Posts by casualotter21

Richard Hernandez13 said:And what I love most about it is how sincere it feels.
It avoids being some kind of self-deprecating, cynical garbage—something that could have easily happened if this weren't in the hands of Brad Bird.

If I were to put it another way: The Incredibles are sincere, but they aren't cynical or totally depressing in that sincerity. It seems to me that the two most common extremes I encounter in comics, movies, and novels are either extremely naive stories with happy endings, or depressive, cynical tales where the worst possible outcome happens every single time. The former is shallow escapism, while the latter is—at least in my opinion—a hyper-reactive response to that exact type of escapism.

A few months back, I was going back and forth with Nephrite about how I just don't care for depressing comics. Aside from the fact that they bring me down, it seems much, much easier to craft a depressing ending that feels believable to the reader than to write a "happy" ending that doesn't make people roll their eyes at the perceived naivety, but instead makes them think, "Okay, I can actually see things turning out this way." Dan Simmons' novel "Hyperion" or Stephen King's "insomnia" are good examples of this: the good guys win, but only after making massive sacrifices.

One film critic once wrote that the romantic comedy is actually one of the hardest genres to pull off: how do you make a romance that isn't stupid without it becoming childishly naive? How do you strike that balance between lighthearted entertainment and realism in a movie that is ultimately meant to entertain? The Incredibles hit that sweet spot perfectly: they are upbeat enough to lift your mood, yet grounded enough that I'm not rolling my eyes at the sentimentality.

Melissa Moore32 said:Well, it doesn't work quite like that... you'll have to try a little harder...🙂...

Look, over the last year—or maybe eighteen months—I haven't really gone out of my way to write about how much I enjoyed a movie. What’s actually the point of repeating myself?

But I can tell you this: "The Incredibles" is one of those adventure films that will serve as my benchmark for everything else moving forward. I might group "Die a Man" one and three, the "Lethal Weapon" series, "Batman Returns", "X-Men 2", and the first and third "Indiana Jones" movies in that same category. I’m actually glad "The Incredibles" was the last movie I saw in theaters this year; if I had watched them *before* all the other films I’ve reviewed lately, none of those others would have seemed even half as good.

Compared to "The Incredibles," "Spider-Man 2" pales in comparison, "Van Helsing" feels like a somewhat charming but mindless flick, "Hellboy" has some decent ideas and bits of fun, and "Sky Captain" is basically just a colorful picture book. It isn't necessarily that these other films are bad, it's just that "The Incredibles" are so... incredibly good.

The alternative snobs (if you'll excuse the term) love to complain that adventure movies are just shallow, commercial garbage. If that were true, making a perfect action movie wouldn't be such a challenge. However, reality shows us otherwise. To me, a perfect adventure film needs characters you actually want to root for, a thrilling plot, a cool villain, great style, and at least three genuinely funny moments. When I look back at most movies I watch, they usually only hit two or three of those marks (with rare exceptions like "Resident Evil," "Ribbit's Chronicle," or "Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever"). "The Incredibles" hits all five. 🙂 👍

The reason it took me so long to respond is that I've spent the entire day processing my impressions. The only other action movie in the last 18 months that truly impressed me was "Kill Bill" one. But while "Kill Bill" is more of a blast for a handful of cinephiles in a theater who "get" the Quentin Tarantino style, "The Incredibles" is something the whole family can actually enjoy. And that is freaking HARD to achieve.

I don't know; I have pretty low standards for cinema-as-entertainment, but this is easily the best thing I've seen in a theater in the past year.

and don't put it on the blog 🙄 because that's not the vibe.

The blog is reserved for two specific categories:
1) Stupid, bad movies that deserve my mockery.
2) Stupid movies that I find charmingly mindless.

"The Incredibles" automatically disqualifies itself from both. 😬

Wow. I can't quite recall the last time I sat through an action movie this genuinely good. I believe it might have been the third Indiana Jones. Or perhaps "Die a Man." I honestly couldn't say.

Wow.

ironhawk36 said:What about James Cagney? Or maybe Mickey Rooney?

Much appreciated. We probably shouldn't overlook the horror icons either: Vincent Price, Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, and Peter Lorre.

I’ve never had much patience for these kinds of lists, mostly because they tend to expose just how shallow the collective intellect of the population has become. It feels like these surveys exclusively poll people in their 20s and 30s—a demographic whose historical memory barely stretches back a decade, let alone further. They seem far too disinterested, or perhaps just too lazy, to care about anything that happened before they were born. I mean, how could icons like David Beckham or Justin Timberlake even find themselves on such a list when the 20th century was overflowing with legends like Errol Flynn, John Wayne, Rudolph Valentino, Clark Gable, Spencer Tracy, Douglas Fairbanks, Cary Grant, Gary Cooper, Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Veronica Lake, James Mason, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, James Stewart, or Marlon Brando?

To me, much like many others, Lee - Cuvaj is a walking joke. But if he truly finds joy in filmmaking and has the opportunity to pursue it, then I suppose he should be happy about it.

Well, I finally posted my review on my blog. I didn't want to drop it here since it's incredibly long (three full pages in Word) and it’s loaded with spoilers. Not that it matters much with this genre—if this movie isn't predictable, I don't know what is—but I tend to get annoyed when people start dropping spoilers for new releases all over the forum. Look, the critique is lengthy, but honestly, the Sky Lord deserves every single line!

I won't even bother sending you the link to the whole blog; I'll just link directly to the text so you don't have to deal with the extra loading time. 👋 😬

Richard Howard2 said:So you actually go to the movies!? Well, I suppose I’ll have to watch my back next time...

You'll figure him out pretty quickly, since he's the only one here reviewing films alongside God.

cosmicraven2 said:I finally sat down to watch Resident Evil 2. Honestly, compared to the first one, it was a bit of a letdown.

Man, if it's that bad, I clearly made the right call by posting my thoughts on Resident Evil over on my blog. It sounds like the sequel is either complete garbage or just incredibly boring. Not that I'm surprised, though.

Richard Howard2 said:I’m not sure if you guys are familiar with this one, but it was actually one of the biggest influences on GNISS.

Yeah, I've seen it. I remember catching the whole thing on some American TV channel back when I was just starting elementary school.

My take? It definitely influenced Sky Lord, but honestly, it doesn't stand out much more than any other sci-fi romp from the 1930s. There isn't really anything in that movie I haven't seen elsewhere, at least regarding the design of the tanks, planes, and that sort of stuff.

BTW, Icepick, I’m finally sitting down to write that film review for the blog! 👋

quietdriver3 said:The Majestic DVD includes some special features, including a full version of "The Pirates of the Caribbean" which runs about ten minutes.
In my humble opinion, it was worth the purchase just for that single inclusion.$4.00

Good grief, now I feel compelled to go hunt down that specific DVD just for that one feature.😁 😁 😁

But hold on, why Tarantino? I’d probably pick Sam Raimi or even Tim Burton over him any day.

Well, Sam Raimi certainly works. Burton is a decent second choice, though perhaps slightly less so. Tarantino was my initial thought simply because he wallows in cinematic trash and pulp fiction quite aggressively, much like a pig in the mud, though his true passion seems to lie more with the aesthetics of the 1970s.

quietdriver3 said:I really am a complete moron.😵

I just realized what was missing from this movie...

Bruce Campbell in the lead role!!!!!

If Quentin Tarantino had directed it, he probably would have included him. Though that would have resulted in a completely different film—not necessarily less childish, just fundamentally different in its execution.

A few days ago, I watched "Majestic" starring Jim Carrey; it’s a sentimental melodrama about a struggling little Hollywood screenwriter fighting against the oppression of a 1950s anti-American activities commission, which serves as a nice way to show... actually, the movie was garbage.

However, the crucial part is that Jim Carrey and his girlfriend go to the cinema at the start of the film to watch some black-and-white action flick from the 1930s titled "The Pirates of the Caribbean". An evil bedouin is just about to kill the leading lady when suddenly BRUCE CAMPBELL ARRIVES!!! Dressed exactly like those 1930s explorers, saber in hand! Here is the dialogue:
Evil Bedouin: "YOUR PRESENCE IS VERY IRRITATING!"
Bruce: "Yeah, I get that a lot."

Nice work, Bruce! A tiny cameo, but worth its weight in gold! 👍 👍

Richard Hernandez13 said:Roger Ebert once remarked that Monty Python could probably turn the exact same script into a movie. 😬

A guy finds a treasure map on the back of the Declaration of Independence?

Figures.

You overlooked the most critical detail: it was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. Sorry, Richard Hernandez13, but I’m steering clear of that one unless I start hearing a mountain of glowing reviews about him.

quietdriver3 said:I wonder what someone with a Spielbergian sensibility would have done if they had been tasked with making a film based on the Golden Age of Comics...

Well, you can say whatever you want!

casualotter21 said:I actually found myself laughing at some of the jokes that were clearly intended to be funny.

Isn't that just great? After sitting through so many trashy flicks lately, it’s actually quite refreshing to watch an American sci-fi adventure where you can laugh WITH the movie rather than at it.

Richard Howard2 said:What is wrong with you people?

So, we have different tastes? 🙂

A shame.

Look, personally, I think the movie is great because films that prioritize style over substance have always been my weakness, and when I encounter one that adheres so consistently to its predetermined aesthetic, I can’t help but be impressed. Does that mean the film is just a colorful picture book? Yes.

And if it could have been better, it could have. But Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is one of those rare films where saying "it could have been better" isn't a critique, but a genuine lament: if the leads had been a bit more relaxed and the supporting cast possessed a bit more personality (with the honorable exception of Angelina Jolly Roger), the film might—*might*—have actually been as good as—dare I say it?—The Optimists.

But even as it stands, I find the film quite good: a vibrant, entertaining picture book with enough style to ensure I was never bored for a single second.

Richard Hernandez13 said:Consumer protection agencies really ought to step up and handle this.

That might be the only way to actually see some progress. Honestly, being ripped off at a movie theater is child's play compared to the exploitation within the American legal system; there, you pay your fees just to wait five years for a hearing instead of fifteen minutes.

Until then, my only advice is to follow my lead: grab seats near the exit and slip into the theater about ten or fifteen minutes after the "showtime" has passed.

The movie is exactly like this:


Consider yourselves warned.

I personally found it more entertaining than Van Helsing. More fun than Kill Bill 2. More enjoyable than LXG. Ribbit's Chronicles and Underworld are left far behind in the dust.

The crew behind Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow set out to create a film in the style of 1930s pulp sci-fi, and they executed it flawlessly: the characters, the plot, those sci-fi gadgets, the dialogue... In terms of style, the film remains true to itself from the first minute to the last, much more so than Van Helsing (or so it seems to me). It is as silly as can be, but that is exactly how 1930s pulp sci-fi was. You will either love this film or absolutely despise it.

Is Michelle Rodriguez starring in it? No? Then Resident Evil has officially lost the only reason I had for wanting to watch it.