Random Movie Thoughts Thread

[Totenkindly]

Richard Donner Dead: ‘Superman’, ‘Lethal Weapon’ Director Was 91 – Deadline

 

[FemMecha]

I've been watching "Being John Malkovich" as my background repeat movie.

It really strikes a chord with me about existential isolation. I don't know that this impression is necessarily the movie's intent, but it strikes me that the characters have an absence of self-awareness, and all tend to compensate by controlling another entity outside themselves. It is like their sense of self and connection is their ability to control something else: Craig with his puppets, Lotte with her animals, Maxine with other breathing humans, and by extension all the other incidental cast. Even Malkovich as an actor has to become someone else in order to exist, to control the character he plays instead of being who he is. There is no self, no connection, only supplanting.

Then when Malkovich goes through the portal, even then he is not himself, but everyone outside of him becomes him. It reminded me or narcissism on a subconscious level. It is like self is a rainbow, a projection, but never actually real. Self cannot form the point of one side of a connection if it doesn't exist, but others don't exist either, so everyone is a shifting mirage. I've always felt an uneasiness and pain from the lack of connection to others, but hadn't considered the lack of connection to self as a new level of existential isolation.

It is fascinating but depresses the hell out of me.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I've been watching "Being John Malkovich" as my background repeat movie.

It really strikes a chord with me about existential isolation. I don't know that this impression is necessarily the movie's intent, but it strikes me that the characters have an absence of self-awareness, and all tend to compensate by controlling another entity outside themselves. It is like their sense of self and connection is their ability to control something else: Craig with his puppets, Lotte with her animals, Maxine with other breathing humans, and by extension all the other incidental cast. Even Malkovich as an actor has to become someone else in order to exist, to control the character he plays instead of being who he is. There is no self, no connection, only supplanting.

Then when Malkovich goes through the portal, even then he is not himself, but everyone outside of him becomes him. It reminded me or narcissism on a subconscious level. It is like self is a rainbow, a projection, but never actually real. Self cannot form the point of one side of a connection if it doesn't exist, but others don't exist either, so everyone is a shifting mirage. I've always felt an uneasiness and pain from the lack of connection to others, but hadn't considered the lack of connection to self as a new level of existential isolation.

It is fascinating but depresses the hell out of me.

Oddly enough, I just rewatched this. I found that the theme of communication was a big one. I would speculate that the control stems from an inability or unwillingness to communicate. Perhaps the movie is suggesting that if we cannot communicate what we want, and who we are, we will seek control. Craig, for example, seems only capable of expressing himself through puppets; he's extremely dishonest in his relationship and honestly kind of a jerk even before he becomes obsessed with Malkovich.

 

[Totenkindly]

I've been watching "Being John Malkovich" as my background repeat movie.

It really strikes a chord with me about existential isolation. I don't know that this impression is necessarily the movie's intent, but it strikes me that the characters have an absence of self-awareness, and all tend to compensate by controlling another entity outside themselves. It is like their sense of self and connection is their ability to control something else: Craig with his puppets, Lotte with her animals, Maxine with other breathing humans, and by extension all the other incidental cast. Even Malkovich as an actor has to become someone else in order to exist, to control the character he plays instead of being who he is. There is no self, no connection, only supplanting.

Then when Malkovich goes through the portal, even then he is not himself, but everyone outside of him becomes him. It reminded me or narcissism on a subconscious level. It is like self is a rainbow, a projection, but never actually real. Self cannot form the point of one side of a connection if it doesn't exist, but others don't exist either, so everyone is a shifting mirage. I've always felt an uneasiness and pain from the lack of connection to others, but hadn't considered the lack of connection to self as a new level of existential isolation.

It is fascinating but depresses the hell out of me.

Yeah, I love this film -- one of the first of that mind-bending quirk genre that I ever saw. (My first Charlie Kaufman film script too, I think, and I ended up tracking his career/works after.) The film also sticks out to me as well because it's (1) John Cusack doing something edgy, after getting sucked into Con*Air and other more popular films, (2) Cameron Diaz giving a great performance as Lotte, she's almost unrecognizable and totally playing against her normal type, she can actually act, and (3) first time I saw Catherine Keener and again ended up following her work afterwards, I just loved her here. Also, as a weird bit of trivia, Orson Bean is the company owner in this film; I had gotten acquainted with him for doing Bilbo in the Rankin-Bass version of The Hobbit as a kid but had never even known what he looked like, so it was just wild to me to hear Bilbo's voice coming out of his character's mouth.

Anyway, I think you are totally right. All of the characters seems to be lacking self-awareness and are stuck in their own little interaction circles which seem pretty solipsist in nature. I love Kaufman scripts because they force me to think outside the box or at least are great at using the surreal to investigate the inherent aspects of existence. I don't think I had ever pulled it together as succinctly as you did here, though, but it is obvious in hindsight, especially with all the "malkovich malkovich malkovich" simulacrums of Malkovich when one goes through the portal. I think it's remarkable Malkovich even did the film. Kaufman is probably also commenting on artists in general as well, there's a certain level of narcissism that comes attached as you're absorbed to finding the reflection of yourself within your art, but in the process of creation it can become a twisted hell.

(There are other allusions there too -- creation of art is like creation of new life, artists might narcissistically look for themselves in their work but non-artists do so in the creation of other things, even their own children, like when a parent is so self-absorbed that they can't deal when their child ends up being "uncontrollable" and/or not a proper reflection of themselves in their mind.)

So do Lotte and Maxine actually break out of this cycle, with their daughter? Did they truly engage each other as Other and Equal?

The ending is very haunting, about the end result of this level of narcissism and control -- you end up with no control and no one else.

Oddly enough, I just rewatched this. I found that the theme of communication was a big one. I would speculate that the control stems from an inability or unwillingness to communicate. Perhaps the movie is suggesting that if we cannot communicate what we want, and who we are, we will seek control. Craig, for example, seems only capable of expressing himself through puppets; he's extremely dishonest in his relationship and honestly kind of a jerk even before he becomes obsessed with Malkovich.

Yeah, Craig seems the most corrupt altogether and from the start, he's mainly obsessed with his own artistic vision.

Maxine can come off as a bitch, but it seems she is looking for someone real and enjoys controlling only in the sense that controlling others is her way to avoid being controlled by all the controlling types. Her relationship with Lotte is a bit different.

Lotte is still kind of a hot mess, but Craig seems to be the most willing to control. Which is really wild, because he is also the most passive character in the film, it feels like. I think it's because he is so weak that he is unable to relate to others as equals, so he tries to relate through the veil of puppetry, and yet puppets are a mechanism where the object of the relationship is being controlled by the other. It's really interesting that he is both the controller and yet the most passive-feeling and weakest character in the film.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yeah, I love this film -- one of the first of that mind-bending quirk genre that I ever saw. (My first Charlie Kaufman film script too, I think, and I ended up tracking his career/works after.) The film also sticks out to me as well because it's (1) John Cusack doing something edgy, after getting sucked into Con*Air and other more popular films, (2) Cameron Diaz giving a great performance as Lotte, she's almost unrecognizable and totally playing against her normal type, she can actually act, and (3) first time I saw Catherine Keener and again ended up following her work afterwards, I just loved her here. Also, as a weird bit of trivia, Orson Bean is the company owner in this film; I had gotten acquainted with him for doing Bilbo in the Rankin-Bass version of The Hobbit as a kid but had never even known what he looked like, so it was just wild to me to hear Bilbo's voice coming out of his character's mouth.

Anyway, I think you are totally right. All of the characters seems to be lacking self-awareness and are stuck in their own little interaction circles which seem pretty solipsist in nature. I love Kaufman scripts because they force me to think outside the box or at least are great at using the surreal to investigate the inherent aspects of existence. I don't think I had ever pulled it together as succinctly as you did here, though, but it is obvious in hindsight, especially with all the "malkovich malkovich malkovich" simulacrums of Malkovich when one goes through the portal. I think it's remarkable Malkovich even did the film. Kaufman is probably also commenting on artists in general as well, there's a certain level of narcissism that comes attached as you're absorbed to finding the reflection of yourself within your art, but in the process of creation it can become a twisted hell.

Also consider the fact that a screenwriter is like a puppeteer for actors like Malkovich.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

i have been trying to work on my malkovich impression. he has a distinctive voice and manner of speaking

 

[Totenkindly]

i have been trying to work on my malkovich impression. he has a distinctive voice and manner of speaking

 

[Totenkindly]

Warning -- there's a clip from Reservoir Dogs and from A Clockwork Orange in here that can be kind of disturbing when the clip is just tossed up, didn't want anyone to be shocked.

If my memory isn't off, that Jim Carrey screech from Dumb and Dumber goes on for about 20-25 seconds in the film, doesn't it? Like, it's annoying AF... but I guess that is the point. Edit: I guess not, but still it's pretty annoying.

 

[Totenkindly]

‘The Goonies’ Star: Richard Donner Paid for My College After Acting Career Slowed Down

It sounds like Donner was well-loved because he was a good man.

Not sure how much of Cohen's college he paid for (as he became a lawyer), but even just paying the front four years was a remarkable gesture.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

‘The Goonies’ Star: Richard Donner Paid for My College After Acting Career Slowed Down

It sounds like Donner was well-loved because he was a good man.

Not sure how much of Cohen's college he paid for (as he became a lawyer), but even just paying the front four years was a remarkable gesture.

He made some pretty good movies, too.

I couldn't get past the awful soundtrack with Ladyhawke, though.

 

[Totenkindly]

I couldn't get past the awful soundtrack with Ladyhawke, though.

That was too bad. I love Alan Parsons as a musician, but that musical approach didn't work for that film.

 

[Totenkindly]

Saw "Black Widow" in the theater this evening. (The experience was weird -- no one even checked my ticket, at the UA/Regal. I went to show my pass after buying a snack and no one was there, lol.)

I really enjoyed it, although I think the first 50-60% was better than the last 40% or so. I'd give it a 3.75/5 stars. I think my issue in the end is that it all got a bit too simple in terms of plot resolution.

I actually cried once early on in the film, because it pulls together emotionally with what we saw of Natasha in Endgame and really clarifies why she seems so detached and distanced from others in her early MCU appearances, where she can't trust anyone, and then by Endgame she's a woman trying to hold together her self-designated family.

Florence Pugh is great, so is David Harbour and Rachel Weisz. Even Ray Winstone, actually, though we don't see much of him until the last act. Personally, I enjoyed the earlier action set pieces more than the later ones, although there's a hell of a descent in the last few minutes of the film that was more harrowing than the Tom Cruise jump in MI7.

This film does actually take on a socially conscious stance in the final act without being too "in your face" about it -- the whole situation of the Red Room which we've known about for a number of MCU films already framed the issue and the film just kind of puts a bow on it, but it didn't feel too heavy handed.

The film kind of sits between hilarious and poignant. I also like how Yolena and Natasha are sisters by nurture, and kind of want some of the same things, but they retain distinct personalities. Yolena is not Natasha. Her stepping into the Black Widow name will not create a clone of Natasha. I also like how Yolena rips on some of the Natasha / Avengers fan service. The audience laughed a lot during these moments.

it also has moments when we realize how smart/crafty Natasha is. There are a few sequences throughout the film where she seems beaten but you realize she's been a few steps ahead the entire time. This outing does her some justice.

AS far as Budapest goes:

This is a bit problematic in the film because of retrofitting. Budapest is more of a joke in earlier MCU films, and it's never clarified what it was. "BLack Widow" tries to mesh its own history into the Budapest reference, but tonally this isn't as great -- as noted, it's joked about as a crapfest, but the actual events in Budapest are morally ambiguous at best and more horrific, aside from she and Hawkeye needing to hunker down for ten days to escape the city.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The Desolation of Smaug.

Better than it's reputation suggested. This love triangle stuff they inserted is very tedious, though. People are probably right that this didn't need to be a trilogy; I suspect that subplot was added to pad the run time once the studio insisted on three movies, and it sure as hell feels like it. The barrel chase and setting off the forge were fun, though.


It's kind of a thing where this movie isn't as good as the Lord of the RIngs, so because it's not as good, it becomes WORST EVAR (given how I complain about Rise of Skywalker, I should talk). Diminishing returns, perhaps, but it didn't really drag despite the standard love time except for all the toe-tapping I was doing waiting for Evangeline Lilly to show up at Lake Town.

I get the feels whenever Balin says anything, because he's so awesome and I know what happens to him in Moria.

 

[Totenkindly]

The Desolation of Smaug.

Better than it's reputation suggested. This love triangle stuff they inserted is very tedious, though. People are probably right that this didn't need to be a trilogy; I suspect that subplot was added to pad the run time once the studio insisted on three movies, and it sure as hell feels like it. The barrel chase and setting off the forge were fun, though.

I guess they were fun, but they weren't really aligning with the tone of the story much. Totally they stretched this into three films, there's about enough content for two, if that, if you take out all the superfluous garbage that is more Jackson just toying around with middle earth properties to tell his own sequences.

I don't think they are awful films, there's some stuff I like. I didn't mind the elf/dwarf forbidden love either.

I actually bought them on 4K last week (extended) and started watching the last film again. For those with 4K, those are pretty definitive in terms of the visuals and sounds... although honestly the blurays were high quality too.

 

[cascadeco]

Warning -- there's a clip from Reservoir Dogs and from A Clockwork Orange in here that can be kind of disturbing when the clip is just tossed up, didn't want anyone to be shocked.

If my memory isn't off, that Jim Carrey screech from Dumb and Dumber goes on for about 20-25 seconds in the film, doesn't it? Like, it's annoying AF... but I guess that is the point. Edit: I guess not, but still it's pretty annoying.

Those were good. I'm also kind of shocked that the only movie in that whole bunch I haven't seen (or even heard of, actually) was 'Warriors'. [though that actor in the Warriors clip kinda reminded me of Joaquin Phoenix?? Was it him?]

I thought some of the selections were striking because the quotes within them are what have become some of the most famous lines in the movies or even in movie history (Casablanca, The Shining, The Empire Strikes Back, Silence of the Lambs). I also appreciated a few repeat actors - both Damon and Bill Murphy, for example. Though I think I'd already known that Murphy was/is pretty known for ad-libbing things on the set.

Not related to the topic, but The Clockwork Orange is something I only first saw about a year ago, and I thought it was quite good but like any film like it, I was also quite shocked that it made the screen - especially in that era. But then I remember thinking the exact same thing about many 70's films in particular that I've seen... Midnight Cowboy being one, actually, and Taxi Driver too (it's kind of ironic and it can't be totally coincidental that they're both in this list)... that when I have watched these films, I've been surprised at the level of dark underpeelings and depiction of a 'reality' that existed but I can't believe it made it to the screen. I still think whenever I see films like this that they are far, far more disturbing in a lot of ways than anything put on screen today -- back then and in these films, it was depicted in more of a dialogue and brute reality format; today, it's all covered up in action, violence, and lots of noise. There was a lot of actual Boldness back then in movies. I suppose when it comes to recent films, 'Requiem of a Dream' comes somewhat close to this older 70's style expression of the darker side of nature and people.

Anyway, fun to watch.

 

[Totenkindly]

Those were good. I'm also kind of shocked that the only movie in that whole bunch I haven't seen (or even heard of, actually) was 'Warriors'. [though that actor in the Warriors clip kinda reminded me of Joaquin Phoenix?? Was it him?]

I think you're referring to the "Warriors, come out and play" guy? David Patrick Kelly, another famous character actor from the prior generation. (Phoenix was about five years old when the film released.)

I normally wouldn't have watched it, but it was such a big pop culture reference I sat through it a few years ago. It's kinda quirky and interesting on that level.

Not related to the topic, but The Clockwork Orange is something I only first saw about a year ago, and I thought it was quite good but like any film like it, I was also quite shocked that it made the screen - especially in that era.

I watched it for my film lit class in the mid 80's and remember being shocked, I had never seen anything quite like it before. Yes, good, just.... my poor little sheltered rural sensibilities, rofl.

But then I remember thinking the exact same thing about many 70's films in particular that I've seen... Midnight Cowboy being one, actually, and Taxi Driver too (it's kind of ironic and it can't be totally coincidental that they're both in this list)... that when I have watched these films, I've been surprised at the level of dark underpeelings and depiction of a 'reality' that existed but I can't believe it made it to the screen. I still think whenever I see films like this that they are far, far more disturbing in a lot of ways than anything put on screen today -- back then and in these films, it was depicted in more of a dialogue and brute reality format; today, it's all covered up in action, violence, and lots of noise. There was a lot of actual Boldness back then in movies. I suppose when it comes to recent films, 'Requiem of a Dream' comes somewhat close to this older 70's style expression of the darker side of nature and people.

I agree with that comparison. It's like there was a transition from the more glowy 50's and early 60's films into something with much more gritty realism, diving in head-first. Yes, today we get all the noise and spectacle but not really the disturbing lived-in grit. It's all a bit superficial and (despite being rooted in the 'real world' is kind of like violence/crime fantasy,

You get throwbacks like Drive, for example. There are others. I find them fascinating even if they can be more disturbing.

 

[cascadeco]

The Desolation of Smaug.

Better than it's reputation suggested. This love triangle stuff they inserted is very tedious, though. People are probably right that this didn't need to be a trilogy; I suspect that subplot was added to pad the run time once the studio insisted on three movies, and it sure as hell feels like it. The barrel chase and setting off the forge were fun, though.


It's kind of a thing where this movie isn't as good as the Lord of the RIngs, so because it's not as good, it becomes WORST EVAR (given how I complain about Rise of Skywalker, I should talk). Diminishing returns, perhaps, but it didn't really drag despite the standard love time except for all the toe-tapping I was doing waiting for Evangeline Lilly to show up at Lake Town.

I get the feels whenever Balin says anything, because he's so awesome and I know what happens to him in Moria.

I went to the theater for the first of the three Hobbit movies and it's not being too dramatic by my saying I was so traumatized and horrified by watching what was put in the first film that I almost walked out of the theater more than once and barely made it to the end of the movie. If I recall, most of what's in that first movie was absolutely not in the book, like at all. And I couldn't even figure out where all of this extra material came from because I've even read Silmarilien and Unfinished Tales and couldn't figure out where the garbage characters/nonsense even came from, lol. (I mean, the whole under-the-mountain troll or orc city or whatever it was almost made my brain explode) Needless to say I didn't go see the final two in the theaters (though I've since then seen big clips from some of the final 2 I guess on tv, and they didn't seem as blatantly offensive to me as much of the rubbish in the first one; at least it was the general storyline).

 

[Totenkindly]

I think I just loved Martin Freeman as Bilbo. I just wish the films had been worthy of his casting. Richard Armitage was decent too.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I went to the theater for the first of the three Hobbit movies and it's not being too dramatic by my saying I was so traumatized and horrified by watching what was put in the first film that I almost walked out of the theater more than once and barely made it to the end of the movie. If I recall, most of what's in that first movie was absolutely not in the book, like at all. And I couldn't even figure out where all of this extra material came from because I've even read Silmarilien and Unfinished Tales and couldn't figure out where the garbage characters/nonsense even came from, lol. (I mean, the whole under-the-mountain troll or orc city or whatever it was almost made my brain explode) Needless to say I didn't go see the final two in the theaters (though I've since then seen big clips from some of the final 2 I guess on tv, and they didn't seem as blatantly offensive to me as much of the rubbish in the first one; at least it was the general storyline).

Wasn't there a Goblin Town in the book, though? That one seemed to have less stuff that was just added.

 

[cascadeco]

Wasn't there a Goblin Town in the book, though? That one seemed to have less stuff that was just added.

Was there? If it did, I don't remember it at all or it was a minor element. Guess I'll have to dig out the book. Was it just a one line reference? I don't recall any plot or description around one, which is why I was all wtf when watching the movie.

You felt the first movie had less additional fluff? Man... I mean the whole closing sequence was an add, with the head white orc guy, the wizard I'm forgetting his name of with the rabbit sleigh (uggh)....