Recently Seen

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Slentert » Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:53 am

I had no problem with the voice-over in Gretel and Hansel. It fitted the lyrical approach of the movie well.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:25 pm

Macrology wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 7:09 am
Mamet is fun and compelling in his very specific and limited and peculiar way. I prefer House of Games to Homicide. His play American Buffalo is his best work that I've encountered, but I've only read the play, I've never seen a production.
Yes, and I've enjoyed everything I've seen from him. I know that it's not the best film ever, but I find myself frequently revisiting Spartan, probably because of how much I enjoy the action sequences and the slow-fast pacing of it.

I'm just still a bit bothered by not being able to nail down what I found lacking in Homicide.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Sun Feb 02, 2020 4:32 pm

When Harry Met Sally was a really great combination of script, performance, and direction. It's a favorite of a friend of mine, and I can see why she's so taken with it. Generally I was pretty charmed by it, especially by things like Harry relating the details of his breakup while being forced to periodically do the wave at a stadium.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4608
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:36 pm

Charles wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:56 pm
Cats, 2019 (B-)

Not nearly as horrible as I thought it'd be. The only eminently jarring CGI came during the opening, Derulo's performances and Rebel Wilson's horrible, horrible parts.

Jennifer Hudson, the burglar cats and the main actress were good. Most of the movie is passable, not quite horrible. It feels very light and fleeting and movies very suddenly from set to set with no connecting thread or tone aside from, I assume, getting all the parts of the play in. Overall, it's fine, I guess. No very strong opinion one way or the other.
Also pretty much my experience. Rebel Wilson was a mistake in casting, plain and simple, but the movie just isn't that bad.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Sun Feb 02, 2020 7:59 pm

Cape Fear is a bit weird for a mainstream thriller. like it’s clear Scorsese just can’t have an unambiguously good Gregory Peck-esque protagonist to root for. but all those odd touches, the way the sins of Nolte open him up to De Niro’s actions, still make it more interesting than a straight forward slasher-thriller. like the way that Nolte did the wrong thing for the right reason (burying the report that would have gotten De Niro off), the original “sin” that has come back to haunt him, leading to a big-budget vision of Hell as only Scorsese could imagine. it can be a bit frantic and shrill sometimes, but I wasn’t expecting The Age of Innocence either.

plus now I can say I’ve seen all the Scorsese-De Niro joints. movies, gotta catch ‘em all!
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:05 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 7:59 pm
Cape Fear is a bit weird for a mainstream thriller. like it’s clear Scorsese just can’t have an unambiguously good Gregory Peck-esque protagonist to root for. but all those odd touches, the way the sins of Nolte open him up to De Niro’s actions, still make it more interesting than a straight forward slasher-thriller. like the way that Nolte did the wrong thing for the right reason (burying the report that would have gotten De Niro off), the original “sin” that has come back to haunt him, leading to a big-budget vision of Hell as only Scorsese could imagine. it can be a bit frantic and shrill sometimes, but I wasn’t expecting The Age of Innocence either.

plus now I can say I’ve seen all the Scorsese-De Niro joints. movies, gotta catch ‘em all!
I caught about 10 minutes of it on TV when I was like 16 and did not care for what I saw, but I know that I owe the film a full watch. I do really like the original film, and the idea of someone trying to fill Peck and Mitchum's shoes is . . . hard for me to get on board with. And don't they age up the daughter by a few years?
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:18 pm

Takoma1 wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:05 pm
I caught about 10 minutes of it on TV when I was like 16 and did not care for what I saw, but I know that I owe the film a full watch. I do really like the original film, and the idea of someone trying to fill Peck and Mitchum's shoes is . . . hard for me to get on board with. And don't they age up the daughter by a few years?
I didn't see the original so I dunno about the daughter. she is old enough for De Niro to engage in some intentionally uncomfortable foreplay though.

as a warning, there is a very unsettling bit of violence involving Illeana Douglas but I'm sure you know Scorsese has never been one to sanitize that stuff either. maybe even eager to turn the audience's desire for movie violence against them. "Is this what you want? Well okay, here it is...."
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3489
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:21 pm

Takoma1 wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 4:32 pm
When Harry Met Sally was a really great combination of script, performance, and direction. It's a favorite of a friend of mine, and I can see why she's so taken with it. Generally I was pretty charmed by it, especially by things like Harry relating the details of his breakup while being forced to periodically do the wave at a stadium.
I recently watched this and was quite taken with it. It felt like Reiner riffing on and softening a Woody Allen film. Perfectly charming film. Reiner's 80s run was killer.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 3168
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:22 pm

I saw Scorsese's Cape Fear a while ago, and I remember enjoying it quite a lot due to De Niro's menacing performance and appearance and Nick Nolte's interesting characterization. That and the creepiness/claustrophobia of certain scenes make it stick out even more in my eyes.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Ergill » Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:01 pm

Takoma1 wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:08 pm
I don't mind the narration in Assassination of Jesse James. I love Hansen's writing, and I think it's a well-written and well-acted narration. (Also I would HIGHLY recommend Hansen's book Mariette in Ecstasy about a novice nun and her complicated relationship with her religion and her fellow nuns). There is artistry to his writing and it feels like it belongs within another piece of art, just the same way that a good song feels like it belongs in a film.
I'll pick that one up. I'd cracked open his Billy the Kid book, but it got sidelined by a bunch of others along the way. I'm fairly scatterbrained reader and lately I've been much less disciplined sticking to a work of fiction. Or semi-fiction in this case.
Takoma1 wrote:
Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:08 pm
I was talking more about voice-over that is either (1) just an exposition dump or (2) a writer/director trying to add an extra dose of snark to their film. Those types of narration feel like something is being shoehorned into the narrative that could have been conveyed on screen. To use the song comparison again, there are times that music just doesn't feel like it was put in a certain scene for the right reasons and it tends to cheapen the whole thing.
I get it. You and Wooley aren't wrong that narration can be a crutch for a lot of films, but I chalk that up to Sturgeon's Law. I just thought Wooley was sounding too dogmatic about it and letting his estimation of the bad stuff steamroll the distinctive and interesting work going on in other narration. Dominick adapted the screenplay and edited the movie, after all -- he knows perfectly well that he's showing a wild-eyed, unblinking James as the narrator talks about granulated eyelids. Look alive!
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Ergill » Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:13 pm

Macrology wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 7:09 am
Mamet is fun and compelling in his very specific and limited and peculiar way. I prefer House of Games to Homicide. His play American Buffalo is his best work that I've encountered, but I've only read the play, I've never seen a production.
I watched Buffalo last week on Hulu and enjoyed it. Good performances from all involved.
Takoma1 wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:25 pm
Yes, and I've enjoyed everything I've seen from him. I know that it's not the best film ever, but I find myself frequently revisiting Spartan, probably because of how much I enjoy the action sequences and the slow-fast pacing of it.
I'm a fan of Spartan too for the stripped-down style and the dialogue. Always fun to watch super-competent people in a very humble, process-oriented vein. (Shades of Ronin and a probably not so coincidental similarity in the titles.) There are some corny lines and bits of toughguyism (Mamet!), but that adds to the charm.

"Then you are truly blessed..."
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 3206
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Torgo » Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:21 pm

I saw Planet of the Apes (1968) for the first time and loved it. Technically, it holds up pretty well. The wide-angled and swooping camerawork - I especially liked the crash landing and the human hunting scene - make all of the action really exciting and made my TV screen seem larger. The costumes have their limitations, such as whenever Cornelius and Zira kiss, but my visceral reactions to them still exceeded the ones I had to the Rise trilogy's CGI apes. The lesson about the devastating effects of outlawing science to a civilization are just as relevant as they are today; after all, Dr. Zaius is basically Mitch McConnell, and not just in appearance. Heston's performance was odd at times - he might as well have been the Nicolas Cage of his era - but along with the ape kissing, I appreciated the unintentional humor.
Last Great Movie Seen
Razorback (Mulcahy, 1984)
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 2864
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:31 pm

I always enjoy rewatching it. I agree that it holds up pretty well, despite some minor issues, but aside from keeping a solid pace, there is an eerie vibe to it. It's the kind of film that always sucks me in when it's on TV.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Captain Terror
Posts: 2801
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Captain Terror » Mon Feb 03, 2020 12:11 am

Torgo wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:21 pm
The lesson about the devastating effects of outlawing science to a civilization are just as relevant as they are today; after all, Dr. Zaius is basically Mitch McConnell, and not just in appearance.
Yeah, I saw a theatrical screening within the past few years and there was an audible giggle throughout the room when one character (Zira?) says something like "It can't be heresy if it's true!" Turns out it can, Zira....
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3489
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:33 am

I Lost My Body is great and y'all should watch it.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 3168
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:50 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:33 am
I Lost My Body is great and y'all should watch it.
I've been recommended that film a few times so far. Maybe I should finally watch it.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:53 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:33 am
I Lost My Body is great and y'all should watch it.
Yeah, I saw it over the Christmas break and I've been hyping it ever since. It was not at all what I was expecting, but I loved it.
Ergill wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:01 pm
I'll pick that one up. I'd cracked open his Billy the Kid book, but it got sidelined by a bunch of others along the way. I'm fairly scatterbrained reader and lately I've been much less disciplined sticking to a work of fiction. Or semi-fiction in this case.
If you want a quick page-turner historical fiction novel, I highly recommend News of the World (link). It's like a historical action thriller with really great characterization.
Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:18 pm
I didn't see the original so I dunno about the daughter. she is old enough for De Niro to engage in some intentionally uncomfortable foreplay though.

as a warning, there is a very unsettling bit of violence involving Illeana Douglas but I'm sure you know Scorsese has never been one to sanitize that stuff either. maybe even eager to turn the audience's desire for movie violence against them. "Is this what you want? Well okay, here it is...."
The daughter in the original came across to me as being maybe 12 or 13 years old, though I guess the actress was about 15 at the time.

The original kept a fair amount of the violence off-screen, which I thought was pretty effective. I'm not sure how I'd respond to the same story but with more graphic violence.

I guess my main question would be
does he kill the dog in this version? If so, is it on- or off-screen?
.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:24 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:53 am
The original kept a fair amount of the violence off-screen, which I thought was pretty effective. I'm not sure how I'd respond to the same story but with more graphic violence.

I guess my main question would be
does he kill the dog in this version? If so, is it on- or off-screen?
.
yes, and it happens off-screen
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4608
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:26 am

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 7:59 pm
Cape Fear is a bit weird for a mainstream thriller. like it’s clear Scorsese just can’t have an unambiguously good Gregory Peck-esque protagonist to root for. but all those odd touches, the way the sins of Nolte open him up to De Niro’s actions, still make it more interesting than a straight forward slasher-thriller. like the way that Nolte did the wrong thing for the right reason (burying the report that would have gotten De Niro off), the original “sin” that has come back to haunt him, leading to a big-budget vision of Hell as only Scorsese could imagine. it can be a bit frantic and shrill sometimes, but I wasn’t expecting The Age of Innocence either.

plus now I can say I’ve seen all the Scorsese-De Niro joints. movies, gotta catch ‘em all!
I saw it in the theater when it came out and I thought it was hit and miss.
I later saw the original which I much preferred.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4608
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:38 am

Ergill wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:01 pm
I get it. You and Wooley aren't wrong that narration can be a crutch for a lot of films, but I chalk that up to Sturgeon's Law. I just thought Wooley was sounding too dogmatic about it and letting his estimation of the bad stuff steamroll the distinctive and interesting work going on in other narration. Dominick adapted the screenplay and edited the movie, after all -- he knows perfectly well that he's showing a wild-eyed, unblinking James as the narrator talks about granulated eyelids. Look alive!
I don't know how dogmatic I was being, I told y'all I was disappointed in the film overall considering what a good one it seemed like it might have been with some of its significant assets, and that the disappointment was in no small part (although also due to other things) due to the narration. Not necessarily because all narration is inherently bad and therefore this film failed by using it, but because narration as a storytelling device did not work for me in this film.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4608
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:40 am

Torgo wrote:
Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:21 pm
I saw Planet of the Apes (1968) for the first time and loved it. Technically, it holds up pretty well. The wide-angled and swooping camerawork - I especially liked the crash landing and the human hunting scene - make all of the action really exciting and made my TV screen seem larger. The costumes have their limitations, such as whenever Cornelius and Zira kiss, but my visceral reactions to them still exceeded the ones I had to the Rise trilogy's CGI apes. The lesson about the devastating effects of outlawing science to a civilization are just as relevant as they are today; after all, Dr. Zaius is basically Mitch McConnell, and not just in appearance. Heston's performance was odd at times - he might as well have been the Nicolas Cage of his era - but along with the ape kissing, I appreciated the unintentional humor.
Yeah, I've ended up seeing this two or three times in the last few years and I really think it gets overlooked in the historical perspective of 20th Century Sci-Fi.
It's a worthy movie.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 26050
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:57 am

Thief wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:11 am
Obviously, the T-Rex escape was the highlight, but Laura Dern's raptor scare was another big one :D
You mean the part where the raptor bursts through the wall behind her, or the part where "Mr. Arnold"'s arm falls on her, and then she discovers that the rest of him isn't there? Because the latter is one of the examples of the film getting a bit too campy for my tastes (along with an honest-to-God slide whistle sound effect being used when Newman slips in the rain; so that's where Schumacher got that idea for Batman & Robin from!), especially when it's contrasted so strongly with thoughtful, character-building discussions like this (which, to be fair, is a really good scene in its own right):

Yes, I'm a mod; let me know if you need anything.

Read My Reviews
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 2864
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:40 pm

Stu wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:57 am
You mean the part where the raptor bursts through the wall behind her, or the part where "Mr. Arnold"'s arm falls on her, and then she discovers that the rest of him isn't there? Because the latter is one of the examples of the film getting a bit too campy for my tastes (along with an honest-to-God slide whistle sound effect being used when Newman slips in the rain; so that's where Schumacher got that idea for Batman & Robin from!), especially when it's contrasted so strongly with thoughtful, character-building discussions like this (which, to be fair, is a really good scene in its own right):

I meant the raptor bursting through the wall behind her; actually both moments play back-to-back so, although I can see your point, I think it makes for a pretty cool and scary 1-2 punch. But anyway, I agree that the film is a perfect example of blockbuster spectacle with great, likable characters and a thought-provoking script.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 3168
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:23 pm

I had a discussion in a Discord server I belong to on the film Split as most of the people there believe it did a poor job handling the topic of mental illnesses due to how it portrays them as a threat to other people's lives. Here's the counter point I made:

"Admittedly, I usually don't care for films which portray people with mental illnesses as dangerous. However, I didn't mind it as much in this film as I usually do, because since it's not aiming for realism in the sense that Crumb has superpowers and superhuman strength, I don't think it's as dangerous to society as most films which do this are. I just can't see anyone saying "I fear that this person with DID will kill me with his superpowers". If it wasn't for that angle, I probably would've had an issue here, but knowing this helped me to overlook that in favor of its other merits. Although, this doesn't mean that other people shouldn't criticize it for this. This is just my take."

Anyone have any thoughts on this?
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:00 pm

Popcorn Reviews wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:23 pm
I had a discussion in a Discord server I belong to on the film Split as most of the people there believe it did a poor job handling the topic of mental illnesses due to how it portrays them as a threat to other people's lives. Here's the counter point I made:

"Admittedly, I usually don't care for films which portray people with mental illnesses as dangerous. However, I didn't mind it as much in this film as I usually do, because since it's not aiming for realism in the sense that Crumb has superpowers and superhuman strength, I don't think it's as dangerous to society as most films which do this are. I just can't see anyone saying "I fear that this person with DID will kill me with his superpowers". If it wasn't for that angle, I probably would've had an issue here, but knowing this helped me to overlook that in favor of its other merits. Although, this doesn't mean that other people shouldn't criticize it for this. This is just my take."

Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Whether the main character's mental illness (or physical abilities) are real or not, the film still plays into the stereotype of a deranged crazy person who is a danger to others.

Now, I think that there are two arguments to make here.

On the one hand, it is true that there are some people with mental illnesses who are a danger to others. You could argue that most films will focus on extreme situations and outliers, and so it's not out of line to focus on a version of mental illness that allows for a story with suspense and intrigue and danger.

But I can see the opposing argument, that by having most films about mental illness involve someone who is dangerous, it perpetuates the stereotype that people with mental illness are dangerous or ticking time bombs. And it's also very true that we are often presented with Hollywood versions of mental illnesses (just as we are presented with Hollywood versions of what it's like to be a doctor, or police procedures, etc) that can perpetuate misinformation about how mental illness actually presents.

Underlying this discussion has to also be the fact that our society is poorly equipped to handle people who are mentally ill. While some people do have violent elements to their mental illness for one reason or another, it's also true that a lack of care and a lack of compassion can push mentally ill people to a place of violence. My sister works with pre-teens/teens who have emotional disabilities, and she'll talk about watching teachers escalate confrontations instead of diffusing them, so that something that could have been a conversation turns into a desk being flipped.

While I regarded everything in Split as fantasy (especially the "science"), I can see how people who are sensitive to portrayals of mental illness might have seen the film as deepening the stigma against those with mental illness. The film also doesn't do much to show any counterpoints--we don't see someone who is functionally mentally ill, or who is dealing with the same "disorder" and managing it without harming anyone.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 3168
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:32 pm

Takoma1 wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:00 pm
Whether the main character's mental illness (or physical abilities) are real or not, the film still plays into the stereotype of a deranged crazy person who is a danger to others.
It does, but given how his superhuman strength also leads to much of the violence which occurs throughout the film, I think it's also clear that that angle is made out to be as much of a threat, if not a greater one, than the fact that he has DID. Of course, the film also shows that he wouldn't have had the superhuman strength without having DID. However, when I said "...since it's not aiming for realism in the sense that Crumb has superpowers and superhuman strength, I don't think it's as dangerous to society as most films which do this are.", I wasn't necessarily arguing that it's a perfect example of how to handle this as much as I think that a greater amount of people would be able to recognize this as fantasy as opposed to a film which would attempt to present a realistic portrayal of mental illness (that is, without the superhero/fantasy bits). For that reason, while I wouldn't say it's the golden standard of how to handle mental illness, I would argue that it handles it in a way which minimizes the impact more than other films which depict people with mental illnesses do. I don't think many people will take this film seriously. It handled it well enough to a point that I was able to overlook this aspect. Since I can suspend my disbelief, I can also suspend my framing of it.
Takoma1 wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:00 pm
Now, I think that there are two arguments to make here.

On the one hand, it is true that there are some people with mental illnesses who are a danger to others. You could argue that most films will focus on extreme situations and outliers, and so it's not out of line to focus on a version of mental illness that allows for a story with suspense and intrigue and danger.

But I can see the opposing argument, that by having most films about mental illness involve someone who is dangerous, it perpetuates the stereotype that people with mental illness are dangerous or ticking time bombs. And it's also very true that we are often presented with Hollywood versions of mental illnesses (just as we are presented with Hollywood versions of what it's like to be a doctor, or police procedures, etc) that can perpetuate misinformation about how mental illness actually presents.

Underlying this discussion has to also be the fact that our society is poorly equipped to handle people who are mentally ill. While some people do have violent elements to their mental illness for one reason or another, it's also true that a lack of care and a lack of compassion can push mentally ill people to a place of violence. My sister works with pre-teens/teens who have emotional disabilities, and she'll talk about watching teachers escalate confrontations instead of diffusing them, so that something that could have been a conversation turns into a desk being flipped.
Not a whole lot to say here. Just for the record, I typically don't like it when films present people with mental illnesses as threats to other people's lives as, like you, I feel this can be dangerous given that many films present mental illness this way. However, I'd argue that this one is an exception to this for the reason I listed above.
Takoma1 wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:00 pm
While I regarded everything in Split as fantasy (especially the "science"), I can see how people who are sensitive to portrayals of mental illness might have seen the film as deepening the stigma against those with mental illness. The film also doesn't do much to show any counterpoints--we don't see someone who is functionally mentally ill, or who is dealing with the same "disorder" and managing it without harming anyone.
I can as well. I don't expect everyone to be satisfied with my take on the film, and I can understand someone being upset at the film for this, but I'm personally satisfied with it. As you say, providing counterpoints would've helped out even more, which is part of why I don't consider this to be a perfect example of how to handle mental illness, but I still think that the fantasy elements of it help to minimize its impact on the real world to a great enough degree that it doesn't bother me.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:57 pm

Popcorn Reviews wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:32 pm
It does, but given how his superhuman strength also leads to much of the violence which occurs throughout the film, I think it's also clear that that angle is made out to be as much of a threat, if not a greater one, than the fact that he has DID.
It's his mental illness that makes him dangerous/violent. It's his physical abilities that make that danger/violence more of a threat. He'd still be dangerous without the strength, but strength-without-illness would not be a threat. His strength is just a mechanism for delivering the violence that comes from his mental illness.

I agree with you that the film being a fantasy (as opposed to a "realistic" dram or a thriller) makes it more palatable to use such an outlandish notion of DID, and in theory it *should* signal to people that this portrayal of mental illness is not to be trusted.

Like you, I never took this film as any kind of serious/realistic portrayal of mental illness.

On the other hand, something being "obviously" over the top doesn't necessarily excuse it. Suppose the film had included a stereotype that was based on race or gender or sexuality. Would the fantasy context of the story excuse such stereotyping?

For the record, I feel very much the same about film portrayals of autism for the most part. There's this "fun" way that people want to think about those who have autism (they're like robots! they are good at math! they are quirky savants!), and it's just so removed from reality. I know that bending the truth can make for more compelling storytelling, but I also totally understand why people would feel hurt by it.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 3168
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:26 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:57 pm
It's his mental illness that makes him dangerous/violent. It's his physical abilities that make that danger/violence more of a threat. He'd still be dangerous without the strength, but strength-without-illness would not be a threat. His strength is just a mechanism for delivering the violence that comes from his mental illness.

I agree with you that the film being a fantasy (as opposed to a "realistic" dram or a thriller) makes it more palatable to use such an outlandish notion of DID, and in theory it *should* signal to people that this portrayal of mental illness is not to be trusted.

Like you, I never took this film as any kind of serious/realistic portrayal of mental illness.

On the other hand, something being "obviously" over the top doesn't necessarily excuse it. Suppose the film had included a stereotype that was based on race or gender or sexuality. Would the fantasy context of the story excuse such stereotyping?

For the record, I feel very much the same about film portrayals of autism for the most part. There's this "fun" way that people want to think about those who have autism (they're like robots! they are good at math! they are quirky savants!), and it's just so removed from reality. I know that bending the truth can make for more compelling storytelling, but I also totally understand why people would feel hurt by it.
Okay, fair enough. I'll concede that the over-the-top portrayal of DID doesn't necessarily make it okay for a film to utilize it, even if it may be less dangerous.
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 2707
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:15 am

Freebie and the Bean is a proto Bad Boys II of sorts, with its combination of crass humour, amoral policing and public endangerment. The level of destruction seems both like a natural outcome of the heroes' attitudes and removed from the sharpness of their banter. The deflating, almost downbeat ending is probably the movie's most clever stroke, showing the futility of their rules-be-damned methods and taking the piss out of what's essentially an extended piss-take of other cop movies. Ruggero Deodato's Live Like a Cop, Die Like a Man from the same year does the same shtick better, but this is still worth a watch if any of the above sounds appealing to you.

The Witches of Eastwick is pretty good, but would have been a lot better if it had continued to play its supernatural elements more slyly than bringing them out in the open as early as it did. The weakest scenes are when it lays on the special effects. It's better shot than the average comedy, which makes a lot more sense once you realize it's directed by George Miller.

The Lonely Guy is in a weird middle ground between romcom parody and genuine romcom, and is neither inspired enough to pull off the former or sincere enough to succeed as the latter. Steve Martin's charm helps keep the movie afloat through its weaker gags (although if you're an early Martin hater, like Ebert apparently was, the movie might be a challenge), but he has a good amount of help from Charles Grodin, who totally commits to the most pathetic, sadsack dimensions of his character, who is essentially the male equivalent of a cat lady.
"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
DaMU
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:48 am

The Gentlemen (2020) - B

Guy Ritchie's gonna Guy Ritchie. Enough laughs and camp performances to keep the car running.

Marriage Story (2019) - A-

Really hit me, appreciated how Baumbach took the time to study both parties and see where their strengths and weaknesses were. Johannson making up for years of playing second fiddle by being controlling and thinking two steps ahead of Driver, who's earnest in his love for his kid but by nature doesn't have the bond he wants (and knows he doesn't (and at times reminds us why he might not deserve it)). Comes out in the end as optimistic in its own way, which I similarly appreciated. In Los Angeles some people call their first marriage their "starter marriage." I don't know if that's the right call, but I also don't know if marriage as a concept is always a great idea. I don't know. But I'm glad these two navigated their way through 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.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:50 am

Out of the BP nominees:

Parasite
1917
The Irishman
Marriage Story
Little Women
Jojo Rabbit
Joker


Again, generally pleased with the nominees so far. There have been much worse years.

Two more before Sunday...
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
Jinnistan
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Jinnistan » Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:47 am

Rock wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:15 am
Freebie and the Bean
The jaw-dropping car stunts are the biggest draw, although the leads have great prickly chemistry.
Rock wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:15 am
The Witches of Eastwick
I don't have a problem with the FX so much (mighty powerful wind machines), but the performances are the real reason to watch, from deliciously hammy Jack to the darker piety of Veronica Cartwright and Richard Jenkins.
Rock wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:15 am
The Lonely Guy
The sad fact is that the average Steve Martin fan did not want to see this kind of film coming off of his run of Jerk/Crazy Guy slapstick. It's more tonally similar to Roxanne (without the prop) and L.A. Story, which probably benefited from their distance to his, by then, retired schtick.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 26050
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:39 am

Popcorn Reviews wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:23 pm
I had a discussion in a Discord server I belong to on the film Split as most of the people there believe it did a poor job handling the topic of mental illnesses due to how it portrays them as a threat to other people's lives. Here's the counter point I made:

"Admittedly, I usually don't care for films which portray people with mental illnesses as dangerous. However, I didn't mind it as much in this film as I usually do, because since it's not aiming for realism in the sense that Crumb has superpowers and superhuman strength, I don't think it's as dangerous to society as most films which do this are. I just can't see anyone saying "I fear that this person with DID will kill me with his superpowers". If it wasn't for that angle, I probably would've had an issue here, but knowing this helped me to overlook that in favor of its other merits. Although, this doesn't mean that other people shouldn't criticize it for this. This is just my take."

Anyone have any thoughts on this?
I wasn't a big fan of Split on the whole, and as for the specific question of whether the film reinforces certain negative stereotypes about people with mental disorders, it's all a matter of perspective; taken just on its own, as a work of fantasy almost completely detached from reality, the film isn't necessarily problematic in that regard (although one's mileage on that will inevitably vary if you've had to deal with mental illness yourself, or known someone who has), but, taken in a larger cultural context, it can easily seem like just another lazy, "crazy = violent" depiction in the media, and the overall approach of the film doesn't give it much credibility in that regard either, what with the way its story tried to blend the trauma of various forms of childhood abuse, a realistic, Silence Of The Lambs-style abduction scenario, quack-y, "no seriously, this could really happen!" pseudo-science/pop psychology, and the kind of schlock-y material we've come to expect from, well, a modern M. Knight movie, and as a result, the final product is split (sorry) between its competing tendencies, and just feels unnecessarily exploitative to a certain extent as a result (granted, it's not quite as bad as casting an actual child with an easily coverable case of cleidocranial dysostosis as the obligatory creepy kid in your Horror movie as an afterthought, but still).
Yes, I'm a mod; let me know if you need anything.

Read My Reviews
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3489
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:02 pm

American Factory- an even handed look at the benefits and costs of globalization. Well made but too drawn out for the amount of exploration into the source material. A judiciously edited 80 min version would have likely lost the "atmosphere" but would have gained much more life through brevity.

Seems ripe for Hollywood to make a clash of cultures dramedy adaptation ala Green Book and win all the Oscars.
User avatar
topherH
Posts: 1005
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by topherH » Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:41 pm

Batman: Hush is quite a riddle, and on par with the other DC animated films I enjoy.
--Whether you think you can or can't, you're probably right--
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:10 am

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - B / B+

A rewatch will be needed someday. Torn between the relative maturity/subtlety of the work and the fact that there's just so goddamn much of it. I really do think Tarantino lost something with the passing of Sally Menke, as his three films after her death feel too inflated, like they're belaboring things we know when they could be escalating what we don't. In spite of that, terrific work from the actors, impeccable production design and sense of place. And when Tarantino wants to turn the screws and tighten the tension, he can do it as well as anybody in the business. Pitt's adventure to Spahn Ranch and the final battle operate as much like horror movies as like the western standoffs they're more directly emulating.
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
DaMU
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:19 am

Out of the BP nominees:

Parasite
1917
The Irishman
Marriage Story
Little Women
Jojo Rabbit
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Joker


Ford vs. Ferrari soon, Gods willing.
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
Wooley
Posts: 4608
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:39 am

DaMU wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:10 am
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - B / B+

...And when Tarantino wants to turn the screws and tighten the tension, he can do it as well as anybody in the business. Pitt's adventure to Spahn Ranch and the final battle operate as much like horror movies as like the western standoffs they're more directly emulating.
As I said in my (less than favorable) write-up of the film in my thread, after Pitt's time at the Spahn Ranch, I wanted Tarantino's next film to be a straight-up horror-movie.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3489
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:53 am

Bombshell was a surprise. The cast was outstanding and it plays like a more mature and intelligent version of what McKay has been attempting with his last couple of movies. Theron and Robbie deserve their nominations and may even be my current choices.

Klaus was also a very pretty, very charming film that I watched 2 months too late but wanted to finish the animated nominees. I Lost My Body is still my favorite in the category.
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 2707
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:16 am

I shared DaMU's feelings about Hollywood's bloat coming out of the theatre, but like The Irishman, I grew to appreciate it after, as I think they both use their length to interesting ends (with the Scorsese emphasizing the main characters' aging and the repetitiveness and futility of the life he's chosen, and the Tarantino basking in the feeling of just hanging out with his characters).

Anyway, there's no way I'll finish watching the BP nominees by this weekend (I just rented Supercop so I have other priorities obviously), but here are my rankings:
The Irishman
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Parasite
Ford v Ferrari
Joker
JoJo Rabbit


The top three are great, but I honestly mostly like all of them except the last one.
"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
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 3168
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:29 am

I found Once Upon a Time in Hollywood to be a fairly difficult watch in the theaters in certain segments, so I was hesitant to get it on DVD when I saw it in the stores as I wasn't sure how much I'd like it upon watching it again. I don't know what happened when I rewatched it though, but I ended up finding it to be one of the most engaging films I've seen this decade. This has happened before while rewatching films with bloat, but I wasn't expecting to warm up to it as much as I did. It's currently my second favorite film of this year.
User avatar
Macrology
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:54 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Macrology » Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:03 am

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is easily my favorite film of 2019, which is a hell of a feat, considering how much I enjoyed Parasite and The Irishman. It's masterfully crafted from top to bottom, it has just about the most rip-roaring climax I've ever seen in any film, and I didn't for a moment feel like it was too long. In fact, I'd say every minute of the film is not only earned but necessary.
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.
User avatar
wichares
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:48 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by wichares » Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:36 am

Popcorn Reviews wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 6:29 am
I found Once Upon a Time in Hollywood to be a fairly difficult watch in the theaters in certain segments, so I was hesitant to get it on DVD when I saw it in the stores as I wasn't sure how much I'd like it upon watching it again. I don't know what happened when I rewatched it though, but I ended up finding it to be one of the most engaging films I've seen this decade. This has happened before while rewatching films with bloat, but I wasn't expecting to warm up to it as much as I did. It's currently my second favorite film of this year.
I can definitely see this. Already liked it a lot on my first watch and looking forward to revisit it, but as A.A. Dowd and Katie Rife puts in the headline on their discussion of the film: “Quentin Tarantino finally made his hangout movie—and it gets better the more you hang with it.”
User avatar
wichares
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:48 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by wichares » Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:38 am

Anyway, my BP nominee ranking (great year!):
Parasite – 9.5
The Irishman – 9
Marriage Story – 9
Little Women – 9
Once Upon a Time in… Hollywood – 8.5
1917 – 8
Ford v Ferrari – 7.5
Joker – 6.5
Jojo Rabbit – 6
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 26050
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:43 am

DaMU wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 2:10 am
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - B / B+

A rewatch will be needed someday. Torn between the relative maturity/subtlety of the work and the fact that there's just so goddamn much of it. I really do think Tarantino lost something with the passing of Sally Menke, as his three films after her death feel too inflated, like they're belaboring things we know when they could be escalating what we don't.
I agree that Hollywood was good, if overlong, but I don't get this point I keep seeing about his post-Menke efforts feeling bloated, when he's almost always had problems with self-indulgent runtimes (and just self-indulgence in general, really); even Pulp Fiction has that issue, as I'm convinced that you could re-write it so everything from "I shot Marvin in the face" to when Jules & Vincent leave Monster Joe's gets dropped, and you wouldn't lose anything of significant cinematic value, while also shaving off about 15 minutes off the already 2+ hour running time in the process (and also skipping over a very annoying Tarantino making Samuel L. give him an N-word pass as well). I mean, just think about it; the actual "Bonnie situation" portion of that vignette hardly contributes anything to the film's recurring motif of redemption, and in fact, really just interrupts Jules's already-in-progress personal journey for some empty, distracting shenanigans that the film didn't need at all. Don't get me wrong, it's still a great movie, but looking back on it, that segment contributed very little, and just feels like it was there because Tarantino had a deleted scene left over from the True Romance screenplay (one that Roger Avary actually wrote, apparently) that he was determined to cram in at all costs, as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, I'm a mod; let me know if you need anything.

Read My Reviews
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17501
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by The Nameless Two » Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:16 pm

Here's DAMU arguing Hollywood's bloat and Irishman is his number 3, you people I swear to the gods
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3643
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by crumbsroom » Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:36 pm

If what we are primarily concerned with in Tarantino films is adhering to thematic unity, we hardly should need to know so much about Vincent Vegas dining habits while in Paris. One of the refreshing charms of Pulp Fiction was exploring the day long minutae in a life of crime. This requires diversions and demystifications. Having a reason to get Vince and Jules out of their mob suits into baggy shorts and t shirts. I don't even understand someone wanting a Tarantino who isn't indulgent. It's like wanting Spielberg to dump his honest embrace of childhood naivety.

Regarding Menkes, I don't think there is any question his movies moved better when she was cutting his films. She managed to weave the bloat seamlessly through the long runtimes. They no longer seem as seamless since she died. They all have moments which clunk, or seem to go on a beat too long. Or many beats too long. Unsurprisingly, this also has in some ways given a better window into QT the filmmaker though. The things that he obsesses over (mainly, um, his dialogue, which also doesn't seem as razor sharp since Menkes). But I don't see this as entirely a bad thing. In a lot of ways his movies now are more interesting, in spite of, and sometimes because of, their occasional frustrations. He makes movies that come in weird shapes that would not exist if someone a little more judicious was policing them
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17501
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by The Nameless Two » Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:38 pm

Rock wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 5:16 am
I think they both use their length to interesting ends (with the Scorsese emphasizing the main characters' aging and the repetitiveness and futility of the life he's chosen)
If Scorsese has to focus on one's "repetitiveness" they must not lead the most interesting life or story. It's like everyone knows that this movie is boring as all fuck but can't admit it and go some roundabout way of saying "that's the point!".
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 2864
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:52 pm

Re: OUATIH, I saw it last week and, although I had a lot of fun watching it, I still found myself struggling with the scope and focus of it. However, the more I've thought about it and the more I see how the pieces fit together, the more I love it.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3489
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Wed Feb 05, 2020 3:45 pm

Macrology wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 7:03 am
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is easily my favorite film of 2019, which is a hell of a feat, considering how much I enjoyed Parasite and The Irishman. It's masterfully crafted from top to bottom, it has just about the most rip-roaring climax I've ever seen in any film, and I didn't for a moment feel like it was too long. In fact, I'd say every minute of the film is not only earned but necessary.
I second this post. I've seen it 3 times and it's steadily crawled up my list of favorite Tarantino films and has reached the "I can't decide between PF, IB, JB or this" level.

I think it's the most Tarantino film he's ever made and could only be made by him at this stage in his career.
Post Reply