Movies you just recently watched

RayTunes said:
spiraldoor said:
That film is an abomination unto the Lord. One of the most disastrously terrible things I have ever witnessed. I still have no idea why I watched it.
Click to expand...
You'd be pleading to see it after you try The Room.
Click to expand...
The Room was unintentionally bad and laughably so, but at worst, harmless. Caligula is completely different. At least learn to differentiate your genres.
 
RayTunes said:
spiraldoor said:
That film is an abomination unto the Lord. One of the most disastrously terrible things I have ever witnessed. I still have no idea why I watched it.
Click to expand...
You'd be pleading to see it after you try The Room.
Click to expand...
Whoa, I've never heard of that movie before! Please do tell us more about it.
 
Hello, The Brave Little Toaster, long time no see.

This being another movie I haven't seen in ages, every scene clicked with nostalgia. It was probably one of my youngest films, so I didn't even remember the plot. What do I remember? A wheely chair with a power supply unit, that air conditioner, the strange forest scene, the waterfall, the jumbo ATV, that weird Mexican lamp, and the junkyard - all in no particular order or fashion. Now that I can actually understand the plot, it all makes a lot more sense.

I've got to say, this movie is really artsy and creative. There were many environments and scenes that didn't physically make sense, and even some scenes themself that made no sense, but they somehow managed to captivate vigorously and link together with the story beautifully, especially at the part where Toaster finds a wilting flower: it isn't dealt with, it doesn't even play a role in the story, it's just some kind of symbolic, surreal encounter that adds to the fantastic element of the film. Some of the best and most original animation of all time in my opinion came from the 80's, and this is no exception. The 80's animation also often had this daring and dark aspect to them, which I love. They don't hold back, they let the prime-time of traditional painted and photographed frames immerse us into the struggles and accomplishments of our protagonists, and it feels genuine and soulful in a way later forms of animation didn't (leaving 3D out of the discussion). Nothing against digital 2D animation, but it allowed corners to be cut in order to lower production costs and development times. It actually let people think for a moment that they didn't have to put effort into what they do. It opened up the gate to allow some of the shittiest things ever made to be aired on TV, YouTube, or wherever. It allowed DisneyToon Studios to do everything wrong. Of course I'm not bashing digital 2D, since there were many fantastic movies created with it (including every film from the Disney Renaissance era), but the 1980's were probably when animation was at its most dignified and purest state.

Of course, the film does have its flaws here and there. Subjectively, the second half started to lose the 'fantastic element' that the first half retained, right around when they were interacting with the pawn salesman and onward. It almost felt like a completely different movie with the modern (well, 1987 modern) city, as opposed to the dusty cabin and the ominous woods. There were also a lot of minor (and a couple major) continuity errors. For example, why was Kirby able to power himself without a power cord both before they introduced the portable power supply, and directly after they lost it down the river (he was able to back up and leap off the cliff without the power supply)? And why, when it clearly showed a dream sequence in which Toaster was killed when he was thrown into a bathtub (almost a sort of foreshadow or fear), was he able to survive and swim in the very same waterfall and river, and even get lost in a swamp? It actually threw me off guard for a short bit, making me wonder how the writers (or author) completely missed this. There's suspension of disbelief, but then there's just suspending you in disbelief.

But despite said flaws, it's still a very good movie, and one of the prime examples of classic 80's animation (Along with, most notably, The Secret of NIMH, An American Tail and The Land Before Time), even peaking at 95 minutes, quite a lot longer than your average animated film.

One thing that annoys me is all the undying praise that Toy Story receives. Toy Story, having come out seven years later, is almost an exact clone of this film, plot-wise and aesthetics-wise. In both films the group of toys/appliances are on a search for their master/owner, and the rule of having to hide and appear lifeless in the face of humans is entirely identical. Both films include a journey, and both films include a semi-antagonist who finds and imprisons the toys/appliances, with disturbing imagery inside the 'prison.' Heck, even Toy Story 3 was a complete rip-off of The Brave Little Toaster, potentially even moreso than the first. Compare the plots now:

  • In The Brave Little Toaster, 'Master' has moved away and gone to college, but he left his favourite appliances behind with plans to retrieve them later to bring along with him to his dormitory. Meanwhile, the appliances, thinking they've been abandoned, go out on a long journey to find him, eventually being betrayed by seemingly loyal and new-found acquaintances, getting themselves dumped in a garbage truck and eventually stuck on a crusher yard conveyer belt. They are then saved at the last second, and reunited happily with their Master.
  • In Toy Story 3, Andy has moved away and gone to college, but he left his favourite toys behind with plans to give them to a younger version of himself. Meanwhile, the toys, thinking they've been abandoned, go out on a long journey to find him, eventually being betrayed by seemingly loyal and new-found acquaintances, getting themselves dumped in a garbage truck and eventually stuck on a crusher yard conveyer belt. They are then saved at the last second, and reunited happily with their Master, being passed on to the younger girl.

I mean, seriously? Was it necessary to rip off another animated film right down to every single plot point... in two of their three installments? I liked Toy Story, but it was never up there in my favourites. This knocks it down even further for me though after realising that it was a total rip-off of what was, in my opinion, a much better film.
 
Well, I think you will push me to watch these movies again (I only remember Toy Story because I might watched a part of The Land Before Time and The Secret of NIMH but not The Brave Little Toaster yet).

Indeed, it seems that Toy Story 3 is inspired a lot from The Brave Little Toaster, considering how you give us the main plot.
Personnally, I think the plot of Toy Story movies is the best in the second, and the ambiance in the first. It is my favourite animated movie (but I haven't watched yet the 80's movies to say what I'm really thinking about it now I'm more than 20 years old).

Alright, I'll keep your comment about The Brave Little Toaster in mind and I'll read it again when I would have watched it.

I think the first animated movie from which I remember a deeper plot is FourmiZ, maybe because considering my personal experience it made me think more than many people. What do you think about the comparison there is between FourmiZ and A Bug's Life which were released in the same year? (if I remember. I could go on wiki to know it but I'm lazy today :P).

I watched FourmiZ first then A Bug's Life and with my 10 year-old child's eyes I thought there was NO comparison between both of them. Indeed, A Bug's Life is well done and the plot is no so bad. However it's too easy and not as deep as in FourmiZ where so many more references are hidden in. I can't remember exactly each one of them at the moment, but to my mind FourmiZ approaches a lot of adult subjects, although sometimes doing it through funny situations.
 
I recently saw Frankenweenie and Looper. Not the most alike combination of films, but they shared one thing in common: they were both really good!

Anyway, as for the Brave Little Toaster and Toy Story 3 conversation, I'm not sure, but I think I heard that the movies had a lot of the same people working on it. I actually thought it was meant to be a homage when SPOILER they ended up in the dump. I've seen people copy their own work before (sometimes, in the cases of the films 9 and Frankenweenie, directors remake their own shorts as full length movies) so it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case.
 
If they had a lot of the same people working on it then that makes sense... I hope that's the case.

@Sae:
"FourmiZ" in English is called "Antz." It did have a ridiculous amount in common with A Bug's Life (well, the other way around), but I had never looked too much into it. But Antz definitely seemed to direct itself to a slightly more adult audience than A Bug's Life. I have very fond memories of both, so I'll have to watch them again before I can say.
 
I've just seen Batman: The Dark knight Rises.
134876974181.png
 
I thought it was kind of shitty. I've never been incredibly fond of Nolan, but The Dark Knight was much, much better.
 
The Dark Knight Rises is a lot of fun – particularly the scenes with Anne Hathaway.

The Dark Knight is something of a misery-fest.
 
I found Rises to be rather boring for most of the film. Bane was entirely uninteresting as a villain (cliché backstory, and aside from the cool voice, he had no emotion whatsoever, which is a directional decision),the plot is one big [plot] hole, literally, and all of the story is brought alight through expository dialogue, completely ignoring the automatic film-enhancer tool of "show, don't tell." Anne Hathaway was probably one of the best parts of the film, with her stealing the action and great acting, but for a movie supposedly about Batman, there was less Batman than a Spider-Man movie. He didn't even feel like Batman in the scenes he was in, just sort of a generic overdone story, stretched out to two and a half hours with the odd interesting scene here and there plus a guy wearing a Batman costume that completely forgot how to fight. The whole thing about the nuke really didn't make any sense if you think about it... why does Bane want to blow up the city? There's no thought behind this, he's just your generic villain, and he turns out to be a total pussy when you find out it was his sister all this time. The whole thing about Bruce having to jump out of a hole that no one except Bane's sister, a child didn't feel great when he finally made it, it sort of felt like "wow, that was it I guess." Then... how did he get back to Gotham in five minutes?

The Dark Night I actually found to be a lot more coherent and enjoyable, largely due to the Joker being an incredibly free-spirited villain, and the action was really creative, varied and original. The suspense felt real and relateable, something that had me on the edge of my seat. A nuke blowing up a city does not feel real or relateable, and it did not have me on the edge of my seat until the very last scene where he flew the Nuke out to sea. I thought from then that was relatively well done because it had Batman sacrificing himself, but otherwise, no. Over all, Rises I found to be a complete let-down after the build up from The Dark Knight (come on, even the title I rolled my eyes at when I first heard it), and as a stand-alone movie, it's still very boring and uninteresting.

It turned from a battle of morals (Dark Knight) to a battle between generic good and evil (Rises).

This is all my opinion/interpretation of course.
 
I don't really care enough about these films to argue with you about them. I actually find it refreshing to see people criticising Nolan for once, even if I would have preferred this to have happened several films ago. Also, Bane wasn't Talia's brother – he was just some random guy that befriended her in the prison. The twist that transferred Bane's backstory to Talia was the worst part of the film for me.
 
Ah, I usually get character relations a little confused in my memory (like mistaking the little girl in Toy Story 3 for a boy in my memory), but nothing crucial.

I've truthfully never been fond of Nolan. While some of his films I do like a lot, there seems to be a sense of immaturity behind his direction that makes me unable to list him as a 'great' director. It's one of the reasons why I can't bring myself to like Inception a whole lot, even with not having known it was Nolan behind the chair until I bothered to look it up. If I were to compare Inception with the very similar but less-known Shutter Island, I can safely say that I found far less to criticise about Shutter Island, and far more to enjoy.
 
They're mature all right. The problem is that they're clinical, drab and joyless. I think The Prestige and Memento are excellent though.

Shutter Island is a bit of a mess; it's far too ambiguous as to which things are real and which things aren't. I found it very confusing and unsatisfying. Not a terrible film, but pretty poor compared to some of Scorsese's previous work.
 
I think I phrased what I meant by 'immature' poorly. I didn't mean immature entirely in regards to the maturity of the content in the film, but moreso in relation to the... complexion of one. Like you said:

spiraldoor said:
The problem is that they're clinical, drab and joyless.
Click to expand...
A lot of them are missing those elements that would make it seem a bit more wholesome/interesting, or because of them being clinical they would be considered 'immature films.' I don't really have a lot of words to describe it, and immature was probably quite a terrible one, but in essence I'm agreeing with you.

Shutter Island confused me, though I found the ending to be a great twist which immediately eliminated all the confusion. I did see it two and a half years ago and I don't remember every detail, but I remember loving the atmosphere and the ending especially.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top