Random Movie Thoughts Thread

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

Anyone want to wager whether or not it was written by
a)someone who is not a writer.
b)an ai
c) both a & b
d) neither a or b
e) all of the above

 

[Totenkindly]

Hooray!

 

[Totenkindly]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think it was this, Indiana Jones, or The Flash. I already discussed previously why I didn't go with Indiana Jones, but here are three others:

1. If they wanted to do another one they probably should have done it after Crystal Skull.
2. The trailers make it seem like it mostly takes place in Manhattan which does not interest me at all.
3. Was Ford coming back contingent on his character being killed? ( I'm sure I've seen that somewhere before). If that's the case, that's not something I want to watch at this point in time.

The Flash is interesting to me mostly because of Michael Keaton. I figure he's probably got 10 minutes in the movie, all of which I will probably enjoy. I have to decide if the rest of the movie is worth watching, which I don't have enough information to make this decision, so I'll pass for now.

That leaves us with Wes Anderson. Anderson doesn't just consistently make movies that are watchable, he makes movies that are infinitely rewatchable. I often see something new or different when I revisit them. Wes Anderson seems the reliable choice.

The movie is centered around a Junior Stargazer named Woodrow who has a war photographer father.

I find Woodrow relatable, in the sense that he's a "gifted kid" and I was considered to be a "gifted kid" [other people's words]. Unlike me Woodrow is a super genius, but I like seeing a character like this depicted with his humanity rather than as something more like Sheldon Cooper. There were also things I did as a kid that reminded me a little of Junior Stargazers, but obviously none of us were inventing death rays or jet packs or anything like that.

By the way, Woodrow's three little sisters are hilarious.

Tilda Swinton is quite good as an astronomer whose passion for the subject is unrivaled. I found that character extremely likable.

I also think Steve Carrell is amusing as motel owner with an interesting collection of vending machines.

I was trying to figure out if I was watching Luke Wilson or Jason Schwartzman for much of the movie. I eventually figured it out, but I had trouble because Jason is much more subdued here, which threw me off. This role is like if his character in the Darjeeling Limited was a dad, in some ways.

I thought the depiction of the military claiming ownership over all these inventions was interesting. It's a realistic dynamic in a way. How many of these kids will grow up to work for some organization or another who has goals which might not all be ethically 100% on the up-and-up? I'm less optimistic than Red Herring. The ending to me really suggest business continuing as usual.

There is another aspect to this movie and that's the metatextual element. Asteroid City is also the name of the play, and there is some sort of TV documentary about the play which is depicted in this stylized, colorized way. Then we have black and white sequences involving the goings-on behind the scene of the theatrical production. There are metatextual elements to Grand Budapest Hotel or French Dispatch, but there's a lot more of that here.

It began to bother me around the time they did it with Scarlet Johannsen, who is playing an actress playing another actress. I couldn't figure out how exactly the two actresses related to each other beyond the fact that one is playing the other, and I couldn't really bring myself to care.

I felt around this point that this behind-the-scenes stuff was both frustrating and overused.

I was much more interested in watching the stylized Asteroid City play than the behind the scenes drama of the people involved in the theatrical production. Halfway through, my internal monologue started to go: Can we stop cutting back to everyone's problems backstage and keep focusing on the stuff about the alien and super-genius kids, their parents, and the military?

Except I did develop a theory that there is a method to the madness:

Edward Norton during one of these sequences says that the play may just contain the meaning of life. But I think what we are getting at with this backstage drama is how elusive this is. We see a few scenes of actors reciting lines from this play, which resembles watching an actual play. Some of these scenes are related to the alien, but they all seem to amount the fact that we never actually get to "know" the alien. We're also led to believe there is going to be some kind of monologue by Jeff Goldblum, but we never actually see it. This felt like a disappointment, especially because I was tickled by the coincidence of seeing him as an alien again after just watched him in Earth Girls are Easy.

What we do hear Jeff Goldblum say is that he discusses the alien as a metaphor, which I think it might be. The metaphor in this case would seem to be in relation to the meaning of life. They represent the answer to something we couldn't figure out ourselves. Don't people often look at aliens, when they aren't afraid of them, as answers to something? They're going to come and give us world peace. But here the aliens visit and it's just a random cipher. The alien steals a rock, and then later gives it back. The story is leaked, but nothing in changes in how we perceive or interact with ourselves. Atomic tests continue as usual. We don't know why the alien did what they did; the alien remains alien. They're unknowable as maybe the meaning of life is unknowable. (Well I think Camus said something that made sense, but it's also not exactly easy and it's more of a "figure it out for yourself" type thing.)

Unless I'm right and not overthinking this, this meta stuff does drag things down a bit and it's not his best movie. The Grand Budapest Hotel or the French Dispatch are masterpieces. This is not. The thing it reminds me the most of is The Life Aquatic; they have shared DNA. I haven't watched The Life Aquatic recently, but I remember it as an enjoyable quirky movie; it just doesn't have any sublime moments, emotional arcs, or highly meaningful moments. Asteroid City is a fun quirky adventure that is hampered by all the playing around with metatextual elements. Picture it as the Life Aquatic, but set in the desert and centered around the space, not the sea. Add in that the movie will occasionally cut back to an actor you know playing a different actor playing the characters you are probably actually interested in watching. It's enjoyable but there are things about it that are frustrating (unless my crackpot theory above is true, which it probably isn't).

I hope I've given good sense of what watching it is like for people who can't decide whether or not they want to see the movie. There are lots of things to recommend it, but I also found it to have issues.

 

[Totenkindly]

They released reviews a week before the film, which is typically a decent sign.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I've thought about it, and I think I want to see both Barbie and Oppenheimer.

The only other movie I've seen of Greta Gerwig's is Little Women, but I thought that was pretty good. It was much bleaker than the 90s version, which I finally watched in it's entirety last December, but that doesn't make it a bad film. But anyway having watched that movie and seeing the trailers makes me think that we're in for something very interesting here.

Nolan, of course, has made a lot of things I've liked. This seems like it will probably be something like Dunkirk tonally. By the way, I've seen some people criticizing for historical accuracy. Whatever, I never assume a Hollywood movie is 100% historically accurate. They're trying to make real life become cinematic; of course there are things they will change or leave out.

I didn't actually initially want to see it because it seemed like it would just be too much, given the subject matter. This will probably still be the case, but the trailer I saw was riveting and I know Nolan can make a movie that matches that. This movie is going to be interesting on a lot of different levels, scientific, ethical, historical, psychological. I think I'm ready for it.

But basically I think these are two summer movies that have more going on than usual.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It is as I feared.

This looks awful.

Why is Timothy Chalamet channeling Andy from Parks and Rec here? If that's the way you're going to go, maybe just get Chris Pratt?

It also seems like every damn thing in this movie will be a reference to something from the original movie, perhaps propping it up with lots of undue importance and reverence, which is of course exactly what I dreaded.

Although maybe some points can be earned for not referencing Burton's version, at least so far? Tim Burton has made some incredible iconic films, but this was lame and toothless (fitting perhaps for a movie about chocolate). The original movie is kind of like an old school fairytale (pre Disney I mean, but Disney can be darker than people think), and I think that's part of it's charm that it's a little spooky. All of this is gone from Tim Burton's version, who I guess just wants to catch paychecks now (which I never blame anyone for). It's a shame really because this used to be what he did as a filmmaker; make things that were largely for kids but also kind of spooky. Like if it was at a different period in his career, he would actually have been the perfect choice.

I get the impression by the trailer that we're getting something sanitized here, too, although this is an origin story so maybe not. I have a lot of issues with Solo, but I did appreciate that towards the end they showed why he became the more rough-edged character he was in the original Star Wars, Maybe they're doing something like that, but I think that's giving these filmmakers too much credit.

 

[ceecee]

It is as I feared.

This looks awful.

Why is Timothy Chalamet channeling Andy from Parks and Rec here? If that's the way you're going to go, maybe just get Chris Pratt?

It also seems like every damn thing in this movie will be a reference to something from the original movie, perhaps propping it up with lots of undue importance and reverence, which is of course exactly what I dreaded.

Although maybe some points can be earned for not referencing Burton's version, at least so far? Tim Burton has made some incredible iconic films, but this was lame and toothless (fitting perhaps for a movie about chocolate). The original movie is kind of like an old school fairytale (pre Disney I mean, but Disney can be darker than people think), and I think that's part of it's charm that it's a little spooky. All of this is gone from Tim Burton's version, who I guess just wants to catch paychecks now (which I never blame anyone for). It's a shame really because this used to be what he did as a filmmaker; make things that were largely for kids but also kind of spooky. Like if it was at a different period in his career, he would actually have been the perfect choice.

I get the impression by the trailer that we're getting something sanitized here, too, although this is an origin story so maybe not. I have a lot of issues with Solo, but I did appreciate that towards the end they showed why he became the more rough-edged character he was in the original Star Wars, Maybe they're doing something like that, but I think that's giving these filmmakers too much credit.

Just awful. I don't hate Timothy Chalamet at all. But he is not the person for this role. Neither was Johnny Depp.

 

[ceecee]

So what do we think about this?

I've seen complaints that JP is too old to play this role. I don't agree with that though. The whole came from nothing line the movie is using isn't really true - his family was minor Italian nobility.

I'm interested to see how this holds up to 1970 Waterloo which I have watched a couple times and recommend highly.

 

[Totenkindly]

‘Oppenheimer’ First Reactions: Critics Left 'Stunned' by ...

As expected, Christopher Nolan's latest film is garnering...

www.complex.com

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

So what do we think about this?

I've seen complaints that JP is too old to play this role. I don't agree with that though. The whole came from nothing line the movie is using isn't really true - his family was minor Italian nobility.

I'm interested to see how this holds up to 1970 Waterloo which I have watched a couple times and recommend highly.

I'm interested, and I am intrigued that Joaquim Phoenix isn't playing him the way I would expect. I also unfortunately am not interested in signing up for AppleTV.

I'm reading about the production of Waterloo and that seems like quite a story.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I was reminded yesterday that I missed Tenet, and this is something that needs to be corrected.

 

[Totenkindly]

I watched the Wonka and the Napolean trailers.

Paul King is directing and writing Wonka. I dunno. Paddington 1&2 are those rare films where both of them nail almost universal acclaim. I'm just not convinced this will carry over to Wonka. It's also clear from the trailer that Chalamet's version is based on Gene Wilder in the original film (it's too close to be an accident -- and even the oompa loompa's look modeled off that film) and comes off as toothless and not as endearing -- plus that's the film that Dahl hated, lol. At least Burton (whatever his faults) didn't try to ape the Mel Stuart film, but Paul King seems to be doubling down on it and there's no way this film can measure up. My prediction is this film will get some initial views for Christmas and nostalgia's sake, but it will probably tank. The problem with Chalamet (despite his chops) is that he might not be a great match for this performance as they seem trying to channel it, yet who else but an unknown (which they don't want to use for a property as well-known as this) would do better? I can't even think of who they should cast, tbh.

Scott's Napoleon looks more interesting from the trailer. I haven't yet determined whether it will just be okay or actually pretty decent, but I doubt it will be bad. It also has a hell of a main cast (Joaquin Phoenix? Jodie Comer? Vanessa Kirby? wow! Jury is out on Needham because I boo/hiss at him for Larys way too much, I guess we'll see.) I don't think Phoenix is too old. He's 48, and I guess Napoleon started fighting in his late 20's through his 40's? He was Emperor of France from his mid 30's through mid 40's? Phoenix can pass for that with the right makeup.

I am actually one of those that enjoyed Scott's "The Last Duel" and I wish it had gotten more public awareness.

I posted comments about Oppenheimer above. Honestly, while Dunkirk was a well-made film, it is not one of my top faves of Nolan's work -- I just often feel like I've seen that film before and doesn't really do a lot of new stuff for me aside from maybe the subplot w/ Barry Keoghan (why does that guy always have the most interesting roles?), and I don't feel much desire to ever rewatch it, whereas some other Nolan films I will rewatch 1-2x a year. So I was like, "Okay, not a scifi film... and it's a historical film, so will it be another Dunkirk? And what can you do dramatically with a film about a guy making a bomb to end the war, where we already know the ending?"

But apparently the presentation of this story might be remarkable, if it is generating such emotion. That fascinates me, I can't imagine how he would be pulling that off.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I watched the Wonka and the Napolean trailers.

Paul King is directing and writing Wonka. I dunno. Paddington 1&2 are those rare films where both of them nail almost universal acclaim. I'm just not convinced this will carry over to Wonka. It's also clear from the trailer that Chalamet's version is based on Gene Wilder in the original film (it's too close to be an accident -- and even the oompa loompa's look modeled off that film) and comes off as toothless and not as endearing -- plus that's the film that Dahl hated, lol. At least Burton (whatever his faults) didn't try to ape the Mel Stuart film, but Paul King seems to be doubling down on it and there's no way this film can measure up. My prediction is this film will get some initial views for Christmas and nostalgia's sake, but it will probably tank. The problem with Chalamet (despite his chops) is that he might not be a great match for this performance as they seem trying to channel it, yet who else but an unknown (which they don't want to use for a property as well-known as this) would do better? I can't even think of who they should cast, tbh.

I just don't see anything enigmatic coming from him and that's the best part of Gene Wilder's Wonka. Perhaps they're building the groundwork for that later, but it could just be incompetence. It seems bland and toothless (and I know I've already used that word). I do like the production design but if everything else falls as flatly as it seems to in this trailer, there's a problem.

Scott's Napoleon looks more interesting from the trailer. I haven't yet determined whether it will just be okay or actually pretty decent, but I doubt it will be bad. It also has a hell of a main cast (Joaquin Phoenix? Jodie Comer? Vanessa Kirby? wow! Jury is out on Needham because I boo/hiss at him for Larys way too much, I guess we'll see.) I don't think Phoenix is too old. He's 48, and I guess Napoleon started fighting in his late 20's through his 40's? He was Emperor of France from his mid 30's through mid 40's? Phoenix can pass for that with the right makeup.

I am actually one of those that enjoyed Scott's "The Last Duel" and I wish it had gotten more public awareness.

That was something I wanted to see that I never got around to. I was very impressed by the cast in addition to the fact that it was a new historical epic.

I posted comments about Oppenheimer above. Honestly, while Dunkirk was a well-made film, it is not one of my top faves of Nolan's work -- I just often feel like I've seen that film before and doesn't really do a lot of new stuff for me aside from maybe the subplot w/ Barry Keoghan (why does that guy always have the most interesting roles?), and I don't feel much desire to ever rewatch it, whereas some other Nolan films I will rewatch 1-2x a year. So I was like, "Okay, not a scifi film... and it's a historical film, so will it be another Dunkirk? And what can you do dramatically with a film about a guy making a bomb to end the war, where we already know the ending?"

But apparently the presentation of this story might be remarkable, if it is generating such emotion. That fascinates me, I can't imagine how he would be pulling that off.

It probably helps that there is a lot to be gleaned from the source material, and while I'm not too familiar with Oppenheimer, I think there are enough layers to make the experience different then Dunkirk. I was reminded of Dunkirk because the trailer music reminded me of Dunkirk, and it is the same time period, give or take a few years. I get the sense from the trailers that they will be delving into such things as the ethical consequences as well as scientific audacity of what they were doing. I watched the trailer and I found myself thinking about how crazy the whole thing was (and there is the whole issue of how it was actually used, as well). Who comes up with the idea that you can split an atom? How was it that someone even thought that was possible? I don't know if the movie will go that deep into it, but it seemed like they were touching on it somewhat.

I wonder how much of the movie actually takes place during the war. I can sort of piece together this really interesting arc based on what I do know about Oppenheimer, though I'm not sure if the details are accurate. It's also a little odd to be talking as though there are secrets and spoilers when it's a historical figure.

 

[Red Herring]

Who comes up with the idea that you can split an atom? How was it that someone even thought that was possible?

The crazy girls and boys of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry in Berlin: Ida, Lise, Fritz, Otto and Otto (among others).

I was taught as a youth that it was mostly Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn, her more than him, actually. And she was anything but enthusiastic about what that discovery was used for, IIRC. But as so often in science that kind of work is seldom done by one lonely genius locked up in a cellar somewhere and more years of work by several people that are exchanging ideas and information.
And it's not like anybody ever took a walk in the woods and thought "hey, you know what, let's try to split atoms!". Fermi had shot recently discovered neutrons at uranium and observed a weird phenomenon of partial destruction. Ida Noddack might have been the first to understand what was happening. Meitner and Hahn then decided to actively work on it. Lise Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch then were the first to publish. Somebody makes an observation, somebody else theorizes on an explanation, yet another one decides to test the theory, etc.

Both Meitner and Noddack were repeatedly suggested for the Nobel Prize ... guess what?

 

[SD45T-2]

It probably helps that there is a lot to be gleaned from the source material, and while I'm not too familiar with Oppenheimer, I think there are enough layers to make the experience different then Dunkirk. I was reminded of Dunkirk because the trailer music reminded me of Dunkirk, and it is the same time period, give or take a few years. I get the sense from the trailers that they will be delving into such things as the ethical consequences as well as scientific audacity of what they were doing. I watched the trailer and I found myself thinking about how crazy the whole thing was (and there is the whole issue of how it was actually used, as well). Who comes up with the idea that you can split an atom? How was it that someone even thought that was possible? I don't know if the movie will go that deep into it, but it seemed like they were touching on it somewhat.

I wonder how much of the movie actually takes place during the war. I can sort of piece together this really interesting arc based on what I do know about Oppenheimer, though I'm not sure if the details are accurate. It's also a little odd to be talking as though there are secrets and spoilers when it's a historical figure.

When I first saw the trailer I had just read Raven Rock by Garrett Graff, some of which dovetails with Command and Control by Eric Schlosser, which I had read previously. It was wild to be seeing a dramatization of things I had just been reading about.

Some of the nuclear tests in the '50s and '60s were nuts. Castle Bravo had a yield 3 times greater than anticipated, with tragic results. And it turned out that testing nukes in space could have a side effect of killing satellites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

 

[ceecee]

‘Oppenheimer’ First Reactions: Critics Left 'Stunned' by ...

As expected, Christopher Nolan's latest film is garnering...

www.complex.com

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678885153655910400

 

[ceecee]

I just don't see anything enigmatic coming from him and that's the best part of Gene Wilder's Wonka. Perhaps they're building the groundwork for that later, but it could just be incompetence. It seems bland and toothless (and I know I've already used that word). I do like the production design but if everything else falls as flatly as it seems to in this trailer, there's a problem.


That was something I wanted to see that I never got around to. I was very impressed by the cast in addition to the fact that it was a new historical epic.


It probably helps that there is a lot to be gleaned from the source material, and while I'm not too familiar with Oppenheimer, I think there are enough layers to make the experience different then Dunkirk. I was reminded of Dunkirk because the trailer music reminded me of Dunkirk, and it is the same time period, give or take a few years. I get the sense from the trailers that they will be delving into such things as the ethical consequences as well as scientific audacity of what they were doing. I watched the trailer and I found myself thinking about how crazy the whole thing was (and there is the whole issue of how it was actually used, as well). Who comes up with the idea that you can split an atom? How was it that someone even thought that was possible? I don't know if the movie will go that deep into it, but it seemed like they were touching on it somewhat.

I wonder how much of the movie actually takes place during the war. I can sort of piece together this really interesting arc based on what I do know about Oppenheimer, though I'm not sure if the details are accurate. It's also a little odd to be talking as though there are secrets and spoilers when it's a historical figure.

All I ever heard as a kid when he was mentioned was - Oppenheimer was a communist! Nothing about what he accomplished which was incredible. But since we are basically going to relive McCarthyism, it's good timing for this movie.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

So is The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles no longer canon? Because Indy is a happy, adjusted old man by the early nineties in that timeline.

Everything Disney touches is just such a bummer. I hate how their stench taints everything, including their own original IPs currently being revisited and reimagined