Random Movie Thoughts Thread

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Finally watched the original West Side Story (1961?) since HBO Max has it, then started watching Spielberg's 2021 version.

This movie shows me what it must have been like when America was great which I keep hearing about. Apparently in the early 60s before JFK was assassinated the cities were so safe that all the gangs did was snap their fingers at each other.

Did you catch Sean Astin's father (aka the original Gomez) officiating at the dance? He's still alive, apparently. (I hope I didn't kill him by writing that.)

 

[Totenkindly]

This movie shows me what it must have been like when America was great which I keep hearing about. Apparently in the early 60s before JFK was assassinated the cities were so safe that all the gangs did was snap their fingers at each other.

For finger-snapping going on, a few people got shot and stabbed. I was also really freaking shocked when the Jets tried to [gaaaa] Anita -- I was not expecting to see this is in an early 60's movie and it was really a holy shit moment. So yes, maybe the opening choreography was all tamed out, but it quickly got to feel like a broody violent film in spots.

Also, it's damned clear even in the '60's version that after the bloody end of Act 1, Tony and Maria still went ahead and boinked each other's brains out. Again, I was expecting something tamer / less suggestive in a 1960 musical.

The "Officer Krumpke" song was also really kind of fascinating too in its depictions of various cultural authorities/institutions.

Did you catch Sean Astin's father (aka the original Gomez) officiating at the dance? He's still alive, apparently. (I hope I didn't kill him by writing that.)

YES! I saw him and thought damn, that looks like Astin, so I looked it up after to confirm. He's got such a distinctive face.

Yeah, John is Sean's stepdad. Sean's bio father, they finally determined to be Michael Tell once DNA testing became accessible.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Power of the Dog was really good. I felt like the ending really gave me conflicting emotions which I liked (if that makes any sense).

Even though Cumberbatch's character is a dick, I feel like that's partly just because he lives in a time where he is not allowed to fully explore his natural desires.

For finger-snapping going on, a few people got shot and stabbed. I was also really freaking shocked when the Jets tried to [gaaaa] Anita -- I was not expecting to see this is in an early 60's movie and it was really a holy shit moment. So yes, maybe the opening choreography was all tamed out, but it quickly got to feel like a broody violent film in spots.

That's true. I was oversimplifying quite a bit for the sake of a quip.

 

[Totenkindly]

Will try to watch The Power of the Dog this weekend, I've been putting it off due to length and wanting to watch it with my kid.

Watched about 2/3 of West Side Story 2021. Will add final thoughts later.

• Definitely a film, as compared to a show. The 1961 version feels very much like stage sets that were filmed, with the occasional outdoor shot without much texture... they were probably mostly still sets. Not sure if/what is CGI in 2021, but it very much feels like it was filmed in the real world with tangible locations and the ability to cut between those locations in the same sequence rather than keeping on one stage.
• In this case, all the main cast are singers and doing their own parts (whereas everything was dubbed in 1961). This is good in some ways, but not in others -- see next point.
• Ansel Elgort. I've only seen one film (Baby Driver) where I thought he was just excellent and perfectly cast. He was cast in this film because he actually can sing decently (as opposed to that bs with Russell Crowe and Les Mis), but I think this is a case where I would have rather had someone be well-dubbed and a great actor/cast choice for the film, vs a guy who can sing but is totally wrong for the part. He's really flat and inert. This is a musical and you need the lead male part to pop. Richard Beymer looked the part and "glowed" with energy as Tony, and so they nailed the dub, and it worked. I can't imagine a more boring / apathetic choice than Elgort here, for much of the film. He has little chemistry with Rachel Zegler -- and you HAVE TO HAVE CHEMSTRY in this film because they literally fall in love at first sight, have sex, and end their relationship (through tragedy) within 24 hours or so. I can't believe she'd want to run off with this guy, and I'm not even sure who he is. When he's wandering the streets singing "Maria," he just looks... bored. THe guy is a flat/internalized actor, not an emoter. Even his singing (while skilled) only works for one song -- his voice is really great for "One Hand, One Heart" for example, but not for ANY song that needs energy to survive. Talk about phlegmatic. He's not even really tortured. I think the only sequence he has nailed so far was when he had to be more physical -- basically in the "Cool" song and the rumble sequence. This was a really bad cast that no amount of Spielberg magic could get past.
• Color use is interesting. The original had much bright distinct colors (reminiscent of Suspiria honestly, although a little more textured). This one is very textured and nuanced but still very colorful and more color-coded -- the Sharks are golds and reds, the Jets are teals/blues, etc. Hot vs cool. It very much works and keeps the large cast distinct.
• The choreography is new, not based on the 1961 version. The choreography here works as well. It's just another interpretation of the film.
• The rumble sequencing seems more natural now -- in fact, much of Spielberg's version feels more organic and events folding naturally, versus the contrivance of typical theater.
• Typical rearrangement of songs. The big one is moving "Cool" to before the rumble, trying to get the Jets to not go off half-cocked by Tony's urging. In the 1961 version, it was done after the rumble when the Jets are freaking out at what happened, and "Cool" refers to keeping one's cool when interrogated by the police. I think I like 1961 better, but this works as well here. I think this is actually one of the things I love most about theater and musicals as forms -- the various interpretations directors/writers construct using the same building blocks, to tell variations of the story or bring out new things in the story or characters. "Officer Krumpke" also is moved indoors (of the police station) here, which provides new staging opportunities; I think I still like the 1961 version better energy-wise, but this was a neat interpretation esp with the trashing of the station.
• Brian D'Arcy James as Officer Krumpke. Again, eh. he's too well known, although a fine actor... it just didn't feel right to me with all the other baggage and his kind of buffoon/comic performance.
• Anybodys is in both films -- she's a butch / tomboy in 1961, here he's lensed as a transguy. I think the character is great and both interpretations work, I just feel like the character isn't as central yet as it was in 1961; waiting to see what happens in the ending portion of the film.

I feel like if this film wins Best Picture or acting Oscars, it's out of nostalgia and not out of achievement. It's not a bad film, but I don't think it will even make my top ten for the year, it would be in my top 20. A decent achievement and worthwhile addition to filmed musicals, but Best Picture? Naw.

EDIT:

• Moreno gets to sing "Somewhere" and the film ends with Maria singing part of her snippet of the prelude to "Tonight" which is better than her singing the full song.
• Chino is kind of confusing in this film, not that he's very penetrable in the 1961 version. He seems reluctant to fight (like Tony) and both of them have to help each other get inside the salt warehouse for the rumble... but then he seems intent on his mission when he finds the gun, and at film's end then seems resentful again. I like that Moreno goes out to take his hand.
• My favorite performance is "A boy like that / I have a love" -- two best cast members and singers in the film (DeBose and Zegler). The music and words are nuanced and everything's at a head and confusing to both characters, they are upset with each other but don't want to be. I think it bears mentioning that maybe Anita is complaining to Maria about how a boy who can kill doesn't know how to love; however, she's blinded to the fact that her own love is also someone who has killed, so what does that say? Does she realizes she is self-accusing here?
• Elgort has better songs than others -- I think as mentioned, he does okay in "One Hand, One Heart" and "Cool" and adequate in "Tonight" -- but he has an emotive problem / it's not his style. I rewatched Beymer, who emotes like mad and actually seems like he's dreamy in love with Maria -- and another great comparison is Christian (Ewan McGregor) in Moulin Rouge, who is beautiful and passionate and emotes intensely. I would say Moulin Rouge was a perfect pairing with chemistry (he and Kidman), they actually seem like they are in love.
• As another bit about how great the costuming is, they do "I feel pretty" after the rumble and Maria is surrounded by other Puerto Rican women, all in the red and gold... which Maria is also wearing... but she also has a teal/aqua piece of cloth draped over one shoulder (which is the Jets color) and she often wears a lighter blue dress... it basically signifies that she's defecting / partially on the Jets terrain and not completely on the Sharks anymore. It's just slipped in as a signal.

 

[Tomb1]

I Care A Lot was hilarious.

 

[Totenkindly]

Watched The Power of the Dog tonight, finally. Really interesting film as it progresses -- I spent a lot of time trying to grasp where it was going because the underlying motivations of the characters (well, some of them) ended up being ambiguous. I really got an idea of what was happening only about 10-15 minutes before the end and then I was laughing because it was so unexpected. Like, wow.

I bet second view would be even more interesting. It ended up someplace very different than what I thought. Johnny Greenwood's score sets the nerves on edge, and there's a lot of way the film is visually put together that is suggestive and/or ambiguous, in addition to the neat landscape shots at times.

About the only thing I'll mention in connection with Sam Elliot's comments is that the film isn't necessarily a western. Oh, it is set in the west in 1925 and takes place on a ranch, but I think it's more of a semi-psychological drama if you really look at the general plot and focus of the film. If someone goes into this expecting "The Magnificent Seven" or "Tombstone" -- or even "Unforgiven" -- well, that's not what this film is.

 

[citizen cane]

Batman was a really good movie.

 

[Totenkindly]

Power of the Dog was really good. I felt like the ending really gave me conflicting emotions which I liked (if that makes any sense).

Even though Cumberbatch's character is a dick, I feel like that's partly just because he lives in a time where he is not allowed to fully explore his natural desires.

Yeah, he's generally got the personality of an a-hat -- but he's resentful and angry over what he feels he wasn't allowed to have and lashes out at others. He's angry at George and Rose because they are allowed to get married and live openly in happiness, so he ends up enjoying ruining Rose's life, which is one thing that draws Peter's ire and he wants to protect his mother. Phil is also sneaking off all the time into the woods to be alone and remember his relationship with Bronco.

At some Peter starts playing into his image as effeminate, and Phil attempts to groom him and maybe find something to replace his loss of Bronco. the film is really great about the ambiguity of Peter's response to Phil. You can't tell whether he is also gay and looking for someone as well or whether there is something else going on. The cigarette-sharing scene is pretty intense and Peter asks Phil outright if he slept naked with Bronco and Phil doesn't answer, it is still a source of shame to him and has to be couched as some way as "Bronco saved his life because it was cold." But you totally understand that more happened on that night.

That was about the time I caught onto what Peter was doing. All the signs are obviously there once it clicks, but until then it's almost like he's responding to Phil's overtures, which is odd because of how Phil treats him and his mother.

Anthrax seems to be easily treatable with antibiotics if you catch it ASAP... but this was 1925, 3 years before penicillin was discovered, and they were out in Montana.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Batman was a really good movie.

Do you mean The Batman? I wasn't enthused at first but I've gotten more intrigued by the fact that they are using more of a Gothy, Burtonesque aesthetic but somewhat grounded in Nolan's realism.

 

[citizen cane]

Yes, the new one.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yes, the new one.

Does Colin Farrell bite anyone's nose off in it?

 

[Totenkindly]

Does Colin Farrell bite anyone's nose off in it?

No, but he pulls off his face and becomes Johnny Depp near the end.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

No, but he pulls off his face and becomes Johnny Depp near the end.

Before turning into Mads Mikkelsen, apparently?

 

[Totenkindly]

Before turning into Mads Mikkelsen, apparently?

He's very versatile.

 

[Totenkindly]

Watched about half of "The Eyes of Tammy Faye."

Prime example of a lackluster film with a great performance (this time by Jessica Chastain).

Chastain typically has been great but also pigeon-holed and many of her prior roles seemed similar to each other (that tough impenetrable xNTJ style performance). Some of the scenes in this film, she is virtually unrecognizable as herself (depending on the makeup and stylist efforts). This doesn't feel like Jessica Chastain, she becomes Tammy Faye who is so the antithesis of Chastain's typecasting.

It's too bad the film kind of hops/skips/jumps through her history and never really develops any real arcs. As a film it's not particularly insightful. However, it does document the enigma of Tammy Faye being in that glitzy religious world run by control nuts (like Jerry Falwell Sr) and not quite fitting in -- first as a woman who insists on a seat at the table, and then as someone who actually was supportive of some progressive values including the embrace of LGBT people. Of course the whole thing implodes with various scandals and Tammy Faye struggles for a long time with cancer before expiring, but she's rather interesting in this regard as someone who bucked that environment.

Chastain seems to get alot of her mannerisms as well as the quirky Minnesota accent (more subtle than Fargo) down. It's really bizarre watching her emote all over the place (physically and verbally) while dealing with a taciturn and devout Christian mother played by Cherry Jones out of all people. Andrew Garfield plays Jim Bakker, her first husband; the performance comes off as mushy / unmemorable, but it's more that the script gives Garfield little to sink into and define.

 

[Totenkindly]

Turning Red (Pixar, Disney + channel) ended up being much better than I thought. Liked it more than Encanto because at least the story points followed better, even with a similar story point. (Encanto really doesn't have any catalyst for change that came through, things are just bad until they are good and it's not even really clear what the original source of the magic was, it all seems arbitrary. Turning Red is very careful not to repeat those mistakes and provides an understandable framework.) Not only does the film veer into things I'm not used to seeing in animated film, it also puts a nice spin at mid-point in how it addresses generational wounds propagated down through iterations of family. One begets the next; those inflicted become the next wave of inflictors.

I'm also not into boy bands (although I have a few friends who have been really into them), but I still found it all amusing. Lots of verve. Decent animation.

 

[Totenkindly]

William Hurt Dies: Oscar-Winning ‘Kiss Of The Spider Woman’ Actor & Four-Time Nominee Was 71

William Hurt Dies: Oscar-Winning Actor for 'Kiss of the Spider-Woman' Was 71

deadline.com

 

[xenaprincess]

Watched Rope (1948) the other night. interesting banter and a crazy amount of audacity. I bet it was scandalous in its time, although nowadays it's not that much. Rather short. Wish they had followed up more with the impact of the professor's teachings on his students, it got too moralistic in the end.

I haven’t seen that in a long time. Long ago I really loved it. Isn’t there one very continuous shot in it somewhere?

I’m very sad about William Hurt. There was something about his delivery that made him seem fragile. Maybe it’s the way he spoke sometimes, in a kind of mumble.

Year of Living Dangerously was on tonight. I hadn’t seen it before in a focused way. The only thing that looked familiar was Linda Hunt’s character. Anyways, I really liked it although I was struck by the description before the movie by a spokesmodel setting it up, saying Hunt had to put on ‘yellow make up’ everyday. Really? Yellow? Are you kidding me?

I liked the depiction of the journalists…it seemed authentic, where they just had to jump in. All the time I was wondering how the love story would end, bc so often, one person dies. It would’ve been really easy for Gibson to have been killed on his way to the airport, or for him to miss the plane, with a parting shot of her leaving.

You didn’t have to have a shot of her at the end at all, in fact. But I liked that it ended in an optimistic way after such chaos. Maybe that’s a function also about the time when the movie came out (1983). Love triumphs all, including dictatorships. Nothing dystopian, there.

 

[Totenkindly]

I haven’t seen that in a long time. Long ago I really loved it. Isn’t there one very continuous shot in it somewhere?

Now I'm forgetting, but I think there is one -- it's just not as obvious, because the entire thing happens in a single apartment with really only 2 main rooms (the kitchen and living/dining room area).

I’m very sad about William Hurt. There was something about his delivery that made him seem fragile. Maybe it’s the way he spoke sometimes, in a kind of mumble.

We rewatched "Dark City" last night -- not Hurt's top work, but indicative of what he can bring to a film. My kid mentioned how his delivery was relaxing in his measure line delivery and I was thinking the same thing in that he often feels like a reassuring character, soft-spoken, a gentle graceful grounding and kind of cerebral from what I recall in general. He's barely in "A.I." but I love him so much in that film as well, he brings this kind of nuanced pathos/sadness to the film.

[Dark City was by Proyas but was interesting because it's reminiscent of The Matrix while only airing the year prior -- too late to be a direct influence per se artistically, but it made sense last night when I read that The Matrix used some of the Dark City sets for its own shooting. Ah, so there is the visual connection! Richard O' Brien is also really great. It's one of those films I love the feel of -- especially the ending, which lingers with me, in terms of quiet bittersweet joy.]

There are some good films of his I haven't seen (and it has been decades since I viewed Altered States, I should rewatch now just to refresh my memory). 71 seems young to me... that's when my died died... and now I see I'm not super far from that either. Funny how fast it goes.

Year of Living Dangerously was on tonight. I hadn’t seen it before in a focused way. The only thing that looked familiar was Linda Hunt’s character. Anyways, I really liked it although I was struck by the description before the movie by a spokesmodel setting it up, saying Hunt had to put on ‘yellow make up’ everyday. Really? Yellow? Are you kidding me?

I liked the depiction of the journalists…it seemed authentic, where they just had to jump in. All the time I was wondering how the love story would end, bc so often, one person dies. It would’ve been really easy for Gibson to have been killed on his way to the airport, or for him to miss the plane, with a parting shot of her leaving.

You didn’t have to have a shot of her at the end at all, in fact. But I liked that it ended in an optimistic way after such chaos. Maybe that’s a function also about the time when the movie came out (1983). Love triumphs all, including dictatorships. Nothing dystopian, there.

Another film I should watch. Hunt got an Oscar (best supporting actress) for playing a man -- and it was only her second film appearance.

 

[Totenkindly]

Rewatched The Exorcist (I've only seen it twice) -- theatrical cut.

The first time I watched it, I was disappointed because it simply wasn't scary to me / seemed kinda eh. This time I watched it as a drama and it was better -- the scenes that aren't scary are actually still unsettling, and there's lots of tone-setting sequences.

I feel like there's a better film in here somewhere, if they had brought a little more consciousness to the issues with Karras and his mom for example, or what Regan's mom might be experiencing as a single mother in an unfamiliar place. The film never quite gets into their heads. There's enough to understand why Karras might have acted as he did by the film's end, it just never QUITE pulls it together to make it pack an emotional wallop. it's also weird seeing medical procedures from the time -- I guess the machines there were the precursors to the tube CAT scans?

ALso, I agree with Blatty (and not Friedkin) that while there's something to be said about the moment of silence between the two priests on the steps (there's a feeling of abandonment and despair there), cutting the dialogue removed the heart of the film. Friedkin said he thought the whole point of the possession was obvious, but uh no, dude -- when I watched a bit of the deleted sequence, it was the missing key because the whole time I'm like what does a demon from the middle east have to do with a little girl in Wash DC? It wasn't obvious as he had said; Blatty was correct as far as that scene goes. It would have made the film more coherent to keep it. (I'm seeing rehashes of Prometheus now, another case where the director overedited his film and removed some linchpin sequences.)

Linda Blair has a kind of over-effected delivery like a child actress would have traditionally, no issues with it really. I get a kick of seeing Burstyn so young (although she's 40 or so in this film), I'm mostly family with work from the mid-1990's on.