Cinema and Movie Thread: I like to remember things my own way.

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

 

That calculator is a little on the...large side. Might need another decade or two of cooking.

technical, it took one year.

'course the first handheld calculator boasted extreme limited functionality. one year after debut of trek is first handheld calculator and musta felt as if with all the leaps in tech taking place, colonization o' the moon woulda' been within another decade or two.

'course nasa budget budget dwindles to negligible amounts after US functional won the space race...

HA! Good Fun!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Hellraiser (1987) & Hellraiser 2 (1988)

The first is a classic for a reason, in many ways it is more of a dark fairy tale warning us of the price to pay for desire than it is a monster movie. The Cenobites themselves have only two victims, while most of the body count in the movie is racked up in service of Frank escaping the torment he pursued when he thought opening the box was just going to let him **** a succubus. The second isn't as good, but is still better than all the sequels before the new one dropped. It goes more into creature feature with the introduction of the Doctor and does some exploration of the cenobites, but not enough to go into info dump territory. Seen together they're a solid block of horror.

[Keyrock]

Rashomon (1950) - The movie that put Akira Kurosawa on the map, in the west, anyway. While it's not my favorite Kurosawa film, Yojimbo is more my style of movie, this might be his best, which is really saying something.

A woodcutter, a priest, and a commoner are taking refuge from a downpour in some ruins. To pass the time they recount a murder and a rape that took place recently. The story is told several times and it is rather different each time as it is told from various subjective points of view. At the end we get the true story and... Well, I won't spoil it, but it always gets me, despite how many times I've seen it.

It's only 88 minutes long and those 88 minutes fly right by. I can't possibly recommend this movie enough.

[Malcador]

 

I still haven't seen the first one, hm.

[Gromnir]

is hard to believe malcador has not seen princess mononoke. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Keyrock]

26 minutes ago, Malcador said:

 

I still haven't seen the first one, hm.

You didn't miss much. The best thing Avatar did was raise the bar for dumbest made up name ever with "unobtanium".

[ShadySands]

I thought the 3D was cool in IMAX but the rest of the movie is the mostly super generic and uninteresting 

[Gromnir]

11 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

You didn't miss much. The best thing Avatar did was raise the bar for dumbest made up name ever with "unobtanium".

unobtanium were a thing pre avatar... 1950s skunkwork engineers?

... 

internet tells us

HA! Good Fun!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

 

I still haven't seen the first one, hm.

I heard it was Shyamalan's worst film and a very poor adaptation of the beloved cartoon. But I haven't seen it either.

[Agiel]

3 hours ago, Gromnir said:

is hard to believe malcador has not seen princess mononoke. 

HA! Good Fun!

If we're being frank, <<Princess Mononoke>> had far more nuance:

 

[uuuhhii]

never underestimate how dumb some stuff in the old scifi can be

they also have the bad habit of long exposition tangent

[Bartimaeus]

Rashomon (1950) by Akira Kurosawa. I checked this out because the premise sounded more interesting than those I read of other Akira Kurosawa films. It's an extremely uncomfortable combination of serious and hammy that did not sit well with me already within the first few minutes, and the feeling only got worse as the film went on: 12 Angry Men this is not. I especially did not like the lead actor, who I think was supposed to come across as wild and intense, but instead...well, there's probably a cultural barrier there, since that was downright silly. Better luck next time, Mr. Kurosawa: I'll give a director two tries if they're revered enough. Speaking of...

Hour of the Wolf (1968) by Ingmar Bergman. And that's the last I'll ever speak of Ingmar Bergman.

[Keyrock]

@BartimaeusYou did realize that the first few versions of the story were subjective and not wholely the truth, right? Mifune was overacting because it was an embellished account of events. He maybe hammed it up a bit too hard, but that's par for the course for Japanese cinema. He's a lot more subdued in the final, true account.

I still see that in current day media, specifically wrestling, because I watch my fair share of wrestling from Japan. Whenever they cut promos, they will sometimes speak normally... Mind you, I don't understand Japanese, I only understand what they are saying via subtitles. Anyway, when they say something emotionally charged they go super over the top with it with yelling, sobbing, pantomiming, the works. I'm no historian, but I'm guessing that it's something that has carried over from Kabuki theater.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Keyrock

[Bartimaeus]

I don't think the reason for it really matters, because it was difficult to sit through most every moment of it starting with the guys awkwardly staring at nothing and repeating themselves over and over in the very first scene. I was willing to overlook that if it would get moving along after, but it was just stacking goofy and awkward endlessly. Well, it's not for me, that's for sure.

10 hours ago, Keyrock said:

I still see that in current day media, specifically wrestling, because I watch my fair share of wrestling from Japan. Whenever they cut promos, they will sometimes speak normally... Mind you, I don't understand Japanese, I only understand what they are saying via subtitles. Anyway, when they say something emotionally charged they go super over the top with it with yelling, sobbing, pantomiming, the works. I'm no historian, but I'm guessing that it's something that has carried over from Kabuki theater.

Ah, see, now I'm the type of person that wishes they had no eyes and no ears any time I am subjected to full ham theater or play stuff, especially when it is supposed to be serious (I may be able to make exception if it's intentionally tongue-in-cheek), so it makes sense that it just wasn't ever going to work for me.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Crimes of the Future (2022)

When this movie hit my radar, I was excited to hear that Cronberg was returning to body horror. I'm a big fan of horror as a genre and body horror in particular has held a place of fascination for me before I knew the term "body horror". The critics raved, viewers walked out in disgust, and the word of mouth was that Cronberg had again made a disturbing body horror film.

I disagree.

The film is great, beautifully shot and with performances that are artfully disturbing while delivering some very silly lines like "surgery is the new sex". Yet, it doesn't feel like a horror film to me. Yes there's mutations, visceral (cgi) surgery, and murder but it doesn't feel like it's meant to scare you (even though you probably will feel disgust). The mutations and mutilations feel more like dystopian elements akin to cyberpunk body modification than they do horror scares while the murder is more in line with crime drama than anything. This is a big surprise for me in a good way, I don't think it's on the level of EEAAO but it's a damn good movie.

[Chairchucker]

Avatar (blue alien edition) was a largely forgettable story propped up by impressive visuals and the first ever use of whatever the heck James Cameron did to make the 3D look impressive. It wasn't bad, but it wouldn't have been the success it was if it weren't for the visual effects.

 

I think the world has largely moved on from 3D films, and from this franchise in particular, but perhaps I'll be proven wrong.

[Keyrock]

15 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I don't think the reason for it really matters, because it was difficult to sit through most every moment of it starting with the guys awkwardly staring at nothing and repeating themselves over and over in the very first scene. I was willing to overlook that if it would get moving along after, but it was just stacking goofy and awkward endlessly. Well, it's not for me, that's for sure.

Ah, see, now I'm the type of person that wishes they had no eyes and no ears any time I am subjected to full ham theater or play stuff, especially when it is supposed to be serious (I may be able to make exception if it's intentionally tongue-in-cheek), so it makes sense that it just wasn't ever going to work for me.

I actually thought Toshiro Mifune gave a great performance as the bandit Tajomaru when you consider who's point of view the story is being told from. 

 

The first telling, by the woodcutter, is the telling he heard at court from the bandit Tajomaru. It makes sense that Tajomaru is being the most animated, boastful, borderline cartoonish in this version since he knows he's not getting out of this, he's going to jail or getting executed either way, so he gives a highly exaggerated account of himself in an effort to increase his legend.

The second account is what the wife testified in court and she gives a highly glorified version of herself in order to save face.

The third account is from the dead samurai's spirit via the Shinto priest. Not surprisingly, he presents himself as valorous and brave.

The final and true account is from the woodcutter who saw the whole thing and it tells a very different story of two cowardly men and a bloodthirsty woman who wanted to see them duel for the right to have her. In the end they do duel but it is a pathetic battle where both are afraid to commit and Tajomaru wins by accident.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Keyrock

[Hurlshort]

4 hours ago, Chairchucker said:

Avatar (blue alien edition) was a largely forgettable story propped up by impressive visuals and the first ever use of whatever the heck James Cameron did to make the 3D look impressive. It wasn't bad, but it wouldn't have been the success it was if it weren't for the visual effects.

 

I think the world has largely moved on from 3D films, and from this franchise in particular, but perhaps I'll be proven wrong.

I don't think it was just the 3D stuff that sold the visuals of Avatar, but I agree the visuals are the main selling point of the IP.

I think it is going to be huge. My daughter watched the original over and over again for years. Basically from being a toddler to being in Middle School, Avatar was her top film. Her tastes have broadened since then, but she is still super jazzed about the new film. There is an entire generation of kids that grew up with that movie and I guarantee the first one will be a hit. While it will probably have some appeal to adults, it is going to make its money by appealing to the kids. 

I'd argue that's what Star Wars struggled with in the last few films. Solo had nothing for the kids. Episode 7-9 were barely kid friendly. Rogue One was my favorite, but it's a bleak war movie. Episode 1-3 may get a lot of flack, but they definitely appealed to a new generation of kids.

[LadyCrimson]

The only reason I went to see Avatar was because I wanted to check out if/how well the (non-Imax/regular theater) 3D aspect worked. It was "eh, sorta works in a few scenes, but not enough to pay extra ever again." I was mildly entertained by the film (the cartoonish villain gave me some belly laughs) but nothing special.

==========

After watching (or trying to) quite a few Indian films from my personally available streaming sources I have come to a few self-conclusions:
---In general I still don't like Bollywood films (there are always exceptions) and I think they've become even worse re: my tastes (last time I briefly tried was 6-9 years ago probably).
---Telugu/Tollywood is more successful in my book but often still don't appeal to me pacing wise (too drawn out for what I expect/like).
---One of the things I really liked about "RRR" (and to a degree, Bahubali) was the use of a lot of wide/full scene framing, even with action. I'll definitely keep an eye on that director. But I didn't notice that aspect being a general dominant Indian film style feature overall.

I did watch Bahubali pt 2 at some point. It was a little better than the 1st part but for me it would've been far better cinema as a single 3hr or maybe two 2hr films vs stretched over 2 films of close to 3 hours each. It's interesting that they have largely kept up the tradition of actual "forced" intermissions in films (apparently often even inserting them into shown Western films) and I'd assume/guess length structure may often be based around that.

[Malcador]

Still going to make a 5th one, right?

[Raithe]

 

[Bartimaeus]

A Clockwork Orange (1971). Well, I put off watching it for a very long time, but I finally did. It is a marvellously constructed film, with the way all of it thematically loops back in on itself to tie everything together so perfectly. Thanks to that, it goes from being a film I probably should've rightfully hated (if it were handled by a lesser filmmaker) to a film that I did end up enjoying, which I did not expect.

Edited November 11, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[majestic]

I could have done with a little less of the nadsat slang that almost certainly worked better in the book that I did not read (yet?), but otherwise, indeed, Kubrick certainly knew his craft, even though by some accounts (like Jack Nicholson) he was a pain in the neck to work with.

Spoiler

I am kind of a Admiral Tolwyn/His Divine Shadow fanboy, so that always helps.

 

Edited November 11, 2022 by majestic

[Bartimaeus]

Just now, majestic said:

I could have done without a little less of the nadsat slang that almost certainly worked better in the book that I did not read (yet?), but otherwise, indeed, Kubrick certainly knew his craft, even though by some accounts (like Jack Nicholson) he was a pain in the neck to work with.

  Reveal hidden contents

I am kind of a Admiral Tolwyn/His Divine Shadow fanboy, so that always helps.

 

Oh, see, I was of the complete opposite bent. Going into it, I didn't know it was going to be so ludicrously British, or in fact even British at all, and there is something about the British style of very seriously acting out the most patently absurd satire that appeals to my senses in a way that attempts by most others really just can't quite capture for me. It's no doubt due to my somewhat greater than average childhood exposure of British television/cinema and literature - thank you very much, mother. At least she didn't curse me with any kind of appreciation for British music as well, that would've been a step too far.

That makes it twice Kubrick has surprised me, what with this and The Shining. I liked this more than The Shining, but I truly expected to loathe The Shining going into it, so coming out of it with any kind of positive impression has to be considered a win.

[Raithe]

2 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

 and there is something about the British style of very seriously acting out the most patently absurd satire that appeals to my senses in a way that attempts by most others really just can't quite capture for me.

Of course we know how to be very serious about absurd satire. How do you think we ended up with that Empire in the first place?