Random Movie Thoughts Thread

[Totenkindly]

Actually, "Beau is Afraid" was kind of exhilarating in how unpredictable and bonkers it was. Talk about just throwing caution to the wind, not trying to appeal to the audience, and just creating the craziest ride possible. It wasn't going to win any awards, but there will never be another film like it.


EDIT: Here was my original comments about the film. I think it's been about 10 months and I might be ready to commit to another watch, lol. Intellectually fascinating, I didn't feel as emotionally engaged on first view but Aster is just batting for the fences without a care in the world. I still chuckle remember the audience response when I saw it in the theater -- at the end a lot of people were confused or pissed off, which for whatever reason makes me smile. I wonder how the theater audience responded to the end of Villeneuve's "Enemy," as it's a similar out-of-left-field moment.

Random Movie Thoughts Thread

We're in the obligatory attempt to revive monster movies while super heroes fall out of fashion. Buckle up for a lot of Classic Monsters re-envisioned. If we have another mummy, can we do without that stupid double-pupil thing? I feel like you shouldn't just be allowed to add random attributes...

www.typologycentral.com

 

[Totenkindly]

Watched Wonka this morning. Left with a mildly positive feeling about the film. IOW, I'm left with not really having anything to badmouth regarding it, and there's some general positivity around it, but it's not one that really made me feel anything much either until the end.

Some general thoughts:

• One thing it excels with is tone -- it never breaks tone or feels like a movie trying to be another movie.
• They also don't waste time explaining how Wonka can do what he can do, there's just some kind of magical / expected level of magic involved.
• Wonka is a hopeful young protagonist, not the more cynical acerbic one that Wilder popularized. This is both good and bad. It's pleasant but kind of milquetoast in some ways. But hey we're talking about the Paddington guy, right?
• It's a film that appeals mainly to younger viewers, although adults won't want to kill themselves having to sit through it.
• Chalamet is a decent singer and dancer, easily adequate, but not really outstanding. This is nothing like Moulin Rouge, where both Kidman and McGregor can act, dance, AND sing at an incredible level, or a TV show like "Smash" where your leads can both act and sing/dance. He can carry a tune and remains on pitch, and has a nice timber to it when he relaxes it, and he was fine enough to do the choreography, but nothing that makes you perk up your ears or eyes. (I guess I can say he's worlds above Russell Crowe, at least.)
• The songs are okay and some are ALMOST catchy, but you probably won't remember them 12 hours later. I think "Smash" had catchier original tunes.
• Most of the known-name actors are playing characters they could play in their sleep -- so they excel at them, but nothing unexpected here. Coleman and Atkinson stand out.
• The "oompa loompa" cast hiring of Hugh Grant instead of a little person seems to be a nothing-burger here because they aren't even little-person size as they were in the first film from the 70's -- the oompa loompas here are about 8-12" tall. (Honestly in the film it looks more like 1.5 feet, but you get my drift.) Anyone could be cast because they were going to be digitally shrunk to a size that almost no one exists at. I think the smallest person ever recorded was only a bit below 2'.
• It's almost a fairy-tale like tone presentation, just set more around 1910 or something?

Which is why I was surprised I started crying near the very end of the film, when one of the character arcs intersects in a totally unexpected way with one of the most beloved songs from the 70's version coupled with my love of libraries. I didn't even know I was engaged emotionally, and suddenly I couldn't hold back tears. So ... for whatever that is worth. I just wish the earlier parts of the film had generated so much emotion.

 

[Polaris]

I go to the cinema almost every weekend, and "Beau is Afraid" and "Wonka" were two of my absolute favorite films of 2023. If I were to criticize "Beau is Afraid" at all, I would just note that the pacing was too slow at several points in the movie. It felt like there were things that should have been cut or condensed. As for "Wonka," the only thing that bothered me--and I didn't notice this until the second time I watched it--was that there was at least one moment where it felt like the film's writer was being slightly clumsy about driving home the backstory between Wonka and his mother. There's a scene where, before we get the actual backstory, Wonka somewhat unnaturally says something to himself along the lines of, "This is for you, Momma." It came across as a mildly clumsy way of trying to give the story heart. Other than that, I loved both films.

 

[Totenkindly]

Rewatched Whiplash (2013) tonight. as a musician, I feel such a range of emotions when I watch this film, and the sound/film editing is just phenomenal.

It really raises questions about what kind of pressure is motivational vs destructive, and how much obsession is helpful vs harmful to the human psyche. Fletcher is kind of a mixed bag, venturing solidly into abusive for parts of the film. I think the ambiguity makes the film stronger, because sometimes his coarse behavior seems calculated but at the same time you can't just dismiss his natural anger -- he seems to enjoy lashing out and hurting others, although his motivation is unclear as to why he can dive so deeply into that. (There's that horrible scene with the three drummers competing over double-time, and Fletcher later admits Connelly was only there as a goad for Andrew, although at the time it wasn't clear.) You can't vindicate him or exonerate him, and certainly one can blame him.

Both he and Andrew are obsessive -- Andrew, in proving his value, being known, proving his worth, in a world where his father never rose to any prominence nor seems to challenge him much and his mother abandoned him at a young age, Fletcher in proving his worth as a teacher by producing a student who becomes one of the greats and feeling like he contributed something to that. It's like NEITHER of them feels good enough, and Fletcher directs that frustration and anger at others to fill his own emptiness but also hope he succeeds, while Andrew jettisons everything in his life that might get in the way of his proving his own value and avoiding the emptiness of being unknown and (in his mind) average.

How obsessive do you have to be to become excellent? What levels of excellence are worth any cost? Is this really the price of being a great or can you get there in other ways without such extreme conflict and flagellation?

I get the discouragement angle. Fletcher says at one point that if someone is a great, they won't become discouraged and quit; instead, they will rise to the occasion. So this is essentially a winnowing process by which those with less ambition will be screened out, while only the truly passionate and committed will bear up under it. I know I was discouraged a lot when I was young, and as I got older actually bearing up under discouragement and roadblocks is a big deal of success. But how many of those roadblocks should be incidental, and how much should be personal and purposefully like what FLetcher is doing to others? How many "decent" musicians did he drive away from music in his hopes of just finding that one "great" individual?

I think it's important to note that although Fletcher tries to humiliate Andrew in that last sequence (I think he does it TO push him but also out of revenge and because he's angry with him), Andrew almost gives up but then determines to come back and takes control of the stage from Fletcher (which shows confidence, drive, and persistence), and this pisses Fletcher off initially -- the two of them always butt heads and seem to get off getting in each other's faces -- but as he realizes Andrew is really in this and is excelling, he warms up and actually accepts it... and then when Andrew launches into his drum solo, Fletcher realizes he's finally found the real deal and actually starts supporting and teaching him rather than dragging him down. He's such a mixed bag.

That drum solo is pretty amazing, and some of the easier-sounding stuff is actually difficult -- like how he manages to keep time while slowing down and then eventually speeding up (after being exhausted/trembling) with the single tap of his drum sticks for; it slows and speeds at the same rate, and then he holds it for a bit steady as a clock. It's actually hard to keep time as constant as a metronome does, we're not machines after all. One of the hardest things I did when doing piano work was playing scales and arpeggios while keeping time exactly -- if any of your fingers are weaker/stronger or more/less flexible than others, it can create problems. This is something rhythm musicians have to practice.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think people who post fake trailers on YouTube should receive a life sentence.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think people who post fake trailers on YouTube should receive a life sentence.

Yeah, I saw one yesterday, probably for Jurassic whatever 4. It was clearly a fraud but was portrayed as the real thing for a film that wasn't coming out until at least next Summer and not with that cast. I think there were also a few fake Deadpool trailers floating around.

People are so annoying.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yeah I was reading the room on this and it was how I was feeling too -- and then saw the film is getting lots of flak for this same reason. I don't know whether it's justified on terms of the quality of the film (and Bill Skarsgard is a great actor), but... Bruce Lee is still held in high reverence, and this filters over to Brandon, and Brandon died making this film and... no one really wants to see a remake for that reason.

Maybe they could have played off the story to do something else, but not a remake?

Original ‘The Crow’ Director Disavows Remake: ‘Brandon Lee Died Making’ the Film and It ‘Should Remain’ His ‘Legacy’

Alex Proyas, the director of 1994's 'The Crow,' has disavowed the remake starring Bill Skarsgård: 'Brandon Lee died making it. ... It is his legacy.'

variety.com

 

[misanthropex6]

Nefarious 2023: A movie about demonic possession... kinda. It's a psychiatrist going to avaliate an inmate fit for execution. Arriving there, the doctor finds out the hard way that the inmate is actually possessed by a Nefarious demon, very idealistic and bestial (an obvious beta quadra thinker, SLE) with some ambitious and brutal objectives. Worth a watch.

 

[misanthropex6]

Super Dark Times (2017): A teenage drama movie with a touch of crime and horror. Not worth a watch unless you have time to spare. Josh and Zach are friends, they hang out together with some other school friends (Daryl and Charlie). One day, they decide to visit Josh's brother bedroom, who went away with the army, and they take a Katana of his bedroom to slash some milk boxes in the forest. Daryl steals some weed from Josh's brother bedroom and Josh gets mad, and an accident happens. Later on in the movie, Zach finds out some dark shit about Josh. Josh is a classic ILI, and Zach is a SEI.

 

[Totenkindly]

Rewatched Arrival (2016) again today, reminding me why it's one of my favorite-ever films. Unique visual and sound design, exploring the brainier parts of sci-fi while have a strong human element at core. It's too bad Amy Adams never got an Oscar nom (I think the Meryl Streep nom for Florence Foster Jenkins was pretty lame, that year), despite noms in all the other manor awards (and she did win Best Actress from National Board of Review) and unfortunately the competition was too fierce for the film in general, with La La Land and a variety of decent performances in other films sucking most of the air out of the room. (That was the year Kubo had to compete with Zootopia as well.)

It's vintage Villeneuve with his standard eerie / stark visuals and color palette, and he's focused on the ideas rather than action. I also find it reminiscent of the best twist movies, because it is edited in such a way that the audience makes assumptions without even realizing assumptions have been made -- until a late story gut punch spins everything on its head. Maybe it's generally a story about the difficulty in establishing communication with a race very different from humans, but it's also the story of a woman living a dreary predictable life learning how to fully embrace living. Life is such a hodgepodge, and taking the good and bad is part of feeling like you are alive.

I think a really great part is, despite our connection with humanity and how incomprehensible "Abbott & Costello" seem, there are moments of heroism -- like when the "incident" is about to occur and Costello takes off to minimize the losses while Abbott remains to continue communicating and even protecting Louise and Ian. It reinforces that the heptapods are also invested in this discourse and are willing to make sacrifices to help their own people, just like the humans are taking risks from their side -- and the visitors only withdraw enough to protect themselves but do not bail on the talks. Lesser films would have taken a less-nuanced direction.

 

[The Cat]

Rewatched Arrival (2016) again today, reminding me why it's one of my favorite-ever films. Unique visual and sound design, exploring the brainier parts of sci-fi while have a strong human element at core. It's too bad Amy Adams never got an Oscar nom (I think the Meryl Streep nom for Florence Foster Jenkins was pretty lame, that year), despite noms in all the other manor awards (and she did win Best Actress from National Board of Review) and unfortunately the competition was too fierce for the film in general, with La La Land and a variety of decent performances in other films sucking most of the air out of the room. (That was the year Kubo had to compete with Zootopia as well.)

It's vintage Villeneuve with his standard eerie / stark visuals and color palette, and he's focused on the ideas rather than action. I also find it reminiscent of the best twist movies, because it is edited in such a way that the audience makes assumptions without even realizing assumptions have been made -- until a late story gut punch spins everything on its head. Maybe it's generally a story about the difficulty in establishing communication with a race very different from humans, but it's also the story of a woman living a dreary predictable life learning how to fully embrace living. Life is such a hodgepodge, and taking the good and bad is part of feeling like you are alive.

I think a really great part is, despite our connection with humanity and how incomprehensible "Abbott & Costello" seem, there are moments of heroism -- like when the "incident" is about to occur and Costello takes off to minimize the losses while Abbott remains to continue communicating and even protecting Louise and Ian. It reinforces that the heptapods are also invested in this discourse and are willing to make sacrifices to help their own people, just like the humans are taking risks from their side -- and the visitors only withdraw enough to protect themselves but do not bail on the talks. Lesser films would have taken a less-nuanced direction.

Ive been thinking I need to rewatch that film, did you stream it or do you own it?

 

[Totenkindly]

Ive been thinking I need to rewatch that film, did you stream it or do you own it?

I own it in 4K. Although I think that also gave me a copy on Vudu or MoviesAnywhere, maybe.

Streaming video (4K) is in a really great place right now.

However, streaming audio is greatly lacking -- I've noted this by comparing streaming vs the 4K disc audio (I first recognized it on GotG2), and I recently read articles saying the same thing confirming my observations. If you're serious about film, disc is still the best way to go. [So for Arrival, if you're serious about the sound palette -- this film won an Oscar for Sound Editing, it's an important part of the film -- you'll watch on disc.]

Also, all the recent shenanigans with streamers basically now becoming the new cable moguls (with expensive monthly pricing and ad tiers) along with how we've now seen they can just pull stuff off even if you had purchased rights to it (anime specifically, but also in general) and you'll lose access to it -- well, I no longer trust them. If you own the physical media, it is yours. Otherwise who knows what could happen tomorrow? Anyone serious about film curation will own physical media.

 

[The Cat]

I own it in 4K. Although I think that also gave me a copy on Vudu or MoviesAnywhere, maybe.

Streaming video (4K) is in a really great place right now.

However, streaming audio is greatly lacking -- I've noted this by comparing streaming vs the 4K disc audio (I first recognized it on GotG2), and I recently read articles saying the same thing confirming my observations. If you're serious about film, disc is still the best way to go. [So for Arrival, if you're serious about the sound palette -- this film won an Oscar for Sound Editing, it's an important part of the film -- you'll watch on disc.]

Also, all the recent shenanigans with streamers basically now becoming the new cable moguls (with expensive monthly pricing and ad tiers) along with how we've now seen they can just pull stuff off even if you had purchased rights to it (anime specifically, but also in general) and you'll lose access to it -- well, I no longer trust them. If you own the physical media, it is yours. Otherwise who knows what could happen tomorrow? Anyone serious about film curation will own physical media.

Thank God Someone else noticed, I say this to people irl and they look at me like Im a street corner preacher with a sign.

 

[Totenkindly]

I saw this posted somewhere in response to "the saddest scene in a movie or TV series".

I don't know if it's the ultimate saddest (I've seen some really sad shite) but ... it's definitely up there / heartbreaking.

 

[The Cat]

The Secret of NIMH Is pretty dang good. You should watch it. Especially if you like High Adventure Fantasy.

The Speaker in the Hall of Council speaks only lies.

He shall plot in secret and lead others astray into darkness.

He shall betray his brothers and sisters with sadistic glee. Commited to evil action he commands loyalty by threatening violence.

His greed shall be his undoing. The Green fires of envy already stoked by murder, blaze bright and his mask of civility is torn away in a defining moment of bestial savagery.
The Captain of the Guard and the Court Chamberlain intervene.
The Betrayer is betrayed in the midst of attempting to stab the Captain of the Guard in the back instead meets his death by a dagger in the back thrown by his co conspirator dying from the betrayers blade. Both conspirators lie dead in the mud, one repentant villain who dies redeemed and the other, a green eyed monster, damned, just one more dead rat on a giant's farmland.

Jenner has been the most infuential villain in my story vaults. The standard by which all other villains are judged in my mind. The secret of NIMH. This was my favorite thing in childhood. It's a great high adventure sword and sorcery fantasy told from the perspective of animals on a farm. This story is my emergency D&D campaign. The one I would whip out on the fly for a group of really creative and talented roleplayers. I would make the Farmer Fitzgivens a non malicious Cloud Giant wealthy farmer, and his farmland would be filled with tiny(regular sized) people whom the giant was barely aware of outside of thinking of them like his version of rats and mice. The Great Owl is the Wise old Dragon who lives in the heart of the dark forest. And Dragon the cat is the giant's "pet" dragon, which I would 1,000% make a Cat dragon subtype of dragon.

Which arguably they already have, but mine would be floofy.
​

But Secret of NIMH really did the villain right. He was a high ranking respected member of his society; he was secretly rotten to the core, though he clearly feels 100% justified in everything he does and thinks and feels. He sees himself as right and everyone else as less than. He's not afraid to get his hands dirty. He hates the laid back handsome guard captain who he seems to see as the embodiment of everything he holds in contempt. Friendly, humble, loyal, obedient, "funny". Two things we can take from the second shared scene: He KNOWS he's going to get away with this. And He KNOWS at some point he's going to tell Justin, to see the hurt and betrayal in his eyes before he kills him.

I personally think that Nicodemus saw his death at Jenner's hand and gave the stone to Jonathan Brisby's widow because he knew it would be Jenner's downfall. He says at much in his journal at the beginning. When he's apologizing to Jonathan for what he's about to put his widow through. Jonathan's presence is felt throughout the movie, and this movie does an interesting thing of having the chosen one hero of the realm, dead prior to the start of the film and what the audience gets is how the rest of the world moves on and how the friends and family of the hero move on. It gives the world a depth and size that would otherwise be lacking. Time exists here and the world is moving on. The breaking down machinery of the farm symbolize this well.

The Rats of NIMH are to the rest of the small creatures much like the people of the mounds seem to be to Irish Mythology. They guard their secrets from all the other small creatures and the rats seem just as mythical and terrifying to the other small creatures as the great owl himself. I could literally talk about this movie forever in my final form, but for now this is where I'll just stop.

 

[Totenkindly]

Caitlyn Jenner is one of my villains too.

 

[Totenkindly]

I rewatched a few films recently.

One was Enemy, by Villeneuve. You can see the core of the book he loosely adapted it from ("The Double"). This is the second time I have seen it, and it's pretty short at 90 minutes, so that's good. Shot impeccable with Villeneuve's trademark tone (he usually works from a restricted palette even if a particular color dominates -- I would say Enemy is kind of a parchment/beigish-yellow film), and Gyllenhaal really carries this film although Sarah Gadon (as the "double's pregnant wife") is just superb as well. It's kind of surreal in that you can't really pin down how "real" it is versus just events happening within one subconscious. Most people get hung up on the last 10 seconds of the film, which can cast people off-guard but makes more sense if you deconstruct the film and its lead character's view of women and the spider imagery. Also, you have to listen and watch carefully to not overlook certain details. It's not Villeneuve's best film, but that's pretty much like saying something was not Picasso's best painting honestly. His "worst" films are better than some other director's "best".

I rewatched the last two GOTG films. I still do feel like the third movie was a step back in that a lot of the humor didn't work very well, and the music often did not have the same sense of nostalgia that saturated the first two films. The plotting sometimes did not have the same impetus as the careful construction of the first two films and their pacing. However, it was very strong in character beats -- the whole Rocket backstory, the tortured relationship between Gamora and Quill, and the final resolution for everyone's arc. A lesser film would have settled on far easier answers especially for Quill and alt-Gamora, and while this outcome hurt on some level (we didn't get the resolution we might have emotionally wanted), it felt so right, fair, and honest -- and proper. Loss and recovering from loss often feels that way.

But I think the first two films were much funnier while still having meaningful beats, and the music was overall more resonant.

This morning I finished Inception again. I appreciate this film in how the ending leaves me sobbing every time, coupled with the catharsis for Fisher. It must be resonating with some hole in my own heart, to see Cobb's ending, despite much of the film being handled so cerebrally. It's also weird watching Elliot Page in this film (in his old incarnation) and the plight of people suffering under trans identities before transitioning. No one who saw this film would have suspected what he was dealing with, because you're just trying to make your life work IF YOU CAN without living in complete misery... and so maybe he seemed to be doing okay, but inside he was miserable and it all felt like playing a role. Ariadne is also so important in this film, with the subtext that somehow Cobb is undergoing inception himself (either from an outside party or self-incepting) to work through his guilt over his wife's death; the character is very much a therapist nudging and pushing him forward to voice what he has been hiding inside for so long, and then face it, and make decisions to move ahead. I also kept an eye on Cobb's hand -- it's almost like a game -- and really his totem seems to be his wedding ring, although he pretends it's Mal's top (and in the end, he abandons the latter as well).

 

[Totenkindly]

 

[Totenkindly]

Halfway through Ghostbusters: Afterlife finally.

I only really see one fault with it (aside from the debate about the setting change), and that's that the pace is really slow for the first half of the film. It's finally starting to pick up, but boy did it take awhile. Some of the material could have been cut or shortened.

However, the characters are being established well. Carrie Coons and Paul Rudd are a nice match -- her humor style is sardonic and very dry, and his is smart and unflustered, so it never drops into a cutting/adversarial relationship but remains playful. The two kids are believable as you-know-who's grandkids, and the other new character or two of interest help flesh things out.

I think Podcast and Phoebe have a fun team going, and seeing them get the equipment together and figure out how to use it reminds me of my days growing up where my parents didn't know what we were doing out in the rural area and we were just exploring, building things, and getting into shit. Looking forward to seeing if the film ends decently.

It does remind one how poorly the 2016 "reboot" was conceived. Regardless of one's feelings about Afterlife, it actually honors the popular first incarnation of the team and builds off it rather than trying to destroy or replace it. The 2016 reboot tried to replace it, and worse with an inferior product so to speak -- the characters and writing wasn't nearly as strong. Ghostbusters was never Shakespeare, but it was unique and fit in a particular footprint of American 80's culture so you can't just overwrite it.

EDIT: Second half. Mixed feelings. I thought the little Stay Pufts in Wal-Mart were actually pretty funny, but I could have done without the other rehash. However, it leaves an opening to really combine past and present together, so.... I get what they were going for. However, it felt too derivative. There might have a little too sentimentality in the end, although I was moved by a woman who finally did get confirmation her dad loved her.

At least Ray got the FREAKING ANSWER right this time to "Are you a God??" This is still a running joke in our RPG campaigns.

The mid/after credit scenes were okay.... although I could have sworn someone said the firehouse had been made into a Starbucks.

 

[Totenkindly]