|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Oct 11, 2022 18:06:00 GMT -8
Perfect Blue was one of the more horrifying films I've seen in recent years, and quite effective even after seeing the more recent Black Swan tread that ground. Just a total mindscrew of a motion picture. (On a grounded note, I was amused by all the talk about that newfangled thing called the "Internet" in a 1997 film.) I will definitely check out some more of Kon's work. (I've seen Millennium Actress, but not the others.) I feel like he's one of the best gateways into anime for non-fans. Bebop and Ghibli work as well, but they're positively steeped in Western tropes and storytelling styles. Kon isn't as much, it's incredibly strange and quirky, but his work is still mostly shorned of the "anime BS" tropes that tends to put off people. There isn't much pointless fan-service, his characters don't stop to explain every aspect of their thought process leaving some things unsaid, there aren't battles that go on for 50 episodes straight, etc. So if you like his work, there's probably a great deal more like it that you'd enjoy. And yeah-- Tokyo Godfathers is great! Pretty much everything he did was great. I was immensely saddened at his too-soon passing.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Oct 11, 2022 18:08:43 GMT -8
I actually got lucky with Perfect Blue, as it was added to AMC+ here in the US just before my discount subscription to that service was about to expire. It was part of Shudder, which is a horror-themed streaming service included with AMC+. Speaking of horror-themed: much like Guttersnipe, I'm watching a lot of classic (and not-so-classic) horror films this month. In addition to new releases like Werewolf by Night (good!) and Hocus Pocus 2 (bad!), here's what I watched this week: The Descent - This starts out with a fairly innocuous premise - six girlfriends bonding on a spelunking adventure! - and then turns edge-of-the-seat intense. Director Neil Marshall (who is probably best forgotten for that flimsy Hellboy reboot a few years back) here makes great use of claustrophobic settings and minimal lighting, plus shocking moments of brutal violence. Though bloodier than it needs to be, it's usually tense and at times genuinely scary, with strong performances from the leads. If you haven't seen it, try to avoid reading up too much beforehand. (8/10) It Follows - One of the early pioneers in the modern mainstream age of elevated horror, with skillful, purposeful direction and a delightfully creepy score. The sex-based plot seems like something out of a bad Buffy standalone, but the film builds tension carefully and craftily, forgiving the confusing "rules" of the monster (i.e. to what extent it can be seen and felt) and some sore spots in the supporting cast. Only weakens with the climax, which features the dumbest use of a swimming pool since Piranha 3DD. (7/10) A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge - Even leaving aside the confusing title (none of the main protagonists from the first film reappear in this one, so who is Freddy taking "revenge" on?), this is a definite weak point between Nightmares 1 & 3. The rules surrounding Freddy's physical presence in the dream world vs. the real world make virtually no sense, and the film pretty much gives up on them by the third act. The gay subtext - if it can even be called subtext - is perplexing in its own right, too incoherent to read any clear message into (though hey, maybe it made more sense in the '80s). Some creative visual effects and a few good jumps perk up the story every so often, but not enough to compensate for the lulls. (4/10) The original UK ending to The Descent is....something else. Up there with The Vanishing and The Wicker Man for memorable horror film endings.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 13, 2022 8:56:07 GMT -8
The original UK ending to The Descent is....something else. Up there with The Vanishing and The Wicker Man for memorable horror film endings. I watched the film on Amazon, and they keep the US ending, which I thought was quite effective (if a little abrupt). I just checked out the original ending on YouTube, and it's certainly darker and more depressing, though I'm not sure I'd say it's my preferred ending. (I don't typically like "cheat" resolutions*, even if they make sense thematically.) Also, the film's sequel apparently makes the US ending the official one. But interesting nonetheless. *Feels like 47 Meters Down ripped off a lot from The Descent, including that original ending, except to much less interesting effect.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Oct 16, 2022 12:47:07 GMT -8
Ah, of course. I remembered who it was that made that claim, but I wasn't sure about my own memory in the moment. In any case, classic movie if you want to see a middle-aged drunk, a trans woman, and a runaway teen try to locate the parents of an abandoned baby on Christmas Eve while fighting off the yakuza.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 30, 2022 6:33:33 GMT -8
Some other frightfests I feasted on this month:
Let the Right One In - This film has generated a lot of buzz over the years, including on this website (I recall MikeJer praising it on the old forum), and I went in with an eye to be intrigued. Unfortunately, this one did very little for me. While it looks great and makes good minimal use of music, most of the story was rote and uninvolving. Defenders are quick to point out that it should not be judged as a horror film, and while it is true that it doesn't follow the typical rules of the genre (i.e. by not being the slightest bit scary), the characters sure as heck act like they're in a horror film, making irrational and confusing decisions with almost alarming regularity. (Nothing about the swimming pool scene makes any sense when you think about it for over five seconds. What is with horror films and dumb swimming pool scenes?) The central romance is well-written and well-acted, but generally pretty squicky, and the film's attempts to make it charming amid the bleakness and harsh violence of the surrounding story fall flat. There was enough going on in staging and cinematography that I was never really bored, but this is not one I'm rushing to revisit. (5/10)
Hereditary - Given my harshly negative feelings toward Midsommar, I didn't know what to expect from Ari Aster's other foray into elevated horror. But thankfully, this film is far more interesting and immersive, with a great cast and distinct visual palette (that enhances the story rather than detracting from it), often generating genuinely scary vibes. The blending of real maternal fears and trauma with the more frightening aspects of the supernatural is brilliant in execution, and the deliberate pacing keeps the viewer guessing to the end. My only real complaint is the final 15 minutes, which teeter dangerously close to camp - I wasn't fully onboard with the twist that Aster was conveying, though I do respect the sheer weirdness of his vision. Beyond that, a great and creepy time. (8/10)
The Babadook - One of the defining early films of the current elevated horror movement, this one has a great, lean story and a well-realized metaphorical monster. As with Hereditary, it blends reality with fantasy quite well, and leaves just enough questions to keep viewers guessing. The film's main problems are technical - the editing is choppy and some of the sound design is off (though that can work to the story's advantage in the "Ba... ba... dooook!" scenes), plus the low budget makes itself noticed at some inopportune moments. Still, a solid film all around with a great performance from Essie Davis. (7/10)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 - A broadly funnier (and much more violent) film than its predecessor, which proves both good and ill. A lot to like and be freaked out by here, but Bill Moseley's performance as Chop Top brings the film into self-parodic territory, and the film's blades have dulled by the time we reach the climactic fight. (Leatherface doesn't do quite so much in this one, does he?) Inadvertently made me respect the first TCM more than I previously did, with its deft blending of disarming humor and discomforting horror - plus, both these films are still miles ahead of the recent Netflix sequel, which mostly gets by on Halloween ripoffs and violence against the elderly. (6/10)
A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master - You can tell a series is scraping around for new ideas when they reveal that the supernatural powers extend beyond the central villain, and that's exactly where Nightmare heads with its fourth installment. Some good creative visual effects and surprising laughs (this film is the most overtly comedic in the series so far) elevate it above Elm Street 2, but not by much. (Why is Freddy resurrected through dog urine? Don't answer that.) For some reason, this is the only Nightmare film not streaming on HBO Max. (5/10)
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Oct 31, 2022 14:56:01 GMT -8
Glad you enjoyed Perfect Blue, by the way, Jeremy. Kon's one of my favorite directors/creators all around--surrealistic and inventive, yes, but in a way that always, always stems from the story being told. Almost never does he engage in oddness for its own sake. Millenium Actress, Paranoia Agent, and Paprika are all worth checking out as well. I forget if Quiara also voiced this opinion or if it was just me, but Tokyo Godfathers is one of my favorite "Christmas" movies (in the spirit and time period, but that's about it). So I caved and watched it again......and yeah. Now I really feel bad about leaving it off the list. It's another winner from Kon, expertly balancing humor and heaviness. It might actually appeal to Jeremy more because of its lack of surrealistic elements. Might have to put this on my Christmas watch list.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Nov 2, 2022 10:43:35 GMT -8
I forget if Quiara also voiced this opinion or if it was just me, but Tokyo Godfathers is one of my favorite "Christmas" movies (in the spirit and time period, but that's about it). So I caved and watched it again......and yeah. Now I really feel bad about leaving it off the list. It's another winner from Kon, expertly balancing humor and heaviness. It might actually appeal to Jeremy more because of its lack of surrealistic elements. Might have to put this on my Christmas watch list. Delightful, isn't it? I think that as a live-action film it might be a little too over the top, but as animated, it did well to humanize a lot of characters who you might otherwise not see get their due, on holiday or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Nov 20, 2022 11:32:44 GMT -8
So I caved and watched it again......and yeah. Now I really feel bad about leaving it off the list. It's another winner from Kon, expertly balancing humor and heaviness. It might actually appeal to Jeremy more because of its lack of surrealistic elements. Might have to put this on my Christmas watch list. Delightful, isn't it? I think that as a live-action film it might be a little too over the top, but as animated, it did well to humanize a lot of characters who you might otherwise not see get their due, on holiday or otherwise. Yes, I can imagine a live action Lynch-directed Perfect Blue......it wouldn't really be the same I think. I feel that lots of Lynch's material is a matter of 'just go with it', whereas Kon's surrealistic imagery is actually explicable for the audience.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 19, 2022 9:10:55 GMT -8
So, late last week I watched (or technically rewatched) 2001: A Space Odyssey. I had watched the film before, many years ago, though I think I probably fast-forwarded through about 30% of the film at the time (I was young and impatient then, as opposed to old and impatient now), and I decided to give it a fair shake by finally sitting through the entire film from start to finish.
It was... certainly something. Particularly after a few years of watching a lot of acclaimed films - some of which I liked a lot, others which I didn't care for at all - it was interesting to sit down with a film that defined so much of modern cinematic language, to see if I could balance my own personal reservations about it (colored no doubt by the prior watch, where it mostly bored me) and reconcile that with its massive influence, from Star Trek movies to Barbie trailers.
Overall, I can't say I was genuinely entertained by this film - as with other Kubrick films, the characters mostly left me cold (heck, the most interesting character is a computer, who is theoretically cold by design). But it doesn't make sense to say I was bored either. Yes, it is extremely long for the story it tells, with multiple scenes that go on far longer than logic would dictate. But it's so unique in its craft - so deliberate in its storytelling, so understated in its visuals - that I was glued to the screen even when part of my mind was screaming for something, anything to happen.
I've never had an experience quite like it. Again, it probably helps that I've seen most of the movie before, since I knew the basic structure and how and when certain narrative beats would crop up. So I was able to focus more on the quieter details of the film, from the design of the spacecraft to the use of sound in and around the ship to the use of color during the five-minute stretch near the end of the film where it turns into a screensaver.
I know I can be critical of some much-beloved films, but even when they don't fully connect with me, some can be more intriguing experiences than others. Raging Bull, to use another example of a film I watched recently, did not work for me at all - it was dull and ineffective and I've already forgotten most of it. 2001 was undeniably boring in spots, but it's a sort of boring I've never quite encountered before - an almost otherworldly form of detachment - and I kind of love that.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Dec 19, 2022 15:51:46 GMT -8
Though 2001: A Space Odyssey is indeed a unique experience in general -- and boy, do the visual/practical effects hold up well, even today -- I will note that there are many films that I didn't necessarily "enjoy" (in pure entertainment terms) while watching, that have nonetheless resonated with me, on some level, for years to come. That said, my favourite films tend to have a reasonable balance between art and entertainment, whereas with films that lean almost purely to the former side, I usually admire more than "enjoy" them (which means I'd still probably rate them highly if they achieve their intended purpose, regardless of whether or not I was "entertained").
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 20, 2022 8:42:44 GMT -8
I will note that there are many films that I didn't necessarily "enjoy" (in pure entertainment terms) while watching, that have nonetheless resonated with me, on some level, for years to come. Yes, I can think of a few films like that. Schindler’s List or Come and See are certainly not films that entertained me, but they were undeniably effective in their production and messaging, and will probably stick with me for a long while. I guess I just need something to hook me about a film, and not necessarily its entertainment value (though films that are by nature not “entertaining” may have a higher bar to clear if they aim to stick with me). Just need to get on the filmmaker’s wavelength - which can be tough with Kubrick, whose stories are not traditionally character-driven.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Dec 22, 2022 17:04:49 GMT -8
I will note that there are many films that I didn't necessarily "enjoy" (in pure entertainment terms) while watching, that have nonetheless resonated with me, on some level, for years to come. Yes, I can think of a few films like that. Schindler’s List or Come and See are certainly not films that entertained me, but they were undeniably effective in their production and messaging, and will probably stick with me for a long while. I guess I just need something to hook me about a film, and not necessarily its entertainment value (though films that are by nature not “entertaining” may have a higher bar to clear if they aim to stick with me). Just need to get on the filmmaker’s wavelength - which can be tough with Kubrick, whose stories are not traditionally character-driven. Indeed, the most persistent criticism of Schindler's List is that it lionizes the titular character a little too much in an attempt to give the audience something to latch onto given the setting (Me personally, I think this is more of a problem with the sub-genre the film inspired rather than the film itself). Not that it's "enjoyable" by any means, but there is something strange about making a film like that about the Holocaust.
I agree with your larger point, though. I'll probably never sit through Come and See again, but I'm glad that I did once anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Dec 22, 2022 17:09:05 GMT -8
So, late last week I watched (or technically rewatched) 2001: A Space Odyssey. I had watched the film before, many years ago, though I think I probably fast-forwarded through about 30% of the film at the time (I was young and impatient then, as opposed to old and impatient now), and I decided to give it a fair shake by finally sitting through the entire film from start to finish. It was... certainly something. Particularly after a few years of watching a lot of acclaimed films - some of which I liked a lot, others which I didn't care for at all - it was interesting to sit down with a film that defined so much of modern cinematic language, to see if I could balance my own personal reservations about it (colored no doubt by the prior watch, where it mostly bored me) and reconcile that with its massive influence, from Star Trek movies to Barbie trailers. Overall, I can't say I was genuinely entertained by this film - as with other Kubrick films, the characters mostly left me cold (heck, the most interesting character is a computer, who is theoretically cold by design). But it doesn't make sense to say I was bored either. Yes, it is extremely long for the story it tells, with multiple scenes that go on far longer than logic would dictate. But it's so unique in its craft - so deliberate in its storytelling, so understated in its visuals - that I was glued to the screen even when part of my mind was screaming for something, anything to happen. I've never had an experience quite like it. Again, it probably helps that I've seen most of the movie before, since I knew the basic structure and how and when certain narrative beats would crop up. So I was able to focus more on the quieter details of the film, from the design of the spacecraft to the use of sound in and around the ship to the use of color during the five-minute stretch near the end of the film where it turns into a screensaver. I know I can be critical of some much-beloved films, but even when they don't fully connect with me, some can be more intriguing experiences than others. Raging Bull, to use another example of a film I watched recently, did not work for me at all - it was dull and ineffective and I've already forgotten most of it. 2001 was undeniably boring in spots, but it's a sort of boring I've never quite encountered before - an almost otherworldly form of detachment - and I kind of love that. That's the thing about Critical Acclaim, especially when you know about it going in. There's always the risk of disappointment when it doesn't live up to the hype. I kinda wish I could go into everything with no expectations.
Kubrick's cynicism charge is fairly accurate, I think. I've never understood why people compare Nolan and Kubrick so much. Nolan's clearly an optimist, and definitely not detached from the characters. Kubrick, on the other hand, definitely is. Maybe it works best for a space epic and a horror film set in a haunted hotel.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 22, 2022 19:34:12 GMT -8
I'll probably never sit through Come and See again, but I'm glad that I did once anyway.
It's interesting that Come and See is now the #1 highest-rated film on Letterboxd (having recently dethroned Parasite). It is not a film that is "fun" to watch in any sense, but it's also not a film that can be easily criticized, since it's so effective in conveying its messages through character, story, and production. I expect it would fall a few notches down on the list if a broader selection of people were watching it (it has far fewer logs than Parasite or The Godfather), but it's not exactly the type of film that compels people to sit down with it. If a film has been around for decades and has built up a level of acclaim that cements it as one of the all-time greats (even if it's about a woman peeling potatoes in her apartment), it's kind of hard to avoid having some sort of expectations for it. But in the end, I have to see how I personally react to a film, regardless of outside buzz, and build out my analysis from there. There are certainly a lot of beloved films that didn't work for me, including some groundbreaking films that influenced a lot of movies I do love. And while there's nothing I can say that will retroactively make those films less influential, I do my best to explain why such-and-such film didn't connect with me. (On the other hand, not having any expectations does have its perks. For example, I just went to see the new Puss in Boots film without reading any reviews, and without having much love for the character or franchise beforehand. It was a surprisingly good time! Not that I'm comparing Kubrick's sci-fi magnum opus to a Shrek spin-off, but going in cold definitely comes with benefits.)
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Dec 22, 2022 20:03:36 GMT -8
I'll probably never sit through Come and See again, but I'm glad that I did once anyway.
It's interesting that Come and See is now the #1 highest-rated film on Letterboxd (having recently dethroned Parasite). It is not a film that is "fun" to watch in any sense, but it's also not a film that can be easily criticized, since it's so effective in conveying its messages through character, story, and production. I expect it would fall a few notches down on the list if a broader selection of people were watching it (it has far fewer logs than Parasite or The Godfather), but it's not exactly the type of film that compels people to sit down with it. If a film has been around for decades and has built up a level of acclaim that cements it as one of the all-time greats (even if it's about a woman peeling potatoes in her apartment), it's kind of hard to avoid having some sort of expectations for it. But in the end, I have to see how I personally react to a film, regardless of outside buzz, and build out my analysis from there. There are certainly a lot of beloved films that didn't work for me, including some groundbreaking films that influenced a lot of movies I do love. And while there's nothing I can say that will retroactively make those films less influential, I do my best to explain why such-and-such film didn't connect with me. (On the other hand, not having any expectations does have its perks. For example, I just went to see the new Puss in Boots film without reading any reviews, and without having much love for the character or franchise beforehand. It was a surprisingly good time! Not that I'm comparing Kubrick's sci-fi magnum opus to a Shrek spin-off, but going in cold definitely comes with benefits.) Yes....I'm as surprised as anyone that the new Puss in Boots film is actually.....pretty good? The Shrek franchise has never been one of my favorites, and some of the films are just awful. And the film's predecessor wasn't anything special, either. So the fact that some effort clearly went into it is nice. I'm not expecting anything on the level of Wolfwalkers or Spider-Verse, but still.
I think Come and See is tremendous and almost peerless in its genre. I think it's more effective in its message than 99.9% of war films. But it's kinda for that reason I don't see myself watching it again anytime soon...unless I'm really in the mood for that type of film.
|
|