605 posts shown.
I just finished watching this film, which felt like a flashy, educational Disney's picture book for kids: easy to consume and even easier to forget. It involves some nonsense about Freemasons, a treasure map hidden on the back of the Declaration of Independence, a villainous character who suddenly pops up wanting the loot for himself, and some sort of tedious scavenger hunt plot...
I’d much rather rewatch Indiana Jones or The Mummy.
It was alright, I suppose. Though, considering we are talking about Martin Scorsese (correct me if I've misspelled his name), it was a disappointment, to say the least. Mind you, I wouldn't call myself a die-hard fan, but he is one of those directors where, whenever I see one of his titles pop up, I usually think, "Yeah, this looks like one of those heavy adult dramas I typically try to avoid." But honestly, haven't we seen this kind of biopic formula a thousand times already?
The movie is about a famous person. It starts, for instance, with a childhood scene that is likely entirely fabricated, yet serves to show us they were destined for greatness from day one. Say, a young famous person sits in a washbasin and—if they happen to be a renowned diver—splashes around in there for five straight minutes while everyone else watches in awe. Or if it’s Napoleon, he sinks all the paper boats in a basin and tells his grandmother he’ll defeat the British Navy just like that, prompting her to look at him with pure wonder and admiration.
Fast forward about twenty years. The famous person is grown now and possesses a Vision. Naturally, nobody around them understands this Vision. This leads to dialogue along the lines of:
Famous person: "Don't you see? We have to start manufacturing ballpoint pens! A massive war is brewing in Europe, and we must be ready."
Average Joe: "THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE! AND THERE WON'T BE A WAR!"
Meanwhile, we sit in front of the TV, smirking to ourselves because we know he was right, feeling quite superior about how foolish people were back then compared to us today.
We are shown that the famous person is driven by Passion. This Passion is such that he constantly snaps at people and picks fights. A convenient female lead is introduced into the plot. Through His relationships with Her, we see how he is actually a man haunted by a Vision and a fear. Simultaneously, we see that Passion has a Dark Side that also haunts the famous person with a Vision. And so, we can sit in the theater, sigh, and say, "Ah, I suppose these are just those complex people."
The film concludes with the death of the protagonist, and we exit the theater nodding our heads, thinking, "Yes, yes, such is the fate of Complex People with a fear and a Vision."
I don't care for these biopics because it feels like you could make one about anyone using this template. For example, that dialogue about the pens above is actually from a sketch on the comedy series "Smith & Jones," which parodied these kinds of movies over ten or fifteen years ago. The sketch was about a Canadian inventor of the ballpoint pen who was a famous person with a fear, a Vision, and a Dark Side.
I don't think Howard Hughes was as terrible as this makes it sound, but it was simply... tasteless. These types of biopics leave no impression on me, especially not when they are about Howard Hughes, a man who definitely had far too much money and time on his hands.
On the bright side: there are plenty of vintage planes in the film—which is standard. There is Kate Beckinsale playing... someone, which is also standard. There is Cate Blanchett (who is legendary) playing Katherine Hepburn (who is also legendary). That alone justifies the two hours I spent. As for the rest... .
Melissa Moore32 said:Look, there is a massive difference between seeing a live performance and just watching the movie by yourself at home.
Ultimately, the mere fact that you can easily put this movie on during a random evening when you have nothing better to do—without anyone sitting next to you to joke around with—suggests the film possesses some level of merit... or let’s not get carried away 😬...it just has that certain "something" that keeps people coming back.
I don't know, props to Tim Curry for his performance in fishnets and weights, but I still don't think the movie is all that great. I should probably burn the soundtrack to a disc again, though.
For everything else, I'll stick to Robin Williams' live shows and Kung Pow!. 😁
Melissa Moore32 said:Personally, I don't find the movie funny at all, and I'd bet most people feel the same way. [/B]
Then why on earth do people even watch it? If you want an example of pure trash—as in a total loser of a film that people only sit through so they can mock it—this is it. I honestly don't see any other redeeming qualities here.
As for what other people think, I might actually believe them if I hadn't heard descriptions from at least three different sources (including this thread) about live screenings where the entire audience spends the whole time making fun of the movie and laughing at it.
dr_jekyll said:Pure female jealousy. 😎
Even if she's an actress, I'm not buying it.
Maybe the girl was trying to say that while Jessica might have the curves, she lacks the charisma for a role like this.
I see a similar issue in Resident Evil: Milla Jovovich is undeniably gorgeous and spends the whole movie jumping around in some skimpy outfit, but when she—looking more like a slender runway model—starts hacking away at zombies, it doesn't look cool; it actually looks pretty ridiculous.
However, when
Michelle Rodriguez starts laying down suppressive fire on the zombies, that’s easily the best part of that entire pathetic movie. Michelle is so hot in RE that Milla can't even compete. And with rodrigezik, you barely even see a cleavage in the whole film.
Anyway, do you have any 1024x768 versions? 😁
Google is your friend.
Also:
out Now is a fantastic site for movie stills, and I obviously can't be spamming that link all over the forum.😬
Richard Hernandez13 said:Uwe Boll?
Yes. And why on earth are you adding accent marks to the letters?
Brian Edwards78 said:What could possibly be more ridiculous than that scene where the vampire spins Blade around by his ankles, and he just slams his head right into a foot-thick marble pillar? Blade doesn't even feel it, but the damn pillar snaps like it’s made of Styrofoam. Look, I get it—he’s a superhero, a daywalker, a total badass—but those Ray-Bans? They aren't doing anything to protect him from that impact!!!!1 🙏 🙏 🙏
Seriously! Now I’m going to go out and buy some Ray-Bans immediately, just in case an evil vampire decides to spin me into a structural column; at least I'll know my eyewear will survive the encounter.
It reminds me of those old knife commercials: "THESE KNIVES CAN CUT THROUGH AN AUTOMOBILE TIRE!" I don't know about you guys, but I really wouldn't want to eat dinner at a place where the chef uses his cutlery to slice through things other than food.
I find The Rocky Horror Picture Show to be perfectly fine, though I don't quite share the manic enthusiasm some people have for it. It’s amusing enough, I suppose, if not laugh-out-loud hilarious. I do enjoy Musica, particularly that title track which I find myself humming quite often.
"SCIENCEEEEE FICTIOOOOOOON"
<uuu- UUUU - uuuu>
"DOUBLE FEATUREEEEE!"
As for those obscure, offbeat comedies that I can watch repeatedly without getting bored, I would put Kung Pow in that category.
Yes, just as Richard Hernandez13 mentioned: there’s already a thread about BloodRayne further down, though I personally feel "Uwe Boll hate club" would serve as a far more fitting title. 😬
slyrider16 said:WHO IS GOING TO WIN???
Hmm, let's see.
Paul Anderson:Resident Evil is garbage. Giving it one mediocre point.
Event Horizon is decent gothic horror. Set on a spaceship, though! They actually went through the trouble of providing some makeshift explanation for why the ship is being hit by lightning storms. If they had their way, they probably would have thrown in a creaky wooden door somewhere, too. It isn't terrible, but that’s the problem: the movie is a *horror* film. A horror film should actually be scary.
Uwe Boll — I haven't seen anything by him, but any director whose name is UWE BOLL (please excuse my pronunciation) has to be a total failure. Plus, the guy already has two films on the IMDb list of the 100 worst movies, and he isn't even 40 yet. Quite an achievement!
Cro Fag said:burning a woman at a sham trial while clutching a book that explicitly forbids killing
😵
Welcome to the real world. 🙂
Crook said:I’ve been a huge fan of hers ever since I saw this movie.
👍
Just to see the Battle of the Neretva...
In the end, I decided to skip his show entirely and just watch Looney Tunes: Back in Action on DVD instead. Choices, choices...
Superskeptik said:Who else thinks The Incredibles is the best movie of 2004?
I saw it in theaters five times (always with subtitles) and I'm honestly bummed it’s not still playing, because I'd go see it again in a heartbeat...
Give me a break.
I wouldn't go so far as calling it the "best movie of the year," but it was definitely the most fun. To me, The Incredibles is the perfect blueprint for what an action flick should be: great special effects, solid humor, and effortless style, all wrapped up in characters you actually care about and a plot that isn't riddled with the kind of holes that make a theater audience laugh at how bad it is.
It wasn't until I watched it that I realized just how rare truly good escapist cinema has become in Hollywood.
Wheeler said:I caught this movie recently, and it’s actually quite well-made. Between the solid special effects, the action choreography, and a surprisingly compelling plot, it stands out as one of the best releases from early 2005—certainly a promising start to a great year for cinema...
You're using an old thread
here
Richard Hernandez13 said:The real headache is that Disney owns the entire Pixar catalog from their partnership days—which basically gives them the green light to churn out sequels whenever they feel like it.
Honestly, I’m starting to get a little nervous. 😲 😱 🙂
Melissa Moore32 said:God forbid. 😱
Wait, hold on—why all this negativity regarding sequels? When it comes to Pixar, I thought Toy Story was great, and honestly, Toy Story 2 was even better.
Richard Hernandez13 said:It’s all just classic Alan Moore. Back in the eighties, he basically
deconstructed the whole superhero mythos with
Watchmen. The Incredibles
essentially takes that entire Moore-esque trajectory and condenses it into one single late-night feature film.
First, you have the subverted mythology: superheroes become mere people who have to
deal with mundane human struggles. Some struggle to adapt (Mr.
Incredible), while others subconsciously embrace it (Elastigirl)—only to eventually
discover their true nature and purpose.
Well, here we go again. A few weeks ago, I picked up Watchmen by Watashi, but I didn't actually get around to reading it until after I watched The Incredibles. I ended up really enjoying the graphic novel. Even though it's incredibly dark, given the themes it tackles—like the Cold War, consumerist crises, assault, and murder—I found it surprisingly easy to sink my teeth into.
Melissa Moore32 said:Hey, I really enjoy your posts and your insights, especially when you draw those clever connections between movies like hard drive and The Incredibles.👍
Heh, thanks. I'm glad someone actually appreciates them. I might pop back up later with more commentary. Right now, I'm thinking about hitting up Jay and Watashi to see if they want to go catch it again (they haven't seen it yet).
Besides, I need something to pass the time during these late hours after my Nintendo emulator glitched out and I lost an hour of grinding through five levels.😵 😁
Well, thanks for nothing, man! 🙂 🙂 😬
Just for fun, here is a satirical post about "The Incredibles" that someone
wrote on the news sites . Naturally, it's just a joke written by one of those people who lives and breathes Pixar movies. Still, the guy made a pretty sharp point about the current state of Hollywood.