|
Post by berkley on Jan 14, 2024 18:46:06 GMT -5
Saw Ridley Scott's Napoleon this afternoon. Not what I was expecting, which was a more or less straightforward historical epic, but this was much more comedic, even farcical at times. The nearly 3-hours flowed by pretty smoothly so it was at least entertaining but on the whole I don't think it succeeded, either as a comedy (not funny enough) or as a serious bio-pic (especially Phoenix's performance). It looked good, as Scott's films usually do, so there was that, and the story itself is so eventful that I was never bored, but as a film I have to say it wasn't really satisfying on any level.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jan 21, 2024 4:52:03 GMT -5
Watched Blackkklansman (2018)...
For those who may not be familiar, it's loosely based on the true story of Ron Stallworth, the first Black detective in the Colorado Springs police department, who began conducting an investigation into a local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in the late 1970s which involved him posing as a white man interested in joining, so that he even had phone conversations with David Duke, at the time the KKK's grand tooth fairy or whatever. In the movie, Spike Lee et al. took a lot of liberties with the story - and also shifted it to taking place in the early '70s for some reason. The two main stars, John David Washington as Stallworth and Adam Driver as the Jewish fellow cop who poses as Stallworth for in person meetings with Klan members (in real life, Stallworth never revealed the identities of the white cops who assisted him in his investigations) are both quite good, while Topher Grace does a bang-up job playing the smarmy David Duke. All in all, it's a pretty good film; it's entertaining enough - although the trailer above makes it seem more comical than it is, because it's more of a serious police procedural than anything else. It is, however, simultaneously rather disturbing and, ultimately, a bit depressing (when you realize how topical so much of the story is - brought home by file footage of the events in Charlottevsville in 2017 shown at the end).
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 21, 2024 11:49:03 GMT -5
Watched Blackkklansman (2018)... For those who may not be familiar, it's loosely based on the true story of Ron Stallworth, the first Black detective in the Colorado Springs police department, who began conducting an investigation into a local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in the late 1970s which involved him posing as a white man interested in joining, so that he even had phone conversations with David Duke, at the time the KKK's grand tooth fairy or whatever. In the movie, Spike Lee et al. took a lot of liberties with the story - and also shifted it to taking place in the early '70s for some reason. The two main stars, John David Washington as Stallworth and Adam Driver as the Jewish fellow cop who poses as Stallworth for in person meetings with Klan members (in real life, Stallworth never revealed the identities of the white cops who assisted him in his investigations) are both quite good, while Topher Grace does a bang-up job playing the smarmy David Duke. All in all, it's a pretty good film; it's entertaining enough - although the trailer above makes it seem more comical than it is, because it's more of a serious police procedural than anything else. It is, however, simultaneously rather disturbing and, ultimately, a bit depressing (when you realize how topical so much of the story is - brought home by file footage of the events in Charlottevsville in 2017 shown at the end). I watched it shortly after it came to streaming, so early to mid 2019. I enjoyed it quite a bit. All the leads were excellent (I was particularly impressed by Topher Grace) and…Yeah…it was unfortunately still incredibly timely.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 21, 2024 16:08:13 GMT -5
Saw Freud's Last Session, about a speculative meeting between Freud and CS Lewis a few weeks before Freud's death in 1939, just after Germany invaded Poland. Well acted all round, with Anthony Hopkins as Freud, Matthew Goode as Lewis, and especially Liz Lisa Fries as Freud's daughter Anna. Very solid film but I felt perhaps even more could have been made of the intriguing premise. Definitely worth a look for anyone interested in Freud or Lewis - BTW, the Inklings make a brief appearance, including a scene in which Tolkien convinces then-atheist Lewis to investigate Christianity more deeply.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jan 22, 2024 4:36:21 GMT -5
Although it teeters on the edge of what we might define as 'new' or 'classic,' I'll post this here because there was some brief discussion of it way uphtread (when it was in fact new; I can't believe it's been almost a decade since its release). Anyway, finally got around to seeing Birdman (2014)... There was quite a bit of buzz when it was released, and it also picked up a bunch of Oscars, including best picture, so I was a bit familiar with what it was about. Anyway I thought it was a pretty good psychological drama, with some pretty solid performances by the main cast. Not sure if I'd ever put it in any personal 'best' or 'favorite' movie list though, but obviously the Academy and scores of critics disagree with me. One aspect I found interesting - and which is what I think all of the critics et al. found so wonderful - is the sort of debate this movie has with the motion picture industry, esp. the MCU movies which at that point (the movie was shot in 2013) had already become a cinematic juggernaut. The casting of Michael Keaton in particular, but also Ed Norton, also made that debate a bit meta as well. (I recall that later I thought it was especially amusing that Keaton not only appeared in a Marvel movie not long afterward, but in fact played a 'birdman', i.e., the Vulture.)
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 22, 2024 9:32:11 GMT -5
I re-watched It Follows (2015) yesterday, and it works even when you know how it ends.
It's a clever little horror film with little blood or physical violence but a lot of tension, and with quite a good artistic direction. More of a "why am I sitting on the edge of my seat?" thing that a "GAH!!! Another jump scare!" one, and all the better for it.
The scary creature here is a supernatural entity that can take the form of anyone. As the title says it follows a given victim, and if it catches it, it gruesomely turns it into a human origami. The entity just walks, it never runs, so it's not that hard to escape... but it also never relents and cannot be killed.
Who does it follow and eventually murders? That's the interesting concept behind this story, as it's very selective: the creature's next victim is whoever had sex with its latest target (like some kind of spectral STD). However, if someone manages to have a sexual relation before being murdered, then they're off the hook! The curse is transferred to their partner. There is however a twist: should said partner be killed before they, in turn, have sex with someone else, then the monster goes back to the previous carrier.
This presents a double problem for the protagonists: on the one hand nobody wants to be gruesomely murdered by a demonic entity, but on the other hand most decent folks don't want to damn innocents to save their own skin. This moral conundrum gives the story an unexpected depth without distracting from its fast-paced nature.
My favourite parts are the scenes in which the entity under some nondescript form is clearly within sight, getting closer and closer at a steady pace, without anyone but us viewers noticing... not because the characters are afflicted by plot-induced stupidity (they're actually quite sensible), but because hiding in plain sight sometimes works very well.
It's a good example of what one can do, even with a limited budget, when one has a good script. In that sense, it reminds me of Spielberg's film "Duel", where all that was needed was a car, a truck, and roads for them to drive on.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 22, 2024 10:07:03 GMT -5
Although it teeters on the edge of what we might define as 'new' or 'classic,' I'll post this here because there was some brief discussion of it way uphtread (when it was in fact new; I can't believe it's been almost a decade since its release). Anyway, finally got around to seeing Birdman (2014)... There was quite a bit of buzz when it was released, and it also picked up a bunch of Oscars, including best picture, so I was a bit familiar with what it was about. Anyway I thought it was a pretty good psychological drama, with some pretty solid performances by the main cast. Not sure if I'd ever put it in any personal 'best' or 'favorite' movie list though, but obviously the Academy and scores of critics disagree with me. One aspect I found interesting - and which is what I think all of the critics et al. found so wonderful - is the sort of debate this movie has with the motion picture industry, esp. the MCU movies which at that point (the movie was shot in 2013) had already become a cinematic juggernaut. The casting of Michael Keaton in particular, but also Ed Norton, also made that debate a bit meta as well. (I recall that later I thought it was especially amusing that Keaton not only appeared in a Marvel movie not long afterward, but in fact played a 'birdman', i.e., the Vulture.) I watched this when it came out on streaming, so probably mid to late 2015. I honestly only kind of vaguely remember it. I do know that it wasn't what I was expecting (I'm not sure what I was expecting) and that I really didn't care for it much. I suspect I should probably watch it again at some point.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Feb 6, 2024 4:46:50 GMT -5
I was scrolling through the 'action & adventure' folder of HBO recently and came across 65 (2023):
I was a bit surprised to see a very recent SF flick starring Adam Driver that I knew nothing about. It's set long before humans evolved, as the text at the start notes that highly-advanced civilizations had appeared and began exploring the stars even then. Driver's character, Mills, is a starship pilot whose wife talks him into taking another long-haul (2-year) transport job because they need the money to treat their very ill daughter. Fast forward to well over a year later, and the ship sustains severe damage after being hit by some asteroid debris while passing through a star system, and Mills has to make an emergency landing on the nearest planet: Earth, 65 million years ago. The ship which, by the way, was transporting a bunch of cryogenically frozen people, breaks into two chunks and only Mills and a little girl in one of the damaged pods survive. They have to traverse over 10 miles of the inhospitable terrain full of dinosaurs to make it to the other part of the ship where there is a functional escape pod. Meanwhile, Mills' hand-held scanner indicates that a humongous asteroid is going crash into the planet and they're traipsing around in ground zero... Up top, I'll say that this is a watchable film with an intriguing premise, but it never goes beyond that. It's a simple and predictable survival story. Also, I was a bit disappointed that all of the dinosaurs were portrayed in the very typical movie fashion, i.e, as simple-minded savage lizards, even though we now know that many of them, esp. the smaller ones, had feathers. Also, at several points they're pursued by something with a T-rex head but with normal-sized forelegs that it would sometimes use for walking.
|
|
|
Post by GoldenAge Heroes! on Feb 6, 2024 12:12:38 GMT -5
I was scrolling through the 'action & adventure' folder of HBO recently and came across 65 (2023): I was a bit surprised to see a very recent SF flick starring Adam Driver that I knew nothing about. I'll say that this is a watchable film with an intriguing premise, but it never goes beyond that. It's a simple and predictable survival story. Also, I was a bit disappointed that all of the dinosaurs were portrayed in the very typical movie fashion, i.e, as simple-minded savage lizards, even though we now know that many of them, esp. the smaller ones, had feathers. Also, at several points they're pursued by something with a T-rex head but with normal-sized forelegs that it would sometimes use for walking. I also thought it was pretty simple for today's day and age which I liked. I too found it pretty fun and watchable and too wished the dinosaurs were a little more multi dimensional looking than they were, especially after all the Jurassic Park films we had . . . Haahaa. Always enjoy Driver, he top notch.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 9, 2024 7:05:05 GMT -5
I love the sense of community we get from that scene, and that the Fremen don't speak English.
Holy Shai-Hulud, Batman... This looks amazing.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Feb 10, 2024 4:29:11 GMT -5
Another movie that's hardly new but really doesn't seem 'classic' yet that I finally got around to watching. To wit, The Equalizer (2014):
What can I say that probably hasn't been said? It's Denzel playing a bad-ass action hero who's underestimated by everyone - in fact, one of the things I really enjoyed here was the fact that his character always seems to be a few steps ahead of everyone else - including the scary and very capable sociopath sent by the Russian mob to take care of him - even when they seem to have the jump on him. And I always like movies in which a big crime organization gets taken apart piece by piece (sorry if that's too much of a spoiler). Anyway, looking forward to watching the sequels.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 10, 2024 7:42:55 GMT -5
They're more of the same, and to me that's a good thing. I always loved Denzel Washington, and this straightforward action series is very comic-booky at heart.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Feb 10, 2024 22:17:39 GMT -5
Saw Ridley Scott's Napoleon this afternoon. Not what I was expecting, which was a more or less straightforward historical epic, but this was much more comedic, even farcical at times. Do you think it was an intentional or unintentional farce?
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Feb 10, 2024 22:45:35 GMT -5
I was The Zone of Interest last weekend and American Fiction today.
The Zone of Interest is a different sort of Holocaust movie, focusing on Nazi Rudolf Hoss (not to be confused with Rudolf Hess) and his family, with the atrocities only conveyed indirectly. While I can appreciate what the film was trying to do, it still had the side effect of being boring at times. It's only an hour 40 minutes, but it still feels like there's filler on a story without many events in the plot. It reminds me of the third section of Moonlight (which other rave about, but I found underwhelming). It has a very interesting ending and some inserts that look like photo negatives that I didn't understand until I read a plot summary after the fact.
One reason I was interested in seeing American Fiction was because I read the novel on which it is based, Erasure, a couple months ago. The trailers seemed so different from the book, which is very bleak. I can see why some of the changes were made, as Hollywood movies tend to do better with a lighter tone than the novel. The plot of the novel has personal and professional elements, and I think the film does well on the personal elements including show how "black stories" including things that get left out of stereotypical narratives. I do think some of the changes contradicts the message of the novel. The novel's view seems to be that some African-Americans are complicit with lots of white people in pushing and profiting from degrading narratives of black people. The film downplays that. They create a line of dialogue for Issa Rae's character that contradicts a line of dialogue from the analogous character (the name is changed) from the novel. The way it absolves the character was an annoying echo of how Sinclair Lewis's satire of religion Elmer Gantry got a coating of "actually religion is pretty good" in the adaptation that starred Burt Lancaster. While I think the change in American Fiction is a little too pat and PC, overall I thought the movie was pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 10, 2024 23:21:23 GMT -5
Saw Ridley Scott's Napoleon this afternoon. Not what I was expecting, which was a more or less straightforward historical epic, but this was much more comedic, even farcical at times. Do you think it was an intentional or unintentional farce?
I think intentional to a degree. My guess is that one of the influences may have been the Yorgos Lanthimos movie from a few years ago about Queen Anne, The Favourite. There were also times when it reminded me of Armando Ianucci's The Death of Stalin. I say to a degree because I don't think Scott meant it to be an out and out comedy, and perhaps that's why it failed for me - it's neither one thing nor the other, not funny enough to work as a comedy the way The Death of Stalin did and too silly to take seriously as a drama, or even as satire: because I think he was trying to be satirical and burst the bubble of the Napoleonic myth, but it felt too one-sided to be convincing.
|
|