Recently watched movies

[Carol the Dabbler]

I don't hate remakes on principle, but it does seem to me that they rarely live up to the original, so I rarely bother to see them,  As to why they rarely live up to the original, that's my own opinion, of course.  But if I really loved the original, then the remake (which will of course differ in some respects) is likely to disappoint me simply because it's different.

If I didn't like the original, I'm not likely to even see the remake.  This may explain why they don't often do remakes of duds -- people would expect the remake to be a dud as well, so it'd be tough getting anyone to see it.  Of course if it really was better, then word of mouth would eventually increase the audiences -- if it was still in the theaters by then -- but studios don't like to take risks.  Which I guess is why they do so many remakes of popular films.

[Artemis]

9 hours ago, T.o.b.y said:

I have a bit of a thing for remakes and adaptations because I find it interesting to see what is changed and why.

I feel that way too, but for me I think it depends on what is meant by “remake”.  I really like different takes on old stories.  “Ever After”, “Snow White and the Huntsman”, and the TV show “Once Upon a Time”, for example, were interesting to me in that way.  I would put “Maleficent” in that category, and maybe even the 2015 “Cinderella”.  Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes have been adapted many times, but I wouldn’t call them all remakes of each other.

The problem with Disney remakes like “Beauty and the Beast”, “Aladdin”, and probably “The Lion King”, is that they’re not different takes on a traditional tale; the animated versions were that.  The remakes are “updated” versions of their own original take.  They follow the same route, with the same lines, but it’s only done halfway.  So it’s more of the same, and yet it’s not the same enough to feel like a faithful rendering.  They’re in this weird limbo between strange and familiar, which is just sort of unpleasant to watch, and usually disappointing.

Book adaptions can be guilty of the same thing, but at least there it makes more sense, because they have to cut and change things to fit the story into a certain timeframe.  But with movie remakes, they don’t need to do that as much, because the movie already exists.  They’re just “remaking” it.  So if they change something you were excited to see, there seems to be no sense to it, and you’re just kind of left wondering, “Why did they change that perfectly good scene?”  If they want to make an adaption, then they should just make an adaption and make it different.  If they want to do a remake, then it should be virtually the same.  Go one way or the other, don’t do a weird mesh of the two.

Anyway, I think I’ve ranted on this subject enough, lol.  Boo on remakes.

 

[Artemis]

Oh yeah, I was going to say something about Toy Story 4.  I haven’t seen it, and probably won’t unless I catch it on TV someday when I’m bored.  But I think they made a mistake by using the same characters.  Toy Story 3 really wrapped up the series nicely, and it shouldn’t have been added to.  It ruins what was a great, emotional ending.  If they really wanted to make another Toy Story, it should have featured an entirely new set of characters.

 

[Arcadia]

Although Toy Story is the remake that's getting fabulous reviews. Wait … it's not a remake, is it? It's a sequel. Never mind. (But we have too many of those, too. Movies are turning into television.)

[Carol the Dabbler]

That's OK -- a lot of television is turning into movies. 

 

[Artemis]

I wonder when they’ll finally stop (i.e. when people will be sick enough of it to stop paying).  In a hundred years is there gonna be “Toy Story 22”?    

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

On 7/18/2019 at 9:57 AM, Artemis said:

Oh yeah, I was going to say something about Toy Story 4.  I haven’t seen it, and probably won’t unless I catch it on TV someday when I’m bored.  But I think they made a mistake by using the same characters.  Toy Story 3 really wrapped up the series nicely, and it shouldn’t have been added to.  It ruins what was a great, emotional ending.  If they really wanted to make another Toy Story, it should have featured an entirely new set of characters.

 

I think that is exactly why you should watch it. 

I'm indifferent about the series, but remember them quite well, and 3 actually left me feel a bit unresolved. It's new cycle all over again, but then what? Although I admit I also thought it's alright as the closure of the series.

But 4 actually gives more answer and I'm glad they make it, although, as said, I'm not sure what message we are supposed to bring home. I enjoyed 4 much more than 2 and 3 and think it is compatible or better sequel.

I think it's a cruel cruel world for toys.

 

@Disney

I can't bring myself to watch Lion King. I don't have attachment or impressed much with the original, and my problem is the only character that I like is Scar, and he looks like old lion with skin problem in the trailer, it's way off his menacing look and too 'villains are ugly' cliche.

Actually watched Shaw and Hobbs instead, it's very cheesy, but they try hard, I don't mind it and as usual, I enjoyed the rock.

Quite enjoyed Asterix, it's my childhood favorite comic.

[Carol the Dabbler]

3 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

Quite enjoyed Asterix, it's my childhood favorite comic.

There's an Asterix movie?  Zowie, I see there have been a whole bunch!  Which one(s) are you referring to -- or if you mean all of them, do you have any special favorite(s)?

[Arcadia]

I'm tempted to go see Shaw and Hobbs simply because it looks like silly fun. Awfully expensive silly fun, though.

[Artemis]

"'Home Alone,' like everything else these days, is getting a reboot."

Somebody please make it stop.  😩

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Funny article, and I basically agree.

In this case, I'm glad to see that the reboot is intended for a streaming service.  So, I would have to go seriously out of my way in order to see it.  Yay!

 

[Arcadia]

[Van Buren Supernova]

Aiz, we don't need those remakes! Home alone is good as it is, don't ruin it.

As for Mulan, like other Disney remake, I really don't feel the desire to see it. And now there is a movement to boycott it because of the actess's remark regarding HK police.

On 8/9/2019 at 1:10 AM, Carol the Dabbler said:

There's an Asterix movie?  Zowie, I see there have been a whole bunch!  Which one(s) are you referring to -- or if you mean all of them, do you have any special favorite(s)?

Yes, the new one is called Asterix and The Secret of the Magic Potion. But I'm not sure that there are many other movies, I only know Twelve Tasks but I don't think I watched it.

The comics though, I have all of them except some newer one, and used to remember every single lines. But I read those in translated version, which I realized it's much more funnier than the one in English  (not sure if it's the original). That is why I haven't bought the last few comics, and of course they are costly as well. I obtained my collection back then by hunting the used books in bazaars, over many many years.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I believe the original Asterix comics are in French, so anything else is a translation.  They're very funny in English, though, which is a real credit to the translator.

I looked up the movies on IMDb (or maybe Amazon) while writing my last post, and as I recall there were something like ten of them. 

[Fantasy Lover]

I believe the original Asterix comics are in French, so anything else is a translation.  They're very funny in English, though, which is a real credit to the translator.

I looked up the movies on IMDb (or maybe Amazon) while writing my last post, and as I recall there were something like ten of them. 

It warms my Belgian heart to see that Asterix is so popular, I always thought it was incredible popular in just Belgium and France, it seems I was wrong. At least it just appears less popular than say Tintin and the Smurfs.

 

"'Home Alone,' like everything else these days, is getting a reboot."

Somebody please make it stop. 

but-but Night at the museum isn't even 15 years old yet *screams incoherently*

 

Okay, I need to redirect my anger at something else. Okay, how about I'll rant about Spider-Man

 

So I finally saw Far from home and I'm pissed! Spoilers/ranting below:

 

 

 

-Marvel is following the example set by Disney by revealing the nice guy to be evil which is neither original nor shocking, especially if you ever read the Spider-Man comics!

-Tony once again keeps making his own enemies even though he's dead and it's becoming increasingly annoying and predictable!

-Tony keeps giving dangerous technology to Peter even though it was proven in the previous movie that doing so was a bad decision.

-Speaking about dangerous technology, nobody in the bus notices Peter asking to delete pictures from a dude's phone

-Speaking about people being oblivious, nobody seemed to wonder why Mysterio didn't have third degree burns (yes, I know we're supposed to believe he's an alien) or bat an eyelid at spider-man and Mysterio drinking at a bar (which proves how oblivious this Spider-Man is)

-The only things I liked about it was the fact that J.K. Simmons is back as J. Jonah. Jameson and the scene in which Peter Parker ended up in Holland with actual Dutch speaking extras because I'm sure no one else can pronounce Broek op langedijk.

I give it a 4/10.

 

 

[Arcadia]

7 hours ago, Fantasy Lover said:

So I finally saw Far from home and I'm pissed! Spoilers/ranting below:

I don't think I disliked it as much as you did, but it's not my favorite Marvel film. I felt like it was aiming for a younger crowd and skewed a little too young. But I did like the positive theme  of kids being able to make a difference. And agreed, Mysterio was utterly forgettable.

[Artemis]

I was pretty ambivalent about it.  I didn't dislike it, but I'm not itching to watch it again either.

A few days ago I read that this may have been Spider-Man's last appearance in the MCU, so that's a bit sad.  Disney and Sony might still work it out later though, you never know.

 

[Artemis]

I saw “Ready or Not”.  Not because I really wanted to, but because I hadn’t been to a movie in what felt like ages, and I’ve been overwhelmed by stress and anxiety.  I’d been up for over 24 hours, so I was pretty exhausted, but I still went to see this instead of sleeping because I needed to do something besides work and sleep, lol.  There’s not a lot out right now, and I just wanted something to get “lost” in for a couple hours, so this one seemed the best option.

Anyway, it was weird and fun and a bit... different.  A somewhat comedic horror, I suppose I’d say.  It’s no masterpiece, but for what it is, it’s not half bad.  I wish it would have ended a little differently, but that’s my only quibble really.

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

15 hours ago, Artemis said:

and I just wanted something to get “lost” in for a couple hours

This has been my reason to watch movie and I have been watching a lot this recent years, too bad only small portion is really worth the time.

Anyway, I watched Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, which I had been waiting for. I do like QT's works, although not really a fan, but I enjoyed his style in some of previous works.

P.S. below should be after spoiler box, but forum refuses to do so, so I have to paste it here or it goes inside with invisible text color. I hate you back new forum.

Anyway, not his fan, but I really like Brad Pitt here, and I have never found him attractive much, but he looks fineee. (or is it because I like his character a lot).

Enjoyed this movie, 8/10. Too bad I don't think many of my fellow cinema goers felt the same, there are quite a number of them went up and down, or left. I believe many of them are not familiar with the real life reference or QT style, which is common here, and they probably felt wtf because it does give you a disconnected feeling or where it is going? if you are not familiar.

 

And it's actually a feel good movie, with alternate reality that would make a world a better place maybe? Like Inglorious Basterds.

I didn't expect it, and was tense on my seat. I had a Polish friend who is a family friend of Sharon, and he told me about the murder and how he dealt with it. He was pushing 80ies while I was on my thirties. I wasn't familiar with the tragedy and found it really chilling especially when I finally read about it, too bad we had lost touch by then, I had a lot of things I want to ask and say. So everytime I read about it, it disturbs me more than something unattached to me, feel a bit more personal.

Anyway, not his fan, but I really like Brad Pitt here, and I have never found him attractive much, but he looks fineee. (or is it because I like his character a lot).

Enjoyed this movie, 8/10. Too bad I don't think many of my fellow cinema goers felt the same, there are quite a number of them went up and down, or left. I believe many of them are not familiar with the real life reference or QT style, which is common here, and they probably felt wtf because it does give you a disconnected feeling or where it is going? if you are not familiar.

[Hikari]

The only theatrical movie experience of my summer was "Rocketman" starring Taron Egerton as Elton John.  Two thumbs up from me.  Too bad Elton somewhat dissipated the warm feelings the movie engendered by his recent bone-headed comments in support of the insupportable Harry & Meghan.  Taron deserves an Oscar and does all of his own singing.

For another biopic (older, on DVD) I can recommend, it's 'Borg & McEnroe', which I trot out during Wimbledon season.  It is a dramatized recounting of the epic 1980 Wimbledon Gentlemen's Final between reigning champion Bjorn Borg, chasing his 6th championship title, and the brash up-comer, American diva John McEnroe, and the roads that brought each man to their legendary confrontation.  Bjorn was 24 and already a burnt-out veteran of tennis, with the weight of expectation for his nation of Sweden and others on his shoulders to win.  McEnroe was only 21 and already had not endeared himself to referees the world over for his tantrums on the court.  Sverrir Gunarson and Shia LeBoeuf eerily channel their counterparts.  Shia, with the more volatile part, is especially impressive.  Leo Borg, the 14-year-old son of Bjorn portrays his father as a young teen.  Chip off the old block, he.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Carol the Dabbler
No changes made, but please remember that personal opinions, especially strong negative opinions (such as those included in the first paragraph) should always be stated AS opinions. Thank you.

[Fantasy Lover]

The lion king 2019 5/10
- This movie was for 98% similar to the original, which really annoyed me.
- Scar looked really pathetic and weak
- The lions don't really express emotions which makes the stampede scene really hard to take seriously because Simba makes a derp face when the he sees the stampede coming for him.

The only reason this movie gets a passing grade is because James Earl Jones returns as Mufasa, Hans Zimmer as well with his amazing soundtrack and the beautiful special effects.

[Hikari]

A recent view on DVD:

"Eddie the Eagle" (2016)

Taron Egerton, who gave an Oscar-worthy performance as Elton John earlier this year in "Rocketman" first dipped a toe into biopic of nerdy-looking English celebrities three years ago with this film, detailing the rise of Michael 'Eddie the Eagle' Edwards from the most unlikely Olympian ever to national folk  hero overnight after his appearance at the 1988 Calgary Olympics.  As a youth, Eddie required surgery to correct knee problems.  While he was laid up, he read a book about the 1972 Olympic Games and from that point forward, announced to his parents that his chief ambition in life was to be an Olympian.  With thick glasses, and not naturally coordinated, this seemed a foolhardy ambition.  None of the track and field events seemed a good fit, and he gravitated to skiing, at which he was better.  Not good enough to qualify for the men's downhill team, however.  By exploiting a loophole in the rules, which stipulated that he only had to qualify at one major international competition, Eddie became the sole member of the British ski jumping team.  Britain had not fielded ski jumping since 1928.  The fact that he came in dead last in both of his jumps did not diminish his cult status.  Someone will always come last, but Eddie Edwards was anything but a failure, having worked doggedly and resolutely for his dream since childhood.  Also, in the process of finishing last in the field, Eddie still managed to hold the British ski jumping record for six years.  His  humble and humorous manner and genuine delight in being at the Olympic Games was infectious.  His presence at the Games exemplified the motto, as stated by the father of the modern Olympics, Pierre de Coubertin, "The important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win, but to take part."

Eddie's extreme popularity was not enough to erase the embarrassment of his low finish in official quarters, and in 1990 the IOC instituted the 'Eddie the Eagle Rule" which stipulates that a competitor must finish in the top 30% or top 50 competitors in his/her sport in order to qualify.  Sadly for Eddie, he failed to qualify at the 1992, 1994 and 1998 Games due to the new regulations.  He was delighted to have his life story sold as the basis for a film, and until Edgerton and director Dexter Flecher got it made, it had been in development limbo for more than a decade.  Despite its formulaic 'sports underdog triumphs' script, the humor and heart, not to mention the perfectly-selected 1980s soundtrack makes it a feel-good experience you won't be sorry you took the leap on (pun!) Hugh Jackman co-stars as Eddie's initially unwilling coach, Bronson Peary.

[Carol the Dabbler]

2 hours ago, Hikari said:

Despite its formulaic 'sports underdog triumphs' script, the humor and heart, not to mention the perfectly-selected 1980s soundtrack makes it a feel-good experience you won't be sorry you took the leap on (pun!) Hugh Jackman co-stars as Eddie's initially unwilling coach, Bronson Peary.

Sounds like something I might enjoy, all right.  And having very much enjoyed seeing (on DVD) Kate & Leopold, a romantic time-travel comedy with Hugh Jackman as a Victorian duke, I think it'd be fun seeing him as a regular kinda modern guy.

[Hikari]

46 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Sounds like something I might enjoy, all right.  And having very much enjoyed seeing (on DVD) Kate & Leopold, a romantic time-travel comedy with Hugh Jackman as a Victorian duke, I think it'd be fun seeing him as a regular kinda modern guy.

It reminded me quite a lot in spirit of "The Cutting Edge", if you enjoyed that film.  "Eddie the Eagle" is not a romantic comedy, unless we count Eddie's decades-long romance with the Olympic Games.  There has been a lot of dramatic license taken to turn Ed's story into a feel-good movie.  The man himself is a very positive individual, but his road to the Olympics wasn't all peaches.  He lived in a mental hospital in Finland at one point during his training because he couldn't afford other accommodation.  I remember Eddie's story and I watched him in action during the Calgary Games.  He always looked middle-aged even then, but he was only 23 at the time, or two years older than me.  The movie depicts his working class parents as split in their support of Eddie's dream; his mother was for it, but his father (Keith Allen), a plasterer by trade, wants his only child to stop dreaming and settle down to a 'real' job.

30 years on, Eddie looks largely the same as he did back then, with the same irrepressible energy and smile.  He has cobbled together a post-Olympic career of some stunt/daredevil type work (he holds a record for jumping over parked cars, apparently), some voiceover work and dribs and drabs.  I don't think he ever went back to plastering.  

Taron Egerton has impeccable physical comedy timing which has come in handy in all his roles.  The role went to him after production delays meant that first Steve Coogan and then Rupert Grint were attached and then had to pass.   I think it was for the best that the project was delayed for nearly ten years--they found the right actor for Eddie, and Taron would have been too young and obscure if it had come around earlier.  I'm not sure how many movie-goers under the age of 40 would remember 'Eddie the Eagle' but he certainly was a breath of fresh air during those Olympics . . exemplifying as he did the spirit of the TRUE amateur.  He did not start ski jumping until a year before the Games and made up for in fearlessness and grit what he lacked in experience.  I'm amazed that he didn't kill himself!

When Hugh Jackman appears, playing a real-life washed up boozy former ski-jumping prodigy driving a snow machine, I immediately thought "Wolverine!"  Calgary Olympics, how appropriate.  Hugh is a very large and somewhat hirsute guy even when he's playing a normal human.  He and Egerton make a good team.

[Carol the Dabbler]

4 hours ago, Hikari said:

It reminded me quite a lot in spirit of "The Cutting Edge"....

Several Amazon reviewers compared it to Cool Runnings (about that memorable Jamaican bobsled team) -- I've added that to our wishlist as well.