|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 28, 2023 22:03:42 GMT -8
I've vaguely planned to see Killers of the Flower Moon the past two weekends (I have Friday and Saturday nights off work), but I just haven't felt like leaving the house on my off days, because I just want to rest. And it remains a trick to stay awake during afternoon/early-evening shows. Maybe next weekend.
Anyways, I gave Asteroid City another look on Blu-Ray, and probably enjoyed it even more the second time. All of Wes Anderson's films in the past twenty years have looked great (art-direction-and-cinematography-wise), but some are drier than others, in terms of emotional tone and overall presentation. AC has some of that, but it also contains a degree of wistfulness that most of his better films (for me) also possess. Now regarding the framework of the film, a friend of mine (who also very much enjoyed the film) mentioned that he and his girlfriend thought they should have flipped the black-and-white and colour sections, with the "real world" of the play's production being in colour, and the play being in black-and-white. In terms of general modern film language, "reality" is often presented in colour, with "fiction", or dreams, being rendered in black-and-white. To me, though, the emotional core of the movie is in the "fiction" of the play, and the real world of the stage production is arguably more arch, fussy, or "alien" in nature (such is the self-involved world of some "artists"), so the visual structure seemed appropriate. Now, one of the prominent themes of the film is how artists work through real-world trauma or conflict via their art, but regardless, I still responded to the emotion and behaviour of the characters in the play as though it was happening in "reality", the same as I would with any other film or TV show. It's simply a moment-by-moment thing, where if the words and themes resonate with me, no metatextual framing device will put me at a disconnect. The movie has a gentle, reflective, lilting quality that I simply respond to.
Now, the four short films of Roald Dahl's work that Anderson produced for Netflix -- The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, The Swan, The Rat Catcher, and Poison -- are a bit more snarky and darkly-comic in nature, and rather overwhelming in terms of overall verbiage via fourth-wall-breaking narration. Henry Sugar is around 40 minutes long, but the others are around 15 each, so things are really densely-packed here. It's basically a small group of actors -- most notably Ralph Fiennes, Ben Kingsley, Dev Patel, and Benedict Cumberbatch -- rotating into different roles in each, with Fiennes also serving as deadpan storybook host across all of them. They're very stage-or-small-rural-location- (not sure, at times) -bound, with some pretty elaborate sets meticulously collapsing and reforming as the stories progress, and despite not being loud or action-packed, they almost dare you to keep up. It's an interesting experiment, and pretty amusing, with a few stark gut punches in their denouements. You can tell the actors are really enjoying themselves here. It's strange that the shorts are presented individually, as opposed to in an 85-minute anthology, though, as I had to use the Neflix search engine to track down the 15-minute shorts after watching the longer one (which was the only one I was initially aware of, going in).
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 29, 2023 16:37:27 GMT -8
My brother is a die-hard DiCaprio fan, and he seemed interested in going to see Killers of the Flower Moon until he saw the runtime. Can't say I blame him (especially since much of the acclaim directed towards the film seems to emphasize appreciation for Scorsese's craft, rather than focus on whether the film itself is entertaining). I expect I'll still wait till it gets to streaming*.
As for Asteroid City, I agree that the metatextual framing should not do much to negate the emotional resonance of the underlying story; I just didn't find said underlying story to be that resonant. Stakes were too low, pacing too laggy. It probably is a film I'll enjoy a bit more on rewatch (now that I have a general sense of where it's going), but it's also not one I'm in a hurry to revisit.
Speaking (tangentially) of Wes Anderson, I watched The Holdovers today, and parts of that film (particularly the use of a classic Cat Stevens song) recalled the better parts of Rushmore (even if the story itself is more reminiscent of a less-treacly Dead Poets Society). It's Alexander Payne's first new film in ten years**, and while it's not at the level of his best works, it's a very well-written and well-acted film that blends humor, heart, and pathos with expert skill. It runs a bit long by about 10-15 minutes, but Paul Giamatti does outstanding work, and Da'Vine Joy Randolph is quite compelling as well. One of the better films I've seen in theaters lately; worth catching when it gets a wide release.
*I did watch Gangs of New York last weekend, though, so that should fulfill my Scorsese/DiCaprio "epic" quota for the month. **We all agree that Downsizing never happened, right? Okay, just making sure.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 29, 2023 19:09:28 GMT -8
I like most of Payne's work, so I'll definitely be checking out The Holdovers at some point. The trailer for it certainly did seem aggressively pastiche in nature, though, which isn't necessarily a negative, but worth noting.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 30, 2023 15:55:47 GMT -8
Oh, I also watched all of Wes Anderson's Roald Dahl shorts produced for Netflix over the weekend. I enjoyed them overall, and I appreciate his means of experimenting within the low-budget parameters of a filmed stage play. Henry Sugar seems to be the main selling point (it was the only one of the four stories I was familiar with going in), but it's also one of the weaker films in the quartet, since the format of ever-constant rapid-fire self-narration is less exhausting in 15-minute increments than in 40. The cast is quite good, with Benedict Cumberbatch and Dev Patel particular standouts - kind of surprising that neither one has done an Anderson film before.
I'd rank them as: Poison > The Swan > Henry Sugar > The Ratcatcher
Additionally, I watched Five Nights at Freddy's (was originally planning to see it in theaters, but plans fell through so I streamed it at home). Despite never playing the games, I admire the way an original franchise has spawned so organically within the past decade. That said, the film is rather bad - a complete mess of tones that leave the script waffling between dark drama and goofy comedy with no rhyme or reason, and a lot of stock characters who are generally pretty dull. As the PG-13 rating (mandated by the franchise's appeal to young viewers) suggests, there's nothing truly graphic or violent here, but the film tries to compensate for it with a lot of jumpscares that are... simply not scary. Still, looks like it's cleaning up at the box office - maybe it's more fun to watch when surrounded by a crowd of quasi-stoned college students. Will take that under advisement when they make the inevitable sequel.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 2, 2023 18:09:02 GMT -8
After watching 31 horror movies last month, I needed a bit of a palate cleanser. Thankfully, we've got cartoon turtles for that!
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem is one of the year's better animated films, and may in fact be the first genuinely good TMNT movie in the franchise's forty-year history. The film's key selling point is its visual style - much like the Spider-Verse films or the recent Puss in Boots sequel, this movie has a distinctive and innovative use of CG animation, giving its world a vivid and grungy comic-book aesthetic, from the tactile designs of the four main characters to the blaring action lines when someone swings a punch. Director Jeff Rowe (who previously had a hand in The Mitchells vs. the Machines) takes influence from other recent animated hits while still giving this film its own visual identity.
This is also the first TMNT movie that truly emphasizes the "Teenage" in the title - these turtles are voiced by actual teenage actors, and their behavior and personalities suggest characters distinctly younger than those in previous iterations. The characterization of Splinter as more of a dad-like figure than a sensei - while it won't sit well with all die-hard franchise fans - helps emphasize the turtles' relative youth and the family angle of the story.
The script is... good, but probably could've used a couple more drafts. I did laugh out loud about a half-dozen times, and several of the celebrity actors (including "newcomer" Paul Rudd) deliver hilarious performances. But the jokes rely too heavily on pop-culture references (which are likely to date as badly as the "cowabunga, dude" slogans of the '80s), and a few of the crude jokes go overboard - no doubt courtesy of the Superbad screenwriters.
But all in all, a very fun watch. A lot of the '90s musical cues were particularly amusing - including one (during a car chase sequence midway through the film) that will likely appeal to two different generations for totally different reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 5, 2023 17:49:41 GMT -8
Saw John Wick: Chapter 4 last night, and it was pretty solid. Maybe the best film in the series since the original (although I haven't seen any of them since the third film was released in 2019, and that feels like a million years ago, so don't take my word for it). Visually, it's the most accomplished film in the series, with some striking shots and color composition. The action choreography is top-notch, and despite being nearly three hours long, the film is never really dull.
I will say, however, that the series - and this film in particular - suffers from a variation of the 24 Problem: It asks us to both use our brains and fully commit to the seriousness of the premise, while also asking us to turn off our brains and not think too deeply about the exaggerated and ridiculous action scenes, in which John Wick shoots his way through hundreds of the most incompetent assassins ever assembled with an immortal drive that would put Rambo to shame. So I must on the one hand accept the ponderous and melodramatic tone of the script, while on the other hand not burst out laughing when Keanu Reeves tumbles down a flight of 200 stairs in a scene reminiscent of Andy Samberg tumbling down the cliff in Hot Rod. (Needless to say, I did not succeed.)
Still, the good stuff in the series is still quite good in the fourth film. I didn't really care for the birds-eye action sequence (the camera angle made the whole thing feel distant and impersonal), but there was still clearly a lot of care put into it, and I approve of that.
I also approve of Anatomy of a Fall, the new French film that won the Palme d'Or (and the Palm Dog) this year. As a 2.5-hour courtroom drama, it's not quite as impactful as I was hoping, but it's well-written and at times quite potent. The interchangeable use of French and English dialogue is perhaps more interesting to watch as a native English speaker, considering how it frames the lead character (excellently played by Sandra Huller) as an outsider in her own country. The film drags on too long and some of the impact is blunted by the manner in which it keeps its lead character's motivations in the dark for so long, but it's quite good all around, and features the best canine performance I've seen in a film since The Artist.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Nov 6, 2023 16:14:41 GMT -8
Saw John Wick: Chapter 4 last night, and it was pretty solid. Maybe the best film in the series since the original (although I haven't seen any of them since the third film was released in 2019, and that feels like a million years ago, so don't take my word for it). Visually, it's the most accomplished film in the series, with some striking shots and color composition. The action choreography is top-notch, and despite being nearly three hours long, the film is never really dull. I will say, however, that the series - and this film in particular - suffers from a variation of the 24 Problem: It asks us to both use our brains and fully commit to the seriousness of the premise, while also asking us to turn off our brains and not think too deeply about the exaggerated and ridiculous action scenes, in which John Wick shoots his way through hundreds of the most incompetent assassins ever assembled with an immortal drive that would put Rambo to shame. So I must on the one hand accept the ponderous and melodramatic tone of the script, while on the other hand not burst out laughing when Keanu Reeves tumbles down a flight of 200 stairs in a scene reminiscent of Andy Samberg tumbling down the cliff in Hot Rod. (Needless to say, I did not succeed.) Quentin Tarantino solved this problem in Kill Bill by splitting the component parts into two halves! Of course, part of the genius of Kill Bill is that while there's not a huge amount of emotional weight to Part 1, there is just enough to ground the insane action, and while Part 2 is more serious and character-focused, it's just as gleefully irreverent as Part 1 in its own way.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 6, 2023 18:06:47 GMT -8
I found that Kill Bill had a much better balancing of its comedic and dramatic tones than most of the John Wick films, in that even at its silliest and most over-the-top, it never pretends to be anything other than what it is. And while Part II is more serious overall than Part I, both films follow the same trajectory, with the stakes growing more serious the deeper we progress into the story.
I also find the action in Kill Bill to be more impressively staged than that in the John Wick series. Though that may not be the fairest comparison, as the intentions are markedly different, with Kill Bill riffing on a wider variety of action subgenres. (A better benchmark for the no-holds-barred nonstop video-game-style action the Wick team is aiming to accomplish would probably be something like The Raid.)
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Nov 7, 2023 8:43:46 GMT -8
So how about that Killers of the Flower Moon?
My take: it was pretty good, but I would have liked it more had it leaned into the subtle humor I associate with Marty, or the severe/beautiful cinematography I associate with Westerns. There was a lot of ado about how the film represents its Osage characters, but I feel like a lot of that material was tacked on to the beginning and end of the film in ways that made me wonder how the movie would have played out had Marty really "gone native," so to speak, and wove that spiritualism more authentically into the narrative. There's nothing wrong per se with transplanting his gangster shtick into interbellum Oklahoma, but I was distinctly underwhelmed here.
And yes, it is absofrickinlutely too long!!
Saw Killers of the Flower Moon over the weekend and agree with Quiara's take here basically word for word.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Nov 8, 2023 16:48:00 GMT -8
So how about that Killers of the Flower Moon?
My take: it was pretty good, but I would have liked it more had it leaned into the subtle humor I associate with Marty, or the severe/beautiful cinematography I associate with Westerns. There was a lot of ado about how the film represents its Osage characters, but I feel like a lot of that material was tacked on to the beginning and end of the film in ways that made me wonder how the movie would have played out had Marty really "gone native," so to speak, and wove that spiritualism more authentically into the narrative. There's nothing wrong per se with transplanting his gangster shtick into interbellum Oklahoma, but I was distinctly underwhelmed here.
And yes, it is absofrickinlutely too long!!
Saw Killers of the Flower Moon over the weekend and agree with Quiara's take here basically word for word. She don't miss, folks!
Incidentally, are there are 2023 films I might have overlooked from the first half of the year that I should get to seeing? I ask as I missed my chance to see Polite Society when it was showing at BAM, but I'll check that out on DVD later this month. I swear that I like seeing movies, but the showings by me are so tilted towards blockbusters and slasher schlock that I feel genuinely embarrassed to spend money there. (People say I would have liked the new Mission: Impossible, but people upthread also liked John Wick 4 so I don't believe you guys!!) Like, I'm sure I'll like Next Goal Wins well enough but I can't imagine I'd have plans to see it if there were more than one movie of its ilk per season, seemingly. "Sorry, hon, we can't show The Persian Version here, we need Five Nights at Freddy's to be simultaneously playing on 75% of our screens."
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 8, 2023 18:53:24 GMT -8
I mean I think you would like the new Mission: Impossible (though like its predecessors, it probably plays best on the big screen), more so than the John Wick films, which are often more excessive than they need to be. Those films are largely made to show off great stuntwork, but the MI films are mainly about Tom Cruise putting any and all stunt doubles to shame. Plus they're just a lot fun. (But I've said more than a bit about that in the past.)
I would definitely recommend Polite Society, which seems like a film you'd enjoy. (I'm surprised it didn't get a wider release, as it's got quite a bit of mainstream appeal for a Sundance movie.) Beyond that, the film from the first half of 2023 I can most heartily recommend is the recent Dungeons and Dragons adaptation, which is one of the funniest and most creative action-adventure films I've seen in years. It manages to both respect the source material while also constantly poking fun at it, and it does so with a refreshing level of practical effects.
Do not check out Ruby Gillman: Teenage Kraken, which I had the misfortune of watching this week. I thought DreamWorks had long moved beyond their "just copy Pixar" phase, but the plot of this movie is just Luca meets Turning Red, and it's about as shallow and cliched as an animated movie can get. The comedy is desperate and very annoying, and the story is just plain dull. Probably the worst DW film since Shark Tale, which suggests that the studio should avoid making movies that take place in or near the ocean.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Nov 8, 2023 20:22:22 GMT -8
That Ruby Gillman thing seemed like it had such a confused premise. She's concerned about not fitting in because she's secretly a kaiju, but, I mean, she's already this weird-looking blue creature in amongst a bunch of regular-looking humans?
Anyways, on a side note, I started watching Elemental a few weeks ago, but bailed after about ten minutes. The premise and visual presentation just held zero appeal to me. Hopefully Pixar gets on another hot run in the next few years, because it's been a really mixed bag for at least the last decade.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 9, 2023 7:37:35 GMT -8
They explain this away early in the story. One background character asks "Is she blue?" and it's explained she looks that way because she's "from Canada." (?) And then no one ever brings it up again. It's that kind of movie. I found Elemental to be rather charming, with some imaginative character and background designs, and I liked the way the director incorporated tenets of his Korean background into the story. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, I don't think the race/immigration metaphor quite works, but it was a fun film nonetheless. Pixar's output in general has been bumpier as of late, though not without a few big hits. Nearly all of their best films have come from a group of five directors (John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, Brad Bird, and Lee Unkrich), and recently the studio has been expanding opportunities to other directors, which has led to some interesting experiments but a more uneven level of output. Hopefully salvation arrives next summer.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 19, 2023 15:54:28 GMT -8
Just saw Thanksgiving (the movie, not the holiday) from Eli Roth. As a piece of filmmaking, it's essentially a novelty item - the parodic Grindhouse trailer made reality, 16 years after the fact. And while the result is nothing brilliant, it's fairly entertaining - and shockingly bloody/gory for a major studio production, even in a year that has seen the release of Scream VI, Cocaine Bear and Evil Dead Rise. Roth (returning to the horror genre after a ten-year absence) imbues the film with a darkly humorous streak* that lampoons various aspects of Thanksgiving (the holiday, not the movie) and dutifully recreates several scenes from the original mock trailer. The script is pretty routine and predictable, but it's a good (if sadistic) time.
Also saw David Fincher's The Killer, and mixed feelings there. It's entertaining enough, but the chapter-driven storytelling mode gives the film a repetitive feel (both in story and tone) and it doesn't feel like a lot really gets developed over the course of two hours. Michael Fassbender is good, but the film relies a little too much on his voiceover narration, a little of which quickly goes a long way. It looks great, and I was never bored, but too much of the film just feels like settup for a payoff that's never meant to arrive.
*In case you're wondering what tone the film is aiming for, one of the victims is played by an actress named Karen Cliche.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Nov 20, 2023 9:36:15 GMT -8
It's been quite a turn of events, you diving into these hyper-violent horror flicks in the past so many years. At any rate, I guess that's the fourth movie based off of a fake trailer from Grindhouse, the other three being the two Machete films with Danny Trejo, and Hobo With a Shotgun.
The Fincher film doesn't have a particularly original premise, but I thought it was nicely stylized, well-acted, and fairly elegantly-structured. Voice-over narration can feel obtrusive in the best of times, but it was employed alright here. The film also features one of the few fight sequences shot in darkness and shadow in an American production in the past few years that's well choreographed and cleanly visualized, so points for that.
|
|