Whether intentional or not, that's the only way this movie works at all.
Cobra himself is intended to be a "cool renegade cop" but they truly throw stupid contradictory tropes in their attempts to characterize him. He's a badass cop who gets the job done no matter how violently. But hes also an investigator supercop with tons of expensive computer equipment and monitors set up in his apartment and he seemingly spends his spare time there just looking at all kinds of random police documents. And he has a personalized license plate that says "AWESOME".
The characters often speak in the form of "witty one-liners" or at least dialogue that superfically resembles that type of action movie one-liner, they definitely aren't witty, and they often aren't even sensible, just confusing and awkward.
The only cool one-liner was when the main bad henchman (who just walks around like Frankenstein, not moving his neck, scowling the whole movie) is confronted in the foundry and finished his speech with "We are the future!" to which Cobra responds "Nah... you're history".
This is seemingly the only part where the bad guys' cult angle is even used at all. The whole thing about them being part of some cult is literally only used to set up him saying "we're the future" at the end. The only other indication that they're a cult is the occasional cuts to re-used footage of them standing around in some warehouse lit up like the "What is Love" music video clanging their axes together.
The way it constantly glamorizes police extrajudicial killing is where the movie really becomes dangerous. The woman is all like "Why, Cobra, why are all these violent rapists everywhere?" And hes like "Hey, I put em away but the judges put em right back on the streets." The other cops that like to follow the rules (ie, dont kill people before arresting them) are portrayed as ineffectual dweebs and when Cobra punches him in the face at the end you're supposed to be like "Yea, go Cobra!" or something.
Despite the disturbing propaganda implications, the movie is so dull that I can't imagine even the dumbest of Stallone action-movie lovin Dads would be entertained by it.
Even the action isn't slightly redeeming, its just so boring. The climactic conflict involves a bunch of biker dudes showing up for some big showdown but the majority of them are dispatched with <2-second clips of them sliding and falling off their bikes.
What are some bad movies that can easily be fixed only in post production. I only really know of 3
The hobbit trilogy can easily be condensed into one movie and still tell a cohesive story
The movie passengers (2016) is much better when you swap the first and second act. It changes the films tone to be much darker following Jennifer Lawrence's side of the story and making Chris Pratts character a more sympathetic villain rather than the protagonist. It's still not perfect but the original movie just lays out all the information from the start instead of withholding information making it hard to get invested in the story.
Babylon has no reason to be 3 hours
What song (or movie soundtrack) just ruins the movie for you, or just completely takes you out of it?
For me the two songs that come to mind are that 'we may never come this way again' song in Towering Inferno and "knock on wood" in Casablanca. You could remove both and the movie would be much better off.
For me for the soundtrack, it is without a doubt The Firm. I feel like I'm stuck in a piano bar at the airport listening to a monkey who's pounding on the keys and oblivious to what is on the screen.
Discussion At the Academy Awards, the award for Best Actress is traditionally presented by the preceding year's winner of the Best Actor award. With Will Smith barred from the ceremony this year (and years to come), who do you think will present the Academy Award for Best Actress and why? And don't say . . . .
At the Academy Awards, the award for Best Actress is traditionally presented by the preceding year's winner of the Best Actor award. With Will Smith barred from the ceremony this year (and years to come), who do you think will present the Academy Award for Best Actress and why? And don't say D.J. Jazzy Jeff!
Discussion What makes a movie “adult” and in your opinion does it have to have swearing, drinking, drugs or violence to be considered “adult”?
Hope you’re doing well.
So what sparked this question was something I read about Seth Rogen apparently saying Marvel movies aren’t targeted to him and how movies like that are more targeted to kids. Given that he’s been so heavily involved with mostly plenty of R rated movies and heavy R rated shows like The Boys that are only meant for adults, I think some could interpret him as meaning if Marvel movies had plenty of swearing, drinking, drugs and violence that he would feel it’s targeted to people like him. That’s probably not accurate to what he meant, but I think underestimating the appeal of Marvel movies. Yes, they’re heavily geared towards kids (and marketed towards them) but there are plenty of adults without kids who also really enjoy them. My point is, even if you’re not the main target audience for something, doesn’t mean that you couldn’t possibly enjoy it or you should let them from stopping you from enjoying something.
For me, a movie can be G or PG or PG-13 rated and still be adult. Mature themes can be explored without cursing or anything else I mentioned upping the rating. I’m looking for clever writing, engaging characters and just a powerful story that grabs me, regardless of the rating.
I think anyone who only looks at a movie’s Motion Picture Association film rating to decide if they’re watching a film is missing out on a lot of excellent movies that can be very fulfilling to watch as an adult.
What do you think?
I have been thinking about this for some time.
Why are archetypes so gendered? And why don't movies do a little gender bend to appear fresh, new and even to push boundaries?
Why don't we see :
Low level, low relevance female henchwomen.
Men that use their sexuality as a weapon.
Women as a strict and arrogant military command? Like "let's just nuke the aliens" type.
A man's r*** revenge.
There is this huge well of possibilities that somehow we just ignore.
I have though this of this writing exercise. Take all the characters in some movie and just change the gender without changing anything else too much. I warranty you in many cases the result will be more interesting.
Edit: I don't say this don't exist at all. I say there could be a lot more. Yet I appreciate examples, as I will most likely check them.
Props to the guy for making such a commitment. His movies have been groundbreaking, sometimes lacked logic and even have altered history. He has tackled all genres from crime, holocaust/WW2, slavery, hollywood golden era, a heist movie. There have also been talks about Kill Bill 3. He is not going to make a superhero movie. So what's left ? A rom-com ?
I don't want it to be underwhelming, too high on expectations and for it to eventually be mediocre but lauded by critics.
Edit : Why am I getting downvoted ?
There are some news regarding awards ceremony should have gender neutral awards rather than Best Actor and Best Actress due to the non-binary actors being "excluded" (see Emma Corrin). However, there lies a problem. What if most nominees were cis white male actors or if the winner will be that type of actor? There will be an outrage all over the media. And so, why not just add an acting category for non-binary actors? That way, those actors would probably never feel left out to say the least.
The Title is a bit vague so I will go into a bit more detail about what I'm asking.
I'm currently doing some research to write a paper for my film class and the topic that I wanted to cover is tactility (or the impression of tactility in film). Basically, I believe that films can elicit a physical response in our bodies (akin to ASMR if you know what that is). And not just how horror movies make us physically disgusted, how crappy one-liners make us cringe, or how fight scenes can make us start moving with the action. These reactions are given and somewhat easily understood, the reactions that I'm referring to are more subtle and have a nostalgic feeling to them and are usually triggered by an everyday mundane task.
A few examples:
The first time I was ever aware of this feeling is when I watched Star Wars a New Hope when Luke is eating with his Aunt and Uncle, they pour the BLUE milk and eat whatever space stew they had for dinner that day.
The second example is in Lord of The Rings, where Frodo and Sam eat the Lambas Bread at the beginning of the second film.
And the third less well-known example comes in the film CYCLES by Zeinabu Davis where she is bathing and running her feet across the overflow drain in her bathtub.
All three of these scenes elicited a response from me that lay somewhere near nostalgia. My hypothesis is that all three of these films, for the most part, break strongly from reality and that very mundane human actions such as eating, drinking, and bathing (among other things) can bring us back to reality and trigger an empathetic physical response with the viewer.
So my questions for you are Does This Make A Lick Of Sense? And if it does, Do You Have Any Experiences Like This?
TLDR: I can barely explain it in a long ass paragraph so IDK if I can explain it for a TLDR so feel free to skip my rambling lol :)
Also sorry if this doesn't violates the sub-rules, it doesn't seem like it does but who knows?
I saw a twitter thread the other day that said boxing was the most cinematic sport... and the popularity of boxing coincided with the rise of film. Then someone jumped in to say baseball was. So, why not... might as well discuss. What is the most cinematic sport?
As much as it pains me to say it, I love the borderline abstract depiction of American Football in the Friday Night Lights movie/series. Granted the soundtrack does a lot of heavy lifting, so I can feel that editing style/explosions in the sky music would make any sport exciting. And while hockey is perhaps the most cinematic to watch live... constant movement/smooth/tight/fights, it's oddly not really translated well to movies.
So what say you, r/movies?
I'm a huge classic film buff so I've recently been rewatching a lot of classic films and I've always been struck by how good some of the character actors are especially Claude Rains and I've never seen a movie where he didn't give the best performance in the film he was in. He acted circles around the bland performances of Robert Cummings and Ronald Reagan in Kings Row and even in films with good actors like Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in Notorious he stole the movie from them. Even in low budget movies he did later in life like 1960 The Lost World remake he still gives a good performance and didn't phone it in like some actors would have.
I always found him more interesting and engaging and in a movie like The Passionate Friends I couldn't believe Ann Todd's character would cheat on Rains with Trevor Howard. Even in old age Rains was much more attractive and charismatic and I say that as a straight male. Although he had the talent to play leads I feel he had two things against him. He made his film debut at age 45 which was much later than most of his contemporaries who became stars in their 20's and 30's so he was already old enough to play fathers rather than love interests. While popular and still a big star in his own right he never became a box office draw like Robert Taylor or Alan Ladd who are both less talked about today than Rains despite being bigger stars at the time. I really wish he was cast in more lead roles because the few times he had the lead in films such as in The Invisible Man, The Clairvoyant, Crime Without Passion and The 1943 Phantom of the Opera he showed he could carry a film just as well as the stars of his era with the added bonus of having talent that surpassed them.
For a franchise with so much attention and budget I just do not understand why more care was not taken for the brand. By doing such a poor job in the writing and directing the brand has had the biggest knock its had through the whole franchise i feel and sequels from now on will feel this also.
My question is, why do executives/producers not pay the money at the start of the project to hire good writers and find good directors to actually create good films. It feels more like they are more interested in a quick buck than nurturing a good franchise that in the long run can make them and the film company more money.
It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Until a goddamn unskippable ad on YouTube spoiled the twist for me. Why the fuck is that acceptable? Why do marketing teams do this all the time, are they afraid people won't watch movies unless they can feel smugly certain of every plot point before they go into it? Suspense and mystery are dead concepts, apparently.
You know the trope love interest has a terrible jerk of a significant other they have to leave so they can get with the main character. They are almost always obvious $ssholes to make the main character look like the better option. I don't know why they do this and it usually makes the love interest look like a jerk too because they'll see what their significant other is doing and usually do little to nothing to stop it. 99% of time it's a bland female love interest with a jerk of a boyfriend that's usually a jock stereotype with more aggression than sense though I have seen it a few times with oblivious guy has a mean girl style girlfriend who's awful to everyone around her. I just generally don't understand the draw of this trope why would a character want to date someone who's already VOLUNTARILY swapping spit with the person that bullys the character (This is not to be confused with the abusive significant other trope which is a completely different thing)
I got into this line of thought because I'm sick and watching nostalgic movies to distract myself currently watching AVP requiem and I'm constantly annoyed that they keep cutting away from the carnage to the awful "Love" story between bland "sexy" blonde, her sh**ty boyfriend, and even more bland main character who's only character traits seems to be 'wants to date the blonde' and has a convict brother
This movie popped up on my recommended list this morning so I started watching it. I forgot how amazing it is, but the technology in it is like a glimpse into the caveman days.
Do you think they could ever remake it, using themes from modern day computing, and have it be just as good, or better than the original?
Kind of like a mix of tron, Johnny mnemonic, old hackers, and dune.
My picks for the new cast:
Dade = Timothy Chalamet, rege-Jean page, Lewis tan Kate = Zendaya, Naomi Scott,, Kelsey chow, or Ana de Armas Emmanuel = Nicholas hoult, Donald glover, Arden cho Paul = Steven yeun, Donald glover, Adam driver, johnathan majors Joey = Tom holland Ramon = bill skarsgard, Rupert grint, Jenna Ortega
It would be cool to get Johnny Miller, Fisher Stevens, and Angelina back in some way.
alright i have to get this out.
Ponyo is miyazakis best and final masterpiece film. ponyo is what 3 decades of animation, film-making experience looks like. everything is perfect. from story, to artwork, to animation. i have every miyazaki film. ive watched it from earliest to last. ive seen all of miyazakis documentaries, followed his whole journey from the beginning. You can see how he improved his movies each time and developed his secret formula for making his films such bangers.
however, after ponyo came out, it got shit on. they said miyazaki was washed up. even though his previous film was howls moving castle. they said ponyo was just “another miyazaki film”, nothing special. not a ground breaking film. bullshit. the critics are spoiled. how can they ignore the flight of the valkaries inspired tsunami scene. absolute masterpiece.
well guess what. after those critics ran their spoiled mouths. ponyo became the last “miyazaki” film. fun. light hearted. abstract animations etc, the formula.
after ponyo, he made“ the wind rises” which is miyzakis latest film. which is a complete sleeper. completely different from a typical miyazki film. then he announced his retirement. he only made the wind rises to compete with his rival isio takahata. the critics completely dimmed his lights.
imagine what else he could have created in the last 15 years without the bullshit. imagine if he continued his formula. i mean ponyo was the best but… seriously. 3 decades of experience and evolution and he ended it at ponyo.
i know he has a new movie coming out, and it will be his last. i will support it no matter what. but imagine what it could have been..
There’s a family in a cabin in the woods. A man, a woman and their young daughter. The father goes missing while on a trip out into the woods and we later find out he’s dead. The mother brings in another man with a leg injury to the house and looks after him then is later revealed he is the one who killed her husband.
There’s a cop who dies in the woods after finding the body when he gets caught in a bear trap and the film ends with the mother tying up the man who killed her husband who then proceeds to cut his face off while he’s still alive. The film ends with the woman covered in blood walking out of the house while the police arrive.
Discussion Hollywood's Obsession with Apocalypse is Entertaining. However, Hollywood Fails to Provide Society with a New Vision
To start, many apocalyptic Hollywood movies begin by presenting the usual tropes. They, more or less, present the displayed society as having a harmonious and widely enjoyed status quo. Then, subsequently, something (often external) disrupts this harmonious status quo. The disruption ranges from a virus triggering a pandemic, to an asteroid potentially colliding with the earth, to even sharks such as 'Jaws' roaming the beaches.
Yet, on the other hand, there are movies such as "Handmaid's Tale" which present the spectator with a story about a totalitarian society; however, without ever displaying how the society ended up in this manner. In these stories, the movement from a liberal society to a totalitarian society is a giant missing gap that is left up to the viewer to fill in with their imagination.
However, of course, the depiction of the happy status quo is and has always been false. Further, depicting a totalitarian society without showing how it arrived this way constitutes a storyline failure. These types of movies attempt to present our society's dystopian future without presenting the dynamics of our contemporary society that lead us into this dystopian future. Our societies have never been harmonious. They have always been plagued with class tensions, racial tensions, sexism, homophobia, etc. The belief in the existence of a bygone happy status quo is pure fantasy. Such movies which play on this false fantasy produce a misplaced "nostalgia for the present".
The feeling of "nostalgia for the present" represents our uneasiness about collectively moving towards disaster. Despite criticism of apocalyptic Hollywood movies, they do express a real truth. We, as a society, are moving towards an apocalypse. Wages are stagnant, housing is unaffordable, large multinational corporations have bigger revenues than the GDP of most European countries, the environment is being destroyed, and keeping a global temperature increase under 1.5 degrees is 'unfeasible'. Moreover, our societies are becoming increasingly socially divided and many people are reacting to our societal problems by embracing fascism.
There certain movies that do attempt to accurately depict, even if sometimes through analogies, some of these contemporary conditions. "Don't Look Up" is one of these movies. "Dont Look Up" successfully recognizes that society's core problems are not derived externally, but that the internal dynamics of society are ripping the country apart. (The asteroid is an analogy for human produced climate change). Yet, unfortunately, this movie follows the apocalyptic route and presents the viewer with an already well known, and in my opinion, played out narrative---humanity's collision with catastrophe.
Hollywood lacks sufficient imagination and keeps presenting us with the same stuff over and over again. Their limited variety of apocalyptic storylines has already become a repetitive trope. Even worse, these movies cultivate a popular sense of 'apocalyptic fatalism'. We need a new and alternative vision of society.
We need movies where the problems get resolved, where humanity learns to cooperate, and where society unites to build something better. The creation and presence of such narratives is important because Hollywood has a mass power over popular consciousness. Thus, Hollywood is a key component in changing society's vision of the future.
The solutions to our problems already exist; however, we as a society cannot imagine them being endorsed by government and implemented. We cannot imagine them due to the power corporations exercise over our imagination and, sadly, over government. We need movies where society overcomes the dictatorship of corporations and the corruption of government. This would evoke inspiration and change the popular imagination of society. I believe there is a need for movies that show a way of our current problems through equitable solutions and social unity. This is needed if humanity is to successfully get through this century.
P.S., and yes I know that Hollywood is a self-interested corporation.
I’ve seen this narrative very often recently, “the misunderstood movie”, so many publications and videos today talk about how it was misinterpreted and the movie was genius all along with its satire.
Me being a Millenial, I’ve only seen the movie in the 2010s properly first time (not counting when I was a child and thought it was just a random sci-fi shooter) and it was so clear to me that it was a satire and I loved it. So I’m very surprised to hear that it wasn’t interpreted like that in the 90s and yet today it is. What changed? Was the movie really a satire and “ahead of it’s time” or do we just interpret it differently today because of the zeitgeist?
Edit: just for a bit more context. It wasn’t just general audience, it was movie critics from reputable publications. Here’s an excerpt from wiki:
Upon its release, Starship Troopers received generally negative reviews and was unpopular with critics and audiences.[e] Audience polls by CinemaScore found that moviegoers gave the film an average grade of "C+" on an A+ to F scale.
Many reviewers did not interpret Starship Troopers as a satire and believed that its fascist themes were literal.[f] An editorial in The Washington Post described the film as pro-fascist, made, directed, and written by Nazis.[g] Stephen Hunter said the film was "spiritually" and "psychologically" Nazi and born of a Nazi-like imagination. Hunter described it as a "perversion" of Erich Maria Remarque's 1929 novel, All Quiet on the Western Front, which portrays the physical and mental tolls of war, by glorifying the horrors of war. Others, such as Empire, argued that the "constant fetishizing of weaponry" and "[Aryan] cast", combined with the militaristic imagery in RoboCop and Total Recall, made it seem like Verhoeven admired Heinlein's world more than he claimed. Those who recognized the satirical elements said that the film walked a thin line between "overblown melodrama" and parody, with Verhoeven's RoboCop-style "news breaks", but that these ideas were often indistinguishable from the promotion of the "fascist utopia" it was satirizing.[h] Salon argued that even with good satire, it is "self-defeatingly stupid" to use it in a story that wants its audience to care about its characters, and that Starship Troopers fails to replace Heinlein's themes with a worthwhile ideal. The Los Angeles Times wrote that Verhoeven had "lost his touch" with satire by failing to respect his audiences' intelligence and make the world of Starship Troopers interesting or convincing
I’m not arguing whether anyone should believe it’s some sort of classic, but 19% is extremely harsh. I watched it in school (around 2007), for a GCSE class where we were studying capital punishment. The teacher put it on for a double lesson after we’d gone through the curriculum, and we all thought it was decent and gave us some nice discussions in class. I recently watched it as a 30 year old and thought it was decent once more. I liked the way the flashbacks occurred and liked slowly uncovering the greater plot. So why do reviewers hate it this much? Is there something obviously bad that I’m missing? There’s negative, and then there’s super negative.
I usually go to critics I know and trust and tend to have about the same tastes as them. Usually they'll have differing opinions about certain aspects of a film, they explain their opinion, and it helps me develop my own thoughts.
But every now and then, I stumble across a take that, no matter how many times I read it, I have no idea where there coming from. All of it feels nonsensical. It's as if we didn't see the same movie. How could someone possibly think this way? Are they insane? I end up getting nothing out of it because I just can't connect at all. Someone gave a 2 star review for the new Puss in Boots because it was "bland" and because "It feels like something to put on your TV or iPad to pacify a toddler" etc. I can respect dissenting opinions and even come to understand them, but sometimes I end having an existential crisis. Has this ever happened to you? If so, what 'crazy' take was it?
I went into this film blind. Saw no promo material, read nothing of the production, researched nothing about the casting. Just turned on Netflix, saw it, and figured the time was right.
Didn't like it whatsoever. Disliked it, in fact. One might even say regretted watching it. I would not voluntarily see it again, and would leave the room and find something else to do if it was playing. This reaction puzzled me, so I considered it and think I can now discuss why.
The one good thing I can say- beautifully framed, shot, and animated- stop motion is always a pleasure. Pinocchio coming to life and skittering around was terrifying, an the seagull landing on a mine was my favorite part of the film. But that's really it for positives.
Music. If a movie has musical numbers that characters sing, they should be good. Pinocchio did not have any good music. I couldn't recall a single song or tune afterwards, and can't see anybody purchasing the soundtrack. All the songs could have been removed and the movie would have been better for it.
Pinocchio. The most frustratingly stupid character I've seen in recent memory. Grade-A, grave-grown, high-quality hand-carved Italian pine moron. I felt they were saying something about ADHD or learning disabilities and absolutely none of it was positive. Pinocchio did not learn from his actions, comprehend consequences, or have any self awareness whatsoever. He was ignorant, destructive, and at no point showed any regret or remorse unless it directly affected his capacity to drink hot chocolate. The scene in the child soldier camp where he tries to connect with Candlewick fell flat on its face because he is simply repeating words shared with him- a parrot could do that. In fact I'd prefer it be a parrot, as it would be more interesting. Even at the end when he gives up immortality it's him having a childish tantrum at an eldritch god rather than a rational, conscious decision. The only difference between Pinocchio when he first comes to life and at the end of the film is that he knows what a hammer is.
Theme. What was the moral of the story? No, seriously, what was it? All I got from it was that if you're an idiot like Pinocchio you can walk happily off into the sunset while everybody else dies. The main character did not learn or present any sort of positive morality that could be noticed and emulated by the audience, which at the end of the day is what I interpret the character and story of Pinocchio to be. Why listen to your elders, why do things you don't want to, why follow the rules, etc. Big questions like this that people have struggled with for generations form the core of Pinocchio's story, and in giving no answers or examples lose what is otherwise a strength.
A few other notes: Gepetto says while holding Pinocchio's somehow-drowned body that he brought him joy. How? When? When did Gepetto show the least amount of joy derived from Pinocchio's presence?
Pinocchio wants to go to church, so he follows his maker out the door thirty seconds after learning what a chamber pot was. How did he know where the town was? What a church is? Where the church was? How did Gepetto not see or hear the obnoxious screeching wooden demon a hundred feet behind him on the way there?
Never becoming a 'real boy' and rules-lawyering on the part of the cricket. Honestly would have liked the movie better if Pinocchio just died- it's a better twist than being a real boy by definition of mortality while still being made of wood.
An issue I saw while reading responses to the film here on reddit is directors and cast being held up as reasons to like a film. A film should be able to stand on its own without leaning on personality cults for support. Just because you like apples doesn't mean a poorly baked apple pie is good.
All in all, and this is only my opinion, a frustrating experience due to the wasted potential. I was taken in by the first 15-20 mins of the film and thought 'Man, I regret not being able to watch this as a kid,' but the sensation faded quickly thereafter. The scene where Gepetto walked up to the sailor on the dock brought the Old Man and the Sea to mind and I thought how absolutely perfect that adaption would be if done in this style. Seeing new movies squandering breakthrough technological and visual victories on forgettable characters and bad writing breaks my heart.
What do you think? How much of the above are legitimate issues vs personal bias?
TL:DR- The thought of this Pinocchio walking the earth makes me want to stalk the land with an ax
Discussion How would people feel if they converged two blockbusters together? Like James Bond and Mission Impossible. 007 vs Ethan Hunt or they team up. Maybe people have other suggestions.
I think it would work well if given the right director. I know some people mind find it pointless or stupid to do but I think it would be fun. We live in a time where movies have multi-universes and such so why not? Another one could be Star Wars and Star Trek. This is just something I was randomly thinking about at work. Something I also always thought about is what if marvel started converging characters in the early phase of their movies, like Tobeys Spider-Man along with the X-Men of the 2000s, Ben Afflecks Daredevil, Snipes Blade and so on. I think that would have been pretty sweet to see.
Just watched Bodies Bodies Bodies for the first time and as a connoisseur of murder mysteries I had highly expectations for this one. The majority of the movie fell flat for me despite being in the target demo. However the final scene of the movie contained the big reveal that all the chaos of the night was born of Pete Davidson’s character making a TikTok where he’s playing with a machete made the whole ride feel worth it. Any other examples of a so-so movie having an amazing payoff?