Which movies have you watched? XVI - This title not included in your subscription

Status
Not open for further replies.
Analyzing this movie is probably not a good idea ^_^

In contrary, I think it's often the "stupidest" movies that end up having the grandest interpretations. I thought for most of my life "They Live" was a campy, trashy science movie and didn't really see the message.

All Hollywood films are chock full of ideology, doesn't matter if it's Marvel bullfeathers, Action movies or Rom Coms.
 
Superhero trope like Batman v. Superman. First our heroes fight each other, then team-up to destroy a mutual enemy, finally coming to a truce in the aftermath. Probably the most predictable plot point of the whole movie.
So predictable. As soon as I saw the title "Godzilla v. Kong" I immediately thought about "Batman v. Superman". When Mechagodzilla showed up it instantly confirmed my expectations, and I think that was around the point where my brain said OK so you've got the jist, how about a nice nap?:sleep:

One thing I was thinking about yesterday... is that Batman v. Superman gave you a lot more plot, and did the fight, then team-up-against-common-enemy trope all in the climax at the very end of the movie. Godzilla v. Kong was not messing around with any of that. The movie seemed to be shouting at the audience "Look we promised you Godzilla v. Kong and that's what you're gonna get... no messing about... let's get right to it! PLAYER ONE... GODZILLA!... PLAYER TWO... KONG!... ROUND ONE, FIGHT!!"
 
Seaspiracy.

Interesting. I have my doubts about the numbers though. Just at the start, it says phytoplankton take up 4 times as much CO2 as the amazon, and produces 85% of the worlds oxygen. Those numbers do not seem close to matching. That does not matter, but if they are wrong with that, then can I trust them with anything else, which is harder to fact check.
Seaspiracy - I watched this after hearing your review. Pretty disturbing, to say the least. Some of the claims being made were pretty shocking if true. In any case, it was very thought provoking and depressing, like many films in this genre. I have to say of all these kinds of films/shows/documentaries that I've seen over the past few years, this is definitely up among the top ones in terms of making me actually consider at least substantially reducing my meat/fish consumption.

But then I remember that this could just be another form of falling for the "crying Indian" fallacy... whereby responsibility for climate/environmental damage is shifted to the consumer rather than the corporations and government, which in turn shifts the burden for doing anything about it. Again, a very thought provoking film.
 
We were watching my DVD of Ben Hur last night. Just as we got to the sea battle scene, we lost power. :eek: So everyone went to bed.
 
I watched the first half of The Terminal (2004) last night. It's about as mild a film as I think I've ever seen, even by Steven Spielberg's standards. It's about a guy who gets stranded inside an international airport because a military coup in his fictional Eastern European country invalidates his passport and visa, but it's not a heart-wrenching drama. It's amusing, but not laugh-out-loud funny. It's about the least-gripping thing I've ever seen, yet still wanted to watch. It's got a great cast: Tom Hanks, Stanley Tucci and Catherine Zeta-Jones were the names on the posters, but there's also Diego Luna and Zoe Saldana before they were stars. Fans of US & Canadian television will also recognize Barry Shabaka-Henley, Chi McBride, Corey Reynolds, Guillermo Diaz, Kenneth Choi, Cas Anvar, and Conrad Pla. Possibly the most interesting thing about the whole movie is that, because Spielberg couldn't convince any airports to let him take over their space for filming, the entire airport in the movie is one gigantic set, constructed inside an unused airline hangar.
Okay, the dinner scene was pretty funny.
 
Space Jam 2 trailer. Doesn't look very good but then again the first one isn't good either yet it is still somehow charming.

 
One thing I was thinking about yesterday... is that Batman v. Superman gave you a lot more plot, and did the fight, then team-up-against-common-enemy trope all in the climax at the very end of the movie. Godzilla v. Kong was not messing around with any of that. The movie seemed to be shouting at the audience "Look we promised you Godzilla v. Kong and that's what you're gonna get... no messing about... let's get right to it! PLAYER ONE... GODZILLA!... PLAYER TWO... KONG!... ROUND ONE, FIGHT!!"
I haven't seen Godzilla vs Kong yet, but am looking forward to it.

Batman vs Superman may have more plot, but it was all terrible, so I'm happy to hear Godzilla vs Kong does not try to be more than it is.
 
Superman: Red Son Which is a DC Animated Universe film based on the comic of the same name.
 
A friend of mine lent me the DVD for Eating Raoul. Quite a scream all the way around. It was quite funny.

 
Personal Shopper.

This is a (horror/mystery, but in reality not much of either) 2016 movie with Kristen Stewart.

Although in the course of the movie you will see her (mostly) nude, the plot really isn't interesting. It is obvious she can act, but in my view the script made it impossible for the movie to work.
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen Godzilla vs Kong yet, but am looking forward to it.

Batman vs Superman may have more plot, but it was all terrible, so I'm happy to hear Godzilla vs Kong does not try to be more than it is.
Batman v. Superman was OK. It wasn't great, but it was fine, especially for a superhero movie. I had really low expectations, so Ben Affleck not completely sucking as Batman was actually quite a pleasant surprise for me.
 
Watched Austin Powers (IMOM) with the family yesterday, a movie I haven't seen since I was backpacking in Oz in '99 (ye gods, that means this movie is already >20 years old).

As might be expected, some of the jokes haven't aged so well, and some were drawn out for waaay longer than was actually funny, but mostly it still works. While it also helps to have at least a vague familiarity with the Connery-era Bond movies (and 60s-70s TV spy-shows) that AP is spoofing, the boys still laughed in most of the right places.

"I have ONE simple request, and that is to have sharks with FRICK'N lazer-beams* attached to their heads!"

*Yes, I did that on purpose.
 
Godzilla Versus Kong

AWESOME

Oh man this movie had the most unintelligible plot of the three modern American Godzilla movies but hell yeah did it have amazing monster fights. Holy cow that was really freaking cool.

Spoiler :
My wife and I talked before the movie and agreed that neither Godzilla nor Kong would truly defeat the other one but that instead they'd have to work together for some reason and we were right. I have to say the movie makers did an awesome job of keeping Mechagodzilla a secret - I had not seen anything in the previews about him, nor did the movie tip its hand until the reveal. I loved the new design for Mechagodzilla and man oh man I can't get over how thrilling the monster fights were.

I do like how even though they did not have Godzilla outright kill Kong, they still made it pretty clear that Godzilla was the top monster.
 
Godzilla Versus Kong
I have not watched this, but I thought I would as the others I have lined up are all a bit serious, and I am not in a serious mood.

The funny thing is that from the stats on my source it looks like the '63 one is more popular at the moment than the new one! Perhaps I should give that a go instead.
 
Yeah if you are the kind of person that can put aside a plot and just enjoy what you're seeing, this is a movie for you. Seriously, the plot made about as much sense as the original movies from the 60's - no sense at all. But that's ok, it really didn't need an intelligible plot to be enjoyable.

I saw the new Tina Turner documentary called Tina on HBO Max and it was really good. It's hard not to root for Tina but also pity her because she can never escape the story of the abuse she suffered. I mean obviously I pity her for the abuse itself, but also because she's got to be near 80 or something and the number one thing people know about her and want to talk to her about in interviews is for getting abused by Ike Turner, despite a super successful career she built after escaping him.
 
mmmhh.... seems Netflix will get soon Indiana Jones and the last Crusade, and it also just recently got the 2nd Jurassic Park, nice. (also soon the last season of Colony, but since this is the movies thread...)


Today I've watched The Life of Brian, partially because the movie got brought up again in the German media. Apparently we have some laws from the Weimarian Republic, which prohibit that certain movies are shown in the cinema on high Christian holidays. Doesn't affect TV or streaming at all. Obviously the Life of Brian is on that list.
I'll now commit the heresy and say "it's actually not that funny". But that's maybe it's because I've seen it already a dozen times or so, and can't be surprised anymore.
The song at the beginning is also a bit non-PC for today's standards.

And while we're on that: Last weekend I watched American Pie, I think the first time since I've originally seen it. Still funny to me. But I'm also sure that today you couldn't produce that movie anymore :think:.
 
Seaspiracy.

Interesting. I have my doubts about the numbers though. Just at the start, it says phytoplankton take up 4 times as much CO2 as the amazon, and produces 85% of the worlds oxygen. Those numbers do not seem close to matching. That does not matter, but if they are wrong with that, then can I trust them with anything else, which is harder to fact check.

Seaspiracy - I watched this after hearing your review. Pretty disturbing, to say the least. Some of the claims being made were pretty shocking if true. In any case, it was very thought provoking and depressing, like many films in this genre. I have to say of all these kinds of films/shows/documentaries that I've seen over the past few years, this is definitely up among the top ones in terms of making me actually consider at least substantially reducing my meat/fish consumption.

But then I remember that this could just be another form of falling for the "crying Indian" fallacy... whereby responsibility for climate/environmental damage is shifted to the consumer rather than the corporations and government, which in turn shifts the burden for doing anything about it. Again, a very thought provoking film.

I have now also watched Seaspiracy (to counter all the nonsense which I've been watching).
I feel this documentary is very well done, shines lights on many facets, and is also entertaining.
Yet, as Samson pointed out, there are some issues with the content of it.
There are a bunch of things in there, which I do not doubt at all. Like the decline in fish numbers, that the certifications are useless and more bought than valid. That fish farms are also getting fed in big amounts of wild fish I have heard before too, it makes sense (just catch everything, grind it up, feed; very efficient), and I did some quick check on wiki regarding the composition of the pacific garbage patch, and apparently a big chunk is indeed fishery equipment, and not plastic straws. Also the 50-80% oxygen consumption by phytoplankton is a NOAA estimate, https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean-oxygen.html . So these things hold up.

Things which do not hold up (listing this, because I feel more people here might watch this):
  • The deepwater horizon oil spill was beneficial for the fauna, because it decreased fishing. This really threw me off, couldn't believe it. I did some checking and https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.594862/full "In some cases, fishery closures were associated with measurable but ephemeral increases in abundance of some targeted and bycatch species." I would tend to believe this statement. Publishing something in Frontiers normally means that you have something valid, but rather boring to report. If they had found a bigger indication that the oil spill was beneficial, it would have been way more exciting, they would have gotten into a way better journal.
  • 80% of all species life in the ocean: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982212011529 "Of the roughly 1.5 million known species of macroscopic organisms on earth, the modern ocean — despite its much larger area and volume — supports only about 15% of species, whereas terrestrial environments account for about 80% of species, and freshwater for the remaining 5% (Figure 1)." But it seems that this could have been just a very simple mistake, and the numbers are obviously not finite, see https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean-species.html "Scientists estimate that 91 percent of ocean species have yet to be classified, and that more than eighty percent of our ocean is unmapped, unobserved, and unexplored."
  • I also wouldn't believe the size of the ocean floor, which is destroyed each year by trawling, although I didn't do research there. It seems just very unlikely that each year the ocean ground in a size of Australia+Greenland+more is destroyed, because.... then we should have already destroyed everything, no?
Despite this, I found this documentary still interesting to watch.
 
Watched Austin Powers (IMOM) with the family yesterday, a movie I haven't seen since I was backpacking in Oz in '99 (ye gods, that means this movie is already >20 years old).

As might be expected, some of the jokes haven't aged so well, and some were drawn out for waaay longer than was actually funny, but mostly it still works. While it also helps to have at least a vague familiarity with the Connery-era Bond movies (and 60s-70s TV spy-shows) that AP is spoofing, the boys still laughed in most of the right places.

"I have ONE simple request, and that is to have sharks with FRICK'N lazer-beams* attached to their heads!"

*Yes, I did that on purpose.
Mwahahaahahahaa!

Now make ‘the boys’ watch the other ‘movies’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom