General Movie Discussion

Troyal1 wrote:

Sony is now offering a ridiculous "clean version" of their films for families.

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/06/06/sony-now-offering-clean-versions-of-their-films-for-especially-lame-childre

Movies like Step brothers are on the list but also movies like Spider-Man and goosebumps(how much more clean can those get?).

Ghostbusters and Gb2 are on that list. Jesus Christ Sony.

So the reviews for The Book of Henry are in and... they are so much less than I was hoping. I like Trevorrow, I am still rooting for him to succeed but this is his last directorial effort before Star Wars: Episode IX and it's not the display of storytelling finesse that would assuage one's fears before being handled one of (if not the most) prestigious film franchises ever.

And just to rub further salt in the wounds, it only validates everyone who hated on the film and its director, squandering a perfect chance to SHUT THEM UP. This could have been the movie that turned the tide and it only fuels every reason for certain groups of fans who want Trevorrow kicked off Episode IX and are content to keep dumping on Jurassic World. As if we needed more of their kind.

ScreenRant's 2/5 Star Review for The Book of Henry

I know I'm not exactly feeling disposed to playing nice on this one, but that's because I wanted to see The Book of Henry and the majority of reviews wither paint it in a very negative light or they're only slight recommendations. Even Chris Stuckmann's review on it, calling it Trevorrow's "best", felt very... forced, like he didn't really believe what he was saying. In those immortally damning words; I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

So the reviews for The Book of Henry are in and... they are so much less than I was hoping. I like Trevorrow, I am still rooting for him to succeed but this is his last directorial effort before Star Wars: Episode IX and it's not the display of storytelling finesse that would assuage one's fears before being handled one of (if not the most) prestigious film franchises ever.

And just to rub further salt in the wounds, it only validates everyone who hated on the film and its director, squandering a perfect chance to SHUT THEM UP. This could have been the movie that turned the tide and it only fuels every reason for certain groups of fans who want Trevorrow kicked off Episode IX and are content to keep dumping on Jurassic World. As if we needed more of their kind.

ScreenRant's 2/5 Star Review for The Book of Henry

I know I'm not exactly feeling disposed to playing nice on this one, but that's because I wanted to see The Book of Henry and the majority of reviews wither paint it in a very negative light or they're only slight recommendations. Even Chris Stuckmann's review on it, calling it Trevorrow's "best", felt very... forced, like he didn't really believe what he was saying. In those immortally damning words; I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed.

You know, given how Trevorrow was 'coached' by Spielberg, most likly due to how he didn't do much for JP3 (which CLEARLY showed in bad it is) and how he didn't want to make that mistake again, I can't help but wonder if Spielberg was really the one making the movie as Executive Producer the same way that Ben Affleck is the one who's really making Justice League by being the Executive Producer.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

You know, given how Trevorrow was 'coached' by Spielberg, most likly due to how he didn't do much for JP3 (which CLEARLY showed in bad it is) and how he didn't want to make that mistake again, I can't help but wonder if Spielberg was really the one making the movie as Executive Producer the same way that Ben Affleck is the one who's really making Justice League by being the Executive Producer.

I'm sure he wanted to avoid another failed attempt at a nostalgic franchise revival like many had come before, and the franchise almost dying thanks to Jurassic Park III probably gave him some further motivation to guide the production to a good end. I don't think the results were as extreme as the Ben Affleck/Zack Snyder Justice League scenario, because the film doesn't feel like it was as "Spielbergian" as it could have been. And there's video evidence of Colin shooting many key scene and sequences. But he probably had a lot of influence on the finished product.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that Jurassic World, despite it's less than perfect reception, basically saved Trevorrow from torpedoing his career prematurely with a film that's this strongly disliked/hated and caused him to fade back into obscurity. The phrase "no such thing as bad publicity" has always had a bit of a cynical ring to me, but one I could sort of see why it's as frequently used as it is.

I'm putting money down on two things right now: either Trevorrow is coached like with Spielberg on IX, or all these terrible reviews give Disney cold feet and remove him from the project.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

So the reviews for The Book of Henry are in and... they are so much less than I was hoping. I like Trevorrow, I am still rooting for him to succeed but this is his last directorial effort before Star Wars: Episode IX and it's not the display of storytelling finesse that would assuage one's fears before being handled one of (if not the most) prestigious film franchises ever.

And just to rub further salt in the wounds, it only validates everyone who hated on the film and its director, squandering a perfect chance to SHUT THEM UP. This could have been the movie that turned the tide and it only fuels every reason for certain groups of fans who want Trevorrow kicked off Episode IX and are content to keep dumping on Jurassic World. As if we needed more of their kind.

ScreenRant's 2/5 Star Review for The Book of Henry

I know I'm not exactly feeling disposed to playing nice on this one, but that's because I wanted to see The Book of Henry and the majority of reviews wither paint it in a very negative light or they're only slight recommendations. Even Chris Stuckmann's review on it, calling it Trevorrow's "best", felt very... forced, like he didn't really believe what he was saying. In those immortally damning words; I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed.

You know, given how Trevorrow was 'coached' by Spielberg, most likly due to how he didn't do much for JP3 (which CLEARLY showed in bad it is) and how he didn't want to make that mistake again, I can't help but wonder if Spielberg was really the one making the movie as Executive Producer the same way that Ben Affleck is the one who's really making Justice League by being the Executive Producer.

This might be BS but I got an interesting opinion on why Colin why hired to do JW. Read through these two replies.

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/6g9uat/how_safety_not_guaranteed_secretly_influenced_the/diouel3/?context=3


I love Colin. Colin is a great person. It's obvious the man has his heart in the right place. But I'm not sure he's that good of a director and I'm worried he's still writing JW and doing SW.

The critics may be bashing The Book of Henry but audiences seem to like it.

Haven't seen the film myself and I probably won't until it's out on Blu-ray.

Looks like WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES is great, early reactions are great so far. June 19 Fox will hold a special screening for the general audience so I'm almost sure by their level of confidence that this movie will rock.

As I fan, I really can't wait 1 month, I need this now!

Sam Taylor-Johnson, the director of 50 Shades Of Grey say she regrets working on the movie.

Sony is planning to make movie based on the book 'The Day The Crayons Quit'.

This is NOT how you out-Disney Disney.

Troyal1 wrote:

So how bad or good is Pirates 5? Anyone seen it or plan to see it?

I know this is a pretty late reply here, but I did see PotC5, and I generally enjoyed it. It could have been more original at times, and some plot elements seemed kind of rushed and/or unexplained, but I liked it considerably more than the 4th movie, which was more like a spin-off starring Jack Sparrow.

I think it captured the "fun" feeling of the original more than some of the other sequels did. Then again, I also liked PotC3 despite its almost unintelligible plot (it did have a killer soundtrack, though), so I might be in the minority here

I think I saw the final minutes of Pirates 5...maybe it was one of the other movies thought, I dunno. It was a pretty sad ending. And the Squid Man was in it as well. I thought it was a descent film from the tiny bit I saw.

Sony Pictures Plans The Day the Crayons Quit Movie
Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/860241-the-day-the-crayons-quit-movie#ikO8v4ihJw0mdL4s.99

What in the ever loving f*ck...is this.

Daniel Day-Lewis has retired from acting.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Daniel Day-Lewis has retired from acting.

Now that's a sad state of affairs if ever there was one, as one of the greatest actors alive. I hope Day-Lewis gets to enjoy his retirement, if nothing else he has earned it.

I posted this in the Universal Dark Universe thread, but I thought it'd work here too. Thought's on the reason why "The Mummy" (2017), and Universal's Dark Universe, is failing...

I was watching the Brendan Fraser Mummy the other night, and I just love that movie to pieces. It's not just the nostalgia talking, either. I first saw the movie in the basement of my uncle's house, and I remember watching the credits in anticipation of one more good jump scare. The movie has a perfect blend of horror, action, and fun. Sure, it's cheesy as Wisconsin, but that adds to its appeal in the same way the cheese adds to "Independence Day's" appeal. I haven't seen the new Mummy, but everything I've heard about it thus far tells me all I need to know. It's a shallow attempt at resurrecting a classic that nobody wanted.

In the early days of the MCU, before there really WAS an MCU or a DCMU, and there were just a handful of unconnected Marvel movies... "Iron Man," "Spider-Man," "X-Men," you could really tell that studios weren't entirely sure this thing would take off. They had no idea comic book movies could have a demand. They simply saw a well proven idea, and wanted to see if they could replicate that success on the big screen. These early movies started out very conservatively made. Plot not too complicated, costumes never very exotic, just the simple Spider-Man vs Green Goblin, X-Men vs Magneto and the Brotherhood. The writers never bogged the films down with unnecessary connections. They never made distinctions between villains unless they absolutely needed to. The costume designers made sure to keep it grounded and realistic. Black leather flight suits instead of yellow and blue spandex, classic red and blue spidey-suit, sans web gauntlets and armpit webbing. They tied in the Green Goblin with military application, instead of a madman's odd lunacy. They made the Goblin costume look like armor instead of tights and didn't give him a broomstick. Instead of a mystical Chinese warlord forcing Tony Stark to create Iron Man, it was the Taliban that acted as the catalyst. In 2008, the Taliban and other Middle Eastern terrorist groups were as much a threat, if not moreso, to America as they are today. In a word, those early superhero movies were simple. The idea that there could be an CU didn't really arise in the public's mind until after the credits rolled on "Iron Man."

Fast foreward to today: the MCU is a HUGE success, perhaps the most successful brands after Star Wars. Every kid in the country knows who Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, the Incredible Hulk, Black Widow, the Falcon, Ant-Man, and so many other are. Even if they never picked up a comic book in their life. Many of Marvel's best have moved from obscurity to fan favorites. But Marvel took their time. They went with the big names first, then moved into the more obscure figures. They took their time. They planned it out. They created an MCU carefully and planned it out years ahead. Now costumes are fun and colorful, they can play and test, and see what works, what doesn't. Comic book movies have become just like their paper origins, and that's fantastic. But, then the DCMU came crashing in. DC wanted everything right now. No time for planning, DC had to play catch up to Marvel and get on the wagon before it was too late. Whereas DC usually has only showcased Batman and Superman in their movies, now they had to introduce not only obscure characters, but characters who hadn't been popular in moving pictures in decades, like Wonder Woman. They stumbled the first couple tries because they tried throwing everything in at once, instead of the characters coming one at a time. They didn't craft it carefully like Marvel did, and they suffered for it. They introduced obscure characters like the "Suicide Squad" and tried replicating "Guardians of the Galaxy" with it. They simply didn't know what they wanted from it, and tried getting complicated with it to compete with Marvel's built up universe. They're finally on the right track with Wonder Woman, and one can only hope it remains that that way.

Now, everybody wants a CU. Universal with their horror classics, Fox with "Terminator," Sony with "Ghostbusters," and they're all failing miserably because they think that just because the idea of a CU is proven, they don't have to do the hard work in setting it up. Heck, New Line Cinema has made a better CU than all those studios put together with their The Conjuring Universe, and they didn't even intend on it becoming one. Now they have 2 spin offs coming, with one successful one already out along side 2 main movies and a third on the way. And they did it by making quality, not quantity. "The Conjuring" movies are good, scary movies, with the rewatch value of "The Shining" or "Halloween," simply because they put so much effort into it, you notice new things each time you watch it, and it always manages to remain legitimately scary. THAT'S what Universal should have done. They should have forgone the levity and action of the MCU and DCMU, and all the other studio's failed attempts, and made their horror icons what they are: horror. Nobody wants to see the Mummy looking sexy walking down a London street, smashing every window on the way. They want to see this:

Peter Debruge from Variety defends Phil Lord and Christopher Miller by saying that they are rare directors who bring fresh ideas and visions and are willing to fight for them.

CT-1138 wrote:

I posted this in the Universal Dark Universe thread, but I thought it'd work here too. Thought's on the reason why "The Mummy" (2017), and Universal's Dark Universe, is failing...

I was watching the Brendan Fraser Mummy the other night, and I just love that movie to pieces. It's not just the nostalgia talking, either. I first saw the movie in the basement of my uncle's house, and I remember watching the credits in anticipation of one more good jump scare. The movie has a perfect blend of horror, action, and fun. Sure, it's cheesy as Wisconsin, but that adds to its appeal in the same way the cheese adds to "Independence Day's" appeal. I haven't seen the new Mummy, but everything I've heard about it thus far tells me all I need to know. It's a shallow attempt at resurrecting a classic that nobody wanted.

In the early days of the MCU, before there really WAS an MCU or a DCMU, and there were just a handful of unconnected Marvel movies... "Iron Man," "Spider-Man," "X-Men," you could really tell that studios weren't entirely sure this thing would take off. They had no idea comic book movies could have a demand. They simply saw a well proven idea, and wanted to see if they could replicate that success on the big screen. These early movies started out very conservatively made. Plot not too complicated, costumes never very exotic, just the simple Spider-Man vs Green Goblin, X-Men vs Magneto and the Brotherhood. The writers never bogged the films down with unnecessary connections. They never made distinctions between villains unless they absolutely needed to. The costume designers made sure to keep it grounded and realistic. Black leather flight suits instead of yellow and blue spandex, classic red and blue spidey-suit, sans web gauntlets and armpit webbing. They tied in the Green Goblin with military application, instead of a madman's odd lunacy. They made the Goblin costume look like armor instead of tights and didn't give him a broomstick. Instead of a mystical Chinese warlord forcing Tony Stark to create Iron Man, it was the Taliban that acted as the catalyst. In 2008, the Taliban and other Middle Eastern terrorist groups were as much a threat, if not moreso, to America as they are today. In a word, those early superhero movies were simple. The idea that there could be an CU didn't really arise in the public's mind until after the credits rolled on "Iron Man."

Fast foreward to today: the MCU is a HUGE success, perhaps the most successful brands after Star Wars. Every kid in the country knows who Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, the Incredible Hulk, Black Widow, the Falcon, Ant-Man, and so many other are. Even if they never picked up a comic book in their life. Many of Marvel's best have moved from obscurity to fan favorites. But Marvel took their time. They went with the big names first, then moved into the more obscure figures. They took their time. They planned it out. They created an MCU carefully and planned it out years ahead. Now costumes are fun and colorful, they can play and test, and see what works, what doesn't. Comic book movies have become just like their paper origins, and that's fantastic. But, then the DCMU came crashing in. DC wanted everything right now. No time for planning, DC had to play catch up to Marvel and get on the wagon before it was too late. Whereas DC usually has only showcased Batman and Superman in their movies, now they had to introduce not only obscure characters, but characters who hadn't been popular in moving pictures in decades, like Wonder Woman. They stumbled the first couple tries because they tried throwing everything in at once, instead of the characters coming one at a time. They didn't craft it carefully like Marvel did, and they suffered for it. They introduced obscure characters like the "Suicide Squad" and tried replicating "Guardians of the Galaxy" with it. They simply didn't know what they wanted from it, and tried getting complicated with it to compete with Marvel's built up universe. They're finally on the right track with Wonder Woman, and one can only hope it remains that that way.

Now, everybody wants a CU. Universal with their horror classics, Fox with "Terminator," Sony with "Ghostbusters," and they're all failing miserably because they think that just because the idea of a CU is proven, they don't have to do the hard work in setting it up. Heck, New Line Cinema has made a better CU than all those studios put together with their The Conjuring Universe, and they didn't even intend on it becoming one. Now they have 2 spin offs coming, with one successful one already out along side 2 main movies and a third on the way. And they did it by making quality, not quantity. "The Conjuring" movies are good, scary movies, with the rewatch value of "The Shining" or "Halloween," simply because they put so much effort into it, you notice new things each time you watch it, and it always manages to remain legitimately scary. THAT'S what Universal should have done. They should have forgone the levity and action of the MCU and DCMU, and all the other studio's failed attempts, and made their horror icons what they are: horror. Nobody wants to see the Mummy looking sexy walking down a London street, smashing every window on the way. They want to see this:

Haven't seen the new one but you're absolutely correct. If it weren't for the title "the mummy" would anybody be able to guess that the woman walking down the street in that shot is a mummy? I don't think so. And I think that's what put a lot of people off. Los the fact that it almost looks like a mission impossible film. I know the original had shooting and action but good lord. From some of the footage I've watched online the tone seems all over the place.

As of now, 3 movies, The Wolf Of Wall Street, Dumb and Dumber To, and Daddy's Home, were made with stolen cash.

Mark Hamill finally has a Star on the Hollywood Walk Of Fame.

Congrats, Joker. You got the last laugh, after all.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

As of now, 3 movies, The Wolf Of Wall Street, Dumb and Dumber To, and Daddy's Home, were made with stolen cash.

A movie about a guy who steals money for a living is made from stolen money.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mark Hamill finally has a Star on the Hollywood Walk Of Fame.

Congrats, Joker. You got the last laugh, after all.  

Bout time! You'd have to go to the middle of the Congo to find a kid who doesn't know who Luke Skywalker is.

CT-1138 wrote:

Bout time! You'd have to go to the middle of the Congo to find a kid who doesn't know who Luke Skywalker is.

and the Joker, too. which field did he get it for, movies or TV? 'cuz tbph i think he's more significant as a voice-actor, some of the best range, emotion, and energy you'll ever see even if you ignore his roles as the Joker

Colin says he's kinda heartbroken about the very harsh reception for his new movie.

http://www.vulture.com/2017/06/colin-trevorrow-talks-heartbreaking-book-of-henry-reviews.html

The trailer for Pitch Perfect 3 has been revealed as has the release date of Dec 22.

Right after Star Wars 8. Ouch...Bad timing Universal...Really bad timing...What were they thinking?!

Troyal1 wrote:

Colin says he's kinda heartbroken about the very harsh reception for his new movie.

http://www.vulture.com/2017/06/colin-trevorrow-talks-heartbreaking-book-of-henry-reviews.html

I know the phrase "tough break" tends to get thrown around in a sarcastic way, but I do feel sorry for Colin at the reception of his book. This was his passion project, and the film he would have gone on to do next after Safety Not Guaranteed, had Spielberg not saved his career. He seems unable to escape his status as the nice guy who is the butt monkey of critics, journalists, and online trolls and know-it-alls; for example another review I read from The Guardian decided to rub further salt by saying: "You start to wonder if director Colin Trevorrow grew an extra set of arms for this project, just to cope with all the emotional button pushing."

Stay classy, Guardian.

As for Pitch Perfect 3, ha! Placing it right after The Last Jedi reeks of a lack of confidence in the product, like pitting the fourth Alvin & the Chipmunks movie against The Force Awakens, or Star Trek Nemesis against The Two Towers. Its like they want it over with quickly rather than reserve a similar date to the previous two films.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

As for Pitch Perfect 3, ha! Placing it right after The Last Jedi reeks of a lack of confidence in the product, like pitting the fourth Alvin & the Chipmunks movie against The Force Awakens, or Star Trek Nemesis against The Two Towers. Its like they want it over with quickly rather than reserve a similar date to the previous two films.

One would have think they would have learned something from that. I find it odd since the PP franchise has done respectably well as a whole.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Colin says he's kinda heartbroken about the very harsh reception for his new movie.

http://www.vulture.com/2017/06/colin-trevorrow-talks-heartbreaking-book-of-henry-reviews.html

I know the phrase "tough break" tends to get thrown around in a sarcastic way, but I do feel sorry for Colin at the reception of his book. This was his passion project, and the film he would have gone on to do next after Safety Not Guaranteed, had Spielberg not saved his career. He seems unable to escape his status as the nice guy who is the butt monkey of critics, journalists, and online trolls and know-it-alls; for example another review I read from The Guardian decided to rub further salt by saying: "You start to wonder if director Colin Trevorrow grew an extra set of arms for this project, just to cope with all the emotional button pushing."

Stay classy, Guardian.

As for Pitch Perfect 3, ha! Placing it right after The Last Jedi reeks of a lack of confidence in the product, like pitting the fourth Alvin & the Chipmunks movie against The Force Awakens, or Star Trek Nemesis against The Two Towers. Its like they want it over with quickly rather than reserve a similar date to the previous two films.

What is it with the hatred of Colin? They act like he's the next Michael bay or some sh*t. Now I'm going to admit that I don't really like him as a director, but he seems like a really genuine dude, and he certainly isn't even close to being TERRIBLE imo. 

Maybe people are so harsh because of Star Wars?

Troyal1 wrote:

What is it with the hatred of Colin? They act like he's the next Michael bay or some sh*t. Now I'm going to admit that I don't really like him as a director, but he seems like a really genuine dude, and he certainly isn't even close to being TERRIBLE imo. 

Maybe people are so harsh because of Star Wars?

I think that's part of the issue; he quickly became the center of media attention and scrutiny after a successful revival of a popular franchise, even if it wasn't the triumphant return that it could have been in the eyes of many fans. It certainly could have been a hell of a lot worse than the final film turned out to be, but it could have been better. When he was chosen to direct Episode IX, everyone seemed to point to the financial success of JW as the sole reason why he was chosen. So when it came to Book of Henry not sticking the landing, that only exacerbated the vitriol towards him.

Here's Brad Jones and his friend Brian reviewing 'The Book Of Henry'.