[polishgenius]

worry, on 14 April 2014 - 06:59 AM, said:

Just as a layman, I will agree that Jaa brings the creativity and sheer visual flair more than The Raid movies -- he managed to straddle the line between visceral violence and a near-Jackie Chan level of enthusiasm

Possibly, but for me this is countered by the fact that the director of The Raids is far more controlled and inventive with his camera- it's really a part of the fight scenes. As charismatic as Iko Uwais can obviously be, it's Gareth Evans who's the real star here. And the fight choreographers, of whom to be fair Uwais is one (Yayan Ruhian is the other, ie the Mad Dog actor).

And yeah, overall I think that the first Raid was a tad stronger just for its sheer unreal focus - sprawling is fine but this one bloats a bit too- but the action, when it gets going, in the second shows both the increased budget and increased experience of everyone involved to kick it up a level. The final half hour or so is insane.

[Tiste Simeon]

Question: Does The Raid 2 have a scene where the guy fights 50 guys and just breaks everyones arms and legs (as in that epic scene in The Warrior King with Tony Jaa where he does exactly that)?

[worry]

You're not wrong about the camera work, PG. The mud fight alone delivers everything you say, and it's just a prelude to that final hour. And yah, I didn't want to use the word bloat because I love this movie and wasn't necessarily bored ever, but it's there. It kinda goes for a Infernal Affairs type of deal but the script isn't nearly brainy enough to sustain it.

@Tiste: Not quite, but there is still loads of spectacle of a different sort.

[Aptorian]

Just watched "The Traveller" with Val Kilmer.

What an exceptionally awful film this is. I don't watch a lot of films, so it's rare that I sit down and watch a bad film since there's so many more films to see that don't feel like a waste of time. The Traveller is one of those films I thought was regulated to the 80s or 90s when I watched a lot of rentals from the local video store.

The acting is bad, the story is bad, the dialogue is bad, the effects are bad. It's one of those films where you just wonder how it gets made. Why doesn't one of the actors say something about his lines? Why doesn't one of the effects specialists pipe up about the laughable use of gore? Why doesn't the producer ask questions about the terrible script?

Most importantly, what the fuck happened to Val Kilmer? Last film I remember him in was Kiss, kiss, bang, bang. I know he's had problems with his weight but did something else happen? Did he have some personal breakdown or did he piss off the jewish media mafia? How do you go from making Heat and Tombstone and Alexander to making something like this film?

[QuickTidal]

Apt Hoc, on 18 April 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:

Just watched "The Traveller" with Val Kilmer.

What an exceptionally awful film this is. I don't watch a lot of films, so it's rare that I sit down and watch a bad film since there's so many more films to see that don't feel like a waste of time. The Traveller is one of those films I thought was regulated to the 80s or 90s when I watched a lot of rentals from the local video store.

The acting is bad, the story is bad, the dialogue is bad, the effects are bad. It's one of those films where you just wonder how it gets made. Why doesn't one of the actors say something about his lines? Why doesn't one of the effects specialists pipe up about the laughable use of gore? Why doesn't the producer ask questions about the terrible script?

Most importantly, what the fuck happened to Val Kilmer? Last film I remember him in was Kiss, kiss, bang, bang. I know he's had problems with his weight but did something else happen? Did he have some personal breakdown or did he piss off the jewish media mafia? How do you go from making Heat and Tombstone and Alexander to making something like this film?

You gotta remember that even KISS KISS BANG BANG was an indie flick that didn't get good word of mouth till it hit DVD.

Kilmer's star status went out with BATMAN FOREVER in 1995....in every film after that he was either a bit player, or the film was an indie film, or a lower budget genre piece (eg. RED PLANET). He is no longer bankable in Hollywood...he's an afterimage.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 18 April 2014 - 11:38 AM

[Traveller]

The Saint was also particularly awful. '97 I think.

His disguises were so bad it was unintentionally hilarious.

This post has been edited by Traveller: 18 April 2014 - 12:25 PM

[QuickTidal]

The only good thing about THE SAINT was that it had a badass 90's techno soundtrack. Otherwise yeah, I saw that nonsense in the theatre.

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 18 April 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

You gotta remember that even KISS KISS BANG BANG was an indie flick that didn't get good word of mouth till it hit DVD.

I was gonna dispute this but I looked it up and now I'm surprised at how little it earned. I mean it got massive critical buzz and is the film that re-launched Robert Downey Jr's star career - and it's by Shane Black, who is hardly a small name even if he'd had a hiatus since his 80s/early 90s heyday. But apparently not very many people went to see it.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 18 April 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 18 April 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

You gotta remember that even KISS KISS BANG BANG was an indie flick that didn't get good word of mouth till it hit DVD.

I was gonna dispute this but I looked it up and now I'm surprised at how little it earned. I mean it got massive critical buzz and is the film that re-launched Robert Downey Jr's star career - and it's by Shane Black, who is hardly a small name even if he'd had a hiatus since his 80s/early 90s heyday. But apparently not very many people went to see it.

The ONLY reason I even knew about it was because it played at TIFF was was adored by the critics there (I didn't see it that year, but most of my friends did and they told me to watch it when it came out)...but yeah the 15 million box office pull was pretty rough considering that's how much it cost to make.

It's a great film, but LOCK STOCK & TWO SMOKING BARRELS it ain't (AKA that flick was made for a paltry 1.3 million and it earned 28 million) as far as "indie darlings that do well later" go.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 18 April 2014 - 01:05 PM

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 18 April 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

The ONLY reason I even knew about it was because it played at TIFF was was adored by the critics there (I didn't see it that year, but most of my friends did and they told me to watch it when it came out)...but yeah the 15 million box office pull was pretty rough considering that's how much it cost to make.

Maybe on this side of the pond it was different, but I definitely heard a lot about it and went to the cinema to see it. Both Empire and Total Film (our two principal film publications) championed it rather strongly.

To be fair, LockStock made less than Kiss Kiss in the States, apparently (three mil as opposed to four). It got smashed internationally, but although I can't find numbers, I suspect a big part of LockStock's success was propped up by doing big numbers in the UK, where it was a massive hit iirc.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 18 April 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 18 April 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

The ONLY reason I even knew about it was because it played at TIFF was was adored by the critics there (I didn't see it that year, but most of my friends did and they told me to watch it when it came out)...but yeah the 15 million box office pull was pretty rough considering that's how much it cost to make.

Maybe on this side of the pond it was different, but I definitely heard a lot about it and went to the cinema to see it. Both Empire and Total Film (our two principal film publications) championed it rather strongly.

To be fair, LockStock made less than Kiss Kiss in the States, apparently (three mil as opposed to four). It got smashed internationally, but although I can't find numbers, I suspect a big part of LockStock's success was propped up by doing big numbers in the UK, where it was a massive hit iirc.

I think the buzz was just bigger and better for LOCK STOCK. But yeah, that was likely buoyed by the UK hit status.

It's odd, I sometimes get to see films at tIFF that I assume will do amazing business that are in this same vein of indie film...the most recent was WASTELAND (called THE RISE here in NA for some baffling reason) which has Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom), Iwan Rheon (everyone's fave junk-slicing bastard Bolton), Luke Treadaway (ATTACK OF THE BLOCK), and even Timothy Spall. Very much cut from the LOCK STOCK cloth, but didn't do great business on either side of the pond strangely...but it was one of my faves at last years TIFF. Just rock solid entertainment.

I guess it just all depends on the film and the marketing?

[polishgenius]

I haven't seen The Rise yet, but I suspect that while Guy Ritchie will still do business, since he came on the scene the market was absolutely flooded with that kind of film and there may be a perception among marketers and film-people that the public simply got bored of them. Hell, even something like Wild Bill from a couple years back which isn't like that but was made to look like it is didn't seem to do much business (an excellent film, if you've not seen it I recommend it). The ones that get attention are the ones that go a slightly different route, like Layer Cake or this year's very highly rated Starred Up (which I really wanna see but might not get to in the near future).

[McLovin]

Saw NOAH. Been a while since I read the Bible, but I think I would have enjoyed it more if exploding rock giants were in it. Just batshit enough to work.

Also saw DRAFT DAY. It was OK I guess, except any GM that tried to pull what Sonny (Kevin Costner) did in this movie would be out of a job faster than you can say "two-minute warning."

This post has been edited by McLovin: 21 April 2014 - 12:38 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

Oh man. OH MAN!! Just watched the new Joss Whedon film "In Your Eyes" which he released worldwide on Vimeo the same day that he showed it at the Tribecca film festival. It is a gorgeously quirky and wonderful story which is part romance, part supernatural thing. Absolutely loved it. You can rent it for $5/£3 on Vimeo.

http://inyoureyesmovie.com/

[tiam]

Film Day

Noah- Enjoyable biblical blockbuster for the first half then the last half was a dark isolation psychological thriller that I thought was a bit much for a 12a rating in the UK. Enjoyable and the acting was good throughout.

Winter Soldier- Very good and thoroughly enjoyable if a bit predictable. Also Scarlett Johannson is amazing.

[Coco with marshmallows]

Briar King, on 19 April 2014 - 02:57 AM, said:

Ha I'm watching Species on Encore right now. Oh Natsha Henstridge you were a 15 yr old kids dream in 1995!

Interesting side note - the Scottish guy she married WAS 15 in 1995.

[QuickTidal]

So, this is happeneing, and this is actually a teaser image for the live action JEM & THE HOLOGRAMS movie.

 jem-holograms-600x927.jpg (56.11K)
Number of downloads: 0

Crazyness!

[QuickTidal]

Briar King, on 25 April 2014 - 02:32 AM, said:

Idk what that is.

Popular 80's cartoon series.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

I gotta tell you QT, from a business standpoint, the JEM movie seems like a genius decision. It has throwback appeal, musical appeal, SFX appeal, sexy young females shakin' dey bootays, some possible long-term cosplay residuals. Hell, I can't imagine a scenario where this DOESN'T rake in millions, and I know my two little girls will be dragging me kicking and screaming to go see it.

In other news...

Caught SNOWPIERCER. Loved it. FIghting with hatchets?!?! Brutally awesome. Also, perhaps the best ending to any post-apocalyptic film I've seen since BEYOND THUNDERDOME.

Also saw PRINCE AVALANCHE (Directed by the Mallick-like David Gordon Green of PINEAPPLE EXPRESS, ALL THE REAL GIRLS, THE BABYSITTER fame and starring Paul Rudd). I highly recommend this to anyone that likes pastoral think pieces. Its shot amazingly well - they used a skeleton crew and filmed in a burned out national forest in secret. Its an at times surreal story of two guys who are painting lines on a texas highway after a fire has laid waste to acres of land. Its available to stream on Netflix. Its definitely not an edge-of-your-seat type thing. But it is well made and well acted and not at all pretentious in any way.

[McLovin]

Briar King, on 25 April 2014 - 04:02 AM, said:

Wow...that was just strange. That's def 80's era though. Damn I loved growing up in the 80's.

Truly outrageous.

Where's my Robotix movie then?