If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot. More details on our policies, especially our Own the Source rule are available here. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.

The Last Movie(s) You Watched... (quick one or two sentence reviews)
(06-05-2018, 08:45 AM)TVs Frink Wrote: Labyrinth (1986)

Not good. And holy hell someone apparently got Jennifer Connelly some acting lessons later in life, because she’s also not good in this.

David Bowie is good. But there wasn’t enough of him.

4/10
 
(11-01-2019, 05:23 AM)mnkykungfu Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 05:40 PM)TMBTM Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 03:59 PM)mnkykungfu Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 10:42 AM)TMBTM Wrote:  
I think that if after 4 movies and bringing back Linda Hamilton they still can't deliver a movie that pleases most audience, they should stop. And I always was a defender (for various reasons) of each movie they made, including this one by the way, I like it. But the fact is that, to me, any story that leads to a future where Judgment Day did not happen the way Kyle Reese described it in the first movie is not true to what made the first movie great. It was not about changing things, it was about to make things happen the way they should, (even at the end of T2 there was a question mark about if they changed the course of time of not.)

That's interesting.  I'm very nitpicky about time travel, but I'll accept a few different ways of it working, as long as a franchise plays by the rules it establishes.  (I'm looking at you, Endgame.)  Terminator's entire premise is that if they do something in the past, they can change the future they experience, so I'm completely fine with Judgement Day not happening the way Reese explained it.  I actually think that's very true to the spirit of the film.  

Truthfully (and it's been forever since I watched it, so I might misremember) but that was my favorite part of Terminator 3.  You get the impression that things are unfolding very differently than they supposedly had, so it seems like Judgement Day had been derailed, then in the ending they really go for it.  I love the idea of there being multiple paths that lead in the same direction, or of a certain looming inevitability...a...ahem...dark fate, if you will.

Well, in the first Terminator only skynet is trying to change the past to change the future. Kyle was here to make the future stay the way it is and at the end of the movie the future is not changed. So you could say that the entire message of the first movie could be that no matter how hard someone tries to change the past, it is not possible. (edit: in fact there never was a 1984 without Kyle and the Terminator, it's a perfect loop. If Skynet wants to kill John it better should not send the terminator at all so Kyle would not be forced to go to 1984 and being John's father)
In T2 the good guys are trying to change things, but at the end we are not 100% sure if they did it or not.
If I were in charge of a Terminator 2 sequel I would have  tried to stay focus on the fact that Sarah saved her son but did not change the future. I would have make John Connor the main leader of the movie in a war of human against machines to lead the story to the perfect loop of having Kyle being sent by in 1984 (things we saw briefly in other movies but that were not the core of the stories). The Terminator franchise is a bit like the Alien one: they both should have got a third movie leading to a big "war" to finish the story on act three. It's maybe not super original but at least it's clean.
"Always in motion is the future"
My instagramMy BLog - All my fanedits at IFDB - Q&A with TMBTM (from 2012) 
[+] 1 user Likes TMBTM's post
Reply
(11-04-2019, 08:43 AM)TMBTM Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 08:45 AM)TVs Frink Wrote: Labyrinth (1986)

Not good. And holy hell someone apparently got Jennifer Connelly some acting lessons later in life, because she’s also not good in this.

David Bowie is good. But there wasn’t enough of him.

4/10
 
(11-01-2019, 05:23 AM)mnkykungfu Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 05:40 PM)TMBTM Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 03:59 PM)mnkykungfu Wrote:
(10-27-2019, 10:42 AM)TMBTM Wrote:  
I think that if after 4 movies and bringing back Linda Hamilton they still can't deliver a movie that pleases most audience, they should stop. And I always was a defender (for various reasons) of each movie they made, including this one by the way, I like it. But the fact is that, to me, any story that leads to a future where Judgment Day did not happen the way Kyle Reese described it in the first movie is not true to what made the first movie great. It was not about changing things, it was about to make things happen the way they should, (even at the end of T2 there was a question mark about if they changed the course of time of not.)

That's interesting.  I'm very nitpicky about time travel, but I'll accept a few different ways of it working, as long as a franchise plays by the rules it establishes.  (I'm looking at you, Endgame.)  Terminator's entire premise is that if they do something in the past, they can change the future they experience, so I'm completely fine with Judgement Day not happening the way Reese explained it.  I actually think that's very true to the spirit of the film.  

Truthfully (and it's been forever since I watched it, so I might misremember) but that was my favorite part of Terminator 3.  You get the impression that things are unfolding very differently than they supposedly had, so it seems like Judgement Day had been derailed, then in the ending they really go for it.  I love the idea of there being multiple paths that lead in the same direction, or of a certain looming inevitability...a...ahem...dark fate, if you will.

Well, in the first Terminator only skynet is trying to change the past to change the future. Kyle was here to make the future stay the way it is and at the end of the movie the future is not changed. So you could say that the entire message of the first movie could be that no matter how hard someone tries to change the past, it is not possible. (edit: in fact there never was a 1984 without Kyle and the Terminator, it's a perfect loop. If Skynet wants to kill John it better should not send the terminator at all so Kyle would not be forced to go to 1984 and being John's father)
In T2 the good guys are trying to change things, but at the end we are not 100% sure if they did it or not.
If I were in charge of a Terminator 2 sequel I would have  tried to stay focus on the fact that Sarah saved her son but did not change the future. I would have make John Connor the main leader of the movie in a war of human against machines to lead the story to the perfect loop of having Kyle being sent by in 1984 (things we saw briefly in other movies but that were not the core of the stories). The Terminator franchise is a bit like the Alien one: they both should have got a third movie leading to a big "war" to finish the story on act three. It's maybe not super original but at least it's clean.

What I got out of this post is that Labyrinth and the Terminator are in a shared cinematic universe.
[+] 3 users Like TVs Frink's post
Reply
(11-04-2019, 04:09 AM)Duragizer Wrote:
(11-04-2019, 02:36 AM)Phlegmbot Wrote: A few months ago, I watched the first 2 Hellraisers for the first time, and I thought, makeup F/X aside, they were shockingly awful.

But, this past Halloween, decided to try out no. 3. To my surprise, Hellraiser 3, essentially a bigger-budgeted version of No.2, was quite fun. Terry Farrell and Paula Marshall were fun too.

[Image: giphy.gif]

Hee-hee!

Yeah, I enjoyed the first one FOR its awfulness, but those movies aren't the least bit frightening. But the makeup designs and effects were WAY ahead of their time, I'll give 'em that.
Reply
(11-04-2019, 08:43 AM)TMBTM Wrote:
(06-05-2018, 08:45 AM)TVs Frink Wrote: Well, in the first Terminator only skynet is trying to change the past to change the future. 
In T2 the good guys are trying to change things, but at the end we are not 100% sure if they did it or not.

Hah.  Now it looks like I'm putting words in Frink's mouth, sorry, not sure how that happened.

Anyway, TMBTM, that's a good point.  It's been a while since I really sat down with these movies, and I forgot the experience of watching them in order.  You're right that from the characters' perspectives at the end of the first film, only Sarah knows that time is a loop.  Kyle certainly didn't know when he came back that his mission was a guaranteed success.  So she must be asking herself "Could it have happened any other way?  Was it even possible for Kyle to not come back?" etc.  The movie is incredibly neat and tidy that way.

T2 really tries to commit to a choice, which is that the future and past can interact and change each other (rather than that whatever will happen is already happening and there's no altering it, whether you know it or not).  But again, you're right in that our characters don't really know if they changed anything or not.  But they had to try.

T3 takes it even further by showing that yes indeed, the future has unfolded differently than what we had expected.  But again, it doesn't contradict anything from the previous films.  It just commits to an answer to the question they posed.  I guess if it was important to you that they never answer that question, then it would be betraying the films.  But if "Judgement Day" and the Machine War unfold exactly like how they did in the first movie, then that is also answering that question.  It's just answering it on the other side of "No, you can't change the future."  So that would also be a betrayal in that sense.

If the argument is that it's important to the Terminator franchise that the future can't be changed, I'd disagree.  I think the question of whether it can be changed or not is the central theme, hence, no problems with that aspect of T3.  (Or the sequels, for that matter.) 

All of these films have strengths and weaknesses, in my opinion.  None of them are perfect films.  T1 and T2 are pretty damn good, but I don't worship them.  I have yet to see Dark Fate, but personally if they just don't have any bizarre non-sensical story turns and don't try too hard to work in cheesy callbacks, then I'll probably be happy.  Those have made up most of the wrenches in the sequels for me.
Webmaster for www.nottheacademy.com, Movie Articles, Lists, and Reviews...Come join us!
[+] 1 user Likes mnkykungfu's post
Reply
Btw, Terminator: Dark Fate's Spanish title is Terminator: Destino Oculto.  Which is a good literal translation, but when you hear it in Spanish, it comes out as meaning more like "Terminator: Hidden Destination", which I find pretty amusing.
Webmaster for www.nottheacademy.com, Movie Articles, Lists, and Reviews...Come join us!
Reply
@[b]mnkykungfu[/b]

You have valid arguments but I was also talking from a "how should the franchise could end properly" point of view. If anything I think the end of T3 was good (even if they moved the date of Judgment Day). It is the "cleanest" ending of all the sequels to me. I liked the way Salvation tried to be something new while continuing the story towards the war but ultimately I think one of the problems was that none of the Termintor movies after T2 really wanted to tell a story that could be a big final (T3 being the closest of it). They all wanted to be movies with open doors to make more of course... (and in the end they ALL are reboots...) I just think that the Terminator franchise should have been a perfect loop trilogy. I'm sure they would have found ways to make even more after that, but at least we would have a cool three act story. I hoped that Dark Fate could be that "final" movie, but while I enjoyed it for what it was, it's not it. T3 is still the closest we have of a proper ending (to me).

(Sorry for having hijacked a thread about Terminator once again, lol)
"Always in motion is the future"
My instagramMy BLog - All my fanedits at IFDB - Q&A with TMBTM (from 2012) 
[+] 2 users Like TMBTM's post
Reply
[b]TMBTM [/b]valid!  I could totally see that being a great trilogy, and I would've loved that, too.  There are very few films that go past 3 still producing sequels as good as previous entries.  It seems like it's always diminishing returns, so why not wrap it up at 3?  It's always great to hear from somebody passionate about a story.
Webmaster for www.nottheacademy.com, Movie Articles, Lists, and Reviews...Come join us!
[+] 1 user Likes mnkykungfu's post
Reply
With the approaching Bond movie Vudu is offering free streaming of a ton of Bond films. I thought I'd revisit some.

The World Is Not Enough (1999)
This one had potential in the Brosnan era, but still was mired by a lot of ridiculousness, especially during the snow sequence. Elektra's character is grating and the villain's special ability of not feeling pain seems to also transfer into his ability to not have the effects of things that would otherwise stop someone else (hand doesn't burn when he picks up a smoldering rock which he burns someone else with, he gets shot, etc.). Better than its follow up, but still corny as all get up. 6/10

Die Another Day (2002)
I have to remind myself that these were made in the late 90's early 00's as the pop culture references, one liners, and ridiculous stunts (or lack there of) are in full force. There are a ton of cars in this movie, for never really having cars do much, other than Bond's of course. I found myself losing interest frequently so I tried out Vudu's family play feature to see what it would be like. It was decent and probably would allow me to watch some movies with my older youngling without having to do a lot of skipping myself (definitely won't be watching a Bond film anytime soon). This one felt tired and was ultimately forgettable. 5/10
[+] 1 user Likes DigModiFicaTion's post
Reply
(11-08-2019, 10:27 AM)DigModiFicaTion Wrote: I have to remind myself that these were made in the late 90's early 00's as the pop culture references, one liners, and ridiculous stunts (or lack there of) are in full force. 


I feel like this applies to virtually every Bond movie, lol.  I remember rewatching a lot of the old Moore and Connery films as a teen and not getting so many references they made, and wondering why so many little bits were in there (because they were popular at the time of the film.)  Of course, as a kid, I hadn't noticed or cared about that stuff.  I imagine it's probably the same for people who grew up with Brosnan as their Bond?
Webmaster for www.nottheacademy.com, Movie Articles, Lists, and Reviews...Come join us!
Reply
Yeah, most every Bond movie riddled with ridiculousness. That's why Datlon's Bond was always my preferred Bond as his movies seemed to be more straightforward spy/action flicks. Craig's Bond is similar in that respect and I appreciate that his era is at least connected with a story line that weaves throughout them, albeit loosely. Golden Eye was a pretty fantastic Bond movie, but I'm not really impressed with Brosnan's other outings as the sex-crazed slightly inept British spy. I'm more of an Ethan Hunt fan myself.

Anyway,

The Lion King (2019)
The Circle of Life opener was pretty spectacular looking although I did prefer the original singer. The key to the success for this film was going to have to be the distraction factor. The opener passed the test. This however was not the case for the rest of the film. Most of the dialogue delivery felt very tired, lifeless or B-roll-ish. It's hard to tell if I'm just incredibly biased based on my absolute love of the original, but many seem to have a similar reaction. I'm not a fan of the new iterations of Timon and Pumba and consider their characters the weakest of the entire movie. Rogan's Pumba is tolerable, but the guy who did Timon was just awful in his line delivery imho. Most of the changes in the movie are around Timon and Pumba and their jungle paradise which were slightly distracting as they don't expand on the added characters which make them feel kind of gimmicky. My last gripe is about the look of the talking animals. It works perfectly in a cartoon, but this just looks like space buddies, or those other animal talking kid shows. Yes, I know that this is an animal talking kid show, but I had hoped they would possibly make the voices less.....human? I don't know, just more animal like. Honestly, I'd have taken the movie without any dialogue or without the animals moving their mouths to form words. Ugh, the Spirit song addition as well as the Be Our Guest scene just felt bad. I really tried to go into this one with an open mind (I can't stand the other "live action" completely cgi Disney renditions) and it fared about as I expected it would. 5.5/10
[+] 1 user Likes DigModiFicaTion's post
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)