Random Movie Thoughts Thread

[Totenkindly]

My cat just caught me talking shit about the movie and is extremely angry at me. He saw the film about 20 times in theaters.

Oh, I was just thinking of the "traditional hand-drawn" stuff. But the vast majority of these films you mentioned, I haven't seen.

I just counted stuff from Disney Animation Studios, but ignored other labels including PIxar.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Gandalf looks like Jackie Chun with his shirt off.

That's Not Jackie Chan.

 

[The Cat]

That's Not Jackie Chan.

Jackie Chun isnt Jackie Chan either. It's Master Roshi without the sunglasses.

 

[The Cat]

What I love abouut Jack Nicholson's The Joker touches on what I love about Michael Keaton's Batman.
Jack's Joker is an artist who happened to be a gangster. His obsession with Batman is a love hate born in this presentation not out of "queer coding the Joker"(which definitely works, but that's a conversation for another post). But rather he hates Batman for getting in his way and being part of what made him. But at the same time. Batman set him free. He's no longer bound to the mere role of gangster. He's an artist who's going to recast the world into his aesthetic. Gotham City is his canvas and crime is the brush. I think this Joker would definitely kill batman. And I think that its fine and even good for the Joker to want to kill Batman. I appreciate the philosophy that later incarnations of the joker do not want to kill batman, for this that and the other, and I'll accept it as legitimate, however I mostly believe that little bugaboo exists with other incarnations of the joker because of how they're marketed to children, and in later years, the profitability of batman comics going on and the hero cant die etc etc. There's nothing wrong with it, but I wish we had room in the dc world for more stories from Gotham City featuring a dead batman.

But tangets aside, I like that this Joker was an artist a man reinvinting himself as one chapter of his life comes to a close, rather than mourn the loss of his youth and face and looking like a clown in societies eyes. He didnt let other people's expectaions define him nor his work, and that's what makes him a great artist. And you just can't really say that about the other Jokers.
The animated Jokers are in a class by themselves and will be discussed in a later post.
Heath Ledger was a fantastic Joker for the times, but his joker I feel was in potentially some not great ways, too relatable. Too much of a philosopher. The sad clown if you will. I think Heath LEger tapped into an aspect of himself that he couldnt live with. MAy he rest in peace. Still I would classify this Joker as a sign of the times a "fantatical terrorist who didnt care about life" I have a lot of struggles with the Nolan trilogy personally, but it was a sign of the times for certain. I dont think its a coincidence that this joker got used as sort of a rallying cry for disaffected weirdos to cut lose more. But is it life imitating art or art imitating life, or is it all just a flat circle? Jared Leto's Joker...got done dirty. I don't know what Warner Bros was thinking, but I suspect it included: "write a joker the audience won't want the movie to focus on." Which, that's practically impossible these days, but they found as close to that as could be managed in a live action. (perhaps until this newest Joker, but more on that later.)

The Joker that is a curse. This is for Gotham's Jerome and Jeramiah Velaska who may have most perfectly embodied the way I see the Joker. As an idea that lurks in the darker parts of everyone. The idea that a monster lives inside not just an abused child who grows up in the circus, but also inside everyone, and there's all sorts of ways it can manifest, but the Joke is on all of us, because we're all the Joke and the Joker. However, due to Warner Bros's utterly insane merchandising issues, they couldnt call the joker the joker so they ended the series.

Arthur Fleck or the Joker from a parallel world. This movie is an art piece. It was well done, and is just as much a commentary on what the Joker has been to modern society as it is about lonliness and child abuse and lack of mental healthcare. I'd hponeslty like to see other villains get this treatment, but I dont know if any one of them could exist as anything but stand alone movies.

Poor Jared Leto, he needs to study how Daniel Day Lewis takes roles. Poor guy just keeps taking hits in the comic book movie world. I dont think the new guy is gonna have that problem. We're about to get a new Joker who could be the most twisted one portrayed yet, but I still think Jack Napier will always be the king of movie jokers.​

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

Interesting choice. I'll check it out.​

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Interesting choice. I'll check it out.​

Gaga's acting does not seem up to snuff with Phoenix's, IMO. What do you think?

I like the further evolution of the Joker character, though.

 

[Totenkindly]

So I decided to give my son my Criterion bluray of "The Silence of the Lambs" and upgrade to the non-Criterion 4K, based on the reviews of the image transfer I read.

I'm sad to lose the Criterion casing and the book that came with it -- and honestly for a blu-ray it's a really great transfer of the film. THe early transfers/releases were adequate but not the greatest, even when it got to blu-ray. The Criterion blu-ray was mastered (into 2K) from a remastered 4K base and it really shows, it is one of the best blu-ray upgrades I've seen when watching films, both sound and visual.

But I just watched the 4K version that Kino Lorber put out (which I think used the SAME 4K master that Criterion based its release on, except it stays in native 4K here) and I'm really blown away. It's like watching the film new. A great transfer for a great film. The TSotL color palette itself was always muted and grayish as an artistic choice, it's not supposed to be popping with color; but this transfer basically brings out the natural colors in the film that were actually missing, with balanced black, and it's like watching something you didn't quite realize was even in color before. Just astonishing. Clarisse's brown hair has hints of red in it, her coat going into Littman's house is a unique shade of dark green, and so on. There are actual reds later in the film (and not blood) that I never remember seeing before. You can also distinctly hear low sounds that definitely were difficult or missing on DVD and early blurays, it's like hearing additional elements of the film. This transfer actually matches with the quality of the acting, writing, and directing.

Demme really does a lot with a little in this film. There is little glitz, no real CGI, nothing weird, all practical, and it really depends on the writing, acting, cinematography, directing, and sound/music. A solid piece of craftsmanship when such things were valued. Even the occasional location titles a little bit like a throwback to the 70's to me.

 

[Totenkindly]

So the first moment of truth:

Went through some of the reviews -- it kinda seems like it really splits the crowd and might end up being a "personal satisfaction" thing versus anything quantifiably terrible or great. The reviews are all over the place. There's some gushers and some real haters, with some substance to the praises and complaints.

For example compare the following high praise:

• "With the possible exception of 2017’s “Thor: Ragnarok,” Marvel hasn’t gotten as consistently funny and light-hearted as it does in “The Marvels,” director Nia DaCosta’s rollicking and charmingly ridiculous variation on Marvel’s superhero action genre"
• "In an era where the Marvel Cinematic Universe frequently shuttles between multiverse escapades and interplanetary conflicts, Nia DaCosta‘s "The Marvels" emerges as a breath of fresh air."

to the following knife-twisters:

• "A solid contender for the worst Marvel film yet ... To say The Marvels is hard to watch would be to risk understatement. It’s not just that it’s not very good. It is hard to watch in the sense that a tree is hard to defibrillate"
• "It brings me absolutely no joy to report that “The Marvels” is terrible, and the worst film yet in the Marvel Cinematic Universe."

So maybe look at the middle of the road comments: "The Marvels is far from the best Marvel Studios has to offer, but it's difficult not to get swept up in its infectious energy... to a point."

The second moment of truth will be after the weekend, seeing the audience score -- although it's going to slanted towards it being good (most likely) because at this point only people expecting it to be good will go see it and everyone else will wait for home video.

Regardless of where it ends up, the main problem is that you don't want this response for a $200 million plus budget film. Maybe $40 million, this is okay, but... yeah, this is likely going to be an anchor around Disney's neck in terms of financial loss. The opening weekend figures have been downgraded repeatedly and has gone as low as $50 million, from an original $75 expectation.

 

[The Cat]

They need to get back into practical effects. Special effects are great, but they can't carry a film or a franchise.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

They need to get back into practical effects. Special effects are great, but they can't carry a film or a franchise.

Practical effects don't work if there's not enough vision or creativity behind them either. Really, that's what's needed; creativity seems like an endangered concept and instead we get continuations that are nothing but exercises in just how self-referential the filmmakers can make things, to the extent that the movie is about the audience's perspective and the POV of the characters is unimportant.

 

[The Cat]

Practical effects don't work if there's not enough vision or creativity behind them either. Really, that's what's needed; creativity seems like an endangered concept and instead we get continuations that are nothing but exercises in just how self-referential the filmmakers can make things, to the extent that the movie is about the audience's perspective and the POV of the characters is unimportant.

Thats why I think they should make more a come back. These days when you see them you get these usually both.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Thats why I think they should make more a come back. These days when you see them you get these usually both.

It's interesting to learn how they made it.

But in theory, you could do really cool things with CGI, if you have an imagination.

 

[The Cat]

It's interesting to learn how they made it.

But in theory, you could do really cool things with CGI, if you have an imagination.

Its just so expensive. BTW did you ever get a chance to check out Residue or The Void? You and @Doctor Cringelord I think would really enjoy them. Theyre two of my favorites.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Its just so expensive. BTW did you ever get a chance to check out Residue or The Void? You and @Doctor Cringelord I think would really enjoy them. Theyre two of my favorites.

No, I don't think so. The Void sounds vaguely familiar. You should watch Beyond the Black Rainbow if you haven't already (I don't know how similar it is to those, I just really like it).

 

[Totenkindly]

Thats why I think they should make more a come back. These days when you see them you get these usually both.

It's kinda why I really liked The Creator. Yes, there's some tropey elements and stuff that is more about how you feel about what is happening than necessarily being as rational as it might have been, but it really felt like Edwards had an actual vision for his film, and it was an $80 million dollar film that felt like it was made on twice that budget. I mean, Rogue One has a lot of heart and pathos in it as well. I am hoping it does super-well on streaming and home sales. Please give us more of this stuff.

You can see it most easily in horror pictures, maybe. They can be made really cheaply so it's mainly about look and feel and vision and creative approaches, not as attached to money -- unless it's one of those shitty franchise bigger budget horror films.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

People are blaming wokeism or sexism on diminishing returns of superhero films, but maybe people are just tired of them after more than 15 years. I think the culture of movies is going to see a big shift in the next few years. Already sorta happening, but I think smaller, more intimate films are going to make a comeback--not that they ever really went away. Something like the new Hollywood of the late 60s to mid 70s. Of course streaming has also changed the landscape a lot.

 

[Totenkindly]

Welp, first the "good" about “The Marvels” -- its RT percentage climbed to 61%. It's more cosmetic, because it looks "not rotten" now, although 55->61% is still in that middling area.

The bad?

"The Marvels" began its domestic box office run with just $6.6 million in Thursday preview grosses. That compares to the $20.7 million which “Captain Marvel” earned via advance-night showings in early 2019, which led to a $155 million opening weekend. A similar Thursday-to-weekend split (13.3%) would give the MCU action fantasy just $49.6 million for the weekend.

As noted, no one really asking for this film, the SAG strike preventing the actors from doing publicity rounds, the arguments over superhero fatigue, and so on all seemed to have helped create disinterest in the film so its quality would not even matter. Which is a shame in one regard, since from what I saw of the Ms. Marvel TV show, Iman Vellani is really decent (almost on a Miles Morales level) in terms of the energy and likeability she brings to the screen and she really deserved better. I also don't know how well Tayonah Parris was in this film, but she's really great -- I was dying watching her in "Who Cloned Tyrone?" She deserves better as well.

People are blaming wokeism or sexism on diminishing returns of superhero films, but maybe people are just tired of them after more than 15 years. I think the culture of movies is going to see a big shift in the next few years. Already sorta happening, but I think smaller, more intimate films are going to make a comeback--not that they ever really went away. Something like the new Hollywood of the late 60s to mid 70s. Of course streaming has also changed the landscape a lot.

Well, it's definitely not the "next big thing" -- there was such a newness and anticipation about these films 15 years ago, after a decade or more of superhero films where either the CGI and/or writing just wasn't really up to par. Blockbusters themselves are often failing and/or not doing as well as normal, aside from the unexpected ones like Barbie or Oppenheimer. (Like, would any of these viewers crack a history book about the guy in their spare time? But hey, we'll all go see him in IMAX because Chris Nolan did the film! Go figure.)

Definitely the last 2-3 years has been an "Indie" time. Part of it was COVID, small budget / cheap / isolated films were part of it. Also is the maturation of streaming, so it's no longer about the cinematic experience but home viewing. I'm really surprised "Everything Everywhere All at Once" got so much attention early in the year last year and went on to such public acclaim -- that's basically an Indie film that everyone watched.

It hasn't helped that Disney tried to take the MCU to TV streaming but were basically handing out blank checks to any random person without any creative control. They also overexpanded their properties to create things most viewers weren't invested in. (I don't like busting on "The Eternals" -- that movie has actually grown on me, over time -- but no one really knew or cared about the characters. Introducing "Black Knight" at the end? Only the Avengers readers know the character.) Disney should have still exhibited some focus on the properties they were exploring and not have just started pitching things in left and right -- and they needed a better story map. Instead it was pure chaos. The writing and production was not up to the same quality as MCU films through Phase 3.

They also forgot that substantial character moments matter. The TV shows had character moments but it was mundane nattering stuff that was inconsequential -- shows about nothing, with no lingering outcomes really commensurate with the amount of viewing time spent. Some of the films were totally a waste of time (like DS2) -- there's no story there that needed to be told, and none of the plotlines really mattered. It felt like Disney was considering everything a money machine, incapable of failure, and were just testing out new people on their properties rather than having them prove themselves on smaller less costly and visible projects ahead of time. The result is there's very little emotion invested in any of the post-Phase 3 character development.

There are these rumors of bringing back Tony Stark and Chris Evans. That would be a huge mistake and undermine some of their best stories. They actually have an opportunity to scrap some of the failures with the soft-reset from Loki Season 2, and maybe that's the best way to go. Junk a lot of this stuff, get coherent again, and scale back expectation. Focus on quality. And not expect so much from superheroes after they milked so much money from Thanos. It's like the Internet book of the 90's. We're now in post-Thanos era. Superheroes aren't going to bring in as much money for Disney, and there are frankly edgier and better written superhero shows on Amazon and other streamers.

 

[The Cat]

People are blaming wokeism or sexism on diminishing returns of superhero films, but maybe people are just tired of them after more than 15 years. I think the culture of movies is going to see a big shift in the next few years. Already sorta happening, but I think smaller, more intimate films are going to make a comeback--not that they ever really went away. Something like the new Hollywood of the late 60s to mid 70s. Of course streaming has also changed the landscape a lot.

I'm ready for sword and sorcery to make a come back. I just need a break from cinematic universes.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I'm ready for sword and sorcery to make a come back. I just need a break from cinematic universes.

that's my thought, fantasy films might become popular. Although they don't have the best box office track record. Cinematic universes are tedious for me. I don't always want to have to watch 20 films to know what is going on or to understand every little easter egg and reference.

I think 2024 is going to be the year that the 2020s as we know them will really begin. 2020 arguably killed off the 2010s, but I think the period up until now has been a weird transitional phase in which people have been grasping at what was lost and culture has been trying to return to the world of 2019. Going to be a lot of trends dying off and an influx of the new (or regurgitations of long dead trends)