Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

The terrible movies and reviews thread


Toxn

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/23/2017 at 3:17 PM, Donward said:

I only just found out that these existed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the lady and I just watched Spectre. I really enjoyed Casino Royal, but never saw the middle movie. I feel like now I should. Spectre was, in my opinion, a very "classic" Bond movie. 

 

Laughably evil villain, beefy sub villain with a kill gimmick, Bond sexing up people when he really didn't need to for information, conspiracy, intrigue, a middle-finger to the new-fangled, fun scenes with Q, a highly questionable time-line, and of course ridiculous deux ex machinas. (The final scene with the Walther and the helicopter.... WHAT?)

 

But I enjoyed it. It was an engaging film. 

 

I think I will ruffle some feathers here when I say, besides Sean Connery, I think Pierce Brosnan played one of the most memorable Bonds. I just hate that he was hindered by such incredibly shitty scripts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

 

 

So the lady and I just watched Spectre. I really enjoyed Casino Royal, but never saw the middle movie. I feel like now I should. Spectre was, in my opinion, a very "classic" Bond movie. 

 

Laughably evil villain, beefy sub villain with a kill gimmick, Bond sexing up people when he really didn't need to for information, conspiracy, intrigue, a middle-finger to the new-fangled, fun scenes with Q, a highly questionable time-line, and of course ridiculous deux ex machinas. (The final scene with the Walther and the helicopter.... WHAT?)

 

But I enjoyed it. It was an engaging film. 

 

I think I will ruffle some feathers here when I say, besides Sean Connery, I think Pierce Brosnan played one of the most memorable Bonds. I just hate that he was hindered by such incredibly shitty scripts.

 

Agreed.

 

Spectre was one of the Bondiest, Bond movies of the series and that was a deliberate choice with the ridiculous exploding villain secret lairs and the tropes that you listed.

 

Skyfall was my favorite of the Craig series and possibly of all the Bond movies - despite the nonsensical villain plan of getting-captured-on-purpose-in-order-to-be-sent-to-the-hero's-secret-base-cause-it-was-my-plan-for-them-to-make-a-series-of-mistakes-that-all-have-to-happen-at-once-or-else-everything-will-fail-like-what-if-Bond-simply-used-a-padlock-to-backup-the-electronic-prison-cell-the-badguy-was-in-and-what-if-the-guard-wasn't-so-stupid-as-to-let-the-badguy-kill-him. Oh yeah, and the bit where all that had to happen, but the badguy had a contingency plan where Bond would catch up to him in the subway at just the right time for the badguy to try to kill Bond with a subway train that got exploded from the ceiling.

 

Ok. Ok. Ok.

 

All that aside, Skyfall was pretty solid, particularly the final act. As was Casino Royale which gets the "honeymoon" treatment for Craig's debut. But Quantum of Solace is still a steaming turd.

 

If the Bond producers chose to make a "realistic, gritty" Bond like the sort they cast Craig for, both Brosnan and Timothy Dalton could have pulled it off IMHO. 

 

The trouble for Dalton's Bond is that the franchise was still churning out campy "Roger Moore" quality of Bond films. Nobody would have blinked if Moore was cast in "The Living Daylights" or "License to Kill". But Dalton being a superior actor to Moore was actually the wrong Bond for them and they fail.

 

As for Brosnan, he was shackled with being a Bond in an era after the Cold War ended but before The War on Terror in that nebulous, politically correct Clinton era where Bond was forced to fight movie villains like "techno-terrorists" and Sophie Marceau when she was still hot and FOX News. Yes, the villain in Tomorrow Never Dies is a not-at-all thinly veiled jab at Rupert Murdoch. This is compounded by these Bond series being filmed in the 1990s which was an era where Hollywood was trying to transition from the over-the-top action movies of the 1980s to the "realistic" movie making of the 2000s. Honestly, they haven't aged well in the 22 years since Brosnan first broke into the tuxedo-and-martini scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone was still wondering, Tyler Perry Jordan Peele's Get Out was predictable and boring, with a plot "twist" that didn't actually change anything about the premise and which was spoiled in the first half-hour.

 

Any guesses on why it has a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

This is why disaster movies made in the 1970s were so superior. They relied on ten or fifteen minutes of practical effects that were carefully divvied up through the film.

And every single one had noted character actor George Kennedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2017 at 4:32 PM, Scolopax said:

 

Ok hold the fucking phone.

 

Lap pools are MAYBE 4 feet deep. Any deeper is a waste. EDIT: OK THERE MIGHT BE SOME POOLS SET UP THAT ARE DEEPER BUT THAT IS NOT THE NORM, AND THESE PEOPLE LOOK LIKE THEY ARE AT A LARGE COMPLEX AND SO THEY PROBABLY HAVE SEPARATE LAP POOL AREAS? IT STILL MAKES NO SENSE.

 

Most lap pools are fairly warm. If it's not a competition natatorium, then the temperature is like 75 degrees. 

 

There is no way in hell someone would be left in the pool after closing. 

 

Most pools don't get covered unless they are outdoor, and even then the system is 1) Not that complex 2) not that strong or sturdy.

 

LOL when the girl tried to pull up on a drain. 1) Physically impossible 2) if she did manage to do it she'd just get sucked into it and plug it with her body.

 

So it was daytime when they started. And now the pool is closing and they are stuck? 

 

Now I never did a TON of training on my swim. Maybe 1.5 km at a time. But even my buddies who race in IRONMAN competitions (Which requires a 2.4 mile swim) aren't in the pool for over two hours at a time. So am I expected to believe that these people just spent nearly ten hours training in a pool "for funsies" and yet somehow in that time one didn't turn to the other and go "Let's go fucking demolish a pizza"

 

Because that's how real swimmers are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am calling this the "Too Much Mexican Food" phenomenon:

 

 

(To be absolutely fair to RLM, I am only 4 minutes in as of writing. I will carry on with the mini-rant anyway.)

 

In the above video Rich and Mike talk about their terrible ideas for dialogue/plot in the Han Solo movie. However, those ideas are less terrible than they are not extremely creative.

This seems to be a pattern with movie reviewers. If a film has cliched or well worn elements, it's GARBAGE. Well, sure, it probably feels that way if you are a professional movie reviewer who watches 400 movies a year. This is like someone who eats Mexican food for two meals out of every day complaining that they don't like Mexican food. Does that mean Mexican food is bad? No. It means you should probably stop eating it for a while.

Is there really such a big problem with having a character be developed a little by some advice their dad gave them? Or with having something happen in a movie that has a causal relationship to an attitude a character has in a movie that was released earlier but is chronologically later? Yeah, it wouldn't be the most original thing in the world. Mexican food isn't. But it's only a problem if you're sick of Mexican food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Saw Dunkirk, found out Spitfires have no need of an engine, only a crankshaft, because the propellor is evidently powered by pure British fury.

Overall wouldn't really recommend.

 

Spoilers

 

Unsurprisingly it was a Hollywood 'war is terrible and to prove it we're going to show someone dying horrifically every two minutes and also the Brits lose a destroyer every two minutes because their AA crew are completely deaf and have cataracts' try hard wankfest. Why the director chose to have three different timelines running through the movie instead of one coherent narrative is beyond me (just kidding the director is pretentious as fuck)


The movie depicts an evacuation of Dunkirk, I don't know how accurate the movie is to the actual evacuation of Dunkirk, but it feels like a lot of liberties were taken, specifically with regard to how helpless the British navy was made out to be

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...