|
Post by ThirdMan on Sept 11, 2019 21:14:38 GMT -8
Though it's an awfully conventional horror film in many regards, I think it mostly gets by on humour. The bit with the varying-degrees-of-"Scary" doors was my favourite. I thought the visual effects on most of the monsters were pretty hokey. By-and-large, CGI simply isn't scary, especially in broad daylight (Paul Bunyan, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 12, 2019 5:43:08 GMT -8
"CG isn't scary" is a lesson that Hollywood forgot a long time ago. Nowadays, every monster needs to be out in the open, screeching and clawing and drooling all in hopes of terrifying audiences.
The comedy is a great strength, made more necessary by the fact that the film isn't scary. Some of the effects are creatively disturbing (the fortune cookie scene), but I'm glad most of the CG creatures were relegated to small doses.
Is it weird that I find the Tim Curry version of Pennywise to be creepier? Both he and Skarsgard ham up the role, but Curry's clown seems more like one that kids could be taken with (and thus taken by).
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Sept 23, 2019 6:45:57 GMT -8
I think Ad Astra probably bit off a bit more than it could chew in its ambitions. Which I'm happy to see in some ways, I'd rather see a show really "go for it" and miss then play it safe with amusing quips and previously explored material. I'd rather an interesting miss than a successful retread.
That said, I think I put this movie in the interesting miss category. It's just too emotionally distant for its own good. And it was going for emotional distance, it was trying to construct the viewer experience of the movie from that same sort of space that the main character operates in, that same emotional distance. It was definitely an artistic choice on the part of the movie.
The issue is that when the movie tries to reach for the emotion, it can't find it because it was never there in the first place. As an intellectual exercise it is not bad, though definitely not the same depth that other movies about space have had in the past. But as an artistic exercise, it just doesn't really find the notes it wants to hit when it needs them, because it set itself up with such a difficult task in the first place.
It's an okay movie and I'm glad it exists, but I just can't give it the full enthusiasm I would have liked to.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 25, 2019 18:52:14 GMT -8
I'm of a similar mind about Ad Astra, though I'm even less charitable towards it overall. As Scott says, the film is too emotionally distant, with Brad Pitt's character not providing nearly enough of a sympathetic hook. And while I agree that was probably director James Gray's intention, a film which doesn't resonate on an emotional level will need to work overtime in order to resonate on an intellectual one.
And Ad Astra... doesn't. Sure, it's got its messages about father-son relationships and whether exploring the unknown does more harm than good (messages which were more interestingly developed in Gray's previous film, The Lost City of Z), but they aren't developed beyond their surface level, which means there isn't a ton to analyze, even if the film compelled me enough to do so. Too much of the story feels slow and deliberate, never approaching its full potential.
It's well-made and looks good, and Pitt gives it his best. But when a film refuses to connect emotionally and fails to connect intellectually, there's just not much left for me to care about.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Sept 25, 2019 20:35:59 GMT -8
I'm of a similar mind about Ad Astra, though I'm even less charitable towards it overall. As Scott says, the film is too emotionally distant, with Brad Pitt's character not providing nearly enough of a sympathetic hook. And while I agree that was probably director James Gray's intention, a film which doesn't resonate on an emotional level will need to work overtime in order to resonate on an intellectual one. And Ad Astra... doesn't. Sure, it's got its messages about father-son relationships and whether exploring the unknown does more harm than good (messages which were more interestingly developed in Gray's previous film, The Lost City of Z), but they aren't developed beyond their surface level, which means there isn't a ton to analyze, even if the film compelled me enough to do so. Too much of the story feels slow and deliberate, never approaching its full potential. It's well-made and looks good, and Pitt gives it his best. But when a film refuses to connect emotionally and fails to connect intellectually, there's just not much left for me to care about. The Immigrant and The Lost City of Z were fantastic. It sounds like this film is similar to 2001: A Space Odyssey-a film which receives wide acclaim, but I'd rank it below Paths of Glory, Full Metal Jacket, Barry Lyndon, Dr. Strangelove, and others. I'm not the biggest fan. Would you say the comparison is apt, and does it compare favorably to 2001 and Gray's previous films for you?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 26, 2019 7:23:17 GMT -8
What makes The Lost City of Z a more interesting film than Ad Astra (apart from the fact the former has some emotional resonance to it) is that Lost City is set in a less-explored and less narratively potent world than Astra is. It's intriguing to see a film set in the early 20th century test the boundaries of its characters and locales; meanwhile, a film set in the near-future world of outer space that chooses not to capitalize on its vast potential ends up feeling anticlimactic by design.
I guess the 2001 comparison works, since that film also never really connected with me emotionally. (I've always considered Kubrick's film the way I see The Ten Commandments - both are among the most well-produced films ever, and both are often numbing to sit through.) But at least 2001 has a great scope and one of the best villains in film history. A better comparison to Ad Astra would be Brian de Palma's Mission to Mars - both are visually interesting but dull and languidly-paced films that aim for big, serious messages, and don't have the thrust to deliver on them.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Sept 26, 2019 18:12:04 GMT -8
Have you guys seen Tarkovsky's Solaris, the other most-acclaimed, by very dry, arty space film? Or perhaps you've seen Soderbergh's lesser remake?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 26, 2019 19:07:29 GMT -8
Haven't seen either yet. I should watch more Soderbergh films - presumably, he's made some that aren't heist-related.
Oh, at your recommendation, J.C., I recently watched The King of Comedy. I thought it was great - dark and funny, unpredictable, with excellent performances from both Robert de Niro and Jerry Lewis. I may watch Taxi Driver soon, although I fear that some of the content may turn me off.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Sept 26, 2019 19:39:43 GMT -8
I'm glad you watched that one, because then you'll probably be able to catch most of the reference points in JOKER. Re: Taxi Driver, the only actual violence in the film, to the best of my recollection, is at the end. It's gruesome, but you can cover your eyes, if necessary. That said, DeNiro's character does take Cybill Sheppard's character to a pornographic (not much shown) theater on a date, which is uncomfortable in the extreme, but would probably be another point-of-reference for Arthur Fleck's awkward interactions with women in JOKER. The other film I've heard brought up by folks who have seen JOKER (aside from Scorsese's Mean Streets) is Network, which you'd probably find interesting, if you haven't already seen it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 26, 2019 20:13:32 GMT -8
Noted. I'll probably watch both Taxi Driver and Network soon - both are on Netflix, so they're easily accessible and easily fast-forwardable (should the need arise).
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 29, 2019 10:03:06 GMT -8
Another quick DVD roundup:
Booksmart: A clever, though not hilarious, comedy that benefits from the chemistry of its two leads. Beanie Feldstein is promising in her first leading role, and Kaitlyn Dever (Loretta from Justified) is terrific. There's some excellent stuff here (highlight is the Barbie doll scene), even if some of the energy feels sapped by the end.
John Wick Chapter 3 - Parabellum: Another well-crafted and high-adrenaline entry, but I'll admit I'm starting to lose interest in the John Wick franchise. The third time around is more violent and less coherent than ever, and the film's nonstop action just gets exhausting after a while. Still entertaining, but I'll take the Mission: Impossible series any day.
The Secret Life of Pets 2: Another sequel that needs to scrounge together multiple disparate subplots in order to pass as a feature film. (See also: Rio 2, Spider-Man 3, Superman IV.) Dull and pointless, even by the usual Illumination standards. Also, Patton Oswalt sounds nothing like Louis CK.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Sept 30, 2019 16:54:30 GMT -8
I saw IT? I thought IT was all right. * I appreciated that they brought back the gay themes from the book that were omitted in the original miniseries. The way they updated, I felt also worked fairly well, considering. One of the things that I enjoyed about the second set of movies was that they were more explicit about the idea of generational traumas and looking the other way, as manifest by the equal rights struggle followed I guess by gay rights (still topical in '89 but probably not utilized properly in the first film). It's something that I've grown to appreciate as a texture and social commentary that King was making in the novel, but I probably didn't pick up reading it as a teenager. * One of the complaints I had about the first film was that the kids felt slightly indistinct as a group, at least compared to the original. I felt like this one did some retroactive "getting the story in" via the flashbacks, but it helped ensure that the second chapter didn't suffer for lack of familiarity. Moreover, I felt like a number of the characters had more agency than they did in the previous one while Bill's own heroism was scaled back slightly to make him seem more fallible and human. It was a nice change but the overall script retained nearly all the larger strokes of the novel so you still had "BILL IS OUR LEADER" even if he didn't really feel like it. * Bev's characterization would be an interesting subject to take on because now that the second part is out, it's more apparent that she absorbed some of the traits that previously belonged to Bill's wife as a plot element (specifically, exposure to deadlights). On the one hand, the new movies make Bev more interesting and nuanced as a character, but she's also more of a sex symbol than she ever was in the book and doesn't even get to be the gunner. It's an improvement, but some trade-offs were made and if I'm being honest, the concluding bike scene with Bill from the original series was one of my favorite parts and I was sad to miss out on it. * They hit King pretty hard (with Bill as the King surrogate) on the "your endings are bad and you should feel bad." I suppose that's why Stanley's death gets wrapped up more neatly and on a feel-better note and why they all keep in touch after it's over. I feel like it also probably changed the dynamic of the final fight and I have some things I liked about that, in that the solution was more thematically relevant, and some that I didn't, in that it's kind of cliched. * A lot has been talked about w/r/t to Bill Hader being good casting for grown-up Richie but I was really drawn to the guy who they had as grown-up Henry Bowers for getting down some of the insane facial expressions. Unfortunately, Henry was more of a non-factor relative to the original miniseries. A slight letdown, but only because the acting was compelling. * Late edit: I wanted to add that I agree with Jeremy overall about Pennywise himself. Curry was at least plausibly a clown, whereas Skarsgard I think leans into the creepy clown bit too much, successfully, but at friction with the themes of the movie. I'd also add that the two children sacrifices were kind of... pointless gore.
* Oh hey, fat jokes are bad when it's about Ben but okay when it's about women that Eddie has an attachment to. Good to know. Well, one thing that I did appreciate is the shift they made to the monster he had to confront which, on second thought, probably could have been utilized a bit better. * A reference to The Thing? * NOT ONE, BUT TWO MEG RYAN REFERENCES * There were a bunch of anachronisms. It's not a huge deal but you know, once you've lived through this shit you notice it more readily ( MORTAL KOMBAT SHOULD NOT BE IN 1989! GOOD DAY, SIRS)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 1, 2019 18:43:39 GMT -8
I thought King's cameo was one of the film's highlights - a nice meta-joke which proved that the jabs at Bill's trouble with endings were (at least partially) in good fun.
The film certainly overdid it with the gore, especially given how well its predecessor did with so little of it. The funhouse scene was particularly unnecessary - probably the low point of the film.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 1, 2019 18:51:08 GMT -8
Well, if Pennywise doesn't actually kill a few people in the film, he's really not much of a threat. Of course, it still brings to light how inefficient he is as a killer, w/r/t how many of the core characters survived, even though he had them in his clutches many times. Yeah, yeah, he's gotta scare them first, so they're tastier, and whatnot, but still...
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Oct 2, 2019 7:42:29 GMT -8
The funhouse killing, I could see a bit as Bill projecting on the poor kid and so that was maybe a plot push getting him to his own showdown with Pennywise. It just took too long, as with many of the other bits in the movie. I felt like the scene with the girl who had the port wine stain under the bleachers was a bit more egregious for drawing it out even if, unlike her successor, she was not crammed to the gills with strawberry jam.
But yeah, for a King novel IT lacks in primary deaths and in that, pushes against attempts to render IT as a plausible slasher movie. I was meaning to go back and read the book in between releases, but what I remember of it included a fair number of off-stage deaths the likes of which don't translate as well to a streamlined movie adaptation.
|
|