|
I loved Overlord. It had rough edges but it overall rocked. Was disappointed that it pooped out and nothing came of it.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
Overlord didn't go far enough for me(due to budget constraints I'm sure), I wanted it to get a lot weirder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2023 20:55
|
|
|
God, I almost forgot about that. There's so many movies i've watched and they are just absolutely gone from my memory. ;(
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I loved Overlord. It had rough edges but it overall rocked. Was disappointed that it pooped out and nothing came of it. The paratrooper drop sequence at the start of the movie was loving fantastic, that was a huge stand-out scene for me. I also liked that by the end it kept the majority of its cast alive. I was expecting pretty much everyone to bite it by the end of the movie, having nearly everyone live while still maintaining a sense of danger and tension was refreshing. Edit— if you guys will let me I’ll totally hijack this thread for “Weird War II movie” chat, I’m a huge sucker for that sub genre and we’ve gotten some neat movies in the last couple years (‘Blood Vessel’, ‘Ghosts of War’, and ‘Shadow in the Cloud’ off the top of my head) Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jul 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2023 21:03
|
|
|
Make a Weird War 2 thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2023 21:26
|
|
|
Skrill.exe posted:How about the fact that the spear of Longinus at the beginning was confirmed to be a fake at the beginning since it was made of an alloy that was only 50 years old. But then they never showed the Greeks/Romans breaking down the nazi plane and turning it into the actual spear of Longinus. Just wasted opportunities all over. Yeah, I thought there was going to be more time travel nonsense that would explain stuff like that and like how the main villain's face was completely intact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2023 02:20
|
|
|
Xealot posted:It’s pretty crazy how confident this and new Star Wars are about the de-aging, because it’s for sure not 100% and they’re building entire scenes with dialogue and legit close-ups around it. The de-aging fetishization is really ramping up eh? At a glance I was wow'ed by the tech but then... they kept focusing in on it. Again and again and again and it just got more Uncanny Valley every drat time. Better than Flash resurrecting dead actors but... low bar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2023 10:41
|
|
|
Narcissus1916 posted:The de-aging fetishization is really ramping up eh? At a glance I was wow'ed by the tech but then... they kept focusing in on it. Again and again and again and it just got more Uncanny Valley every drat time. I really wish studios would re-cast rather than de-age or do cyber-necromancy. By this, I mean have a younger actor play the younger version of the character. I see where Hollywood is going with this, and it's always either sinister, uncanny, tasteless or mawkish (yeah, you, Ghostbusters:Afterlife). I'm curious - do Hollywood stars typically skew older now than they did in the past? I feel like they do, but that could also just be a function of me approaching middle-age. I feel like 81 year old Harrison Ford is something that wouldn't exist outside of comedy before and even 61 year old Tom Cruise is pushing it. On one hand, yeah, life doesn't end at 40 - hooray! But on the other, it perhaps fits a pattern of pop-culture infantalisation and perhaps aging audiences that the people going to see these movies still need to see someone older than them as the star.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2023 15:53
|
|
|
81 is definitely pretty extreme yea but there's definitely a long history of leading men holding on into their 50s and 60s. Roger Moore was 58 when he finished doing Bond films, Jimmy Stewart was still getting starring roles into his 60s, etc etc
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2023 15:58
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:81 is definitely pretty extreme yea but there's definitely a long history of leading men holding on into their 50s and 60s. Roger Moore was 58 when he finished doing Bond films, Jimmy Stewart was still getting starring roles into his 60s, etc etc That's very true, I think I was having a bit of a blind spot! Sean Connery was doing genre flicks right up to retirement too. I think what probably feels different is the way it intersects with the nostalgia cycle and franchise cinema.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
It's always been around. Tough Guys was a movie that came out in the mid 80s that starred an older Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster. Clint Eastwood has been a perpetual Old since In The Line Of Fire. Xanadu had Gene Kelley and it was released in 1980. It's just most of them didn't helm a franchise as epoch-making as Indiana Jones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
It's also just completely crazy to have one guy play the same character across 40+ years. Take all the success and iconic status out of it, just the fact that you have one actor continuing to play a role for that long is almost unheard of. It feels like Cruise has been doing Mission Impossible forever(and he has by most standards), but it hasn't even been 30 years with that yet. Vin Diesel just hit 20 years with F&F. Those situations are a bit different because Ford only made about 1 Indy film per decade, but still.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
Yeah the one guy across 40 years thing is why Creed hit so hard. You basically saw the entire arc of Rocky's life, played by the same actor, who worked his own stuff in there. I still hold out hope for King Conan with Arnie. Him getting older actually makes it better, or could anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
Disco Pope posted:I really wish studios would re-cast rather than de-age or do cyber-necromancy. By this, I mean have a younger actor play the younger version of the character. A lot of it is medicine has gotten better so people can live to be older and stay active longer. 50 is the new 30 and all that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2023 17:30
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I still hold out hope for King Conan with Arnie. Him getting older actually makes it better, or could anyway. I am, too, but the rightsholders are apparently uninterested.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:It's also just completely crazy to have one guy play the same character across 40+ years. Take all the success and iconic status out of it, just the fact that you have one actor continuing to play a role for that long is almost unheard of. It feels like Cruise has been doing Mission Impossible forever(and he has by most standards), but it hasn't even been 30 years with that yet. Vin Diesel just hit 20 years with F&F. Those situations are a bit different because Ford only made about 1 Indy film per decade, but still. Even in the first movie he was already supposed to be getting a bit too old for this. "It's not the age, it's the mileage"
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2023 19:46
|
|
|
Finally managed to sneak in a viewing yesterday. My local theater went from like twenty showings a day to five. First, I rewatched the entirely series last month and Crystal Skull is a terrible loving film. Conventional wisdom is accurate there. And hey, I liked Dial of Destiny! Not great, but maybe good? There's nothing quite so awful as Shia Le Beouf swordfighting a Soviet while they awkwardly gyrate like a mobile port of Uncharted. The film is helped tremendously by Harrison Ford's performance. His work in Crystal Skull reminded me of late Roger Moore bond movies. Just there for paycheck with a smirk. Harrison Ford is so good in so many places here. Him talking about his son while on the boat was devastating and had a nuance the rest of the film lacks. He's great at the end too, and his marvel at witnessing history is wonderful. The movie concluding with him losing agency because of a sucker punch admittedly sucks though. I'm not entirely against where we ended up, but that really really needed to be Indie's choice. I appreciate that Mangold didn't try to copy Spielberg here. Crystal Skull felt like a lovely cover band. I'm thrilled that they just didn't stack reference on top of reference on top of reference for the sake of cheap jokes. There's a few here and there but nothing egregious by modern fan service standards. But... Mangold doesn't really replace Spielberg's action direction with anything of note. After the movie I was shocked to discover they actually went to Tangiers. That sequence looked like it was filmed on a green screen or the Universal Studios backlot. It just felt empty and hollow. Waller-Bridge is fine. Not the worst character ever and I liked the performance. A bit of a mess if you try to plot out her character arc though. Someone else mentioned it but I think there's a lot of Indiana Jones' spirit in the modern Mission Impossible movies. Starting with Ghost Protocol Tom Cruise started leaning in on the "wait, how the hell is he going to get out of this one" vibes. Ethan Hunt is meant to be this badass superspy but there's almost a workmanlike feel in the way that he outsmarts or just plain gets lucky versus the immaculate skills of a hyper-focused John Wick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
Disco Pope posted:I really wish studios would re-cast rather than de-age or do cyber-necromancy. By this, I mean have a younger actor play the younger version of the character. A large part of it is that there’s no more stars, really. There’s still celebrities and good actors for sure, but there’s a really loving short list of actors whose name alone can carry a movie. Harrison Ford and Tom Cruise are one of the last of that type of actor. The studios gotta get as much as they can out of them,
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 01:46
|
|
|
Jose Oquendo posted:A large part of it is that there’s no more stars, really. There’s still celebrities and good actors for sure, but there’s a really loving short list of actors whose name alone can carry a movie. Harrison Ford and Tom Cruise are one of the last of that type of actor. The studios gotta get as much as they can out of them, The fact "there are no more stars" is kinda by design, though. As studios became more corporate into the 80's / 90's / 2000's, it became clear that IP is more valuable and dependable than any specific stars. Like, however much people enjoy Harrison Ford as Han Solo, Star Wars as a franchise isn't about him. It's the setting, the iconography, the characters and mythology that people respond to, and Disney already owns that in perpetuity. The IP doesn't fight them on anything, and it performs fairly predictably. Actors, by contrast, seem like a real shaky foundation to build upon. I'd say it's thus no coincidence that "stars who can open movies on their own" are a rapidly-aging category, because they all came into popularity when Boomers were still the primary drivers of the media market. Which was the last time "a superstar actor who gets asses in seats" was a thing, and also the last time creative execs took chances on original properties, vs. reducing risk on proven IP. Now, MBAs run everything, and the franchises that are popular are as decoupled from specific actors as studios can make them. Spider-Man or Harry Potter or whatever don't *need* Tom Holland or Daniel Radcliffe to be successful, and if they ask for too much or make things too difficult, they're expendable. The deepfake, de-aging, CG doppelganger thing is perfectly consistent with that, because the goal is for studios to own an actor's likeness as cheaply and reuse-ably as copyrighted art. 10-year contracts at low rates for Marvel actors is a way to reduce risk, but even lower risk is if there is no actor, and they're a bunch of models on a server. They don't age, don't ask for more money, don't complain about the script, can't organize, aren't capable of misconduct, and exist only to enrich the IP they're now part of. It's all upside. It just so happens the CG zombies are mostly older actors today because 1) of the vestigial reality that they were *capable* of being big stars in their heyday, and 2) old people are harder to sell and are sooner to die. And once they're dead, puppet Carrie Fisher or Harold Ramis or Tupac Shakur *really* can't object to anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 03:24
|
|
|
It sucks though. A star you love can salvage nearly any movie; at least make it fun, and beyond that draw you into new things you wouldn’t otherwise give a chance. Maybe a few years ago before what happened to Marbel and Star Wars I’d have felt differently, but I think we’ve soundly seen that IP can’t be counted on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 04:19
|
|
|
Koramei posted:It sucks though. A star you love can salvage nearly any movie; at least make it fun, and beyond that draw you into new things you wouldn’t otherwise give a chance. Maybe a few years ago before what happened to Marbel and Star Wars I’d have felt differently, but I think we’ve soundly seen that IP can’t be counted on. You can still love a star that isn't marketed as The Star. I really liked Iman Vellani in Ms. Marvel to the point that I'll happily follow her in anything she eventually chooses to do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 04:32
|
|
|
Xealot posted:I'd say it's thus no coincidence that "stars who can open movies on their own" are a rapidly-aging category, because they all came into popularity when Boomers were still the primary drivers of the media market. Which was the last time "a superstar actor who gets asses in seats" was a thing, and also the last time creative execs took chances on original properties, vs. reducing risk on proven IP. Now, MBAs run everything, and the franchises that are popular are as decoupled from specific actors as studios can make them. Spider-Man or Harry Potter or whatever don't *need* Tom Holland or Daniel Radcliffe to be successful, and if they ask for too much or make things too difficult, they're expendable. The Radcliff-less Potters sucked and died though, and one of the more profitable non-animated Marvel movies was a hit precisely because it featured the last two Spider-Man actors. You just can't separate a movie's impact from the people who act in them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 09:31
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:The Radcliff-less Potters sucked and died though, and one of the more profitable non-animated Marvel movies was a hit precisely because it featured the last two Spider-Man actors. I personally agree, because I'm on the side of humans doing art. But it really looks like rights-holders don't feel that way and are doing their best to downplay the actor's significance. The Radcliffe-less Potter movies suck, but it's not like Guns Akimbo or Swiss Army Man were huge successes. People didn't flock to Uncharted or The Crowded Room for Tom Holland, to Men in Black: International for Chris Hemsworth. People like these actors, but compare them to Harrison Ford or Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 80's/90's, who released numerous massively successful original films on the strength of their celebrity. These days, this almost never happens. It's way more about the franchise and the IP, almost every time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
I'm torn because a lot of what constitutes being a movie star is having a nose for (or just producing) good poo poo, and not skewing the good movie:bad movie ratio too badly. Nobody remembers Raw Deal or Red Heat. Nobody remembers Six Days Seven Nights and Sabrina. But for every one of those middling plops they had two or three insane mainstream smashes or a really great genre pictures. Tom Cruise is a movie star because....look at his filmography! It's just a parade of genre-defining hits or zeitgeist capturing smashes, to the point that nobody holds stuff like Knight and Day against him. No modern young person is allowed to be in stuff like this anymore, because they're all put in studio content mill crap. I guess what I'm saying is the death of the movie star is tied to the death of movies. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jul 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 22:06
|
|
|
Some good stuff is important for sure to get the ball rolling but I don't think they have to reliably be only in quality movies to be someone that brings out audiences; the 80s action stars were in more than their share of crap.Xealot posted:I personally agree, because I'm on the side of humans doing art. But it really looks like rights-holders don't feel that way and are doing their best to downplay the actor's significance. I think you're totally right the rights holders are trying to downplay actors; maybe successfully -- imo Holland, Hemsworth etc aren't big names in the way older stars were, maybe because studios actively don't want them to be. And it makes a lot of sense that the owners of an IP would want to place it front and center over anybody in it, so we don't get situations like with this very franchise where it's so tied to the star but the star has aged out and it's not fun anymore. It's all a logical set of decisions on the part of the IP owners, executives etc. I just think it's turning out to have been a kind of short sighted one. I'm hoping so, at least. I want stars back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 23:11
|
|
|
Many of the big stars of yesteryear were super hands-on in development of their projects, or at the very least brought in their own personal script doctors, or just had projects developed from the ground up around theor personas. This is much less common today—Cruise is still doing it with Mission Impossible, and The Rock has his whole branding team involved in the process, but outside of that I don't think there are many actor/producer types around these days. Maybe Ryan Reynolds and RDJ to a lesser extent? The sort of clout you need for that kinda thing definitely seems long gone for everyone but the tippy top.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2023 23:18
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I'm torn because a lot of what constitutes being a movie star is having a nose for (or just producing) good poo poo, and not skewing the good movie:bad movie ratio too badly. Nobody remembers Raw Deal or Red Heat. Nobody remembers Six Days Seven Nights and Sabrina. But for every one of those middling plops they had two or three insane mainstream smashes or a really great genre pictures. This is interesting and I might start my own thread, because it's interesting how little film fans talk about stars for the place they have in the system. I think we talk about performances and industry stuff, but rarely about stars and all that entails for personas and the like. I do think it's particularly relevant to this movie, though. Cruise and Ford are both pretty interesting in so far as I can't tell you much about them. Cruise must be considered a draw, because he keeps making movies. I think I like every Tom Cruise movie I've seen, but its never been because of Tom Cruise who is just some 5'2" Scientologist who throws himself off of buildings. I can't imagine being compelled to see something because he's in it - he just happens to have been in a lot of entertaining to good things. Ford is a grumpy guy, I guess? He seems to have benefitted from getting some iconic roles, but again, I couldn't imagine reading an interview with him or following him on Instagram or whatever. Kids might put up a poster of Indiana Jones, but its hard to imagine them putting one up of Harrison Ford. A lot of younger big names seem equally bland, but in a different way Thinking of younger actors (but not that young) there's this blandly genial eco-system of showing up on a talk show and telling the story about how a cop pulled you over because you were speeding but his kid was a massive Fight Wars: Return of the Guy Part II fan so you said the line and got off without a ticket and then you sing a song with James Corden or whatever. Maybe you and your co-star will crack each other up for a giffable moment or whatever. The only exception I can really think of are living memes like Keanu Reeves or Nicholas Cage. Arguably, Phoebe-Waller Bridgers seems to be leaning into a persona. That said, there are genre stars I'm interested in. Loads of horror actors and creators are still people I find interesting and often charming. I don't think people necessarily saw this for Harrison Ford, but it is hard to imagine anyone taking to a re-cast Indiana Jones. It's not inconceivable that he could have been like James Bond, but it it's hard to picture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
Disco Pope posted:A lot of younger big names seem equally bland, but in a different way Thinking of younger actors (but not that young) there's this blandly genial eco-system of showing up on a talk show and telling the story about how a cop pulled you over because you were speeding but his kid was a massive Fight Wars: Return of the Guy Part II fan so you said the line and got off without a ticket and then you sing a song with James Corden or whatever. Maybe you and your co-star will crack each other up for a giffable moment or whatever. The only exception I can really think of are living memes like Keanu Reeves or Nicholas Cage. Arguably, Phoebe-Waller Bridgers seems to be leaning into a persona. This is exactly what studio system promo was like in the 30s-50s, except you do a tap number after.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2023 01:33
|
|
|
You really have to include directors in this equation. I think if you ask Arnold or Tom Cruise why they were so successful in choosing so many worthy films to make over the years, they'd say that they gravitated to where the top level directing talent was. Obviously you have to get to a certain level where you have that ability to pick and choose, but guys like Arnold and Cruise established that status very early on, and they were able to zero in on amazing directors and try to work with those people as much as possible. Look at Arnold's filmography during his best run, it's all James Cameron and Ivan Reitman with a splash of Verhoeven and McTiernan. Cruise has creative control of Mission Impossible in 1996 and who does he go to? De Palma.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2023 01:48
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Yeah, there's a ton of culture war poo poo with Kathleen Kennedy ruining nerd stuff with wokism or whatever. there is nothing new about progressive messaging in movies. Her poo poo just sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2023 02:18
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Nobody remembers Raw Deal or Red Heat. Nobody remembers Six Days Seven Nights and Sabrina.” Sabrina is good
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2023 05:39
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I'm torn because a lot of what constitutes being a movie star is having a nose for (or just producing) good poo poo, and not skewing the good movie:bad movie ratio too badly. Nobody remembers Raw Deal or Red Heat. Nobody remembers Six Days Seven Nights and Sabrina. But for every one of those middling plops they had two or three insane mainstream smashes or a really great genre pictures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2023 05:43
|
|
|
The bankability of a movie star is probably even more relevant when they do make a movie like Knight and Day. You look at Cruise's supposed failures like Knight and Day or American Made and they're still making hundreds of millions and more than doubling the budget.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2023 06:02
|
|
|
Cruise has recently come out and said he's inspired by Ford doing Indiana Jones movies into his 80s, so Ethan Hunt is going to be going rogue and pissing off what's left of Jeremy Renner and Alec Baldwin for the next 20 years, it seems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2023 02:07
|
|
|
Finally got to watch this movie last night and honestly, it wasn't nearly as bad as many people made it seem. Maybe I was able to enjoy it more with very low expectations. It was alright, not amazing, but not terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
The REAL Goobusters posted:Finally got to watch this movie last night and honestly, it wasn't nearly as bad as many people made it seem. Maybe I was able to enjoy it more with very low expectations. It was alright, not amazing, but not terrible.  FoneBone posted:Anyone else get the sense that the finale was heavily rewritten to accommodate Harrison Ford’s on-set injury? what with Indy being injured in the shoulder, taking a mostly passive role, and then the very abrupt “knocked unconscious and waking up in his own bed” ending (this was so anticlimactic that I initially thought I was watching a fakeout dream sequence) LostRook posted:I absolutely believe the leaked original version of the ending where he was erased from time was real. A reminder that the rumored "leaked" ending involved Indy and Helena traveling back in time and meeting a pre-Raiders young Indy, whom ends up getting killed and subsequently erasing his older self from existence, forcing Helena to take up his role in all of Indy's adventures in the timeline, of which we supposedly see a montage sequence of. There's nothing in the movie that supports such a sequence, to say nothing of it sounding almost like a parody of the "Disney is going out of its way to piss you off" fan mentality. That said, the ending we have does scream "revision," but it seems clear to me the climax always took place in Ancient Greece; it's the coda in New York that was added. I really don't think Indy making it back was the original plan, in fact I'm pretty sure he was gonna croak. happyhippy posted:Is it true that they don't answer or remove the framed murder charges on Indy, so hes going to be forever on the run or in jail after the credits end? I think the authorities will put 2 and 2 together when they discover the CIA agent that was keeping tabs on the Nazis was shot and killed by said Nazis. I think this plot point was more about "this is why he can't just go to the authorities" more than it was "now Indiana Jones must clear his name!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 06:38
|
|
|
Some more thoughts on Dial-a-Destiny: The movie's more a tribute to Harrison Ford than it is about Indiana Jones, which is sweet but is also its biggest problem. The whole act in New York in particular feels like a lighthearted pastiche of various Harrison Ford thrillers like Clear and Present Danger and Frantic and The Fugitive; the Helena character is a "fan" of Jones/Ford who's made a career out of trying to imitate her superficial understanding of his persona. And in general it comes off like they were angling to make this Ford's The Shootist (I honest to god think they were aiming to nab Ford an Oscar nom). And honestly it feels like it was always conceived as such: Disney's never shown any real interest in the franchise (if for no other reason than Paramount still has a stake in it), it was greenlit in that post-Force Awakens "wow Harrison Ford's STILL got it!" afterglow, and without Lucas's active involvement and Spielberg dropping out, it was mostly sunk costs and Harrison Ford that was the impetus to keep the ball rolling on the production. The subtext here is "Harrison Ford was Indiana Jones, but he wasn't JUST Indiana Jones, he also did a lot of grown-up stuff and even serious dramas and poo poo, even though first and foremost he was Indiana Jones" (and yeah the past tense reads pretty morbid, but this is definitely a message being sent for posterity). And that in itself is just fine! The mistake here was to make it an actual Indiana Jones movie, because the sentiment not only gets all muddled, it risks souring us on it entirely, because it turns out when we go to see an Indiana Jones movie, we actually do want Indiana Jones more than we do Harrison Ford. What would've worked is if this was a new character who could better serve as a proxy for "Famous Icon Harrison Ford" and that we could accept from the get-go as someone who was 70% Han Solo/ Indy Jones and 30% serious poo poo dude, rather than try to retroactively add a serious grown up side to the Indiana Jones character himself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2023 08:10
|
|
|
Disco Pope posted:That's very true, I think I was having a bit of a blind spot! Sean Connery was doing genre flicks right up to retirement too. I think what probably feels different is the way it intersects with the nostalgia cycle and franchise cinema. Charles Bronson is another example. He was in his fifties doing HARD TIMES with lots of shirtless bare-knuckle boxing and he looks and moves great. By the time of the last DEATH WISH, he was all gray and wrinkled but still selling the image.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 08:20
|
|
|
Movie's streaming now. Still didn't like it much. The writing/editing/reshooting by committee stands out, it really feels like it came in super hot. But it's firmed up for me as being better than Crystal Skull. I never really want to watch that again except maybe to heckle it for fun. This one...there's something there? An annoyingly elusive thread of a good movie. I don't think it's fixable with what they had in the can, unfortunately. What a mess. Also, hearty lol at the whitewashing of Operation Paperclip. Aw shucks, those pesky nazis pulled one over on the honest CIA by changing their names!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2023 13:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:17 |
|
|
This was cinematic novocain. Absolutely lifeless nostalgiabait.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2023 16:28
|
|
