Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Menty Watches Movies.

Mentalist

Mentalist

Administrator
Staff member
The Suicide Squad (2021)

the-suicide-squad-2021-banner-art-8k-du-1366x768.jpg

A pretty obvious step-up from the first one (which I detested) this was generally fun with gratuitous violence and plenty of ridiculous banter and scenarios.

Ridiculous being a good descriptor for the whole film in general.

It did lag in the middle for me and I felt Harley's side adventure was hard to invest in fully because the torture scene was so dumb it pulled me out of the rest of it and it felt like they were try-harding her character too much when it wasn't necessary. It's almost like her character was in an entirely different movie for most of it. Margot is fabulous in the role it was just the scenario that I didn't quite jive with although I did find the whirlwind romance with the dictator to be pretty fun.

When you consider just how utterly silly the rest of the film is this is a minor quibble but something I noticed because even in the most surreal settings there needs to be some grounded reality to cling to and the film veered off that track a lot. Giant space monsters are fine but everyone being braindead in every encounter (both good and bad guys) is funny a few times then annoying soon afterward.

The film also lagged once we got to the bar scene and everything felt just a little too disjointed and patchwork for my liking. I did feel the film started really strongly and slowly declined and this was the biggest lull in the story. I also felt the film felt kind of low stakes despite the spectacle of the final battle and the implications that they kept trying to push. The film has a lot of characters and a lot of mayhem to juggle and it felt messy as a result but the large ensemble of OTT characters and the mayhem is also the whole point so it works for and against as the movie progresses.

No real complaints with any of the cast. Cena and Idris were both great. Viola Davis is amazing as Waller as well.

Despite the many issues though I still enjoyed it and that's enough tbh. It's stupid and loud popcorn fare and that's fine.

Forgettable but ultimately fun fluff.

6/10
 
Last edited:
Looking back at my own post I do sound kind of negaive about it, even though I did enjoy the movie: the performances were all strong, it was funny, it looked great, the giant stafish was cool, Margot as Harley is highly appealing to my sensibilities, etc. I just felt like like I was waiting for the big payoff moment where it transcends and it never came. Like the part where Ratcatcher has a flashback to her father (bizarrely played by Taika Waititi!) and he says his one line about how rats mean everyone is special...that WOULD have worked for a big emotional payoff if, throughout the movie, Ratcatcher had been portrayed as unsure of her own worth and the power of rats. But she wasn't so it doesn't!

I do look forward to Peacemaker as it'll be interesting to see Gunn do a tv show and I think Cena will get his "wow, he can actually act" moment.
 
Defendor (2009)

1336358.jpg


Another one of those "regular" guy plays superhero films this lands somewhere in the middle of the pack coming after "Special (2006)" but before Kick-Ass and Super which would both come out the following year.

Woody Harrelson plays a mentally impaired guy that disappears into his superhero persona to deal with the trauma of his mothers' death when he was a kid. The film tries to be realistic and gritty, heartwarming, funny, and thought-provoking but misses the mark on every beat. Harrelson is a good actor and he's good in the role here but the film just never gets out of third gear. You never really connect with any of the characters and it just feels pretty dull overall. It's not a terrible film and is serviceable in telling the story it's trying to tell but there is nothing here that's memorable or particularly engaging.

Kat Dennings is cute though.

4/10
 
Harry Potter And The Philosophers Stone (2001)

harry-potter-wide.jpg

So, I'm rewatching all the Harry Potter films. Why? Why not?

It's been a minute since I've seen the Philosophers Stone and it holds up remarkably well. A lot of the special effects are a bit sketchy revisiting them today but the overall set design, production, and obvious care that has gone into adapting the book faithfully are abundantly evident. I think people don't appreciate just how easy it would have been to screw this up and the fact that it avoids (most) pitfalls adapting such beloved source material is commendable.

Perhaps it sometimes becomes too faithful to the book, where an eye for what works on the page and on the screen might have produced some of the less cumbersome parts of the film. In trying hard to make sure everything is presented correctly it maybe lacks a bit of charm in the matter-of-fact way it does so. I feel this is something they realized and corrected as the movies progressed.

This is long for a kid's film clocking in at 2 and a half hours but considering the world-building and introductions to not only the core cast but all the side characters we need before we get the adventure underway it's understandable.

Watson is definitely the best actor out of the three here (without being that great either, tbh) but Radcliffe has to shoulder the biggest burden with Harry. Having to carry a film like this I imagine would be tough at any age but considering he's 11 years old here some slack needs to be given even if his stilted delivery and overcooked facial expressions are quite noticeable throughout the film. He's not awful and I've seen PLENTY of worse kids performances but hey, they're kids. It's not easy and his job was the hardest of the three. Rupert Grint meanwhile as Ron has so many stock "shocked" expressions you just know how he landed this role in the audition. Shoutout to Tom Felton for Malfoy now I think of it. His sneering deliveries are spot on even in this one. "Pottah!"

Alan Rickman is the most compelling character in the entire film as Snape even if you put aside all your knowledge of how the story progresses. He makes Snape seem interesting and mysterious from the start.

The final showdown in the film is OK, but knowing how much better Chamber of Secrets handles the main crisis in its plot it does feel a bit lackluster here. That's the same for the books though.

I'm actually surprised how much I enjoyed rewatching this. It's fun!

7/10
 
Last edited:
I'll never ever watch the Harry Potter movies in full again, but they're always on tv so I sometimes see parts of them. I think the first two have a certain kind of classic kid movie charm that the others lack. But the others probably have better special effects and stuff. I like when Hagrid is caught shagging a giant spider.

If anyone hasn't seen Super they should watch it.

 
Mentalist said:
Harry Potter And The Philosophers Stone (2001)

View attachment 437

So, I'm rewatching all the Harry Potter films. Why? Why not?

It's been a minute since I've seen the Philosophers Stone and it holds up remarkably well. A lot of the special effects are a bit sketchy revisiting them today but the overall set design, production, and obvious care that has gone into adapting the book faithfully are abundantly evident. I think people don't appreciate just how easy it would have been to screw this up and the fact that it avoids (most) pitfalls adapting such beloved source material is commendable.

Perhaps it sometimes becomes too faithful to the book, where an eye for what works on the page and on the screen might have produced some of the less cumbersome parts of the film. In trying hard to make sure everything is presented correctly it maybe lacks a bit of charm in the matter-of-fact way it does so. I feel this is something they realized and corrected as the movies progressed.

This is long for a kid's film clocking in at 2 and a half hours but considering the world-building and introductions to not only the core cast but all the side characters we need before we get the adventure underway it's understandable.

Watson is definitely the best actor out of the three here (without being that great either, tbh) but Radcliffe has to shoulder the biggest burden with Harry. Having to carry a film like this I imagine would be tough at any age but considering he's 11 years old here some slack needs to be given even if his stilted delivery and overcooked facial expressions are quite noticeable throughout the film. He's not awful and I've seen PLENTY of worse kids performances but hey, they're kids. It's not easy and his job was the hardest of the three. Rupert Grint meanwhile as Ron has so many stock "shocked" expressions you just know how he landed this role in the audition. Shoutout to Tom Felton for Malfoy now I think of it. His sneering deliveries are spot on even in this one. "Pottah!"

Alan Rickman is the most compelling character in the entire film as Snape even if you put aside all your knowledge of how the story progresses. He makes Snape seem interesting and mysterious from the start.

The final showdown in the film is OK, but knowing how much better Chamber of Secrets handles the main crisis in its plot it does feel a bit lackluster here. That's the same for the books though.

I'm actually surprised how much I enjoyed rewatching this. It's fun!

7/10
Click to expand...

One thing people forget is that Radcliffe had some real experience before HP, with the David Copperfield miniseries a year or two before. He worked with Maggie Smith, and maybe didn't have to carry the whole movie, but at least a decent chunk of it.




My own sentimentality for the first HP movie is partially circumstantial. It wasn't on my radar at first, because I wasn't reading the books, so I first saw it on home video, alone. One thing that most of the HP movies got right was Harry's sense of loneliness and isolation, and his need to connect with his deceased parents. This is especially true of the middle part of the first movie, and it hit me deep on my first viewing. Add to this the fact that the movie came out right after 9/11, and all kinds of emotions can come bubbling up.

So Chris Columbis did an okay job setting the tone with the first movie. But then he screwed the pooch with Chamber of Secrets, which thankfully led to other directors being brought in for the rest of them.
 
Eggs Mayonnaise said:
One thing people forget is that Radcliffe had some real experience before HP, with the David Copperfield miniseries a year or two before. He worked with Maggie Smith, and maybe didn't have to carry the whole movie, but at least a decent chunk of it.




My own sentimentality for the first HP movie is partially circumstantial. It wasn't on my radar at first, because I wasn't reading the books, so I first saw it on home video, alone. One thing that most of the HP movies got right was Harry's sense of loneliness and isolation, and his need to connect with his deceased parents. This is especially true of the middle part of the first movie, and it hit me deep on my first viewing. Add to this the fact that the movie came out right after 9/11, and all kinds of emotions can come bubbling up.

So Chris Columbis did an okay job setting the tone with the first movie. But then he screwed the pooch with Chamber of Secrets, which thankfully led to other directors being brought in for the rest of them.
Click to expand...

I'm on a trip so my recommendations on Youtube have thrown me this and it's well worth the watch and my respect for Christopher Columbus (which was already pretty high) has gone even further. He's pretty much responsible for cultivating these kids to go on and nail these roles to the wall even after he left.



When he talks about being the 10th option on the list to direct these films and then he gets it does feel a bit like fate.
 
It's true that he works better with child actors than most of his peers. And his idealized "kids movie" tone for the first film was all part of the plan, it turns out. The way he deals with the actors on such an intelligent, amiable level, and to be able to weave little pieces into their performances from one take to the next, is impressive.

Maybe Chamber of Secrets was partly a script problem, partly growing pains... the stock "hooray" ending really bothered me. There may be a very good movie in there up to that point, but I've been blinded by that "hooray for Hagrid" Hollywood ending... COS feels more melodramatic than moody to me. Kenneth Branagh was a godsend fir sure, he was superb.
 
I will pick up and review the rest of the Potter franchise at some point but until then I guess I'll leave my thoughts on the stuff I'm watching currently. Expect some randomness in my choices.
 
Blue Streak (1999)

bec5851adad25aa6de6827a3bd1a7b8010a57ed6.png@1200w_630h_1e_1c_1f.jpg


As I hurtle toward 40 I realize that a lot of stuff I watched as a kid has started to fade. I'll be reminded of something and now with just a few clicks, I can be watching it. Today I was randomly thinking about how big Martin Lawrence was in the 90s and then fell off hard in the 2000s onwards.

Martin Lawrence pretending to be a cop or just being a cop was literally most of his film career and this is one of the better ones. I've seen this before around when it came out but remembered barely anything.

This movie is super dumb but I challenge you to not get a few decent laughs out of it. Dave Chappelle is also in it and is hilarious. The paper-thin plot is just a vehicle for Lawrence to be funny as he tricks the police department into thinking he's a super cop so he can retrieve a diamond he stole and left in a building site before going to prison. After he is released he finds out the building site is now a police precinct so has to pretend to be a cop to gain access to the building. Hijinks then ensue.

Martin Lawrence was pretty talented tbh. He's funny in this. I think he ended up suffering from heat stroke in the early 2000s and was in a coma for 3 days or something and was never quite the same after.

Luke Wilson is the cop he's assigned to as a partner. He doesn't do much.

This film breaks absolutely no new ground as you would expect but it's still pretty fun and doesn't overstay its welcome.



"Put your hands on the Oodles of Noodles"

I laughed. I don't care.

6/10
 
48 Hrs. (1982)

48-hrs-1200-1200-675-675-crop-000000.jpg

So Blue Streak got me thinking about the start of the "buddy cop" genre and whilst 48 Hrs. is not technically the first buddy cop film (Freebie and the Bean came out a few years prior) it's credited with launching the genre into widespread mainstream appeal. It also launched Eddie Murphy's film career.

Really, the word "buddy" here is doing some heavy lifting. Nick Nolte's character is an abusive misogynistic alcoholic racist that is not shy about it. The rampant racism and police brutality for a character we're supposed to be rooting for is quite a product of its time. Sure, he's written as a bad cop but he's still very much a hero character in the film as well. This shit would never fly today.

Whilst technically an action comedy (and has plenty of both) this film is very gritty and violent and is as much an urban thriller as anything else.

I have to say, It's a really good film. Murphy and Nolte have a lot of chemistry, even when they're beating the shit out of each other or when Nolte is calling Murphy's character yet another racial slur.

It's also filmed very well. There is no artificial paint-by-numbers filmmaking that you see in so many buddy cop films (including those like Blue Streak which are strictly silly) and the tension is always close to the surface.



I almost missed a young (was he ever young?) Jonathan Banks cameo (he had some of his hair) and Annette O'Toole is a babe.

It's blatantly obvious why Eddie Murphy ruled the 80's when you watch this. He's electric. Nick Nolte is likewise, fantastic. They're both really good actors!

A shoutout to James Horner for the score as well.

8/10

It's a classic.

"Now, get this! We ain't partners. We ain't brothers. And we ain't friends. I'm puttin' you down and keepin' you down until Ganz is locked up or dead. And if Ganz gets away, you're gonna be sorry YOU ever MET me!"
"I'm already sorry!"
 
Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery
Every-Celebrity-Cameo-in-Knives-Out-Sequel-Glass-Onion.jpg

It's good. You go in expecting an enjoyable, stylish, and well-paced modern murder mystery, and that is exactly what you get. The first Knives Out film did the same thing, and I'm sure the third will continue with more of the same as well.

The actual "reveal," like the first film, is a little lacklustre, but it didn't have to be any more complicated than it was. The cast is great, and the cameos are entertaining. It has its share of convoluted moments as well, but nothing too egregious.

The film wears its rather specific social commentary on its sleeve, that you have to admit is rather timely. Miles Bron is not the super genius he portrays himself to be, but instead an extremely fortunate and rather common garden variety moron. Topical!

There were a bunch of other nice touches, like how they all saw themselves as rebels and "disruptors" but were actually desperate to keep the status quo for fear that actual disruption might affect them. I liked that as well.

Daniel Craig seems to be having a blast playing Blanc as did Batista (with his character obviously) who is always fun to watch.

Do I think it's as good as the first film? Eh, yeah. I think they're about equal in my eyes, with perhaps Glass Onion edging it slightly because, as someone who has lived on a Greek island for the last 20 years in the Aegean Sea (not the Ionian), I love Greece as a backdrop. I also noticed that Helen and Cassandra were not named such by mistake.

All in all, this was a fun film, and I look forward to the next one. Daniel Craig has really landed on his feet with this franchise after leaving James Bond behind.

7/10
 
Last edited:
Moneyball (2011)
229898_moneyball_2011_1400x2100_us_1 (1).jpg
I've been meaning to watch this film since it came out in 2011, and here I am in 2023, finally getting around to it. Even for me, this is too much. Maybe I should stop acting like I have a 400-year lifespan...

I know very little about baseball, but I do know enough to know the true story this is (faithfully, it would seem) derived from. Billy Beane (played by Brad Pitt) has cited Arsene Wenger, the former Arsenal football manager, as one of his heroes (he's one of mine too), and it makes a lot of sense why. Arsene revolutionised modern football in the late 90s and early 2000s with unorthodox approaches to everything from scouting, tactics, training, and even diet.

It would lead him to dominance in the early 2000s as other teams that were stuck in their old ways struggled to adapt. This has some similar parallels to the story of The Oakland Athletics (and this film) under general manager Billy Beane when he alongside Paul DePodesta (played by Jonah Hill), implemented something called "sabermetrics" to scout and sign baseball players that would otherwise be undervalued by traditional scouting methods (much to the chagrin of the old guard) during the same period in the early 2000s. Moneyball theory.

With their limited budget, the reality of fielding competitive teams that could actually win and go on meaningful runs against the big boys was nigh impossible. Therefore, by using sabermetrics to identify players for cheap who fit certain criteria they were looking for, they were able to build a team that could compete. I like my sport, and I like my stats, so this whole story is very intriguing to me, and the film does a great job of telling the story.

One thing I really appreciate is that this is not filled with the usual type of Hollywood overdramatization you'd usually expect. After doing some research after watching the film, the general consensus seems to be that this is a surprisingly faithful retelling of the actual events, which is really refreshing.

I don't have any experience with the actual people they are playing, but both Pitt and Hill seem to do a pretty decent job at it. I liked this one quite a bit. I might even read the book.

Billy Beane: [Suggesting a player for first base] Scott Hatteberg.
Scout Barry: Who?
Billy Beane: Exactly. The guy sounds like an Oakland A already.


7/10
 
Last edited:
You might enjoy See How They Run if you're looking for another fun mystery thing. I mean, the actual mystery isn't that good but the characters are fun and Saoirsse Ronan is great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top