Recently Seen

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
Patrick McGroin
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:01 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Patrick McGroin » Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:48 am

Contagion - 9.5/10 - This is an intelligent movie. Maybe that's not the right word. Sophisticated? Expert maybe? Anyway it would be more the progeniture to something brainy like The Andromeda Strain than any straight up disaster movie. It unfolds and flows in such an assured and seemingly fearless manner that it seems to have always existed and sprung fully formed from the mind of Steven Soderbergh. It features an all star cast and concerns the outbreak of a particularly virulent pandemic. There are of course many parallels to what's going on right now. But it also reminds one that the reality of what is going on could be so much worse. I don't know if all these eerie similarities would be too discomfiting for some but I highly recommend this to anyone who hasn't watched it yet.
User avatar
wichares
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:48 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by wichares » Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:14 am

Batman (1989)

The four Batman films are leaving Thai Netflix next week, and since I haven’t seen the first three since before Nolan’s run started, I figure it’s high time for revisit. Bizarre to come out of it hearing news of both Keaton’s return to the role and Schumacher’s death (RIP; from my memory Forever is better than 1989’s, and not too far behind Returns), the latter maybe changing my plan to originally only rewatch the three, and have me tackle Robin for the first time.

Anyway, as Burton’s Batman films are often used nowadays to club Nolan’s with, I return to his first with basically the same middling opinion as before. I feel this isn’t too different from Burton’s current, much-reviled period of big-budget filmmaking, really; it’s just that the nicely tangible practical effects and this particular superhero context work together well enough for Burton’s sensibility. But apart from Joker, most other significant characters and their exposition just dully lay there. Nicholson is honestly a godsend; even before turning Joker, he is the only one that doesn’t threaten to get swallowed up by the superb production design and great, great score. Hopefully Returns is as good or even better than I remember. 6/10
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 2444
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:48 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:41 pm
All the Money in the World- Plummer and Williams are excellent and the narrative is solid. Scott isn’t firing on all cylinders but I find some cylinder Scott more interesting looking than most modern filmmakers.
Marky Mark miscasting aside, this was a really solid thriller, especially considering the production circumstances. (I wouldn't have held it against Scott if he added a hilarious plastic surgery subplot to explain the recasting and salvage some of the Spacey footage.) I watched The Territory starring John Paul Getty III right after, and not gonna lie, I did keep an eye out for his ear during my viewing.
"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
Wooley
Posts: 4207
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:54 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:41 pm
Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell is good enough, it just feels lackluster after the perfect franchise ending of Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed.
FMBD is awesome. Freddie Jones, ftw.
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 2444
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:55 am

wichares wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:14 am
Anyway, as Burton’s Batman films are often used nowadays to club Nolan’s with, I return to his first with basically the same middling opinion as before. I feel this isn’t too different from Burton’s current, much-reviled period of big-budget filmmaking, really; it’s just that the nicely tangible practical effects and this particular superhero context work together well enough for Burton’s sensibility. But apart from Joker, most other significant characters and their exposition just dully lay there. Nicholson is honestly a godsend; even before turning Joker, he is the only one that doesn’t threaten to get swallowed up by the superb production design and great, great score. Hopefully Returns is as good or even better than I remember. 6/10
I still like this one quite a bit for its aesthetic strengths and the Nicholson performance, but I gotta be honest, Keaton's portrayal of Batman never did anything for me. He's just...fine, and I'm always a bit baffled whenever people cite him enthusiastically as their favourite Batman. As much as the Bale/Nolan version gets dicked on (rightfully so for the voice, unfairly otherwise in my opinion), I appreciate their level of commitment to the character itself (they seem to have distinct ideas about both Bruce Wayne and Batman and actually commit to exploring them) and it's the only live action version that does anything for me.
"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!
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:58 am

Rock wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:48 am
Marky Mark miscasting aside, this was a really solid thriller, especially considering the production circumstances. (I wouldn't have held it against Scott if he added a hilarious plastic surgery subplot to explain the recasting and salvage some of the Spacey footage.) I watched The Territory starring John Paul Getty III right after, and not gonna lie, I did keep an eye out for his ear during my viewing.
While Walhberg isn't who I would have cast, I did think it was the least Walhberg performance he'd ever given and impressed me. The seamlessness of Plummer's inclusion (along with him being the best thing about it) was extremely impressive and I kind hate most of Spacey's performances in the last 10 years, so it really was a massive improvement found in a terrible situation.

I want to check out Trust, the FX adaptation of the same story, done by Danny Boyle and co. Could be an interesting comparison.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 1392
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:05 am

Rock wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:55 am
I still like this one quite a bit for its aesthetic strengths and the Nicholson performance, but I gotta be honest, Keaton's portrayal of Batman never did anything for me. He's just...fine, and I'm always a bit baffled whenever people cite him enthusiastically as their favourite Batman. As much as the Bale/Nolan version gets dicked on (rightfully so for the voice, unfairly otherwise in my opinion), I appreciate their level of commitment to the character itself (they seem to have distinct ideas about both Bruce Wayne and Batman and actually commit to exploring them) and it's the only live action version that does anything for me.
FWIW I'd give it to Keaton because of how his Batman and Bruce both feel internalized. He's quiet, he whispers, he narrows his eyes. There's a pacing to his performance that suggests he's thinking about what to say, considering his options. I don't think it's terrifically deep, because I don't think Burton's two films give him too much to chew on, narratively speaking. Agreed that Nolan/Bale commit most out of the live-action films to exploring Bruce's strategies and journey.
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
Rock
Posts: 2444
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:07 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:58 am
While Walhberg isn't who I would have cast, I did think it was the least Walhberg performance he'd ever given and impressed me. The seamlessness of Plummer's inclusion (along with him being the best thing about it) was extremely impressive and I kind hate most of Spacey's performances in the last 10 years, so it really was a massive improvement found in a terrible situation.

I want to check out Trust, the FX adaptation of the same story, done by Danny Boyle and co. Could be an interesting comparison.
I generally like Marky Mark, but I think his better performances undermine his cocksure charisma (I'm thinking movies like Three Kings and Pain & Gain where he's in way the hell over his head, and The Other Guys where his exasperation is the joke). I appreciate him trying to tone it down (unfiltered Marky Mark can be grating, as in Mile 22 recently), but I found never really blended into the period (his vocal patterns are distractingly modern) and watching him play just competent and professional was kind of bland. It might have distracted from the Plummer performance, but I would have liked a sleazier, more predatory performance like Michael Shannon in 9 Homes or at least a bit more desperate, like Jon Hamm in Beirut.
"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
crumbsroom
Posts: 3429
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by crumbsroom » Thu Jun 25, 2020 12:46 pm

wichares wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:14 am
Batman (1989)

The four Batman films are leaving Thai Netflix next week, and since I haven’t seen the first three since before Nolan’s run started, I figure it’s high time for revisit. Bizarre to come out of it hearing news of both Keaton’s return to the role and Schumacher’s death (RIP; from my memory Forever is better than 1989’s, and not too far behind Returns), the latter maybe changing my plan to originally only rewatch the three, and have me tackle Robin for the first time.

Anyway, as Burton’s Batman films are often used nowadays to club Nolan’s with, I return to his first with basically the same middling opinion as before. I feel this isn’t too different from Burton’s current, much-reviled period of big-budget filmmaking, really; it’s just that the nicely tangible practical effects and this particular superhero context work together well enough for Burton’s sensibility. But apart from Joker, most other significant characters and their exposition just dully lay there. Nicholson is honestly a godsend; even before turning Joker, he is the only one that doesn’t threaten to get swallowed up by the superb production design and great, great score. Hopefully Returns is as good or even better than I remember. 6/10
My opinions on this mirror everything here.

I don't think I've ever even seen all of Returns. Maybe it chunks here and there but never start to finish.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3429
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by crumbsroom » Thu Jun 25, 2020 12:51 pm

Other than Boogie Nights, were he convincingly plays a dummy, or The Departed, where he convincingly plays an asshole, or The Happening, where he convincingly acts as if he doesn't know how to act, I've never though Wahlberg has a great amount of talent. He's usually distractingly bad.
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:30 pm

crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 12:51 pm
Other than Boogie Nights, were he convincingly plays a dummy, or The Departed, where he convincingly plays an asshole, or The Happening, where he convincingly acts as if he doesn't know how to act, I've never though Wahlberg has a great amount of talent. He's usually distractingly bad.
LOL. To be fair, I don't think most of the other films he has starred require a lot of acting talent (Deepwater Horizon, The Italian Job, Shooter). Maybe those would be better with another actor, but it's not like those films were meant to be pinnacles of Hollywood art either, so...

How do you feel about Three Kings? I would add that one to your "list" of great/pretty good Wahlberg films.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 2444
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:36 pm

DaMU wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:05 am
FWIW I'd give it to Keaton because of how his Batman and Bruce both feel internalized. He's quiet, he whispers, he narrows his eyes. There's a pacing to his performance that suggests he's thinking about what to say, considering his options. I don't think it's terrifically deep, because I don't think Burton's two films give him too much to chew on, narratively speaking. Agreed that Nolan/Bale commit most out of the live-action films to exploring Bruce's strategies and journey.
I appreciate your take here, but where I struggle is that, like you point out, Burton doesn't give him a lot to work with. Burton is making movies with Batman in them, while Nolan is making movies about Batman, and when it comes to favourite portrayals, I think the latter gives me much more to enjoy.
"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
Rock
Posts: 2444
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:39 pm

crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 12:46 pm
My opinions on this mirror everything here.

I don't think I've ever even seen all of Returns. Maybe it chunks here and there but never start to finish.
I respect the craft involved in Batman Returns and like Pfeiffer in it a lot, but many of the choices Burton makes I just find really off putting. I think it's probably better made than most of the other Batman films, but it's one I've never been able to get into aside from that one performance.
"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
crumbsroom
Posts: 3429
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by crumbsroom » Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:42 pm

Thief wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:30 pm
LOL. To be fair, I don't think most of the other films he has starred require a lot of acting talent (Deepwater Horizon, The Italian Job, Shooter). Maybe those would be better with another actor, but it's not like those films were meant to be pinnacles of Hollywood art either, so...

How do you feel about Three Kings? I would add that one to your "list" of great/pretty good Wahlberg films.
I can't even really think of what movies I've seen him in other than those three, but I know whether its been fluff or more serious work, I generally think he is one of the very worst marquee actors, like, ever. Up with there with Keanu Reeves (who also has a couple of good roles). But at least Keanu Reeves seems like a decent enough guy. Wahlberg's history as being a pile of shit, definitely works against him.

I saw Three Kings before I had a solidified opinion of him, so I can't say he bothered me in that movie, but I know he didn't impress me. Thankfully, whatever bad things he brought to the table didn't distract me from liking the movie, which I haven't seen for ages, but only have good memories of.
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 2444
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:00 pm

crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:42 pm
I can't even really think of what movies I've seen him in other than those three, but I know whether its been fluff or more serious work, I generally think he is one of the very worst marquee actors, like, ever. Up with there with Keanu Reeves (who also has a couple of good roles). But at least Keanu Reeves seems like a decent enough guy. Wahlberg's history as being a pile of shit, definitely works against him.

I saw Three Kings before I had a solidified opinion of him, so I can't say he bothered me in that movie, but I know he didn't impress me. Thankfully, whatever bad things he brought to the table didn't distract me from liking the movie, which I haven't seen for ages, but only have good memories of.
He's a peacock. You gotta let him fly.
"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
Wooley
Posts: 4207
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:47 pm

crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 12:51 pm
Other than Boogie Nights, were he convincingly plays a dummy, or The Departed, where he convincingly plays an asshole, or The Happening, where he convincingly acts as if he doesn't know how to act, I've never though Wahlberg has a great amount of talent. He's usually distractingly bad.
Honestly, he is one of the most baffling movie stars to me. I just don't get it and I sure don't get how he can open a movie.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3429
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by crumbsroom » Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:58 pm

Rock wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:00 pm
He's a peacock. You gotta let him fly.
Are we able to tell when Wahlberg has started flying by how slowly and softly he starts talking. You know, that thing he always does to replicate that thing called human emotion.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4207
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:02 pm

On Keaton versus Bale's Batmen:

Keaton, in my opinion, probably gives Bruce Wayne too much personality. He's funny at times, he loses his temper and "gets nuts", there's a lightness to him at times that doesn't quite seem to fit the character (although sometimes I think Keaton actually does a good job of portraying the idea that he is a man trying to overcome his demons and not be ruled by them). But his natural darkness and intensity, Keaton can do more with his eyes alone, in that department, than Bale can do with all the brooding he can muster, do really work for me and I think he is probably the best we've had inside the cowl. When he's Batman, despite his size, I find him the most convincing. His simple, "I'm Batman" is 1000x more effective than Bale's "Swear to MEEEE!!!" (or Affleck's "WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAAAAMME, ARGH!!!"). I still kinda cheer when he says to Joker, so calmly, so completely in control, "You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight" and then decks him.

Bale, on the other hand, is physically more in line with my expectation (although I think Nolan was wrong to have him slim down, he actually should have been bigger), and has that brooding thing going on, and does one thing which I think really works, which is convincing me (the audience) that he actually has no personality of his own, he is so completely consumed by the Batman part of him, that there really is no duality, he is Batman and he's trying to fake his way through being Bruce Wayne. I think that's pretty cool and I assume they did that on purpose. Unfortunately, the result of this is that Bruce Wayne has ZERO personality and is just boring to watch on-screen. In all three films, Bruce is the least-interesting character in the movies. And that's a shame, because Bruce should be more interesting than Batman and even more interesting than Joker. But Bale and Nolan gave us a really dull Bruce who has no personality of his own and I thought that was a real letdown and is part of the reason I don't revisit those movies much even though I am a HUGE Batman fan... because the central character is boring. And that's problematic since they decided to make him, when he's in the cowl, a raving nut-job. It's not just the voice, it's the delivery when he uses the voice and how he always seems to be looking away. It's like when he's Batman he's literally fucking crazy and barely holding it together. And that just doesn't work for me as someone who has watched Batman always win because he's the most in-control person in any room since the 70s.
(As an aside, I remember when I first saw Batman begins and about 2/3 of the way through the movie or so, I said to myself, "They should have cast Cillian Murphy as Batman and gotten his ass bulked up, HE would have been the perfect Bruce Wayne/Bat".)

Now, physically, Batfleck has been the closest and most credible. But the way they wrote him, I dunno, maybe just the way those films flow... echh, Snyder. Batman vs. Superman should have been the greatest thing ever and should have written itself. How he and the studio managed to fuck it up so badly is just beyond me.
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17074
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:15 pm

I'm very critical of Nolan's idea of Batman. They never really flesh out his character like they did with the villains... a good Batman story features Batman and his current nemesis working off of each other's quirks and the best Nolan can come up with is "Batman doesn't kill!". The series revolves too strictly around this ideology where, yes, Joker constantly taunts him for it but that's not the be all and end all to both character's interactions. I wish that Joker would, say, make fun of Batman's idea of sexuality more

Quirks aside, Batfleck is as close as we have gotten to a decent portrayal of the Bat. Snyder, despite his flaws, seems to draw from critical landmarks in Batman comics. I know we clown on Frank Miller a ton but The Dark Knight Returns and Strikes Again are both amazing stories, so having their influence draped in cinema made me forget for but a second that I was watching one of the worst movies ever :shifty:

90s Batman is 100% nostalgia to me, nothing much worth going back to. Batman 89 is... bad. That being said I don't know if I have ever seen Returns. Forever has a place in my heart because seriously that McDonalds advertising campaign... Kiss on a Rose by the Grave... really it was one of the most impressively marketed movies ever. Everything was Batman! It was awesome!
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17074
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:21 pm

I have a strong feeling that both Matt Reeves and Robert Pattinson are going to knock The Batman out of the park.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 1392
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:28 pm

Rock wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:36 pm
I appreciate your take here, but where I struggle is that, like you point out, Burton doesn't give him a lot to work with. Burton is making movies with Batman in them, while Nolan is making movies about Batman, and when it comes to favourite portrayals, I think the latter gives me much more to enjoy.
:up:
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
Torgo
Posts: 2628
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Torgo » Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:41 pm

Thanks to all of you who recommended Lady Snowblood a while back. It is indeed a glorious revenge flick. Besides the awesome swordplay, all those beautiful sprays of blood and that you can take the story as being about Japan's Westernization, it's simply gorgeous to look at. Its use of color and cinematography are such a feast for the eyes that I was tempted to pause a few times just to take in the beauty. You can also see how much it appealed to Quentin Tarantino. It might as well have been his film school.

It's on HBO Max. Let's hope the Criterion movies like this one stick around on the service for a long while.
Last Great Movie Seen
Slow West (Maclean, 2015)
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17074
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:06 pm

Do any of you invest in the Criterion Channel? Pretty neat having that library at your disposal, I feel like it's objectively the best streaming service out there (if I can just control my temperament and watch a movie already lol). I'd love HBO MAX... maybe I can get away with the "12345" zip like I have with other sites :shifty:
User avatar
kgaard.
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:06 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by kgaard. » Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:56 pm

Can confirm that the Criterion Channel is great. The TCM/Criterion stuff on HBO Max is nice but doesn't go as deep. HBO's main pull for me is the Studio Ghibli films, most of which I haven't seen yet (I started with Nausicaa, which was just :chef's kiss:).
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Ergill » Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:01 pm

kgaard. wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:56 pm
Can confirm that the Criterion Channel is great. The TCM/Criterion stuff on HBO Max is nice but doesn't go as deep. HBO's main pull for me is the Studio Ghibli films, most of which I haven't seen yet (I started with Nausicaa, which was just :chef's kiss:).
One I've been wanting to watch for a while now. It awaits me.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:11 pm

Nausicaa is really good but feels like a dry run for Princess Mononoke, the much superior film. A Kagemusha/Ran situation.
User avatar
kgaard.
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:06 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by kgaard. » Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:31 pm

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:11 pm
Nausicaa is really good but feels like a dry run for Princess Mononoke, the much superior film. A Kagemusha/Ran situation.
Then I've definitely done this in the correct order! Although I'm also holding off on Princess Mononoke a bit because I understand it's quite... intense and I wanted something to watch with my 8-year-old. He enjoyed the movie but said he was surprised it wasn't PG-13. For me, I was impressed with the designs and world-building. Just so fully formed.
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17074
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:34 pm

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:11 pm
Nausicaa is really good but feels like a dry run for Princess Mononoke, the much superior film. A Kagemusha/Ran situation.
When it comes to the films, 100% agreed, but manga is such a difficult and singular thing to accomplish that I couldn't say the same there. It's a much wider work than Mononoke in that realm
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4207
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:35 pm

Finally watched Belle De Jour last night.
Been meaning to do this one for well over a decade and just decided to finally do it.
Deneuve is really something, the way her character evolves and the way she doesn't overdo it. It's fairly easy now to see where the story was going but I felt like this must have been pretty arresting in 1967. You kind of feel how this kind of thing could be a predecessor of Bonnie & Clyde, for example, even though they're very different films. And the sort of fantasy-wraparound that accompanies Belle's journey and tells us about her psyche without TELLING us about her psyche is special and something I can't imagine any studio going along with these days.
Good film.
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17074
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:37 pm

kgaard. wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:31 pm
Then I've definitely done this in the correct order! Although I'm also holding off on Princess Mononoke a bit because I understand it's quite... intense and I wanted something to watch with my 8-year-old. He enjoyed the movie but said he was surprised it wasn't PG-13. For me, I was impressed with the designs and world-building. Just so fully formed.
I'm trying to remember when I picked up my VHS (still proudly sitting on the shelf) of Princess Mononoke... I wasn't very old (8-12), and long story short that movie blew my adolescent mind. *Breaths*, yeah, watched it until I passed out and have seen it close to 50 times since, no exaggeration. It's a perfect movie in my humble opinion

Disclaimers, there are sequences of intense violence so I'm unsure how that would play in this day and age. Otherwise, it's fairly tame, you know, a god killing here and there...
User avatar
Charles
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:54 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Charles » Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:41 am

Has anyone heard of Takoma recently? She hasn't posted in a few weeks.
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:02 am

Charles wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:41 am
Has anyone heard of Takoma recently? She hasn't posted in a few weeks.
Read here
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Charles
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:54 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Charles » Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:12 am

Thief wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:02 am
Read here
Ah, good to know it's nothing bad. I figured it might be school related.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:18 am

Thief wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:02 am
Read here
Ah. Good. Was a tad worried. Send her my regards if you hear from her again.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Fri Jun 26, 2020 2:15 am

Thief wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:02 am
Read here
Let her know we all miss her and are eagerly awaiting for her return.
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 2444
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Fri Jun 26, 2020 2:50 am

Wooley wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:35 pm
Finally watched Belle De Jour last night.
Been meaning to do this one for well over a decade and just decided to finally do it.
Deneuve is really something, the way her character evolves and the way she doesn't overdo it. It's fairly easy now to see where the story was going but I felt like this must have been pretty arresting in 1967. You kind of feel how this kind of thing could be a predecessor of Bonnie & Clyde, for example, even though they're very different films. And the sort of fantasy-wraparound that accompanies Belle's journey and tells us about her psyche without TELLING us about her psyche is special and something I can't imagine any studio going along with these days.
Good film.
I really loved the low key surrealism and Deneuve's performance. She is one of the GOATs.

If you are willing to brave the sleazier, more esoteric corners of cinema, there is a Japanese pink film (basically a softcore porno) called Debauchery that covers similar territory that I also enjoyed. It's dumber and a lot more explicit (it's definitely a product of its genre and there is some content that most will find off putting), but I appreciated that it cared about what the heroine's foray into prostitution actually meant for her self-actualization.
"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
Rock
Posts: 2444
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Fri Jun 26, 2020 2:51 am

crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:58 pm
Are we able to tell when Wahlberg has started flying by how slowly and softly he starts talking. You know, that thing he always does to replicate that thing called human emotion.
You were not moved by his claim that he could have stopped 9/11?
"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!
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Fri Jun 26, 2020 3:05 am

Marky Mark is like a trashy Keanu. He’s not traditionally talented but he’s got screen presence and charisma that carry it and when the right film taps into it, he can work very well.

All the Money In The World was the first time he felt more like a real actor than a screen presence. Not great but... Better than he’s being given credit for.
User avatar
Rock
Posts: 2444
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:48 am
Location: From beyond the moon

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Rock » Fri Jun 26, 2020 3:06 am

Wooley wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:02 pm
On Keaton versus Bale's Batmen:

Keaton, in my opinion, probably gives Bruce Wayne too much personality. He's funny at times, he loses his temper and "gets nuts", there's a lightness to him at times that doesn't quite seem to fit the character (although sometimes I think Keaton actually does a good job of portraying the idea that he is a man trying to overcome his demons and not be ruled by them). But his natural darkness and intensity, Keaton can do more with his eyes alone, in that department, than Bale can do with all the brooding he can muster, do really work for me and I think he is probably the best we've had inside the cowl. When he's Batman, despite his size, I find him the most convincing. His simple, "I'm Batman" is 1000x more effective than Bale's "Swear to MEEEE!!!" (or Affleck's "WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAAAAMME, ARGH!!!"). I still kinda cheer when he says to Joker, so calmly, so completely in control, "You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight" and then decks him.

Bale, on the other hand, is physically more in line with my expectation (although I think Nolan was wrong to have him slim down, he actually should have been bigger), and has that brooding thing going on, and does one thing which I think really works, which is convincing me (the audience) that he actually has no personality of his own, he is so completely consumed by the Batman part of him, that there really is no duality, he is Batman and he's trying to fake his way through being Bruce Wayne. I think that's pretty cool and I assume they did that on purpose. Unfortunately, the result of this is that Bruce Wayne has ZERO personality and is just boring to watch on-screen. In all three films, Bruce is the least-interesting character in the movies. And that's a shame, because Bruce should be more interesting than Batman and even more interesting than Joker. But Bale and Nolan gave us a really dull Bruce who has no personality of his own and I thought that was a real letdown and is part of the reason I don't revisit those movies much even though I am a HUGE Batman fan... because the central character is boring. And that's problematic since they decided to make him, when he's in the cowl, a raving nut-job. It's not just the voice, it's the delivery when he uses the voice and how he always seems to be looking away. It's like when he's Batman he's literally fucking crazy and barely holding it together. And that just doesn't work for me as someone who has watched Batman always win because he's the most in-control person in any room since the 70s.
(As an aside, I remember when I first saw Batman begins and about 2/3 of the way through the movie or so, I said to myself, "They should have cast Cillian Murphy as Batman and gotten his ass bulked up, HE would have been the perfect Bruce Wayne/Bat".)

Now, physically, Batfleck has been the closest and most credible. But the way they wrote him, I dunno, maybe just the way those films flow... echh, Snyder. Batman vs. Superman should have been the greatest thing ever and should have written itself. How he and the studio managed to fuck it up so badly is just beyond me.
The Nameless Two wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:15 pm
I'm very critical of Nolan's idea of Batman. They never really flesh out his character like they did with the villains... a good Batman story features Batman and his current nemesis working off of each other's quirks and the best Nolan can come up with is "Batman doesn't kill!". The series revolves too strictly around this ideology where, yes, Joker constantly taunts him for it but that's not the be all and end all to both character's interactions. I wish that Joker would, say, make fun of Batman's idea of sexuality more

Quirks aside, Batfleck is as close as we have gotten to a decent portrayal of the Bat. Snyder, despite his flaws, seems to draw from critical landmarks in Batman comics. I know we clown on Frank Miller a ton but The Dark Knight Returns and Strikes Again are both amazing stories, so having their influence draped in cinema made me forget for but a second that I was watching one of the worst movies ever :shifty:

90s Batman is 100% nostalgia to me, nothing much worth going back to. Batman 89 is... bad. That being said I don't know if I have ever seen Returns. Forever has a place in my heart because seriously that McDonalds advertising campaign... Kiss on a Rose by the Grave... really it was one of the most impressively marketed movies ever. Everything was Batman! It was awesome!
The Nameless Two wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:21 pm
I have a strong feeling that both Matt Reeves and Robert Pattinson are going to knock The Batman out of the park.
I feel ya guys, even if we are not in agreement overall.

I do agree that Keaton's performance is relatively subtle and confident, but I think another barrier to my enjoyment there is that the films around him are not conducive to that kind of subtlety. Burton's movies are loud and garish (not a knock here), and I think placing a lower-key performance in the middle ends up drowning it out rather than accentuating its strengths.

I think the same applies to my feelings towards Batfleck. It's a pleasingly sturdy performance from an actor who has often given less than sturdy performances, but (speaking for BvS, haven't seen Justice League), the film around him is so loud and overcooked that he gets drowned out too. I think "loud and overcooked" could be applied to Miller's work as well, but DKR seems considerably more in command of its tone, pacing and has a unifying attitude that supports the scattershot narrative. (DKSA I found to be a complete mess, but an occasionally striking one, especially in some of its layouts and colours. I don't think it's "good", but definitely interesting as a slice of unfiltered Miller.)

And yes, in RPatz I trust.
"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!
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Fri Jun 26, 2020 3:13 am

Adam West is best.
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17074
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by The Nameless Two » Fri Jun 26, 2020 3:14 am

TDSA kinda strikes me as Miller's transition. It's a very female minded Batman story where TDKR is just manly ol' Batman being the ubermensch, and I feel like it's one of the main conduits to Miller's self awareness found in his later work... which some may consider to be awful garish stuff but, personally, I find to be rather hilarious in it's clowning on, say, Nazi fundamentals. The Spirit is one I look back upon with fond eyes, I certainly had a blast in the theater watching it. I like to believe that Frank Miller is laughing along with us
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17074
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by The Nameless Two » Fri Jun 26, 2020 3:16 am

It's that contrast of going from the grim and grey to the colorful and absurd which really lights my flames
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 1392
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:11 am

I have confidence in RPatz, less so in Reeves. IMO, his Apes films have been pretty scattershot outside of the Koba/Ceasar dynamic in Dawn. My suspicion is that The Batman will feel good texturally but not amount to all that much.
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
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17074
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by The Nameless Two » Fri Jun 26, 2020 7:17 am

DaMU wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:11 am
I have confidence in RPatz, less so in Reeves. IMO, his Apes films have been pretty scattershot outside of the Koba/Ceasar dynamic in Dawn. My suspicion is that The Batman will feel good texturally but not amount to all that much.
What interests me most about the project is it seems to be a very left field Batman story. The thin and jagged aesthetic I find very interesting and RPatz emboldens that by refusing to work up his quarantine body. Skinny Batman is an interesting prospect, makes you wonder about how much actual detecting he will do in wake of punching bad guys in the face
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3429
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by crumbsroom » Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:27 pm

Rock wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 2:51 am
You were not moved by his claim that he could have stopped 9/11?
These are the kinds of things I could try to overlook if he had any talent. He doesn't give me that option though.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 1392
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Fri Jun 26, 2020 3:10 pm

I dunno, he was very good at playing "confused actor out of his depth" in The Happening.
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
crumbsroom
Posts: 3429
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by crumbsroom » Fri Jun 26, 2020 3:41 pm

DaMU wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 3:10 pm
I dunno, he was very good at playing "confused actor out of his depth" in The Happening.
Oh, make no mistake, he is the greatest thing in that movie. Everything that makes him awful is firing on all cylinders there. Couple this performance with the delusional attempts of a narcissistic screenwriter who has only ever understood the human condition by binge watching 80's blockbusters, and I am in movie doofus heaven.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 1392
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Fri Jun 26, 2020 3:45 pm

crumbsroom wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 3:41 pm
Oh, make no mistake, he is the greatest thing in that movie. Everything that makes him awful is firing on all cylinders there. Couple this performance with the delusional attempts of a narcissistic screenwriter who has only ever understood the human condition by binge watching 80's blockbusters, and I am in movie doofus heaven.
[tips hat]
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
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17074
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by The Nameless Two » Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:02 pm

The Happening is a weird one. While I respect elements of it's craft and find it hilarious at points, I disagree with Shyamalan's retrofitting of "self-awareness" towards the proceedings. Like, if that was the marketing intent from the offset... genius! But it simply isn't the case and Shyamalan ends up abusing the term in a sense. This is nothing new in Hollywood with one of the funniest examples being how Tommy Wiseau basically retrofitted The Room into being some hyper self-aware comedy when it clearly is just the work of some deranged rich guy who is in the midst of a mid-life crisis. I want to believe Shyamalan but he had a profoundly bad stretch of films there, it took him a while to find his groove again. Just wondering if you wonderful folk have more examples of this whole thing?
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3429
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by crumbsroom » Fri Jun 26, 2020 4:15 pm

As long as Shyamalan in his ascendancy made Unbreakable, and during his notorious flame out made The Happening, he will always getsa sliver of a pass from me even though he has made so many other movies that are completely antithetical to everything I like about movies.

Oh, and rubbing a kids face in a dirty diaper. That gets him points too. Lots and lots of points, considering that fucking kid.
Post Reply