|
got any sevens posted:I like Freddy Got Fingered and Mario bros 
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
Yeah, Freddy Got Fingered is genius on multiple levels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Kingsman 2: 4/5? It's weird but cool. the ending is more optimistic than me, thinking that the armed forced would actually administer the antidote, and that the prez would face consequences. I regret that the point wasnt brought up that even if you killed all drug users today, more children born in the future would still turn to recreational drugs, also that agent whiskey thought there was a difference between alcohol users and users of other drugs. /Petpeeve
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Huh. I thought that Freddy was universally seen as bad. Interesting. Out of curiosity, what is the consensus on Caligula? Die Another Day (2002, Rewatch): D- I'm going to go out on a limb and say that having Bond get captured and tortured by North Koreans was innovative. In all the movies before this one, Bond was always able to get out of whatever situation he faced with a gadget and a wisecrack. Here, for one of the first times in the series, Bond was out of control. I liked that very much. But almost immediately after that, the movie went off the rails and returned to being same-old, same-old. Bond handily (too handily, in my opinion) escapes British custody and, with only the clothes on his back, is able to book an expensive suite in a hotel, complete with a personal tailor and fancy food. Except for a few lines of dialogue here and there, Bond apparently suffers no ill effects from being tortured and beaten for fourteen months; he pretty much just returns to business as usual. The plot itself is, in my opinion, labyrinthine and confusing. A North Korean officer fakes his death and uses some sort of "dream machine" to change his DNA to 'rich British douchebag', showing off his doomsday device (which is a copy of Scaramanga's Solex device) to the entire world under the guise of wanting to provide heat and light to disadvantaged parts of the world, etc. I'm probably getting details wrong, but I didn't find the plot to make all that much sense. And then there are the ridiculously over-the-top special effects: invisible cars, ice hotels being demolished by sun beams, etc. It's no wonder that they felt the need to reboot the franchise with Daniel Craig; like the post-Moonraker Moore movies, the Bond series was in a rut.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:79's a good score! I wasn't really feeling the two leads, and the scene in the bar was really the only time I ever felt like the movie was firing on all cylinders. Bar scene's excellent, but for me the escalation of the feeding scenes between Mae and Caleb are the heart of Near Dark. Like, you've got this complex imagery of Mae birthing Caleb while she represents strength he can only dream of, the kind of weird gender-fluid ground where he's kind of going down on her while all these manly pistons are banging away in the background. When you get to the end and he's raped her (taking away her fluid power without her consent), the sense I always got was the scene afterward was going to be bathed with the blood of Caleb's family. I can understand being burned out on Bigelow though, her filmography is generally fantastic but one right after the other (even over a couple of days) can wear you out to her approach. Anywhozers, my most recent: Buster's Mal Heart (2017) (full review at the link) Rating: Like (scale of Like/Indifferent/Dislike) Capsule thoughts: As soon as I was able to process Sarah Adina Smith's previous movie, The Midnight Swim, she became one of my favorite directors. Rami Malek takes roles that are the living embodiment of my anxiety in my darker moments. I thought The Midnight Swim was one of the best of 2015, and feel the same about Buster's Mal Heart. It's a heartbreakingly empathetic look at working class America - not in the way Trump says it - but in the lived experience of the PoC who keep our country rolling. She keeps things tense while allowing dreamy dips back into the brief solace of Jonah's (Malek) life, and a HOLY gently caress OUTTA NOWHERE appearance by DJ Qualls as a sort of proto-Infowars apocalyptic shut-in includes previously unseen menace from Qualls. Colossal (2017) (full review at the link) Rating: Like (scale of Like/Indifferent/Dislike) Capsule thoughts: Feature film wise, I've only watched Colossal and Timecrimes. Though I didn't 100% dig it, his short "Parallel Monsters" from V/H/S: Viral showed some good stuff. Colossal was a bit of a step down from Timecrimes, but there's only so much you can pack in to a gaslighting kaiju romantic dramedy (while still making each bit work as Vigalondo does). Overall it's pretty good, the more literal than normal connection between kaiju and human was a bit much, but Tim Blake Nelson does some awesome sympathetic work in a small role and Jason Sudeikis pulls off a trickier role than Qualls in Buster's Mal Heart with a nice mix of disappointment, rage, and the sort of friendship where you expect something in return.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
My first attempt at one of these, so here we go... Wild Things (Re-watch, 1998) 3.5/5 I only caught onto this movie a year or so ago, and I can't believe I hadn't watched it sooner. It's basically basic-cable schlock writ large for the big screen with an A-list cast where EVERYONE is in on the joke. My initial, passing impression when I heard of it on its release was probably like most - I thought it was probably just a lame framework of bad thriller built around the infamous threesome scene that everyone's heard of (plus Kevin Bacon dong). When I finally watched it, I was pleasantly surprised enough to watch it again. On a repeat viewing, it's as entertaining as I remember it. I have indelible childhood memories of sneaking downstairs at 12 and 13 to watch MTV's Liquid Television, which was invariably followed up by a jaunt over to Showtime to watch softcore junk like Red Shoe Diaries. (Cut me some slack; this and the fuzzed-out Playboy Channel was our Internet porn.) Aside from the occasional boob, I began to appreciate the F-list acting, overwrought dialogue and ridiculous excuses for plots. Wild Things is a clear homage to those late-night basic cable softcore dramas, going so far as to hire George Clinton to score the movie (he was, in fact, responsible for Red Shoe Diaries' scoring). The plot starts simply enough: Sam Lombardo (Matt Dillon) is a high school guidance counselor at Blue Bay High School, whose worst qualities seem to be a tendency to drift through life and sleep with bored housewives of the ritzy Blue Bay area. Fun fact: The Blue Bay of Wild Things is north of Tampa, Florida, yet looks suspiciously like Miami and Coconut Grove with Coopertown thrown in for some swamp shots. He's accused of rape by one of Blue Bay High's students, the wealthy Kelly van Ryan (Denise Richards). When similar accusations are repeated by social outcast Suzie Toller (Neve Campbell), Lombardo is forced to hire a lawyer, the sleazy Ken Bowden (Bill Murray) to defend himself in court at criminal trial. The trial and its outcome barely compose the first 45 minutes of the movie; Ray Duquette (Kevin Bacon), a police detective working the case, continues to dig into the events surrounding the trial and piece together who's lying and who's not. As I previously mentioned, this is clearly an F-list homage populated by A-list actors, and everyone knows what they're in for. The cinematography sets up some pretty great sweeping shots of Miami and the Everglades, and the moody synth keeps every frame dripping with the feel of late-night erotic drama from the 90s. The actors ham it up as much as they're able (and given the source material, the latitude is CONSIDERABLE) and they're clearly enjoying the hell out of themselves. Bill Murray is a riot as Blue Bay's sleaziest lawyer, who seems to be working out of an office of boxes. Even Denise Richards' acting doesn't feel out of place here, and her vamping is actually pretty appropriate. As far as the plot is concerned, the less said the better - if only because the amount of plot twists post-trial are utterly ridiculous and the movie seems to roll out a new twist every five minutes or so that reveals a new layer of deceit or another character's plot. In a time before we all became acclimated to stingers, the movie even throws in something like four more plot twists during the drat credits just for fun. If you haven't seen it on the assumption that it was superficial dreck for its time, see it on the knowledge that your assumption was half-correct: it's quite capable and thoroughly entertaining dreck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Huh. I thought that Freddy was universally seen as bad. Interesting. Out of curiosity, what is the consensus on Caligula? I really liked it when the movie figuratively and Tom Green literally came to a screeching halt to touch a horses dick while screaming 'look daddy i'm a farmer' as banjos play furiously in the background. As you can probably tell from what I like, I have no opinion on Caligula.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Wind River: 2/5 I had expected good things but I actually thought this was poo poo. The script was bad, the characters were cardboard cutout (especially the rent-a-bad-dudes) and the ending credits part a forced emotional punch that felt completely out of place. If you want to watch a better thriller on a reservation go watch Thunderheart.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
mother! is really great in the sense that 100 people can watch it and you'll see 80 different interpretations of what the film was trying to say. If that sounds cool to you, see it. Freaked is the movie my life has been missing. If you think Pete and Pete or Good Burger are good and funny and cool, you will love Freaked and you should see it. If you are a teenage girl you might not since test screenings of them hated the film so bad it was practically wiped off the face of the Earth (according to the introduction given to the movie by the guy who introduces the movies at this theater, a lone surviving print [only two were made] was rescued from the clearing house where they were sent for destruction). But I'm extremely glad it wasn't and it survived and I saw it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Kingsman 2 was a mixed bag. The action scenes are pretty good, though they will never top that church scene from the first. The story is actually pretty flimsy and has too many unnecessary details such as scenes at Glastonbury music festival where Eggsy has to seduce and finger some chick to plant a tracker in her. Also a certain cameo joke was wayyy too overplayed. However, the iflm does have its moments and is a fun watch, if for the action scenes and the main cast.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
[quote="“Rick”" post="“476842414”"] Freaked is the movie my life has been missing. [/quote] I'm super glad it can be watched and enjoyed today without any nostalgia, it was such a favorite growing up. I even still have a 6 foot cardboard standup for it at my parents house I think!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
Rick posted:mother! is really great in the sense that 100 people can watch it and you'll see 80 different interpretations of what the film was trying to say. If that sounds cool to you, see it. I believe Alex Winter owns the other print and tours with it. Freaked loving rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Freaked is awesome. It's a shame it hasn't even gotten cult classic status since it's still buried by Fox. I read somewhere that Alex Winter's current project is an epic multi-part documentary on Frank Zappa that's he's trying to crowdfund.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Freaked is a movie that I saw late one night on Fox Movie Channel after it has started and then spent the next few years trying to figure what the hell I had watched before the internet finally showed up to help me
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
I saw this movie late night when I was 11 or some such age. I only realized it wasn't a really weird dream when an internet person brought it up a decade later.The internet is marvelous at solving problems I wasn't sure I had.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Kingsman 2: I walked away from this pretty underwhelmed. It's a fun movie for the most part, but suffers horribly from sequel-itis in the sense of "oh you liked that one thing from the first one? Well here it all is again, but MORE!" And this occurred much to the detriment of the plot, which was about as derivative and predictable as it could be.The celebrity cameo joke was run into the loving ground, most of all, and the humor was nowhere close to the first film. I also felt Julianne Moore only really succeeded at making me realize just HOW much Samuel L. Jackson's character Valentine carried the first movie. But the action choreography and the main cast (Eggsy, Galahad, Merlin) turned in solid performances that made up for a lot. Ultimately, we were shown the promise of a movie that was going to expand the world of Kingsman and develop it and take it to some new places - both literally and figuratively. But that didn't happen. We just got more of the same. Overall, I'd give it give it 2.5/5. Right down the middle. Spoiler thoughts... - Why do you cast Channing Tatum, then proceed to give him 5ish minutes of screen time and stick him in a freezer for most of the movie? The gently caress? I think he was in the marketing for the film more than the film. - The villainous plot was basically the same identical plot as the first movie, swapping one mysterious substance to kill all the people with another. Oh, and they had to infiltrate a hidden lair.  - If they were going to hand-wave so much of the more interesting background elements away, I'd have rather heard how/why Michael Gambon's character took over as the head of Kingsman so there might have been any weight to him being killed off. As it was, we start the movie precisely where we left off the last one -- "oh poo poo we're all that's left of Kingsman!" - Speaking of 'weight,' the most emotional weight this movie was when JB the pug was killed. Honorable mention to Merlin's death, but I felt like that was about as telegraphed as could be and drug out to the point where I really wanted them to just get it over with. - The one part of the movie I really dug were the parts where they stormed bases. Which were two parts, I guess. If the direction of this film was fully realized in any area, it was that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Doronin posted:- Why do you cast Channing Tatum, then proceed to give him 5ish minutes of screen time and stick him in a freezer for most of the movie? The gently caress? I think he was in the marketing for the film more than the film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
The Roaring Twenties (1939, Raoul Walsh) - 4.5/5 [TCM] Wow, what a breathless film! This is everything you'd want in a gangster film and more. Cagney is magnificent and this also has one of Bogart's first larger roles. The film covers around twenty years of time - from when Cagney's character returns from WWI to nothing, his meteoric rise as a bootlegger, to his downfall to a lowly cabbie. To cover the passage of time, there's these incredible newsreel-style montages while characters get a little greyer and wrinkled. The Phantom of the Opera (1962, Terence Fisher) - 2.5/5 [TCM] - See eventual horror thread post. I Walked with a Zombie (1945, Jacques Tourneur) - 3/5 [TCM] - See eventual horror thread post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Roaring Twenties rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Ah, interesting. Thanks for sharing that! Now it totally makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Battle of the Sexes: 4/5, not the standard biopic, and more serious than the commercials led me to think, but really good. i also loved the fairy godfather, and how not everything was spelled out, felt more naturalistic, almost a bit documentary-ish at times
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
I haven't seen the original Flatliners so I don't know how it compares, but the reason to see this is that it is nuts. If you like watching movies and going "what the gently caress are those mothafuckaz doing" and laughing after saying that (and I do) then this is for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
The Blackcoat's Daughter (2017) (full review at the link) Rating: Like (scale of Like/Indifferent/Dislike) Capsule thoughts: Writer's block hit me hard with this one. I liked it, but it also felt like an exercise to see how long director Oz Perkins could sustain a tense sensation without breaking it. Almost broke a few times, but goddamn if Kiernan Shipka didn't know how to correct the course and make the menace feel fresh again. There's a looming presence of Catholic sexual sin that runs deep from the first scene on, and now that I'm familiar with Perkins' unusual release history (this was initially screened in 2015) I'm curious what his real next feature - I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House - has in store. The Fate of the Furious(2017) (full review at the link) Rating: Dislike (scale of Like, Indifferent, Dislike) Capsule thoughts: What already felt like a case of diminishing returns with the seventh Fast and Furious film has been ground into dust here. The Fate of the Furious takes cues from the worst of Pierce Brosnan's James Bond films (Die Another Day for those curious) and with so many cast members gone those that remain are stuck bouncing off each other in the same barely changing variations. It's disappointing to see what's happened to the women in the Fast and Furious films with the brutal subway fight of the sixth a distant memory to seeing Michelle Rodriguez pout a lot in this one. Almost everything to do with Jason Statham's role is awful from the narrative trickery to the shots of him mugging for a baby. Rough watch overall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
It's been awhile. /staind The Immortal Story (Orson Welles, 1968): 3.5/5. Initially made for French TV and later given a worldwide theatrical release, The Immortal Story feels like a particularly personal film from the mind of a master filmmaker. Technically it’s let down in many areas – especially the sound engineering which is likely an effect of its almost-complete dubbing – yet it’s nonetheless a provocative drama that’s more than just a mere curiosity. Welles plays Mr Clay, an elderly Macao businessman who’s slowly dying of gout. He is incensed when he learns from his accountant (Roger Coggio) that a story he once heard is most likely apocryphal, as it implies that not everything can be unravelled in terms of cold hard facts. Obsessed with becoming a master of life before his death, he sets out to make the tale a reality. This involves recruiting a lowly sailor down by the quayside and getting him to bed with a beautiful girl, but his actors (Norman Eshley and Jeanne Moreau) are far deeper than he suspects. Mr Clay dies the next day, never to see the conclusion of a story that ultimately doesn’t matter anyway. With The Immortal Story, Welles takes the source material originally written by Karen Blixen and transforms it into a true auteur’s piece. It’s irresponsible to read too much into it, but he fits directly into the role of an old man looking back on a turbulent life filled with betrayals, false achievements and conclusive emptiness. At the behest of his producers, Welles shot the film in colour. He apparently disliked colour cinema, but it’s used here as an effective means to enhance the film’s dreamlike qualities. Everything, especially the recurring focus on gaze, is shot with a richly detached eye that produces a strange, off-kilter effect. Despite the disappointments of the characters – Clay’s impotence, the girl’s neutered desire for revenge, the sailor’s crushed romanticism – our resulting joy is the pleasure of film itself. Imagery is also profound yet resoundingly simple. People are constantly seen through bars to show their ineffectuality, whilst bleary-eyed Welles simmers in his huge conch-like chair (a director’s chair?). There are many deficiencies in the nature of this film (not least the short length, the product of an intended two-part release), but it’s bound to interest any experienced Welles fan. Audition (Takashi Miike, 1999): 3.5/5. The best Japanese horror films are marked by an ability to exaggerate life’s grotesque normalities. Audition, released at the subgenre’s peak, follows in this vein. To some extent it’s a very uneven film, with lots on its mind and a difficult tone that may border on misogynistic, but visually it’s very accomplished, and its psychology is undeniably interesting. Seven years after losing his wife, aging company executive Aoyama (Ryo Ishibashi) considers remarrying. Together with his film producer friend he conducts a phoney audition of thirty pre-selected women, viewing them as potential brides. His eye is immediately drawn to the mysterious and beautiful Asami (Eihi Shiina), who he soon starts dating. Something is off, however: Asami’s personal history doesn’t check out, and privately we get to see the alarming situation she seems to have at home. The highlight of this film is its use of character and space. Each scene is imagined as a box of varying size, with the interacting characters as the centre point. The effect is to show how we are simultaneously alone and not alone: space is encroached upon as the characters drift away from and towards one another, with the final desolating realisation coming only too late. These ideas are teased throughout the first half of the film and begin to mutate during an excellent restaurant scene. Here, the other customers dotted around Aoyama and Asami’s tense table disappear and reappear as the main drama plays out in the middle. The logical extreme of this transformation is found in a nightmarish hallucination scene, which may or may not hint at man’s underlying perversion and self-censorship. Before the final act this is all treated with surprising subtlety, but this latter episode is merely a prologue to the film’s most notorious sequence. The grisly parts are shot with discretion and actually acted out very well by Ishibiashi and Shiina, but in a way it’s a shame how they distract from some of the earlier richer elements. That they’re ultimately inconclusive produces confusing implications. On one hand it’s very good to force a clash between Japanese conservatism and a distinct unravelling of traditional gender roles, but on the other hand the film’s lack of distinction between reality and fantasy disturbs me in the wrong way. Audition is, however, well-made with an excellent concept at its core. You’ll argue over it for hours. Woman on the Run (Norman Foster, 1950): 3.5/5. Film noirs are fascinating to me because, on the surface, they seem like they should be sensationalist or fantastical, yet you’ll occasionally come across one that almost seems half-realist. Woman on the Run applies here, not least because of its use of location shooting. As always with films like this, this is to some extent a bit of a gimmick, but it has its purposes and is more than bolstered by a script that’s not afraid to look deep into “normal” society. After San Franciscan everyman Frank Johnson (Ross Elliott) witnesses a fatal mob shooting, he is taken into police protection. Frank, expectedly nervous, gives the cops the slip. Their only lead in finding him again is through Frank’s detached wife Eleanor (Ann Sheridan), who is forced to re-evaluate her relationship with her husband if she wishes to save him. Complicating matters is the constant reappearance of creepy tabloid reporter Leggett (Dennis O’Keefe). The original short story behind the film was actually titled ‘Man on the Run’, but the alteration serves to demonstrate the true focus of the narrative. The crime aspects are almost there out of necessity, though they’re filmed with adequate tension; instead, the film’s power comes through its analysis of Frank and Eleanor’s relationship. This is a couple, once enamoured with each other, who have been ground down by society’s expectations, robbed of romance and instilled with a sense of mutual disrespect. This is further sustained by the polarity between Leggett and lead detective Ferris (Robert Keith). Ferris self-confessedly serves the “will of the majority”, which in this case will put Frank in direct danger once he is denied access to his heart medicine. Leggett, on the other hand, symbolises a more underhanded form of self-service. The story’s final moralities are fairly concrete, but the right questions are asked along the way. In filmic terms the highlight is the dialogue: it’s believable, never too stereotypical (even in scenes featuring Chinese people or barflies), and when addressing the Johnsons’ marital status it gets downright snappy. The setting is a nice change too, since it subtly undermines the idea of sunny Californian perfection rather than showing the Big Apple’s frequently rotten core. Woman on the Run is not a high-value film, nor is it really a B-movie classic like Gun Crazy, but it shows why rummaging through cinematic backlogs can often be very rewarding. Kiss of the Spider Woman (Hector Babenco, 1985): 3.5/5. Manuel Puig’s 1976 novel Kiss of the Spider Woman is an oft-overlooked postmodern masterpiece, loaded with intertextual winks, intellectual debates, and oodles of astounding sexual angst. Despite the novel’s many references to film, there is a good amount of content that could not be easily adapted here: the novel is predominantly an uninterrupted flow of dialogue, aside from a series of academic footnotes and (at the end) a deliberately coarse authoritarian register. Babenco’s film does a good job though, and in a way it acceptably translates what can otherwise be a challenging work. The film centres around two prison inmates, the openly gay Molina (William Hurt) and the manly Marxist rebel Valentin (Raul Julia). The novel’s setting is Argentina during the brutal Videla dictatorship, though to avoid too much baggage the film seems to have relocated to Brazil. Regardless, the same developments in the central dynamic between the two men are hit. Charting the episodes individually robs the film of its intrigue, but the result is that they both become slowly aware of their positions on the masculine-feminine scale and thereafter try to make a new identity out of it, one more fluid and free in spite of their terrible backdrop. There are numerous embellishments inserted to serve the interests of character development. Fans of the novel might be disappointed by this, but again, it’s something of a necessary evil (especially since we can’t have the passages debating the merits of Herbert Marcuse and Kate Millett, or the extended manipulations of RKO classics Cat People and I Walked with a Zombie); the “purest” adaptation would surely be the stage version overseen by Puig himself. The cell scenes are still well choreographed, however, producing a stifling box of contrasting colours to symbolise the sensitive Molina and the comparatively coarse Valentin. The lighting is fantastic too, becoming more concentrated at tender moments in a way that echoes the novel’s emphatic minimalism surprisingly well. Hurt’s performance polarises me. At the start it seems too flamboyant, a step back for a character that, on the page, seemed simply human despite his Latin homosexuality, but as time goes on it starts ticking the expected boxes. Julia is fine too, but like Iago and Othello it’s always going to be difficult to outshine whoever is playing Molina. Above all else the novel must be read, but the film still retains its heart and unashamed passion. An Autumn Afternoon (Yasujiro Ozu, 1962): 4.5/5. In retrospect it’s quite astounding how the qualities of Yasujiro Ozu’s delicate style survived not just one, but two technological shifts in the making of film. First off, he seemed to make the transition from silent film into sound cinema almost seamlessly, with nothing of his earlier films lost in the quiet speaking works. Towards the end of his career he then began to use colour as a way of probing a culture that was now changing even quicker than before. An Autumn Afternoon is the crown jewel of this final period in Ozu’s life, rivalling even his earlier landmarks of I Was Born But… (1932) and Tokyo Story (1953). The story, if you know Ozu, is familiar and expectedly slow, though having said that you really can’t take your eyes off it. One day, aging businessman Mr Hirayama (Ozu regular Chishu Ryu) is talked into finding a husband for his daughter Michiko (Shima Iwashita). Hirayama is a widow, and so Michiko occupies the role of homemaker in their classic suburban Japanese home, caring for both her father and younger brother. This makes Hirayama sceptical about the whole project, but he is persuaded upon meeting an old schoolmaster (Eijiro Tono) who has since become a pathetic alcoholic forced to hawk noodles with his miserable daughter. Alongside all of this are a number of side-plots: one of Hirayama’s associates marries a much younger woman and is forced to deal with jibes concerning his sex life; Hirayama’s oldest son battles with his increasingly strong wife over money and golf clubs in their much smaller modern apartment. Like with most Ozu films it’s difficult to say what exactly makes watching the film such a wonderfully tragic experience. It’s in the way the characters talk, towards or against the camera; it’s in the way they show respect and disrespect to one another; it’s in the static shots capturing English writing on neon lights in the new cosmopolitan neighbourhoods of Tokyo. A familiarity with Japanese customs is as helpful as always (especially in appreciating Ozu’s rather astonishing treatment of womanhood), but as the film builds up to its final gasp you realise that it’s absolutely not essential. This is a film about loneliness, whether it is literal or ironic. It’s also a personal essay – dripping with hot sake and Suntory whisky – from a very lonely master filmmaker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Out of 100. Blade Runner 2049 (2017) - 94 Blade Runner: The Final Cut (1982) - 100 (rewatch, was 100) Blade Runner: The Final Cut (1982) - 100 (rewatch, was 100) Blade Runner: The Final Cut (1982) - 100 (rewatch, was 100) The Devil Wears Prada (2006) - 72 Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) - 83 Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) - 59 Beasts of No Nation (2015) - 84 Yes, I rewatched Blade Runner 3 times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
You should of at least have watched different cuts
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
glam rock hamhock posted:You should of at least have watched different cuts
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Hey do I look like I'm made of money here? They're not streaming for free anywhere, I have to buy those things if I want to watch 'em! Blade Runner 2049 - 85/100 Absolutely mind-boggling visuals (the credits are literally 10 minutes long), but not a whole lot going on under the hood, and some people's fears about it getting too plot-focused are justified. Good performances, spot-on casting and score, though having to follow in the footsteps of a sci-fi legend proves too tall an order. As with Villanueve's version of Arrival...2049 is a respectable riff on its superior source material, it's just a bit too respectable. Interestingly enough, the visual production design in many places reminded me of Tron: Legacy, especially near the end. I suppose that's fitting, as we're dealing with copies of copies of copies...
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Blade Runner 2049 - 5/5 Just as Mad Max Fury Road did, this sequel builds upon and even improves on the world and the story of the originals. A complex and carefully constructed plot that feels very personal in contrast to the originals sterility kept me engaged the entire time. Great performances across the board, a powerful soundtrack, and an utter masterpiece visually. Possibly the best film of all time from a cinematography point of view. And big  in comparing it to the Tron sequel 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Blade Runner 2049 - 5/5 Don't be a fucker, I specifically said visually. There's a lot of red neon striped cars flying through fog...I think you get my drift. edit; and to be fair, they're both very cleanly shot, minimalist digital mock-ups of 35mm predecessors. BeanpolePeckerwood fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Oct 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Blade Runner 2049 - 5/5 Haven't seen Bladerunner 2049- still nervous about it as Bladerunner is one of my absolute favouites. I do think the Tron sequel was criminally underrated though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
I like Tron Legacy more than the original. I'm not a huge fan of Blade Runner, but 2049 looks intriguing. Though, I appreciated the original way more after seeing the Final Cut version.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
Ewar Woowar posted:Haven't seen Bladerunner 2049- still nervous about it as Bladerunner is one of my absolute favouites. I think it's a bit underrated, too. It's a pretty earnest attempt at following up on one of the tackier pieces of 80s nostalgia, and I think the visual presentation and sound design are excellent. The middle act struggles a bit with pacing, I think, but I had a good time overall. I really like Oblivion, too. I wonder when Kosinski will make another film
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
It's a a visual and aural feast, and anyone who expected more to a Tron followup were tricking themselves. Whether it opens up to the IMAX scenes it just looks amazing. Needs to be played big, and loud.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Tron Legacy has the problem that its world feels weirdly underpopulated, and too much of the story seems to take place at Alan's digital beach house.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Bio digital beach house, man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
I loved Tron Legacy but I also saw it in IMAX which seems to be a big difference maker. Anyway, reviews! I thought I had seen the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Like when I saw the Rob Zombie version I thought it was all really familiar. I don't know what the gently caress I was thinking, the original is nothing like that at all. The reason to see this is that this film is so good at creating mood and tension and dread, even though you know everything that's going to happen because they tell you in the opening crawl. I do think this should be seen in a theater if you have the chance, preferably small, uncomfortable and stuffy. Blade Runner 2049 is also a prime example of just creating a mood. It's also wonderful at using color and sound for storytelling. It doesn't quite have the subtlety of the original, but I still think it's worth seeing if you liked the original or are into questions about selfhood and such. If you're big into action films, maybe this is not for you, though. Seeing a film that has a one star rating on Tivo when I got nothing better to do is a high motivator to watch something, so that's why I decided to see The Shack. It's about as harmless as a denominational film can get, although it pissed a lot of Christians off, and of course atheists as well, so I think it's worth seeing to see why for yourself. The chill af Jesus is also pretty cool Rick fucked around with this message at 10:27 on Oct 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 10:18
|
|
|
Blade Runner 2049 6.8/10 Was enjoyable, but didn't enjoy it as much as the first film by far.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
American Made Tom Cruise/Doug Lyman 2017 9/10 I just saw this in the theatre and it's a really good movie. The story of Barry Seal (and pretty much anybody involved in 1980's cartel drama) makes for a great story, and American Made pulls off this crazy tale of spies, guns, drugs, cops, and politics with a light, enjoyable flair. What amazed me about the film is how competent it is - all the amazing shots of planes and subtle VFX work done to create the setting interact really well with the 70's-film-stock colors and lend a sense of realism to the film. The film's comedy isn't forced or jokey - you will find yourself laughing out loud at events in the story that are genuinely funny, in and of themselves. I had seen no promotion for this movie and only went because it happened to be playing when I arrived, and I didn't want to slog through Blade Runner 2. In terms of Tom Cruise movies I'd say this is similar to Edge of Tomorrow in that - besides all the moviemaking stuff - it's a fundamentally sound, well-written, well-paced story. Nothing to write home about or freak out over, just a good movie. What we used to call a solid rental. I'm subtracting one point for having a bad title, though. I don't think a lot of people are going to see this, largely due to the title. Prior to reading the blurb I would have assumed this is a value-of-effort movie about manufacturing. bad day fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Oct 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
Adam's Rib (1949): B If this film had ended at the conclusion of the trial, I might have given it a C+. But the scenes after the trial fleshed out the characters and made it seem like they both had a point. Hepburn was right that women's lib had a long way to go in the late '40s, but she was so aggressive that I sometimes found her hard to take. I also don't like how she clouded her case with a lot of grandstanding about women's rights (even though she definitely had a point) instead of sticking to the facts. As for Tracy, I don't think his character was treated quite as fairly as Hepburn's. More often, he came across like a bumbling old fuddy dud, though I like how he exacted a measure of revenge for losing his case at the end of the movie. What I liked about the movie was that there was no "good guy" or "bad guy"; both sides were depicted as having a point, and they both had their winning and losing moments over various points. The acting was great; how could it not be with luminaries like Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy? The only character I truly didn't like was "Kip", whom I found annoying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 07:22
|
|