Видео

Top 100 skinrobots

Best film I watched in ages. The editing was peak the sound design kept you aware of the danger while the story unfolded.

Sorry to hear Rachel didn't vibe with the movie but I'm definitely with Ante on this one: as a prequel, it's perfect in every way. So perfect it even elevates the impact of Fury Road on rewatch, and it doesn't diminish any of the cool things we see in that first movie. Just monstrously well done.

Sort out your opinions in the thunderdome 😂

Full reaction please!

Who else waiting for their full reaction lol

Please, react to the full concert 🥰🙏

Also let me add you used a picture of Madonna where didn’t look her best yet on her tour after referenced picture she looks amazing…. Kinda rude and not needed. It takes a few seconds to google….. celebration tour Madonna.

You should watch in full! And react! It’s incredible!!! 👌🏽👌🏽👌🏽 I was there when it was filmed I also auditioned for this tour! I watched with friends who don’t even listen to her much but they loved it! And yes the tour is very brutalist architecture!

Buuuuu

Honestly. This doesnt come close in any kind of a way to the original OR its first sequel City Of Angels. Nothing can touch those two. This movie will be a great action revenge flick but it barely resembles the crow to me. I think the studio made themselves something they could go to the bank on and forgot what the crow really was. If anyone new to the crow should definitely see the first movie from 1994 and then the sequel city of angels 1998 then go see this. you will understand why this just doesnt come close. i think it will make its budget back and gross a decent profit. but thats about it.

as a Finn, my sacred mission is to feed salted liquorice to as many foreigners as possible, and that's why I always have it with me in Japan

The original is also in my top 10, I think this looks like it could be good!

❤🎉😮😊❤

Joaquin Phoenix ❤❤❤

Can you react to Lady Gaga Chromatica Ball Film trailer please 😊 it’s going to come on MAX on the 25 of this month ✨

Most people just don't wanna face the real world

Joaquin Phoenix ❤❤❤

Enjoyed this. No ultramarathons or trail running for me,but it helped me get my walk in this morning!

Lady Gaga got nominated for best actress in all precursors to the Oscar’s for “house of Gucci”. Lady Gaga got nominated for best actress for the Oscar’s with “a star is born”. She won best actress golden globe for American horror story.

Lovely stuff, enjoyed that!

I also had such mixed feelings about Joker (2019). It struck me as a film trying to deeply tackle themes of mental illness and social isolation on the most serious note imaginable as a most naturalist drama, except we're talking about a character who is normally an over-the-top comic book villain who fights Batman. It's also so bleak and nihilistic thematically. To me that's like making an Iron Man film which, above all else, is trying to communicate the struggles and dangers of Tony Stark's alcoholism in a film that takes itself as seriously as Leaving Las Vegas or The Girl on the Train and with an equally depressing tone. I like the idea of dark and gritty comic book characters and settings, but there's a threshold after which, once crossed, I have to ask why we're telling this story through a comic book character in the first place; I can no longer see at that point why such a well-known comic book setting and character is enhancing rather than detracting from the overall theme, and it makes me start to question the maturity of our popular culture if we now feel the need to explore such themes through such characters/settings to the point where we make them the central themes in new stories revolving around them. I also think Heath Ledger's Joker is the definitive version. He's archetypal as a chaotic mastermind and an ultimate archnemesis for Batman making way too much sense for comfort when he criticizes Batman. He's relatively two-dimensional but that's actually perfect for this type of villain as I see it. I don't understand why Joker needs to become such a three-dimensional character marked by suffering that a film is tempting us to root for him. The Joker film, from my perspective, went too far beyond trying to explain how Joker became the villain that he is and towards actually justifying his transformation. Maybe that was sort of the point to help us empathize with mentally disturbed people who are mistreated. Yet again we're talking about an iconic comic book character who murders an innocent person just for mocking him, and who we know in advance will become an ultimate villain. So I don't think the reason many of us feel icky watching the film is simply because it's demanding more empathy than usual; it's just a rather tonally absurd way to tell a story based around this central theme.

I think I'm all "Aliened" or "xenomorphed" out. Same with "Predatored" out; I don't understand why they keep making more of these movies except for sheer brand recognition. I never particularly understood the appeal of continuously expanding creature features into long-spanning franchises, since I think we inevitably get diminishing returns on the degree of suspense and horror once the monster is revealed. The original Alien was a horrific masterpiece to me with its reveal of the facehugger and xenomorph. Aliens had enough room to keep the horror momentum going since we saw how devastating a single xenomorph can be in Alien only to now have to deal with an entire infestation of them combined with the Queen. Yet after Aliens, I think it's almost impossible not to go downhill from there (at least as far as the horror is concerned); might be able to tell interesting stories with great characters still, but I think it's impossible by that point to create so much dread for the audience now that they're so familiar with the creatures involved. I really didn't like Prometheus but I think it was at least an interesting attempt to offshoot the franchise by focusing on a very different kind of creature. Otherwise I don't really know where Scott could have gone in a very fresh direction. Like I'm being a bit facetious but what are they going to do, have a xenomorph erupt out of a big bird that can fly? I do like how the teaser is suggesting a return to the claustrophobic horror nature of the earlier films. Yet even by reusing the "Alien" title, I think those familiar with the franchise don't have the potential to be shocked, horrified, and feel a degree of suspense nearly as much as even a space-horror film in a modestly-original setting featuring a completely new but really dangerous alien creature.

I agree about Austin and Giedi Prime. Just stole the movie for me. Thanks for the review, guys! Also I like your interpretation about the weird "fireworks" reminding blood splatters. It's so fitting to the ultraviolent Harkonnens' culture and the whole Gigeresque aesthetics of their world. This is a stroke of genius on the part of Dani Villeneuve.

I really enjoyed season 1 so far! I felt the need to check it out after The Critical Drinker recommended it with the pitch that it's like the better seasons of Game of Thrones set in Japan. I did find myself a tiny bit let down just in the context of that pitch even though I still really enjoyed the show despite it. What distinguished GoT so much for me is the "grey" aspect of the characters taken to such an extreme level that it's often difficult to tell who is protag and who is antag. My favorite moments of the show often had me rooting for two opposing sides at the same time while in a maximum state of tension; I absolutely love that when two sides pitted against each other have me rooting for both and cringing at the prospect that one side will inevitably have to suffer a defeat. In Shogun, the protag and antag distinctions seem relatively unambiguous. At least I'm pretty sure that no one is supposed to be rooting for Ishido, e.g. Still, the show really hits a craving of mine to see a lot of political scheming, heavy amounts of dialogue, and constant twists and turns.

I'm from Japan (Shizuoka, originally) but lived in the US for many years starting from high school and onward as a foreign exchange student, then worked as a VFX engineer in Hollywood for many years after that. My biggest cred is some of the work I did on the film, Avatar, from James Cameron's house along with a Siggraph Silver Edge award for my contribution in computer graphics. I really miss Western-style Christmas. Japanese Christmas lacks that richness from my perspective of the family-oriented and religious Holiday it is in places like the US. There is a kind of pale imitation of it to me when Japanese girls dress in sexy outfits and strike a pose. Even the choice of fried chicken, most notably KFC, is like a pale commercial imitation of a baked homemade turkey with some overlap with Thanksgiving. New Year is our stronger holiday here from my perspective, and the contrast between Japanese and American New Year is about as strong to me as the contrast between Japanese and American Christmas.

I'm again in the contrarian camp that didn't like Mad Max: Fury Road. I wouldn't attribute it to "too much CG" though since I couldn't discern much in the way of CG in the film, and I have a trained eye being a VFX dev by trade. Actually I'm in the really odd camp that would attribute what I disliked as "too much action"! 😅 Fury Road made me completely question whether I'm an action buff in the first place as I thought I was or something else. So many of my childhood favorites could be described as "action films" starting with The Road Warrior, along with Robocop, Terminator, Aliens, Bloodsport, Kickboxer, Police Story, Top Gun, Die Hard, Big Trouble in Little China, Indiana Jones, Rocky, etc, along with some newer favorites like Dredd (2012), Gladiator, and Top Gun: Maverick. Yet if we look at those films, they actually have relatively much fewer and shorter action scenes than Fury Road. Their formulas tend to be more like: suspense, suspense, suspense, ACTION, repeat, and not action, action, action, suspense, repeat. It's similar to the difference between a sprinter who mostly spends their time in recovery with relatively short but climactic time spent sprinting vs. marathon runners who spend most of their time running. I seem to like longer periods of suspense to build up to a relatively shorter and climactic action scene. On Anya Taylor-Joy being possibly miscast, I've found that in general with younger actors (both male and female). She's in her 20s still and most action stars don't seem to prime until their 30s or beyond, like Arnie didn't really establish himself as an action star until his 30s, same for JCVD, Stallone, Dolph Lungdren, Donnie Yen, Jet Li, Bruce Lee, Wesley Snipes, Chuck Norris, etc. Especially for extremely rugged and over-the-top action heroes, the much younger performances often look a bit wet behind the ears to sell them so convincingly to my eyes (even from these same legendary action stars I listed above when we look at their earliest performances). Same for Charlize Theron; I agree that she was so well-suited for Furiosa being close to 40 but a late-20s Charlize Theron probably wouldn't have worked so well. There might even be an argument to be made that younger -- and especially younger-looking and younger-acting -- actors aren't so well-suited to portray the most rugged action heroes in usual cases. Sigourney Weaver was in her mid-30s when she made Aliens with the iconic role of Ellen Ripley taking on more of an action-oriented role as a reluctant leader of space marines over the original Alien film where she portrayed more of the everyday person (her youthfulness arguably worked well in Alien where she wasn't as much of an action star, and her age and maturity arguably worked better in Aliens where she was much more of an action star, relatively speaking). On Mel Gibson being the definitive Mad Max, I don't think that's the case at all but I do question if Tom Hardy was the best choice in Fury Road. Tom Hardy is the supreme chameleon actor in my eyes. Mel Gibson is pretty much Mel Gibson, in some form or another, in every film. Tom Hardy blends into his roles and the setting. He's arguably the much superior actor, but I don't always think the superior actor in that sense is always the better choice for action leads. I never found Hardy's lead roles all that memorable; my favorites of his are often more subdued like in The Revenant as John Fitzgerald who blended in so seamlessly with the setting as a sympathetic antag. But for memorable lead roles, and especially action roles complete with one-liners and not the most nuanced dialogue, it might not actually be a minus if they stick out somewhat; all the legendary action stars of Hollywood don't seem to have this quality of blending in so well so much as sticking out like a sore thumb (in charming ways for action leads).

For speaking in English was basically Paul asserting his dominance as opposed to speaking in chakobsa to earn the fremen trust

I often seem to be the contrarian, but I never cared for CG characters (as in ones who actually speak and emote the most nuanced facial expressions) whatsoever in a live action film, even with the latest state-of-the-art rendering, mocap, the most advanced hair and fur simulation, muscle simulation, physics, the most skillful compositing, the most accurate camera matching, etc. I'm not against CG whatsoever for creatures that don't need to emote in human-like ways (dinosaurs and dragons, e.g.), for sets, robots, spaceships, and other things -- only creatures that communicate like humans... oh and blood; blood squibs always look better. I seem to be in the very small minority that thought Gollum looked so tacky, even watching Lord of the Rings in the theater back in the early 2000s, when the creature was such a cutting-edge visual effect. I just couldn't, for the life of me, figure out why they didn't just find a very skinny and gaunt actor and cover him in make-up (possibly with some digital post-processing, but not turn the entire actor into a 3D model and puppet that has to be painstakingly rendered and composited back into the scene) and save themselves a ton of resources and be able to get the performance in-camera. We're nowhere close yet in my eyes to the point where a CG character can communicate the most subtle facial expressions and avoid sticking out like a sore thumb screaming, "I'm a cartoon!" when standing next to a live actor. So I'm almost certainly an extreme case, but I actually think the actors wearing crude ape make-up in the 60s version of the Planet of the Apes did a better job convincing me that they're real characters when standing and talking directly next to a human one than the CG ones. Most importantly, I find it much easier to empathize with them like human beings (which is one of the main storytelling goals of the ape effects in every single Planet of the Apes film; to get us to see the apes as people and not animals). The CG versions never get me entirely past the, "This is a cartoon," phase. Even though I can feel a bit sad for them and happy for them and so forth, there's at least a little bit more of a barrier for me to empathize with them on the most nuanced emotional level as well as I can for an actor in costume and make-up. As another example, there's no way I think a CG Klingon -- even using the absolute-most groundbreaking CG techniques -- can be as relatable to me on the most nuanced emotional level as Michael Dorn playing Worf in Klingon make-up in Star Trek: TNG and DS9. He was one of my favorite and most relatable characters, even more than most of the human characters, and there's no way in my mind using even the best of today's techniques to replace him with a CG Klingon (even if it looks better in one sense) without a major cost to the character's ability to communicate the most intricate and subtle changes in emotion. Those most subtle changes just don't translate across facial mocap, especially after animators clean them up and smooth out the noise across captured keyframes.

I seem to be in the minority that didn't care for the film very much. A difficulty I had for most of the film is that I didn't find any character conflicts (for Paul especially, being our protag) all that compelling to glue each scene together and make me so curious what happens next. Each individual scene was so visually spectacular and immersive, but I didn't get the impression that the whole was much greater than the sum of each part (probably given that I'm very character-oriented in terms of my tastes and engagement). For example, from Paul's POV, what are his main conflicts to drive my interest in what happens to him? For all but the last quarter of the film, he wants to become accepted among the Fremen, learn their ways, help them fight against the Harkonnen, and he has the internal conflict of just wanting to fight alongside them, not lead them as prophesized given his partial visions that this will lead to untold deaths. He has some conflicts to deal with for sure, but the pacing of the film never got me so invested in seeing how they get resolved. There's also the romance between Paul and Chani, but I didn't really get the sense of the build up to it despite the film spending so much time on Paul with the Fremen. The choice to make Chani antagonistic towards Paul was really interesting and something I didn't mind as a radical alteration from the books. That could have made a reluctant romance filled with tension between them far more interesting, yet I felt none of the chemistry and it seemed to fall flat. I also thought there was a lot of setup with relatively weak payoffs (or sometimes no payoffs). As an example, the Lynch version of Dune (1984) made the sandworm riding scene more than just a part of Paul's initiation into the Fremen and had a big payoff where he leads the assault against the Sardaukar on a giant sandworm. In the Villeneuve version, the scene of Paul conquering the sandworm is so much more spectacular in terms of its visuals and action but there's no connective glue to connect his triumph over the sandworm to a much larger part of the storytelling, since we never see Paul riding a sandworm after that. Maybe they'll do something with that in part 3, yet I think it could have been much more interesting to have done something more with than in part 2. As another example, the fight between Rabban and Halleck didn't seem so climactic to me despite the amazing visuals and action, since I found nothing to invest me so much into Halleck's vengeful grudge against the Harkonnen except mostly expository dialogue. Similar case with the epic duel between Paul and Feyd; Feyd was a really interesting antag being so ruthless and psychotic, yet he was only introduced around halfway into the film and we see very little interaction between him and the Fremen to make his final encounter with Paul nearly as interesting as I think it could have been. Similar case with the Emperor; he isn't even introduced until the second film and we barely see anything of him to make the final conflict between him and Paul so compelling, and the lack of focus on the politics between houses makes Paul's choice to marry Irulan seem rather out of the blue. I can keep going but generally speaking, despite each individual scene between so spectacular, the connective threads between the scenes seemed relatively weak to me. I couldn't find much value beyond the individual scenes themselves to really engage me so deeply in what happens next.

Love your reactions to pulling the alien out of the mouth…

CGI or motion capture does indeed look amazing. I remember seeing the original…it was so unique. This looks great!

The planet of the apes movie series is one of the better rehashed movies from the bygone movie era! You’re right about the CGI, the whole series is very made CG wise!

GW kicking their own fans now. Well we will turn to the true SPACE KING now!

praise be to space king! tom and don wanted to do a warhammer series but the 40k owners said no because "they were too problematic" with the type of content they made. [real red to black pill stuff, think like old 2000's internet.] so they made their own series. it was funded only a few days after release which shows you how hungry people are for this type of content done right, and now they might have a series all their own like smiling friends except they own it, lock stock and barrel.

Osaka fee is easy. You will pay it at the hotel

Sister Pauline still haunts my memories!!!!

잘봤습니다!ㅎ

Praise be to Space King! You should watch the entire video. (don't forget the add at the end)

I just saw the ‘The Crow’ trailer (same lead role actor)! Check it out, interesting take on a 90s classic

Yesssss instant trust (shut up Ante! 😂) but wait if you love h Jon Benjamin you need to watch Archer! Also I was expecting way more Merci puns honestly…

Loving this series, very refreshing

I’m super psyched to see this! Big Dune fan after reading the books decades ago!

Love this ❤

Good share & reaction legends! I’m keen to check this out already

Huge fan of Ritchie’s work! Snatch is my favorite film! Also love some of Ritchie’s serious stuff like “Wrath of Man” & “The Covenant”. Loving this cast! Henry Cavill is a major pull, but Eiza Gonzalez, Alan Ritchson, Henry Golding and even Cary Elwes are so charismatic actors! This does have a sort of Inglorious Bastards feel to it. Looking forward to checking it out when it comes out in a few days.

Are you saying that there is no reason to come to Japan anymore?

That's actually pretty cool. I'm actually looking forward to checking that one out. By the way have you two ever heard of [Mecha-Ude] or [CENCOROLL Connect] ? Both of them are interesting... One of them is weird though.

Everyone knows the monkey, but the monkey knows no one. 31 days

Give it a chance. I've played all of the games and have been waiting for this movie for years. I'm excited.