New Member
17 POSTS & 16 LIKES
|
Post by balls on Jun 9, 2020 18:32:49 GMT
I watched Observe and Report on Netflix.
Peña is the best part of the movie, like every other movie he’s in.
Buuuut also it’s not that funny and a full blownsies rape is committed in the middle of the movie by the protagonist and we’re supposed to sympathize with him when the lady he raped later has consensual sex with another person.
So.
|
|
Moderator
USER IS ONLINE
Years Old
Male
8,867 POSTS & 8,638 LIKES
|
Post by Big Pete on Jun 9, 2020 18:42:02 GMT
I don't think the movie wants you to sympathise with Rogan, they just wanted to show how messed up he is and how warped his world view is. It's an extremely dark scene and unlike something like Revenge of the Nerds, it isn't played for laughs.
|
|
New Member
17 POSTS & 16 LIKES
|
Post by balls on Jun 9, 2020 21:30:47 GMT
I can understand the argument that he’s some kind of Holden Caulfield-esque flawed narrator or something. I’m just not sure I buy that a movie made in 2009 was really centered around “Seth Rogan’s character is a deeply disturbed individual who needs help,” because in every instance he winds up being vindicated. He really does clean up the Crossroads singlehandedly. He really DID need a gun to do his job in the end. He really WAS the man to be in charge of mall security, and he was even right to try to shove Patton Oswalt into an oven.
And I think the scene IS played for a laugh, when she comes out of unconsciousness and asks, annoyed, why he stopped.
There’s elements of the story I quite like but the tone is just... not appropriate for the story being told. This should have been a Coen Brothers movie or something.
|
|
Moderator
USER IS ONLINE
Years Old
Male
8,867 POSTS & 8,638 LIKES
|
Post by Big Pete on Jun 10, 2020 4:04:19 GMT
The major focus of the movie is his mental illness and how unstable he is to be in a real position of power. It's a running theme in the movie, but really comes to a head during the psych test where we learn just how unwell Rogan's character is and why he could never be a police officer. Even in the examples you gave, I don't think you're supposed to side with him. Him shooting the streaker was completely unwarranted, the situation at the Crossroads could have been avoided entirely and Rogen's character was lucky to escape with his life. Even with the Oswalt situation, Rogan handled it which was good because he needed to be put in his place but it was in the throws of his bi-polar and another sign that Rogan's character wasn't doing well mentally.
That line originally wasn't in the movie. The producers weren't comfortable with the original scene so they threw that line in there to soften the blow.
I agree that tonally it doesn't always come together, but I appreciate that it was trying to be something more than a silly mall cop movie and attempted to deconstruct the characters. It was a sneak peak into other shows Hill would work on like Eastbound and Down, Righteous Gemstones and Vice Principals.
|
|
Legend
23,184 POSTS & 12,594 LIKES
|
Post by 🤯 on Jun 12, 2020 3:25:56 GMT
Sometimes I forget just how good Training Day was
Wasn't last movie I saw
Just thinking about it
That near miss execution-via-vatos scene
|
|
Strong Style Mod
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
11,332 POSTS & 11,473 LIKES
|
Post by Emperor on Jun 12, 2020 16:12:50 GMT
Rebel Without A Cause (1955) I've meaning to watch James Dean for a while since he's some kind of icon. But before I get to the movie, I did a little Wikipedia research on his iconic status. Looks like James Dean was a teen heartthrob. The "cool guy" attitude he exudes in this movie directly inspired the Rock 'N' Roll movement of the 50s and 60s. Guys like Elvis Presley and Buddy Holly took the James Dean template to form their own stage personas. We all know how that worked out, for Elvis especially.
Now, having seen Rebel Without A Cause, I totally get it.
Based on the title alone, I went into this movie expecting a more serious, darker version of Ferris Bueller's Day Off. An uncontrollable teenager wreaking havoc on everything around him. The opening scene of the movie, depicting a wasted Jim Stark (played by James Dean) being hauled into a police station, appears to confirm my belief. He makes a bit of a scene but doesn't treat anybody harshly. Just alcohol doing its thing.
I quickly learnt that the movie is not at all what I presumed it to be. It is, at its a core, a film about troubled teenagers, the poor relationships they have with their families, and the outright dangerous behaviour these youths can engage him without the right guidance. It is one of the first movies to treat these subjects seriously, and James Dean was the perfect man for the job.
There are a couple of things I don't like about the movie. Some of the voice acting is terrible. At some points it came across as though the movie was dubbed. Quite jarring. The other point is that most of the teenagers look like adults. Dean was in his early-mid 20s when the film was produced. Early on in the film Jim Stark attends his first day at a new high school, and it looked more like a university campus to me. However as the film went on my mind adjusted itself and I soon saw the characters as teenagers, more through their actions if not their appearance.
The rest of the film is so strong that these slight weaknesses don't matter one bit. The story is fantastic, and the young actors play their parts extremely well.
Although it's not obvious at first (it's not until the final act that this is truly revealed), Jim Stark has a heart of gold, but he's not mature enough yet to always understand what is the right thing to do, and lacks the moral guidance from his family. His mother is domineering and would rather move to a new city whenever Jim causes trouble than actually provide emotional support to her son. His father is weak-willed, and although Jim repeatedly asks him for advice, he never has the will to give a decisive answer, frustrating Jim into doing his own thing.
So Jim gets himself into trouble on several occasions, leading to some incredibly thrilling scenes that seem outlandish on the surface, but fit perfectly into the story. There's also an undercurrent of existentialism, as the adolescents don't seem to put much weight on whether they live or they die, some just want to live in the moment.
Fantastic movie. It has some of the best young-adult-movie aspects of a classic like Breakfast Club and adds in a dose of classic Hitchcock suspense.
Will be making my Top 100 list for sure, but I don't know how high it will place yet.
|
|
Strong Style Mod
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
11,332 POSTS & 11,473 LIKES
|
Post by Emperor on Jun 13, 2020 23:57:43 GMT
My Dad Is A Heel Wrestler (2018) Hot off the heels of Fighting With My Family comes another wrestling family saga, this one from Japan.
While Fighting With My Family is a somewhat fictionalised version of a real story, My Dad Is A Heel Wrestler is a fictional story injected with a fair amount of reality. It's set in Japan, stars Hiroshi Tanahashi, features several other NJPW wrestlers, and is heavily based on the promotion.
Hiroshi Tanahashi stars as the wrestler Takashi Omura. He used to be a big babyface star, but got injured and had to settle for a less demanding role, a stereotypical masked heel called Cockroach Mask. He keeps his occupation a secret from his young son Shota, but it eventually spills out when he sneaks into a wrestling show. Shota, being too young to know about his father's former superstar status, is crestfallen that his father blatantly cheats in his matches. The film explores the emotional journey the family goes through as Omura, Shota, and Shota's mother Shiori wrestle with their feelings.
The film also has very strong parallels to the real life rivalry between Tanahashi and Okada. In the film Okada plays Dragon George, who is essentially Okada except for a change of name and pose. Otherwise he is the same: the invincible babyface champion. Okada didn't have to do much acting here.
While Fighting With My Family throws back the curtain on kayfabe, My Dad Is A Heel Wrestler keeps it relatively kayfabe, with only slight references to the world behind the scenes. For the most part it's a drama set in a pro-wrestling world. It hits all the right notes. Both Omura and Shota's feelings about one another change throughout the film, and you can feel them growing as people, growing with each other. There's also a journalist, who is unashamedly a fan of the diabolical Cockroach Mask, who ends up being the glue that holds the family together. It all ends on a high note, but not in the expected way.
The film is simultaneously a love letter to pro-wrestling and an effective family drama. Definitely on the same level as Fighting With My Family, so if you liked that movie, you should check this one out too.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2020 21:35:37 GMT
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns
I read this story many years ago, but I didn't enjoy it at all. It was during a period when I also read Kingdom Come, Watchmen, All Star Batman & Robin and The Long Halloween. TLH was the only one I got any enjoyment out of. It was just a pretty grim run for me!
I'd been delaying watching the movie, but I've really liked most of the DC animated stuff, so I thought I'd finally give it a go.
So yeah, I liked it more than I expected to. I'm not sure if the story works better as a movie or if I'm just in a different frame of mind now (I read it about 10-11 years ago), but it was alright.
The story is mostly interesting, but I think there are a few scenes/side stories that could have been cut out to make it a bit better. It's about two and a half hours long, but it could easily be sliced down to two hours. I also think it suffers a little from having that thing where, if something's set in the future, people use weird slang (like in Judge Dredd comics). There were a few conversations where people were talking absolute gibberish about "spud" and "slicer dicer" and all this nonsense, and I just started to zone out.
The animation looked really nice and the voice work was good too. I thought Peter Weller (Robocop) sounded a bit weird as Batman at first (because I'm just so used to hearing Kevin Conroy in animation) but I got used to it quickly.
It's not my favourite DC animated movie and TBH, it hasn't really given me a sudden urge to read the comic again. But it was a good watch and I especially liked the last few scenes.
|
|
Junior Member
IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Hero for a good time, not a wrong time
2,333 POSTS & 2,336 LIKES
|
Post by rad on Jun 29, 2020 5:42:57 GMT
Sweetheart, Rattlesnake and Velvet Buzzsaw over the past couple of days; I'm on a thriller/suspense kick as of late. Sweetheart is about a girl who winds up shipwrecked on an abandoned island only to find out she's not the only one there, albeit -- the only human. It's not reinventing the wheel by any means but for what I assume was a fairly low budget, I still enjoyed it. The first reveal scene with the flare gun I thought was fairly well executed and somewhat unique. I also enjoyed the end scene. Rattlesnake features a mother and her daughter traversing the utter wasteland that is Western Texas, only to have her daughter get bitten by *shocker* a rattlesnake. Some lady in a trailer cures the poison only to find out she has until sunset to pay her debt by killing another person in return. It features the guy who played Juice on S.O.A. There were certainly some issues I had... Who lets their daughter roam around the desert while changing a tire!? I'm not a parent but if I were, she's staying in the damn car. Overall, not terrible, just predictable at times with some cheap jump-scares here and there. I also expected more of a cult aspect in this film to be present. Velvet Buzzsaw was the best of the three imo. Maybe I'm just biased as an artistic individual who hates the over-monetization of the art world, but to... Hear someone say "What's the point of art if no one can see it!?" die just 5 minutes later from being literally painted to death -- good god damn was that rewarding. Love it, love it, love it. I took way too much joy in seeing these snobby, pretentious, sniffing-farts-in-a-wine-glass aficionados get there's at the end, though I felt bad for Morf dying since he was trying to set things right. I love that John Malkovich just ends up drawing circles on the beach with a stick. Art is art, it doesn't matter who sees it or how much one pays for it -- what matters is what it means/meant to you, the artist.
|
|
Rookie Member
955 POSTS & 1,888 LIKES
|
Post by Strobe on Jun 29, 2020 8:14:20 GMT
Rebel Without A Cause (1955) I've never actually watched any of the three Dean films (ignoring his uncredited cameos in the background), all of which are supposed to be great. This is the most famous one and the title most people associate with him, but you've also got East of Eden and the epic Western (3h 20m) Giant. That could make a great triple header one day.
|
|
God
5,246 POSTS & 4,231 LIKES
|
Post by thereallt on Jun 29, 2020 12:44:16 GMT
I saw Bright the other day on Netflix and I really enjoyed it It's the closest I think we'll ever get to a Shadowrun movie.
|
|
Junior Member
1,013 POSTS & 993 LIKES
|
Post by sandylea on Jun 30, 2020 13:51:54 GMT
I watched 365 Days. Ooooft this movie had a lot of issues, but for what it was I enjoyed it?
I originally wasn’t going to watch it because it looked badly dubbed, but everyone was talking about how bad it was so curiosity got the best of me. Basically a more sexed up version of Fifty Shades of Grey
|
|
Rookie Member
955 POSTS & 1,888 LIKES
|
Post by Strobe on Jul 1, 2020 19:35:18 GMT
There are a couple of things I don't like about the movie. Some of the voice acting is terrible. At some points it came across as though the movie was dubbed. Quite jarring. This is something I've learned to deal with. There are a lot of old movies with pretty bad ADR at points. Hell, TV and films today still have it.
|
|
Strong Style Mod
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
11,332 POSTS & 11,473 LIKES
|
Post by Emperor on Jul 1, 2020 19:47:49 GMT
I don't know what ADR means.
|
|
Legend
19,984 POSTS & 20,019 LIKES
|
Post by Ness on Jul 1, 2020 19:51:26 GMT
I don't know what ADR means.
|
|
God
8,269 POSTS & 6,475 LIKES
|
Post by System on Jul 2, 2020 9:46:21 GMT
Cinemas are re-open in my state 🥳 (for now) albeit with seating restrictions. To celebrate sandylea and I went to see “The personal history of David Copperfield”. Not a movie I would normally see but it was one of the few new films playing..as obviously big budget movies won’t want to release until cinemas can be max capacity again. Glad I went to see it, it was a pretty good film although a lot of the slang was hard to understand. Wish British people would just speak English :suspic: Also two girls after the movie “I thought it was meant to be about a magician!” :lol: I don't know what ADR means. Automated Dialog Replacement.
|
|
Junior Member
IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Hero for a good time, not a wrong time
2,333 POSTS & 2,336 LIKES
|
Post by rad on Jul 2, 2020 12:24:31 GMT
Watched "The Main Event" because it takes either movies/shows like that (a la Fighting With My Family, Glow) or women's matches to get her tolerable with watching wrestling with muah. It was usual WWE propaganda craptasticness, but slightly better than I expected. Thought about doing this in the "other thread" on the sub-forum (no plugs here) but there's better targets for that. Figured this would work better:
*SPOILERS* Pros: - Holy shit, Vince paid licensing fees! Was legit shocked. - Decent aforementioned soundtrack. - Loved the cameos but I wanted a few more of course. - I didn't know Keith Lee could sing like that. Holy shit. - I love Otis *almost* no matter what he's talking about or doing, just that face and voice gets me laughing with love every time. - It looks super cheesy but I still liked the Moonsault/Elbow Drop finisher. - The end scene with Kofi and the Grandma was enjoyable and actually funny. Admission: Kinda, sorta might have a man crush on ol' Double K now.
Cons: - 99% of the dialogue. Acting wasn't as big of an issue by comparison. - Ken Marino would be an awesome manager in real life but he comes off flat, typical and I'd say "held back" in this film. Too bad he had to be sterilized by the WWE machine. - This kid sucks at catchphrases... he's basically an action figure repeating catchphrases of WWE legends. Sorry, "superstars" - Two out of 1,000 jokes from non-wrestler (not including "Kid Chaos") characters landed for me. - Dude's an 11-year old kid... but Lil' Mr. America ain't foolin' me, and shouldn't be foolin' anyone else. - Casual dad is cringy as fuck. - Actual main event was really, really lame. - The fart scene.
Some on Youtube are saying it's the "Worst Movie on Netflix" or the "Worst WWE Movie" but, ummm... no. Not when See No Evil 1-2 is a thing. It was decent for what it was supposed to be, which was a film not intended for the hardcore fan but for the wee younger marks.
|
|
God
7,015 POSTS & 5,562 LIKES
|
Post by iNCY on Jul 3, 2020 6:17:56 GMT
The GentlemenAnother Guy Ritchie British gangster flick. This requires some rewatch, the dialogue is fast and cockney. It’s a damn good laugh all the way through especially if you’ve enjoyed Snatch - does it match up to Snatch? I doubt anything will, but it’s incredibly enjoyable. King ArthurMore Ritchie and more Charlie Hunnam. This man needs to return to London full time and forget his awful American accent... he excels under Ritchie, more banter, more quick dialogue through keeps this so-so King Arthur story alive. ChefEasy viewing, a chef having a breakdown loses his job, is given a food truck, and drives across the south making sandwiches with his best friend and estranged son. Nice movie. Starring at least 4 people from the MCU. I loved the Gentlemen, fantastic film I am very partial to Guy Ritchie's films and gangster films. You are correct that Snatch was a bit better, but that is one of my favourite films of all time. Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is also an amazing film if you haven't seen it. Rock n Rolla not so much. British gangster films are the best. I watched one recently about two brothers in the 60s but I cannot recall the name at the moment. As for the gentlemen, some fantastic casting and everyone seemed to be seriously enjoying the film, especially Hugh Grant and Colin Farrell.
|
|
Strong Style Mod
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
11,332 POSTS & 11,473 LIKES
|
Post by Emperor on Jul 3, 2020 16:53:28 GMT
iNCY have you seen Layer Cake? Another excellent British gangster film starring Daniel Craig.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 19:46:14 GMT
I watched The Half of It on Netflix.
It had a really good main cast. I'd never seen any of them in anything, but the main three actors all did a really good job, especially Leah Lewis (who I'm extremely in love with TBH).
The movie wasn't really anything groundbreaking or out of the ordinary (there's an awkward love triangle and some deception!), but it kept me interested and I enjoyed watching it. That's a good sign, because I hardly ever finish movies. Maybe it helped by saying right at the start that it's not got the usual happy ending you might expect from this type of thing, so that was nice. Wiki claims it's a "comedy-drama", but it's not a comedy at all.
It's got a real small town America melancholy vibe running through it, which made me feel pretty depressed, but I almost always feel depressed, so maybe it was just me and not the movie!
|
|
God
7,015 POSTS & 5,562 LIKES
|
Post by iNCY on Jul 4, 2020 13:57:31 GMT
iNCY have you seen Layer Cake? Another excellent British gangster film starring Daniel Craig. No I haven't, I will check it out, the movie I was trying to think of before was: Legend The British do gritty very well.
|
|
Rookie Member
955 POSTS & 1,888 LIKES
|
Post by Strobe on Jul 6, 2020 13:27:22 GMT
I rewatched Babe for the first time since I was a kid. It is really, really great. It won't make my top 100, but I could see the argument, and I would expect it to easily be in my top 200 when I start fleshing it all out. It is so charming. There is great use of animatronics, real animals and CGI. There is great voicework, with Christine Cavanaugh (Chuckie from Rugrats, Oblina from Real Monsters and Dexter from Dexter's Lab) standing out in the adorable title role. James Cromwell is excellent as the farmer with the magical connection with his newly acquired pig, adding great gravitas and presence. The lighting and framing help give it the feel of a storybook come to life, but really the whole production is commendable for its excellence. It touches on so many issues, even if briefly, for kids (but not just kids) to grapple with. Loss of parents, adoption, domestic violence, disability, redemption, friendship, stereotyping, bias, prejudice, intrinsic nature, feeling out of place, overcoming adversity and not being pigeonholed. Then you have the animal rights stuff such as the difference between livestock and pets and how we treat them. It doesn't shove it down your throat, but even as a vociferous meat-eater, it made me think of how much meat I eat and if I could cut it down and if I could go further and only buy the highest quality free range. Whenever I hear the term "miracle movie", I think of one whose concept alone does not seem like it would make a great film or whose origins and production would not seem to suggest great success, yet it succeeds beyond all expectations. Babe is a miracle movie. It refused to be pigeonholed like its main character, and this quaint Australian family film became an Oscar-nominated, critically-acclaimed and commercial triumph. As a little aside, since we brought up sports films in the Top 100 thread, this could be considered a sports film. It certainly hits more of the big tropes than Raging Bull does. The first Babe was co-written and produced by George Miller, of Mad Max fame, and he is considered the main creative force behind it. He then co-wrote, produced and directed the sequel Babe: Pig in the City, which I had never seen until the other day. This is likely because it was a failure at the box office, the reasons why being explained excellently by Roger Ebert here, while its failure was ongoing: www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/studio-slaughtered-babe-2. It is also great and may be a new contender for most underrated film with only a 5.7 on IMDb, 65% fresh with critics (6.24/10 av) and 40% fresh with audience (3.01/5, they really need to sort that so the critic and audience average are both out of 10). I don't like it quite as much as the original overall or likely as much as Ebert (who named it his #7 of the year) or Siskel (#1!), but it is more ambitious from a filmmaking standpoint, which makes sense with Miller behind the camera this time. We have replaced "the country" of the first for "the city" (complete with landmarks from many major cities) and the harshness, vulgarity and danger that comes with the big, bad real world. People can say it was too dark for kids and that might be true for some, but kids are tough, tougher than many give them credit for. There are some spectacular scenes from a directorial and cinematographic sense. The film starts out with a well scene that makes me think of There Will Be Blood and ends with the introduction of Edith Piaf's "Non, je ne regrette rien", in its best film usage (take that, Inception). Mickey Rooney's clown show being accidentally destroyed by Babe, shown in spectacular slow-mo, to the sounds of Edith Piaf. That shot of Thelonius the orangutan at 3:08 is magnificent. Then you have the scene with Babe's near-death at the hands of a bull terrier, before the bull terrier is hanging from a chain and drowning, causing the other animals to look the other way, before our hero Babe saves the day to the sounds of Camille Saint-Saëns. George Miller going all Thunderdome towards the end. I love that of the 11 films Miller has either written or directed, 8 of them are made up of the Mad Max, Babe and Happy Feet films. It seems almost ridiculous on the surface, but those films all share more in common thematically than you'd first think. If you have not seen either Babe or its sequel in a while or ever, I strongly recommend giving them a go.
|
|
Rookie Member
955 POSTS & 1,888 LIKES
|
Post by Strobe on Jul 7, 2020 15:02:08 GMT
A couple of days back, I did a double header of Kurosawa's Shakespeare adaptations, both transposed to feudal Japan. Throne of Blood, his take on that tragedy of the folly of ambition, Macbeth, is marvellous. Incredibly atmospheric, visually impressive and featuring outstanding lead performances from Toshiro Mifune and Isuzu Yamada as the Macbeth and Lady Macbeth equivalents. Shakespearean drama meets Noh stylisations in a cinematic classic. Ran is heavily inspired by King Lear, dealing with power, inheritance, order and chaos. Supremely filmed, with an epic scope, fantastic battle scenes and perhaps the most wonderful use of colour in any film. I sure hope nobody told Emperor to watch this one in black-and-white. Tatsuya Nakadai is spectacular as the King Lear equivalent and the copious use of red paint for blood adds to the theatrical feel. I find it hard to imagine either of these will not make my top 100.
|
|
Strong Style Mod
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
11,332 POSTS & 11,473 LIKES
|
Post by Emperor on Jul 7, 2020 15:03:59 GMT
Throne Of Blood will be high on my list for sure. One of the all time great final scenes. I did watch Ran in colour, and indeed the use of colour is magnificent, but the plot dragged a bit for my liking.
|
|
Strong Style Mod
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
11,332 POSTS & 11,473 LIKES
|
Post by Emperor on Jul 9, 2020 22:28:34 GMT
The Tree of Life (2011)The Tree of Life has been on my watch list for a while, and I was prompted to give it a go tonight by Strobe's recommendation in the Top 100 movies thread. I'll start with the conclusion: I stopped watching after about 38 minutes. I watched this movie with an open mind. I'm in a generous mood today, and I gave it as much of a shot as I could muster. Had I not felt so generous or open minded, I would have turned it almost immediately, as I did with The Fountain (I think it was The Fountain, but could be misremembering) many years ago, dismissing it as "artsy fartsy bullshit". Artsy fartsy is a term I like to throw around to describe a movie like The Tree of Life. It has a nice ring to it and it has a vague meaning in my mind. But what does it really mean? While I was passively absorbing this experience for 38 minutes, I thought about it. Here is my answer. Artsy fartsy is abstract. The Tree of Life is an extremely abstract film. I compare my experience to watching the Tree of Life to an average citizen gawking at some piece of abstract artwork for 20 minutes in an effort to interpret it. The gawker may delight in this experience, they may come up with a revelationary interpretation, and their life may change forever. I, on the other hand, would glance at it for a few seconds, maybe smile at the pretty colours and weird patterns, and move on with my life. Perhaps I would have spared it two or three minutes had I been in my watching-38-minutes-of-Tree-of-Life mood. I consider myself an intelligent man, but my brain does not work in that way. It cannot make something out of nothing, out of some vague piece of abstraction. This is why a film like The Tree of Life does nothing for me. I get no meaning out of it, and it just feels like a fantastic way to waste time. Funnily enough, I wouldn't describe those 38 minutes as boring. They weren't thrilling, or exciting, or even that intriguing, but they weren't boring. It's the film equivalent of talking a walk to my local park, standing in a spot, and enjoying the scenery. It was pleasant. But it was a relatively empty form of pleasantness. I wasn't particularly interested about what was going to happen next, or what had happened, or what is happening. I was just slightly enjoying the moment, perhaps like meditation, until I got bored, which was around the 38 minute mark. That's as much time as I was willing to spend. For those who haven't seen this movie, I've left you in the dark. Let me try and describe what "happens" in the first 38 minutes. There is a lot of vague imagery. Perhaps of the cosmos, or something else entirely. There are vague whisperings, lots of sentences that have no obvious meaning on the surface but could be interpreted in various ways. You catch a glimpse of Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, two religious parents who seem to spend their lives ruminating to themselves in abstract soundbytes. They have three children. One of them dies, I think. It's vague, like everything else, but probably the least vague part of what I saw. Then there's some more abstract imagery, and Sean Penn appears, in various environments. We hear his abstract mumblings, suggesting he is connected to Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain and their children, but it's not clear how. I spend some time considering the connection, before realising I didn't care. These people are whispering to a higher power, presumably God, and hinting at some spiritual connection, perhaps an afterlife. Then follows 5-10 minutes of imagery depicting the creation of Earth, the development of early life, evolution into dinosaurs, and the mass extinction. That was nice. Cut back to Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, glimpses of their lives before the events in the "first chapter", and that's where I stopped. I was consciously thinking most of this time, trying to derive some meaning. I failed. Maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe I'm supposed to just sit back and absorb all this abstract nonsense without thinking about it. But that seems like a completely pointless exercise to me. Like I said, it was not unpleasant to watch. From a technical standpoint, it's a marvel. Visually and audially extremely impressive. Aside from the whispering, which was sufficiently unclear and mumbly that I had to turn on subtitles, somewhat diminishing the 120 minute visual orgasm the director was no doubt intending. Film students probably cream themselves over such a wonderful composition. To me, it's meaningless, because I have no idea what the fuck is going on, and after a while, I stop caring. I gave it my best shot, but nope. Now I would love to hear how Strobe and PB experience this film, because it's a complete mystery to me how it can be considered a great movie. Clearly I'm missing a lot. Their responses would interest me far more than the movie itself.
|
|
God
5,999 POSTS & 4,337 LIKES
|
Post by mikec on Jul 10, 2020 4:25:50 GMT
I had a three day weekend last weekend (a happy reprieve from how crazy things have been lately at work), and the Friday was also the release of the Hamilton movie so I decided to spend a leisurely morning giving it a try.
My knowledge of Hamilton was fairly limited. I knew it was about Alexander Hamilton, knee there was a lot of hip hop, that the founding fathers were played by minorities, and had heard (and generally liked) the song My Shot. But even when the touring company came to Iowa I didn’t consider trying to see it (several friends did unsuccessfully though, tickets were crazy)
Anyway, Im pleasantly surprised to say that I really enjoy it. The songs are terrific, I’m impressed by how they did on the recording of the performances. There are several songs that are catchy that have been stuck in my head, and it’s rewatchable in full or small doses.
Anyway, I’d recommend it to anybody as I feel like there’s something here for most people.
Primary criticism is the first act is significantly stronger, which really does sometimes help you feel the “oh it’s been almost three hours” type feel. But the second act’s battle raps between Jefferson and Hamilton are terrific.
The central tension between someone that will speak up no matter the cost versus someone eager to not offend anyone is interesting, even if I don’t know how accurate it is (I know Hamilton was a big talker, I don’t know a significant amount about Burr). The portrayal of Jefferson is where the best choices are being made. Jefferson is mostly remembered now as the writer of the Declaration of Independence, but contrast that against him as a man of significant privilege and the utter lack of awareness present in someone that “owned” 600 people and then wrote that they were all created equal and had the right to pursue happiness.
The other takeaway I came away with was how fascinated guys in the 18th Century were with legacy. I’m sure there are people still worried about this, but the idea of it is significantly different 250 years later.
|
|
Senior Member
IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
I came, I saw, I came again.
4,933 POSTS & 2,003 LIKES
|
Post by RagnarokMike on Jul 10, 2020 10:14:57 GMT
Artemis Fowl: Sucked, skip it.
|
|
Rookie Member
955 POSTS & 1,888 LIKES
|
Post by Strobe on Jul 10, 2020 21:00:53 GMT
One of my good friends really likes Terrence Malick. He saw the film before me and basically told me that I better not like this film, that I'd have to be clearly bullshitting him, because he thought it was utter bollocks. I loved it. I completely get the comparison to art in exhibitions (I've been dragged to plenty), especially when it comes to modern art, where you can feel compelled (since you've been brought there) to search for meaning, while you look around thinking this is all a pile of shite. If you were to create a parody of a pretentious film, you could easily come up with something like The Tree of Life. Non-linear without a clear narrative; artistically framed shots; whispered narration pondering existence, purpose, meaning; a birth of the Universe sequence. I can understand people going as far as to laugh at this film. It goes right up to the line. But like all things, it is in the execution and ultimately whether something gets you. And this film got me. The combination of the glorious cinematography with fantastic music. The strong acting across the board, including the kids. The incredible creation sequence. I got swept up in it. It made me ponder all the themes and ideas it broaches. Malick's Christian faith was obviously a strong presence in his making of this film. I am not a religious person, but that there is existence at all is incredible, wondrous, terrifying. I am not in awe of God. But I am in awe of existence. This film made me feel that awe. Maybe I'm supposed to just sit back and absorb all this abstract nonsense without thinking about it. But that seems like a completely pointless exercise to me. This is certainly a way that a film can be enjoyed. But I agree with your decision to stop. Many people say to plough on and that is valid for some films, but if you weren't feeling this film by the time you stopped, it was probably only going to get worse for you from there. It is about as divisive a film as you will find, which received cheers and jeers at Cannes, and is held up as one of the best films ever by some and one of the worst films ever by others. I think it is a film very, very worthy of recommending to people, because of that possibility that it becomes one of their absolute favourites. I will suggest that you should probably avoid Tarkovsky.
|
|
Strong Style Mod
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
11,332 POSTS & 11,473 LIKES
|
Post by Emperor on Jul 10, 2020 21:28:31 GMT
From what I've read about 2001: A Space Odyssey, it is in that same category of film. Artsy fartsy. Abstract.
Do you think it's worth my time to check out that movie? Or am I going to have the same response?
|
|
Strong Style Mod
USER IS OFFLINE
Years Old
Male
11,332 POSTS & 11,473 LIKES
|
Post by Emperor on Jul 10, 2020 21:31:11 GMT
Artemis Fowl: Sucked, skip it. I read very bad things about the film, which is a shame, because I loved the books as a kid, and it might have been a great nostalgia trip. Sounds more like a memory-tarnisher, and perhaps the somewhat convoluted plot doesn't hold up to an adult's scrutiny, even more so when condensed and morphed into movie format. I'd like to keep my shiny memories nice and shiny, thanks.
|
|