Cinema and Movie Thread: coming at you at 24fps

[Bartimaeus]

5 hours ago, Sarex said:

I definitely got the same feeling about it being sterile, but I though that it worked for this movie/story.

For me, it's an underrated aspect of cinema-making that feels like it's largely gone by the wayside: scenes and environments that look like they make sense and seem casually lived in, with people actually transversing and occupying them. When you see the girl living in her bubble room and it's just...a completely empty room, my brain goes "ehh...what is that, are there more rooms in the back that we can't see, how could she possibly live in there?". Immediately preceding entering this building, Agent K had to survive hordes of armed bandits harpooning and bringing down his flying vehicle so they can presumably steal and salvage it, but I guess they've just let this completely undefended techno-paradise devoted to exactly one girl be untouched? Neither of these are ultimately important details (nor a host of other little things nagging at my brain), but they're details that don't feel like they had enough attention paid to them in a film whose environments are all very deliberately planned as well as quite expensive to put together (...one way or another).

I don't know. When I watch the original Blade Runner, I feel like I get a solid grasp for how tragically real the world is or at least could be, the kind of lives people have to live in order to make it given the circumstances they helplessly find themselves in - with characters who make impressions both quick and slow upon you over the course of the film in order to really lend weight to the illusion. With this film, it's just smoke and mirrors from the start until end, it feels like we're only ever shown exactly what we need to see to make the film make sense and maybe occasionally wow us with some pretty visuals, but the environments don't feel very cohesive or as if they fully connect to each other (especially because we basically never see anyone travel from one area to another...Agent K never walks or drives anywhere - even in the flying vehicle scenes, we always just hard cut from one scene to a character already being where they need to be right as they're about to land, while Luv seems to just get to wherever she wants to go like magic), and it doesn't capture the essence of what I look for when you're trying to take me to a different place and time distinct from my own, and I feel like that's a really important thing for a film like this, especially when most of your main characters are very stoic and flat.

No, I didn't see the in-between shorts.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) - "Twink Jesus" is never a thing that would have entered my brain before but here we are.

I liked the choice of starting and ending with the cast and crew getting off/on a bus instead of just starting with a musical number. That was a power move in establishing this as a performance within the film itself, a bit of fourth wall breaking I wish we'd see more in films. Other than that it's an extremely 70s musical that cast mostly performers who did stage work. Tolerance for musicals generally is probably going to be the biggest factor in enjoying this film or not.

15 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

too Villeneuve

Yeah, you could say the exact thing about the new Dune Part One. I think Lynch's Dune is a trainwreck, but it works much better as a film than Villeneuve's Dune Part One, which like feels a very bland and emotionless 2.5 hour trailer for Dune Part Two. There's just something about much of what I've seen of Villeneuve (which hasn't been too much tbh, so maybe more of his stuff previous to big budget scifi was better) that feels just too mechanical. The man has technical talent but it's like he doesn't have anything interesting to say and doesn't think beyond the script, so his films all feel very literal with the world beyond the (main) characters not really existing.

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

Yeah, you could say the exact thing about the new Dune Part One. I think Lynch's Dune is a trainwreck, but it works much better as a film than Villeneuve's Dune Part One, which like feels a very bland and emotionless 2.5 hour trailer for Dune Part Two. There's just something about much of what I've seen of Villeneuve (which hasn't been too much tbh, so maybe more of his stuff previous to big budget scifi was better) that feels just too mechanical. The man has technical talent but it's like he doesn't have anything interesting to say and doesn't think beyond the script, so his films all feel very literal with the world beyond the (main) characters not really existing.

I've watched Arrival, Blade Runner 2049, and Sicario, and I feel like they've all had the same kinds of issues from front to back. "Bland", "emotionless", and "mechanical" are all great words to describe what I've seen; there's a lot of good stuff in his films as well, but...they're just not doing it for me on the whole because of those issues.

They used to make movies!

Edited February 4 by Bartimaeus

[Lexx]

5 hours ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) - "Twink Jesus" is never a thing that would have entered my brain before but here we are.

I liked the choice of starting and ending with the cast and crew getting off/on a bus instead of just starting with a musical number. That was a power move in establishing this as a performance within the film itself, a bit of fourth wall breaking I wish we'd see more in films. Other than that it's an extremely 70s musical that cast mostly performers who did stage work. Tolerance for musicals generally is probably going to be the biggest factor in enjoying this film or not.

****ing loved that movie when I saw it like a billion years ago in TV at night.   Completely forgot it was a thing, gonna look it up again.

Edited February 4 by Lexx

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

6 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I've watched Arrival, Blade Runner 2049, and Sicario, and I feel like they've all had the same kinds of issues from front to back. "Bland", "emotionless", and "mechanical" are all great words to describe what I've seen; there's a lot of good stuff in his films as well, but...they're just not doing it for me on the whole because of those issues.

They used to make movies!

I'm struggling to articulate this but I think it also says something that Villeneuve hasn't written any of his films that aren't adaptations since before he broke into Hollywood from French Canadian cinema. To boot the last three films he's done are big budget scifi adaptations/sequels which.....I don't have a problem with per se but I can't help but feel that Villeneuve is more of a translator than an author, best I can describe it as is that he's there to put someone else's ideas into film rather than any of his own. To combine all the words we've been throwing around, I feel "procedural" fits here. Everything that is done is done to further the plot and the edges (like rooms that feel lived in) are ignores which results in movies that are too Villeneuve.

1 hour ago, Lexx said:

****ing loved that movie when I saw it like a billion years ago in TV at night.   Completely forgot it was a thing, gonna look it up again.

The costume Judas wore for the last song legit cracked me up for a minute.

[Lexx]

All the Judas-parts are pretty fire, though. This guy can sing.

[Keyrock]

Speaking of terrible Canadian filmmakers.

Things (1989)

This movie has a reputation as the worst thing ever made. After having watched it for myself it's hard to argue against that. This is a complete dumpster fire on every conceivable level. There are no words I could write here to truly convey how terrible this is. It has to be witnessed to be believed. As far as a plot synopsis goes. These 2 ***holes go to a house way out in the middle of nowhere which belongs to the brother of one of them. The brother and his wife wanted to have a child but they couldn't so they had some shady doctor impregnate her and then she died when a terrible rubber puppet critter burst out of her. The rest of the movie is them awkwardly fighting off the terrible puppet critters. My synopsis makes this sound way more coherent than it deserves. This is an incomprehensible mess. It's a crime against humanity.

We have some Canadians on these forums, explain yourselves. What the **** went on in Canadia in the late 80s that something like this could be produced?

[Hurlshort]

Things can't be that bad. It's in full color! That seems to be the main selling point.

 

I bought Wonka last night and we watched it as a family. I was pretty skeptical about it. I grew up with the Gene Wilder movie and it was hard to imagine anyone could capture that magic. I never read the book, or at least I don't remember it. I watched the Johnny Depp version in theaters and was suitably creeped out. My kids grew up with both versions, but they definitely preferred the Gene Wilder version as well.

It was very good. I'd say it was suitably magical. Timothy Chalamet was very good, and he was supported by an amazing cast. 

[Malcador]

15 hours ago, Lexx said:

All the Judas-parts are pretty fire, though. This guy can sing.

This Judas on other hand...

 

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, Hurlshort said:

I bought Wonka last night and we watched it as a family. I was pretty skeptical about it. I grew up with the Gene Wilder movie and it was hard to imagine anyone could capture that magic. I never read the book, or at least I don't remember it. I watched the Johnny Depp version in theaters and was suitably creeped out. My kids grew up with both versions, but they definitely preferred the Gene Wilder version as well.

 

not that it makes one movie better than another, but roald dahl's book were more creepy than the burton movie. in his movie adaptation, burton added a bit o' character development insofar as family interactions which were not in the book, but many o' the creepier scenes left outta the 1971 film were included by burton. maybe not too well known nowadays, but something like a half-dozen dahl stories were used by alfred hitchc0ck for his tv series and dahl rare pulled any punches when writing for a younger audience--creepy and dark even by 2024 standards. dahl's book were also a bit less cultural sensitive than either movie depiction.

fair or not, burton's film were predictable measured by the 1971 film standard but am suspecting the director were more interested in adapting the dahl book than remaking the 1971 movie. 

master of the obvious observation: roald dahl's book were not a musical. the 1971 movie included numerous tunes which is pop culture mainstays even after 50 years. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited February 5 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

7 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

master of the obvious observation: roald dahl's book were not a musical. the 1971 movie included numerous tunes which is pop culture mainstays even after 50 years. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Wonka is also firmly in musical territory. It isn't just the Oompa Loompa's singing (although Hugh Grant is a riot), it's the whole town. I woke up humming a few of them.

[Bartimaeus]

While Gromnir has a point about Roald Dahl's original material, I think Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is just one of those cases where the film simply rubs a lot of people the wrong way for a vast multitude of reasons, both little and big throughout the film, that it makes whatever good ideas that were put into it pretty much unsalvagable for a lot of people, especially those who are big fans of 1971 Mel Stuart adaptation, such as myself.

Wonka (2023). Speaking of, it bears little to no relation to the 1971 film in any meaningful way, so banish that from your mind if you're going to try it: this basically serves as a kind of origin/prequel story, how Willy Wonka came to be. I didn't want to peel either my ears or eyes out while watching it, unlike by the time I got ten minutes into the 2022 Matilda musical remake where I very much did want to do both and so I had to stop watching, so it can't be all that bad. Though I wouldn't say it's all that good either, just a fairly trite but serviceable and inoffensive family film. It's not cinema that I suspect will leave much of a lasting impression on anyone, especially if you're not really big into Broadway-styled musical films/performances, but that's just kind of the state of "family movies" decided by committee and produced off on an assembly line these days, so that's not exactly a surprise. All in all, I guess it could've been a lot worse, but don't go in expecting anything similar in either style or substance to the 1971 film, or you'll certainly have a very bad time.

Edited February 7 by Bartimaeus

[LadyCrimson]

On 2/5/2024 at 6:09 AM, Malcador said:

This Judas on other hand...

For me that was one of those odd situations where if I don't look at the actor, I liked his actual singing more. Not that he's anywhere within the "really good JCS/Judas" category. Vocally too stretched. But watching his OTP facial contortions made my ears hear it entirely different. Listening to music vs. watching music does that to me sometimes. I think the only things I liked about that 2000 film version were Simon/the zealot (I like Simon's bits in just about all versions) and the priests - Caiaphas and Annas (bald guy).

The '73 JSC film is still a strange one for me because I was exposed to that concept rock album first, listened to it 100's and 100's of times, memorized all the lyrics etc. The film feels like they altered the general octave range a little, to fit Neeley, especially for the showcase Garden of Gethsemane number, better - nothing wrong with that, mind, but I don't like it as much vocally. But the Simon dance number was fun and Carl Anderson was very good - he and Neeley were still great vocally when I saw them on stage in SF back in the, uh, maybe late 80's/early 90's. Some of the Broadway clips/recordings I've seen/heard, various casts, seemed like they were also pretty good. But that concept album will always be #1 for me.

[bugarup]

1 hour ago, LadyCrimson said:

The '73 JSC film is still a strange one for me because I was exposed to that concept rock album first, listened to it 100's and 100's of times, memorized all the lyrics etc.

Carl Anderson's "Heaven on their minds" was the very first rock thing I experienced, and it overwhelming my child mind with "This is life and this is me and this is everything" means it will forever sit on top of my Hoard of Sensations. I didn't see the full movie then, so the first full experience was the concept rock album too. I thought Murray Head to be boring compared to Carl Anderson, but Ian Gillan was...something else and then when I eventually saw the film Ted Neeley sounded underwhelming in comparison, though with time I warmed up to him. So I love both versions equally; that version of aughts is a travesty, though. 

 

And now for obligatory "WhyyyyYYYyyyyyyYYYYY":

 

[Sarex]

 

[Agiel]

 

I'm guessing when the special effects team needed miniatures for the scene with the fighter jet the Su-27 kits were the cheapest they could get from the hobby store.

[Malcador]

That or they recognize the Su-27 is the sexiest plane ever.

11 hours ago, LadyCrimson said:

For me that was one of those odd situations where if I don't look at the actor, I liked his actual singing more. Not that he's anywhere within the "really good JCS/Judas" category. Vocally too stretched. But watching his OTP facial contortions made my ears hear it entirely different. Listening to music vs. watching music does that to me sometimes. I think the only things I liked about that 2000 film version were Simon/the zealot (I like Simon's bits in just about all versions) and the priests - Caiaphas and Annas (bald guy).

I guess it was just the direction but didn't get the sense of anguish rather just whineyness.  But I saw the 73 version first a couple of times so perhaps was biased.  The 2000 Pilate is good with his hamminess

Edited February 7 by Malcador

[Keyrock]

Dangerous Men (2005) - This film began filming in 1979 and was not completed until 26 years later. It's a revenge tale of a woman, Mina, who goes on a murderous rampage after her fiance is murdered by a biker. The brother of the now deceased fiance is a police officer who is looking for Mina and the leader of the biker gang.

This movie is a Frankenstein's monster of stitched together scenes and questionable choices. It begins with the music. The main theme is a funk track that sound like something straight out of ToeJam & Earl. It's played multiple times throughout the movie and is never appropriate for any scene that it's in. In fact, this movie is chock-full of bizarrely inappropriate music. There are so many utterly bizarre scenes. The best way to exemplify this is with the ending of the movie:

 

The leader of the biker gang, Black Pepper, is on the run from the police chief. He happens by the house of a blind woman who is sitting on her sofa sewing, as you do when you're blind. He breaks into her house and decides this is a good time for some raping, you know, while there is a policeman actively chasing him. The woman hears him approaching and pulls out a pistol that was, naturally, on her lap under the fabric she was sewing. It doesn't really matter, but the fact that the pistol is a Luger makes this already bizarre scene all the more comical to me. She takes a shot and misses, on account of being blind. Black Pepper sneaks up on her, tries to rape her, at which point the police chief walks into frame and arrests him. Freeze frame mid-arrest, roll credits.

Edited February 8 by Keyrock

[ShadySands]

Way to talk me into that movie. Gotta go see where it's streaming.

[Zoraptor]

8 hours ago, Malcador said:

That or they recognize the Su-27 is the sexiest plane ever.

Not even the sexiest Sukhoi- that would be the Su-47. This is a family friendly forum, so no picture.

Quiet Place sounded like a stupid idea on paper, but they're actually pretty great

[Amentep]

 

 

[Gromnir]

10 minutes ago, Amentep said:

 

no interest whatsoever. however, am gonna admit david dastmalchian is one o' those character actors we always remember even when he is in big films with actors who got substantial resumés to go along with well deserved reputations.  

HA! Good Fun!

[Amentep]

David Dastmalchian is an actor I've liked in anything I've seen him in. Also a horror fan, so I have hugh hopes for this one.

[Bartimaeus]

The Stranger (1946). Man, Sigmund Freud was the worst...and I really ought to stop watching Orson Welles films, it just never goes well for me.

[InsaneCommander]