itt: movie/film discussion (spoilers lol)

Martin

You can always count on a murderer for fancy prose
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributor
Moderator
I got back from watching Darkest Hour a while ago. I have... mixed thoughts on it.

The good:
  • Gary Oldman is the perfect casting for Churchill: He seemed to understand the role to its absolute core, and he really brought Churchill to life in a convincing way.
  • It tries a lot with its visuals, and its got good directional ideas: There were loads of interesting ways of presenting scenes throughout, and it was fun to spot the different ways that they were able to bring out the most meaning from each shot.
  • It did a great job of illustrating just how pivotal Churchill was to the outcome of the war: While there wasn't really much I learned about him that I didn't already know, it does say a lot about just why he was the type of person the country needed to run it at a time of crisis and does a lot of foreshadowing and hinting towards how the course of history would've been totally different without him.
  • It succeeds at telling a complete story: I know this is a very simple thing, but it's something that plenty of Oscar-bait biopics kinda flip-flop around, so it's nice see one that actually does succeed at it.
The bad:
  • It's dull as shit: As much as Churchill is a plenty interesting character with a very interesting story to be told about him, the film simply failed to make the most of this potential for a genuinely great film just due to fundamental failures with regards to the way it was laid out.
  • It assumes prior reading for a lot of things to make sense: I think the assumption that a person knows about what kind of person he was before the war ends up backfiring a bit, as we as viewers are only briefly introduced into a tiny handful of things from his past that caused all the doubt from his colleagues within the space of 1 sentence at the very start of the film, which leaves it feeling muddled and means that the film doesn't really succeed properly as a biopic.
  • Visual presentation was muddled and inconsistent: As much as it tries a lot and is able to add a lot of meaning to a lot of scenes through good storyboarding, it backfires more often than not and just results in the film feeling like more of a scrapbook of "cool directorial ideas" rather than it does a coherent visual presentation.
  • Every character other than Churchill: The entire remainder of this film's cast was unconvincingly acted–especially Neville Chamberlain and Viscount Halifax.
  • Other presentational issues: There were a lot of issues with the way certain aspects (from the society at the time to the way information was presented) were presented
    • Presentation of information and other character building felt half-assed and poorly managed; it created the illusion of filler when there wasn't any by introducing a lot of things in an extremely vague manner and then re-presenting them all in greater detail in a single scene later on, serving to disrupt the flow and highlighting the film's poor scripting.
    • You didn't have the entire base of operations smoking as they worked, showing a that severe lack of effort has been put into matching the behaviour of the people to the types of behaviour that you would see in wider society at the time it was set.
    • A black man played a major role in the scene on the underground without recieving any kind of discrimination what-so-ever from those around him, which both serves little purpose other than exclusivity pandering and once again shows a lack of effort being put into accurately recreating the way that society at the time would've functioned, granted this is an extremely minor complaint (and a substantially less egregious failure wrt period recreation) when compared to the "people not smoking at work" thing.
  • It's very blatant Oscar bait: I don't need to explain this; it comes across very strongly when watching it and it's annoying.
Overall: 6/10; not a bad watch, but I wouldn't reccomend you go out of your way to watch it.
 
All these people talking about old movies never mention Metropolis. I really liked that one.
Lol, funnily enough brightobject just asked me about this last week. Personally, I feel like Metropolis is one of those films that was highly influential, but most people would rather watch what it influenced rather than watch it. I still appreciate it for its inspiration for things like Blade Runner and Star Wars (and subsequently all the things those two inspired) but it is pretty hard to get into unless you're already into older films. It's 2 and a half hours, silent with intertitles, and the plot is really dragged out. I also feel that due to the fact it was so influential, and from a time in history that is so heavily studied, the plot becomes retroactively predictable and, as an unfortunate consequence, tedious.

I liked some posts earlier defending Citizen Kane as a movie people should watch, not only because it is actually a good film in my opinion, but also because it is actually quite easy to get into even if your tastes are more modern. It's got sound and talking, it's just under 2 hours with sensible pacing, and it's narrative-driven with psychologically-motivated characters (aka not a confusing art film), meaning that even if you're a more "passive" viewer and not someone who is observant of cinematography/effects/techniques/score and other elements of form, it's still an interesting story to follow. As opposed to something like Man With A Movie Camera which has no plot and is just a straight montage. I wouldn't necessarily recommend that.

I'm not saying anyone has to like it, but I think it's something people should see just because of its importance in the discourse (though I think most people will like it, even if they don't buy that it's the best movie ever). And I'm not some kinda film snob either, my second favorite film of all time is Godzilla 2014 lol. I only want to suggest that more people should give classic film a try. I didn't think I'd like any "old" movies either until I saw Psycho (which to be honest is probably more modern than not, but I didn't know that at the time). I don't think people should cling to the past but they shouldn't neglect it either, and Citizen Kane is a good place to start because it is pretty darn accessible.

As long as we're recommending old movies for those who are interested though, I'd like to suggest The Rules of the Game. It's a French film from 1939. I saw it last year and it really blew me away; I never got the hype for long takes at all until this movie. There's a really good subtle marriage between the cinematography and storytelling.
 

vonFiedler

Ridley is in Smash
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
It should be noted that Metropolis was initially disliked, then the whole film was lost, and what people have been geeking out over for a long time was a much shorter version. I'm interested in seeing that, as I agree that the "true" film is rather dragged out (only since 2010 have we had the full version).
 

GatoDelFuego

Legendary Cat
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
I'm going to do something I never, ever though I'd do: praise annihilation.

When the trailers for this movie dropped, I was 100% sure it was the worst opening trailer of all time. Ticking literally every studio interference box (immediate backstory lines that seemed to have no purpose ever being in a movie, obnoxious sci-fi scary noises going off, and cheap jump scares with epilepsy-inducing screen flickers). The trailers failed to set up the movie for me in any way and made me think this was basically a sci-fi channel original movie with a Random Monster and Quantum Physics and They're Stuck In A Continuous Mutation. I was prepared to actually see this to mock it, and then I decided to read up on the original book so I could spoil the ending for myself.

The concept for the original book totally blew me away. I'm a big fan of an online sci project called the SCP foundation, which basically is a shadow organization that keeps tabs on supernatural/paranormal/unexplainable phenonenons (usually very deadly and creepy creatures) that inhabit earth. This concept is very alive in the novel. Luckily the film is changed drastically from the source material, but if you don't mind spoilers for the book (which knowing these actually convinced me to go see the movie)
The expedition that our characters are part of is the last of many, which the secret organization has been sending research teams into the weird bubble for the past three years as part of a controlled experiment. The characters of the story were only chosen because they are all female scientists, to contrast with the previous all-male all-soldier expedition. Also, an organization representative travels with the expedition to secretly keep tabs on them, and "annihilation" is actually a post-hypnotic trigger implanted in all the researchers to make them kill themselves should it be necessary.
After reading all this I was totally hooked.

The actual movie is pretty blunt at the beginning, but gets up to spec really quick when natalie portman's (Lena) missing husband teleports back into her house. This is 100x better than getting a "call" from the "military organization" that they found her husband, as it was portrayed in the trailer. All of the exposition-based lines that were stuffed in the trailer about Lena's relationship with her husband are shown in flashback form, which fits the boggled mental state that the researchers enter once then get inside the shimmer. The first few lines you hear the team leader, the psychologist, speak just drip with evil and really build up tension. Great way to introduce characters

The movie jumps around a bit during the expedition but (to nobody's surprise) the characters are picked off one by one. This is where the movie really dipped into pure horror and I think it did a great job. The best part of seeing the disturbing footage of the previous expedition teams is that all the characters reacted very naturally, not in a hollywood fabricated sense. After the horror bit is done, the movie gets sciency and physicsy for a few minutes during the conclusion, and then takes a wild 180 degrees back into pure horror again. I won't lie, the last 10 minutes of this movie had me completely terrified, not because of the "alien monster" that's inside the center of the shimmer but because it's not a monster at all. It's a perfectly reasonable theory for what would happen if alien life visits earth: we don't have an all-out war and blow up a spaceship, we just fucking die. We have no chance against life that doesn't outmatch us technologically or physically, but is so far beyond human comprehension that we just melt in the face of it.

The acting is totally on point for all characters, great cinematography and effects, and I'm glad that I saw this in a theater and not on youtube or netflix because the finale of the movie has a score louder than any I've seen, and I watched blade runner three times just to hear Sea Wall overwhelm me at 100 DB. A lot of the reviews for the movie seem to be polarizing, either saying the movie is some kind of physics masturbation session that only Enlightened Thinkers can understand or saying that the movie was silly because it didn't explain anything. It's pretty clear that the weird effects of the shimmer aren't supposed to be understood, and that the weird physics are basically creative liberties. We're not supposed to "understand" what's going on because getting lectured on how Genetics and Science works is a lame form of wish fulfillment in sci-fi movies. Lots of people think that Alien is a stronger franchise when the origin is not explained, and I'll agree in this movie's case, because The Shimmer is supposed to be on another level from humanity's science.

Theorymon you've gotta see this one tho, it's sort of like a combination of the flesh virus town, the indestructible lizard, and the blood pond SCPs.
 
I'm going to do something I never, ever though I'd do: praise annihilation.

When the trailers for this movie dropped, I was 100% sure it was the worst opening trailerof all time. Ticking literally every studio interference box (immediate backstory lines that seemed to have no purpose ever being in a movie, obnoxious sci-fi scary noises going off, and cheap jump scares with epilepsy-inducing screen flickers). The trailers failed to set up the movie for me in any way and made me think this was basically a sci-fi channel original movie with a Random Monster and Quantum Physics and They're Stuck In A Continuous Mutation. I was prepared to actually see this to mock it, and then I decided to read up onthe original bookso I could spoil the ending for myself.

The concept for the original book totally blew me away. I'm a big fan of an online sci project called the SCP foundation, which basically is a shadow organization that keeps tabs on supernatural/paranormal/unexplainable phenonenons (usually very deadly and creepy creatures) that inhabit earth. This concept is very alive in the novel. Luckily the film is changed drastically from the source material, but if you don't mind spoilers for the book (which knowing these actually convinced me to go see the movie)
The expedition that our characters are part of is the last of many, which the secret organization has been sending research teams into the weird bubble for the past three years as part of a controlled experiment. The characters of the story were only chosen because they are all female scientists, to contrast with the previous all-male all-soldier expedition. Also, an organization representative travels with the expedition to secretly keep tabs on them, and "annihilation" is actually a post-hypnotic trigger implanted in all the researchers to make them kill themselves should it be necessary.
After reading all this I was totally hooked.

The actual movie is pretty blunt at the beginning, but gets up to spec really quick when natalie portman's (Lena) missing husband teleports back into her house. This is 100x better than getting a "call" from the "military organization" that they found her husband, as it was portrayed in the trailer. All of the exposition-based lines that were stuffed in the trailer about Lena's relationship with her husband are shown in flashback form, which fits the boggled mental state that the researchers enter once then get inside the shimmer. The first few lines you hear the team leader, the psychologist, speak just drip with evil and really build up tension. Great way to introduce characters

The movie jumps around a bit during the expedition but (to nobody's surprise) the characters are picked off one by one. This is where the movie really dipped into pure horror and I think it did a great job. The best part of seeing the disturbing footage of the previous expedition teams is that all the characters reacted very naturally, not in a hollywood fabricated sense. After the horror bit is done, the movie gets sciency and physicsy for a few minutes during the conclusion, and then takes a wild 180 degrees back into pure horror again. I won't lie, the last 10 minutes of this movie had me completely terrified, not because of the "alien monster" that's inside the center of the shimmer but because it's not a monster at all. It's a perfectly reasonable theory for what would happen if alien life visits earth: we don't have an all-out war and blow up a spaceship, we just fucking die. We have no chance against life that doesn't outmatch us technologically or physically, but is so far beyond human comprehension that we just melt in the face of it.

The acting is totally on point for all characters, great cinematography and effects, and I'm glad that I saw this in a theater and not on youtube or netflix because the finale of the movie has a score louder than any I've seen, and I watched blade runner three times just to hear Sea Walloverwhelm me at 100 DB. A lot of the reviews for the movie seem to be polarizing, either saying the movie is some kind of physics masturbation session that only Enlightened Thinkers can understand or saying that the movie was silly because it didn't explain anything. It's pretty clear that the weird effects of the shimmer aren't supposed to be understood, and that the weird physics are basically creative liberties. We're not supposed to "understand" what's going on because getting lectured on how Genetics and Science works is a lame form of wish fulfillment in sci-fi movies. Lots of people think that Alien is a stronger franchise when the origin is not explained, and I'll agree in this movie's case, because The Shimmer is supposed to be on another level from humanity's science.

Theorymon you've gotta see this one tho, it's sort of like a combination of the flesh virus town, the indestructible lizard, and the blood pond SCPs.
Glad someone else really liked this flick, this was my favorite movie so far this year. I'm very partial to trippy, atmospheric scifi pychological horror and this was the first time I've been wowed by one in a while.
 

vonFiedler

Ridley is in Smash
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Pacific Rim was a good movie by virtue of having giant robots and monsters in it, but felt like it played it safe with a very western story structure. And with a different director and bad reviews, it seemed like that was the best we were going to get.

But nope Uprising is 95% anime, which is probably why critics disliked it, and also why they were wrong. This is exactly what the first Pacific Rim needed to be.
 
Some Films I watched recently and my thoughts on them



Power Rangers (2017)

My first viewing! I enjoyed it a lot. I was a huge fan of Power Rangers growing up and found that the "reboot" was actually pretty solid in terms of Storytelling and action. I thought it stayed true to the purpose of Power Rangers, Protectors, Friends, Heroes.

The Descent

I've seen it before, and have always thought it was way to slow on the buildup. While it's fairly original and pretty tense, I feel like there's a lot of "meh" in the movie and it hasn't aged well.

The Girl in the Photographs

I could talk about this movie for hours...I'm not sure if it's SUPPOSED to be bad or if it's commentary on horror films...A must watch in my opinion simply for being able to discuss the film
 

vonFiedler

Ridley is in Smash
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
I miss talking into the void in this thread, so maybe I'll do a weekly recap of what I've been seeing or maybe I won't

I Kill Giants (2018) 3/10
A movie I looked forward to and really thought I might like, not even realizing the astonishing similarities between this and the superb A Monster Calls (2016). That movie came out a year after the comic this one is based off of, so it's might not be a shitty knockoff, but every element is done so much more poorly that that's what it feels like. Grossly unlikable main character.

A Man for All Seasons (1966) 9/10
If my worldview is accurate, then I think this is a best picture winner that slipped through the cracks. Most people don't talk about it, but I think it's one of the better ones. Great performances and very clever dialogue throughout. You probably won't even agree with what the main character stood for, but there's something dazzling about his arguments.

Tomb Raider (2018) 1/10
I've been thinking lately about why there aren't any good video game movies and thought that maybe very few games could actually make good movies and we aren't picking the right ones. But then I see this reminder that filmmakers go out of their way to make their game films awful. The movie starts with a Lara that is poor, which almost could have been interesting until you find out that she's just too dumb to claim her inheritance. Halfway into the film when she actually sets out on adventure, you realize that she's woefully under-qualified to be a legendary archaeologist. Lara is good at puzzles and has read Hamlet, which are the only clues the film gives us that maybe she's supposed to be here. Series of events are constantly questionable, CGI is bad, and there's little action.

Solaris (1972) 7/10
I don't have the balls to give a Tarkovsky movie a bad score, but this didn't do a lot for me. You'd think a sci-fi would be more palatable than Andrei Rublev or the entirely larped Stalker (1979), but not really. Also I don't really get the message here, unlike those other films. Maybe I need to watch it again, but watching one Tarkovsky movie is already like watching most others twice. Some cool segments at least.

Resident Evil: Degeneration (2008) 5/10
This is the fully CGI movie, just as a heads-up. It looks really bad. Like, it looks worse than some in-game RE cinematics. It looks worse than The Spirits Within. If you're a fan of Resident Evil's dumb storylines then this is watchable enough.

Tom Jones (1963) 7/10
Also somewhat obscure as a movie at this point, this movie is at least more fun than a lot of best picture winners these days (except of course for this year). It's really interesting the sort of movies that won best picture during the era that people prattle on about as the best days of cinema. They wouldn't all stand a chance now.

Elite Squad (2007) 6/10
I thought this would be much more of an action film. It's interesting enough to watch, but right when it really gets good, it ends kind of flat. My understanding is that you watch this so you can watch the sequel anyway, so I'll see if things improve soon.

Sherlock Jr. (1924) 5/10
A new entry onto the IMDB Top 250, and its now shortest film. I may not like long movies, but I don't think they should be too short either, it's really the only thing holding back The Garden of Words (2013). But I doubt that if this were longer that it'd have much more direction. Ostensibly it's about a projectionist who wants to be an amateur detective, a hobby that could extricate him from a false accusation of thievery, but the movie quickly drops that plot point in favor of an extended dream sequence wherein the MC walks into the film screen and plays out his fantasies. Either scenario might have made a good film on their own, but have only superficial connection as is. There are some good visual gags and impressive stunts as is to be expected of Buster Keaton, but they don't make this a compelling story in the way that The General (1926) still manages to be.
 

vonFiedler

Ridley is in Smash
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
How could I forget

Best F(r)iends (2018) Part One
No rating because I've only seen half of a movie, with the other half in June. Given that this was only an hour and 45 minutes, that really doesn't feel necessary, more like a money grab. But how was the first half of the newest movie starring Tommy Wiseau and starring and written by Greg Sestero? It's actually quite good. It's a surreal indie film, but it's better than any surreal indie film I've ever seen. It's consistently watchable due to the insanity that Tommy brings to the table, legit good film shots, and an amazing soundtrack. The film is actually genuinely funny. I wonder how much of Tommy's dialogue was ad-libbed, knowing his inability to remember lines. Some of his lines are way too good to not be ad-libbed, and same are way too bad not to be. You could take or leave Greg as an actor, but it's a good script he wrote. And it's so bizarre that after all this time, he writes a movie where he's hung up over what a douche Tommy is to him, and yet they're still friends? It certainly doesn't hurt the film. If The Room was a product of Tommy's worldview and fears, then Best F(r)iends, being written by the very antagonist of that film, is a wonderfully strange mirror. It's not as good as The Room is bad, but I would estimate this to be an 8/10, hopefully even a 9/10. I can't say "go see it", because its very limited release is over, but keep an eye out when both parts hit DVD. It's not just a cash grab. It's required canon for The Room cult.
 
I really want to see it, but I'm worried about noisy audience ruining it for me. Did you have any kind of experience like that? I also heard it was so quiet that you could hear conversations out in the hallway.
The theater was extremely quiet and you can definitely hear any little sound someone makes (even people exiting other theaters). Two people behind me were commentating at the beginning of the movie but shut up after things started to really ramp up.
 

vonFiedler

Ridley is in Smash
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Scanners (1981) 7/10
A movie that people are far more fond of in GIF form. Watching it, you can see all the sci-movies that have been influenced by it... and those that have parodied it. It's pretty decent but all the characters, especially the main one, are so wooden and it's hard to understand their motivations. That may be intentional, but The Matrix does this a lot better.

Gigi (1958) 4/10
They wanted to make a My Fair Lady movie but couldn't while it was still on broadway. They probably should have just been patient. The same sing-talking style doesn't work when the actor doing it doesn't have the charisma of Rex Harrison, let alone when they have no charisma and a terrible French accent. This film about about a 30 year old who is too bored by women his own age falling in love with a 16 year old who acts too much like an 8 year old to be a proper prostitute isn't technically a film romanticizing pedophiles, but the opening song, "Thank Heaven for Little Girls" does give the impression.

Elite Squad: The Enemy Within (2010) 9/10
Yes, you do watch Elite Squad just so you can watch the sequel. Mind you, Enemy Within immediately invalidates the plot of its predecessor, but you still need it for the backstory and characters. This film does way more and is way more pointedly political, almost as if the writer had a change of heart about the police as an institution between films. But both films had a lot of writers so it's hard to say. Steps up the action a bit, and the stakes by a ton. You feel very involved before the film ends.

The Pride of the Yankees (1942) 8/10
I think I watched this to see if I could find any sports movie I like that aren't about people beating each other up. But it's not really a sports movie. It's more of a biopic. I was wary of forced sentimentality at first, but I looked it up and any inaccuracies are pretty nitpicky. The middle of the film has a lot of heart and that really sets you up for when it inevitably becomes sad.

Ready Player One (2018) 9/10
I really didn't expect to like this one as much as I did. The endless nostalgia didn't do much for me, even the three mentions of Duran Duran, but I don't think that's really the point. It's more of the setting, and with the popularity of VR Chat, you can't really call it unrealistic. So it's a video game movie that actually kind of is how this all would work... which is a first. Of course Spielberg has an incredible eye for detail that made the world, inside and out of the Oasis, very compelling. The film also felt like it had one foot in satire, which was much appreciated. The book might not have been satirical, but neither was Starship Troopers. I've said before that Spielberg is a very unique man in that he empathizes with games as an art form but doesn't understand them. I think the empathy was enough though. I might always be a game developer first at heart, so scenes involving the creator and Adventure were very touching to me. Aech is a great character, probably the only one though. And the second challenge segment, I won't spoil it, but damn.

A Quiet Place (2018) 8/10
Wasn't really interested in this, but my friends liked it and it probably was going to end up on one or two lists that I keep up with, so whatever. Pretty good. Fell a sleep for a bit at first while I could hear every single person in the audience coughing, but when it ramps up to its climax, it really picks up speed. Though at one point there's a flood in a certain location and it causes drama... but he never see why the flood starts, and it doesn't make sense why the main character doesn't hear the water running, and it's also never resolved really. Felt weak. But that was it. Otherwise good film.

Around the World in 80 Days (1956) 5/10
Another sort of fun oscar winner. Obviously not enough, but I've seen worse. Around the World in 80 days is sort of damned as a movie in that you need 2 and a half hours for it, but it's not that entertaining for that long. Also obviously not really good portrayals of native people around the world (even Americans). The 2000 something version might not have been very good but at least it had Jackie Chan.

The Fault in Our Stars (2014) 8/10
In many ways a very impressive movie. Staggeringly well written. Ansel Elgort is the best boy, but we already know that. The female lead does a perfect job. Nat Wolff is dumped by his girlfriend because cancer steals his eyes. You couldn't want much more than that. I didn't always feel connected with the characters in the middle of the film, and I really question why the big trip in the middle happens if it was obviously going to crash and burn. The author's assistant character just seems really fucking dumb, arranging the trip and then when it fails suggesting that the girl on oxygen climb up the Anne Frank house. But inevitably the film wants you to cry and you're like, yeah, okay.
 
Last edited:

GatoDelFuego

Legendary Cat
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
I went into Ready Player One with basically zero expectations after reading some infamous book passages. Cynical me groaned every time a Pop Culture Reference was put out there as an obvious ploy to create buzz on The Verge, etc, but the film was really enjoyable. Probably some of Spielberg's best work in the 21st century. Serious fun, but the last minute of dialogue is something out of the fucking bee movie credits.
 

brightobject

hard at work in the crypto mines
is an Artistis a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
i saw sin city. lots of cringe and honestly tons of shitty adaptation goin on here, bt the last 45 mintues or so are so fucking awesome and perfect and great. considering ppl dislike part 2 more than part 1 i probably wont be looking into that 1.

isle of dogs was awesome. i loved all the tiny details they put into the sets to make it cooler

watched heathers. some of the coolest dialogue ever. like halfway clockwork orange, kind of? idk. it was awesome. justin dean's voice was so fucking annoying but it was ok...cool shots too...shame the state modern comedys in.
^edit: this is one of my favorite movies of all time. it is completely uncomprising and amazing and terrifying.

only bad thing: kind of slow start and generishit music. i give htis movie a 9-10/10, if only for the music andthe beginningi wonder if there could be an edit where someone replaced some of the score. it would totally shoot up to a ten
 

vonFiedler

Ridley is in Smash
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970) 6/10
I think I was interested in this just from seeing the DVD in stores. It's a very interesting movie, being a Pearl Harbor film depicting both sides leading up to the attack, and directed half and half by American and Japanese studios. The film depicts a Japanese navy pushed into fighting a nation they can't possibly beat by a warmongering army, and an America that was a nightmare of bureaucracy which should have known of and been able to prevent the surprise attack. This sort of black and white is good for the narrative, but it's a bit dishonest not to mention the atrocities the Japanese were committing in mainland Asia. I understand this got poor reviews because it has no real characters to focus on, but then neither did M. Much less interesting when the actual attack starts.

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) 7/10
Royal Tenenbaums is so Arrested Development that when I googled it, a comparison was the second result. Of course Tenenbaums came first, but Arrested Development is one of the best TV shows ever made and Tenenbaums is only decent. It never makes me laugh that much. This film put Wes Anderson on the radar but I think he still had a lot to improve at this point.

Marty (1955) 8/10
A film about an incel who can't find love because he's such a good guy. When after 30 minutes he meets an emotionally damaged woman that he can take advantage of, they seem like such a match that you wonder what could possibly be left to happen in the film. And what happens is subplots. That doesn't sound like much of an 8/10, Palme D'or, Best Picture Winner, does it? But when it's about to end, Marty reveals that it was actually secretly genius the whole time, turning on the hero and showing exactly why "good guys" get held back from serious relationships. It's such a postmodern tumbler film that it could only have been made recently, and one can only hope that people can take this film's lesson to heart at least within the 60 years after its release.

The Humanity Bureau (2017) 2/10
Nic Cage film. A trifecta. It's hokey. It's poorly made. And it's boring. A sci-fi film where people just fuck around in the desert the whole time. I got halfway through the movie before I realized someone was just trying to make Logan. I've mostly been seeing Nic Cage movies lately without much Nic Cage in them. Here he's the main character, but there's very little Cage value. Even the villain is hammier than Cage here.

Isle of Dogs (2018) 9/10
I just said that Wes Anderson had room to improve, and improve he certainly did. This film is a visual masterpiece. Every frame is perfect. The sound design and use of language are superb. I don't know if the story pacing was great, but it's dramatic, political, and has stakes, which are very un-Wes Anderson but were much appreciated.

The Frisco Kid (1979) 6/10
Starring Gene Wilder and Harrison Ford at the height of their careers, how bad could it possibly be? This is a fundamentally good story, but executed in an often uninteresting way. It's obvious from the trailer that they wanted to make Blazing Saddles. But I think this should have been more of an action drama than a comedy. Or at least if it was a comedy, it could have made me laugh more.

Looking Glass (2018) 4/10
Nic Cage movie. Technically well executed on several fronts, with good music and really excellent lighting. I mean, the lighting really is good in this film. That's like the most backhanded compliment you could give a movie, isn't it? A poor man's Rear Window, this never interested me. Slightly more Cage value than the last film, but not nearly enough. Actually, he's a pretty unlikable character in this one, which is a shame, because he does likable so well.

The Greatest Show on Earth (1952) 4/10
25% love triangle. 25% subplots. 50% just footage of a circus. And I didn't know circuses were really boring cosplay parades. Makes me glad I missed the traditional circus. Sure, I should be impressed that the actors learned and performed amazing feats for the film, but maybe they could have done so for a better movie.
 

GatoDelFuego

Legendary Cat
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
Isle of Dogs is so cleanly animated it blows my mind. The use of cotton for smoke is particularly great and never gets old. Wes Anderson movies are always funny in an "interesting" way, and this one had all that, but it also happened to be completely hilarious at the same time
 
Just saw A Quiet Place. I really enjoyed the film as a whole. I think it executed on what it wanted to do really well. Assuming that I am right about what the movie wanted to achieve, of course.

I saw this as a well crafted blockbuster monster movie with an interesting concept, good acting and horror elements baked into it. It's really a nailbiter throughout, with plenty of suspense set pieces that keep your attention. Moreover, it's aided by well-acted characters that you care about. I bought them as a family, I could empathize with their emotions and I did not want any of them to die, which elevated the scenes when the monsters are present or their threat is looming. The actors do a great job with the material they're given and you buy them as real people in those situations, however be warned that they don't always act in line with logic.

I didn't find the film to be particularly scary (might just be me) and there's no gore/disturbing imagery that you might expect from a horror movie. It's also not a jumpscare fest like a lot of modern horror movies, so people seeking to be constantly startled by the cool new exciting horror movie will probably be disappointed.

If you’re interested in watching the film, I would suggest taking it as an experience rather than try to read into it like it’s an intellectual film. It’s just meant to be entertainment for the masses, imo, with a surface level plot based around an interesting concept and packed with suspense set pieces. If you're looking to get entertained, you won't be disappointed. It's paced well, with a short runtime and a good sprinkling of set pieces that build to a big climax. The movie does not allow you time to get bored/overthink any particulars about the world when you're watching.

Definitely worth the price of admission if you're seeking a fun time. 7 to a light 8/10


Now, if you want to analyze the film and its world. If you're looking to disect the plot and think about it after the theatre, cracks do appear. Heck, some appear blatantly in the plot. However, I felt that the heart of the movie is the family and the shitty situation they are in, so I just disregarded the following during the runtime and bitched about them after the movie with the friends I was with.

Here are the annoying bits:

If you're still on the fence and plot logic is essential to you for your enjoyment of a movie, read at least the first two in the list and make a decision.

2 things right off the bat:

No one who actually cares about their child and is responsible, which the parents here are clearly portrayed as being, would ever leave the youngest child (seemingly still an infant) in the family walk in the back, unguided, in a fucking killer alien infested world is just bull. It's there simply to aid the plot and if you're taken out of the movie here and proceed to scoff at the rest of the film, save yourself the trouble.

For reference: My little sister is about twice the age of the little kid and I don't even let her hand go if we're ever in the street together.
Some may not consider this a spoiler, but I didn't know about this going into the movie and it solidified the threat of the monsters for me knowing that the movie would do this.

Second, the baby. The baby is purely a plot device and no one in that situation would ever willingly conceive a child.

These two things are all in the very beginning of the film (first 10 minutes) and are there solely to aid the plot later on.

Plot devices later on in the film include:
miraculous pin pointing upwards in a wooden stair setup earlier + water breaks at the perfect moment for a set piece with the creatures. Also, very pregnant woman carries a sack of potatoes up the stairs for no reason.

Old survivor puts fellow survivors in danger for NO REASON. Dude clearly wanted to kill himself but he had no reason to shout when he did. He could have just let them pass before. The reaction also wasn't a sudden reaction to the death of his wife. The shot establishes him just standing there over his dead wife for a solid minute ish, dead silent, before he screams.

Kid falls into grain store thing by plot magic & "inconsistent grain physics". (The latter did not bother me, but I found this whole sequence to be awful and contrived)

Another thing that annoyed me personally was the whole plot arc leading to Lee dying. This is PURELY my opinion and expectation from the story, but I just did not like this arc. It's not that it was terribly done, I just feel as though a more satisfactory ending could have been formulated with them all being alive.

After the contrived grain sequence and subsequent escape, I don't understand why they didn't try to hide or make their way back to the safe house (soundproof basement) by food. They did not know it was flooded and it's been established that they can move and not alert the creature (see: basement water scene & Lee running in the sand in the beginning not getting him attacked). They chose this direction to have that sacrificial proclaimation of love, i get it. They even have some setup to it, yes. It doesn't make me feel any better about this arc though.

It also just eats at the back of my head that there is a possibility that they wanted emily blunt to be badass female lead (despite having no real setup towards this) at the end and killing Lee off was means of solidifying this. Not saying the ending is bad, I'm sure she knows how to use a shotgun in this kind of world. I'm just being a bitch because I didn't get the ending I was hoping for.


edit - @below LOL fuck, I removed the movie name when I was editing the post and didn't notice. Added it
 
Last edited:

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
NO asking him that question ruined the fun of the whole post. I couldn’t figure out if it was some brilliant scathing critique on spoiler free reviews or about an actual singular movie until I finally clicked the spoilers. Even in the spoilers it took a while to figure which movie it was.

God damn that post without the proper context was a MASTERPIECE.
 

tcr

stay trippy little hippie
is a Tutoris a Team Rater Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
i watched donnie darko and now i dont know what i just watched it makes enough sense to tantalize me but not enough for me to love it
 

vonFiedler

Ridley is in Smash
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
The Machinist (2004) 8/10
Best Christopher Nolan movie not made by Christopher Nolan. Pretty obvious sanity thriller, but the ride was good so the destination doesn't matter.

Enter the Dragon (1973) 8/10
This film has an outstanding amount of potential. Basically Street Fight the movie. Great set-up for a fighting tournament with a good variety of characters, but after spending a decent amount of time on that set-up, the rest of the film feels rushed through. But you can't not have fun watching Bruce Lee and even a few others kick lots of ass.

All the King's Men (1949) 8/10
Relevant film given it's the source of the name for anti-Nixon film All the President's Men, recently given an unnecessary prequel in the form of anti-Trump anti-Nixon film The Post. Maybe people should just watch this instead. It feels like it skips a lot, but still a narrative that has only grown more poignant with time. I wonder if they even could have imagined this stuff happening at the presidential level when they made it,

Hamlet (1948) 6/10
Decent production. Only the second time I've ever seen Hamlet. Will have to compare to Kenneth Branagh's someday. Still lacks the overwhelming class of Romeo and Juliet (1968). Also my grandfather worked with Laurence Olivier, so he's been pretty hyped to me, but after seeing four of his movies, I'm not impressed. I can't say I even like Hamlet much. The plot structure feels weird to me.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999) 7/10
Weird movie. Having seen almost all Kubrick films now, nothing in this should shock me. But some scenes are just absolutely baffling. And you'll spend almost all of this bloated three hour films wondering what in the fuck it's trying to say or do until it suddenly ends. But it's Kubrick, so it's still something of a ride. Would rather watch it again than Barry Lyndon.

Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence (2004) 4/10
Astoundingly pointless film. No, I'm not talking about that Ghost in the Shell film, or even that one. This is the worst one I've seen. The mystery is pathetically simple, so the film has to take the most roundabout and confusing way to solve it. The philosophy is nonsense. The sci-fi is cliche. The action is mediocre. The animation is poor. Production I.G. needed Studio Ghibli's help to make a product this poor? Lack of the Major hurts. This was made after Stand Alone Complex. Why? Has a good dog in it, though.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 2, Guests: 0)

Top