/hob/ - Hobbies

>>68094
Thought about seeing it in thearters but remembered Disny owns the company that produces it now, and I vowed to not give them my money.

So I will wait until dvd quality uploads to my favorite alternative means of watching movies arrives and watch it then.

>>68095
Ah

>>67125
Going off of agreeable atmosphere only:
Rams, The Fool and Sonatine all contain rejections of primary norper pillars so they felt right to me. They are all quite focused on social dynamic to achieve this though.

>>68099
Makes sense.

Saw Transformers One.
Quite the rollicking time. On one hand it adapted fairly well past the post-Bionicle gen of the early 00s. On the other hand it got fairly dark when it did.
But it's that one minute and that same 80s spectacle the next, even if I chose this over Toy Story 4, also directed by Cooley.
I had fun, though I have yet to see what the pundits thought…

Any list of good /wiz/ adjacent movies? I want relatable movies.

>>68107
Lars And The Real Succubus

>>68106
Well hey, I'm just glad us guys don't throw some fangasm orgy when a Hasbro movie, which cost more-or-less 100 million $, directed by someone who did an okayish film in 2019, starring an Aussie as the main character, gets almost a 90 Certified Fresh on RT :D…

Watched the movie If (2024)

It's basically a imaginary friend movie. Rather than describe the plot or give a summery I will instead compare it to other imaginary friend movies I have seen.
It's not quite as entertaining as Drop Dead Fred, mostly due to the subdued acting, slower pacing, and more melodramatic tone rather than being a through and through comedy.
It is however significantly better than Monkybone, due to being fundamentally better written, having better FX and overall not sucking.
That said IF is disappointingly mid and lacks many memorable moments. It's not a bad film but it also really has nothing special going on when it comes to the plot or characters. I also think the integration of the animated charcters in the live action world was pretty meh. I have seen it done better and worse in other films.
One thing that consistently dragged down the film was the under-reaction and acting of the MC, who for a child actor isn't dredful but still the proformance lacked much emotion whenever they were playing off of the animated characters. It was only in the big emotional scenes with only human actors to play of that she seemed to be able to fully get into the scene.
So potential is there but probably wasn't the best casting for a film that requires so much playing off of characters who aren't actually there during filming. That or fault of director. I don't care enough to look into details of the production.

Anyway if I was to put a number on it I would give it a 3 out of 5.
Didn't impress me but isn't actually bad.

:3

Got around to watching the original 70s version of Stepford Wives.
It was pretty bad but not for the reasons I was expecting. What was notable to me was that it was bad on a techical level more then issues with the story. I can definatly see why they got around to making a remake.
The editing, the shot choice, how scenes were arranged, some of the audio mixing, having way too much dead air and time filler stuff, plot threads went nowhere. The whole thing was a mess on a basic film making level.

The story it's self was mediocre to bad. There were some interesting concepts and it set it's self up as a mystery plot but refused to play into the mystery genera, instead mostly focusing on drama which I think was a poor choice, especially since they constantly deflated the sense of drama and dread every few minutes when things started to get even a little tense.

Never read the book it's based on, but I think the same concept reworked, rewritten, and done by a more competent team of film makers could result in a decent movie. As it stand now though, the original 70s version kinda sucked. The 2/3s of the move was boring, lots of technical issues, and the lead's acting was subpar.

I bought a ticket for Joker: Folie a deux.
I'm not gonna go see it, though. That would be really dumb XD..

>>68136
yea going to the cinema is a bother and a waste of time

>>68138
I used to enjoy it but my local theater went to shit and 95% of movies in the last couple years haven't been worthy of my money nor even my time.
Given me time to watch more indie, international, and old stuff though.
Wish there as a theater in town that showed old films on the big screen for like a couple bucks. I actually do enjoy the theater experience. Feels special and I am even more zoned into the movie.

>>68136
>bought a cinema ticket without actually watching the movie
WTF? Just why?

>>65514
Last film I saw in cinema was the latest Dune film.

The oldest film I saw ever was a Buster Keaton film about a train during the civil war in america.

>>68107
Oldboy - its a korean film about a wizard

>>68144
>about a wizard
>a important plot point is he had a daughter

Dude really?
I mean it's a good movie but I don't think you know what a wizard is.

>>68145
in another thread someone recommended a manga about a "loser" guy with a daughter
i think sex comes so easily to normies, that they cannot imagine living a whole life without it, and they think that virginity is a temporary state of not having sex for a longer while

>>68142
>movie cost almost 200 million dollars without actually worth seeing
WTF? Just why?

>>68107
Dredd 2012
Hellboy 2019
Rorschach and Wolverine ;D…..

>>68140
Theatres in my city are showing old movies once a month. I'm seeing Pulp Fiction on the 4th November.

"Hitler: Rise of Evil". Didn't finish watching it yet. No spoilers please. :D
Probably "It's a Wonderful Life".

I was gonna check its imdb trivia, but it was probably raided by pmsing succubi, with hypocritical healthcare, like alot of things online seem to be nowadays…

>>68175
wut?

I needed this:
A good comedy-drama.
Yesterday took all my energy XP.

>>68175

You will see your boogeyman everywhere if you obsess over it. SO much that you will become blind to literally everything else. One tiny comment about whatever you are obsessed over will be enough to ruin your day even though the majority of the content is completely unrelated.

Stop giving that boogeyman so much attention and it will die out.

I watched Mr. Vampire last night. Again, yet again. To me, this movie is nearly the perfect expression of a popcorn film. You might think it would be a movie made in the U.S. or perhaps Bollywood, since they are producing most of the silly movies purely for entertainment, but no. At least for me, it’s this film from the golden age of Cantonese cinema.

It is Ricky Lau's third movie as a director. His two previous films, Two Toothless Tigers and Crazy-Fist Executioner, were rather inexpressive, mediocre outings. Mr. Vampire looked like it was going the same way. He began filming it without a full script, without the necessary budget, and without a proper movie set. He pretty much winged it, at least in the beginning, and it shows. There are many scenes that feel disjointed, more like comedy sketches than part of a cohesive movie. Yet, for this one film, the stars were aligned because that lighthearted approach to piecing the movie together actually works in its favor.

The movie is assembled rather loosely; all the scenes are springy and involve all sorts of shenanigans: hopping zombies, Tao spells, Kung Fu, comedy, ghosts, and cultural shock during Republican-era China. Even the romance in this movie is interesting. I particularly enjoy the 'cheap studio' atmosphere of the interior scenes; oddly enough, that also works in its favor. It feels like a movie still in transition from theater, employing theatrical techniques. It’s very fun to watch these actors absolutely destroy the fake furniture, walls, kitchenware, and whatever else happens to be in the way during fight scenes. The set design, on the other hand, doesn’t feel cheap at all, despite being made of cheap stuff. The backgrounds are filled with detail. The gardens, rooms, and streets have a domestic, accommodating aura, and the clothing and props add to it immensely.

All the characters and actors are likable and never overstay their welcome in the scenes. Lam Ching-ying in particular nails the role of Master Kau as the main protagonist, so much so that people are still making movies with this exact character to this very day. He is the perfect embodiment of the shifu archetype in Wuxia fiction. He plays off his incompetent apprentices to great effect, and the apprentices, in turn, play wonderfully against the pretty face of the movie, Ting-ting. There’s an unusually sharp rapport among these characters that makes for a pleasant watch. Like I said, it’s the perfect popcorn movie.

Last but not least, it was through Mr. Vampire that I discovered Pu Songling's short stories, which adds to the entertainment this movie has provided me over the years.

can I get some japanese movie recommended please. it doesn't matter if it's in japanese without subs or theresn't an english translation

>>68375
Daimajin (1966)
The Vampire Doll (1970)

>>68376
thank you

>>68375
bruh is that the 9 tails that was inside naruto

>>68394
yes haha

Nosferatu (2024) was really, really good.

Such a wonderful feeling a dark truly evil dread throughout.
A masterpiece of horror.
Brilliant cinematography, masterful audio design, fantastic performances.

5 out of 5.
Highly recommend.

>>68900
I have. It was good but not nearly as mindblowingly fantastic as the hype online would have you believe. You can definitely tell they didn't have an insane budget for the CGI at times but it's still plenty enjoyable imo.

what did you think of this movie?

>>66829
Its sad how much ghibli relies too hard on miyazaki

I really don't understand how people think 2049 is better than the original Blade Runner, it's a good film but just not as good as the original. I still think the original (No narration of course) is one of the best sci-fi/Detective movies of all time.

>>69117
>I really don't understand how people think 2049 is better than the original Blade Runner
people say that? i think ive never seen anyone claim that

>>69117
I think I like K more than Deckard, I like closure too, but the original's plot is more interesting
Not very big on any of them to argue more than that

Watched Five Element Ninjas last night.
Very good martial arts movie. An elite martial arts school that's at the top of the martial world is being attacked by a clan of ninjas from Japan.
The action is solid, the ninjas and their tricks are very creative and varied, and the visuals are a treat, as is often the case of those 80s hong kong movies.
The pacing is very good, the movie lasts almost 2 hours but goes by in a flash.

It's up with english dubs on archive.org

>>69117
2049 has more complex and abstract themes based on modern internet culture. The first movie has a better emotion and better spoken commentary but not as many layers. It's simpler with its obvious good guy vs bad guy character set. 2049 has better unspoken commentary. Example: There's more unspoken meaning when Deckard says "her eyes were green" to Wallace in 2049 then spoken meaning in the entire "Tears in the Rain" Roy monologue.

Abigail

It's a pretty unserious horror film involving a vampire.
Was a fun viewing experience though some of the acting was poor and the writing was mid at best. Still, I enjoyed my time watching it. I think if you liked M3GAN you would probably like this movie too.

I give it a 3 out of 5.

I recently watched the latest 'The Monkey' remake. It was silly and ridiculous but I also found it quite fun. The humor was dry and dark and it was just an absurd little movie that didn't take itself very seriously.
4/5

Just saw bestsellers with Caine and Plaza.
Above average chick flick..

Recently rewatched some stuff and ended up watching some old ones that I hadn't seen yet
>No Country for Old Men (rewatch, great)
>Blade Runner 2049 (rewatch, good visuals only)
>28 Days Later (sucks)
>Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (not my type of thing)
>Fargo (great)
>Matrix (surprisingly good, thought it was just a meme)
>Let the Right one In (on recommendation, is okay, vampire succubus is cute)
>Requiem for a Dream (I can't feel sorry for drug addicts, might rewatch it at some point idk)
>The Big Lebowski (rewatch, much better than I remembered)
>The Shining (good, I just don't like horror)
>Drive (rewatch, mediocre)

Well, with the death of Jim Lovell, it got me to thinking about the film Apollo 13. As time marches on, I gotta say, each passing year I love this film more.
I think this movie is the most stereotypical male movie ever made. Emotion and bullshit relationshit drama is RARELY the focal point of the movie. It's always a standoff one-off scene of his wife being sad for two seconds before getting back to another "WE SOLVE PROBLEM NOW" scene. In fact, those scenes are so short and so downplayed that they almost feel like a parody of those films from the 50s that would hammily shove them into the movie to say they had romance for the trailer. The only times I can think of where emotions actually happen with the main characters, it's immediately shut down. E.g., when they start blaming each other for the accident and displaying anger and Jim says, "NO ANGER NOW, WE SOLVE PROBLEM FIRST"
It's also a REALLY repetitive and simplistic act structure:
Act
Scene 1
THERE PROBLEM.
Scene 2
BRAINSTORM PROBLEM.
Scene 3
I DON'T KNOW IF SOLVE PROBL–WE SOLVE PROBLEM.
Scene 4
IMPLEMENT SOLUTION TO PROBLEM–WILL IT WOR–IT WORKED. NEED TO FOCUS ON NEXT PROBLEM.
And it's just that Act repeated over and over and OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN HOLY FUCK I DON'T CARE THAT IT'S REPETITIVE I WISH THAT ACT STRUCTURE WOULD'VE KEPT GOING EVEN MORE! Given the real Apollo 13 though, it could've, because there were actually MORE problems they solved irl and they had to tone it DOWN for the fucking movie!
I also love how self-directed everyone is. For example, Gene Krantz has that general meeting where he gives that Captain Jelicho speech trope of "I want men running every simulator, we need hands on every nut and bolt, I need people running double shift bla bla bla!" EVERY other time that speech trope is done, the leader character ASSIGNS tasks to people. This is the only piece of media where he's just giving the motivating speech, and in fact MID SPEECH you see actors moving around and leaving the room WITHOUT having tasks assigned to them. Like the moment he says, "Let's get simulators running the power-up procedure," you see a couple guys self-directed leave the room with no further questions. There's just this MASSIVE amount of non-verbal communication.
No toxicity.
No relationshit crap.
Just solve problems.
The movie is a form of male wish fulfillment.

>>69117
>I really don't understand how people think 2049 is better than the original Blade Runner
it's a philistine opinion. The original Blade Runner has superior visuals, music, scripting, casting and pacing

2049 is popular because it has the AI girlfriend and Ryan Gosling looking sad and lonely

>>69117
>>69123
>>69125
>>69242
>>69744
I don't know if this is well known and I don't need to explain this or not, and I thought this was common knowledge, but just in the 1% case not, here goes…
There are multiple versions of the original Bladerunner. One has this really hammy voiceover that ruins half of the film(*). The other knows what it's doing and let you _watch_ the film (and has the famous origami unicorn with a lot of meaning). People just getting into Bladerunner are basically at a coin flip about what they see, and many, many people think "Oh, theatrical cut, that must be the good one, it's 'theatrical' or 'more original' so that must be 'authentic!'" and it's definitely not.
(*)It's theoretically not that much voiceover, but half of what makes Bladerunner great is that it's one of the few movies that has silence and ambiance. So it doesn't take a lot to absolutely crush what is the soul of the film. And once it's destroyed once, it's kind of just destroyed from that point onwards.

>>69747
I didn't notice that >>69117 already knew about this
>No narration of course
sorry.