Recently Seen

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:27 pm

Slentert wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:39 am
I don't know if you've seen The Night Comes For Us already or not, but that is one of the best action movies of the past few years. It's a Netflix original.
Nope, and I don't think I've even heard of it (though with so many "original" releases it can be hard to keep track).

Thanks!
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 1766
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:52 pm

Skin (2018) - 3/10

In my opinion, this is an example of when movie violence becomes problematic. This isn't one of the most violent short films (or films for that matter) out there, but the violence appears to be most of what Nattiv is concerned with. While there are some other tidbits sprinkled throughout the film such as the shots of the children of the two families staring at each other while the sequences of violence play out, these shots feel more like underdeveloped, scattershot bits rather than a coherent message of any kind. The acting and some of the camerawork was fine, but after finishing this short, I was left indifferent to the whole affair.
User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1004
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Slentert » Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:02 pm

Takoma1 wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:27 pm
Nope, and I don't think I've even heard of it (though with so many "original" releases it can be hard to keep track).

Thanks!
It features a lot of the same cast members of The Raid movies, and I believe it has the same fight choreographer as well, so it is kind of the unofficial sequel to those two films.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:40 pm

Slentert wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:02 pm
It features a lot of the same cast members of The Raid movies, and I believe it has the same fight choreographer as well, so it is kind of the unofficial sequel to those two films.
It has half the choreography team of The Raid, as Iko did both of those films with Yayan, while Iko did TNCFU without him. This is his second collaboration with Timo Tjahjanto and the difference of action between this and Headshot, for which he only starred, is STARK.

Tjahjanto is great as well, co-directing Safe Haven with Evans for VHS 2 and using the same Raid cast for Headshot, Killers and TNCFU. I hope he earns a rightful reputation of his own outside of the shadow of Evans and the Raid. Killers is so close to a masterpiece that it angers me that it faulters in its final act.

TNCFU is by far the best of his solo works and I echo your recommendation. I hate that it's a Netflix film because I love collecting great martial arts films and it feels like a hole in my collection.
User avatar
Charles
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:54 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Charles » Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:23 am

Us, 2019 (A-)

Good movie. Not a ton to say without spoilers. It's hard to say whether the movie is meant to be pure metaphor or if there's a coherent internal logic to it. Still, a perfectly engrossing, super, super well directed movie, a little bit in the vein of The Visit for the vibe. Definitely unpredictable. Stuff doesn't happen with the beat of a regular horror movie either. I had no idea what was going to happen at any moment.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 769
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:24 am

Charles wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:23 am
Us, 2019 (A-)

Good movie. Not a ton to say without spoilers. It's hard to say whether the movie is meant to be pure metaphor or if there's a coherent internal logic to it. Still, a perfectly engrossing, super, super well directed movie, a little bit in the vein of The Visit for the vibe. Definitely unpredictable. Stuff doesn't happen with the beat of a regular horror movie either. I had no idea what was going to happen at any moment.
Yes yes yes. I think the internal logic stands up to scrutiny, but it's delivered in a much more oblique and holistic way, and its material is applicable to a few different social issues, so it's a little more like a shotgun blast compared to Get Out's rifle bullet.
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.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:46 am

DaMU wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:24 am
Yes yes yes. I think the internal logic stands up to scrutiny, but it's delivered in a much more oblique and holistic way, and its material is applicable to a few different social issues, so it's a little more like a shotgun blast compared to Get Out's rifle bullet.
Have you been able to solve the logistical and logical contrivances necessary for the plot to happen? I've been struggling but haven't rewatched it so I mentally omit the expo dump.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 769
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:33 pm

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:46 am
Have you been able to solve the logistical and logical contrivances necessary for the plot to happen? I've been struggling but haven't rewatched it so I mentally omit the expo dump.
I was lateposting, so maybe "internal logic" wasn't the best choice of words. I think I was trying to say that the film doesn't break what rules it establishes. Would add the caveat that beneath the narrative level of "rules" that are honored (like, say, who of the Tethered can talk and why, or why they may alternate between efficient action and sadism), there's definitely that basement level of fuzzy dream logic.
I don't exactly ignore the infodump like you do, but I have to assume Red's using a bad combination of facts, guesses, and embellishments. Some of it makes sense (the people being discarded clones from an experiment gone wrong ties in nicely with earlier comments about government conspiracies), some of it feels like it *has* to be taken on a dreamlike level (this enormous experiment stretches across all the tunnels of North America (?); clean tunnels full of rabbits that people eat raw but don't get sick from (??); the easy availability of red jumpsuits (uniforms from these absent scientists???); the "plan" that seems flawlessly executed; where do the kids come from, are they sired by the Tethered or created by these absent scientists? (Given that they're clones, it would have to be the latter, but wouldn't there be more evidence of the scientists if they were making children who are, as of press time, still children?)
Or were there more specific contrivances you were referring to?
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.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:43 pm

Nocturnal Animals

A woman named Susan (Amy Adams) is a wealthy gallery owner with a handsome but unfaithful husband named Hutton. One night Susan receives a book manuscript from her ex-husband Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal). The film then alternates between the real present, the events of Edward's novel, and flashbacks to Susan and Edward's relationship. In the flashbacks we see how their relationship became damaged as Edward's dream of being a writer began to wear on Susan, who wants a more stable, dependable life.

Inside Edward's novel, Tony (played by Gyllenhaal and the only person appearing in all three parts of the film) and his wife and daughter are on a drive in rural Texas when they are run off the road by a car full of unsavory dudes, led by the obviously sociopathic Ray. The family is tormented by the men, and ultimately Tony finds himself working with a lawman (Michael Shannon) to seek revenge for what happened to them.

I was a really big fan of Ford's first film, A Single Man. It was incredibly artful and the way that the imagery and the story blended together was really captivating.

Nocturnal Animals is very strong visually, but I felt that the narrative itself did not gel as naturally as his last film. The harassment of Tony's family at the hands of the men and their taunts about Tony's lack of manliness could have been lifted almost word-for-word from almost any rape-revenge flick. Generally speaking this becomes another film about a tortured man motivated by harm done to a woman/women in his life. I kept waiting for something to be added to the story, some turn it would take to lift itself above the expected narrative, but that special something never arrived.

Of course, a layer here is that certain elements of Tony's story, particularly the characterization of his sensitive protagonist as being "weak", are directly lifted from or allegorical of events from his failed marriage to Susan. But I found that this came across a bit muddled. The overall narrative itself is pretty typical revenge-flick stuff, and watching Susan react to it's supposed profundity just didn't make a lot of sense.

There were also some dubious connections between the real and fictional worlds. For example (moderate spoilers) Tony frequently refers to
his daughter as his "child" during the attack on the family. Later, when Susan is discussing aborting her pregnancy, she refers to it as "his child". I have really mixed feelings about equating raping a teenage girl to having an abortion. And it was hard to me to tell what the film was even trying to say in juxtaposing these two events.
Aside from the visuals, the performances are incredibly strong across the board. Gyllenhaal in particular, portraying both a man and a man's own fictionalized version of himself as some mix of who he knows himself to be and who he wishes he was.

I liked this film and would recommend it on the basis of the visuals and the performances. I wish that the writing/story had been stronger, because that's what keeps this good film from being really good/great. If you haven't seen A Single Man, I would highly recommend that one as being strong in visuals/performances/story.
User avatar
Charles
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:54 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Charles » Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:51 pm

The biggest issue I have is,
if they were created, why are they so tethered at all? Why that scene with the parallels with the theme park?
But that's just me and preferring no explanation to an underwhelming one. If there is to be such an unexplained, central paranormal element while the rest of the movie is supposedly not, I'd prefer if they went full Valérie and Her Week of Wonders and just left all the symbolism up in the air.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:19 am

A Monster Calls

Several years ago I read the short novel A Monster Calls and it now holds a high and treasured place on my bookshelf. I read it in a single marathon and then cried for like 30 minutes. It's one of the best things I've ever read about grief and loss, and I was both hopeful and fearful when I found out it was being adapted into a film.

Thankfully, this is an incredibly faithful adaptation, in both tone and narrative.

The story follows a boy, Conor, whose mother is very sick. Stressed by her illness (and also tangentially by bullies at school and his absentee father), Conor seemingly summons a monster (voiced by Liam Neeson). The Monster tells Conor that he will come to him three times, each time telling him a story, but that the fourth time Conor must tell him a story.

I can't even begin to explain all the ways that this story will tear your heart into tiny little pieces. But it comes to its moments of emotion with honesty and compassion. It is compelling in both the real world of the narrative and the fictional space of the stories told by the Monster (rendered in stylized animation). The world is wonderfully realized by J.A. Bayona, who directed The Orphanage and The Impossible. It does a wonderful job of seeing the world through the eyes of its young protagonist.

I can't recommend the story (or the novel) enough. The performances in the film are really strong. This is one of those rare cases where if someone saw the movie and didn't read the book, I wouldn't even be mad about it.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:32 am

DaMU wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:33 pm
I was lateposting, so maybe "internal logic" wasn't the best choice of words. I think I was trying to say that the film doesn't break what rules it establishes. Would add the caveat that beneath the narrative level of "rules" that are honored (like, say, who of the Tethered can talk and why, or why they may alternate between efficient action and sadism), there's definitely that basement level of fuzzy dream logic.
I don't exactly ignore the infodump like you do, but I have to assume Red's using a bad combination of facts, guesses, and embellishments. Some of it makes sense (the people being discarded clones from an experiment gone wrong ties in nicely with earlier comments about government conspiracies), some of it feels like it *has* to be taken on a dreamlike level (this enormous experiment stretches across all the tunnels of North America (?); clean tunnels full of rabbits that people eat raw but don't get sick from (??); the easy availability of red jumpsuits (uniforms from these absent scientists???); the "plan" that seems flawlessly executed; where do the kids come from, are they sired by the Tethered or created by these absent scientists? (Given that they're clones, it would have to be the latter, but wouldn't there be more evidence of the scientists if they were making children who are, as of press time, still children?)
Or were there more specific contrivances you were referring to?

That hits pretty much all of them. The only one that haunts me that you didn’t touch on us...
Why didn’t Red leave as a child? She’s eventually not handcuffed (how?) but chose not to leave or find her way out, despite clearly knowing that way in or out as she uses it subsequently.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 769
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:59 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:32 am
That hits pretty much all of them. The only one that haunts me that you didn’t touch on us...
Why didn’t Red leave as a child? She’s eventually not handcuffed (how?) but chose not to leave or find her way out, despite clearly knowing that way in or out as she uses it subsequently.
That's a good question.
The charitable conclusion is that in between her being handcuffed down there and getting de-shackled she went through a sort of Stockholm Syndrome experience. That environment must've been profoundly traumatic. (But that really just takes me back to your question - how would she remember the stairwells if she's pot-committed to "I am a Tethered now"?) Maybe the logic is that she's so traumatized by what happened to her that she's shocked out of rational thinking (escape!) and falls deep into a sort of insane apocalyptic mindset ("I will spend decades planning this homicidal movement").

I also wonder if there's a balance element. That as the clone lived life above and gained more external humanity, the original Abigail lost some of herself below. They are "tethered" after all. But that does feel like meeting the movie more than halfway.
Regardless, your question stands.
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.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:24 am

DaMU wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:59 am
That's a good question.
The charitable conclusion is that in between her being handcuffed down there and getting de-shackled she went through a sort of Stockholm Syndrome experience. That environment must've been profoundly traumatic. (But that really just takes me back to your question - how would she remember the stairwells if she's pot-committed to "I am a Tethered now"?) Maybe the logic is that she's so traumatized by what happened to her that she's shocked out of rational thinking (escape!) and falls deep into a sort of insane apocalyptic mindset ("I will spend decades planning this homicidal movement").

I also wonder if there's a balance element. That as the clone lived life above and gained more external humanity, the original Abigail lost some of herself below. They are "tethered" after all. But that does feel like meeting the movie more than halfway.
Regardless, your question stands.
Indeed. It’s one of those things that popped into my head that irked me too much during the exposition drop.

It felt like so much effort was put into Adelaide’s arc and it’s various layers that Peele forgot to make sure Red made sense.
A simple scene showing her take pity on the tethered and deciding to stay with them or her tethered parents giving her love and attention she didn’t get elsewhere would have done wonders. A reason to stay is all I needed.

Or even a scene of her trying the door and realizing it only opens from the outside.

But instead, the entire motive for this uprising is escape and revenge. If all she’s thinking about and planning are those two things... why not leave?
I was honestly hoping you’d figured it out. Similarly, there was some logic issues in Endgame that I’ve since managed to find justification for and am now contented.

I plan to rewatch it this October so I’ll be keeping an eye out.

Let’s just say Peele’s lucky he chose a split diopter to shoot the expo dump or I might’ve turned on the film entirely.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 2919
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:05 pm

I think all the reasons y'all have said are why I have reacted negatively to the film or at least reacted negatively to any assertions that it was better than Get Out, which I maintain is an amazing film that has just suffered a little backlash as all darlings do. The narrative in Get Out just holds together much more tightly than in Us so, while Us is a visually excellent film with some really nicely done scenes of tension and horror, it just doesn't hold up all the way to the end the way that it wants to.
And that is really my criticism, as it is with a lot of films... Did you hit your mark? If not, how close did you come to it?
And I think that Peele missed his mark here, not as widely as something like Sunshine (which this film does remind me of a bit), but by enough of a margin (particularly, as is noted by most people who discuss it now, with the exposition dump but also with the muddiness of the reveal and theme) that I felt it was a significant step down from the previous film.
Hopefully he'll rebound with his next one.
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:26 pm

Takoma1 wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:43 pm
Nocturnal Animals

A woman named Susan (Amy Adams) is a wealthy gallery owner with a handsome but unfaithful husband named Hutton. One night Susan receives a book manuscript from her ex-husband Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal). The film then alternates between the real present, the events of Edward's novel, and flashbacks to Susan and Edward's relationship. In the flashbacks we see how their relationship became damaged as Edward's dream of being a writer began to wear on Susan, who wants a more stable, dependable life.

Inside Edward's novel, Tony (played by Gyllenhaal and the only person appearing in all three parts of the film) and his wife and daughter are on a drive in rural Texas when they are run off the road by a car full of unsavory dudes, led by the obviously sociopathic Ray. The family is tormented by the men, and ultimately Tony finds himself working with a lawman (Michael Shannon) to seek revenge for what happened to them.

I was a really big fan of Ford's first film, A Single Man. It was incredibly artful and the way that the imagery and the story blended together was really captivating.

Nocturnal Animals is very strong visually, but I felt that the narrative itself did not gel as naturally as his last film. The harassment of Tony's family at the hands of the men and their taunts about Tony's lack of manliness could have been lifted almost word-for-word from almost any rape-revenge flick. Generally speaking this becomes another film about a tortured man motivated by harm done to a woman/women in his life. I kept waiting for something to be added to the story, some turn it would take to lift itself above the expected narrative, but that special something never arrived.

Of course, a layer here is that certain elements of Tony's story, particularly the characterization of his sensitive protagonist as being "weak", are directly lifted from or allegorical of events from his failed marriage to Susan. But I found that this came across a bit muddled. The overall narrative itself is pretty typical revenge-flick stuff, and watching Susan react to it's supposed profundity just didn't make a lot of sense.

There were also some dubious connections between the real and fictional worlds. For example (moderate spoilers) Tony frequently refers to
his daughter as his "child" during the attack on the family. Later, when Susan is discussing aborting her pregnancy, she refers to it as "his child". I have really mixed feelings about equating raping a teenage girl to having an abortion. And it was hard to me to tell what the film was even trying to say in juxtaposing these two events.
Aside from the visuals, the performances are incredibly strong across the board. Gyllenhaal in particular, portraying both a man and a man's own fictionalized version of himself as some mix of who he knows himself to be and who he wishes he was.

I liked this film and would recommend it on the basis of the visuals and the performances. I wish that the writing/story had been stronger, because that's what keeps this good film from being really good/great. If you haven't seen A Single Man, I would highly recommend that one as being strong in visuals/performances/story.
I really liked this, and even still, it's a film that I feel I have to go back to really appreciate fully. Loved the performances and the story.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:15 pm

Takoma1 wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:55 am
And by the by: recommendations for good action/thriller/horror on any of the major streaming services (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu)?

With the school year swinging into full gear I'm unabashedly looking for some good quality escapism.
I'm pretty sure you've seen some of these, and maybe even recommended some of them in my thread, but just in case...

Prime
It Comes at Night was pretty tense, well acted, and overall well done.

Bone Tomahawk should be seen without reading too much of what happens. Not particularly deep, but overall well made. Takes its time to build up tension until it... explodes.

The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue is far from perfect, but it's a solid splatter film with a pretty good ending.

The Day of the Triffids was a cool 1960s horror/scifi.


Netflix
The Perfection is yet another example of a film that you should see without reading too much. Creepy, awkward, and weird.

Desierto was a pretty simple but effective thriller that I saw a couple of months ago. It is probably 15-20 minutes too long, but I'd still recommend it.


Hulu
Anthropoid might not fit your escapism request, but it's a pretty good war/action/drama film about the attempt on Reinhard Heydrich during WW2.


Other streaming services
Summer of '84 was a decent thriller, with an 80's vibe, sort of in the vein of Stranger Things. It's on Shudder, Hoopla, and Kanopy.

Spring is another example of a film that you should see without reading too much of what happens before. Well acted, with some really good camerawork and direction. It's on Shudder.

The Bay was a surprisingly effective, found footage horror thriller directed by Barry Levinson. It's on Tubi.

'71 is a very tense action film about a soldier lost behind the lines during the Troubles. It's on Tubi.

Chained covers the creepy, disturbing, and scary parts. It's a thriller directed by David Lynch's daughter, Jennifer, and stars Vincent D'Onofrio. It's on Tubi and Hoopla.

Bug, which I saw one or two months ago, was an interesting and solid thriller. It's on Starz.

Scarecrows, which I also saw a while ago, was a cheap-ish but somewhat effective horror film. It's on Pluto TV.

Theater of Blood is an excellent example of Vincent Price hamming it up to great effect. It's on Hoopla.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 2919
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:01 pm

Thief wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:15 pm

The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue is far from perfect, but it's a solid splatter film with a pretty good ending.

That's a personal fave of mine, more for the "being better than it should have been" than anything else.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:11 pm

Thief wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:26 pm
I really liked this, and even still, it's a film that I feel I have to go back to really appreciate fully. Loved the performances and the story.
See, I thought that the story was too predictable and I kept waiting for some narrative innovation that just never arrived.

And thanks for the recs--I've seen quite a few of them but there are several on your list I haven't seen.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:14 pm

Awaiting is a film I had on my IMDb watchlist, and I can say with 99% confidence it's because Tony Curran is in it and I really like him as an actor.

Curran plays a tow truck driver who stages accidents and then murders the drivers and sells their cars for scrap. One day his daughter catches sight of a not-quote-dead victim and insists that they take care of him.

But dang if this film wasn't really, really bad. One of those films where the number of times you watch in amazement and frustration as the characters do stupid, stupid things over and over again. And I couldn't enjoy it ironically, because it's punctuated with gross-out torture scenes that I kept having to mute or fast-forward.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25335
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Arrival (Villeneuve, '16)

Post by Stu » Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:31 am

Wooley wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:37 pm
Yeah, I just don't feel ya on this, I remember watching it and being like, "Holy shit, this movie is so much better than the plot suggests it should be. These characters are so much more complex and interesting than they strictly need to be to move the story and the film has more atmosphere and more care to it than this sort of film would usually warrant." I also thought very differently about Del Toro than you apparently did, not seeing him at all as an alpha male power fantasy but as a very complex and deep individual.

On the other film, I did not at all attribute a gender-dynamic problem to the difference between Olsen and Renner's characters, given that there is 10-15 years of difference in law-enforcement experience between them and it is very clear that she is very young for the job at hand. I actually read it the opposite way, that Olsen's character far exceeded what her degree of experience should dictate she would be able to do, which is partly why Renner seemed to have such genuine respect for her. I would almost have called it gender-affirming.
Well, for me, Sicario was a bit of a chicken-or-the-egg type experience; on a fundamental level, its basic elements aren't really any more familiar than those of Wind River, but the film's general failure to engage me properly made the generic nature of the story stick out more than it would've appeared otherwise, since I just never got particularly invested. And I did appreciate the development of Blunt's conflicted attitude about the operation she had become entangled in (although she was unnecessarily indecisive when it came to responding during the shooting at the border crossing), but I didn't find Del Toro's straightforward quest for vengeance for a family we never see or know anything about, and whose only purpose in the film is to be dead so he can have a motivation (so they were basically all "fridged"), or the flat way that this motivation was quickly exposited to us late in the film (and not even by him personally, but by another character altogether), to be any more compelling than the arc of, say, that of Django in his film, and the film relied too much on that simple revelation to try to make him a compelling character, rather than developing him as something more than a slightly higher-ranking killer in a film that's already full of people like him.

As for Wind River, even on its own, it would be extremely difficult for me to chalk up Renner's odd, inappropriate, effortless badassness (and his sudden turn into more murderous vigilantism towards the end after being a straight arrow up to that point), and Olsen's emotional, overwhelmed vunerability to just being due to the age gap between them, and it's hard to give Sheridan the benefit of the doubt that he would characterize them similarly if, say, Olsen was a man (or, to go all the way, if they were both gender-swapped), but when that same, disparate gender dynamic shows up in multiple screenplays of his, then it's a pretty clear trend indicating that he likes to indulge in some Jack Reacher-style ego trips, as much as I may have liked River otherwise.

And Beau, I'll try to finish my response to your response when I get the time :D
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 2919
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Arrival (Villeneuve, '16)

Post by Wooley » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:53 pm

Stu wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:31 am
Well, for me, Sicario was a bit of a chicken-or-the-egg type experience; on a fundamental level, its basic elements aren't really any more familiar than those of Wind River, but the film's general failure to engage me properly made the generic nature of the story stick out more than it would've appeared otherwise, since I just never got particularly invested. And I did appreciate the development of Blunt's conflicted attitude about the operation she had become entangled in (although she was unnecessarily indecisive when it came to responding during the shooting at the border crossing), but I didn't find Del Toro's straightforward quest for vengeance for a family we never see or know anything about, and whose only purpose in the film is to be dead so he can have a motivation (so they were basically all "fridged"), or the flat way that this motivation was quickly exposited to us late in the film (and not even by him personally, but by another character altogether), to be any more compelling than the arc of, say, that of Django in his film, and the film relied too much on that simple revelation to try to make him a compelling character, rather than developing him as something more than a slightly higher-ranking killer in a film that's already full of people like him.

As for Wind River, even on its own, it would be extremely difficult for me to chalk up Renner's odd, inappropriate, effortless badassness (and his sudden turn into more murderous vigilantism towards the end after being a straight arrow up to that point), and Olsen's emotional, overwhelmed vunerability to just being due to the age gap between them, and it's hard to give Sheridan the benefit of the doubt that he would characterize them similarly if, say, Olsen was a man (or, to go all the way, if they were both gender-swapped), but when that same, disparate gender dynamic shows up in multiple screenplays of his, then it's a pretty clear trend indicating that he likes to indulge in some Jack Reacher-style ego trips, as much as I may have liked River otherwise.

And Beau, I'll try to finish my response to your response when I get the time :D
I'll come back to Sicario.
On Wind River, I didn't find Olsen to have emotional, overwhelmed vulnerability at all, I thought she was a very strong character throughout. I remember that being a strength of the movie, that she was no damsel, she may be young but she was a pro capable of surprising people with her competence despite her freshness.
I'm actually surprised at hearing a basically opposite take to that, I thought it was part of the point.
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:52 am

Quick thoughts on TIFF viewings:

Desert One - Well made doc by Barbara Kopple about the Iran hostage crisis and the failed Delta Force rescue operation. It uses a fairly standard talking heads format, but is distinguished by its thoroughness (featuring interviews with hostages, captors, participants in the mission and Carter administration figures as well as tapes of the phone calls to Carter during the actual mission). The Q&A after the movie had a lot of the participants from the doc present and all of them said a few words, leaving time for just one question from the audience. Of course it managed to be hilariously obnoxious and piss off the person it was addressed to.

Color Out of Space - I was a bit disappointed by this one. It's a Lovecraft adaptation starring Nicolas Cage that marks Richard Stanley's return to feature filmmaking, and does have a few things going for it visually and atmospherically (although those aspects were better executed recently in Annihilation, which was heavily influenced by the same source material). Unfortunately, it basically turns its premise into a sub-Poltergeist/Conjuring scenario but with fairly rote execution (outside out of some nifty shocker moments). It's sort of fun seeing Nicolas Cage channel his wig-out tendencies into a more paternal role, but the family is sketched too thinly for us to really care about their fate (which again makes it compare unfavourably to those films). For those interested, Stanley was wearing his usual hat and a Videodrome Civic TV t-shirt during the Q&A.

To the Ends of the Earth - I might have enjoyed this more if I saw it a bit later in the festival so that it could serve as counter-programming, but still found it fairly enjoyable. It's a low key comedy about a Japanese TV reporter learning to face her fears while shooting a travelogue abroad in Uzbekistan, and is helped by its genial sense of humour, some nice cinematography and a sensitive performance in the lead role. I'm not super familiar with Kiyoshi Kurosawa's oeuvre aside from Cure and Pulse, but it is quite different from those in subject and tone. I had to dip during the Q&A as I had another showing right after and nearly tripped down the stairs on the way out, which it felt like everybody in the theatre noticed.

Saint Maud - This is the kind of movie I hope to see more often at TIFF, with no buzz or big names attached but stands out just by being really well made. It's about a deeply religious palliative care nurse who becomes obsessed with saving her patient's soul and may or may not be losing her mind. The director Rose Glass (who was wearing a Hawaiian shirt) acknowledged the influence of Repulsion and The Exorcist during the Q&A, but the forceful audiovisual delivery and unsettling, despairing performance in the lead role make this its own beast. This is the director's debut and I'd be very interested in seeing more from her.

The Kingmaker - This is a doc about Imelda Marcos that starts off as a study in extreme opulence (I haven't seen Lauren Greenfield's earlier movies but they sound similar in this respect) but morphs into a look at the Philippine political environment, tying into the election of Rodrigo Duterte. It's similar in concept to documentaries like The Act of Killing and General Idi Amin Dada: A Self Portrait in presenting a fascinating, charismatic figure with dark comedy without downplaying their actions, although this movie gets a larger variety of voices (family members, other politicians and activists). I don't think it's quite as good as those movies but it's still fascinating and urgently told nonetheless.

Deerskin - This was a holdover from Cannes (there were a few others but some of them had weirdly few showings and I was unable to see them). It's a movie that essentially takes one joke (a man gets a deerskin jacket, decides that no one else must have a jacket, and goes about realizing his vision) as far as it can go, but is grounded by Jean Dujardin's committed performance. One can read into it some ideas about how fashion and filmmaking relate to one's ego and self-actualization, but (as can be seen by the ending), its primary concern is the comedic potential of the premise. There are quite a few belly laughs in this one, and at under an hour and a half, it's probably the right length.

The Burnt Orange Heresy - Perfect for those who want to watch something like Purple Noon but not as good. It's comfort food for people like me who like Patricia Highsmith and is helped by some picturesque cinematography, strong lead work by Claes Bang and Elizabeth Debicki and fun supporting turns from Mick Jagger and Donald Sutherland. The ending fumbles (or rather, gets to an appropriate conclusion in an unsatisfying manner), but otherwise this is a pretty pleasurable 98 minutes.

Wasp Network - I see this is taking a drubbing in the reviews and while I can see where some of those complaints are coming from, it's much better than they would suggest. It's a look at anti-Castro groups and Cuban intelligence in '90s Miami, and similar to Carlos, Olivier Assayas has a natural feel for this kind of material, pulling off a number of tense sequences (particularly a series of bombings of Cuban hotels late in the movie) and finding the human element in a larger geopolitical context. The movie uses a hyperlink structure similar to Traffic and probably needed to give its earlier sections more breathing room, but particularly in the Penelope Cruz character its able to find the human cost of these activities.

Greed - This is enjoyable but I'd put it below all the other Michael Winterbottom Steve Coogan collaborations I've seen. Its problem is that although its frequently amusing (mostly in depicting the unmitigated assholery of Coogan's character), it never really rises to the level of actual satire, particularly not of the fast fashion industry it targets, so the attempt at seriousness never really lands. Coogan's craven dealmaking is depicted mostly as threats to walk out, there's a clumsy scene of a character indignantly explaining one of the transactions in the style of Adam McKay's recent movies, as well as a bunch of easily digestible bullet points at the end, so I'm not sure how well Winterbottom really understands the material.

Uncut Gems - It might be a cliched response to have when a comedic actor pulls off a serious role, but Adam Sandler really knocks it out of the park in this. It's the Safdie brothers' followup to Good Time and also features a motor-mouthed asshole of a main character frantically juggling a situation going to shit in inspired ways (at least in part due to their own efforts), but I think I like it a bit better than that one as the ending feels less abrupt. This could be a stressful or exhausting movie for some (there's a lot of yelling), but it really gets you on the same wavelength as a desperate and unlikable character (who happens to be a bit less unlikable than a lot of the people around him).
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm
____
Blog!
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2954
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Jinnistan » Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:16 am

Rock wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:52 am
Saint Maud - This is the kind of movie I hope to see more often at TIFF, with no buzz or big names attached but stands out just by being really well made. It's about a deeply religious palliative care nurse who becomes obsessed with saving her patient's soul and may or may not be losing her mind. The director Rose Glass (who was wearing a Hawaiian shirt) acknowledged the influence of Repulsion and The Exorcist during the Q&A, but the forceful audiovisual delivery and unsettling, despairing performance in the lead role make this its own beast. This is the director's debut and I'd be very interested in seeing more from her.
Wasn't aware of this one. Duly noted.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25335
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:41 am

Beau wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:17 am
I loved Sicario, and agree with Wooley that Del Toro's character never came across as a power fantasy to me, mostly because there isn't much space in Villeneuve's brooding, oppressive atmospherics for anything so celebratory. (I think Arrival is as bright and sunshiny as the man gets.) Villeneuve can be a little overbearing at times. (Prisoners and Enemy, in particular.) But when he clicks (and Blade Runner and Sicario really click with me), he has a knack for giving every image a sort of dense, existential weight, like the fate of the world hangs on a shadow. Really looking forward to his Dune, and I think he's the right man for the job. Certainly more so than Lynch, who wasn't a good fit for the material at all. (And Jorodowsky's mad project may not have been any better, either. It would have barely even been Dune, in the end.)
The power fantasy aspect of Sicario isn't something that's inherent to the style of the film, but in the text of Sheridan's screenplay; Villeneuve can direct it to feel like the most brooding cartel Thriller ever made if he wants, but when you have a man infiltrating and cold-bloodingly killing his way through a drug lord's compound single-handedly with absolutely no problem at all, and when that serves as the complete mirror image of the female protagonist's constant, out-of-the-loop helplessness (something that is brought about multiple times by Del Toro's character himself, when he's not saving her from other men, that is), it's inevitable that the film's going to feel at least a little alpha male-y. But, speaking of Villenueve, I felt that Sicario, as a fairly standard-issue black ops Thriller, didn't earn those existential atmospherics he gave it, as they just ended up making the film have this unearned air of pretension about it, one that wasn't justifed very well by the basic material.

And, to bring this back to No Country, that film had the sort of thematic ambitions that Sicario lacked, the kind that suited the often deadly serious, solemn tone of the film, which worked like gangbusters when coupled with the Coens' brilliant utilization of excruciatingly long silences and the abupt shattering of them to build an incredible amount of tension, while Villenueve's signature detached style was often a round peg for the square hole of Sicario, as it felt at times like he was trying too hard to distance us from the characters and the situations they were trapped in, literally; I mean, there's that one scene where Blunt & Brolin are having an argument after the shootout on the border, and the whole thing plays out in a wide shot the whole time, where we never actually get to see the characters' expressions up close in a scene that pretty much demands it, and all I could think was "Denis, what are you doing?". At any rate, I think that he's shown his style is far better suited to contemplative, thought-provoking Sci-Fi full of big ideas than to more straightforward material like Sicario (which is why Arrival is currently my favorite film from him), which is why I too, am looking forward to his Dune, so here's hoping we agree on that one when it comes out, at least :)
Wooley wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:53 pm
I'll come back to Sicario.
On Wind River, I didn't find Olsen to have emotional, overwhelmed vulnerability at all, I thought she was a very strong character throughout. I remember that being a strength of the movie, that she was no damsel, she may be young but she was a pro capable of surprising people with her competence despite her freshness.
I'm actually surprised at hearing a basically opposite take to that, I thought it was part of the point.
Her character went back and forth too much between being capable, and vunerable/in-over-her-head, like when
she's caught by surprise with the pepper spray-wielding perp at the trailer home, caught by surprise again at the start of the shootout at the drilling site (and nearly dies as a result, until Renner rescues her), and of course, when she breaks down crying near the end,
and when you contrast this with the way Renner is consistently portrayed in the film (where he's never in anything but complete control of those situations), and add in the additional context of an identical contrast in some of the major male/female characters in Sicario, and it's clear to me that Sheridan likes to indulge in some regressive, cliched gender stereotypes in his films, despite whatever other skills as a filmmaker he may possess.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25335
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia (Peckinpah, '74)

Post by Stu » Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:13 am

But, on a more positive note...
Wooley wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:35 am
Well, you got my attention.
...glad to see it :D Yeah, Bring Me The Head... really is a underappreciated, one-of-a-kind great, so I hope my review of it leads you to giving it a watch sometime soon, so you can join its little cult with me, and help it get the kind of attention it's deserved (but not recieved) over the last fourty-plus years.
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:40 pm

Takoma1 wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:11 pm
See, I thought that the story was too predictable and I kept waiting for some narrative innovation that just never arrived.
See, I thought that the back-and-forth between reality and the novel was innovative enough to keep me interested, and the performances held everything nicely together. I've been meaning to rewatch it so who knows how it holds, though.
Takoma1 wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:11 pm
And thanks for the recs--I've seen quite a few of them but there are several on your list I haven't seen.
You're welcome. Hope you enjoy them.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Captain Terror
Posts: 1898
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Captain Terror » Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:49 pm

Rock wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:52 am

Color Out of Space - I was a bit disappointed by this one. It's a Lovecraft adaptation starring Nicolas Cage that marks Richard Stanley's return to feature filmmaking, and does have a few things going for it visually and atmospherically (although those aspects were better executed recently in Annihilation, which was heavily influenced by the same source material). Unfortunately, it basically turns its premise into a sub-Poltergeist/Conjuring scenario but with fairly rote execution (outside out of some nifty shocker moments). It's sort of fun seeing Nicolas Cage channel his wig-out tendencies into a more paternal role, but the family is sketched too thinly for us to really care about their fate (which again makes it compare unfavourably to those films). For those interested, Stanley was wearing his usual hat and a Videodrome Civic TV t-shirt during the Q&A.
This is the first I'm hearing about this one. I'll take your disappointment into account, but there's no way I'm not gonna watch this one. The Lovecraft/Stanley/Cage combo is too good to resist.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:03 pm

Thief wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:40 pm
See, I thought that the back-and-forth between reality and the novel was innovative enough to keep me interested, and the performances held everything nicely together. I've been meaning to rewatch it so who knows how it holds, though.
The parallels between the two just felt too . . . basic.

It was intriguing in the very beginning, because I was like "Oh, my god, were
they actually the victims of violence and he's writing about it?" or "Whoa, did they really lose a child to violence?"

But then it's just like . . . no. The guy was criticized for being weak in real life and thus loses his wife and so he wrote a story about a man who loses his wife through "weakness" (even though that's not really it, because he could not have stopped what happened).
The whole thing just felt kind of muddled, and I grew less and less sympathetic to the fact that we were supposed to sympathize with this guy but at the same time not really acknowledge the pain or frustration of the different versions of the wife.
User avatar
Evil
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:24 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Evil » Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:55 pm

The only takeaway from Nocturnal Animals that stuck with me was its ridiculous over the top satirization of the high art world, and that Amy Adams should be your first and only call if "sad baths" is your character's major defining trait (see also, HBO's Sharp Objects).
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25335
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:05 pm

Evil wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:55 pm
The only takeaway from Nocturnal Animals that stuck with me was its ridiculous over the top satirization of the high art world, and that Amy Adams should be your first and only call if "sad baths" is your character's major defining trait (see also, HBO's Sharp Objects).
Don't forget that one scene in Murderman Vs. Captain Hypocrite:
Image
Jeez Zack Snyder, how did you somehow manage to make the sight on an implied-nude Amy Adams dull and dour as the rest of the film too?
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Thu Sep 19, 2019 2:47 am

Dirty Filthy Love

This film follows a man named Mark who grapples with OCD, depression, and Tourettes Syndrome. His marriage falls apart and he tries to recover with the help of an eclectic group of people suffering from similar issues.

Michael Sheen (playing Mark) and Shirley Henderson (as the leader of the self-help group) go all in with their characters, but the film just can't manage to find a tone.

When it comes to mental health themed films, I think that it's really easy to slip into exploitation/stereotype, and this is a film that is incredibly bleak and heartbreaking at times, but then you remember that 30 minutes earlier it was trying to wring laughs out of Mark barking like a dog or calling his boss crude names. Most people with Tourette's do not manifest the way it's portrayed in this film, and despite Sheen's committed performance, it too often felt like the film was laughing at Mark.

Along with the tonal issues, the film really can't get a grip on Mark's relationship with his ex-wife. She's often portrayed as the bad guy in the situation, but it's very reasonable to be concerned when someone you love is washing his own body in bleach. At one point we're meant to be offended when she says that Mark has been stalking her, but . . . we've spent the last hour watching him hover in the shadows watching her through her window at night, hanging around outside cafes where she's eating so that he can accuse her of infidelity, or driving a long way to show up unannounced at her parents' home.

An honest look at the toll of trying to maintain a relationship while grappling with mental health issues would have been great, and the acting talent was there to navigate the nuances of such a story.

Sadly, this film wants to have its cake and eat it, too. You can't play quirky music behind a man counting stairs and then 30 minutes later show him having a breakdown while naked in the bathtub. I wish the film had just played it straight. Not bleak, just honest. Instead it's too happy to trot out cliches of mental illness and it makes the final act a chaotic mess.
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:07 am

Captain Terror wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:49 pm
This is the first I'm hearing about this one. I'll take your disappointment into account, but there's no way I'm not gonna watch this one. The Lovecraft/Stanley/Cage combo is too good to resist.
If I had to rate the movie I'd give it a 6/10 or so, so I'd say it's perfectly enjoyable with lowered expectations. I got around to Hardware and Dust Devil recently, and I think I'd actually take it over Hardware (although I thought they had similar problems of rich visual imaginations being squandered on uninspired execution).

Dust Devil though, what a movie. It gave me the mix of idiosyncratic horror concepts, atmosphere and visual style that I was hoping to get from the other movies. I'm surprised it's not better regarded or known, but the release history probably has something to do with it.
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm
____
Blog!
User avatar
Captain Terror
Posts: 1898
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Captain Terror » Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:59 pm

Rock wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:07 am
I got around to Hardware and Dust Devil recently,
I've got both of those scheduled for my "Horror in the 90s" project next month. Looking forward to it.

Also, are you familiar enough with the Lovecraft story to determine how faithful the film is?
User avatar
Patrick McGroin
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:01 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Patrick McGroin » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:01 pm

You Were Never Really Here - 9/10 - This is like a textbook example of what a lean and efficient thriller should be. Director Lynne Ramsay manages to cram a considerable amount of not only action but meaning into an hour and a half movie. And she does it without wallowing in gore, trusting her audience to let their imaginations do the rest. I've read plenty of speculation about Joe's mindset and whether or not all or part of it is happening inside his mangled head but I didn't get a whiff of the allegorical to it. It works best for me as a straightforward and redemptive narrative.
My heart is still and awaits its hour.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 1766
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:04 pm

Patrick McGroin wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:01 pm
You Were Never Really Here - 9/10 - This is like a textbook example of what a lean and efficient thriller should be. Director Lynne Ramsay manages to cram a considerable amount of not only action but meaning into an hour and a half movie. And she does it without wallowing in gore, trusting her audience to let their imaginations do the rest. I've read plenty of speculation about Joe's mindset and whether or not all or part of it is happening inside his mangled head but I didn't get a whiff of the allegorical to it. It works best for me as a straightforward and redemptive narrative.
It also gets better upon rewatches.
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:08 pm

Captain Terror wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:59 pm
I've got both of those scheduled for my "Horror in the 90s" project next month. Looking forward to it.

Also, are you familiar enough with the Lovecraft story to determine how faithful the film is?
I read the story a while ago but don't remember it clearly. Stanley said during the Q&A that he expanded on some elements (it's also set in present day and has an environmental angle), so might not be the most faithful of adaptations.
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm
____
Blog!
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:52 pm

Rock wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:07 am
Dust Devil though, what a movie. It gave me the mix of idiosyncratic horror concepts, atmosphere and visual style that I was hoping to get from the other movies. I'm surprised it's not better regarded or known, but the release history probably has something to do with it.
I'd have to rewatch Dust Devil to remember why I really liked it but didn't think it was great. Still it's an easy recommendation and a unique story.
Patrick McGroin wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:01 pm
You Were Never Really Here - 9/10 - This is like a textbook example of what a lean and efficient thriller should be. Director Lynne Ramsay manages to cram a considerable amount of not only action but meaning into an hour and a half movie. And she does it without wallowing in gore, trusting her audience to let their imaginations do the rest. I've read plenty of speculation about Joe's mindset and whether or not all or part of it is happening inside his mangled head but I didn't get a whiff of the allegorical to it. It works best for me as a straightforward and redemptive narrative.
I really enjoyed this YouTube video about how the film portrays a protagonist who is suffering from trauma.

User avatar
Captain Terror
Posts: 1898
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Captain Terror » Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:18 pm

Rock wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:08 pm
might not be the most faithful of adaptations.
They rarely are :)
Just wondering what to expect, thanks.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:11 am

About Time

There might be some logical flaws buried in this one, or maybe even glaringly on the surface (as with most/all time travel films), but I didn't really care. I really enjoyed this movie for the sweet meditation on life and decision making and loss and purpose. I'm sure it helps that I quite like both Domhnall Gleason and Rachel McAdams who are the two leads.

I've never been the biggest fan of "using time travel to make someone love you" type plots (because I feel like there are maybe some ethical/consent issues), so I appreciated that the film only spends about the first third on that stuff and then goes into the more adult phase of the protagonist's life.
User avatar
Patrick McGroin
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:01 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Patrick McGroin » Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:14 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:52 pm
I really enjoyed this YouTube video about how the film portrays a protagonist who is suffering from trauma.

Thank you so much for posting this. Now I have to give the movie a rewatch ASAP. As it is I can better understand why so many people thought the denouement with Nina might have been a figment of Joe's mind.
My heart is still and awaits its hour.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:20 am

Patrick McGroin wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:14 am
Thank you so much for posting this. Now I have to give the movie a rewatch ASAP. As it is I can better understand why so many people thought the
denouement with Nina might have been a figment of Joe's mind.
I was actually not that concerned with what was real and what was maybe in his head.

Taken as an experience with someone who is psychologically distressed, I think that it's powerful as a "real" story or as some sort of allegory/fantasy.

I found a rewatch much more rewarding when I stopped looking for "clues" and just enjoyed taking in the emotions of what was happening in each moment.
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:57 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:52 pm
I'd have to rewatch Dust Devil...
Do it...

I'm actually having a hard time expressing why the movie worked for as well as it did, so I'd be down for more people to see it next month to discuss. It's definitely more concerned with mood than with plot or character, and the precise notes it was hitting happened to do the trick for me, but I can see others being less moved.
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm
____
Blog!
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:41 am

Rock wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:57 am
Do it...

I'm actually having a hard time expressing why the movie worked for as well as it did, so I'd be down for more people to see it next month to discuss. It's definitely more concerned with mood than with plot or character, and the precise notes it was hitting happened to do the trick for me, but I can see others being less moved.
I don't know if other people do this or not, but I often will go back and watch like a really intense 5 or 10 minutes from certain movies, even ones I don't like overall, if it's a scene that gave me a strong emotional response.

It's literally been about 10 years I think since I watched Dust Devil beginning to end. But I will confess that since it used to be free on Prime or Netflix, I've rewatched the hotel scene several times. I'm sad to see it's not streaming anywhere right now. I'll try and get a hold of it in the next month or so.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:56 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:41 am
I don't know if other people do this or not, but I often will go back and watch like a really intense 5 or 10 minutes from certain movies, even ones I don't like overall, if it's a scene that gave me a strong emotional response.

It's literally been about 10 years I think since I watched Dust Devil beginning to end. But I will confess that since it used to be free on Prime or Netflix, I've rewatched the hotel scene several times. I'm sad to see it's not streaming anywhere right now. I'll try and get a hold of it in the next month or so.
I ordered a new DVD with digital copy for $6 a little bit ago as I’m currently stockpiling for October.
alexpaul86
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:12 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Recently Seen

Post by alexpaul86 » Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:19 pm

hey i am new here
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1606
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:33 pm

alexpaul86 wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:19 pm
hey i am new here
seen any good movies lately?
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:33 pm

alexpaul86 wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:19 pm
hey i am new here
We get new people? Bananas!
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2568
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:01 pm

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:33 pm
We get new people? Bananas!
And he hasn't offered us a single dodgy passport. :(
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:06 pm

Don't let him (or her) leave!
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm
____
Blog!
Post Reply