[Macros]

It's quite possible Europeans would have been there in a pre gun era.
Marco Polos fabled trip to the Khan's palace for example.

But it looks like shit I'll agree

[LadyMTL]

amphibian, on 08 February 2017 - 06:28 AM, said:

Rewatched John Wick in preparation for John Wick 2.

The decision to base the plot conflict on something very, very simple, yet different in the death of a dog is brilliant. Everything flows (for an action movie) well from it.

There are two minor flaws though. The first flaw is that the offer to Perkins to pull her away from the door should have been relayed. Her showing up when she knew the likely consequence was death needs a justification. The second flaw is the first knife stab at the end. It makes zero sense. Just have the previous wound open up again.

Otherwise, that's one of the finest action movies ever. The ebb and flow, the dialogue, the action, the cinematography, the scenery, the characters, and the minimal emotions it plays with are all brilliantly done.

Superb movie.

I LOVED John Wick - except for the dog part, I hate it when bad things happens to animals - and I agree that it's one of the best action movies I've ever seen. My brother and I are planning on seeing JW2 soon, and I can't wait. Also, Keanu Reeves apparently does most of his own stunts, which blows my mind considering he's 52. I'm only 40 and my back hurts just thinking about it.

I'm also looking forward to Logan, because this finally looks like it might be a decent standalone Wolverine movie. Fingers and toes crossed!

This post has been edited by LadyMTL: 10 February 2017 - 12:25 PM

[QuickTidal]

Briar King, on 10 February 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

The 1st tv spot I saw of the Great Wall I had an Amp moment. I was like why the fuck are there white guys there other then to bring in Western audiences? Looked horrible. Now I've seen a proper trailer and appears to be a proper fantasy/monster movie not a rip on fact/history. Still looks like shit though.

My knowledge in GW isn't all that great though but I wouldn't think white people would be there with bows instead of guns. I ll wait till hbo gets this and watch if I have nothing else to watch. Looks like trash to me.

It's actually quite possible that Westerners would be there, as this was during the Song Dynasty, which was when Kublai Khan (grandson of Gengis) built his huge palace that people came from far and wide to see in Mongol territory...and the fact that the Mongol Empire often incorporated mercenary bands (which is who Pedro Pascal and Matt Damon play members of apparently in GREAT WALL) into their numbers from a fair number of Western regions. As such, they would have learned the Mongol way of fighting...which was bows on horseback. It would also explain why Damon and Pascal are immediately considered suspicious by the Emperor in China (as Mongol spies). This was also at the VERY beginning of the guns era, so your average joe would not have easily had one.

Above and beyond all else, yeah people FREAKED about this movie when it was announced...until they found out it was a b-monster fantasy movie, crewed and mostly cast and shot in mainland China, and directed by Zhang Yimou (a fairly notable Chinese director).

It looks like it might be fun for the epic Chinese monster schlock that it is. I'll watch it on Netflix.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 10 February 2017 - 02:04 PM

[D'rek]

QuickTidal, on 10 February 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

Briar King, on 10 February 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

The 1st tv spot I saw of the Great Wall I had an Amp moment. I was like why the fuck are there white guys there other then to bring in Western audiences? Looked horrible. Now I've seen a proper trailer and appears to be a proper fantasy/monster movie not a rip on fact/history. Still looks like shit though.

My knowledge in GW isn't all that great though but I wouldn't think white people would be there with bows instead of guns. I ll wait till hbo gets this and watch if I have nothing else to watch. Looks like trash to me.

It's actually quite possible that Westerners would be there, as this was during the Song Dynasty, which was when Kublai Khan (grandson of Gengis) built his huge palace that people came from far and wide to see in Mongol territory...and the fact that the Mongol Empire often incorporated mercenary bands (which is who Pedro Pascal and Matt Damon play members of apparently in GREAT WALL) into their numbers from a fair number of Western regions. As such, they would have learned the Mongol way of fighting...which was bows on horseback. It would also explain why Damon and Pascal are immediately considered suspicious by the Emperor in China (as Mongol spies). This was also at the VERY beginning of the guns era, so your average joe would not have easily had one.

Above and beyond all else, yeah people FREAKED about this movie when it was announced...until they found out it was a b-monster fantasy movie, crewed and mostly cast and shot in mainland China, and directed by Zhang Yimou (a fairly notable Chinese director).

It looks like it might be fun for the epic Chinese monster schlock that it is. I'll watch it on Netflix.

Kublai Khan was Yuan Dynasty (the Mongols-in-China dynasty), not Song Dynasty (a Han Chinese dynasty). And if this movie is set in the Song Dynasty and at the Great Wall then it must be the Northern Song period - the first part of the Song Dynasty where they had control of most of China, with the Liao Empire (Khitans) to the north and the Western Xia Dynasty (a rebel Chinese province that declared their independence during the previous Tang Dynasty) to the northwest.

The Jurchens conquered the Liao Empire, crossed the Great Wall, pushed the Song Dynasty into the southern half of China (hence: Southern Song period) and held the northern half of China for over a century before the Mongols came along and conquered the Xia, Jurchens/Jin and Southern Song.

So if this movie is set in the early Song Dynasty it's about 200 years too early for the hundreds/thousands of Europeans that visited the Yuan Dynasty.

Of course, there were certainly still some Europeans or Middle-Easterners that wound up in China before the Mongol influence (probably not as much as the Persian and Indian nations), especially via the Silk Road. The early Byzantines had to have stolen silkworms somehow, and a later Byzantine Emperor sent a diplomat of some sort to the Song Dynasty court around the time this movie is set. Heck, even the Three Kingdoms Period had a small bodyguard corps noted as being foreigners, and some speculate from the name of the commander (Hu Chi'er) that they were of Slavic origin (but probably not).

[Abyss]

D, on 10 February 2017 - 04:17 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 10 February 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

Briar King, on 10 February 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

The 1st tv spot I saw of the Great Wall I had an Amp moment. I was like why the fuck are there white guys there other then to bring in Western audiences? Looked horrible. Now I've seen a proper trailer and appears to be a proper fantasy/monster movie not a rip on fact/history. Still looks like shit though.

My knowledge in GW isn't all that great though but I wouldn't think white people would be there with bows instead of guns. I ll wait till hbo gets this and watch if I have nothing else to watch. Looks like trash to me.

It's actually quite possible that Westerners would be there, as this was during the Song Dynasty, which was when Kublai Khan (grandson of Gengis) built his huge palace that people came from far and wide to see in Mongol territory...and the fact that the Mongol Empire often incorporated mercenary bands (which is who Pedro Pascal and Matt Damon play members of apparently in GREAT WALL) into their numbers from a fair number of Western regions. As such, they would have learned the Mongol way of fighting...which was bows on horseback. It would also explain why Damon and Pascal are immediately considered suspicious by the Emperor in China (as Mongol spies). This was also at the VERY beginning of the guns era, so your average joe would not have easily had one.

Above and beyond all else, yeah people FREAKED about this movie when it was announced...until they found out it was a b-monster fantasy movie, crewed and mostly cast and shot in mainland China, and directed by Zhang Yimou (a fairly notable Chinese director).

It looks like it might be fun for the epic Chinese monster schlock that it is. I'll watch it on Netflix.

Kublai Khan was Yuan Dynasty (the Mongols-in-China dynasty), not Song Dynasty (a Han Chinese dynasty). And if this movie is set in the Song Dynasty and at the Great Wall then it must be the Northern Song period - the first part of the Song Dynasty where they had control of most of China, with the Liao Empire (Khitans) to the north and the Western Xia Dynasty (a rebel Chinese province that declared their independence during the previous Tang Dynasty) to the northwest.

The Jurchens conquered the Liao Empire, crossed the Great Wall, pushed the Song Dynasty into the southern half of China (hence: Southern Song period) and held the northern half of China for over a century before the Mongols came along and conquered the Xia, Jurchens/Jin and Southern Song.

So if this movie is set in the early Song Dynasty it's about 200 years too early for the hundreds/thousands of Europeans that visited the Yuan Dynasty.

Of course, there were certainly still some Europeans or Middle-Easterners that wound up in China before the Mongol influence (probably not as much as the Persian and Indian nations), especially via the Silk Road. The early Byzantines had to have stolen silkworms somehow, and a later Byzantine Emperor sent a diplomat of some sort to the Song Dynasty court around the time this movie is set. Heck, even the Three Kingdoms Period had a small bodyguard corps noted as being foreigners, and some speculate from the name of the commander (Hu Chi'er) that they were of Slavic origin (but probably not).

Technically correct, but keep in mind that the Martians were already abducting cows and farmers by this stage, and there are at least six known time traveller incursions to that era, three just to deal with the Many Angled Ones parallel dimension resurgence.

Also, dragons.

[QuickTidal]

D, on 10 February 2017 - 04:17 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 10 February 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

Briar King, on 10 February 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

The 1st tv spot I saw of the Great Wall I had an Amp moment. I was like why the fuck are there white guys there other then to bring in Western audiences? Looked horrible. Now I've seen a proper trailer and appears to be a proper fantasy/monster movie not a rip on fact/history. Still looks like shit though.

My knowledge in GW isn't all that great though but I wouldn't think white people would be there with bows instead of guns. I ll wait till hbo gets this and watch if I have nothing else to watch. Looks like trash to me.

It's actually quite possible that Westerners would be there, as this was during the Song Dynasty, which was when Kublai Khan (grandson of Gengis) built his huge palace that people came from far and wide to see in Mongol territory...and the fact that the Mongol Empire often incorporated mercenary bands (which is who Pedro Pascal and Matt Damon play members of apparently in GREAT WALL) into their numbers from a fair number of Western regions. As such, they would have learned the Mongol way of fighting...which was bows on horseback. It would also explain why Damon and Pascal are immediately considered suspicious by the Emperor in China (as Mongol spies). This was also at the VERY beginning of the guns era, so your average joe would not have easily had one.

Above and beyond all else, yeah people FREAKED about this movie when it was announced...until they found out it was a b-monster fantasy movie, crewed and mostly cast and shot in mainland China, and directed by Zhang Yimou (a fairly notable Chinese director).

It looks like it might be fun for the epic Chinese monster schlock that it is. I'll watch it on Netflix.

Kublai Khan was Yuan Dynasty (the Mongols-in-China dynasty), not Song Dynasty (a Han Chinese dynasty). And if this movie is set in the Song Dynasty and at the Great Wall then it must be the Northern Song period - the first part of the Song Dynasty where they had control of most of China, with the Liao Empire (Khitans) to the north and the Western Xia Dynasty (a rebel Chinese province that declared their independence during the previous Tang Dynasty) to the northwest.

The Jurchens conquered the Liao Empire, crossed the Great Wall, pushed the Song Dynasty into the southern half of China (hence: Southern Song period) and held the northern half of China for over a century before the Mongols came along and conquered the Xia, Jurchens/Jin and Southern Song.

So if this movie is set in the early Song Dynasty it's about 200 years too early for the hundreds/thousands of Europeans that visited the Yuan Dynasty.

Of course, there were certainly still some Europeans or Middle-Easterners that wound up in China before the Mongol influence (probably not as much as the Persian and Indian nations), especially via the Silk Road. The early Byzantines had to have stolen silkworms somehow, and a later Byzantine Emperor sent a diplomat of some sort to the Song Dynasty court around the time this movie is set. Heck, even the Three Kingdoms Period had a small bodyguard corps noted as being foreigners, and some speculate from the name of the commander (Hu Chi'er) that they were of Slavic origin (but probably not).

The Song overlaps the Yuan and Kublai by quite a bit. In fact, Kublai spent more time in Mongol power while Song existed (it took him 20 years to defeat them), than after when he established the Yuan.

But you're right in that I had the wrong period of time to reference Kublai and the mongols (I didn't realize what period the film encapsulated, until it mentioned the specific song emperor)

Still, I can't imagine that it's hard to quantify that Westerners came east and ended up on mercenary bands. Least of all in a fantasy film.

[Morgoth]

John Wick 2 was an excellent action flick. Lacks, perhaps, some of the wonder of the first one, but it's tightly made and very well executed.

[amphibian]

Morgoth, on 14 February 2017 - 07:13 AM, said:

John Wick 2 was an excellent action flick. Lacks, perhaps, some of the wonder of the first one, but it's tightly made and very well executed.

I think it was 50% better than the first one and 50% worse.

What makes the first one so brilliant is that it proceeds very simply from "They beat me up, stole my car, and killed the dog that my dead wife gave me as her last gift." It really only has two minor flaws and the pace is breakneck in all the right spots that the flaws are easily forgiven.

The second movie needs spoilers to discuss, so I'll go there:

Spoiler

The decision to start with the car retrieval is a bad one. Yes, the sequence is fun and features a ton of great stuntwork. However, we don't need any of it. It clutters up the motivations from the last movie and is an aside to the real plot - the D'Antonio storyline. The car was important to Wick, yes. However, imagine if the sequence was happening AFTER the end of the D'Antonio plotline (minus the Aurelio stuff). It would show that he survived the initial onslaught of assassins and was now the Baba Yaga in truth. I realize the card was in the car, but we still had tons of reminders of the wife in the house in terms of photos and the jewelry.

If the movie starts with Santino coming to the house a month after the events of John Wick 1, then we have a similarly simple plot. The asshole blew up the house, burned every memento left that wasn't jewelry, and the only thing Wick can do is go do the asshole's bidding - then murder Santino. The movie can still proceed exactly as it did, although I wish there'd been more in terms of making the infiltration of the party/bathroom hard enough that only Wick could do it. Then we get the stupendous car chase stuff.

Ruby Rose (Ares) did a decent job signing. However, the translation via subtitles of her signing was not 100% accurate. The nuances of her specific "slurred" method of signing and word choice made her significantly more aggressive than the subtitles made her out to be. I wish the subtitles had been a bit better that way - it would explain her choice to knife fight a bit better.

Still... the stunt work and choreography is absurdly good. The subway scenes and the mirror hall scenes will be famous in action movie choreography forever. The gun stuff of the Italian catacombs will be less famous, but it's still going to be very famous in the gun community for being so smooth. I know a few of the stunt people in NYC and it was cool to see their bodies/faces there. Very fun movie, even if it's not as good as the first one.

[Itwæs Nom]

Mezla PigDog, on 07 February 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

Has anyone seen the new Trainspotting movie? I want to go and see something and it's that or Jackie. The T2 reviews I've read have it as so-so but they all hark back to how brilliant the original was and I only think that was so-so. It makes me feel too grubby to enjoy watching it but I'm invested enough in the characters and it was kind of The movie of my late teens. I thought that a more grown-up version with less poop, drug dens, toxoplasmosis and baby death might be up my alley......

I'm going to cinema to see it on friday. A friend asked me if I'd go with him, because he had no one else to go with, even before I actually saw the first one so even though I haven't seen any reviews or trailers he told me it's supposed to be very nostalgic so that part is probably not gonna work that well for someone who saw T1 for the first time two weeks prior to seeing the T2. I quite liked the first one.

[Morgoth]

amphibian, on 14 February 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 14 February 2017 - 07:13 AM, said:

John Wick 2 was an excellent action flick. Lacks, perhaps, some of the wonder of the first one, but it's tightly made and very well executed.

I think it was 50% better than the first one and 50% worse.

What makes the first one so brilliant is that it proceeds very simply from "They beat me up, stole my car, and killed the dog that my dead wife gave me as her last gift." It really only has two minor flaws and the pace is breakneck in all the right spots that the flaws are easily forgiven.

The second movie needs spoilers to discuss, so I'll go there:

Spoiler

The decision to start with the car retrieval is a bad one. Yes, the sequence is fun and features a ton of great stuntwork. However, we don't need any of it. It clutters up the motivations from the last movie and is an aside to the real plot - the D'Antonio storyline. The car was important to Wick, yes. However, imagine if the sequence was happening AFTER the end of the D'Antonio plotline (minus the Aurelio stuff). It would show that he survived the initial onslaught of assassins and was now the Baba Yaga in truth. I realize the card was in the car, but we still had tons of reminders of the wife in the house in terms of photos and the jewelry.

If the movie starts with Santino coming to the house a month after the events of John Wick 1, then we have a similarly simple plot. The asshole blew up the house, burned every memento left that wasn't jewelry, and the only thing Wick can do is go do the asshole's bidding - then murder Santino. The movie can still proceed exactly as it did, although I wish there'd been more in terms of making the infiltration of the party/bathroom hard enough that only Wick could do it. Then we get the stupendous car chase stuff.

Ruby Rose (Ares) did a decent job signing. However, the translation via subtitles of her signing was not 100% accurate. The nuances of her specific "slurred" method of signing and word choice made her significantly more aggressive than the subtitles made her out to be. I wish the subtitles had been a bit better that way - it would explain her choice to knife fight a bit better.

Still... the stunt work and choreography is absurdly good. The subway scenes and the mirror hall scenes will be famous in action movie choreography forever. The gun stuff of the Italian catacombs will be less famous, but it's still going to be very famous in the gun community for being so smooth. I know a few of the stunt people in NYC and it was cool to see their bodies/faces there. Very fun movie, even if it's not as good as the first one.

Regarding your spoilered part, I agree completely. Having that sequence at the end would have been a lot better.

What do you mean when you say her signing was "slurred"?

[amphibian]

Ruby Rose isn't a person who already knew sign language prior to the movie. So to cover up the lack of fluidity there, I think the language coach had her "slur" her signs. They are slower done than most deaf people sign, full of sarcasm/aggression in terms of body posture, and the word movements aren't separated that much.

If you can imagine a drunk and angry person mashing the words together, that's kind of how her signing came off. But since Ares was sober in the whole movie, she displayed body language that made it clear that she knew she was slurring the signs and that was the point of it - to tick off whoever was reading her signs with a sarcastic/aggressive attitude.

It fits the character and it lets Ruby be "not perfect" with her sign language movements. That's a win for the language coach, the actor, and the movie crew as a whole.

[Tiste Simeon]

So my brother has managed to get himself into the Berlinale film festival and is being paid to write about it, the lucky sod.

Today he was at a press screening of LOGAN (and he got to see PatStew and my ultimate man crush Hugh Jackman after it, for which I both hate and love him...)

Anyways, he doesn't like superhero movies as a general rule.

Here's his review of LOGAN with poss minor spoilers
https://nathanaelsmi...-james-mangold/

[Macros]

Excellent review.
Why can't you be as eloquent as your brother tiste?



ETA - watched London has Fallen last night.
Over the top and silly. But watchable in a popcorn blow shit up kind of way. Better than the first imo as Butler lets loose his ruthless fuck you side

This post has been edited by Macros: 18 February 2017 - 09:15 AM

[Aptorian]

I think I might have to go watch Logan in March. I saw a clip from it recently with the girl fucking up some dudes. Looked great.

[Tiste Simeon]

Macros, on 18 February 2017 - 09:14 AM, said:

Excellent review.
Why can't you be as eloquent as your brother tiste?

He got the good looks too, the git.

[Aptorian]

I'm sure he doesn't look as great in a wedding dress.

[Itwæs Nom]

Itwæs Nom, on 14 February 2017 - 04:47 PM, said:

Mezla PigDog, on 07 February 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

Has anyone seen the new Trainspotting movie? I want to go and see something and it's that or Jackie. The T2 reviews I've read have it as so-so but they all hark back to how brilliant the original was and I only think that was so-so. It makes me feel too grubby to enjoy watching it but I'm invested enough in the characters and it was kind of The movie of my late teens. I thought that a more grown-up version with less poop, drug dens, toxoplasmosis and baby death might be up my alley......

I'm going to cinema to see it on friday. A friend asked me if I'd go with him, because he had no one else to go with, even before I actually saw the first one so even though I haven't seen any reviews or trailers he told me it's supposed to be very nostalgic so that part is probably not gonna work that well for someone who saw T1 for the first time two weeks prior to seeing the T2. I quite liked the first one.

Better than I expected, really liked it. It certainly has less of all the things you mention Mezla, although it may not exactly seem like that at the beginning. It's more dynamic than the first one and with more action scenes. It didn't rely as much on the first one as I thought it would but it's still keep sthe similar mixture of comedy/serious that I liked so much. It is sort of more grown up but the characters are still the same crazy kids they used to be. I'm actually unsure on whether I did or didn't enjoy iot more than the first one. SOme of the impressions of older guys that I voerheard weren't as positive as mine or friend's but it really seemed a bit like to me their negatives could be boiled down to just "it's a sequel!"

[Mezla PigDog]

Thanks for the update. I think I want to see it.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

John wick was good. Hacksaw ridge was cheesy and not great.

[Tiste Simeon]

Apt, on 18 February 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

I'm sure he doesn't look as great in a wedding dress.

Who does?