2023 in movies: this cost HOW much?

[warty goblin]

It being the end of the year, I thought it would be interesting to look back at every film I watched in theaters in 2023, in chronological order. I'm going to use a very simple rating scale, YEAH, MEH, BAD.

1: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3. I was basically fine with this I guess, but it was a sloppy mess with a plot so nonsensical it made that fever dream I once had about being trapped in a 4D pyramid look positively lucid. And while the character work mostly hung together, I've never really liked the Guardians very much. And I also didn't like the bit at the entire climax where I thought it was going to try to give me a religious text while telling me the Good News about superheroes. At least they got the gnostic ubermensch Calvinism into the open where I can hate it more easily. NO.

2: The Little Mermaid. I mean, I didn't hate it, mostly because why bother there'snot enough there to hate. It's a floppy mess that only existed because corporate saw brand and thought money. Creatively, this movie was a complete husk. The only new idea it had was making the prince a character, and they half assed that, along with a shoe-horned in and unresolved pointless side plot about humans hating mer people. The definition of MEH.

3: Barbie. I saw it twice and was impressed both times. The production was great, the music slapped, the script was creative and compassionate. It probably isn't going to, like, rock you to your core, but it's very well constructed and engaging and somehow both sincere and self aware. YEAH.

4. Gran Turismo. I mean look, this is a very mid movie in oh so many ways. If you have watched 8 seconds of any sports movie ever, you have seen this. But in a year filled with so much incompetently structured Entertainment Paste Product, it executed that formula tightly and well. It ain't deep, it isn't a bold new vision, but I was engaged and excited for the entire run time. That makes it a YEAH.

5. The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes. Lemme be honest, I don't really care about the Hunger Games. Never read the books, and only watched two of the original movies. Didn't hate them, was just indifferent to them. I only went to this one because the alternative was staying at a deeply boring family gathering over Thanksgiving, and going slowly mad listening to the genealogy of people I'm not related to.

I was very impressed with this. Now bias cards on the table, I love a villain origin,and I thought this delivered. The second act, the Hunger Games proper, was kinda draggy and unnecessarily long, but to me the third act absolutely made the movie. It was dark and tense and nasty, and leaned in hard to the complicated power and survival calculations of living in and under and as an agent of a despotic, violent regime. And I loved how ambiguous it was, particularly the ending. This is the movie I have probably thought about the most this year. YEAH.

6 Napoleon. There's probably three decent movies in here. The problem is that we get only about a quarter of each each of them, which adds up to 3/4 of an actual film. People appear, then vanish from the narrative. Things happen, but why they happen and what they mean are opaque. Not in an artsy think about it way, in a thus is an unfocused mess way. This is a NO, right on the cusp of MEH because Ridley Scott knows how to make a movie look good, even when it is a bad movie.

7: The Boy and the Heron. Did I understand it? Not really, no. I think I got enough of it, and it was stunningly beautiful, and extremely personal, and I want to watch it again. YEAH.

8: Wish. Dear God this was an incompetent and humiliating train wreck of a film. The script is a mess, there are no characters, the songs suck, the animation is bad, the jokes aren't funny, and the entire thing looks awful whenever it's daylight. Any studio that releases drek like thus deserves to lose money, and I'm glad that the power of branding was not enough to save it. NO NO NO.

Total: 3 no, 1 meh, 4 yeah. Which is better than expected, maybe because the no's are mostly recent and also so disappointing. But I can see why it's been a bad year for the box office. I avoided most of the stuff I knew was going to blow, and half of the list was still pretty bad. If you are spending $200 million plus on this stuff, your process is bad and broken.

Anyway, what did you all watch this year? Any happy surprises or unexpected disappointments?

[Rynjin]

I think the only new movie I watched this year was Barbie. I went in expecting it to just be really dumb fun, which in many ways it was, but it turned out to be a shockingly great all-around movie. The messaging kinda falls apart a bit if you think about it too much, but other than that it was amazing.

[thirsting]

Watched Barbie in theaters. Liked it, even though all through I felt like I'm not part of the target audience. Never thought I'd love a Ken musical bits though, that might have been the best thing in it. :p

GotG 3 on D+ was fine enough, but not very memorable to me I guess. Plot armour is starting to get really old in Marvel movies.

The Marvels... somewhat enjoyed it in theater, but the more I thought about it later on, the more I started to hate a lot of it. Most of all, you CAN NOT re-start a star like that!


Want to watch Oppenheimer one day just to see if it is as good a movie as reviews say, even though the subject matter doesn't really interest me at all.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by warty goblin
I was basically fine with this I guess, but it was a sloppy mess with a plot so nonsensical it made that fever dream I once had about being trapped in a 4D pyramid look positively lucid. And while the character work mostly hung together, I've never really liked the Guardians very much.

This is pretty much my take on the movie, except I liked it less. One of too many recent movies for which I’ve just been relieved I didn’t have to pay anything.



But in better news, two movies I’ve seen in the past couple weeks really deserve a mention.

First, Devotion. Despite recent headlines, this movie absolutely deserves a watch. It’s an excellent war movie, an excellent action movie, an excellent buddy movie, and it has some strong things to say without becoming too preachy or dwelling too long on The Message.

I’ve always loved naval aviation, and I have a soft spot for WWII fighters, so this was a delight for me. And I also appreciate the focus on a war which for some reason Hollywood has typically chosen to ignore. The friendship at the heart of the story was nuanced, awkward, full of misfires and good intentions gone sideways, and it resonated all the stronger because of that. Throughout the movie I was marveling at how consistently good it was, and I recommend it without reservation.

Second, for something completely different, Polite Society. It’s completely absurd, ridiculous and over-the-top, but it’s also fast-paced, high-energy and absolutely hilarious. I would have watched it twice in twenty-four hours, but the first viewing left me dizzy and exhausted in the best of ways. And it’s not just a lighthearted action/mystery about a plucky underdog and her sometimes-loyal besties; woven throughout is an examination of Pakistani culture in the modern British world. Beneath the goofiness and the sisterhood vibe there’s an affectionate look at that culture, with occasional barbs, and for that and all the rest this is a great movie to watch when you need to put your brain in neutral for a while.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

6 Napoleon. There's probably three decent movies in here. The problem is that we get only about a quarter of each each of them, which adds up to 3/4 of an actual film. People appear, then vanish from the narrative. Things happen, but why they happen and what they mean are opaque. Not in an artsy think about it way, in a thus is an unfocused mess way. This is a NO, right on the cusp of MEH because Ridley Scott knows how to make a movie look good, even when it is a bad movie.

Except for feeling this was a hard NO, agree with this. Napoleon was long. It seems to depend on the viewer already having a good grounding in his history - I don’t, so the lack of context hurt the film a lot for me. I also gather real-life Napoleon was bombastic and charismatic and I didn’t get any of that from the film. A documentary about the man would have been more informative and more entertaining.

If it had just focused on his military career OR his relationship with Josephine, not both, it could have been a much more concise film and been a nice reasonable length.

[Errorname]

Spider-Verse was the only superhero movie I caught this year, and I think that was a good call. GOTG3 is the only one of the ones I missed that seemed like it might have been good. Also caught the new Mission Impossible movie, which was serviceable but clearly struggling to top the sort of stunts the previous movies executed, and the way the final shots are graded and composited means the stunts are never as impressive in the finished product as they were in the behind the scenes footage. Did enjoy a lot of the performances though, especially Pom Klementieff's henchman character, she was a lot of fun.


Except for feeling this was a hard NO, agree with this. Napoleon was long. It seems to depend on the viewer already having a good grounding in his history - I don’t, so the lack of context hurt the film a lot for me. I also gather real-life Napoleon was bombastic and charismatic and I didn’t get any of that from the film. A documentary about the man would have been more informative and more entertaining.

I'm also given to understand that it's not the most accurate retelling of his history either, so if you need to know the history to know what's going on that means you'll also need to know all the ways the movie is bending the story. I suspect the inevitable director's cut would fix the context up a bit, give you more to work with, although I doubt it would fix Ridley's attitude to the history.

But also the movie just kind of looked bad to me. There was a shot in the trailer where they recreate a famous painting of Napoleon, and the colours are just completely washed out and concrete in comparison.

[Bavarian itP]

Is the thread title refering to the ticket prices or the production cost?

[Manga Shoggoth]

Is the thread title refering to the ticket prices or the production cost?

Probably the production cost, as it is this that needs to be paid off by the ticket price.

It seems to be a thing at the moment to point out how expensive the bad movies are, and that there are several good movies being produced at a fraction of the cost. It's a reasonable criticism, as I suspect that some of it comes back to corporate ego-tripping - in several companies of my aquantance over the years your prestiege in the company is related to how much your projects cost, and if questioned the managers tend to show an incredible ignorance of what the projects actually are and are for...

[Ionathus]

Think I saw two movies in theatres: Barbie and Boy & The Heron. Both held up, I was glad to have watched both. Barbie was definitely more fun, BatH was definitely more enchanting/immersive.

Was the D&D movie this year? That one was very charming, and I appreciated the earnestness. Worldbuilding and use of magic were imaginative and the combats were very fun. Doric escaping the castle guards with wild shape is my new favorite chase scene.

Also technically went to a theatre screening of White Christmas haha, it’s a family tradition and it’s definitely coasting on nostalgia, though despite the film showing its age, quite a bit of the dialogue is still fun and holds up.

[Psyren]

Was I the only one who watched the Mario movie? Its triumph proved to me that Hollywood finally gets how to do video game movies, if Sonic and Detective Pikachu weren't already proof enough of that - make them bright, colorful, zany and fun.

And yes, Barbie, GotG and Spiderverse 2 all slapped. And I enjoyed the Marvels, though both it and Aquaman 2 are showing how unfortunate the superhero fatigue thing has become.

[Peelee]

Was I the only one who watched the Mario movie? Its triumph proved to me that Hollywood finally gets how to do video game movies

Formulaic as all-getout? :smalltongue:

[The Glyphstone]

Formulaic as all-getout? :smalltongue:

Hey, if the formula works, why not use it? 😉

[Errorname]

Was I the only one who watched the Mario movie? Its triumph proved to me that Hollywood finally gets how to do video game movies

It's an Illumination movie, so I kind of wrote it off. From what I've heard it's better than average for them but I still have no interest in it.

[paddyfool]

I haven’t been to see anything in cinemas this year, having a 2 year old toddler, but it’s good to hear what might be most worth watching later. So far I’m thinking Ghibli and Barbie.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Was I the only one who watched the Mario movie? Its triumph proved to me that Hollywood finally gets how to do video game movies, if Sonic and Detective Pikachu weren't already proof enough of that - make them bright, colorful, zany and fun.

And yes, Barbie, GotG and Spiderverse 2 all slapped. And I enjoyed the Marvels, though both it and Aquaman 2 are showing how unfortunate the superhero fatigue thing has become.

I've only just gotten hold of Mario (and Spiderverse II, for that matter). Should be watching them shortly.

[Psyren]

Formulaic as all-getout? :smalltongue:

Have you seen video game movies prior to Detective Pikachu? I'll take formulaic over the Uwe Boll crap we used to get any day.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Have you seen video game movies prior to Detective Pikachu? I'll take formulaic over the Uwe Boll crap we used to get any day.

Oh, I don't know... The original Tomb Raider film was good fun. Of course, it wasn't made by Uwe Boll so it had an unfair advantage.

[Psyren]

Oh, I don't know... The original Tomb Raider film was good fun. Of course, it wasn't made by Uwe Boll so it had an unfair advantage.

Definitely fun, maybe even good fun, but good... I stand by what I said :smalltongue:

[DaedalusMkV]

Have you seen video game movies prior to Detective Pikachu? I'll take formulaic over the Uwe Boll crap we used to get any day.

I mean, that depends on your definitions. Arguably Mortal Kombat was a cult classic that got a lot of traction over the late 90s and 2000s, though I can certainly accept the argument that it wasn't a 'good' movie. Reasonably successful and well liked, sure, but it was unquestionably a B-movie. But still, for the better part of a decade it was the shining star in the video game movie lineup, a totally decent movie that many people liked, and not just for meme reasons like Raul Julia's Street Fighter. Tomb Raider and Resident Evil in the early 2000s were both somewhat cult classics as well, and Tomb Raider in particular made bank at the box office because of Angelina Jolie's star power at the time, but hard to say either is anything more than a vaguely serviceable kind of dumb action movie. After that it's almost a decade before Prince of Persia shows up, has almost nothing to do with the video game series, and is also just okay at best. So let's ignore that and look to the present day, where... Well, they're decent mostly. I argue Detective Pikachu was a beautiful movie with almost no redeeming qualities aside from the visuals, but both Sonic movies were actually just really enjoyable family flicks (admittedly driven by Jim Carrey's Robotnik being extremely memorable and fun more than anything else) and obviously Mario drop-kicked the box office so hard all its money fell out.

So, yeah, I'll contest your argument solely on the basis of Mortal Kombat, which while it might not have the visual appeal of something like Mario or Detective Pikachu was a legit movie for the time that stood its ground in the cultural zeitgeist better than almost all of its action genre peers. I'd also argue the current crop of non-awful video game movies actually started with Rampage, which admittedly I may only be so fond of because I watched it on a transatlantic flight, but I'll stand by it being good.

[warty goblin]

I've watched Rampage twice, neither time on an airplane, and it's a blast with both feet on the ground.

[Psyren]

Raul Julia's phenomenal performance notwithstanding, Street Fighter was indeed a bad movie. And whatever goodwill Mortal Kombat generated was swiftly annihilated (heh) by its abysmal sequel.

The rest I just don't agree with. Resident Evil was little more than a vehicle for Paul WS Anderson's fanfiction OC played by his girlfriend-turned-wife; I enjoy the movies, but they're still all bad. Tomb Raider was bad too. The curse ended recently (https://screenrant.com/video-game-movie-tv-curse-dead-examples/), but it was very much a thing for decades.

[DaedalusMkV]

Raul Julia's phenomenal performance notwithstanding, Street Fighter was indeed a bad movie. And whatever goodwill Mortal Kombat generated was swiftly annihilated (heh) by its abysmal sequel.

The rest I just don't agree with. Resident Evil was little more than a vehicle for Paul WS Anderson's fanfiction OC played by his girlfriend-turned-wife; I enjoy the movies, but they're still all bad. Tomb Raider was bad too. The curse ended recently (https://screenrant.com/video-game-movie-tv-curse-dead-examples/), but it was very much a thing for decades.
Ah, I think you misunderstand. I'm not arguing against the video game movie curse. I'm arguing Mortal Kombat was the exception that proved the rule for the two decades the curse was ongoing. Resident Evil and Tomb Raider were maybe enjoyable movies but certainly not good ones, Street Fighter has basically no cinematic value aside from Julia's performance as M Bison and Prince of Persia was in name only and not good enough to actually be considered a curse-breaker.

Really, all I'm saying is 'Mortal Kombat doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the rest of the curse-era junk' (the sequel was trash for sure), and it was Rampage that broke the curse, confirmed by the Sonic movies and now Mario, not Detective Pikachu (which was after Rampage, and IMO not as good either).

Everything else we agree on completely.

[Peelee]

Hey, if the formula works, why not use it? 😉


Have you seen video game movies prior to Detective Pikachu? I'll take formulaic over the Uwe Boll crap we used to get any day.

Imean, this is just me, but I'd rather a movie try and fail than just be paint-by-numbers aggressively mediocre. See my preference for TLJ over TFA, for example.

[Psyren]

Ah, I think you misunderstand. I'm not arguing against the video game movie curse. I'm arguing Mortal Kombat was the exception that proved the rule for the two decades the curse was ongoing. Resident Evil and Tomb Raider were maybe enjoyable movies but certainly not good ones, Street Fighter has basically no cinematic value aside from Julia's performance as M Bison and Prince of Persia was in name only and not good enough to actually be considered a curse-breaker.

Really, all I'm saying is 'Mortal Kombat doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the rest of the curse-era junk' (the sequel was trash for sure), and it was Rampage that broke the curse, confirmed by the Sonic movies and now Mario, not Detective Pikachu (which was after Rampage, and IMO not as good either).

Everything else we agree on completely.

I agree the first MK was the exception that proved the rule.


Imean, this is just me, but I'd rather a movie try and fail than just be paint-by-numbers aggressively mediocre. See my preference for TLJ over TFA, for example.

I don't think Mario was mediocre though. Formulaic maybe, but the formula was executed very well - and the movie also took some unique risks it didn't have to that paid off, like the nihilistic Lumi (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu3fdNbnFsw) and the Peaches song (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imSefM4GPpE) (which I'm willing to bet shows up at several awards shows.) The mere fact that Illumination got Nintendo to sign off on this kind of surrealist creativity when they've been so gun-shy around the IP for decades is frankly a triumph in and of itself.

Anyway, I didn't meant to derail the thread; I say all this to say that Mario is in my top 5, as much for what it represents (another nail in the curse's coffin, as well as Nintendo loosening their vice grip on how their IP is portrayed globally) as for the movie itself, which was much more of a hit than it needed to be.

[Peelee]

I don't think Mario was mediocre though. Formulaic maybe, but the formula was executed very well - and the movie also took some unique risks it didn't have to that paid off, like the nihilistic Lumi (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu3fdNbnFsw) and the Peaches song (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imSefM4GPpE) (which I'm willing to bet shows up at several awards shows.) The mere fact that Illumination got Nintendo to sign off on this kind of surrealist creativity when they've been so gun-shy around the IP for decades is frankly a triumph in and of itself.

Anyway, I didn't meant to derail the thread; I say all this to say that Mario is in my top 5, as much for what it represents (another nail in the curse's coffin, as well as Nintendo loosening their vice grip on how their IP is portrayed globally) as for the movie itself, which was much more of a hit than it needed to be.

Nihilistic Lumi was the one original part of that movie. And for the life of me i will never understand the love for that Peaches song. It's not bad, it's just... Not good? Again, aggressively mediocre. He just sings "peaches" a lot. Presidents of the United States of America did that 30 years ago, and better.

If it was the exact same movie but without the Mario IP, it would have financially done pretty well, but nothing to write home about. Because it's a mediocre movie that banked on pretty much nonstop fanservice to the generations that grew up on Mario and also as many bright colors and characters as possible to appeal to younger generation. The soundtrack is pretty much the definitive soundtrack for mediocre movies. No characters have any real arc to speak of, Donkey Kong comes closest and hes a secondary character at best. It's just an aggressively mediocre movie that banked a billion dollars cashing in on nerd culture.

And I'm not saying i dislike that. My kiddo loves it, and that made me really happy. But I'm also not going to call it anything other than what it is. Which is to say, pretty much a paint-by-numbers movie that got a massive IP to launch it ro the stratosphere.

[Errorname]

Mario is notable since it's a marked improvement in quality for Illumination, but it's still pretty middling. It's a serviceable kids film and doesn't aspire to much more

[warty goblin]

I don't really get why I'd want videogame movies to be a thing. I like videogames, I like movies, and by and large they have very different strengths, such that converting one to the other is likely to neither any favors. Videogame usually need a strong play loop that grabs you for like 20 hours, which is often helped along by an engaging setting and supporting characters. Movies generally need a central conflict and a protagonist with an engaging character arc.

So to turn a videogame into a movie you have to drop like 90% of the content and simplify sprawling yet repetitive plot into something that fits into two hours. At that point you've already lost most of what the game does well. But you also need to graft some character conflict and wants and needs and actual personality to the protagonist. And at this point you have something with... the same lore, plot skeleton, and some side characters.

Which, given the nature of videogame lore etc means a B grade schlocky action movie, B grade kids movie, or B grade horror movie. All of which are genres film studios can make movies in just fine without the assist from the game. So all the game brings is brand recognition and fan service, the lowest of appeals.

Which isn't to say there aren't videogame movies I've enjoyed. I liked the Angelina Jolie Tomb Raiders, the OG Resident Evils, Rampage, probably some others I'm forgetting. All of these take some substantial liberties with the source, and work as well if not better if you don't actually know the source material.

[Peelee]

I absolutely loved the Tetris movie, even with the silly sideplot and the small changes made for dramatization, though that may be influenced by how deeply i dove into that story years ago and never let go.

Different kind of video game movie, but I think it goes to show that video game movies cna be done in a myriad of ways.

[Errorname]

I'd forgotten that "65" came out this year. That's two years in a row that there's been a dinosaur movie I should have been really excited for that looked so bad I didn't even bother to go see it in theatres. It's a shame because I really like the idea of doing a survival story set in the Hell Creek and I doubt anyone's going to take another go at it, but there was just no interest on the filmmaker's part in trying to ground that movie in anything resembling a plausible reconstruction.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Errorname
I'd forgotten that "65" came out this year. That's two years in a row that there's been a dinosaur movie I should have been really excited for that looked so bad I didn't even bother to go see it in theatres.

I watched the first ten minutes and I had mercifully managed to forget it existed by now.

And speaking of video games, the first spacecraft sequence looked like someone was using Stargate or Defender as their point of reference for how a spacecraft should look and maneuver.

[SerTabris]

One of the few examples that I remember seeing personally from the older 90s-early 2000s range of video game movies is the Wing Commander movie. Which I'd say ranks low enough that it's only the third-best Wing Commander movie (after the movie-style cutscenes of WC3 and WC4).

I feel like if you're going for adaptation of the existing plot of a game, a lot of them are going to fit better as a series, rather than a movie, but I suppose it depends on the genre of game for just how much plot is there. Though some of the proposed ones I've heard of baffle me even then, like a TV adaptation of Life is Strange, when the whole choice-based branching story setup was one of the big things about how its story worked.

[Rodin]

I don't really get why I'd want videogame movies to be a thing. I like videogames, I like movies, and by and large they have very different strengths, such that converting one to the other is likely to neither any favors. Videogame usually need a strong play loop that grabs you for like 20 hours, which is often helped along by an engaging setting and supporting characters. Movies generally need a central conflict and a protagonist with an engaging character arc.

So to turn a videogame into a movie you have to drop like 90% of the content and simplify sprawling yet repetitive plot into something that fits into two hours. At that point you've already lost most of what the game does well. But you also need to graft some character conflict and wants and needs and actual personality to the protagonist. And at this point you have something with... the same lore, plot skeleton, and some side characters.

Which, given the nature of videogame lore etc means a B grade schlocky action movie, B grade kids movie, or B grade horror movie. All of which are genres film studios can make movies in just fine without the assist from the game. So all the game brings is brand recognition and fan service, the lowest of appeals.

Which isn't to say there aren't videogame movies I've enjoyed. I liked the Angelina Jolie Tomb Raiders, the OG Resident Evils, Rampage, probably some others I'm forgetting. All of these take some substantial liberties with the source, and work as well if not better if you don't actually know the source material.

There's two cases where I think videogame adaptations work.

The first is where the game is remembered for the plot, rather than the gameplay. The Last of Us worked as a series because it's a long-form story with some action sequences inserted to provide gameplay. The series cut down those action sequences and added some additional plot, and it worked fantastically. I would love to have an Uncharted movie adaptation that actually follows the plot of the first game, because that plot is pretty darn good and seeing it given the proper Hollywood treatment would be great. Unfortunately, the adaptation we did get tried to be a standard videogame movie, and it failed pretty hard.

The second is where you're setting the story in the universe, rather than trying to tell a videogame paced story. Cyberpunk: Edgerunners did a fantastic job of this, telling a story set in the Cyberpunk 2077 universe that is entirely distinct from the plot of the game. There are a number of universes ripe for adaptation where you're taking the existing lore and using it to give depth to your worldbuilding even as you tell an entirely original story - Mass Effect, for example, or for another existing adaptation Castlevania.

Generally speaking I will say that I prefer TV series over movies for adaptations, because it gives more time to inform the audience of the existing lore. It could still be done though - the Wing Commander movie was terrible, but if they had adapted one of the novels instead it could have been awesome. End Run is a fantastic Wing Commander EU novel that could easily have been given the "Epic War Movie" treatment.

[Ionathus]

The first is where the game is remembered for the plot, rather than the gameplay. The Last of Us worked as a series because it's a long-form story with some action sequences inserted to provide gameplay. The series cut down those action sequences and added some additional plot, and it worked fantastically.


I haven’t seen the series adaptation but that wouldn’t surprise me — the best part about my experience with The Last Of Us was honestly the cinematics, since every time the game put the controller back in my hands it seemed almost annoyed at me for getting in its way. :smallbiggrin:

Echoing what’s been said already: video games don’t need to be made into movies by and large since turning them into a linear narrative you watch passively almost always kills what makes them unique. I can see why the popular brands would get adaptations since studios do like hedging their bets on a recognizable property, but if it HAS to happen, I’d much rather it be an expanded universe, prequel, or other exploration of the brand that doesn’t try to just rehash the game itself.

[Errorname]

Video game adaptations are very difficult because most games either have way too much stuff to fit into a movie or way too little, so you're either doing a lot of compression or a lot of expansion, neither of which is easy. Additionally, you have much less freedom in terms of how you interpret things than in say, a novel. It's already an audiovisual medium, and people will have strong opinions about what certain characters or settings should look like. You also have very different production constraints, so things that were very easy in a game become very difficult in a movie (and vice versa).

Like I noticed the Halo show was really struggling to do things that were super normal in the games. Like, if you're making a video game and you're doing a scene where one of your characters looks like this (https://www.halopedia.org/images/1/10/H2A_Arby.jpg), it isn't actually any more expensive than having that character be human. It might even be easier since you can slack off on the animations since there's less uncanny valley to worry about. Trying to do that same character design in live action? Complete nightmare. Either he's an entirely CGI character, you have a monstrously complex prop/costume, or some combination of the two, none of which are cheap. And because you're adapting a visual medium that already looks pretty realistic, your audience knows what an Elite is supposed to look like, so you can't just toss in a dude with pointy ears and a facial ridges and call that acceptable. I completely understand why the first season of Halo had their main covenant character be a human, even if I absolutely loathe it as a narrative choice.

[Rynjin]

Video game adaptations are very difficult because most games either have way too much stuff to fit into a movie or way too little, so you're either doing a lot of compression or a lot of expansion, neither of which is easy. Additionally, you have much less freedom in terms of how you interpret things than in say, a novel. It's already an audiovisual medium, and people will have strong opinions about what certain characters or settings should look like. You also have very different production constraints, so things that were very easy in a game become very difficult in a movie (and vice versa).

I think it's mostly just rank incompetence. There are plenty of video game properties that could be (and have been) adapted that just strive for a specific "vibe" or tone and the movies never do a good job of that either.

Did you know there are TWO Hitman movies? Both of which completely ****ing miss trying to adapt one of the simplest premises in the world? Like "Genetically engineered assassin takes out targets for a shadowy hitman organization, drama ensues" is not a concept too complex to adapt to the silver screen and yet they ****ed it up not once, but TWICE by adapting it as schlock action akin to the worst 80's shoot 'em ups.



I completely understand why the first season of Halo had their main covenant character be a human, even if I absolutely loathe it as a narrative choice.

I don't really understand it at all. They could have simply...not adapted a series they weren't prepared to do justice too. Would have saved them even more money.

[Saph]

I think it's mostly just rank incompetence. There are plenty of video game properties that could be (and have been) adapted that just strive for a specific "vibe" or tone and the movies never do a good job of that either.

Yeah, if you look at many classic fantasy/sci-fi movies, they routinely dealt with problems that were just as difficult as "how do you portray a Halo Elite?" with a much lower level of technology. The reason video game movies historically tended to suck wasn't because of technical issues, it was because they were made by people who had zero interest in or feeling for the games they were based on.

Nowadays the problem is more that the Hollywood talent pool is ankle-deep.

[GloatingSwine]

I think it's mostly just rank incompetence. There are plenty of video game properties that could be (and have been) adapted that just strive for a specific "vibe" or tone and the movies never do a good job of that either.

Did you know there are TWO Hitman movies? Both of which completely ****ing miss trying to adapt one of the simplest premises in the world? Like "Genetically engineered assassin takes out targets for a shadowy hitman organization, drama ensues" is not a concept too complex to adapt to the silver screen and yet they ****ed it up not once, but TWICE by adapting it as schlock action akin to the worst 80's shoot 'em ups.


So the problem isn't that it's too complex a premise, it's that it's too simple a premise to hold any interest without the interactive part. There are lots of film series that are close to that mould, Bond, Bourne, Mission: Impossible, The Equalizer, John Wick etc. But they all have to add a lot more to the character at their heart and those present in the scenarios he finds himself that once you've done that you're just not making a movie about Agent 47 any more because his defining feature is that he really doesn't have any of that.

And a lot of videogame narratives are like that. Even the ones that are generally agreed on to be really good rely on fixing the stakes and connection to the characters in the player by sharing those stakes through play. There's a gaping hole at their heart which is only filled by interactive engagement.

[Rynjin]

John Wick really doesn't have any more character than 47 does. Hell, Keanu Reeves somehow emotes less than David Bateson.

I find it really weird as well that you say the premise holds little appeal because...you can name multiple massively successful movie franchises with the same appeal? Huh?

As for 47 not having any defining character traits... that's only in a physical sense. He's a hired killer who does the job for the satisfaction of a job well done, has a dry sense of humor, takes grim satisfaction in showing how powerless those who think they are invincible really are, and has a soft spot for children. Not the deepest ocean in the world but plenty to work with for a movie about assassinating people associated with an Illuminati-esque conspiracy.

[GloatingSwine]

John Wick really doesn't have any more character than 47 does. Hell, Keanu Reeves somehow emotes less than David Bateson.

I find it really weird as well that you say the premise holds little appeal because...you can name multiple massively successful movie franchises with the same appeal? Huh?

Because, and this is the thing you seem to have missed, those franchises don't have the same appeal. They have a broader apppeal because they're stories about defined characters with an internal emotional life and connections to other humans around them. There's a reason why watching that guy do those things is fun and watching a more boring guy do the same things would be less fun, and Agent 47 is literally designed to be the most boring guy possible so that the player can inhabit him most easily.

[Rynjin]

Because, and this is the thing you seem to have missed, those franchises don't have the same appeal. They have a broader apppeal because they're stories about defined characters with an internal emotional life and connections to other humans around them. There's a reason why watching that guy do those things is fun and watching a more boring guy do the same things would be less fun, and Agent 47 is literally designed to be the most boring guy possible so that the player can inhabit him most easily.

See my addendum above. I'm not sure if you've played sny of the games or not? Because 47 has about as much going on as any of the characters you mentioned. Him and John Wick are basically the same person.

He's designed in-setting to be visually generic, that may be what you're confusing your idea with. Hell, even as early as Hitman 2 (Silent Assassin , not the new one) they start to expand on his "internal world" with his time as a pacifist priest.

The only games where he's truly similar to what you're claiming are the first and Contracts.

[Lemmy]

This year had some great movies and some real stinkers... I'd say I was lucky enough to only pay to see good and decent ones, but honestly... It was so obvious what movies were going to be awful that it's hard to consider it luck.

Let's see...

Into The Spiderverse 2 was great! There were a few aspects of it I didn't like, but overall it was well worth my time and money. no movie's perfect, after all. GotG3 was pretty good too... Somewhat flawed, but still cool.

Both of them show that "superhero fatigue" is just Hollywood's copium. Make good movies instead of crappy movies with unlikable (The Marvels) characters and/or downright despicable people in it (Flash and Aquaman II) and you can still have a success. (Not spending over half a billion dollars in production + marketing in every movie would help too).

Other than that... Oppenheimer was great. Even though I wasn't particularly excited about it.

Napolen: Kind of a mess, TBH. It's like the movie somehow takes too long while still being too short. It's like neither the movie nor the main actor know what kind of story they're trying to tell or what kind of person Napoleon is.

Two much smaller movies that are worth mentioning are

The Extraction II: Just a simple action flick that knows exactly what it is. A simple premise, cool action scenes, decent acting and just fun.

The Sound of Freedom: Amazing movie! Really well produced and with a great story to tell.

I think those are the only movies I paid to see this year (actually I ended up seeing GotG3 for free, due to lucky circumstances).

[GloatingSwine]

See my addendum above. I'm not sure if you've played sny of the games or not? Because 47 has about as much going on as any of the characters you mentioned. Him and John Wick are basically the same person.

He's designed in-setting to be visually generic, that may be what you're confusing your idea with. Hell, even as early as Hitman 2 (Silent Assassin , not the new one) they start to expand on his "internal world" with his time as a pacifist priest.

The only games where he's truly similar to what you're claiming are the first and Contracts.

Not really.

Him having opinions about things in an inner monologue is not the same as him having the sort of relationships and connections with the world around him that a movie audience is looking for in a character.

He's very much not the same as John Wick, he's what if John Wick never had the wife and dog and never tried to leave his life as a hitman behind. You know, the emotional hook that draws the audience along with him.

[DaedalusMkV]

Not really.

Him having opinions about things in an inner monologue is not the same as him having the sort of relationships and connections with the world around him that a movie audience is looking for in a character.

He's very much not the same as John Wick, he's what if John Wick never had the wife and dog and never tried to leave his life as a hitman behind. You know, the emotional hook that draws the audience along with him.

But... But that's just not true? The wife and dog thing sure, part of 47's semi-tragic backstory is that he's sterile and can't reproduce (IIRC maybe even chemically castrated with no sex drive), but 47 definitely tried to leave his life as a hitman behind to tragic consequences! He decides he's had enough of killing after befriending a Sicilian priest, but some bad dudes track him down and kidnap his priest friend, which leaves him no choice but to reach out to the shadowy conspiracy he used to work for to find and rescue the one and only real friend he's ever had. In the end, after some good old-fashioned violence he does so and kills all the bad guys, the priest tries to convince him to go back to peace for the sake of his soul and 47 concludes that he's not built for it and decides he'd rather spend his life assassinating the bad guys so that good people like the priest can have that peace instead. Roll credits. Hitman 2: Silent Assassin is finished. Following this point 47 will only assassinate people who are objectively awful people, and every mission briefing includes a segment where the agency specifically persuades 47 that this person deserves to die. We even got character development.

That's a perfectly fine action movie plot! It's basically John Wick with slightly different emphasis (religion instead of love). If either of the Hitman movies had been a decently faithful, competent adaptation of Hitman 2 you could very easily have had a John Wick or Boondock Saints.

[Peelee]

I think it's mostly just rank incompetence.

Seconded. Take board games, for example. Typically light to nonexistent on plot, light on lore, but still have memorable and recognizable features. Battleship, from everything i heard, was a complete mess. Clue, however, was an absolute delight.

The power is in the writing.

[Errorname]

John Wick is a bad example, because it's a very video gamey series of movies.

[JNAProductions]

Saw Godzilla Minus One last night.

It was very good, and I didn't really like it.

[tyckspoon]

Seconded. Take board games, for example. Typically light to nonexistent on plot, light on lore, but still have memorable and recognizable features. Battleship, from everything i heard, was a complete mess. Clue, however, was an absolute delight.

The power is in the writing.

Battleship's key failure was, of course, not having Tim Curry in it.

[Peelee]

Battleship's key failure was, of course, not having Tim Curry in it.

Imean, Tim Curry absolutely knocked it out of the park as always, but Clue had a hell of an ensemble cast. And Michael McKean managed to upstage Curry and steal the whole damn show with his final line, which is no mean feat.

[Psyren]

I define a video game movie as one that takes place in a world based on or adapted from the game's (or games' plural) internal fiction, not a documentary or biography about the historical circumstances surrounding a game's creation in the real world. The Tetris movie was a great film (albeit one that took a number of artistic liberties in the third act that took me out of the experience) but I don't really see it as a "video game movie." You could have swapped out Tetris for any other kind of killer consumer product with similarly fraught intellectual property rights and the broad strokes of the plot would have played out roughly the same.



The first is where the game is remembered for the plot, rather than the gameplay. The Last of Us worked as a series because it's a long-form story with some action sequences inserted to provide gameplay. The series cut down those action sequences and added some additional plot, and it worked fantastically. I would love to have an Uncharted movie adaptation that actually follows the plot of the first game, because that plot is pretty darn good and seeing it given the proper Hollywood treatment would be great. Unfortunately, the adaptation we did get tried to be a standard videogame movie, and it failed pretty hard.

The second is where you're setting the story in the universe, rather than trying to tell a videogame paced story. Cyberpunk: Edgerunners did a fantastic job of this, telling a story set in the Cyberpunk 2077 universe that is entirely distinct from the plot of the game. There are a number of universes ripe for adaptation where you're taking the existing lore and using it to give depth to your worldbuilding even as you tell an entirely original story - Mass Effect, for example, or for another existing adaptation Castlevania.

Generally speaking I will say that I prefer TV series over movies for adaptations, because it gives more time to inform the audience of the existing lore. It could still be done though - the Wing Commander movie was terrible, but if they had adapted one of the novels instead it could have been awesome. End Run is a fantastic Wing Commander EU novel that could easily have been given the "Epic War Movie" treatment.

Arcane is another great example of the second type you mentioned. The world of LoL is used as the backdrop/jumping-off-point for a very tightly focused story that is nevertheless only loosely connected to the events of the game itself.

[Tyndmyr]

I watch... a lot of movies. So, let's do this in no particular order whatsoever.

1. Wonka. Basically, this is the sort of D&D campaign where one player didn't read any of the books, and when asked what he wants to play, says "Chocolate Wizard", and everyone nods along, concludes that this implies the existence of Chocolate Clerics and Chocolate Rogues and so on, and goes on to play a good five or six sessions before the silliness wears out its welcome. It looks pretty, there's just enough randomness to mostly keep one from being bored, and while a prequel is not, in any way, necessary to the original film, I don't hate it. A solid B.

2. Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom. I liked the original Aquaman for being big and dumb and colorful....but fun. Not a smart movie, but it knew what it was about. This movie is also dumb. Unfortunately, it is somewhat less fun. If you have seen the trailer, you will largely not be surprised at any point, and will frequently just be waiting for fights to be over. I've seen worse movies, it's still basically sort of functional, but also a very solid choice to skip. I rate it a C.

3. Barbie. I did the Barbenheimer thing, and I view this movie as mostly well put together and entertaining enough, but it gets a bit muddled about what it wants to be, can't consistently stick to an allegory, and gets a wee bit preachy at times. Still, the musical number hits pretty solid, and it's not boring. A solid B.

4. Oppenheimer. Okay, I might be biased here, but I quite like historical stuff, especially during the WW1/WW2 era. And this movie was pretty good historically. Yes, are some things framed very slightly differently than in real life, and some stuff is abbreviated, but it's pretty faithful by movie standards, and did so while not being terminally boring. Let's face it, theoretical physics is not normally something amazing to watch, so this is kind of a feat. A+

5. Godzilla Minus One: It's a godzilla movie. It's also a surprisingly effective story about the horrors of war, and the uselessness of government to prevent them. One doesn't normally expect both convincing monster mayhem and a decent personal story in a movie where they've clearly intentionally modeled the monster after the old rubber suits, and had a budget of about ten cents, but that's what we got. Fantastic film. A+

6. Thanksgiving. This is absolutely a B movie, of the Thanksgiving suspense/light horror sense. Ludicrously improbable murders, ridiculous jokes, etc. All in all, it pretty much delivers what it advertises. It ain't so stellar as to become a cult classic, but it's a fun enough time. It is only fair that I also rate this a B.

7. Silent Night. It's John Woo, and also kind of a christmas action movie, which I guess is sort of a genre these days. Notable for having no dialogue from the protaganist, and only very minimal dialogue from everyone else. A fun time, and ambitious, but it falls just short of greatness on the back of slightly steriotypical plot and occasionally slightly off CGI. A-

8. The Boy and the Heron. Excellent film. More creepy than I expected, and definitely a high degree of randomness. Well, not randomness exactly, but at least the unexpected, as it makes a certain degree of of sense in retrospect. Enjoyed it greatly, but probably will not be rewatching. A-

9. The Creator. It was an alright experience watching it, but it's one of those films that's a bit too formulaic, and sort of erases itself from your memory over time. Not a bad experience, but can't imagine myself rewatching it. Would have gotten more points if it had dared to poke at the harder questions it brought up. C

10. The Super Mario Bros. A well executed animated family film that wasn't really anything actually new, but certainly wasn't bad. B

11. Wish. Great animation, but the longer I reflect on the plot, the dodgier it is. Ultimately, there just...really isn't anything. The whole "problem" really isn't, and apparently could have been stopped at any time by people simply wanting it to be. A star falls from heavens and then basically just exists to be cute and justify talking and singing animals or whatever. I might be feeling vindictive towards Disney, but F

12. Five Nights at Freddies. Decent enough spooky horror movie given its premise. I'm not familiar with the rest of the franchise, so this is in a vaccum, but a decent tale. I will take slight points off for the protaganist lacking slightly in self preservation. I know it's pretty typical for horror, but it's not a good part of horror. C+

13. Spiderman: Across the Spider Verse. Only real downside is it was an unannounced two parter, which is a bit of a downer, but the animation is pretty good, most of the characters are pretty fun, and it's a decent follow up to the first film. A

14. John Wick: Chapter 4 I really loved the original film, and I like the sequels. It's a fun world, albeit not an entirely consistent one at times. I'd like to see it delve a bit more into some consistent worldbuilding, rather than just seemingly making up a new rule for every sequel, but ehhh, I'd still watch them all again. Very colorful, great characters, minor points off for every apparent end to the franchise just resulting in more sequels. A-

15: Shazam: Fury of the Gods. God, this was awful. I've mostly tried to block it out, but the most memorable part is, unfortunately, the Skittles product placement, and that's not even a joke. F

16: Marvels. Talked about it enough that I can't be bothered to rehash it. Acceptable, I guess. No desire to rewatch, or to care about any of these characters again. Purely from my own perspective after reflection, I suppose that's a D

17: GotG: Vol 3 Again, great characterization, and some fun cinematic shots. GotG manages to embrace the inherent weirdness of comics in a fun way, as opposed to a "first suicide squad movie" sort of way, and they have a solid villain, which is always a plus. A+

18: Fast X. They're still making these for some reason. They work pretty much solely in a "so bad, it's funny" way. Which is to say, the experience might not be terrible, but in any objective sense, the film definitely is. Jason Momoa is basically just the same character as Aquaman, only slightly more over the top. But it's cool, family and cars solve everything. Even when they don't, they do. D-

19: Blue Beetle. Pretty much a generic, paint by numbers superhero movie. You can watch it or not, and it won't make any difference to your life. If you've managed to miss every superhero movie up until this point, it might actually be considered mostly a good film, but if you've seen them, the sheer derivativeness of it mostly kills everything of value. D-

20: Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves. Eh, I liked this movie. Apparently the rest of the world didn't, as it didn't make that much money, but it was a fun enough ride, and we don't exactly have a ton of better fantasy movies coming out, yknow? Yeah, it's a bit goofy and silly, but in a way that feels pretty true to actual D&D adventures. A-

21: The Flash. Right, this. Let's just assign it an F and move on.

22: Elemental. Okay. Not bad, not great. Somewhat better than I expected, based on the trailers. Don't really feel a need to rewatch or for a sequel or the like. Does suffer just a touch of feeling like every other Pixar movie. C+

23: Ant-Man: Quantumania. I think I liked it more at the time, but looking back, the flaws stand out a bit more. A whole cameo that does basically nothing but serve as a cameo, the terrible CGI for MODOK, who was goofy at best, a villain who was at least kind of cool in Loki becoming a little less cool and of course, an ant deus ex machina. D+

24: Meg 2: The Trench. You like Giant Shark eat Human? How about More Giant Shark Eat Human? I'm gonna be honest, it wasn't great cinema, but it was pretty much what it was advertised to be, so I can hardly fault them for it. C+

25: Renfield. Nick Cage being, well, Nick Cage. Also a bit of positivity, and generally a fun little romp, but rather forgettable. C+

26: Cocaine Bear. There is both cocaine and a bear. No notes, perfect film. More seriously, it's a bit padded out, and while funny, isn't entirely rewatchable. B-

27: Nimona. Just sorta flipped it on without knowing anything about it, and was pleasantly surprised. Oh, sure, it's ultimately a fairly simple tale at its core, but it's told well. Sometimes execution is more important than novelty. A

28: The Boogeyman. A horror movie that is decent, but not enough so to become iconic. It is mostly decently spooky, but unfortunately has to rely a bit on jump scares, and doesn't really understand how physics work. Also, it is really weird that people in horror movies do not resort to "burn the whole frigging cursed house down" more swiftly. After the first few times of obviously being almost murdered, pretty much anyone in horror movies should be considering wholesale excessive violence, just to see if it works.C-

29: M3gan. Horror, but relatively well executed horror. You get a bit more personality, and a little more interestingly fleshed out world, and character a touch less stock than most horror films offer. A-

I may have forgotten a couple, but eh, that'll do.

Edit: 30: 65 also came out this year, and was actively a theft of the box office price. Almost no actors, very little sci-fi, almost all of the CGI was, badly, reused, and very little of interest going on. F-

[Rynjin]

But... But that's just not true? The wife and dog thing sure, part of 47's semi-tragic backstory is that he's sterile and can't reproduce (IIRC maybe even chemically castrated with no sex drive), but 47 definitely tried to leave his life as a hitman behind to tragic consequences! He decides he's had enough of killing after befriending a Sicilian priest, but some bad dudes track him down and kidnap his priest friend, which leaves him no choice but to reach out to the shadowy conspiracy he used to work for to find and rescue the one and only real friend he's ever had. In the end, after some good old-fashioned violence he does so and kills all the bad guys, the priest tries to convince him to go back to peace for the sake of his soul and 47 concludes that he's not built for it and decides he'd rather spend his life assassinating the bad guys so that good people like the priest can have that peace instead. Roll credits. Hitman 2: Silent Assassin is finished. Following this point 47 will only assassinate people who are objectively awful people, and every mission briefing includes a segment where the agency specifically persuades 47 that this person deserves to die. We even got character development.

That's a perfectly fine action movie plot! It's basically John Wick with slightly different emphasis (religion instead of love). If either of the Hitman movies had been a decently faithful, competent adaptation of Hitman 2 you could very easily have had a John Wick or Boondock Saints.

This.

But also in general, 47 does actually have his own "found family" he cares deeply about. Diana is his "wife", essentially. His work wife AT LEAST lol. Victoria is his surrogate daughter. Lucas is his brother in pretty much every way that matters. He has plenty enough of a supporting cast to work.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

13. Spiderman: Across the Spider Verse. Only real downside is it was an unannounced two parter, which is a bit of a downer, but the animation is pretty good, most of the characters are pretty fun, and it's a decent follow up to the first film. A

I still scratch my head over this one, because when it was first announced they did call it ‘Part I’ with a ‘Part II’ to come later, and I can’t figure out why they changed that.

[Errorname]

65 also came out this year, and was actively a theft of the box office price. Almost no actors, very little sci-fi, almost all of the CGI was, badly, reused, and very little of interest going on. F-

Admittedly I think in "Good 65" you probably don't have that many actors or that much sci-fi either. It's a man vs wild story, maybe contrive another survivor who can get picked off early to establish the danger, and the sci-fi elements are mainly to justify why a human* is stranded up Hell Creek to begin with.

The problem is that the actual survival situations are boring and the environment isn't compelling. I'm a dinosaur nerd so I'm hard to please, but even just as monster designs the dinosaurs in that movie suck. At least if they were accurate you'd have an audience of nerds like me who can be like "well the movie sucks but actually it's a really well realized reconstruction of the Hell Creek Paleobiota", which is at least a fanbase. As it stands it's just trash.

[Eldan]

I think I have a bad memory for movies, and also, this year was as weirdly out of time for me as the last two, so I'll just go through this thread and write down all the movies someone else mentioned that I also saw.

Guardians of the galaxy 3: I didn't hate it. It's a perfectly serviceable Marvel movie. I guess now that most marvel movies arent' perfectly serviceable anymore, this one stands out. But I don't remember anything particularly memorable or great about it, either.

Oppenheimer: pretty good, but didn't blow me away. Definitely one of the better historical movies I've seen. I liked the second half when it turned into a halfway political thriller probably more than a lot of first half "invention montage" stuff.

The Marvels: also an okay Marvel movie. I can honestly write down a lot of things this movie didn't do well (the Captain herself has no character arc, we needed a bit more exposition about what exactly happened to the kree planet and why it's the captain's fault, the fights got progressively less interesting to watch as the movie went on and the power problems got solved, repairing the sun was too easy), but it was short, fast paced and funny, and unlike a lot of Marvel movies, the finale fight didn't drag on for half an hour, which just confirms my theory that almost all Marvel movies would be better if you cut half an hour out of them.

Spiderverse: easily best superhero movie of the year, possibly last several years. Even if it's memey as hell and not all the jokes landed for me, it looks good, it has a solid emotional core and it does original stuff with its visuals and core premise. Look, I like my graphics porn occasionally, and this was it for me this year.

I feel like I've seen more movies this year, or at least not only superhero movies, but I can't think of any right now. Dangit, time to google best-off lists.

Killers of the Flower Moon: very depressing, very long, very well acted. Yeah, this one's pretty good.

Asteroid city! Wow, how did I forget this one! Yeah, this movie is great. It's exactly what you expect from a Wes Anderson comedy, when he is allowed to go very far and meta with it, and it's great. I would have missed this movie, too, because I read the announcement summary on a few cinema web pages, which just said "at an astronomy convention for children, real aliens show up and things get weeeeeeird (comedy)", which is... not what this movie is, even if the description is not wrong. So, good thing my brother recommended it for me.

Renfield! Man, this feels like it came out several years ago. Also great. From the trailer, you wouldn't expect how over the top gory and action-packed this movie is, but I loved everything about it. It's funny, the action is great, the effects are great, the cinematography is mostly serviceable but occasionally great and it's one of the few movies that knows exactly how to use Nicholas Cage to full advantage.

May still watch: Boy and the Heron. Two weeks before Christmas were super busy, now I'm staying with my parents until the end of the year and there's no independent cinemas around here (the mainstream ones don't show it in this country). If it's still on in January, I'll go.

[Rodin]

I barely saw any movies this year, so my top movie would have to be A Haunting in Venice. It's Kenneth Branagh's latest outing as Hercule Poirot, and props to him for picking a lesser known Poirot novel (Halloween Party) to get away from the classics everybody knows the plot of. If you've enjoyed the previous Branagh adaptations I recommend this one as well.

[Ionathus]

Thanks for jogging my memory Tyndmyr:

Renfield was a delight to me. The casting was great, personalities were very funny, special effects were campy at times and compelling at others, overall I enjoyed it a lot. Also I'm just tickled by how literally everyone I've told about it has said "Nicholas Cage as Dracula? That tracks."

Nimona might be my favorite of the year now that I think about it. It's by far the one that (IMO) took the biggest risk and did the most with its storytelling opportunities. Not that the plot itself was perfect (go on the old Nimona thread and you'll see me griping a lot about the contrivances, and wishing they'd done more to set a few plot points up more clearly/cleanly), but it was definitely the most charming, the most human, and the most inventive thing I watched this year. Plus the animation was a gorgeous, unique style, and it's jam-packed with so many little goofs and animation flourishes that I'm really eager for a rewatch.

[Tyndmyr]

Admittedly I think in "Good 65" you probably don't have that many actors or that much sci-fi either. It's a man vs wild story, maybe contrive another survivor who can get picked off early to establish the danger, and the sci-fi elements are mainly to justify why a human* is stranded up Hell Creek to begin with.

The problem is that the actual survival situations are boring and the environment isn't compelling. I'm a dinosaur nerd so I'm hard to please, but even just as monster designs the dinosaurs in that movie suck. At least if they were accurate you'd have an audience of nerds like me who can be like "well the movie sucks but actually it's a really well realized reconstruction of the Hell Creek Paleobiota", which is at least a fanbase. As it stands it's just trash.

Yeah, it lacks pretty much any redeeming value for any audience. If it was cheesy, over the top violence? There's an audience for that. Cocaine Bear isn't going to win any Oscars, but at least some people had a good time with it. 65....I can't imagine that anyone actually enjoyed seeing it.



Nimona might be my favorite of the year now that I think about it. It's by far the one that (IMO) took the biggest risk and did the most with its storytelling opportunities. Not that the plot itself was perfect (go on the old Nimona thread and you'll see me griping a lot about the contrivances, and wishing they'd done more to set a few plot points up more clearly/cleanly), but it was definitely the most charming, the most human, and the most inventive thing I watched this year. Plus the animation was a gorgeous, unique style, and it's jam-packed with so many little goofs and animation flourishes that I'm really eager for a rewatch.

Yeah, the animation was actually good, and really matched the tone of the movie well. A lot of animated movies feel, well, generic? The same assets could be used in half the pixar or illumination movies now, and not feel out of place. So, I kind of love when we get something with a unique style that fits it well. Nimona was good at this, and so was Puss in Boots 2. That was technically 2022, I think, but it also had a style to it that worked really well, and also a pretty great villain. I wouldn't have assumed that Puss in Boots 2 would be anything special, but the film definitely was solid.

[Trixie_One]

Nimona was my film of the year too. Is it perfect? Hell no. It's frequently messy and obnoxious. It does though, have moments that are perfect, and that means I'm more than willing to overlook the bits that don't work as well.

It's also a lovely underdog story that it far out did the efforts of Disney after they killed the studio making it.

[paddyfool]

This article has a list of movies to recommend from 2023 that includes many of the most recommended movies in this thread plus a few others: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/28/finally-a-film-made-for-me-readers-best-films-of-2023

[Psyren]

I barely saw any movies this year, so my top movie would have to be A Haunting in Venice. It's Kenneth Branagh's latest outing as Hercule Poirot, and props to him for picking a lesser known Poirot novel (Halloween Party) to get away from the classics everybody knows the plot of. If you've enjoyed the previous Branagh adaptations I recommend this one as well.

My favorite part of these movies is how they cast a big name actor/actress just to kill them off in Act 1 (e.g. Gal Gadot and Michelle Yeoh.)

[Trixie_One]

This article has a list of movies to recommend from 2023 that includes many of the most recommended movies in this thread plus a few others: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/28/finally-a-film-made-for-me-readers-best-films-of-2023

Oh dang, the gruaniad didn't include Barbie in their top 50? I think that film has some issues sure, but to not include it at all is being super incredibly harsh.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
My favorite part of these movies is how they cast a big name actor/actress just to kill them off....

The rest of that sentence is the sort of major spoiler that ideally would be in spoiler tags.

Not everyone has seen every movie listed here, and in fact I was interested in that one. Now Act I is ruined for me, but hopefully that sentence can be spoilered before anyone else has their viewing experience impacted.

[ecarden]

Oh dang, the gruaniad didn't include Barbie in their top 50? I think that film has some issues sure, but to not include it at all is being super incredibly harsh.

It's literally the first movie on the list?

[theangelJean]

Oh dang, the gruaniad didn't include Barbie in their top 50? I think that film has some issues sure, but to not include it at all is being super incredibly harsh.


It's literally the first movie on the list?

I had to go searching to find the list Trixie_One is talking about, because the list paddyfool linked also isn't a Top 50.

It's this one: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/05/the-50-best-movies-of-2023-in-the-us and it indeed does not include Barbie.

Edit: Or it could be this one https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/05/the-50-best-films-of-2023-in-the-uk which also does not include Barbie.

Have to wonder what criteria they used...

[Trixie_One]

Edit: Or it could be this one https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/05/the-50-best-films-of-2023-in-the-uk which also does not include Barbie.

Have to wonder what criteria they used...

Yeah that's the one I was referring to after seeing a mention to it in the comments on the first link which were reader picks. Apparently it was a correlation of the picks of all their critics to work out the top 50 'best'.

[GloatingSwine]

The rest of that sentence is the sort of major spoiler that ideally would be in spoiler tags.

Not everyone has seen every movie listed here, and in fact I was interested in that one. Now Act I is ruined for me, but hopefully that sentence can be spoilered before anyone else has their viewing experience impacted.

The fact that someone gets killed off in a murder mystery story shouldn't really count as a spoiler...

[Lemmy]

The fact that someone gets killed off in a murder mystery story shouldn't really count as a spoiler...
But telling who gets killed definitely should.

[Psyren]

The rest of that sentence is the sort of major spoiler that ideally would be in spoiler tags.

Not everyone has seen every movie listed here, and in fact I was interested in that one. Now Act I is ruined for me, but hopefully that sentence can be spoilered before anyone else has their viewing experience impacted.

Sorry, edited. I remembered those being in the trailers but on rewatch, they're a bit coy about it.

[Tyndmyr]

But telling who gets killed definitely should.

Wasn't it in the trailer?

Anything in a trailer shouldn't be counted as a spoiler, or at least, the responsibility for spoiling it should fall upon the marketing team, not those of us discussing it.

[Psyren]

Wasn't it in the trailer?

Anything in a trailer shouldn't be counted as a spoiler, or at least, the responsibility for spoiling it should fall upon the marketing team, not those of us discussing it.

Both deaths are, but subtly, so I decided to err on the side of caution.

[Lemmy]

Wasn't it in the trailer?

Anything in a trailer shouldn't be counted as a spoiler, or at least, the responsibility for spoiling it should fall upon the marketing team, not those of us discussing it.
Not everyone sees the trailer. Very often people decide to watch a movie based on recommendations or commentary from someone else.

In fact, this minor tangent started when a poster mentioned he wanted to check the movie and didn't know yet what characters die in the first act.

[Metastachydium]

Not everyone sees the trailer. Very often people decide to watch a movie based on recommendations or commentary from someone else.

Especially seeing how trailer just love to wantonly either lie about or spoil stuff. I'm one of those weirdoes unbothered by the latter, but even then, the former's just mean.

[Rynjin]

Yeah. A murder mystery is actually the type of movie where "it was in the trailer" is the biggest misdirection possible. If a murder happens in the trailer there's still potential for twists. It's not exactly uncommon in murder mysteries for the first murder to be the actual killer via some convoluted means. Or they reappear by other means such as via flashback.

But having someone specifically out and out say "so and so dies in the first act and then they're gone" removes that ambiguity and makes it a much clearer spoiler.

[redking]

Three movies.

1. Unbreakable: 75 million dollars.
2. Split: 9 million dollars.
3. Glass: 20 million dollars.

This trilogy is by M. Night Shyamalan. Despite the wildly different budgets, the production quality is quite similar and it is a proof that you can do remarkable things if you have a decent script. Compare to Disney Star Wars or recent MCU productions. If you don't have a decent script and proper planning, money won't make a good movie no matter what.

[Catullus64]

The movies I caught in theaters this year were:

Napoleon
The Creator
Poor Things
American Fiction
Godzilla Minus One
Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse
Killers of the Flower Moon
Oppenheimer
Barbie
A Haunting in Venice

Looking at the wide release dates of those, I'd say 2023 finished a lot stronger than it started, at least in terms of the quality of the films. Of those films, I only disliked two (The Creator and Napoleon). American Fiction and Godzilla Minus One were the real standouts, and both of those only hit in December in the US.