#how little movies i have seen

[malicemismanager]

Guillermo Del Toro is basically the only person whose movies I will watch without knowing anything at all about them beforehand. I'll just be like 'oh it's Guillermo Del Toro? don't mind if I do then!' and you know what I've been right every single time.

[myokk]

Eloise and Lorra🥹🥹

@lorrainmorgan

[xlunart]

uhmm barbie girl in err uh barbie world ???

[the-sage-libriomancer]

Rewatched Princess and the Frog today and honestly it feels more like a celebration of Disney's 100 years than Wish. A classic fairy tale respun in interesting ways while still being undeniably Disney? Check. A traditional story with modern twists and a (narratively) strong female protagonist? Check. A return to 2D animation in a time when the medium was dying out? Check. Hell, it even takes place in the same time period (1920s) that Walt Disney released the first animated feature film and started a hundred years of magic. There are multiple references to older Disney movies, from classics like Pinocchio and Sword in the Stone to (then) recent films like Aladdin and The Little Mermaid. It features the fucking wishing star! In a more narratively sound manner than Disney's actual 100th year celebration!

And even beyond that, Princess and the Frog feels like it pays tribute to the magic of magic - the power of believing in stories, of having a dream, of working hard to reach your happy ending while never losing sight of what's really important. There is so much effort put into this movie and it shows: the animation is gorgeous, the story is creative and structurally sound, and behind the scenes reveals that the producers put their backs into making sure both the African American aspect and the New Orleans cultural aspect were accurately depicted. It was the first Disney movie in over a decade to return to the Broadway musical format, and they literally had to dust off the abandoned 2D art tools because the company hadn't used them since 2004.

Princess and the Frog was a labor of love through and through, a heartfelt tip of the hat to Disney's legacy while still being its own story. I don't know what could be more celebratory of Walt Disney's dream than that.

[spookygibberish]

Made a faintly insane list of of every animated movie I have good enough memories of to feel confident ranking, although some of them I would probably move around if I saw them more recently....

[man-down-in-hatchet-town]

One of my favorite things about actually joining the Starkid fandom after so many years of loving Starkid but not being a part of the community is seeing how much love and enthusiasm for Starship is still out there. Like, ya'll really love the silly alien-bug-Little-Mermaid musical I was obsessed with twelve whole years ago and it warms my heart so much <3

[jervis-tetch-my-beloved]

Weird question but does Benny live with his grandma? She’s the only relative of his we like actually see, but we know he at least has a dad because of the magazine & cologne he gets in Smells like Trouble, but he says his dads in the dating scene sooo

[frogwithfeelings]

hello ive decided to share with you all a list of films i consider 'silly horror'

'but what is silly horror?' i hear you cry! well shut up im gonna tell you

the criteria for silly horror is that it should have at least 2 of the following:

good practical effects and/or shitty cgi

goofy creature design

at least one point in the film that makes you think "what the FUCK is going on :D"

ridiculous ending or plot in general

cartoonish violence and/or unrealistic gore

a generally goofy vibe

(bonus points if it's from the 80s)

these are mainly comedy horror films that have what i consider the absolute silliest vibes however there is opportunity for a serious film to fall into this category unintentionally, unfortunately tho i havent come across any yet :( (if you know any send them my way :3)

ok so without further ado my silly horror films

REANIMATOR & BRIDE OF REANIMATOR

EVIL DEAD 2 & ARMY OF DARKNESS

BRAINDEAD (also known as DEAD ALIVE)

THE FRIGHTENERS

FROM BEYOND

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2

LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS

KILLER KLOWNS FROM OUTER SPACE

FRANKENHOOKER

ok thats all i have so far if you have any recommendations please tell me i love these films :D

[jq37]

Descendants: The Rise of Red is kind of a bizarre movie to talk about critically because, imo, it almost doesn't make sense to talk about it in the usual terms of good vs bad or enjoyable vs not enjoyable when the way more obvious tension is finished vs unfinished.

Because, more than any other movie I've ever seen, it does *not* read as a full movie. And I don't mean in a "this movie has a cliffhanger" kind of way. The Empire Strikes Back and Across the Spiderverse fit that description. They end on big dramatic cliffhangers that point to a resolution in the third installment.

But Rise of Red just sets all this stuff up and then...ends without concluding anything. It doesn't feel like the first movie in a trilogy (or duology). It feels like the first act of a two-act musical. It very specifically reminds me of the end of the first act of Into the Woods where all the main characters sing the song Ever After about how they all fixed their problems with magic and nothing bad will ever happen to them again and then the narrator ominously says "To be continued" before the curtain drops. But in Into the Woods you know there's a second act and this movie wasn't sold as the first act of a bigger story. Like sure, it has the, "You didn't think this was the end" tag at the end like all the other movies, but those movies were complete, self-contained stories even though they had sequels. This was NOT a full story. It's half of one story.

Like, if we're supposed to take this as a full story, there are so many bizarre choices:

Why did they make sure to mention that Cinderella and Charming fell in love at the ball at the top if it wasn't meant to set up Back to the Future style, "Oh no, I accidentally got my mom banned from the ball so she's not gonna fall in love with Dad and I won't be born" shenanigans?

Why did Maddox very pointedly have that bit about "you could lose your mom completely" if that was never going to come into play? Red never did anything to endanger Bridget or endanger her own birth so it doesn't make sense as a warning in that way.

Why was there all this focus on this Carrie on prom night moment for Bridget if we LITERALLY NEVER SAW CASTLECOMING? Why dance around this moment and talk about it all cloak and dagger with no specificity if they weren't building up to some big reveal that it wasn't as straightforward as it seemed? And like, they leaned in HARD with making Bridget the nicest, sweetest, cotton candy princess as a teen so I need WAY more than, "She got pranked by known bullies she's been enduring with a smile very handily up to this point" to buy that she went from that to "murderous dictator". And even if she did become murderous, I find it insanely hard to believe that she'd include her best and only friend on the list of people she wants to suffer unless there was a betrayal. I find it INSANE that there wasn't a falling out scene at any point in this movie with how thickly they were laying on the admiration and camaraderie.

(Note: And adult Cinderella def has guilty vibes re: the Queen at orientation. Which I know I'm not imagining because it's literally spelled out in the Jr Novelization!)

Before the time travel element of the movie started, I thought they were going for something like they go to the past and realize that Bridget was bullied not by the VKs but by the spoiled royals, and Ella ends up joining in the bullying once she gets with Charming, betraying Bridget and justifying her whole "Love Ain't It" philosophy. Or Ella ditching her at the last minute to be with Charming meaning she has to deal with the monster prank alone and it was the being alone rather than the prank itself that hurt her (though that is NOT a good enough reason to go all off with their heads on your subjects). The fact that, as far as we know right now, it literally was just a relatively mild and reversible prank that caused all of this is just, such flat storytelling, you know?

But! All of this makes way more sense if this is meant to be the first act of a single contained story. And I don't wanna be all "Pepe Silvia, secret good 4th episode of Sherlock" about this but I did see this picture:

Which seems to indicate that this was written as a Part One. Which, if so, idk why they wouldn't advertise it that way but whatever. The point is, if that's the case then it means that we're potentially in bad pacing territory rather than straight up bad storytelling territory. Because this isn't a bad place to be halfway through your story:

The heroes, warned that time travel is dangerous, have gone back in time to change the heart of a brutal tyrant before she can stage a coup. They seemingly succeed in their mission and when they come home, everything is great! But then, the side effects of time travel start to catch up with them. Chloe realizes that, in breaking the vase, she prevented her mother from going to the ball and falling in love with her dad (who was conspicuously absent from the final scene btw) which means she's starting to be forgotten and erased from the timeline. And Red realizes that though this new version of her mom is as sweet and kind as the teen she once met, she's a complete stranger to her (fulfilling the Hatter's warning that she could lose her mom completely). So they have to go back in time once more to make sure the Ella and Charming fall in love again, perhaps at the cost of whatever bad thing that happened to Bridget happening again and bringing back the original version of her future self. But, now with more context of how her mom became that way, Red can now talk to her mother and persuade her to give people another chance.

Boom, that gives us time to go back and hit everything we haven't yet hit. We can pay off the time travel tropes that were set up but not explored. We can go to Castlecoming which feels so obviously set up to be the centerpiece of this story (like, come on, Back to the Future literally does the school dance thing. This is Time Travel Storytelling 101). We can actually get info about what the prank was and why it affected Bridget so completely.

(Note: This is a side thing but it really strikes me as so crazy that Bridget would so SUCH a big 180 here. Like, I know the Queen of Hearts is a silly, goofy, campy villain, but she straight up murders people and there's no way to get around that if we're taking her out of the surreal story she comes from and putting her in a (comparatively) grounded story. If I wasn't doing a betrayal plot, I would make the twist that the spell that turned Bridget into a "monster" didn't just have a physical effect, it had a mental effect and it magically twisted her personality to be the way it is now. So they broke the physical half of the curse, but neglected the other half and it's been festering the whole time, turning her as evil as she was sweet. Because like, a simple physical transformation isn't that big of a deal to have such heavy security--Bridget made cupcakes with a transformative effect and that was totally fine. I'm not saying that that's what's gonna be the case. I just think it would be an explanation that makes sense for why she changed so crazy much that makes more sense than a simple prank or even a betrayal. Her mom wasn't even evil! How did she go from zero to murder without even an evil mom to push her onto the path? But I'm super digressing right now.)

(Note #2: OK, one last thing. The trap on the book presumably would have hit the VK's and trapped them in Merlin's office regardless of what Chloe and Red did, right? That's like, net zero influence on the timeline. I genuinely can't tell if that's a straight up plot hole or set up to be like, "Oh no. Actually when she said that she was turned into a monster in front of everyone it was meant in a less literal way." Like she was just made to look bad and that was the real thing that pushed her over the edge. Like idk. It really feels like the only thing they really did that would change the timeline was get Ella banned from the dance and presumably out of the way where she couldn't hurt Bridget. OK NOW I'm done.)

Anyway, my point is that this is not how I would have structured my movie and I think this was a super weird way to go into the second era of Descendants movies, but they can still tell a complete story if that's their plan. I'm genuinely really curious to see if this pans out to be a fairly competently told story that just happens to be split over two movies or a complete fumbling of the narrative bag because it could really be either at this point and it's fascinating to me.

[mezucore]

i made a short visual novel-style retelling of some re-animator scenes in extremely rudimentary html for my website. i'd appreciate it if you checked it out <3

[andromeda3116]

people actually went on about how game of thrones made it socially acceptable to be a fantasy nerd, as though the lord of the rings movies hadn't been released less than a decade earlier and left far greater cultural ripples and i am just

got may have made the adults feel better about liking fantasy, but lotr got into the kids' heads when they (we) were just young and impressionable enough to be absolutely transported and emotionally rewritten by don't you leave him, samwise gamgee and my brother, my captain, my king and and rohan will answer

lotr was rewriting entire generations' brain chemistry long before asoiaf and so obviously it's not fair to compare any post-lotr fantasy novel to it, and each book series was trying to do different things within their own spheres and so that also is not a fair comparison, but in terms of the cultural impact of the adaptations that came out within a decade of each other, saying that it was game of thrones that made fantasy mainstream is baffling

game of thrones could only run because the lord of the rings movies laid the path, and i will die on this hill

[clover-46]

the writers on here making the miguel fics need to remember his fangs inject paralytic venom hes not a real vampire it was just a joke in the movie ���

oh but i still want him to bite me don’t get me wrong idgaf if they have venom 🤷🏾‍♀️🤷🏾‍♀️

[dandeyrain]

i genuinely don't mean this in a like. condescending way. but reading people talk about how Confusing and Nonsensical and Overpacked boy and the heron is make me feel insane. every single plot point is clearly spelled out; frankly, one of my only critiques of the movie is that i wish they'd left some of it LESS clear. yes, the second half is rich in dreamlike fantasy, but the story never breaks its own rules, and before every major reveal in the fantasy world theres an extremely obvious explanation — almost too on the nose to even call it foreshadowing — from somebody. like i just don't understand how anybody finds it impossibly confusing and weird and bad to engage with

[sysig]

maybe you should doodle however many or few starcon/helix/damned characters as you like (in human or alien form) in cute halloween costumes! imagine... ZEX dressed up as Ariel thelittlemermaid...

Day 26 - "I hadn't realized humans also had aquatic subcultures!" "Oh, well, uhm..."

[weregonnabecoolbeans]

When Tony asks Peter why he does what he does and he says the iconic line:

“When you can do the things that I can, but you don’t…and then the bad things happen…they happen because of you.”

Fourteen-ish year old Peter Parker, in one sentence, with so much ease, made the simplest case for why Tony arguing on the side of the accords is entirely for his own self interest.

If “the bad things happen” and Tony makes his own decision not to interfere then he will inevitably feel guilty.

Signing the accords means handing over the responsibility of deciding when he will or will not interfere. In his mind, this means he can no longer be held accountable when “the bad things happen”

[the-meme-monarch]

my brother and i have been going on walks a lot lately and have been checking out public buildings if only to see them, and in one it finally happened where someone thought my brother and i were a couple. even though Earlier in the conversation i mentioned ‘our little sibling’ like twice while gesturing to my brother and i both times. this wouldn’t have been so horrible and i could have easily brushed it off as her just not having caught that, if not for the part where after clarifying We’re Siblings she said “well even if you did have kids…” and kinda trailed off and didn’t complete that thought. she was talking to us about our futures/careers bc this was the town hall building so she probably meant it like If We, Individually From Each Other, Have Children but. i didn’t press for clarification but was ready to Leave after that. she was talking for a while still, after saying that. i had a cold soda and it was room temp by the time we finally left