|
Post by Jay on Mar 2, 2022 14:58:55 GMT -8
Not sure if you have memories of it, but Filmation's Ghostbusters also added to the jumble (and persuaded Columbia to add "The Real" to their own show's title). This show was actually a spin-off of a '70s sitcom called The Ghost Busters, and it premiered days before the "official" Ghostbusters animated series. The legal disputes lasted for decades; I remember how The Real Ghostbusters was tied up in copyright claims for years that prevented it from being released on DVD, while Filmation's Ghostbusters got a snazzy home media release (and probably fooled many nostalgic parents who thought they were buying a boxset of the adventures of Venkman and Spengler). I do, actually! I had already rented out everything available at my local Blockbuster and saw the Filmation version on the shelf. It was a let-down (I would probably take Slimer over a gorilla and I do not like cartoon Slimer all that much) and the antagonists of the series were basically a supernatural Legion of Doom (I only ever remember Prime Evil and Sir Trance-A-Lot by name), but I still get the theme song and the extended cut of them getting their gear-- an every episode bit of filler-- stuck in my head now and then.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 2, 2022 15:06:22 GMT -8
I haven't watched the first two Matrix movies in ages, so my perspective on this may change if I do. Anyways...
I feel like the second Matrix film is probably more goofy, and thus "fun", but it also starts leaning even more and more into convoluted, longwinded exposition, and doesn't really have the mystery of the first film (which Resurrections again evoked in its first and best act). Also, the action is way more cartoonish in Reloaded, whereas in the first film, the fight sequences felt a bit more physical and brutal (with a little blood, if I recall).
All that said, because I've seen the first film at least a handful of times, I'd probably sooner revisit the second one, just to see that freeway chase, and to see how the CGI during the multi-Smith fight scenes holds up.
I would agree that the Neo/Trinity relationship in the first two films felt more perfunctory and distant than anything. They probably had the most chemistry in Resurrections, and much of that is simply down to the real-life professional relationship between Reeves and Moss feeling more lived-in, given their middle-age and nostalgia.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 2, 2022 20:42:46 GMT -8
I think the freeway sequence in Reloaded might be the most entertaining scene in the franchise (if not necessarily the most stylish), and that alone makes the film worthwhile, even as it's bookended by two hours of tawdry navel-gazing psychobabble. Revolutions is just generally awful for the reasons Scott outlined, and the worst film in the series (at least Resurrections has some ironic entertainment in its first 45 minutes). I do, actually! I had already rented out everything available at my local Blockbuster and saw the Filmation version on the shelf. It was a let-down (I would probably take Slimer over a gorilla and I do not like cartoon Slimer all that much) and the antagonists of the series were basically a supernatural Legion of Doom (I only ever remember Prime Evil and Sir Trance-A-Lot by name), but I still get the theme song and the extended cut of them getting their gear-- an every episode bit of filler-- stuck in my head now and then. I still don't understand why the show featured a gorilla named Tracy and a human named Kong. Whoever did that was intentionally messing with people.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Mar 3, 2022 9:22:25 GMT -8
I think the freeway sequence in Reloaded might be the most entertaining scene in the franchise (if not necessarily the most stylish), and that alone makes the film worthwhile, even as it's bookended by two hours of tawdry navel-gazing psychobabble. Revolutions is just generally awful for the reasons Scott outlined, and the worst film in the series (at least Resurrections has some ironic entertainment in its first 45 minutes). I always laugh at the fact that even Jean Baudrillard hates The Matrix Sequels and claims that they butchered his philosophy. But yeah. Great car chase at least.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 6, 2022 11:49:49 GMT -8
Despite its tremendous art-direction and cast, I thought there was an outside chance that Jeremy would find The French Dispatch (on a narrative level) too aloof to invest in. It appears that was not the case (he gave it 4.5 Stars on Letterboxd), which is nice. I've got the Blu-Ray sitting on my shelf (from the library) and plan to watch it for a second time soon, possibly even today.
ETA: Watching it again, I think it's possibly the most impressively-designed film of Wes Anderson's career, but I don't find it emotionally involving like The Grand Budapest Hotel, Moonrise Kingdom, Rushmore, and Fantastic Mr. Fox. I has some gentle grace-notes that resonate a bit, but it's too talkative and drenched in irony to register much heart. Jeffrey Wright is certainly the MVP of it, though.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 6, 2022 20:08:29 GMT -8
I was wavering between 4 and 4.5 stars for French Dispatch, and settled on the latter because - despite its aloof nature, slight overlength, and excessive nudity - it is a visually accomplished film that truly feels like a living, breathing issue of The New Yorker (a magazine I have never read outside of a doctor's waiting room, but still have a respectful understanding of). The cast is uniformly great, with Jeffrey Wright giving one of the best performances of 2021, and the blending of visual and verbal humor is spectacular. The McDormand/Chalamet segment is a bit weaker than the rest of the film, but it's still finely entertaining with a good eye for color (or lack thereof, in some scenes).
It's not at the level of Grand Budapest Hotel, but that's an awfully high bar to clear, and it still further cements Anderson as one of the most unique narrative talents in Hollywood.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 6, 2022 21:08:20 GMT -8
Oh, the film's visual technique and humour is indeed impeccable. I think the only problem I (sort of) have with the film is that it really doesn't give you anyone to genuinely invest in on a character level, because pretty much every character is viewed through an ironic lens. There's no real POV to make us genuinely care about what's happening in each story. It's still very fun despite that, though.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Mar 16, 2022 21:35:19 GMT -8
A bit late, but I saw Nobody, the Bob Odenkirk action film. It wasn't bad, per se - a couple funny setpieces, some pretty solid action scene choreography, etc etc - but I think I found the film mostly annoying rather than good for two key reasons:
1) The film obviously is in the John Wick mold of action blockbuster, which would be great, except the movie wastes a solid 15 or so minutes of its short screentime trying to, oh god, flesh out the main character, and trying (and failing) to convince us that his nuclear family is worth caring about in any conceivable way. The nicest thing I can say about these scenes is that Bob Odenkirk is talented enough that they don't play out like total wastes of time. At their worst... well, you know how some people thought Breaking Bad was about how cool it was that Walt got to be a drug lord and hated Skyler cuz she was, like, getting in the way of Walt while he shot people? This movie is like if Vince Gilligan was actively inviting that kind of reading.
2) You know how a lot of R-rated films will have, like, a gruesome action scene shot in slo-mo, but it's scored to some ironically cheerful pop music? Do you find that clever rather than cloying? I hope you do, because this movie REALLY loves ironic needle drops. Including, oh jeez, "What a Wonderful World."
I liked the movie well enough, but I wish it was just a movie about RZA and Christopher Lloyd doing an odd couple heist rather than what it actually was. It did make me appreciate how, despite my antipathy for the MCU, these movies are able to be funny without being smug, and to have characters that people actually could care about in any meaningful sense.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 16, 2022 22:56:39 GMT -8
A bit late, but I saw Nobody, the Bob Odenkirk action film. I like Bob Odenkirk, and especially enjoy Better Call Saul. Unfortunately, no matter how good they are, highly-successful lead TV actors often aren't afforded the best film opportunities, unless they really kick-start their film career while their show is still in its early stages (like Jodie Comer, who's striking while the iron's hot). James Gandolfini, for instance, only had an OK film career, despite being the figurehead of The Best Television Drama Evur! Bryan Cranston probably did better than most coming out of Breaking Bad, but even he seems to have slipped out-of-sight in movies in recent years (maybe that's due to the pandemic, though...we'll have to see). Generally-speaking, usually actors who didn't have a truly defining and visible role in television end up having better long-term film careers. Situations where you only hear about their brief spell in bad soap operas or whatnot after they already achieved commercial success in film. I mean, Amy Adams has done really well for herself, and prior to her breakthrough in Junebug, I can only recall her appearing on TV in that "Family" episode of BtVS. Age obviously plays a big role as well. Idris Elba probably actually benefited from only appearing prominently in two seasons of The Wire, and a short-run series (Luther) on the BBC: he's very much in-demand these days, but probably wouldn't have been had he been the lead in a long-running series for five or more years.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 17, 2022 7:21:09 GMT -8
There are a number of prominent TV actors who have made the leap to film - Bruce Willis, Steve Carell, George Clooney, Robin Williams, Jennifer Aniston (the only Friends castmember to actually pull it off), Will Smith, Amy Poehler, Benedict Cumberbatch. Heck, even Tom Hanks got his start on a (briefly) popular sitcom. It certainly helps if they do so while they're a bit younger - Bryan Cranston was in his fifties when he began working on Breaking Bad, and Bob Odenkirk is almost sixty now. Anyhow, I liked Nobody quite a bit, although it does give off quite a few "dad movie" vibes, particularly in its usage of old Top 40 hits. I understand the critique that it gets a little smug at times, but the image of Christopher Lloyd running around blasting bad guys with a shotgun is both amazing and hilarious in all the correct ways. I mean, Amy Adams has done really well for herself, and prior to her breakthrough in Junebug, I can only recall her appearing on TV in that "Family" episode of BtVS. Amy Adams also played the fat-sucking vampire on Smallville. We must never forget.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 17, 2022 10:45:16 GMT -8
Certainly, there has been a list of prominent TV actors who have made it, but I'd say the list of lead TV actors/actresses who attempted, and failed, to make it big in movies, and ended up stuck in television, or nowhere at all, is much, much larger. And much like Idris Elba, Benedict Cumberbatch started transitioning into film early on during his Sherlock run, and that was, of course, a series with very few episodes overall. Will Smith was also very smart to move into dramatic roles like Six Degrees of Separation early on, to distance himself from his comedic TV role. Age is certainly a big factor here, but not being typecast is another.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 17, 2022 15:50:15 GMT -8
There are also stories of actors who tried too hard to transition from TV to movies and failed, and the backlash they got in severing themselves from one medium ended up hurting their chances in the other. (Think David Caruso or Katherine Heigl.)
The transition from TV to movies and back has gotten smoother in recent years, as the line between the mediums has blurred - nowadays, it's hardly uncommon for established film actors to take prominent roles in limited series or even ongoing shows. (Paul Giamatti was once offered the part of Michael Scott on The Office, but turned it down because movie stars taking ongoing TV roles seemed unthinkable then; now he's got a long-running series on Showtime.) The other factor is that Hollywood isn't creating A-list movie stars these days as much as A-list franchises, so there's ample opportunity for TV actors to take key roles in major blockbusters like the MCU films. The playing field is a lot more level than it used to be.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 17, 2022 17:42:41 GMT -8
There's definitely less division between the two mediums than there used to be. Though I sometimes wonder, when film actors take on major long-term TV roles, if the film roles have simply dried up for them. But hey, even Dwayne Johnson, who I believe is the highest-paid film actor these days, still regularly appears on television (Ballers, Young Rock, etc.).
ETA: And WTF (?!), Daniel Craig is apparently being paid $100 MILLION for two Netflix-produced Knives Out sequels. The streaming services are apparently able to pay a lot more than the studios, which is insane.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 18, 2022 13:42:30 GMT -8
The streaming services don't have to worry about distribution costs the same way the big studios do, which probably encourages them to put their money elsewhere. But they also have higher hurdles to clear than the studios, since they're a lot younger and less established. That's why we keep hearing stories of Netflix and Amazon investing insane levels of money into films that would otherwise be catnip for theaters. That said... I cannot think of any earthly way that the Knives Out deal (nearly a half-billion for the rights alone) will be profitable for Netflix.
But that's their problem. Mine is talking about some new films I watched this week!
Turning Red - Decent Pixar flick that deals with the delicate period of adolescent transition, except with giant red pandas. Some of the crassness is laid on thick (did we really need a "stripper music" joke in a kids' film?), but a lot of it feels genuine, and the story clearly carries a personal edge from director Domee Shi. The wild and whimsical animation is rather hit and miss, though in fairness, that's well in line with the film's outlook on the roller coaster of adolescent life.
Scream (2022) - Nicely captures the feel of Wes Craven's earlier films, both in tone and spirit, and some of the scares and tense and well-crafted. But the series' continued attempts to keep up with the evolving face of horror films (now spoofing the "elevated horror" of the past decade) feels forced and tired, as does the lampshading of certain tired plot elements. Probably the best Scream film since the '90s, though that's not a particularly high compliment. Can we assume the OUATIH parallel is intentional?
The Adam Project - Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool shtick continues wearing thin in this time-travel/action thriller, which borrows liberally from films like Star Wars and Back to the Future (with the obligatory references to whatever it rips off). Free Guy pulled this off better than some others, since Reynolds' character there is initially depicted as a one-note cipher, but Adam Project (from the same director) stretches things thinner than ever by partnering its star with a child version of himself - a warning sign that perhaps the joke has reached its limit. Catherine Keener is good (though underused) as the villain.
Fresh - Tough to talk about this one without delving into spoilers - it starts out as a tepid romantic comedy and then takes a pretty dark turn. Certainly not for everyone, but it has some seriocomic messages about modern dating life, delivered in rather unexpected ways. Daisy Edgar-Jones and Sebastian Stan are both very good, and first-time director Mimi Cave brings a lot of disturbing tension to the screen. I liked it, don't judge me.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 18, 2022 15:26:16 GMT -8
Can we assume the OUATIH parallel is intentional? Apparently that fate was originally intended for the other killer. That said, hopefully Pamela Adlon doesn't get any crazy ideas with the Better Things finale.
|
|