Movie review rant 2019

I achieved peak Film Snob levels yesterday and saw Once Upon a Time in Hollywood on 70mm film.

This is probably the best made film currently in theaters, you can tell Tarantino is a master of his craft. Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio have great chemistry, they played off each other so naturally and it’s easy to believe they’ve had a long professional and friendly relationship. I’d consider this probably the most comedy-like of Tarantino’s films, it plays out like a buddy comedy and there really aren’t that many over the top dramatic moments (and those that do exist are largely played for comedy). Margot Robbie and Emile Hirsch as Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring respectively don’t have a ton of screen time but are charismatic and likable. Mike Moh as Bruce Lee easily has some of the best lines in the entire film. The Manson Family also didn’t get a ton of screen time but they were an ominous presence.

There are some criticisms I have still. It’s a slow burn type movie, it takes its time before it goes anywhere meaningful. I don’t mind a slow burn if the story is compelling but this might put some people off enjoying it. The writing is weaker than Tarantino’s greatest hits (Django Unchained, Inglorious Basterds, Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction) but again it’s better written than a majority of the films showing right now. My biggest complaint personally is the tonal shift between the second and third acts. I can’t explain it in detail without going into spoiler territory, but I found it kind of jarring after the very laid back first and second acts.

All and all this is a very solid film by a competent director. It’s not Tarantino’s best work but it’s still worth checking out. I’m giving this one an 8.5/10, it’d fall right below Midsommar on my ranking list for movies this year.

Additionally, I hope if Tarantino keeps up with his “10 films and then I retire” plan his final film ends up being the Star Trek movie he’s been talking about for years.
 
Have you skipped Aquaman? I enjoyed it much more than Wonder Woman.

I tried to watch Aquaman yesterday, I got 40 minutes in and gave up. Whoever said the CGI was good is a liar, it's awful, especially the settings. i don't think I'll be going back to this because it hurts my eyes, shame really because the film looks to have a decent plot, writing and cast. Nut no, I just can't do it! :(
 
What the Hell is this?
The Addams Family was a popular cartoon and then a popular television show a long time before you were born. Then they made a couple of popular live-action movies which you may be more familiar with.

I have no idea what that abomination is in that trailer you posted though...
 
I have no idea what that abomination is in that trailer you posted though...

I brought this to everyone's attention because it does look horrendous. What's the point? Is it supposed to be aimed at any market in particular? Did we need this reboot? Is it a comedy? (Hard to tell from te trailer!) Sooooooo many questions, but the main one is simply WHY?
 
Sooooooo many questions, but the main one is simply WHY?

MGM:
35u4ut.jpg


~Thylo
 
I think it's annoying when people label Disney remakes as bad just because it was 'made for money'. They put effort into making it, as I recently watched the new Lion King. It was one of the best displays of CGI I have ever seen in my life. Granted, I am not a huge movie fan, but I think my point is still valid. A movie is bad if the actual content is good, and the reason it was made shouldn't be overshadowing the content of the film. Granted, I didn't really connect with the original, but my point still stands I believe.
 
Last edited:
I think it's annoying when people label Disney remakes as bad just because it was 'made for money'. They put effort into making it, as I recently watched the new Lion King. It was one of the best displays of CGI I have ever seen in my life. Granted, I am not a huge movie fan, but I think my point is still valid. A movie is bad if the actual content is good, and the reason it was made shouldn't be overshadowing the content of the film. Granted, I didn't really connect with the original, but my point still stands I believe.

I'm not labeling the Disney remakes as bad because they were made for money, all mainstream movies are made for money. It's a business and they need to make money. I label most of the Disney remakes as bad because they are bad. The Lion King (2019) is a lazy rehash of the original with updated visual effects that, while impressive, only hurt the film as it makes all of the animals almost completely visually emotionless and, at times, leave them bordering on the uncanny valley. The 2019 film and the 1994 film are virtually the exact same movie content-wise, except all of the most visually expressive and thus often times most joyous scenes are completely cut out or dumbed down significantly because they were look absolutely ridiculous in a hyper-realistic format. There is a very good argument to be made that very little effort went into this movie outside of the hyper-realistic format and collecting as many big recognizable names for voice casting as possible, both of which seem to be considered pretty unnecessary by most critics and audiences. The heart and originality-- despite the similarities with Kimba-- of the first film are completely lost on the remake. It is abundantly clear to everyone that Disney made this movie to bank of people's nostalgia and therefore make money, and nothing else.

As I said before, making money is a totally fine goal to have when making a movie and it's even totally fine to have it be the #1 goal. When a movie's sole purpose is to make money, however, is when problems start to arise simply due to the often obvious lack of care and originality. Remakes are totally fine, too. Anything can be good. For a remake to succeed, though, it usually needs to do something new and original with the source material. I love The Jungle Book (2016), and one of the reasons people generally like it is because it's not the same movie as the 1967 animated film. It showed them something new, with amazing new visual effects that had never been seen before to this extent. It's also worth noting that the animals in The Jungle Book (2016) are significantly less hyper-realistic than the animals in The Lion King (2019). Jon Favreau, the director of both movies, set out to make the animals as realistic as possible in the latter movie, whereas they were left to be a little more cartoonish in the former. The former also has the huge benefit of having an actual Human being present for the audience to attach themselves to, both visually and emotionally, whereas the latter leaves pretty much nothing to attach to other than how cute some of the animals are and how nostalgic the movie makes grown audiences feel.

In conclusion, it's ok for a studio to make a movie to make money and it's ok for a studio to make remakes of their older original content, but there needs to be more behind the film than wanting to money and the remake needs to have a purpose. Many of these Disney remakes simply lack both of those things.

~Thylo
 
So I watched the new Lion King yesterday, and I should say I was pleasantly surprised. The animation looks very good (up to the point where Zazu actually flies like a hornbill would) and the story is entirely the same, so that's okay too. Nothing new, but okay nonetheless. The nostalgia really hit me at the "circle of life" opening. I went in with the idea that I would see an updated version of a film I had seen before and with that mindset it is quite good. Just don't expect a Jungle Book like remake with a different plot.

As @ThylacineAlive already stated, the animation does not quite deliver on the emotional aspect. Every now and then there was a glimpse of emotion on the animal's face, but the rest of the time it was completely emotionless. Which is quite a curious thing, as species such as hornbills or mandrills can be quite expressive in real life. Maybe they should have done more with non-facial expression, or go the way of The Jungle Book and make the animals slighly more cartoon-ish.

One other point is the hyenas. The original Lion King gave hyenas a bad reputation, and the new one does nothing to change that. Even worse is that they seem to have taken more "creative liberties" with the hyenas than with all other animals bar perhaps some members of the main cast, making them look even more nasty and evil. Their beautiful yellow-ish coat is made very dark and dirty, and don't even get me started on the faces. I know they want to be true to the original film, but knowing that the original turned hyenas into "bad guys" in public perception, I think they could have at least protrayed them somewhat more... eh... neutral?
 
I recently went to the cinema for the first time in over a year and instead of the Lion King the choice fell on Balloon (2018). This is a German film, based on a real story, about two families who try to escape the DDR using a selfmade balloon. I like such historic movies set around the DDR in general and this is a worthy addition to Goodbye Lenin and das Leben der Anderen. It is probably because it is a German film that it is relatively unknown, but the acting is mostly very good as is the camerawork (though the cameraman loves mirrors...). It is also helped by the fact that it is actually a good story and the scenes have that real DDR vibe around them. All in all it is worth to keep an eye open for this movie.
 
@lintworm in regard to German movies about the GDR, you might want to give the following ones a go:

- Jenseits der Mauer
- Sonnenallee
- Bornholmer Straße
- Berlin is in Germany
- Werk ohne Autor (partly)
 
So I watched the new Lion King yesterday, and I should say I was pleasantly surprised. The animation looks very good (up to the point where Zazu actually flies like a hornbill would) and the story is entirely the same, so that's okay too. Nothing new, but okay nonetheless. The nostalgia really hit me at the "circle of life" opening. I went in with the idea that I would see an updated version of a film I had seen before and with that mindset it is quite good. Just don't expect a Jungle Book like remake with a different plot.

As @ThylacineAlive already stated, the animation does not quite deliver on the emotional aspect. Every now and then there was a glimpse of emotion on the animal's face, but the rest of the time it was completely emotionless. Which is quite a curious thing, as species such as hornbills or mandrills can be quite expressive in real life. Maybe they should have done more with non-facial expression, or go the way of The Jungle Book and make the animals slighly more cartoon-ish.

One other point is the hyenas. The original Lion King gave hyenas a bad reputation, and the new one does nothing to change that. Even worse is that they seem to have taken more "creative liberties" with the hyenas than with all other animals bar perhaps some members of the main cast, making them look even more nasty and evil. Their beautiful yellow-ish coat is made very dark and dirty, and don't even get me started on the faces. I know they want to be true to the original film, but knowing that the original turned hyenas into "bad guys" in public perception, I think they could have at least protrayed them somewhat more... eh... neutral?

did you watch the movie from a zoo
 
So I watched the new Lion King yesterday, and I should say I was pleasantly surprised. The animation looks very good (up to the point where Zazu actually flies like a hornbill would) and the story is entirely the same, so that's okay too. Nothing new, but okay nonetheless. The nostalgia really hit me at the "circle of life" opening. I went in with the idea that I would see an updated version of a film I had seen before and with that mindset it is quite good. Just don't expect a Jungle Book like remake with a different plot.

As @ThylacineAlive already stated, the animation does not quite deliver on the emotional aspect. Every now and then there was a glimpse of emotion on the animal's face, but the rest of the time it was completely emotionless. Which is quite a curious thing, as species such as hornbills or mandrills can be quite expressive in real life. Maybe they should have done more with non-facial expression, or go the way of The Jungle Book and make the animals slighly more cartoon-ish.

One other point is the hyenas. The original Lion King gave hyenas a bad reputation, and the new one does nothing to change that. Even worse is that they seem to have taken more "creative liberties" with the hyenas than with all other animals bar perhaps some members of the main cast, making them look even more nasty and evil. Their beautiful yellow-ish coat is made very dark and dirty, and don't even get me started on the faces. I know they want to be true to the original film, but knowing that the original turned hyenas into "bad guys" in public perception, I think they could have at least protrayed them somewhat more... eh... neutral?

also is anyone gonna mention how the hyenas are now SPOTTED and not STRIPED?
 
The Lion King

I'm pretty sure some people may dislike my opinion, but I'd say this was actually a good remake. Not only did the animals look realistic, but the original storyline wasn't really sidetracked from. However, the thing I liked the most was the amount of more obscure species shown in the film (glad this happened). It's not as good as the original or the remade Aladdin, but certainly leagues better than the remade Dumbo.

Rating: 7.5/10 (where the original gets a 10)

If anyone is really interested, here is a list of depicted species I identified in the film (I may have missed some).

Black rhinoceros
Gemsbok
Meerkat
Cheetah
Marabou stork
Greater flamingo
Thomson's gazelle
Reticulated giraffe
Grant's zebra
Vulturine guineafowl
African savanna elephant
Greater kudu
Red-billed hornbill
Mandrill
African lion
Vervet monkey
(Typical striped?) grass mouse
Common hippopotamus
Wildebeest
African grey parrot
Spotted hyena
Common warthog
Aardvark
Bat-eared fox
Black-and-rufous elephant shrew
Senegal bushbaby
Kirk's dik-dik
Topi
Cape buffalo
 
I saw Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark on Tuesday. I went in skeptical because I never read the books, but I surprisingly really enjoyed it. I sat in the second row and enjoy looking up right in front of the screen. There are multiple jump scares and I feel the cast did a great job of conveying the emotions associated to the monsters in the stories that come to life. My favorite was the Pale Lady only because the Toe-less Corpse segment was so brief. The Harold the scarecrow part was ehh.... because it didn't follow what happens in the original story (would've been rated R if they stuck to the book version). I though it had good special effects when the film needed them. The monsters in the film are actors wearing super realistic costumes so there wasn't any need for a lot of CGI. Apparently they put this out now so it can be streamed for Halloween this year but honestly this is a film that is best seen in the theater with surround sound. I won't give spoilers but there was a scene that gave me goosebumps. Also the movie cleverly sets up a sequel so I'll be looking forward to that when it comes out. The next movie I look forward to seeing, and on opening day is IT Chapter 2!!!
 
Marvel Studios No Longer Involved In Spider-Man Movies

Can't believe that the Sony/Marvel Spider-Man deal is (presumably) at an end! :( I'm hoping this is similar to the James Gunn/GOTG situation where it gets sorted with the right outcome before too long. Tom Holland is my favourite Peter Parker by far, and having him in the MCU is fantastic. If he leaves without wrapping up his arc then it's going to always leave a question mark over what could have been.
 
Back
Top