tommythecat
Flush
Glad to hear it isn't a flop. I am looking forward to seeing it sometime in the next week or two.
-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
PCF at the Movies (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter jbutler
- Start date
detroitdad
Royal Flush
My boy and I ate going wed. Glad to hear a positive review.
holy shit how badass does this movie look?
and all with no lighting rig, no bulbs, nothing but natural light or whatever was otherwise used in the filmed scene (appears to be exclusively fire?). this just jumped way up on my most-anticipated list.
and all with no lighting rig, no bulbs, nothing but natural light or whatever was otherwise used in the filmed scene (appears to be exclusively fire?). this just jumped way up on my most-anticipated list.
atomiktoaster
Full House
Sounds like Tiny Rudd will be better than Jurassic Pratt. (My phone keyboard now suggests "Pratt" after I type "Jurassic")
I wouldn't lay the credit or blame at the feet of either, really. JW's failures were due to the writing and Ant-Man's strengths were evident despite the poor writing. I guess in that sense you can credit the direction of Ant-Man as showing JW's director how to make a mediocre script watchable. Which is a bummer because that guy has been rumored as the director of Star Wars #9...
saw Trainwreck with Amy Schumer tonight and while i didn't have high expectations, it still fell well short. it was a giant mess structurally and the pace was terrible. how comedies came to be 2 hours long is just unjustifiable. and this is a particularly egregious example as there are so, so many scenes that could have been so, so easily chopped out to make it a manageable 90 minute movie.
there are a fair number of laughs, but there are a ton of jokes and attempted gags that fall so flat that it's almost sad. the athlete cameos and supporting parts are terrible (save john cena's which is actually entertaining at a couple points) and drag the movie down tremendously. and with such an excessive runtime, it is a complete travesty that there's no more character development. i would love to hear anyone try to explain what the hell either of the main characters sees in one another that should make me believe they really want to be together.
it's hard to believe the same Amy Schumer who writes and appears on her tv show wrote this movie. it's not subversive in any meaningful way. it's not insightful. it's just a by-the-numbers romantic comedy. if they had cut out about half an hour, they'd have had a chance at a decent movie.
there are a fair number of laughs, but there are a ton of jokes and attempted gags that fall so flat that it's almost sad. the athlete cameos and supporting parts are terrible (save john cena's which is actually entertaining at a couple points) and drag the movie down tremendously. and with such an excessive runtime, it is a complete travesty that there's no more character development. i would love to hear anyone try to explain what the hell either of the main characters sees in one another that should make me believe they really want to be together.
it's hard to believe the same Amy Schumer who writes and appears on her tv show wrote this movie. it's not subversive in any meaningful way. it's not insightful. it's just a by-the-numbers romantic comedy. if they had cut out about half an hour, they'd have had a chance at a decent movie.
Yeah, Amy's stuff can be hit or miss. A number of her tv show sketches fall flat as well. Trainwreck had "quick money grab" written all over it, trying to capitalize on her current popularity before it burns out.
my point, though, is that it isn't like her sketches at all. i don't mind if she goes for something risky and it fails. i would rather she do that. and all movies - particular mainstream comedies - are money grabs in the sense that they're only made because the producers think they can be profitable. i think this movie is motivated primarily by judd apatow wanting to feel like he's keeping up with what is most current in comedy.
Kinda reminds me how they started putting Grumpy Cat on everything in an effort to quickly cash in before interest fades (wife and I saw some Friskies moist food packs with Grumpy Cat pics on them and "funny" grumpy cat names for the packs). Just kinda made us eyeroll at the oversaturation. I think Schumer risks that oversaturation as well (kinda like Angry Birds or that puppet guy with Akmed the dead terrorist, we were just hammered with it over and over and grew sick of it).
I guess you've gotta get that money while you can, I certainly respect that. But I'd be more interested in trying to develop a career with longevity than just signing on to everything that is willing to throw money at me
i don't understand why you assume it's not a genuine creative endeavor for her. she wrote the script and stars in the movie.
Well, I'm assuming it's a Rom-Com, yes? Does Schumer strike you as the Jennifer Aniston type that is interested in romance? I dunno, just seems like it was promoted in a friendly every-movie rom-com style, rather than the brash, raw stuff she's kinda known for. At least from the trailers I saw, it looks watered down by Hollywood execs, perhaps to appeal to a wider audience, rather than remaining true to her style?
it was written by amy schumer and directed by judd apatow who had final edit. i'm quite sure at least judd apatow has enough clout to keep the movie from being watered down. just because you don't like her creative choices doesn't make the project a money grab.
and trailers are maybe the worst way to try to get a handle on a movie's tone and content. if you want to have a strong opinion about a movie, it would seem wise to actually watch the movie first.
I only go to the movies for action flicks where you need the big screen experience. Comedies I save for post movie release.
Do you see EVERY movie because trailers can't be trusted (actually, you watch a shit-ton of movies, so maybe you do?) A trailer is designed to sell you on the movie, I wasn't sold. Also, I don't see anything about what I wrote as coming across as a "strong opinion"? Just assumptions based on my experiences with Hollywood and other projects, and what I've seen via trailers and her show.
manamongkids
Full House
JButler vs Grandgnu round 2.
when you condemn something someone spent years making as a "money grab" and extrapolate that she is more interested in "signing on to everything that is willing to throw money" at her than a long career, that's a strong opinion and you base it entirely on a trailer.
I don't see "years" thrown into this project
http://splitsider.com/2013/11/the-next-movie-judd-apatow-is-directing-is-amy-schumers-train-wreck/
Actually, it's an entirely reasonable belief that is based on more than just the trailer (but thanks for constantly putting words into my mouth, seems to be your go-to move counselor). Her tv show is hit or miss, with many sketches that are sophomoric and catering to the lowest common denominator.
Given the voice she projects in her stand-up and her tv show, it makes little sense for her to star in a ROMANTIC comedy that by all accounts falls into the typical love story formula that all Rom-Coms do. The project itself doesn't match up with the image she has portrayed of herself via her other mediums, and thus very easily comes across as a "money grab". I wonder how long it'll be before she's selling us $1,000 in quick cash like Montel Williams?
your powers of deduction and general understanding of the world are shit. based on your own article, the movie was picked up by judd apatow in august of 2013, 23 months before the release of the movie. projects have been in the incubation stages for months - sometimes years - before they are picked up by producers. quite obviously, amy worked on the project for years.
so it's a money grab because its style doesn't match her sketch show. do you think the blues brothers movie was a money grab? i mean, there were no car chases or constant celebrity cameos when the sketch was on SNL.
And jbutler is still defending that piece of garbage movie he didn't enjoy. Can't wait until Schumer is selling us weight loss products.
In other news, Louie CK isn't funny and neither is Aziz Ansari.
#threadkilla
In other news, Louie CK isn't funny and neither is Aziz Ansari.
#threadkilla
And yet I wasn't stupid enough to spend $12 to see Trainwrecked AND waste 2 hours of my life (not including travel time, because I have a general understanding) No wonder you're so grumpy all the time. If an idiot like me could figure out it was a waste of time and money to go see that flick..............where does that leave you?
the only thing i'm defending is the need to have some basic understanding of the actual movie before lobbing lazy and ignorant criticism.
i guess it leaves me as someone who doesn't care much about $12.
You're right, how dare I judge a movie based off the trailers meant to sell me on actually seeing said movie. From now on I'll wait for you to confirm how shitty something that looks shitty in the trailer is. Thank you for your service, you are doing the lords work sir.
if you prefer to rely on marketing representatives to shape your opinions of art, you are welcome to do so.
They saved me money and time by making it clear Trainwrecked, the new Terminator movie, etc. were going to be garbage. Those folks are fucking fantastic!
If you prefer to keep throwing money and time at Hollywood which has clearly shown a significant decline in script quality and originality, you are welcome to do so.
hooray for results-oriented thinking! trailers are terrible representations of the film they intend to support. they're almost never created by anyone involved in the actual movie and have no interest in being truthful - they just want to get your into the theater. so you're better off looking to the track records of the people involved and how films came into being.
the movies you mention, trainwreck and the new terminator, are good examples of how understanding the backgrounds of movies is helpful in determining how successful the film might ultimately be.
trainwreck is the latest of several sub-par films by judd apatow. he has lately tended to be meandering and navel-gazing, but this is also the first film he's directed which he didn't write. it was instead written by a comedian who i think is funny and interesting if a bit overrated lately. i thought the combination could be interesting. it was. it wasn't good necessarily, but it was interesting in a lot of ways that aren't really worth exploring in a brief post on a poker chip forum.
the new terminator was made by a production company who bought the rights to the franchise at auction following a failed reboot (salvation) which was at the time intended to be the first of a new trilogy of terminator films. i didn't expect it to be very creative, but i enjoy spending time in the terminator universe and even liked salvation, so i went anyway and got pretty much exactly the mediocre movie i expected.
most art that is produced in any medium is garbage. probably 75% of what i see would rate from bad to mediocre, but it's worth it to wade through that stuff to get to the 25% of solid films that get out.
even if you want to restrict it to big budget, "hollywood" productions, in the last few years we've seen some truly fantastic films: mad max, guardians of the galaxy, x-men days of future past, gravity, django, captain phillips, iron man 3, prisoners, pacific rim, the to do list. i could go on. if you want to expand to smaller films - the vast majority of which are available at most multi-plexes alongside the big budget movies - that list grows tremendously.
atomiktoaster
Full House
Hold up a bit. Pacific Rim was "truly fantastic"? That script made Jurassic World look like Hamlet. Only giant fighting robots was able to save it.
Ok, you and Gnu can carry on.
Ok, you and Gnu can carry on.
manamongkids
Full House
Can we create a new thread intended for just Jbutler vs Grandgnu conversations.
that can include:
movies
race discussions
politics
world history
...
....
that can include:
movies
race discussions
politics
world history
...
....
detroitdad
Royal Flush
There was a script? fwiw, I enjoyed the flick for what it was.
I prefer monster flicks like this. Not for everyone. It entertained me.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1470827/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
i loved it. wes morris captures a lot of what i liked in this review. basically it's what transformers, godzilla and all their ilk wished they could be. it's what you get when you allow a great director to exploit a genre without limitation. it might be the best combination of "hollywood" production with genre film attributes that has come out in the last 5 or 10 years.
@detroitdad, i agree that Monsters was also quite good. different type of movie, but also very well done. i've heard very bad things about the sequel, but haven't watched it yet.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
