Random Movie Thoughts Thread

[Totenkindly]

Saw Thunderbolts* today.

I wasn't surprised at the tag end and finding out what the asterisks meant -- I wasn't really reading comics much during that time, but didn't something like that happen? Or if not, it was still pretty predictable.

Most Marvel films since Endgame, I'd give a C, D, or F too. This was a B or B-. It had some good ideas, it had one or two moments that actually led me to cry, and it tried to do something a bit different. On the other hand, I'm not sure how well the "bit different" panned out, since I was kind of indifferent by the end of the film regardless and probably wouldn't rewatch it.

I did appreciate what an asshole John Walker is, and the script / Wyatt Russell doesn't pull any punches in that regard. But I also felt there were a bunch of moments that were supposed to make the audience laugh, yet they kinda fell dead. I did LOL twice, I think, but the rest of the audience seemed disengaged.

The best setpiece is probably the fight against The Sentry, which is kind of terrifying because of how unstoppable such a character could be -- essentially Superman in a Marvel world. It makes the character a bit unviable for future appearances as well, aside from a Hail Mary moment. So, see where this got us? A team comprised of people with overlapping powers (three super-serum folks, a black widow, and a character that can disrupt electronics / turn invisible) -- there's not a lot of variety here. And another character who can't perform lest he destroy the world. Yeah.

There are still some great acting moments in this film -- mostly from Florence Pugh (once playing against David Harbour, who matches her), and there's also a great facial expression from Julia Louis-Dreyfuss at one point that captures a nuance of emotion, from a character who is mostly just a fast-talking face and annoying manipulator type. I think the acting moments that work are bigger than the script, which doesn't really have many leaks but doesn't set up many GOOD set pieces either and is mostly perfunctory/functional.

Of course there are end credits and they seem to be typical MCU shenanigans. I could have done without them honestly.

 

[Totenkindly]

Got the new transfer to 4K for "What Lies Beneath" (Zemeckis, with Pfeiffer and Ford).

As far as a transfer goes, I have mixed feelings. Some scenes (especially outdoors in bright lights) look much sharper than past releases, and you can actually hear breathing / quiet conversation that I don't think made it audibly into prior releases because the sound quality / data content is improved. However, other scenes look like they just got upscaled and while having a lot of grain also don't look as sharp as anticipated unfortunately.

The title is a perfect title for the film, it has so multiple meanings in this story.
The music scoring is decent, it accentuates the story well.
It's not the most perfect film but it has resonated with me over the years.
Very much a vehicle for Pfeiffer (she is the central figure), while Ford puts in a good supporting performance.

It's meant to be a Hitchcock homage in many ways, with the mystery unfolding of whether Claire's experiences are real or whether she's slowly losing her mind due to various stressors of the film. Also whether there's a murderer running about or whether there's an actual ghost involved (and a haunting of sorts). Diana Scarwid actually puts in a really nice performance as Claire's BFF -- a woman with a clear social veneer that seems rather superficial until a later scene in the movie that she just nails perfectly, it still lingers with me today.

I didn't really recognize James Remar in the film, he's a pretty solid looking and distinguished man; and it's got Miranda Otto shortly BEFORE she became world-known as Eowyn from Jackson's "The Two Towers."

The film very much feels like it is slowly constructing the central mystery brick by brick until the final brick is laid in the film's final moments.

Aside from the conventions of the genre, Zemeckis actually is very restrained with the ghost manifestations, which end up being very unnerving as a result. Just catching a glimpse there, a glimpse here (those are perhaps the best moments) -- until the final moments of the film when he hard-sells it. There's actually a name for this kind of ghost in folklore, and it's made it into early D&D / RPGs are well:

A revenant -- the spirit of a deceased person who returns to haunt the living, and sometimes even a vengeful spirit will not rest until their killer is brought to judgment, preferably by their own activity.

Revenants (folklore)

A Revenant is a corporeal ghost or zombie-like creature from folklore that was said to return from the grave to exact revenge upon the living or simply to terrorize people. In the original medieval tales, Revenants often returned from the grave simply to cause trouble for the living and could...

villains.fandom.com

D&D actually uses the latter definition of the vengeful spirit in the game and it very much matches the spirit in this film, down to the "paralyzing glare" feature. It might use Claire as a vehicle, but has no animosity towards Claire and in fact might even view her as a kin-sister to protect her from the same danger that resulted in the revenant's original death:

Revenant

Revenants were undead creatures that would rise from the dead to hunt down and slay their killers with unwavering zeal.[2][3] Appearing as decayed and emaciated versions of their once-living selves, revenants typically had open festering wounds and drawn, clammy skin covering their flesh. The...

forgottenrealms.fandom.com

So the special effects really don't kick in full-tilt until a brief bit at the end, but when they do it's unsettling and wonderful and horrifying. I think I like this for Zemeckis' restraint (versus him going nuts in many of his films otherwise).

 

[Riva]

Do you agree that Everything Everywhere All at Once deserved to win best picture?

It's the worst movie I've seen in while. I love sci fi. But this movie was shit.

 

[Totenkindly]

Do you agree that Everything Everywhere All at Once deserved to win best picture?

It's the worst movie I've seen in while. I love sci fi. But this movie was shit.

Respectfully, I 100% disagree with you.

Sorry you hated it so much.

It's not really a sci-fi film either. That's the superficial trappings.

 

[Riva]

Respectfully, I 100% disagree with you.

Sorry you hated it so much.

It's not really a sci-fi film either. That's the superficial trappings.

You believe it deserves the best picture Oscar? Even shawshank redemption didn't win any.

The theme is cliché, the action is cartoonish and the acting was, well I can't even remember that.

It's not a movie to remember.

I don't get why anyone would think it deserves an Oscar. But it's great you managed to enjoy it.

 

[Totenkindly]

You believe it deserves the best picture Oscar? Even shawshank redemption didn't win any.

Do you know how many good movies came out the same year Shawshank did? Shawshank had a slow start in the theater and was competing against other good films (like Four Weddings and a Funeral, and Pulp Fiction).

Let's face it, Best Picture is heavily influenced by what else has released that year -- plus voting campaigns. Not that good movies don't win, they seem to win at least half the time; but you also get lesser quality films like CODA that are really only about cable TV network quality but happen to be in the right place at the right time when no other films feel palatable to the academy.

The theme is cliché, the action is cartoonish and the acting was, well I can't even remember that.

It sounds like you were distracted by the surface veneer of the film while missing all of the underlying themes and the multi-staged character development of the protagonist. It's actually far more thought-provoking and insightful if you dig into it, it's just packaged in a way that I guess turned you off somehow.

It's not a movie to remember.

I will always remember it, even if you do not. It's actually pretty touching, it's really a story about a woman who lives in a box of her own making and has become bitter and obstinate, and it's blinded her to the good parts of life, in the process hurting her daughter and her husband. She is unable to see the world through their eyes and is numb to their own pain, and just doesn't understand why things are not working.

She goes through multiple layers of growth in the film, and just when you think she's learned the lesson she needs, you suddenly realize there's yet another plateau she needs to reach. For example, she remains herself while learning to fight for what she believes -- and then she comes to another stage of growth where she learns to see the world with her husband's eyes and changes what she is doing to deal with life's problems more like he does -- not to destroy and win but to empower the people around her. She learns to value his kindness not as a weakness but as a strength that is powerful in itself. That realization is transformative.

her relationship with Joy is also very multi-faceted and has incremental growths.

I think that shows the complexity of the film -- a lesser film would have stopped after one stage, the change needed would have been simplistic and obvious, but every time she grows, she suddenly realizes there is yet another level she needs to reach for.... resulting in her final transformation where she is grateful for what she has, values her husband (who she formerly saw as weak), and can rebuild her relationship with her daughter in a way that doesn't overpower her or demean her but gives both of them a voice in the relationship even when they disagree. It's a pretty amazing transformation and more insightful than most films that try to do the same in an uncreative / on-the-nose way.

The editing of the film is also pretty remarkable, as are the lead performances. (No offense to Jamie Lee Curtis, but Stephanie Hsu -- the daughter, Joy -- really should have won Best Supporting Actress, she was stellar.)

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I watched The Apprentice. I really enjoyed the style. The score, the fuzzy 80s VHS filter. Sebastian Stan is a chameleonic little fucker. It’s really great to see him gradually transform into DJT throughout the film. It’s also amazing when a movie can make you feel sympathy for Roy Cohn, of all people

I feel like aside from the obvious subject matter the film stands as a nice narrative and example of how to do a biopic right. It also really capture the grime of 70s-80s NYC



Probably won’t happen but they should make a sequel with Stan called The Art of the Deal. Give us the second chapter when he parlays his wealth and image into becoming a TV star and occasional wrestling cameo after his bankruptcy issues and failures in real estate and expansion. It’s the second part of a trilogy if you imagine the third part to be his entry to politics and upset win, and subsequent abuse of power in office

In a way, DJT’s path has been similar to Schwarzenegger’s, a dark reflection

 

[Totenkindly]

I watched The Apprentice. I really enjoyed the style. The score, the fuzzy 80s VHS filter. Sebastian Stan is a chameleonic little fucker. It’s really great to see him gradually transform into DJT throughout the film. It’s also amazing when a movie can make you feel sympathy for Roy Cohn, of all people

Yeah, that last sentence boggles my mind.

I plan to watch, as a Sebastian Stan fan. But uggh, I'm kinda dreading it too.

Still, glad to hear there is something of value to it.

Probably won’t happen but they should make a sequel with Stan called The Art of the Deal. Give us the second chapter when he parlays his wealth and image into becoming a TV star and occasional wrestling cameo after his bankruptcy issues and failures in real estate and expansion. It’s the second part of a trilogy if you imagine the third part to be his entry to politics and upset win, and subsequent abuse of power in office

Maybe Tarantino can do part three and change the ending like he did in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, lol

In a way, DJT’s path has been similar to Schwarzenegger’s, a dark reflection

Yeah. Interesting analogy / contrast there

 

[Riva]

Do you know how many good movies came out the same year Shawshank did? Shawshank had a slow start in the theater and was competing against other good films (like Four Weddings and a Funeral, and Pulp Fiction).

Let's face it, Best Picture is heavily influenced by what else has released that year -- plus voting campaigns. Not that good movies don't win, they seem to win at least half the time; but you also get lesser quality films like CODA that are really only about cable TV network quality but happen to be in the right place at the right time when no other films feel palatable to the academy.


It sounds like you were distracted by the surface veneer of the film while missing all of the underlying themes and the multi-staged character development of the protagonist. It's actually far more thought-provoking and insightful if you dig into it, it's just packaged in a way that I guess turned you off somehow.


I will always remember it, even if you do not. It's actually pretty touching, it's really a story about a woman who lives in a box of her own making and has become bitter and obstinate, and it's blinded her to the good parts of life, in the process hurting her daughter and her husband. She is unable to see the world through their eyes and is numb to their own pain, and just doesn't understand why things are not working.

She goes through multiple layers of growth in the film, and just when you think she's learned the lesson she needs, you suddenly realize there's yet another plateau she needs to reach. For example, she remains herself while learning to fight for what she believes -- and then she comes to another stage of growth where she learns to see the world with her husband's eyes and changes what she is doing to deal with life's problems more like he does -- not to destroy and win but to empower the people around her. She learns to value his kindness not as a weakness but as a strength that is powerful in itself. That realization is transformative.

her relationship with Joy is also very multi-faceted and has incremental growths.

I think that shows the complexity of the film -- a lesser film would have stopped after one stage, the change needed would have been simplistic and obvious, but every time she grows, she suddenly realizes there is yet another level she needs to reach for.... resulting in her final transformation where she is grateful for what she has, values her husband (who she formerly saw as weak), and can rebuild her relationship with her daughter in a way that doesn't overpower her or demean her but gives both of them a voice in the relationship even when they disagree. It's a pretty amazing transformation and more insightful than most films that try to do the same in an uncreative / on-the-nose way.

The editing of the film is also pretty remarkable, as are the lead performances. (No offense to Jamie Lee Curtis, but Stephanie Hsu -- the daughter, Joy -- really should have won Best Supporting Actress, she was stellar.)

My entire family walked out of it after about an hour. So maybe I missed all those points you noticed.

You actually convinced me to give it another try. Maybe 10 years from now, once I forget everything about it.

Lolz. I've done this once. I accidentally read the plot of sixth sense. Knowing it will ruin the thrill I told myself to not to watch it immediately.

A few years later when I watched it, I have completely forgotten about the plot twist. The advantage of having a poor memory.

 

[Totenkindly]

Rewatched Mission Impossible 4 and 3 in the last day, will watch more of them before next Saturday comes (since I'm seeing the final (?) film on Saturday).

I remember hating MI4 when I first saw it. I'm happy to say this latest rewatch, I actually wasn't bothered by the things that originally turned me off -- maybe my expectations have changed. Any issues I have mostly are about there not being much of an emotional core until near the end of the film when we hear Brandt's backstory + the Julia subplot gets a little time. It has some decent-enough stunts, but it seems to stay more on the surface emotionally, and I have a hard time believing that Michael Nyqvist (from age and build) could play any kind of convincing physical challenge to Tom Cruise -- the foot chase seems unbelievable, and their actual fights are kind of edited down to avoid breaking the illusion too much but still don't seem very convincing. I thought the opening jailbreak had flair. But the brief fighting from Renner as Brandt reminds me of Bourne Legacy, Renner actually had the skills to be convincing.

I don't really understand why MI3 is not as well-enjoyed as some of the other films, as it's the film that has the largest emotional center to it. Maybe that is it and people go to action films to see action -- not that it doesn't have action, but there's definitely a lot of emotional intensity. The torture moment that opens the film and later gets somewhat replayed is perhaps the most tense moment in the entire film series -- just absolutely brutal, with Ethan forced to push through the five stages of acceptance in about 2 minutes. The subdued audience response could also be pushback against Abrams, since it definitely feels like an Abrams film in its branding/storytelling and Giacchino's music even more closely emulates Lost here (again, maybe that's another reason I like it emotionally). I like that Fishburne is pretty unlikeable and somewhat of a hardass in this film. Also, you're taking an actor like Phillip Seymour Hoffman (mainly a dramatic actor) and making him terrifying -- I think he actually DOES pull off the "scary" bit in a way that Nyqvist did not, because he's younger and stockier and has a blank unreadable face with no compassion, rather like a shark. But the film makes me feel things throughout, it really feels like these displaced people (stuck in a business where they might all die young and have no room for connections in the private world) comprise their own family. That's something that also lingers from Lost, all of those disparate people from all walks of life learning that the most important time of their lives was the time they spent together and how that forged bonds between them. I did not sense any such kind of emotional connection again until MI5, with the familiarity between Benji, Luther, and Ethan -- and Ethan's growing connection to Ilsa. And this continues to MI6 when Ilsa comes back and the Julia subplot picks up again.

I considered rewatching MI1 again, but it's a very different kind of film (I might rewatch the main infamous scene of the file heist), but it's all pretty straightforward to me and nothing I much enjoy or are challenged by on a rewatch. I also don't know if I can sit through MI2, which has typically felt vapid and superficial from what little I can remember of it.

I will definitely rewatch MI5 (which might be my favorite of the film series) and MI6/Fallout, which is rather epic.

I still have mixed feelings on MI7, which frustrates me. It felt like plot took precedence over storytelling and character handling. I'm still really mad at how Ilsa was handled, and yet I still am obsessed with that whole center setpiece as maybe the best one in the film and definitely the most emotion-laden. It's just perfectly paced and constructed, with a growing sense of dread and tension that is perfectly supported by the editing and scoring. Maybe the cliff jump is more "impressive" but emotionally it isn't nearly as good as moments earlier in the film. I also really love the Paris subplot and am so glad Pom was believable and sold her role so well -- and that she will be back for MI8. And while I didn't care as much for Grace, I thought Hayley Atwell really sold the part perfectly and I liked how Grace as not a duplicate of Ethan but had her own areas of specialty that she outshone him in. Her character development did make sense, whether it was writing or Atwell's selling of it, with the nuanced shifts in her portrayal.

 

[Totenkindly]

My entire family walked out of it after about an hour. So maybe I missed all those points you noticed.

Ah. Yeah. I can totally see where you are coming from now, if you left after an hour. A lot of the notable development happens in the back half of the film. THe first half could feel really superficial if you don't get to where the film is heading.

You actually convinced me to give it another try. Maybe 10 years from now, once I forget everything about it.

Yeah give it some time to forget a bit and then try a fresh start and just persevere. There's some really touching moments in the back half.

I just posted above how my first view of Mission Impossible 4, I really hated (despite it being a Brad Bird film) -- although it seems to be one of the highest rated films of the series. So I didn't rewatch it for years. I might have tried to rewatch it once but I just rewatched it now -- and it wasn't nearly as bad as I recall even if it's not my favorite. So sometimes things can change.

Lolz. I've done this once. I accidentally read the plot of sixth sense. Knowing it will ruin the thrill I told myself to not to watch it immediately.

A few years later when I watched it, I have completely forgotten about the plot twist. The advantage of having a poor memory.

LOL! That's an impressive memory loss, I hope it had an impact on your rewatch.

That's been one of my favorite moments in my film watching experience, where I was struggling for almost the entire film to figure out the twist (not the mid-point reveal about Cole), then figured it out about five seconds ahead of the protagonist. Just wow.

 

[Totenkindly]

Watched MI5, MI6, and half of MI7. Will finish MI7 tonight, since I'm seeing MI8 tomorrow.

MI5 (Rogue Nation) reminds me a lot of Flanagan's "The Haunting of Bly Manor" in the sense that I think it isn't quite the best film in the series (just as Bly Manor is probably not quite as good overall as Hill House), but it is the one that emotionally has my heart. It's just such a well-made film, perfectly paced, a polished mix of the serious and the humorous, all of the set pieces are good + inventive, and there's an emotional throughline with the introduction of Elsa. She really is a kindred spirit to Ethan, his soul mate regardless of whether they ever become involved romantically... it's almost deeper than that kind of love. I just adore the Opera House sequence, as well as The Torus and how that ends. And I think it's the first film I ever saw with Rebecca Ferguson, who I immediately fell in love with and have followed ever since. I love how the film comes full circle too -- just a really polished piece of writing, funneling in, the funneling back out.

There are some set pieces I don't care for as much in MI6 (Fallout), although that bathroom fight and the helicopter chase are amazing. But I have to give it kudos as feeling like a more detailed-in version of Rogue Nation, everything feels sketched in more, and it actually manages to pull off significant emotional heft with the ending. It's just filmed so well, as well. And Henry Cavill is surprisingly good as a not-so-nice guy.

Which kinda leads me to MI7 (Dead Reckoning). So conflicted over this film. Longer than the other two McQuarrie films, and I was expecting writing that was at least on par. It's not bad, but the plotting and writing isn't as good overall, although I think it's still pretty decent much of the time. But I think the film had to be elevated by the cast (which does pull through) to make their scenes sing. Esai Morales is the villain I never knew I wanted, I found him somewhat mesmerizing; and Pom Klementieff actually is pretty badass as Paris. It's good to see Czerny back. Hayley Atwell actually does a tremendous job of playing a thief rather than an agent, she "feels different" than the other characters while still having an emotional throughline. (Cary Elwes, sadly, is rather buffoonish -- I'm not sure why he was cast, he's better at tongue-in-cheek roles, and he kinda brings down the film.) There's a lot of technical skill in the set pieces, although most simply aren't ones that really get me excited. Even the cliff jump is only pretty spectacular when you realize how hard and dangerous it is, but they make it look so easy so that it's just a guy running his bike off a cliff and pulling a parachute. (Same thing with the road chase, and other moments that are technically proficient but feel rather routine if one could ever say such a thing about these stunts.)

So why I am conflicted? Because the scene I hate because of its impact on a character I loved, feeling at the time like they were done an injustice, is simply one of the best constructed "long" scenes I've ever seen in a film in terms of pacing, building tension, music, story and character development, and devastating ending. [As soon as the dance party starts, the scene starts to build.] Another one that comes to mind (and there are probably a few more) is the second half of RWBY's s7e11 "Gravity" -- it's absolutely perfect -- and this sequence is the same, even in how it starts out with slowly increasing dread, information being shared, then the true "villain in the shadows" being revealed, all the stakes being laid out, and then things just build and build to the end until you feel like you can't handle it anymore. It's like perfect story-telling. The music of the chase is just glorious. And I get (with repeated viewings) how what befalls one character could also be viewed as agency and choice by that character -- a willing sacrifice -- but damn, it also felt expedient, a way to clear the board of a few pieces since a few had just been added. The thing is, it's still my favorite sequence in the entire movie just because of how well-done it is. And while one character is sacrificing themselves for another, another character who had every right to murder another spares them, setting yet another chain of events into motion.

So anyway. I have no idea what to expect tomorrow, but I hope it is worth the wait.

 

[Totenkindly]

Mission Impossible 8

There's some waste in this film, and then there's some good stuff. By the end, the film is very enjoyable even though I'd rank it behind most of the other films. There are things I'm happy to have seen in this film (for example, Paris coming back -- Pom K is such a badass in this film, I love her to death). At the other end are wordy space fillers that needed to be excised. And then there is stuff that isn't necessarily bad, but I felt disappointed at what we were NOT getting because those things were taking up unnecessary space. I'm gonna have to assume it's Erik Jendresen's fault, because the two films McQuarrie wrote on his own were the best of the entire series -- and these last two films were a step down.

There are some callbacks in the film. Some I want to remove (I don't need all the preachy stuff about Hunt), other things like how Donloe (the analyst from the first film -- yes the FIRST film) actually contributes to this plot were actually welcome and rather endearing. Callbacks aren't always bad -- if they are actually woven into and made relevant in the new film rather than trying to win cheap points.

One thing I didn't like is how Gabriel and The Entity feel more fleshed-out and aware in MI7 -- yet here they just feel like plot pieces that somehow Hunt has to maneuver into the right places so he can flip the board and declare he's won the game. I really wanted MORE from them, I really wanted the Entity and Hunt to feel like "The Player on the Other Side" thing. Instead it feels more like Ethan has a plan, and his success is dependent on his plan being successful rather than "beating the Entity." Kind of like beating a videogame versus a real opponent. Gabriel really needed to feel more like a real person.

On the other hand, Tillman (Milchick from Severance) as the sub captain is a real joy. Angela Bassett of course nails her role without breaking a sweat.

This also at times feels like a film where you wonder where the money ($300-400 million) went. I can't say these are my favorite set pieces. I feel like some of the earlier films' set pieces were specific and just crazy stunts in larger than life locations -- Hunt doing the pendulum leap off a building in Shanghai, or climbing the Burj Khalifa, for example, or even just his infamous break-in at the CIA in MI1 -- while these can feel more ambiance sequences. For example, Ethan exploring the sunken Sevastapol reminded me of the eeriness of playing Tomb Raider 2 when Lara goes into the sunken ocean liner. It's just a creepy AF situation that slowly gets worse and worse from claustrophobia and what's happening, making it less likely Ethan will find his way out. Is it a stunt? Definitely takes stamina and strength, but it's the direness of the situation that makes it a highlight, it's not like a normal stunt piece. And of course the biplane chase that ends the film feels kind of small in one sense, but it's absolutely crazy at the same time.

This is also a film where all characters feel at risk. The plot armor has been discarded. It's not even clear whether Hunt will walk out of this one alive. I think this is a good thing honestly.

They do give the ending some breathing room, which is good.

 

[Totenkindly]

Watched The Wild Robot last night. Decent film, a bit unique -- if Flow hadn't won the Best Animated Pic, I would have been fine with this film winning. It definitely feels like an exploration of motherhood and how there are no rule books, through the lens of a robot who was never programmed on how to perform those tasks or a way to feel about them, yet was committed to "doing the job" and properly.

Pedro Pascal did a decent job as the fox -- I didn't even recognize his voice for much of the film, with all the inflection. He seems to be overused nowadays, but I think he was great in this film and suited for the role.

the art was very colorful and gorgeous, and I really liked the moss covered version of Roz.

 

[The Cat]

This will never not be one of my favorite movie scenes.
Also John C. McGinley is prolific af.​

 

[Totenkindly]

Finally saw Captain America: Brave New World. This is a film where the title is one of the best things about.

Mainly what I would say is the film is underwhelming. For some reason, it doesn't seem to have very much momentum despite a few action sequences and just kind of drifts along. Conceptually it's not a bad film but the scenes just don't drive the way MCU Phases 1-3 did.

There are other issues. Maybe Giancarlo Esposito is a great actor, but I'm not really feeling him being an "action" hero where he's supposed to be a credible physical threat. It's kind of a miscast and deadens the momentum of his scenes. And the scenes with the Leader (more or less) are a cool idea picking up from an old old thread from 2008, but they just aren't filmed in a way that makes them feel interesting and dire -- if you have a non-physical character that is supposed to be a big bad, you need to film them in more compelling ways. I spent more time mulling over about how physically small Tim Blake Nelson looks compared to even normal sized men (I looked him up after -- he's 5'5"). This didn't have to be an issue, but it matters how you shoot/direct them to make them small BUT intimidating, and it was just... wasn't done. You clearly see him as as little guy and he doesn't feel intimidating even with his gamma smarts.

The subplot about Ross pining away over Betsy was also kind of on-the-nose and came off as melodramatic, I think a lighter touch would have been more effective. Plus is there ever a moment in the President's office where there is dim dramatic lighting, complete silence, and no other people? Does he do any freaking work? (Maybe in this sense, he's like the cheeto.)

There's a moment between Sam and Bucky in this film (nice idea), but it creates an arc/character disparity between this film and Thunderbolts from what I recall -- they didn't tweak the writing to properly accommodate it, from a character/emotional perspective.

I felt like all they had for a film concept was the last 30 minutes and built it backwards from there. They even spoiled the movie's big spoiler in mid-point advertising because Disney was scared the movie would flop.

The end credits scene was terrible, the content is empty and it wasn't shot in a way to make it effective.

Not to be all criticism. Again, the ideas were promising, it was the execution and casting and directing that was a little off and made this a middling film. I like that it reinforces how Sam is not a super soldier guy (although he mulls over it again here, he feels not quite up to the task) and focuses on his moral character, but hey that aligns with the original Captain America in terms of who is worthy. Carl Lumbly as Isaiah Bradley gets a shitty side plot, but he nails this role perfectly. And the last half hour of the film finally rises up to become solid if not astonishing (aside from the sappy subplot), this was like MCU of old. The Hulk is devastating and the fight between Sam and the Hulk actually invests the audience -- for example, you can immediately understand Sam's strategy here with the vibranium wings. Most of the other fights as kinda flat.

Shira Haas as Sabra is kind of intriguing (although they made so many alterations to her from the comic, why didn't they just create a new character?)

The other good thing is FINALLY they picked up on Tiamut's calcified corpse emerging from the Indian Ocean and the global implications of it -- and springboarding the X-Men (and others) into MCU using it.

This really reminds me of how we needed to have a really good Hulk film in there somewhere and/or the character is missed. But it's kind of a forgettable film too.

I'd give a 2.5/5. I just don't think the direction was as effective as it needed to be.

edit: One final thing that probably Disney couldn't do much about, but it's hard to take any of the presidency stuff seriously with the current administration in power, which was the situation when the film dropped in theater. It just feels out of touch and tinny. It's hard to feel bad about the White House garden getting trashed when the orange cheeto has been talking about paving it under, and hard to care about what seems like "minor corruption" on Ross's part when again said cheeto every day does something really awful to undermine the Constitution. Can we even believe there are decent people in a semi-corrupt administration (or care that maybe a "semi-corrupt" president might taint the WH?) when every day we are reminded about how every person cheeto is installing in the WH is corrupt as shit and meanwhile he's grifting millions/billions abusing his position? Like, literally every day.

"Brave New World" vibes? This film doesn't even touch reality. It almost feels like a Frank Capra production.

 

[Totenkindly]

And now I think it's due time that we have a revisit of The Eternals, which took a lot of flak as an MCU "misfire" when it dropped but now in hindsight overall actually feels much better than most MCU releases (shows and films) nowadays. (Geez, didn't we realize how good we had it?) Chloe Zhao took so much crap over this film, and it's too long, but it actually feels like a more unique and creative story, and if you watch the last 40 minutes or so, when things come to a head -- it's actually quite well directed and compelling, action-wise.

It actually feels substantial -- basically a bunch of beings who were hailed as god by humanity realize they were posted here as basically cosmic midwives, and now they have to choose between their mission / the emerging baby, vs saving the beings (humanity) they've come to protect and care about over the centuries. Not all the characters choose the same thing, and it creates moral complexity because even if you hate the choices some of them make, you understand it and they are "valid" in some sense, versus most of the MCU offerings nowadays that are either black and white or else not thought out at all. It broke me again to watch Sersi and Ikaris' last meeting. The poor guy is so tormented -- so firmly believing in their mission and "doing what he was created to do," and having betrayed people who trusted him, and yet his love for Sersi is very real and he's being torn apart inside, leading to what he does AFTER (and damn the consequences for sequels lol). Zhou gives these emotional moments (or even the beach shots afterwards) time to breathe, which is where a dramatic director is helpful -- but again, even the action sequences are pretty amazing there -- watching Makkari kick Ikraris' ass (for example) because he didn't want to just outright try to kill her, or Phastos following up on that. Sprite and Kingo also both make decisions off the expected/beaten path.

They should have really left Kro stick around too, the Deviants were kind of fascinating and could have provided more drama arcs. But again, the film was unique, tried to be its own thing, and actually was a lot more compelling. And when Tiamut emerges from the ocean, it's freaking incredible and shot/done in such a way it feels HUGE. I remember on the big screen, it actually felt gigantic to me.

 

[Totenkindly]

My Dark City 4K (from Arrow imprint) just showed up today unexpectedly. (I got an e-mail yesterday but I figured it would take a week.) There has not been a 4K before, and this has the Director's Cut + Theatrical Cut + extras on it.

I guess my weekend viewing schedule was just made for me.

I had started watching Mickey 17 earlier, but I'm kind of bored with it so far.

 

[The Cat]

Dark City is the Best movie.

 

[The Cat]

Speaking of great movies. One of my favorite scenes in a movie:

I cant lie to you about your chances...But. You have my sympathies.

Weyland Yutani makes the Ash Android capable of lying about certain things. People just assume that androids can't/arent programmed to lie. Devious. Ash choosing to lie for his final words sort of perfectly sums up what his character was all about. Bishop II was programmed to lie. But Ash...Ash enjoyed it.​