd previously stopped watching just before he was served with the papers in the kitchen, so, I picked it up there yesterday. I'm pleased I did because you're right, fellow, Liotta & Alda are pitch perfect.
Will finish today.
Glad you prompted me.
i give parasite a 6/10.
i'm all for original / different movies but it's far from best picture.
it felt like a korean version of jordan peele's us tbh. parasite is better than us. but not better than 1917.
Charlies angels - 2.9/10
Just as ty as dolittle, but at least that didnt have to tell me for 2 hours how wahmen are superior in everything than men.
edit: ok, i'll write something about it, so that it doesnt look like I hate it just cause of the girl power. It's been a long time, but i did see those 2 previous movies with Cameron Diaz and there was also girl power, but it was not as bad as it's here. This movie pretty much starts with ''women can do anything'' and then for 2 hours portraits all the woman in the movie superior to men. I mean it would be fine if it was like in some scenes and not for the whole 2 hours. I also remember how the director Elizabeth Banks was saying how this movie isnt for men, but after seeing the box office results, I can see not even the woman saw this , which is pretty normal, cause it is not a good movie. We have Kristen Stewart acting like a cool chick, but on the end of the day she just comes out as annoying. To be fair, her character even says it, so i cant really be that mad about that. Then we have the black gir who is always serious and the Aladdin girl who is the new girl and is kinda a funny character (not that funny). We also have Elizabeth Banks as their leader of the gang and Patrick Stewart who also works for this Angels company or whatever it's called. The movie is pretty much Star Wars ep9. Go there and get this object and when you fail to get it, get to another city and get it there. So yea, the story is nothing special. Acting was ok I guess and no one was really that bad. Patrick Stewart is probably the best, but that was to be expected, cause he is the best actor among those in the movie. There's also a twist in the movie, but when it came, i was already checked out of the movie. Action scenes are pretty ty with a lot of cuts and when a skinny girl is beating a 100+ pounds heavier thug it just looks weird and unrealistic. So yea, it sucks. Next time (LOL, perhaps in 20 years when people forget of this flop) concentrate on the story and not about how to preach about wahman power.
I think i am done with ty movies now, cause this has been too much. Ughh...
Last edited by Texas_Ranger; 02-14-2020 at 05:51 AM.
Ford vs Ferrari
solid 7.5/10
the gentelman - 8/10
after the King Arthur I was a little bit worried that Guy Ritchie will make another film, but not this time. I liked pretty much everything. The directing, the acting and the little comedy. Every actor did a good job and Hugh Grant was probably the best out of them all. So yea, if you're a fan of Ritchie's older films, i think this will be a good time for you.
Let us know. I'm guessing 1917 is the next Pearl Harbor; over promising and under delivering.
Finally got around to watching Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.
Watching this movie felt like a chore. What a colossal bore.
2/10
Yeah I was looking for the seams too but I still like the one shot gimmick.
What I was disappointed in was that I didn't get a true feel for World War I. They could have led it 1775, changed the clothes, weapons, technology and the story could have been the same.
Will do for sure, Spurts.
It was on the History Channel today so I DVR'ed it. I don't know TR, started it up but he's still in town chasing after that girl. I'll stick with it though.
Spurtacular hates movies. Come tell us why derp.
Doubling down on your stupidity. Bold move.
so mad
this is like the people who whine and about the recent ghostbusters dud
these are movies than looked bad, and by all accounts were bad (i've seen neither). but some people get inordinately upset about them for some reason tbh
The secret to the original Charlie's Angels and even the first remake was showing three good looking women and their girl power while exploiting the living out of the fact they were good looking women. A Charlie's Angels that is overtly respectful to women just isn't going to work.
Ghostbusters 2016 was doomed from the start. Even the Ackroyd/Ramis/Reitman team couldn't replicate the success of the original. As good as Feig and Dippold were at what they did before, I can't think of any writers or directors I'd trust to be true to the franchise. They just caught lightning in a bottle the first time around. I get that a studio has to try to keep making money of the rights they paid for, but it's just not going to be good in this case.
Finally got to see Avengers Endgame. As good as advertised...all you'd expect and more.
9/10
the Dumper
That's it & that's all.
FYI
AMC on the Cable is showing the [Godfather] all day today. 1 is on now, then 2, then 1 again, then 2 again, then tonight they'll show 3.
Love in the old man's study when Tom asks him about his new son-in-law's job...it's the last bit of business before Godfather goes out to the wedding reception...
Tom: "Do we give him something important?"
Godfather cuts him off: "Never."
It's brilliant production, direction & execution. We're not shown Godfather's reasons, he doesn't stand out frowning on the kid, gossiping about him.
But, it's over. & it is this blanket condemnation of the son-in-law at default that ultimately leads to the murder of Godfather's eldest son on the Causeway.
The son-in-law ain't stupid; reckless, yes, but, not clueless. He knows without being told he's been rejected by everybody cept his wife. So, he stews, he formulates & he sets up his brother-in-law.
I got 1 & 2 on the shelf, but, there is something about taking it down, opening the case, loading the DVD player that is like (cheating.) So, I'll DVR it & watch it, the pure way.
Amen to that. We probably have 40 DVDs and I bet we've only played them maybe a few times. Total. But if Shawshank is on (which it is a few times a year), we'll sit and watch it. Even with commercials and edited.
Not crazy about "Wyatt Earp"---but, love this part. "Earp" taking the shotgun on the street & still checking the load. No disrespect mean't nor taken.
All of 'em are at their acting prime...almost beautiful in their personal pristine as they file on in.
"Earp" does not detonate the "on-the-street howitzer" straight up & down...it's at a reckless angle when it's loosed.
Amen. Been there, SfS...& we know every edit & are damn proud to cite 'em aloud, or, to ourselves.
It's inexplicable but undeniable.
What's with Hollywood double making so many films around the same time? Deep Impact and Armageddon, Wyatt Earp and Tombstone, others.. (maybe not that many but I have to pretend there are lots of others, too many to mention imo)
olympus has fallen and white house down
antz and a bug life
prestige and illusionist
paul blart and observe and report
That's an interesting take. I would counter that the military hadn't changed a great deal from Napoleon to the start of WWI, and even in 1917 brass were struggling with how to counter the technological advances that gave the advantage to defensive positions. It would be another year before they figured it out.
Disagree with the feel since the respective trenches and no man's land were basically all the western front was about for most of WWI. Showing action from the front excepting the very beginning and last few months of the war there are utterly depressing and kind of unbelievable from a modern perspective. Take the last charge Schofield runs along-- in reality, dudes would still just be walking across the field with their heavy ass kits and getting cut down en masse by machine guns and artillery. I can see why Mendes would not want to focus on that. The Trench, Beneath Hill 60, Passchendaele and of course All Quiet have all trod that ground, and they're all more bleak with less commercial potential that 1917. Even the main conceit of the film -- the fuss being made over 1600 men -- is a little quaint given the hundreds of thousands of casualties experienced in battles like the Somme or Passchendaele.
Competing studios.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)