|
Post by otherscott on Jan 22, 2020 7:00:10 GMT -8
I kind of had a "dawning-on-me" moment for why so few foreign language things get much traction for Oscars when watching 1917. Oscars are equally, if not more, about the technical achievement of creating the movie than the actual writing of it. So while foreign language movies are just as well written, it's hard for them to be able to achieve the same technically as the big-budget Hollywood fare just because there's more money there to make those technical achievements happen.
1917 was not as good as Dunkirk. It was trying for a similar thing, and technically I think it's on a similar level, but the storytelling and pacing and just everything non-technical is just so much stronger in Dunkirk. That being said, 1917 came closer than I thought. It would not be my favourite for Best Picture because I think the writing was very weak, but it's no doubt a technically strong and engaging movie.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Jan 22, 2020 16:41:44 GMT -8
I saw Cats this evening, and really wanted to champion it - much as I try to live my life oblivious to critical attention, it seemed impossible for the public to reference it without raising the issue of its pilloried status. I love rooting for an underdog and I too like Tom Hooper, for he has an affinity for handheld and typically offers up a strong colour palette - colour is so intrinsic to his work that I don't know if he could actually make a monochrome film. Moreover, I would agree with your point that cinema bears (or perhaps should bear) more resemblance to painting than any other artform.
Unfortunately I spent practically every second of its runtime screwing my nose up at its weird distancing effect of mapping the actors'/dancers' faces onto anthropomorphic feline bodies - they never convince as "real" and as such suggest the bizarre notion of watching mannequins wearing actual human faces like a mask. The second big issue I had is actually gigantic for a musical - the songs are rubbish. "Memory" is the only pleasant-sounding one (perhaps because it sounds almost exactly like Puccini), and I'd to claim it escapes with some dignity, but Hudson is forced to emote through her own deathmask and deliver it immediately after the show's most upbeat setpiece (there's merely a few seconds' break inbetween most songs - levity is not on the menu here). Add to this the poor collision detection between the performers' feet and the already-unconvincing streets and performances so hokey that James Corden of all people actually stands out favourably, and this stacks up as the worst picture I've seen in the cinema for years.
I did, however, love the effect of Taylor Swift's crescent moon prop, which was appropriately spectactular.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 22, 2020 17:14:56 GMT -8
It continues to amaze me that some folks on this website have seen Cats. And it amazes me even more that I am not among those people.
Most of my theater's output is pretty weak right now (hello, January!), so I got a DVD of Angry Birds 2. As some of you may recall, I hated the first Angry Birds film, which ranks among the decade's lazier animated offerings. So it gave me a modicum of faith in humanity to discover that the sequel is a vast improvement. It's everything the first film should have been - quirky, whimsical, and filled with offbeat, irreverent humor. The film slingshots every bizarre joke it can at the screen, and many of them hit their target. (Yes, that was an Angry Birds-related pun. Thank you for noticing.) Whereas the first movie had me cringing, I laughed constantly throughout the second one.
I'm trying to think of another instance where a genuinely bad movie was given a genuinely good sequel. (I suppose some would venture The Wrath of Khan as an example, but those people are wrong, because TMP is pretty solid.)
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Jan 22, 2020 18:14:36 GMT -8
I was reading an article the other day about how that sequel and Detective Pikachu are the only video game adaptations to scrape "fresh" ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. But if it's good sequels to bad movies you're after, I'll raise you Hostel: Part II and Daleks' Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D..
And dare I mention in the prescence of my esteemed peers that I'm on pretty good terms with Step Up 2: The Streets?
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 22, 2020 19:03:35 GMT -8
I think a few poorly-reviewed horror films in recent years have had pretty well-reviewed sequels: Ouija and Annabelle (itself a spinoff of The Conjuring) spring to mind.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 22, 2020 19:33:14 GMT -8
The first Ouija film holds a 6% on Rotten Tomatoes; the second stands at 82%. That may be the biggest qualitative leap in the history of film franchises. And dare I mention in the prescence of my esteemed peers that I'm on pretty good terms with Step Up 2: The Streets? You are full of surprises today, Snipe.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Jan 23, 2020 10:57:44 GMT -8
If you appreciate a cinema of colour, sound and motion, you won't find much to complain about here. I'd like to think that if Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly had lived long enough to get they thug ohn they too would quietly approve.
|
|
|
Post by unkinhead on Feb 9, 2020 14:51:15 GMT -8
Hi all! Long time no see. I've been busy with college and work that I haven't had much time to devote to movies. I'm winding down now with my last semester and have found some time to see some films! I hope everyone's having a great year so far! I was actually entering a log on Letterboxd and remembered I haven't posted here in awhile. I'll likely post some thoughts on a few films that have been somewhat of a hot-topic: Joker, Knives Out, Little Women, OUATIH, and others. I'm seeing Little Women within the next week hopefully and am rather excited to see it given all the attention and the director (I wasn't a huge fan of Lady Bird, but it certainly had merits). As a base reaction I thought Joker was pretentious, immature, bombastic, and boring all at the same time. For a movie that was slated to be so provocative I was expecting (and hoping) to be offended rather than bored. It's not a terrible film, but I felt it was disappointingly mediocre. Knives Out was fine, I'll likely express some more articulate thoughts later (I already pretty much forgot about it), but I found it disappointing as well :/ - I did enjoy OUATIH however. Generally my reviews are pretty high-level abstractions rather than detailed scene-by-scene criticism, so generally if I saw a film more than 2 hours ago I already forgot the details and instead mapped the big-picture impressions to memory and left the rest. As such it makes it hard to articulate my specific thoughts if I saw a film quite some time ago. After I review some reading material on Joker and Knives Out I should be able to manage something comprehensible. Hopefully with Little Women and other films (1917 is another), I'll be able to express my thoughts quickly. I just freshly watched (and logged on LB) The Prestige by Christopher Nolan, and thought I'd share that review here as well. It's somewhat significant as it pretty much finishes my run-through of Nolan's filmography and dovetails nicely into my thoughts on Nolan as a filmmaker in general, I'll paste that at the bottom of this post. Speaking of Nolan, I also watched Dunkirk, which I actually liked quite a bit, but only goes to confirm my thoughts with Nolan as a filmmaker. Basically, the further he gets away from trying to make 'that twisty movie', the more I like them (The Dark Knight, Dunkirk). I've seen other films too this year - I saw Rosemary's Baby for the first time, and thought it was phenomenal. Uncut Gems and The Lighthouse among others (I liked both of those films to varying degrees). Anyways, I'm looking forward to hearing thoughts on everyone's favorite movies this year The Prestige, like all of Nolan's best films, delivers a well-executed, enticing, and cleverly designed tale full of twists, turns, and last-minute revelations; no surprise there.
What makes The Prestige standout however is how perfectly it falls as an analogy for Nolan as a filmmaker. Nolan himself is a magician, and the irony of him selecting a film surrounding magicians and deceptions is not lost on me. he dazzles and engages, fools you, fools you again, on and on it goes until the 'dramatic shocking finish' that leaves you in astonishment.
Like a magic act though, behind all the elaborate plot machinations, the tricks and the deception that made Nolan (and other fellow magicians) so famous reveals the inherent sin that embeds itself in all his works.
If the best films (or the best art for that matter) are those that illuminate truths, express honesty, provoke thought, or even elicit change, Nolan falls far short. Under all the deception and trickery is simply a barren illusion. This may fool for a time, but once you know the trick, the magic is revealed as only a cold deception.
If there a better analogy in my mind for the experience of Nolan's filmography, I haven't found it. His films are in one moment exhilarating and magical, but with wisdom revealed to be hollow and empty.
This isn't to say The Prestige, Inception, Interstellar, and Memento are bad films; it's quite the contrary. The disappointment lies in that these are rather clever, elegant, well-made films that will always elude greatness by virtue of their design. It's therefore a great shame that Nolan concerns himself with fooling the audience below him rather than attempting to enlighten and lift them up with him.
7/10
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Feb 9, 2020 18:37:24 GMT -8
Damn, Jeremy's two favourite films of the year be taking a hit. Heh.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Feb 9, 2020 18:53:17 GMT -8
Hi all! Long time no see. I've been busy with college and work that I haven't had much time to devote to movies. I'm winding down now with my last semester and have found some time to see some films! I hope everyone's having a great year so far! I was actually entering a log on Letterboxd and remembered I haven't posted here in awhile. I'll likely post some thoughts on a few films that have been somewhat of a hot-topic: Joker, Knives Out, Little Women, OUATIH, and others. I'm seeing Little Women within the next week hopefully and am rather excited to see it given all the attention and the director (I wasn't a huge fan of Lady Bird, but it certainly had merits). As a base reaction I thought Joker was pretentious, immature, bombastic, and boring all at the same time. For a movie that was slated to be so provocative I was expecting (and hoping) to be offended rather than bored. It's not a terrible film, but I felt it was disappointingly mediocre. Knives Out was fine, I'll likely express some more articulate thoughts later (I already pretty much forgot about it), but I found it disappointing as well :/ - I did enjoy OUATIH however. Generally my reviews are pretty high-level abstractions rather than detailed scene-by-scene criticism, so generally if I saw a film more than 2 hours ago I already forgot the details and instead mapped the big-picture impressions to memory and left the rest. As such it makes it hard to articulate my specific thoughts if I saw a film quite some time ago. After I review some reading material on Joker and Knives Out I should be able to manage something comprehensible. Hopefully with Little Women and other films (1917 is another), I'll be able to express my thoughts quickly. I just freshly watched (and logged on LB) The Prestige by Christopher Nolan, and thought I'd share that review here as well. It's somewhat significant as it pretty much finishes my run-through of Nolan's filmography and dovetails nicely into my thoughts on Nolan as a filmmaker in general, I'll paste that at the bottom of this post. Speaking of Nolan, I also watched Dunkirk, which I actually liked quite a bit, but only goes to confirm my thoughts with Nolan as a filmmaker. Basically, the further he gets away from trying to make 'that twisty movie', the more I like them (The Dark Knight, Dunkirk). I've seen other films too this year - I saw Rosemary's Baby for the first time, and thought it was phenomenal. Uncut Gems and The Lighthouse among others (I liked both of those films to varying degrees). Anyways, I'm looking forward to hearing thoughts on everyone's favorite movies this year The Prestige, like all of Nolan's best films, delivers a well-executed, enticing, and cleverly designed tale full of twists, turns, and last-minute revelations; no surprise there.
What makes The Prestige standout however is how perfectly it falls as an analogy for Nolan as a filmmaker. Nolan himself is a magician, and the irony of him selecting a film surrounding magicians and deceptions is not lost on me. he dazzles and engages, fools you, fools you again, on and on it goes until the 'dramatic shocking finish' that leaves you in astonishment.
Like a magic act though, behind all the elaborate plot machinations, the tricks and the deception that made Nolan (and other fellow magicians) so famous reveals the inherent sin that embeds itself in all his works.
If the best films (or the best art for that matter) are those that illuminate truths, express honesty, provoke thought, or even elicit change, Nolan falls far short. Under all the deception and trickery is simply a barren illusion. This may fool for a time, but once you know the trick, the magic is revealed as only a cold deception.
If there a better analogy in my mind for the experience of Nolan's filmography, I haven't found it. His films are in one moment exhilarating and magical, but with wisdom revealed to be hollow and empty.
This isn't to say The Prestige, Inception, Interstellar, and Memento are bad films; it's quite the contrary. The disappointment lies in that these are rather clever, elegant, well-made films that will always elude greatness by virtue of their design. It's therefore a great shame that Nolan concerns himself with fooling the audience below him rather than attempting to enlighten and lift them up with him.
7/10Speaking as someone who didn't really care for Lady Bird, I loved Little Women. I've also seen people who loved Lady Bird express disappointment with Little Women. I enjoyed nearly every minute of it, and think it's a really smart, fun adaptation of an American classic.
Knives Out is a very entertaining one that won't really stick with me going forward. Which for me is one of the signs of a great work of art. But it is very well made.
I saw Once Upon a Time in Hollywood last night, and loved it. It's very indulgent at times, but it's got everything I like about Tarantino films. Anyone who's a fan of his will dig it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Feb 9, 2020 21:12:51 GMT -8
Welcome back, Unkin!
Yeah, I liked Little Women far more than Lady Bird. Excellent adaptation that subtly modernizes the story without ever cheapening it.
I'm used to folks criticizing Joker (and, to a lesser extent, Knives Out), and have learned to roll with it. I will say that Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood has grown on me evermore in the weeks since I've watched it, and I won't argue with those who call it the year's best film. It's certainly one of the more memorable film experiences I've had in the last few years.
|
|
|
Post by unkinhead on Feb 11, 2020 15:57:02 GMT -8
Thanks Jeremy Glad to be back. It seems many who didn't quite like Lady Bird found great satisfaction with Little Women. In the meantime, I happened to watch a decently divisive classic yesterday in American Beauty. I absolutely loved it. (x-posted from Letterboxd) American Beauty is a great movie. A tragicomedy that is somehow equal parts bitter cynicism and optimistic melodrama. It can't be understated just how damn watchable the film is. Until it's final act it's a thrilling and outlandishly hilarious mid-life crisis vehicle that occasionally sets up thematic yarns that we will see culminate in a truly beautiful fashion. Some criticisms level that the film follows 'sitcom beats with an R rated dressing'. I wholeheartedly disagree. Firstly, it has become common-practice to stipulate that this film is anti-materialistic, and while this is certainly true to an extent, I believe Lester's failings are predominately hedonistic.
The central theme then seems to run closer to anti-hedonistic, which is quite a bit broader (and far more interesting) than being strictly about materialism. Take the scene between Lester and Angela in the films final moments. To me this demonstrates one of the greatest thematic interchanges of the film (or for any film for that matter). Keep in mind that at this point it's not clear that the film isn't celebrating Lester's lifestyle. From the viewers perspective, Lester has realized the 'truth' of the cold, lawless world and has begun to accept it, learning to seize his control and power to pursue pleasure and satisfaction, abandoning all fatherly and spousal duties, disregarding ethics, and even law.
Angela is presented as being honestly and truly calloused, promiscuous, and hedonistic throughout the film. The audiences expectation is to think of her as selfish, impulsive, and narcissistic to her core. This is why their dynamic in the living room scene is so fascinating. When Angela queries Lester about her 'beauty' and 'uniqueness', Lester responds not in honesty, but in desire. He tells her she's beautiful, but in his heart he lies, he see's only opportunity to meet desire. Angela lives the lie, clinging to the notion that there is nothing worse than being ordinary, living a belief system that prioritizes the hedonistic mantra: you're only as valuable as the pleasure you can offer and receive.
There isn't a more perfect revelation then to this dynamic then Angela's pronounced virginity. At once the viewer is forced to recognize not a narcissistic floozy, but a desperate child. In this moment Lester realizes it too, and he returns to himself. It's a beautifully done archetypal story - the criticisms against hedonism are as old as the hills, but the threads are orchestrated just right to tie familiar but poignant themes with a dramatic and narrative climax. There isn't anything quite as satisfying as watching a film converge on all levels of narrative within the last 15 minutes, perfectly making sense of all that came before.
I've read some criticisms that felt the ending was saccharine, nullifying the biting cynicism of the first acts. I find this to be a completely wrong-headed analysis; the stark optimism and appreciation of traditional and stereotypical values found in Lester's final moments are precisely the point. In this sense the film offers the notion of conservatism as the antidote to hedonistic chaos. This can only work with full sincerity; no irony could have been permitted.(End x-post) If I have any criticisms of the film they're regarding the handling of Colonel Fitts in the final 'twist'. While it's a neat little twist (that I really should have seen coming), I'm undecided about whether it undercuts the sincerity and drama of the films final moments. Maybe it was necessary (given that Carolyn's murder of Lester would offer some thematic issues, as well as just some narrative issues of plausibility). Other than that the scene of the plastic bag 'dancing' is pretty hard to take seriously post Katy Perry's "Firework".
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Feb 11, 2020 16:02:06 GMT -8
Thanks Jeremy Glad to be back. It seems many who didn't quite like Lady Bird found great satisfaction with Little Women. In the meantime, I happened to watch a decently divisive classic yesterday in American Beauty. I absolutely loved it. (x-posted from Letterboxd) American Beauty is a great movie. A tragicomedy that is somehow equal parts bitter cynicism and optimistic melodrama. It can't be understated just how damn watchable the film is. Until it's final act it's a thrilling and outlandishly hilarious mid-life crisis vehicle that occasionally sets up thematic yarns that we will see culminate in a truly beautiful fashion. Some criticisms level that the film follows 'sitcom beats with an R rated dressing'. I wholeheartedly disagree. Firstly, it has become common-practice to stipulate that this film is anti-materialistic, and while this is certainly true to an extent, I believe Lester's failings are predominately hedonistic.
The central theme then seems to run closer to anti-hedonistic, which is quite a bit broader (and far more interesting) than being strictly about materialism. Take the scene between Lester and Angela in the films final moments. To me this demonstrates one of the greatest thematic interchanges of the film (or for any film for that matter). Keep in mind that at this point it's not clear that the film isn't celebrating Lester's lifestyle. From the viewers perspective, Lester has realized the 'truth' of the cold, lawless world and has begun to accept it, learning to seize his control and power to pursue pleasure and satisfaction, abandoning all fatherly and spousal duties, disregarding ethics, and even law.
Angela is presented as being honestly and truly calloused, promiscuous, and hedonistic throughout the film. The audiences expectation is to think of her as selfish, impulsive, and narcissistic to her core. This is why their dynamic in the living room scene is so fascinating. When Angela queries Lester about her 'beauty' and 'uniqueness', Lester responds not in honesty, but in desire. He tells her she's beautiful, but in his heart he lies, he see's only opportunity to meet desire. Angela lives the lie, clinging to the notion that there is nothing worse than being ordinary, living a belief system that prioritizes the hedonistic mantra: you're only as valuable as the pleasure you can offer and receive.
There isn't a more perfect revelation then to this dynamic then Angela's pronounced virginity. At once the viewer is forced to recognize not a narcissistic floozy, but a desperate child. In this moment Lester realizes it too, and he returns to himself. It's a beautifully done archetypal story - the criticisms against hedonism are as old as the hills, but the threads are orchestrated just right to tie familiar but poignant themes with a dramatic and narrative climax. There isn't anything quite as satisfying as watching a film converge on all levels of narrative within the last 15 minutes, perfectly making sense of all that came before.
I've read some criticisms that felt the ending was saccharine, nullifying the biting cynicism of the first acts. I find this to be a completely wrong-headed analysis; the stark optimism and appreciation of traditional and stereotypical values found in Lester's final moments are precisely the point. In this sense the film offers the notion of conservatism as the antidote to hedonistic chaos. This can only work with full sincerity; no irony could have been permitted.(End x-post) If I have any criticisms of the film they're regarding the handling of Colonel Fitts in the final 'twist'. While it's a neat little twist (that I really should have seen coming), I'm undecided about whether it undercuts the sincerity and drama of the films final moments. Maybe it was necessary (given that Carolyn's murder of Lester would offer some thematic issues, as well as just some narrative issues of plausibility). Other than that the scene of the plastic bag 'dancing' is pretty hard to take seriously post Katy Perry's "Firework". 1 to go. Iguana will be back any second.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Feb 12, 2020 0:45:51 GMT -8
Hi all! Long time no see. Hi there!! Good to see you again, how's things? I saw Rosemary's Baby for the first time, and thought it was phenomenal. That is the correct reaction.
|
|
|
Post by unkinhead on Feb 12, 2020 11:47:05 GMT -8
Hi all! Long time no see. Hi there!! Good to see you again, how's things? Hey snipe! Pretty good! Thanks. Managing a job, school, and a relationship is hard work...seemingly more so for a rather low-energy person like myself, but things have reached a certain stability where I feel I have the time to engage in hobbies again (in truth, actually quite a bit earlier, but i was obsessed with poker as a hobby instead xD) I saw Rosemary's Baby for the first time, and thought it was phenomenal. Hahaha. I take it you like the film then (actually thinking about i do seem to recall it being rather high in your top 100 films). Yes I thought it was so geniusly done, I actually quite like a line from Ebert's review regarding the tension: "by the time the movie's halfway over we're pretty sure what's going on in that apartment next door. When the conclusion comes, it works not because it is a surprise but because it is horrifyingly inevitable." Interestingly, most of the surprise factor is really built into that last scene (what happens now?). It was the movie that kind of broke me back into seeking out films. It's been more of a 'watch whatevers new and on' in my free time with my roommates, Rosemary's Baby just happened to be very accessible. It was so refreshing to feel excited and with joy at the end of a movie rather than the feeling of 'ok' that most movies have seemed to left me of late. I felt this way again with American Beauty recently. Which is not to say I haven't enjoyed some films I've seen in the interim. I also watched 'Your Name' which I thought was beautiful but not quite as effective for me as 'Weathering with You' which I actually liked quite a bit (though it has some obvious issues). Also just as an update for general impressions of films I can recall: quite awhile ago I watched Cronenberg's 'Dead Ringers' (very good), Villeneuve's 'Enemies' (meh to alright), Frozen (quite bad), Phantom Thread (quite good), Blade Runner 2049 (good), Marriage Story (very good) and Uncut Gems (good). ...oh and all the new Star Wars films, which were varying degrees of bad. Heh.
|
|