MovieChat Forums > replicant4 > Replies
replicant4's Replies
Agreed. And it's odd, because he plays Superman pretty much the way Superman is written--a straight shooter, not silly or cocky, etc. I think part of why he didn't shine in that role is....the Superman outfit, with cape, etc. Don't get me wrong, it's an iconic superhero costume. But there's no way around it looking...comic-bookish. In MI: Fallout, he wears tailored suits and looks more GQ-ish, which works really well for him. In fact, given his natural English accent, a strong argument could be made for him as the next Bond. The bathroom fight scene...straight-up won him a lot of points.
That's awesome. I love that it was an organic move. One of the best scenes in the movie, no doubt.
LOL, yes. That's why I prefaced with "In a way" it's like his breakout role. He's been Superman, with mixed reviews from audiences and filmgoers....some saying he's kinda bland. But In MI: Fallout, he shows a whole new screen presence that will wake people up. And to anyone who used to say he didn't seem big enough to be Superman, he seems enormous and menacing in this movie. He really nails it.
My guilty please, coincidentally, happens to be a different Tom Cruise movie: Cocktail.
Cocktail = the definition of guilty pleasure.
LOL, the movie is supposed to be a joyous escape, nothing more. This isn't Citizen Cane. Plot points are not nearly as important as....say.....did you enjoy the music? Did you enjoy the spirit of the songs?
I'd have to revisit the original to see what Donna said about her mother. Heck, maybe she simply lied about her mother being dead. I've seen other posts in which people are working out the ages, the timeframes, the periods of the flashbacks....and actually calculating that the timing in the flashbacks is not mathematically correct. If you're nitpicking continuity or plot points, you're missing the spirit in which this movie was made.
IMO, it was perfect to have Cher in just that final scene. She wasn't meant to be a full-time player amongst that huge ensemble so much as the LEGEND of her character was. Sometimes, less is more. Having Char in the whole movie would have had diminishing returns. Besides, in some ways...she'd have outshined some of the lesser known in the cast. This was Lily James' movie....not Cher's, or Meryl's....or even Amanda Seyfried's. Cher obviously interacted with the others in that scene. (Did you and I watch the same movie??) And, she had a fantastic part in the finale song (the whole cast singing Super Trouper.
Cher was a cameo. But the build-up to that cameo was fun. We (the group I went with) knew the scene was coming....and couldn't wait for it. Likewise, we knew Meryl's Donna would be present at some point near the end as well--and that moment between she and Sophie was magic.
When Sean Connery showed-up for a cameo at the end of Robin Hood-Prince of Thieves....nobody complained that he only had a few lines and barely interacted with anyone. People just UNDERSTOOD....the impact of a huge star doing a quick cameo.
"A B-movie with a bunch of no names?" I think that reviewer doesn't have much of a concept of musicals. Forget the fact that the movie had 10 very big stars in it. When you go to see a musical, you don't always know all the performers. It's more about the show than about the big names. But this one had 'em, big time. Including 2 of the biggest Hollywood names of the past 4 decades. And for me....I LOVE that Meryl was used sparingly. It would have just been a carbon copy of the first movie to have her back again in full capacity. The entire impetus of the story...was that she was gone. It added just a touch of sadness to the proceedings, while also creating great joy....in who she was, the lives she touched....how her free-spirited joy of life led her to a farmhouse in Greece. And to get just a glimmer of her, grace notes....at the end of the movie. It's what we were all hoping for, with great anticipation. And that moment she shared with Sophie did not disappoint. It goes straight to the heart.
Overacting? Musicals ARE practically the DEFINITION of overacting. In fact, the tiny amount of dialogue in musicals like this just serves as a bridge to the next wonderful ABBA song. When characters break out into song and dance out of nowhere.....it is INDEED overacting. But not in a BAD way. That's part of the fun and silly joy of a musical.
Cher? I had never been much of a fan, though I do appreciate her movie star presence, and the fact that she has stayed relevant so long. She's one of the last of a dying breed. The revered Hollywood starlet. And for her to play the elder diva, and sing that iconic ABBA song at the end was simply....perfect. A magic movie moment you don't often get anymore.
Wow, what a killjoy. This movie clearly was not made for you. You have to just kinda kick back, put your feet up....and escape into the vacation of it all....escape into the joyful fantasy. The wonderful songs (yes, they were indeed all ABBA songs), the breathtaking locations, the fun they're all clearly having. It's a joy revisiting those characters again, in that amazing setting. Both MM films are movie magic. And if you didn't smile in your heart and get a few chills when Cher sang Fernando....well, I'm actually a bit sorry for you, that you missed out. Maybe...life has you just too down in the greys.
BTW, the concept....(of seeing Donna's back story) was brilliant. And the actress/singer who played her (Lily James): a real joy, and very talented.
Sure, it was a fun scene to watch. And it was designed to be. Didn't seem at all realistic, though. It's one of those scenes actors love because they both get juicy monologues. I kinda take those kinds of scenes for what they're worth. A well choreographed back and forth where both actors get to chew up the dialogue. In the end, it does come down to taste, I agree. I certainly don't put it up there amongst the best scenes or acting I've seen....though I probably did when I was in my 20's. Now, it's just a fun (if overrated) scene in a fun (if underrated) movie.
Yes. Plus....the walkers were conveniently absent during the long moments of dialogue inside the stadium. And, in the truck/tank....they had time to watch a video and discuss it....while the door is wide open and a horde of walkers are right outside (not climbing in)??
Right. If Jamie Lee Curtis (and Carpenter, to a degree?) are involved, it has a remote chance at being decent. But nothing more. It's like when Jaws: The Revenge came out. People got fired-up because they got one original cast member back (and, there was a flashback of Roy Scheider). But in the end, it was just awful.
Part of the magic of H1 was the timing. It came out in a great era for this genre. And it's set...in the 70's. Perfect. It's like....Halloween Resurrection was the antithesis of H1. Resurrection tried to bring the Halloween franchise up to modern times (reality TV, cell phones, young hip stars, etc...), and whiffed badly. H1 was a small little film, set in a sleepy, tree-lined town, in the Fall, in the 70's, in October. It was a time where you could indeed expect to hear Blue Oyster Cult's "Don't Fear the Reaper" playing on a radio in the background of your day. It was a time before selfies and easy hook-ups, where a high school babysitter would be nervous about how to speak to Ben Tramer, and a masked stalker wouldn't be filmed by camera phones and broadcast on CNN and TMZ. The whole thing was perfect because of the simplicity of time, place, era, story and characters. This can't be replicated, no matter how many times they try. At least we have the original. It's a classic and a masterpiece.
Zephyr--I agree 100%.
H1 is a masterpiece.
H2 is good....(kinda the way Jaws is a masterpiece, and Jaws II is good, mainly because it's not far removed from the original, in tone, style, storyline, etc...).
H3 is it's own thing. Whatever.
Anything after H2, IMO.....is awful. You lose Hill and Carpenter's involvement altogether. Similar to the Jaws comparison....the producers figure as long as they can repurpose that Jaws theme and use the name "Jaws" in the title, fans of the original will remain loyal. We got succkered....in both franchises.
Where to begin? Part of the charm and mystique of the original (H1) was that there was virtually NO blood n' guts. And there was no goofy backstory regarding MM. As Loomis so masterfully put it in that brilliant monologue, what was behind those eyes was pure evil. The scares came from our childhood fear of what lurks in the shadows. That Boogeyman under the bed. He was relentless and he was unstoppable (and we didn't need to know why). The style and production techniques of H1 had Carpenter's touch at every turn. Once the movies lost that touch--they lost their soul. And, the producers lost the WHOLE...POINT....of what made H1 (and H2 to a lesser degree) so perfect.
Even the actor who played MM....his mannerisms, perfect. The mask....perfect. The actors...the sounds, the music (Don't Fear the Reaper--are you kidding me?? Perfect). With each sequel, we'd get bad imitation masks and actors BEHIND the mask that just couldn't duplicate what Castle mastered. And really, it just got silly....the contrived plots that were created just to, once again, set up a scenario where MM would come calling. What's more, he'd be in the same coveralls...and the same mask, which got silly after a while. It lost the unique spookiness we felt when we FIRST experienced it all in H1.
The Halloween sequels are the epitome of diminishing returns. And don't get me started on the Zombie versions. They were AWFUL. Zombie just didn't get what was at the heart of what made Halloween so fun and spooky. The original was a scary story around a campfire--about the Boogeyman. Good, old-school scares without the cheap use of blood and gore. Everything about Zombie's take was just wrong. Once I saw Malcolm MacDowell doing Loomis, after knowing just how perfectly Donald Pleasance played him, I was done.
Skip everything after H2. The rest of the sequels are so bad, they're an absolute insult to John Carpenter.
But see H1....every Halloween. Make it a tradition.
Will this sequel ignore everything after Halloween II?
Top Gun 2:
Feel the need....for stool softener.
Yep. It would have been cool to see Jabba and "The Hutts" as well.
The thing about that, though, is.....it's safe to assume a lot of things happen that we DON'T see. For example, I assume Leia did indeed approach Chewie at some point and have a moment with him. Maybe what you're saying is...you would have liked to have seen it. If we're talking about things that would have been nice to see on-screen.....I think the most unforgivable mistake is....no reunion scene between Han and Luke. The producers were able to get Ford and Hamill to agree to do a new Star Wars movie together....and they DON'T find a way to get those two on-screen together? smh
With that logic, shouldn't ALL the male contestants have full beards several weeks in? Hint: they have razors and other toiletries available to them.
Great actor. But perhaps a bit too....short, to play Cable?
Ha! I like your idea much better. That would be epic. I think the original Ferris Bueller post credits scene was the first (that I can recall). Or at least....the only mainstream one most people can remember as being first. Now, they're commonplace. But that one kinda launched the concept. It would be a lot of fun if a comic book movie (especially Deadpool) did a send-up which included Matthew Broderick.
There's something very cool about this guy. Just a simple, quiet soul, yet a complete badass at the same time. Most people in the ZA become a primal version of themselves, kill or be killed. But John seems truly decent to his core. Great actor....great episode. A nice departure from the typical stuff, which is more and more becoming...typical.