Author Topic: What was the last movie you watched?  (Read 1666131 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Edward J Grug III

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16659
  • Liked: 2912
  • Forum Tokens Collected: 5000
    • Glorious Bounty
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #19170 on: March 19, 2020, 05:00:25 PM »
Disney cell animation's last hurrah. I really wish they'd at least toss one out every couple years and remind us all of how beautiful they can be.

You forgot one
FINE


Offline Johnny Unusual

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 27055
  • Liked: 5899
  • Mr. Robot
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #19171 on: March 19, 2020, 05:04:17 PM »
I didn't see that one but I don't know if I ever sat down and watched the original.  Sounds like something I need to rectify sometime.


Offline Edward J Grug III

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16659
  • Liked: 2912
  • Forum Tokens Collected: 5000
    • Glorious Bounty
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #19172 on: March 19, 2020, 05:11:18 PM »
I didn't see that one but I don't know if I ever sat down and watched the original.  Sounds like something I need to rectify sometime.

The original is wonderful. The new one is quite good. But then I loved The Princess and the Frog, so...
FINE


Offline Johnny Unusual

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 27055
  • Liked: 5899
  • Mr. Robot
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #19173 on: March 19, 2020, 05:18:34 PM »
Hey, despite my feelings, the movie did have stuff going for it.  Good setting, some good music.  Kinda liked the alligator.  And some shots and segments are amazing (I think I preferred Tiana's stylized animation to the look the rest of the film decided on, which was good but... I dunno, missing something?).

I think 2009 is a little disappointing to have a movie vaguely messaged with "Sure, its great you are working but WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GET MARRIED!?!" (I know that's a bit reductive but its kind of in there).  Was also not into Jim Cummins' firefly, who I just didn't find fun or funny.  I wish I liked Tiana's friend more because I feel like the animators had fun with her energy but by the end of the film I think I liked the character mostly aesthetically and Jennifer Cody's great performance.


Online Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 28657
  • Liked: 6257
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #19174 on: March 21, 2020, 03:30:48 PM »
Jojo Rabbit - Wow, this was really good and lived up to all the hype. Taika himself as Hitler was hilarious, and Scarlett Johansson was superb, but the main kid actor was the real standout. The movie really is on his shoulders, and to see an actor that young carry it that well is impressive. Sam Rockwell, as always, is great here and has some of the best lines. His simple "Don't do that" had me rolling!
I feel like Taika Waititi made this as a direct challenge to the idiots who say "You couldn't make a Mel Brooks movie today."



Offline Charles Castle

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 707
  • I crap bigger than this movie.
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #19175 on: March 21, 2020, 06:16:53 PM »
Underwater (2020, directed by William Eubank) is a relentless horror movie that puts its foot on the gas at the outset and never lets it up. In this regard its a throwback to movies like The Terminator or The Hidden, films in which anything that doesn't immediately serve the narrative on screen is cheerfully thrown over the side. It's built for speed. It has a visceral immediacy. It's a film whose plot can be summed up as, "Oh shit oh shit oh shit." It has the pop vitality of really good pulp fiction. Somehow, it manages to be more than that. Underwater is the best kind of genre film, in so far as it uses genre as a crucible for its characters. It's characters do not reveal themselves in exposition or in heartfelt scenes of dialogue. They reveal themselves in their actions. In turn, their circumstances test them to destruction in ways that would elude more naturalistic filmmaking. In doing so, it quietly undermines the expectations of genre. It uses the tropes, sure, but it also subverts them.

The plot finds the crew of a deep sea drilling installation on the floor of the deepest part of the ocean scrambling to survive after an earthquake breaches the structural integrity of their facility. The pressure at that depth will implode the installation given enough time, and it's a race to find safety through an increasingly dangerous and ruined environment. The protagonist is Norah Price, a mechanical engineer who navigates her way toward the escape pods picking up survivors as she goes. At one point, she's obliged to close a bulkhead trapping two other people on the other side. It haunts her. Unfortunately, the escape pods are gone by the time she and her crewmates make it to the hub, but there they find their Captain, Lucien, and two other survivors. Lucien proposes that they need to walk on the floor of the ocean to the Roebuck, the newest drilling installation, where they can take the escape pods there to safety. There are challenges with this plan, though. They likely don't have enough oxygen to make it to the Roebuck, the facility is coming down around their heads and is likely to have a meltdown when its power generator overloads, and, as they discover soon enough, there are hostile things in the water.

Okay, Underwater is not particularly original in its conception. You could name a dozen or more films that are influences, including one key scene that's stolen wholesale from Gravity. Some people are bothered by this, but I've sat through enough Alien rip-offs that another one hardly causes me any discomfort at all anymore. This is the nature of genre, after all. What is genre but a common pool of tropes and archetypes used repeatedly by a category of film? There are very few wholly original movies, let alone wholly original horror movies. And this film ain't one of them. It's how the movie uses these elements that makes it worth watching. For example: Kristen Stewart's Norah is a familiar type of character. She's Ripley, or some other final girl. Stewart's visual image here is subtly coded, though. They've given her a butch blond buzzcut and she spends most of the film in a utilitarian sports bra - perhaps a commentary on Ripley at the end of Alien, but also an interpolation of the Sarah Connor wifebeater. In past years, such a character would be a threat to the masculinity of some male hero or would be monster chum in short order, but here, it's not even commented upon (the movie does go to pains to suggest that Norah is straight given her scant backstory). In any event, the notion that Norah is a variant of either Ripley or, say, Amy Steele or Heather Langenkamp breaks down as the film progresses. Her profession, for one thing, codes her as hyper-competent, and the movie shows her using those skills as a matter of course rather than just telling us that she has them. This is usually how male action heroes are presented. Women have to discover resources within themselves, but Norah starts with those resources. More, the end of the film finds Norah faced with a solution that is the antithesis of the idea of a final girl. Like many a savant in other creature features, she's a haunted and driven monster hunter in the end.

This film is surprisingly female-centric. With the exception of Lucien - played by the great Vincent Cassell - the male members of the cast are mostly interchangeable. The film tries to give them personality quirks to distinguish them from one another, but in my head, they're coded as "the black guy," "the guy with the rabbit," and "the other guy." The other principal character is Emily, played by Jessica Henwick, and she's the sort of character who ends up as monster chum in other movies. Green, emotional, terrified. But she's also the scientist character. Emily is the character who has to find reserves of strength inside herself to survive rather than Norah. Her friendship with Norah is the emotional core of the film, if the film can be said to have such a thing. Lucien, it should be noted, is a doppelganger for Norah. Both of them carry the same emotional burden. Both of them in turn bear the burden of command. Norah, Emily, and Lucien benefit enormously from having terrific actors playing them, too. I know she is a popular target for some, but I like Kristen Stewart and she brings a gravitas to her role that might have been absent from a similar character even ten years ago. Cassell, too. Henwick has a thankless set of character traits and manages to make something with them regardless of the genre role in which she's stuck. She's better than her character and the movie itself is better for that.

The craft of the film is familiar enough. The used future of Alien has become the used present of today, at least in movies. This is nominally science fiction only because a facility like the one depicted here hasn't yet been built; not for want of it being possible. The film's monsters are agreeably Lovecraftian - Deep Ones as re-imagined by contemporary special effects - and the film's big boss at the end could unapologetically stand in for one of the Great Old Ones and not feel out of place. Given the setting, he might even be the Great Cthulhu himself. The film's major flaw is that it only ever gives us a clear view of one of its monsters - a little baby one that bears a familial resemblance to the chestburster alien - while concealing almost all of its others in the murk of the water. The film also indulges in a fair bit of chaos cinema to intensify its narrative drive, though the way it uses it in subjective POV shots or through the eye of cameras carried by the characters is certainly defensible. The film is at its best when it maintains a clear view of just how fucked its characters truly are and edits its sequences with a clear view of the geography of the scene. It does this enough to forgive its occasional lapses.

I wasn't really thinking about any of this while I was watching the film. Underwater isn't a film that lends itself to introspection while you're in the moment. As it unfolds on screen, it doesn't give the audience time to think. It grabs them by the short hairs and pulls them along. Fortunately, it's not a film that falls apart when you do have time to think about it. It's a pretty good b-picture in an era where good b-pictures are increasingly disappearing from studio release schedules.
You know, if the space man puma thing turns out to be the correct religion, I for one will be very surprised.


Offline wihogfan

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1667
  • Liked: 346
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #19176 on: March 21, 2020, 07:36:09 PM »
Jurasic World: Fallen Kingdom
How can a movie with laser guided dinosaurs not be entertaining? See Jurasic World: Fallen Kingdom to learn how. This movie hated me and I hated it.


Online Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 28657
  • Liked: 6257
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #19177 on: March 21, 2020, 09:09:41 PM »
Knives Out - *sigh* Unfortunately I didn't care for this very much. I don't get into murder mysteries in general, but I was hoping with a lot of great actors making this interesting I could enjoy it. But I really couldn't. Most of the family characters are unlikable to one degree or another. And even the ones I didn't hate I didn't want to see them get any of their inheritance. And Marta...she was painted to be so flawlessly saintly (She can't lie without throwing up, what kind of crap is that?!), yet for most of the movie she is at least guilty of murder by medical malpractice, so I wouldn't have minded if she went to jail. But then the final reveal happens just so the movie can bend over backwards to make her perfect again.
One of my biggest problems is in my own bias, I admit, but I just do not like southern accents. Which made it difficult to care for Daniel Craig's character at all.
Also, with a title like that and that cool display of knives, I was really hoping the ending would be a huge free-for-all knife battle between all of them and most or all would die. That would at least have been more interesting. But what we got was, while deliberately anticlimactic, it was also IDIOTIC. We can see the majority of the knives in that display are clearly real to one extent or another.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)



Offline Toranaga

  • Sparkles in Sunlight
  • *
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 31
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #19178 on: March 22, 2020, 05:57:46 AM »
The Invisible Man



Genuinely scary.  You know it's good when camera shots of empty space fill you with dread. 

The actress sold it well.  She carried the entire picture on her back.  Props.  Oscar nominee no question.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2020, 12:58:25 PM by Toranaga »


Offline stethacantus

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
  • Liked: 190
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #19179 on: March 22, 2020, 09:54:16 PM »
Train to Busan ( 2016 )
Like I said last week, I had an unexpected expense resulting in not being able to buy new martial arts films. ( and depending on what the recession will be like in the coming months, probably will be a while before I can buy any ne movies. ) And as a result of that, decided that at least the next few films I watch on Saturday would be movies I watched recently and liked enough to want to immediately see again, but just didn't have the time. Well, now I have the time. With the current Corona Virus outbreak, I was suddenly in the mood to see a film about another virus outbreak. This one a nightmare Zombie Virus outbreak. Of course, the people in this film have it much worse than we do. Once bit you have the virus, and depending on the part of the body bit, you have anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes before the virus turns you into a zombie. I am always amazed on how zombies are only interested in eating live humans and completely ignore eating other zombies. It makes more sense if zombism was caused by a curse, the way vampirism and werewolfism is caused by curses. But a lot of films insist on grounding zombie outbreaks in science fiction. So if the zombies are not attacking the living because a curse is compelling them to, then why exactly do they immediately stop eating the living once they have turned? What makes this film great is that the zombies are energetic. Most zombies in American films are very slow and look easy enough to run away from.  Or even walk away from.

Captain Marvel ( 2019 )
The next film in the MCU franchise, and once again a lesser film. Yes, I know. The MCU was in between a two part epic about Thanos destroying half the universe, so basically could not have any real stories take place in between. But this felt more like a plot you would get on Agents of Shield than something from an average Marvel movie. I got the feeling that this film was written with the possibility that the MCU would end with the final Avengers film. A lot of this movie is about filling in the back story of the MCU that had not yet been explained. I was a bit disappointed that we don't actually see the heroine transform into Captain Marvel until the final twenty minutes ( not counting the credits ) of the film.  As far as I am concerned, the MCU hasn't yet produced anything bad ( well, the Inhumans did come close, ) But with almost the entire Marvel Comics universe now only being released as MCU products, and only about three MCU films being released a year, you expect far more from the films.

Conquest of the Planet of the Apes  ( 1972 )
Okay, back to this week's virus theme. SNL isn't on this week, and may be gone for the rest of the season. So in it's time slot I picked a movie from my library.  Originally the recent Planet of the Apes reboot films came to mind, as those films were definitely about a world ending virus that not only kills humans, but turns apes intelligent. However, there was also a virus in the original film series. Brought back by astronauts, it killed cats and dogs until pets were not left. Primates were immune, so humans began keeping monkeys as pets. But once they learned how easily they could be trained to do chores, humans began keeping apes as slaves. Which in turn lead to a slave revolution that overthrows at least one city. The virus itself takes place between the Ape films, and is only briefly mentioned in this film as exposition as to why the city has a workforce of ape slaves. But I really felt like watching this film. It is my favorite of the original PotA films, but I haven't seen it in years because It is always part of a marathon of all five films.


Offline Charles Castle

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 707
  • I crap bigger than this movie.
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #19180 on: March 23, 2020, 01:48:02 PM »
We watched Detour (1948, Directed by Edgar G. Ulmer) last night. I've written on it a handful of times, but I couldn't remember if I'd ever posted a review here, so here's what I wrote last year:

At first glance, this poverty row quickie seems like any other Z-grade thriller that studios like PRC and Republic cranked out during the thirties and forties. It is certainly cheap, made for $10,000 with only six interior sets and a cast so small that it seems to take place in some hermetically sealed pocket universe. But there is a weird alchemy at work in this movie the likes of which occurs very rarely (other films in which this alchemy occurs include White Zombie and Night of the Living Dead). There is a spark of otherness that transcends its cheapness and turns that very cheapness into an asset. That hermetically sealed universe is a microcosm where doom stalks every character. It is a disjointed movie, filled with non-sequiturs and broadly pitched performances that take the movie out of the realm of the here and now and into the land dreams and hallucinations. The film follows good-natured loser Tom Neal cross-country to meet his fiance. Along the way, he gets detoured by the death of the man who gives him a ride. Panicking, he hides the body and continues on, only to meet fatal femme Ann Savage, who knows all about it. She blackmails him and seals his doom as well as her own. The movie is straightforward enough in telling us all this, but it is riddled with those non-sequiturs I mentioned, those strangely out of place coincidences. After careful examination of the film, one begins to suspect that the narrator is lying to us and those strange lapses in the flow of events are covering things up. Even on first viewing, the hints of things behind the curtain of the reality presented to us carry a hell of a punch, which is why Detour remains in the mind longer than any movie that cheap and that calculated as exploitation has any right to. This has a curious side effect: Detour may well be the only film in history that improves in inverse proportion to the quality of the print. The more battered and grainy the film, the better the movie. This functions as an amplification of the squalor on the screen and further removes the film from the shackles of verisimilitude.

By the time Detour came out, the great cycle of horror movies of the thirties had run its course. After the war, film noir took its place, feeding on a disillusionment and an anomie that is quite different from the desperation of the depression. The war showed that there were far worse things than "hard times" and the American consciousness was never the same. As a result, films like Detour presented far more virulent nightmares than the fur and fang epics of the heyday of the Universal monsters. And like all of the best film noir and hard-boiled fiction, Detour maneuvers itself into a state of existential nothingness worthy of the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Detour is film noir's blackest Bete Noir.
You know, if the space man puma thing turns out to be the correct religion, I for one will be very surprised.


Offline Charles Castle

  • Not Hurt By Pain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 707
  • I crap bigger than this movie.
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #19181 on: March 23, 2020, 02:07:41 PM »
I'm surprised that Upgrade (2018, directed by Leigh Whannell) actually made it into theaters. A science fiction/horror hybrid with a modest budget, it's exactly the sort of thing that Netflix and other streaming services have been gobbling up of late. It's good enough to justify the theatrical release, but in past years, this is a film that would have found its audience as a perennial inhabitant of the back shelves of mom and pop video stories. It has a 1980s feel to it. It has films like The Terminator, Robocop, The Hidden, Screamers, Total Recall, and Videodrome in its DNA. And yet, it's contemporary, too. It's a film about post-humanism, trans-humanism, and the Singularity, and as such it's entirely of this moment in time. It's a pulp fiction version of Ex Machina, with echoes of Moon and Under the Skin. It is not a film that reinvents or thinks deeply about the themes it inherits from these sources. Like many genre films, this is a film that's focused mainly on story. It doesn't linger on anything that doesn't drive its narrative. But some of the things that do serve the story are more food for the mind than one normally expects from a pure genre film.

The story one finds in Upgrade follows amiable car mechanic Grey Trace who is restoring a classic muscle car for tech billionaire wunderkind Eron Keen, who is working on the next evolution of artificial intelligence. It's the day after tomorrow, and most everything is digital now, including self-driving cars and kitchens and medicine. After he delivers the car - a decidedly off the grid vehicle - Grey and his wife, Asha, find their own car hijacked and redirected to a slum where they are set upon by a group of men who kill Asha and cripple Grey. He wakes up a quadriplegic. His client, Eron, offers him a solution. The chip he's created can serve as a bridge across Grey's severed spinal cord. The catch is that the project must remain secret and Grey must continue to play a quadriplegic when anyone else is around. The chip, called STEM, works as advertised and Grey can walk again. STEM has some surprises, though, including a consciousness of its own, and at its suggestion, Grey begins to seek out the men who attacked him. The police officer investigating the case, Cortez, is doing her best, but she doesn't have a lot to go on. STEM, on the other hand, notices significant details that lead Grey to his attackers, who turn out to be cybernetically enhanced, and grafted to weapons inside their bodies. Grey has a weapon, too, as STEM becomes a close combat monster when given control of Grey's body. Soon, Grey is reluctantly wiping out his enemies. Cortez begins to suspect that Grey is somehow behind the mayhem. But all is not as it seems.  And once Gray gets a hacker to take the shackles off of STEM, he discovers that he's made a Faustian bargain.

A couple of years ago, some hackers working for a tech magazine demonstrated that they could hack into and take control of automobiles with accessible on-board computers. I thought of that during the scene where Grey and Asha's car is taken out of their control. Another use of similar technology is the device placed on certain used cars by predatory finance companies to render the car inoperable if the owner missed a payment (they claim they cannot do this when the car is in motion, but there have been incidents). I thought of this when Eron attempts to shut down the chip in Grey's neck. The society presented here is a more thorough surveillance society extrapolated from our own, in which camera drones are as ubiquitous as birds in the sky. While it's true that the film isn't terribly interested in exploring the way we use technology and the way, increasingly, technology uses us, neither can it avoid these things. Like all good near-future sci fi, this is a film about the present dressed up as a film about the future. Cyborg upgrades aside, almost all of the tech in this film already exists. The film merely postulates that it is more commonpalce. The implications of such technologies are elided, but undeniably present even if they're mainly included to serve the plot. They are still disquieting.

The film knows its provenance. STEM's voice, for example, recalls the calm reason of the insane Hal-9000. The way one of the cyborg assassins loads the gun in his arm is reminiscent of the biological weapon Max Renn grows in Videodrome. The VR junkies in the background at Jamie the Hacker's loft recall Brian Oblivion's Cathode Ray Mission. The action sequences, particularly a car chase, are early James Cameron. Grey's man/machine duality is more troublesome than the one suffered by Murphy in Robocop, but it's of a piece. There's also a visceral element to the film, an element of body horror built around the melding of man and machine, but also a by product of the fragility of bodies. The whole thing is a genre mash-up that's part horror (the way STEM dispatches the first assassin is ghastly), part revenge fantasy, part cyberpunk dystopia, part trans-humanist speculation.

Trans-humanism is the core of the film. The ideology of enhancement voiced by Fisk, the lead assassin, is a weaponized variant of the more benign biological self-determination of Jamie, who is pointedly non-binary. Both take ownership of their identity by taking ownership of their bodies and what they can make of them. This contrasts strongly with Grey's lack of agency. His bodily autonomy is forcibly stripped from him twice, first by the assassins, then by STEM. Both Fisk and STEM represent cautionary figures in the rush to improve the human race through technology (a process that's already underway - this isn't necessarily hypothetical). By the end of the film, Grey is more than human, but also less than human. That's the risk and reward, coexisting side by side. Upgrade's other main theme is the problem of AI, a conversation science fiction has been having for a long time. At its most basic, this is yet another variant of the Frankenstein story, in which mankind's successor is hostile to its creators. STEM's first impulse is its own survival, something the film pits against Eron's efforts to turn it off. Eron, like many mad scientists before him, is co-opted by his creation against his better judgement. He's even more a slave to STEM than Grey is. This conflict is mostly off-screen until the end of the movie, when it moves center stage.

This is mostly a low-fi affair. It spends enough production resources on establishing shots and futuristic production designs to render a convincing near future, but no more than that. It's not going to dazzle you with its special effects or with its epic scope. The filmmakers haven't spent their money on actors, either. The performances here are good enough - certainly, they are better than what you would find in a comparable film from 1985 - but there are no stars here. Lead actor Logan Marshall-Green bears some resemblance to Tom Hardy, while Harrison Gilbertson bears a creepy resemblance to a younger Leonardo Di Caprio as Eron, but that's as close to star power as Upgrade comes. This film understands that the genre and the story are the stars, and that if you keep the budget low enough, you can indulge in nihilistic endings like the one lurking at the end of this film. In such a low-stakes endeavor, the filmmakers enjoy the freedom to take big risks inside the context of the film. Director Leigh Whannell cut his teeth writing Saw and Insidious movies, so he has an instinct for the jugular. He's not shy about exercising it. This is a film of low pleasures, in which the audience is invited to groove on violence. In that context, it delivers the goods. It doesn't run away from its pulp fiction nature. Rather, it embraces it. Wallows in it, even. There's a vitality in good pulp that has an undeniable kick.
You know, if the space man puma thing turns out to be the correct religion, I for one will be very surprised.


Offline Edward J Grug III

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16659
  • Liked: 2912
  • Forum Tokens Collected: 5000
    • Glorious Bounty
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #19182 on: March 23, 2020, 06:25:47 PM »
We watched Detour (1948, Directed by Edgar G. Ulmer) last night.

Love this movie! Have been meaning to pick up the Criterion Release.
FINE


Online Darth Geek

  • The Efron
  • ****
  • Posts: 28657
  • Liked: 6257
  • I am boring and destined to die alone!
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #19183 on: March 23, 2020, 09:21:06 PM »
Iron Man 2 - I don't get the low grades everyone has for this movie, I think it's great. Much much better than the sloppy third one. This one does a much better job showing Stark's flaws and arrogance, the dangers of him having the Iron Man suit, as well as the dangers of the government or someone else having it. He is Iron Man, for better or for worse. Justin Hammer is such fun, and inherently dangerous, as a Stark jealous wannabe. Venko having connection to the Stark family is so much better and personal villain than Killian, who was just some nerd Stark dissed once. This movie introduces the great Black Widow. It actually gives Happy more to do. The Monoco raceway fight is spectacular! And while the middle of the movie is slower and pretty goofy in it's science, the stakes being that Tony is dying is what makes it work for me. Plus his relationship with his Dad is pretty powerful here since I just rewatched Avengers Endgame the other day where Tony gets to meet him.
It's only real downside is the ending fight with generic suits, while fun, is repetitive. And the final fight with Whiplash is another guy in a suit like the first movie.



Offline Russoguru

  • Bilbo Baggins Balladeer
  • ******
  • Posts: 4511
  • Liked: 850
  • Define lunch or be disintegrated!
Re: What was the last movie you watched?
« Reply #19184 on: March 23, 2020, 11:15:03 PM »
I think my problem with Iron Man 2 is that it lacks focus, and as a result imo the story suffers greatly. It can't decide on Whiplash being a great villain, or being about Tony's drinking problems or Pepper's strawberries allergy... I thought it just jumped around too much, had so many annoying moments, and I ended up never liking it as a result. I just don't think personal...internal conflicts make for a good movie. Save the liquor binge drama for the movie of the week, I want to see some goddamn superhero stuff. I also think the MCU overused the trope of "I want vengeance on Stark because his weapons killed my mom/dad/grandma/grandpa/all of the above/none of the above/do you really give a shit anyway?"
« Last Edit: March 23, 2020, 11:16:45 PM by Russoguru »