Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched  (Read 684040 times)

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Thread restarted in January 2017)
« Reply #100 on: January 09, 2017, 04:34:45 AM »
To be fair, La La Land is far less self-indulgent and a significantly better film than Whiplash.

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Thread restarted in January 2017)
« Reply #101 on: January 09, 2017, 04:55:58 AM »
So no masturbation?

« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

Terrazine

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Thread restarted in January 2017)
« Reply #102 on: January 09, 2017, 06:59:42 AM »
Saving Mr. Banks - 3/5

"I know what he's going to do to her. She'll be cavorting and twinkling, and careening towards a happy ending like a kamikaze!"

Saccharine. That's a term Disney movies have often been associated with, watered down versions of the truth conjured by the whimsies of a man-child. Be it Pocahontas' appalling sugarcoating of the woman's tragic fate or Peter Pan's shallow treading of what it truly means to never grow up, Disney had always found a way to manipulate those stories somehow to serve its own grandiose favor, thereby keeping the cash machine running. It's not hard to understand why Travers and certain fans of her famous book would have a problem with Disney landing his grubby hands on her work. In fact, the sentiment was almost mutual for myself.

But there's an important reason why I chose to watch this film prior to my upcoming viewing of "Mary Poppins" (for the first time, might I add). I saw a little while ago a review of that classic film on how "Saving Mr. Banks" had convinced him to rewatch that film again, which piqued my curiosity. I knew of this pseudo-autobiography, how it, much like many of Disney's films and other autobiographical films, distorted the truth to cover up the ugly parts of reality, such as how Travers detested the adaptation of Poppins rather than be moved by it, even 20 years after its release. If anything, her hate grew stronger with the two decades' passing. She was bitter till the bitter end. She didn't win that battle, but self-indulging happy souls at the House of Mouse would prefer a more pleasant story to sell the movie. But of course, I wanted to be proven wrong, which was the whole point of watching it. I wanted to be moved and cry like how Disney had deluded imagined Travers did during the premiere.

There was a very crucial quote in the film that eventually determined how I eventually felt about Saving Mr. Banks. "Because that's what we storytellers do. We restore order with imagination. We instill hope again and again and again." Yes, it's fiction - for some parts of it. Yes, perhaps the truth was something uglier one shouldn't belittle or dismiss. In the eyes of some, this film might even be self-congratulatory (a sentiment I would agree with). But, just because it's the truth doesn't mean it's all we should remember and focus on. The movie's poignant message on what Walt Disney's motivation was - to inspire hope in spite of dark times and memories - there was a sincerity to it that I could accept. It reminds me the purpose of these "saccharine", happy films, of why people need to feel that things will get brighter tomorrow, come what may. It's a very 'safe' movie, an inevitable outcome under the production of the Mouse Company, but due to moments that shine a ray of light, like the aforementioned quote this paragraph, I feel it's unfair to dismiss it as simply such. There is some magic at work in the House of Mouse even by today's cynical standards. The magic is flawed like this film, like Walt himself, but I feel it's a necessary existence.

And bringing such a flawed story to life wasn't easy for the actors either, but they managed to breathe life into it nonetheless. Both Hanks and Thompson are wonderful in their respective roles, especially on the former's part. Usually with Hanks, I feel like his performances have been more stale with his growing age, and therefore more repetitive. But with Mr. Banks, he feels quite suitable for the role indeed, playing up the eccentricities and childishness that come with Disney. Thompson is terrific, of course, but that goes without saying - I hardly knew a role of hers I didn't like. Playing a bitter old bag must've been painful, but she pulled it off regardless. Bonus points for making her likable too with her witticism mixed in with sarcasm. And Colin Farrell - god, as usual, he's a delight to watch. His breadth in acting never ceases to amaze me.

When I watch Poppins for the first time, armed with my knowledge of Travers' sentiment and Walt's naive and admirable motivations, I think I'd appreciate it more now than without this viewing. I think that's something meaningful.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 07:02:48 AM by Nostromous »

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Thread restarted in January 2017)
« Reply #103 on: January 09, 2017, 10:21:09 AM »
Chevalier (2015)

How do you say "no homo" in Greek?

In one sense, I'm the perfect target for a satire of masculinity. Unfortunately, to satirize masculinity, you have to set us among men for the duration of a film acting in an absurdly masculine way, and that sounds like my worst nightmare. Indeed, early on in watching the film I joked it would be a lot shorter if they just all got a ruler and unzipped their pants. I shouldn't have been surprised when they basically got to that. And still it went on.

Basically, a group of men on a fishing trip decide they need to engage in a competition to determine who the "best man" is, as evaluated in every aspect of their time, some events manufactured, like skipping stones, some just based on casual observation in going about their days. Naturally it gets very petty and obnoxious, hellbent on humiliating the others...basically a frat initiation. If there is one thing that is clear, any man who would win a contest as the best man is clearly the worst person. Indeed, there is a fair approximation to the GOP primary; like I said, rulers and unzipped pants.

So yeah, the struggle of a film that is theoretically on point, but just not fun to experience.

colonel_mexico

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1416
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Thread restarted in January 2017)
« Reply #104 on: January 09, 2017, 11:02:05 AM »
EDDIE THE EAGLE 2016- I thought this was going to be one of those quirky Oz comedies, but it was a real life portrayal of Eddie the Eagle Edwards an unlikely Olympian. It has a lot of potential, with plenty of mild-smile and a few laugh out loud moments, and certainly that Rudy-sport-success-archetype feel to it, but it fails to completely develop. I was disappointed recently with THE BRONZE which goes way over the top, completely unlike EDDIE, but utilizes the failed Olympian-cum-hero-coach theme that, despite a great performance by Hugh Jackman, again feels contrived. Interestingly, this true story comes out of the same '88 Winter Olympics that the Jamaican bobsled team participated in, and there are many similarities, but this is not COOL RUNNINGS. Something I might share with the kids, though the Bo Derek analogy, while funny, is a bit R-rated.

SUICIDE SQUAD 2016- I feel like I've seen better cartoons, like THE KILLING JOKE, that are much more edgy than this mess. I saw the parody making fun of the 'bad guys' in this film not really being bad enough to be allowed into the bad guy bar, and I completely agree. Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn is serviceable, even with trailer-esque dialogue, like they filmed her scenes specifically to put into the ubiquitous trailers hyping the film. I do like Leto's Joker, certainly not Ledger's or even Nicholson's level, but I did like the attempt to make the Joker a contemporary gangster. But his scenes were not very good and felt really incomplete, mostly flashbacks that didn't have much continuity that made any kind of sense. It wasn't edgy either the romance between Joker and Harley, like the entire film, it felt like the definition of poser, a wanabe gangster. The Diablo back story I felt was stereotypical, 'when I get angry I can't control what I do', yep Mexican machismo right? The attempt at bad guy diversity was equally lame and slightly offensive. The music wasn't terrible, but it gave the film that trailer feeling, it was just one long music video with the bad girl character from the dreck QUEEN OF THE DAMNED. Lol.
"What do you want me to do draw you a picture?! Spell it out?! Don't ever ask me, as long as you live don't ever ask me more!"

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Thread restarted in January 2017)
« Reply #105 on: January 09, 2017, 06:25:13 PM »
Fai bei sogni / Sweet Dreams (Marco Bellocchio, 2016)

Melodrama about a boy losing his mother at an early age, with the narrative jumping back and forth between different ages. The narrative device ultimately does it in I think, because the film feel very episodic, not in a good way. It's not that there aren't things to connect here : they're there and often underlined very heavily, just not that compelling. It goes pretty big in the end, which is a killer if you're not that invested, and I wasn't particularly. Needed more Bérénice Bejo, too.

5/10

Nocturnal Animals (Tom Ford, 2016)


This seems like it's going to be nominated for Screenplay at the Oscars, because it has a very flashy narrative structure... but the writing really is the problem here. Not the story-within-a-story thing, that works pretty well for the most part, it's just that both stories are fulled with paper-thin characters, laughable clichés and awful dialogue. The cast is tremendous (Gyllenhaal and Shannon especially) and this ends up being much better than it has any right to be, and feels very relevant in the ways it explores urban/rural and idealist/pragmatic dynamics... not in a particularly smart way, but interesting nonetheless.

6/10

Neruda (Pablo Larrain, 2016)


This underlines how overused the phrase "unconventional biopic" is... because this actually is one. A beautiful mess, never quite sure wether it's more interested in Neruda or the meta narrative of Garcia Bernal's character. The latter is much more original and gets close to great when the film finally commits to it in earnest towards the end, but it's not quite enough to make the whole film add up to more than pretty good.

6/10
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Thread restarted in January 2017)
« Reply #106 on: January 10, 2017, 03:56:07 AM »
Nocturnal Animals treats rural types as violent hillbillies and take-it-into-your-own-hands second amendment folks while city people are defenceless intellectuals.

SUICIDE SQUAD 2016- I feel like I've seen better cartoons, like THE KILLING JOKE, that are much more edgy than this mess.

You've seen laundry advertisements more edgy than this mess.
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Thread restarted in January 2017)
« Reply #107 on: January 10, 2017, 04:14:33 AM »
Nocturnal Animals treats rural types as violent hillbillies and take-it-into-your-own-hands second amendment folks while city people are defenceless intellectuals.

Yeah, but I don't think it's supposed to be a realistic portrayal of America : it's meant to make a point based on familiar archetypes. It doesn't bother me in and of itself, it's just not very well-executed on the whole.
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

Terrazine

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Thread restarted in January 2017)
« Reply #108 on: January 10, 2017, 09:04:23 AM »
Er ist wieder da / Look Who's Back (2015) - 4/5

What if Hitler comes back to modern Germany?

So I was in the mood for a laugh tonight after having a rough day and decided to pop this little gem in after seeing the amusing trailer. It wasn't quite what I expected. On the surface, it looked like a quirky comedy akin to Borat, but reaching the end, it took a very dark turn that bordered on disturbing and uncomfortable - not that it's a bad thing, of course.

The parallels with modern day politics in this film is an inevitable subject that's difficult to avoid when talking about this film, regardless of whom you supported in the latest political campaign. At risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I personally find that the Hitler in this film is charismatic and compelling, convincing the people to "make Germany great again". It's an interesting perspective even if you might it an inaccurate and delusional analogy. Would people surely be so foolish as to be swayed by such obvious propaganda? It's a scary thought, but I would hope that people would be wiser than that, and let such pessimism lie in the realm of fiction, entertainment, and Larry Charles mockumentaries.

Regardless of its chilling conclusion, however, the film doesn't take itself too seriously most of the time. There's even an amusing parody of that famous "Downfall" scene, so that should inform you what kind of self-aware humor that's in store for you.

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched (Thread restarted in January 2017)
« Reply #109 on: January 10, 2017, 01:05:20 PM »
So they basically made a spin-off of Youth? Nifty.
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

 

love