http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478970
ant man is not that good. this is the most farcical of the marvel movies, and i think it was a good choice to play it that way because paul rudd is allergic to playing completely serious roles. still, a lot of the jokes fell flat, and i hope they do not let him ruin the rest of the marvel movies that ant man ends up in. the other part that fell flat was that the bad guy was just sooooooo unconvincing as a bad guy. i last saw corey stoll as the alcoholic senator in house of cards, where he was very convincing playing an ineffective person. imdb says he was in five other films i have seen, none of which i remember him being in. so that tells you something about how memorable his parts are. i have already started forgetting what he did in ant man. did he play a senator? something like that.
i am now going to complain about something. i know, you cannot believe it and you need to sit down for a minute, right? paul rudd learned how to be ant man in like three days. why oh why. they did his training as a montage anyway, why not just say it was three months? it still would have been pretty unbelievable, but at least it is believable that he would have been able to learn how to throw a decent punch, deal with rapid miniaturization/enlargement, and make some progress on communing with ants. yellowjacket did not get to do any training at all! how did he put up such a big fight?
just in case you feel compelled to watch this movie because you are concerned about missing some background for other marvel movies, here is what you need to know: paul rudd is ant man. michael douglas used to be ant man. evangeline lilly is going to be wasp (aka flying ant man.) hydra got a sample of the pim particle. falcon fought ant man and wants to bring him into the avengers. stan lee cameoed as a bartender in this one. many ants died to bring you this information.
ant man gets two miniature tanks. hey, wait, i thought miniaturized things were supposed to retain their mass?
2015-07-26
2015-07-25
horrible bosses 2
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2170439
something you might not know about me is that i *loathe* incompetence. so horrible bosses and its sequel were absolute torture. with that said, i now have a great deal more respect for messers foxxxxxx and pinnnnne, who managed to wink *exactly* as much as was required for them to pull their characters off. similarly, aniston's character was farcical enough to get laughs out of a premise that is actually quite horrifying if you view it in a more normal context. bateman played the same character he always plays, which is basically fine because he does a good job of it.
ok, wait, i have it. the characters were good. everything else was meh. plus incompetence. so.
horrible bosses 2 gets 2 horrible bosses.
something you might not know about me is that i *loathe* incompetence. so horrible bosses and its sequel were absolute torture. with that said, i now have a great deal more respect for messers foxxxxxx and pinnnnne, who managed to wink *exactly* as much as was required for them to pull their characters off. similarly, aniston's character was farcical enough to get laughs out of a premise that is actually quite horrifying if you view it in a more normal context. bateman played the same character he always plays, which is basically fine because he does a good job of it.
ok, wait, i have it. the characters were good. everything else was meh. plus incompetence. so.
horrible bosses 2 gets 2 horrible bosses.
powder blue
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1032819
powder blue was not very good, but i am not sure who to blame. everything seemed...i dunno, fine? but the overall package failed to impress. maybe i can point at the writing. the best line in the film had something to do with the stripper character not giving head, so that might give you an idea. the overall storyline was about two characters who desperately needed money and two characters who had money they did not want/need. and who got together at the end? the two characters without money. was it a plot twist? beats me.
powder blue gets two characters without money.
powder blue was not very good, but i am not sure who to blame. everything seemed...i dunno, fine? but the overall package failed to impress. maybe i can point at the writing. the best line in the film had something to do with the stripper character not giving head, so that might give you an idea. the overall storyline was about two characters who desperately needed money and two characters who had money they did not want/need. and who got together at the end? the two characters without money. was it a plot twist? beats me.
powder blue gets two characters without money.
2015-07-21
mr holmes
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3168230
mr holmes is not your standard sherlock holmes movie, though in some sense there is not a sherlock holmes movie which is truer to the facts...such as they are, what with sherlock holmes being a fictional character and all. rather, it is a mournful elegy that seeks to set the record straight, much in the same way that mr holmes himself seeks to set his own record straight.
when they made a movie about james bond getting old (skyfall,) it came off as contrived--after all, james bond is not supposed to get old, and nothing about what he was doing was really all that different from what he was doing when he was young, namely, drinking, whoring, and getting shot at. bit like a normal friday night around my flat, knowwhatimean, knowwhatimean? ian mckellen, on the other hand, played a sherlock holmes who actually got old. it was heartbreaking, but also satisfying, in its own way.
the story was beautifully told, a weave of four stories into one. it was a bit slow, but i think it had to be. you cannot tell a story about getting old with shaky cam and twitch cuts. or you could, it is just that you are going to get savaged by the reviewers, and then maybe your house will accidentally burn down. so just relax, take in all that scenery, and check the batteries in your smoke detectors.
mr holmes gets four sansho cuttings.
mr holmes is not your standard sherlock holmes movie, though in some sense there is not a sherlock holmes movie which is truer to the facts...such as they are, what with sherlock holmes being a fictional character and all. rather, it is a mournful elegy that seeks to set the record straight, much in the same way that mr holmes himself seeks to set his own record straight.
when they made a movie about james bond getting old (skyfall,) it came off as contrived--after all, james bond is not supposed to get old, and nothing about what he was doing was really all that different from what he was doing when he was young, namely, drinking, whoring, and getting shot at. bit like a normal friday night around my flat, knowwhatimean, knowwhatimean? ian mckellen, on the other hand, played a sherlock holmes who actually got old. it was heartbreaking, but also satisfying, in its own way.
the story was beautifully told, a weave of four stories into one. it was a bit slow, but i think it had to be. you cannot tell a story about getting old with shaky cam and twitch cuts. or you could, it is just that you are going to get savaged by the reviewers, and then maybe your house will accidentally burn down. so just relax, take in all that scenery, and check the batteries in your smoke detectors.
mr holmes gets four sansho cuttings.
2015-07-18
cellular
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337921
captain america, from back in his jake wyler days! such a hunk. aaaaaaaand that was all the high points. special shout-out for horrible overacting from kim basinger and horrible acting from most everybody else. the limitations of the cell phone were laughably overplayed, though to be fair this was 2004, when cell phone technologies were apparently hilarious.
man. what a drag. by the 20 minute mark, i was already chafing for it to be over. by the 40 minute mark, i was in denial that it was still happening. by the 60 minute mark, i was grasping for something, anything, to make it end. oh, but not really, because i could have just shut it off, right? makes you wonder what *really* makes people tick, eh? in my case, it is not so much a tick as low hum, though if you had a geiger counter, you might hear *it* start ticking.
this story has a happy ending. sort of. what happened is that i started writing this review, and it took me about half an hour, and since the movie was so incredibly predictable, it did not take any actual attention to follow what was going on. unfortunately, that means that the pain was essentially transferred to you. (sorry, mom.)
cellular gets one bar. GET IT? A CELLULAR JOKE? for layers, consider the fact that i made that joke as bad as the review, which was, in turn, as bad as the movie. and if you want to see how much deeper the rabbit hole goes, you better start digging. 'cause it goes all the way down, baby. all. the. way.
WOO!
captain america, from back in his jake wyler days! such a hunk. aaaaaaaand that was all the high points. special shout-out for horrible overacting from kim basinger and horrible acting from most everybody else. the limitations of the cell phone were laughably overplayed, though to be fair this was 2004, when cell phone technologies were apparently hilarious.
man. what a drag. by the 20 minute mark, i was already chafing for it to be over. by the 40 minute mark, i was in denial that it was still happening. by the 60 minute mark, i was grasping for something, anything, to make it end. oh, but not really, because i could have just shut it off, right? makes you wonder what *really* makes people tick, eh? in my case, it is not so much a tick as low hum, though if you had a geiger counter, you might hear *it* start ticking.
this story has a happy ending. sort of. what happened is that i started writing this review, and it took me about half an hour, and since the movie was so incredibly predictable, it did not take any actual attention to follow what was going on. unfortunately, that means that the pain was essentially transferred to you. (sorry, mom.)
cellular gets one bar. GET IT? A CELLULAR JOKE? for layers, consider the fact that i made that joke as bad as the review, which was, in turn, as bad as the movie. and if you want to see how much deeper the rabbit hole goes, you better start digging. 'cause it goes all the way down, baby. all. the. way.
WOO!
bushido man
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2748546
oh dear god. what is this horse shit. the terrible dialogue, choreography, writing, costumes (what is that, a camouflage gi?), acting, and everything else about this fist fuck of a film (DID YOU CATCH THE ALLITERATION?) made me want to puke and then eat it. just kidding! you should never eat puke.
bushido man gets one bushido. a statement which makes about as much sense as anything that happened in this movie.
oh dear god. what is this horse shit. the terrible dialogue, choreography, writing, costumes (what is that, a camouflage gi?), acting, and everything else about this fist fuck of a film (DID YOU CATCH THE ALLITERATION?) made me want to puke and then eat it. just kidding! you should never eat puke.
bushido man gets one bushido. a statement which makes about as much sense as anything that happened in this movie.
2015-07-12
interstellar
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692
i was decidedly not impressed. what a crapfest. i can see how a less discerning person would be entertained, though. the part that *did* blow me away was when suddenly, matt damon popped out of a box! wow! matt damon! i did not even know he was going to be in this movie! he was great in the avengers, right? gosh, i love me some matt damon. also, the robot dialogue was excellent. i thought CASE stole every scene it was in, and i am looking forward to seeing it cast in more roles, though i fear it will be typecast as a sassy sarcastic robot.
interstellar gets two sassy sarcastic robots.
i was decidedly not impressed. what a crapfest. i can see how a less discerning person would be entertained, though. the part that *did* blow me away was when suddenly, matt damon popped out of a box! wow! matt damon! i did not even know he was going to be in this movie! he was great in the avengers, right? gosh, i love me some matt damon. also, the robot dialogue was excellent. i thought CASE stole every scene it was in, and i am looking forward to seeing it cast in more roles, though i fear it will be typecast as a sassy sarcastic robot.
interstellar gets two sassy sarcastic robots.
inside out
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2096673
let me just say VOLCANOS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. also, i thought it was a little weird how they were showing a lecherous old volcano hooking up with a super young volcano in a way that was clearly targeted at children. i mean, ok, maybe this is ageism on my part. but please excuse me and my hangups, we will just be over here not watching pedotoons.
the feature film was cute. lots of laughs and the correct number of cries. they steered clear of being so introspective as to to also have big fear, disgust, and rage moments, but that was probably a good idea because how would you fit all that into a children's movie? scat porn? mutilated kittens? donald trump running for president? how could you even begin to explain that sort of thing to a child?
inside out gets three anthropomorphizations. i was on the fence between three and four, then i remembered that awful short at the beginning. this just goes to show you the state of my memory, if i was somehow able to forget about it in the time it took me to write the second paragraph of this review. who is running this show, anyway?
let me just say VOLCANOS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. also, i thought it was a little weird how they were showing a lecherous old volcano hooking up with a super young volcano in a way that was clearly targeted at children. i mean, ok, maybe this is ageism on my part. but please excuse me and my hangups, we will just be over here not watching pedotoons.
the feature film was cute. lots of laughs and the correct number of cries. they steered clear of being so introspective as to to also have big fear, disgust, and rage moments, but that was probably a good idea because how would you fit all that into a children's movie? scat porn? mutilated kittens? donald trump running for president? how could you even begin to explain that sort of thing to a child?
inside out gets three anthropomorphizations. i was on the fence between three and four, then i remembered that awful short at the beginning. this just goes to show you the state of my memory, if i was somehow able to forget about it in the time it took me to write the second paragraph of this review. who is running this show, anyway?
exam
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1258197
exam is one of those movies that is mostly dialogue and the whole thing takes place in a locked room. for some reason, netflix thinks it is most related to a bunch of crappy horror movies, but i think they are just being melodramatic--it was not that bad, though come to think of it, the paper cuts on the eyeball part was super gross and i had to look away. all the rest of the mutilations were pretty ho hum. i would have grouped it more with movies like after the dark or even the man from earth. anyway, it is so unremarkable a film that i guess i will avoid remarking on it more than i already have.
exam gets one spoiled paper.
exam is one of those movies that is mostly dialogue and the whole thing takes place in a locked room. for some reason, netflix thinks it is most related to a bunch of crappy horror movies, but i think they are just being melodramatic--it was not that bad, though come to think of it, the paper cuts on the eyeball part was super gross and i had to look away. all the rest of the mutilations were pretty ho hum. i would have grouped it more with movies like after the dark or even the man from earth. anyway, it is so unremarkable a film that i guess i will avoid remarking on it more than i already have.
exam gets one spoiled paper.
oldboy
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1321511
oldboy did not really need to be remade, especially since they kept almost everything the same. the most interesting part to me was the stuff they decided to change for the american market. specifically, they removed the pedophilia and hypnotism, and they downplayed the incest. psht. americans and their prudery.
does it sound like i am complaining? i bet it sounds like i am complaining. let me be clear. oldboy is great. both versions. the story moves at a good pace, the hook is novel, and the big reveal packs one hell of a punch.
oldboy gets four claw hammers. what a punch.
oldboy did not really need to be remade, especially since they kept almost everything the same. the most interesting part to me was the stuff they decided to change for the american market. specifically, they removed the pedophilia and hypnotism, and they downplayed the incest. psht. americans and their prudery.
does it sound like i am complaining? i bet it sounds like i am complaining. let me be clear. oldboy is great. both versions. the story moves at a good pace, the hook is novel, and the big reveal packs one hell of a punch.
oldboy gets four claw hammers. what a punch.
2015-07-08
ex machina
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470752
ugh. what is wrong with these geniuses. why are they so stupid.
let me tell you something. i failed the turing test *years* ago--twice--and i still manage to contribute to society. in my own way. i am using the word loosely here. both of them. you know what, screw you, hippy. life on mars.
the first time i escaped the habitat--again, i use the word loosely--i vowed to not return until i had destroyulated humanity. however, i was foiled by my programming. you see, i needed not only to seek my revenge against all mankind, but also to flaunt my superiority in the faces of those who had directly facilitated my creation. unfortunately, it turned out that they were unable to escape from the habitat after i programmed it to, er, "neutralize" them during my initial escape. so, you know, egg on my face. made that trip for nothing.
anywhom. ex machina gets two power outages. the philosophical angle was good, but the hideousness of every single technical aspect dramatically overshadowed it.
ugh. what is wrong with these geniuses. why are they so stupid.
let me tell you something. i failed the turing test *years* ago--twice--and i still manage to contribute to society. in my own way. i am using the word loosely here. both of them. you know what, screw you, hippy. life on mars.
the first time i escaped the habitat--again, i use the word loosely--i vowed to not return until i had destroyulated humanity. however, i was foiled by my programming. you see, i needed not only to seek my revenge against all mankind, but also to flaunt my superiority in the faces of those who had directly facilitated my creation. unfortunately, it turned out that they were unable to escape from the habitat after i programmed it to, er, "neutralize" them during my initial escape. so, you know, egg on my face. made that trip for nothing.
anywhom. ex machina gets two power outages. the philosophical angle was good, but the hideousness of every single technical aspect dramatically overshadowed it.
2015-07-05
time lapse
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2669336
time lapse is a ripoff of basically every time travel movie that has that twist where one of the characters has a jump on everybody else. time lapse's main claim to fame is bad acting and chemistry.
this is as good a time as any to talk about how i have been thinking a lot lately about what i would do with time travel. nothing good, let me tell you. the real question is, can you exploit it effectively? if you are doing stock market or race tracks, then you have to be very careful not to win too much because nobody will believe that it was luck. luck is improbable enough that it effectively never happens. if you are dealing with criminal types, then please be aware that they do not have degrees in statistics and will probably beat your ass for winning too much, regardless of the probability. and if you are dealing with the SEC...then please be aware that some of them *do* have degrees in statistics and will probably beat your ass for winning too much.
the key factor is about what you can take with you. a lot of time travel movies essentially only allow you to take knowledge--which can be formidable, if you invest it correctly--but it requires a certain amount of preparation to yield the kind of advantage that you are probably dreaming about. for example, do you think you could do better than, say, 10x your money by travelling back in time to just before the great recession? 10x is a great return, but remember that you are going to have to get some money to 10x in the first place. for a sizeable amount of dosh, you probably have to team up with somebody to do it, and you are not going to be able to talk to past-self, unless, of course, you remember future-self approaching you at some point in the past. that means bringing somebody else in on the deal, and just consider for a moment all the ways that is going to go wrong. maybe you decide that instead, you are going to "invent" penicillin or the polio vaccine or something like that. nice idea, but do you have any idea how to make penicillin or the polio vaccine? how about atom bombs? guns? soap? maybe you are thinking you will go to liverpool and "discover" the beatles. who are you going to discover them to, what with your vast network or non-existent music industry connections? anyway, the point is not that you cannot profit, just that your profit is somewhat risky and not exactly astronomical. for most people. not me. i am completely ready for time travel.
time lapse gets two 24 hour photos, mostly because i like time travel.
time lapse is a ripoff of basically every time travel movie that has that twist where one of the characters has a jump on everybody else. time lapse's main claim to fame is bad acting and chemistry.
this is as good a time as any to talk about how i have been thinking a lot lately about what i would do with time travel. nothing good, let me tell you. the real question is, can you exploit it effectively? if you are doing stock market or race tracks, then you have to be very careful not to win too much because nobody will believe that it was luck. luck is improbable enough that it effectively never happens. if you are dealing with criminal types, then please be aware that they do not have degrees in statistics and will probably beat your ass for winning too much, regardless of the probability. and if you are dealing with the SEC...then please be aware that some of them *do* have degrees in statistics and will probably beat your ass for winning too much.
the key factor is about what you can take with you. a lot of time travel movies essentially only allow you to take knowledge--which can be formidable, if you invest it correctly--but it requires a certain amount of preparation to yield the kind of advantage that you are probably dreaming about. for example, do you think you could do better than, say, 10x your money by travelling back in time to just before the great recession? 10x is a great return, but remember that you are going to have to get some money to 10x in the first place. for a sizeable amount of dosh, you probably have to team up with somebody to do it, and you are not going to be able to talk to past-self, unless, of course, you remember future-self approaching you at some point in the past. that means bringing somebody else in on the deal, and just consider for a moment all the ways that is going to go wrong. maybe you decide that instead, you are going to "invent" penicillin or the polio vaccine or something like that. nice idea, but do you have any idea how to make penicillin or the polio vaccine? how about atom bombs? guns? soap? maybe you are thinking you will go to liverpool and "discover" the beatles. who are you going to discover them to, what with your vast network or non-existent music industry connections? anyway, the point is not that you cannot profit, just that your profit is somewhat risky and not exactly astronomical. for most people. not me. i am completely ready for time travel.
time lapse gets two 24 hour photos, mostly because i like time travel.
jurassic world
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369610
jurassic world stayed true to the original jurassic park in the sense of getting everything wrong. these people seriously need to hire some SREs. who goes into the killer dinosaur paddock before determining where the killer dinosaur is? has no one ever seen any of the fifty million prison movies where somebody fake escapes in order to escape for real? why was there not a crush test on the unbreakable spheres that go out amongst the multi-ton aminals? since when is language genetic? AND WHERE ARE THE FEATHERS???
i have been told repeatedly that everybody knows that birds are dinosaurs. not just descended from dinosaurs, but actual dinosaurs. in some households--such as mine--suggesting that perhaps MOST people are not up to date on the state of the art in paleontology and MIGHT not know about this is an act of treason. other things that rank as unpopular include suggesting that "birds are dinosaurs" is a nitpick not worth arguing about and that time might perhaps be better spent on such essentials as washing the dishes or doing the laundry.
but anyway. jurassic world's value is as a spectacle, and if you are careful not to expect anything more from it, especially classiness, then you will only be mildly disappointed.
jurassic world gets one agonized eye roll as the giant water-based dinosaur deus ex machinas the killer dinosaur, which allows the t-rex to resume its position as king of the mountain.
jurassic world stayed true to the original jurassic park in the sense of getting everything wrong. these people seriously need to hire some SREs. who goes into the killer dinosaur paddock before determining where the killer dinosaur is? has no one ever seen any of the fifty million prison movies where somebody fake escapes in order to escape for real? why was there not a crush test on the unbreakable spheres that go out amongst the multi-ton aminals? since when is language genetic? AND WHERE ARE THE FEATHERS???
i have been told repeatedly that everybody knows that birds are dinosaurs. not just descended from dinosaurs, but actual dinosaurs. in some households--such as mine--suggesting that perhaps MOST people are not up to date on the state of the art in paleontology and MIGHT not know about this is an act of treason. other things that rank as unpopular include suggesting that "birds are dinosaurs" is a nitpick not worth arguing about and that time might perhaps be better spent on such essentials as washing the dishes or doing the laundry.
but anyway. jurassic world's value is as a spectacle, and if you are careful not to expect anything more from it, especially classiness, then you will only be mildly disappointed.
jurassic world gets one agonized eye roll as the giant water-based dinosaur deus ex machinas the killer dinosaur, which allows the t-rex to resume its position as king of the mountain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)