|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:I actually just watched Sin City 2 on Netflix the other night and kinda liked it. The CGI looked really bad in parts and the writing suffered from the usual Frank Miller problems, but the short with Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the gambler was legitimately great, and while the other two were way more uneven, they at least had the decency to put a lot of Marv in those two. How much of your willingness to engage with the film driven by just how much Eva Green gets naked?
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:How much of this is just how much Eva Green gets naked? Eva Green has been naked in way better movies than Sin City 2. Keep in mind I'm not saying it's particularly great (frankly, the CGI made me shocked it was even in loving theaters), it just pleasantly surprised me because I went in with my expectations in the absolute dirt. (My willingness to engage with the movie was because I saw it on Netflix, saw that it was under two hours, and went "gently caress it, why not?" I'm willing to cut a movie a lot of slack if it comes and goes relatively quickly, given how many movies are nearly 3 loving hours for no reason nowadays.) WeedlordGoku69 fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Eva Green, naked or otherwise, is the best part of a slew of bad movies. One of these days, I hope she becomes the best part of a good movie (although I hear Penny Dreadful was pretty good?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Eva Green, naked or otherwise, is the best part of a slew of bad movies. One of these days, I hope she becomes the best part of a good movie (although I hear Penny Dreadful was pretty good?) The Dreamers is pretty good!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Kingdom of Heaven owns bones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Kingdom of Heaven owns bones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:The director's cut, yes. The theatrical is just okay. Well, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Eva Green, naked or otherwise, is the best part of a slew of bad movies. One of these days, I hope she becomes the best part of a good movie (although I hear Penny Dreadful was pretty good?) It definitely made 300: Rise Of An Empire 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
she is really good being naked in Penny Dreadful and she even gets to act as a crazy demon-possessed naked person!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Eva Green, naked or otherwise, is the best part of a slew of bad movies. One of these days, I hope she becomes the best part of a good movie (although I hear Penny Dreadful was pretty good?) Penny Dreadful was awesome except the part where it got cancelled.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:It definitely made 300: Rise Of An Empire She was unironically the best thing about that movie, nudity notwithstanding. She took a role that could've been badly acted and absolutely owned it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:I actually just watched Sin City 2 on Netflix the other night and kinda liked it. The CGI looked really bad in parts and the writing suffered from the usual Frank Miller problems, but the short with Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the gambler was legitimately great, and while the other two were way more uneven, they at least had the decency to put a lot of Marv in those two. I thought the Joseph Gordon-Levitt storyline was pretty much as good as the stories from the first four Sin City comics (the only ones that are actually any good), which is saying something since it was something written by Frank Miller post-9/11. Christopher Lloyd's cameo was great, too. Outside of JGL's storyline, Eva Green and Powers Boothe were the only things in it I liked. It honestly reminded me of one of those 90's direct-to-video sequels (like the From Dusk Till Dawn sequels for example, to stick with Rodriguez). It's almost impressive that a movie released in 2014 with a much higher budget had special effects that much worse than a movie released in 2005.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Sin City 2 feels and looks like a no-budget fan film made by complete amateurs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:As the title implies, the monster in the film is a plantlike 'life-spirit'. It has all the exact same traits as Groot, but is obviously not celebrated as this loveable spirit of nature with cycles of rebirth or whatever. LIFE, correctly, focuses on Groot's fundamental obscenity. Like his tendency to extend his roots into people - to eat them? Groot persists in the exact way that we say someone persists in a vegetative state. It's the Werner Herzog take on Groot: This deserves to be heard in Herzog's own voice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xQyQnXrLb0
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
I love the way he says "naytcha".
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Eva Green, naked or otherwise, is the best part of a slew of bad movies. One of these days, I hope she becomes the best part of a good movie (although I hear Penny Dreadful was pretty good?) penny dreadful is bad, kind of like how true blood was bad, it takes its premise sorta seriously at first but ditches it by the end. It's watchable TV and given how short of a run Penny Dreadful had, i recommend watching it, but fast forward through anything where frankenstein's monster is on screen too long. eva green writhing around naked demon possessed is kinda awesome but it has merits beyond sexiness, but it's 100% camp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:penny dreadful is bad, kind of like how true blood was bad, it takes its premise sorta seriously at first but ditches it by the end. It's watchable TV and given how short of a run Penny Dreadful had, i recommend watching it, but fast forward through anything where frankenstein's monster is on screen too long. The cut-wife stuff was really cool, the cheesy fight scenes with a bunch of generic baddies were terrible though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Sin City 2 feels and looks like a no-budget fan film made by complete amateurs. Nah. Most of the movie is fine except for a few bits where it just abruptly falls apart; I'm assuming the budget ran out before the CGI was finished and they had to release the movie with temp effects or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:I actually just watched Sin City 2 on Netflix the other night and kinda liked it. The CGI looked really bad in parts and the writing suffered from the usual Frank Miller problems, but the short with Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the gambler was legitimately great, and while the other two were way more uneven, they at least had the decency to put a lot of Marv in those two. The problem with the gambler segment is that Powers Boothe character dies just a couple days later in a different segment. "Everyone will know that I beat you" doesn't carry much weight when the big cheese croaks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 09:54
|
|
|
Vanderdeath posted:She was unironically the best thing about that movie, nudity notwithstanding. She took a role that could've been badly acted and absolutely owned it. I still love that the secret weapon the Athenians brought to fight the Persian navy was a horse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 14:23
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:I thought the Joseph Gordon-Levitt storyline was pretty much as good as the stories from the first four Sin City comics (the only ones that are actually any good), which is saying something since it was something written by Frank Miller post-9/11. Christopher Lloyd's cameo was great, too. I agree with this, JGL's segment was good. The Dame to Kill For segment was alright but kinda just felt like more of the same, if that makes sense. Nancy's story was trash that felt like bad fan-fiction and doesn't even make sense in the time-line of the movies, as well as taking away any impact of Rourke killing Roark in the first movie. I need to give the 300 sequel another try one of these days. I rented it from a Red Box shortly after it came out, but was in a depressive funk at the time and turned it off part way through. I didn't dislike it, I just didn't care. I need to try watching it when I can actually pay attention to it better.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Sin City 2 feels and looks like a no-budget fan film made by complete amateurs. This, could not believe how bad it was. I feel like pasting this old post I made about it. I wasn't a huge fan of the first Sin City movie but I watched the 2014 one on Netflix and holy poo poo this is crap and looks cheap as hell. I know basically every shot in the movie is a special effects shot because of how they make the look but almost every time anything more complicated than "two people talk to each other" happens it straight up looks unfinished, like unbelievably bad. It really stands out because there are a few moments that look great. Christopher Lloyd's scene is awesome thanks to him. Mickey Rourke's makeup looks really weird, I think because everything is a little brighter this time around. It looks obvious and trying too hard compared to the silhouette and look he has in Sin City 1. Obviously that was eleven years ago but this is more on the makeup and the movie's look than on him aging. There's a moment that reminded me of the many "Fred Williamson is too old to do action scenes now so just have every other actor move super super slowly" moments of the 80s towards the end though when Mickey Rourke/Marv and Jessica Alba/Nancy are confronted by some by a trio of bikers. These guys are armed to the teeth, their leader holding one of those badass combat shotguns they use in movies a lot in each hand, and they make it clear that if Marv doesn't let them pass then Marv will die. But fortunately because they didn't have the budget or the stunt people or whatever Rourke is able to diffuse the situation by calmly walking all the way up to the lead guy and taking both of his guns away and shooting all three of them as casually as someone would walk down the driveway to pick up the morning paper because they all just stand there motionless during this. How polite! Were small segments of this ghost directed or overseen by someone other than Frank Miller? There's a brief point where Senator Roark's magician/gambler exiled son is getting abducted and beaten, as he describes how lovely this is we see his body flatten and transition into the gleam off the fender of the car he's being driven away in. For this brief bit like Christopher Lloyd's scene everything comes together and the movie is striking and almost good. That story was basically the only decent part of the movie. I will say one thing, besides Jamie King none of the characters with more than half a line turn in a mega awful performance like Michael Madsen in Sin City 1. Everyone's in real peak scenery chewing form, but Frank Miller is just terrible enough a scriptwriter that they the cast can't carry it. Looking back as this post, the movie was so bad that it made me completely forget that Eva Green was in it. And given what her scenes in the movie are that's quite a feat. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
They waited 10 years too long to make it and it feels like a half-assed rehash with nothing more to say, which it has in common with most of Miller's work at this point. 301: War of the Tittyfiend is also a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Woah, Michael Madson was great in Sin City. It's like a performance straight out of the 80's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
The words "bum ticker" are forever ingrained in my brain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Yes they do. It's just that, unlike Groot, they wait for you to die before absorbing your nutrients. Does Groot eat somebody in Guardians of the Galaxy that I'm forgetting?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Does Groot eat somebody in Guardians of the Galaxy that I'm forgetting? No.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Does Groot eat somebody in Guardians of the Galaxy that I'm forgetting? no but he kills people with the eat-y parts of a tree so figuratively it sorta works
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
I liked Guardians of the Galaxy well enough, but a scene of Groot sucking dry a corpse definitely would have improved it. Maybe GotG2 will reveal that Rocket lets Baby Groot feed off him at night.Brother Entropy posted:no but he kills people with the eat-y parts of a tree so figuratively it sorta works Most of the mass of a tree comes from the air as absorbed by leaves, which Groot doesn't have 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Does Groot eat somebody in Guardians of the Galaxy that I'm forgetting? Someday you will die, and Somehow something's going to steal your carbon Someday something will die, and Somehow you'll figure out how Often you will die somehow, and Something's going to steal your carbon
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Maybe the scene in GotG1 where he impales like six dudes on his branches simultaneously and is just overkill thrashing the bodies around gleefully for like a minute straight is his feeding process.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Most of the mass of a tree comes from the air as absorbed by leaves, which Groot doesn't have imagine how much eating his roots must have to do since he doesn't have leaves!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Mierenneuker posted:The words "bum ticker" are forever ingrained in my brain. Literally the only thing I can recall when I think of this movie
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
"you can't even lift that cannon"
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
And mah mitts
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Does Groot eat somebody in Guardians of the Galaxy that I'm forgetting? Implicitly, yes. He also practices autocannibalism. Sir Kodiak posted:Most of the mass of a tree comes from the air as absorbed by leaves, which Groot doesn't have Right - that's why he must impale other lifeforms with his (g)roots. In any case, the point is to highlight the ideological difference between the films: unless you count the impalings-by-root Groot does not have any onscreen food source. Yet he obviously must eat to survive, let alone to perform his various special abilities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Implicitly, yes. He also practices autocannibalism. I find it interesting that the marvel films have a very consistent moral system where it's a-ok for the heroes to straight up kill a lot of people without really dwelling on it at all. I haven't seen the more recent ones though so maybe there is a scene where iron man and hawkeye discuss how they feel about having taken so many lives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:I find it interesting that the marvel films have a very consistent moral system where it's a-ok for the heroes to straight up kill a lot of people without really dwelling on it at all. I haven't seen the more recent ones though so maybe there is a scene where iron man and hawkeye discuss how they feel about having taken so many lives. Dr. Strange expressed regret at killing people in his movie in a cursory sort of way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:In any case, the point is to highlight the ideological difference between the films: unless you count the impalings-by-root Groot does not have any onscreen food source. Yet he obviously must eat to survive, let alone to perform his various special abilities. Sure. Life is what you get when Groot isn't locked into homeostasis and celibacy. Which is going to be weird now that we're dealing with his child in GotG2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Dr. Strange expressed regret at killing people in his movie in a cursory sort of way. Well he did have the hippocratic oath thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 23:19
|
|