You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.
Robot Jox was a thoroughly entertaining film. I would classify it as a very good b-movie (I don’t think all b-movies are bad movies). I think the effects are also pretty solid considering it’s not the most high budget film of that period
Yeah, I was legit impressed by it. It's not high art, but it's better than it has any right to be. It's cheesy, but never dull, and I get the sense that it doesn't take itself too seriously, which can sometimes sink a movie like this.
Not Charles Band, but I liked Battle Beyond the Stars, too.
It is interesting that some of the biggest youtuber movie reviewers seem to be former or failed filmmakers, i.e. RLM and James Rolfe. Although in Rolfe's case, he tends to only review films he loves, like I think he simply refused to review Ghostbusters 2016 because he had zero interest in it (although even that decision caught him some flack). I appreciate that his reviews just boil down to someone passionately rambling about things he likes. I've defended RLM but they do have a cynicism about movies that can be tiring in high doses. I do have to wonder if there's some bitterness in them, having not "made it" as serious filmakers, and so perhaps it feels good to shit on moviemaking as a whole and find the fault in others. And going back pre-youtube, Ebert was a former filmmaker turned critic. He actually reminds me a lot of RLM's Jay Bauman, both tend to champion lesser known amd/or 'arthouse' films but can be savage to big tentpole blockbuster films. I've had a love hate relationship with critics like Ebert for years.
anaximander what are you talking about. most blockbusters are stupid and idiotic. who would watch a stupid movie about teenage girls who can't even know up from her own bum, jeez. LITERALLY hell on earth like literally. like, the worst thing is, edward, like needs to be with someone who gets him. who is going to look out for edward.
anaximander what are you talking about. most blockbusters are stupid and idiotic. who would watch a stupid movie about teenage girls who can't even know up from her own bum, jeez. LITERALLY hell on earth like literally. like, the worst thing is, edward, like needs to be with someone who gets him. who is going to look out for edward.
sure, but bashing a blockbuster action or rom com film is like going after the lowest hanging fruit. Expecting them to be intelligent or deep films and then bashing them for being popcorn movie crowd pleasers...it just gets old hearing critics trash films they're obviously not interested in watching in the first place.
sure, but bashing a blockbuster action or rom com film is like going after the lowest hanging fruit. Expecting them to be intelligent or deep films and then bashing them for being popcorn movie crowd pleasers...it just gets old hearing critics trash films they're obviously not interested in watching in the first place.
anaximander what are you talking about. most blockbusters are stupid and idiotic. who would watch a stupid movie about teenage girls who can't even know up from her own bum, jeez. LITERALLY hell on earth like literally. like, the worst thing is, edward, like needs to be with someone who gets him. who is going to look out for edward.
The whole thing (by Aronofsky's own admission) is essentially about the abuse of Mother Earth, but he's weaving in a lot of Biblical allegory and storylines as part of it. If it disturbed people, it was meant to in order to get the point across. It is probably in my list of Top Five Films That Totally Goes Off the Rails. I own a copy in 4K but have only watched it once so far because I know it will take a lot out of me to view again.
Watched "Stowaway" on Netflix, which I actually really did enjoy. I know it's currently #2 on streams there, although that won't last long. Critical reviews have been a bit more muted, but looking over some of them, I didn't have the same problems and am a bit confused over why so many critics are having issues -- it's like they are reading each other's reviews and deciding to all say the same thing.
The movie is a bit of a Trolley Problem. I see people relating it back to an early iteration of the story called "The Cold Equations" from 1954, although there the game was super-rigged to result in a particular outcome: Apparently the author kept coming up with novel ways to save the girl passenger, but the publisher wouldn't stand for it. I was kind of amazed at the guy's writing skill -- he's decent -- but the ideas in it sometimes seem so overblown and slanted. I disagree that this film is of the same bent, because there's a difference the setup for that story and this one, where you have a two-year mission and unexpected destruction of some of the life-sustaining equipment.... so losses accumulate over time and you're playing the long -- not short -- game.
While I think the setup is a bit silly (still not sure how this happened without someone noticing, like it feels very contrived), that seems to be the worst flaw of the film and it's kind of bandaged by the rest of the effort. The characters are underwritten, but Gravity was very underwritten in terms of the characters it had as well. The film is really a mood / slow-burn piece, so complaints about the pacing seem ridiculous to me as well; I feel like it might have gone a bit longer in fact. So many of the problems seem to be more about Americans complaining about how things are not following a particular formula. I mean, we like what we like, and don't like what we don't like (as viewers), but I actually was a bit shaken and moved by the film even if I wished for a bit more character development.
Survival movies (of which this is one, and the director's last film was also a non-speaking film centered around a lone actor in the arctic) typically focus on the matter at hand, they don't get bogged down in over-emotional exposition. When you're in a survival situation, you are focused on the problem at hand, not waxing poetic. Here, two of the characters are actually more fleshed out and they were the appropriate ones to flesh out for the following reasons (end of story spoilers):
One is the stowaway, because you want to set up the story where he doesn't necessarily deserve to die. In a situation where someone must go, those with ulterior / poor motives for being there are typically justified as the first to be kicked; but he actually seems like a decent guy, who didn't want to be there, who has reasons to live outside of the story. He also is portrayed as reasonable, accepting he's the interloper, and willing to off himself as the "extra" person despite not wanting to die.
The other of course is the person who ends up making a sacrifice.
I'm not sure why some of the reviewers said they did not feel attached to the characters enough to care when they were in the situation two of them faced in the last third of the film. I was on the edge of my seat, it was excruciating to watch and not know what is going to happen. Basically, with the characters being somewhat underwritten, you have to compensate -- and this is exactly what they did with the cast. Pretty much the cast added all the impetus and emotions missing from story exposition, you have some real power lifters here.
There were also complaints about character arcs being missing -- characters didn't change. I'm not sure I agree with that. This is a survival story. Typically characters are not sure who THEY are (and neither are we) at the start, and it is slowly revealed as they respond to the perceived danger. This doesn't need to be a conventional story where you establish a character overtly, then overtly watch them change. I think it can help, but there is still movement; it's just at the time, you're not sure which details matter, it only becomes clearer over time. But most of the story will be about characters revealing who they are over the course of the film, because even they are unsure of who they are (being "civilized").
Again, more spoilers about the roles and ending spoilers:
The biologist seems really focused on his experiments at first. This is his life's work. But when basically informed that the requests being made about using his work to provide oxygen to the ship and understanding the severity of the situation, he agrees to sacrifice his work for an attempt to save everyone. It is strongly conveyed how hard this is for him, but he chooses to do it. It ultimately fails, but it shows his moral caliber. it's also hard to begrudge him informing the stowaway of the situation, as he does sacrifice everything he has first, to save him. And he doesn't force the stowaway into anything, he appeals to the stowaway's own moral sensibilities to decide what to do.
The stowaway is the unwilling guest throwing the mission into jeopardy. He doesn't want to be there. When faced with the decision, he tries to come to terms with the situation and is willing to do what he needs to do, but obviously he doesn't want to die. He also has a lot to live for outside of the mission. His relationship with his sister who is also his ward is the hardest thing he has to wrestle through, and coming to terms that he will likely never be there for her despite her need for him.
The captain is the most opaque character. It's because she's not really in a position to be the one(s) at risk because she needs to land the ship. But she is in a tough role of having to control the flow of information, talk to mission control, and she knows what is going on before anyone else does. She also has to make the final decisions over who lives and who dies. I think where she is most revealed is that she originally appears in charge and having all the answers, and being able to stoically make these decisions; but by the film's end, she is obviously broken up by all the decisions that have to be made. So she ends up revealing how deeply she feels about everything despite needing to remain in control of the situation.
The doctor is the most idealistic and acts as typical for a doctor: Do no harm, save everyone, don't give up hope. This is a pretty traditional approach for a doctor. She also takes a lot on her shoulders. The ending of the film isn't that much of a surprise in how it shakes out. The film also highlights her role by focusing on her face during takeoff, and then ending with her alone watching Mars in the distance. She's the one who holds onto all hope. I think it's all foreshadowed though by her story about saving the drowning man. She attempts to save a guy who is drowning alone, knowing things are grim but you have to try, right? She swims out in the riptide and struggles to keep them both alive but has no way to get him back to shore... but shortly before they both drown, they are saved by unknown benefactors. She didn't know this and expected to die, but had to try anyway. I think the growth comes in her arc because she has now had this experience and knows trying to save someone in a pointless situation will likely just get her killed -- and she knows no one will come to save her this time. I mean, they are in outer space. But she chooses to go anyway. I think that's the growth. That experience changed her to realize the limits of her ability, so that she realizes her idealism can't save everyone... but she commits to it anyway and embraces that her "great work" will consist of saving three lives. She accepts her own limits and mortality and has to be okay with that.
The film has great ambiance and great performances that essentially carry the film. I like how they shoot a lot of it limiting our information. We do not hear Toni Collette's conversations with Mission Control (we only hear her side of any conversation) but we can tell what they've said by her reactions. It engages the brain a bit and makes it more devastating than hearing it. It also generates a feeling of isolation -- no one outside this situation can "help" or even be heard in a way that matters. Only the people on the ship can find a resolution.
There are two things that feel a little contrived. One is the big one, about how the stowaway got present. The other is the solar storm. There is always something that happens at an inopportune moment to throw things off track and force hard decisions.
I remember the tittle"Robinson Crusoe", which was a story about a person who lives alone in an island was mentioned in one of my conversation with one of my uncles in my childhood.
Aww man, Seagal movies are just hilarious fun. He's so full of himself. I think Hard to Kill has to be my favorite. The dude runs like a girl. Maybe that's some super secret eastern style of running he learned when he studied under the eastern masters and flapping his hands like that actually somehow speeds him up. I dunno. It's so bad. It's also funny how his character in that movie is in a coma for what, 7 years? Yet within a weekend he is able to rehabilitate with the aid of an inspirational training montage and sex with Kelly LeBrock. Then he taunts the bad guy in the end by joking about how he will be raped in prison. Quality action hero, just an all around good guy.
I had read somewhere that Trump LOVED Seagal movies and would play them on his private plane, telling his son to fast forward through the boring talky parts to fight scenes. It explains a lot.
I had read somewhere that Trump LOVED Seagal movies and would play them on his private plane, telling his son to fast forward through the boring talky parts to fight scenes. It explains a lot.
The thought of this makes me so excited I want to punch a snake.
I still need to watch this film. I started to once, but I stopped. Perhaps I didn't want the context to ruin this for me. It's important to protect the things that matter, you know?
Finished Godzilla vs Kong (2021) last night, before it leaves HBO Max after today.
I found it got a little easier once it reached the titular battle (the first one) on the ships. At least Wingard knew people were watching for the battles. The script and character development are both disappointing and hard to follow sometimes, but the film does generally deliver a lot of fight sequences, which is what people want to see. They are generally pretty good, enough that I was laughing or shouting expletives while watching them unfold. the last one of the film (the three way fight) was just nuts.
I still don't understand how these films can consistently blow it with followable plot lines and having some heart to the film. I guess that here was supposed to be the little girl. But there's just a lot of gunk that's easy to get lost on, stuff that we're supposed to know, can just assume, or was just added as window-dressing I guess. Even Pacific Rim made more sense, even if the human emotions were sometimes too big and clumsy. But at least I felt like all the characters had through-lines, and I even felt bad when some secondary characters would die in battle. Here, I didn't care about anyone, and barely about the little girl -- let them all croak, I don't know them -- but hey let's get back to a fight sequence.
The craziness of the sequences was refreshing. However, we're back in that territory of destroying huge amounts of property and cities without addressing the deaths very much. We see people fleeing but there's no clarification on their fate. The film almost seems to assume everyone runs away safely and the city damage won't take months and years for a rebuild and billions of dollars. But there's just no way. Thousands of civilians must have died in these battles and entire city economies ruined in the process.
