|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 15, 2022 7:42:57 GMT -8
ThirdMan - Yeah, I know you're pretty reserved when it comes to deeming films as masterpieces. I have heard from a lot of people who really love The Batman, although those people may be a bit more predisposed to superhero films than the average cinephile. In any case, that's great! My experience with a film should not diminish or devalue anyone else's, or vice versa. That's not the purpose of artistic discussion, nor should it be.
I do try not to engage too emotionally with films or TV shows myself, particularly since a lot of people (thankfully not on this forum) tend to take these things a little too seriously. But I had a conversation with my brother earlier this week about different films for different audiences, specifically regarding Everything Everywhere All at Once vs. Ambulance. I think most people (himself included) would agree that EEAaO is the more technically and artistically accomplished film, but it's also not a film that's going to speak to everyone. Ambulance can be criticized for being big and loud and over-the-top (and I do criticize it for those things), but it is also a film with a very specific voice, made by a director who (like it or not) has one of the most distinctive styles in mainstream cinema. So while I don't think it's a good film, I understand where my brother is coming from when he calls it "his jam."
Scott - Yeah, I think it's interesting in how our tastes have changed over the years. Back in the old days, I was trying to follow Mike's model of viewing shows and films from a character-first perspective (and I still try doing that, to some extent), but over time I've had more fun trying to explore them from a larger cultural or thematic context. I also think superhero stories do have a lot of potential to them beyond basic Hero's Journey tales (though it's tough to translate some of the more outré ideas from page to screen) - it's all in how that potential is utilized. As you note, Disney has done more interesting things with Marvel than Star Wars, even if Star Wars should seem like the more fertile ground. They've just been oddly reticent to explore that ground, particularly on the big screen.
And yes, I know what you mean about Cats. My final judgment will always be based around whether the final product is good or bad, but I do tend to get relatively excited - and hopeful - for weirder concepts.
Incandescence - Yes, I think the depth of our investment in a film goes a long way to explain how much in terms of contrivance we're willing to forgive. Spider-Man: No Way Home, for example, is a ridiculously contrived film, but it really hits home on an emotional level, which helps explain why viewers and critics didn't take issue with its problems.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 15, 2022 13:36:25 GMT -8
These days, particularly as it pertains to big-budget studio films, when someone calls something a "masterpiece", I just consider that shorthand for "I really liked/loved this film". Which is fine. It's just semantics, after all. BTW, I really liked/loved EEAaO, and I'm not prepared to label it a "masterpiece" just yet either. Truth be told, I don't really like using (what are sort of) absolute labels of a positive or negative variety, because to me, it feels like someone's trying to have final say on something, locking it in on an "objective" scale. And that's kind of boring to me. I'd rather just discuss what something is, and how it operates, than how good/bad it supposedly is. I mean, I make jokes about Morbius or Ambulance on Twitter with you, but wouldn't go much further than that, because I'm in no position to evaluate something I haven't seen. On a purely-surface level, they just don't look interesting or compelling to me, so I'm in no hurry to see them.
Also, my first instinct in approaching the arts is rarely to determine whether a movie or TV show is "good" or "bad", because it's too reductive, and typically, at least for me, most films or series fall in a middle-ground (ranging from "mediocre" to "pretty good"), which can shift somewhat over multiple viewings. Very rarely do I absolutely love something, and very rarely do I hate it. And the quickest way for someone to get me to disregard their opinions is if they're the sort of people who go on sites like imdb or Metacritic, and rate virtually every movie they see a 0 or a 10 (particularly a Zero, which is, to me, petulant behaviour). Even if I found the content of a movie totally morally reprehensible (very rarely does that occur, because I'm not easily offended), if it had some competent technical aspects or a few good bits of acting, I ain't giving it a Zero rating. Also, most critics worth their salt typically state that their reviews aren't designed to compel you to see or avoid a movie. They simply offer their detailed (hopefully thoughtfully-articulated) analysis, and let the moviegoer make their own decisions. Now, critics can provide a sort of public service by drawing moviegoers' attention to under-promoted and -marketed films (like EEAaO or CODA, for example), but it's still up to the consumer to decide whether the film in question would be of interest to them, regardless of the star/number ratings the critics assign. For most regular viewers, I would say subject-matter plays a bigger role in their interest in something than culturally-perceived measures of quality, which are very subjective, and they'll see -- or not see -- something based on that above all else.
I mean, I can try to suss out whether someone might like a film, if they're asking me about it, often based on subject-matter. For instance, this guy at the gym wanted to see The Batman, but his girlfriend was hesitant (maybe not much into superhero fare, or resistant on account of its length). But when I was describing the film to him (in broad strokes), he realized, "Shit, my girlfriend's really into serial-killer murder-mystery crime fiction/non-fiction, and this might actually be right up her alley". I haven't spoken to him since then, but I'll be curious to hear his thoughts, and how she reacted, when I do. Another person I spoke to, who had seen the movie, seemed to find it too relentlessly dark and bleak, and the only thing he enjoyed about it was that it didn't have a bunch of people with superpowers running around in it (he's worn out on the Marvel stuff). So, out of basic curiosity, I asked him, "How do you you feel about Blade Runner?" (a film with a similarly dark, rainy, stylized urban presentation to The Batman, with a prominent detective element). He loves it, every version. OK. I then asked, "How do you feel about David Fincher films, like Seven and Zodiac?" He said he hadn't seen them, but isn't into serial-killer/horror fare. So that's probably where he draws the line as a viewer: "dark and dreary" is OK, but violent intensity and a degree of onscreen sadism, not so much. Funnily enough, though, the trailer for EEAaO did look very appealing to him, despite it, on the surface, suggesting that its main character is performing some "super-heroic" feats. So, we should never try to completely put someone in a box, but it usually doesn't hurt to get a vague idea of what they're into. It usually results in more fruitful discussions.
Oh, and regarding Spider-Man: NWH, I found it to be a breezy, fun film, with a likeable cast of characters, but not particularly artful in any way, and with some serious technical shortcomings in its visualization of action (an ongoing issue with that series, especially in scenes set at night). (The inter-dimensional, daylight fight with Doctor Strange looked pretty good, though.) The big death in the film fell flat for me on both viewings, because it felt too schematic, and too self-conscious a way to echo the usual Spider-Man origin story (it's weird, because I really like that performer, but I felt next-to-nothing when their character died). And, of course, the plot, insofar as I actually care about it (not much), is completely nonsensical and borderline incoherent, even by superhero standards. Regardless, the film gets by on the relative charm of its ensemble, but after two viewings (the second of which I enjoyed less), I doubt I'll ever revisit it again. I will check out a sequel, though, if they bring the franchise back down to a somewhat smaller, less tech-driven, scale, because I'm curious how it'll compare to the Raimi/Maguire films, especially #2. And on a side note, I generally like Willem Dafoe as a kooky supporting character (in Wes Anderson films, and The Lighthouse, for instance), but his Green Goblin remained as one-note and uninteresting as ever, which is a shame, given that he's key to the climax of the film.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 17, 2022 23:56:54 GMT -8
Saw The Batman once more with my sister and her boyfriend, who hadn't been to the theater in a long time (on account of the pandemic, and whatnot). They had tomorrow off work (Easter holiday), so I figured this was as good a time as any to plunk down to watch a 3-hour movie (and there would be too many distractions if they watched it for the first time at home). Anyways, both really enjoyed it, and the boyfriend (he's basically been living common-law with her for many years) said he thought it was the best Batman movie he's seen (specifically said he liked it even better than TDK). Praised its "realism". That's always an interesting comment when it comes to these things, because depending on who you ask, "realism" could be a point for or against a film of this nature, as some people want something more fanciful, while others would prefer something more grounded/believable. Obviously the film takes some liberties with "realism" -- the Batsuit provides a pretty absurd amount of protection at times -- but the only thing in the movie which really has an overt sci-fi/fantasy component is the contact lens which can record video (something which probably isn't that far off, technology-wise, to be honest). (I showed them the deleted Joker scene as well shortly after.)
The boyfriend also thought the trailer for the Doctor Strange sequel looked good (I told him he should probably get around to seeing that third Spidey flick before he watches that...not sure about WandaVision). I also showed them the trailer for EEAaO, and they were impressed, and will probably check it out. I went with Batman tonight simply because EEAaO would be a bit easier to fit into their regular weekly schedule, as it's only 2 hours 19 minutes ("only", haha!).
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 18, 2022 18:42:29 GMT -8
The funny thing is that I rarely go see movies in theaters more than once, and I've never gone to one film more than twice. (The rare occasions when I have gone twice are when I have more than one friend who wanted to see the film.) Usually I like to let a film settle in my mind before I rewatch, even if it's one that really blew me away on initial viewing. I will most certainly revisit EEAaO at some point, but probably not until it's available for home viewing.
Speaking of which, The Batman just arrived on HBO Max today. (Seems like Warner Bros. will be using the 45-day window for all this year's theatrical releases.) I'll probably give it a second look when the mood strikes, though I expect the film's most respectable aspects (the visuals and score) may lose some of their effect on the small screen. But hey, blockbuster-style films made exclusively for streaming services are becoming more common as of late, and will probably continue to rise in prominence as time goes on.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 18, 2022 19:51:14 GMT -8
Given how underlit most theater screens are (they apparently burn the projector bulb too dim to try to extend its life), I actually suspect that The Batman will look even sharper on home video (better contrast in some of the darkest scenes, and the colours may pop more, at least), assuming one has a high-quality flatscreen that's well-calibrated. Regardless, I find the characters and story far more personal and compelling than most films of this nature (and that's held up over multiple viewings), so the score and visuals are hardly the only -- or even the biggest -- selling point for me: it's more of a melodrama than an action spectacle. Also, the film isn't of such an enormous scale that it'll lose as much as some of the bigger action-driven blockbusters.
And in general, I don't usually see most movies in theaters more than once either. It's just become a tradition for me with solo Batman films. I'll probably give EEAaO a second look on cheap Tuesday, though, because it was such an overwhelming film, that I'd like to get a better handle on it. Did revisit the latest Spidey film two months after the initial viewing, and sort of regretted it, because it lost some of its luster with the element of surprise removed (it just felt really thin, despite all the bells-and-whistles).
Anyways, I'm not going to bother with Crave TV (the Canadian HBO Max streaming equivalent that The Batman is on as of today), but I'll borrow the Blu-Ray from the library in May to check out the behind-the-scenes production featurettes. They did a really good job making Gotham seem like a believable, lived-in urban metropolis, despite apparently shooting around 80% of the film on UK soundstages. The visual effects and green-screen/LED-screen work were nearly flawless in the film (it obviously helped that it wasn't a brightly-lit movie), with the only moment screaming "CGI" being Batman jumping down from the exploding roof of Gotham Square Garden (which was still seamlessly blended with the live photography of the landing).
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 30, 2022 22:47:14 GMT -8
I was thinking about the Batmobile chase in The Batman the other day, especially after I flipped by the Tumbler chase from Batman Begins on TV. I suppose, given that the camera is pulled back more in BB, the spatial relations are a bit easier to sort out for some viewers than the sequence in The Batman. But watching it again, it's all just so...flavourless. An impersonal run from the cops, with the whole gimmick being that he's "JUMPING ON ROOFTOPS!". Everything's so spaced-out, and there's not much sense of danger, with very few (if any) civilians or meaningful side-characters on the road. It feels like the whole sequence was just there to create a baseline which they could expand upon a lot more creatively in a sequel. Mind you, the TDK vehicular sequence doesn't really get cooking until the Bat-pod pops out of the Tumbler, and Batman tries to catch up to Joker's big rig, so maybe it's just a car thing.
Re: the Batmobile chase in The Batman, the camera is often positioned on the side or back of the car, and there's a real immediacy to it. I think the spatial-relations are pretty well-established and easy-to-follow despite the camera being closer, even amidst a bunch of civilian vehicles, driving in the rain. None of the editing is choppy, no shaky-cam. The film never loses sight of the two key characters involved, placing drama and suspense over superficial chaos, and it's all quite personal and precarious, with the slick roads and peripheral obstacles. And the sound design is tremendous right from the start, almost positioning the roaring Batmobile as a horror-movie villain. And it goes without saying that it ends with an absolutely glorious, fiery upside-down shot. It'll be interesting to see how Reeves ups the ante with vehicular action in the now-confirmed sequel, as he's established his own rather potent baseline here. He's already used motorcycles quite a lot, so maybe we'll get to a sort-of Batwing sooner rather than later.
Speaking of the sequel, given the physical state of Gotham at the end of the film, Mr. Freeze being the villain might not be so far-fetched after all (perhaps save you-know-who for the third one). He'd certainly have a lot to work with, and I'd be game for another winter-themed installment. Maybe call it The Batman: Cold Case?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 26, 2022 17:22:06 GMT -8
Time for a Dwayne Johnson DC double-feature!
Black Adam is a messy film, but like a lot of recent DC fare, it succeeds at being entertaining and interesting in said messiness. It's one of the only true star-driven superhero films in recent memory - literally no one was clamoring for a film about an obscure Golden Age comic book villain who reached the peak of his meager popularity in the 1970s. And Johnson, to his credit, does a good job playing in a darker-than-usual vein - he's got charisma to spare, and the film suffers mightily when he's not on camera. (Hence why the first twenty minutes are kind of a bore.) The film's tone, while unwieldy at times, is better balanced than a lot of recent Marvel fare, and the action scenes really stretch the limits of the PG-13 rating. (Black Adam himself kills dozens of people, often in brutal and surprisingly graphic ways.)
Where the film falls short is, unsurprisingly, in its world-building and attempts to tie into the larger DC universe, which grows more confused and self-contradictory with each film. The introduction of the Justice Society is fairly half-hearted - characters like Hawkman and Doctor Fate aren't nearly as fleshed out as the story needs them to be, while Atom Smasher and Cyclone are hardly developed at all - and their connection with another, more established DCEU character raises more questions than it answers.
And of course, the third act devolves into rather dreary-looking spectacle, with dodgy CGI and an overabundance of slo-mo camerawork. (Credit where it's due - some of those giant freeze-frame closeups on the screaming Rock's face are unintentionally hilarious.) But by and large, I was entertained - enough to forgive the film's faults, myriad though they may be.
Meanwhile, League of Super-Pets is not among the year's worst animated films, but it does succumb to a lot of the issues plaguing modern animated kids' entertainment. It starts as a generic "boy and his dog" adventure before quickly turning into a superpowered Secret Life of Pets, and the story contains no real surprises or innovations (apart from some cute background jokes for hardcore DC Comics nerds). The all-star voice cast delivers almost uniformly flat performances, with the only exception being Kate McKinnon as the film's villain. (Johnson and Kevin Hart often make a funny onscreen duo, but the comedy is often dependent on them being physically onscreen, rather than playing a pair of cartoon dogs with no prominent size contrast.) The animation is fine, but whoever decided to give the characters that weird "afterglow" brush effect should be fired. I laughed every time one of Natasha Lyonne's profanities was bleeped out, and am not ashamed to admit it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 24, 2023 14:32:30 GMT -8
I was going to write up a piece on Shazam! Fury of the Gods, but... there's not really a ton to say about it? It's fine overall, with mostly good jokes (I laughed at the Skittles product placement, sue me) and some good performances. The film's main problem is the final 10-15 minutes, but I can't explain why without going into spoilers, which I won't do just yet. Suffice to say that while I enjoyed the movie, it fails to stick the landing.
It's more interesting to talk about the trouble surrounding the movie and the state of this rapidly collapsing cinematic universe in general. While the MCU is currently struggling with issues of overexpansion, threatening to collapse under its own weight of thirty-plus films, a dozen TV series, endless parallel universes and character reboots, the DCEU is about to undergo a rapid contraction, effectively rewriting and rebooting everything within the next couple of years. At this stage, nothing matters, so there's no real reason for audiences to care. (Hence why this film is tanking at the box office.)
The new Shazam! has suffered from several production issues of its own, notably the intra-production feud with Dwayne Johnson over Black Adam. It seems absurd that Shazam and his longtime arch-nemesis now have three films between them and yet have never appeared onscreen together, but The Rock seems adamant (Adam-ant?) that his character be developed without any connection to Shazam! (apart from, y'know, constantly saying the word "shazam," but whatever), so the Shazam! producers have now gone two straight movies with no mention of their title character's most powerful foe. It's ridiculous, but again, this series and universe are going nowhere, so nothing matters.
What happens to the DCEU movies still in the pipeline is anyone's guess. The Flash, despite all the We Need to Talk About Ezra troubles, is still headed for theaters, and presumably will initiate the reset button on the cinematic universe as a whole. Blue Beetle and the Aquaman sequel are slated for later this year. After that, things go quiet for a while (the only DC film slated for 2024 is Todd Phillips' Joker sequel) before James Gunn and Co. kick things off again. Maybe next time's the charm?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 28, 2023 18:37:42 GMT -8
Guess I'll use this thread to share some thoughts on The Flash, since we may as well enjoy the DCEU while it lasts. (Minor spoilers below.)
In general, I thought the film was okay and watchable enough, except for a thirty-minute stretch near the end where it became borderline unwatchable. The mix of overbearing and underwhelming effects against a flat, arid backdrop rendered much of the climactic action incoherent, and that's before you get into the issue of how peripheral and incidental the conflict is. The film recycles a villain from a ten-year-old Superman movie, but strips him of all character and doesn't give him any tangible connection with the heroes (apart from a brief, half-baked connection with Supergirl, who barely gets any development of her own). Are we expected to care about any of this?
In general, most of the film feels pretty perfunctory and underdeveloped, a surprise considering how long this film (originally announced back in 2014) was in the pipeline. There are some fun moments, and the decidedly non-heroic Ezra Miller does okay in the hero role (although he's kind of annoying as the younger Barry). Michael Keaton is fine stepping back into his old Batman role, though I did cringe at some of the recycled Burton-era dialogue, and in general I kind of resent the marketing for selling this character as the older version of the 1989 Batman (which this clearly isn't).
This whole film feels like it's engaged in a futile task, trying to salvage the DCEU at a time when said DCEU's days are numbered. I had some fun, but the whole thing feels more like a box to be checked than a feature film.
P.S. Although I laughed out loud at the "giant spider" moment near the end, holy cow were those CGI effects bad, and I don't believe the director's comments that they were "intentionally" bad.
P.P.S. I hated the stinger and I hated myself more for actually sitting through the end credits to catch it.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 28, 2023 19:23:20 GMT -8
Yeah, the visual effects in The Flash are a real head-scratcher. I mean, the two Barrys interacting with one another is done pretty much seamlessly, but the CGI rendering of various characters in the film, and from past superhero universes, is extremely cartoonish. Like, PS3-level graphics, at best. The poor visualization of the falling babies at the beginning is especially noticeable, though I initially thought they rendered them that way (and not in any way "photo-real") because they wanted the sequence to be funny, and not genuinely harrowing. But when they get to that time-manipulation/bubble stuff, all of the human rendering looks like cartoon characters. I did think they rendered Christopher Reeve and Helen Slater alright, though. W/r/t Michael Shannon, part of me thinks they just recycled unused footage from Man of Steel, to save money, or something. I didn't necessarily find the battle sequence incoherent (it wasn't edited to within-an-inch-of-its-life, IMO), but it was definitely pretty impersonal, with only some of the Batwing theatrics standing out, for a few money shots. It's a trick here, though, because Barry's conflict is basically with himself, so Zod, in this movie, was never really going to be anything other than a plot device. There's certainly always going to be issues with Batman taking out a bunch of aliens with around the same strength and speed of a Superman, but that's always a problem with these superhero team-up things (heck, they pretty much nerfed Superman in that old Justice League cartoon, in that he was always getting chucked around and beaten up, even without Kryptonite in play). So, yeah, while I don't necessarily regret seeing it, The Flash is definitely little more than an "OK" affair. And pretty inessential if it's the wrap-up of most of that DCEU stuff. Gal Gadot is sure making the rounds in these things lately, though.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 29, 2023 16:01:38 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure Michael Shannon shot new scenes for the movie (he did some press for it, and was remarkably candid in his dissatisfaction toward how Zod was handled). It was always going to be tough to make Zod work in a Flash movie, but that reflects the film's larger problem - too much focus on fanservice that doesn't tie into a larger point.
I assume all the Gal Gadot cameos are contract-related - she's signed on to appear in a certain number of DC movies, and since they're not making any more Wonder Woman productions, the workaround is for her to show up in every new DC movie for sixty seconds, strum the guitar theme in the background, and scene.
I also assume the fact that the DCEU is a dead universe walking in part explains why this film is heading towards box-office bomb territory. Combine this with the twin disappointments of Black Adam and the Shazam sequel, and Warner Bros. is probably pretty nervous about their remaining remaining superhero films this year. I mean, I don't think anyone expects the DC movies to be pulled out of their financial woes by Blue Beetle.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 30, 2023 4:00:22 GMT -8
Oh, there are absolutely some new scenes with Michael Shannon as Zod, but it just wouldn't surprise me if they used some stock, unused footage from Man of Steel as well, seeing as the Kryptonian invasion was a re-creation of the earlier film, in some regards (where Zod and Co. meet the US military asking for Kal-El, and whatnot).
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Jun 30, 2023 12:26:54 GMT -8
Now, will DC take the hint that no one cares about these extended universes now that the Avengers have Ended their Game? At a certain point they have to realize that you can just... do sequels to your popular movies!
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 30, 2023 13:19:52 GMT -8
Nope! There's a new DC cinematic universe (just called "DC Universe" this time, although literally everyone will just call it the DC Cinematic Universe) starting in 2025. James Gunn will be running the show; we'll see if he manages to breathe new life into Superman and Co.
But yes, it does seem like what the MCU did in the 2010s was not replicable - including by Marvel, which has been struggling to find a new direction in the last three years. The thrill of a shared cinematic universe starts to wear off if viewers need to sit through a number of subpar films to understand what's going on in the better ones.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 20, 2023 18:38:01 GMT -8
Guess I'll update this thread briefly to say that I watched Blue Beetle. I... don't have many detailed thoughts on it. It's a competent but very generic superhero origin film that we've seen a hundred times already; the only novelty is that this one has a Hispanic cast. And that novelty is mostly put forth by characters reciting lines such as "He's like a Mexican Doc Brown!" and "That scared the frijoles out of me!"
There were a lot of weightless CGI fights and some missed opportunities with potentially interesting supporting characters. Also, George Lopez is only slightly less annoying here than he was in Sharkboy and Lavagirl. (I apologize if that sentence offends Quiara.)
Anyway, the most interesting thing about this film is that it was originally created as a part of the DCEU, but is now being repurposed as the first film in the rebooted DC cinematic universe. Which means we now have a new universe of movies that has begun while one of the old universe's movies (the Aquaman sequel) still hasn't been released! Never change, DC.
|
|