|
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 30, 2022 14:45:40 GMT -8
I wouldn't say it's a "bad" movie -- it's more than capable on a visual (technical) level, at least during the flight sequences -- but rather a bland/safe movie, on a character/story level. As for the critics, yeah, that's why I went to see it in the first place: otherwise, I would've passed on seeing it. I don't even think I've seen the original Top Gun in its entirety, to be honest. Perhaps if I had, I'd understand all of the new film's hidden layers. Anyways, it's fine. And me being very lukewarm on Avatar ain't gonna stop its sequel from making 2 billion dollars, or whatever. Heh.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 30, 2022 16:17:44 GMT -8
I would push back slightly on the idea that the film isn't about anything. Leaving aside the bland geopolitics, it's a film about keeping the past alive, both internally (Maverick may help a new generation of Top Gun fliers, but he is still reluctant to pass the torch) and externally (the film is fine-tuned to feel like the 2020s version of an '80s action thriller*, and succeeds surprisingly well). It also features a lot of nostalgic callbacks to the original without overindulging on fanservice pandering. (The Iceman scene works best, given the real-life circumstances surrounding it.)
It's not a film I plan to rewatch anytime soon, but it's a good example of a decades-later sequel that pays tribute to the original while still improving on its shortcomings. Though as J.C. points out, most studios are likely to ignore that lesson and just crank up the '80s nostalgia. (Here's hoping the Creed films continue to be good, at any rate.)
*I'll write more about Lightyear - which I saw in an understandably empty theater last night - in a bit, but one of the many things that annoyed me about that film was that it professed at the top to be an exciting action film from 1995 and then proceeded to be a mediocre action film from 2022.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jun 30, 2022 17:03:05 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. This is an interesting point. I also think that the show's write-as-you-go-along approach that was used in Seasons 3-5 may have had something to do with it. It worked because the way situations spiraled out of control usually felt very organic. I'd say it's up there in terms of tension, although The Shield's Of Mice and Lem and Parricide probably gripped me more than any individual installment of Breaking Bad. Halt and Catch Fire pulled off a similar trick by presenting the main characters with two good options. So they could feasibly and justifiably make either, thus, great drama (and loads of tension).
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 30, 2022 18:04:29 GMT -8
I would push back slightly on the idea that the film isn't about anything. Leaving aside the bland geopolitics, it's a film about keeping the past alive, both internally (Maverick may help a new generation of Top Gun fliers, but he is still reluctant to pass the torch) and externally (the film is fine-tuned to feel like the 2020s version of an '80s action thriller*, and succeeds surprisingly well). It also features a lot of nostalgic callbacks to the original without overindulging on fanservice pandering. (The Iceman scene works best, given the real-life circumstances surrounding it.) Yes, I would concede that the movie is about Nostalgia, in the most superficial way possible. I was talking about how it really has very little going on inside that jet engine. Anyways, back to the critics for a moment. Obviously, given the plethora of predominantly green-screen sci-fi/adventure films in theaters, critics generally perk up somewhat when a filmmaker does something The Old Fashioned Way. In this case, with practical flight choreography/cinematography and whatnot. They'll forgive a lot of other shortcomings on account of that.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 30, 2022 19:54:11 GMT -8
That's kinda my point - the whole film is done the old-fashioned way, from the practical effects to the throwback premise to the character archetypes. I'm a bit surprised that so many critics have given it a thumbs-up, and perhaps even more surprised that the film is currently on Letterboxd's Top 250 (though I expect it will drop off eventually after the initial wave crests, much like Spider-Man NWH and The Batman did).
Still, hard to argue that the film doesn't know what its audience wants or how to give it to them - between the A+ CinemaScore and the consistent box-office receipts (over half a billion domestic and likely to grow further over Independence Day weekend), it's clearly struck a chord with all kinds of viewers. Which is rare, and refreshing, these days.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Jul 1, 2022 19:52:18 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.) OK, this being a Disney film and American culture wars being perpetually stupid, I know that the "controversy" in Lightyear is going to be something stupid like "Space Ranger Doodad McAnglomale referred to Space Marine Biff Afrojack as his husband in a scene that will be quietly removed from the Russian dub, which prompted Ron DeSantis to blast a Mx Potato Head holding a rainbow flag to pieces with an AK-47 to show Disney-Pixar that they will not indoctrinate the nation's youth into homosexuality without a fight!" But wouldn't it be really, really funny if Lightyear was an extended metaphor for the Falklands War, or something like that? Now that's a movie I would watch.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 3, 2022 7:11:06 GMT -8
which prompted Ron DeSantis to blast a Mx Potato Head holding a rainbow flag to pieces with an AK-47 to show Disney-Pixar that they will not indoctrinate the nation's youth into homosexuality without a fight!" Laugh if you want, but this would certainly make him a lock for 2024. The actual gay controversy around Lightyear was unsurprisingly overblown (the lesbian couple is onscreen for about twenty seconds, share the briefest of kisses, and one of them doesn't even get any dialogue), and I don't think it was a much of a determining factor in the film's weak box office as a lot of other issues - franchise fatigue, lame premise, big-budget competition. What's most funny is that the opening text professes to Lightyear to be an actual film from 1995, when there was no way a kids' movie back then would ever depict something like that. But this is hardly the first time a Disney period piece (if we can call it that) has felt ahead of its time setting.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 7, 2022 12:20:11 GMT -8
I watched some new movies this week. Let's run through them in ascending order of quality.
Minions: The Rise of Gru - While I did not expect this to be the best film to feature Michelle Yeoh and a googly-eyed rock of 2022, I tried to go in with modest hopes that the Minions' five-year absence from movie screens had perhaps given Chris Meledandri and co. the opportunity to develop some new gags beyond the banana and buttcrack variety. Hopes somewhat dashed! While this film is a mild improvement over the first Minions, it still has all the typical Illumination problems (generic characters, thin script, weak animation) while also being carefully market-curated to be as broadly inoffensive as possible. To that end, there's barely a story here, and despite the title and prequel status, barely even any new character revelations (Gru has always wanted to be a supervillain, you see). Predictably safe and safely predictable, though I guess I'm glad that the teens finally have reason to dress up.
The Princess - Remember those cheap cable movies that used to try ginning up attention on concept alone? (Sharks... but in a tornado!) They've moved over to streaming, it seems. This film has a basic forward-minded premise (captured princess fights her way out of a castle!), and... not much else. Joey King is good in the lead, but the repetitive and underwhelming action scenes wear thin after a while. And at this point it's just become rather funny to watch Disney dump every new 20th Century Fox Studios film directly onto Hulu without any fanfare or theatrical release.
Cha Cha Real Smooth - Cute indie romantic comedy with some good performances and catchy needle drops (as if the title could fool you otherwise). The main issue is the director's rather distracting choice to cast himself in the lead role as the generally nice guy with a minor chip/fixation on his shoulder. Apple TV+ appears to be aiming for lightning in a bottle again - like CODA, this is a Sundance film that could be an outside contender come Oscar season. As it stands, I found it sweet but mostly forgettable.
After Yang - Smart, low-key sci-fi film set in the near future. Boasts some strong performances and at least one genuinely great scene (in which a human and android character discuss the pleasures of drinking tea, in a discussion that ignites the perception vs. experience debate). Beyond that, I wasn't quite as compelled as I was hoping. The film looks great and moves along well, but ultimately didn't grab me on the level that it seemed to grab a lot of other people. But if you like Black Mirror or are just generally enamored with A24's outré stylistics (this is ostensibly a family film, but I can hardly imagine any kids being interested in it), it may be worth a look.
Mad God - A stop-motion animated film from SFX wizard Phil Tippett (of Star Wars and Jurassic Park fame). The plot is minimal and doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but this is one of those instances where I really didn't mind. This film is strange, dark, frequently disturbing - yet also disarmingly funny, and undeniably a deep passion project of its creator. (Tippett began working on it over 30 years ago, and ultimately achieved proper funding through a Kickstarter project.) Definitely not for everyone, but I found its blend of visuals, sounds, lighting, and tone to be mesmerizing. Great to see that creators are still finding ways to explore the vast potential of stop-motion, even when little yellow CGI pillbugs are dominating our movie screens.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 14, 2022 16:59:14 GMT -8
Finally carved out a few hours and watched No Time to Die. The Daniel Craig stretch of the the James Bond franchise has been a bumpy road - trying to distance itself from the classic films while also paying homage to them, and varying wildly in quality from one film to the next - but it came together relatively well in the end. The film has a great visual palette (it might be the best-looking Bond movie) and continues the recent tradition of humanizing Bond beyond the gadgets and cheesy one-liners (though there still were a few too many of those in the script). It's very long and the villain's motivations don't make a ton of sense, but the solid cast and some stellar action keep it moving.
I appreciate the ambition of the Craig films and their attempts to tell a serialized story, but the writers clearly made up a lot of that story as they went, and it really shows (particularly in Spectre). It's a good series overall, and Craig himself brings a lot of gravitas to the role, but the seams were pretty visible at points.
Ranking: Skyfall > Casino Royale > No Time to Die > Quantum of Solace > Spectre
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jul 14, 2022 17:03:23 GMT -8
Finally carved out a few hours and watched No Time to Die. The Daniel Craig stretch of the the James Bond franchise has been a bumpy road - trying to distance itself from the classic films while also paying homage to them, and varying wildly in quality from one film to the next - but it came together relatively well in the end. The film has a great visual palette (it might be the best-looking Bond movie) and continues the recent tradition of humanizing Bond beyond the gadgets and cheesy one-liners (though there still were a few too many of those in the script). It's very long and the villain's motivations don't make a ton of sense, but the solid cast and some stellar action keep it moving. I appreciate the ambition of the Craig films and their attempts to tell a serialized story, but the writers clearly made up a lot of that story as they went, and it really shows (particularly in Spectre). It's a good series overall, and Craig himself brings a lot of gravitas to the role, but the seams were pretty visible at points. Ranking: Skyfall > Casino Royale > No Time to Die > Quantum of Solace > SpectreIt was meeee James! The author of all your pain! (It was at that point I got flashbacks to Skip explaining how akshually Jasmine's the one who sent Fred to Pylea and -ggrrrrrrrrrr).
Casino Royale has to be first for the Eva Greene factor, and for making Bond feel like a real human being. Easily the best Bond film ever, for me. And Mads Mikkelsen was really good in it. I think I've said that before.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jul 15, 2022 7:01:56 GMT -8
Spectre might have a messier script than Quantum of Solace (I don't really recall, as I've only seen each once), but the latter is a total visual mess, and one of the worst examples of crummy shaky-cam action editing in a major franchise. So I'd rank QoS lowest, because at least Spectre had really nice cinematography (and the pre-opening-credits sequence is very good). I also consider Casino Royale to be the best overall film of the five, even though its cinematography isn't as good as the last three films.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jul 15, 2022 10:30:39 GMT -8
Spectre might have a messier script than Quantum of Solace (I don't really recall, as I've only seen each once), but the latter is a total visual mess, and one of the worst examples of crummy shaky-cam action editing in a major franchise. So I'd rank QoS lowest, because at least Spectre had really nice cinematography (and the pre-opening-credits sequence is very good). I also consider Casino Royale to be the best overall film of the five, even though its cinematography isn't as good as the last three films. Yeah, Spectre has quite a few meritorious elements. I suppose the case you could make is that it's bloated and does a lot of damage to the series as a whole with its retcons and shoddy 'let's tie everything together' plotting. Of course, one could also argue that Quantum undermined a lot of what worked about Casino Royale, so it's really a toss up, isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 15, 2022 12:11:31 GMT -8
Quantum of Solace has a lot of fairly incomprehensible action scenes, but it does feature some effective follow-through from Casino Royale (a novelty for Bond films at the time) even if it's comparatively weak in story and atmosphere. Plus it flies by relatively fast, whereas Spectre drags on for ages. But obviously neither is Bond at its best, and my opinions between them may flip on a rewatch. (I think Rise of Skywalker now makes Spectre's retconning look relatively tame by comparison.)
Casino Royale and Skyfall are both pretty close for me in the other direction - I slightly prefer the latter for its innovations in engaging with the Bond legacy, plus the outstanding opening 20 minutes, which comprises perhaps my favorite sequence in the franchise. But Casino Royale has a lot going for it as well in modernizing Bond and breathing new life into him after last couple of Brosnan films turned the character into a cartoon.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 21, 2022 14:28:25 GMT -8
I have had a small backlog of movies I wrote about in an Evernote app but never posted. Some of them were cross-referencing each other in ways I couldn't quite make sense of, but here they are:
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) I don't quite know how it took me this long to get to it as I enjoy the music and I have also been a man of constant sorrow all my days (though I've never been to Kentucky). The Coen Brothers do this wild ride, dialogue-heavy picaresque thing pretty well and I was curious how it would adapt to The Odyssey but then the only person on set who'd actually read it on set was the guy playing Delmar O'Donnell. Still, there was enough of a nod to the major events (floods, sirens / Circe, blind prophets) to make the whole thing watchable. I mean, the soundtrack is solid, but the movie probably shouldn't have bombed as it supposedly did. Gopher, Everett? SUMMARY: I HOPE ONE DAY TO BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOLLY HUNTER AND HELEN HUNT. The Fly (1984) It was refreshing to go into this one and have an absolute minimum of screwing around. Two leads meet up at a party. One casually mentions his teleporter. And the game is afoot. Relative to the other, limited Cronenberg films I've seen, the pacing is far better than Videodrome, as is the subplotting and chemistry between the actors, but it's also fun to see Jeff Goldblum do various gymnastic stunts, minor though they are. It's strange though to think, he and Geena Davis hooked up after this, and NOT after Earth Girls are Easy. SUMMARY: DIRECTOR'S TRADEMARKS: DIFFICULT TO ANSWER FOR PRESENT DAY OR ALTERNATE FUTURE, PEOPLE LOSING THEIR GRIP ON REALITY SHOUTING ABOUT "FLESH" Zoolander (2001) Of all the comedies from my teen years that I skipped, this was the only one that had lasting intrigue, probably for its legacy in memes. Like a lot of cornerstone comedies, many of the better jokes were ruined by the time I got there, such as the model school, but it still seems somewhat worthwhile for the fact that Ben Stiller is playing a complete dope alongside his future wife. There's also a volume to the cameos as a VH1 movies bit that is wild, as there are a lot of those figures who remained culturally relevant, but many that also did not. It almost pains me to watch pieces that are so blatantly "period" and overexposed in popular discourse, but I think that there were enough clever bits that I hadn't been aware of to make it worthwhile as a 90 minute time-killer. SUMMARY: THE REDHEADED HIMBO FROM THE OPENING WAS ALEXANDER SKARSGÅRD WTF
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 24, 2022 19:10:28 GMT -8
SUMMARY: I HOPE ONE DAY TO BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOLLY HUNTER AND HELEN HUNT.
Fun fact, Helen Hunt's role in As Good as It Gets - for which she won an Oscar - was originally offered to Holly Hunter. I'm sure there are plenty of people who confuse the two. I also watched O Brother, Where Art Thou recently (have almost completed the Coens' filmography at this point) and liked it quite a bit, although I don't think it's one of their strongest efforts. Perhaps it would have helped had I read The Odyssey in high school or college, but most of my literature-heavy classes involved slightly more digestible fare, give or take the occasional Divine Comedy, so I probably missed a few of the references*. Great soundtrack, at any rate. *Very fitting that one of the Sirens was also the praying-mantis teacher from Buffy. (Yes, we're still making Buffy references on this forum, folks.)
|
|