|
Post by ThirdMan on May 28, 2022 1:40:31 GMT -8
Hah, I thought Jay would be the one to make a Coo-Coo Cola joke. Well done, sir. I'll probably catch Top Gun: Maverick on the big screen next week. The original film may be cliche-ridden '80s shlock, and it's true that Tom Cruise always feels a cut above his costars in these movies (perhaps a byproduct of being one of the last bona fide movie stars who can still open a film on pure name ID). But the film looks like a grand spectacle in a way few non-superhero movies have been lately, so as long as it features some cool flying sequences and the appropriate amount of pro-US military propaganda, it should be fine. That, and having shallow characters isn't necessarily a death knell for action films. For me, if they're enjoyable to watch between the action scenes, and said action scenes are good, it can be considered a success, I think. Should be an interesting watch. I didn't expect a Top Gun sequel to actually get made, let alone actually get acclaim from critics. To me, it's just rather disappointing how little effort was put into everything other than the flight sequences. It's pretty rote as an actual story or character-piece. As I was watching the character scenes, I immediately realized, "I'm never gonna feel compelled to see this again. in my lifetime." A really good movie generally makes me look forward to revisiting it down the line, as it's happening. It's not so much about the characters in an action film being "deep" -- most of the characters in, say, Mad Mad: Fury Road weren't particularly layered -- but having some colour and flavour, some level of uniqueness or eccentricity. There's none of that here. Everything's extremely bland and conventional. These characters don't even measure up to those in the dopey Fast & Furious films, which are at least aggressively self-deprecating. But, whatever. I've tempered people's expectations enough, so I'm just about sure you guys will enjoy it more than I did. I just don't get many critics' fascination with Cruise these days: he's supremely uninteresting and aloof to me as an onscreen personality. I can appreciate his physical commitment to these roles, particularly given his age, but that's about it. The last time I can recall him doing somewhat interesting or specific character-work was in Tropic Thunder, 14 years ago (and before that, in Magnolia, from 1999). Anyways, the trailer for Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning (Part 1) looks enjoyable enough -- the visual settings are lush and varied, the action choreography looks good, and I see very little shaky-cam footage -- and thankfully that franchise gives specific personalities like Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames some leeway to do their thing. The last three M:I flicks have been fairly good, so I expect that trend to continue with these (last?) two.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 28, 2022 1:51:41 GMT -8
My cynical shell has chipped away in recent weeks by the fact that Everything Everywhere All at Once has, against all early expectations, become a word-of-mouth sleeper hit. It has steadily chugged along for two months, earning over $60 million despite its low budget, lack of major stars or franchise connections, and limited marketing. It's even generating some early Oscar buzz. Just an amazing success story for an amazing film. Michelle Yeoh still does strong and consistent work as both actress and fighter - in addition to this and Shang-Chi, she was in a couple of pretty good and unfairly overlooked action films last year, Gunpowder Milkshake and Boss Level. (Though her appearance in the latter film is sadly quite brief.) It feels nice when everyone comes together to recognize a piece of high quality entertainment for what it is. There is, in fact, a desire for good movies, and audiences recognize quality when they see it. It was nice seeing it happen with Parasite too back in 2019. The film has had continued low-key success, which is a credit to its overall quality and basic fun-factor. Hopefully not too much of a backlash occurs should it start piling up award nominations late in the year. Because a certain percentage of the population is always looking to dismiss/discredit films with a "foreign" flavour (EEAaO, of course, has some degree of subtitles). It'll probably fly in as more of an underdog than Parasite, though, so perhaps some viewers won't have as much of a chip on their shoulders as they did while watching that film.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on May 28, 2022 14:21:24 GMT -8
That, and having shallow characters isn't necessarily a death knell for action films. For me, if they're enjoyable to watch between the action scenes, and said action scenes are good, it can be considered a success, I think. Should be an interesting watch. I didn't expect a Top Gun sequel to actually get made, let alone actually get acclaim from critics. To me, it's just rather disappointing how little effort was put into everything other than the flight sequences. It's pretty rote as an actual story or character-piece. As I was watching the character scenes, I immediately realized, "I'm never gonna feel compelled to see this again. in my lifetime." A really good movie generally makes me look forward to revisiting it down the line, as it's happening. It's not so much about the characters in an action film being "deep" -- most of the characters in, say, Mad Mad: Fury Road weren't particularly layered -- but having some colour and flavour, some level of uniqueness or eccentricity. There's none of that here. Everything's extremely bland and conventional. These characters don't even measure up to those in the dopey Fast & Furious films, which are at least aggressively self-deprecating. But, whatever. I've tempered people's expectations enough, so I'm just about sure you guys will enjoy it more than I did. I just don't get many critics' fascination with Cruise these days: he's supremely uninteresting and aloof to me as an onscreen personality. I can appreciate his physical commitment to these roles, particularly given his age, but that's about it. The last time I can recall him doing somewhat interesting or specific character-work was in Tropic Thunder, 14 years ago (and before that, in Magnolia, from 1999). Anyways, the trailer for Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning (Part 1) looks enjoyable enough -- the visual settings are lush and varied, the action choreography looks good, and I see very little shaky-cam footage -- and thankfully that franchise gives specific personalities like Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames some leeway to do their thing. The last three M:I flicks have been fairly good, so I expect that trend to continue with these (last?) two. Yep, the last three were really solid action films. They're clearly just 'watch Tom Cruise do insane stunts' vehicles at this point, and everyone seems to be just fine with that.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 28, 2022 18:21:05 GMT -8
The film has had continued low-key success, which is a credit to its overall quality and basic fun-factor. Hopefully not too much of a backlash occurs should it start piling up award nominations late in the year. Because a certain percentage of the population is always looking to dismiss/discredit films with a "foreign" flavour (EEAaO, of course, has some degree of subtitles). It'll probably fly in as more of an underdog than Parasite, though, so perhaps some viewers won't have as much of a chip on their shoulders as they did while watching that film. EEAaO's main disadvantage come Oscar season may be its early release date - although CODA, also a family-centric crowd-pleaser (albeit of a vastly different sort) got a midsummer release, with a limited theatrical run, and still won. So EEAaO certainly has a shot. (I don't think the Oscar crowd will dismiss it as a foreign-type film, no matter if the scenes with the rocks require subtitles.) Anyways, the trailer for Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning (Part 1) looks enjoyable enough -- the visual settings are lush and varied, the action choreography looks good, and I see very little shaky-cam footage -- and thankfully that franchise gives specific personalities like Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames some leeway to do their thing. The last three M:I flicks have been fairly good, so I expect that trend to continue with these (last?) two. Yep, the last three were really solid action films. They're clearly just 'watch Tom Cruise do insane stunts' vehicles at this point, and everyone seems to be just fine with that. I liked the use of differing directors and styles for the first four Mission: Impossible films, but it's a nice confidence booster for the series to have a consistent director in Chris McQuarrie. It's still the most thoroughly entertaining action-adventure franchise I can think of, and I'm really excited for the next two films (though it's a bit frustrating to get a teaser that tells us we still have fourteen months to go till the movie).
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 29, 2022 3:43:16 GMT -8
I don't think the series got genuinely good until the fourth installment. Thought 1 and 3 were OK, and 2 was bad. And even though I liked the last three, and enjoyed them while watching them, I can only remember fleeting details of any of them (they all kind of blur together, especially the last two). Mind you, the only ones I believe I've seen more than once, in their entirety, are the first and fourth installments. Generally-speaking, to me, they're mostly a series of fancy set-pieces in search of a story. Which I suppose is fine, for an action/spy franchise of that nature, where convoluted plot developments usually take precedence over themes or characters.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 29, 2022 5:18:09 GMT -8
They're very much about spectacle, but it's such grand spectacle - particularly from the fourth film onwards - that I can forgive the plot weaknesses or lack of depth. And the quieter scenes are boosted by fun performances from Cruise, Rhames, Pegg, and co. (The increased continuity in recent installments has helped cement both the character relationships and stakes.)
I may have mentioned this before, but I think MI3 is somewhat unfairly underrated - it's not as good as the more recent installments, but it's a notable step up from the first two films (particularly MI2, the only real clunker in the series) as a taut spy-action thriller. Feels a lot like a feature-length episode of Alias - no surprise, of course, with JJ Abrams directing.
MI4 is probably my favorite film in the series (though it's closely followed by #6), and likely my favorite film of 2011. Just a spectacular ride from start to finish.
My ranking would be 4>6>5>3>1>>>2.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 29, 2022 13:06:16 GMT -8
I'd probably be on-board with that ranking. The fourth installment has stuck with me a little more on account of him hanging off the side of that high-rise for extended periods. #5 and #6 seem fairly similar, and are somewhat interchangeable, IMO. And I would concur that #3 is probably a step-up from #1 (and definitely from #2), but it also, to the best of my recollection, has a fair amount of shaky-cam, and you know how I feel about that (it's an instant turn-off). It would appear that the most recent installment has far-and-away the best reviews on Metacritic (like, an 86, which is nuts, considering the previous two reside in the mid-70s). Anyways, judging from the Dead Reckoning Part 1 trailer, it looks like they're doing a call-back to the DePalma original, with a fight on top of a train in a tunnel, which is interesting.
And it looks like Top Gun: Maverick is making a killing at the box office, performing well beyond expectations. Do we suppose older viewers are finally making their way back to theaters in big numbers? Because big action elements notwithstanding, I can't imagine many teenagers and twentysomethings have a strong frame-of-reference for that particular franchise.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 29, 2022 16:11:35 GMT -8
Yes, I know you're not the biggest fan of shaky-cam... though JJ Abrams certainly is! (That's still my one major gripe about the Lost pilot.)
Dead Reckoning will also apparently feature the return of Henry Czerny as Kittridge (director of IMF, previously only seen in the original MI film). The multiple callbacks to the first film in the series - plus the fact that the story will be split across two films - suggests that this will indeed be the grand finale to the franchise, at least with Cruise at the helm.
And yes, the Top Gun numbers are an encouraging sign for the summer movie season, especially since it probably skews more to older viewers (I've heard at least one critic refer to it as "the ultimate dad movie"). Pickings are still kind of slim compared to the average summer season of the 2010s, but we seem to be on an upward trajectory.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 29, 2022 18:09:20 GMT -8
Though I'm not that keen on most of the Jurassic films (I don't even think the 1993 original is any better than "pretty good"), the visual of dinosaurs rampaging all over urban areas in Jurassic World: Dominion has some appeal. And Lightyear will probably be decent enough. Hopefully the Thor sequel is close in quality to Ragnarok (it certainly seems to be doubling-down on the silliness). The summer movie season might be looking up.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on May 30, 2022 10:27:56 GMT -8
Though I'm not that keen on most of the Jurassic films (I don't even think the 1993 original is any better than "pretty good"), the visual of dinosaurs rampaging all over urban areas in Jurassic World: Dominion has some appeal. And Lightyear will probably be decent enough. Hopefully the Thor sequel is close in quality to Ragnarok (it certainly seems to be doubling-down on the silliness). The summer movie season might be looking up. Wow, I'm not here for Jurassic Park slander. It's a great movie - maybe the last great mega-blockbuster from before CGI ate Hollywood whole. The thing that bothers me about BIG-DINO-HEAD-THE-MOVIE or whatever it's called (the trailers did not say the name of the film!) is that there's a scene where... Bryce Dallas Howard...? looks to Laura Dern and says "you were at Jurassic Park!" and Laura Dern looks back to her and replies "you were at Jurassic World!" ... as though there's literally any nostalgia for Jurassic World. The nakedness of the "remember these characters!?!?" is already pretty embarrassing, for a franchise based on a film where you can't remember a single non-Goldblum character's name in it, but the idea that this these two films are in conversation with each other as equals is hilarious in its Poochietude.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 30, 2022 11:27:50 GMT -8
Heh. Is calling something "pretty good" considered slander nowadays? I think Jurassic Park is significant, in technological terms, in the history of film, and it's a generally good suspense/adventure movie. But as you noted, the only genuinely memorable character in the first trilogy is Goldblum's. And it's just Goldblum being himself, as per usual. I think it's well-made, and has some good suspense with the velociraptors towards the end, but even at the time of its release, I just considered it a "three-star (-out-of-four) special". I've seen it a handful of times, and I generally enjoy it, but it's not something that ever resonated much beyond being a fun theme-park ride. But there's nothing inherently wrong with being a fun theme-park ride.
(Also, keep in mind that I consider many of Spielberg's most popular films in the 80s and 90s to be in the "good-but-not-great" category.)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 30, 2022 12:38:19 GMT -8
I love the original Jurassic Park, and consider it a masterclass in effects and suspense-building. And over time, I've come to appreciate it more for the subtle ways that Spielberg lets us experience the sight of the dinos the way the human characters do (i.e. the use of low-angle shots during that incredible T-rex sequence), particularly since the more recent sequels* are content to simply show the dinosaurs wreaking havoc with more CGI and a lot less intrigue.
*I enjoy the first Jurassic World just fine as a Big Dumb Blockbuster, and it's probably the most entertaining of all the sequels. Fallen Kingdom is pretty dire, though. I will probably end up seeing Dominion on the big screen but I don't exactly have the highest of hopes.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on May 30, 2022 13:40:19 GMT -8
They're very much about spectacle, but it's such grand spectacle - particularly from the fourth film onwards - that I can forgive the plot weaknesses or lack of depth. And the quieter scenes are boosted by fun performances from Cruise, Rhames, Pegg, and co. (The increased continuity in recent installments has helped cement both the character relationships and stakes.) I may have mentioned this before, but I think MI3 is somewhat unfairly underrated - it's not as good as the more recent installments, but it's a notable step up from the first two films (particularly MI2, the only real clunker in the series) as a taut spy-action thriller. Feels a lot like a feature-length episode of Alias - no surprise, of course, with JJ Abrams directing. MI4 is probably my favorite film in the series (though it's closely followed by #6), and likely my favorite film of 2011. Just a spectacular ride from start to finish. My ranking would be 4>6>5>3>1>>>2. Yeah, I think MI3 is the best film that JJ Abrams has made, and my ranking would be the same as yours. It's a really solid spy thriller with more emotion behind it than most of the other entries in the MI series. Which I'm fine with--yes, it may be empty spectacle, but it's some of the best empty spectacle around. The third act of Fallout was one of the most thrilling blockbuster finales ever. It's not as thoughtful as the original series, but then again, I was never a massive fan-- Danger Man and The Prisoner are better shows to me, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 30, 2022 15:08:26 GMT -8
Though I enjoyed it while watching it, all I can really remember about Fallout is Cruise fighting Cavill on an (icy?) cliff, and Cruise riding a motorcycle along a coast highway and running across rooftops a lot. Cruise isn't gonna lift a bunch of heavy weight, you see, so he has to sprint to convince others of his virility.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 30, 2022 18:22:32 GMT -8
The thing that really drew me in to Fallout was the scale of the action, from the cliff battle to the skydiving to the copter chase. The action felt huge without ever losing its dramatic center. And while Rogue Nation is sometimes criticized for putting its best action scene (Cruise dangling from an airplane) at the very beginning, Fallout starts small and then ramps up the action to the climax. Yeah, I think MI3 is the best film that JJ Abrams has made, and my ranking would be the same as yours. It's a really solid spy thriller with more emotion behind it than most of the other entries in the MI series. Yes, another successful aspect of MI3 is that it's the first film in the series to suggest that Ethan has a life outside fighting terrorists and dangling off buildings. Shame that it underperformed at the box office; presumably audiences at the time were still wary after MI2.
|
|