|
That is NOT a tasteless Mexican joke.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
Who gave this son of a bitch his green card?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Apparently Thief is leaving March 1st as well. Time to watch it finally!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
The old RoboCop has a clear message and themes and the story is very focused throughout. On the other hand, new RoboCop is kind of all over the place, and Samuel L. Jackson's character is way too on the nose and doesn't really serve any other purpose than to refocus the narrative every time it starts to meander. The new RoboCop is a movie that you really want to like, but it just isn't put together well. It's like the story is this organic thing that wants to into interesting directions, but every time it does someone reigns it back in and says, "no, RoboCop isn't like this." In a void it could easily be a cult classic type of movie, it's heavily flawed, but likeable. However, since it's a remake of a movie that already nailed the concept it's ultimately going to be a really forgettable movie. You might as well just spend your time watching or rewatching the 1987 RoboCop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
new robocop is a different film than old robocop yet still just as enjoyable, for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
I love the old robocop and the new one isn't nearly as good. However, there is one really drat effective scene that really caught my attention. The scene where the armor is revealed and all you see are his lungs and head.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
X-Ray Pecs posted:I haven't seen the the remake, so I only pass judgement on the original, which is a lot of fun. Is the remake even on streaming? It is fun in it's absolute campiness. It was, but I believe it's gone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
The Robocop remake had impossible shoes to fill and I think they knew that going in and still made it tepid and unremarkable. As was said before, it introduced some interesting ideas that then went nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
I'm that weird guy who's never seen the original Robocop beyond some clips here or there. Would I be best served watching hte new before the old, or vice versa, or only the old?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Pander posted:I'm that weird guy who's never seen the original Robocop beyond some clips here or there. Watch the old one right loving now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Pander posted:I'm that weird guy who's never seen the original Robocop beyond some clips here or there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Watch the original, then watch Robocop 2, then don't watch the new one. This but don't watch Robocop 2 either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Pander posted:I'm that weird guy who's never seen the original Robocop beyond some clips here or there. The original Robocop is a classic, watch it asap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:This but don't watch Robocop 2 either. But whatever you do, don't watch Robocop 3. It's a soulless slog that's a waste of your time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Didn't they saw off the legs of the RoboCop suit to make it fit the new actor in the third one? Or was that for the somehow even worse TV movies? (My "favorite" part of Robo 3 is Nancy Allen's performance. If you want a textbook example of phoning it in I don't think you can do any better. I think she chews bubblegum during 100% of her scenes)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
The Fly 2 sucks, but it's a way better sequel to RoboCop than RoboCop 2. RoboCop 2 is also not as interesting as the new RoboCop by virtue of cribbing the morbidity and cynicism of the original film and going nowhere interesting with it. The new RoboCop, on the other hand, despite Samuel L. Jackson's often hilarious performance, in no way attempts to be nearly as blackly comic as the original, and is better than any 'true' sequel for it. Instead, it takes a much more removed and sterile perspective to match its aesthetic 'streamlining' of an 'old model.' This is a given from the opening sequences of robot armies patrolling the streets in full force as a colonial regime that successfully stamps out resistance. The point of RoboCop is that we didn't learn anything from RoboCop. We're not laughing because we haven't earned the right to treat our contemporary investment in globalized oppression with levity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Robocop 2 commits the cardinal sin of completely wasting Tom Noonan which is far worse than any of the minor blunders committed by the remake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Robocop 2 isn't as much of a classic as the first one, but it's still a hell of a lot more entertaining than the new one is. It has the same kind of dark humor/satire as the first one (except cranked up to an even higher level) and some pretty memorable villains. Robocop 2 is memorable in that absurd, completely over the top action movie of the 80's kind of way (okay, it's from 1990, but it's still from that block of insane action films of the time). It's not a good movie, but it's very entertaining. In fact, I'm halfway through rewatching it as I post this. It's hilarious that Detroit is in trouble because they owe OCP $37 million. I'm sure Detroit dreams of just owing someone $37 million...
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Robocop 2 is a bad imitation of the first one. The satire is now incredibly broad to the point of being uninteresting and it kind of took the dark humor of the first and just made it jokey, which would be okay I guess but it's also really not funny. Yes, it is WAY better than Robocop 3 but that's true of most movies. Being better than Robocop 3 is not a reason to watch a movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
It's also co-written by Frank Miller, who, despite probably sharing Verhoeven's anti-corporate affinities, is bound to interpret these in ways that are implicitly pro-fascist. The ending of RoboCop is just a comic-reversal on the 'stormy' conclusion of John Ford's Young Mr. Lincoln. RoboCop 2 treats it as 'a step in the right direction.' It's odd, because RoboCop 2 is basically Frank Miller doing to Paul Verhoeven what Paul Verhoeven eventually did with Robert A. Heinlein.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Robocop 2 is a good example of why the push to keep kids out of R-rated movies developed in the '90s. The first Robocop gained a clear kids demographic with toys and a cartoon and lunch boxes and whatever else. Then they ended up making a sequel where one of the main villains is a violent 12-year-old drug dealer and a team of little leaguers beats up and robs a shopkeeper.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Simplex posted:The old RoboCop has a clear message and themes and the story is very focused throughout. On the other hand, new RoboCop is kind of all over the place, and Samuel L. Jackson's character is way too on the nose and doesn't really serve any other purpose than to refocus the narrative every time it starts to meander. Nope, the remake has a very clear message it's just not "Robocop is the savior of the city", it's "Robocop is the tool we need to make lots of money". Or to be more specific: Robocop the original is "we can use Robocop as our replacement police force" whereas the remake is "we can use Robocop to justify replacing the police force". computer parts fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Nope, the remake has a very clear message it's just not "Robocop is the savior of the city", it's "Robocop is the tool we need to make lots of money". That is not the message at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:The Fly 2 sucks
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Housebound is fun stuff. The Raimi-esque shout out was pretty spot on. And its not a Raimi rip off or even a homage it just has a bit of his vibe and its own voice as well. Do watch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:That is not the message at all. That's definitely the message of the remake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's definitely the message of the remake. I would say those are the ideas the characters in the films have but I wouldn't say those are the messages of the films.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
I watched Kill List tonight since I'd seen it mentioned in this and the previous streaming thread. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Really enjoyed it pretty much all the way through, but my immediate reaction to the ending was pretty negative. But now that I'm thinking about it more things seem to be clicking into place (not so much plotwise, more thematically)- it's that sort of movie. Probably worth a second watch I'm thinking. If you ever watch this don't read anything about it! Going in blind is the way to go. Opinions on it online seem to be pretty divided. There was a pretty hilarious rant in the comments of one review talking about how anyone who liked it must be pedophiles. It's a violent movie but I don't know where the hell he was getting that from.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
After I wrapped up watching Also, they had one of the best and most recognizable movie scores ever at their disposal. Maybe they could have used more than five seconds of it when they displayed the title. But that's kind of a petty gripe compared to everything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:After I wrapped up watching computer parts posted:Nope, the remake has a very clear message it's just not "Robocop is the savior of the city", it's "Robocop is the tool we need to make lots of money". I would argue that's not the message of either movies really. 1987 RoboCop is almost explicitly a movie about the death of American factory jobs. 2014 RoboCop at first is a movie about how a militarized drone police force doesn't value human life. Then it's about corporate and national politics, where RoboCop is somewhat of a secondary character, then it kind of dabbles into the nature of humanity itself before it finally settles on just being kind of a run of the mill superhero origins story. Simplex fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I would not recommend ABC's of Death 1 under any circumstances. This is from two pages back, but it is insane. No one could ever argue that the movie is consistent quality or tone-wise, and it definitely runs long, but there is some really really awesome stuff in there. I watched the movie probably four times, once intoxicated but the other three stone sober, and it really has some gems. First of all, watch it for the first time with other people if you can. No, not so "you can all make fun of it" or whatever (though you certainly can and there is a good amount to make fun of) but because the movie sets up a great unabashedly-gimmicky little game for you on first viewing. The way the movie is set up is that there are 26 shorts where 26 directors (well, 25 and a bunch of randos competing for one last slot) were given a letter of the alphabet and $5000. They were allowed to make whatever they wanted as long as it wasn't straight up porn, and as long as it corresponded with their letter of the alphabet and the theme of death. I think what gets a lot of people is that there was no stipulation at all to make a horror short, so some people didn't. A lot did though, so the movie is always found under the horror section. That could definitely turn people off. Anyways, the gimmicky game I mentioned earlier is that the title of each piece is only revealed at the end of the short in question. They are all in alphabetical order, and all follow the "A is for... B is for..." naming formula. I seriously had an amazing time with my friends trying to guess what each letter would stand for. Some of them cheat or make no sense or use other languages, but most don't and it is pretty great. Also, for the record, some of the strongest shorts are not traditional horror at all. As to the shorts themselves, I totally understand skipping a couple. I also understand breaking the viewing up into two or more sessions. However, if you quit before the end you have shot yourself in the foot, because the last letters are seriously dense quality-wise. Now, because I am insane and really like the movie, I will review each short. No spoilers, but if you're wondering whether or not to skip something this might help. I'm gonna throw spoiler tags on it in case you don't even want an inkling about each short, but really, no spoilers. A: An excellent start. If you can enjoy this, the movie might be for you. Not the best of the bunch but not bad at all. B: Basically a trope (on purpose), definitely amateur, I wouldn't skip it but you might. C: Awesome concept, middling execution, still a trope at heart. Watch it. D: One of the best shorts in the whole movie, not exactly horror either, stylish as hell. E: One of those ones that doesn't really stick in your head. I'd watch it but I bet you won't really remember it unless you have a phobia. F: The absolute worst short in the whole movie. If you originally turned the movie off here I cannot blame you at all. Only watch if morbidly curious. G: Another not-really-horror short. A bit longer than the concept deserves, but not much. Guessing this one is fun. H: Not at all horror. While I can't call it the prettiest or deepest short at all, it commits to its weirdness with a passion and will probably make you grin. I really liked it. I: loving brutal on the soul. Watch it. J: Not horror. Pretty drat funny if you like weirdness. I liked it. K: Not horror. Basically an extended infantile joke, but well done and funny if you like that stuff. One of two animated shorts. L: hosed. Up. Also has the leader from the cult segment from VHS 2. One of my favorites, not at all comfortable to watch. DO NOT watch with your parents, that sort of thing. M: Utterly mediocre short from Ti West, whose House of the Devil and The Inkeepers movies I really liked. Super disappointing. Skip at will, though at least it is one of the shortest pieces in the whole movie. N: Not horror. You see where it is going a mile away but I still laughed. O: Not horror. Also kinda pretentious while not saying a drat thing except maybe making a french pun. Waste of an abstract piece, skip if you get bored. P: Not horror, definitely horrific. If you're an animal person I might skip it. I liked it, for the record. I thought it really embraced the concept of the whole movie better than a lot of the other not-horror shorts. Q: Not horror. I loved this one. Just extended meta-humor but really well done. Directed by Adam Wingard, you might know him from VHS 2, he directed and starred in the one about the eye implant. R: The most pretentious bullshit in the whole movie. Totally film 101-level philosophy taken unbelievably seriously. You will want to slap everyone involved. Skip unless you want to develop an eye twitch. S: Campy and corny, I'd still watch it because I genuinely liked the "twist", opinions may vary. T: The other animated short, also the one that found its way into the movie by winning a contest. One of my favorites. From Lee Hardcastle, the claymation guy on youtube who does The Thing parodies (among other things). Also apparently he completely did not expect to win. U: Does nothing new or original other than the point of view, has some of the better production values in the movie, still fun to watch. Definitely above average. V: V is for Vancouver, and nothing will convince me otherwise. The actual name is dumb. This short bit off more than it could chew by trying for CGI elements, budget stretch definitely apparent in laughable props (literal, completely recognizable Nerf guns painted black). Not great. W: Not horror, by the Metalocalypse guys, I really liked it as a change of pace. X: Holy. loving. poo poo. The first time I watched this it made me physically sick to my stomach. Later viewings were not as powerful but hot loving drat. Watch the poo poo out of this one. Also apparently the director felt insulted when they gave him X because he thought they were trying to force him into going on an XXX route, so he went... elsewhere. Y: Stylish as gently caress. The best looking and best sounding short in the whole movie. Also gross, but hot drat. Soundtrack reminded me of Drive. Do not skip. Z: Batshit crazy, exactly what you would expect from the director of Tokyo Gore Police (home of the dick cannon, artery jetpack, and sword gimp). A fitting end to the movie. Sorry for the wall of text, try watching the movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
I'm a year late to the party but I've been slowly getting through Cosmos and the way Neil DeGrasse Tyson says the word "water" makes me cringe. Warr-durr
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
Simplex posted:
Corporate and national politics are vitally entwined with a militarized drone police force.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Blisster posted:I watched Kill List tonight since I'd seen it mentioned in this and the previous streaming thread. I was full of vitriol over this movie for days and weeks after seeing it, bloviating ad nauseum to anyone who would listen about how godawful it was, much worse than a standard bad movie because it was so technically well-made. The more I thought about it though, a movie that upset me that much deserved at least some credit for being provocative. And I have to admit that the provocative element didn't feel especially cheap, even though I still feel it wasn't ultimately justified by the contextual narrative. Overall, it's a movie I wouldn't watch again and I definitely didn't enjoy it, but my initial revulsion has mellowed into a sort of begrudging respect for what the filmmaker was trying to do. On a separate note re: movies expiring March 1, the wife & I recently watched The Graduate for the first time and we were both pleasantly surprised at how quirky and odd it was. For such an iconic movie, I think I was expecting a more conventional style, but everything from the pacing to the dialog to the soundtrack are all just slightly strange in a really wonderful way. It made me want to watch more early Mike Nichols.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Samfucius posted:This is from two pages back, but it is insane. No one could ever argue that the movie is consistent quality or tone-wise, and it definitely runs long, but there is some really really awesome stuff in there. I watched the movie probably four times, once intoxicated but the other three stone sober, and it really has some gems. Counterpoint: The ABC's of Death is garbage and no one should watch it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
RoboCop 2 chat: This was a movie I loved in high school but when I watched it several years later it really, really doesn't hold up. It's sorta similar to Predator 2 in that they ramp up the gore and violence but miss the core of what made the first one a hit. I suppose there are worse things to watch once; there are some action scenes that are OK and the humor occasionally works. It is a fine example of that 80s action excess that isn't really around anymore. Someone mentioned Frank Miller's involvement and I wanted to expand on that a bit. Miller wrote the original script for RoboCop 2 (he's actually in the movie too as a scientist). However, the studio wisely thought it was unfilmable and yanked a lot of stuff out of it. I've heard that when Irvin Kershner (the director of Empire Strikes Back) was brought on to save the film he edited it even more, sometimes even doing daily rewrites. I don't know if he was going to retire anyway, but RoboCop 2 ended up being the last movie he directed. For years afterwards Miller claimed that they had ruined his original script and the movie would have been much better with his original vision. Well, someone inadvertently called his bluff and adapted the original script into a comic book which was even worse than the movie. In retrospect it actually improves the standing of the second movie, because if that dreck was the starting point it's amazing the end result wasn't totally unwatchable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Counterpoint: The ABC's of Death is garbage and no one should watch it. I second that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
david_a posted:Didn't they saw off the legs of the RoboCop suit to make it fit the new actor in the third one? Or was that for the somehow even worse TV movies? They crammed Robert John Burke, who's built like a linebacker, into suits made for Peter Weller on RoboCop 3 -- that's why he looks so awkward, he's quite literally bursting out of the suit. It was on Prime Directives that they took a hacksaw to the legs in order to make them fit Page Fletcher, who was something like 5'6". Rob Bottin had loaned suits from his personal collection to the production, and when he got them back, he was decidedly less than pleased. Anyway, going back to RoboCop 3, while it is indeed a mess, it does have some good stuff going for it -- Burke does a really admirable job, John Castle chews scenery like nobody's business, and they got Basil Poledouris back to do the score (that alone gives it points over 2, which had Leonard Rosenman recycling the same score for like the fifth time).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Raskolnikov2089 posted:I second that. I'll third. Motion passes. ABCs of Death is garbage. Seriously though, as I said earlier, I was downright shocked at how bad that movie turned out. The best segments there are mediocre and the worst are borderline unwatchable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
If you've ran through every good horror movie that Netflix has, and you for some reason don't feel like re-watching them, then ABCs of Death is okay. There are some shorts that I like, but it's really not worth watching the whole thing for, like, five(?) good ones. I just made a list of horror movies on streaming for this thread, so there's really no reason to watch ABC's other than you've ran out of everything else. If you really need a horror anthology, you have both V/H/S movies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 17:13
|
|
