Ish Posted January 15, 2020 Report Share Posted January 15, 2020 Six Underground (2019) straight to Netflix release. Rolling Stone gave it one and a half stars, saying: "This is a Michael Bay movie. It’s like someone is repeatedly poking you in the parts of your brain that register mere sensation, and keeps hammering away until a line of drool drops from your downturned lip. I get it. So do you. You’re not going to watch it. Or you are going watch it, and either decry the death of all Western civilization or pump your fists in the air. It’s another lingerie catalogue sprinkled with carnage." I agree with them 100%, except I give the movie four stars. Roger Ebert used to say (paraphrasing) ‘It's not what the movie is about, it’s how it is about it.’ Meaning that a movie should be judged based on what that movie is trying to say, not against all of cinema as a whole. This is a Michael Bay movie, it’s trying to be a Michael Bay movie, and it’s very good at being a Michael Bay movie. Pops your popcorn, crack open a cold beer, and turn up the bass on your surround sound. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romans832 Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 I thought Six Underground was fun. Plenty of issues to tear it apart, but we're not here to shred things. Totally fun movie with funny twists and turns that keep it going. Agreed Ish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted January 16, 2020 Report Share Posted January 16, 2020 Doom: Annihilation: Very hit and miss, in nearly all aspects. The fact that I watched it shortly after re-watching Event Horizon, and it fell short in basically every regard to a movie more than 20 years older, certainly did not help my impression of it. I thought some of the acting was actually quite good, particularly the banter and camaraderie within the Marine squad, but most of the stuff that was supposed to be more emotional was pretty bad. A lot of the props looked fairly cheesy and cheapo, and many of the fight scenes felt too "video game-y", for lack of a better term coming to mind. Also, I felt like the lead needed to be someone less fragile-looking. Krysten Ritter came to mind immediately as a better alternative to Amy Manson, while still having a similar appearance and vibe. In the final analysis, altho it did have its good points, I really can't recommend it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ish Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 If Krysten Ritter is your example of some less fragile-looking... Wow. Did they cast an actual porcelain doll? I’ve been considering watching Doom: Annihilation our of sheer morbid curiosity. Now I’m even more intrigued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 4 hours ago, Ish said: If Krysten Ritter is your example of some less fragile-looking... Wow. Did they cast an actual porcelain doll? I’ve been considering watching Doom: Annihilation our of sheer morbid curiosity. Now I’m even more intrigued. Keep in mind, I've only seen Ritter as Jessica Jones, but yeah, Amy Manson comes pretty close to that. Her neck looks too skinny to hold up her head with the extra weight of a helmet on it. As I said, it does have its good points, and it's on Netflix right now. There are definitely worse things you could watch to pass an hour and half or so. The Ring: Watching it today, the true horror is in the reminder of what searching the internet was like in '02. Not to mention just VHS tapes in general. Ugh. Joking aside, it's a good flick, and its success and fame are fully justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ish Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 She’s 5’9” and obviously in good shape, but she’s also only 125 lbs. and rather lanky. That’s kind of the point of her casting in Jessica Jones, she doesn’t look like she should be as strong as one athletic man, let alone super-humanly strong. Jessica Jones of Earth-616 (main Marvel Comics continuity until recently) was officially classed at Strength Class 4, meaning she can lift up to two tons. This put her in the same strength level as Spider-Man, Black Panther, and Luke Cage. Jessica Jones of Earth-199999 (the MCU) doesn’t have officially codified strength, so far as I know, but seems to be equal to her comic book counterpart. (And she’ll always be evil arch-bitch Gia Goodman from Veronica Mars to me.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 I think as much as anything, it's the way she carries herself. Manson, at least in Doom, just gives off this vibe of fragility, while Ritter can sell it when JJ's punching a moving vehicle hard enough to stop it or something. Also, like I said, something about the neck to head proportions. I really do need to get around to watching Veronica Mars at some point. EDIT: Shark Night: Way heavier than what I was looking for. One of the big reasons I like shark flicks, and other creature features, is that there's generally no intentionality, no malice. There's just something hungry, and a bunch of poor fools who have the misfortune of being delicious. This one has a human behind it all, and malice aplenty. That's not inherently a problem, but when I'm in the mood for one, getting the other doesn't work well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ish Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 Ritter is one of the rare female character actors in Hollywood that is both attractive (unconventional, perhaps, but still very good looking) and allowed to play roles where she totally transforms into the character. It’s hard to believe that Jessica Jones was also The B— in Apartment 23, but she was... and she was Gia Goodman. I know Gia was fictional, but man, I still feel deep hatred for her on a basal ganglia sort of way. Anyhow... Detective Pikachu, the “live” action Pokémon movie. Not a great film, but far better than I expected a live action Pokémon movie ever would be. It’s a children’s film with a plot that is predictable even by children’s film standards, but doesn’t really suffer for it. The CGI animation of the titular Pikachu is fantastic and is really good for the few other Pokémon that ever get close to the camera... Background monsters and other elements not in close up are a bit sketchier. Worth watching if you need a “family movie night” to entertain some young’uns and can’t stomach the thought of watching Frozen for the 24,601st time. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 14 hours ago, Ish said: She’s 5’9” and obviously in good shape, but she’s also only 125 lbs. and rather lanky. That’s kind of the point of her casting in Jessica Jones, she doesn’t look like she should be as strong as one athletic man, let alone super-humanly strong. I mean, she's thin, I don't think that is the same as being in good shape. Her muscle definition is quite lacking in the photo, which suggests to my potato ass that she is in fact, not in "good shape," just a typical skinny person. 14 hours ago, Ish said: Jessica Jones of Earth-616 (main Marvel Comics continuity until recently) was officially classed at Strength Class 4, meaning she can lift up to two tons. This put her in the same strength level as Spider-Man, Black Panther, and Luke Cage. Jessica Jones of Earth-199999 (the MCU) doesn’t have officially codified strength, so far as I know, but seems to be equal to her comic book counterpart. Going toe to toe with Luke Cage, and showing him or her (don't recall which) stretch a Steel I-beam in seconds (taking ~40k # psi) suggests that both Luke and Jess are on par, or at least playing in the same game as their counterparts. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted January 17, 2020 Report Share Posted January 17, 2020 whoops 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 Tremors 3: The series continues to hold up well. I love that they used the same actors for all the returning characters, and Jodi was a great addition. Aquaman: My overall impression is sort of like when I watched Revenge of the Sith. For any particular scene, given the actors and imagery and story and lines involved, the results should have been better. Joss Whedon's whining about Alien Resurrection also comes to mind, tho I think it's more valid here. Looking into things a bit more, I notice that James Wan has directed a lot of movies that I got a similar impression from, perhaps most notably the Insidious and Conjuring films. Also, the main theme kind of felt like a crappy knockoff of The Ecstasy of Gold 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munkie Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 13 hours ago, WestRider said: Aquaman: My overall impression is sort of like when I watched Revenge of the Sith. For any particular scene, given the actors and imagery and story and lines involved, the results should have been better. Joss Whedon's whining about Alien Resurrection also comes to mind, tho I think it's more valid here. Looking into things a bit more, I notice that James Wan has directed a lot of movies that I got a similar impression from, perhaps most notably the Insidious and Conjuring films. Also, the main theme kind of felt like a crappy knockoff of The Ecstasy of Gold I still cannot, for the life of me, remember if I've seen Aquaman or not. I'm pretty sure I did and immediately then forgot almost every single detail of it. Some days I'm not so sure I watched it because surely I'd remember something...right? Now I'm scared to watch it (again?). Because I don't want to be stuck in a loop of watching and forgetting a movie I don't like. But maybe I would like it (this time?). 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 hour ago, Munkie said: I still cannot, for the life of me, remember if I've seen Aquaman or not. I'm pretty sure I did and immediately then forgot almost every single detail of it. Some days I'm not so sure I watched it because surely I'd remember something...right? Now I'm scared to watch it (again?). Because I don't want to be stuck in a loop of watching and forgetting a movie I don't like. But maybe I would like it (this time?). No! Bad Munkie! *grabs the spray bottle* 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ish Posted January 29, 2020 Report Share Posted January 29, 2020 4 hours ago, Munkie said: I still cannot, for the life of me, remember if I've seen Aquaman or not. I'm pretty sure I did and immediately then forgot almost every single detail of it. Some days I'm not so sure I watched it because surely I'd remember something...right? No joke, this is how I wound up watching Salt three times. Once in the theatre, once on DVD when my roommate brought it home, and the third time a year later when I rented the DVD. Totally blanked on it, both times, up until the final scene when it was “Hmm, this seems a lot more familiar that just the standard cliche action-movie set piece... Oh!” 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munkie Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 6 hours ago, Ish said: No joke, this is how I wound up watching Salt three times. Once in the theatre, once on DVD when my roommate brought it home, and the third time a year later when I rented the DVD. Totally blanked on it, both times, up until the final scene when it was “Hmm, this seems a lot more familiar that just the standard cliche action-movie set piece... Oh!” Truth. That's one I randomly own but don't know why. Maybe my parents got it for me as a random buy Christmas present...? Anyway, I think I've watched it 3 times as well. I know that I have, and I remember the occasions that I watched it, but I only remember the twist/last scene. And she wears a fur hat at one point. And there's an interrogation room. And I'm pretty sure she leaps out a window too. Beyond that....🤷♂️ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ish Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 It’s Angelina Jolie playing a character with the incredibly silly name of “Salt” in a movie entitled Salt... You’d think it would be memorable if only for that. And yet... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted January 30, 2020 Report Share Posted January 30, 2020 Exit Wounds: Since it only has two words in the title, it's technically not a Steven Seagal movie. I do kind of wish I'd seen it back when it first came out, because I had more patience back then with Seagal's overly-choreographed fight scenes, but there were some strong performances from DMX, Jill Hennessy, and Michael Jai White, and they did a great job of establishing the "don't know who to trust" vibe. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munkie Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 20 hours ago, WestRider said: Exit Wounds: Since it only has two words in the title, it's technically not a Steven Seagal movie. So close. Since it doesn't have a preposition in the title... Under Siege Above the Law Beyond the Law On Deadly Ground Out for Justice Half Past Dead Fire Down Below Out of Reach Into the Sun End of a Gun is also spacially aware, but not technically a preposition. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 46 minutes ago, Munkie said: So close. Since it doesn't have a preposition in the title... Under Siege Above the Law Beyond the Law On Deadly Ground Out for Justice Half Past Dead Fire Down Below Out of Reach Into the Sun End of a Gun is also spacially aware, but not technically a preposition. Under Siege is also not technically a Steven Seagal movie. Under Siege 2 is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ish Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 4 minutes ago, WestRider said: Under Siege is also not technically a Steven Seagal movie. Under Siege 2 is. First of all, it’s Under Siege 2: Dark Territory, show some respect for the cinematic tour de force and use the full title. Second of all, how in the world can Under Siege not be considered a Steven Seagal movie!? He’s not just the star, he’s also the producer! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Glacius Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 1917: I really enjoyed it. Good solid story, great cinematography, and lovely music. I will have no problem at all watching it again and again. The long shots of no-man's land were simply fantastic. Also the realization of communication and intel limitations just really strikes home with this film. If you like war movies, this one should check a lot of boxes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ish Posted January 31, 2020 Report Share Posted January 31, 2020 38 minutes ago, Brother Glacius said: 1917: I really enjoyed it. Good solid story, great cinematography, and lovely music. I will have no problem at all watching it again and again. The long shots of no-man's land were simply fantastic. Also the realization of communication and intel limitations just really strikes home with this film. If you like war movies, this one should check a lot of boxes. How does it compare to Paths of Glory? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 3 hours ago, Ish said: First of all, it’s Under Siege 2: Dark Territory, show some respect for the cinematic tour de force and use the full title. Second of all, how in the world can Under Siege not be considered a Steven Seagal movie!? He’s not just the star, he’s also the producer! It only qualifies if it's Steven Seagal in Three Word Title. I didn't make up the rule, I just acknowledge it. Oh, and Sniper: Combat Ops is totally another counterexample to the preposition thing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munkie Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 1 minute ago, WestRider said: It only qualifies if it's Steven Seagal in Three Word Title. I didn't make up the rule, I just acknowledge it. Oh, and Sniper: Combat Ops is totally another counterexample to the preposition thing. I know. That was pretty much a comprehensive list I posted. Under Siege just immediately came to mind when you first alluded to the rule. It seems odd that there's a rule that precludes probably his best film and certaintly one of the most signature ones. But there is definitely a trend there. Of his 59 appearances on IMDB, I count 25 (26 if we generously grant you Under Siege 2). So a wee bit under half. But Steven Seagal is a remarkable piece of [big bad swear word] and has broken just about every moral, ethical, and legal code there is, so breaking this titling rule more often than not certainly isn't out of the question. The one bit of satisfaction we can glean from such a monstrous human being proving that fame grants you a pretty long rope 58 times, is that he is is the butt of a joke that everyone but he has gotten for 3 decades. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ish Posted February 1, 2020 Report Share Posted February 1, 2020 17 minutes ago, WestRider said: It only qualifies if it's Steven Seagal in Three Word Title. I didn't make up the rule, I just acknowledge it. Oh, and Sniper: Combat Ops is totally another counterexample to the preposition thing If it helps, me and most of my friends refer to it almost exclusively as Just A Cook 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.