• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Random Movie Thoughts Thread

The Cat

The Cat in the Tinfoil Hat.. ❌👑
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
28,681

The Cat

The Cat in the Tinfoil Hat.. ❌👑
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
28,681
Speaking of, I would watch the hell out a comedic thriller where hollywood was secretly trying to make clones of actors.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
53,086
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx

Looking forward to the New Supergirl movie.​
I hate all these influencer douchebags who just rip into whatever they personally hate without bothering to do due diligence.

It's not clear yet how much the film will conform to the story, but that means you just stfu and not rip on things until you get legit info. Our cultural is fubar right now, with this attitude playing into so much.
 

The Cat

The Cat in the Tinfoil Hat.. ❌👑
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
28,681
I hate all these influencer douchebags who just rip into whatever they personally hate without bothering to do due diligence.

It's not clear yet how much the film will conform to the story, but that means you just stfu and not rip on things until you get legit info. Our cultural is fubar right now, with this attitude playing into so much.
Yeah, its a wild ecosystem of what the fuckery for sure with these wackadoos.
 

The Cat

The Cat in the Tinfoil Hat.. ❌👑
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
28,681
Follow the money.
It's more than just a thrilling premise for a movie they won't make.​
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
53,086
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm about halfway through and not bored in the least, this film isn't clunky at all and just flows forward even with the flashback style opening. Some really great casting. Josh Brolin is a delightful dick, while Glenn Close is cracking me up as Martha (who has twinges of the Biblical Martha, who slaved hard and was resentful of Jesus' forgiveness of those she thought did less) -- she's like a twisted mix of Frau Blücher (Young Frankenstein) and Helene le Domas (Ready or Not). Mila Kunis doesn't have much of a part yet, but at least she's hitting the right notes -- she usually needs direction. Daryl McCormack as Cy, when asked to expound on his attempts to "reach out to people" is hilarious and sad all at once, based on real life. And so on.

Really funny humor that you'll miss if not paying attention, just in some of the lines, background items, etc. I've laughed so much at this so far. Star Wars was kind of clunky when not silly in Johnson's hands, but this feels like a trapeze artist effortlessly awing and ooing the viewers. And seeing Daniel Craig selling a very different character from James Bond is refreshing.

As someone steeped in conservative church that attempted to modernize, this all feels pretty true to form -- I can connect with the material, but also feel kinda sick to my stomach with it too close to home at times.
Finished it this morning. Wow, how do you accomplish this?

Johnson manages to show the full gamut of faith -- he constantly is exposing the cynical / dark side of religion, while simultaneously showing reverence for and highlighting the beauty of faith's tenets. He manages to take characters that could have easily become cliches in a "funny" film involving religion and instead shows nuance and sympathy. I actually cried near the end of this film -- like, holy f*ck.

I'm just kind of beside myself. Glass Onion was decent but felt kind of gimmicky; this film had a moral core and the major roles were well-cast and acted impeccably.

Glenn Close just seals this deal and proves why she has been a mainstay in film for 45 years. I've read that she is a spiritual but irreligious person IRL, but you couldn't necessarily see that here because she finds the throughline and threads the needle on a complex, religiously zealous character that could have easily become caricature in the hands of another but finds beauty and consistency in it. Josh O'Connor (so good in Challengers last year) manages to anchor this film in yet another complex performance about a very human priest who has done bad in his life and doesn't have the answers, yet manages to walk each day by grace. Honestly, the religious depictions in this film shame all those shitty right-wing fundie films that crow about serving God but just seem to be excuses for promoting various political and religious groupthink. The other characters don't get quite as much time on-screen or complexity, but even Cailee Spaeny feels like a fully adult woman here versus a late teen or young adult as in her other roles, and the few big moments she gets, you can see how she has developed as an actress in terms of line delivery and nuanced facial expressions.

Daniel Craig also plays his role effortlessly. it's ironic because these films are about mysteries he solves, but he's not the main character really. The core of the films always seems to be about other people and what leads them to do what they do. Maybe that is why they are so successful.

I am just kinda blown away by what should be a junk film or just 2+ hours of entertainment and actually manages to say something about the difficulties and vulnerabilities of faith.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
53,086
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
While I disagree with Johnson about SW -- you can shake up the franchise WITHOUT messing up or botching plot lines for film 3 in a trilogy, and also make your characters more consistent / coherent -- he comments about religion here. I think he was stellar.

 

SensEye

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
1,108
MBTI Type
INTp
I watched the remake of the Running Man the other day.

Total waste of time. It just had nothing new or particularly entertaining going for it. And it's way too long.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
53,086
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I watched the remake of the Running Man the other day.

Total waste of time. It just had nothing new or particularly entertaining going for it. And it's way too long.
It's actually very close to the novella except for the end:



It's not a remake, It's a new adaptation of the source.

The novella is a very fast read and I thought it great at the time. I was happy they actually tried to follow the plot -- but for some reason the film doesnt really engage as well.

It's not really one of Wright's best films... I think that category includes Scott Pilgrim, Baby Driver, etc. This one felt pretty uneven and the end kind of silly. The novella is very dark in tone and takes that to the unflinching end. I think King said he was high when he wrote it (back around 1980?) and pumped out the first draft in 3 days lol.

Anyway, I think the film could have worked as something oppressive and heart rending in tone but Wright doesnt make those films.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
53,086
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Oh I watched Black Bag yesterday -- a streamlined thriller by Soderbergh (scripted by Koepp, who's written a number of decent films), his films are typically pretty lean and never run over. (He's made a ton of 90 minute films, and usually that means the film sucks but for him it means it clicks right along.) Great acting, streamlined plot, interesting dialogue, a mini-mystery trying to figure out what's going on, and a don't-beat-around-the-bush ending.
 

Red Herring

middle-class woman of a certain age
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
8,046
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Finished it this morning. Wow, how do you accomplish this?

Johnson manages to show the full gamut of faith -- he constantly is exposing the cynical / dark side of religion, while simultaneously showing reverence for and highlighting the beauty of faith's tenets. He manages to take characters that could have easily become cliches in a "funny" film involving religion and instead shows nuance and sympathy. I actually cried near the end of this film -- like, holy f*ck.

I'm just kind of beside myself. Glass Onion was decent but felt kind of gimmicky; this film had a moral core and the major roles were well-cast and acted impeccably.

Glenn Close just seals this deal and proves why she has been a mainstay in film for 45 years. I've read that she is a spiritual but irreligious person IRL, but you couldn't necessarily see that here because she finds the throughline and threads the needle on a complex, religiously zealous character that could have easily become caricature in the hands of another but finds beauty and consistency in it. Josh O'Connor (so good in Challengers last year) manages to anchor this film in yet another complex performance about a very human priest who has done bad in his life and doesn't have the answers, yet manages to walk each day by grace. Honestly, the religious depictions in this film shame all those shitty right-wing fundie films that crow about serving God but just seem to be excuses for promoting various political and religious groupthink. The other characters don't get quite as much time on-screen or complexity, but even Cailee Spaeny feels like a fully adult woman here versus a late teen or young adult as in her other roles, and the few big moments she gets, you can see how she has developed as an actress in terms of line delivery and nuanced facial expressions.

Daniel Craig also plays his role effortlessly. it's ironic because these films are about mysteries he solves, but he's not the main character really. The core of the films always seems to be about other people and what leads them to do what they do. Maybe that is why they are so successful.

I am just kinda blown away by what should be a junk film or just 2+ hours of entertainment and actually manages to say something about the difficulties and vulnerabilities of faith.
I also enjoyed it quite a bit but come from a very different background. As a European from a non-religious background with a mostly non-religious environment and culture it all felt very foreign and exotic to me. I spent the durtation of the film wondering how much of it was a realistic portrayal of MAGAland and how much was clear satire/exaggeration.

Since I am not really well versed in questions of faith I mainly read it as a story about the temptations and mechanism of demagoguery. Basically, it might have worked just as well with a group of islamists, nazis, communists or hardcore environmentalists. A guru is a guru.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
53,086
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
So, Avatar: Fire & Ash.

no real surprises here. It was just mostly pure entertainment.

I don't think it was a total rehash of Avatar -- it kind of veered back and forth. The second half of the final battle definitely did feel like an Avatar rehash, but the first half had some other elements and was more like a jacked-up version of Avatar: Way of Water (lol).

I think the more intriguing elements were regarding character development -- there was both some good and bad. Quaritch continues to be an intriguing character -- he's actually reminded at least twice in this film that he is not actually Quaritch, he's just an imprint of that man's memories in a Na'vi body, so why is he pretending that he's just a continuation of the old man? He has eyes; now let him See. And while he does remain a "villain," he's a more interesting villain because of his relationship with Spider. it's somewhat like Silco from Arcane, who in some ways remains incorrigible but is also radically changed in others because of his adoption of Jinx, or maybe like Thanos being tempered by his adoption of Gamora. Still villains, still prone to doing some terrible things, but there's a strain of something real in there that leads them to make choices they themselves perhaps did not expect.

As expected, the "dark sheep" son Lo'ak rises to the occasion even when it demands defiance and actually proves himself in this film, in a way perhaps his more obedient older brother never could have. Kiri's purpose and role is also explored a bit more in this film and she contributes to some of the success by film's end.

Oona Chaplin (Talisa from GoT) is actually pretty great and even terrifying as the cynical and relentless Varang, the Tsahik of the Ash people. I really liked that character (she who saved her people when they were "abandoned by Eywa"), she was more than a match for Quaritch. She and Neytiri are great foils for each other.

However, characters didn't always make sense. The weird turn by Jake after he escapes from the human camp doesn't make any sense at all -- he'd never do that based on the earlier parts of the film -- but it was all mainly to set up Neytiri's acceptance of Spider, at long last. And they managed to get all the "old band" back together from the first film, including the scientists and old Na'vi characters and even the stupidest character in the film series Selfridge -- but HTF you get an actor of the quality of Giovanni Ribisi to come back to one of his worst roles and STILL don't give him anything interesting to do remains a high crime worthy of death, honestly.

I saw it in 3D and it was a cool experience, including feeling like you're in the environment at the time.

But honestly, they should be taking lessons about responses to these three films. The first one, okay -- it was establishing the world and story. But if all you are going to do is add more plot, then you'll just end up rehashing over and over. Why not explore things differently? I don't really see anything new or enlightening or fascinating here. Imagine a world like Pandora, and you could be exploring science or philosophy or spirituality (thematically) but they're really not doing shit except creating action sequences with occasional real drama but mostly hyped up drama. They really need to be leaning more in the "science fiction" bucket than the "action" bucket because frankly we've already seen the action over and over.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
53,086
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
One Battle After Another is streaming for free on HBO Max now (which I'm happy about, I considered renting it earlier in the week and waited because it's a long film and I didn't think I had time on weeknights to finish it).

A few things. It is easily the most accessible of PT Anderson's films. He's made so many great films over his career -- I think there are more profound films he has directed, but I think this film will probably earn him the largest general audience / box office.

Another is that viewer literacy is so down nowadays. I've seen so many bad interpretations or takes on films, even general ones, in recent years. People writing this one off as "propaganda" are kinda missing the point and I think it's just based on the 30 minutes of opening, where they checked out / were already looking for complaints or failed to watch the entire film. Pretty much the excesses in this film are not really slants because we've already seen them to exist in the news or are already obvious. I don't think 30 minutes of what amounts to "black revolutionary movements" is done in a necessarily flattering light just because our protagonists spring from that pool. The film is a dark comedy/drama and there's criticism across the board. I kinda didn't take anything personally, and there's excesses noted in any group that appears in the film.

Probably the only person who is untainted in this film is Willa (the daughter), because she's a product of all the forces in her past and didn't ask for any of this. The next level of "hero" I guess could be Bob (the dad) but he's also kind of a burned-out junkie mess whose saving grace is that, despite all of his mistakes and failures and paranoia, always showed genuine concern for his daughter and goes after her against great odds when she disappears with no regard for his own life. And Benicio del Toro's character, the sensei, who is never flustered by any of the film's craziness and pretty much succeeds at whatever he does even if it's just running interference. And potentially the Native American bounty hunter, with a grey moral past, who decides what his moral standards are and then sticks to them. But pretty much everyone else is severely compromised and/or just ass.

The film takes a lot of time for setup, but like much of PTA's films, it's a love letter to its characters. He always has focused on character in the past and that's the same here, just in a more commercial film.

It's a film that shows how much is involved behind the scenes in certain political efforts and how what is used as the front for those efforts might actually have multiple or different reasons in the backend.

The "chase" scene is referred to by some reviewers, so I was expecting a chase scene. It's not really a chase scene in the conventional sense, although it's got some tension (driven partly by Greenwood's music, which likes to employ at times a steady "tick" in the background to push towards an inevitable encounter or an occasional blare that overwhelms the viewer to add shock to a sequence). It's more dramatic than an action chase, honestly. But again it shows how resourceful Willa is. It's funny how much like her mom she is, without ever having met her, and how either that comes from her and/or her father's memories of her while raising his daughter.

Anyway, yeah, it's easily one of the best produced films of the year, where a lot of commercial films are "less than" or are just genre films.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
53,086
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I also saw the MCU Doomsday trailer yesterday. While I will miss Chris Evans' rendition Captain America, this teaser just made me sad -- proof at how creatively defunct the MCU currently is, that they need to try to resurrect the past to get back on the board. That story was done. His story was told. This is just rather pathetic.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
53,086
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Cutting back to Kill Bill a moment, did anyone ever point out that only 3/5 of the Deadly Viper Assassination Gang are actually vipers? (Cottonmouth, Sidewinder, Copperhead). These vipers are venomous but typically their bites can be survived, and available antitoxins make it even more likely.

The other two are the code names assigned to Bea and Elle, the two blondes.
  • Beatrix = Black Mamba = High rate of toxicity and potentially death, esp before antitoxins were specifically developed.
  • Elle = California Mountain Snake = Non-venomous, although it visually resembles the toxic coral snake. Very interesting = it often will eat other snakes, including venomous ones, as it is immune to rattlesnake poison.
Sounds like a reflection on character / role in the film.
 

The Cat

The Cat in the Tinfoil Hat.. ❌👑
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
28,681
Cutting back to Kill Bill a moment, did anyone ever point out that only 3/5 of the Deadly Viper Assassination Gang are actually vipers? (Cottonmouth, Sidewinder, Copperhead). These vipers are venomous but typically their bites can be survived, and available antitoxins make it even more likely.

The other two are the code names assigned to Bea and Elle, the two blondes.
  • Beatrix = Black Mamba = High rate of toxicity and potentially death, esp before antitoxins were specifically developed.
  • Elle = California Mountain Snake = Non-venomous, although it visually resembles the toxic coral snake. Very interesting = it often will eat other snakes, including venomous ones, as it is immune to rattlesnake poison.
Sounds like a reflection on character / role in the film.
I think about this stuff a lot too. The best part is, they even subtly address the naming conventions of assassins in Kill Bill 2: "I guess they just thought it sounded cool."

But yeah it really does seem like the code names are more reflections on character/role, which is a nice little puzzle to give people who like to analyze the films.
 
Top