By RAThasReturned Go To PostIn the theater for a 10:15PM of this Barbie feature. See ya on the other side.Fun. Lots of better comedy that actually lands. Thumbs up. Will buy the 4K...
By n8 dogg Go To PostCarpenter is great. Assault, Thing, Halloween, They Live all sensationalYou forgot Ghost of Mars.
By reilo Go To PostWatching The Thing. Two notes:
A) the 4k restoration is pristine
B) the practical effects of this are amazing. It holds up so well and is gnarly af. It puts modern shit to shame. It looks goddamn real.
You never seen it before?
I watched it for the first time a few months ago, and yeah, sensational film. Really held up well
Rewatched Dune this morning. Like with BR2049, it's sort of strange that it's a 'slow' blockbuster. Kind of understated tone.
World building/sets/design is fantastic.
Don't know how I feel about the scenes of visions in the movie. Been a couple of years since I read the first book but I think it's made clearer that Paul defeating Jamis will unleash the jihad, a galaxy-wide genocide, and he's aware of this. In the movie, it still feels like Paul is the white meat baby-face when really he's a tweener-heel.
World building/sets/design is fantastic.
Don't know how I feel about the scenes of visions in the movie. Been a couple of years since I read the first book but I think it's made clearer that Paul defeating Jamis will unleash the jihad, a galaxy-wide genocide, and he's aware of this. In the movie, it still feels like Paul is the white meat baby-face when really he's a tweener-heel.
By Punished Go To PostRewatched Dune this morning. Like with BR2049, it's sort of strange that it's a 'slow' blockbuster. Kind of understated tone.It's still vague to him in the book up until that point. He doesn't gain his full vision until he does the spice orgy at Sietch Tabr.
World building/sets/design is fantastic.
Don't know how I feel about the scenes of visions in the movie. Been a couple of years since I read the first book but I think it's made clearer that Paul defeating Jamis will unleash the jihad, a galaxy-wide genocide, and he's aware of this. In the movie, it still feels like Paul is the white meat baby-face when really he's a tweener-heel.
It looks like they cover more of that in Part II which makes sense.
By reilo Go To PostIt's still vague to him in the book up until that point. He doesn't gain his full vision until he does the spice orgy at Sietch Tabr.Ah
It looks like they cover more of that in Part II which makes sense.
By WoodenLung Go To PostYou never seen it before?Yea just somehow missed it all these years and finally decided I wanted to see it
I watched it for the first time a few months ago, and yeah, sensational film. Really held up well
Has Criterion ever done any of the Carpenter films on Blu-ray?
I got The Thing from Dollar Tree years ago, but I'd love to see what they could do with extras and their packaging.
I got The Thing from Dollar Tree years ago, but I'd love to see what they could do with extras and their packaging.
Watching Indy Last Crusade for the first time in Disney 4k.
Noticed a piece of paper in the grail diary that talks about marriages rates in the 1940s.
Only problem is that the film is set in 1938.
Spielberg is a fraud.
Noticed a piece of paper in the grail diary that talks about marriages rates in the 1940s.
Only problem is that the film is set in 1938.
Spielberg is a fraud.
By KimoSan Go To PostHas Criterion ever done any of the Carpenter films on Blu-ray?Don't think so no, I doubt Criterion would go for any of his films anyway, he's essentially a B-movie genre director and Criterion are more arty than that lol
I got The Thing from Dollar Tree years ago, but I'd love to see what they could do with extras and their packaging.
Maybe. But they did funny games, night of the living dead, flesh for frankenstein and so on. So I dont think it's out of the question.
By Freewheelin Go To PostDon't think so no, I doubt Criterion would go for any of his films anyway, he's essentially a B-movie genre director and Criterion are more arty than that lolNot true. Plenty of B movies in the collection like Repo Men, The Blob, etc. Carpenter’s stuff is just tied up by others.
By Freewheelin Go To PostDon't think so no, I doubt Criterion would go for any of his films anyway, he's essentially a B-movie genre director and Criterion are more arty than that lolThat's true, but they've loosened up a bit over the years. I mean they have multiple John Waters films on BD, but I guess that is more trashy art house than B-movie.
The Thing is just as relevant as something like Scorsese's After Hours (also great) that they just released though.
By Perfect Blue Go To PostJesus, and I thought the green exit signs were distracting in the theater I was at.
And why even leave the house if you're going to sit a Par 3 distance from the screen?
By Freewheelin Go To PostDon't think so no, I doubt Criterion would go for any of his films anyway, he's essentially a B-movie genre director and Criterion are more arty than that lolIf Armageddon made it in, everyone's got a shot.
the thing is already out on uhd. doubt criterion will ever bother releasing it on their own label.
where's the 4k malick collection.
where's the 4k malick collection.
By Kabro Go To PostWorth to watch Oppenheimer in iMax?If available yes.
@The Thing
Incredibly, a timeless classic.
The BTS where they show you how all the effects are done is fascinating (and sad that we rarely do this shit anymore)
No way man. The director is the Evangelion dude
Incredibly, a timeless classic.
The BTS where they show you how all the effects are done is fascinating (and sad that we rarely do this shit anymore)
By data Go To PostEberyone talking about Barbenheimer and I'm over here with shin Kamen rider and venture brosLmao
No way man. The director is the Evangelion dude
By Koko Go To PostIf available yes.Thanks.
I'm currently in queue to buy tickets online. WTF
Oppenheimer pretty good but wow does this guy know how to let a scene breathe? Constant blaring epic music in every scene lol.
Nolan's stated opinion is that audio utilization in movies is too conservative which, yea, that's the intended effect. He wants you to have sensory overload.
Actually never had a problem with the audio mix but we do have subtitled movies for original language so i might just read it without knowing it.
By reilo Go To PostNolan's stated opinion is that audio utilization in movies is too conservative which, yea, that's the intended effect. He wants you to have sensory overload.It's a bit shit for a film where most of the action is in quiet rooms. It's like he has no confidence in the dialogue that is written to create tension so he chooses an excessively epic soundtrack for every scene.
Felt like the scope was somehow still too large for the runtime and lots of relevant things about Oppie's life were left out or briefly glossed over,
See, I feel like the editing and pacing are keeping me from describing it as "talky". The film constantly jumps around and moves at an unreal pace, and it covers a lot even in that three hour runtime.
Will Ferrell was really off his game in Barbie, for me
A lot of the jokes were good on paper but just didn't land
Gosling was absolutely phenomenal and America Ferrara too
A lot of the jokes were good on paper but just didn't land
Gosling was absolutely phenomenal and America Ferrara too
By WoodenLung Go To PostDamn. Nolan hates autistic people
People catering to those with ADHD people has negatively affected professional wrestling and most consumable media.
Have a night off baby duty and have to chose between
Oppenheimer
Barbie
Cruise missile
Wife wants to see Gosling shirtless and hasn't seen a single MI since the first.
No IMAX available in Germany. What should I choose?
Oppenheimer
Barbie
Cruise missile
Wife wants to see Gosling shirtless and hasn't seen a single MI since the first.
No IMAX available in Germany. What should I choose?
By DerZuhälter Go To PostHave a night off baby duty and have to chose between
Oppenheimer
Barbie
Cruise missile
Wife wants to see Gosling shirtless and hasn't seen a single MI since the first.
No IMAX available in Germany. What should I choose?
what’s the point? you’re going to shit on whatever movie you end up watching anyway.
By bud Go To Postwhat’s the point? you’re going to shit on whatever movie you end up watching anyway.this is also true.
Just finished my MI rewatch in preparation for Dead Reckoning.
Mission: Impossible, which I probably first watched when I was nine or ten and remember not enjoying much, is superb. I was definitely too young to enjoy (and probably understand), as it's the film in the series most distinct from the rest. The most enjoyable thing about it (and it's something I'd probably say McQuarrie is most influenced by) is its editing; De Palma pulls together a few bravura set pieces through sequencing alone. The first at the opera is a triumph of filmmaking, imbuing a real sense of tension for five characters you've met less than ten minutes prior. Just as good are the scenes between Hunt and Kitteridge when the low Dutch angles and close-ups do a hell of a lot of heavy lifting, and a sensational sequence between Hunt and Phelps when De Palma cuts between Hunt's 'revelation' and what really happened. That is all topped by the Langley heist, which - almost 30 years after it debuted - is still probably the series' best scene. Extraordinary levels of precision, pacing and patience, all orchestrated by a director who really, really knows how to use a camera.
Unfortunately, John Woo blows it when it comes to Mission: Impossible 2, which attempts to turn Hunt into a suave, Bond-esque hero; this does not work when your hero is played by a lizard man. The chemistry between Cruise and Newton is non-existent, the dialogue is weak throughout, the villain is poorly overplayed by an out-of-his-depth Scott, the final confrontation is underwhelming and most of the action devolves into slow-motion kicking, the likes of which Hunt didn't do in the first and would never do again. It's just a bad film; some of its recent appraisals seem to think that the mere act of using motorbikes to joust should render the film's inadequacies irrelevant. I say that's the only bit that's good in over two hours of rubbish.
J.J. Abrams' effort, Mission: Impossible III is a quintessential Abrams film, and its successes and failures follow that trend; it nails the casting, with even bit-part characters like Rhys-Meyers' and Maggie Q's (and Pegg's) getting good mileage because of charismatic performances. The plot moves at a good pace, fast enough to make you only realise some bizarre creative decisions after the fact - even though the first scene is amazing in the moment, it sucks the tension out of the first hour of the film in retrospect. Odd too is Abrams' decision to cut away from Ethan base-jumping into a building, only cutting to the fallout of the scene. It's entertaining enough stuff, mostly because of an all-too brief but outstanding performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain and some peak Cruise running
The series begins to take its current shape in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, by focusing on 'what mad shit can Cruise do in real life?', and the Burj Khalifa climb is very fun (albeit topped in almost every way in the next few). Much better, but much less heralded sequences, are the break in of the Kremlin - where the film is most typically 'MI', with its masks and moustaches and spy screens - , the opening prison riot, and most of all a fantastic piece of environmental storytelling in the car park at the end, all culminating in the wonderful moment where Hunt roars 'mission accomplished' into the sky and presses a big red button that doesn't work. The film doesn't have the same pizzazz when it comes to casting that M:I-III does - Patton, Renner and Nyqvist are fairly forgettable - but Bird does a good job of focusing the films around good stunts and proper action sequences in a way none of the other three had nailed.
God bless Christopher McQuarrie, who comes along and revitalises the franchise; Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation is a thoroughly entertaining lark, with the best sequence since the first's Langley heist - the opera scene is a superb showcase of the power of meticulous construction of a scene. While the film suffers from a fairly weak villain - Harris fares much better in the sixth - and some dodgy CGI, especially in the underwater sequence, there's a level of humour that McQuarrie nails better than Bird and in the casting of Ferguson as Ilsa Faust, introduces the series' secret weapon. Baldwin is also great in these films - the 'physical manifestation of destiny' monologue captures exactly what the spirit of them should be from here on in.
Mission: Impossible - Fallout is in some ways a greatest hits collection of all those that came before - the same rogue agent chemical weapon storyline as M:I2, return trips to London and Paris, even beginning to introduce relatives of previous characters that do similar jobs. But it's the best in the series because it most weaponises the power of filmmaking. It's peak action filmmaking; from the halo jump, complete with IMAX aspect shift, to the brutal bathroom brawl, into a stunningly built-up, edited and choreographed car chase through Paris to the madness of the helicopter sequence in the film's final half an hour, everything is executed on such a high technical level. Add to that the best villain since Hoffman in Cavill's 'hammer' - films should let him do this kind of thing more often rather than boy scout Superman stuff - and the best score in the series, and it's the best American action film of the 21st century so far.
6 > 1 > 5 > 4 > 3 > 2. Looking forward to going this week for the new one.
Mission: Impossible, which I probably first watched when I was nine or ten and remember not enjoying much, is superb. I was definitely too young to enjoy (and probably understand), as it's the film in the series most distinct from the rest. The most enjoyable thing about it (and it's something I'd probably say McQuarrie is most influenced by) is its editing; De Palma pulls together a few bravura set pieces through sequencing alone. The first at the opera is a triumph of filmmaking, imbuing a real sense of tension for five characters you've met less than ten minutes prior. Just as good are the scenes between Hunt and Kitteridge when the low Dutch angles and close-ups do a hell of a lot of heavy lifting, and a sensational sequence between Hunt and Phelps when De Palma cuts between Hunt's 'revelation' and what really happened. That is all topped by the Langley heist, which - almost 30 years after it debuted - is still probably the series' best scene. Extraordinary levels of precision, pacing and patience, all orchestrated by a director who really, really knows how to use a camera.
Unfortunately, John Woo blows it when it comes to Mission: Impossible 2, which attempts to turn Hunt into a suave, Bond-esque hero; this does not work when your hero is played by a lizard man. The chemistry between Cruise and Newton is non-existent, the dialogue is weak throughout, the villain is poorly overplayed by an out-of-his-depth Scott, the final confrontation is underwhelming and most of the action devolves into slow-motion kicking, the likes of which Hunt didn't do in the first and would never do again. It's just a bad film; some of its recent appraisals seem to think that the mere act of using motorbikes to joust should render the film's inadequacies irrelevant. I say that's the only bit that's good in over two hours of rubbish.
J.J. Abrams' effort, Mission: Impossible III is a quintessential Abrams film, and its successes and failures follow that trend; it nails the casting, with even bit-part characters like Rhys-Meyers' and Maggie Q's (and Pegg's) getting good mileage because of charismatic performances. The plot moves at a good pace, fast enough to make you only realise some bizarre creative decisions after the fact - even though the first scene is amazing in the moment, it sucks the tension out of the first hour of the film in retrospect. Odd too is Abrams' decision to cut away from Ethan base-jumping into a building, only cutting to the fallout of the scene. It's entertaining enough stuff, mostly because of an all-too brief but outstanding performance from Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain and some peak Cruise running
The series begins to take its current shape in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, by focusing on 'what mad shit can Cruise do in real life?', and the Burj Khalifa climb is very fun (albeit topped in almost every way in the next few). Much better, but much less heralded sequences, are the break in of the Kremlin - where the film is most typically 'MI', with its masks and moustaches and spy screens - , the opening prison riot, and most of all a fantastic piece of environmental storytelling in the car park at the end, all culminating in the wonderful moment where Hunt roars 'mission accomplished' into the sky and presses a big red button that doesn't work. The film doesn't have the same pizzazz when it comes to casting that M:I-III does - Patton, Renner and Nyqvist are fairly forgettable - but Bird does a good job of focusing the films around good stunts and proper action sequences in a way none of the other three had nailed.
God bless Christopher McQuarrie, who comes along and revitalises the franchise; Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation is a thoroughly entertaining lark, with the best sequence since the first's Langley heist - the opera scene is a superb showcase of the power of meticulous construction of a scene. While the film suffers from a fairly weak villain - Harris fares much better in the sixth - and some dodgy CGI, especially in the underwater sequence, there's a level of humour that McQuarrie nails better than Bird and in the casting of Ferguson as Ilsa Faust, introduces the series' secret weapon. Baldwin is also great in these films - the 'physical manifestation of destiny' monologue captures exactly what the spirit of them should be from here on in.
Mission: Impossible - Fallout is in some ways a greatest hits collection of all those that came before - the same rogue agent chemical weapon storyline as M:I2, return trips to London and Paris, even beginning to introduce relatives of previous characters that do similar jobs. But it's the best in the series because it most weaponises the power of filmmaking. It's peak action filmmaking; from the halo jump, complete with IMAX aspect shift, to the brutal bathroom brawl, into a stunningly built-up, edited and choreographed car chase through Paris to the madness of the helicopter sequence in the film's final half an hour, everything is executed on such a high technical level. Add to that the best villain since Hoffman in Cavill's 'hammer' - films should let him do this kind of thing more often rather than boy scout Superman stuff - and the best score in the series, and it's the best American action film of the 21st century so far.
6 > 1 > 5 > 4 > 3 > 2. Looking forward to going this week for the new one.
By n8 dogg Go To PostJ.J. Abrams' effort, Mission: Impossible III is in a quintessential Abrams filmEnglish teacher my arse
By NiceGuy Go To PostEnglish teacher my arse
originally wrote 'in some ways a quintessential' and then thought FUCK IT - ALL WAYS
TIL George Miller directed all of the Mad Max films
Fury Road is so different from the first three I assumed he'd been picked for it
Fury Road is so different from the first three I assumed he'd been picked for it
By NiceGuy Go To PostTIL George Miller directed all of the Mad Max films
Fury Road is so different from the first three I assumed he'd been picked for it
Also Australian, hence why MI6 can be the best American action film innit.
Happy Feet is underrated imho
By NiceGuy Go To PostTIL George Miller directed all of the Mad Max filmsGeorge Miller's filmography:
Fury Road is so different from the first three I assumed he'd been picked for it
Nolan could never.
By NiceGuy Go To PostTIL George Miller directed all of the Mad Max filmsWat
Fury Road is so different from the first three I assumed he'd been picked for it
Fury Road is basically just a modern remake of Road Warrior