The Movie Thread Returns

[majestic]

...and a disagreement between the director and Harrison Ford (backed up by virtually everyone else) about whether he truly was a replicant or not.

 

Anyway I saw I don't feel at home in this world any more - what a mouthful of a title. Genuinely good and it's nice to see everyone's favorite stalker in a movie, and even if Frodo's character sometimes feels like failed expy of Walter Sobchak he's actually trying to act for a change, instead of just looking wide eyed.

[kirottu]

I watched 12 Angry Men. I don't understand how it has such a high rating at IMDB, but then again that's the only complaint I have about the movie. I guess I'm bit disappointed, because I expected it'd be a great movie and instead got a good movie. #FirstWorldProblems

Edited February 6, 2018 by kirottu

[Labadal]

 

Katie McGrath whom I known since Merlin has now become the female Sean Bean. There's isn't anything where she stars in which she doesn't die in...I'm watching Frontier BTW.

Sometimes in cruel and unneccesary ways.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa0N4Q3YHrc

Watched the new IT movie. Can't compare to the original but not really bad.

 

Can't understand this from any viewpoint but nostalgia. The original is terrible other than the fact Tim Curry is entertaining IMO.

The original IT is etched into my mind. I saw the movie when I was a young kid and it scared me senseless. It'll always be a classic to me.

[Blarghagh]

That's what I said, nostalgia. Etched in memory isn't a sign of quality - I had root canal sans anaesthetic as a kid, that's etched in my memory too.

 

But yeah, I too fondly remembered being terrified by Tim Curry as a kid. But that's also all I remembered fondly. Having rewatched it in preparation for the new version, my fond memories disappeared. A classic is a film that endures, that holds up. For the old IT miniseries, only memories hold up. The miniseries itself is dreadful. It's poorly filmed, directed, lit, recorded, acted, paced, written. It's a boring, confusing mess with terrible characters, bad child actors and worse adult actors.

 

If it wasn't for Tim Curry, who honestly isn't playing the character so much as he's just being Tim Curry in makeup, nobody would remember it more fondly than an exceptionally bad episode of Goosebumps.

 

And even then, Tim Curry's Pennywise didn't make clowns frightening. I was afraid of clowns way before - in fact, I find real clowns more frightening than Pennywise. Nobody is scared of clowns because of Pennywise, people are scared of Pennywise because of clowns. Children HATE clowns, with their corpse paint, screaming bloody red mouths and creepy obsession with attracting children. Stephen King himself made Pennywise a clown because they are already freaking monsters, and even described Pennywise as looking like Howdy Doody's Clarabell and Bozo the Clown because he observed that nearly all children were frightened when they appeared on TV. The original miniseries wasn't memorable because it made clowns scary, it was memorable because it opened your eyes to the truth.

 

 

And no, none if this is exaggerated. Anyone who chooses to be a clown is a psychotic sociopath by very definition and should probably be on some government watch list, despite their own insistence that it's an artform. Serial killer John Wayne Gacy also said he was an artist. And guess what? He was also a clown!

 

 

I hate clowns.

[algroth]

That's what I said, nostalgia. Etched in memory isn't a sign of quality - I had root canal sans anaesthetic as a kid, that's etched in my memory too.

But yeah, I too fondly remembered being terrified by Tim Curry as a kid. But that's also all I remembered fondly. Having rewatched it in preparation for the new version, my fond memories disappeared. A classic is a film that endures, that holds up. For the old IT miniseries, only memories hold up. The miniseries itself is dreadful. It's poorly filmed, directed, lit, recorded, acted, paced, written. It's a boring, confusing mess with terrible characters, bad child actors and worse adult actors.

If it wasn't for Tim Curry, who honestly isn't playing the character so much as he's just being Tim Curry in makeup, nobody would remember it more fondly than an exceptionally bad episode of Goosebumps.

And even then, Tim Curry's Pennywise didn't make clowns frightening. I was afraid of clowns way before - in fact, I find real clowns more frightening than Pennywise. Nobody is scared of clowns because of Pennywise, people are scared of Pennywise because of clowns. Children HATE clowns, with their corpse paint, screaming bloody red mouths and creepy obsession with attracting children. Stephen King himself made Pennywise a clown because they are already freaking monsters, and even described Pennywise as looking like Howdy Doody's Clarabell and Bozo the Clown because he observed that nearly all children were frightened when they appeared on TV. The original miniseries wasn't memorable because it made clowns scary, it was memorable because it opened your eyes to the truth.

And no, none if this is exaggerated. Anyone who chooses to be a clown is a psychotic sociopath by very definition and should probably be on some government watch list, despite their own insistence that it's an artform. Serial killer John Wayne Gacy also said he was an artist. And guess what? He was also a clown!I hate clowns.

Wow, you seem to hate clowns with almost the same intensity and passion with which I hate dogs. Almost.

[Blarghagh]

Let's just say that if there's such a thing as hell, I'm sure clowns are going to a specific level.

 

[Labadal]

I don't know man. I watch the old IT semi regularly and like it. I'm terribly sorry. I do hate clowns with a passion, though.

[LadyCrimson]

I still watch the first half of the TV "IT". I really liked that section, including most of the child actors. Although I admit I wasn't fond of the girl who played Bev. Didn't fit my image of the chr. much. The rest were mostly good tho. But they did overdo the circle-hug shot a bit.

 

It's the 2nd half (adults) that falls apart for me. Which is a shame because some of the actors were decent TV staples back then, but the script and that ending were awful re: the adults. Tim Reid's bits were the best, imo.

 

I never understood the high praise for Tim Curry's clown. I didn't find him scary at all and I thought he (or the direction) was a bit over the top towards satire, not horror. Never really gave me the "child's worst nightmare" feeling, he was too much of a caricature.

[Bartimaeus]

Zootopia. It was alright. Felt pretty formulaic, though, but I guess that's not totally unexpected. As far as talking animal animations go (which I don't ever bother with), this one was O.K., I guess. Could've been more interesting, though - there were several points where I was thinking that it looked like the film might be breaking free of the formula, but then it kept pulling me back down to Earth, which was disappointing. I couldn't but help keep thinking that the main character, Judy, was just Anna from Frozen, though - and it didn't help any that they made them look similar along with similar physical/expression mannerisms and voices to a degree.

 

Princess Mononoke. Was this supposed to be a spiritual sequel to/remake of Nausicaa? Because that's kind of how it seemed. A lot of shared themes, character roles, and the structure of the film seemed pretty similar, too. I liked Nausicaa better in some ways, and Princess Mononoke in others - I'd rate them right around the same, I think.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[Fiach]

Den of Thieves

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1259528/?ref_=tt_urv

 

Really good heist movie, reminiscent of Heat.

 

https://youtu.be/FKd_ks0rdAM

Edited February 8, 2018 by Fiach

[Blarghagh]

Zootopia. I couldn't but help keep thinking that the main character, Judy, was just Anna from Frozen, though - and it didn't help any that they made them look similar along with similar physical/expression mannerisms and voices to a degree.

What'll really get your goat then is when you realize than Anna moves and acts pretty much the same as Rapunzel from Tangled. Disney Animation has a pretty specific type "perky" type they like to use for their female leads. Even a lot of secondary leads end up being the same, such as "Honey Lemon" from Big Hero 6.

 

Edited February 8, 2018 by TrueNeutral

[Bartimaeus]

Yeah, I can definitely see similarities between those three as well, but this felt even stronger than those. It's getting a little off-putting at this point. Disney needs to change up its animation style at least a little here...so many of their 3D movies just look and feel the same.

[SonicMage117]

https://youtu.be/QPnLQzE6W2k

 

Bullet Head.. It's so good and had me in tears at the end. The trailer is so misleading but that's (I think) what made the movie so great.

[Wormerine]

I watched 12 Angry Men. I don't understand how it has such a high rating at IMDB, but then again that's the only complaint I have about the movie. I guess I'm bit disappointed, because I expected it'd be a great movie and instead got a good movie. #FirstWorldProblems

Ah! I thought it a brilliant, one of a kind movie. I am a fan of character driven, realtime, play-adapted films (Carnage, Rope) and 12AM is the best of them all. 12 men representing different casts of American society with its self interests and prejudices. Great performances by pretty much entire cast, great subtle direction. Great tension building, expanding viewers doubts regardng the case, constant power shifts between characters. Masterclass of film making.

[redneckdevil]

Saw "Gantz:0" via Netflix. It's an anime film based on a long manga. I can't say I actually liked it, it was too truncated (considering its vast source material) but for some reason I kept on watching. The violent visuals were quite astounding at times, a few of the chrs. were intriguing despite there being almost no characterization and it had a setup concept that kept me wondering where it would end up. But the actual ending had me scrambling on the 'net to figure out what the heck it was. Even then, I don't think I could explain it clearly myself.

To give context, the movie is basically starting about a quarter of the way in and ending almost near the half way point of the story.

[kirottu]

I saw Dunkirk today. The movie ends with Churchill's speech, but didn't continue it with Aces High. Obviously Christopher Nolan is a talentless hack.

[algroth]

I saw Dunkirk today. The movie ends with Churchill's speech, but didn't continue it with Aces High. Obviously Christopher Nolan is a talentless hack.

 

That makes him even better in my eyes!

[kirottu]

 

I saw Dunkirk today. The movie ends with Churchill's speech, but didn't continue it with Aces High. Obviously Christopher Nolan is a talentless hack.

 

That makes him even better in my eyes!

 

You must understand the only reason you think so is, because you're wrong.

[LadyCrimson]

I rented Dunkirk, finally.

 

The start was a bit confusing for me, because it drops you into a few connecting situations with "no warning" and there also were small time shifts, where it took me a bit to realize they were time shifts. But outside of that, a fine film, imo. Hardly any dialogue, a great score, some really good (nearly silent, gestures and eyes) performances from the varied cast. If it has one flaw it is that, for me at least, it doesn't resonate emotionally all that much, outside of the natural empathy/horror of seeing a bad situation in front of your eyes. It's more of a visual and auditory feast, if that makes sense. It does thrill, here and there, especially the fighter sequences.

 

Not your US type war film. Thumbs up from me. I liked it better than Nolan's Batman movies.

[SonicMage117]

Speaking of Batman, I finally saw Gotham By Gaslight, the new Batman (Victorian - alternate universe) animated film tonight. YES! It's as epic as it sounds. Just don't expect steampunk, it's just traditional victorian london.

 

The lighting caught me off guard, it's so well done. Things just seem so accurate and believable. Everything from the voice acting to the story-writing just seemed on point. Perhaps the most refreshing thing is that female characters like Ivy and Selena aren't oversex'd in this one like they've been in other live action/animated films. It's classy but brutal and that makes the film refreshing and beautiful.

 

So... Needless to say, I really liked it. Since Spider-Verse became a thing, DC has been trying to follow suit. Next is the Samurai Batman x Ninja Joker animated film which I can't wait for. Alternate universes/timelines always make characters more interesting.

 

 

And yes, it's rated R lol Apparently.

[Wormerine]

I found Dunkirk to be a very good battlefield campaign adaptation. Good spectacle, great sound design, not very interesting and forgot about it as soon as I left the cinema.

[algroth]

I think I wrote about it back when it came out. Either way, for me the sheer spectacle of it is unimpeachable, but what is arguably more impressive is the very minimalist, Bressonian element of transcendence born from survival, all told, as LadyCrimson says, through the gestures and the faces more so than through the dialogues, the backstories or what have you. Nolan does a stunning job in this at capturing certain moments in the event in a way that seem to break through the very realist pretentions of register and straight into the fantastic or magical realist, in feel if not necessarily in actuality. Case in point, Hardy's gliding plane towards the end of the film. Obviously as far as emotional response goes, something can either strike a chord with you or not, and it's hard to really convey that across to someone who got nothing out of the same; yet as far as I'm concerned it's still the best film I've seen from 2017, and one of Nolan's finest for certain.

 

Personally I thoroughly agree with Zacharek's take on it: http://time.com/4864051/dunkirk-review/

 

Also, as is often the case with Nolan's films, I still admire the heck out of someone at the top of the Hollywood industry who is so persistent in including references to Borges in just about every one of his works. The Dark Knight is essentially an adaptation of Theme of the Traitor and the Hero, Interstellar's tesseract is pretty much the libraries of Babel, heck, Borges' short story compilation Labyrinths is clearly displayed in this film as well. Mazes, apocryphal diaries, dreams within dreams and narratives within narratives all abound his films. And whether he has seen it or not, it is amusing how 'the enemy' as depicted in Dunkirk, a faceless threat that seems always to exist at the edge of the screen yet is made all the more eerie and unreachable for it, clearly resembles the approach of the same in the Borges and Bioy Casares-penned Invasión, in my book the finest Argentine film to date (and also made by Robert Bresson assistant director Hugo Santiago, so as to even arrive to a full circle).

Edited February 11, 2018 by algroth

[SonicMage117]

I just wish Nolan had done some actual research into the characterization and background of the main villains of Batman's world. I have no problem with someone's original vision - as long as it makes sense within the world that it belongs to. The "Let's make it our own" approach is great for making money but not so much for preserving the characters we know and love. It worked well for some characters in the film but not so well for others.

 

 

First off, we have Heath Ledger's version of an "accidental" Joker. The poor writing of the character persist if the stereotypical "I meant for this to happen, I meant to be caught so I could be put in jail so I could do this other thing".

 

Then we have Hardy's Bane, which was just as much as a steering pot as much as Legder's Joker. Replacing the science experiment theme with the terrorist/holy cleansing theme.

 

Of course, people who have no knowledge of the origins of these characters loved this as Hollywood has always had the power to trick people into believing that something is right even when it's totally wrong. In this case, the acting was very good but the writing of the characters was very bad.

 

All that said, the casting was great. The dual voices of Batman/Bruce Wayne was a great idea. The acting itself was superb. I appreciated that Nolan did Raz Al Ghul somewhat justice and the Catwoman suit that Anne Hathaway wore was an obvious nod to the 60's Julie Newmar suit (which felt out of place in the end). I would have thought that the modern Catwoman with the goggles would make more sense considering...

 

I don't expect people who don't know anything about the comics to agree with me, as they've already settled for accepting these characters with their changes without the knowledge of their origins and backgrounds. After all, it's these types of people who generally think Heath's Joker is better than Jack Nicholson's Joker or God forbid they went off the deep end and claimed better than Hamill's Joker. Ledger's Joker's success was propelled not by great acting alone but also by his passing. Thankfully, this is not reflected to outdoing Nicholson's Joker as it is still more iconic.

 

 

 

Mind you guys that I'm not talking about these things here:

I actually have no problem with any of those things, so long as the content surrounding these abrupt mistakes stays pure - which is by far more important to me.

 

The Nolan Trilogy really reminded me of the fan-made Joker film in which Harley is a protistute and the Joker only becomes the Joker after Harley dies. Nolan has slaughtered character legendary characters in similar ways for the sake of Hollywoodizding the franchise to appeal to the unknowing but very accepting audience. It's a two edged sword because the films did do well even though the writing was awful - as is the case for all Batman films throughout anyway (excluding the animated films of course!)

 

Here is the Joker fan-film I compared Nolan's prized trilogy to:

 

^Run time is about an hour and a half, beware... it's budget quality but the acting is just as good - which is why the commenters compare it to the Dark Knight trilogy as well.

 

Why I like Ben Affleck's Batman more than Christian Bale's Batman is because even through his Batman lacks charisma, at least it's closer to the source material. If we look closely at the way his Batman utilizes technology and stealth, it's on point compared to Bale's Batman which was less calculated behavior and either relying on tech or brute strength vs the environment.

 

But I do like Bale's Batman more than Kilmer's, Keaton's and the bottom of the barrel for me would be Clooney's Batman who I thought had no charisma, no depth to character whatsoever but I'm nitpicking for the sake of preserving the source material.

 

 

 

..........

 

 

 

 

As far as Dunkirk, I want to see it but knowing me, I probably won't see it til down the road as I'm not too big on Military/War movies. When I watch it, I'll probably love it lol

 

 

 

 

Last night I watched 'The Ritual'

 

Sadly, there are alot of great horror movies out there that are underrated just for being horror genre. This wrong mindset of the generations have often been "It's a horror film so the acting is going to be horrible. The hot girl dies first or black guy dies first cliche." Which has always been the ignorance of critics and movie-skippers alike. This is a great example of proving that wrong.

 

As I begin seeing more and more horror newer films pop up on imdb and rotten tomatoes, I'm happy to see that horror fans are reviewing these types of horror movies so they actually have some honesty. I have often had a love for horror films but there are far more better ones than there are bad ones and it's time for these films to shine.

 

 

The Ritual is a horror film based on Norse mythology.... The Jotün to be precise, in a Swedish forest. I quite enjoyed this because I have played games based on these mythos (Through The Woods, Jotün) but have never seen a movie based on it.

 

In the end, the premise was refreshing, the story was great - it never got boring, and the creature was pretty cool. There is no nudity or sexy women in the film, there is no gore or unnerved or rather unnecessary violence. It was well formed with smooth transitions. I want a sequel/prequel in the future to fill the plotholes. Netflix did good - this time. I love when horror films can rely on atmosphere and storytelling to create great and creepy stories.

 

 

 

 

.........

 

 

 

 

Also saw Chernobyl Diaries which was alright. Got kinda boring towards the end. I thought of it as a teen scream for the most part and nothing more but at least it wasn't a handycam home-video horror film like Cloverfield or Quarentine. All in all, it was just average, started good, ended poorly. Meh... wholly forgettable.

 

 

 

 

..........

 

 

 

Planning on giving Altered Carbon a try tonight after everyone's bedtime. Maybe. Maybe not, perhaps something else will catch my attention.

[Blarghagh]

Your complaints about Nolan not having 'researched' the characters after heaping praise upon Gotham By Gaslight, a film whose interpretation of its main villain was a filthy, sacriligeous destruction of the very soul of an iconic character, rings somewhat hollow. :shrug:

[Raithe]

Genius.

 

Colin Firth as Max Perkins, the editor at Scribner as he oversees the work by Thomas Wolfe, Ernest Hemmingway, F Scott Fitzgerald and other such folks.

Those folks played by Jude Law, Dominic West, and Guy Pearce.

 

Jude Law playing Thomas Wolfe, and most of the film focuses around Wolfe and Perkins friendship and the struggle to cut his prose and get it down to a managable size for publication while maintaining that friendship.

 

You also have Laura Linney, Vanessa Kirby, and Nicole Kidman playing the various women in their lives.

 

Some excellent performances (and amusing to hear all those american accents from that group of actors). Not exactly an action heavy film, it has that whole period biography / drama overtones. But one I'd rate worth a watch if that type of film catches your interest.