What MOVIE(s) have you been....seeing? watching?

I'd give DC the 80s for sure, most of the 90's (based on B:TAS), and the early 00's till the rise of the MCU formula and the double whammy of Superman Returns and Green Lantern drove DC to desperation and putting Snyder in charge. And Man of Steel was Good (if way off in characterization). But the rest, meh. Though that War of Apokalips cartoon must have been based on his vision.

Marvel just struck platinum with the heady combo of Feige in control, Favreau setting the stage for the formula, and divinely inspired casting of RDJ and the Chris'.

But now the MCU is a machine with a dedicated design team, directors not in charge of their action set pieces, and a core cast aging out of their roles. The 2020s could be DCs again.

I also believe in unicorns and the tooth fairy

I was primarily raised on Marvel comics. I probably got more of my ethics and morals from Captain America than Jesus. But every once in a while, DC has managed to reach a quality level that seems just barely out of reach for Marvel. As mentioned above, Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns are important. Kingdom Come. The Green Lantern/Green Arrow run by Denny O'Neill and Neal Adams. Certain issues of Swamp Thing. On a page by page basis, Crisis on Infinite Earths was kind of a sprawling mess, but the overall scope of the story made for an amazing epic with some big moments.

I enjoyed Grindhouse when I saw the whole damn thing in the theater, but it did a thing that I still struggle to fully grasp. Two talented directors expended considerable resources to deliberately make bad movies. And Robert Rodriguez decided to do it again years later, with Machete, which was originally just a fake trailer that was part of the overall Grindhouse double-feature. But why? Why should a competent director recruit a star-studded cast and deliberately do a bad movie?

Maybe it was because the star was Danny Trejo, a solid and hard-working character actor who visibly radiates danger but is only a proficient actor at best. The same could be said for Steven Seagal, who plays one of the several villains of the piece. And then there is Michelle Rodriguez, who is more or less an attractive female Trejo. So maybe Rodriguez didn't want to overshadow them or ask too much from them. But then you have a legend like Robert de Niro, and Lindsay Lohan, who was a quality child actor before she got lost in a 24/7 party scene. Don Johnson and Jessica Alba have done better work, and even Cheech Marin has been in several better movies. Tom Savini (fx genius) and Shea Whigham (Boardwalk Empire) are also in the mix.

I think Machete is dragged down by a lazy story and a bad script. The story gets from plot point to plot point, but the reasoning is just dumb and annoying. The script is riddled with cliches, lame posturing, and so many failed jokes. The line between failed comedy and silly action movie is blurred just enough to fail in either genre. There is a sequel, but I don't presently feel the urge to watch Machete Kills. And it is telling that the second sequel never happened.

The Machete sequel was so bad I turned it off. And I like Danny Trejo.

Robert Rodriguez is such a fast director and so organized he can get an actor to pop in for just a few days to nail all of their scenes. Allows him to stack his films with a deep bench that assures a good international distribution. So while he never really hits a home run he is a solid 2-3 base hitter nearly every time and keeps the budget down. Kinda like the Paul W. Anderson model minus Milla Yanovich.

There is an unquantifiable charm to the low budget schlock of old that can't really be recaptured today. The slasher genre is particularly awash in mediocre at best attempts to do it. I think it boils down to the right combo of "so bad it's good" acting, lots of sleazy exploitation, and a script that is actually kinda sharp.

Watched Kate on Netflix. It's a formulaic wannabe John Wick tale that you have seen countless times before. That said, it's fun enough and I doubt you'll be unhappy with it. It's no Atomic Blonde.

I watched Mars Attacks! on Netflix last night. I remembered loving it in high school, but that's now over 20 years ago. What a weird, sour, little movie it is. I kind of love it.

Watching every institution flail around and be totally ineffectual against the Martians plays really different in a post-pandemic world, where we have seen everyone completely belly-flop in the face of a foe with which you cannot negotiate. I'm not much of a nihilist, but this is definitely a nihilistic movie.

Thinking about how it came out almost at the same time as Independence Day is a weird little though experiment. ID4 is a totally straight-faced interpretation of the alien invasion plot, hitting almost all the same beats with 90s bombast. It's all rah-rah about the military and America and stuff. But Mars Attacks is just so cynical about...everything.

It's definitely funny, but not usually from real jokes, and certainly not from characters. It's more funny if you like absurdity and futility, which I do. I like the perversity of finding like two dozen major stars, and then killing all but like four of them off after a couple of lines.

Anyway, it was fun to revisit. I do not much care for Tim Burton, but I do like this one a lot.

Rather than remakes, I wish they would just go back and refresh the CGI in these 90's era films that REALLY suffer now. The films themselves are great, but the primitive CGI that is way too overused hurts the film. Lost in Space is nigh unwatchable (well, CGI alien monkey is maybe just part of the problem there....)

I kind of love the CGI in Mars Attacks, just because so much of it is very much in that 50s B-movie vein, but yeah, you're right. A lot of the early days of computer graphics didn't hold up well.

THE MAURITANIAN based on the true story of a man held in Gauntanamo for 14 years without being charged in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Starring Jodi Foster and Benedict Cumberbatch, the actor with the most screen time is Tahar Rahim, who plays the accused. If you're looking for courtroom drama, you've come to the wrong place as the court scenes are scarce in number and fairly brief.

Rahim gets the lions share of the screen time . The movie opens with him in Mauritania and being asked to come answer some questions by locals, then the bulk of the movie takes place during his time in US captivity. The movie doesn't dig deep into his guilt or innocence but rather on the efforts of both Foster ( defense ) and Cumberbatch's ( prosecutors ) characters to dig thru various classified blockades to ascertain exactly what evidence the government is holding against him. There are some hazy references to legal buzzwords that translate to "secret files" that once obtained move the plot along to its conclusion, but not before a considerable amount of time has passed in both the movie and real life.

The performances are good; Foster as usual is solid if a bit muted as is Cumberbatch. The movie does not dwell on torture nor does it shy away from it. The movie is more thoughtful than outright provacative; but when it does end after a sort of false ending I can't help but wonder if it could have been more engaging given the cast involved.

san il defanso wrote: A lot of the early days of computer graphics didn't hold up well.

To be honest, I think the vast majority of CGI looks poorly. Even in the best, most high-budget films it looks like an ugly videogame with poor lightning. I always get the feeling they look dated and no matter how much time goes on and how much they improve, they still look dated and poorly lit to me.

I've been watching the Indiana Jones movies lately and the special effects look a hundred times better than anything I've seen in the last 10 years. Sure, there are blunders like bad explosions and the awful car scenes where the exterior is proyected over, but stuff like the tank chase or Last Crusade's opening looks amazing and will always do so. On the other hand, I think stuff like Marvel films looks from poor to terrible. Tony Star putting on his suit is supposed to be techy and cool but it looks awfully plastered over.

Of course, it's a bit unfair to compare some of the best action movies of all time to average franchise flicks but CGI is just so stupidly overused. Like, many modern movies don't even bother building an actual set. They just record everything on a green screen, no wonder it looks like terrible and the lightning is non-existant.

Like, take Black Panther. They are fightning in what is pretty much a futuristic train track. Why is it fake? Why is it not a real set? It looks awful, fake and dark. I mean, it's two figures in black fightning in the dark on top of a black floor and black walls. Is it any surprise it's hard to tell what's going on?

Anyways, please recommend me a Kurosawa movie. I loved Kagemusha, liked Seven Samurai but did not like Ran, as I felt it was overwrought and overacted compared to the other two. Any suggestions?

On an unrelated matter, I saw Shrek 2 again for some reason and it's just a string of pop culture references one after the other. And when it's not, it's toilet humour or just generic sitcom tropes like "family doesn't approve of boyfriend", "haha gay people" or whatever.

There is a gag I liked though. By accident, Pinnochio gets turned into a "real boy" and he turns into an actual live action boy. Sadly, it's a blink and you'll miss it moment and we are back to a non-ending a few seconds later.

Again, please recommend me some Kurosawa or something so I can do something with my life.

Have you seen any Wim Wenders films? I have a couple of favorites…

For Kurosawa, after Seven Samurai (one of my personal favs) and Ran, I'd go with Yojimbo (you will recognize this plot from Eastwood and Willis) and Sanjuro.

Yojimbo is a classic, Rashomon too. I really like Throne of Blood too.