Film Review & Discussion

[WHEN'DHEGO?!?!]

Yeah, it would have been so much better if it were set earlier.
I'm going to try to think of the time periods all the Disney Princesses were set in
Snow White- 1400s?
Aurora- 1400s?
Cinderella- No idea
Ariel- 1700s?
Belle- 1700s
Pochantas- 1700s
Mulan- Sometime between 0 and 1000
Tiana- 1920s
Rupunzel- 1200s or 1300s or something? I thought 1700s before but I was told it was much earlier
Merida- Medevil Times
Anna and Elsa- 1300s-1500s?
Moana- Around the time Jesus was alive/the transition between BC and AD time
If I got any wrong forgive me!

[Silverhart]

This link might help you out:
http://disneysnewgroove.tumblr.com/post ... al-setting

It's fan made, so no guarantees that they're all accurate, but on first glance they seem like good estimates.

As for 'Brave' I believe that takes place in the 10th century (which actually means that all the tartans in that film are incorrect, but it's Scotland so you need tartans).

As for 'Moana's date, a friend mentioned to me that there was a long period of time historically where the Polynesian people didn't sail - just like in 'Moana'. As far as I can tell glancing through some articles on the subject this Long Pause ended about 500 to 1,000 years ago. So that's about when 'Moana' would take place I'd guess.

[polerberr]

I just got back from watching Dead Men Tell No Tales, or the European title: Salazar's Revenge. (I prefer the US title.)

Oh man, never have I been more entertained and disappointed at the same time. I absolutely love the first three movies so I am quite biased against a fifth Pirates movie even existing, but that aside, I was also a tad excited to see the characters in a new story.

I won't reveal anything about the plot, so don't worry about those kind of spoilers, but I will be talking a bit about the film in general so obviously if you want everything to be a complete surprise then I suggest you stop reading now.

The original music was frequently used, which made me very happy. That score is just fantastic and it has such a strong association with the film. Everybody knows the tune, you couldn't really call it a Pirates movie if that music wasn't there.

I felt like the pacing was way too fast. The movie really didn't bother to take its time, so I never really managed to care about the new characters as much as I cared about Will, Elizabeth, and Captain Jack in the first movie. The first movie opens fantastically, with that slow scene where young Elizabeth is singing softly at the front of a ship surrounded by fog. It takes its time to build an eerieness, and it gives you time to understand Will and Elizabeth's history. This movie just jumps straight into the thick of it.

I'm afraid to say that Jack Sparrow may have been flanderised. Depp's performance just felt really off. It's been so long since he's played that character, and so much has happened to him since, it feels like he's lost his touch? Maybe that's just me though, so I'll be curious to see what everyone else thinks of his performance.

I did think that the script pushed too hard to be funny and quirky. I mean there were some dialogue exchanges and moments that genuinely were funny, but otherwise the dialogue felt more like it came from a fanfic, if that makes any sense.

A few of the old characters come back, you'll know which ones if you've looked at IMDb, and I'm very happy at their inclusion. My favorite pirate even gets a main role in the film, so I was pretty happy with that.

Another issue I had was with the CGI. I don't quite know why, but for some reason, my eyes can never seem to "focus" on something that isn't there in real life, so for example, a shark made completely out of CGI. I put the word focus between quotes because in reality I'm looking at a flat screen, so of course technically speaking my eyes are focused, but it doesn't feel that way. I absolutely hate average quality CGI trying to make something out of thin air. In my opinion it should be used extremely sparingly, mostly only for touch ups and color grading. I'd much rather see puppets, props, and clever makeup like in Jaws and The Lord of the Rings, to be honest. The only exception I make is for the top of the line CGI that was used in Gravity and The Jungle Book, which is stunning quality.

This movie just had too much CGI going on, so most of the time I felt like I was looking at nothing. CGI just feels soulless to me. I really have no other way to explain it right now.

I will say that despite its flaws, I did have a good time. I wouldn't tell anyone to not see it if they were planning to. I'm not sure I would rewatch it, but I'm glad I did give it a shot in the first place.

[WHEN'DHEGO?!?!]

@Silverhart
Weird, I've heard two different things about Moana- that it takes place around 230 BC (or something like that) and that it takes place around 1 AD. So I don't know what's go'n on.

[polerberr]

I found an excellent article about the Pirates movies that sums up how I feel about them and explains why.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-v ... es-1008315

I would agree that the first three movies are great to watch, even though the second and third are a bit of a mess. They have memorable moments and the characters keep their complexity. Then On Stranger Tides and Dead Men Tell No Tales come around and the characters become sort of two dimensional shells of their former selves. The article describes Jack Sparrow as being no more than a clown really. I totally agree. Sparrow had absolutely no depth in Dead Men Tell No Tales, it was really awkward watching him. He almost reminded me of BoJack Horseman to an extent. He's past his glory days, but he won't accept it. He's no longer in his prime, he's washed up, and the other characters are suddenly become more interesting. He struggles to remain relevant. So if a sixth Pirates movie gets made, they may as well call him BoJack Sparrow. I wouldn't even call him a Captain in the last two movies.

[Captain Peregrin]

I recently saw Logan. It was really good! I'm not a fan of the X-men franchise (which is probably part of the reason I was able to enjoy it), but it just has the sort of depth you almost never find in franchise films. The closest comparison would be The Dark Knight, but I actually preferred Logan for two main reasons: It's clearly intended for adults and its worldview is ultimately more hopeful (strangely enough). Also it grapples with a lot of Christian ideas, which is always a welcome addition in my book.

[polerberr]

I went to the cinema twice yesterday.

I finally got around to watching Guardians of the Galaxy 2. I don't have strong feelings in particular for the franchise. I really enjoyed this movie and I thought it was a lot better than the first.

I also saw The Mummy, the new one with Tom Cruise. I had low expectations going in. Firstly, I'm a massive fan of the Brendan Fraser adaptation of the original monster movie with Boris Karloff. By massive fan, I mean that when I was a kid, I was so obsessed with this film that I would watch it back to back, could recite it in it's entirety, and wanted to become an Egyptologist. I rewatched it recently and I still wholeheartedly believe that it's an amazing film. It held up surprisingly well. Secondly, the trailer just looked lame. I do judge movies by their trailers and I have a fairly good track record of being able to tell how much I'll enjoy a movie based on the trailer, which also tends to be in line with RT ratings. I could tell that The Mummy was going to be a flop, and judging by the reactions so far, I wasn't mistaken.

I believe that the first big problem with this movie is Tom Cruise. I mean I don't dislike him. Other than his involvement with Scientology, he seems like a friendly and kind person. It's just that his face is too recogniseable and he's essentially the same person in every action movie he stars in. When I see him on screen, I don't see the character that he's supposed to represent, I see Tom Cruise.

I didn't particularily enjoy the cinematography. There weren't any scenes that were nice to watch for the visuals alone, considering that the CGI was average quality and the color grading was dark and dull 90% of the time. The music didn't really stand out. The characters all seemed two dimensional and cliche. We got the hot science lady with the magical ability to always have perfect makeup and clothing, the goofy sidekick, who in this film gets awkwardly shoved under the carpet a third way in, the generic action hero main character, the villainous villain, blah blah blah.

I'm not really going to say anything about the plot itself other than that I didn't think it wasn't particularily enthralling, but it wasn't terrible either I suppose. I mean, I was entertained at the end of the day, to be fair. I don't think that an abysmal 17% score on Rotten Tomatoes is fair, but I don't disagree with the Rotten rating in general.

If anyone is planning on watching this, do be warned, it's half action-adventure, half straight up horror. There are jump scares, and there is some imagery that some people might consider to be scary. I mean this movie ticked all of my childhood fears: zombie skeletons, being trapped underwater, being trapped underwater with zombie skeletons, spiders, etc.

[Anza]

@polerberr

I see what you mean about the new pirates movie. I saw it and enjoyed it a lot (for a large degree because of the magic of nostalgia). Anyway, I agree that it was a tad bit too fast paced and didn't really establish its characters very well. To me it felt like we were suppose to care about these characters simply because of their ties to previous characters (such as Henry being Will and Elizabeth's son). I loved the nod to the original movies via the score and the appearance of some beloved characters! I have to say that after the fourth pirates of the Caribbean movie (On Stranger Tides) they'd have to do a lot worse for me to be disappointed in the film overall. Just going to express how much I detested that fourth movie which I felt was a terrible follow-up to the first three epic movies.

I have to say that the movie, to me at least, wasn't disappointing and was enjoyable as Pirates always are. It was worth the watch and the money I paid for my ticket. It actually inspired me to rewatch all of the movies, something I haven't done sense I was 11 C:
The soundtrack is basically the best part...because its sooo good!

[Captain Peregrin]

So I've been pondering Pixar a bit recently, especially the movies they've made this decade. Inside Out is easily the best (and my favorite) of the decade, second would be Finding Dory, and third Brave. I considered Toy Story 3, but although I felt it was a nice send off for the series (back when it was actually supposed to be the last), I just don't have much personal fondness for it. Brave is undeniably flawed, but at least it was ambitious and unique (also I love the aesthetic). Finding Dory is just the best non-Toy Story sequel, no question (although I have not yet seen Cars 3).

Speaking of Pixar sequels, I'm getting excited for Incredibles 2. Brad Bird is back, and he's never made a bad animated movie, and there really are so many potential ideas to work with in that universe. Coco looks interesting, too, even if it is obviously inspired by Book of Life and the director's only previous full director credit with Pixar was Toy Story 3. It looks like it will be a much smaller story than Book of Life (which is deeply mythological, as is Del Toro's wont), and I'm curious to see Unkrich tell his own story.

[Salsaverde]

So I've been pondering Pixar a bit recently, especially the movies they've made this decade. Inside Out is easily the best (and my favorite) of the decade, second would be Finding Dory, and third Brave. I considered Toy Story 3, but although I felt it was a nice send off for the series (back when it was actually supposed to be the last), I just don't have much personal fondness for it. Brave is undeniably flawed, but at least it was ambitious and unique (also I love the aesthetic). Finding Dory is just the best non-Toy Story sequel, no question (although I have not yet seen Cars 3).

Speaking of Pixar sequels, I'm getting excited for Incredibles 2. Brad Bird is back, and he's never made a bad animated movie, and there really are so many potential ideas to work with in that universe. Coco looks interesting, too, even if it is obviously inspired by Book of Life and the director's only previous full director credit with Pixar was Toy Story 3. It looks like it will be a much smaller story than Book of Life (which is deeply mythological, as is Del Toro's wont), and I'm curious to see Unkrich tell his own story.

I AM SO EXCITED FOR THE INCREDIBLES 2!!!

Of my favorite Pixar films of all time, I would have to say Cars, The Incredibles, Toy Story, and Finding Nemo are my favorites, along with Inside Out and Wall-E as close seconds.