TMBTM said:Terminator Dark Fate.
It was "good", but not great. Mixed feelings.
The pros: it gets back to basics.
The cons: it gets back to basics.
Meaning that even if it is probably the best sequel after T2, all the others at least brought some new ideas on the table (ideas that people loved or hated, but new ideas), this one does not. Except maybe for the character played by Arnold, but even that was not "that" surprising.
Good time in theater, I recommend it because seeing Linda Hamilton kicking ass is pure nostalgia trip in a very good way, but ultimately it is just a soft reboot (contrarily to Genisys that tried too much to be a "hard" reboot, lol)
mnkykungfu said:TMBTM said:Terminator Dark Fate.
It was "good", but not great. Mixed feelings.
The pros: it gets back to basics.
The cons: it gets back to basics.
Meaning that even if it is probably the best sequel after T2, all the others at least brought some new ideas on the table (ideas that people loved or hated, but new ideas), this one does not. Except maybe for the character played by Arnold, but even that was not "that" surprising.
Good time in theater, I recommend it because seeing Linda Hamilton kicking ass is pure nostalgia trip in a very good way, but ultimately it is just a soft reboot (contrarily to Genisys that tried too much to be a "hard" reboot, lol)
Maybe this will be like with Star Wars? I think most people loved TFA when it first came out, and only after they sat with it a bit did they start to realize its shortcomings. It was kind of the "back to basics" movie that Star Wars needed at the time. Then freeing the series up to continue on in that vein but take some chances.
Of course, if you're like me and loathed TLJ, then you didn't appreciate the "new ideas" added afterwards, but I still think TFA was the right approach at the right time. Do you think that could work for Terminator?
TMBTM said: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.)mnkykungfu said:TMBTM said:
Phlegmbot said: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.
TVs Frink said: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
mnkykungfu said:TMBTM said: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.)mnkykungfu said:TMBTM said:
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.
TMBTM said:TVs Frink said: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
mnkykungfu said:TMBTM said: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.)mnkykungfu said:TMBTM said:
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.
Duragizer said:Phlegmbot said: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.
TMBTM said: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.TVs Frink said:Well, in the first Terminator only skynet is trying to change the past to change the future.
DigModiFicaTion said: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.
DigModiFicaTion said: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