|
Bottom Liner posted:Doctor Sleep 3.5/5 - Way better than you'd expect a sequel to The Shining (film or book) to be. It pulls from both King and Kubrick pretty equally from what I understand and deviates from the book a lot, but I think it mostly worked. It sticks to a lot of the big thematic strings of The Shining and those are the best parts, but the wacky Twilight villains and larger world building stuff aren't as compelling but still work in the story I think. Casting was pretty solid, specifically the voice work all of the actors do to sound like Shelly and Jack. Some really fun shots and playing with the iconic original were the highlight, but it didn't linger on any of it too long to make it cheesy. Mike Flanagan continues to be a really solid director and if you like his earlier stuff and The Shining you'll probably enjoy this. 2/5 the best part was when Ewan McGregor walked through a much better movie I avoided the book because the idea of a bad sequel to one of my fav King novels turned me off.. I don't know how true to the source material this was but a bad sequel to one of my favorite movies, also not great. I feel like I wasted 2.5 hours of my life honestly.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 07:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
zer0spunk posted:Counter review: can you tell us why you feel this way about it? I havent seen it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
TommyGun85 posted:can you tell us why you feel this way about it? I havent seen it. When the book came out the one-line synopsis a friend gave me was "adult Danny Torrence vs psychic vampires" which was enough to decide not to read it. I'm a fan of his work, but it's not like every novel he writes is gold by a long shot. If he made a new set of characters and didn't attach the shining to it, I woulda been down to give it a shot. I'll reiterate that I love the shining, my copy is worn down from re-reads and friends borrowing over the years. I also very much love Kubrick's version, whereas King hates it apparently. It's an iconic horror classic that I could watch countless times and it still holds up and will forever hold up (and not because of random jumpscares or whatever current horror trend is popular). I've also seen King's own 1997 remake version and hoo boy was that a stinker, so again, the author isn't exactly the best metric here. Movie spoiler stuff: This movie feels like a Marvel movie version of the shining. The story could easily remove any mention of the shining and not lean on the original at all, and be much better for it. There's 0 agency or tension, the antagonists are super corny. Even the "shocking" child murder just comes off corny as hell to be honest. On the marvel movie thing, it pretty much follows that formula. The villains prepare, the heroes prepare, they come together and have 2 fights, the movie ends. There's not much depth to any of it, and the villains get their asses kicked in every scene, making them laughable at best for uhh gypsy steam vampires or whatever. Why should I feel any tension at all when the antagonists are useless? ACTUAL SPOILER: We're told over and over how powerful and badass they are, and then 90% of them get shot to death super fast. Uhhh, what? "Stop comparing this to a movie from 40 years ago, it's not giving Doctor sleep a chance!" OK, so, the entire third act pulls from the shining down to recreating a bunch of famous shots with other actors standing in. Don't get me started about Not Jack Nicholson and those scenes. If you don't want me to compare your movie to another movie, don't have your movie wear said better movies skin like a cheap ghost. Here's one actual tangible spoiler about the end fight. The main villain, the end boss, whatever you want to call her..is defeated by the ghosts of the shining. Seriously, all the characters like the ghost twins come out and beat the gently caress out of her.. Talk about a giant eye roll. I get this doesn't want to be compared to a MUCH better movie but then it forces it on you anyway in the third act. I didn't leave this movie thinking, oh cool, I just saw what happened to Danny after the shining..I thought "why does this exist?" I'm sure I'll be rewatching the shining for years to come, you couldn't pay me to watch this again in the future. It sits in that place the blade runner sequel does for me, I didn't need or want this film. That said, I gave it a 2 instead of 1 because of some neat VFX sequences and the fact that they avoided CGI de-aging like their peers thankfully. The stand-in actors were a slightly less terrible choice of the two evils. Carl Lumbly crushes it as Scatman Just watch the new 4k UHD restoration of The Shining instead, trust me. After this, pet semetary and It this year, my new rule is to wait for VOD on anything based off his work. I still haven't seen dark tower or the carrie remake, and I feel like that was a good choice on my part. On a different note, the only things left this year on my radar are knives out (i haven't liked any of this dudes other films though), uncut gems (i have a feeling this will make my best of the year, i loved good time) and 1917 (the subject matter does nothing for me, but a one-shot movie by deakins is enough to get me to go see it)..slim pickings for the remainder of 2019 e2: Is it too early to start talking about the worst of the year lists? I saw some real trash this year- Gemini Man, Greener Grass, Hellboy, Terminator Dark Fate, Rambo Last Blood, Dead Don't Die, Child's Play, X-Men Dark Phoenix, Brightburn, Pet Semetary, Capt Marvel, Highlife, Glass zer0spunk fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Nov 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
I mostly agree with your points there but still found it enjoyable, mostly because I went in expecting much worse and knew it wasn’t trying to be The Shining. I’ve also softened on King’s dumber story conventions over the years so the stupid psychic vampires were an eye roll but didn’t ruin it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I mostly agree with your points there but still found it enjoyable, mostly because I went in expecting much worse and knew it wasn’t trying to be The Shining. I’ve also softened on King’s dumber story conventions over the years so the stupid psychic vampires were an eye roll but didn’t ruin it. I'm normally down for that kinda weird rear end plotline and I think if you removed anything that has to do with the shining I would have dug this movie way more for just being a really out there piece. I don't think it really gained anything from being a sequel because the first versions of both film and novel are a really tough act to follow. I'm also pretty exhausted as an audience member with sequels, prequels and reboots at this point. I'm 35 and I feel like if the film was made in the 50's or earlier, it's fair game..but movies from the 60s-90s that hold up just make me want to watch those instead. gently caress generation z or whatever their called, just be happy with the existing version. [old man yells at clouds.jpg]
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
A bit of catch-up since I was posting most of my October stuff in that thread. Shutter Island (2010, Martin Scorsese) - 4/5 Solaris (1972, Andrei Tarkovsky) [Blu-ray] - 3.5/5 Le silence de le mer (1949, Jean-Pierre Melville) [Blu-ray] - 3.5/5 Short Cuts (1993, Robert Altman) [Blu-ray] - 4.5/5 A Brighter Summer Day (1991, Edward Yang) [Blu-ray] - 4.5/5 Night and the City (1950, Jules Dassin) [Blu-ray] - 4/5 The Decline of Western Civilization Part III (1998, Penelope Spheeris) [Criterion Channel] - 4/5 Tales of Beatrix Potter (1971, Reginald Mills) [Criterion Channel] - 3/5 The Heiress (1949, William Wyler) [Blu-ray] - 5/5 Detour (1945, Edgar G. Ulmer) [Blu-ray] - 4.5/5 Mikey and Nicky (1976, Elaine May) [Blu-ray] - 4/5 The Baker's Wife (1938, Marcel Pagnol) [Blu-ray] - 4/5 Beat the Devil (1953, John Huston) [Blu-ray - 4K restoration] - 3.5/5 Where is the Friend's House? (1988, Abbas Kiarostami) [Blu-ray] - 4/5 Tartuffe (1925, F.W. Murnau) [Blu-ray] - 3.5/5 Judex (1963, Georges Franju) [DVD] - 4/5 Schloss Vogelod (1920, F.W. Murnau) [Blu-ray] - 3/5 And Life Goes On (1991, Abbas Kiarostami) [Blu-ray] - 5/5 Through the Olive Trees (1993, Abbas Kiarostami) [Blu-ray] - 4/5 Bob le flambeur (1955, Jean-Pierre Melville) [Blu-ray] - 4/5 The Cloud-Capped Star (1960, Ritwik Ghatak) [Blu-ray] - 4/5 The Milky Way (1969, Luis Bunuel) [Blu-ray] - 3.5/5 Europa Europa (1990, Agnieszka Holland) [Blu-ray] - 4.5/5 Klute (1971, Alan J. Pakula) [Blu-ray] - 4.5/5 rewatch Death in the Garden (1956, Luis Bunuel) [Blu-ray] - 3.5/5 Wanda (1970, Barbara Loden) [Blu-ray] - 4/5 My Favorite Year (1982, Richard Benjamin) [Blu-ray] - 3.5/5 Heaven Can Wait (1943, Ernst Lubitsch) [Blu-ray] - 3.5/5 Casino (1995, Martin Scorsese) [UHD] - 5/5 When We Were Kings (1996, Leon Gast) [Blu-ray] - 4/5 Soul Power (2008, Jeffrey Kusama-Hinte) [Blu-ray] - 4.5/5 Swing Time (1936, George Stevens) [Blu-ray] - 3.5/5 rewatch Egbert Souse fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Nov 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 06:07
|
|
|
Would you mind elaborating on Solaris and Casino? My opinions are similar
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2019 06:33
|
|
|
The Babadook (2014): 8/10 Midsommar (2019): 7/10 The Lighthouse (2019): 8/10 Scanners (1981): 7/10 Twins (1988): 7/10
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:Would you mind elaborating on Solaris and Casino? I think I'll need to watch Solaris again to take in everything, but it's a fascinating way of portraying memory as something visual. It's like Tarkovsky saw 2001 and thought was too simple. It sort of has the same sort of surreal tone that The Man Who Fell to Earth takes with being science fiction on clearly a low budget and only basic special effects. Casino is another Scorsese masterpiece. Leave it to him (and Thelma Schoonmaker) to make a three hour film seem like it's half the length. What's interesting is that it seems to have way more of a European feel to it. Goodfellas has its roots in 30s Warner gangster pictures while Casino seems more in line with the work of Visconti and Bresson. It's also neat to see DeNiro play a more restrained character. You can see the cogs turning in his head and really get an idea of his internal thoughts. Joe Pesci is even more creepy and slimy than his turn in Goodfellas and I didn't expect the sort of "vein-opening" acting from Sharon Stone (reminded me a lot of 60s Bardot). I do love how Scorsese plays with narrative between the multiple narrators and misdirection. And holy poo poo is this magnificently edited. Apparently this was the first of his films edited digitally. Robert Richardson's cinematography is also gorgeous, with all this backlighting and smoke that gives almost an ethereal look. Great supporting cast, too. (Scorsese's mom gets one of the best scenes again).
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:I think I'll need to watch Solaris again to take in everything, but it's a fascinating way of portraying memory as something visual. It's like Tarkovsky saw 2001 and thought was too simple. It sort of has the same sort of surreal tone that The Man Who Fell to Earth takes with being science fiction on clearly a low budget and only basic special effects. Just saw The Irishman (incredible), and was thinking the whole time of Casino. It's wonderful for all the reasons you state and more. A great informal trilogy about the violence of capital in 20th Century America, and it easily surpasses The Godfather phenomenon if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
See Parasite if you are into class anxiety handed with the full array of seriousness and aren't put off by somewhat melodramatic tonal shifts South Korean films often take.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2019 08:46
|
|
|
Midway (2019) - 2/5 This is the definition of a mediocre war movie. Not terrible, not offensive or insulting, but just incredibly by the numbers. It's also weirdly sterile, not just because it's PG-13, but everything in the movie just looks too slick and clean. Even scenes in offices and bars look too neat and sanitized. The CGI battle scenes are too much like a flashy action movie and not enough like a war movie, everything is amped up and overblown in a cartoony way that's sometimes hard to take seriously. A handful of scenes are genuinely tense or visually impressive, but not nearly enough. In terms of plot, it covers the entire period from the attack on Pearl Harbor to the end of the Battle of Midway. Everything about the war in the Pacific gets the most superficial treatment possible just to make it fit, and we never get much of a feel for the personalities of most of the people involved beyond Cocky Pilot Guys or Serious Staff Officer Mans or Dour Japanese Admirals. None of it stood out as being inaccurate, but it's the summary of the summary of the summary of events. The sad thing is that the Battle of Midway is an absolutely batshit insane historical event with a bunch of weird and interesting characters, and this movie just does nothing interesting with any of it. Just watch Midway (1976) again if you want to see a Hollywood depiction of the event. That movie is itself far from perfect, but watching a basic war movie is a lot more palatable when its full of famous old-time actors and archival gun camera footage. Unlike the new movie it also touched on things like the Japanese interment camps, and somehow got across the horrors of war better while being rated PG and using models and rear projection and paint squibs and poo poo. tl,dr: It's exactly what you'd expect if you close your eyes and imagine Roland Emmerich half-assing a war movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Midway (2019) - 2/5 Yeah this is spot on. I watched right after Ford vs Ferrari because a friend of mine was bored that day and insisted on doing a double feature. The contrast is pretty hilarious, this looks like a straight to VHS type of movie in comparison to the cinematography, effects, production values and acting in FvF. But yeah the plot/screenplay was definitely the worst aspect... one of the biggest and most decisive naval battles and I got nothing out of it really. mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Nov 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
FvF was borderline network television level acting/writing with some cool, and very expensive, car spectacle. If I had to describe the film FvF using car anologies I'd say that it's certainly no lean beast, but rather has a huge computer in the front seat and a bunch of industry suits clinging to the roof.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Yeah this is spot on. I watched right after Ford vs Ferrari because a friend of mine was bored that day and insisted on doing a double feature. The contrast is pretty hilarious, this looks like a straight to VHS type of movie in comparison to the cinematography, effects, production values and acting in FvF. The battle might have been decided by the original commander on the scene (Halsey) getting a crazy rash out of nowhere that caused him to be replaced by Spruance, who was probably the greatest fleet commander in US history. They show Halsey getting the rash that eventually sent him to the hospital, but it's just a thing that happens that we're given no reason to care about. poo poo, Spruance is barely even in the loving movie, and he was the commander on the scene at the battle that the loving movie is named after!
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:None of it stood out as being inaccurate, but it's the summary of the summary of the summary of events. The sad thing is that the Battle of Midway is an absolutely batshit insane historical event with a bunch of weird and interesting characters, and this movie just does nothing interesting with any of it. It's the destiny of all historical films.  As time goes on WWII movies will become more divorced from reality and continually shifted and shoehorned to fit with modern sensibilities. If they showed actual WWII films and what went on they'd be rated NC-17 and leave most viewers sick and offended in many different ways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Frozen 2 (2019): 2/5 The songs are unmemorable and it was a huge missed opportunity not giving Elsa a girlfriend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
Frozen 2 - 3/5 - Plot was a mess but I thought the music was good, it was funnier than the first thanks to a bit smarter humor, and the action stuff was all pretty neat. Felt written by a board room and was both too long and too short, which is a sign of both a terrible script and editing. Knives Out - 4/5 - Really fun movie where the actors were all obviously enjoying playing a bunch of idiots. Daniel Craig and Chris Evans were especially fun. Great editing and pacing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
Queen and Slim - 4.5/5. One of the best road trip movies of all time. It’s about a lot more than just police brutality. Couple of little snags but overall excellent. Two cameos were really unexpected but made sense with the directors background in music.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 07:50
|
|
|
holy cow the first 20-30 minutes of Waves are loving breathtaking I N C R E D I B L E filmmaking
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 09:55
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:holy cow the first 20-30 minutes of Waves are loving breathtaking I N C R E D I B L E filmmaking How did you feel about the big shift tonally and narratively later?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 14:08
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:How did you feel about the big shift tonally and narratively later? I thought it worked well as a dyptic actually, far better, and more embedded, than other such films that want to depict contemporary epic tragedy (The Place Beyond The Pines). The other thing is that the first hour is so unrelenting in its pace and stimuli to the degree that it would be too exhausting to maintain for much longer, and it's obvious that the second half of the film is trying for catharsis but is honest with itself about healing being slow. I'll score it later, but suffice to say that one could pick it apart but in the end I liked it a lot and I think it will hold up over time mainly because of its honesty and risktaking. edit; the caveat being that people should go into the movie not knowing much about it but at least knowing that they are going to go through some hard poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
I agree, I thought the shift gave relief to the story and the viewing experience in a good way and was really interesting. What do you think of the semi-controversy of the film being made/written by white people but about a black family and playing loose with the black experience?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:What do you think of the semi-controversy of the film being made/written by white people but about a black family and playing loose with the black experience? I think it's bullshit auteurism. Films are collective works. It's the kind of dishonest deflection that's meant to shut down the exchange of emotions and ideas between already scattered identities, like saying you can't be a feminist if you're a man. The Last Black Man in SF was also directed by a white man, but it was written edited, acted, etc by a host of black individuals who probably all had a stake in its message, and injecting that kind of limp-dick criticism into the mix in order to make an armchair takedown of honest art is counterproductive at best, vile at worst.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
As I was leaving two black dudes behind me were discussing how much they hated the way sterling k brown was written as the cliched black dad by a white writer. I didn't even know who directed it/wrote it (or that it was the dude from it comes at night) when I went to go see it, so it was kinda interesting to get a totally different take a second after it ended. I also feel like it doesn't really use race all that often...I can think of two scenes in passing that touched on the struggle of poc (one where a black teen is being confronted by white cops, that's maybe in frame for 20 seconds as the lead passes by, another in a parking lot of a clinic). Blindspotting, STBY, or LBMISF this movie was not. I really think you can insert whatever upper-middle-class family you want into the film and it still works regardless of race...it's a weird thing to interject as the main criticism..but I guess I understand it? Even though I don't relate as a white dude. It's hard to discount this film based on that for me at least...If anything a real criticism is how heavy-handed the film feels, and I really think the shift made the movie into "good" rather then "eh done to death". I love sound and color to death, so ending on that song automatically gave that movie an extra point for me. I liked it. A lot. I went opening night in NYC, and it was pretty dead. I hope this movie gets some marketing push from a24, it seems like no one is going. e: it also had what I thought was one of the most realistic depictions of an argument on film...the entire car ride scene coming back from the abortion clinic where it just escalates and escalates until she's walking on the side of the road...everything about that felt so incredibly uncomfortably realistic...more so then any horror film tension i've ever seen..kudos to the acting in this e2: the way i described it to get more friends to go was "its a movie that tries really hard to be a requiem for a dream but ultimately is about hope rather than soul-crushing bleakness. and it's made incredibly well" zer0spunk fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Dec 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:I think it's bullshit auteurism. Films are collective works. It's the kind of dishonest deflection that's meant to shut down the exchange of emotions and ideas between already scattered identities, like saying you can't be a feminist if you're a man. I don't think it's fair to discount the reception of the group of people depicted in the movie saying "this doesn't feel authentic" and your example points out the flaw this film has in its approach. Your analogy is a big reach. If you're writing/working outside of what you represent you have to be very careful and his hand-wavey "I wrote this without thinking of race" is not handling it with any delicacy or respect. Calling it a non-issue is pretty ignorant because art exists within the context of when it's made. BeanpolePeckerwood posted:The Last Black Man in SF was also directed by a white man, but it was written edited, acted, etc by a host of black individuals who probably all had a stake in its message, See the difference? I also think the movie was really well made and good, and I didn't think too much about it beyond being aware of how black audiences and critics had contention with some parts, but contrasting it to something like Queen and Slim was pretty drat stark. The difference in "this was made for me" and "this was made for the people the story is about" is important and worth noting, and it doesn't even have to be a knock on the film. Queen and Slim was also excellent but I know that movie was not made for me, and I can still enjoy it and learn a lot from the more authentic black experience depicted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
The idea that I can only authentically make content for other 35-year-old white dudes makes me so depressed y'all. No one really believes that right? Rightttt????
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
I mean yeah, there are extremists on every side of every issue but as long as you don't handle the topic poorly you're probably fine.
Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Dec 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I don't think it's fair to discount the reception of the group of people depicted in the movie saying "this doesn't feel authentic"  Okay, I accept that some people might feel that way and I do not discount their feeling, I just disagree with it. In the case of online critics I might even go so far as to say they're arguing in bad faith, depending on the context.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
Watching Holiday Inn 1942. A pretty flimsy movie about Bing Crosby opening a small inn that is only open on holidays, which is an excuse to have a lot of holiday themed Irving Berlin songs with Fred Astaire dancing. It's the movie that premiered the song "White Christmas." It's entertaining enough if you like dancing and snappy 40s comedy quips, but: half way through there's a routine on Abraham Lincoln's birthday that features everyone in blackface:  Watching 40s movies is like walking through a minefield.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 04:35
|
|
|
The musicals are the only ones that have blackface, in case you want to avoid that particular mine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 07:31
|
|
|
Putney Swope (1969, Robert Downey (a prince)) [Blu-ray] - 4.5/5 rewatch Leon Morin, Priest (1961, Jean-Pierre Melville) [Blu-ray] - 4.5/5 Le doulos (1962, Jean-Pierre Melville) [Blu-ray] - 4/5 Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (2010, Apichatpong Weerasethakul) [Criterion Channel] - 4.5/5 Gone to Earth (1950, Michael Powell/Emeric Pressburger) [Blu-ray] - 3/5 Fragment of an Empire (1929, Fridrikh Ermler) [Blu-ray] - 3/5 The Wizard of Oz (1939, Victor Fleming) [TBS airing] - 5/5 rewatch I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978, Robert Zemeckis) [Blu-ray] - 3.5/5 Cluny Brown (1946, Ernst Lubitsch) [Blu-ray] - 4/5 L'argent (1928, Marcel L'Herbier) [Blu-ray] - 4/5 I Heard You Paint Houses (2019, Martin Scorsese) [Netflix 4K] - 5/5 The Emperor's Naked Army Marches On (1987, Kazou Hara) [Blu-ray] - 4.5/5 RoboCop (1987, Paul Verhoven) [Blu-ray director's cut] - 4.5/5 Also watched 17 films by Charley Bowers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Leon Morin, Priest (1961, Jean-Pierre Melville) [Blu-ray] - 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
Holy poo poo it's been a while. Avengers: Endgame - B Brightburn - C+ Always Be My Maybe - B+ The King - A- Dolemite Is My Name - A Frozen 2 - B- Toy Story 4 - A The Farewell - B+ Lady And The Tramp (2019) - C- Noelle - C+ I've also watched a smattering of Xmas movies lately when they've been on tv, but my thoughts on them haven't really changed from previous viewings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Coaaab posted:also summarize the best of your charley bowers viewing Leon Morin, Priest - I love Melville's films and this packs in a ton of great stuff. You have Jean-Paul Belmondo as a handsome young priest, Emmanuelle Riva as a communist bisexual. There's a lot of amazing themes on faith, fascism, and sexuality that probably would have made Americans faint at the time. Uncle Boonmee is the first of "Joe's" films I've seen and I loved it. Meditative, surreal, but real. I want to see the rest of his work now. Cluny Brown is almost peak Lubitsch. Lots of great innuendos about plumbing and pipes, clowning on class structure, and a great cast (including some of my fave character actors like Una O'Connor and Richard Haydn). It could go a little farther and I think Charles Boyer plays his part a bit weak compared to Jennifer Jones being consistently hilarious. Really too bad Jones didn't do more comedy like this because she's got this spark in her eyes that made me burst out laughing when she's talking about men's pipes needing to be cleared. The Irishman or I Heard You Paint Houses is the third masterpiece in Scorsese's "Mob Epic Trilogy" after Goodfellas and Casino. There's just so much to take in, ranging from all the themes about betrayal, the soul, violence, and the passage of time. DeNiro, Pesci, and Pacino are at their absolute loving best. Plus we get some smaller, but great parts for Harvey Keitel, Ray Romano, and Anna Paquin (her big scene feels like a brick to the face). This feels like both the apotheosis of the gangster film while also being an even deeper criticism. You know, for the idiots that saw Goodfellas and Casino thinking they glorify violence. The three main stars really get a chance to beat back their film stereotypes. Pacino owns at playing Hoffa and you'd never think he was up there in his years in the earlier scenes. Likewise, DeNiro and Pesci play it way more subtle. DeNiro almost plays Sheeran as childlike. He's this deadly force, but there's a heart to him. Which makes Pesci even more astounding. He doesn't even raise his voice, but you get the sort of ruthlessness to his character. The CGI makeup gets a lot of talk, but it blends in well and gives a certain bit of surreality to the film. (Some even compare it to the work of Bunuel). While I'm woefully behind on 2019 films, this is my pick for the best film I've seen this year and I'd even say it's one of Scorsese's best. Only going to get better over time. The Emperor's Naked Army Marches On just came out from Second Run in the UK - it's a region free disc, too. It's a brilliant documentary following a Japanese veteran of WWII, Mr. Okuzaki, tracking down commanders who ordered executions and even cannibalism at the end of the war. I had to stop and think about what I was seeing, whether it was real or not. He ends up assaulting several people and you can guess how the film ends. Really brilliant, breathless documentary work. RoboCop is a film I've seen in bits and pieces on TV for years, but never from start to finish uncut. There's not a wasted frame here. I love how well the satire shines through, whether it's the utter assholes in suits loving over civilization or the late capitalism in the period "commercial breaks" and news reports. This does a great job of building a hellish world that's a mirror being held up. A great cast, too. Peter Weller absolutely sells playing a cyborg. I've been on a bit of a Nancy Allen kick lately and she's great in this, even if doesn't get as much time. Oh, and an absolute murderer's row of evil shitheads played by Kurtwood Smith, Miguel Ferrer, Ronny Cox, Ray Wise, and others. The violence is also wonderfully over the top. As I hadn't seen the director's cut in full, some parts are a pretty big shock (Emil getting a "bath"  ). I wish more action movies had this much stuff to chew on and were made this tight.As for the Bowers films, I watched the entire Flicker Alley Blu-ray set. Some, like There It Is, Now You Tell One, and Egged On, play like weirder Keaton comedies while Bowers almost resembles Harry Langdon. There's also some neat later sound-era shorts like It's a Bird (with a fantastic one-take animation of a full size car emerging from an egg) and Oil Can and Does (a slightly reworked NY World's Fair film to advertise petroleum products, directed by Joseph Losey and animated by Bowers). Worth checking out since they're not very well known. There It Is is probably the weirdest silent-era short I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:
I don't think they glorify it but I can see why from certain positions one could make the argument. Like, similarly, I don't really agree with Coppola when he says "Apocalypse now isn't really an anti-war film". I disagree with that fundamentally, but I understand the argument and why he would make that now, with certain context. With respect to these kinds of things it can often depend on one's relative position to spectacle itself. Similarly thorny is The Wolf of Wall Street being denounced by some for glorifying capitalist predation, which I also don't think it really is in the end. However, what adds to the insanity is that it was principally financed via laundered Malaysian public funds through the 1MDB scandal. Fitting that it was widely pirated then. Complex topics elicit a variety of responses and I'd rather there be a conversation than not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Uncle Boonmee is the first of "Joe's" films I've seen and I loved it. Meditative, surreal, but real. I want to see the rest of his work now. Egbert Souse posted:The Irishman or I Heard You Paint Houses is the third masterpiece in Scorsese's "Mob Epic Trilogy" after Goodfellas and Casino. There's just so much to take in, ranging from all the themes about betrayal, the soul, violence, and the passage of time. DeNiro, Pesci, and Pacino are at their absolute loving best. Plus we get some smaller, but great parts for Harvey Keitel, Ray Romano, and Anna Paquin (her big scene feels like a brick to the face). This feels like both the apotheosis of the gangster film while also being an even deeper criticism. You know, for the idiots that saw Goodfellas and Casino thinking they glorify violence. The three main stars really get a chance to beat back their film stereotypes. Pacino owns at playing Hoffa and you'd never think he was up there in his years in the earlier scenes. Likewise, DeNiro and Pesci play it way more subtle. DeNiro almost plays Sheeran as childlike. He's this deadly force, but there's a heart to him. Which makes Pesci even more astounding. He doesn't even raise his voice, but you get the sort of ruthlessness to his character. The CGI makeup gets a lot of talk, but it blends in well and gives a certain bit of surreality to the film. (Some even compare it to the work of Bunuel). While I'm woefully behind on 2019 films, this is my pick for the best film I've seen this year and I'd even say it's one of Scorsese's best. Only going to get better over time. Egbert Souse posted:As for the Bowers films, I watched the entire Flicker Alley Blu-ray set. Some, like There It Is, Now You Tell One, and Egged On, play like weirder Keaton comedies while Bowers almost resembles Harry Langdon. There's also some neat later sound-era shorts like It's a Bird (with a fantastic one-take animation of a full size car emerging from an egg) and Oil Can and Does (a slightly reworked NY World's Fair film to advertise petroleum products, directed by Joseph Losey and animated by Bowers). Worth checking out since they're not very well known. There It Is is probably the weirdest silent-era short I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
Alita: Battle Angel - 4/5, really, really enjoyed this
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
Here's There It Is if anyone wants a taste of Charley Bowers' oeuvre: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHWHeqD-F_g
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
Julius CSAR posted:Alita: Battle Angel - 4/5, really, really enjoyed this Def making my top 10 this year, warts and all
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 06:43
|
|