Watch, Watched, Watching: Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion

[Mexal]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Now I understand your Bengals fandom. 

I'm an Arsenal and Knicks fan too. It doesn't get better.

[polishgenius]

Just now, Argonath Diver said:

Z may have been confused by the commonly used positive connotation of "fucked up", but I am not. I'm glad you're enjoying it. I am eager to watch it some night when I, myself, am fairly fucked up.

Yeah, I've read a few reviews and it sounds like they didn't fuck it up.

[kairparavel]

I'm rewatching Covert Affairs because I need some comfort foodish television and MC has been rewatching all seasons of 24 and I need a palate cleanser.

Anyways I dug up the thread we had going on Covert Affairs and got sad seeing some of the posters from ten years ago. 

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, polishgenius said:

I mean when someone says 'that's fucked up I'm into it' I think it's safe to say you can eliminate the connotations of negativity in a quality sense.

You might assume so, but it didn't read like that to me.  It didn't read like ... well, anything beyond I'm disinclined to think of words with which say what I mean, so I'll grant. Disinclined probably ... because ... I don't care if anyone understands me or not.  

[polishgenius]

4 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You might assume so, but it didn't read like that to me.

Yeah well Mexal isn't actually required to write all his posts with overexplanations aimed at the lowest common denominator. He isn't Dan Brown.

[Mexal]

10 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You might assume so, but it didn't read like that to me.  It didn't read like ... well, anything beyond I'm disinclined to think of words with which say what I mean, so I'll grant. Disinclined probably ... because ... I don't care if anyone understands me or not.  

It was easier to say "fucked up" than describe the exact situations that make it so. Clearly some got it.

Anyway, we're almost through 7 episodes and I'm still digging it. I don't know anything about the manga it's based on so not sure if it's faithful or not but they've done a pretty good job creating fairly uncomfortable situations and some interesting characters. 

[Cas Stark]

For fans of lush soapish British period dramas I highly recommend Belgravia.  Very diverting. 

[Raja]

Started watching Tales from the Loop and it's quite decent so far. Though I wonder if episode 3 is going to make me sadder than the previous episode ( which is the trend so far)

[Veltigar]

In the history of overdue responses, this one might be my claim to fame. As to not further delay it, I will try to be brief in describing the latest films I was able to watch.

Apart from the two latest episodes of the Mandalorian, since the Thing I was able to see no fewer than five films. One of them was a rewatch of Footloose (1984) however, which I reviewed a month or two ago. I won't really get into that one again, with the exception of once more praising John Lithgow's performance and the film's amazing soundtrack. 

For the rest, I saw the following four films which I will review in order:

1. Reign of Fire (2002)
2. Donnie Darko (2001)
3. 12 Angry Men (1957)
4. Possessor (2020)

I have been on a pretty good role lately  After that I'll get back to some of the post from the other thread I still need to answer!

Part I:

Anyways, to begin with, let's talk about Reign of Fire (2002). I have always liked that film and last week I came across this insightful article on iO9 in which the author interviews the director responsible on the its pioneering effects work and why the film has become such a cult classic, despite bombing pretty hard at the box office. 

It's likely that I reviewed this film a few years back already, since my feelings haven't much shifted from what I can remember. I think it is a seriously underrated film. The effects have been highly influential, inspiring everything dragon related we have seen since then (particularly GoT and Smaug) and they still hold up to this day. There was a lot of skill involved with making this film, which never really got the praise it deserved.

On top of that, I think the movie is, for the most part much better written than what you would expect from a genre film like this. Only most films in the genre, which would mostly be concerned with fetishism about the dragons or showing how miserably and dreary life has become, this film does a lot of heavy lifting to ensure that there is an emotional heart to the movie. I genuinely believe in the need the characters feel to maintain the community they have constructed from outsider influence (be they dragons or 'Muricans) and they do that surprisingly efficient by working on the relationship of the main characters with the children in the movie

Spoiler

Gerard Butler and Christian Bale performing Empire Strikes Back before the children or the fact that Bale prays with the children after the attack on their compound.

It does falter somewhat in the third act, where certain things could have been handled more clearly, but by the by I'd like to see this level of writing in many more pieces of entertainment out there. Looking into the details of making this movie, the film also has surprisingly good production design. I always did like their blend of medieval and contemporary aesthetics, but I was surprised to learn about little details like

Spoiler

1. Christian Bale's rifle being a rare, but real-life high-powered specialized hunting rifle designed to be used as a weapon of last result for Big Game hunters who have to deal with wounded elephants or buffaloes attacking them. A fitting modern weapon for a dragon hunter.

2. The apple Matthew McConaughey's Van Zan throws out to one of the children when he is introduced is recognizable as a Granny Smith. That apple is apparently known for its higher than average acidity which means it can stay fresh longer and shows that Van Zan was right about taking it with him from Kansas. 

The best thing about the film however are the performances. It's amazing how many respected thespians they got together for this. The supporting characters are all highly-respectable British veterans, the type people cast to make smaller roles like the ones we frequently saw in GoT memorable (there are a few characters, including a young Jack Gleeson who cross over), but the four lead actors is were this film shines. Izabella Scorupco is the least well-known among them (I wonder why, because she's both great and gorgeous) and even she was a Bond girl in GoldenEye. The others - get this - are Christian Bale (pre Batman Begins), Gerard Butler (pre 300) and Matthew McConaughey (pre the McConaissance). I wonder how expensive your movie would be if you tried to bring those guys together again for a shoot in 2021!

Of the four, Izabella, Gerard and Christian are very good. McConaughey on the other, well he's transcendent really. He made this during his romcom phase, years before the McConaissance, but you could see the talent there. I haven't seen all of his McConaissance films, but I wouldn't feel very confident to find a finer performance than his Van Zan in this movie. He literally disappears into that character, whom I can only describe as 'America's Id incarnate'. McConaughey has so much fun playing this guy, he chews and spits out scenery as if his life depends on it. It's a ridiculously fun and mad performance, right up there with something like Klaus Kinski in Aguirre: Der Zorn Gottes or Brando in Apocalypse Now. Despite the fact that I really like Reign of Fire, it feels like McConaughey deserved to be in a much better movie with his Denton Van Zan.

[Veltigar]

Part II

Next in line was Donnie Darko (2001). A friend of mine has been bugging me for years to see it and as he had just gotten hold of the director's cut, he decided that it was as good a time as any for us to watch it. Bare in mind for this review that I saw the Director's cut but not the original theatrical release. There are apparently quite a few differences between the two and the original release seems to be far more enigmatic about what it is.

One of the advantages of waiting so long to review it, is that just this week Honest Trailers took on Donnie Darko in a video which was quite fun. In particular, I liked their line on how Donnie Darko gave a whole generation a Gyllenhaal to crush on as Donnie Darko is portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal and Donnie Darko's sister is played by his real-life sister Maggie Gyllenhaal. She's particularly ravishing in the film (which I do think is important to mention here as it will tie back into my review later) and the actual tension of their relation ties into the movies plot wonderfully.

There is a lot to be said about this film, so I will start with general praise before delving into the hardest question of the whole movie, namely what the film's plot is (or rather what I think is the film's plot, because you can clearly explain this narrative in many ways). So to start, I would say that the acting is great across the board. It is quite a sprawling cast, but I don't see a weak link there.

The film also has plenty arresting visuals and is superbly funny. I have to say that I was not expecting to laugh so much during the film, but it is just packed with so many nice little moments. My favorite being the quote I used in the thread title. I'm furthermore flabbergasted by just how much precursors I find in the film of the world in 2020. There is this gym teacher in the film who feels like the embodiment of the Karen meme for instance, the political divisions and of course everything related to superheroes, which are generally very present in the film (e.g. Donnie Darko being an alliterative name, just like Peter Parker and many other comic characters).

Overall it is definitely a top notch film and that is even before going into what made this film such a beloved cult classic to begin with, namely the labyrinthine plot on which it seems a few thousand blogs have been written. I'll warn everyone straight off that my interpretation of it differs very much from what I think are the more commonly held beliefs about the film. I think that is mostly a result of watching the Director's Cut, which contains a lot of extra material which makes it easier to know on what not to focus.

Spoiler

To grossly simplify what I have read on the web, most people seem convinced that this movie is about (some form of) time travel. That seems almost universally accepted, but the great debates that seem to be raging around it is what kind of time travel it is, whether it holds up that way, who is real and who's not.

When you watch the director's cut, it seems very clear to me that the time travel as showcased in the film is a form of time loop. The Director's cut literally spells it out for you by inserting little signets in the movie with info from the book on the philosophy of time travel.

Due to the fact that it is in my mind so clear from the Director's cut which time travel we're supposed to see, I was able to focus more on other things and I have to admit that I wasn't satisfied with the time travel narrative as depicted in the Director's cut nor with any of the competing claims based on observations in the original release.

For me, it is clear that the movie uses the time travel as a distraction. People focus so much on it and get lost in endless debates about how to explain it that they miss what the movie is really about. It took some reading and I finally discovered a theory which for me makes a lot of sense in an essay by Jim Emerson on Rogerebert.com.

For anyone who is interested in Donnie Darko, I'd strongly recommend it, as I really had a sort of Aha Erlebnis while going through it. I'll summarize Emerson's vision briefly for those of you who wish to skip the essay, but for more details you'll have to check the original article.

Donnie Darko is not a film about time travel. It is not a movie that lends itself to the question "which character is real and which isn't" because the majority of the film (basically from the moment the airplane engine and the Frank vision enters the story) is not real even within the universe of the film. Instead, the movie shows us the fantasy of a young man, the eponymous Donnie Darko, who is going through a particularly troublesome teenage transition.

His transition is difficult because not only is he having to deal with his inner demons and awakening sexual desires like all men of his age, the added curse he has to drag with him is that his sexual feelings are concentrated on a forbidden subject of desire, namely his elder sister. 

I'm usually not a big fan of dragging Freud into discussion like this, but for once, I think it makes a great deal of sense. I'll refer everyone to Emerson's article to find his itemized list of evidence within the film that supports the theory. Safe to say that in a film with this much incestuous subcontext, the fact that Jake and Maggie are siblings in real life greatly enhances the feelings surrounding Donnie's risky/forbidden feelings. Brilliant piece of casting really and I hope the casting director was compensated handsomely for it. The subcontext of incest is also one way in which Donnie Darko seems to have predicted contemporary pop culture's obsession with that particular vice. 

On 12/5/2020 at 3:50 PM, Maithanet said:

Or alternative title 4:

  Reveal hidden contents

"Why are you wearing that ridiculous man suit?"

Nice Donnie Darko and Thing crossover.

 

I have to concede that that would have been a much better title for this thread!

On 12/6/2020 at 2:38 AM, williamjm said:

It's a pity Richard Kelly seems to have turned into the ultimate example of a Hollywood 'one hit wonder'.

Yes, it is rather strange that he didn't make more stuff. Although, there is a part of his second feature in the honest trailer for Donnie Darko and... Well, let's say that that was weird, but not in a good way 

[Zorral]

29 minutes ago, Veltigar said:

Donnie Darko's sister is played by his real-life sister Maggie Gyllenhaal. She's particularly ravaging in the film (which I do think is important to mention here as it will tie back into my review later) and the actual tension of their relation ties into the movies plot wonderfully.

I haven't see the film either, so I'm wondering if possible you meant ravishing, not ravaging.  And easy typo to make, but the meanings of the following text are quite different depending on which word you meant, as to whether she is a ravaged hag or a ravishing woman, or a woman who ravages her environment, or one who delights those in her orbit, etc..  Which is why I ask. 

~~~~~~~~~

About to embark on a third ep of The Wilds.  So far nobody's eaten anything and drunk only Diet Coke and airplane bottles of booze. 

Spoiler

I am concerned for them, even though one of them suffers from bulemia, and surely there are other eating disorders among them.

 

[Veltigar]

Part III

I am pretty confident that my review for 12 Angry Men (1957) will not be very interesting to most people. It will only consist of me heaping praise on it, but it might be interesting as I had never seen it before this week. It was a classic which had long been standing on my watch list but which always seemed to draw the shorter straw.

I'm glad I finally got to it however. I currently seem to be in the midst of enjoying a strong streak of quality films. From The Thing onward every film I have seen was some type of classic, but 12 Angry Men is definitely (and by far) the greatest film I have seen in quite some time.

I would even go on the record to say that it was quite the emotional experience for me. I am quite critical of entertainment all things considered. We are condemned to sit through way too much crap and mediocrity to sift out the genuine treasures. Along the way, the vast majority of us looses the ability to accept that most of the stuff we like is flawed and starts to equate enjoyment with quality (they are strongly correlated, but the link is not causal imo).

It therefore gives me no end of joy when in the midst of all that, I see a film which is pretty much flawless. I have just written long posts about Donnie Darko, Footloose and Reign of Fire, all wonderful films, but they do have quite some flaws. Chances are quite high that in a 100 years, no one will remember them. That's okay, because there will be new films of their ilk to replace them. With 12 Angry Men however, we're dealing with something greater than a mere classic. It would be an indelible loss (even a crime!) if we stop watching it. 

They are exceedingly rare, but its films like 12 Angry Men which make watching films overall so enjoyable. For every 1,000 disappointments, you get one like this. That sounds like a bad deal, but strangely enough the economics of enjoyment behind it still check out for me. Safe to say that 12 Angry Men has entered my top 10 favorite films of all time and I do believe that for this specific entry, there is a crossover with the list of the 10 best films ever made.

Apart from a few background paintings (which is such a minute little detail you don't even notice), this film is flawless. It is a master class on acting, directing and writing. On a shoestring budget, with a first time director (for film anyways) and a short runtime they manage to establish a complete identity for the entire damn cast. It's been a week now and I could still tell you the number of each juror, along with the face of the actor playing them and a short description of their personality. These characters weren't even named in the film! It is insane how they manage to do that. A fortnight ago I gave a review of 13 Assassins, a movie with a far greater budget, runtime and modern technology and they did shit all with their characters. By the end, I couldn't tell you who was who or what their inner lives were or even what most of them did prior to the film's story. A truly incredible achievement that this movie was able to do that. 

The atmosphere and tension are also great throughout. The way they film was shot also adds to how relentless it feels. I wish more horror directors would take inspiration from this film. As far as I know, there are a lot of procedural mistakes in this. Normally that would detract from the film, but despite the obvious liberties the story sometimes takes with procedure, it still feels remarkably relevant to today's society. The way the film showcases prejudice, but also the incredible strength of democratic institutions and the contribution each and everyone can make to preserve and build on those to make the world a better place... It's marvelous, just absolutely and utterly marvelous. Everyone who hasn't seen it should do themselves a favor and get to it as quickly as possible.

12 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I haven't see the film either, so I'm wondering if possible you meant ravishing, not ravaging.  And easy typo to make, but the meanings of the following text are quite different depending on which word you meant, as to whether she is a ravaged hag or a ravishing woman, or a woman who ravages her environment, or one who delights those in her orbit, etc..  Which is why I ask. 

~~~~~~~~~

About to embark on a third ep of The Wilds.  So far nobody's eaten anything and drunk only Diet Coke and airplane bottles of booze. 

  Reveal hidden contents

I am concerned for them, even though one of them suffers from bulemia, and surely there are other eating disorders among them.

 

Woops, you are right. Thanks for pointing that out, I definitely meant the former. I have adapted my previous post. Probably a sign that I should hit the sack already, but I'm almost done 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Recently I've completed a rewatch of HBO's Rome series and am currently 3/4's of the way through the Danish political drama Borgen.(Netflix)

Rome was much more entertaining the 2nd time around. Was amazed at all the interesting little details and clever story telling they packed into this genuine gem.

Borgen is very much a political soap opera style, episode to episode, story line. May not be for everyone but I enjoy it. You would recognize one of the co-stars as a certain suitor (not Jiame) to our "beloved" GOT's Cersei.

[Veltigar]

Part IV

It's Possessor (2020) time! This is a new release and probably one of the most interesting films of the year (to be fair, not that there is a lot of competition due to the pandemic). It's director by Brandon Cronenberg (yes, the son of that other Cronenberg) and it seems the father and the son share some sensibilities.

The film is a mash of sci-fi and body horror that I can only describe as Freaky Friday meets Assassin's Creed. In this film, a sort of brain-computer interface technology is used by a mysterious organization to allow its assassins to take over other people (mostly loved ones or people with unique access to their target) and carry out hits. 

The film is generally well received by critics and there is a lot to like about it, although I wasn't completely blown away by it. Still, while I don't think it is a great film, I do think it came far closer than most movies to that title. As I said, there were quite a few things that I greatly enjoyed. The production design for this film was amazing from beginning to end. The director is also very good at creating atmosphere. I really loved the way he manipulated color throughout to further the narrative. It reminded me very much of Winding Refn on that point or even something like the visual heights of Brian Fuller's Hannibal. It had a similar feeling of heightened reality to it, as if everything in this world was turned to eleven.

There were also a lot of brilliant effects. Apparently, almost none of it was done with VFX and most was done in-camera. There was some imagery in there (mostly related to faces which both beautiful and disturbing). The uncut version is also incredibly violent. In fact, it has been a while since I last saw a movie with so much mayhem in it. There comes a point, fortunately entirely at the end, where they overdo it but most of the time I did feel like they hit the nail on the head with the excess of it all. Definitely not a film for the faint of heart. 

The acting was also very strong. It was quite complex, what some of these actors were asked to do, so it's great to know that they were up to the task. I think the film mostly falters because of the narrative. There are so many interesting ideas in here that aren't properly picked up... It's a shame really. I feel like they should have taken more time to set things up and explore some of the ideas the film introduces and then drops without much in the way of exploration. Overall, I think the film is enjoyable, but it could have been great. 

  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Recently I've completed a rewatch of HBO's Rome series and am currently 3/4's of the way through the Danish political drama Borgen.(Netflix)

Rome was much more entertaining the 2nd time around. Was amazed at all the interesting little details and clever story telling they packed into this genuine gem.

Borgen is very much a political soap opera style, episode to episode, story line. May not be for everyone but I enjoy it. You would recognize one of the co-stars as a certain suitor (not Jiame) to our "beloved" GOT's Cersei.

How is season 2? Still haven't really given it a go.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Veltigar said:

 

1. Reign of Fire (2002)
2. Donnie Darko (2001)
3. 12 Angry Men (1957)
4. Possessor (2020).

I don't know what the latter is, but this is a truly bizarre set of movies to watch. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How is season 2? Still haven't really given it a go.

Knowing your interests in politics I suspect you'd enjoy it. S2 has pretty fast moving changes week to week, covers a lot of ground to keep you vested in what next. About all you could ask out of this particular genre.

[Veltigar]

For the responses to the old thread, I'll have to be creative with the copy pasting

In chronological order:

@Deadlines? What Deadlines?

Quote

I'm not a huge John Carpenter aficionado, but IMO The Thing is his best film.  And yes, the extant critical reaction is really hard to believe given how well made that film was and how it has aged since.

It would be a fun idea for a thread to see in how many cases critics got it wrong at the time. It happens a lot, but I am still flabbergasted that it happened to The Thing. Perhaps it is the disdain for genre films, but this would definitely rank in my top 5 best horror films I'd say. You'd think that fear and dread are universal enough as emotions to appeal across the board.

Quote

@Veltigar, so what did you think of the end of The Thing?

 

Spoiler

Were one or both of them infected?  Carpenter has his interpretation, but I'm a fan of Death to the Author, so I don't see his opinion as being definitive.

 

This will feel a bit like a cop-out @Maithanet, as I waited so long to reply to this, but I would say that I loved the ending but that I have no

Spoiler

fixed opinion on the matter. I have read different reports of Carpenter flip flopping, so even if Death of the Author wouldn't be a thing, I don't think there is anything really definitive to say about the matter.

Most of the arguments you summed up in your later posts are very good and one was new to me (did Keith David really switch clothes? That I missed completely), but I have also seen good arguments for the two humans camp (e.g. that David's character still has his earring in, even though the Thing only copies organic materials apparently so no fake teeth or prosthetics or even simple things like piercings and earrings). I also think it fits better thematically, as @Fez put so eloquently in his reply, the fact that they are so paranoid and afraid of each other and whether they are real or not makes any cooperation impossible and leads to certain, helpless death. That really drives the horror of the Thing home for me.

In the end, I think we can't make a final ruling on it. I'd say that purely based on gut reaction I'd go for both of them being human. That would be bleak enough to sate my blood lust, but would not render the fight of these characters useless. I'd prefer it if the human race wasn't doomed after all at the end of the movie  But we'll never know, unless someone makes a horrible sequel.

 

Quote

As to @Tywin et al. point on the bottle

Spoiler

What do you think of the theory that it wasn't scotch in the bottle, but gasoline? 

 

It could be the case. Don't think we can say either way, but one fun tidbit about the critical reception of the movie

Spoiler

Apparently, the director from the original movie adaptation from the fifties (The Thing from Another World) really did not like the movie. He apparently stated that the film was a great advertisement for JB Scotch and that was about it. The snark was strong in him, it appears.

Quote

That's a Great Fuckin' Movie. Absolutely brilliant, in almost every regard. 

@Spockydog agreed 100% In general, I feel that the longer I keep thinking about a film after I have seen it, the better I like it and The Thing has remained quite fresh in my memory.

Quote

Carpenter did make some shlock, but he also made some really fun films besides The Thing: They Live, Big Trouble in Little China, Starman, Escape from New York, The Fog, Dark Star, and of course Halloween which is an instant classic of the slasher horror genre and I suspect many mainstream critics would consider his best. But it was a commercial film he made for money, to try and fund the stuff he really cared for.

Also, terrific composer, really. Made some really memorable tunes for his films...

You know, I'm going to start the controversy again @Ran but I still don't get what all of you see in Big Trouble in Little China. It baffles me that those two films are made by the same guy. The Thing is such a strong film, while I truly hated BTiLC. 

Haven't seen many of his other films, but I did listen to quite a few of his soundtracks already. So definitely agreed that he's great composer!

Quote

I would also like to note that it is pretty strange that other filmmakers haven't tried to make more movies like this.  IMO this is just so much more horrifying than most "horror" movies where a bunch of nobodies die gristly deaths.  I'm not a horror aficionado, but I'm not aware of any other movies that are so reliant on paranoia, mistrust and confusion.  The Thing is a movie that makes you feel really trapped and alone.  I know the X-Files made an episode that was very much an homage to The Thing, but that's about all that I've seen. 

@Maithanet I think we can fill a book with what modern horror directors do that doesn't work unfortunately  But good point, there are bound to be people who could use that base and further build on it. You could take a basic slasher film and amp up those elements to make it memorable. Scream 1 & 2 sort of did that, although not as relentless as The Thing.

Quote

Another aspect of The Thing that is great - and there are so many - is that the characters are acting largely intelligently. They do figure out what's going on quickly. They do think about ways to deal with the problems. They quickly figure out how much shit they are in, and how they can't trust anyone. There are very few, if any, truly stupid decisions like hugging it out with a creature or something. They're just so hugely over their heads that it doesn't matter.

While I think they handle it better in The Thing than in most other horror films, I'm not entirely sure whether I agree with you completely @Kalbear Total Landscaping At least in the beginning some stupid mistakes are made like

Spoiler

Locking one guy up alone in a cabin, making him easy prey for The Thing; the fact that the science guy and the radio operator were left alone in their rooms, etc.

Minor in comparison with some horror mistakes, but I do think that they deserve some flack for it  

Quote

The people act smart. 

But the creature..... I don’t get it. It is smart enough to build a starship, but not smart  enough to communicate effectively for first contact?

I like to believe it was a biological weapon sent by a more intelligent third party to cleanse Earth of its native species before future settlement.

It just landed in the wrong place. 

Well, it crashed I think @A True Kaniggit regardless of its intentions, I don't think it would have chosen Antarctica if it hadn't been in trouble. As to the origin of the creature, I like that they keep it vague. They probably reveal more in the prequel, but I'm content as it is really. I'd say that the clues point to intelligence as it did 

Spoiler

try to build a copy of a starship underneath the base.

 

Quote

I put Thunderdome over the original because it's a lot of fun. Mad Max just drags at so many many points.

Regarding the Rocky films, perhaps I need to revisit Balboa, but why do you have 3 so low? I normally hear people say it's their favorite.

@Tywin et al. I should revisit Thunderdome, but based on my memories I'd agree.

As to Rocky, I have three so low due mainly because I don't find it very memorable. Apart from "I pity the fool" and Eye of the Tiger, it doesn't really have something that has stuck with me over the years. Clubber Lang also has the misfortune of being a lower tier antagonist as he doesn't have any links to Apollo Creed, who has been almost as influential a character as Rocky himself (and that was even before the Creed films). Finally, I don't particularly think that the film has a strong message to give us. The good life weakens Rocky, Rocky is beaten, Rocky fights back, the end. It's quite shallow in a way that none of the others are, barring two which I rate above it because it rides on the coat tails of Rocky I. I feel that all the others have more emotional stakes.

[Veltigar]

45 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't know what the latter is, but this is a truly bizarre set of movies to watch. 

If you find out what the latter is, it will only add to your confusion I'm afraid  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Kalbear Total Landscaping,

Yeah, lots of dad jokes.