Eggplant.place

27d

On the movie Ballerina. CW: graphic violence, guns, blood/gore, etc. within the context of the movie itself; occasionally fantastic language on my part. No spoilers. 🙂

First off, there's a warning just before the film actually starts, for those with photosensitive epilepsy and whatnot. That's not a concern I have, but there are some scenes with rapidly flashing lights, so the warning is probably warranted in all honesty.

Most of the acting most of the time, and without limitation the lighting, the editing, the cinematography, the way color is used, the way the score is used—hell, the way liquid blood is used, while we're at it—the stunt work, etc. are all absolutely outstanding.

I'm not going as far as to suggest that the kills in this movie are creative enough to give any entry in the Final Destination franchise a run for its money; I'm going as far as to say outright that the kills in this movie are creative enough to give the Hitman franchise in its entirety a run for its money. We see someone hanged from a balcony after being duct taped with a hand grenade. We see someone beaten unconscious with a TV remote while watching the channel on said TV change with every hit, which is just hilarious. We see someone get wrapped in a comically large plastic bag and then shot with a 12 gauge, and the bag turn red. We see people take turns beating each other over the head with dishes, while they're both frantically searching for the gun that's at the bottom of said pile of dishes, which is also just hilarious. We see a door booby trapped with a gun, a rope, and a fork, which is probably exactly what you're picturing in your head right now. You already know about the scene involving the flamethrower if you've seen the trailer; you should know that the flamethrowers, plural, actually get a decent amount of screen time, which is fucking awesome.

I could go on; you get the idea.

This is all shown almost exclusively in the form of long, wide shots, and I can't recall shaky cam having been been used to any extent worth mentioning at any point, and I was looking for it. Seriously: the average shot length during the heaviest action scenes is somewhere in the ballpark of three seconds, at least, by my estimate.

This is how action movies are supposed to be.

I wish I could give everyone involved in the making of this movie, from Keanu Reeves himself all the way down to Best Boy Key Grip or whoever the fuck, a fucking hug right now.

#ballerina #movies #review #moviereview

Edited 24d ago

0 0 0 View Post & Replies See Original

1y

MOVIE REVIEW: "THE BOYS IN THE BOAT" - BLU-RAY
If you can't get enough sports dramas, here's another solid offering.
#TheBoysInTheBoat #AmazonMGMStudios #BluRayReview #Entertainment #Movies #MovieReview #Streaming

https://hotchka.com/the-boys-in-the-boat-bluray-review

0 0 0 View Post & Replies See Original

21d

28 Years Later review. CW: a movie that is quite graphic in a number of ways, described as a matter of fact. No spoilers. 🙂

Alright, as promised: https://infosec.exchange/@Christian_Freiherr_von_Wolff/114802336599841155

Hopefully, I do this masterpiece justice without spoiling anything. This will amount to psychic vomit either way.

First off, the cinematography. It's some of my favorite if not my very favorite I've ever seen. That's because the way everything was shot and edited in this regard, according to the book, was wrong, and it worked. The 180 degree rule was intentionally broken. So was the rule that says that the character speaking is supposed to be facing negative space while facing away from the edge of the frame, I think; I swear there was some shot that was set up "wrong" in that way, and if I'm imagining that, it would make less sense in this context than it would if my memory is correct. There's at least one shot I can think of off the top of my head in which the frame was, almost comically, weighted "incorrectly" in the conventional sense. All of that was off the cuff, and I saw the thing once and then sat down to write this. That's how deliberately abrasive the cinematography is. The more rules you know, the more rules you know how to break, and by demonstration, there are a bunch of rules I've never even heard of because I felt like my head was about to explode—in a good way, of course. I don't even care that this was, technically, recorded using a bunch of iPhones. That's simply a technical matter, and to me personally, one of the least impressive things about any of this.

Now, let me be absolutely clear: there is full frontal nudity on full display throughout, and it's the kind that, by my estimate, appeals to absolutely no one sexually. That's the point. It's completely realistic. They're zombies. They've been out there for a while. They look like shit. They don't have clothes because they're not gonna need them where they're going, or already gone depending on how we're looking at this, I guess. That's just how it is; there's no getting around it.

Alfie Williams' performance is one of the best I've ever seen from anyone, of any age.

I had to try really hard not to laugh at the military dudes with their two flashlights per helmet, flanking both sides of their helmets. Because I've done that. With a bike helmet. I literally zip tied two flashlights to the sides of my helmet. It was amazing. I get it. It works. Really, really well.

The scene involving the tower of human skulls hit me especially hard, and not at all in a bad way, because of something I've actually seen IRL; I'll just leave it at that. While we're on the same topic, this is the first movie in years that's actually got a tear out of me, FWIW.

The extent to which violence is graphic is borderline if not properly comical, and they nailed it.

My only complaints are with a few instances of deus ex machina. The irony of what I just said in light of my display name on my other account is not lost on me.

#Movies #MovieReview #28YearsLater

0 0 0 View Post & Replies See Original

4d

SUPERMAN 2025 REVIEW

Alright… a movie review that doesn't warrant a content warning. A first for me. Anyway.

I should say it up front that I was obssessed with Spiderman when I was a kid, and as far as superheroes go, that was about it. So I walked into this with strong feelings about no one and nothing adjacent to Superman, nor Superman. If it seems like I'm not comparing this to any prior interpretation, that's because I'm not, at least for the most part (see below).

This movie mostly worked for me, even in terms of the suspension of my disbelief, and I actually mean the rough opposite of what you probably think I mean by that. It pisses me off because I didn't figure it out until the third act. Superman's standing there giving a monologue that's so cliche it's borderline self-aware, and I'm just sitting there thinking, "Why is this so cliche, why is the good guy giving the monologue; why isn't the bad guy the one giving the monologue if they're being so cliche, and why does this still work?" Then it hit me. This is kayfabe. For those who don't know, kayfabe is the structure against which the script for professional is written.

From Wikipedia:

Faces, short for "babyfaces", are hero-type characters whose personalities are crafted to elicit the support of the audience through traits such as humility, patriotism, a hard-working nature, determination, and reciprocal love of the crowd. Faces usually win their matches on the basis of their technical skills and are sometimes portrayed as underdogs to enhance the story.

Heels are villainous or antagonistic characters, whose personalities are crafted to elicit a negative response from the audience. They often embrace traditionally negative traits such as narcissism, egomania, unprompted rage, sadism, and general bitterness.

Here's the thing, though: everyone knows professional wrestling is fake and no one cares, and the face is not who sells the tickets; the heel is. The stadium is never packed because of how much everyone likes the good guy; it's packed because of how much everyone hates the bad guy, and how much they want to see the good guy wear a completely absurd costume while kicking his ass in some hilariously unrealistic fashion. The parralels are obvious now, certainly. Here's the other thing: this movie leans into it, correctly. The problem I've had with movies in the past that were based on DC Comics' IP was always that they were trying to be the MCU and they couldn't figure out how to do it right. Unlike this time around, when they finally nailed it if you're asking me, they've always given me the impression that they were dead serious, somehow. So, is the heel in this movie any good? Hell yes, Nicholas Hoult's performance as Lex Luther is outstanding. To put it simply, my ass wasn't in the seat to watch Superman win, but to watch a fellow bald man lose. I mean, the plot revolves around Lex Luther running a smear campaign against Superman, and then other things that also paint him horribly but I'm not spoiling anything.

Krypto a.k.a. Super Dog is hilarious, and endearing throughout, and he's introduced immediately in the opening scene for reasons that pay off later, and I already said I'm not spoiling anything.

This interpretation of Green Lantern is… something. Like I've already said, I don't have much if anything, especially off the cuff, for comparison. I don't know what Green Lantern is usually like in the comics. He has in this version a really stupid haircut which Lois Lane calls him out on directly, appears to be experiencing a midlife crisis, and literally refers to himself as an "upgrade"… from Superman… his words, not mine. I'm really curious to see where they end up going with his character in the future, because I could see it being either really good or really bad, easily.

I thought David Corenswet and Rachel Brosnahan as Superman and Lois Lane respectively, were both great independently, and I thought they worked very well against each other.

I had a few issues as well.

First off, and I do realize this is minor: I liked Mister Terrific's character overall, but I had a slight problem with him, too, and that was some of the exposition he gave about Lex Luther's tech. How does he know all this, from nothing? Also, I'm sorry, but most of it's just a bunch of random words randomly ordered, and I had a really hard time buying it, even though it was already established that the movie regarded as a whole is by no means taking itself to seriously. I also felt like nothing would've been lost if none of that had even been explained, ever, by him or by anyone else.

Also, it is simply impossible that a huge amount of CGI wasn't used, and I can't fault anyone for that, especially in a movie like this; however, there are scenes where it's blatant, and where I honestly feel like they could've done at least some of it in camera and it would've been all the better for it. According to Wikipedia as of the most recent edit at the time of writing, this movie had a budget of $225 million and it's already done $416.2 million at the box office so far. The outside of the glorified helicopter thing could've been built, and by that I mean a "real" one, just for the one shot. We never see the inside of it—that I can remember, at least, so that part must not have mattered, which is fine—and how many people work in the film industry who could've built the outer shell of a glorified helicopter thing in no time flat, and actually made it look convincing? How much more would that have actually, really added to the budget, in reference to the damned-near-quarter-billion they'd already spent by the time they were finally done spending? Or would that have been cheaper, even? I don't honestly know the answers to any of those questions, and I spent money to watch this thing, and so I don't really care, frankly. The Force Awakens had a "real" Millennium Falcon, that was ten years ago, it did huge numbers at the box office, and most people didn't even like that movie. So it's not too much to ask.

Anyway: I recommend seeing it. Oh, and see it with Dolby Atmos if you can. It's worth it.

#Superman #Superman2025 #Movies #MovieReview

Edited 3d ago

0 0 0 View Post & Replies See Original