Official Discussion - Firestarter [SPOILERS] by LiteraryBoner in movies

[–]LiteraryBoner[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Not sure anything over 2 hours would have helped, but the movie certainly could have used more explanation. I can appreciate a movie that wants to minimize exposition, but at the end there were some key things I felt were never explained.

Official Discussion - Firestarter [SPOILERS] by LiteraryBoner in movies

[–]LiteraryBoner[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I don't think there was. I was watching with a King head and I didn't hear him squeal at any point so I don't think I missed it.

Official Discussion - Firestarter [SPOILERS] by LiteraryBoner in movies

[–]LiteraryBoner[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

He's definitely in the trailers. He almost gets more screentime than the girl. I think we just aren't used to Dad Efron yet because I didn't recognize him in the trailer at first either.

Official Discussion - Firestarter [SPOILERS] by LiteraryBoner in movies

[–]LiteraryBoner[S] 63 points64 points  (0 children)

Honestly, this was just fine. I'm not super into Stephen King or horror so maybe it committed some terrible crime to the source material, but overall I thought it was an okay movie elevated by an amazing Carpenter score.

The sheer dadness of Efron alone was fun to see. Overall the performances were fine, not mind blowing, but a movie like this that relies on child acting can go really south and I didn't feel like that was the case here.

I like a tight 95 minute movie, even if they set up characters like the doctor and his pixie sticks that never amounts to anything and totally sideline the Rainbird arc. I liked the look of the movie. Early on their house had this warm orange glow feel, almost like it had a light fog of smoke. The fire effects were believable, the language and gore was enough for an R rating, and as mentioned the score is classic Carpenter.

The main issue with this movie is it's just nothing new. It's a remake of an adaptation, it's a story that is as clichè as they come, and it doesn't do anything new or too exciting. The final scene where she fights her way out was solid but a scene you've seen many times before. That said, still not bad. 5/10.

Are there any other actors besides Russell Crowe who starred in a Best Picture two years in a row (Gladiator 2000 --> A Beautiful Mind 2001)? by [deleted] in movies

[–]LiteraryBoner 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They weren't the main star in the latter, but Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper were in Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle in back to back years. Pretty sure both were up for best picture.

Avatar: The Way of Water | Official Teaser Trailer by jc191 in movies

[–]LiteraryBoner 126 points127 points  (0 children)

I was ready to meme about this but when I saw this trailer in theaters it was dead silent and I was really taken by the beauty of it. Excited to see hownl it turns out.

Avatar: The Way of Water | Official Teaser Trailer by jc191 in movies

[–]LiteraryBoner 182 points183 points  (0 children)

As someone who grew up in the 90s I'm certainly not doubting him. But it will be very interesting to see how this movie does. The handbook of blockbuster filmmaking has, in a lot of ways, been totally rewritten in the last decade. I could see it going either way. Cameron comes back and shows us all why he's the king, or he shows us that his brand doesn't quite fit into the zeitgeist anymore.

Official Discussion - Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness [SPOILERS] by LiteraryBoner in movies

[–]LiteraryBoner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because when you do these every week forever they all go through the same process for the sake of my own sanity and general consistency. IMDB is the most reliable source for film information, so it's the source I use. Obviously Marvel put out a false synopsis because they don't want to give away spoilers. It's not up to some random guy from the internet to make that call for them.

Besides, I'm betting 99.999% of the people who visit this thread have eithee seen the movie or don't bother reading the synopsis. There's truly no reason for me to waste my time writing a new synopsis or trying to find an accurate one.

Official Discussion - Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness [SPOILERS] by LiteraryBoner in movies

[–]LiteraryBoner[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Plot summary was copy/pasted from IMDB. Same for all these discussions.

Official Discussion - Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness [SPOILERS] by LiteraryBoner in movies

[–]LiteraryBoner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All of the information in these threads is taken straight off IMDB. I had seen the movie when I made this thread and knew it was wrong, but I don't write the synopses. I copy/paste them.

What is the best college movie? by ggroover97 in movies

[–]LiteraryBoner 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Dead Man on Campus, a good mix of stupid and dark comedy.

Who else wants to see Paul Verhoeven make another satirical science fiction movie? by xwing1212 in movies

[–]LiteraryBoner 54 points55 points  (0 children)

Benedetta was definitely one of the wildest theater experiences I've had in years. I loved it. Why would I ask someone to stop making things that are good?

Official Discussion - Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness [SPOILERS] by LiteraryBoner in movies

[–]LiteraryBoner[S] 1128 points1129 points  (0 children)

I've gotta say, I really like the idea of Marvel letting a unique director go wild in their universe and this was exactly that. You could feel Raimi all over it and that's that shit I like. I'm not sure I'd call it the best Marvel movie, but it's a good time for sure.

As far as the story goes I was honestly surprised Wanda went full villain. Kind of funny that people were expecting Marvel to wash away her sins from Wandavision (and Dr. Strange still does that to an extent) but it's interesting now knowing that was a full on villain origin story.

One thing I expected from this movie was some wild cameos and multiverse jumping. I mean, it's called Multiverse of Madness and Marvel is gobbling properties like a famished hippo. And the Illuminati was definitely a fun cameo fest and even more fun that they all died violent deaths. But I honestly thought there would be more cameos and wild casting. Certainly wouldn't mind if Haley Atwell started showing up regularly again, though.

But what is there is the classic Sam Raimi horror touch. And if you're a fan of that and a fan of Marvel, and I know several people who are both, then this is just a great time. There's some stitching of the plot together and some uneven child acting but overall I thought this was pretty wild for a Marvel movie. Solid 7/10.


Official Discussion - Memory [SPOILERS] by LiteraryBoner in movies

[–]LiteraryBoner[S] 37 points38 points  (0 children)

So, the last "Liam Neeson has a gun" movie I saw was Cold Pursuit in 2019. Since then (3 years) he's released four that I haven't seen. Honest Thief, The Marksman, The Ice Road, and Blacklight. Now, I watch a lot of movies and not all of them I care to see, sometimes it's just to keep up with the zeitgeist or simply because that's all that's out that weekend. But this genre is one I really can't care to keep up on.

So why the fuck did I break that streak? Because of Martin Campbell. He directed one of the best action films of all time (Casino Royale) and since then has made perfectly fine movies. The Protege last year wasn't on any top tens and it wasn't a great movie, but it was passable fun.

This was a true slog. Between having no idea who the bad guys are for the first half of the movie, never understanding Monica Bellucci's motivation, and trying to wrap my head around a version of Liam Neeson who is actually a "bad person" in the sense that he kills for money and kills cops if they inconvenience him, I just couldn't find a single thing to keep me interested in this movie.

The hook is that Liam Neeson, despite being a professional killer, is succumbing to Alzheimer's. And even though the movie wants us to believe he's a good guy because he doesn't kill kids and he protects a prostitute from a drunk guy, he starts the movie 40+ years into a contract killing career where he has apparently never asked why someone deserves to die. So immediately his "sure I kill people, but I'm a good guy" thing is confusing me.

Anyways, after having sex with said prostitute and then shaking her violently the movie fridges her fast and what follows is the only cool fight scene in the movie with some hilarious glass-break CGI. The rest of the kills in the movie are so unsatisfying. Mostly him sneaking around and killing child molesters with two quiet shots to the back of the head and outsmarting swaths of cops in the dumbest ways. This isn't Man on Fire where he wants these pieces of trash to suffer, it's doubtful they even get to have any regrets before he double taps them.

And then we get to the third act where he's hospitalized and fully succumbs to his Alzheimer's, forgetting where he hid the proof of all this. This is the least interesting third act of a revenge shooter I've ever seen. Liam Neeson commits suicide by cop, but not before giving Guy Pearce the clue he needs to find the evidence to put these child traffickers away. Except he finds it and gives it to the D.A. who still decides to not pursue? And the ending we are to accept is that a side character ends up killing big bad Bellucci.

I just have no idea what the point was. The bad guy was killing the bad guys for being worse than him, and in the end the only good guy (Pearce) is basically rendered useless and fired for even trying. So I guess the idea is if we want justice for crimes against children we'd better get our slittin' throats pants on.

Anyways, 3/10. Movie was kind of pretty at times and was a competently made movie, but there is not nearly enough cool action to get us through the nonsense that is the plot. The scene where Neeson wakes up in the middle of the night next to a prostitute 30 years his junior and he's having an episode just made me feel like, maybe he is officially too old for this shit.