It is currently Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:43 pm



Reply to topic  [ 71612 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1393, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399 ... 1433  Next
 Recently Seen 
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Thief wrote:

If it were me, I would've "spoilered" that, but well.

And I would have spoilered that within the quote to not spread said spoiler


Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:01 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Thief wrote:

If it were me, I would've "spoilered" that, but well.

Yeah, sorry about that. I was going to do it when I was writing it, but it somehow slipped my mind.

_________________
Top 30 Favorite Films of All Time


Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:10 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

And I wouldn't even have mentioned that there was a spoiler at all.

...


Oh, fuck.

_________________
"It's OK to have beliefs, just don't believe in them." — Guy Ritchie


Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:11 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

BL wrote:
And I wouldn't even have mentioned that there was a spoiler at all.

...


Oh, fuck.

I wouldn't have mentioned that I wouldn't have mentioned there was a spoiler.


Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:18 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
And I would have spoilered that within the quote to not spread said spoiler


Darn it!

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:19 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Wait, I'm confused.

So the cops knew that internal affairs were setting them up?

_________________
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm


Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:28 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

BL wrote:
And I wouldn't even have mentioned that there was a spoiler at all.

...


Oh, fuck.

Image

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:21 pm
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

So the latest "The Mummy" was more "An American Mummy in London," which surprised me. It had the "a different team of writers did each 20 mins" that so many movies now have but aside from some egregious opening and ending scenes, it's never offensive enough to warrant outrage. The film mainly just feels like a waste of the few decent ideas that somehow ended up in the thing.


Tue Mar 13, 2018 5:32 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
So the latest "The Mummy" was more "An American Mummy in London," which surprised me. It had the "a different team of writers did each 20 mins" that so many movies now have but aside from some egregious opening and ending scenes, it's never offensive enough to warrant outrage. The film mainly just feels like a waste of the few decent ideas that somehow ended up in the thing.


That's the impression I got from the trailers. But to be honest, I don't understand the logic behind this "Dark Universe", other than the cash-grab.

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:40 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

A Wrinkle in Time:

Image

I haven't read the book, but considering it mentions complex scientific concepts like tesseracts and has been a mainstay of young adult sci-fi for over fifty years, it can't just be another story about a bullied young lady who learns to love herself, can it? Granted, it's a good lesson for children to learn, but it does it in such an ordinary way, which is a shame because there's clearly some imagination behind the marginalized ideas. Like the 2005 Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy adaptation, it's another example of Hollywood serving a meal without its secret sauce.

_________________
Last Great Movie Seen
Minding the Gap (Liu, 2018)


Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:52 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
So the latest "The Mummy" was more "An American Mummy in London," which surprised me. It had the "a different team of writers did each 20 mins" that so many movies now have but aside from some egregious opening and ending scenes, it's never offensive enough to warrant outrage.


Something I wonder about these days is if a movie this cynical, rote, and "nothing" is more offensive than a film that fucks up spectacularly (but at least seems guided by something genuine).

EDIT: I mean, sure, Triumph of the Will is worse.

_________________
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.


Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:26 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

DaMU wrote:
Something I wonder about these days is if a movie this cynical, rote, and "nothing" is more offensive than a film that fucks up spectacularly (but at least seems guided by something genuine).


It is. To not even try and expect people to give you their time and money to watch what you've made is grossly offensive to me. Someone who simply has weird ideas that don't end up working or overextends their talent are hardly operating at the same level of villainy.

For example, while I might despise Zack Snyder movies and correctly think that they are ugly and stupid, I don't sense that the guy is just coasting. He just sucks. And that's entirely understandable. Almost forgivable. The other isn't.


Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:59 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Villainy of the highest order

Image


Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:02 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

I'm pretty sure my grandma wears the same glasses


Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:03 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Eh, Kurtzman isn't that bad. He's given us

The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Cowboys & Aliens
Eagle Eye
The Legend of Zorro
Now You See Me
Star Trek: Into Darkness
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Never mind.

I kinda liked Mission: Impossible III and Ender's Game.

_________________
Last Great Movie Seen
Minding the Gap (Liu, 2018)


Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:16 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

I can hardly blame Kurtzman, as Hollywood keeps enabling/rewarding him ("I must be doing something right!" he says in the mirror every morning), but boy oh boy do I think he sucks.

Also, just cause it needs to be said...

magic blood.

_________________
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.


Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:41 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

DaMU wrote:
magic blood.
Image

_________________
"It's OK to have beliefs, just don't believe in them." — Guy Ritchie


Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:52 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Quiet Riot was wrong. It's magic blood that'll drive you mad.

_________________
Last Great Movie Seen
Minding the Gap (Liu, 2018)


Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:59 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

DaMU wrote:
I can hardly blame Kurtzman, as Hollywood keeps enabling/rewarding him ("I must be doing something right!" he says in the mirror every morning), but boy oh boy do I think he sucks.

Also, just cause it needs to be said...

magic blood.

Also, while Kurtzman is in the bottom five screenwriters currently operating in Hollywood, he did manage to surpass all my expectations by being a thoroughly mediocre director. It was interesting looking at the script, that seemed to have a half dozen writers (3 on story and 3 on script) and getting the sense of the scenes that really felt like Spaihts or McQuarrie but I never really felt Kurtzman.


Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:16 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Red Sparrow - 7/10

I'm a little surprised that I didn't hate it more, based on the trailer. As it is, it reminds me of any number of professional, yet faceless, espionage films of the 80s and 90s, from folks like Frankenheimer or Pakula, Andrew Davis or Martin Campbell. I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't straight exploitative trash, full of millennial attention span pandering, and instead seemed content to tell a more old-fashioned spycraft tale, and supporting Miss Lawrence with a high-grade capacity of class veterans - Jeremy Irons, Charlotte Rampling, Ciaren Hinds, Bill Camp, Joely Richardson. Not to say that this more leisurely pace completely justifies the running time however. The actual espionage plot is pretty disposable. The more significant scenes occur during the sparrow training, which reveals the level of degradation and desensitization involved in this specific form of sexual weapon. And although sexual violence is at the root of the film's theme, neither the sex nor the violence are portrayed in the film in exploitative ways. You can quibble with her wandering accent, but Jennifer Lawrence is still an actress who knows how to hit the right emotional notes. The larger issue with the film is a dull script that leaves little room for character ambiguities. I guess that's also pretty old-fashioned.


Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:28 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

BL wrote:
Image

What the hell is this?


Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:15 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Wooley wrote:
What the hell is this?
The best/worst thing in The Mummy. Russell Crowe chews through scenery like it's cotton candy, but you can't accuse him of phoning it in like so much of the rest of the production.

_________________
"It's OK to have beliefs, just don't believe in them." — Guy Ritchie


Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:22 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Wooley wrote:
What the hell is this?
Behold:


_________________
Recently Reviewed


Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:46 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

BL wrote:
The best/worst thing in The Mummy. Russell Crowe chews through scenery like it's cotton candy, but you can't accuse him of phoning it in like so much of the rest of the production.

It's taken a long time, but I've kinda come to like the guy. What is he like Mr. Hyde or some shit? No, don't tell me. Nah, ever since The Nice Guys and maybe even something before that I started to really like the guy. I mean, I originally thought he was the cat's pajamas in L.A. Confidential, but then things went Hollywood and weird.


Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:11 pm
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Malcolm X was about as good of a biopic as I've ever seen. Spike Lee went full Spike, which saved it from some of the pitfalls common of the genre (though not all) and I admired how the film faithfully captured his transition from street hustler to Shabazz, giving each chapter of the man's life care, respect and criticism in equal measure. The combination of Sam Cooke and the double dolly will be stuck in my head for some time.

The biggest issues with the film stem from Brother Baines, who set off red flags in my head because I did not recall him in the autobiography and knew they altered his coming to the Nation of Islam, to which he was drawn in by his brother. When Farrakhan was suspiciously absent, I realized Baines was going to operate as a sort of narrative catch all for the messy parts of NoI. Because of that, he lacks the authenticity that carries much of the film and feels like the creation of a lesser biopic. I understand the decision on both regards as prison letters aren't cinematic and threats from Farrakhan should be taken seriously for obvious reasons.

I need to finally see Scent of a Woman to see how badly Denzel was robbed.


Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:16 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
The biggest issues with the film stem from Brother Baines, who set off red flags in my head because I did not recall him in the autobiography and knew they altered his coming to the Nation of Islam, to which he was drawn in by his brother. When Farrakhan was suspiciously absent, I realized Baines was going to operate as a sort of narrative catch all for the messy parts of NoI. Because of that, he lacks the authenticity that carries much of the film and feels like the creation of a lesser biopic. I understand the decision on both regards as prison letters aren't cinematic and threats from Farrakhan should be taken seriously for obvious reasons.
Farrakhan's Nation of Islam provided security on Lee's productions around that time, including Do the Right Thing, Jungle Fever and, yes, Malcolm X, so the movie was always going to be a bit compromised in that regard.

_________________
"It's OK to have beliefs, just don't believe in them." — Guy Ritchie


Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:16 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
I need to finally see Scent of a Woman to see how badly Denzel was robbed.


"Need" is a weird word to use in context of Scent of a Woman. This is all you "need" to know. What is probably Al Pacino's worst performance beat one of Denzel's best. This was clearly a bad thing, as far as award ceremonies go. No need to inflict any more Chris O'Donnell on yourself than necessary.


Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:29 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

crumbsroom wrote:

"Need" is a weird word to use in context of Scent of a Woman. This is all you "need" to know. What is probably Al Pacino's worst performance beat one of Denzel's best. This was clearly a bad thing, as far as award ceremonies go. No need to inflict any more Chris O'Donnell on yourself than necessary.
That movie really is weaponized schmaltz and was the first step on the road of tone-deaf dreck that led Martin Brest to Gigli infamy.

_________________
"It's OK to have beliefs, just don't believe in them." — Guy Ritchie


Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:38 pm
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

BL wrote:
Farrakhan's Nation of Islam provided security on Lee's productions around that time, including Do the Right Thing, Jungle Fever and, yes, Malcolm X, so the movie was always going to be a bit compromised in that regard.


I found that most interesting due to how critical the film managed to still be of the NoI and Elijah Muhammad. I would have expected more of that to be glossed over or removed entirely, like Farrakhan himself.


Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:09 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

crumbsroom wrote:

"Need" is a weird word to use in context of Scent of a Woman. This is all you "need" to know. What is probably Al Pacino's worst performance beat one of Denzel's best. This was clearly a bad thing, as far as award ceremonies go. No need to inflict any more Chris O'Donnell on yourself than necessary.

It's called "Scent of a Woman." How is "need" not appropriate?

Also... We talking Pacino in Jack and Jill bad? Or 88 Minutes/Righteous Kill bad?


Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:10 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Pacino is the sole non-hateable thing in Jack and Jill, so it can't be that.

_________________
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.


Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:00 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

DaMU wrote:
Pacino is the sole non-hateable thing in Jack and Jill, so it can't be that.

Dunkacino made you crave some coffee and donuts, didn't he?


Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:02 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

crumbsroom wrote:

"Need" is a weird word to use in context of Scent of a Woman. This is all you "need" to know. What is probably Al Pacino's worst performance beat one of Denzel's best. This was clearly a bad thing, as far as award ceremonies go. No need to inflict any more Chris O'Donnell on yourself than necessary.

That about sums it up.


Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:10 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Dunkacino made you crave some coffee and donuts, didn't he?


"...burn this."

_________________
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.


Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:59 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

DaMU wrote:

"...burn this."


The joke really works in the most meta of ways. It's the only thing that works.


Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:50 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

ThatDarnMKS wrote:

The joke really works in the most meta of ways. It's the only thing that works.
Also Pacino's best line reading since what...Insomnia?

_________________
"It's OK to have beliefs, just don't believe in them." — Guy Ritchie


Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:31 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

I guess it's time I saw Jack and Jill.

_________________
Last Great Movie Seen
Minding the Gap (Liu, 2018)


Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:40 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Guys, I'm cross-posting this from Thief's thread because I'd love to discuss this one with somebody.

A film from the 1960s: Shock Corridor (1963)

This is one that has peripherally been on my radar for a while, but once I started watching it I quickly realized I had not idea of its actual plot.

A writer for a newspaper, Johnny, wants to do an expose on a murder that took place in a mental institution, convinced that the story will lead to massive praise and awards. His concept is to get himself committed, and so he trains with a psychiatrist so that he can pass for insane. His girlfriend, Cathy, is strongly opposed to the idea. But after being emotionally blackmailed by Johnny and his boss, she agrees and pretends to be Johnny's sister. The cover story is that Johnny is filled with incestuous lust for his sister, and the pair is convincing enough that Johnny is taken in.

While inside, Johnny struggles to hold onto his own sanity as he integrates with the other patients and tries to get past their delusions to the solution to the murder.

While there were a handful of things I didn't like about this one, overall my response was incredibly positive and I would highly recommend this movie.

To start with the good: the hospital is a wacky, surreal environment, and the other patients are interesting characters. Are they played a bit broadly, a bit stereotypical of "crazy" people? In my opinion, yes. You know that Dave Chapelle skit about the KKK leader who is a blind black man? That character is basically in this movie--a black man, Trent, who spews racist vitrol, rails against Freedom Riders, screams "Get him before he dates my daughter!" at another black inmate, and hand-makes KKK hoods out of pilfered pillowcases. But under the absurdity of the character is a very real pain--and in a long scene in which Trent and Johnny lay side by side in straightjackets, Trent gets an amazing monologue about his youth and the origins of his self-hatred (being the first black student at a university in the South) are laid bare.

From a style point of view, the movie is very engaging. One touch that I loved was (this spoiler is for a style choice that made me gasp, so I'm letting you decide if you want to read it or not--no plot spoilers here!) that the patients'
delusions are shown in color while the rest of the movie is in black and white. Not only is this shocking as a transition, but it also conveys that for these people, their delusions are more vibrant, more "real" than their actual lives.
. There is also a scene that borders on fantasy that is just amazing. For those who have seen the film, I'm talking about the
storm inside the hospital
.

On the negative side, my main issue was with the voiceover, which was irritating and overly expositional. The only time it paid off was when Johnny took a wrong turn, walked through the wrong door, and, confronted by a group of women, gets a pained look on his face as his inner monologue screams "NYMPHOS!!!!!!". That moment aside, the narration felt incredibly intrusive for the first half--not in a fun, campy way, either. In the second half it was better used.

This was one of those movies where at times I didn't know how seriously to take it. It definitely has camp or cheesy moments. Ultimately I decided to just soak in the movie and not worry to much about whether I was viewing it in the "correct" mindset.

I will also note that Cathy, Johnny's girlfriend, is a stripper and performs maybe the most depressing, least sexy striptease I have ever seen. To a slow, melancholy song she bemoans not having someone to love her, while lethargically removing her clothing. Please, someone tell me: was this meant to be sexy? Did anyone actually find it sexy? I thought it was funny (she begins the act with a feather boa wrapped entirely around her head), but am I misreading the intention here?

Anyway--highly recommended for anyone who hasn't seen it.


Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:36 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Star Wars: The Last Jedi C+

Paddington 2 B


Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:24 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

As a longtime fan of the Room and someone who read the book, I'm ashamed at how long it took me to watch the Disaster Artist but I finally did so tonight. It's a fun comedy flick that does well when it's faithful to the story and flounders when it steps away with some cheap contrivances to simplify the story.

The real stand out is clearly Franco, who gave a better performance than Oldman and deserved the nomination and award more (both less than DDL though). His ability to turn someone so easy to be a caricature into something with depth and emotional complexity is something to admire as well as something I don't think Oldman pulled off in his bombastic turn as Churchill.


Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:57 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Takoma1 wrote:
Guys, I'm cross-posting this from Thief's thread because I'd love to discuss this one with somebody.

A film from the 1960s: Shock Corridor (1963)

This is one that has peripherally been on my radar for a while, but once I started watching it I quickly realized I had not idea of its actual plot.

A writer for a newspaper, Johnny, wants to do an expose on a murder that took place in a mental institution, convinced that the story will lead to massive praise and awards. His concept is to get himself committed, and so he trains with a psychiatrist so that he can pass for insane. His girlfriend, Cathy, is strongly opposed to the idea. But after being emotionally blackmailed by Johnny and his boss, she agrees and pretends to be Johnny's sister. The cover story is that Johnny is filled with incestuous lust for his sister, and the pair is convincing enough that Johnny is taken in.

While inside, Johnny struggles to hold onto his own sanity as he integrates with the other patients and tries to get past their delusions to the solution to the murder.

While there were a handful of things I didn't like about this one, overall my response was incredibly positive and I would highly recommend this movie.

To start with the good: the hospital is a wacky, surreal environment, and the other patients are interesting characters. Are they played a bit broadly, a bit stereotypical of "crazy" people? In my opinion, yes. You know that Dave Chapelle skit about the KKK leader who is a blind black man? That character is basically in this movie--a black man, Trent, who spews racist vitrol, rails against Freedom Riders, screams "Get him before he dates my daughter!" at another black inmate, and hand-makes KKK hoods out of pilfered pillowcases. But under the absurdity of the character is a very real pain--and in a long scene in which Trent and Johnny lay side by side in straightjackets, Trent gets an amazing monologue about his youth and the origins of his self-hatred (being the first black student at a university in the South) are laid bare.

From a style point of view, the movie is very engaging. One touch that I loved was (this spoiler is for a style choice that made me gasp, so I'm letting you decide if you want to read it or not--no plot spoilers here!) that the patients'
delusions are shown in color while the rest of the movie is in black and white. Not only is this shocking as a transition, but it also conveys that for these people, their delusions are more vibrant, more "real" than their actual lives.
. There is also a scene that borders on fantasy that is just amazing. For those who have seen the film, I'm talking about the
storm inside the hospital
.

On the negative side, my main issue was with the voiceover, which was irritating and overly expositional. The only time it paid off was when Johnny took a wrong turn, walked through the wrong door, and, confronted by a group of women, gets a pained look on his face as his inner monologue screams "NYMPHOS!!!!!!". That moment aside, the narration felt incredibly intrusive for the first half--not in a fun, campy way, either. In the second half it was better used.

This was one of those movies where at times I didn't know how seriously to take it. It definitely has camp or cheesy moments. Ultimately I decided to just soak in the movie and not worry to much about whether I was viewing it in the "correct" mindset.

I will also note that Cathy, Johnny's girlfriend, is a stripper and performs maybe the most depressing, least sexy striptease I have ever seen. To a slow, melancholy song she bemoans not having someone to love her, while lethargically removing her clothing. Please, someone tell me: was this meant to be sexy? Did anyone actually find it sexy? I thought it was funny (she begins the act with a feather boa wrapped entirely around her head), but am I misreading the intention here?

Anyway--highly recommended for anyone who hasn't seen it.


Haven't seen it, but just yesterday, I saw that Scorsese has it listed among his "85 Films You Need to See to Know Anything About Film"

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:00 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Thief wrote:

Haven't seen it, but just yesterday, I saw that Scorsese has it listed among his "85 Films You Need to See to Know Anything About Film"


Simply from a style point of view, it's one of my favorite things I've ever seen. On reflection I do think that it suffers from a so-so, exposition-heavy first 20 minutes or so.


Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:53 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

The Boondock Saints - 8/10

_________________
She's been dying and I've been drinking and I am the Rain King


Sun Mar 18, 2018 5:49 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Annihilation


From the big screen to the small screen and most places in between, the powers that be decided that Annihilation was too cerebral and intelligent for the average moviegoer and lobbed it off on Netflix and, given that the average movie goer made Michael Bay and Adam Sandler millionaires, that was probably a safe bet.

But is Annihilation good?

Make no mistake, this is very cerebral movie-making so much so that I am actually writing this review a couple of days after I saw the movie to let its themes and plot sink in. It is going to alienate a lot of people, not because it's a high-concept science fiction movie, but because it was marketed as something that it wasn't... a monster movie. It's not a monster movie even though it does have an occasional monster guest star... this is, more than anything, a movie about body horror and self-destruction.

Natalie Portman has given up one creepy Star Wars cast member for another as a biologist married to Oscar Issac, a soldier who is called away to a secret mission and disappears for a whole year so, you can imagine Portman's surprise when he suddenly shows up in her house with a fragmented memory and multiple organ failures. The two of them are wisked away to the source of all things terrible, Florida, where a strange glowing wall called The Shimmer has appeared and is slowly growing. It turns out that Issac is the only survivor to have gone into the shimmer and emerged and so, Portman goes in with a new team to uncover the mystery of the shimmer and save her husband.

There are other things going on that I don't really want to spoil here, but that's the basic gist. Everyone on the team that is sent in is not only female, but also self-destructive in a way including one member who is a recovering addict, one who is into self-harm, one who has lost herself after the death of her daughter... it goes on and on and, inside the Shimmer, it is no different as the building blocks of life, DNA, are also on a path of self-destruction and annihilation... oh, so that's why they called this movie that!

As I said, there are monsters... two of them, but I will say that one of the two is one of the most disturbing and scary goddamn monsters I've seen committed to film in a very long time. I won't ruin it, but it is.

Ultimately, the key to enjoying this movie is to forget the marketing and see it as a movie about people destroying themselves and their lives. Everyone fits that profile and, given what ends up happening at the end, it's sadly appropriate that the one person who survives is the one person who wants to right things in the life she is selfishly fucking up.

Personally, I think it's great that cognitive high-concept science fiction like this gets made at all. It's not aimed for a wide audience and that's always a risk. This movie will piss people off because it doesn't spoon-feed reason or rhyme and, at the risk of sounding like a pretentious douchpickle, this is a movie that challenges you to think about what it's presenting. A lot of audience members don't like doing that and that's okay... just be warned, this movie isn't for you.

This movie isn't perfect, either, as I have serious problems with some of the dialogue and editing. There were moments, particularly in the few actions scenes, where it was hard to keep up with what as happening and, a few times in conversations, characters would deliver dialogue and then say an extra superfluous line to simplify what was just said as if it didn't trust the audience to keep up. It was strange to see condescension that heavy in a movie steeped in intellectualism.

It's shot beautifully, though. Inside the shimmer, it seems so iridescent and dreamlike, with sunbeams split into rainbows and colors popping off the screen. Wonderful cinematography there.

This will be a divisive sumbitch. Some will love it for its intelligence, others will hate it for the same reason. I think it's good, I enjoyed watching it, but the flaws are annoying and marred an otherwise high concept science fiction drama needlessly. Still, if you don't mind mentally duking it out with a much better than average movie, step into the shimmer and try to keep your tattoos in one place.

Wait... tattoos aren't part of our DNA.

WHAT THE FUCK, MOVIE?

_________________
https://981032650940056207.weebly.com/
https://www.facebook.com/slightlywarpedwebsite
https://www.youtube.com/SlightlyWarpedTube


Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:39 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Teen Witch is a masterpiece. The Top That sequence alone will never be topped.


Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:33 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

The Beguiled (1971) - 8.5

The Beguiled (2017) - 6.5


The Beguiled seems like it could have been the film of the year. An almost inverse to the egg-house of mother!, as well as some house slave anxiety to match Get Out. First thing's first, they fired the slave. Sofia Coppola doesn't want young girls to know about slavery during the Confederacy, even in an 'R' rated movie filled with castration metaphors. So Mae Mercer, who played Hallie in the '71 version, will be the first point in that film's favor. Don't even get me started about the turtle.

There are a few other, fairly bizarre, changes from the first film that's a little more spoilerific, so I'll only harp on the main one, having to do de-beguiling the wounded soldier. In Don Siegel's film, it's clear almost immediately that John (played by Clint Eastwood) is a duplicitous, conniving fox, full of charm and gab, always scanning the angles and saying the right thing. Colin Farrell's John is softer, more sincere, more trusting and with a lot less guile. This helps nothing in the story, because John's arc, his attitude and decisions are dependent on his overestimation of his game, whether sexual or survival.

I need to also point out that Nicole Kidman is no Geraldine Page, and the gulf in their respective performances is the most telling metric between the two films.

And for the spoiler stuff...
Why remove the scene showing the lecherous Southerners trying to assault the girls? This is an important pivot between John and Martha.

Why remove the incest stuff?

Why remove the context of urgency in the poisoning - being that Union troops were closing in?

Seriously, how could you fuck up the turtle scene? Amy is the frame of the entire narrative!


Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:53 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Black Panther.

I liked it.

_________________
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.


Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:56 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

DaMU wrote:
Black Panther.

I liked it.

Good.
It will overtake The Avengers this week as the highest-grossing super-hero film of all time, having already trounced The Dark Knight.


Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:53 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

Jinnistan wrote:
The Beguiled (1971) - 8.5

The Beguiled (2017) - 6.5


I've only quoted this bit, but your reasoning is spot on. I felt the same way, but I like that you fleshed those thoughts out in more detail. The Siegel film floored me when I saw it (knowing very little about it, except that it was being remade); Coppola's version takes out all of its teeth, its muddy misanthropy, its weird stew of genres. The remake also keeps the Civil War setting but is totally oblivious to politics of the period and the ethical quandaries it really should raise.

_________________
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.


Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:45 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: Recently Seen

I'm a big fan of Siegel's the Beguiled so I have yet to watch the remake, though I do own it due to an Amazon sale for $6. The film is so ethically opaque and ugly that I couldn't see Coppola doing anything but softening it, so I'm both disappointed and unsurprised to hear that.

On a side note, I finally watched Mildred Pierce and it was as great as it's reputation. That film really knew how to meld the melodrama and noir elements in fitting, interesting ways that took on tropes in a very unique light. Plus, Crawford's performance does a great job carrying the thing and she imbues the role with a dignity that really makes the central conflict hit home.


Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:11 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 71612 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1393, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399 ... 1433  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.