Cinema and Movie Thread: flickering images

[majestic]

Martyrs (2008).

A wholesome movie for the entire family. Highly recommended. Gather your loved ones and have fun. It is a film about two girls, Anna and Lucie, visiting a happy family and spending some time together.

So, one might ask, what was the point of the film?

Spoiler

It is - in my opinion - hilariously simple, but only if we do not apply death of the author to the film. The director and writer is on record stating that the film is, at least in part, a metaphor of what he views as the decadence and decline of the Western civilization. Insofar this makes sense, if art is, to quote Shakespear, to "hold as ‘twere the mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure" then the ending of the film is a reflection and mirror of our society.

How so? Because we all stare at the ending and ask ourselves what Anna saw and told Mademoiselle at the end. What was it that caused Mademoiselle to commit suicide? Is there an afterlife, is there none, is there a point to suffering, is there none? Does she kill herself to reach the afterlife, does she kill herself because there is no purpose to life, or does she perhaps kill herself to save the world from the knowledge she now bears, because there are some things the living should not know, and being bereft of the uncertainty of the end of the journey would make life pointless?

Is that - any of that, really - actually important? We're watching a group of sick people torture young girls to get them to experience elongated near death experiences in the hopes of them being able to communicate what they see, and what are those who watched the film doing? Yes, indeed, we - including myself here, I suppose - are debating the meaning of what she saw. Detached. Uncaring. Interested more in what we can glean than to show empathy.

As such, the mirror is showing us quite clearly what thought process goes into inhumane human experimentation. Oh, sure, I assume most watchers (myself included) cringed at the violence, but once past the ending, is that violence still on our minds? No. Not really. It becomes justified, just as for the spectators and onlookers of the society that gathered, the audience within the film, waiting for an answer from the one person who could give them one, and that one person chooses to end herself, and with it the movie. Just as the gathered secret society is denied answers and left to wonder, so are we, while actually, we should probably do something about life's pointless suffering, this division in winners and losers the director has talked about.

Forget talking about the ending, or gleaning something. Look at the journey. Do something against all the suffering.

Well, as the above wall of text suggests there's a lot to think about. Curiously enough, the film seems to have the potential to be a transcendent experience if thought about it, as the audiences journey with the film mirrors that of Anna, and it does give rise to the answer whether or not the content of the film is justified. It certainly is. If nothing else, it is thought-provoking, and how often can we say that about a film?

Edited May 28, 2023 by majestic
typos

[Bartimaeus]

5 hours ago, majestic said:

Yes, indeed, we - including myself here, I suppose - are debating the meaning of what she saw. Detached. Uncaring. Interested more in what we can glean than to show empathy.

I didn't! The whole idea did not really appeal to or strike me at all, which is why I didn't mention it in my post when I talked about this film a couple of years ago. Perhaps because I've been related several near-death and out-of-body experiences - including one from somebody younger who did 'die' but was successfully resuscitated - and have long accepted that the sputtering gasps of a chemically unbalanced and/or dying brain are simply not a reliable source for being able to tell what lies beyond. So for Martyrs, that really just left the murder, mental illness, and torture as a way of appealing to me, and I have to say, I was not really the biggest fan, .

I also did not read what the creator of the film thought it was about, .

Edited May 29, 2023 by Bartimaeus

[Bartimaeus]

2D animation was very difficult and expensive to make and it meant studios necessarily had to limit animation motion and camera movement for both sanity and budgetary reasons, which perhaps had the unintended effect of slowing down and simplifying everything in comparison to what you can do with 3D animation. You can't have a million things on screen all moving at once, pans will tend to be picturesque, and any kind of active rotation you want to do will be very limited and reserved for only very special visual moments. I mention all of this because Pixar's Turning Red (and many other 3D animated films of especially the last ten years) feels aggressive with its visuals, and it often hurts my brain to watch. I like the premise, the themes should theoretically be right up my alley, but actually watching it makes me just want to cover my eyes and ask the characters to just slow down and stop yelling/screaming/spazzing out so much.

In other words, I think I am old. Maybe not of body, but definitely of mind.

[LadyCrimson]

Because my MGM sub. had it - Top Gun2.
--About what I expected, didn't dislike, didn't like. The flying scenes I'm sure were great on a big screen. FFWD thru all the romance scenes, didn't care. Anyway, it was mostly watchable, made me smile a few times, that's about it.

Because my MGB sub. had it - Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves
--Also what I expected (from reviews) but I enjoyed this one a ton more. Action was good, comedy was good, most of the actors were on point considering their roles. Not a masterpiece or something, often silly (but in a "good" way, imo), just fun entertainment. The whole long sequence with that actor from Bridgerton (Rege-Jean Page) was hilarious and awesome.

Edited June 2, 2023 by LadyCrimson

[Raithe]

This one slipped under the radar back in the day, and it has an impeccable cast:

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The Boogeyman (2023)

A CGI monster terrorizes a family in a PG-13 appropriate way. It feels something like a worse It Follows, with the monster latching onto grief instead of sexual partners and being a CGI creature from a five year old videogame instead of a shifting cast of actors. It feels mediocre, not offensive enough to turn you away (unless you're a pro hater like @Bartimaeus ) but not good enough to be memorable.

[Keyrock]

15 minutes ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

The Boogeyman (2023)

A CGI monster terrorizes a family in a PG-13 appropriate way. It feels something like a worse It Follows, with the monster latching onto grief instead of sexual partners and being a CGI creature from a five year old videogame instead of a shifting cast of actors. It feels mediocre, not offensive enough to turn you away (unless you're a pro hater like @Bartimaeus ) but not good enough to be memorable.

I remember seeing the trailer and thinking "holy **** this looks bad". Are there laughs to be had or is it a boring bad? I thoroughly enjoy unintentionally funny horror movies. I was hoping this could be another Wish Upon, Malignant, or Bye Bye Man.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

10 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

I remember seeing the trailer and thinking "holy **** this looks bad". Are there laughs to be had or is it a boring bad? I thoroughly enjoy unintentionally funny horror movies. I was hoping this could be another Wish Upon, Malignant, or Bye Bye Man.

I'd lean more towards boring. The scares were typically of the jump variety and there was one funny scene in the whole movie.

[uuuhhii]

remember there was a movie about 6 or more director make the same short story each in their own style

 

anyone know the name

[uuuhhii]

fast 10 seems to be entirely run on cartoon logic now 

 

everything is more ridiculous than superhero movie other than the lack of nanomachine

[Raithe]

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Inland Empire (2006)

I have no idea what the hell this was but I loved it. Laura Dern really can play anything.

[Bartimaeus]

3 hours ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

Inland Empire (2006)

I have no idea what the hell this was but I loved it. Laura Dern really can play anything.

but did you watch the David Lynch-Approved(TM) AI-upscaled version that could have only been given the go ahead by either a troll, moron, or madman? if not, you're really missing out

literally used what was a $99 trash-tier upscaling program called Topaz Video AI to make it look worse than it ever was in this ridiculous and convoluted workflow to re-release it on blu-ray, some top minds over there so it would seem

i'm personally guessing it was the inner troll in the man, this whole process definitely seems like something he'd do as a great big practical joke on his fans, especially for a film like Inland Empire where visual fidelity obviously wasn't of terribly great importance with the way it was filmed in the first place

Edited June 12, 2023 by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

56 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

but did you watch the David Lynch-Approved(TM) AI-upscaled version that could have only been given the go ahead by either a troll, moron, or madman?

I believe so.

[Gorth]

13 hours ago, Raithe said:

 

The movie is great, but the sound track they mixed in is just jarring, making the whole thing feel incongruent

[Amentep]

 

 

[LadyCrimson]

Rented that Adam Driver 65 movie. I know it was panned critically but I was still curious re: if my guesses after seeing the trailer were correct or not. And then the movie basically tells you what I was thinking re: trailer in the first few minutes or so, so any minor intrigue in that regard disappeared. All right then.

It's definitely not a good movie, and it's not so bad it's good, either, even if I did LOL several times. I felt like Adam Driver and the youthful female lead were directed poorly and thus got subpar performances from them and to me any chemistry together was non-existent. Tension/suspense building and interest in characters was low. Still, something like Battlefield Earth would beat it in the "bad movie" category by miles and miles.

But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

[uuuhhii]

really bring out the third rate character at this point

will sinister six each get a movie

 

 

[Raithe]

https://www.indiewire.com/features/commentary/tcm-layoffs-warner-bros-spielberg-scorsese-paul-thomas-anderson-protest-1234877220/

[Amentep]

David Allen's Primevals is finally finished after a 45 year adventure through conception in 1978, development, production, filming in 1994, Allen's death in 1999 when the stop-motion effects were still being worked on and a kickstarter to raise funds to finish it.  Its premiered in Full Moon Picture's July update (video should be set to start at the start of the trailer).

 

[Keyrock]

On 6/20/2023 at 2:42 PM, uuuhhii said:

really bring out the third rate character at this point

will sinister six each get a movie

 

 

This trailer was more tragic than the Titanic Tour submarine.

If they make a Mysterio movie, hopefully it's about this guy:

Rather than the lame Spiderman villain. Come to think of it, I could do the same joke for Sandman.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Keyrock

[Amentep]

Sony only has the Spider-Man rights.  Thats a very small group of heroes or anti-heroes (the Spider-Mans (Peter, Ben Reilly, Miles Morales, 2099), the Spider-Womans (Jessica Drew, Mattie Franklin, Julia Carpenter), the Spider-Girls (Aña Corazón, May Parker, Anna Parker, April Parker, Ashley Barton), Spider-Gwen/Ghost-Spider, Silk, Madame Web, Silver Sable, Black Cat, El Muerto, Moon-Wolf and a few others including a large number of alternate universe (Spider-verse) variants), a large supporting cast (J. J. Jamison and the Daily Bugle staff, various OsCorp employees, various HS and College friends and teachers of Peter) and lots and lots of villains.  

Thus we get Venom, Kraven, Morbius, Madame Web and the now cancelled El Muerto film developed from Sony and the earlier attempt to develop a Silver Sable/Black Cat movie.  Actually I seem to vaguely remember talk of a Sandman vs Hydro film at one point.

As far as the trailer is concerned, it seems like Sony is doubling down on 'people get animal powers' Morbius & bats - which to be fair is from the comics - and now Kraven & lions (plus the Rhino being genentically manipulated rather than a guy in a suit that makes him look suspiciously like he's being eaten feet first by a rhino) which isn't from the comics.

[Keyrock]

I would 100% watch a J Jonah Jameson movie so long as it's J K Simmons. Cut the Spidernerd out of it and just make the movie completely about Triple J.

[Amentep]

Yeah, JK Simmons and JJJ is great casting.  I'd watch it if it seemed to have a good premise that they could spin (har-har) into a solid narrative.  

[uuuhhii]

would be fun to see jjj become mayor in a movie

with the speed spider movie are made it may happen in 5 years