|
Post by Jay on Jun 11, 2019 13:55:19 GMT -8
I implied to a co-worker that Will Smith's genie wasn't blue all the time because he was an inferior actor to Robin Williams. Terribly confused expression in response.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Jun 11, 2019 17:53:30 GMT -8
I implied to a co-worker that Will Smith's genie wasn't blue all the time because he was an inferior actor to Robin Williams. Terribly confused expression in response.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 23, 2019 18:33:55 GMT -8
It amazes me how much the animation improves with each successive Toy Story film. In some ways, the look of Toy Story 4 was almost too good, as I was at times distracted by some of the character designs (particularly the porcelain sheen on Bo Peep and her sheep) when I should have been more focused on the story.
But the story is still entertaining and the film highly watchable. It's a bit wilder and more frenetic than the first three films (more action-driven throughout, whereas the others build steadily to action climaxes), and there are a few too many new characters for the story to properly service everyone. But it's another thoughtful, intelligent, and charming entry in the series, and puts an even better bow on the franchise than #3 did.
It might be the weakest installment in the series, but not by much. And certainly better than most franchises can claim to be at their fourth film.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jun 25, 2019 9:47:14 GMT -8
It amazes me how much the animation improves with each successive Toy Story film. In some ways, the look of Toy Story 4 was almost too good, as I was at times distracted by some of the character designs (particularly the porcelain sheen on Bo Peep and her sheep) when I should have been more focused on the story. But the story is still entertaining and the film highly watchable. It's a bit wilder and more frenetic than the first three films (more action-driven throughout, whereas the others build steadily to action climaxes), and there are a few too many new characters for the story to properly service everyone. But it's another thoughtful, intelligent, and charming entry in the series, and puts an even better bow on the franchise than #3 did. It might be the weakest installment in the series, but not by much. And certainly better than most franchises can claim to be at their fourth film. Haven't seen it yet, but I am looking forward to it. I think 1 is the weakest of the first three, while 2 is the best. Not expecting it to top 2, but hopefully it'll land above many Pixar films of the past decade.
|
|
|
Post by Zarnium on Jun 25, 2019 12:10:11 GMT -8
I thought it was pretty great. Probably the weakest of the four story-wise, but not bad by any means. The batting average of this series is incredible, I don't know of any other film series that has produced four consecutive films of this quality.
The visuals are absolutely stunning, there were many parts where I could swear it looked like live-action, with tiny actors with porcelain and plastic skin. The series as a whole is a great example of just how advanced computer animation has become over time. Even the difference between just 1 and 2 was pretty incredible.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 25, 2019 16:56:24 GMT -8
The only other film series I can think of that has produced four consecutive bulls-eyes is Mission: Impossible (3-6). But Toy Story has been quality from the very beginning. (Even the TV holiday specials have been above average.) I'd rank them as 2>3>1>4, but that could absolutely change on my next rewatch.
I'll have a review of the fourth film up on the main site later this week. Despite a few flaws, there's still a lot about the film worth discussing.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 8, 2019 16:31:22 GMT -8
Quick roundup of films I watched this past week:
Yesterday: A serviceable comedy that works if you don't think too hard about the premise, and are kinda partial to the Beatles. Hamish Patel is quite good in his film debut, and the script has some laughs, though it feels a bit disjointed and never quite fulfills its potential. Last 20 minutes are the highlight.
Us: Another tense, well-crafted thriller from Jordan Peele, if not quite as impactful as Get Out. Great use of symbolism (the metaphorical "doubles" throughout the film are excellent), and some terrific performances, none more commendable than Lupita Nyong'o. The ending doesn't completely make sense, but I can't say I minded.
Fighting with My Family: A straightforward but very funny comedy from Stephan Merchant, telling the true story of a young female wrestler's rise despite predictable odds. Cast really sells this one, even during the slower spots. The obligatory training montage is above-average.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Aug 13, 2019 15:19:57 GMT -8
Hobbs & Shaw is a very dumb movie. Fortunately, the dumber the Fast & Furious movies get, the more entertaining they are. I had a goofy grin on my face for much of the film, through every physically impossible action sequence, cliched but awesome one-liner, and pointless celebrity cameo. (And - most unexpectedly of all - an amusing callback to another Jason Statham movie.)
It's exactly the kind of film which you expect it to be, and that's totally okay.
Only nine months till the next F&F movie - hope my brain has switched back on by then.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Aug 22, 2019 18:31:29 GMT -8
I watched Blinded by the Light earlier this week. Question: How the heck is this film sitting at 90% on Rotten Tomatoes?
I know, I know, it's just a number. And it's not like the film is bad; it's pleasantly okay. But I'm not sure were all the love is coming from for a film this predictable, uneven, and corny. (I winced every time the film literally applied Bruce Springsteen's lyrics to the story, or - even worse - had the lyrics pop up onscreen.)
It's fine, but I'll take Yesterday (which was also uneven, but had a more potent charm and stronger third act) over the other jukebox-musical-starring-British-Indian-actor-in-his-film-debut any day.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Aug 23, 2019 8:49:13 GMT -8
I watched Blinded by the Light earlier this week. Question: How the heck is this film sitting at 90% on Rotten Tomatoes? Rotten Tomatoes' methodology results in mediocre but not super offensive movies that consistently rank juuust above the fresh/rotten threshold getting higher rankings on the Tomatometer than superior but polarizing movies.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Aug 23, 2019 11:05:28 GMT -8
It's fine, but I'll take Yesterday (which was also uneven, but had a more potent charm and stronger third act) over the other jukebox-musical-starring-British-Indian-actor-in-his-film-debut any day. Genius! I demand they put that quote on the poster immediately.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Aug 23, 2019 13:47:56 GMT -8
Yes, please. But I mean, I can't be the first one to connect those two movies. Rotten Tomatoes' methodology results in mediocre but not super offensive movies that consistently rank juuust above the fresh/rotten threshold getting higher rankings on the Tomatometer than superior but polarizing movies. Yep. Metacritic has it at a weighted-average of 71, which sounds closer to accurate. ("Accurate" being my opinion, of course.)
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Aug 23, 2019 19:45:29 GMT -8
Yes, please. But I mean, I can't be the first one to connect those two movies. Rotten Tomatoes' methodology results in mediocre but not super offensive movies that consistently rank juuust above the fresh/rotten threshold getting higher rankings on the Tomatometer than superior but polarizing movies. Yep. Metacritic has it at a weighted-average of 71, which sounds closer to accurate. ("Accurate" being my opinion, of course.) Not sure how much more reliable Metacritic is though-apparently something either has 'generally positive reviews' or 'universal acclaim'. Definitely better than Rotten Tomatoes though-that site should generally never be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 3, 2019 19:32:54 GMT -8
Movie roundup time:
The Peanut Butter Falcon: Charming, sweetly funny film that mixes elements of buddy comedy with a poignant (but not cheap or exploitative) look at Down syndrome. Shia LaBeouf and Zack Gottsagen hold the screen well in a feel-good film that's most effective at its most minimalist. Only real complaint is the ending, which feels rather abrupt.
Cold Pursuit: Dryly entertaining cross between Taken and Fargo that features Liam Neeson as a revenge-driven snowplow driver. There's some great dark comedy here (particularly in the way the film keeps track of its ever-increasing body count), even if some of the freshness dissipates during the second half. John Doman gets the best moments in his undersold part as a lazy detective.
Dora and the Lost City of Gold: Amusing adaptation and quasi-parody of the juvenile animated series, starring an excellent Isabella Moner. The production values are pedestrian and James Bobin can't direct an action scene to save his life, but his strength here (as with his Muppet movies) lies in tongue-in-cheek comedy and absurdist humor. Despite the film's tonal inconsistencies, I did have a goofy smile on my face through much of it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 11, 2019 18:56:45 GMT -8
It Chapter 2 is long. Not quite Endgame long, but pretty close. The broad running time is most noticeable during the second act split-up and the drawn-out climax - surely we could have at least trimmed this film by a half-hour.
Thankfully, it's never a truly dull film - the cast is great (with Bill Hader a standout), and there's some spectacular use of disturbing CG effects throughout the film. The problem is that it eventually grows kind of numbing - the film relies too heavily on jump-scares (which become unintentionally comedic after a while), and tries to outdo the scares of the first film by throwing in a lot more graphic violence.
But the first It didn't need graphic violence to be scary - it perfectly tapped into childhood insecurities, with Pennywise manifesting the kids' fears into literal monsters. And it evoked the nostalgia of its period setting without cheaply exploiting it in "Member the Eighties?" fashion. The sequel, however, doesn't have the kids (except in flashbacks, retroactively filling in more of the story) or the period setting, and thus feels much more akin to a standard Hollywood action film. It feels less unique and, as such, less interesting.
There are enough interesting set pieces, plus some humorous dialogue (and a memorable cameo from the King himself), to keep it fully watchable. But the end result doesn't quite measure up to the film's 169 minutes.
|
|