Alright... it was good.
The zombie outbreak is strictly the catalyst for the true story - a father reconnecting with his daughter.
A dad has his daughter, but is a selfish hedgefund manager that only thinks about himself. His daughter doesn't want to stay with him anymore and wants to go to her mom in Busan. They board a train oblivious the outbreak has begun. An injured woman manages to run aboard the train, unbeknownst to anyone. She turns. Survival on a train.
The emotional aspect of key characters as they struggle to survive and save/protect others is pretty solid. The father and daughter emotion is solid.
It works as a zombie movie because it's focused... that's why WWZ failed, in my opinion. I compare it with WWZ because the undead are exceptionally similar - fast and spastic. But done well.
The Founder
Solid... not great.
I came away from it not thinking it was really good, but that it was very interesting.
Acting was good - Keaton was great. Nearly all the characters, I'd forgotten who the actors were and just saw the people portrayed.
Just felt some aspects were rushed... not a lot. It was a movie you don't realy know how to feel about certain people. The brothers did get screwed, but some would argue they didn't strive hard enough... settled.
Solid... not great.
I came away from it not thinking it was really good, but that it was very interesting.
Acting was good - Keaton was great. Nearly all the characters, I'd forgotten who the actors were and just saw the people portrayed.
Just felt some aspects were rushed... not a lot. It was a movie you don't realy know how to feel about certain people. The brothers did get screwed, but some would argue they didn't strive hard enough... settled.
So I keep walking past the new Kong movie in Walmart.....is it worth pickup?
Keaton always does a solid in any role he plays. I would watch this movie if I gave two chits about McDonalds and how it was started lol.
I hate McDonalds... but it's well done and actually interesting to see how it began.
Much like The Social Network, it's an interesting dramatization of real events with interesting characters. It's not about liking McDonald's.
As it's depicted here, I am in the camp of the brothers screwed themselves (one of them anyway) by refusing to budge.
As it's depicted here, I am in the camp of the brothers screwed themselves (one of them anyway) by refusing to budge.
The brothers got screwed... of course, they kinda pulled the pants down and bent over, so...
The handshake deal... that kinda irked me. Saw it coming, though.
Okay, so I know that I'm talking to clouds here, but...
Netflix released the American "Death Note" film yesterday. Pretty much the only similarity between it and the source material is that Light, L, Watari, Ryuk, Light's dad and the Death Note book itself exists in it. A character named Mia exists also, but bears no resemblance whatsoever to the source's Mia. Ryuk is now chaotic evil rather than chaotic neutral. Despite all of this, it's okay if you consider that the source material could simply not be put into a 1.5 hour movie. In the source material, the setup and resolution took longer than that, and all the volumes and episoxes in between are a long, chaotic game of cat-and-mouse that simply doesn't exist in this film.
If you're a casual Netflixer and not a fan of -or even aware of- the source material, this film can be entertaining with it's themes of megalomania and 'evil genie' plot twisting; however, it flies by really fast and doesn't really give any time to absorb any of the characters' motivations....it's like watching "Reservoir Dogs" compressed to 15 minutes. How entertaining that would be would depend upon your attention span, I suppose.
Netflix released the American "Death Note" film yesterday. Pretty much the only similarity between it and the source material is that Light, L, Watari, Ryuk, Light's dad and the Death Note book itself exists in it. A character named Mia exists also, but bears no resemblance whatsoever to the source's Mia. Ryuk is now chaotic evil rather than chaotic neutral. Despite all of this, it's okay if you consider that the source material could simply not be put into a 1.5 hour movie. In the source material, the setup and resolution took longer than that, and all the volumes and episoxes in between are a long, chaotic game of cat-and-mouse that simply doesn't exist in this film.
If you're a casual Netflixer and not a fan of -or even aware of- the source material, this film can be entertaining with it's themes of megalomania and 'evil genie' plot twisting; however, it flies by really fast and doesn't really give any time to absorb any of the characters' motivations....it's like watching "Reservoir Dogs" compressed to 15 minutes. How entertaining that would be would depend upon your attention span, I suppose.
Finally saw Wonder Woman... gives me hope for the upcoming DC movies.
Best of them, so far.
Best of them, so far.
Chris Pine was good. Gal Gadot improved from BvS. Of course, the director would influence that.
Massive improvement from the first few... it's definitely a better starting off point than what we've seen.
Watched the new Baywatch movie with the wife. It was every bit as terrible as you'd expect. A few decent laughs here and there. But that's about it.
Figured... Johnson's probably the only draw. Goddamn he's charismatic.
I mean, I hold movies like this to a different standard. It's meant to be goofy mindless entertainment. So that aspect didn't really bother me. It's just predictable as hell. And while the Rock and Effron aren't totally incompetent comedic actors, they aren't really strong enough imo to carry a movie that's leaning so hard on the comedy to be successful.
Pam Anderson has a cameo, and boy does she look rough.
Effron is surprisingly funny AF any time he's in a comedy.
He was about the only good part of the movie.
He was about the only good part of the movie.
Hype is ruining movie opinions.
Lately, if something is merely hyped enough or excitement is around it- people will let that hype/excitement determine their opinion on the film.
Can be a mediocre piece... but essentially, the audience has already decided before walking in that it's great.
So they come back to thoughtlessly tell everyone else how great it is. Then you go watch it and you're just wondering... what... the... hell...?
Our standards have dipped to such lows.
Lately, if something is merely hyped enough or excitement is around it- people will let that hype/excitement determine their opinion on the film.
Can be a mediocre piece... but essentially, the audience has already decided before walking in that it's great.
So they come back to thoughtlessly tell everyone else how great it is. Then you go watch it and you're just wondering... what... the... hell...?
Our standards have dipped to such lows.
I think it works both ways tbh. E.G. I believe the absurd amount of hype surrounding Get Out actually hurt my opinion of that movie. Don't get me wrong, very solid. Great concept. But as I was watching it I kept wondering why everyone was labeling it as some masterpiece. Then it was over and I just felt like "That's it?"
I also think this works both ways as well. Nowadays, thanks to the internet, everyone thinks they're a master movie critic. People can't just enjoy a movie that is meant to be a turn-off-your-brain fun action movie, or a super silly comedy. Everyone is too obsessed with finding plot holes or other inconsistencies. Take a chill pill Ebert Jr. Just enjoy the ride lol.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
