Cmasterclay

My Straight Outta Compton over 55 OW club three weeks out from release when most people were predicting Walk The Line numbers like 25 OW is still my proudest moment in board history. I also just this month had a Power Rangers over Kong OW and DOM club, so it goes to show we all have our home runs and strikeouts.

I saw the Jungle Book in IMAX 3D and before that I hadn't seen a 3D movie since that Oz movie. I actively plan my movie going schedule around not having to see something in 3D. If a 3D showing is at a time wayyyyy more convenient than the 2D, I will still either see the 2D at the worse time or wait till the next day or weekend. It's an expensive fucking disaster that ruins the picture quality and gives me a pounding headache. It makes movies straight up unwatchable to me. I know most people think 3D is annoying but for me it goes past annoying and into movie ruining if I have to watch something in 3D, unless it has really special 3D like Avatar or Jungle Book or a theme park ride.

So I'm okay with the policy, but how far does it extend? I understand you can't post specific details. I wouldn't do that anyway. But can I say "I thought Logan fell apart in the third act" or "The ending of X really got to me?" General, very non-specific things that pertain to larger things?

I feel like Power Rangers might have more of a kiddie IM than people think. I get that it has a fanbase, but so did TMNT and it played more like a kid's movie. Plus, it's a fucking Power Rangers movie. People are gonna want to take their kids. Then again, I said BaTB and Kong would both have pretty frontloaded IMs, so I've been wayyyy off the past few weeks. Gotta get my mojo back. That's the exact number I predicted for Life, though.

I actually liked the ending because it was probably the only thing in it, good or bad, that I thought about within five minutes of leaving the theater. It's fine. It tries to be Alien with Gravity aesthetics, and it's ok at it. Jake is one of my favorite actors but this movie reminded me of why he used to NOT be, because he's a kinda a bore in roles like this. He's a really excellent character actor who sometimes gets cast in leading man roles because he looks like one, but that ain't his lane. Ferguson is fine, and Ryan Reynolds acts exactly like he acts in every single movie. If you're a Reynolds fanboy then sure, you'll like that, but I've always just been whatever on dude. The other three actors are actually the most interesting thing in it, but it's so paint-by-numbers (personal story to set-up inevitable demise) that you just kinda wait around for them to get killed so it can focus on Jake and Ferguson like you know it will. It's well-designed and well-shot and fairly well-scripted and acted, but I just felt like I've seen it all before in the exact same way. The hopeful discovery, the waiting around for things to go bad, the series of setpieces designed to kill characters one-by-one, the loss of hope followed by last-ditch effort. And look, there's nothing wrong with formulaic film making done pretty well, but it's also not exactly a recipe for making a memorable movie. It's an entertaining enough two hours, but yeesh. This movie is the equivalent of a piece of untoasted wheat bread. Just a C+ movie if I've ever seen one. I guess I was cool with the ending because it's the only interesting seasoning in the entire dish. The design of the alien was better than most of these movies, though, I must say that.

That's easily the biggest preview number for a movie where a teen boy jerks off an animal ever. Unless there was something going on off-screen between Ron Weasley and that centaur.

This is a B+ joke.

I gotta say. I've seen alot of previews for alot of bad comedies over the years, but very few looked as absolutely wretched and terrible as Chips. That shit is laughter's equivalent of ED.

Part of the reason Holocaust movies are kinda lame is that outside the Pianist they're usually from the perspective of non-Jews instead of the people actually suffering. It'd be like making a slavery movie from the perspective of everyone beside slaves. Wait, that's exactly what Hollywood did until 2013? There we go.

I mean generally this. I was on the fence about this movie, then I heard that smart people I trust (good critics) thought it was good, so I'll see it. If they hated it, I wouldn't. I trust most Top Critics and look at the consensus of the opinion. The fact is, I agree most of the time. In fact, Doctor Strange is the one big example of a movie I completely disagreed with critics on, but that's more an exception that proves the rule. Now, I certainly disagree with the intensity of how much people like or dislike a movie, but whether it's good or not? I usually agree. Money is tight, and I ain't wasting it if something I'm on the fence on is supposedly bad. I trust critics for the same reason I trust experts in other fields.

It's a new movie. She's already been embodied. Create something new and interesting with the character. Also, movies can be plenty nostalgic without being carbon copy remakes or movies designed solely to appeal to fans with Easter Eggs and callbacks. There's plenty of examples. It's assuming that audiences have too low of standards to accept anything that isn't just a bunch of callbacks to something else they liked. I just don't think that's true.

I'm sure there is, but why not cast the best actor you possibly can? Why does the hair matter so much? It's not the original. The goal should to make the best movie possible while giving people their money's worth, not just an easy paint by numbers movie to appeal to Disney nostalgia.

I don't give a shit about Ariel's hair or The Little Mermaid but it's indicative of a larger debate about blockbuster movies and how nostalgia makes money.

Maybe they cast someone for the role who doesn't have red hair and would look bad with dyed red hair. And if that person is the best person for the role, they just sacrificed what matters to make a carbon copy.

I mean if her hair is red that's fine, but if they cast someone who is not a natural redhead because that's the best actor for the role that matters a hell of alot more. You know what's easier to market than someone's hair color? A good movie.

Right, I guess I phrased that wrong. I'm fine with movies just being fun disposable entertainment- I like plenty of those! I just don't think movies should be a bunch of technically accomplished, remade deriative scenes that have absolutely zero artistic merit that people excuse because they make money. Terminator 2 is probably my favorite blockbuster ever, but I'll be damned if I want to make a direct, barely changed remake of it, even with a great cast and solid scenes.

It was fine. The cast was good and mostly did their thing singing. All the actors playing the servants did good enough jobs, though only McGregor stood out. Be Our Guest was an excellent sequence, probably the only thing really standout in the entire film. This rendition of Gaston was good - Evans and Gad run away with the movie from their first scene. Watson and Stevens were alright, but Watson sounded like T-Pain at times and the Beast went beyond the uncanny valley and into the uncanny Mariana Trench. Outside of that CGI it was mostly good technically. The added Evermore song is boring but it had more emotional impact than most of the movie. It's fine. I was decently entertained in it because it's a fine story and good cast. But Jesus, it was boring in that way, too. It was a paint-by-numbers movie.

Beauty and the Beast was fine. It was a mostly technically accomplished, entertaining while it lasts rendition that I have forgotten about after the five minute drive home. It was just creatively vapid. Sure, it's fine to have one or two a year. But if we get to the point where every movie is either a technically well-made remake or an expanded universe jaunt designed to introduce a new orb for characters to fight over, eventually alot of people are gonna start throwing up their hands. I know that if you dare say that you'll get 100 responses calling you a "snob" and pointing to releases like this to prove how stupid I am. There's been alot of good movies this year, when studios are still willing to take risks because it isn't their big main blockbusters, but I'm already kinda dreading everything from now until September with the exception of a couple movies. IDK. It just feels creatively bankrupt. If you think movies are just supposed to be a bunch of fun scenes that entertain people for an hour and then make money, then great. That's a fine way to look at it. That's not how I see it. I think they can be really truly terrific stuff and still entertain plenty of people and make lots of money. You just need to try. That's why even though that Valerian movie looks completely vapid to me I'm still rooting for it.

Who cares what color a character's hair is? Literally, if that's the standard what makes someone like or not like a character, I don't even know if I can post about some of these movies anymore, because clearly there's two different ideas of what movies should be, and I seem to be in the losing, pretentious one.

My parents are very liberal about sex stuff but they gave me a book. The book said that both the man AND the woman had to have an orgasm for her to get pregnant. If that was true, we'd be facing a Children of Men situation.

I still love all this stuff but it's also all super creepy. A giant bunny with red eyes and fangs jumping around my backyard? And an ancient man who sees children when they're sleeping is some @TelemAAchos shit.

So this was three months ago?

All I know is that Krampus is absolutely real, and he is coming to haunt all of you this Christmas.

Wait..........................Santa isn't real?

Good Friday is super duper late feeling this year. Also, Passover is late af this year too @Jayhawk @4815162342. My family goes big as hell for Christmas and doesn't care about Hannukah but then really loves Passover and is ehhhhhh on Easter (though now that I have nieces that believe in the Bunny it matters again) so maybe I'm just off on what the dates usually are. Also, sorry for spoiling the thing about the Easter Bunny @That One Guy @WrathOfHan @Ethan Hunt.