|
Post by otherscott on Jan 13, 2020 8:35:21 GMT -8
I did not expect to be the person starting this thread. Watched a double header over the weekend, first up was Parasite. Really smart script, thought the movie was as intelligent a movie as I've seen for quite some time. I'm glad it got some Oscar recognition, as maybe it will go towards the Oscars actually awarding the best movies from around the world, and not just assuming all the best ones are made in the States. It does make it hurt more that Knives Out missed the major nominations this year, because I think I liked Knives Out about the same overall, but I don't think it deserves to win in original screenplay over this movie, and that's really the best spot to award Knives Out.I want to spend most of this post talking about Cats though, because I also really liked Cats. I think it's a movie that either defies criticism or that critics have been unfair towards. Ultimately we like to treat movies like art, especially the ones that are less about story and more about visual creation. And this is where I think Cats fits in, because it does everything critics typically want movies to do. It acts unexpectedly, it has a defined and consistent vision that is visually vibrant, and it is unlike anything that's ever been put to screen. From an objective measurement of how to make a critically acclaimed movie, it has those things checked off. However, when it comes to assessing whether the critics "liked" the artistic vision of the movie, they just say the decisions made in support of that vision were wrong and nonsensical. It's perfectly fine to not like Cats. It's very offputting in a lot of ways. I just think it has to be framed in terms of "I didn't like what it did" rather than "it did wrong things." Because I was under the impression that if we are talking about actual art, you can't really make wrong decisions. You can make unappealing decisions, but that is completely in the eye of the viewer. Now I will typically not be afraid to call movies "bad" because I do think movies can be lazy and not put an effort into a vision, and be derivative and simple. That's usually where I will criticize movies as bad. But to give an example of a heavily critical acclaimed movie, I feel perfectly comfortable saying I did not like Under the Skin. The choices made in that movie did not appeal to me whatsoever. But I will never criticize the movie of being bad because it was not lazy, it had a consistent vision, and it acted unexpectedly. I will fully admit I'm a bigger fan of Tom Hooper than the average critic, and Cats was obviously a financial disaster, but I don't think calling it objectively bad or wrong is fair at all. It is a terrific effort that was too weird and strange in the choices made for some people. (Also, today in worst criticism - I would like to reserve a spot for the critic who criticized the movie on a racial level, particularly about the characterization of the Jennifer Hudson cat and also about making Francesca Hayward, a black actress, the white cat, thus putting her in white face. Cats is about cats - don't get lost in thematics where there are not supposed to be any.) (I should also balance it out with today in good criticism - so David Sims of The Atlantic wins that: www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/12/cats-review/603838/)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 13, 2020 19:36:13 GMT -8
I have not seen Cats (the trailer visuals alone gave me nightmares for weeks), but I'm not sure I agree with your point that a film which does unconventional things can't be criticized for those unconventional things. The question critics should be asking is: What is the film's goals? What is it trying to accomplish, and does it succeed at accomplishing it? If not, what about the film made it fail?
I'm not saying that some critics aren't just dismissing Cats as dumb and unwatchable based on its premise. I'm just saying that I wouldn't necessarily apply your point on a broad level.
Also, I do need to watch Parasite soon. Maybe the Oscar love will convince my local theater to give it a run. (Still not feeling motivated to travel to the city to watch an violent R-rated film that leans heavily on subtitles. Sorry, Bong.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 13, 2020 21:23:05 GMT -8
As far as I'm aware, critics do not like CATS, the stage musical, so it stands to reason they wouldn't like CATS, the feature film.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 14, 2020 1:58:14 GMT -8
And while I can understand someone not wanting to travel a long distance to see a movie, your second-favourite movie of 2019 was violent and R-rated, Jeremy. Sad that you'd have such a hangup w/r/t subtitles. It's not a leisurely-paced arthouse film like Roma, BTW: it's actually an entertaining, darkly-comic thriller, above and beyond its artful elements.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Jan 14, 2020 7:31:46 GMT -8
I have not seen Cats (the trailer visuals alone gave me nightmares for weeks), but I'm not sure I agree with your point that a film which does unconventional things can't be criticized for those unconventional things. The question critics should be asking is: What is the film's goals? What is it trying to accomplish, and does it succeed at accomplishing it? If not, what about the film made it fail? I'm not saying that some critics aren't just dismissing Cats as dumb and unwatchable based on its premise. I'm just saying that I wouldn't necessarily apply your point on a broad level. Also, I do need to watch Parasite soon. Maybe the Oscar love will convince my local theater to give it a run. (Still not feeling motivated to travel to the city to watch an violent R-rated film that leans heavily on subtitles. Sorry, Bong.) The film's goal, as far as I can tell is to be a visual spectacle - which is why I made that comment about the subjectivity of art, because Cats is more in the same category of art as a painting would be. There's no real plot to speak of, or at least the plot that is there is only a cursory attempt at one. It's basically performance art in movie form. A very offputting, strange, with very weird choices made type of performance art, but it's that none the less. I wouldn't be surprised if Parasite finds its way into a few multiplexes based on the Oscar nomination.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 14, 2020 19:59:27 GMT -8
And while I can understand someone not wanting to travel a long distance to see a movie, your second-favourite movie of 2019 was violent and R-rated, Jeremy. Sad that you'd have such a hangup w/r/t subtitles. It's not a leisurely-paced arthouse film like Roma, BTW: it's actually an entertaining, darkly-comic thriller, above and beyond its artful elements. Does Parasite feature a prominent supervillain at the forefront? I would have no problem with travel/subtitles if Lex Luthor or Magneto were involved. In any casem I see that it'll be out on DVD soon. I'll definitely watch it, one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 14, 2020 22:39:41 GMT -8
I don't think I'd walk a block to see a Lex Luthor origin story...heh.
Anyways, I just watched Little Women and 1917. Both good films. Some of the former's humour is a bit broad and/or forced at times, but it's solid in all other areas. I don't know that 1917 has all that much on its mind, but it works just fine as spectacle and a simple character piece, particularly in its second half.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 15, 2020 21:06:09 GMT -8
Little Women really nailed it with the casting (although Beth remains a cipher), and its subtly "modernized" script. I didn't care much for Lady Bird, but Gerwig really nailed it with this film.
I watched Just Mercy, another film with a great cast (in a less crowded year, Jamie Foxx would be in Oscar contention), albeit a fairly routine script. I enjoy a good courtroom drama (Dark Waters was also pretty good), but beyond a couple of affecting prison scenes, there isn't much to distinguish the film from the rest of the genre. Still, audiences seem to have gone for it, judging by the A+ from CinemaScore (a grade presumably helped by the film's uplifting finale).
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 15, 2020 23:46:31 GMT -8
I think I preferred Lady Bird, for its more sarcastic, edgier tone, among other things. Little Women leaned a bit more sentimental (due to the source material), and I wasn't totally feeling the supposed hardship of the family, given how polished everything looked in the girls' home. Little Women, I would say, was more visually ambitious than her previous films, though, and the meta approach to the climax was interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 19, 2020 7:46:53 GMT -8
I saw 1917. Very good film, and definitely one worth watching on the big screen. The film's "gimmick" was a little distracting at first, but once I got used to it, it turned into a gripping thrill ride with an effective human center. I liked it more than Dunkirk, although it may not be a totally fair comparison, since I saw Dunkirk on a home-sized screen.
Obviously, the film is being championed as a technical achievement above anything else, but I think the actors did a pretty great job, especially considering the camera's unwavering focus on them. George MacKay was terrific, and - single-shot take or no - I don't think the film would've connected as well without a performance like his.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 19, 2020 16:15:48 GMT -8
Personally, I'd give 1917 a B, and Dunkirk at least an A-. Yeah, the former places more emphasis on basic characterization, but while the acting was solid, I didn't find either of their actual personalities to be of particular interest. And I spent most of the first half looking for where the hidden cuts were, rather than being fully engaged. The second half was more impressive visually, certainly worth the price of admission, but I just found the way the story was told to be extremely conventional.
Preferred Dunkirk for its clever structure, its jawdropping IMAX compositions (particularly the aerial ones, though it still played well for me on my 42-inch plasma TV), its impactful sound design, and the unique element of having civilians come to the rescue. Also way more suspenseful, because the (well) two-shot structure of 1917 removed a good deal of tension, because you knew how that was gonna play out, otherwise the "take" would be broken.
I'd foolishly gotten my hopes up that we might finally get a foreign-language Best Picture winner, but with 1917 winning at the Producers Guild, I suppose it's practically a foregone conclusion that Mendes' film will win. Meh. I'd rank it below Parasite, OUaTiH, Marriage Story, Joker, The Irishman, AND Little Women. I'd maybe give Deakins the cinematography award, but that's it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 19, 2020 18:01:03 GMT -8
I spent the first 15 minutes of 1917 looking for the edits, but after that I allowed myself to be drawn into the story and didn't let it bother me much for the rest of the film. But I definitely get how the film's style can be a distraction to some viewers.
I don't know if it's a lock for the top Oscar, although it's probably the frontrunner at this point. This is still a pretty wide field, and I wouldn't count Once Upon a Time in Hollywood out yet. (Parasite will have an uphill battle, since foreign-language films are likely not the #1 choice of many voters.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 19, 2020 19:04:37 GMT -8
For as much flack as awards bodies get for not nominating black actors some years, their record is FAR worse with Asian actors. At least one or two of Parasite's actors should be nominees as well.
And I probably would've been less focused on the hidden edits had the first half of 1917 not just been walking and talking, for the most part. You have a lot of time to look around when it's a two-person show, with little peripheral action.
Anyways, I just watched The Farewell, with Awkwafina. Speaking of Asian actors who certainly could've been nominated. Next I'm gonna watch Ari Aster's Midsommar, with Florence Pugh: man, between this daylit horror film, Little Women, and Fighting With My Family, she's certainly a versatile actress.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jan 19, 2020 19:24:34 GMT -8
Personally, I'd give 1917 a B, and Dunkirk at least an A-. Yeah, the former places more emphasis on basic characterization, but while the acting was solid, I didn't find either of their actual personalities to be of particular interest. And I spent most of the first half looking for where the hidden cuts were, rather than being fully engaged. The second half was more impressive visually, certainly worth the price of admission, but I just found the way the story was told to be extremely conventional. Preferred Dunkirk for its clever structure, its jawdropping IMAX compositions (particularly the aerial ones, though it still played well for me on my 42-inch plasma TV), its impactful sound design, and the unique element of having civilians come to the rescue. Also way more suspenseful, because the (well) two-shot structure of 1917 removed a good deal of tension, because you knew how that was gonna play out, otherwise the "take" would be broken. I'd foolishly gotten my hopes up that we might finally get a foreign-language Best Picture winner, but with 1917 winning at the Producers Guild, I suppose it's practically a foregone conclusion that Mendes' film will win. Meh. I'd rank it below Parasite, OUaTiH, Marriage Story, Joker, The Irishman, AND Little Women. I'd maybe give Deakins the cinematography award, but that's it. At the end of the day, whatever its technical accomplishments, 1917 doesn't really break any new ground. It's well executed, but the horrors of World War One is well-trodden ground at this point. Gallipoli, All Quiet on the Western Front, Paths of Glory, etc. Whereas Dunkirk was an utterly thrilling experience for me precisely because it nimbly sidestepped any and all cliches associated with war films. One of the decade's very best, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 20, 2020 19:36:24 GMT -8
Story-wise, I don't think 1917 breaks new ground. But aesthetically, it's pretty unique. What's especially impressive is how seamless the cuts seem to be for those who don't look for them - the friends I saw it with didn't even notice the film's single-take model.
Florence Pugh had a terrific year, for sure - and now she's entering the MCU, which means she's officially a bona fide movie star! I think that's how it works.
|
|