Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched  (Read 684790 times)

Will

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 912
  • Justice for Elijah McClain
    • The Alice Guy Blache Show
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #5650 on: March 03, 2021, 01:25:18 PM »
O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? - The Coen Brothers have this uncanny ability to choose a highly specific time and place that few people have previously made films about. They've remarked many times that they don't watch a lot of movies, but the work of Preston Sturges surges through the veins of every one of their films. This one seems to be the most obvious in that regard since the behind-the-scenes notate that this is their imagined version of the film Sullivan wants to make in SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS. What do you think is the better approach: To be a cinematic omnivore like Spielberg and Scorsese OR squarely focus on a type of film like the Coens do with Old Hollywood and Tarantino does with 1970s B-movies? Regardless, the movies Tarantino obsesses over will always be made whereas the ones the Coens love are exceedingly rare and out of fashion. Perhaps that's why the Coens may not be as popular but will likely cast a longer shadow on the world of cinema.

9.

HOT ROD - Comedies, for the most part, aren't allowed to be comedies anymore. They can't be silly. There has to be a beating heart in the chassis of every one of them. Apatow is the main culprit. Behind the shock jock jokes of KNOCKED UP is a human story about the responsibilities of growing up and becoming a heteronormative nuclear family. The success of his comedies later influenced many comedies to divorce the comedy sequences from the narrative. This is most apparent in BLOCKERS where the movie schizophrenically switches between uproarious laughs and think piece didacticism of the evolving parent/teen relationship. People can't simply see a comedy to have fun, there has to be a reason to enjoy it because otherwise how do they justify their time spent on it? HOT ROD is superior to POPSTAR (they're both good) because it doesn't kowtow to curbing the jokes in favor of genuine human moments. We don't need to know so much about the Akiva Schaeffer character. We don't need the big fight in the third act. We need the Marx Brothers throwing fruit at Mrs. Teasdale as she sings the Freedonia anthem.

8.

COMING TO AMERICA - I'm scared that the sequel will just reuse the same jokes. I already know they're going to do a retread of the brilliant, truly laugh-out-loud moment of the "She's your Queen" song. Ugh. This is the original BLACK PANTHER yet actually self-aware about its materialistic excess in the first half. It can't just offer the dream of African billionaires, it has to make a joke out of it. Whereas BLACK PANTHER plays it mostly straight - using its excess as part of the commentary for Killmonger. Yet even there the problem is that the billions, possibly trillions of dollars in value Wakanda has ultimately translates to a liberal virtue signaling in forms of community centers for the Youth across urban areas in the US and maybe (?) the world. Perhaps the biggest problem of the MCU is its tendency to separate institutions from responsibility. Anyway, Murphy & L*ndis knew excess is morally reprehensible... that is, until the end, which seems stricken of its barbs. Still, though - it's a start?

8.

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #5651 on: March 04, 2021, 11:33:56 AM »
Coming 2 America (Craig Brewer, 2021)

In recent years there has been a burgeoning of the “legacyquel”, a term coined by film critic Matt Singer to describe an IP that comes back in some form or fashion as a delivery to a new generation of fans. Good examples would be the latest Star Wars trilogy, the forthcoming Top Gun: Maverick and literally, Tron: Legacy. There is a split, it feels, in the film community in regards to both the validity and enjoyment of such properties. They are in many ways, lazy and obvious money grabs, preying on the nostalgia of fans of the original property to make another buck. In some instances, the films can also be extremely well received. The Last Jedi is perhaps the perfect example of this, a film that split fans and critics alike, with some declaring it the best of the franchise, while others calling it the worst. Where I stand on the new fad is somewhere in between. I, at once, recognize that they are indeed obvious money grabs, but given the property, I may be interested in spending more time in these worlds, with these characters, even if it means knowing full well that there will be some disappointment and likely some bad films as a result.

Coming 2 America is just one such “legacyquel”, which picks up well after the original Coming to America left off in 1988. 30 years later, Prince Akeem (Eddie Murphy) has just become king when the neighboring militant leader General Izzi (Wesley Snipes) threatens invasion unless Akeem and Lisa (Shari Headley) promise their eldest daughter (KiKi Layne) to Izzi’s son. Akeem and Lisa have had three daughters, but no sons, pressuring the arranged marriage. But Akeem soon learns that he has a bastard son, conceived in his brief time in Queens all those years ago. He and Semmi (Arsenio Hall) travel back to America to find him (Jermaine Fowler), only to discover that his brash American ways clash with the Zamunda traditions, while the move also angers Meeka, the eldest daughter who has been training her entire life to rule Zamunda.

To be clear and honest from the very beginning, this is an obvious money grab. The film feels cheap in many ways, and is catering harder than it needs to to please its target audience. So many of the tropes, jokes and funny cast members are back for this foray which feels very similar to the same story told in the original. I was actually pretty disappointed that the film took this direction instead of attempting to craft some interesting original story. By being derivative of itself, it has no room to grow and be different. For some, that will be a joy since the original is loved by many, and fans may be assured by a rehash instead of am ambitious failure. But the material feels stale, and perhaps the greatest offense is that none of the new cast members, save perhaps KiKi Layne, have much to offer the proceedings, both in the comedy and drama departments. All the heavy lifting is done by the returning cast.

We get the same barbershop pals cracking jokes, miraculously unaged from 30 years ago, and even the return of both Reverend Brown and Sexual Chocolate band leader Randy Watson. Because of this, Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall are both allowed to shine in their many varied roles. All of the comedic material that works, is from the original. Very little new introduced here is very funny, but I was taken back and found myself laughing once more with the many characters Eddie and Arsenio have crafted. It’s a spotlight opportunity for both actors. But given that, I was disappointed nothing more came from Jermaine Fowler, or his family members in the movie Leslie Jones and Tracy Morgan. There is an abundance of talent in this film, and disappointing it wasn’t used to greater effective. It is definitely impressive to see the talent amassed here, though, with countless cameos throughout.

The film manages to get to where it needs to go, even if the arc of the characters is obvious and telegraphed from the beginning, at least it did not stray into a resolution it couldn’t have made. To avoid spoilers, it had to be this way, which is tough because its at once boring and necessary. The second half of the film really did pick things up, with the first half feeling like a string of patchwork scenes thrown together hoping to work. It slogged and felt choppy, leaning too heavily on the visual and character cues we’re expecting. My biggest takeaways from the film are this: I don’t for the life of me understand how Arsenio Hall wasn’t a bigger movie star other than the fact he became a late night host, but that man is very funny; I also think that fans of the original will probably get enough out of this to make it worthwhile, but it is disappointing insomuch as it does nothing to elevate it; new audiences will probably also like it to some extent. For me, I’m once again in the middle, just as with the entire concept of the “legacyquel”. Coming 2 America is funny in parts and a joy to spend more time with Akeem and company, but a disappointing and all together unnecessary follow-up to a comedy classic.

★ ★ - Don't Like It
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #5652 on: March 05, 2021, 07:15:04 PM »
I like Raya and the Last Dragon a lot because of course I did, but my mind keeps dwelling on what I didn’t like, such as the modern, hip slang. The film seems ancient/timeless, but then Raya says “here’s the sitch,” "bling is my thing," or from the dragon, “I got skills that kill.”

In general, this one veers closer to Disney’s competition with exaggerated facial expressions and body poses, precocious toddlers and animals performing impossible slapstick comedy, and fart jokes. I’ve written in my Pixar Marathon about fart jokes and how sometimes they work. Could’ve worked here too if not for the exaggerated raspberry noises in the sound mix.

This is better than Frozen II, but it also takes less of a risk and over time I came to admire the ambition of F2 and the characters. That film, for all its flaws, still has moments of WOW. This plays it safe, has a lot of nice moments, but it’s too formula to be especially memorable.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2021, 09:47:44 PM by 1SO »

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #5653 on: March 05, 2021, 07:21:34 PM »
Will go tomorrow, do love that I should revisit Frozen II.

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #5654 on: March 06, 2021, 04:13:40 PM »
Raya And The Last Dragon

Really Bad.

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #5655 on: March 07, 2021, 05:33:28 PM »
Little Fish

The human memory stinks. This is one place our computers have us beat. Truly, a computer's memory is hardly even that; every recall is exactly like the last, so this is less about memory and more about revisiting the past. Even less about revisiting the past than bringing it back to the present and living it again. I have always been interested in memory, and have also been a little mournful when contemplating its frailties. I believe in the beauty of the world despite so many horrors. I also wonder sometimes if my best days are behind me, and if they are, I wish I could just bring them back like a computer, close my eyes, and live them again. It's maybe not totally healthy to think this way, but I think it'd be better than chasing these faint shadows and wondering WHAT IF.  But imagine those shadows were gone themselves. Welcome to Little Fish.

In Chad Hartigan's film, a pandemic called Neuroinflammatory Affliction (NIA) is wiping people's memories bare. Young married couple Jude and Emma must face the horrible reality of this disease when Jude contracts it, and everything begins to fade. We end up frequently traveling between that reality and the early days of their relationship, so that we understand precisely what is at stake. The score is appropriately melodramatic and fairly big in nature. A lot of people are comparing this to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but that film is far more whimsical and a bit more orderly, which suits it. This is more melodramatic in that the level of pain from seeing someone you love start to lose you, thus you starting to lose them, creates heightened emotions and well-earned tears. Olivia Cooke is splendid in her role as Emma, which calls for a tough woman who puts up a proactive front, while letting her true fears and desperation reveal themselves in moments of truly deserved despair. She's vulnerable without being wimpy, and her facial expressions, the way she looks at the man that is soon to be gone, are sincere. Jack O'Connell as Jude is a little less interesting. If anything, Cooke acts for both of them, tailoring her responses to manifestations of his illness, so all he really has to do is act as if he knows her and their life a little bit less with each subsequent scene, chronologically-speaking.

Without a huge budget, Hartigan has to lean into the concept of less is more and choose where to go a little bigger. The atmosphere of disaster is bolstered by three Humvees that roll around the city, a bunch of extras storming the hospital for the NIA treatment, and, if I'm remembering correctly, a few news clips. Beyond that, locations are as simple as a night club, pet store, vet clinic, apartment (awesome apartment with brick walls), a whale watch, the beach, a lot of places that were well-scouted, but nothing terribly out of the ordinary. Really, renting those Humvees might have been the most expensive visual element, the rest just being equipment and performers. Personally, I think the best films are the ones that can be built from the ordinary, and in the case of Little Fish, the minimalist approach to building this mad world works to perfection. It's not a film that necessarily feels small, punching well above its budget. There are impressive visual flourishes here for the seemingly low-budget, whether they are the kiss in the fish room where the lights in the tanks turning off as the camera moves toward the lovers (the most Eternal Sunshine of all moments), the yellow paint memory Jude has that keeps Emma close to him for yet another moment, or the and interesting locations for Jude's photos that end up indeed picture perfect. This is a film that intends to stand out, and that it does.

I should also say, there is a visual moment in this film where I had to cover my face with my sweatshirt and wince away. I'll let you figure that one out.

The ending is heart-rending stuff, which I'll also let you figure out.

The truth of time, space, and memory are continuous concerns of the cinema, and Little Fish continues the tradition properly. If you want another small film with big ambitions to accompany this, I highly recommend A.T. White's 2019 picture, Starfish. Both deal with loss and grief in honest, sad, and loving ways. They are both ambitious and achieve their ambition through smart and innovative uses of common places in uncommon ways, lighting, and music (Starfish is especially a must-see for the music buff). Both remind you that life and everyone and everything you know are transient concepts just moving past each other even as they dance with each other. Both are intimate affairs. As for Little Fish, it's one I can see myself returning to before the year is out to see just how well it stands up to others from this year. In a way, Jude loses his memories, so that we can remember just how precious ours are.
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #5656 on: March 07, 2021, 06:40:57 PM »
That one was definitely one of my favorites from the Denver Film Festival. And some of your comments make it seem well suited to bundle with Koreeda’s After Life (though this year’s Apples certainly is the immediate comparison).

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #5657 on: March 07, 2021, 07:30:07 PM »
Aaaand now Apples is on the watch list.
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #5658 on: March 08, 2021, 11:32:57 PM »
After Life

To upload my response to this film would take digital storage that isn't available yet to us in the present. Attached to the core, visceral feelings are a multitude of reactions that span the consciousness and go far, far beyond that, into places I hope we know someday, but feel OK not knowing today.

This is Tarkovsky's Stalker for normal people. That's at least one of the many impressions I had during my After Life experience, which came up intermittently. I struggled with Stalker because I did not feel that the visuals lived up to the concept. I never felt like I was in any strange, foreign place, it just looked like grassland (then caves and such) to me. Throwing the bag of hardware to make sure the three central characters wouldn't get lost didn't much help it. In After Life, we are simply in some sort of old boarding school or in-patient facility where people come when they die to decide on a memory in which they'll live for eternity. Again, as in Stalker, the look didn't transport me, but here I let myself be led. With Stalker we have a picture that is highly philosophical, as well as religious, and while I quite liked it, all of the conversing, or perhaps professing, didn't mean as much as the images and words in After Life. After Life cuts more to the core of the normal person's life, full of love, angst, and nostalgia, centered around the ones we loved, the way we loved spending time, and all of the sensorial experience that come with those things. Both After Life and Stalker attempt to cut to the core of what everything means, what it is all about, but I prefer this simpler (on the surface) interpretation. Simple, but with infinite meaning to the normal person that finds much to love in life.

With the memories they have identified, the after life intake staff works to create a film based on the memory. They scout locations, they build sound stages and props, they design the sound based on what their clients tell them, and then they bring the client in to test them out. The meta element is rich and profound. It says, movies are as various as the people on the planet, there is no correct interpretation. The workers in this after life hub are the crew, attempting to bring the world of the writer-director (the deceased) to life according to their specifications. The creator than becomes the audience, and the end product becomes the thing the director must live with forever. Once you put something into the world, it is permanent. A titanic responsibility, even if in the end you're the one to which it means the most.

There is a rich point about memory in this film. It often points to the frailties of memory. Mr. Watanabe, one of the deceased, cannot think of a memory he wants to relive, so he's given a VHS tape of memories from each year of his life. The disclaimer is, of course, that these memories he's watching won't quite be accurate, but are a launching pad for him to find his memory with which he'll be forever. You can see recordings that sort of blunt the image of a person within them. Then, when the deceased are led to the sets of their memories, there are clearly flaws. The clouds that are coming at the pilot as he flies with deep pleasure through the vast sky don't exactly match what he wants, yet he feels the effect is correct. It hints at our minds filling in the blanks. Even as we watch films that are totally outside our experiences, our mind constantly seeks to fill-in the blanks. Therefore, our memories are both complete and fabricated by our own minds. Kore-eda portrays this elegantly, unpretentiously. He gets to his point with great generosity in spirit that pervades all of his work.

The primary staff members, or perhaps I should call them "after life counselors", that we spend our time with are Takashi Mochizuki and Shiori Satonaka, both people who died young, at ages 22 and 18, and maintain that appearance. Mochizuki carries with him the awfulness of the second World War, as he died from wounds he sustained in the Philippines at a young age. There is a sense that their occupations are essentially secure, and that they each belong here. When that is upended, these two must face a future that does not include memories of this place. They are not lovers or siblings or anything of that nature, but just people who care about each other. Again, as in the recent indie darling Little Fish or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, we're confronted with the idea of losing memories. Indeed, we'll all do it at death, and we'll keep nothing with us, but there is no way to prepare for such a thing. There is pain in being one left behind, but not so much more than we can bear, the ending of this film being quite indicative of this notion.

Though it's shot in an old, but rather common building with its yard and its memories, as if it were also a deceased individual that is remembering itself being lovingly used, it's not terribly hard to suspend your disbelief at this being a branch office of the after life. Everyone is utterly convinced in the notion, and there is ample evidence that should satisfy. The video tapes of memories, the orderly way the business is run - people are in on Monday, find their memories by Wednesday, and have been moved on to eternal bliss by the time the week is over - and everyone's back stories assure you that yes, everyone is dead and in transition in this place. If life is the sum of experiences, interpretations, and emotions, everything is here. I mentioned the generosity in spirit of Kore-eda and his films, but the same is required of the viewer here. Admit sentiment, admit nostalgia. You're not so smart, you're not so interesting; if you were, you wouldn't really be this little carbon-based life form on this little ball of dirt in this immense, but probably also little universe. Deflate yourself, admit your frailties, fill yourself up with hope, love, and courage, and then see After Life.
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #5659 on: March 09, 2021, 06:13:39 AM »
Yes! As to the ordinary building, that doesn’t stop the opening scene (IIRC) of the entry hall with kind of a fog effect from being completely captivating. If I’m misremembering it only goes to confirm the film’s consideration.

 

love