Random Movie Thoughts Thread

[Burning Paradigm]

Dude seriously! Bollywood sucks that way, they even portray all (or most) Westerners as a bunch of arrogant materialistic pricks full of sin. I’ve stopped watching Hindi movies for a while now, in fact (though I still enjoy some old classics every now and then). I’ve even watched a few Pakistani TV dramas in the past with my mom, and I enjoyed those far more than our over-the-top Indian serials haha!

But yeah, cultural offenses aside - the one thing I loved most about “Temple of Doom” was Amrish Puri’s acting. He was by far one of my most favorite actors who have especially thrived in negative roles, God rest his amazing soul. (Prem Chopra is another brilliant actor who was perfect for negative roles, of course. )

"Bali maangthi Kali Ma...Shakti degi Kali Ma! Kali Ma...KALI MA...shakti deh!"

(Ngl, before I knew Kali was a Hindu goddess, I thought he was saying "Kali" as in the word for "black" XD I was so confused as a kid.)

 

[Firebird 8118]

"Bali maangthi Kali Ma...Shakti degi Kali Ma! Kali Ma...KALI MA...shakti deh!"

(Ngl, before I knew Kali was a Hindu goddess, I thought he was saying "Kali" as in the word for "black" XD I was so confused as a kid.)

Hahaha no worries, to be fair so did I!

 

[Totenkindly]

Okay, I finally realized Mulan was free on Disney+ and my opinion will be logged.

This is a prime example of how to cut a fairly decent trailer from a subpar film. Which I really hate to say, because I wanted it to do good.

- The visuals and fight sequences are good (if you have never seen The Matrix, Hero, or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon).
- The acting is decent (if you have never seen a film with really great actors in it).
- The characters are interesting (if you have never seen the animated Mulan or simply any film that had more than two-dimensional characters).

The screenplay was terrible, frankly. I'm kind of surprised to see that the recent Planet of the Apes trilogy writers worked on this, since those films were far better; either they were slumming on this or the additional two writers really screwed things up.

None of the characters, even Mulan, were really penetrable or capable of evoking true emotion, but I do blame that on the screenplay more than the acting. The writing was so on the nose, very superficial, and/or too wordy.

Another problem is that so much of the film tried to do a "homage" to the animated version, but basically did all the scenes at about half their potency of the original. So it was like a garbled, watered-down version of some scenes from the animated film. it makes me more impressed with that original Mulan, where they got a lot of emotional impact out of the visuals and a condensed script -- each line packed far more punch, they didn't "over-talk" as they did here. Where was the script doctor? The matchmaker thing was lame and clumsy, the avalanche bit felt much more contrived, the climb up the stairs is less than compelling, the original fight in the line feels contrived, the conversation by the water where Mulan is almost caught ends in a lame way and so on... like ALL these scenes to do "homage" were like half-assed empty mimicry.

I felt like like the first hour of the film was junk. It started to come alive for me when Mulan and "the witch" meet up at the salt pools, and the witch pushes on her, and Mulan makes a choice about whether she is going to be herself and shine, or whether she is going to pretend to be something she is not. The next five minutes was like a different film.

Then it kind of went back into the crapper again and played out in expected hum-drum fashion. I actually laughed repeatedly in spots that were supposed to be dramatic. The script, again, was terrible. I don't know why anyone in Disney didn't see that, although they also pumped out that "Rise of Shitwalker" last Christmas, so... maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

I hate to reference the original film, but part of it was because that Mulan was bad at everything she tried, and all she had was love for her family. She actually wasn't a great warrior to start with (or end with, honestly -- she was adequate by the end -- she was more smart/wise than skilled). But that made her even more special -- it was always about her family, even if she made mistakes in how to show that at times.

here, the gist of the film tries to still pretend to be about family, but it ended up being more about "being who you are without apology." Which is not a bad lesson, but it then weakens their attempts to pull it back to the "family" thing.

And there were too many goddamn speeches. As an example, when she comes home, her father ends up giving a preachy explanation of what he values most. In the animated film, it's beautiful because it is all captured by the visual: Mulan formally bows and offers him the sword of Shan-Yu and the crest of the Emperor "as gifts to honor the Fa family" and as she kneels, he takes the offerings, dumps them on the ground, and sweeps her into his arms... only then simply saying, "The greatest gift and honor is having you as a daughter." ONE line, ONE action, and it packs quite a punch. One of the best qualities of Disney animated films are their efficiency: They tend to condense everything to the essential word or action and not waste effort (because it used to take a lot of effort to animate films, versus just shooting multiple takes).

That is what I mean about this film -- it didn't really know how to expertly communicate its ideas in powerful ways. It really thought its ideas were good enough, but what it really needed was the ability to execute and deliver on them to create emotion.

Anyway, a huge disappointment. I won't be rewatching, there's nothing to see.

 

[ceecee]

Okay, I finally realized Mulan was free on Disney+ and my opinion will be logged.

This is a prime example of how to cut a fairly decent trailer from a subpar film. Which I really hate to say, because I wanted it to do good.

- The visuals and fight sequences are good (if you have never seen The Matrix, Hero, or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon).
- The acting is decent (if you have never seen a film with really great actors in it).
- The characters are interesting (if you have never seen the animated Mulan or simply any film that had more than two-dimensional characters).

The screenplay was terrible, frankly. I'm kind of surprised to see that the recent Planet of the Apes trilogy writers worked on this, since those films were far better; either they were slumming on this or the additional two writers really screwed things up.

None of the characters, even Mulan, were really penetrable or capable of evoking true emotion, but I do blame that on the screenplay more than the acting. The writing was so on the nose, very superficial, and/or too wordy.

Another problem is that so much of the film tried to do a "homage" to the animated version, but basically did all the scenes at about half their potency of the original. So it was like a garbled, watered-down version of some scenes from the animated film. it makes me more impressed with that original Mulan, where they got a lot of emotional impact out of the visuals and a condensed script -- each line packed far more punch, they didn't "over-talk" as they did here. Where was the script doctor? The matchmaker thing was lame and clumsy, the avalanche bit felt much more contrived, the climb up the stairs is less than compelling, the original fight in the line feels contrived, the conversation by the water where Mulan is almost caught ends in a lame way and so on... like ALL these scenes to do "homage" were like half-assed empty mimicry.

I felt like like the first hour of the film was junk. It started to come alive for me when Mulan and "the witch" meet up at the salt pools, and the witch pushes on her, and Mulan makes a choice about whether she is going to be herself and shine, or whether she is going to pretend to be something she is not. The next five minutes was like a different film.

Then it kind of went back into the crapper again and played out in expected hum-drum fashion. I actually laughed repeatedly in spots that were supposed to be dramatic. The script, again, was terrible. I don't know why anyone in Disney didn't see that, although they also pumped out that "Rise of Shitwalker" last Christmas, so... maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

I hate to reference the original film, but part of it was because that Mulan was bad at everything she tried, and all she had was love for her family. She actually wasn't a great warrior to start with (or end with, honestly -- she was adequate by the end -- she was more smart/wise than skilled). But that made her even more special -- it was always about her family, even if she made mistakes in how to show that at times.

here, the gist of the film tries to still pretend to be about family, but it ended up being more about "being who you are without apology." Which is not a bad lesson, but it then weakens their attempts to pull it back to the "family" thing.

And there were too many goddamn speeches. As an example, when she comes home, her father ends up giving a preachy explanation of what he values most. In the animated film, it's beautiful because it is all captured by the visual: Mulan formally bows and offers him the sword of Shan-Yu and the crest of the Emperor "as gifts to honor the Fa family" and as she kneels, he takes the offerings, dumps them on the ground, and sweeps her into his arms... only then simply saying, "The greatest gift and honor is having you as a daughter." ONE line, ONE action, and it packs quite a punch. One of the best qualities of Disney animated films are their efficiency: They tend to condense everything to the essential word or action and not waste effort (because it used to take a lot of effort to animate films, versus just shooting multiple takes).

That is what I mean about this film -- it didn't really know how to expertly communicate its ideas in powerful ways. It really thought its ideas were good enough, but what it really needed was the ability to execute and deliver on them to create emotion.

Anyway, a huge disappointment. I won't be rewatching, there's nothing to see.

Yeah....

 

[Totenkindly]

So I rewatched Serendipity last night, after not seeing it for awhile. Which leads me to a few thoughts:

- It's not a good movie in terms of really understanding the characters or making them making sense. In fact, the whole plot is pretty much contrivance, generated by one of the characters having a kind of unworkable life philosophy.

- In fact, some of the philosophy is not good. I appreciate the push to self-question when you're not happy. And there's a thing to bail on a relationship at a point in time when it will do less damage -- although potentially ditching people during an engagement (or right before a wedding) still causes damage. There's at least one character that seems to be indifferently brutalized by this kind of revelation in the film. At least one of the protagonists is willing to cut off a relationship regardless of whether there will be anyone else to break their fall -- so it's more about ending something that isn't working versus ending something for someone else. But the film still has an obvious resolution in mind through its run-time, without any clear indication of whether such a relationship would work out especially with some of the crazy ideas here and only the chemistry between the leads being a plus.

- There's a lot of magical thinking and inexplicable coincidence, without really considering how many "potential patterns" we witness in a day and usually end up ignoring them because it would be absurd to lend them weight. Yet here, they all seem to have weight but characters are too obtuse to see them for what they are -- or perhaps read into other things and take "the long way home."

- The book Jon is trying to track down is of course a book that aims somewhat of a mirror on this movie plot. Wiki has a writeup on it, for its own sake.

- Ah, the wonderful fake "555" phone numbers without area codes. Because when you meet someone in New York, one of whom has a foreign accent, you would never need to specify an area code to find them somewhere in the USA (or overseas, for that matter, where the number might be truly different).

- John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale look so young. I have loved them both, and they're both close to my age bracket / of my generation. THey're also what is carrying this movie along, with all of its inconsistencies and crazy plotting. They're just both enjoyable to watch on screen.

- Eugene Levy is funny. But Eugene Levy -- like, did they (long before Schitt's Creek) ever sit there during the producers meetings and say, "You know what would make this movie better? Eugene Levy." Molly Shannon is also pretty funny. Honestly, casting was the redeeming quality of the film.

- Despite all the problems with the film, I feel good watching Cusack and Beckinsale on screen. It is truly one of my guilty pleasure films.

- It is a Christmas film. Whee.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Disney is just repackaging their greatest hits at this point, only it's like one of those cases where a singer or band couldn't get the rights to an original recording, or felt the need to "update" a classic, so they make a shitty, subpar re-recorded version for the greatest hits collection that just leaves listeners longing more for the original version. Examples include that version of "Money" on A Collection of Great Dance Songs and "Don't Stand So Close To Me '86"

 

[Totenkindly]

Disney is just repackaging their greatest hits at this point, only it's like one of those cases where a singer or band couldn't get the rights to an original recording, or felt the need to "update" a classic, so they make a shitty, subpar re-recorded version for the greatest hits collection that just leaves listeners longing more for the original version. Examples include that version of "Money" on A Collection of Great Dance Songs and "Don't Stand So Close To Me '86"

I think only a few of these "live action" remakes really were worth the time, and yes, I actually did see most of the remakes and/or the ones I didn't, I did read about extensively. Here's my list of the ones that had value out of the 17 or so that exist so far:

- Jungle Book
- Cinderella
- I've heard Pete's Dragon was also a notable bump up from the original, but I only saw ten minutes of it... and consider the original ain't high on the "favorites" list to start with, I could imagine the live-action remake to be better.

For the others, at best they contributed nothing except generating revenue for Disney (e.g., Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King)

At worst, they were pretty horrific. I think I am still experiencing trauma from sitting through all of "Aladdin" -- and no, it wasn't Will Smith's fault, he did about as good a job as one could expect.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

At worst, they were pretty horrific. I think I am still experiencing trauma from sitting through all of "Aladdin" -- and no, it wasn't Will Smith's fault, he did about as good a job as one could expect.

They should have gotten Brian Baumgartner.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

maybe if they didn't try to match the originals almost beat-for-beat. OK, well I can't really say for sure that's what they're all doing, because I've only seen the Lion King remake, which did feel like an exact replica.

But maybe reimagine the stories and add a new spin to them, at least. I always hold up Carpenter's The Thing as an example of How to do a remake properly. It doesn't serve as a beat-for-beat remake and in many ways it exceeds the 1951 version. It doesn't capitalize on nostalgia for the original either. It's effectively it's own entity. I think Cronenberg's Fly is another good example of one that stands as its own interpretation on an idea without trying to capitalize on warm feelings for the original. That lame appeal to nostalgia is why the Ghostbusters remake sucked, and why the newest Ghostbusters looks like it might be really shitty


All in all, I'd rather see less successful movies being remade, or movies that look like they could've been done better but suffered for whatever reason. I'd like to see Cherry 2000 remade, because as fun as the original is, it's pretty flawed. But it's a decent concept that deserves reimagining. And since the original is more of a cult movie than one with wide appeal, a properly done remake might lead more people to revisit the original and reevaluate it. I hate it when big blockbusters get remade because it's rarely anything more than a cash grab aimed at adults who were kids when they saw the originals. So no one's ever really happy, the adults are pissed off because they feel their favorite movies have been shat on, and the adults' kids have likely already been exposed to the original, superior versions by their parents.

 

[Totenkindly]

They should have gotten Brian Baumgartner.

Bwa ha ha.

Honestly -- if you can't improve on the original, try something completely different.... like creating a satire...

maybe if they didn't try to match the originals almost beat-for-beat. OK, well I can't really say for sure that's what they're all doing, because I've only seen the Lion King remake, which did feel like an exact replica.

That one was notorious for just copying the original. B&tB did as well, aside from inclusions of an extra scene or two. The problems with the others came out with them maybe doing some things different while somehow managing to decrease the charm.

But maybe reimagine the stories and add a new spin to them, at least. I always hold up Carpenter's The Thing as an example of How to do a remake properly. It doesn't serve as a beat-for-beat remake and in many ways it exceeds the 1951 version. It doesn't capitalize on nostalgia for the original either. It's effectively it's own entity. I think Cronenberg's Fly is another good example of one that stands as its own interpretation on an idea without trying to capitalize on warm feelings for the original.

Those two were pretty decent ways to play off the original theme. I would also add Peter Jackson's "King Kong" in there. (Not everyone is into Jackson's style, but it seemed a better fit for him than even Lord of the Rings. About the only controversy was casting Jack Black in it.) The Extended version is a heck of a large film but manages to be bigger, more emotional, more colorful than the original in about every way, while still building off the pathos of the original.

Note that all of these films were fairly old and thus not fleshed out for modern audiences, so there was a lot of room to play/update for more dramatic or horrific sensibilities.

That lame appeal to nostalgia is why the Ghostbusters remake sucked

...and improper character casting (how do you waste Kristen Wiig?)
...and putting your old actors in as new characters, rather than doing a true handoff, so it feels like you're trying to supplant the beloved original
...and making a movie that wasn't funny.
... and
...and
...and

Anyway, I generally agree that you don't redo blockbusters per se -- basically you're looking for a property with potential, but that gives room for one's own interpretation and/or can improve on the original version or do a new take on it in some way. Doing a beat-by-beat of an already decent film is just silly.

I guess "foreign films" getting a remake due to language conversion / audience accessibility is its own category, usually this has happened mainly in niche categories (like horror).

 

[Jaguar]

They should have gotten Brian Baumgartner.

Kinda looks like Ted Cruz.

 

[Burning Paradigm]

At the risk of sounding like a snob, the collective state of the arts and entertainment industry has fallen far when the highlights are largely repackaging and remaking old movies *coughDisneycough*

On the bright side, Netflix seems to be coming out with some good content with its original series (still watching Money Heist, Umbrella Academy seems promising).

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm tempted to give Avatar another shot. To be fair, when I watched it, it was on a small screen when I had an unpleasant headache wondering if I was going to get another date from the woman I would end up losing my virginity to.

 

[Totenkindly]

At the risk of sounding like a snob, the collective state of the arts and entertainment industry has fallen far when the highlights are largely repackaging and remaking old movies *coughDisneycough*

On the bright side, Netflix seems to be coming out with some good content with its original series (still watching Money Heist, Umbrella Academy seems promising).

It's ironic, I am a comic book / superhero / fantasy person since young and I'm just kind of lukewarm on The Umbrella Academy (I watched Season 1, watched an episode or two of Season 2, then forgot to finish it), I didn't watch The Witcher either; but overall I would agree Netflix and streaming services have actually been putting out better content now that they have effective budgets and streaming has taken off as an effective medium. They're actually putting out some content that can compete in quality to conventional studios. The most obvious is in the TV series they produce, similar in quality to cable staples like HBO; but their films have improved too.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I'm tempted to give Avatar another shot. To be fair, when I watched it, it was on a small screen when I had an unpleasant headache wondering if I was going to get another date from the woman I would end up losing my virginity to.

Dances With Wolves IN SPACE.

No, I thought it was decent though. Michelle Rodriguez was in it so there’s that

 

[Totenkindly]

Oooh, new toy... but they're not really all in order... it was hard enough getting 100 films on the panel...

 

[Totenkindly]

Dances With Wolves IN SPACE.

No, I thought it was decent though. Michelle Rodriguez was in it so there’s that

I have such mixed feelings about that film.

True, it is Dances with Wolves + Pocahontas in space.
True, Sam Worthington is the worst actor in the film (and he is the lead).
True, it totally wastes Giovanni Ribisi in a poorly written (or directed?) role.
True, the script has some really clunky lines in it.

But they actually did the world-building (so the world itself feels visually/dynamically pretty cool and different), especially with the notion of biological neural networks... which beats out Star Trek Discovery with its spore drive by some years.

The rest of the cast is pretty stellar.

The graphic design is amazing.

It is actually pretty engaging regardless.

So I still enjoy watching the longest cut they put out, as it fills in some of the backstory especially about Neytiri's sister, etc.

I saw it way too many times in 3D in the theater because it was the purest form of escapism I had at the time. It felt like I was flying.

 

[Totenkindly]

Halfway through "Possessor" by Brandon Cronenberg, I should finish it today.

Damn, it's so arthousy yet so Cronenbergy. Andrea Riseborough is almost unrecognizable (more on the level of her "Black Mirror" character), and Jennifer Jason Leigh is playing a version of her "Annihilation" character it feels like. But that was a hell of an opening sequence. If it finishes as strong as it started, it is going in my list of "most accomplished scifi-horror films."

Off the top of my head, other films in that category would include The Fly, Annihilation, Under the Skin, and Alien. I'll have to think of some more... but ranging in the atmospheric/visually compelling scifi-horror.


EDIT: Finished it. Damn. What a hell of a film, but you'll need a strong stomach to get through it. Thank you, Cronenbergs!

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Not sure about the first Mad Max, but I think a strong argument could be made that The Road Warrior, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, and Fury Road are among the most feminist, prgressive action films ever made.

Also, I prefer to think of the 3 sequels as a trilogy, and the first movie as a prequel origins movie less thematically tied to the other 3. One similiarity though, even in the first movie, he feels more like a side character in his own film. Up until he gets set on a course of vengeance, it really is more Goose's story than his own. In the Road Warrior, it's the story of the gyro captain and the people at the compound. In Thunderdome, it's the children's story, and in Fury Road it's about Furiosa and the wives. It boggled me when people criticized Fury Road for making him a side character in his own movie, because that had basically been a constant through the entire series. I think those complaints were largely from people who probably hadn't actually seen the other films in quite a while and must have remembered them differently. Even if the accusations that feminism was being "trojan horsed" into Fury Road is accurate, let's give credit to the other films for bringing social commentary and egalitarian messages in before. I think people were just too dumb to recognize it and give credit where credit was due.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Also, RIP Hugh Keays-Byrne