Sounds very nice, although I don't think you would be able to make the statement I made bold unless you have met some of the volunteers of every festival around the world. Thanks for the bit on the event itself, though, I was wondering about that.
Review: Ad Astra Grade: 8/10 - Slow but beautiful Sad Brad tries to find his dad in this rad ad about a lad who had a grad in Ad Astra. Some people might find that the previous sentence more interesting than Ad Astra because this movie is super slow and requires your absolute dedication to the film if you want to get everything it has to offer. If you do get everything it has to offer, wow is Ad Astra a blast. Brad Pitt plays Roy McBride, a very quiet and content astronaut who happens to be the son of the legendary Clifford McBride. The character of Roy happens to be very emotionless and focused on the mission, something that may resemble similarities to Ryan Gosling's portrayal of Neil Armstrong in "First Man" last year. The disconnect of these astronaut characters with everything (other than their mission) builds a believable astronaut character, but may not be the best type of character for a film. Portraying such a character would surely be a tough task. You have to portray so much emotion and depth through facial reactions and body movements, and Brad Pitt nails it. Although he is aided by narration, which plays the character's thoughts out on screen quite like a book would read, Brad Pitt still had the challenge of the physical character. He had to portray an emotionless yet emotion-filled character in both physical presence and voiceover narration. What an amazing feat of acting that continues to prove Brad Pitt as a Hollywood legend. That isn't to discredit the rest of the cast though. Tommy Lee Jones is, of course, Tommy Lee Jones. How doesn't he give a great performance? It's nothing that will shatter his previous acting achievements, but it is a consistently solid performance. Donald Sutherland falls in the same boat as Tommy Lee Jones here. It must be said though, Liv Tyler is completely wasted in this film. The film spends all it's time with Roy McBride and sets a lot of what makes or breaks a movie on his character. While his character arc is very subtle, it is also very deep and meaningful. If you watch the movie, pay attention to the hidden emotions and feelings of the main character throughout the runtime. He is quietly affected by the events that happen and the more he learns about his legendary father. When it comes to technicals, this film might be perfect. Visual effects have the high task of creating something non-existent while also tricking the audience into believing it is real. You've often heard that the best visual effects are the ones you don't notice. Now obviously they didn't go to the moon to film Ad Astra, but it looks so damn real. The visual effects in this film are to be praised. Some of, if not the best and most beautiful portrayal of our solar system in film. You can't praise these effects enough. There are even planets you rarely see portrayed on the screen, like Saturn and Neptune. They are so beautiful in reality, and so beautiful in this film. This movie is worth watching just for the mesmerizing shots of space. Which brings me to the cinematography, something that goes hand in hand with visual effects often. Absolutely stunning shots. The camera movement in space gives off the effect of a hauntingly empty abyss so well. The shots on Earth, the shots on the Moon, the shots everywhere are so beautiful and so precisely framed. Then there's the score. Space is very silent and having a score to fill that void is natural, but it sets a heavy requirement for the score. The score in this film is just as beautiful as its cinematography and visual effects. The score perfectly encompasses the ominous beauty of the universe. It's outstandingly capturing and often has you in awe as it pairs with the beautiful shots of Neptune and Mars. The sound editing. It's hard to say how accurate it is if you haven't been to space, but the sound editing seemed so perfectly handled. There's a scene on the moon that includes explosions and collisions, the way they handle sound in that scene feels so real and so damn cool. The sound all around hits all the same high notes as the score, cinematography, and visual effects. If all these weren't enough, the production design of these "near future" worlds is both great and interesting. Commercial colonies on the moon are reminding of something you'd see in Obsidian's "The Outer Worlds" or the moon mission from Machine Games' "Wolfenstein: The New Order". It keeps you wanting to learn more about the world existing in this near future. Instead of trying to explore everything that has developed in this portrayal, the movie simply exists inside this time. It beats the temptation of exploring the lore further to make the movie feel like it was made in the near future. So damn perfect. It's hard to weigh out the pacing of the film though. The movie is incredibly slow, similar to sci-fi slow burns like "First Man" or "Blade Runner", and that might check the audience out. In fact, considering the current 45% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, it does check the audience out. This film is one you need to be fully engulfed in from the start. If you aren't, the film will probably lose your interest and leave you bored. If you are, you're in for what might just be a decade-defining sci-fi film that you'll be so thankful was made.
I'm looking forward to hearing that, then! I assume the score is slow too, probably with a lot of synthesizer pads? Or no?
You can find some parts of the soundtrack online. Here's an example of one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4rj5Uweodg I also just learned that apparently the Ad Astra soundtrack was worked on by a bunch of different artists, which is pretty cool. Also probably means it won't get recognition at the Oscars though :/
Ey np! Glad you're enjoying it! I love talking about films, and I love the EMC community, so why not combine them! I really hope more people join in on the discussion though. Surely I can't be the only one on EMC that watches movies XD I guess I'll take this reply as an opportunity to lay out my upcoming reviews for October (hopefully on these dates. If not, then around them): -Joker (Oct 3rd) -Jojo Rabbit (Oct 17th) -The Lighthouse (Oct 18th) -The Laundromat (Oct 18th) -Zombieland: Double Tap (Oct 19th) -Dolemite Is My Name (Oct 25th) -Parasite (Oct 26th) There may be more, there may be fewer. It all depends how the month plays out. Once again though, glad to hear you're enjoying the thread
I saw The Disaster Artist yesterday, which was very interesting! I had already seen The Room, and read the book. Strangely, it says on Wikipedia that it is a comedy film, while it had a lot more dramatic and perhaps even tragic elements than comedic elements.
I think The Disaster Artist is James Franco at his best. It shows off his skills in directing and acting while also providing a very funny drama. I'm curious, how accurate was the movie compared to the book?
Quite accurate, there were just a few things I didn't remember and thus seem made up for the film (most notably, Greg being able to get a lumberjack role in Malcolm in the Middle, just before Tommy wants him to shave his beard (just did a Google search and indeed, that was fictional)). However, the film includes just a small selection of the material used in the film. Firstly, about 50% of the book concerns Greg's life pre shooting of The Room, while in the film only the first 35 minutes are before that (however, that was more than I had expected, to be honest; I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of context we got). But there are also, moreover, lots of interesting, funny or astonishing stories in the book about the time on set that were not used in the film. And I think that's great! The film could have been a reel or montage of crazy moments, with little time spent on each, or it could have dragged on way too long. Instead, a fairly small selection of defining details were picked, and these were done elaborately, in pretty long scenes. The book stops the moment the premiere starts. I like how the film shows it, but I'm not sure if it's accurate. In any case, Tommy has said he approves of the film for 99.99%, but I'm not sure if that says much.
Review: Doom: Annihilation Grade: 1/10 - Just play the games I AM A MAJOR DOOM FAN. Just had to get that out of the way before I tear into this offensive mess. Honestly, you think the first attempt at a DOOM film would teach future filmmakers a lesson. NOPE. I need to address the issue that brought up controversy among DOOM fans right when it was announced. It might have been the first controversial part of this movie's production (that being the lack of Doomguy in it, and the main character being what some have referred to as a "Doomgirl"). Having seen the movie, this is not even close to the biggest problem. I don't think a DOOM movie could be a good film with Doomguy as the main character, mainly because there's not much to him as a person. He would work better as a force existing in a DOOM movie. It's similar to why Godzilla is never the main character of his movies, and he's just the main focus in a movie with human characters as the protagonists. It makes for a more compelling narrative. Alongside the lack of Doomguy, everyone was worried about Amy Manson, who plays the main character in the film. Of all the atrocious performances in the movie, she is probably the best, reaching a mediocre level performance. At times, specifically when she raises her voice, you can hear her American accent failing and the true Scottish voice comes out, because yes she's a Scottish actress, and yes they made her do an American accent for some reason, and yes there are other Australian and British people in the cast who don't put on accents. So confusing. Aside from her mediocre performance, everyone else is terrible. The script probably takes a lot of the blame for the lousy performances, because it is horrible. There are multiple exchanges of dialogue that are completely laughable. When the main character Joan radios the Captain and says something I might forget, but I remember laughing when the movie didn't intend laughter. I guess what did you really expect from the script though. The plot is not much better. It's actually a lot worse. The entire premise is that the UAC (Union Aerospace Corporation) has discovered ancient runes that allow teleportation between them. So they attempt to teleport someone from Earth to Phobos (one of the two Martian moons). The teleportation worked, but the human who teleported suddenly looks "demonic" in a sense. So stupidly enough, instead of just shutting down the project until further research can be made, the head of researching (assuming that's his position) the Phobos base decides to go through the teleporter to do one more test. Now creatures have taken over the base and you have a movie. What I just described above is like the first five minutes of the film. The rest is either people walking through dark rooms and hallways with flashlights, which is way too much of the short run-time, or poorly made action sequences that make you wish you were watching the 2005 DOOM movie. Hell, why bother? Just play the damn games. The movie also fails at the characters, and it fails badly. You have a squadron of probably ten soldiers (they're so forgettable I can't even remember how many there were), a scientist, and a ship captain. As the movie progresses you forget about the fact that certain characters even exist. Something will happen to a character and you will be like "Who is that again?" Which means when these things happen to the characters it doesn't impact you at all, you're just left wondering when something will happen, even after something happened. They at least try to make you care for the protagonist, but it's done so poorly. By the point they actually try to make you care for her there's just no reason to want to. So this movie has a low budget (as if that wasn't obvious enough). It uses a lot of visual effects. While it is always obvious, it's nothing I wouldn't consider acceptable from a video game cut-scene made in 2012. Moral of the story: if you have a low budget, don't get over ambitious with your visual effects. Make fewer things look really good rather than a ton of things look fake. The art design is one thing I've been looking forward to ranting about ever since I first glanced at this film. These set pieces look so fake. Unbelievably fake. It's like something you'd see in a crappy museum. A character literally says "Who the [redacted] designed this place?" and I couldn't agree more with that question. Aside from the super generic military gear, even the costume design looked fake. Then there's the blue tint, the green tint, the white tint... IT'S A FILM BASED ON DOOM. WHERE IS THE RED TINT. I can't believe one of my biggest frustrations was that it didn't use a red tint, but that was one of my biggest frustrations. Okay, but it's based on DOOM, how were the demons? Oh my is this a mess. Were you pissed that the 2005 film had zombies instead of demons? Well, good news! The 2019 film has zombies as well! Except for this time they act like... vampires? Okay, who the hell thought zombie vampires would make a better enemy than demons in a DOOM film? I guess there are still those bigger creatures. The ones you see in the poster. Although wait, they are aliens, not demons. The closest thing you get to actually having demons in this DOOM movie is when the chaplain at the UAC facility describes their look as "demonic". Here is what I appreciated though (because surprisingly there was something I could appreciate). There are a lot of references to the game and Id Software as a whole. It could be a dead scientist sharing a name with an Id Software developer, or the appearance of a classic DOOM weapon, or a subtle Wolfenstein reference. There are a ton of them, and if you're a fan you'll pick up on them. That being said, these references clearly only work as references. As soon as they want to make something from DOOM a part of the story, they ruin in. Hint: the BFG-9000. Yes, they ruined my boy. It's either super weak or super powerful. Depends on what the moment needs. There is also a really cool scene near the end of the movie. I can't say what it is, but it was the takeaway scene of the film. At least it was until they ruined it. It's clear all their CGI budget went into that scene though. That's really all I have to say about Doom: Annihilation. I got my DOOM Eternal Collector's Edition coming in little under two months and I can't wait. Maybe someday we'll get a good DOOM movie, but until then I'm sticking with the games, and you should as well. Other recent 2019 watches: Between Two Ferns: (4/10) Abominable: (6/10) In the Shadow of the Moon: (5/10)
I ended up seeing Endgame without having seen Infinity War first, but I still enjoyed it. I keep telling myself that I'll do a Marvel marathon eventually, but I've been saying this for over a year now. I guess we'll see if I eventually get around to it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That must've been fun watching Endgame without Infinity War. The MCU is definitely one to watch all of though. It has it lows, but overall it is a landmark in cinema that will go down in history. Also it isn't slowing down anytime soon, so you might wanna get on that binge before another 22 movies are stacked atop the universe XD
Featured Review: The Wandering Earth (流浪地球) Grade: 8/10 - History in the making Earlier today I was reading a CNN article about the film industry in China and the tough censorship process they go through. It is a tough process that weeds out films that are even in post-production if it's found to violate the wishes of the Chinese government. Then I read about "The Wandering Earth", a 2019 film considered to be China's first blockbuster. The Wandering Earth is an incredible success and a monument of the up and coming era of Chinese cinema. It surpassed $700 million worldwide, making it China's third highest-grossing film of all time and 2019's eighth highest-grossing film worldwide. Alongside those achievements, The Wandering Earth is the third highest-grossing non-English film to date (behind Wolf Warrior 2 and Nezha, both Chinese films) and in the top 20 highest-grossing sci-fi films to date (Wikipedia). The film is set in the future, around the year 2061, and the sun is growing in size constantly, destined to devour Earth in due time. With the acknowledgement of this threat, the governments of the world unite to form the United Earth Government (UEG). Working together, underground cities and thrusters, or Earth Engines as they are referred to, are built all over the planet. The goal: move Earth out of our dying solar system and into a new one. This movie is filled with awe, and it would feel like an injustice to deny that. The concept behind The Wandering Earth is so interesting and obscure, it helps keep the audience captivated throughout the events that transpire during the two-hour runtime. To add to this, these interesting and obscure concepts are executed very well. The film boasts a wondrous amount of visual effects. From countless shots of the Earth travelling through space, the desolate storm of Jupiter, and the abandoned cities of old to mention a few, the visual effects never fail to make every shot impactful and strangely beautiful. The Wandering Earth is also supported by a talented cast. While I'll admit it was harder to judge the line delivery due to the foreign language, I could still feel when the actors were giving a good performance. There are a few characters that seemed underacted or overacted, but it was never anything that took me out of the film. I would definitely recommend watching the movie in Mandarin with subtitles rather than with voiceover. After a minute of voiceover, I quickly realized I should switch to subtitles so I can hear the voices of the actors and the power of the performances. There is a lot that goes on in this movie. To me, that felt like both a good thing and a bad thing. On the side of good, the movie never felt boring. It was constantly entertaining and things were always happening. On the bad, you can spend 20 minutes or so following a certain objective just to have that objective be pointless in turn for a new objective. While it seems like a more realistic approach to how solutions would often fail, it doesn't always seem like the best way to handle a narrative. This is a film that should be seen by everyone no matter what country you're in. Not because it's the best film ever, or because it's the best sci-fi film ever. It probably isn't even the best Chinese film ever - and yet, The Wandering Earth is going to change Chinese cinema, and the film industry as a whole. This is paving the way for China to become a major player in film, possibly someday surpassing Hollywood. However, it probably has to get over its censorship problems before that happens. Other recent 2019 watches: Airplane Mode: (1/10) Alien Warfare: (1/10) Point Blank: (4/10) The Highwaymen: (5/10) What Men Want: (4/10) Wonder Park: (2/10)
Featured Review: Joker Grade: 9/10 - Polarizing and subjective I had high expectations for this movie after it won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival. It was deemed a "masterpiece", and all that snazzy stuff. Although following Venice, specifically at the Toronto International Film Festival, Joker's praise kept falling and falling. It went from an initial 87% on Rotten Tomatoes to 69% as of writing. I'm not sure what its initial rating was on Metacritic, but on September 3rd it sat at a 75 Metascore. It is currently at 58. So this decline in acclaim started to worry me. Then I watched the movie. Joker is going to be extremely polarizing. Some people are going to love it, and others are going to hate it. This isn't because of some Marvel versus DC comic clash. It's strictly because of the subject matter at hand. You got a Bonnie and Clyde type of story on your hands. Your protagonist is no saint. He's the Joker. He commits crimes and society cheers. Thing is, and especially with all the horrific violence in the world today, you're supposed to root for this criminal character. He's the protagonist, it's how stories work, and if you can't root for the protagonist, the story doesn't work. So, for the some that will undoubtedly find themselves appalled to rooting for this character, this movie will not satisfy them. To me at least, Joker is a movie. I can separate the troubles of the real world and just focus on a movie as a work of art, and Joker is a work of art. This is a character piece about a man so beaten down by society that he has nothing left to lose. A lot of the movie is just Arthur Fleck's life getting worse and worse and worse. You feel bad for him, and you want something good to happen for him, even if that good thing for him is bad in the eyes of the law. That's the trap this movie locks you in if you can get invested into his character. It's a Joker movie, I don't think it's a spoiler to say he does some bad stuff. That bad stuff makes him happy though, it makes him feel like he has a place. People recognize him for that bad stuff, and you feel happy for him. This movie only works because of Joaquin Phoenix's performance. Without a strong performance to get the traumatic depth of Arthur Fleck across, it would be impossible to feel any form of sympathy for this character. The movie would just fall apart. It's Joaquin Phoenix though, and he gives this performance his all. His physical appearance is so malnourished it's scary. Almost as scary as his painful laugh. Phoenix mastered this role and made it his own. There are a lot of great things about Joker. From the cinematography to the haunting score. The great thing that stood out to me, in particular, was the production design. Gotham City feels like it has character. It is so dirty, terrible, and crime-ridden, it's just asking for a caped crusader to save it. The environment as a whole just adds on to how believable the mental breakdown of Arthur Fleck is. Joker is also a very slow-paced movie. There aren't any "warehouse fight from Batman v. Superman" type scenes. It is a slow-moving exploration of this character. That doesn't mean the film isn't thrilling. I rarely laugh out loud during a movie, but I never feel my heart racing. That was, until this movie. There is a certain scene that made me so nervous and worried as it played out, and it was the first time my heart has ever been pounding while watching a movie. People will love Joker, people will hate Joker. It is entirely subjective to the viewer and their ability to sympathize with the title character. If you can't root for him, you will probably have a hard time enjoying this movie. For me, especially as a fan of the character, it was easy to believe this character and enjoy this take on the story. Other recent 2019 watches: Batman: Hush: (6/10)
Even without having seen the film or knowing a lot about the character, that makes a lot of sense! Quite interesting.
Featured Review: El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie Grade: 9/10 - An epic epilogue After watching the entire "Breaking Bad" series in under a week, I've been able to watch El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie. The show was fantastic, but we all know this already. Luckily, El Camino: A Breaking Bad movie feels just like the show. El Camino picks up right where Breaking Bad left off, following the story of Jesse Pinkman as he tries to evade the authorities. Aaron Paul returns as out protagonist, giving once again an outstanding performance as Jesse. Also returning are various other characters, such as Badger and Skinny Pete, plus a few surprise cameos. I watched El Camino back to back with the finale of Breaking Bad since I had just started the show a week ago. So, while I know a lot of people might have been asking for around six years what happens to Jesse post-finale, I was only asking for around six minutes. Which is probably where my main problem comes from. This felt, to me at least, like it was just a longer Breaking Bad episode rather than a movie. Perhaps it was because I had watched 62 Breaking Bad episodes right before El Camino, so that fade to the movie didn't jump out at me. Or, perhaps it was because Vince Gillian is a TV director and screenwriter, and a great one at that. While that is my "main problem", it's also one of the things I love about this movie. I'm glad it feels like an extended episode because that's what we loved and want more of! I just have to keep in mind I'm watching a movie. My biggest problem with the Breaking Bad series was also avoided with El Camino. It's purely a preferential thing since I'm not really a TV show fan, but I can't stand the "cut to commercial" stuff. It just made the endings of the scene feel out of place or made certain scenes shorter than I would've liked. The lack of commercials is something HBO shows like Game of Thrones takes advantage of, using long scenes to really flesh out the situation. I know they're a TV show so they really can't do anything about it, so that's why it's purely preferential. In El Camino though, there is no need for commercial breaks. As a result, there are no "cut to commercial" moments or unfleshed out scenes. This movie also does a nice job of answering questions the show might have left open. No major questions, but still questions. That helps it justify its purpose for being made. Although, let's be honest, Aaron Paul returning as Jesse Pinkman for a movie directed and written by Vince Gilligan... that's justification enough. I have to thank El Camino. Without wanting to watch it, I would've never gotten to Breaking Bad (which I needed to watch first). In the future, and maybe I'm in the minority here, but I'd love to see more Breaking Bad movies that continue the character arcs of those left on the show. Hey, maybe Walter White Jr. will pick up where his father left off in Breaking Bad 2. Or, I'd love to see a court session with Saul Goodman and Atticus Finch as lawyers before Judge Judy. Just throwing ideas out there. Other recent 2019 watches: Annabelle Comes Home (4/10) Dragged Across Concrete (8/10) Haunt (7/10) In the Tall Grass (4/10) Justice League vs. The Fatal Five (7/10) Little Monsters (7/10) The Dead Don't Die (4/10) The Last Summer (3/10) The Secret Life of Pets 2 (4/10) Toy Story 4 (8/10)
I was going to mention the "Sonic Movie".. but... for good reasons... they pulled that one from being released this year...
Did you see the redesign? What do you think? I think it looks good! Although I don't care too much anyway.
Such a shame they didn't get the design correct to boot. They proceeded with their first design before having to hear the public to tell them to do it right... :\ I'm not a Sonic fan, so I will not be seeing the movie, but I'm glad that they aren't being stuck-up and sticking with their original design.
This is new to me. But elaborating on that is probably irrelevant to the thread. But yeah, I agree on your post! I mean, they probably had to invest a lot of money into redoing all of that, although I suppose that it all (well, Sonic) being CGI does make it a lot easier (if it was hand-animated there would have been a lot more lost man-hours ...). I was quite surprised, to be honest, I thought they'd just go on with it and hope people would want to see it anyway!
