Recently Watched Movies 2022

[storrsroars]

Quiet Riot was several years ahead of Motley Crue and others from the whole LA metal scene. Toiled for years, had a good following in the clubs but just couldn't get a record company to sign them.

And to think Slade never made a dent on US record charts.

 

[Palatine]

Everything everywhere all at one. It's a spectacular failure. I wanted to like it because the director was shooting for the moon and decided to be as indulgent as he possibly could be. That kind of self-belief can produce something amazing or a big sloppy mess. This is the latter.

It's way too long. There's probably an hour of kung fights. Some are clever but not nearly enough to warrant this amount of time spent on fights with predetermined outcomes. The story line is well conceived and has a lot of heart. The premise device is clever but it becomes a dead horse that is beaten and beaten and beaten and beaten. The performances of the principles is probably the best part of the movie. The rest of the cast is pretty much wasted. This is a high end film making by folks who know what they doing in terms of cinematography, special effects and editing. There are some interesting and fun ideas explored here. Not enough to save the movie.

Three stars for the attempt. One star for the movie.

 

[HuskyHawk]

World War Z. Brad Pitt, zombies. Fast zombies. Watched on the plane, and enjoyed it. Brad plays a UN troubleshooter/investigator who had recently retired from his dangerous job. Then he’s called back when the Zs arrive. The speed of these zombies ups the ante quite a bit. It’s solid and there is some intelligence to it. My favorite moment is when a Mossad agent explains why the Israelis knew first. He explains the 10th man process. If 9 agree the 10th must disagree and try to prove the thing they don’t believe. In this case a report of zombies Coming from India. It’s brilliant and the kind of thinking we could use more of. Solid film.

 

[nwhoopfan]

And to think Slade never made a dent on US record charts.

What?! Okay, another remake that I never realized was a remake. Now I'm thinking the Quiet Riot version wasn't so much an homage as flat out a rip off. Vocals are very, very similar.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I wanted to like it

Same. I just couldn't get into it. Tried for 30 or 40 minutes and called it good. I loved the trailer for it.

 

[storrsroars]

What?! Okay, another remake that I never realized was a remake. Now I'm thinking the Quiet Riot version wasn't so much an homage as flat out a rip off. Vocals are very, very similar.

Because I couldn't post two videos in the same post, I put "Mama, Weer All Crazee Now" in a text link. So here's that one.



At least when Cheap Trick covered songs by The Move, they kinda tried to make them their own.

I only knew about Slade and The Move because of WNEW-FM and Scott Muni's weekly "Things From England" show which played all sorts of great stuff that never made it over here.

 

[8893]

Everything everywhere all at one. It's a spectacular failure. I wanted to like it because the director was shooting for the moon and decided to be as indulgent as he possibly could be. That kind of self-belief can produce something amazing or a big sloppy mess. This is the latter.

It's way too long. There's probably an hour of kung fights. Some are clever but not nearly enough to warrant this amount of time spent on fights with predetermined outcomes. The story line is well conceived and has a lot of heart. The premise device is clever but it becomes a dead horse that is beaten and beaten and beaten and beaten. The performances of the principles is probably the best part of the movie. The rest of the cast is pretty much wasted. This is a high end film making by folks who know what they doing in terms of cinematography, special effects and editing. There are some interesting and fun ideas explored here. Not enough to save the movie.

Three stars for the attempt. One star for the movie.

Same. I just couldn't get into it. Tried for 30 or 40 minutes and called it good. I loved the trailer for it.

I watched this on a flight to San Francisco a few weeks ago. I read and really enjoyed The Midnight Library this summer, which has a similar premise, so I was intrigued when one of my daughters and her boyfriend described this film to me.

I agree with a lot of @Palatine 's post, except I don't think it was a failure; I just think it could have been much better and tighter. But I wanted my wife to watch it on the way home (in part because the mother-daughter relationship bears some resemblance to hers with one of ours), and she did exactly what @nwhoopfan did, i.e., turned it off after around a half hour because she couldn't get into it.

The length and repetition probably would have bothered me a lot more if I wasn't watching it on a cross-country flight. That was actually a positive though, because it occupied me for almost half the flight.

I'd give it 3.5/5 stars.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I know there are a least a few fans of non Disney or non Western in general animation. Just watched "Belle." Ended up being quite different than what I expected. There is a wallflower high school girl named Suzu who joins an immersive virtual world along with most of the rest of the planet called U. She creates an avatar called Belle who becomes a sensation. She becomes entangled with a mysterious "villain" known as The Beast. Obvious parallels to Beauty and the Beast, but it's an entirely different story. As the authorities within U try desperately to unveil the real identity of The Beast, the story takes a huge turn that caught me completely off guard. Won't say any more than that. Overall I liked it. Some of the scenes with Suzu with her peers in school were kind of frustrating and super awkward. Interesting taking elements of a classic tale and mixing it with our current reality of social media and online alter egos.

 

[nwhoopfan]

At least when Cheap Trick covered songs by The Move, they kinda tried to make them their own.

I knew Smokin' in the Boys Room from Motley Crue in the 80s. It wasn't until decades later that I heard the Brownsville Station version that preceded it. The Crue sure didn't stretch much for that cover, barely changed a thing.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Dang. I got "Belle" from the library. There were 2 discs. I spent a while trying to figure out which was what. I thought maybe one was the movie and other was special features. Nope. English dub and Japanese? Nope. Now that it's too late, realized I watched it on DVD when I could've watched on Blu Ray. Doh!

 

[HuskyHawk]

I knew Smokin' in the Boys Room from Motley Crue in the 80s. It wasn't until decades later that I heard the Brownsville Station version that preceded it. The Crue sure didn't stretch much for that cover, barely changed a thing.

Yeah, I loved that tune before the Crue were out of junior high

 

[CL82]

World War Z. Brad Pitt, zombies. Fast zombies. Watched on the plane, and enjoyed it. Brad plays a UN troubleshooter/investigator who had recently retired from his dangerous job. Then he’s called back when the Zs arrive. The speed of these zombies ups the ante quite a bit. It’s solid and there is some intelligence to it. My favorite moment is when a Mossad agent explains why the Israelis knew first. He explains the 10th man process. If 9 agree the 10th must disagree and try to prove the thing they don’t believe. In this case a report of zombies Coming from India. It’s brilliant and the kind of thinking we could use more of. Solid film.

A lot of good scenes in that movie. I like when he cuts off the Israeli soldiers hand and then counts to 10. You wouldn’t think that counting to 10 would create more tension then chopping off someone’s hand.

 

[nwhoopfan]

"Bullet Train" was a fun ride. Fairly over the top. Great ensemble cast. Somehow I didn't recognize Aaron Taylor-Johnson the whole movie (and how did I never know he's British?!--mind blown). Weird seeing Channing Tatum and Karen Fukuhara in such tiny roles. Also interesting seeing Pitt, Tatum and Bullock all in this together, right after they were in "The Lost City."

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Jobs (2013) - Netflix - This movie is pretty bad, in addition to being wildly historically inaccurate. Aaron Sorkin's Steve Jobs (2015) movie, which is structured more like a play, is much more accurate in terms of representing the respective people, in addition to being more interesting and just a better movie.

Going down the list of problems with Jobs (2013):

The directing is just terrible. It comes off like a docudrama with the shaky camera and stilted dialogue. The high number of reaction shots gets distracting pretty quickly. It is just a mess.

Ashton Kutcher is an OK TV comedy actor. He can't pull off being the leading man in a biopic about one of the more complicated and influential Americans of the last 25 years of the 20th century. The character was flat, boring, and not credible as a visionary. Fassbender absolutely owned the part in the Sorkin version.

Josh Gad is OK, but also not credible as a genius that is one of the most important inventors of the digital age. Wozniak seems like a bystander and cheerleader rather than a driver.

The movie leaves out Xerox PARC completely. Jobs and Wozniak's (I think Wozniak was there) visited Xerox PARC in 1979 and walked out with the future of computing. Jobs and Wozniak get a lot of credit for stuff they didn't actually invent.

The movie characterization of Mike Markkula is simply ridiculous. He is one of the most successful tech executives and investors in history, (Wozniak credit Markkula for much of Apple's initial success) but he comes off in this movie as a spineless, backstabbing doofus. Matthew Modine is wasted in some silly caricature of John Sculley. I have no idea why JK Simmons got involved in that ridiculous misrepresentation of Arther Rock.

My biggest issue with the movie is that it makes Jobs into something he isn't. He was definitely a visionary, but he was a terrible manager until late in his career, having failed at Apple, and then again at NEXT. He deserved to be fired from Apple in 1985. He became very wealthy from his investment in Pixar, but he had almost no operating role in that company. Before he came back to Apple, he had never been successful as a business manager. His primary skill was in his ability to operationalize his vision, and more importantly, in recognizing genius, both in Wozniak and Markkula, and later with Avie Tevanian (who isn't in the movie), among others, when he came back to Apple in the late 90's.

Both movies are on Netlix. I recommend Steve Jobs (2015), but there is no reason to watch the Jobs (2013) mess.

 

[Dove]

And to think Slade never made a dent on US record charts.

Run Runaway kicks ass.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[storrsroars]

Run Runaway kicks ass.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

I always wondered why Big Country chose The Alarm's Mike Peters as their new frontman after Stuart's suicide. But this song is the perfect meld of Big Country and The Alarm at their early 80's peak.

 

[Hey Adrien!]

Elvis (2022) -

Overall, it was an incredibly made film and I highly recommend it.

Baz Luhrmann films are usually too much for me: I hated The Great Gatsby and didn't like his other movies...his signature style often causes me anxiety. His vision is clear and he's an obviously talented auteur.

Austin Butler's portrayal as Elvis was incredible and aside from Tom Hanks, I enjoyed seeing a film where I wasn't familiar with any of the actors...for some reason that helped me dive deeper into the film for what it is.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Been on a bit of a music documentary kick lately. Forgot to mention I watched "Hired Guns" about studio or session musicians. My brother recommended that a while ago, finally saw it. It's on Freevee. Rudy Sarzo popped up in it, so it dove tailed into the Randy Rhoads documentary I had just watched (he was in Quiet Riot and w/ Ozzy along side Randy). Interesting, I don't really get how/why it works that way but some of these musicians contribute both to the albums and go on tour w/ singers or bands for years, without ever being a full time member of the band. Contribute more to the creative process of the music than I would've guessed, sometimes without getting any credit for it. I'd say worth a watch for music lovers.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Just now watched "Bad Reputation," documentary about Joan Jett. Really good I thought. It started with The Runaways of course but didn't go into it in great detail. Joan had some massive ups and downs with The Blackhearts. Her career was much more varied than I realized. A bit of acting. Produced records for some other bands. Some activism. Performed for military personnel for many years. She bridged generations and genres and got involved with several up and coming bands and aided them over the years.

 

[storrsroars]

Been on a bit of a music documentary kick lately. Forgot to mention I watched "Hired Guns" about studio or session musicians. My brother recommended that a while ago, finally saw it. It's on Freevee. Rudy Sarzo popped up in it, so it dove tailed into the Randy Rhoads documentary I had just watched (he was in Quiet Riot and w/ Ozzy along side Randy). Interesting, I don't really get how/why it works that way but some of these musicians contribute both to the albums and go on tour w/ singers or bands for years, without ever being a full time member of the band. Contribute more to the creative process of the music than I would've guessed, sometimes without getting any credit for it. I'd say worth a watch for music lovers.

Haven't seen Hired Guns yet, but I've seen a number of docs on session musicians. While I doubt he was in the film, there's a legendary story about Richard Wright of Pink Floyd. Waters wanted him out of the legal partnership for the band. But he was hired back for touring and paid a salary as opposed to a percentage of profit or gate. Floyd embarked on an expensive tour and it ended up that Wright made money while Waters, Gilmour, and Mason didn't. So that might be one reason session folks don't join bands.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Haven't seen Hired Guns yet, but I've seen a number of docs on session musicians. While I doubt he was in the film, there's a legendary story about Richard Wright of Pink Floyd. Waters wanted him out of the legal partnership for the band. But he was hired back for touring and paid a salary as opposed to a percentage of profit or gate. Floyd embarked on an expensive tour and it ended up that Wright made money while Waters, Gilmour, and Mason didn't. So that might be one reason session folks don't join bands.

I don't remember there being anything about Pink Floyd.

 

[Deadrody]

What can I say, I'm a sucker for teen movies. Most of them are mediocre, but can still be fairly entertaining. Netflix has a bunch of them I've been plowing thru. Not even gonna admit to some of them I've watched. One that I thought rose above the others I've seen recently is "Along for the Ride." Girl just graduated high school, never fit in with her peers. Her parents divorced at some point, not sure how long ago it was. She lives with her mom, but is going to spend the summer before college with her dad and his younger wife and their newborn daughter. At a sleepy little coastal town. It's not mind blowing, but I appreciated the characters and the story. The kids aren't self centered, oblivious jerks, or party monsters, or any of those types of stereotypes. Decent kids, who are dealing with some stuff, and trying to figure it out as best they can. There are some recognizable faces (Dermot Mulroney, Andie MacDowell, Kate Bosworth), I wasn't familiar with any of the younger cast. I thought they all did a nice job. More of a drama than a comedy. Worth a watch I thought.


As an aside, I think IMDB's ratings are getting as unreliable as Rotten Tomatoes. You just can't believe anything anymore.

Eh, I think they can be somewhat reliable. Problem is, IMDB is trying to hide them. The "sort by helpfullness" option is gone. The only rational explanation is they don't want people to actually get a sense of the consensus rating while they're being flooded with 1s and 10s. You can sort by "total votes" and then see whether the "loved it" or "hated it" reviews are getting the higher share of helpful reviews. Absolutely stupid.

On a related note, IMDB is now owned by Amazon, I believe, so this may all be part of the effort to hide how much people dislike their "Rings of Power" series.

 

[nwhoopfan]

On a related note, IMDB is now owned by Amazon, I believe, so this may all be part of the effort to hide how much people dislike their "Rings of Power" series.

That was in development for forever. I was curious about it. Then the trailers hit and I was underwhelmed. Then I started seeing reactions to it. I considered watching at least one episode, but ultimately decided "nope."

Why do these companies pay boatloads of money for beloved IPs, and then just lay waste to the source material and the fan base? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[HuskyHawk]

That was in development for forever. I was curious about it. Then the trailers hit and I was underwhelmed. Then I started seeing reactions to it. I considered watching at least one episode, but ultimately decided "nope."

Why do these companies pay boatloads of money for beloved IPs, and then just lay waste to the source material and the fan base? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

They didn't really. A few hard-core fans claimed they did, but it's exaggerated. The source material isn't in published book form (not by J.R.R. Tolkien at least, but some by his son based on notes). One of the changes is one we know Tolkien agreed with. There are a few, small departures from canon, and new characters that merely round out an incomplete story. Some of what people complained about are silly things. I think Rings of Power is better than House of the Dragon. Production quality is much higher.

Caution: Major Spoilers.

A Tolkien Nerd on how Rings of Power differs from the book: Episode 1

Rings of Power is here but how does it differ from the books? A tolkien nerd is here to explain it all for you from Finrod to Bronwyn

www.comicsbeat.com

 

[dbmill]

Werewolves Within (2021) - It’s getting near Halloween, so it's time for me and my wife to watch another Werewolf movie. At the beginning of this film, a U.S. forest ranger arrives for his new assignment in a small Vermont town. The people around the town seem to be deeply divided and potentially violently mad at each other. It pretty much mirrors the modern political climate we have where it seems to be often very difficult for people with opposing beliefs to have a civil conversation with each other. Anyway, this sort of political and civil climate provides something of a perfect atmosphere for another new arrival in town, What appears to be a potential werewolf. After all, it would seem that the werewolf would not have to do much killing people for food if others are willing to do this service on their own. Fresh meat with little work involved! Our newly arrived forest ranger needs to navigate this rather difficult climate in order to try to help protect those people who are still alive, and for that matter, try to stay alive himself. One thing for certain, this sort of climate seems to inhabit a number of films that I have posted about on these threads recently. It is a good but not great movie. Anyway, this film is very watchable and kept my attention throughout.

 

[nwhoopfan]

They didn't really. A few hard-core fans claimed they did, but it's exaggerated. The source material isn't in published book form (not by J.R.R. Tolkien at least, but some by his son based on notes). One of the changes is one we know Tolkien agreed with. There are a few, small departures from canon, and new characters that merely round out an incomplete story. Some of what people complained about are silly things. I think Rings of Power is better than House of the Dragon. Production quality is much higher.

Caution: Major Spoilers.

A Tolkien Nerd on how Rings of Power differs from the book: Episode 1

Rings of Power is here but how does it differ from the books? A tolkien nerd is here to explain it all for you from Finrod to Bronwyn

www.comicsbeat.com

From what I've heard, they've turned Galadriel into a petulant, arrogant uber jerk.

Is "The Silmarllion" not used at all as source material? Even if the story lines aren't derived directly from published materials of Tolkien's, certainly some of the characters and the world they inhabit are established.

There are definitely mixed reviews about this. It seems like Amazon has gone the route of dismissing any criticism as racist or sexist, without bothering to actually consider the content of the criticism itself. Pretty lazy, but that's where we're at these days.

edit--oops, I see in the linked article that they didn't have rights to the Silmarillion

 

[Deadrody]

I watched this on a flight to San Francisco a few weeks ago. I read and really enjoyed The Midnight Library this summer, which has a similar premise, so I was intrigued when one of my daughters and her boyfriend described this film to me.

I agree with a lot of @Palatine 's post, except I don't think it was a failure; I just think it could have been much better and tighter. But I wanted my wife to watch it on the way home (in part because the mother-daughter relationship bears some resemblance to hers with one of ours), and she did exactly what @nwhoopfan did, i.e., turned it off after around a half hour because she couldn't get into it.

The length and repetition probably would have bothered me a lot more if I wasn't watching it on a cross-country flight. That was actually a positive though, because it occupied me for almost half the flight.

I'd give it 3.5/5 stars.

Agreed. Including the 3.5 stars. I saw the great reviews and was hoping for something very slick and polished and this was the opposite of that. It was still good, but nowhere near what I was hoping for. And, yeah, definitely longer than necessary

 

[Deepster]

Elvis (2022) -

Overall, it was an incredibly made film and I highly recommend it.

Baz Luhrmann films are usually too much for me: I hated The Great Gatsby and didn't like his other movies...his signature style often causes me anxiety. His vision is clear and he's an obviously talented auteur.

Austin Butler's portrayal as Elvis was incredible and aside from Tom Hanks, I enjoyed seeing a film where I wasn't familiar with any of the actors...for some reason that helped me dive deeper into the film for what it is.

Just watched it. I was super apprehensive about it because I'm a pretty decent Elvis fan and usually things don't live up to the hype for me. To give you an idea, my Mom was a huge Elvis fan and took us to Hawaii as kids because Elvis loved Hawaii. I also got in a car with a couple waitresses when I bartended and drove overnight to visit Graceland in my early 20's....ah, another story for another time.

I thought the style it was filmed in was excellent and really added to the movie. I did not care for Tom Hanks with the prosthetics and bad accent one bit, he's a Top 3 actor for me and I thought he was cartoony. Austin Butler really stole the show. Especially 2/3's through the movie entering the Vegas act era. There were times you almost thought they spliced real Elvis film in there and I'd almost put that piece of the movie up in a discussion thread with Bohemian Rhapsody of great musician representations.

 

[HuskyHawk]

From what I've heard, they've turned Galadriel into a petulant, arrogant uber jerk.

Is "The Silmarllion" not used at all as source material? Even if the story lines aren't derived directly from published materials of Tolkien's, certainly some of the characters and the world they inhabit are established.

There are definitely mixed reviews about this. It seems like Amazon has gone the route of dismissing any criticism as racist or sexist, without bothering to actually consider the content of the criticism itself. Pretty lazy, but that's where we're at these days.

edit--oops, I see in the linked article that they didn't have rights to the Silmarillion

I actually really like Galadriel. Plus she’s gorgeous. But mostly the portrayal is considered accurate per the canon, of young warrior Galadriel. It ties in nicely to the “dark queen speech”. The complaints don’t actually boil down to much. The one departure is mythril vs sillmarilians, but they evidently couldn‘t use the gems.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I actually really like Galadriel. Plus she’s gorgeous. But mostly the portrayal is considered accurate per the canon, of young warrior Galadriel. It ties in nicely to the “dark queen speech”. The complaints don’t actually boil down to much. The one departure is mythril vs sillmarilians, but they evidently couldn‘t use the gems.

While she was certainly younger in this era than the Galadriel we saw in Jackson's LOTR trilogy, she certainly wasn't young even then due to elves having extremely long lives in canon. They could've conveyed different facets of her while still maybe displaying more tact and wisdom perhaps? That's just based on some reactions I've seen of her character. But I guess since I haven't watched it, my opinion is ill informed. Maybe I'll change my mind and try it after all, but it's not a priority currently.