Film/Movie Recommendations

Anyone been watching Runaways?

Got off to a real slow start, with it being all about the parents and not about superpowers, but I started to enjoy the normal-level sleuthing for its own sake. And I figured a slow build meant good things to come.

And then *bam* all their powers in, like, one ten second standoff. That was the lamest After-school Special battle I've ever seen. I mean Chase McZappyGloves literally had to race to the scene and jump out in time to say "Me too! Look, I did something too!"
 
Downsizing. i give it 2 out of 5 stars.

Spoilers:

It's a novel idea that address environmentalism but that soon turns into a miss saigon saga and a little too preachy with unnecessary religion. You can form your own message or conclusion but it's pretty clear that there is no reason to downsize in the larger scheme because the same nature and issues plague humanity, including the political and economic divide of haves and have-nots, even if you are a different size. The only positive of downsizing is turning your equity to larger advantage and environmentally just staving off the inevitable.

since i have a more fatalistic view of humanity and have done humanitarian work, i'm more cynical and realistic about humanity. this is due to the fact that the well (humanity) is poisoned anyways. those you help can be scum as well as saints. those on the bottom and most needy consist of just as many sociopaths/psychopaths as well as the good as those at the top. the film, in typical hubristic and anthropormorphic fashion, regards humanity something wholly positive as worth saving when of course, that is only one side of the coin when the truth is it's no different than any other pathogenic lifeform, just a different 'size' and at the top of the food chain.

Mother teresa portrayed as a vietnamese dissident did not gain any sympathy in my book for her cause of blindly saving anything, everything and everybody, maybe because i'm just cold and jaded. this is along with the deep ignorance of the very nature of humanity that is responsible for her situation as well as those she is helping, in the first place, not an abstract concept or random mis-steering of politics, resides in at least probably half of those she is helping unknowingly as well. in other words, they would most likely do the same if they had power to oppress others. it's a vicious circle with a pretense and predicated on the shallow notion that circumstance is an indication of one's innocence or evil. the root problem is much deeper.

matt damon carried the film well as the proverbial 'good' man. i think she should have encouraged him to go, as better people survive, the better the world.
theoretically, if only the best (excellent character + most intelligence) were the ones to survive and progenate, then perhaps it would be a better world than it is now but there are so many ifs. But the ones that survive randomly most likely will continue the same world that there is now.

it's an unusual idea with cliches.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:


this is the smartest insight into the exorcist film i've heard so far. it is indicative of sexual abuse, especially pedophilia, because the degree of innocence of a child or young adult in comparison to a fully grown adult. the demonic metaphor is fitting to convey the visceral depravity and perversion of that innocence. but that amount of evil can produce negative paranormal phenomena by the perpetrators and the victim. religious perversion is especially powerful because you are mixing antithetical elements together.

you see the anger (inner turmoil/struggle of light vs dark) in the victim after having been tainted/abused (possession).
 
Last edited:
i think why exorcist shocked so many people is it did not hold any punches when it came to conveying evil and it's face. much of what is portrayed as evil is sanitized or even construed to be some type of cool power on the surface etc. real evil is not like that. beneath the veneer, it's repulsive, revolting, ugly, cancerous, odorous, malevolent, twisting, violent, perverted, damaging, diseased and decay.
 

what i've noticed about this film that is often overlooked or unaccounted for is the message that it is not a 'devil' out there who made you do it, separate from people and therefore real possession from the devil. she is affected and possessed but not by the devil itself. it's humanities own evil. even today, most people assume this film is about demonic possession and that evil is a separate issue from people. this disassociation is to not take responsibility for humanity's own evil/ugliness/shame. pazuzu's appearance indicates only temptation which leads to a revealing of the darker aspects of those who take the bait, hence the fighting dogs. evil is given greater power by the complicity (actions) of people and the evil capability mirrored in them. this is evident by dennings (implied perpetrator) and regan (victim).

the clues are in two parts. the first, father damien told regan it was holy water, when it was tap water and she reacted violently and spoke english backwards. the second clue is when he asked who or what is inside regan, it said 'we are no one.' this implies just evil or lower quality disembodied spirits/souls (not the devil), meaning they could have been human at one time. she was sexually abused and there implies some transference of these evil entities torturing her.

if you pay attention to regan's actions and words after the so-called possession expressing it's evil - you hear the vulgarity/profanity, manipulation of lies mixed with truth, pleasure in taunting and suffering/discomfort/anguish of another, anger, ego, degradation, recklessness/uncaring, disrespect, immorality, sacrilegious etc. but this is shown blatantly and heightened in glaring fashion to drive the point home.

what these attitudes and words indicate are not inherently different than what people exhibit from their own darkness or evil, it is just magnified to show how ugly/hideous it truly is and put on screen. the proverbial 'who knows what kind of evil lurks in man' metaphor.

much of this behavior is often even publicly visible among the lower to average population (common) because it is considered acceptable, especially generally weak/hypocritical ethics, vulgarity, ego, general irreverence and lack of respect. besides this, from life experience, you will see glimpses and peaks of this evil in people from time to time from glee at others misfortune, jealousy/envy, perversion/immorality, callousness, hypocrisy, egoism, dishonesty etc which are often overlooked because it's commonplace. but technically, this indicates a seed of depravity and evil that resides that could potentially be worse if society allowed it.

in other words, the evil is part of people's nature whether a devil exists or not. to what degree or not is what differs from person to person due to nature and/or nurture.
 
Last edited:
When that came out my sister was dating her future husband. The movie got to her and she bailed for the lobby. When her BF and I came she was sitting there pretending to not be bothered. The funny part was there were five or six guys out there as well. Poor showing, other ranks!
 

i agree with him that this was a better film than silence of the lambs which won the oscar. society seems to be full of people who don't appreciate quality or don't discern it. it probed and questioned the problem of evil overall and more deeply whereas silence of the lambs was unrealistic and stereotypical/caricature.
 
birch said:

i agree with him that this was a better film than silence of the lambs which won the oscar. society seems to be full of people who don't appreciate quality or don't discern it. it probed and questioned the problem of evil overall and more deeply whereas silence of the lambs was unrealistic and stereotypical/caricature.
Click to expand...

Why though ? what is realistic about this movie ? never seen it .
 
birch said:

i agree with him that this was a better film than silence of the lambs which won the oscar. society seems to be full of people who don't appreciate quality or don't discern it. it probed and questioned the problem of evil overall and more deeply whereas silence of the lambs was unrealistic and stereotypical/caricature.
Click to expand...
Or maybe people have different viewpoints.
 
I just got round to seeing Kingsmen (the first one).

I've had to invent a new rating for it. I give Kingsmen a -1 out f 5 stars.

5 - Loved it!!
4 - Liked it a lot.
3 - It was OK.
2 - Disliked it.
1 - Hated it.
New rating: 0 - Couldn't finish, it was so bad (And therefore, can't technically be rated).
Really new rating: Angry at it for violating contract with audience.

I do not mind the depiction of gratuitous, even graphic, violence. Kill Bill, for example, was extremely graphic in its violence, but that's OK because the people getting killed were bad people. Likewise, I do not mind the depiction innocent people being killed. The world is, after all, sometimes a bad place.

What I can not tolerate is the glorification of innocent people being violently killed.

I refer to the church scene, about 2/3rds into the film. We watched the extremely grisly murder of innocent people - and it was filmed so as to make it ... beautiful.

I cannot abide that. A story - any story - should never glorify the violent death of innocent people.

The only other film that has ever done that to me is Se7en (Freeman/Spacey/Pitt). It was a celebration of human suffering. And the bad guy won. How is that a story I should watch?

So, -1 out of 5.
 
I thought that scene was very well choreographed, but at no point did I find it beautiful or glorifying violence any more than other comic book films have done in the past. It was a church, yes, which led to the juxtaposition of violence in a supposed place of peace, but the innocent people inside were all turned into killers, no different than if they had all been turned into zombies.

I gave the film 7/10. Would have been higher but for some unnecessary choices at the end.


Anyhoo - just saw "Spider-Man: Homecoming" (yes, I'm late to the party).
I liked the fresh take on it: a younger Peter Parker than previous versions, Marisa Tomei as the Aunt etc.
But I think I've reached saturation point with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Every Marvel film seems to include other Marvel characters that they all blend into one. The worst I thought was the 3rd captain America film (civil war) which was really just an avengers film. And now we have tiny stark in Spider-Man, and Spider-Man's suit basically just iron-man's suit in cloth form... complete with AI.
So while I thought it had some good fun elements to it, and tried to be different, it is still too much of what is now a fairly generic series of films.
So 6/10.
That might improve if ever I stop being fed up with seeing marvel characters in other character's films.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
5 - Loved it!!
4 - Liked it a lot.
3 - It was OK.
2 - Disliked it.
1 - Hated it.
New rating: 0 - Couldn't finish, it was so bad (And therefore, can't technically be rated).
Click to expand...
I'd give Kingsmen a 4.5

What about a rating for "Had to sit through it because I was at a friend's house and couldn't turn it off"? I'd give Titanic a -10.
 
Sarkus said:
I thought that scene was very well choreographed, but at no point did I find it beautiful or glorifying violence any more than other comic book films have done in the past.
Click to expand...
I don't know of any other films where otherwise innocent people were slaughtered in such a gloriously choreographed scene.

Sarkus said:
the innocent people inside were all turned into killers, no different than if they had all been turned into zombies.
Click to expand...
Those innocent people were being actively manipulated. The moment the signal stopped, they were back to normal people. Valentine was the villain, these people were victims. Not at all like undead zombies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top