|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 23, 2017 5:27:15 GMT -8
Jeremy:
Moulin Rouge! is simultaneously a film that I love and hate. I have never quite figured out if it's utterly brilliant or utterly horrible.
(Incidentally, I haven't watched the musicals of Donen, Demy, Cukor or Minnelli, but I'm quite fluent with the works of Kenny Ortega. That should count for something.)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 23, 2017 5:27:32 GMT -8
J.C.: OK, I do remember a line or two from those two Singin' In The Rain songs you mentioned, Snipe, but my memory of Make 'Em Laugh is probably due to something animated.-Joker-related. Yeah, I don't mind Moulin Rouge when it's moving along at a breakneck speed with the ridiculous slapstick comedy, but as you said, it's asking a lot for the audience to take the story even remotely seriously in the second half. BTW, I only watched 100 films (new and old) in all of 2016, which is the lowest number for me in many, many years. Trying to plow through a ton of films was starting to feel like too much of a chore, so I'm only watching something if I really want to see it (or if I'm in the mood for some amusing trash). That said, I'm still looking to catch up on a number of non-English-language 2016 films in the next two months, when they make it to DVD. But you may find it amusing that I named my most recent Mario Maker level "La Dolce Velocità" (it's a speedrun). I named another "Stop Worrying & Love The Bob-omb", and another "Only Plumbers Left Alive".
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 23, 2017 5:27:50 GMT -8
Jeremy:
J.C. wrote: OK, I do remember a line or two from those two Singin' In The Rain songs you mentioned, Snipe, but my memory of Make 'Em Laugh is probably due to something animated.-Joker-related.
Indeed. I'll admit that every time I hear the title of the song, it brings up images of the Condiment King.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 23, 2017 5:28:01 GMT -8
guttersnipe: J.C. wrote: But you may find it amusing that I named my most recent Mario Maker level "La Dolce Velocità" (it's a speedrun). I named another "Stop Worrying & Love The Bob-omb", and another "Only Plumbers Left Alive". Nicely done.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 23, 2017 5:28:14 GMT -8
Zarnium:
I saw Arrival, and I'm afraid this is one of those movies which I just can't fully get down with because of some nitpicky details. I loved a lot about it; the sense of tension, the examination of first contact, the sense of realism, and the alien-ness of the aliens, and I was kept on the edge of my seat for almost all the running time. Unfortunately, I just don't like the twist at the end a whole lot...
...Spoilers, obviously. For one, I just don't buy that simply learning a visual language could cause a human being to start seeing the future and experiencing time non-linearly, and it really broke my immersion once I realized what was happening. I can accept that the aliens have all sorts of advanced technology like faster than light travel and anti-gravity and stuff, and I could've bought the twist if they had subjected Amy Adams to a machine that gave her non-linear time perception or something. But to acquire that ability just from learning to read their language? That doesn't seem to make sense by the film's own rules. No logical justification is really given for it, it's just stated that that's what happens.
Two, the film acts like the protagonist was able to live a mostly normal life after gaining the ability, when that would actually destroy a human. I can buy that aliens might be psychologically wired to handle that, but for a human, having that kind of perception would either take them to the moment of their death in an instant, put them in an eternal hell of never-changing stasis, or render them effectively non-human and make them unable to relate to normal humans. Our entire existence is based on experiencing the passage of time, with our consciousness existing on one steadily progressing focal point from birth to death. Change that, and there's not really any properly human existence left.
Even if it wouldn't totally render a human being non-functional... very little that we see of her behavior in her future life is even affected much by her foreknowledge of it. Like, when she receives the news that her daughter has cancer, why does she start crying on the spot? She already knew it was going to happen. Of course she'd be sad about it, but she'd be sad at the moment she found out years before by seeing the future, not when she's told by the doctor after anticipating that moment for two decades. And if she knew that telling Jeremy Renner that their daughter was going to get cancer would drive them apart, why did she still do it? I understand that she probably thought he had the right to know, but if she knew that waiting so long would be a problem, why didn't she tell him much earlier?
I dunno, I just didn't buy it. I think I may have liked the film better if it had remained simpler and focused more on the challenges of communicating with the aliens and the effect that first contact was having on Earth rather than the twist. At best, the former had some deeper themes and practical relevance going on, the latter just kind of existed for its own sake and didn't explore the concept much beyond simply presenting it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 23, 2017 5:28:29 GMT -8
Zarnium wrote: ...Spoilers, obviously. For one, I just don't buy that simply learning a visual language could cause a human being to start seeing the future and experiencing time non-linearly, and it really broke my immersion once I realized what was happening. I can accept that the aliens have all sorts of advanced technology like faster than light travel and anti-gravity and stuff, and I could've bought the twist if they had subjected Amy Adams to a machine that gave her non-linear time perception or something. But to acquire that ability just from learning to read their language? That doesn't seem to make sense by the film's own rules. No logical justification is really given for it, it's just stated that that's what happens.
Interesting take on it, but for me personally I found that the logic of how it's possible for her to have non-linear time perception was rather unimportant to Villeneuve, because it clearly serves an abstract metaphorical purpose to illustrate the films themes rather than a storytelling purpose.
Quote: Two, the film acts like the protagonist was able to live a mostly normal life after gaining the ability, when that would actually destroy a human. I can buy that aliens might be psychologically wired to handle that, but for a human, having that kind of perception would either take them to the moment of their death in an instant, put them in an eternal hell of never-changing stasis, or render them effectively non-human and make them unable to relate to normal humans. Our entire existence is based on experiencing the passage of time, with our consciousness existing on one steadily progressing focal point from birth to death. Change that, and there's not really any properly human existence left.
Yeah again I feel as though the film was very uninterested in the technical logistics of this power than it was in communicating a message.
Quote: Even if it wouldn't totally render a human being non-functional... very little that we see of her behavior in her future life is even affected much by her foreknowledge of it. Like, when she receives the news that her daughter has cancer, why does she start crying on the spot? She already knew it was going to happen. Of course she'd be sad about it, but she'd be sad at the moment she found out years before by seeing the future, not when she's told by the doctor after anticipating that moment for two decades. And if she knew that telling Jeremy Renner that their daughter was going to get cancer would drive them apart, why did she still do it? I understand that she probably thought he had the right to know, but if she knew that waiting so long would be a problem, why didn't she tell him much earlier?
Oh, well I think this ones easy, I think the film takes a deterministic attitude basically; and then says that perhaps this isn't so bad. What happens in the future isn't going to change. It's kind of a major point that she doesn't try to change anything, it's communicating a rather optimistic message, that essentially even in the face of knowable tragedy and pain, life would be worth living regardless, (and perhaps exactly the way it was meant to play out) even if you knew about all the terrible (and wonderful) shit that was coming your way. It's a rather poetic gesture I think that Amy Adams character 'wouldn't' change or regret anything, despite her power, which is what makes the twist work for me. Basically the director understands that the first thing that comes to mind when people think of the power of knowing the future is changing things you don't like. He twists that concept by giving someone this incredible power then having her essentially ignore it anyways. This works as a sort-of subversion of common thought process and more importantly works as a kind-of optimistic parable for life.
Quote: I dunno, I just didn't buy it. I think I may have liked the film better if it had remained simpler and focused more on the challenges of communicating with the aliens and the effect that first contact was having on Earth rather than the twist. At best, the former had some deeper themes and practical relevance going on, the latter just kind of existed for its own sake and didn't explore the concept much beyond simply presenting it.
I understand these criticisms though, especially considering the entire film is rather realistic and straightforward in a sense, but personally I embraced the artifice of the last act (which I think definitely puts the finishing touches on the films major themes). Then again though, I kind of like my magical mixed with realism and don't much care for functional problems with said magic (i.e.: What effect knowledge of the future would actually have on a person)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 23, 2017 5:28:42 GMT -8
J.C.:
I think I simply would've been more engaged had Adams' character had more personality and sense of an internal life. Like Blunt's character in Villeneuve's Sicario, to me, she was pretty much defined by her job, and that gave me very little to empathize with. I felt very little as the film approached its end, as much as it was pushing for a big emotional crescendo.
That aside, I agree with Zach that the writer's more interested in the themes on a metaphorical level than a literal one.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 23, 2017 5:29:00 GMT -8
Stake&Cheese:
I've gone on a crazy Richard Linklater kick, and watched "Everybody Wants Some!!" "Boyhood," and "Before Sunrise/Sunset/Midnight" over the last couple weeks.
I finally understand what Judd Apatow is trying to accomplish in each of his movies.
Also...it's a goddamn travesty that EWS got snubbed of any "Comedy" nominations for the Golden Globes.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 23, 2017 5:29:16 GMT -8
Flamepillar112: No "School of Rock"?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 23, 2017 5:29:26 GMT -8
Stake:
Well, I've seen School of Rock at least thirty times, haha. I wanted to explore some of his other stuff!
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 23, 2017 5:29:44 GMT -8
Jeremy:
Trolls (2016)
Every decade or so, the Troll dolls make a comeback. Yes, those freakishly grinning dolls have proven alarmingly popular for quite a long time, spawning an incredibly successful franchise that keeps finding ways to reinvent the wheel. And given Hollywood's love of things cute and marketable, the question is obvious: Why has it taken so long to give them their own feature film?
Actually, here's a better question: Why is DreamWorks the studio making the Trolls film? The Trolls have always been marketed as cute and happy; DreamWorks has made a name for itself as edgy and cynical. Oh, God - don't tell me the cute li'l Trolls are making potty jokes.
Well... yeah. There are potty jokes. I counted at least four jokes in this film related in some way to defecation, although they were "cute" defecation-related jokes. There are also a lot of public domain songs (seriously, a lot - between this and Sing, I think I've had my fill of animated musicals for the year), and lots of incredibly bright colors, and lots and lots of amazingly marketable Trolls. Oh, and somewhere along the way, there's a message about happiness being inside you. Or something.
Trolls was written by the same guys who wrote the Kung Fu Panda films, and in that context, it's a disappointment. But even context-free, Trolls is merely passable kids' fare - it offers a bunch of characters who look cute, wraps them in a story that's predictably charming (and just predictable, period), and then tells your kids to go out and buy some dolls. Which they will. A lot.
You've made some really good films in recent years, DreamWorks. So I'm willing to overlook this one. But that Baldwin baby film had better be a laugh riot.
|
|
|
Post by buffyholic on Mar 26, 2017 2:38:56 GMT -8
Going a bit back in the conversation: I saw La La Land twice already and I love it. The first time, I watched I loved it but wasn´t in love with it but the second time, I totally fell for it. It´s a movie you can´t explain, it´s a movie that you have to feel because you do feel a variety of emotions throughout the whole film. I also love the cinematography and just the fact the movie just fills my soul in a way I can´t explain and once I finish the movie, I find myself just singing and wanting to watch it again. It´s a very feel good movie.
Moonlight: I liked it a lot but it´s a movie I have no interest in watching again because a) it has nothing more to find out on a second viewing and b) I found it depressing. The movie is well acted, I especially like the second act more than the other two, but I also didn´t find it memorable enough to a) win Best Picture and b) to garantee another viewing.
Manchester by the Sea: Another depressing movie. A good movie but man, the Patrick character annoys the crap out of me. And even though there´s a scene where Casey just breaks our hearts (If you´ve seen it, you know which scene) but other than that, I didn´t find his or even Michelle William´s performance worthy of nominations and in his case, a win. They´ve done better but yeah, it´s depressing as hell and a bit slow. You know, I love character movies but just because it´s slow, doesn´t automatically mean it´s fantastic. It´s just good.
This is something other people have told me, for example, "This is slow, that´s why you don´t like it". No, people seem to think that because a movie is slow, it means it´s good or very good. That´s untrue. A movie can be slow as hell but still be very good and interesting. For example, "The Virgin Suicides". I love that movie. It´s super slow but it is really good and has something to say.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 26, 2017 13:31:57 GMT -8
This is something other people have told me, for example, "This is slow, that´s why you don´t like it". No, people seem to think that because a movie is slow, it means it´s good or very good. That´s untrue. A movie can be slow as hell but still be very good and interesting. For example, "The Virgin Suicides". I love that movie. It´s super slow but it is really good and has something to say. I think people usually use the word "slow" when they actually mean "boring". And to me, 90% of the time, when someone calls a movie "boring", it doesn't really tell me anything about the movie. Some people call Citizen Kane "boring", for instance, and if they're not going to go into detail explaining why they find it to be so, their opinion doesn't have a great deal of value to me. The same could be said of folks using the word "stupid", particularly when they're referring to comedies. Humour is certainly very subjective, and most comedy is silly in nature, but just because a film or TV show is silly and didn't happen to make you laugh, doesn't necessarily make it "stupid". Now, regarding leisurely-paced movies, with the good/great ones, much of that comes down to one's appreciation for atmosphere and genuine interest in subtle human behaviour/body language. There are plenty of really good movies that aren't, in any way, fast-paced, while there are others that linger on relatively shallow or underdeveloped content past the breaking point of interest. Obviously, you didn't feel some of the subject matter of Manchester By The Sea warranted lingering on to the degree they did, and I'm somewhat in agreement with you. Though I will say the film had more deadpan humour, at times, than some viewers are giving it credit for (some of the material with the nephew, for instance). Anyways, I don't want to interrupt Jeremy's attempts to cut-and-paste earlier comments from the other forum, so I'll leave it for now.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Mar 27, 2017 18:46:18 GMT -8
Well, Fox apparently can do all things X-Men justice except the actual X-Men. The biggest flaw with Marvel's entertainment is that it can feel awfully bland and generic sometimes. Though this is largely a problem with their tv shows, their movies also suffer from a feeling of general sameness. They're at their best when feel different, either in visual style, structure, or genre. With Legion, and now "Logan", Fox has done just that. "Logan" is a superb film, a refreshingly low-stakes somber personal drama that genuinely offers something new to the increasingly crowded genre. "Deadpool" attempted to do the same thing, but beneath the meta-humor was a generic story. "Logan" is unlike anything we've seen before. It takes its character arcs and themes seriously without ever becoming self important. It also far outclasses "Deadpool" in terms of gore, but it works within the context of the story. Now because this is Marvel, the hero is far more interesting than the villain, but they served their purpose well enough, and for Hugh Jackman's sendoff, I want the focus squarely on him. He absolutely nails it here, really selling his age, as does Patrick Stewart, but those were expected. The real breakout star is Dafne Keen, who does a surprisingly great job with her material. She's funny and terrifying at the same time. "Logan" delivered, and exceeded my expectations. It combines intense and brutal action with a touching, poignant story. Go see it.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Mar 27, 2017 22:10:24 GMT -8
I thought it leaned more heavily on physical suffering than emotional insight. A decent send-off for the character, and a good performance from Jackman, but the story felt like a foregone conclusion from frame one, hitting the same dramatic beats over and over again. Didn't generate much visual interest either (but thankfully didn't go nuts with the shaky-cam).
|
|