|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 12, 2022 20:29:55 GMT -8
I actually don’t really mind the #SnyderCut campaign, since it was one of the rare hashtag campaigns that managed to transcend partisan politics and unite people across the aisle in incessant toxicity. Gives me a vague sliver of hope for the future.
The review-bombing of other DC films is of course deeply immature, but I confess to being amused by the way it’s spawned new pushes like #ReleaseTheAyerCut and #ReleaseTheSchumacherCut. These spin-off campaigns miss the key point that (1) Zack Snyder has a unique fanbase of his own that goes well beyond the DCEU, which was part of why the push to get his original Justice League released was so widespread, and (2) Warner Bros. only finally acquiesced to the fans’ demand because the pandemic left them desperate to produce new content. So don’t hold your breath waiting for that four-hour Batman Forever cut, folks.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 20, 2022 16:17:23 GMT -8
Went to see EEAaO again yesterday. It's funny: I originally stated that only the first scene had subtitles, and the rest of the movie was in English. That is completely incorrect. The film bounces back-and-forth between English and subtitled Chinese (Mandarin?) throughout. I guess I was so engrossed in the movie the first time that I didn't notice (heh). Anyways, it held up very well to a second viewing, and I look forward to watching it many more times in the next few years. I suppose it's kind of weird that it's broken into three chapters, given how Chapter 1 is super-long, Chapter 2 is much shorter, and Chapter 3 is just the final few scenes. There is also a lot more martial-arts action than I remembered (all very fast, fun and well-choreographed). I guess it automatically got an R-rating in the States because the F-bomb is dropped three or four times, and there's notable blood, and slapsticky use of sex-toys. There's also mild homosexual content, which in the US (sadly) almost guarantees some sort of parental advisory (a gentle, loving, in-no-way-graphic relationship between two members of the same gender...the horror!). Pretty funny that the overt Pixar-movie reference also included a Randy-Newman-like song being sung. It's such a strange film in that the older group of core characters would probably make it quite palatable to a middle-aged (and even female) audience, but the overload of imagery and crazy action might turn older audiences off. Two older women sitting behind me at the theater seemed to be laughing and enjoying themselves a great deal, at any rate.
I hope it turns a profit, so that The Daniels get the opportunity to make more weird and wonderful films like this.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Apr 20, 2022 17:16:39 GMT -8
OK, I went out of my way to see this film and I am glad I did. I think it's pretty cool the breadth of the references that they were able to work in - obvious sci-fi reference points like 2001 and The Matrix but also, oh lord, Ratatouille? And an entire subplot that's a Wong Karwai pastiche? Or even subtler bits, like the villainous version of Jamie Lee Curtis's character being a jiangshi, or that lovingly rendered Dr. Seuss spoof that's onscreen for all of one-and-a-half seconds? Or, or, or... etc. And yet all these plots and characters get satisfying endings, in part because those pop culture reference points do a lot of the heavy lifting of exposition for you.
I see this movie compared to The Matrix a lot but I think Into the Spider-Verse is a much better comparison point, in terms of having a genuine emotional core to it instead of an insipid Sleeping Beauty thing, and also how it has five zillion characters that only get a minute each of screen time but you like every single one of them, and get the sense that they all inhabit the same world. And also the action scenes being much more creative than g-g-g-guns baybee.
I did get a distinct sense of deja vu from the film's climax, where our hero pulls their corrupted loved one back from the brink of a portal/suicide/world-ending event with a speech about their total and unambiguous love, with the moral being that if nothing we do matters then all that matters is what we do. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 20, 2022 19:33:06 GMT -8
I suppose it's kind of weird that it's broken into three chapters, given how Chapter 1 is super-long, Chapter 2 is much shorter, and Chapter 3 is just the final few scenes. I'm generally not crazy about films splitting their stories into different chapters (unless Wes Anderson is doing it, I guess), but I'm fine with the way they dropped the titles here - particularly how the third "chapter" is only reserved for the epilogue, which is preferable to interrupting the action when we're so fully absorbed in the second and third acts. It may have been a factor once upon a time, but gay content generally doesn't faze the MPAA the way it used to. Heck, the upcoming Lightyear will reportedly feature a same-sex relationship complete with onscreen kiss, and it will most certainly get nothing harsher than a PG rating. (It's more of an issue with overseas release in places like China and the UAE, which is why Hollywood often supplies those countries with edited versions of the films.) I see this movie compared to The Matrix a lot but I think Into the Spider-Verse is a much better comparison point, in terms of having a genuine emotional core to it instead of an insipid Sleeping Beauty thing, and also how it has five zillion characters that only get a minute each of screen time but you like every single one of them, and get the sense that they all inhabit the same world. And also the action scenes being much more creative than g-g-g-guns baybee. It's interesting how Spider-Verse and EEAaO - perhaps the two best films of the past five years - are both based around infinite multiverses. I expect we'll be seeing a lot more of these 'verses in upcoming films following the success of No Way Home, but it's a tricky concept to pull off and balance well without letting the script break free of emotion or logic. Anyway, as you point out EEAaO's script is jam-packed with ideas, and I expect that even more will come into focus on repeat viewing. I'm glad I saw In the Mood for Love a few months ago so that I could make the Wong Kar-Wai connection, and of course no film can go wrong with an extravagant Pixar connection, but there are certainly more things to catch - I'm pretty sure I blinked and missed the Dr. Seuss thing, for example.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 21, 2022 12:18:14 GMT -8
And an entire subplot that's a Wong Karwai pastiche?
I see this movie compared to The Matrix a lot...
I did get a distinct sense of deja vu from the film's climax, where our hero pulls their corrupted loved one back from the brink of a portal/suicide/world-ending event with a speech about their total and unambiguous love, with the moral being that if nothing we do matters then all that matters is what we do. LOL!
Yeah, I mentioned Wong Kar-Wai in this thread the first time I watched the film, but I wasn't sure if I was perhaps not digging deep enough into Asian cinema with my reference-point (I've seen more world-cinema than most North American viewers, but not nearly as much as some truly hardcore cinephiles). It seems you had the same experience. The fluttering frame-rate drops are kind of the tip-off, really. I only compare it to The Matrix in terms of the skill-learning component and whatnot. It's certainly closer in tone and style to other, less cold films. And yes, it has a similar theme to that episode of ANGEL. But pulling loved ones back from the brink of (self-) destruction is a fairly common premise in modern sci-fi/fantasy cinema. Just better executed here. Also, the 2001 reference, much like the Ratatouille one ("She's seen too much.") is HILARIOUS.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 21, 2022 12:28:58 GMT -8
Oh, and Jeremy, I wasn't saying that something would automatically get an R-rating in the States if it contained homosexual content, but if Lightyear's getting a PG when most other Pixar films get a G-rating, well (unless the violence in the film has a certain intensity to it), my point probably still stands. But yes, the ratings board has probably gotten a bit more progressive over time.
On a side note, I think I've only watched Into The Spiderverse twice (might revisit it again just before the sequel comes out). I loved it the first time, but it lost a bit for me on second viewing, for some reason (I might've just not been in the mood). Certainly still amongst the best superhero films ever made, though.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 21, 2022 15:09:02 GMT -8
I actually liked Spider-Verse even more on second viewing (and I already loved it on the first). So much more to appreciate - once I was familiar with the basic story beats, it was much easier to notice the endless animation details and appreciate the airtight writing in the script. Just an incredible film all around.
As for Lightyear, not sure if it will get a G or PG. Most Pixar films from the last ten years are actually PG-rated (except for some of the established brands like the Toy Story and Cars sequels, since audiences are already primed to know about them and would presumably not be scared off by the perception that it's just "kiddie stuff"). Lightyear is quasi-established, being adjacent to the Toy Story brand, but I could still see it getting the PG rating due to containing sci-fi action (similar to Lilo & Stitch). In recent years, Hollywood has grown allergic to G ratings to pretty much any major release, for marketability reasons.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 21, 2022 16:23:52 GMT -8
I'm not really in a position to judge the writing of Spiderverse so far away from my last viewing. I was mostly captivated by the animation style, and appreciated the more unique voice of the main characters. The style of the sequel, however, may be more of an acquired taste (looks more sketch-like...almost unfinished-looking).
Speaking of G/PG ratings, I'm actually sort of surprised that Wall-E got a G-rating, given some of the cynical satire in it about consumerism and whatnot.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Apr 23, 2022 10:46:04 GMT -8
I really do want to get to a theatre to see EEAaO as folks are referring to it, but my schedule has been weird lately, a long story that involves being on strike and picketing at odd times. Instead, over the last few weeks and in an attempt to bolster my referential knowledge for What We Do in the Shadows, I watched the Blade Trilogy? This is the closest thing we really have to a black Batman was one of my takeaways, except he has no secret identity nor money. Lots of stuff though.
Blade (1998) In an odd twist of fate, this predated The Matrix by a year and yet we credit the latter for a sort of weaponry, sunglasses, and trenchcoats aesthetic, perhaps rightly for its innovation elsewhere. However, if you would prefer less philosophizing (they do still have a rave, and a blood-themed one) and more CGI dustings and people blowing up like rejected takes from the old Gushers commercials, this is your jam. It functions as an origin story and attempts to cram a lot of material in, to varied effect. No vampire had considered sunscreen prior to the late 90s, nor was it much considered thereafter, but Stephen Dorff makes for an okay villain. At the same time, I was surprised at how much I remembered of it from having seen it previously a few times. It also has Donal Logue aggressively hamming it up, which does much to recommend it. Summary: WHO DIDN'T WANT A MOVIE LENGTH VERSION OF THE RAY BAN SUNGLASSES COMMERCIAL? Blade II (2002) On the surface, I don't want to believe that a movie directed by Guillermo del Toro and including Ron Perlman and Norman Reedus as secondary characters can be bad. This iteration is less jumpy / grounded in the late 90s aesthetics but features a few more gaps of consistency that can't be easily explained. To vaguely spoil, I mean the villain reveal and the resulting confusion over who knew what and when about the reaper threat and not the after intro credits scene in which a character that was offed in the first movie gets to come back because he served a useful role as foil. The wider casting and Suicide Squad styled backup squad offers fewer opportunities for character development, but it was kind of interesting to see del Toro workshop his version of vampires from The Strain twelve years ahead of their TV debut. Summary: MAY I REFER TO HIM AS GIZMO DEL TORO, AFFECTIONATELY? Blade: Trinity (2004) If I can say the second film is okay for its fun in casting, Trinity pushes this well beyond reasonable bounds. Let's see, we've got Parker Posey as a scheming vamp with outrageous hairdos and green eye contacts (seemingly because Milla Jovovich was already starring in her own horror franchise and thus unavailable), Cylon Number Two as her brother, a freaking pro wrestler as their muscle, Prison Break guy Dominic Purcell as Dracula, Natasha Lyonne, Patton Oswalt, and James Remar in minor roles, and Ryan Reynolds in an early role of snarky dude who gets beat up repeatedly in a prototype of what would later become his Deadpool performance. And yet the movie sucks. Kris Kristofferson knows it sucks so bad that he phones in the few lines he has. Snipes meanwhile tried to choke out the screenwriter / director and then refused to return to set. The action sequences make the vampires seem like minuscule threats compared to two and maybe a half of the leads and all attempts at generating drama fall back on a cartoonish sense of evil in endangering children and the disabled. There's too much of everything, which in turn makes nothing feel worthwhile. Summary: IF YOU PUT JESSICA BIEL, MILLA JOVOVICH, AND PARKER POSEY WITH THE GREEN CONTACTS IN A ROOM TOGETHER I MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO TELL THEM APART
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 23, 2022 11:13:55 GMT -8
... a freaking pro wrestler as their muscle... I mean, if casting directors for a movie want a big, muscular guy for a role as a heavy, they're better off going with a pro wrestler with years of experience in some form of acting than, you know, just some bodybuilder. I've never seen Blade: Trinity (seen the first two, and I don't really care for them), so I can't speak to Triple H's performance in that, though. I doubt they required much of him.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Apr 24, 2022 18:39:54 GMT -8
I actually liked Spider-Verse even more on second viewing (and I already loved it on the first). So much more to appreciate - once I was familiar with the basic story beats, it was much easier to notice the endless animation details and appreciate the airtight writing in the script. Just an incredible film all around. As for Lightyear, not sure if it will get a G or PG. Most Pixar films from the last ten years are actually PG-rated (except for some of the established brands like the Toy Story and Cars sequels, since audiences are already primed to know about them and would presumably not be scared off by the perception that it's just "kiddie stuff"). Lightyear is quasi-established, being adjacent to the Toy Story brand, but I could still see it getting the PG rating due to containing sci-fi action (similar to Lilo & Stitch). In recent years, Hollywood has grown allergic to G ratings to pretty much any major release, for marketability reasons. I really like how the film assumes that the audience is familiar enough with a superhero origin story that they'll be open to tinkering with that formula. It's a really nifty approach to storytelling and a clever way to inject freshness into stale and tired templates.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Apr 28, 2022 13:46:57 GMT -8
It brings me no joy to report that the Nic-Cage-playing-vaguely-fictionalized-version-of-Nic-Cage film is deeply mediocre, in no small part because the film is almost exclusively relying on meta-comedy about tired filmmaking tropes, which invites the viewer to say, e.g., "oh, this will be the thing he calls back to in a climactic monologue towards the end of the film," or, "this weird minor character is obviously going to be the *real* mastermind here," or, "oh, every single woman in this film is a plot device or a damsel in distress or one-dimensional love interest."
Pedro Pascal is pretty good in it, though. Maybe in 2047 someone will make a movie where characters watch Pedro Pascal films and gush about what a brilliant and talented actor he is.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 28, 2022 13:56:12 GMT -8
I think the thing that tipped me off most that the Nic Cage film wasn't going to live up to its potential was that the most recent trailer prominently featured a scene where they were struggling (dramatically) to climb over a wall that they just could've walked around. Pretty flat and obvious gag to devote that much attention to.
The best gag in the trailer, of course, is the bit where he sees a sculpture of himself, calls it "grotesque", and then asks if he can buy it off Pascal.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on May 10, 2022 11:09:18 GMT -8
After my union stopped striking but before I started grading finals, I managed to get out and see Everything, Everywhere, All at Once, being drawn in by the initial promise of "Short Round plays the love interest!" (I had no idea JLC was in there until she showed up but props to her for doing slow-moving and menacing given her career). I pick up some of the notes that other people mention, but I also found myself reminded of Survive Style 5+ and other bits of surreal Japanese fare because that's usually my reference point for "martial arts + surrealism / alternate reality." The pacing was good after the introductory arc, although I admit to having nerves about "oh, an Asian family runs a laundromat, is this going to be cliched?," and thankfully it did that primarily to run in a very different direction and amplify the weirdness by juxtaposition. Once I settled in, there were a lot of instances where I was laughing ahead of time with anticipation over what was about to happen next.
My reservation about it, and this veers into SPOILERS, but much as I would recommend it to others including family because I enjoyed the layer of "millennials have finally created films where parents apologize!," I find myself totally unable to explain the hot dog fingers. I can handle the cheeks spread dive and use the award trophy as a butt plug. It's the hot dog fingers that I find myself struggling to account for.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 10, 2022 11:48:24 GMT -8
I don't think we really need to use spoiler-tags/font at this point, because pretty much everyone here has already seen EEAaO. Re: the hot-dog fingers (which are in the trailer, BTW), obviously, on a basic surface-plot level, they're playing around with the idea of the physical properties of humans being different in different realities which, sure, why not? Thematically, it was probably highlighting how people physically/emotionally connect with others in alternative ways, when more traditional approaches aren't working for -- or (in some cases) available to -- them (note that said reality is specifically tied to the less "traditional" lesbian relationship). But ultimately, for pure entertainment purposes, it allows for a lot of physical comedy, particularly in the original reality, where Yeoh's hands have gone limp, causing her to struggle to defend herself. It's a gimmicky concept that they've really seemed to dwell on in cast talk-show appearances, but it's just one amongst many outrageous elements introduced in the film, mostly designed for absurd visual gags. The hot-dog fingers can basically mean as much or as little at you want them to. I think they have a weird, offbeat resonance, though. It's also kind of twisted that the two lesbians have to use something other than their hands when getting intimate with one another: what a cruel universe!
|
|