Recommend (or don't) a movie thread v2

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

What is that movie about.

Your standard QAnon fringe conspiracy pizzagate style nut job film. Bring the kids, if they haven’t been abducted by the global elites to harvest their adrenochrome juices that is

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Your standard QAnon fringe conspiracy pizzagate style nut job film. Being the kids, if they haven’t been abducted by the global elites to harvest their adrenochrome juices that is

This is exactly the kind of psychotic answer I was hoping for

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by Engine09

Anyone catch the new Mission Impossible yet?

Tom Cruise is such a lunatic, scientologist whacko but I have to admit he's damn impressive to be filming those sort of stunts when he was 59 or 60 at the time of production. He's the best in the game at this type of movie, I may have enjoyed it more than the last Bond. Rebecca Ferguson, Venessa Kirby, Hayley Atwell, & Pom Klementieff, just incredible. If you factor in Thandie Newton from the 2nd MI you could have an argument that the MI women top the Bond girls. Would be fun to argue it!

Yeah, it's typical convoluted spy/espionage crap but they kind of go in a modern direction with this one. Liked it quite a bit. 8/10

Mission Impossible has been way ahead of James Bond ever since Ghost Protocol.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

This is exactly the kind of psychotic answer I was hoping for

Did you have thoughts on it or just fishing? Sounds like you’re a fan. Jim Caveziel can be mighty convincing

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Did you have thoughts on it or just fishing? Sounds like you’re a fan. Jim Caveziel can be mighty convincing

haven't seen it. jim caveziel is a nutcase. so is kevin spacey but i still enjoy his work.

[Galakanokis]

Sound of Freedom was actually filmed in 2018. It was scrapped by Disney for very obvious reason and only recently revived by a right wing media company. And Jim Caviezel is crazier than Cameron and Sorbo combined.

[White Out 403]

What was the obvious reason?

[Sr. Mints]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Did you have thoughts on it or just fishing? Sounds like you’re a fan. Jim Caveziel can be mighty convincing

He is Jesus, after all

[Sr. Mints]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I recently watched all 6, and MI2 is just a bad movie. Late 90s/early 00s cheesiness but without any of the fun.

5 and 6 stand above the rest and I hope for more of the same with 7.

Something that caught my eye about MI2 last week was Ronald Moore and Brannon Braga (Star Trek duo) doing the screenplay.

The movie is dreadful any way you slice it, Braga being attached made me chuckle as he was pretty hated by the Star Trek community in the late 90s/early 2000s. Moore went on to do Battlestar Galactica, Outlander, For All Mankind, and more.

[ResAlien]

I haven’t really kept up with the MI movies other than seeing everyone say MI2 is terrible. What are the ones worth a watch to catch up or enjoy? If one wanted some summertime popcorn action film fun

[Cecil Terwilliger]

If you only want the best ones, go straight to Rogue Nation then Fallout.

3 and Ghost Protocol aren’t bad but rogue nation raised the bar.

Might even say just watch 3 thru current.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Also, 3 is almost totally standalone. Ghost Protocol has barely any carryover. It’s not until Rogue Nation that it starts to bleed into the next one, which goes thru Fallout and into the current two parter.

[White Out 403]

Mission impossible one hasn't aged terribly well, it's a little silly especially the internet parts, but I still think it's a fun movie. Mission impossible 2 might be one of the worst spy movies ever made

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

This is exactly the kind of psychotic answer I was hoping for

Then Answer my question yourself next time

[badradio]

Very disappointed in Asteroid City… I mean the settings, colour pallets, cinematography are all very beautiful… but the deadpan acting is annoying and the story is just boring. The dialogue is just verbal vomit that doesn’t move the story in any way. I know it’s a “Wes Anderson film” I get it… he has a schtick… but it’s worn out in my book, and he doesn’t get a pass because of it. I really wanted to like it, but the story is weak, the acting is atrocious (I’m aware it’s intentional, but it wasn’t necessary.) Visually it would get a 8/10, but it fails everywhere else… 3/10… it was a chore to get through…

[Yamer]

Wes Anderson sucks.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by badradio

Very disappointed in Asteroid City… I mean the settings, colour pallets, cinematography are all very beautiful… but the deadpan acting is annoying and the story is just boring. The dialogue is just verbal vomit that doesn’t move the story in any way. I know it’s a “Wes Anderson film” I get it… he has a schtick… but it’s worn out in my book, and he doesn’t get a pass because of it. I really wanted to like it, but the story is weak, the acting is atrocious (I’m aware it’s intentional, but it wasn’t necessary.) Visually it would get a 8/10, but it fails everywhere else… 3/10… it was a chore to get through…

Yup, fully agree. See my previous review. It was awful, and I don't think I've ever said that about one of his films. I haven't absolutely loved everything he's done, but most of it has been endearing and enjoyable to watch. This last one was god awful. It hurts to see.

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I'm as big of a Wes Anderson fan as you get and I thought this was a HUGE miss. A few cute scenes and characters, and yes, production design is great as always, but it was ultimately the most meaningless story he's ever done. Nothing happened, nothing changed, nothing mattered. Nobody was interesting or likable, and I didn't care about anything that happened. It's like he tried to give a 5 minute movie to every character instead of just executing a story about 2 or 3 of them. Extensive plot devices to break the 4th wall that amounted to nothing and just confused the narrative. Not even great score or soundtrack this time.

It's the first time I've ever seen one of his films and simply did not care for it at all. Others have had flaws but were ultimately redeeming, but this one was a hot mess. I hate to say it since he's one of my favorite filmmakers, but this was just a bad film.

It could be intentional on Anderson's part since much of the film discussed the process of writing and creating a show, but it didn't come across clearly that it was intentional. Perhaps the best quote I read in a review came from O'Sullivan of WaPo:

*The gist of the quote was he doesn't know what to say anymore as an artist, hence the senselessness of the film*

[Galakanokis]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

What was the obvious reason?

Jim Caviezel is bat #### ####ing crazy and probably bad for your brand and business.

[psyang]

Some of my right-wing friends have recommended Sound of Freedom to me. Based on what I've heard/read, the movie itself, as a movie, is fine and sheds some light on child trafficking. The conspiracy theory stuff is spouted by Caviezel and Ballard in interviews, but it doesn't come into play in the move. I am a Christian and support anti-child trafficking organizations like International Justice Mission - there's no doubt human trafficking is huge here and around the world, so the subject matter is important.

The criticisms I've heard are that:
1) While based on a true story, it stretches the truth to the benefit of OUR, the organization featured in the rescues.
2) It overemphasizes kidnapping as the means of child trafficking, when in reality the vast majority of child trafficking occurs via grooming by people known to the child/family.
3) OUR's method of posing as someone who wants to purchase a child may actual create demand.
4) OUR's financials show that not as much of the donated money actually goes to rescues as I'd like to see.
5) The end credit scene is a plea that basically says "if you want to help stop child trafficking, buy more tickets to this movie" which seems wrong to me.

I'd be interested in watching the movie. The views of Caviezel and Ballard doesn't deter me in the same way that Tom Cruise's views don't deter me from watching his films.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by psyang

Some of my right-wing friends have recommended Sound of Freedom to me. Based on what I've heard/read, the movie itself, as a movie, is fine and sheds some light on child trafficking. The conspiracy theory stuff is spouted by Caviezel and Ballard in interviews, but it doesn't come into play in the move. I am a Christian and support anti-child trafficking organizations like International Justice Mission - there's no doubt human trafficking is huge here and around the world, so the subject matter is important.

The criticisms I've heard are that:
1) While based on a true story, it stretches the truth to the benefit of OUR, the organization featured in the rescues.
2) It overemphasizes kidnapping as the means of child trafficking, when in reality the vast majority of child trafficking occurs via grooming by people known to the child/family.
3) OUR's method of posing as someone who wants to purchase a child may actual create demand.
4) OUR's financials show that not as much of the donated money actually goes to rescues as I'd like to see.
5) The end credit scene is a plea that basically says "if you want to help stop child trafficking, buy more tickets to this movie" which seems wrong to me.

I'd be interested in watching the movie. The views of Caviezel and Ballard doesn't deter me in the same way that Tom Cruise's views don't deter me from watching his films.

Speaking of OUR, now all the weirdos are throwing donations at The Spear Fund which has literally no specifics about how it combats kidnapping/trafficking but is using it's association with the movie to drive donations.