Movie opinions thread (what have you seen, what did you think?)

Taiso

Remembers The North,
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Posts
13,156
Birth of the Dragon - Should have called it Birth of Lonesage.

I laughed so hard at this.

But I really loved the movie.

It's pure fiction, but I think its themes are pretty fascinating and make for a great adventure tale.

Wong Jack Man is the disgraced master seeking redemption. He represents tradition, the long standing way things have always been done and standing still because he's so self absorbed that he can't see how his stubbornness is his own greatest obstacle. He only looks back and can't see the future.

Bruce Lee is the rising young buck, the next generation and the one that will change the world because he's not afraid to embrace it. But, like Wong Jack Man, he's also self absorbed and hung up on his own hubris. He scoffs at tradition and only looks forward.

Neither one is really doing it right. Always moving forward but always respecting and honoring the past. That is the philosophy behind the film. During their duel, they teach each other about what it is they're lacking and how it is that they can attain it.

They were both afraid to fail. They were both afraid to be wrong. it was only when they overcame this and learned about it from one another were they both able to move forward in their pursuits. They both had inner rage and frustration, which made them imperfect. They needed each other to grow as people and they did it with a duel. Their lifes' pursuits coming into conflict with one another.

The film is called Birth of the Dragon and this means that Bruce Lee, as cool as he is in the film, is not yet the man he needs to become.

The white dude (I don't remember his name) represents the world and the way it sees kung fu. He can never be as good at fighting as the masters, but he can learn the same valuable lessons from them that they learn from each other. Admittedly, I feel as though this was a botched theme that could have been executed much better.

But man, I really loved this movie. Hardly historically accurate, but I don't think it was ever trying to be.
 

jro

Gonna take a lot
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2004
Posts
14,429
IT - it was fine. Good, even. But not $700 million in revenues worldwide good. The kids were solid actors, especially Sophia Lillis (who looks a ton like Amy Adams). Liked Finn Wolfhard way better here than in Stranger Things.

Way too long.
 

jro

Gonna take a lot
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2004
Posts
14,429
Okay- regarding the whole "Michelle Williams got paid SO MUCH LESS than Mark Wahlberg for the All the Money in the World reshoots" silliness that's going around the news today, Jesus Christ. She could have asked for more money, and she would have gotten it. She didn't ask, so all of a sudden Mark Wahlberg is the bad guy for getting paid as he deserved to.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Posts
60,434
Okay- regarding the whole "Michelle Williams got paid SO MUCH LESS than Mark Wahlberg for the All the Money in the World reshoots" silliness that's going around the news today, Jesus Christ. She could have asked for more money, and she would have gotten it. She didn't ask, so all of a sudden Mark Wahlberg is the bad guy for getting paid as he deserved to.

Or maybe she couldn’t get paid the same, because competition. Because finding a sellable female lead requires different checkboxes than a sellable male lead. The “talent” pool for females is huge and keeps refreshing every year new girls come of age. Sounds gross, but think of this:
Tits on Mark Wahlberg - how long would his bizarro female version have lasted in Hollywood? Maybe half a zellweger.
 

jro

Gonna take a lot
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2004
Posts
14,429
Yeah I know there's no context on it. What you're saying could be entirely accurate.

But that's the thing- no context, either way. If she had asked for more money and been turned down, yeah, then fuck Hollywood and/or Ridley Scott I suppose. But if all she did was say sure I'll do it for free and it didn't cross her mind to ask if Wahlberg was taking an increase, then I don't think Jessica Chastain et al need to use it as another example of women getting held down. Don't get me wrong, they are, frequently, obviously. But this doesn't seem like a case of that, to me at least.

I dunno, I suppose I can see the value in calling bullshit even on the little things, though.
 
Last edited:

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Posts
60,434
Yeah I know there's no context on it. What you're saying could be entirely accurate.

But that's the thing- no context, either way. If she had asked for more money and been turned down, yeah, then fuck Hollywood and/or Ridley Scott I suppose. But if all she did was say sure I'll do it for free and it didn't cross her mind to ask if Wahlberg was taking an increase, then I don't think Jessica Chastain et al need to use it as another example of women getting held down. Don't get me wrong, they are, frequently, obviously. But this doesn't seem like a case of that, to me at least.

I dunno, I suppose I can see the value in calling bullshit even on the little things, though.

This is Hollywood Today:

feed the public half stories to raise a furious rabble against your targets
???
profit

And we see this in #Me2, where every actor is being slandered and libeled face down ass up, and we are seeing this with Michelle Williams not getting equal pay. Fact could well be that the director really wanted Mark, but if Michelle wanted her part not to go to a woman who still has pussy power, she would need to accept 1/1500 of Mark's wages.
 

Tung Fu ru

Actual Musician,
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Posts
3,931
If she had asked for more money and been turned down, yeah, then fuck Hollywood and/or Ridley Scott I suppose. But if all she did was say sure I'll do it for free and it didn't cross her mind to ask if Wahlberg was taking an increase

I read earlier (USA Today) today that she was more than willing to do the re-shoots for free and give up her time off to do so.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/exclusive-wahlberg-got-dollar15m-for-all-the-money-reshoot-williams-paid-less-than-dollar1000/ar-BBIbafS?OCID=ansmsnnews11

here are some parts of the article I found interesting:

"The exchange went as follows:

RIDLEY SCOTT: “The whole reshoot was — in normal terms was expensive but not as expensive as you think. Because all of them, everyone did it for nothing.”

USA TODAY: “Really?”

SCOTT: “No, I wouldn’t get paid, I refused to get paid.”

USA TODAY: “You didn’t pay the actors more to do it?”

SCOTT: “No, they all came in free. Christopher had to get paid. But Michelle, no. Me, no. I wouldn’t do that to — ”

USA TODAY: “The crew, of course, did get paid?”

SCOTT: “Of course. "

USA TODAY has since learned Wahlberg's team actually negotiated a hefty fee, with the actor paid $1.5 million for his reshoots. Williams wasn't told.

Wahlberg and Williams are both represented by the William Morris Endeavor agency. Actors pay a team of agents, managers and lawyers an average of 10% of their salaries to advocate for them."

... Then later on in the article:
"Williams previously told USA TODAY that when Scott's team called to request her time for the reshoot, "I said I'd be wherever they needed me, whenever they needed me. And they could have my salary, they could have my holiday, whatever they wanted. Because I appreciated so much that they were making this massive effort.""

So it kinda sounds like she fucked herself out of more money by offering to do it for free. But she should maybe be pissed off at her agency that also represents Wahlberg, I probably would be.

What I'm more curious of is how much time each of them had to spend to do their re-shoots. If she only had to come in for a few scenes and Wahlberg had to re-shoot many more scenes than she did, he should get paid more IMO. How much more? I don't know, but isn't that why actors have agents?
 

LoneSage

A Broken Man
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Posts
44,862
Wow you have to be a complete fucking moron to do a re-shoot for free. Or any kind of work for free.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Posts
60,434
1.5mm is not much to ask for considering this movie was made to win an Oscar, which is precisely why Spacey was erased from the movie. Spacey could have delivered the performance of a lifetime and the industry would have to snub them because social politics dictate it.

Oscars are not skill awards, but awards for being a good dog.
 

Ip Man

BBLLOOOO__HHAARRDDDDDD!!!!,
15 Year Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Posts
4,334
Oscars are not skill awards, but awards for being a good dog.

agreed. the role decaprio won an oscar for in the revenant wasn't even his best performance. and hardy stole the show in that movie anyway.
 

HDRchampion

Before you sell me something, ask how well my baby
10 Year Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Posts
4,485
Who gives a shit, most Oscar movies are snooze fest.
 

sr20det510

Guerilla Warrior
Joined
Oct 31, 2016
Posts
1,749
Jumanji: Welcome To The Jungle

The perfect popcorn movie.

The action is fun.

The characters are lively.

The acting is engaging.

The jokes are funny and don't overstay their welcome.

The movie wears its own intentions on its sleeve. It has some sappy positivity but it also doesn't shy away from its own sexiness, which I found refreshing.

There are no deep messages here except one: sometimes, a story should be exactly what you expect of it.

Loved it. I won't call it the great movie of our times or anything, but eminently rewatchable. The kind of movie you can have on in the background when doing housework and stuff. Good times.

I enjoyed Jumanji too.

I didn't think I'd be entertained, but I was pleasantly surprised.
My nephews also enjoyed the movie, and one even asked if we could rewatch it.
I told him only if we find it on the firestick.
 

bubba966

Cinema Ninja!,
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Posts
1,542
Okay- regarding the whole "Michelle Williams got paid SO MUCH LESS than Mark Wahlberg for the All the Money in the World reshoots" silliness that's going around the news today, Jesus Christ. She could have asked for more money, and she would have gotten it. She didn't ask, so all of a sudden Mark Wahlberg is the bad guy for getting paid as he deserved to.

LOLwut...

And why the fuck do people think that they shoulda been paid the same? Wahlberg is a far larger star than Williams is. And that's how things work in the movie bidniss, bigger name gets bigger $. Now i'm not saying Williams doesn't do good work, but trying to name her films vs. his off the top of my head I don't get far on her list. But can name many on his list.


Anyway.... Last film I caught in theaters was Hostiles. I feel like I need to watch this again before I have a solid opinion on it. I need to figure out if Bale was performing an Equilibrium in this or not. Really wished Ben Foster was in it more as I feel he's always killing it and is far underused by Hollywood.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Posts
60,434
LOLwut...

And why the fuck do people think that they shoulda been paid the same? Wahlberg is a far larger star than Williams is. And that's how things work in the movie bidniss, bigger name gets bigger $. Now i'm not saying Williams doesn't do good work, but trying to name her films vs. his off the top of my head I don't get far on her list. But can name many on his list.


Anyway.... Last film I caught in theaters was Hostiles. I feel like I need to watch this again before I have a solid opinion on it. I need to figure out if Bale was performing an Equilibrium in this or not. Really wished Ben Foster was in it more as I feel he's always killing it and is far underused by Hollywood.

Blue Valentine

And Williams could have at least aksed for $3.50.
 

bubba966

Cinema Ninja!,
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Posts
1,542
Blue Valentine

And Williams could have at least aksed for $3.50.

Sure, she coulda asked for something...

So, for a more concrete numbers type of comparo for Wahlberg & Williams I went over to the-numbers.com and looked at the box office grosses for them both. For their parts in leading actor roles Wahlberg's movies have grossed $3,731,858,121 worldwide while Williams comes in at $190,925,909. That's almost 20:1 in Wahlberg's favor. Who's the "better" actor? While I enjoy the shit outta Wahlberg in his movies I'm not gonna say it's him. But Hollywood pays the big $ for the peeps that bring in big $. Hence Wahlberg making more $ than Williams.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Posts
60,434
Sure, she coulda asked for something...

So, for a more concrete numbers type of comparo for Wahlberg & Williams I went over to the-numbers.com and looked at the box office grosses for them both. For their parts in leading actor roles Wahlberg's movies have grossed $3,731,858,121 worldwide while Williams comes in at $190,925,909. That's almost 20:1 in Wahlberg's favor. Who's the "better" actor? While I enjoy the shit outta Wahlberg in his movies I'm not gonna say it's him. But Hollywood pays the big $ for the peeps that bring in big $. Hence Wahlberg making more $ than Williams.

Pretty much same point I was trying to make earlier.

But regardless, Williams thought with her pussy and got the stick.
 

jro

Gonna take a lot
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2004
Posts
14,429
Rewatched I Saw the Devil few days ago. I liked it less this time than I remembered liking it before. Still kind of entertaining in its own sick way, and Choi Min-Sik is awesome, but the plot is just beyond dumb, even for the genre.
 
Last edited:

Colorado Rockie

Terry Bogard's Taylor
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Posts
1,680
Some in depth thoughts on stuff I've watched over the last month or so:

Leatherface - Much better than expected. Great gore effects and above average plot.

Goon: Last of the Enforcers - Not as good as the original but still a solid flick. Liev Schreiber needed more screentime.

Silent Night Deadly Night - Sleazy and awesome.

xXx: Return of Xander Cage - Trash.

IT (2017) - Decent. Good acting from the stuttering kid and the fat kid. Rest of the kids are pretty annoying, especially the one with glasses.

Don't Torture a Duckling - Really enjoyed this one even though the back of the box kind of spoiled who the villain was. Beautiful score from Riz Ortolani. No senseless animal killings either, which is a good thing.
 

MattBlah

Baseball Star Hitter
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Posts
1,273
Some in depth thoughts on stuff I've watched over the last month or so:

Leatherface - Much better than expected. Great gore effects and above average plot.

Goon: Last of the Enforcers - Not as good as the original but still a solid flick. Liev Schreiber needed more screentime.

Silent Night Deadly Night - Sleazy and awesome.

xXx: Return of Xander Cage - Trash.

IT (2017) - Decent. Good acting from the stuttering kid and the fat kid. Rest of the kids are pretty annoying, especially the one with glasses.

Don't Torture a Duckling - Really enjoyed this one even though the back of the box kind of spoiled who the villain was. Beautiful score from Riz Ortolani. No senseless animal killings either, which is a good thing.

I was pleasantly surprised by Leatherface too. I'd heard nothing but bad reviews, but it was an enjoyable watch.

Also agree on Goon 2. I loved the first film, but the second didn't do much for me. It was alright, but really didn't compare to the first.

Don't Torture a Duckling is a good one. I'd recommend Fulci's other big giallo film, New York Ripper, if you haven't seen it.
 

wyo

King of Spammers
10 Year Member
Joined
May 22, 2013
Posts
10,169
Sure, she coulda asked for something...

So, for a more concrete numbers type of comparo for Wahlberg & Williams I went over to the-numbers.com and looked at the box office grosses for them both. For their parts in leading actor roles Wahlberg's movies have grossed $3,731,858,121 worldwide while Williams comes in at $190,925,909. That's almost 20:1 in Wahlberg's favor. Who's the "better" actor? While I enjoy the shit outta Wahlberg in his movies I'm not gonna say it's him. But Hollywood pays the big $ for the peeps that bring in big $. Hence Wahlberg making more $ than Williams.

If I was her, I'd be more pissed off with my agent than anyone else. Also, I had to look up who Michelle Williams is.
 

Colorado Rockie

Terry Bogard's Taylor
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Posts
1,680
I was pleasantly surprised by Leatherface too. I'd heard nothing but bad reviews, but it was an enjoyable watch.

Also agree on Goon 2. I loved the first film, but the second didn't do much for me. It was alright, but really didn't compare to the first.

Don't Torture a Duckling is a good one. I'd recommend Fulci's other big giallo film, New York Ripper, if you haven't seen it.

Cool, I'll have to check out New York Ripper. I see Blue Underground has a BD release of it and they are a pretty solid label.
 

100proof

Insert Something Clever Here
10 Year Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Posts
3,616
Watched Brawl in Cell Block 99 this evening. Never particularly liked Vince Vaughn but he gives an oddly rich, understated performance in what is otherwise a schlocky B-movie. The brutality in it borders on Mortal Kombat ridiculousness but something about the way Vince Vaughn plays it prevents it from going off the rails. Always good to see Udo Kier getting work too (even if he only really has one scene). Not a best of the year or anything but entertaining as hell.
 

oliverclaude

General Morden's Aide
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Posts
7,688
Never particularly liked Vince Vaughn but he gives an oddly rich, understated performance in what is otherwise a schlocky B-movie.

Give Van Sant's intriguing Psycho replica a chance then. That's where I changed my mind about Vaughn, and remakes in general.
 
Top