Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Jun 11, 2022 23:49:19 GMT -8
Now in theaters:
Men - It took me a while to catch on that all the Men in Men are played by the same Man. I don't think this really constitutes a spoiler, and in fact I'm not sure how you could spoil this film, which doesn't really have much of a plot to it at all, or really much of a theme beyond that Men are bad sometimes. I was extremely amused by Jessie Buckley's incongruously dollish wardrobe in the back half of the film (isn't she working from home?? just give her leggings!!). I like Alex Garland as a writer-director quite a bit and was accordingly sort of disappointed by this film. Also also - is it just me or is the crappy boyfriend/husband in these A24 elevated horror flicks always black? What's up with that? (Actually, are they always black because I definitely misremembered what William Jackson Harper's whole deal was in Midsommar.)
The Bob's Burgers Movie - Pretty ballsy to make your big movie a retread of the "Wharf Horse" two-parter with worse songs. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised, Bob's Burgers being The Simpsons if it ditched any remaining vestiges of satire or brains or genuine emotional content and metastasized into a B-minus family comedy reliant on fart jokes and puns involving the word "gruyere" - why should each show's respective movie be any different? I mean, this wasn't a bad movie or anything but this really was not a cinematic experience other than, what, the presence of shadows everywhere? Also also, I was very weirded out by the presence of Jimmy Pesto in this film, prominently featured in the background of several scenes, but not speaking or anything. I'm totally fine with Pesto being written out of the show because Jay Johnston attempted to assassinate the vice president (what a bizarre sentence), but it's bizarre to have the specter of his character shambling around voicelessly rather than just retiring him.
Guys Named Daniels Made a Film, E-E-A-A-O - Even better the second time around. God, this movie better get some Oscars.
Not in theaters:
Amadeus - In a hilarious coincidence, the Brooklyn Public Library has exactly one DVD of this film, and it took over a month for it to finally find its way into my hands, and I'm pretty sure that's because Jeremy was hogging it. Anyway, this is one of the few times the Oscars actually got Best Picture right, probably - this is a ridiculously entertaining film that totally justifies its three-hour runtime. What really interests me about it, particularly in the era of inescapable fine-ish musical hagiobiopics (Bohemian Rhapsody, Rocket Man, Baz Luhrmann's Elvis ft. Tom Hanks As A Gremlin), is that I can't quite think of a movie that's so sympathetic to the "talentless" villain, even though there are many many more Salieris in the world than there are Mozarts.
The Godfather - Hey, I saw this movie for the first time too! Strongest for the first and last half-hour of the film, with a lot of rightfully iconic parts that having seen imitated in pop culture didn't quite prepare me for their power; really saggy in the middle, particularly the Michael-in-Sicily bits and Apollonia's pointlessly cruel fate. I'm surprised this was such a hit.
Solaris - I'm going to be 100% honest with you, knowing this is considered a landmark work of not merely sci-fi but all of cinema, and that Tarkovsky went to great lengths to preserve his vision in the face of Soviet bureaucracy. There are many films I do not like but could appreciate on a technical level. This is a movie that did not merely bore me out of my skull, but that I just cannot understand why it is as well-regarded as it is - I wasn't digging the movie on a character or thematic level, and the cinematography I would generously describe as very "stagey." I really wanted to love this film, given that I love a lot of cerebral sci-fi of the cinema canon from this era (e.g. 2001, Alphaville - better than 2001, on the whole, I'd say, which I think is sort of a treasonous claim, but I stand by it), and was annoyed how much I actively disliked it. I'm sure guttersnipe will have a satisfying explanation for why this movie is Good Actually.
Seven Days in May - Just a light bit of escapism with no relevance to our current political moment, tee hee. But seriously, it's fun seeing this genre of film play out with the deliberate (some would say "plodding") cadence of this era of cinema rather than the hyperkinetic mode of the contemporary conspiracy thriller, or even that of '70s Pakula.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 12, 2022 6:21:46 GMT -8
Amadeus - In a hilarious coincidence, the Brooklyn Public Library has exactly one DVD of this film, and it took over a month for it to finally find its way into my hands, and I'm pretty sure that's because Jeremy was hogging it. It is not my fault that the BPL has only one copy of Amadeus, nor is it my fault that they are no longer charging late fines. I regret nothing! (Actually, I regret that Hollywood has not given Amadeus a proper DVD release since 1997, back in the days when long movies were printed on two-sided discs and you had to flip them over halfway through.) Anyway, the film is obviously very good, with an outstanding performance from F. Murray Abraham, although I don't quite feel it fully justified its 2.5 hour-plus runtime (particularly since The Simpsons managed to parody it in just seven minutes). Some tightening around the second act - say, twenty or thirty minutes - could have worked wonders. Can't say I'm motivated enough to plunk down 15 bucks for a feature-length Bob's Burgers movie, but I'll probably watch it when it gets to Hulu, or HBO Max, or Disney Plus. Not sure where it'll wind up, because the tug-of-war about who has the streaming rights for 20th Century Studios (god, what a ridiculously bland name for a film company) continues to make no sense.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Jun 12, 2022 8:57:01 GMT -8
You see, I paid six dollars for The Bob's Burgers Movie, which I felt was the objectively correct decision. If I spent $15 on it I'd be pretty mad.
By contrast, I think The Simpsons Movie was not merely genuinely good but really worked to justify that full-price ticket (even as the movie opened with Homer mocking you for spending money on a ticket for something you could have watched at home for free).
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 12, 2022 9:39:15 GMT -8
I remember being bummed that I couldn't watch The Simpsons Movie in theaters when it premiered (the family didn't really do theatergoing back then), so I may or may not have taken... other means to watch it. This was before online streaming was really a thing, and during a brief dark period in my early adolescence when I was flirting with the torrentverse. Plus there was no way in heck that I was willing to wait for the cinematic adaptation of my then-favorite show to get a DVD release. Needless to say, when Homer labeled theatergoers as "giant suckers," I felt a bit of self-satisfaction. (Note: I was young and foolish back then. Don't torrent movies, kids.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 13, 2022 0:14:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 13, 2022 15:17:32 GMT -8
Shoulda specified that I was referring to the original cut of the film. You guys didn't expect me to watch a version that was twenty minutes longer, did you? I'm merely mortal.
Truth told, while my resistance to director's cuts is due in part to their extra length (certain exceptions aside), I also find myself generally more interested in seeking out the "official" version of a film, at least on first viewing. Unless the theatrical cut of the film has a truly polarizing reputation (i.e. the original Blade Runner), as long as it's easily available, I'll take it over the extended DVD cuts.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jun 20, 2022 20:27:08 GMT -8
I'm coming to this way, way late because I went into the usual post-academic year fugue, but I think that there's something to the argument writ slightly larger in that there's a failure of institutions that undergirds a lot of peak TV, and marriage is but one of them. That being said, I also kind of think of meme culture as well, if only for the repetition without a sense of the original article: I have never seen Kramer vs Kramer and don't know anyone that has, but there is a picture framing business in my neighborhood since forever dubbed "Framer vs Framer." Certain ideas persist in the public consciousness independent of our knowledge of where they originate. The trouble with that is that beyond a point, any argument in favor of a since-forgotten touchstone can seem viable.
I don't have any commentary on other movies in theatres since I haven't been since the Daniels' flick, but I feel that with Top Gun making its own revival, we should at least hope for a reboot of Hot Shots! It's not like Charlie Sheen is doing anything better.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 22, 2022 5:38:36 GMT -8
Anyways, saw the critically-acclaimed Top Gun: Maverick yesterday. As I noted on Twitter, the aerial fighter-jet sequences are impressively visualized, and may be enough to warrant a trip to the biggest screen in your city, if you're into that kind of thing. But beyond that, the film's really bland and formulaic on a character/story level. None of the characters are anything other than standard archetypes, and the antagonist isn't defined whatsoever (likely to avoid any social/geopolitical backlash), so nothing has any depth, intrigue or resonance. And it must be said: Tom Cruise never feels like he's genuinely interacting with any of his co-stars in these movies, perhaps beyond a few brief moments of comic-relief. Like, they say their lines, but he never seems to be present and actually engaged and listening (he's just sitting there being Tom Cruise). This is particularly noticeable in "romantic" scenes with Jennifer Connelly (Meg Ryan has unfortunately aged-out of getting these types of roles), which feel like limp, half-hearted attempts to hit those four quadrants. I saw Top Gun: Maverick last night (held off for a few weeks till the whole family was available), and... I actually agree with most of this. The flight sequences look great (a bit relieved that I didn't see this in IMAX, or my ears would still be ringing), but the rest of the film is pretty standard and vanilla. All the characters fit specific archetypes, and the story is completely predictable from start to finish. I think this was partly by design - the original Top Gun is most noteworthy as a carefully curated crowd-pleaser, designed to appeal to all the sensibilities of a 1986 audience, and the sequel is trying to recapture that classic feel while still playing it safe and broad for audiences in 2022. And on that level, it's fine! It's a perfectly decent action film, better than the original, with some above-average flying sequences. I'm a bit surprised by the level of acclaim it's received. I do think Cruise works very well as an onscreen presence, though. Part of the reason for his long run of success is that, even after all these years, he commits to his work in a way that goes beyond picking up a paycheck. The Mission Impossible films are more tailor-made for his never-say-die attitude, but he feels like he's been itching to get back in the Top Gun cockpit for thirty years. The guy's got a brand all to his own.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 23, 2022 15:58:37 GMT -8
Oh, I absolutely think that Cruise commits on a physical level to these big action films. Where he comes up short, for me, is in having interactions with his co-stars that feel genuine, and lived-in. He usually manages best with goofy asides (like him and Teller running away in the snowy forest, towards the end of the film), But when it comes to actual emotional interaction, he mostly feels hollow and distant. But whatever, it can be obscured by all the running he does onscreen, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 23, 2022 19:02:14 GMT -8
I know a lot of folks think Cruise's run is goofy, but it's another thing that makes him one of the most entertaining stars in Hollywood. Never stop running, Tom!
I dunno, there's something fascinating about the guy's level of commitment, even beyond the physical stunts. He's a movie star who comes from an era when movie stars genuinely opened movies, a dwindling breed in today's age. And he recognizes his influence without being an egotist about it. (The viral tear he went on in 2020, yelling at some MI7 crewmembers who weren't following onset protocols, seemed to come not merely from Covid concerns but from the understanding that big-budget franchises hold up the rest of Hollywood and thus need to set a good example.) The last 15 years have seen him lean more into action mode than ever, and while not every film he's made has been a bullseye, he's released very few blockbuster films that are genuinely subpar. For an actor (and producer) of his caliber, that's pretty impressive.
So I guess it's not that confusing to see why people are abuzz over the new Top Gun. Cruise gives the audience their money's worth in action and nostalgia, and at the same time makes them feel like they're a part of something special. (The short video of him playing in theaters before the film, thanking moviegoers for coming to see it on the big screen, is particularly liberating when you realize how long the movie was stuck in limbo, and how thrilled the filmmakers are to finally be able to share their work with the public.)
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Jun 29, 2022 5:20:18 GMT -8
Oh I have things to say about Top Gun: Maverick. Let me be clear, for my preferences the movie is just fine. Great on cinematic sequences, light on the things I actually care about.
But this movie is way, way more skillful than people give it credit for, and it's fully earned its box office returns.
A little while ago we talked about Breaking Bad and how it uses tension as a weapon - how that introduces stakes where a good result and a bad result from the situation are both likely, so it leaves the viewer in a lurch as to what is going to happen. It doesn't create fakes stakes like "this plot-protected character may die here and this is a very tense moment!" And because of that, and because it did the work in making you care about the fate of these characters outside whether they live or die, the show succeeds in being the greatest example of a TV show that can leave you on the edge of your seat.
Top Gun: Maverick is perhaps one of the most predictable movies I've ever seen. But that is intentional because in the same way you can use tension as a weapon, you can also use anticipation as a weapon. The basic idea behind this is that you create a sequence where you have telegraphed the result in a way that is both unsubtle but not handed to the audience directly, you allow your audience to expect a certain result that they are already rooting for, and then they basically get a double dopamine rush when that expectation is fulfilled. One because they wanted the result, and two, because they feel good about themselves for seeing it coming - they've cleverly picked up those unsubtle clues you left them.
This sense of fulfilling the audiences anticipation forms the basis of the feel good movie, and it's more difficult to pull off than it seems. First off, the result has to be specific, so when your main character is in a situation where he is in life threatening peril, the audience has to know EXACTLY how he's going to get out of it. If he just survives through means you haven't set up, you haven't fulfilled the audiences expectations you've just created Deus Ex Machina. The result is not nearly as good. Secondly, the audience has to care about the result. This is why Tom Cruise is so valuable as an actor, and why he is currently the single most reliable one man blockbuster at the moment. He doesn't have the best range, but he's got so much charisma that as the audience watching it you very strongly want this man to succeed in what he's doing. Finally, your hinting at what is going to happen has to be subtle enough that it's not clearly telegraphed, but unsubtle enough that almost every audience member is expecting it.
Top Gun: Maverick is so good at leaning on these anticipation points again and again so skillfully and it just creates a very enjoyable experience of watching a movie, even if you're vaguely aware of the strings of manipulation that the movie is pulling on you. No one can come away from the movie saying it was a bad movie, because everyone from the smartest viewer to the most casual viewer enjoyed their experience of watching it.
Frankly, I think the movie was brilliantly done, if not all that engaging to my particular sensibilities as a viewer.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 29, 2022 16:33:13 GMT -8
Everything you say here may be on-point for the vast majority of viewers (thus the box-office receipts), but the moment I finished that movie, I felt zero compulsion to ever want to watch it again. It was genuinely a chore for me to get through virtually all of the character scenes: I was checked-out, in that regard, throughout. I just found every aspect of the non-flight sequences to be vanilla-bland to the extreme. And even the flight sequences, as well as they were rendered visually, only worked on a purely superficial level for me. As for Tom Cruise himself, to me, it's only a surface-level "charisma", as I don't ever genuinely care about his characters as human beings, as I can always see him Acting.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 29, 2022 17:05:48 GMT -8
I'll write a bit more about Top Gun: Maverick later this week (gonna do a few film reviews on the main site), but I'll say that I think Scott is correct in disseminating why the film is so popular with mainstream audiences. Undeniably a great example of the film it's trying to be, even if that's not the type of film it could have been. (It also helped that it shied away from politics; while that left the villains rather colorless, it also keeps the film from becoming a cudgel in the culture wars, a la the less-successful Lightyear.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 30, 2022 5:33:37 GMT -8
It also helped that it shied away from politics... Well, yeah, it shied away from any ideology, or any ideas, at all. It's not about anything, really, but the most surface-level plot. And I suspect that the only thing the studios will take from its success is, "We need to reboot more '80s movie IPs!" Re: Lightyear, though, I suspect the premise did it no favours, as much of the appeal of Buzz Lightyear is the comedy related to him thinking he's human. Take that away, and you've just got a generic space-ranger.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Jun 30, 2022 5:58:04 GMT -8
Yeah and my general reaction is definitely the same as J.C.'s, like in terms of being anything other than mindless entertainment the movie never offers you anything. But I definitely was entertained, so I can't say the movie was bad.
And I just want to say, the movie is not just popular with mainstream audiences, it's got a 96% on RT. Now, part of that is a lot of the tepid 3.5/5 ratings that you'd see with Marvel movies, but it says something that pretty much everyone widely views it as a good movie, and people who are just looking for escapism love it. And it also says something that the people who don't like are giving blurbs like this: "This is an altar to America’s obsession with youthfulness, its exaltation of white super-men (sidelining people of color), its worship of physical strength, its permissiveness toward toxic masculinity ... and its objectification of women as trophies."
Not to say there isn't justifiable reasons to not like the movie, J.C. gives them. The whole thing is meaningless. But I think overall that tends to work in favour of the movie rather than against it.
|
|