|
Post by Jeremy on Feb 23, 2021 20:04:08 GMT -8
So I watched Dr. Strangelove all the way through for the first time today. The film is an undeniably clever satire and comic farce, with several humorous gags and a terrific collection of performances by Peter Sellers. (Whereas any one of his characters would probably be irritating on individual terms, the fact that he plays so many elevates them all.)
The downside is that, like every Stanley Kubrick film I've sat through, it is tonally ice-cold. Not a single character feels tangible enough to sympathize with, and not a single story development engaged me emotionally. I watched and nodded along with every satirical edge the film skirted, and even got a few in-the-moment laughs, but the entire production left me feeling indifferent.
To be fair, I do have some motivation to revisit the film at some point (as opposed to something heavier like There Will Be Blood, which I doubt I'll ever watch again). It didn't connect with me as a teenager, it only marginally connected more now - but there is clearly something worth appreciating about this film, and perhaps I will be able to engage with it on a deeper level the next time around. But for now, I have not learned to stop worrying nor love the bomb.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Feb 23, 2021 23:24:30 GMT -8
So I watched Dr. Strangelove all the way through for the first time today. The film is an undeniably clever satire and comic farce, with several humorous gags and a terrific collection of performances by Peter Sellers. (Whereas any one of his characters would probably be irritating on individual terms, the fact that he plays so many elevates them all.) The downside is that, like every Stanley Kubrick film I've sat through, it is tonally ice-cold. Not a single character feels tangible enough to sympathize with, and not a single story development engaged me emotionally. I watched and nodded along with every satirical edge the film skirted, and even got a few in-the-moment laughs, but the entire production left me feeling indifferent. To be fair, I do have some motivation to revisit the film at some point (as opposed to something heavier like There Will Be Blood, which I doubt I'll ever watch again). It didn't connect with me as a teenager, it only marginally connected more now - but there is clearly something worth appreciating about this film, and perhaps I will be able to engage with it on a deeper level the next time around. But for now, I have not learned to stop worrying nor love the bomb. Watch Paths of Glory!
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Feb 24, 2021 18:34:28 GMT -8
The George C. Scott trip-and-fall-and-resume-giving-lines was amazing and I was pleased to learn that it was unintentional but Kubrick kept it in because he thought it wasn't. I was also quite fond of his excessive enthusiasm in talking about doomsday weapons before momentarily realizing that if they destroyed all life on earth, there might not be any more wars to fight.
I'm glad you watched it again, Jer, and made it all the way through. I would agree that Kubrick's movies have a coolness to them, but something struck me this time in watching it that hadn't previously: That I have seen so many films where against all odds and obstacles, the hero manages to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. In this one, there is no hero, no one has control, and defeat is snatched from the jaws of victory.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Feb 24, 2021 21:12:12 GMT -8
Sure, the film works perfectly as a comedic farce. That's the main selling point, and I understand why it's garnered such a reputation for it. If only the story and humor were was a little less dry, I imagine I would have connected with it a lot more. There is definitely a film worth appreciating here.
I will check out Paths of Glory, Flame. I expect I'll end up watching Kubrick's whole filmography at some point, given how ubiquitous his work is to the larger scope of Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Feb 27, 2021 12:40:38 GMT -8
I'm mad at myself for repeatedly forgetting to mention it, but about ten years ago I was seeing girl who would occasionally go on rants about fluoridation. A mutual friend of ours who we'd go out to the bar with was a film buff, and so at one point, mid-rant, I stopped her and asked her flatly if she'd seen Dr. Strangelove. She said no and quickly moved on but when she left the table for a bit we had a good guffaw about that.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Feb 27, 2021 15:11:35 GMT -8
I expect I'll end up watching Kubrick's whole filmography at some point, given how ubiquitous his work is to the larger scope of Hollywood. Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Feb 27, 2021 16:37:59 GMT -8
Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well. I mean, I've seen the first half of that film, and don't have much interest in finishing it. I know it's much-beloved (including by some folks on this forum), but decidedly not to my tastes.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Mar 18, 2021 18:24:27 GMT -8
I've been doing some Baz Luhrmanning in the last couple of weeks, watching Moulin Rouge and The Great Gatsby in quick (for me) succession.
I actually think Luhrmann has a real talent for using anachronistic music effectively, I would go so far as to say it's his best trait as a director. His visual palette is quite good as well, and his tendency to throw you in the deep end at times with quick acts, especially early on, is unique and somewhat effective.
The problem with directors as stylish and ambitious as Luhrmann is would be the tendency to stifle the actual writing of the movie, which (while I'm more appreciative of the artistry of the form and aesthetics of movie than I was 5 years ago) for me is still an issue that holds him back. I'm still at a time in my life where the best directing is letting the movie breathe and really let it come home to you, as opposed to the directing and styling being the art that the plot and characterization is used to service.
Still, memorable and unique movies and certainly no regrets in having watched them.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Apr 3, 2021 12:37:26 GMT -8
As I was between series, I watched a couple of movies that my ma had wanted to check out. One Night in Miami... had a fascinating premise, bringing in a fictionalized account of Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay for the duration of the film), Jim Brown (not to be confused with James Brown), and Sam Cooke to talk politics and culture and what they wanted to get out of their lives, all within a year of Malcolm X being assassinated (ditto Sam Cooke, although they didn't even mention it). This was adapted from a stage play and I'm honestly not sure if "adapted" is the right word as it was all but a bottle episode and devoted to maintaining Aristotelian unities. The result was a film that was almost entirely dialogue with a break here and there for Leslie Odom, Jr. as Cooke to get to singing. The core conflict was between him and Malcolm X, which left Jim Brown without much to say (even as he was pondering retirement from football) and Clay / Ali, while about to announce his joining the Nation of Islam, is played somewhat muted so as not to dominate the screen. It's a hell of a historical moment and interesting to me as someone who grew up in a culture that effectively rendered Malcolm X a boogieman, I just wish that there was a bit more to latch onto in the end product.
I also watched The Two Popes which is... not so flattering now that the Cat-lick Church is back to condemning homosexuality. I'm sure in the moment it was intended as a revelation and the herald of a massive sea change, but now it stands as proof that one shouldn't try to craft a narrative from history in progress. Jonathan Pryce was excellent as Francis and I'm looking forward to his turn as Prince Philip in The Crown but Hopkins.... He looked the part of Benedict, absolutely, but it fascinates me when actors with his level of prestige have major gaps in their repertoire and in this case, he couldn't pull off a German accent and spoke Latin like an Englishman (piano playing, from all I could tell, was fine, and it oughta be for a guy who dabbles in soundtracks). Another aspect that, for me was telling about the type of narrative they wanted from the event rather than the event itself, was that Francis got multiple flashbacks to his moments of crisis and the mistakes he made whereas Benedict gets called a Nazi a couple of times by locals but has no flashbacks or reflection whatsoever beyond some passing remarks on how he might have been ill-suited to be pope as a studious boy who was not especially concerned with worldly affairs. I'm sure that when it was released, it shone quite well, but the whole thing seems dated now and a product of its time rather than a balanced treatment.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 9, 2021 5:17:06 GMT -8
I considered seeing Godzilla vs. Kong at the theaters (which are finally reopening in my area), but decided it wasn't quite worth the effort (even in a non-pandemic world) and streamed it on HBO Max instead. It is incredibly, stupefyingly dumb - even by the standards set by the recent Godzilla and Kong movies - but I did get some unintentional laughs from the film's ridiculous scale and cavalier disregard for consequences. (The presumably thousands of human casualties resulting from the climactic bout between the two behemoths get about as much attention as they would in a Transformers movie.) Certainly better than King of the Monsters, at any rate.
The Monsterverse is so far proving more durable than it looked, but I'm not sure where it goes from here. Zilla and Kong are the two most recognizable of cinema's gargantuan city-stompers, and I don't think a Mothra vs. Rodan film or whatnot is going to generate nearly as much buzz.
Anyway, I'm going back to the theaters soon, once I find more time and the movies get better. (Fingers crossed for what looks to be a strong summer.) Meanwhile, life has kept me busy and I haven't written as many articles or watched as many shows/movies as I'd like to. I might write something about the Oscars if the muse strikes, though I still haven't seen a few of the Best Pic nominees.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Apr 9, 2021 13:03:19 GMT -8
I was actually more fond of the first Godzilla and Kong titles than I expected, primarily because they were more concerned with world-building and indeed real-world interplay than monster mashes typically afford. And honestly, that bit in Kong when Tom Hiddleston charges through green smoke brandishing a gas mask and katana is one of the most indelible images in recent cinema. The Monsterverse is so far proving more durable than it looked, but I'm not sure where it goes from here. Zilla and Kong are the two most recognizable of cinema's gargantuan city-stompers, and I don't think a Mothra vs. Rodan film or whatnot is going to generate nearly as much buzz. I think all you need to do is preface each VS title with "Godzilla:" and bingo, instant audience. Franchisery is definitely a thing. In tangential film news, I've just been channel-hopping and hovered on Starship Troopers (no-one's idea of a particularly good film) simply because I totally forgot Clancy Brown was in it, in a role that R. Lee Ermey was presumably too busy for. HOLLA ATCHA BOI
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 9, 2021 14:25:43 GMT -8
Yep, I watched Kong: Skull Island last week in preparation for this film (a pointless prerequisite, as apart from the titular simian, that movie has virtually no direct connection to this one) and enjoyed it a lot. Above-average characters, good sense of humor and exciting action. Checked all the necessary boxes. The 2014 Godzilla film was decent as well, although the human element was undermined by Bryan Cranston's relatively limited screentime.
Godzilla vs. Kong's main selling point is that it is a simply bonkers movie, with some ludicrous plot developments that go beyond the simple "monkey punch lizard" marketing (including the appearance of a certain character I will not spoil, but which I imagine will thrill many fans of the genre). The highly positive response to the film is probably helped by the fact that audiences are starved for bona fide blockbusters these last few months, and this one delivers on the big-screen promise. (Or so I can assume.)
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Apr 15, 2021 14:23:02 GMT -8
I might write something about the Oscars if the muse strikes, though I still haven't seen a few of the Best Pic nominees. Can you believe that Best Picture gaffe was four years and one ridiculous president ago?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 15, 2021 19:47:44 GMT -8
Dude, I can't even believe that Parasite won only last year. It feels like ages ago. (And technically it was longer than usual, given the two-month extension period, but still... feels far longer than that.)
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Apr 19, 2021 6:11:21 GMT -8
Probably shouldn't be using this place to cast off random musings, but I've just realised I've only seen three Jean Harlow pictures (voluntarily discounting City Lights). And I call myself a cinephile.
|
|