The Official Movie Thread
- Thread starter Manic Ferocity
- Start date
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
Just watched it. It’s a basic sci fi action movie centered around a popular character. It was entertaining enough, but by far the weakest and least essential of the new Star Wars movies.
rms
Active Member
I know this isn't the trade thread, but is anyone interested in all/ a lot of these old dvd's I got laying around? Not trying to leave them by the trash so figured this is a last shot. You pay me the few bucks for media mail shipping and you can get as many as you want
Draehl
Lurker
Meh, TLJ left such a bad taste in my mouth I'm done with Star Wars unless I hear some truly jawdropping reviews. That said I'm mostly over the political element, but the huge number of plot holes, plots dropped, and "gotcha" moments still bum me out. I think the political narrative wouldn't have been so obvious if we had a more cohesive film with JJ Abrams stayed on to direct and carried forward all of the elements he setup in TFA. All 3 films needed to have one writer at the very least.
Vegard Pompey
ALLY TO GOOD, NIGHTMARE TO YOU
Haven't seen TLJ but I'm sure I've had at least 80% of the movie spoiled for me at this point. TFA (which I really liked) was two hours of buildup to Luke's reappearance and from the sound of things TLJ followed up on that in the worst possible way.
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
I thought every scene with Luke was gold. I think it comes down to who you want Luke to be. If you see him as the pure golden boy who saved the galaxy and then transcended the flaws of everyday mortals through the Force, then you will not like it. If you see him as a more of a flawed hero who can be defeated by fears on occasion, but is ultimately good and will to the right thing most of the time, then you are likely to appreciate the portrayal. I find the later perspective to be more appealing from a narrative perspective and to resonate more with what I found appealing about Luke since childhood.
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,620
- 9,621
- 113
Einherjar86
Active Member
But in all honesty, I enjoyed TLJ. It was a great ironic jab at Star Wars fandom.
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,620
- 9,621
- 113
i stand by what i said at the time, more or less. the first one is devout fanfiction, easy to like or even love but kinda hard to respect. this one's more of a fascinating failure ambivalently wrestling with its own STAR WARS-ness (elsewhere i referred to it as a bergman-esque struggle with the faithful nostalgia of its predecessor, an assertion of individuality and scepticism toward a franchise that isn't remotely receptive to such things), which i suppose is what happens when you give that much responsibility to a niche writer-director rather than a safe spielberg wannabe like abrams. it's an absolute mess because of this tension, but at least it's a ballsy and unusual one.
rms
Active Member
But in all honesty, I enjoyed TLJ. It was a great ironic jab at Star Wars fandom.
Which then came full circle as being star wars-y
"Hey, when you dream, are you still Joey? .... You're still pretty good with the killing. ..... And ask him, Edie, how come he's so good at killing people ?" that movie was some classic shit
rms
Active Member
Einherjar86
Active Member
I saw it yesterday. I thought it was a really interesting film visually and aurally, and felt pretty absorbed into at least three scenes (which doesn't usually happen to me in horror movies). I'm a bit ambivalent about the ending, and there are definitely overtones of classic '60s/'70s horror (thinking specifically of Rosemary's Baby and The Omen). Definitely worth seeing. There were also a few images that will surely stick in my memory for a while.
rms
Active Member
thought the ending was the only good part..the work with lighting was pretty cool. the storyline seemed to become disjointed at about the hour mark and then never came full circle, you get that vibe too?
Einherjar86
Active Member
Haha, the ending is what I'm most ambivalent about. I appreciated the film more when the audience was dogged with uncertainty over what the fuck was going on in that family.
I'm not sure I ever felt the storyline became more disjointed than it was from the get-go. There are plot developments and aspects that I still don't understand, but I don't think the film provided all the information necessary to piece it together. On one hand that could be a criticism, but I feel it lends to the overall atmosphere. I had the same reaction to The Witch.
I'm not sure I ever felt the storyline became more disjointed than it was from the get-go. There are plot developments and aspects that I still don't understand, but I don't think the film provided all the information necessary to piece it together. On one hand that could be a criticism, but I feel it lends to the overall atmosphere. I had the same reaction to The Witch.
rms
Active Member
on the story..
here's how my train of thought was going
before she dies, the trailer showed evil possessed girl gets grandma's revenge or something. then she dies, i thought it was insane mom ghost exploration everything's fake kind of thing. then we learn about Joan's connection to the grandmother, which I still thought was fake with the husband's reaction to the dead body upstairs(what bad acting outside of Toni and Dowd, holy shit), and then we see the ritual and how they orchestrated possession of the King for Charlie, but why the fuck would the grandma possess Charlie when Peter was around!?, and then Joan apparently used magic to kill Charlie to get the long con to say the words and start the process..
like where the hell did all this planning come from without anyone showing it? that's where I got fucked up. and why do these people live in the same shitty area that her grandmother wants to possess everything?
seems to me that they changed the story during production and tried to fudge it. that's the vibe im getting.
but the ending with Collette on the wall and the dude naked in the closet was A+ haha
before she dies, the trailer showed evil possessed girl gets grandma's revenge or something. then she dies, i thought it was insane mom ghost exploration everything's fake kind of thing. then we learn about Joan's connection to the grandmother, which I still thought was fake with the husband's reaction to the dead body upstairs(what bad acting outside of Toni and Dowd, holy shit), and then we see the ritual and how they orchestrated possession of the King for Charlie, but why the fuck would the grandma possess Charlie when Peter was around!?, and then Joan apparently used magic to kill Charlie to get the long con to say the words and start the process..
like where the hell did all this planning come from without anyone showing it? that's where I got fucked up. and why do these people live in the same shitty area that her grandmother wants to possess everything?
seems to me that they changed the story during production and tried to fudge it. that's the vibe im getting.
but the ending with Collette on the wall and the dude naked in the closet was A+ haha
Einherjar86
Active Member
All the planning happened before the beginning of the movie. It happened while the grandma was still alive.
Annie very explicitly related at one point that she was estranged from her mother. When Peter, her son, was born, she said that she instituted a no contact rule between her mother and her son. So the grandma was unable to perform the possession ceremony because she was prohibited from interacting with Peter; and presumably Annie's husband reinforced this. But she was allowed to interact with Charlie, on whom she (somehow) performed the ceremony. So Charlie was Paimon all along.
Since she was prevented from possessing Peter, she hatched a plan with the rest of the Paimon cult to orchestrate Charlie's death, allowing Paimon to escape Charlie's body and enter Peter's (since Paimon prefers a male form). She died before the ritual could take place; whether the exhumation of her body was part of the plan or not is left uncertain, but it did have an impact on pulling the family apart.
Annie very explicitly related at one point that she was estranged from her mother. When Peter, her son, was born, she said that she instituted a no contact rule between her mother and her son. So the grandma was unable to perform the possession ceremony because she was prohibited from interacting with Peter; and presumably Annie's husband reinforced this. But she was allowed to interact with Charlie, on whom she (somehow) performed the ceremony. So Charlie was Paimon all along.
Since she was prevented from possessing Peter, she hatched a plan with the rest of the Paimon cult to orchestrate Charlie's death, allowing Paimon to escape Charlie's body and enter Peter's (since Paimon prefers a male form). She died before the ritual could take place; whether the exhumation of her body was part of the plan or not is left uncertain, but it did have an impact on pulling the family apart.
rms
Active Member
yeah, this is what she said but I think the movie had to do a little more here to demonstrate this was at all feasible and actually planned.
think the grandma wasn't needed for any of this at all
goofy family as is. unless granny made her sleep walk to try and kill Peterso, why did the end ruin it for you? missing something here
