PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Aug 11, 2021 13:48:34 GMT -5
Through The Looking Glass though is supposed to be unwatchable so I'm looking forward to that review. According to IMDb: — — — — Alice — 6.4/10 Looking Glass — 6.2/10 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory — 6.6/10 Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children — 6.7/10 Chronicles of Narnia: Lion/Witch/Wardrobe — 6.9/10 Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian — 6.5/10 Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides — 6.6/10 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales — 6.5/10 — — — — So, I don’t know about “unwatchable”. It’s rated evenly with similar Disney/Burton/Depp movies from the past 20 years. Basically, if you’re PhantomKnight you’re gonna love this shit. Of those 6 out of 8 movies that I've seen, I only like 3 of them.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Aug 11, 2021 13:52:33 GMT -5
According to IMDb: — — — — Alice — 6.4/10 Looking Glass — 6.2/10 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory — 6.6/10 Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children — 6.7/10 Chronicles of Narnia: Lion/Witch/Wardrobe — 6.9/10 Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian — 6.5/10 Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides — 6.6/10 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales — 6.5/10 — — — — So, I don’t know about “unwatchable”. It’s rated evenly with similar Disney/Burton/Depp movies from the past 20 years. Basically, if you’re PhantomKnight you’re gonna love this shit. Of those 6 out of 8 movies that I've seen, I only like 3 of them. So you liked… half those movies.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,298
Likes: 6,762
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 14:43:35 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Aug 11, 2021 13:53:28 GMT -5
Man I really want Tim Burton to make a good movie again, it's been a very, very, very long time. Whenever he's fucking ready.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Aug 11, 2021 14:05:40 GMT -5
Man I really want Tim Burton to make a good movie again, it's been a very, very, very long time. Whenever he's fucking ready. He's doing a TV live action spinoff of The Adams Family now... really stretching himself.
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Aug 11, 2021 14:09:44 GMT -5
Of those 6 out of 8 movies that I've seen, I only like 3 of them. So you liked… half those movies. Charlie and Pirates 4 & 5 (though 5 kinda tests me, the more time that passes).
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Aug 11, 2021 14:16:07 GMT -5
Man I really want Tim Burton to make a good movie again, it's been a very, very, very long time. Whenever he's fucking ready. Big Eyes and Miss Peregrine were good ::shrug::
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Aug 11, 2021 14:17:06 GMT -5
So you liked… half those movies. Charlie and Pirates 4 & 5 (though 5 kinda tests me, the more time that passes). Bitch, don’t pretend you don’t like the Narnia movies.
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Aug 11, 2021 14:29:56 GMT -5
Charlie and Pirates 4 & 5 (though 5 kinda tests me, the more time that passes). Bitch, don’t pretend you don’t like the Narnia movies. I don't like the Narnia movies. They're boring and lifeless.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Aug 11, 2021 15:22:35 GMT -5
Bitch, don’t pretend you don’t like the Narnia movies. I don't like the Narnia movies. They're boring and lifeless. Blasphemy
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Aug 11, 2021 15:39:33 GMT -5
I don't like the Narnia movies. They're boring and lifeless. Blasphemy Truth.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,298
Likes: 6,762
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 14:43:35 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Aug 11, 2021 17:35:37 GMT -5
Man I really want Tim Burton to make a good movie again, it's been a very, very, very long time. Whenever he's fucking ready. Big Eyes and Miss Peregrine were good ::shrug:: I forgot Big Eyes. Yeah, it certainly wasn't bad. Now Dumbo, woof that was bad.
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Aug 11, 2021 17:59:01 GMT -5
Man I really want Tim Burton to make a good movie again, it's been a very, very, very long time. Whenever he's fucking ready. Big Eyes and Miss Peregrine were good ::shrug:: Somehow, I tricked myself into thinking Miss Peregrine was good. Watching it again...man, that movie has some low lows.
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,647
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by PG Cooper on Aug 11, 2021 19:05:38 GMT -5
Man I really want Tim Burton to make a good movie again, it's been a very, very, very long time. Whenever he's fucking ready. I really like his animated movie Frankenweenie. It's nothing super ambitious or anything but I had a great time with it.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Aug 12, 2021 7:42:50 GMT -5
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice (2010)
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is kind of the forgotten live action remake Disney made during this era and appears to have been made for different reasons than a lot of the other ones, but I do think it counts. The film is meant to be a modern day riff on the famous sequence of the same name from Fantasia and while it ultimately goes off in very different directions it isn’t shy about its source material and does feature a standout (and somewhat plot irrelevant) sequence based around that same “apprentice causes chaos by bringing brooms and mops to life” theme complete with Paul Dukas’ music. Of course why they wanted to brand this otherwise unrelated movie about modern wizardry as a remake that no one was asking for of a segment of a seventy year old movie I’m not sure, in fact I’m also not entirely sure if they set out from the beginning to make that segment into a feature of if they applied the branding on after the fact, but either way they did and it counts. Unlike a lot of the other remakes we’re going to be looking at in this series this movie, which came out the same year as Alice in Wonderland, was made less to be a recycled family movie and was instead one of several collaborations Disney made with action movie producer Jerry Bruckheimer in an attempt to re-capture that Pirates of the Caribbean magic by mixing semi-forgotten Disney properties with the sensibilities of more modern teen targeted action cinema. In particular this was a reunion between Bruckheimer, Nicholas Cage, and Jon Turteltaub who had collectively made the National Treasure movies into hits for Disney. I’m also sure that the Harry Potter franchise had more than a little bit to do with this thing getting greenlit. So, you can see the Hollywood logic that went into this thing coming to be but it’s still pretty odd that this exists and audiences seem to have agreed because it pretty much bombed at the box office (especially domestically) and was greeted by general indifference by critics and audiences. The thing is, while I do think the movie is a failure it’s not really as bad as its “forgotbuster” status would leave you to believe. In many ways it’s just kind of aggressively average. The film concerns a college aged dude played by Jay Baruchel who as a child had a (seemingly) chance encounter with an antique shop run by a wizard played by Nicholas Cage where he accidentally knocks over a magic nesting doll that was imprisoning an evil wizard played by Alfred Molina and the two of them end up trapped in another magic tchotchke for ten years and then come back in the present and start fighting over that aforementioned nesting doll where other evil wizards are trapped. So it’s a McGuffin chase… also the Baruchel character turns out to be a chosen one that the Cage character starts to train. It’s all rather familiar and while there are a couple passable ideas prettying this up none of them really stand out nearly enough to really make this even a little bit memorable. The film also has a bit of an inherent structural issue in that it needs to slow down after it’s first half so that the Baruchel character actually has time to take some lessons and, you know, be an apprentice to the sorcerer but this requires that escaped evil wizard to suddenly seem like a much less pressing threat for no particular reason. It also has this romantic sub-plot between the Baruchel character and a fellow student played by Teresa Palmer which focuses entirely on this geeky guy awkwardly mustering the courage to talk to the girl and you’re just embarrassed on this dude’s behalf through the whole thing and not really in a good way. So, the movie has problems but Disney has sold the public on mediocrities in the past, so why did this fail so hard? The answer is probably Nicholas Cage. It’s not too hard to see why they thought it was a good idea to put Cage in the middle of their live action Disney movie considering that he and Turteltaub had delivered strong box office with the National Treasure movies not too much earlier but kind of a lot had happened to Cage since 2004 and he was already kind of diluted his brand by doing terrible action movies like Bangkok Dangerous, Knowing, and Ghost Rider as well as idiosyncratic “wild man” performances in stuff like Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans and The Wicker Man. In short he was already starting to become a joke and was certainly not someone anyone was going to take seriously as a mentor to an apprentice. I’d say Jay Baruchel was kind of a bad casting choice as well. He clearly has the nerdy demeanor they were looking for but was too old for his part. The dude was 28 when they made this and didn’t really look much younger which makes his awkwardness around women feel more pathetic than sympathetic and made the already questionable decision to make this apprentice to the sorcerer be a college student rather than a kid seem like a big mistake. Beyond that the action here mostly isn’t much to write home about beyond one kind of interesting car chase and the special effects and fantasy elements are average at best. Between all that, a franchise attachment no one wanted, some very dumb soundtrack choices, and the fact that this thing opened the same day as Inception this thing basically flopped. Didn’t flop in a memorable way either, it just came and went. It made a bit more internationally but not enough to continue the franchise. It solidified Jon Turteltaub as a hack, pushed Nicholas Cage even further from the mainstream, and after the debacle that was The Lone Ranger Disney would soon part ways with Jerry Bruckheimer outside of Pirates sequels. **1/2 out of Five
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,647
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by PG Cooper on Aug 12, 2021 8:05:35 GMT -5
So, the movie has problems but Disney has sold the public on mediocrities in the past, so why did this fail so hard? The answer is probably Nicholas Cage. It’s not too hard to see why they thought it was a good idea to put Cage in the middle of their live action Disney movie considering that he and Turteltaub had delivered strong box office with the National Treasure movies not too much earlier but kind of a lot had happened to Cage since 2004 and he was already kind of diluted his brand by doing terrible action movies like Bangkok Dangerous, Knowing, and Ghost Rider as well as idiosyncratic “wild man” performances in stuff like Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans and The Wicker Man. In short he was already starting to become a joke and was certainly not someone anyone was going to take seriously as a mentor to an apprentice. Pretty sure this video was originally posted around 2009/2010 (this version is a repost). There's also this College Humor Skit from 2010.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Aug 12, 2021 9:16:59 GMT -5
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is kind of the forgotten live action remake Disney made during this era PhantomKnight remembers it
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Aug 12, 2021 11:04:53 GMT -5
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Aug 12, 2021 11:07:52 GMT -5
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is kind of the forgotten live action remake Disney made during this era PhantomKnight remembers it Yep. I like it. And own it on Blu-Ray.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Aug 14, 2021 11:41:49 GMT -5
Maleficent (2014)
In retrospect it’s not too hard to view 2010 as a year when Disney took a perhaps unintentional test run to see what they could do with their live action remakes of old properties and tried to make one fairly straightforward retelling of an old property targeted at a new generation (Alice in Wonderland), one movie that more of a sequel than a remake which is primarily targeted at fans of the original (Tron: Legacy), and one action movie that kind of tries to become its own thing with only tangential ties to an original (The Sorcerer’s Apprentice). With this data collected they made a game plan, worked up some projects, and then three years later the onslaught began. The first movie out the gate was Maleficent, which back in 2014 and was of course based on the 1959 film Sleeping Beauty and unlike Alice in Wonderland (which could just be interpreted as a new adaptation of that book) this was clearly and unequivocally evoking the Disney movie. That 1959 movie is interesting in that it’s one of Disney’s three OG “princess movies” but it’s the one with by far the least interesting (and least marketable) princess. Princess Aurora is officially a part of their merchandising line but it’s a character who’s asleep during the whole movie and is generally overshadowed by the prince, the fairy god mothers, and of course the film’s villain, who is obviously front and center in this remake. In many ways it was a safe choice for Disney: if it was a hit Aurora might be revitalized as a marketable character and many a Maleficent Halloween costume could be sold, but if this whole live action remake thing ended up flopping out the gate the sacrificial lamb would be a property that wasn’t too important to them in the first place. Maleficent has long been held, perhaps not as a good movie but at least as an example of what Disney should be doing with these remakes: doing something different with the property in question rather than just regurgitating the original story. In fact I’d long assumed this was even more removed form Sleeping Beauty than it actually was, believing it to be a full-on prequel explaining how Maleficent came to be who she was before the events of that movie. That’s sort of true in that this has a prologue along those lines, but then the movie does in fact become a retelling of the story of Sleeping Beauty more or less in its entirety albeit from a different perspective and with largish changes. Of course that perspective change is pretty radical given that the Maleficent in the animated film is probably one of Disney’s most one-note eeeevillll villains ever, so making her a sympathetic protagonist is not easy. In short they reframe her not as a secluded sorceress but as a defender of a separate realm populated by magical creatures that the human kingdom kept trying to invade more or less unprovoked and that she ended up with a pretty legitimate beef with the king by the time she did the whole sleeping curse thing which she came to regret. It’s all a bit of stretch but it’s kind of a tough writing assignment and they handle it about as well as they were likely to. This whole idea of reframing the fairy tale villain as the hero is of course not exactly an original idea, it was almost certainly inspired by the success of the Broadway musical “Wicked,” but as a film concept it still felt relatively fresh. Of course the film’s ultimate raison d'etre is to be a star vehicle for Angelina Jolie and as that it’s fairly successful. Jolie is considered one of the last true movie stars but she didn’t really do a whole lot of high profile acting at all during the 2010s aside from her work in this movie and its sequel, which she seemingly made to keep her profile and box office bone fides intact while she pursued directing with varying degrees of success. Still this is clearly a smart role for her given that it allows her to be this authoritative figure while also being kind of gothy and theatrical. It’s not exactly a performance that stretches her emotionally, but she works as a screen presence, and the film was also a nice career boost for her co-star Elle Fanning but the rest of the cast is a bit shaky. In particular I didn’t care for Sharlto Copley as the film’s villain. That guy is just a ham and a half and it wouldn’t be long before Hollywood sort of gave up on him. The movie was directed by a guy named Robert Stromberg, who had never directed before (or since) but who had an extensive background both in visual effects and art direction (for which he’d won two Academy Awards including one for the 2010 Alice in Wonderland). If I had to point to a central weakness for this movie it’s probably that guy, who does seem to have a good grasp of the fundamentals of filmmaking and brings decent technical effects to the film but lacks a truly compelling vision to really bring it to life. The movie is never a particularly interesting fantasy movie in and both its story and its visual style would seem rather odd to people unfamiliar with that 1959 film. Overall the movie is watchable over its brisk 97 minute runtime but isn’t nearly the radical revision some people make it out to be, but could be a lot worse. **1/2 out of Five
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Aug 14, 2021 15:05:26 GMT -5
Excuse me, sir. You skipped over Oz: The Great and Powerful.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Aug 14, 2021 15:09:10 GMT -5
Excuse me, sir. You skipped over Oz: The Great and Powerful. Remake of a non-animated MGM movie... and Disney lawyers will tell you it's not a remake of that either but a new adaptation of the public domain novels. Also I've seen it already.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,770
Likes: 8,646
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 7:47:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Aug 14, 2021 15:20:06 GMT -5
Excuse me, sir. You skipped over Oz: The Great and Powerful. Remake of a non-animated MGM movie... and Disney lawyers will tell you it's not a remake of that either but a new adaptation of the public domain novels. Also I've seen it already. PG Cooper will be disappointed when you skip over the Nutcracker.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,298
Likes: 6,762
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 14:43:35 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Aug 14, 2021 15:41:24 GMT -5
Dracula had better not skip over the Nutcracker. Don't even think about it.
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,647
Likes: 4,060
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by PG Cooper on Aug 14, 2021 19:32:05 GMT -5
I saw that shit in theaters.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,101
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Aug 16, 2021 9:51:12 GMT -5
Cinderella (2015)
Aside from being Disney remakes what do Alice in Wonderland, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, and Maleficent have in common? They all have CGI dragons in them. Well technically Alice in Wonderland’s dragon is a jabberwocky, but it looks like a dragon to me. And this is kind of where Kenneth Branagh’s 2015 adaptation of Cinderella kind of stands out from a lot of the other Disney remakes: it may have magic and a couple of CGI rodents but at its heart it doesn’t feel like it’s trying to be an effects extravaganza and is generally pretty low key as modern Disney adaptations go. Where those other movies are Disney movies as blockbuster tentpoles this is more like Disney movies as costume drama, and as such Branagh was a pretty logical choice to direct given that he’s mostly made a career out of adapting older material for new audiences but isn’t beyond engaging in modern film techniques and knows his way around special effects. The mice here no longer talk and are deemphasized and this also isn’t a musical but the main story is largely unchanged from the 1950 animated version even as certain details here are expanded. We get more details of how Cinderella came to be in her situation and about some of the political situations with the prince and they switch things around a bit by having Cinderella and the prince meet up once before the ball to get that relationship rolling a little. Beyond those little changes this is notable for being a very traditional take on Cinderella that doesn’t rock the boat too much. One could say that makes it one of the more redundant of Disney’s live action remakes, but I’m not sure that’s entirely fair. For one thing, of all of Disney’s “classics” the 1950 Cinderella was among the ones most in need of a facelift. The animation in that movie wasn’t bad exactly but it was clearly a step down from their pre-war work and the movie generally isn’t that impressive as a visual work and its low key nature makes it so getting real live actors in on it was an upgrade. Lily James does a very good job of selling the character’s inherent good nature without making her seem like a completely inhuman saint and Richard Madden is pretty good at making the prince seem similarly young and idealistic while still feeling sensible. That said, I’m not sure Helena Bonham Carter brings anything terribly unique to the character of the fairy godmother and try as she might there’s only so much even a talent on Cate Blanchett’s level can do to not make the evil stepmother seem to be anything other than cartoonishly evil. At times I do think the movie could have done more to sand down some of the fairy tale contrivances here; the midnight deadline the night of the ball still feels totally arbitrary and the comedy with the step-sisters is a bit much. Still there is something almost refreshing rather than lazy about how confident this movie is in just letting this material work without a lot of sprucing up. It would not have shocked me in the slightest if some Disney exec had tried to talk Branagh into adding a third act sword fight or something but they don’t really do that and instead seem almost naively willing to let the actors carry this Disney tentpole that ended up grossing more than half a billion worldwide. *** out of Five
|
|