Recently Seen

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 3132
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:26 pm

Wooley wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:19 pm
Wait, someone has actually said that?
A decent amount of Nolan fans have said that, in particular. My favorite moment was when someone's reasoning was basically along the lines of "Some people are saying that 2001 is much better, but that movie is like 50 years old. Just let it go, guys."
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4563
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:34 pm

Popcorn Reviews wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:26 pm
A decent amount of Nolan fans have said that, in particular. My favorite moment was when someone's reasoning was basically along the lines of "Some people are saying that 2001 is much better, but that movie is like 50 years old. Just let it go, guys."
Oy veh.
I actually did, unlike many, like Interstellar. But it's not even in the same fucking league as ASO.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 3132
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:38 pm

Wooley wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:34 pm
Oy veh.
I actually did, unlike many, like Interstellar. But it's not even in the same fucking league as ASO.
I thought Interstellar was alright. I remember having a few issues with it, but I forgot what most of them were and don't feel like rewatching it to remind myself of them.
User avatar
WHIT BISSELL!
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:01 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by WHIT BISSELL! » Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:58 pm

This reminds me of when I took my ten year old nephew to watch Starship Troopers. Afterward he told me that it was better than Star Wars. We still talk. Time heals all wounds.
I want people to know that it's Whitner Nutting Bissell who's kicking in their door - WHIT BISSELL!
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17491
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:27 pm

WHIT BISSELL! wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:58 pm
This reminds me of when I took my ten year old nephew to watch Starship Troopers. Afterward he told me that it was better than Star Wars. We still talk. Time heals all wounds.
A+ Nephew
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17491
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:38 pm

Starship Troopers > 2001 if we were to be totally accurate here
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 2850
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:01 pm

Interstellar, and Dunkirk, are the only Nolan films I haven't seen. I need to get on that.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 1680
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:06 pm

Both are worth watching.
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:32 pm

Thief wrote:
Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:01 pm
Interstellar, and Dunkirk, are the only Nolan films I haven't seen. I need to get on that.
I think Dunkirk is probably his best.
User avatar
WHIT BISSELL!
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:01 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by WHIT BISSELL! » Fri Sep 11, 2020 10:03 pm

Total Recall (2012) - 4/10 - There's not much to recommend this remake of the 1990 Schwarzenegger sci-fi classic. When I first watched it years ago I tried to weigh the positives and all I could come up with was the nonstop action and numerous chase sequences. But after re-watching it even those came off as kind of tedious. Not much looked like it was clicking in this, starting with the casting. Colin Farrell seemed out of place as resolute action guy. And Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel were basically interchangeable in the Sharon Stone/Rachel Ticotin roles of the original. You could have swapped one out for the other mid-movie and it wouldn't have mattered. And Bryan Cranston was either too sketchily conceived or another victim of the subpar script. If you want it in a nutshell all you have to do is consider the directors. Paul Verhoeven vs Len Wiseman. No great loss if you skip this.
I want people to know that it's Whitner Nutting Bissell who's kicking in their door - WHIT BISSELL!
User avatar
topherH
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by topherH » Fri Sep 11, 2020 10:18 pm

Nolan sucks.


-the end
--Whether you think you can or can't, you're probably right--
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 1680
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Fri Sep 11, 2020 10:18 pm

Glad that's finally resolved.
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
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 3132
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:46 am

Remember Square M?
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Torgo » Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:04 am

Popcorn Reviews wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:46 am
Remember Square M?
I remember him making really long rants about Nolan, but I don't remember if they were for or against him. It's hard to say which ones were more entertaining: his or max314's rants about the genius of the Wachowskis.
Last Great Movie Seen
Tangerines (Urushadze, 2013)
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 3132
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:24 am

Torgo wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:04 am
I remember him making really long rants about Nolan, but I don't remember if they were for or against him. It's hard to say which ones were more entertaining: his or max314's rants about the genius of the Wachowskis.
Square M was pro-Nolan while his alter-ego, Ben Organa, was anti-Nolan.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 26034
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:34 am

Wooley wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:49 pm
Yeah, I hate to simplify my response by saying, "Yeah, that about sums it up", but...

I will say that I specifically agree about the slower moments, not only in how non-plussed the characters are by everything we're seeing, but also, contrastingly, in really developing a sense of how small and mundane our lives are in the scope of space, both of which I think are critical to giving impact to the finale.

I'll never understand people who say they don't think this film is amazing or that they don't "get it". It's beyond getting, to me, it's just truly great, as much a work of art as any film has probably ever been.
Yeah, it's really not something you need to "get", as far as I'm concerned, since I remember the first time I watched, I had absolutely zero idea what was going on with a lot of stuff during the "Dawn Of Man" or "Beyond The Infinite" sequences, but that didn't bother me at all, since I was just completely mesmerized by the overwhelming beauty of the experience. That being said though, I still felt like I got the basic gist of it on a gut level, a feeling which was confirmed upon further studying the plot online, and realizing that Clarke & Kubrick always knew exactly what they were trying to say with their film, which is quite the stark contrast to something like the aforementioned Prometheus, which not only felt like a lame Alien prequel, but, with its muddled story and vague, failed attempts at capturing similar grand themes to 2001, really felt like a whack version of that film as well; if Damon Lindelof had written Odyssey, I get the feeling that it would've ended after HAL had been deactivated, with an unsatisfying, sequel-baiting voiceover from Dave about how he doesn't know who left the Monolith on the Moon, or why it's beaming a signal towards Jupiter, but that he vows he won't give up on his mission until he finds out the truth.

:D
Popcorn Reviews wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:55 pm
Yeah, I don't have much to add beyond what you wrote, Stu (great essay by the way), but I agree that this film is perfect and among the very best films ever made. As you say, it's the sensory experience of it which matters in the end. And I agree that the occasional drawn out scenes are effective as they help to represent how uninterested the characters have gotten in the future, even in the face of so much advanced technology, which fits in perfectly with the themes of having a robot complete everything for them and, as Wooley says, gives the final act an extra layer of impact.
Thanks, Pops.
Yes, I'm a mod; let me know if you need anything.

Read My Reviews
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 26034
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:53 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Fri Sep 11, 2020 6:32 pm
I think Dunkirk is probably his best.
While I'd say that I still feel the haunting emotion of Memento and the sheer, unrelenting intensity of The Dark Knight make them his best efforts to date, Dunkirk is still right behind them for me as far as Nolan's best go, definitely.
Yes, I'm a mod; let me know if you need anything.

Read My Reviews
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3622
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by crumbsroom » Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:54 pm

With the exception of Interstellar, I've enjoyed every Nolan I've seen to varying degrees, but the only one that so far matters to me is Memento.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:51 pm

Stu wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:53 am
While I'd say that I still feel the haunting emotion of Memento and the sheer, unrelenting intensity of The Dark Knight make them his best efforts to date, Dunkirk is still right behind them for me as far as Nolan's best go, definitely.
Those are each my 3 favorites from him. Dunkirk just seems the most formally accomplished and mature work for him, indulging his interests with scale and scope while avoiding the narrative handholding and potentially gimmickry of time manipulation. It’s the film he had to make Memento and Dark Knight (among others) to be able to make.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4563
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:32 pm

Stu wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:34 am
Yeah, it's really not something you need to "get", as far as I'm concerned, since I remember the first time I watched, I had absolutely zero idea what was going on with a lot of stuff during the "Dawn Of Man" or "Beyond The Infinite" sequences, but that didn't bother me at all, since I was just completely mesmerized by the overwhelming beauty of the experience. That being said though, I still felt like I got the basic gist of it on a gut level, a feeling which was confirmed upon further studying the plot online, and realizing that Clarke & Kubrick always knew exactly what they were trying to say with their film...
I think that's actually exactly what I mean by "get" it.
User avatar
Charles
Posts: 921
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:54 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Charles » Sat Sep 12, 2020 6:51 pm

Ocean's 8, 2018 (D)

Overwhelmingly uninteresting movie. I did all I could to not compare it to the others, which I haven't seen in a while, but it's pretty gosh dang hard. This movie is nothing without the others. If it didn't have Soderbergh's style to copy, it would be the least noteworthy big budget movie to come out that decade. It's not cool, clever or smooth. It's not thrilling, and it's hard to care about anybody. After it's over, there's nothing to remember.

The other movies are about casino thefts, but they all feel much larger. This movie has as many celebrities as they could get, takes place at the Met Gala and has pointless cameos by, among other things, Anna Wintour and Kim Kardashian, but it still is very small in scope. There's the clear impression that every element only exists for the movie, and nothing exists beyond it.

James Corden is surprisingly one of the best parts of the movie.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sat Sep 12, 2020 8:18 pm

My reaction having seen Oceans 8 at the start of the year...

James Corden was in that?

A forgettable, artless waste of incredible talent and potential. Just like the Ghostbusters remake. These aren’t bad because they’re full of women. These women are extremely talented performers. They’re bad because they’re made by mediocre male directors based off hackneyed studio mandated scripts.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4563
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Sat Sep 12, 2020 8:42 pm

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 8:18 pm
My reaction having seen Oceans 8 at the start of the year...

James Corden was in that?

A forgettable, artless waste of incredible talent and potential. Just like the Ghostbusters remake. These aren’t bad because they’re full of women. These women are extremely talented performers. They’re bad because they’re made by mediocre male directors based off hackneyed studio mandated scripts.
I am inclined to agree with your assessment.
I remember while watching Ghostbusters thinking how much genuine talent was on the screen, how really good all these actors were, how deserving they seemed for the movie to actually be good (shit, even Hemsworth did his best with almost nothing to work with in the only prominent male role, fwiw), and how they just didn't have anything to work from because the script was made by some committee somewhere.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sat Sep 12, 2020 8:55 pm

Wooley wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 8:42 pm
I am inclined to agree with your assessment.
I remember while watching Ghostbusters thinking how much genuine talent was on the screen, how really good all these actors were, how deserving they seemed for the movie to actually be good (shit, even Hemsworth did his best with almost nothing to work with in the only prominent male role, fwiw), and how they just didn't have anything to work from because the script was made by some committee somewhere.
The problem is exactly that committee. It’s Hollywood cynicism that’s trying to capitalize on social movements rather than growing organically or finding actual voices that WANT to make that movie.

MIB: International had a nearly identical feeling of being constructed by an algorithm and it robs very talented performers of being able to have films that match them in quality (also starring Hemsworth, who does a lot with nothing. Tessa Thompson also did well but was handed the weight of a character far less flashy).

I wish there were some form of a Hearts of Darkness for any one of these films, complete with emails akin to the Sony leaks, that just paints the picture of how the suits construct a 4 quadrant film.

These films make me appreciate how much Marvel lucked out with Feige, who operates as the guiding and very human hand behind the MCU.

Without that desire of expression, it feels like watching very long commercials with no product to pitch but themselves.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 1680
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Sat Sep 12, 2020 10:41 pm

I might've posted it before, but Damon Lindelof's interview that unpacked his "story gravity" theory explained a lot of this to me. The higher the film's cost, the more universal it has to be. (That's why sky beams were so popular for a time.) Questions at the higher level are much more likely to be about demographics, national cinemas, sensibilities and potential for offense. Edges necessarily get polished off, because you are gambling with a huge amount of money, and they want to mitigate that risk as much as is humanly possible. Hell, most of these films are born out of risk mitigation; they're based on licensed brands because studio heads are so desperate for any amount of "pre-awareness."

This isn't a priori a sign of disaster. Lewton and his team in the '40s were given titles and posters that tested well and told to write stories based on them.

But it seems to lead to a lot of fuckups currently.

In retrospect, Marvel was lucky (or canny) that their long-term MacGuffin was the Infinity Gauntlet, because that's a world-threatening plot object composed of many smaller world-threatening plot objects. I don't say that with shade; it's literally what the Gauntlet is. But what the Gauntlet is probably helped them to dodge some frustrating "is this premise marketable to a family in China" conversations.
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sun Sep 13, 2020 5:30 am

Finally saw THE PIANIST.

It’s all masterful and whatnot.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sun Sep 13, 2020 5:39 am

DaMU wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 10:41 pm
I might've posted it before, but Damon Lindelof's interview that unpacked his "story gravity" theory explained a lot of this to me. The higher the film's cost, the more universal it has to be. (That's why sky beams were so popular for a time.) Questions at the higher level are much more likely to be about demographics, national cinemas, sensibilities and potential for offense. Edges necessarily get polished off, because you are gambling with a huge amount of money, and they want to mitigate that risk as much as is humanly possible. Hell, most of these films are born out of risk mitigation; they're based on licensed brands because studio heads are so desperate for any amount of "pre-awareness."

This isn't a priori a sign of disaster. Lewton and his team in the '40s were given titles and posters that tested well and told to write stories based on them.

But it seems to lead to a lot of fuckups currently.

In retrospect, Marvel was lucky (or canny) that their long-term MacGuffin was the Infinity Gauntlet, because that's a world-threatening plot object composed of many smaller world-threatening plot objects. I don't say that with shade; it's literally what the Gauntlet is. But what the Gauntlet is probably helped them to dodge some frustrating "is this premise marketable to a family in China" conversations.
I think that’s a good explanation for the movie by committee nature. It’s what makes their paradoxical push to address demographics issues and social topics like feminism, racism and classism ultimately so toothless and affected. They have to address these issues without getting too sticky and accusatory as that will alienate potential customers.

Even medium budgeted films are affected by this capitalist push. I often think about The Hate U Give, which starts off somewhere in the ballpark of a mild Spike Lee joint in regards to content but by the end...

Veers directly into “our community is also to blame for cops shooting unarmed kids” and “our neighborhood is now save because the cops have arrested the RIGHT black man.”

It’s odd to see the right get up in arms about “woke” movies for shoving a “leftist agenda” down their throats, when at best, it’s centrist/neo-liberalism/center-right non-sense designed to cash in on social movements without causing any real issue or offense. And even that is “too left” for our country’s right-wing.

We need our own Bong Joon-Ho’s making Snowpiercers and Parasites. We need proper revolutionary cinema.

And silly spoof comedies. We’ve only gotten like 3 that are worth a damn (MacGruber, Black Dynamite and They Came Together) in like 15 years. What gives?
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 1680
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Sun Sep 13, 2020 7:07 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Sun Sep 13, 2020 5:39 am
I think that’s a good explanation for the movie by committee nature. It’s what makes their paradoxical push to address demographics issues and social topics like feminism, racism and classism ultimately so toothless and affected. They have to address these issues without getting too sticky and accusatory as that will alienate potential customers.
Yeah. One of the more fascinating interviews I've seen in past years was C. Robert Cargill explaining why Tilda Swinton plays the Ancient One.

Preface: Swinton's great in the role, and if it were purely "We wanted the best actor available, and Tilda's a kaiju of acting," that'd be rock-solid.

But he said they couldn't have a Tibetan in the role; that would offend China. They couldn't have someone Chinese; that would offend Tibet (and Tibet sympathizers). They needed to refrain from East Asian actors in general at that point, because they didn't want to communicate that one East Asian was as good as another (which would emphasize the Orientalism of the original character they were trying to mitigate for obvious reasons). Whitewashing would be equally problematic. So they looked for an actress because, as he put it, "What hill do you want to die on?"

Basically, "There's no way to cast this character without offending people, unless we cast a woman and therefore have the potential defense of, 'What, you got a problem with a powerful woman?'"

Honestly, I think Marvel could've been in a unique position to do some good. Reduce the budget, find some creative solutions to story challenges that emerge, and make an actual statement about a liberated Tibet. But also I'm sure the bean counters were terrified of China not only punishing this film, but future films from Disney/Marvel. I get it. It just sucks.
I often think about The Hate U Give...
I haven't seen this one, but your comments on it track, for sure.
We need our own Bong Joon-Ho’s making Snowpiercers and Parasites. We need proper revolutionary cinema.
Agreed.
And silly spoof comedies. We’ve only gotten like 3 that are worth a damn (MacGruber, Black Dynamite and They Came Together) in like 15 years. What gives?
Should we track down Friedberg/Seltzer, smother them with pillows, and then tell movie studios that the long nightmare is finally over?
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: 1680
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Sun Sep 13, 2020 7:14 am

I was about to bring it up, but in June we agreed that Sorry to Bother You is one of those meaningful "revolution" movies.
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
Macrology
Posts: 4764
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:54 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Macrology » Sun Sep 13, 2020 7:33 am

I wouldn't call Bong Joon-Ho's films (which I love) or Sorry to Bother You (which I hated) revolutionary cinema. Unless the standard for revolutionary cinema has dropped to the level of "anything that isn't a multi-million dollar monument to mediocrity."
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 26034
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:01 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:51 pm
Those are each my 3 favorites from him. Dunkirk just seems the most formally accomplished and mature work for him, indulging his interests with scale and scope while avoiding the narrative handholding and potentially gimmickry of time manipulation. It’s the film he had to make Memento and Dark Knight (among others) to be able to make.
While I still feel that the other two are just a little bit better since they benefit from being made in full "Nolan mode", I do think that Dunkirk was the best possible result we could've gotten from taking the sort of time-shifting Thrillers he's made his name on, and blending that with a "tribute to the fallen"-style War film, and the way it mostly lacked the endless exposition that's bogged down some of his other movies was definitely appreciated.
Wooley wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:32 pm
I think that's actually exactly what I mean by "get" it.
Absolutely. Anyway, at any rate, if you're interested in reading something else I wrote about 2001, there's always this post I made about it in the old New Hollywood thread that could do with a bit more feedback, if you're interested...
Yes, I'm a mod; let me know if you need anything.

Read My Reviews
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 26034
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:30 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Sun Sep 13, 2020 5:39 am
I think that’s a good explanation for the movie by committee nature. It’s what makes their paradoxical push to address demographics issues and social topics like feminism, racism and classism ultimately so toothless and affected. They have to address these issues without getting too sticky and accusatory as that will alienate potential customers.

Even medium budgeted films are affected by this capitalist push. I often think about The Hate U Give, which starts off somewhere in the ballpark of a mild Spike Lee joint in regards to content but by the end...

Veers directly into “our community is also to blame for cops shooting unarmed kids” and “our neighborhood is now save because the cops have arrested the RIGHT black man.”

It’s odd to see the right get up in arms about “woke” movies for shoving a “leftist agenda” down their throats, when at best, it’s centrist/neo-liberalism/center-right non-sense designed to cash in on social movements without causing any real issue or offense. And even that is “too left” for our country’s right-wing.
That's all very true, as even a movie I actually liked a lot like Endgame still had that obnoxious "She's got help" moment, where all the female heroes just automatically decide to show up in one area at once for no other reason than to make for a incredibly labored "girl power" moment, which is especially annoying when you consider that Infinity War had already presented its own moment of female empowerment with a lot more subtlety/effectiveness:

Image

C'mon Marvel, put some more effort into that stuff!
Macrology wrote:
Sun Sep 13, 2020 7:33 am
I wouldn't call Bong Joon-Ho's films (which I love) or Sorry to Bother You (which I hated) revolutionary cinema. Unless the standard for revolutionary cinema has dropped to the level of "anything that isn't a multi-million dollar monument to mediocrity."
While Parasite's revolutionary bonafides are more debatable (although that's to say nothing of the movie's actual quality, as I thought it was pretty great), since the Kims are honestly portrayed as the con-people that they are, ones who benefit (somewhat) from their employment by a rich family to boot, while the Parks are never really portrayed as being (intentionally) exploitative (although the film on the whole still strikes me as more politically subversive than most mid-big budget pics coming out of Hollywood recently), I don't see how Snowpiecer fails to qualify as revolutionary cinema, considering that the entire plot is driven by poor people called to revolt against their bourgeoisie oppessors, after all.
Yes, I'm a mod; let me know if you need anything.

Read My Reviews
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 1680
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:31 am

Macrology wrote:
Sun Sep 13, 2020 7:33 am
I wouldn't call Bong Joon-Ho's films (which I love) or Sorry to Bother You (which I hated) revolutionary cinema. Unless the standard for revolutionary cinema has dropped to the level of "anything that isn't a multi-million dollar monument to mediocrity."
We're speaking to them being about pro-revolution characters. They aren't revolutionary to the form, they are literally about revolution/rebellion and seem to pretty clearly advocate for revolution (over milquetoast reform).
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
MrCarmady
Posts: 5108
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:29 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by MrCarmady » Sun Sep 13, 2020 9:02 am

Macrology wrote:
Sun Sep 13, 2020 7:33 am
I wouldn't call Bong Joon-Ho's films (which I love) or Sorry to Bother You (which I hated) revolutionary cinema. Unless the standard for revolutionary cinema has dropped to the level of "anything that isn't a multi-million dollar monument to mediocrity."
Interesting, what did you hate about it? I didn't like the film's third act very much but I still enjoyed it a lot overall.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4563
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:25 pm

DaMU wrote:
Sun Sep 13, 2020 7:07 am
Yeah. One of the more fascinating interviews I've seen in past years was C. Robert Cargill explaining why Tilda Swinton plays the Ancient One.

Preface: Swinton's great in the role, and if it were purely "We wanted the best actor available, and Tilda's a kaiju of acting," that'd be rock-solid.

But he said they couldn't have a Tibetan in the role; that would offend China. They couldn't have someone Chinese; that would offend Tibet (and Tibet sympathizers). They needed to refrain from East Asian actors in general at that point, because they didn't want to communicate that one East Asian was as good as another (which would emphasize the Orientalism of the original character they were trying to mitigate for obvious reasons). Whitewashing would be equally problematic. So they looked for an actress because, as he put it, "What hill do you want to die on?"

Basically, "There's no way to cast this character without offending people, unless we cast a woman and therefore have the potential defense of, 'What, you got a problem with a powerful woman?'"

Honestly, I think Marvel could've been in a unique position to do some good. Reduce the budget, find some creative solutions to story challenges that emerge, and make an actual statement about a liberated Tibet. But also I'm sure the bean counters were terrified of China not only punishing this film, but future films from Disney/Marvel. I get it. It just sucks.
FWIW, as a lifelong Marvel and Doctor Strange fan, I was genuinely ecstatic with the casting of Tilda Swinton as The Ancient One and she did not disappoint me and I honestly thought it was a pretty deft move on Marvel's part as well.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4563
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:27 pm

Stu wrote:
Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:30 am
That's all very true, as even a movie I actually liked a lot like Endgame still had that obnoxious "She's got help" moment, where all the female heroes just automatically decide to show up in one area at once for no other reason than to make for a incredibly labored "girl power" moment, which is especially annoying when you consider that Infinity War had already presented its own moment of female empowerment with a lot more subtlety/effectiveness:

Image
:shifty:
I actually really loved that moment, too.
doberso
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2020 11:47 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by doberso » Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:06 pm

They're making cool films now. These are not the same films that were 30 years ago. Action, dynamics, plot, graphics, everything is much cooler and it is a pleasure to watch such films. Sometimes I don't have enough time to watch all the new movies, but if I decide to order cheap essays on FastEssay.net, then there is more free time and we can watch a movie with the guys and chew pizza. Relaxing is also important, and if this vacation with good friends, that`s awesome.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:39 pm

doberso wrote:
Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:06 pm
I feel like the Rosetta Stone to Scorsese is Italianamerican. *sips latte*
Agreed with every single exact word of this. But your timing is a bit off.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:40 pm

Stu wrote:
Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:30 am
While Parasite's revolutionary bonafides are more debatable (although that's to say nothing of the movie's actual quality, as I thought it was pretty great), since the Kims are honestly portrayed as the con-people that they are, ones who benefit (somewhat) from their employment by a rich family to boot, while the Parks are never really portrayed as being (intentionally) exploitative (although the film on the whole still strikes me as more politically subversive than most mid-big budget pics coming out of Hollywood recently), I don't see how Snowpiecer fails to qualify as revolutionary cinema, considering that the entire plot is driven by poor people called to revolt against their bourgeoisie oppessors, after all.
Bruh. You’re gonna need to watch Parasite again.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Torgo » Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:46 pm

Soylent Green's most memorable line and Charlton Heston's oft-parodied reading of it as well as its relatively unique subject matter for a sci-fi movie likely have a lot do with it being considered a classic in some circles. The line earns its reputation and the movie does justice to its theme of human population growth and the environmental degradation that results, but I found the movie to just be pretty good overall. I like the simple yet effective ways it depicts its dystopia from the green filter that signifies how dirty the air is to the piles of displaced people sleeping on the stairs of Detective Thorn's (Heston) apartment. The elite's ivory tower-like dwellings and the humane yet terrifying look and feel of the suicide clinic are other nice touches. Also, while it's tragic that this movie features Edward G. Robinson's final role, he at least ended his career on a high note. As Sol, the friend, roommate and brains to Thorn's braun, Robinson provides the humanity the movie needs and the ways he appreciates what is worth preserving and nurturing on our planet from its natural beauty to its umm...real food is moving and memorable. Despite these qualities, the clunky writing and stock mystery plot hold it back from greatness. Not to mention, while I do not want everything explained to me in any movie, a little background on things like Thorn and Sol's relationship would have been nice. Again, it's not a classic, but there are enough good things in it to make it worth checking out, and sadly, its messages are just as relevant today as they were in the early '70s.
Last Great Movie Seen
Tangerines (Urushadze, 2013)
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:51 pm

I’ll bang my drum that Soylent Green, Omega Man and Planet of the Apes are a trifecta of quirky sci-fi. They aren’t “timeless” in execution like 2001 or Blade Runner, but their ideas are marvelous and the execution IS stylish, interesting and weird. I particularly like how out-of-nowhere brutal SG can be and the attention to little things, like the pleasure of a spoon with leftover jam on it, really keep it immensely watchable.

Love it.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4563
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:58 pm

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:51 pm
I’ll bang my drum that Soylent Green, Omega Man and Planet of the Apes are a trifecta of quirky sci-fi. They aren’t “timeless” in execution like 2001 or Blade Runner, but their ideas are marvelous and the execution IS stylish, interesting and weird. I particularly like how out-of-nowhere brutal SG can be and the attention to little things, like the pleasure of a spoon with leftover jam on it, really keep it immensely watchable.

Love it.
Yeah, I like all three of those films without irony.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sun Sep 13, 2020 9:15 pm

Wooley wrote:
Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:58 pm
Yeah, I like all three of those films without irony.
Same. They have a tone and feel that’s very “of their time” and it’s hard to articulate why it’s different from campiness. I suppose it’s the earnestness rather than tongue-in-cheek but still willing to be flamboyant and theatrical.

They’re very much the right films for a performer with Heston’s specific talents, rather than something like Touch of Evil, which is exceptional despite his presence.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 4563
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Sun Sep 13, 2020 9:40 pm

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Sun Sep 13, 2020 9:15 pm
Same. They have a tone and feel that’s very “of their time” and it’s hard to articulate why it’s different from campiness. I suppose it’s the earnestness rather than tongue-in-cheek but still willing to be flamboyant and theatrical.

They’re very much the right films for a performer with Heston’s specific talents, rather than something like Touch of Evil, which is exceptional despite his presence.
agreed
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 1680
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Sun Sep 13, 2020 9:59 pm

My perspective is that Parasite is equally revolutionary to Snowpiercer in theming, though I think its specific story is more plausible about the challenge of the struggle against capitalist realism. One movie says the train can be blown up; the other observes sadly as a victim climbs back aboard.
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sun Sep 13, 2020 11:47 pm

DaMU wrote:
Sun Sep 13, 2020 9:59 pm
My perspective is that Parasite is equally revolutionary to Snowpiercer in theming, though I think its specific story is more plausible about the challenge of the struggle against capitalist realism. One movie says the train can be blown up; the other observes sadly as a victim climbs back aboard.
Indeed. It’s amazing that the post-apocalyptic one is ultimately the more optimistic of the two.
User avatar
Macrology
Posts: 4764
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:54 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Macrology » Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:09 am

MrCarmady wrote:
Sun Sep 13, 2020 9:02 am
Interesting, what did you hate about it? I didn't like the film's third act very much but I still enjoyed it a lot overall.
Hated is an overstatement, actually. I disliked it.

I found its themes haphazard, its script underwritten, and its comic timing maladroit. It had some moments, but they were overwhelmed by its poorly executed, half-baked concepts. The final act (and the film's general self-satisfaction) tipped it over from tepid dislike to active disdain.

It felt like an ambitious film with some real potential that should have gone through at least two rewrites before it went into production, and probably should have gone into more competent directorial hands.

As to the comments about revolutionary cinema: movies about revolutions and revolutionary movies are two entirely different things. And when I say revolutionary cinema, I don't merely mean cinema that caused dramatic aesthetic upheavals, I mean a cinema constructed by revolutionary means for revolutionary ends, along the lines of Soviets like Vertov, Eisenstein, and Dovzhenko, political vanguard filmmakers like Godard and Marker, or films in the Third Cinema like La Hora de Los Hornos and Memories of Underdevelopment.
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 1680
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Mon Sep 14, 2020 2:45 am

Macrology wrote:
Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:09 am
As to the comments about revolutionary cinema: movies about revolutions and revolutionary movies are two entirely different things. And when I say revolutionary cinema, I don't merely mean cinema that caused dramatic aesthetic upheavals, I mean a cinema constructed by revolutionary means for revolutionary ends, along the lines of Soviets like Vertov, Eisenstein, and Dovzhenko, political vanguard filmmakers like Godard and Marker, or films in the Third Cinema like La Hora de Los Hornos and Memories of Underdevelopment.
Ah, understood. Thanks for clarifying. :fresh:
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: 1680
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Mon Sep 14, 2020 2:48 am

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:51 pm
I’ll bang my drum that Soylent Green, Omega Man and Planet of the Apes are a trifecta of quirky sci-fi. They aren’t “timeless” in execution like 2001 or Blade Runner, but their ideas are marvelous and the execution IS stylish, interesting and weird. I particularly like how out-of-nowhere brutal SG can be and the attention to little things, like the pleasure of a spoon with leftover jam on it, really keep it immensely watchable.

Love it.
Man, I can get down on Soylent and Planet, but Omega is one that I just can't abide outside of a camp approach, and even then.

Robinson's death scene in Soylent is next level stuff though.
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
Charles
Posts: 921
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:54 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Charles » Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:03 am

I really liked Soylent Green when I saw it many many years ago. We watched it in art class, no clue why. Vintage futurism, optimistic or not, is much more interesting than the detail-oriented hard sci-fi we usually get these days.
Post Reply