-
Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
-
Please read our Rules & Guidelines
Vote now in wave 1 of the FEOTM Reboot!
2017 Movies
- Thread starter TM2YC
- Start date
i tried so hard to like this movie . i wanted this to be the best(they advertised it to be )but sadly it was not , the main problem was that the director cannot keep the camera still or focused on anything for more than 2 second.it was like trying to watch a movie on a tablet while on a rollercoaster..Also for some reason they decided to scrap the story story arc and just start bringing back characters from previous movies only this time to give them full memory recall. remember the big fight at the white house with wesker and the giant lickers and dragons from the last movies cliffhanger(retribution) well its in the book but it was cut from the movie. smh
when i was watching this movie i kept thinking to myself im sure ryan reynolds has been in a movie with the exact same plot where he has to protect an ex assassins and transport him to give evidence with 24 hrs. at first i thought i was just imagining that then i remembered "safe house" . the only difference being that every 5 minute samuel jackson keeps shouting motherfucker .there are car chases ,explosions, gunfights, same old story of 2 people forced together who hate each other and by the end liking each other. well if its not broke dont fix it.
It wont win any oscars but its a enjoyable popcorn movie .
Zamros
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,219
- Reaction score
- 4
- Trophy Points
- 43
I've read the book, and they seemed to have really nailed the tone and are mostly accurate to the story. I hope they go all the way with this and don't hold back on the darker side of Tommy's goofy personality.
Seth Rogen will be perfect as Sandy Shklair, I already read Sandy with Rogen's voice. Francos both look ace in role.
As long as they get Greg Ellery in to play Greg Ellery, I'll be happy.
Seth Rogen will be perfect as Sandy Shklair, I already read Sandy with Rogen's voice. Francos both look ace in role.
As long as they get Greg Ellery in to play Greg Ellery, I'll be happy.
- Messages
- 5,798
- Reaction score
- 304
- Trophy Points
- 123
It (2017)
So apparently this film It is a great success, monetarily speaking. But, as someone suspicious of horror in general and opposed to loud/screeching jump scares in particular, I haven't been one of the ticket buyers. Therefore, I am confused by the apparent story point that
(No, I haven't seen the TV movie version, despite its featuring Superman's mother herself, Annette O'Toole. Heck, I haven't even seen Stand by Me, despite its featuring Wesley Crusher and Young Indiana Jones.)
Anyhow, from what I've heard, the new movie has some fan editing potential. Two and a quarter hours is much too long for an extended series of jump scares, IMO.
So apparently this film It is a great success, monetarily speaking. But, as someone suspicious of horror in general and opposed to loud/screeching jump scares in particular, I haven't been one of the ticket buyers. Therefore, I am confused by the apparent story point that
The titular demon-clown spends a good part of the 135-minute run time speeding towards the kids with a huge jaw full of razor-sharp teeth, but only manages to kill a few of them. Eh? Not to be morbid, but is overpowering kids really that hard for a Lovecraftian monster?
(No, I haven't seen the TV movie version, despite its featuring Superman's mother herself, Annette O'Toole. Heck, I haven't even seen Stand by Me, despite its featuring Wesley Crusher and Young Indiana Jones.)
Anyhow, from what I've heard, the new movie has some fan editing potential. Two and a quarter hours is much too long for an extended series of jump scares, IMO.
- Messages
- 14,917
- Reaction score
- 2,443
- Trophy Points
- 228
Darren Aronofsky's 'mother!' is highly recommended from me... however it's not going to be for everyone, due to it's challenging levels of surface weirdness.
It's a kind of an art-house Horror movie with the emphasis on upsetting and unsettling (A relief from loud jump-scare based fair). Maybe the best creepy sound-design this year. The meaning of the film was very clear to me from the start, so I enjoyed seeing how this played out. If you only catch on to what it's about half-way through you'll probably have lost patience by that point and will be hating it. Walkouts would not surprise me
.
It's a kind of an art-house Horror movie with the emphasis on upsetting and unsettling (A relief from loud jump-scare based fair). Maybe the best creepy sound-design this year. The meaning of the film was very clear to me from the start, so I enjoyed seeing how this played out. If you only catch on to what it's about half-way through you'll probably have lost patience by that point and will be hating it. Walkouts would not surprise me
.
Canon Editor
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,730
- Reaction score
- 80
- Trophy Points
- 53
I saw “mother!” three weeks ago at the Venice Film Festival and found it weird. I couldn’t stand it, and wouldn’t have recommended it at the time. Yet, as soon as I walked out of the theatre, I found myself talking or thinking about the film. And I didn’t stop for days. Every smallest thing can be discussed, and I admire the film for this. I found the film not particularly well written, but well directed and acted, and what else can I say? It sticks and grows with you by the minute. If you like thought-provoking movies, “mother!” is one for you. Now, three weeks since, I recommend the film. It isn’t for everybody, I agree. But I must recommend it
These are my two cents.
These are my two cents.
Zamros
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,219
- Reaction score
- 4
- Trophy Points
- 43
Kingsman was ehhh
It didn't really capture the tone of the original, somehow. This film felt more cartoony than the first, and not in a good way. The CG camera movements were innovative in the first, yet are overused and distracting in this one.
The action is mostly unmemorable. There is nothing in this one that stands out like the church scene.
Consequence seems to have been removed from the film. Aside from the obvious resurrection, nothing really matters anymore. There are major events in the story that happen which are mostly forgotten about.
The jokes that work, work ok. The ones that don't, are painful and dragged out to levels that would make Seth MacFarlane blush.
The plot was pretty predictable in this one, there wasn't any feeling that it could surprise me at any point.
Juliane Moore plays Drew Barrymore plaing Sheila Hammond and it's naff. Why can't big budget Hollywood productions ever utilise her properly? Valentine felt like a villain of this world, Poppy feels like a villain from Austin Powers.
They set up a character dynamic that they never payoff in the film, and worse, allude to paying off in a sequel.
Pedro Pascal seemed to be phoning in his performance from Colombia where he was doing real acting in a finely crafted artpiece. Channing Tatum was cool, in a scene where he got to do something.
Jeff Bridges was doing his usual "fuck you, pay me" performance. Aka. Slight variation on his True Grit performance.
There was one scene that stood out to me as unique in some way. And I won't spoil it here. But it makes you feel a sense of urgency that is never there throughout the rest of it. Egerton and Firth put in particularly good performances in that one. The rest of the film they were passable.
The social commentary is a lot more heavy handed in this version. It's a subject matter I agree with the film on, yet they might as well be repeatedly hitting you over the head with a sign post saying
There is some good in the film, but I'm not sure it's worth the price of admission.
It didn't really capture the tone of the original, somehow. This film felt more cartoony than the first, and not in a good way. The CG camera movements were innovative in the first, yet are overused and distracting in this one.
The action is mostly unmemorable. There is nothing in this one that stands out like the church scene.
Consequence seems to have been removed from the film. Aside from the obvious resurrection, nothing really matters anymore. There are major events in the story that happen which are mostly forgotten about.
The jokes that work, work ok. The ones that don't, are painful and dragged out to levels that would make Seth MacFarlane blush.
The plot was pretty predictable in this one, there wasn't any feeling that it could surprise me at any point.
Juliane Moore plays Drew Barrymore plaing Sheila Hammond and it's naff. Why can't big budget Hollywood productions ever utilise her properly? Valentine felt like a villain of this world, Poppy feels like a villain from Austin Powers.
They set up a character dynamic that they never payoff in the film, and worse, allude to paying off in a sequel.
Pedro Pascal seemed to be phoning in his performance from Colombia where he was doing real acting in a finely crafted artpiece. Channing Tatum was cool, in a scene where he got to do something.
Jeff Bridges was doing his usual "fuck you, pay me" performance. Aka. Slight variation on his True Grit performance.
There was one scene that stood out to me as unique in some way. And I won't spoil it here. But it makes you feel a sense of urgency that is never there throughout the rest of it. Egerton and Firth put in particularly good performances in that one. The rest of the film they were passable.
The social commentary is a lot more heavy handed in this version. It's a subject matter I agree with the film on, yet they might as well be repeatedly hitting you over the head with a sign post saying
THE WAR ON DRUGS IS BAD AND SHOULD END.
There is some good in the film, but I'm not sure it's worth the price of admission.
- Messages
- 14,917
- Reaction score
- 2,443
- Trophy Points
- 228
The widespread opinion of Kingsman2 does seem to be consistently "It's okay but nothing more than that". I think I'll skip it and watch it on Netflix down the line, or get the blu-ray if some good fanedits are forthcoming (Hint ).
).matrixgrindhouse
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,399
- Reaction score
- 126
- Trophy Points
- 73
bionicbob said:TM2YC said:
While James Franco looks perfect, I keep thinking.... "What if Nic Cage had the role?"
I missed the trailer from my days without power - I'm more hyped than ever!
this movie is nothing like the trailer makes it out to be.the budget of this movie clearly went into advertising because the actual movie is slow as hell and is more like a michael moore documentary. if you are watching this movie to see arnold swartzenegger dont bother he is just basically phoning it in.
avoid this movie like the plague
leatherface 2017 . i had high hopes for this movie to bring more life into the franchise but i was mortified 5 minutes imto this movie. the movie has absolutley nothing to do with texas chainsaw massacre it is to supposed be a prequel but the characters do not resemble their characters they are supposed to be portaying from the future so you spend 9/10th of the movie wonder who they are. halway through the movie i swear i though i was watching a remake of natural born killers.the movie keeps shifting from scene to scene that quick sometimes im sure they have cut scenes from the movie . i think ill just re watch the original
- Messages
- 5,798
- Reaction score
- 304
- Trophy Points
- 123
Kong: Skull Island (2017)
So, here's the thing. I love a good T-Rex, but care nothing for any Godzilla. A terrible lizard the size of a bus? That's both terrifying, human-scaled and believable, and not just because they actually existed. But, a terrible lizard the size of a cruise ship? That's not a monster; that's a force of nature - nor is it a character I can in any way invest in. Same thing goes for oversized apes. I don't love PJ's King Kong, but I can relate to its 25-foot creature. (The wildly shifting height of the original film's protagonist, I fear, annoys me.) This movie's Kong, however, is about four times taller, and as a result, just about all feeling is lost. The dialogue tries to address this, with lines about how he's a god and such, but, meh.
That said, director Jordan Vogt-Roberts has plenty of style and verve, and I look forward to seeing him tackle a better script. And the absolute saving grace of the movie is its 1970s period setting. In other words, I enjoyed this as a no-charge library rental, but still have zero interest in 2020's Godzilla vs. Kong.
B-
So, here's the thing. I love a good T-Rex, but care nothing for any Godzilla. A terrible lizard the size of a bus? That's both terrifying, human-scaled and believable, and not just because they actually existed. But, a terrible lizard the size of a cruise ship? That's not a monster; that's a force of nature - nor is it a character I can in any way invest in. Same thing goes for oversized apes. I don't love PJ's King Kong, but I can relate to its 25-foot creature. (The wildly shifting height of the original film's protagonist, I fear, annoys me.) This movie's Kong, however, is about four times taller, and as a result, just about all feeling is lost. The dialogue tries to address this, with lines about how he's a god and such, but, meh.
That said, director Jordan Vogt-Roberts has plenty of style and verve, and I look forward to seeing him tackle a better script. And the absolute saving grace of the movie is its 1970s period setting. In other words, I enjoyed this as a no-charge library rental, but still have zero interest in 2020's Godzilla vs. Kong.
B-
Zamros
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,219
- Reaction score
- 4
- Trophy Points
- 43
Thor: Ragnarok was ok. It was very oddly paced, though, with not nearly enough first act. The jokes were pretty funny, however didn't even approach Waititi's usual wit. I'd say this is his worst film, but I haven't seen Eagle vs Shark so. I like the change of pace for Thor movies, and I'd like to see possible future ones take on this tone, but the structure of the film itself hasn't worked for me.
Plus it suffers from the usual Marvel problems. Hela is another lame villain, with a vague plan and devoid of any motivation. Cate Blanchett was given little to work with, although she has a couple good jokes.
There wasn't much emotion which, given some of the film's story, is a missed opportunity. There was one scene that got me emotionally invested, and it wasn't at all related to the main plot.
Thor and Loki's relationship is cool.... I liked when other actors from Waititi films popped up in it.
I couldn't really enjoy the visuals as I was unfortunately in the converted 3D screening, which looked fucking terrible. But the action was still fun.
Spider-Man: Homecoming and Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2 were both better films, in my opinion.
Plus it suffers from the usual Marvel problems. Hela is another lame villain, with a vague plan and devoid of any motivation. Cate Blanchett was given little to work with, although she has a couple good jokes.
There wasn't much emotion which, given some of the film's story, is a missed opportunity. There was one scene that got me emotionally invested, and it wasn't at all related to the main plot.
Thor and Loki's relationship is cool.... I liked when other actors from Waititi films popped up in it.
I couldn't really enjoy the visuals as I was unfortunately in the converted 3D screening, which looked fucking terrible. But the action was still fun.
Spider-Man: Homecoming and Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2 were both better films, in my opinion.
Moe_Syzlak
Well-known member
- Messages
- 3,506
- Reaction score
- 1,219
- Trophy Points
- 118
Red band so obviously NSFW.