Movies I've seen in 2016

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:07 pm

I don't remember the ads, or why I even watched it in the first place. I just remember I liked it.

Also, it's probably a good idea to refrain a bit from calling another movie fucking lame right after you admitted to liking Me and Earl and the Dying Girl.

I'M JUST SAYING.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:22 pm

There was nothing lame about Me and Earl and the Dying Girl.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:28 pm

I just remember the same ad everywhere with a kid in the forest with these creatures that looked like they belonged in Fraggle Rock and a cheesy Philip Philips song playing in the background.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:45 pm

I mean, even if I liked it more, I would still realize its lameness.

Why do you like it so much again?

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:57 pm

It was funny, it was real, the dialogue was like actual real things that people would say, not the rehearsed speeches you usually hear movie characters spout off. They didn't bother with any bullshit romantic stuff that you always get with these types of movies. They didn't do the fluffy, happy ending thing. I guess I also went in with kinda low expectations, but what's not to like? What was lame about it?

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:30 pm

I don't know. It just felt like all quirk and no soul. The only authentic emotional moment I remember was the scene when (SPOILER) Rachel said she was discontinuing her chemotherapy, which felt real and raw. Most of the rest of the movie felt fake and artificial (I remember high school, and the movie did not realistically portray high school, cliques are not restrictive warring tribes, I thought that shit died in the 80s), a lot of the dialogue did feel fake and movie-ish. Most of the characters just felt like props to help Greg with his character growth. I didn't like how Rachel didn't have much to do besides make Greg feel better and inspire him to be a better person (and why should or would a girl dying from leukemia take so much interest in trying to make some lanky self-pitying douchebag she just met feel better about his life?); I felt slightly irritated that the movie never really gave any sign that it cared about her as a person or bothered to look at things from her perspective. She was a prop; she only existed to serve Greg's character. (She came dangerously close to being a Manic Pixie Dream Girl.)

And the black character I thought was a stereotype. I mean, seriously, all he does is say "Dem titties" all the time. He was barely even a person. I realize movies don't give you a lot of time to flesh out characters... but it should be tried.

I mean, I realize Greg viewing life solipsistically and growing out of that is part of the point... but I felt like the movie itself was reflecting his point-of-view. Like it only cared about Greg too. It was jarring and unpleasant.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:46 pm

Lol, Fault in Our Stars was some of the fakest shit I've seen in the theaters. Every time those kids opened their mouths I rolled my eyes. Teenagers don't talk like that. Adults don't talk like that. Nobody talks like that. I had the opposite reaction when comparing these two.

Cliques were restrictive in my high school, and maybe not warring, but I don't remember any warring in this movie either.

I didn't think the black guy was a stereotype just cuz he said dem titties. Most of the guys in my high school would say the same type of shit, and we had like 2 black guys.

I guess the rest of what you said about the movie not focusing much on Rachel was sort of true, but I didn't think it was supposed to or that it needed to.

Unvoiced_Apollo · Post by **Unvoiced_Apollo** » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:39 pm

BruceSmith78 wrote:Lol, Fault in Our Stars was some of the fakest shit I've seen in the theaters. Every time those kids opened their mouths I rolled my eyes. Teenagers don't talk like that. Adults don't talk like that. Nobody talks like that. I had the opposite reaction when comparing these two.

Cliques were restrictive in my high school, and maybe not warring, but I don't remember any warring in this movie either.

I didn't think the black guy was a stereotype just cuz he said dem titties. Most of the guys in my high school would say the same type of shit, and we had like 2 black guys.

I guess the rest of what you said about the movie not focusing much on Rachel was sort of true, but I didn't think it was supposed to or that it needed to.

Fun fact, the guy that plays Shailene Woodley's love interest in Fault in Our Stars plays her brother in The Divergent series.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:02 am

Yeah, I've seen both movies.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:05 am

I think I was thinking of something else. I don't remember if I've seen Fault in our Stars. Probably not, because the book is terrible.

In my high school cliques were very fluid. The athletes mix with the nerds mix with the drama geeks mix with the druggies. I belonged to like six "cliques". Most people didn't give a shit except in extreme cases. I think my high school was normal.

It's not that they needed to focus particularly much on Rachel; it's that she was never a character in her own right; she was just something Greg could bounce off of. She wasn't a person. I mean, really, here's what happened: she gets leukemia, then some douchey guy she doesn't know comes to her house and blatantly states he's only there because he was told to be, that he's only there as a kind of charity mission, he begs her to hang out with her, he talks about his life a bunch (she doesn't talk about her life very much), he shows her all the movies he made, and she essentially spends the last few months of her trying desperately to make him feel better and inspire him to be a better person. That story is so self-centered that I felt uncomfortable watching the movie. It's not that Greg was self-centered; the movie itself was.

No actual person would ever do that, especially with how douchey Greg was acting to her at first. So she was just a prop. I really couldn't get over that.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:15 am

I don't know, I thought she appreciated his honesty and transparency if nothing else, and after they hung out for a bit they grew to like each other, and then became friends. Shit like that happens, and Greg was certainly not without a certain charm. He made me laugh out loud numerous times, and I ended up liking the guy. What better way to spend the last bit of your life than by trying to help a friend? Even then, she had her limits.

I'm rethinking their portrayal of high school a bit now that I remember it a little more, and I think it wasn't meant to be entirely realistic. A little lampooning for some comic relief, like the cliques in Mean Girls.

*edit* Also, I don't know what it means for a movie to be self-centered. I guess I don't think of movies like that.

Oh, and Where the Wild Things Are might very well be awesome, but it just had really shitty marketing techniques, so I never saw it, and never wanted to see it.

Unvoiced_Apollo · Post by **Unvoiced_Apollo** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:17 pm

Batman v Superman - Batfleck couldn't save this clunky, unfocused, bloated mess of a movie. Neither Irons nor Gadot were in it long enough to make a sound judgment on thair characters. In addition, there was too much trying to set up the Justice League, including said visions & a weird time travel/interdimensional contact scene never confirmed/explained, though it's pretty clear they were setting uo Darkseid. In short, too long, too confused, weird edits overshadow the two decent quality I can find, both of which revolve around Batman. 4/10.

Post by **Gendo** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:53 pm

Movies I don't own that I saw, because they were playing on the cruise I just got back from:

Ender's Game - Not bad, not great. I could see why the book is so popular. But the movie really failed at world-building; they never explained much of what was really going on at all. But the actual events of the plot were interesting; especially the ending.

The Internship - Surprisingly pretty good, for a stupid comedy of course. It less stupid than you would expect. And as a programmer, I enjoyed all the Google-stuff.

Post by **Gendo** » Sat Apr 02, 2016 2:46 am

Oliver Stone flicks I've seen:

JFK - Pretty good. I don't buy into conspiracies or anything, but a lot of things were presented that make me curious how things could have happened the way they did. Good music and great editing.

World Trade Center - Better than I expected. Not exploitative of the tragedy like I thought it would be. Really it's just about 2 real-life cops who were trapped in the building and their families. The film itself was really well done, and felt like it could have been telling a story that took place as a result of things other than the actual 9/11 attacks. Cage wasn't the best choice for the role at all, but he wasn't terrible.

Post by **Gendo** » Thu Apr 14, 2016 1:51 am

The United States of Leland - Darn, I really wanted to like this. I've been wanting to see it for over 10 years. Between the cast and the general themes, it kept seeming like it might be really brilliant; yet, it fell just short of that in such a way that made it just bad. Boring and muddled.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Thu Apr 14, 2016 5:06 am

Gendo wrote:The United States of Leland - Darn, I really wanted to like this. I've been wanting to see it for over 10 years. Between the cast and the general themes, it kept seeming like it might be really brilliant; yet, it fell just short of that in such a way that made it just bad. Boring and muddled.

I remember watching it because Michelle Williams is in it and that's literally all I remember about it. That's also the reason I watched The Station Agent. That one was worth watching. I hear that dwarf is a pretty big deal now.

Post by **Gendo** » Mon Apr 18, 2016 6:14 pm

Windtalkers - Somewhat disappointing. Needed a lot more of the parts about the actual code and the Navajo's role in the war; and a lot less Nick Cage acting like Nick Cage.

Mr. Popper's Penguins - Actually not bad. Nothing at all new or special; same basic story that you can find in just about any family comedy. But still fun.

Post by **Gendo** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:07 pm

King Kong - The 2005 Peter Jackson one. As a whole, I liked it. Great story and descent visuals. The storytelling felt very unfocused though... like it was multiple different movies all stuck together. I have very mixed feelings on all the dinosaur parts. On one hand, that's the type of thing I was just talking about; it didn't fit in the movie and wasn't needed at all. On the other hand... it was really awesome. Some of those scenes were things I think would have been really great in any of the Jurassic Park movies. Also, someone needs to tell Peter Jackson that it's ok if your movie is less than 3 hours.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:48 pm

King Kong is honestly one of my favorite movies. It's a case where a lot of the flaws I think it has all somehow add up to make the movie even stronger. I like its jarring unfocused structure, I like its sense of grandeur and scale, I like the fact that it's so long with so many scenes that simply pad it out. I like the whole tone and atmosphere of it. I think it's one of the most moving and beautiful movies ever. The third act in Manhattan is (to me) so evocative and atmospheric. Literally all the emotional beats worked. I think this movie is miles better than LotR.

I'm not really sure why it worked so well for me and not for other people, but it did. It's one of my favorite movies ever.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 4:23 pm

I agree, the original King Kong was a masterpiece that they've now managed to ass-rape twice.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 4:57 pm

I hear King Kong is about the fear of aggressive black men kidnapping helpless white women.

Unvoiced_Apollo · Post by **Unvoiced_Apollo** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:50 am

Cassius Clay wrote:I hear King Kong is about the fear of aggressive black men kidnapping helpless white women.

So what's the problem?

Post by **Gendo** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:38 pm

Godzilla (2014) - Um, so the parts with Godzilla were pretty cool. Too bad this movie had little-to-nothing to do with Godzilla. It was all about a couple non-Godzilla monsters attacking cities. The other monsters were stupid; why couldn't the movie actually be about Godzilla?

Also, the first half of the movie is them coming up with a plan to use a nuke to kill the monsters. The second half is about them deciding that that was a bad idea and coming up with a plan to disarm that same nuke. Um, yeah. So if they had just sat back and done nothing at all, the outcome would have been exactly the same.

Unvoiced_Apollo · Post by **Unvoiced_Apollo** » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:28 am

Gendo wrote:Godzilla (2014) - Um, so the parts with Godzilla were pretty cool. Too bad this movie had little-to-nothing to do with Godzilla. It was all about a couple non-Godzilla monsters attacking cities. The other monsters were stupid; why couldn't the movie actually be about Godzilla?

Also, the first half of the movie is them coming up with a plan to use a nuke to kill the monsters. The second half is about them deciding that that was a bad idea and coming up with a plan to disarm that same nuke. Um, yeah. So if they had just sat back and done nothing at all, the outcome would have been exactly the same.

The real main problem with the movie was a severe underuse of Brian Cranston

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:42 am

Gendo wrote:Also, the first half of the movie is them coming up with a plan to use a nuke to kill the monsters. The second half is about them deciding that that was a bad idea and coming up with a plan to disarm that same nuke. Um, yeah. So if they had just sat back and done nothing at all, the outcome would have been exactly the same.

The same can be said about Raiders of the Lost Arc. If Indy had done nothing, the Nazis would have found the arc and destroyed themselves with it, just like they did after Indy went through all that shit to stop them from finding it.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:44 am

Ark.

But that is one of my favorite examples of a movie where the entire thing is pointless.

Post by **Gendo** » Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:57 pm

BruceSmith78 wrote:
Gendo wrote:Also, the first half of the movie is them coming up with a plan to use a nuke to kill the monsters. The second half is about them deciding that that was a bad idea and coming up with a plan to disarm that same nuke. Um, yeah. So if they had just sat back and done nothing at all, the outcome would have been exactly the same.
The same can be said about Raiders of the Lost Arc. If Indy had done nothing, the Nazis would have found the arc and destroyed themselves with it, just like they did after Indy went through all that shit to stop them from finding it.

Yes, it's one of the reasons I like Raiders less than most people. But at least there half the movie wasn't about trying to cancel the plan they had set in motion in the first half.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:51 pm

Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:
Cassius Clay wrote:I hear King Kong is about the fear of aggressive black men kidnapping helpless white women.
So what's the problem?

You bitch

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Fri Apr 29, 2016 2:53 pm

Raiders is a perfect movie.

Post by **Gendo** » Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:27 pm

Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:
Gendo wrote:Godzilla (2014) - Um, so the parts with Godzilla were pretty cool. Too bad this movie had little-to-nothing to do with Godzilla. It was all about a couple non-Godzilla monsters attacking cities. The other monsters were stupid; why couldn't the movie actually be about Godzilla?

Also, the first half of the movie is them coming up with a plan to use a nuke to kill the monsters. The second half is about them deciding that that was a bad idea and coming up with a plan to disarm that same nuke. Um, yeah. So if they had just sat back and done nothing at all, the outcome would have been exactly the same.
The real main problem with the movie was a severe underuse of Brian Cranston

Yeah, especially that whole "oh wow, he actually survived that big collapse that you thought killed him! Oh, never mind, we're just joking, he's going to die 5 minutes later instead."

Post by **Gendo** » Sun May 01, 2016 3:33 pm

The Rundown - Surprisingly good. Fun action/adventure/comedy. Also, contains close-up shots of Christopher Walken saying things like "that's a lot of cows". And for some strange reason, it has Arnold Schwarzenegger at the very beginning for 2 seconds.

It Could Happen to You - Cute romantic comedy; this is he type of role Cage should be doing more of.

Post by **Gendo** » Mon May 02, 2016 6:16 pm

Popeye - Not what you would call a "good" movie, but they did a great job of making it feel like a cartoon come to life. I've only seen very little of the cartoon; but I could clearly recognize the various cartoon aspects being brought to life.

Unvoiced_Apollo · Post by **Unvoiced_Apollo** » Mon May 02, 2016 8:17 pm

Gendo wrote:The Rundown - Surprisingly good. Fun action/adventure/comedy. Also, contains close-up shots of Christopher Walken saying things like "that's a lot of cows". And for some strange reason, it has Arnold Schwarzenegger at the very beginning for 2 seconds.

If I recall that was the first action movie (maybe first one in general) Dwayne Johnson had as an actual lead. My guess Ahnohld's cameo was like a symbolic passing of the torch.

Post by **Gendo** » Mon May 02, 2016 8:23 pm

Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:
Gendo wrote:The Rundown - Surprisingly good. Fun action/adventure/comedy. Also, contains close-up shots of Christopher Walken saying things like "that's a lot of cows". And for some strange reason, it has Arnold Schwarzenegger at the very beginning for 2 seconds.

If I recall that was the first action movie (maybe first one in general) Dwayne Johnson had as an actual lead. My guess Ahnohld's cameo was like a symbolic passing of the torch.

I read that it's a common fan theory that Arnold said "have fun" as a way of passing the torch; though it doesn't appear to be anything official. I do know that it wasn't originally planned; but Arnold just happened to be nearby when they were shooting.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Tue May 03, 2016 1:19 am

Do you understand the concept of the tooth fairy?

Monk · Post by **Monk** » Wed May 04, 2016 8:46 pm

Gendo wrote:Total Recall (2012) - Not as good as the original, which was what I expected. It had some neat changes though. The Fall was a cool idea. And it had a couple good nods to the original. But even more changes to the plot would have been better.

The Fall was literally the only good thing about that movie.

Ender's Game - Not bad, not great. I could see why the book is so popular. But the movie really failed at world-building; they never explained much of what was really going on at all. But the actual events of the plot were interesting; especially the ending.

I really, really didn't like the movie. I really enjoyed the book, though. Go read it. Better yet, listen to the audiobook (I got it free through my library). Some pretty sweet voice acting and narration. Ender's Shadow is a nice complementary book as well, as it follows the events through Bean's perspective.

The Rundown is also a guilty pleasure of mine. The Rock is a surprisingly decent and charming actor.

Post by **Gendo** » Wed May 11, 2016 1:55 pm

Batman v Superman - Better than Man of Steel and Better than I expected. Still bad though. I actually really liked the buildup in the first half. The biggest problem for me was the same as one of my problems with Man of Steel; why does Snyder hate colors?

Unvoiced_Apollo · Post by **Unvoiced_Apollo** » Wed May 11, 2016 4:37 pm

Gendo wrote:Batman v Superman - Better than Man of Steel and Better than I expected. Still bad though. I actually really liked the buildup in the first half. The biggest problem for me was the same as one of my problems with Man of Steel; why does Snyder hate colors?

Maybe he's a colorist.

My biggest problem is about 50% of it is good with so much potential and it just fell out.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Fri May 13, 2016 1:06 am

My biggest problem was the final act was really sloppy, with a bunch of shit that didn't make sense thrown together so we could have some fight scenes.

Unvoiced_Apollo · Post by **Unvoiced_Apollo** » Sun May 15, 2016 5:09 pm

BruceSmith78 wrote:My biggest problem was the final act was really sloppy, with a bunch of shit that didn't make sense thrown together so we could have some fight scenes.

"Martha" sums it up for me.

Post by **Gendo** » Fri May 20, 2016 6:26 pm

Oblivion - It was good; could have been better. Some interesting twists; but sometimes it felt like twists were just there to have twists. Edge of Tomorrow is better for a very similar movie.

Post by **Gendo** » Sat May 21, 2016 1:23 am

The Good Shepherd- Boring, mostly.

Post by **Gendo** » Sat May 21, 2016 4:39 am

Road House - Good fun. The whole movie is like one big bar fight.

Post by **Gendo** » Sat May 21, 2016 7:30 pm

The Spitfire Grill - Pretty good. Had a very "Hallmark Movie" feel to it, though. Nothing special or anything.

Post by **Gendo** » Sun May 22, 2016 7:43 pm

The Lego Movie - Great fun. Wasn't expecting it to be as creative as it was.

Post by **Gendo** » Sat May 28, 2016 7:05 pm

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World - Funny. I suppose I couldn't appreciate a lot of the cameos; not being very familiar with actors from that era. But great comedy.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sat May 28, 2016 7:22 pm

Rat Race was better just because of Amy Smart.

Post by **Gendo** » Sun May 29, 2016 3:22 am

I own that one too; and immediately thought of it last night during World.

Post by **Gendo** » Tue May 31, 2016 3:16 pm

Captain America: Civil War - The only problem with hype is that it makes it hard to be impressed. It was great; which was exactly what I was expecting. If I had to say something negative, it's that the villain was pretty weak. Basically unnecessary. He had nothing to do with the primary reasons that the Avengers fought against each other.

Unvoiced_Apollo · Post by **Unvoiced_Apollo** » Tue May 31, 2016 8:06 pm

Gendo wrote:Captain America: Civil War - The only problem with hype is that it makes it hard to be impressed. It was great; which was exactly what I was expecting. If I had to say something negative, it's that the villain was pretty weak. Basically unnecessary. He had nothing to do with the primary reasons that the Avengers fought against each other.

After seeing it a couple more times, I don't know about that. While perhaps the fighting would have led to the same conclusion, I feel there's more emotional weight in how the conclusion came about.