Random Movie Thoughts Thread

[The Cat]

Its supposed to be coming either nexy yer or the year after... I hope I live long enough to see it​

 

[Totenkindly]

Soooo..... AMatW: Quantumania.

I don't really get the RT tomato critic approach. To me, the Thumbs Up / Thumbs Down rating should simply mean, "Is this film worth watching?" Critic thumbs down seems to mean something else nowadays. Quantumania is not in the best eschalon of MCU films and is disappointing in some ways, but I still found it worth watching in some respects.

Frankly, the first half isn't that great. A lot of the jokes miss (I haven't yet decided whether it's a directing, editing, and/or writing problem). The opening setup is pretty thin. The broad plot is pretty generic (visitors to another realm find an oppressed people and help them overthrow their dictator who is also dangerous to them). The writing itself IS pretty flat in the first half (which kinda disturbs me, because the same writer is working on Avengers: Kang Dynasty), there's stuff that needed to work and just doesn't; prime example is Bill Murray's cameo, he feels like he's phoning it in, but the writing for his character is also really oooof. [Like, why wasn't this rewritten or recast? You sure as hell didn't need Bill in this role.] I'm not sure how I feel about the recasting of Cassie, I don't feel like she meshes up with necessarily either of the two prior versions and honestly I didn't care much about her although she's okay.

And then Jonathan Majors steps on-screen. Between him and Michelle Pfeiffer, they are both the shining lights of the film and their characters really pop.

Everything that happens when Kang enters the film is honestly worth watching. Majors as Kang is unnerving and in moments (due to his flat ruthlessness) even terrifying. It's the same kind of thing that worked for Josh Brolin's "reasonable yet homicidal" approach to Thanos, the character's calm and relentnessness in pursuing and espousing the unmentionable sometimes being more frightening than any outward display of rage. What's great with Majors is how we can recognize "Kang the Conqueror" as a variant of "He Who Remains" because they are similar in some ways, yet aren't quite the same personality. Whatever the film's earlier problems, and despite having a good idea how everything is going to play out, the second half of the film is enjoyable in itself. There's also one major set piece in the film's middle that seems obvious and yet totally out of the blue, and brilliant as such -- it's like, "Yeah, this guy is Ant-Man, and we've seen the ants do this kind of things before, so duh... but WOW."

The other decent part of the film is of course the CGI world they find themselves in. It's pretty visually inventive, it reminds me very much of Disney's "Strange Worlds" that released in the fall in that the film itself is not necessarily memorable because the characters or plot never hits critical mass but those visuals are inventive and cool. But you kinda need characters to really tug at your heart, and nothing here really is a break-through of any kind. They should have just called it Ant-Man: Quantumania because Hope really has no character arc in this film as released. She's fairly active in her part of the plot but she feels more like a force or a plotting device, not like a character with actual movement. There's a few touching moments between Hank and Janet. There wasn't much of an arc for either Scott or Cassie, aside from Scott maybe struggling to feel like he has significance in this battle.

The less I say about the big-head guy, the better -- the concept was cool and amusing in a quirky way, just not as good as it might have been?

But pretty much for Phase 4, it's like "watch Wandavision, watch the last episode of LOKI, then watch this film" to get an idea of the overarcing themes for the MCU right now. Both credit scenes deal with Kang. We are now off to the races. Everything else in Phase 4 MCU felt like a diversion and of almost no import.

 

[Totenkindly]

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves stars Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez, Regé-Jean Page, Hugh Grant, Justice Smith, and Sophia Lillis. John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein directed and wrote the script with Michael Gillio (Kwik Stop). And, as revealed by Collider, the adventure will last 2 hours and 17 minutes. This means it will be a great epic journey and an amazing introduction for new fans of the long-running tabletop RPG.

That is kind of shocking. Normally if a film is bad, they end up cutting so much (or not having filmed enough) that it comes in under 1:30 hours. I would expect an average movie in this genre to peg at 1:48 or something similar.

I have no idea what to make at 2 hours and 17 minutes. Did they actually have enough of a vision (which I can't recognize from the trailer) to justify that long of a film? Or is it just not edited well enough? Or... what?

Curiouser and curiouser....

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

That is kind of shocking. Normally if a film is bad, they end up cutting so much (or not having filmed enough) that it comes in under 1:30 hours. I would expect an average movie in this genre to peg at 1:48 or something similar.

I have no idea what to make at 2 hours and 17 minutes. Did they actually have enough of a vision (which I can't recognize from the trailer) to justify that long of a film? Or is it just not edited well enough? Or... what?

Curiouser and curiouser....

The trailer seemed amusing enough, and piqued my interest, for what it's worth.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, look at that....

For a director, maybe that's even better than the Oscar -- peers who actually know what they are talking about selected them.

Daniels Win the Top DGA Award. Will They Take the Oscar, Too? (Published 2023)

The duo triumphed for “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” The guild’s winner has won the best director Academy Award 17 of the last 20 times.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Totenkindly]

Watched The Fabelmans today. My major thought is about how much Spielberg loved both his parents -- the film really captures their essence at least in terms of their influence on him growing up -- and also what an honor he did them by picking two of the best actors of the time to portray them (Paul Dano and Michelle Williams).

If I have any quibble about this film, it's just that often it feels like a number of vignettes spaced out across time, capturing snapshots of events in his adolescence, without necessarily a connecting plot other than the lead character aging. But each of those excerpts of his life are expertly done, and all typically evoke some kind of response -- pain, laughter, grief, wonder -- evoked by the lens of a practiced, master director. The script also does nice setup so that the audience can come to certain realizations along with Sammy's growing awareness; it's all there if you are paying attention. Just really great performances across the board, including a short cameo by Judd Hirsch.

I think the relationship between Burt and Mitzi is fascinating and becomes apparent early in the film. While they love each other, they are both cut from different cloth -- she driven by art and her heart, he driven by science and his head. It's really clear that Burt looks at Mitzi as his shining angel, loving her from afar, because he cannot really understand her and meet her there. She meanwhile loves him but it's killing her to stay on the ground and lock herself into his extremely practical, tangible, rigidly rational mindset. They are both good parents (in the sense of what they contribute to their kids) who simply cannot be content together over the long haul because it will mean too much of a sacrifice for which ever one of them has to relinquish their own nature. It's just heart-rending to see them both trying to respond from good places even while their paths will eventually draw them apart.

Some of this scenes were a little too close to home. I got way too many flashbacks of bullies in middle and high school. The whole bit with the "Jesus freak" Monica also made me burst out laughing while also being really uncomfortable due to similar experiences I had within that environment. Really neat was one scene where Sammy "directs" one of this actors on what he should be feeling when he's doing his scene -- and how the guy starts with no clue whatever and ends up being literally shell-shocked with emotion by the time the scene is filmed.

As another really odd "what goes around comes around" moment, not only was this film reminiscent of other Spielberg films (like Saving Private Ryan), but it also reminded me of JJ Abrams and "Super 8," which was basically Abrams' version of Spielberg's E.T., with another young filmmaker and focusing on directing/camera technique, especially in regards to the train crash. Which director am I watching here? Did they influence each other and/or were both influenced by Greatest Show on Earth, and...? It all just goes around and around.

 

[ceecee]

Watched The Fabelmans today. My major thought is about how much Spielberg loved both his parents -- the film really captures their essence at least in terms of their influence on him growing up -- and also what an honor he did them by picking two of the best actors of the time to portray them (Paul Dano and Michelle Williams).

If I have any quibble about this film, it's just that often it feels like a number of vignettes spaced out across time, capturing snapshots of events in his adolescence, without necessarily a connecting plot other than the lead character aging. But each of those excerpts of his life are expertly done, and all typically evoke some kind of response -- pain, laughter, grief, wonder -- evoked by the lens of a practiced, master director. The script also does nice setup so that the audience can come to certain realizations along with Sammy's growing awareness; it's all there if you are paying attention. Just really great performances across the board, including a short cameo by Judd Hirsch.

I think the relationship between Burt and Mitzi is fascinating and becomes apparent early in the film. While they love each other, they are both cut from different cloth -- she driven by art and her heart, he driven by science and his head. It's really clear that Burt looks at Mitzi as his shining angel, loving her from afar, because he cannot really understand her and meet her there. She meanwhile loves him but it's killing her to stay on the ground and lock herself into his extremely practical, tangible, rigidly rational mindset. They are both good parents (in the sense of what they contribute to their kids) who simply cannot be content together over the long haul because it will mean too much of a sacrifice for which ever one of them has to relinquish their own nature. It's just heart-rending to see them both trying to respond from good places even while their paths will eventually draw them apart.

Some of this scenes were a little too close to home. I got way too many flashbacks of bullies in middle and high school. The whole bit with the "Jesus freak" Monica also made me burst out laughing while also being really uncomfortable due to similar experiences I had within that environment. Really neat was one scene where Sammy "directs" one of this actors on what he should be feeling when he's doing his scene -- and how the guy starts with no clue whatever and ends up being literally shell-shocked with emotion by the time the scene is filmed.

As another really odd "what goes around comes around" moment, not only was this film reminiscent of other Spielberg films (like Saving Private Ryan), but it also reminded me of JJ Abrams and "Super 8," which was basically Abrams' version of Spielberg's E.T., with another young filmmaker and focusing on directing/camera technique, especially in regards to the train crash. Which director am I watching here? Did they influence each other and/or were both influenced by Greatest Show on Earth, and...? It all just goes around and around.

Do you agree with Judd Hirsch being nominated for an Oscar with only a single scene? I haven't seen The Fablemeans yet but this is being talked about here and there and I wondered what you thought after seeing it.

 

[Totenkindly]

Do you agree with Judd Hirsch being nominated for an Oscar with only a single scene? I haven't seen The Fablemeans yet but this is being talked about here and there and I wondered what you thought after seeing it.

He was quite good in the 5-10 min of the film he was in, and I think I've seen people nominated for less in the past. He felt like a virtuoso on wheels, he embodied his role effortlessly -- which also happened to be one of those perfect Oscar bait roles (distinctive, idiosyncratic, offers pivotal advice to the protagonist, etc). So a perfect storm kinda thing?

That being said, I felt like Brendan Gleeson and Ke Huy Quan did heavier lifting in their films and should be the guys to beat.

I did not see Causeway, The Good Nurse, All is Quiet on the Western Front, Empire of Light, or Babylon (films that also have put up some Best Supporting Actor nominees this year during award season), so I can't really compare his performance to those.

 

[Totenkindly]

Generally pretty true. Glad someone pointed out the whole problem with Wanda's path in DS2.
I remember being disappointed when they wiped Kro in Eternals -- he was just getting interesting, and ended up having no dimensions.
Malekith looks like an evil Teletubby in the picture they chose.

Spoilers for Quantumania are involved, just sayin'.

The 7 best and 5 worst MCU villains, ranked

From Malekith and M.O.D.O.K. to the Scarlet Witch and Thanos, Insider rounded up the best and worst baddies of the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies.

www.yahoo.com

 

[ceecee]

He was quite good in the 5-10 min of the film he was in, and I think I've seen people nominated for less in the past. He felt like a virtuoso on wheels, he embodied his role effortlessly -- which also happened to be one of those perfect Oscar bait roles (distinctive, idiosyncratic, offers pivotal advice to the protagonist, etc). So a perfect storm kinda thing?

That being said, I felt like Brendan Gleeson and Ke Huy Quan did heavier lifting in their films and should be the guys to beat.

I did not see Causeway, The Good Nurse, All is Quiet on the Western Front, Empire of Light, or Babylon (films that also have put up some Best Supporting Actor nominees this year during award season), so I can't really compare his performance to those.

Judi Dench won an Oscar for like 8 minutes of screentime (Shakespeare in Love) so I can certainly see him winning. I also agree that Brendan Gleeson and Ke Huy Quan should be the ones to beat (I think Ke Huy Quan will win - he has far too good of a story in addition to his role).

 

[Totenkindly]

Finally did the Dr. Strange 2 rewatch today, after having not seen it since opening weekend and also having not re-read my first review.

Without much ado....

So here is my thoughts now, after having not seen this film since opening weekend and also not rereading my old review:

First 15 min are essentially stake-less green-screen crap without any context, followed by 10 minutes of "eh" Marvel banter. We also see America Chavez doing what she does for most of the film (aside from about 30 seconds in the final act): Standing around behind other characters, doing nothing of value whatsoever. She's so darn passive, and we just get a forced memory later (and a contrived one) of why she might be this way.

The first Wanda scene is startling, with multiple moments of emotional impact. If only the high concept of the film wasn't so misguided, this might have been great, as Wanda's arc into the dark side was seemingly resolved (with a resultant stronger Wanda) in Wandavision. Now a tchotchke no one saw in the films just removes her autonomy and forces her to do evil, reducing her to a mere plot device for much of the film and ruining what actual moments of catharsis might have existed.

Now cue an hour of said character mindlessly destroying other people in the worst ways imaginable, in an impressive display of power (uh, GO WANDA! The Illuminati are real douchebags anyway -- and I'm not convinced whey would have beaten Thanos regardless, because they suck, aside from Xavier, who I guess still sucked based on outcome), but also feels like Raimi pointlessly smashing his toys in a sandbox. The casting of Krasinski as Mr. Fantastic and then brutally shredded onscreen just feels like a sneering snub to the fan base crying in the aisles.

[Side note: Never blame Elizabeth Olsen, who gamely plays all of this out with all of her formidable acting ability to the bitter end. She's both radiant and terrifying. It's the script that fails her.]

Near the end of the film are some moments of brilliance -- and I'm talking primarily about the fight between the two Stranges, using musical motifs, and then the raising of Zombie Strange. Really creative plotting and character design. There's even an uncharacteristically vulnerable moment for Stephen, admitting his frailty to 838 Christine. It's clear that, as much as every Stephen loves her in every universe, they also will never be together in any of them; both ultimately want different things... or at least Christine senses Stephen's split attention and feels herself deserving of more. But then of course things veer right back into Raimi fluff for the three staggered endings.

Some of the strength of the film is that it's been molded to fit Raimi's needs, but that is also its weakness: It seems to exist mainly to serve Raimi, rather than Raimi serving the film and a better story. (Note that I never felt that way about his Spiderman films.) The characters and film here are all just playthings without much regard for character continuity, bigger story concerns, or enduring meaningful value. If this film had never come out, aside from the universal destruction of the Darkhold -- which, again, never appeared in any of the films so far anyway -- it wouldn't have mattered.

 

[The Cat]

Finally did the Dr. Strange 2 rewatch today, after having not seen it since opening weekend and also having not read my first review.

Without much ado....

So here is my thoughts now, after having not seen this film since opening weekend and also not rereading my old review:

First 15 min are essentially stake-less green-screen crap without any context, followed by 10 minutes of "eh" Marvel banter. We also see America Chavez doing what she does for most of the film (aside from about 30 seconds in the final act): Standing around behind other characters, doing nothing of value whatsoever. She's so darn passive, and we just get a forced memory later (and a contrived one) of why she might be this way.

The first Wanda scene is startling, with multiple moments of emotional impact. If only the high concept of the film wasn't so misguided, this might have been great, as Wanda's arc into the dark side was seemingly resolved (with a resultant stronger Wanda) in Wandavision. Now a tchotchke no one saw in the films just removes her autonomy and forces her to do evil, reducing her to a mere plot device for much of the film and ruining what actual moments of catharsis might have existed.

Now cue an hour of said character mindlessly destroying other people in the worst ways imaginable, in an impressive display of power (uh, GO WANDA! The Illuminati are real douchebags anyway -- and I'm not convinced whey would have beaten Thanos regardless, because they suck, aside from Xavier, who I guess still sucked based on outcome), but also feels like Raimi pointlessly smashing his toys in a sandbox. The casting of Krasinski as Mr. Fantastic and then brutally shredded onscreen just feels like a sneering snub to the fan base crying in the aisles.

[Side note: Never blame Elizabeth Olsen, who gamely plays all of this out with all of her formidable acting ability to the bitter end. She's both radiant and terrifying. It's the script that fails her.]

Near the end of the film are some moments of brilliance -- and I'm talking primarily about the fight between the two Stranges, using musical motifs, and then the raising of Zombie Strange. Really creative plotting and character design. There's even an uncharacteristically vulnerable moment for Stephen, admitting his frailty to 838 Christine. It's clear that, as much as every Stephen loves her in every universe, they also will never be together in any of them; both ultimately want different things... or at least Christine senses Stephen's split attention and feels herself deserving of more. But then of course things veer right back into Raimi fluff for the three staggered endings.

Some of the strength of the film is that it's been molded to fit Raimi's needs, but that is also its weakness: It seems to exist mainly to serve Raimi, rather than Raimi serving the film and a better story. (Note that I never felt that way about his Spiderman films.) The characters and film here are all just playthings without much regard for character continuity, bigger story concerns, or enduring meaningful value. If this film had never come out, aside from the universal destruction of the Darkhold -- which, again, never appeared in any of the films so far anyway -- it wouldn't have mattered.

We definitely saw the same movie. Well reviewed.

 

[Totenkindly]

'The Fabelmans' star Michelle Williams, our latest Oscars predictions, and more in EW's 'The Awardist'

'The Fabelmans' star Michelle Williams on motherhood and finding her muse, makeup designer Adrien Morot on transforming Brendan Fraser for 'The Whale,' and more in the new issue of EW's 'The Awardist' digital magazine.

ew.com

 

[Totenkindly]

Critically Panned ‘Winnie-the-Pooh: Bloody and Honey’ Pro...

The reviews were not kind for the childhood-ruining slash...

www.complex.com

I guess a 30x return on investment is nothing to say "oh bother" about.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Critically Panned ‘Winnie-the-Pooh: Bloody and Honey’ Pro...

The reviews were not kind for the childhood-ruining slash...

www.complex.com

I guess a 30x return on investment is nothing to say "oh bother" about.

Wait this was real, and not just a shitty stale meme?

I'm tired of humor that's just take this cute innocent childhood thing and make it like, Fucked Up Dude, where that's the one joke. 10 years ago that could have sufficed, but now it's not really that shocking.

I guess the success means I'm going to see more of this crap.

I don't care if someone takes the piss out of Winnie the Pooh, mind you. It's more that I think it's bad comedy, way past it's sell-by-date. It was funny when Peter Jackson did it in the 80s. I doubt this is anything worth seeing.

 

[Totenkindly]

Wait this was real, and not just a shitty stale meme?

Yes, it is real. And they are making more. I think they were talking about a Tinkerbell film or something.

I don't care if someone takes the piss out of Winnie the Pooh, mind you. It's more that I think it's bad comedy, way past it's sell-by-date. It was funny when Peter Jackson did it in the 80s. I doubt this is anything worth seeing.

No idea. Critically it completely bombed, but someone watched it enough to make three million or something.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yes, it is real. And they are making more. I think they were talking about a Tinkerbell film or something.

No idea. Critically it completely bombed, but someone watched it enough to make three million or something.

 

[The Cat]

If it makes you feel any better, you're kind of living in your own real life horror movie: "In a world where nostalgia is marketed as a horror concept; one man must come face to face with a new wave of analogue horror. From the Studio who brought you 2020, and its ramped up sequel 2021 and visionary director Jordan Peele coming this October:

Literally Anything.
"Nothing is safe."

 

[Totenkindly]

Deepfake video is revolutionizing our reality... maybe not in a great way.

 

[Totenkindly]

This is all amusing -- auctions for props from EEAAO.

Mementos from the Multiverse

The Daniels took everything and put it on a bagel, and now we're giving it to you. From Raccacoonie to the stunt double from the Rockverse, pick what you want to bring into your reality.

a24auctions.com

Raccacoonie = $60K so far
Next highest = Buttplug award, $7500.