love

Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched (2013-2016)  (Read 973540 times)

sdb_1970

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2294
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Originating November 2013)
« Reply #190 on: November 25, 2013, 12:37:58 PM »
Blue Is The Warmest Color (2013)

Of course, a lot of attention has been given to the theoretically more overtly erotic content. There are a number of fairly explicit sex scenes. I have absolutely no objections to the length or explicitness, but did hit a point of problem in that they just didn't convey an authenticity or genuine eroticness. For scenes where the characters are supposed to be really turned on and into it, I kind of want the scene to get me really into it. This should be a power of cinema that surpasses orientation because you are invested in the character. What is offered in BitWC feels too elaborate (and slaphappy) to really get that feeling. In this way, because the scenes don't really hold up, I do feel for the actresses.

Agree 100%
letterboxd

[insert pithy expression of false modesty here]

Lobby

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2762
    • The Velvet Café
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Originating November 2013)
« Reply #191 on: November 25, 2013, 04:56:52 PM »
The doll that makes a difference



“My son loves it.”

I found this comment at a web shop where you could get the “Barbie Collector Black Collection The Hunger Games Barbie Doll – Katniss”.

It made me smile because it wrapped up what a remarkable change the western world has gone through over the last thirty years.

How far away isn’t Katniss from the helpless Barbie bimbos that were the only one available when I grew up? No longer does a doll have to endure the suffering of high heel shoes or tight skirts that prevent you from doing anything apart from standing still watching your own mirror image. The Katniss doll has a pair of solid boots and practical trousers with pockets on the legs where she can keep her stuff. She looks just like the badass heroine she is in the movie: as someone who is capable of not just taking care of herself, but also of leading others. Boys and girls equally can us her as a role model and source of inspiration as they’re mouldering out their own personalities.

We’ve come a far, far way, haven’t we?

Female protagonists

In a nutshell this doll highlights what I enjoy most about the Hunger Games series and why I’m happy to see that the latest installation, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is doing so fine at the box office.

From now on there shouldn’t be any question about it. Yes, you can make a movie with a female protagonist who wears comfortable clothes and who cares more about the success of her mission and her own survival than about her looks or some love interest, and you can make it profitable. Hopefully we’ll get more of those in the years to come. The future equivalence of Harry Potter, Frodo or James Bond won’t be men by default. What a relief!

“But the love triangle!” someone might disagree. “Isn’t that just clichéd and silly?” Yes, it is and I would be happier without it. But as long as it doesn’t take over the entire film, I can live with it. Katniss isn’t defined by what guy she’ll end up with. They are like satellites in orbit around her. She’s a part of a greater cause and no boy, however handsome, will come between her and her mission.

Positives and negatives
Does all this love for Katniss mean that I think this is a terrific movie in every way? Well, not exactly. As I listened to the recent /Film podcast show and heard the hosts lining up dozens of issues they had with it, I nodded often. It wasn’t flaws that I had noticed as I watched it, but now that they mentioned it, some of the criticism made sense. But you may ask: if you don’t notice the problem as you watch it, is it really a problem?

For my own part I found it pretty similar to the first film. There are negatives, but after an inner battle, the positives take the overhand. The issues I had with some of the costumes in the first film are still there: I think the city fashion is too much. It makes the movie look like it was intended for young children, which it clearly isn’t.

I was also a little dismayed when I realized that the party was going back to the same old dome for yet another round of Battle Royale, the light version. It does feel a little repetitive. I had hoped for more action to take place outside of it, to get a better understanding for the uprising in the districts, which now is reduced to a gesture and nothing more.

I would probably have been more smitten by this film when I was 12 years old. Now I’m in my 40s and somewhat over-aged. But again: the 2,5 hours went pretty fast, I didn’t fall asleep at any point and I was entertained and engaged more or less all the way through it, so I can’t really complain.

But the best thing about The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is the Barbie doll it has inspired.


The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (Francis Lawrence, US 2013) My raing: 3,5/5
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 05:05:43 PM by Lobby »
http://thevelvetcafe.wordpress.com/  - where I think aloud about movies

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Originating November 2013)
« Reply #192 on: November 25, 2013, 11:27:01 PM »

Underground (rewatch) - I had in mind for my fourth viewing of the film to finally watch the five hour television version.  When I had at last set aside an appropriate chunk of time, I found that my copy has the English subtitles appearing over the burned-in German subtitles.  It was distracting and hard to read, so I quickly gave up and put in the old DVD of the theatrical version.  Which is perhaps just as well, because my one big complaint about this film is that it does feel a bit long.  Even the (Palme d'Or-winning) theatrical cut weighs in at nearly three hours.  That's a long time for such a manic film.  While every scene has its charms, some are superfluous and repetitive in the grand scheme of things.

It's for this reason that I'll be knocking this one off my top 100 in the next revision.  I need to make room for Girl Walk // All Day anyway, and besides, Kusturica is already represented by the wonderful Time of the Gypsies (a movie I anticipate remaining on my list for many years to come).  Making lists is an insane process, involving far too much hand-wringing and hair-splitting than the end result merits (how much does anyone really care about someone else's favorite movies?) so maybe next time I'll take a more devil-may-care approach.

All of this is poor prelude to what should be the heart of this review, which is: I love this film, overlong though it may be.  Kusturica takes slapstick to dizzying heights, framing it in a world that's perpetually falling to pieces.  Chaos is the norm, with fights breaking out and chimps driving tanks, all while the brass band plays on (Goran Bregovic's oompa score is infectious).  Underneath the fun is tragic social commentary.  You can blame the downfall of Yugoslavia on Nazis, or Russia, or Tito... but Kusturica also shakes his head at Yugoslavians themselves.  Profiteering, deception, delusion, collusion, ignorance both willful and imposed.  The citizens lived, like the residents of the underground shelter, in a world of their own design, either blind to or ignoring the reality until it was too late.

But after a final act that illustrates the tragic absurdity and sorrow of Yugoslavia, and what brother has done to brother, Kusturica gives us a coda with a ray of hope, or at least pleasant nostalgia for a lost country.  It's a glorious scene that is "Fellini-esque" in the best possible way.  It is bittersweet in the fullest meaning of the word, leaving the viewer charmed by these severely flawed but so very human (and entertaining) characters while lamenting what they had done.  Rating: Great (94)

Dave the Necrobumper

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12730
  • If I keep digging maybe I will get out of this hol
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Originating November 2013)
« Reply #193 on: November 26, 2013, 04:42:06 AM »
Black Moon (1975 Louis Malle)

Strange, very strange, what is real and what is not. I watched the Criterion edition on Hulu Plus and the story has some jumps like there is more but it has ended up on the cutting room floor. The story I am not going to try and explain. I will say the sound is excellent.

6/10

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Originating November 2013)
« Reply #194 on: November 26, 2013, 09:51:49 AM »
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
* * *

I wish I had waited for DVD and not been sucked into the hype. I blame Francis Lawrence, who I expected to be a huge improvement over Gary Ross. This isn't much better than the first film, which means once again Jennifer Lawrence is great and everyone else not so much. (The weakest link is Josh Hutcherson, who seems to think this is the new Twilight while everyone else is aiming for Harry Potter heights. ) There's way too much time treading water building to the Hunger Games. Then when the games come, the scenes aren't half as exciting as I wished they were.

I'm not a fan of the world, which doesn't feel like it has an internal logic that exists beyond what we see. All the garish costume and makeup design and fancy lighting effects are as phony as Stanley Tucci's master of ceremonies. I wish they wouldn't jump so quickly from Districts 11 and 12 into The Capital. If you've got this incredible world, why are you afraid to show us the places in between? (I think it's because they've only been sketched in.)

Worth watching for Lawrence and the occasional bits of excitement, like the feistiness of Jena Malone.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Originating November 2013)
« Reply #195 on: November 27, 2013, 12:24:44 AM »
I see what you are saying but you are completely wrong…

Catching Fire (2013)

One consistent refrain I've heard from fans of the Hunger Games book series is that Catching Fire is their favorite and Mockingjay their least. For me, it is the inverse. I felt the book suffered from problems typical of middle volumes, feeling like just the bridge from the story start to end rather than containing its own narrative arc. By heading back into the HG arena, it also felt slightly repetitive of the first. Watching the film I sensed none of this. It is the rare instance where the film manages to improve the book.

The Hunger Games won me over immediately (in book form) with its ability to establish a compelling world. If that book revealed a strong sense of this world of vast economic inequality with a suitably tense political stability, Catching Fire is expert in showing the difficulty of maintaining control if you are a leader who is trying to suppress the majority. Hunger Games was context but Catching Fire is where Katniss, and the rest of the population must move from making the immediate choices that might guarantee survival for themselves and those close to them to taking the risk to achieve not just survival but a true living. The book series and now the films are just so very insightful about the nature of tyranny and revolution, I feel like I can picture Marx watching this film and nodding along vigorously.

Katniss embodies this narrative arc and social dilemma as she struggles with the symbolic role that has been thrust on her with no great intention. No matter how hard leaders or the media tries to shape things, individuals can't really control how masses respond. So much in the opening act of the film seemed unfamiliar with me as I believe there are a lot of moments that were modified to make the story work better, even if this isn't the case, they are visualized and acted so well that it feels different. And the film largely avoids making the return to the arena feel redundant by minimizing its role in the film's runtime, giving us just enough as is necessary to the story. In this case, I was thrilled because everything else was so strong. It leaves me comfortable that those guiding the series will be able to handle two films worth of Mockingjay.

So yeah, I expected to like this film. What I didn't expect is that it would be an active rival of Gravity for my favorite of the year and likely a spot in my top-100 of all time. With two parts dedicated to my favorite book in the series to come, this could easily go down as one of the greatest film series of all time, alongside the likes of Before Sunset et al. The ability to combine mainstream blockbuster appeal with powerful political themes and great gender consideration is truly remarkable.

5/5

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Originating November 2013)
« Reply #196 on: November 27, 2013, 12:29:34 AM »
Frozen
* * *

The Disney animation resurgence continues, but I don't know what to make of this one. That's partly because of my belly full of Disney Kool-Aid. It's a great movie in a lot of places, but I can't tell if that greatness will be accepted by others. The greatness is peppered with small bits that don't work, keeping it from truly launching into the category of Animation Classic.

For half the film this is a full blown musical with more singing than talking. The songs are good and very Broadway, Like a lot of Broadway they're not catchy but cleverly integrated into the narrative. I liked how much the film pulls from Broadway talent, giving the songs a full rich voice. As it goes on, the melodies feel less regional and take on more of a High School Musical vibe, which still isn't bad. Then they stop altogether, and I don't know why. Why make the commitment and then withdraw halfway through?

The story involves a dramatic event that is kept secret from one of the sisters. Increasingly this secret becomes idiot plot, where if one sister would tell the other sister what happened in the past the whole mess that follows wouldn't happen.

The villain here is an idiot, which is not good for a bad guy. He's introduced with his toupee falling over his face, declawing him before he even has a chance to plot. (There's more to this but it's too early to be spoiling. The bad guy stuff later in the film is equally toothless.)

The film is very funny in places. I'm hesitant to say Olaf the Snowman steals the film because there are a dozen times where he Jar Jars it. I laughed hard and loud during banal lines because Josh Gad's voice work is to be praised, but then there are moments where no talking snowman was needed and nothing clever was written, but they had to keep selling the snowman. I started to cringe knowing he was incapable of keeping quiet, unsure if what he said would be truly funny or just annoying.

There are rock trolls voiced in an African-American soul/gospel style. It's a terrible vocal choice and their song is the worst. Mark my words, by Jan. 2015, someone will be calling Frozen the most overrated Disney film of All-Time, and people will be sick to death of hearing "Let it Go" on an endless loop.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2015, 05:45:36 PM by 1SO »

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Originating November 2013)
« Reply #197 on: November 27, 2013, 01:21:29 AM »
Russian Ark (2002)

This is obviously just a stunt film. I mean, it seems such a cheap way to draw attention to base your film in this amazing building full of beautiful art and history. I feel like that is probably as valid as focusing on the fact that the film uses a single 90 minute take, which often overshadows other aspects of the film. While that is a remarkable feat, ultimately it is the museum and the way the film uses it that leave a more lasting impression than the technical feat.

To a large extent, this is the greatest museum tour ever. The uninterrupted, POV take very much makes it feel as if it is you walking around the museum for 90 minutes, taking everything in. For a bit of interest, a slightly mad man enters to act as a companion for the journey. Aside from seeing the beauty, the experience is heightened by reenactment of history from various moments in Russian history that actually involved the building, it brings history to life as if it could be viewed like a sculpture or a painting.

The one main hesitation about the film is the sound. I totally get that dubbing was going to be necessary as a function of the single take. Though stage actors do 90 minutes, there is just too much going on here. But the dubbing is done weirdly such that both the "narrator" whose POV we inhabit and the "European" who guides us are dubbed at a pretty singular volume, even when the European is wandering near or far. It has a disembodied voice effect that is off-putting.

The film isn't really meaningful to me, there isn't much of a story and I'm not sure I'm learning a lot because it isn't really providing heavy specifics. It is all more about the general aesthetic value and experiential factor. This is surprisingly satisfying enough.

4/5
« Last Edit: November 27, 2013, 01:00:10 PM by Bondo »

jascook

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 491
  • Cue the sun
    • Jas Watches Movies:  The Blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Originating November 2013)
« Reply #198 on: November 27, 2013, 10:35:02 AM »
Raising Arizona (Joel Coen, 1987)
You'd have thought I would have seen Raising Arizona at some point.  I think I've had a slight aversion to Nicolas Cage so I've subconsciously steered clear of it.  But really there was no reason to do so.  Cage is on top of his game here, as is Holly Hunter, both in their roles as a childless couple who steal a quintuplet from a well-to-do family.  It helps that I've seen several Coen Brothers films in the past month or so:  their distinct stamp is all over this film.  (I'm eagerly awaiting the release of Inside Llewyn Davis.)

The Coens accomplish a difficult task here.  Despite that our two lead characters have done something despicable, you actually (almost) root for them to get what they want.  Nathan Sr. (the father of the quintuplets) is not an overtly malicious person, but at the same time he isn't exactly the most hands-on parent in the world; even as he's being interviewed about his missing child he's still coercing people to buy furniture from him.  Hi and Ed are not ideal parents by any stretch, but they go to pretty great lengths to rescue the baby from Randall "Tex" Cobb's character.  They are also very protective of each other, as evidenced when Sam McMurray's character suggests to Hi that they wife-swap.  There is a lot of heart to this film, and the humor works too.  And, of course, there's yet another great performance by John Goodman.

Out of the half-dozen or so Coen films I've seen, Raising Arizona stands very well amongst them.  It may not be the best, but it's pretty damn good.

8/10
Sara: Good-bye, father Isak. Can't you see you're the one I love? Today, tomorrow and forever.
Isak Borg: I'll keep that in mind.

jascook

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 491
  • Cue the sun
    • Jas Watches Movies:  The Blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Originating November 2013)
« Reply #199 on: November 27, 2013, 10:36:34 AM »
To Live (Zhang Yimou, 1994)
(Mini-marathon:  Zhang Yimou, Part 3)
It seems I saved the best for last.  The other two Zhang films I watched were each concentrated on a short time span, whereas this one spans roughly thirty years in the lives of the family on which it focuses.  There are tragic elements, to be sure, but there is always the undercurrent of hope throughout.  It's an excellent portrayal of the political situation in China in the mid-20th century as it affected the public, people who had no say, no way of changing their surroundings for the better, but could hope only to survive another day.  I found myself caring more for these characters than I normally do when I watch a movie:  they just seemed so real, so true.  On a rewatch I could easily see To Live making it into my Top 50.
9/10

Zhang Yimou is a director who (at least for the 1990s, when these three films in my mini-marathon were released) has a strong visual style, among the best I've ever seen.  I gave two of the films an 8/10, and this one made it to a 9/10 (and could be a 10 next time around).  I understand that a lot of film buffs have been less impressed with some of his later work, but for me that remains to be seen at such time as I can give it a go.

The next mini-marathon will be after the Thanksgiving holiday, probably in early December.  I'm thinking it will probably be three movies from a given year, but I'm still mulling that one over.
Sara: Good-bye, father Isak. Can't you see you're the one I love? Today, tomorrow and forever.
Isak Borg: I'll keep that in mind.