Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Apr 13, 2023 14:55:59 GMT -8
I will report back shortly with an opinion on Renfield, but I just want to say that Cocaine Bear was genuinely quite fun (and weirdly dedicated to reminding people of The Americans) ! Oops, I screwed up - Renfield's not in theaters yet - so I instead saw John Wick: Chapter 4. To everyone insisting these movies are "fun": what planet are you from?? There is nothing fun about watching a bunch of guys in three-piece suits punch, stab, and shoot each other for three hours, no matter how legible that fight choreo is. I think we might have been too nice to Keanu Reeves in his Matrix days, re: his acting skills, based on how he grunts his way through every scene here. Donnie Yen is absolutely the highlight of this film, but I mostly spent his scenes wishing I was watching a legit wuxia film instead of this turd.
One (possibly!) fun fact of interest to the CT fora: I thiiink Chad Stahelski met his (ex-)wife, the improbably-named Heidi Moneymaker, while they were both working on Angel?
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 15, 2023 0:51:36 GMT -8
The John Wick films have the occasional bit of sly deadpan humour between McShane, Reeves and Fishburne, but they're certainly not lighthearted, so "fun" may be stretching it, in some regards. Saw Chapter 4 today, and much like the other JW sequels, it's pretty much one long action sequence with a handful of serviceable expository dialogue scenes in between. These movies get quite good reviews, IMO, simply because, unlike the vast majority of action films these days, the over-the-top action is very cleanly staged and shot, and the set-pieces get ridiculous enough at times that they at least skirt the edges of being amusing. They also have some striking imagery and use of colour and contrast. The overhead-shot sort-of-flamethrower sequence is pretty cool, as is the action that circles the Arc de Triomphe, which is hugely ambitious in its timing. Most of the characterizations are (naturally) thin, and most of the dialogue is (deliberately) ironically boilerplate. It's pretty difficult to care about anyone in these movies all that much, but if one is there for cogent, aggressive fight choreography, it mostly delivers on that front. This, obviously, did NOT need to be nearly three hours long, though, given how threadbare the story is, as much of the action in the early going is pretty much cut-and-pasted (setting-wise) from the earlier sequels.
(ETA: Oh, Quiara, I don't know if you'd seen the earlier John Wick films or not, and they all sort of run together for me, story-wise, but a number of reviews I've skimmed over today suggest that at least the first two -- by the same screenwriter, Derek Kolstad -- had a cheekier tone than the third, which he only co-wrote, and the fourth, which he wasn't involved with. This one was definitely more ponderous overall than the previous entries.)
Speaking of films with a threadbare narrative, there's The Super Mario Bros. Movie, which coasts almost entirely on familiar visual iconography, Koji Kondo's terrific Mario video game music, and a good-natured, unpretentious tone from the cast and crew. Unlike John Wick 4, it has the good sense to run at a brisk 92 minutes, which doesn't allow one to dwell all that much on its purely-surface-level content. They immediately explain why Chris Pratt's Mario doesn't have the more over-the-top cadence of usual-Mario-voice-actor Charles Martinet (an explanation which is appreciated), and a very traditional, but colourful and briskly-paced collage of cute Mario tropes unfolds. It's really pretty harmless stuff, and perhaps now that they've set the table with the basic world-building, they'll dig a little deeper with the inevitable sequel. Jack Black is nearly perfectly-cast as Bowser, who is usually characterized in the games as a tough-guy-wannabe who's actually a needy dork. His cheesy power-ballad declaring his love for Princess Peach is stupidly endearing. The rest of the cast gets the job done well enough. Also, Donkey and Cranky Kong are apparently Jewish, which is unexpected (heh)!.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Apr 16, 2023 11:03:29 GMT -8
The John Wick films have the occasional bit of sly deadpan humour between McShane, Reeves and Fishburne, but they're certainly not lighthearted, so "fun" may be stretching it, in some regards. Saw Chapter 4 today, and much like the other JW sequels, it's pretty much one long action sequence with a handful of serviceable expository dialogue scenes in between. These movies get quite good reviews, IMO, simply because, unlike the vast majority of action films these days, the over-the-top action is very cleanly staged and shot, and the set-pieces get ridiculous enough at times that they at least skirt the edges of being amusing. They also have some striking imagery and use of colour and contrast. The overhead-shot sort-of-flamethrower sequence is pretty cool, as is the action that circles the Arc de Triomphe, which is hugely ambitious in its timing. Most of the characterizations are (naturally) thin, and most of the dialogue is (deliberately) ironically boilerplate. It's pretty difficult to care about anyone in these movies all that much, but if one is there for cogent, aggressive fight choreography, it mostly delivers on that front. This, obviously, did NOT need to be nearly three hours long, though, given how threadbare the story is, as much of the action in the early going is pretty much cut-and-pasted (setting-wise) from the earlier sequels. (ETA: Oh, Quiara, I don't know if you'd seen the earlier John Wick films or not, and they all sort of run together for me, story-wise, but a number of reviews I've skimmed over today suggest that at least the first two -- by the same screenwriter, Derek Kolstad -- had a cheekier tone than the third, which he only co-wrote, and the fourth, which he wasn't involved with. This one was definitely more ponderous overall than the previous entries.) I haven't seen the prior John Wicks, although I've seen and more-or-less enjoyed Nobody and Bullet Train which have significant overlap in terms of creative teams and action cinematography. Both those movies had 1) leading men who were charismatic or at the very least not just sleepwalking through the movie, and 2) a real sense of taking place in locations that have not been touched up with CGI beyond recognizability as a place people could, like, walk around in. JW4 totally flunks point 1, and is mostly bad at point 2 (the first and second acts of this movie allegedly take place in Osaka and Berlin, respectively, but who can tell?)
Mostly I felt like I was watching someone else play a video game (the aforementioned overhead sequence in particular had me going, "oh, someone's played Hotline Miami...") which to me seems odd. Very funny that it's competing with Super Mario at the box office.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 16, 2023 14:55:10 GMT -8
I think the prior JW sequels did have a more defined sense of location, overall. Like, it does really feel like he's globe-trotting in those ones, with more scenes set in daylight. This one felt a bit more claustrophobic in that regard. That said, I thought Bullet Train had far more choppy and incoherent editing (disappointing, given the close-quarters setting), and significantly more CGI enhancement (at least inside the train), and mostly got by on (as you said) the charisma of its cast. Re: the video-game feel of that JW 4 sequence, I guess?, but I just appreciated its visual fluidity and continuity, and found the set-piece amusing in its absurdity.
And hey, re: The Super Mario Bros. movie, it may not have the narrative depth to satisfy most critics all that much, but it sure seems to have strong word-of-mouth with moviegoers-at-large, as its box-office only dropped 40% (!) in its second weekend. It has apparently given most people what they want, even if what they want is essentially a 92-minute trailer for a Super Mario movie, with all the iconographic high-spots, and very little meaningful connective-tissue.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 16, 2023 16:44:04 GMT -8
I feel a sense of diminishing returns with the John Wick films, to the point that I'm not even that keen on watching the fourth one (at least in theaters) - they're bursting with technical craft*, but they do kind of blend together after a while, and I just don't care enough about the overarching story or characters to feel invested in anything outside the fight scenes. I still think the first John Wick is one of the top action films of the past decade - and incredibly efficient at just a hair above 100 minutes - but the franchise has not engaged me long-term. I wouldn't call the series devoid of humor, but it is pretty grim - hardly the definition of fun - and while films like Nobody and Bullet Train have their faults, there is a buoyancy to their humorous (if uneven) tones that makes them engaging. Not sure I'd want to see either turned into a lengthy series, but they do what they need to do and they do it pretty well. There is a very fun film in theaters right now - Dungeons and Dragons, one of the most enjoyable movies I've seen in a theater in the past two years - and in a less crowded environment, the strong reviews and positive audience feedback would probably translate into a word-of-mouth hit. Unfortunately, it's already been sidelined in the cultural conversation by Super Mario (which, despite my ever-growing gripes about Illumination, is on track to make a cool billion before its theatrical run is over). *There's actually a good oral history of the John Wick series titled They Shouldn't Have Killed His Dog - from the same guys who wrote that Buffy and Angel oral history I discussed a few years back - if you want a rundown on the series and the kung-fu action film renaissance it spawned.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 17, 2023 8:43:27 GMT -8
I kind of think that Dungeons & Dragons movie might be stuck in this weird middle-ground between the average moviegoer who won't see it because they find the franchise/game it's based on too nerdy for their taste, and franchise devotees who take D&D very seriously, and don't want a movie version that spends most of its time poking fun at the franchise's tropes.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 17, 2023 10:25:10 GMT -8
I'd say that D&D franchise nerds would find a lot to enjoy in this film, as while it does poke fun at the source material, it doesn't do so in a condescending way (i.e. it utilizes a lot of classic D&D hallmarks in the story without mocking them). The humor is very much about laughing with the characters and world, rather than at them, and the tonal balance between respectful and teasing is great.
Incidentally, I watched Cocaine Bear last night, and there's a film which has no sense of tonal balance. The comedic and dramatic elements don't mesh at all, and some of the musical cues are oddly cloying, especially for a film supposedly set in the '80s. It's also just a generally poorly made movie - badly cut and edited*, with some awful pacing (particularly in the first act, which introduces too many human characters in awkward scene-jumping fashion). That said, it is mildly enjoyable on a superficial level, with a shocking level of gory violence once the bear gets a whiff of that cocaine. The cast is good - Ray Liotta does well in his final film, and Margo Martindale is a standout in one of her few roles where she's not trying to win any awards - and the whole enterprise isn't aiming to be anything above shlocky B grade thriller, but there's no reason it couldn't have been a good shlocky B grade thriller.
*There's a scene near the climax of this movie that features one of the most bizarre editing choices I've seen in recent memory. I get the sense that this film was originally meant to be longer and several side characters were intended to be more fleshed out, but someone reminded the filmmakers that the audience was only paying to see a violent, drug-addicted bear, and a lot of haphazard postproduction editing took place.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 22, 2023 5:15:54 GMT -8
Saw Dungeons and Dragons and Evil Dead Rise last night.
D&D has a pretty clever self-aware screenplay and some fun performances. The sequence where the female shapeshifting character escapes the city by constantly shifting forms was very nicely done. I'm not sure if I fully agree with Jeremy on the overall quality of its visual effects -- the practical-effects work is certainly sound, but the CGI is pretty dodgy in a number of areas -- but otherwise, the film is quite enjoyable.
Evil Dead Rise contains many of the tropes of the earlier pictures, but is closer in tone to the reboot from about a decade ago than the campy Bruce Campbell entries. It's well-acted, and benefits greatly from its compact runtime. Inessential, and could've used a bit more dark humour, but not without merit.
I'm considering seeing the new Ari Aster film, Beau Is Afraid, with Joaquin Phoenix, as the visuals in the clips I've seen are highly ambitious and imaginative, and I like the basic concept, but that 3-hour runtime suggests it could very much be a chore to get through, if it doesn't have enough narrative focus.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 22, 2023 19:16:22 GMT -8
The CGI effects in D&D aren't great, but what impressed me - particularly as I found out after watching it - is how much of the film uses practical effects. They kept the CGI to a minimum, and it pays off. (The quicksand-carpet, for example, was done with practical effects, and looks great.) Makes the film look much better than CGI-paloozas like Quantumania. A lot of dedication went into the craft of this film, and it shows.
I'm in the same boat as you re. Beau Is Afraid - it looks potentially interesting, but at three hours, I'm hesitant to give it the big-screen treatment (particularly as Ari Aster thus far has only a 50-50 success rate in effective horror cinema, to my eye).
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 23, 2023 7:46:09 GMT -8
I was speaking mostly to the swirly magic beams we get in all these supernatural fantasy flicks. That can only really be done with CGI, and it just never feels tactile in any way, even in films with a much higher budget, such as the Harry Potter series.
Beau Is Afraid will be on Blu-ray/DVD soon enough (where I'll borrow it from my public library), as it (naturally) didn't do much in the way of box-office on the weekend. The Super Mario Bros. Movie continues to clean up: it's pretty clear at this point that audiences got what they wanted from that picture, despite its obvious limitations in adapting video game abstractions into narrative feature film form.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 7, 2023 18:36:46 GMT -8
Just saw The Super Mario Bros. Movie. It's one of Illumination's best films, but is still unapologetically mediocre, sacrificing any semblance of narrative logic or character consistency for the sake of endless references to the source material. ('Member Mario Kart? 'Member Luigi's Haunted Mansion?) It may in fact be the safest, most formulaic and run-of-the-mill animated blockbuster I've seen in years, so slavishly devoted to Mario Bros. lore that it barely even gives its characters motivation beyond "they did it in the game." (Seriously, why does Peach allow Mario - a stranger she's just met - to tag along on a dangerous quest when he's clearly unqualified?)
The bulk of the film is packed with bland action scenes, painful jokes, and uninspired needle drops ("Take On Me"? Sure, why not). The script often feels like a first draft, with lines occasionally livened up by some game voice acting - Chris "What's My Accent Again?" Pratt is miscast, but the rest of the stars do decent work. And the character designs are mercifully lifted straight from the games, meaning we don't have to endure an awful-looking set of Despicable Me refugees. It's not a truly bad film, but I'm annoyed that it's sucked up so much cultural oxygen these last few weeks.
I also saw Peter Pan & Wendy, the latest in the never-ending line of live-action Disney remakes. It's... almost a good movie? David Lowery has a good directorial eye, and tries to add some new, dark twists to the original Peter Pan lore. But he's ultimately hamstrung by Disney execs who refuse to let any fundamental change to their valuable IP stick. There are some interesting ideas at play here - along with some clumsy, hollow attempts to add in some "girl power" messaging - but it all feels too safe and restricted. Ironically, we already got a dark, twisted riff on Disney's Peter Pan in last year's Rescue Rangers movie, which stirred up more controversy than this film could ever dream of.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 9, 2023 8:59:10 GMT -8
Narrative logic? OK, but there's not really much narrative to speak of: it's just about letting the references play out. It basically just introduces the world and its characters, and then they eventually battle one another. As for character consistency, you're going to have to unpack that, because these characters are nothing if not consistently depicted throughout the movie. They're not deep, but they're consistent. They behave about exactly how you'd expect them to behave, with little or no deviation. And why does Peach let Mario tag along? Because she's an extremely kind-hearted person who tries to see the best in people, even if it's not in her best interest. Anyways, this movie doesn't really bear much analysis, because it's basically an hors d'oeuvre. Maybe they'll make an actual meal next time.
Anyways, I saw Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 3 on Friday. It's messy and overlong, and many of the Drax jokes don't really land (that was also a problem with the second installment, if I recall correctly). It's also quite dark w/r/t the origin story of Rocket Raccoon, which will probably traumatize some little kids (and some sensitive adults), with the level of animal cruelty involved. That said, the cast remains game, and it does tug at the heartstrings a fair amount, as manipulative as it may be (did I mention the animal cruelty?). The art direction remains pretty cheesy/weird, in a (mostly) good way (which separates it from the majority of the MCU), and the retro soundtrack works well enough. A decent-enough capper for the series, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 9, 2023 17:13:25 GMT -8
By character consistency, I'm referring to the threadbare consistency within the "hero's journey" archetypes the film aims for. None of it feels natural or organic; it's all contrived beyond all reason to keep the characters in tune with the source material, even when logic would dictate otherwise. To wit: Princess Peach's character makes absolutely no sense. She's got a major threat to deal with in Bowser, yet she spends a night and a day training some guy she just met, simply because... she's got a good heart? And then she takes him along on her quest, even though it's obvious he's not ready. She's depicted as a strong fighter (verging on Mary Sue territory), so it remains a question of why she needs Mario at all, or why she waits until the big ceremony at the climax to fight back. Nothing about Mario's journey (and I use that term loosely, given how rushed and underdeveloped it is on its own) feels earned, in part because there's never a clear reason for him to be part of the action in the first place. As you say, the narrative is pretty threadbare, since the film is chiefly about references. Which is the film's biggest problem - there is nothing inherently interesting about references for the sake of references, yet that's the bulk of the movie. There's a flashback scene to young Mario and Luigi, which initially seemed like a character-building moment until I remembered that Baby Mario and Luigi are a thing from the video games, and this is just another reference in place of character growth. It's... just so incredibly soulless. Anyways, this movie doesn't really bear much analysis, because it's basically an hors d'oeuvre. Maybe they'll make an actual meal next time. I mean, that would be amazing, but Illumination has already made about a half-dozen sequels, none of which substantively build on their originals, so I'm not getting my hopes up. Given how easily this film blew past the billion-dollar mark at the box office, I'm guessing The Super Mario Bros. Movie 2 will mainly double down on the references and nostalgia bait (Wario, Waluigi, etc).
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 9, 2023 19:04:24 GMT -8
I'm not going to really argue against most of your points here, but I do think you're taking this movie a little too seriously. It's just silly nonsense, and that's all it was ever meant to be. Though I do think you're talking about plot inconsistency more than character inconsistency. Do some of these characters not behave as a regular human being would in these situations? I suppose. But they're all just silly, over-the-top archetypes. And it's general upbeat tone and unpretentiousness keep it from feeling totally soulless to me. Obviously many other folks feel the same way: otherwise it probably would've dropped off significantly at the box-office on its second weekend.
Anyways, with the commercial success of this film, Nintendo and Illumination are almost certain to make a Legend of Zelda movie in the near future. That series, though it deals in fairly standard archetypes as well, probably has a little more narrative meat on its bones (in terms of mythmaking, at least) that would allow for a film with a bit more depth. We'll see if that comes to pass. The new game, Tears of the Kingdom, which comes out on Friday, sure looks wildly inventive and kind of nuts (with all the ridiculous weapon and vehicle crafting): I've had that loaded on my Switch since this past Friday (via pre-order pre-download), and I look forward to getting into it when it unlocks for me late Thursday night.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 10, 2023 5:11:54 GMT -8
The film is most definitely intended to be silly nonsense, but it's just such unimaginatively silly nonsense, from story to dialogue to humor. And I wouldn't mind it that much except that it's quite likely going to be the highest-grossing film of the year (and almost certain to break streaming records when it arrives on Netflix). There are some external forces at play here - particularly the fact that it's been four months since another kids' movie has been released at the box office - but this film's billion-dollar success sends a message that this type of bland, cookie-cutter storytelling is what audiences crave, and what they'll probably get in the future, at the expense of smarter and more creative films (including many mainstream productions).
It is perfectly possible for a film to be silly and lightweight and appealing to kids, even while exploiting a popular and familiar brand, while also being smart and cleverly written. (Heck, I can think of another animated movie starring Chris Pratt and Charlie Day that does all that excellently.) But Illumination has been coasting for over a decade on films that feature nothing but the bare minimum of effort, and have been rewarded with box-office dominance. So I do get a little annoyed by this.
|
|