MydriHaze
Bluelighter
@Coffeeshroom sorry, bad joke that.s all. I.m gonna rub myself into my own shame now...
-
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Film & Television
Welcome Guest
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat Recently Watched Best Documentaries ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
Film & TV Moderator: Cream Gravy? ghostfreak
-
HOT THREADS
-
Film What's the Last Film You Saw? v. Tell Us What You Thought!
- Thread starter Max Power
- Start date
lol okay, was just making sure. But i don't want to give the story away but watch it and i love how they killed off the characters according to there dickheaddeness <- if thats even a word lol
oh and lucky you getting served up dinner, spoiled minx
Yep it totally is a word in my world!
Oh and I am 100% spoiled!!!!! And a minx hehehehehe. My fiancé is a professional head chef, he cooks me restaurant-quality meals every day. I am eternally grateful though, never take it for granted
MydriHaze
Bluelighter
That.s not funny, because that.s exactly what i did...watch out not to rub one out at the same time
oops, you did it again...That.s not funny, because that.s exactly what i did...
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
Was thinking about watching through the Marvel films again because I've only seen them once and I was so high I can hardly remember them. So, I started with Doctor Strange.
I didn't like this much the first time I saw it. The only thing that stuck in my mind was Tilda Swinton with a shaved head. Now that I've seen it a second time, I realize this is because her performance is one of the only memorable things about the film.
Strange (like modern Christopher Nolan flicks) focuses too much on spectacle. The special effects are gratuitous. Too many kaleidoscope effects of buildings twisting around and collapsing into each other.
The humour is flatter and less frequent than most MCU films, which (in this case) is a bad thing. The Avengers films are too jokey for me, whereas Doctor Strange takes itself too seriously a lot of the time. It's such a ridiculous film. It needs to have a sense of humour about itself.
Because the world of Doctor Strange is so spectacular, there are no believable human reactions. It's like smoking DMT without the drugs, yet everybody just accepts it. An ethereal version of Strange appears above an operating table he is lying (unconscious) on. The doctor freaks out for a second. Then Strange says something like, "this is my Astral body"... and she continues to operate.
The film is absurd. There are a lot of opportunities for humour here.
There are also major plot holes. Strange can reverse time. He doesn't do this when The Ancient One (Swinton) dies. He waits till the end of the film. Why?
There appear to be very few limits to Strange's power. If he exists in the same world as The Avengers, he is more powerful than all of them... except Captain Marvel. This is one of the problems lumping all these heroes together.
On one side you've got Hawkeye, a guy who uses a bow and arrow. Then you've got Black Widow who looks sexy in a black leather jumpsuit. I don't know what she does. I think she likes to kick people or something.
If Strange can reverse time, he is way more powerful than Iron Man or the Hulk... and that's part of the problem with this film. The good guys can do whatever they want. The bad guys, also, can do whatever they want. There's a particular headache-inducing action scene in Strange that seems to go on forever. They are jumping from building to building as the city collapses on itself. It looks pretty, but I don't know what any of it means. There is so much going on, it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.
I like his cape, which is kind of like a mix between Aladdin's magic carpet (from the Disney cartoon) and Mario's hat - Cappy - from Mario Odyssey. They should have called it Capey.
I'm not a huge Marvel fan.
5/10
I didn't like this much the first time I saw it. The only thing that stuck in my mind was Tilda Swinton with a shaved head. Now that I've seen it a second time, I realize this is because her performance is one of the only memorable things about the film.
Strange (like modern Christopher Nolan flicks) focuses too much on spectacle. The special effects are gratuitous. Too many kaleidoscope effects of buildings twisting around and collapsing into each other.
The humour is flatter and less frequent than most MCU films, which (in this case) is a bad thing. The Avengers films are too jokey for me, whereas Doctor Strange takes itself too seriously a lot of the time. It's such a ridiculous film. It needs to have a sense of humour about itself.
Because the world of Doctor Strange is so spectacular, there are no believable human reactions. It's like smoking DMT without the drugs, yet everybody just accepts it. An ethereal version of Strange appears above an operating table he is lying (unconscious) on. The doctor freaks out for a second. Then Strange says something like, "this is my Astral body"... and she continues to operate.
The film is absurd. There are a lot of opportunities for humour here.
There are also major plot holes. Strange can reverse time. He doesn't do this when The Ancient One (Swinton) dies. He waits till the end of the film. Why?
There appear to be very few limits to Strange's power. If he exists in the same world as The Avengers, he is more powerful than all of them... except Captain Marvel. This is one of the problems lumping all these heroes together.
On one side you've got Hawkeye, a guy who uses a bow and arrow. Then you've got Black Widow who looks sexy in a black leather jumpsuit. I don't know what she does. I think she likes to kick people or something.
If Strange can reverse time, he is way more powerful than Iron Man or the Hulk... and that's part of the problem with this film. The good guys can do whatever they want. The bad guys, also, can do whatever they want. There's a particular headache-inducing action scene in Strange that seems to go on forever. They are jumping from building to building as the city collapses on itself. It looks pretty, but I don't know what any of it means. There is so much going on, it's hard to keep track of who is doing what.
I like his cape, which is kind of like a mix between Aladdin's magic carpet (from the Disney cartoon) and Mario's hat - Cappy - from Mario Odyssey. They should have called it Capey.
I'm not a huge Marvel fan.
5/10
alasdairm
Bluelight Crew
^ that entire series requires a hefty amount of suspension of disbelief.
they're probably more enjoyable if you just let them wash over you without analyzing too minutely what's happening.
i watched them all in recommended order rather than release order and it went pretty well.
my favorites were the 2 ant man movies and the 2 guardians of the galaxy.
alasdair
they're probably more enjoyable if you just let them wash over you without analyzing too minutely what's happening.
i watched them all in recommended order rather than release order and it went pretty well.
my favorites were the 2 ant man movies and the 2 guardians of the galaxy.
alasdair
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
Yeah I don't have a problem with suspension of disbelief if there aren't major plot holes and the film is coherent.
Strange actually reminded me of Antman. The dark dimension is established similarly to the quantum realm. They are both ridiculous films, but Antman has a sense of humour about itself.
I'm not a big magic guy, so Strange is never going to be my cup of tea I guess. It got a bit too "Harry Potter" for my liking at times.
My favourites from the MCU: the first Antman, Thor: Ragnarok & Spiderman: Homecoming...
Strange actually reminded me of Antman. The dark dimension is established similarly to the quantum realm. They are both ridiculous films, but Antman has a sense of humour about itself.
I'm not a big magic guy, so Strange is never going to be my cup of tea I guess. It got a bit too "Harry Potter" for my liking at times.
My favourites from the MCU: the first Antman, Thor: Ragnarok & Spiderman: Homecoming...
Burnt Offerings
Bluelighter
I hate basically all those superhero movies. The genre is just not for me I guess
LordOfThisWorld
Bluelighter
The Godfather III, so sickening it made me puke, Sofia Coppola couldn't act to save her life in that movie, and using George Hamilton to replace Robert Duvall (Tom Hagen) terrible they should erase this movie from the Godfather Saga.
I heard they didn't want to pay Robert Duvall what he was asking, so they wrote him off getting killed or something.
I heard they didn't want to pay Robert Duvall what he was asking, so they wrote him off getting killed or something.
Had a total blast with this film last night as part of Grimmfest’s May Madness film online festival.
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
Burnt Offerings said:
I used to say the same thing about superhero flicks (and zombie stuff) because we're so over-saturated with them at the moment... but I actually like them. Sure, it's mindless popcorn cinema. But there's nothing wrong with that.
I spent a lot of time (like 10 years) watching exclusively arthouse films and foreign cinema. Now that I'm a Dad, I have a great excuse to watch garbage again.
My daughter loves super heroes. I didn't force them on her. She discovered them on her own with (the God awful) French cartoon PJ Masks. So, now I'm watching Batman: The Animated Series with her.
Superhero isn't my favourite genre, but there aren't that many quality family friendly blockbuster films being produced that appeal to me.
I grew up with Tim Burton's Batman films. My Dad grew up with the Christopher Reeve Superman films. Back then, we'd get (maybe) one or two decent super hero films every 5 years.
I've enjoyed all of the Spiderman films.
Glad to see that Sam Raimi (Evil Dead / the original Spiderman trilogy) is taking the director's chair for the Doctor Strange sequel. He's one of my favourite directors. He hardly ever does wrong. I'm confident he will do a better job with Multiverse of Madness than Derrickson did with the first one... Raimi has more experience with comedy.
On a side note: it's interesting with the Dr. Strange franchise that they keep choosing horror directors.
@Burnt Offerings
Do you like mindless popcorn cinema at all?
Is it possible you're ignoring the child in you?
The Wizard of the Creek
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2020
- Messages
- 6,302
I just revisited the classic film Harry and the Hendersons. After rewatching with fresh eyes, I found myself in disbelief that I once found this movie charming.
None of the narrative made sense to me: a Bigfoot being ran over by a family twice; the Bigfoot befriends a family and heartwarmingly makes them a stonger family, instead of tearing them to pieces immediately.
I was a kid when I first saw this movie in the theater. It made me want to go out and find my own Bigfoot in our surrounding woods. I’m glad I never did! Looking back,I was always creeped out by Harry’s weird giant head and ridiculous teeth and mouth.
This is even more pronounced today with all of the realistic CGI animations. I question a lot of those pre CGI moves for creeping me out. I found out later that same studio that gave us Harry the Bigfoot, Amblin Entertainment, Inc. also brought us that equally frightening testicle monster, E.T.
I give this movie a solid B.
None of the narrative made sense to me: a Bigfoot being ran over by a family twice; the Bigfoot befriends a family and heartwarmingly makes them a stonger family, instead of tearing them to pieces immediately.
I was a kid when I first saw this movie in the theater. It made me want to go out and find my own Bigfoot in our surrounding woods. I’m glad I never did! Looking back,I was always creeped out by Harry’s weird giant head and ridiculous teeth and mouth.
This is even more pronounced today with all of the realistic CGI animations. I question a lot of those pre CGI moves for creeping me out. I found out later that same studio that gave us Harry the Bigfoot, Amblin Entertainment, Inc. also brought us that equally frightening testicle monster, E.T.
I give this movie a solid B.
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
@The Wizard of the Creek
Was just talking to someone the other day about Harry and the Hendersons. I re-watched it as an adult a couple of years ago and I was surprised how much I enjoyed it. A lot of the time, with nostalgic films, I'm disappointed when I revisit them... so, it was a pleasant surprise.
Totally agree with you on E.T. although I thought he was creepy AF when I was a kid too.
I forgot about your song, BTW. Will listen to it today, when I'm painting the back room.
Was just talking to someone the other day about Harry and the Hendersons. I re-watched it as an adult a couple of years ago and I was surprised how much I enjoyed it. A lot of the time, with nostalgic films, I'm disappointed when I revisit them... so, it was a pleasant surprise.
Totally agree with you on E.T. although I thought he was creepy AF when I was a kid too.
I forgot about your song, BTW. Will listen to it today, when I'm painting the back room.
Burnt Offerings
Bluelighter
@Burnt Offerings
Do you like mindless popcorn cinema at all?
Is it possible you're ignoring the child in you?
Yeah come to think of it I did like "Guardians of the Galaxy". A couple of the Batman movies were OK too I guess
I watch a lot of low-brow stuff, dumb movies and blockbusters. Tonight I watched "Broken Arrow", which definitely qualifies as mindless popcorn cinema and, since I first watched it as a kid in the 90s, I also checked the second box there with some childhood nostalgia. But the recent glut of superhero movies...I dunno. For one, I was never into comics as a kid, so there's not much in the way of nostalgia on that front...but, beyond that, I just don't really like the conventions of the genre (argh I sound like a snob now lol).
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
All good, I don't really like the conventions of many genres. I particularly dislike fantasy tropes. Enough fucking elves and dwarves and dragons, already!
(y)
(y)
TheLoveBandit
Director of Site Operations
Honest Thief (2020) <Netfilx or Amazon Prime, I forget>
Liam Neeson is type cast, and this film does minimal effort with his type of role. I can't try to credit as a means for him to break type, either. Premise is a man who has robbed about 8 banks in the past decade meets a woman and decides to come clean - with her, and with the FBI. He calls the FBI and tries to make a deal, the lower level agents sent to check out 'yet another person confessing to be the in-and-out robber' get there, realize he is legit, and end up stealing the millions he tries to turn in as part of his deal. They figure, nobody will believe him. Story gets a bit deeper in that their boss starts to believe Neeson and question his agents, things go proegresively worse for the agents to where they are attempting to kill Neeson and his gf to get rid of witnesses. All in all, the story has a lot of break points - Neeson is smart enough to rob banks and get away with it for years (and some of what he does to the agents), and yet he's dumb enough to hand over the money early in his discussions with the agents? The agents make repeatedly bad decisions that a trained FBI agent wouldn't have thought thru the repercussions? Back to Neeson's type cast....there are very few moments reflective of his 'I know who you are, and I'm coming to get you' type roles, they are too few and too shallow. If you wanted a Neeson film, this won't deliver. If you want to see him branch out a bit...this won't deliver. This isn't the worst film ever, or even in his career, but it's def on the low end. 4/10.
Liam Neeson is type cast, and this film does minimal effort with his type of role. I can't try to credit as a means for him to break type, either. Premise is a man who has robbed about 8 banks in the past decade meets a woman and decides to come clean - with her, and with the FBI. He calls the FBI and tries to make a deal, the lower level agents sent to check out 'yet another person confessing to be the in-and-out robber' get there, realize he is legit, and end up stealing the millions he tries to turn in as part of his deal. They figure, nobody will believe him. Story gets a bit deeper in that their boss starts to believe Neeson and question his agents, things go proegresively worse for the agents to where they are attempting to kill Neeson and his gf to get rid of witnesses. All in all, the story has a lot of break points - Neeson is smart enough to rob banks and get away with it for years (and some of what he does to the agents), and yet he's dumb enough to hand over the money early in his discussions with the agents? The agents make repeatedly bad decisions that a trained FBI agent wouldn't have thought thru the repercussions? Back to Neeson's type cast....there are very few moments reflective of his 'I know who you are, and I'm coming to get you' type roles, they are too few and too shallow. If you wanted a Neeson film, this won't deliver. If you want to see him branch out a bit...this won't deliver. This isn't the worst film ever, or even in his career, but it's def on the low end. 4/10.
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
Bad Trip (2021)
This is pretty much just a vehicle for Eric Andre to prank people. It's an interesting experiment. It is a fictional film, but most (all?) of the supporting cast is made up of real people that Eric and co fuck with in various ways. It accomplishes what the Impractical Jokers movie failed to accomplish: it is both a Jack Ass type film and a functional (fictional) movie. Knoxville tried to do this with Bad Grandpa, but (like Impractical Jokers) it didn't flow right.
This wasn't as funny (or anywhere near as outrageous) as The Eric Andre show, but it definitely had its moments.
I give it a generous 7/10
This is pretty much just a vehicle for Eric Andre to prank people. It's an interesting experiment. It is a fictional film, but most (all?) of the supporting cast is made up of real people that Eric and co fuck with in various ways. It accomplishes what the Impractical Jokers movie failed to accomplish: it is both a Jack Ass type film and a functional (fictional) movie. Knoxville tried to do this with Bad Grandpa, but (like Impractical Jokers) it didn't flow right.
This wasn't as funny (or anywhere near as outrageous) as The Eric Andre show, but it definitely had its moments.
I give it a generous 7/10
I never equated ET with testicles; I cant imagine where your personal reference was borne from but - maybe its the glowing red abdomen/ finger along with leathery skin and some type of rash you encountered..perhaps?I just revisited the classic film Harry and the Hendersons. After rewatching with fresh eyes, I found myself in disbelief that I once found this movie charming.
None of the narrative made sense to me: a Bigfoot being ran over by a family twice; the Bigfoot befriends a family and heartwarmingly makes them a stonger family, instead of tearing them to pieces immediately.
I was a kid when I first saw this movie in the theater. It made me want to go out and find my own Bigfoot in our surrounding woods. I’m glad I never did! Looking back,I was always creeped out by Harry’s weird giant head and ridiculous teeth and mouth.
This is even more pronounced today with all of the realistic CGI animations. I question a lot of those pre CGI moves for creeping me out. I found out later that same studio that gave us Harry the Bigfoot, Amblin Entertainment, Inc. also brought us that equally frightening testicle monster, E.T.
I give this movie a solid B.
