love

Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched  (Read 684364 times)

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #560 on: February 22, 2017, 08:07:56 PM »
Jackie
Pablo Larrain (2016)


Junior compliments how well the film explores what Jackie has to go through but I suppose in this we were looking for different things.

I'll be sure to tell myself to have this opinion when I see it.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #561 on: February 23, 2017, 04:15:47 AM »
Damn it, I meant Corndog, sorry.
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #562 on: February 23, 2017, 07:06:02 AM »
Mildred Pierce
Michael Curtiz (1945)


Last year I realized I don't watch many remakes or multiple adaptations of the same source material. That made watching Curtiz's Mildred Pierce a particular experience because I had already watched Haynes' miniseries version previously. The differences are surprising and the comparison fascinating because each work is on one extreme of the spectrum of directors' attitudes towards adaptations. Whereas, to the best of my knowledge, Haynes is quite faithful to the original plot of the novel, developing its every beat and episode thanks to his larger time allowance. Curtiz, on the other hand, is not only less shy about amputating parts of the novel to shorten the running time of the movie, but also goes so far in reshaping the story as to alter elements, notably the ending.

That change makes the 1945 movie into a more classical noir than it would have been had Curtiz left Cain's words unadulterated. The novel was already deeply cynical and replete with vice and yet Curtiz chose to take that one step further and introduce an element of mystery to it that he then used as a framing device through voice-over narration. Concern about matters of adaptation aside, I think that makes the story and the movie worse. The flashback structure of the film is not so good it warrants such a rewrite - it's serviceable. More importantly, the story was much more interesting when it concluded simply on the absolute poisonous nature of one of its characters. The same character in the 2011 miniseries comes out as much more Machiavellian and monstrous because hers is not a criminal corruption but a moral one, which makes it more subtle and less ordinary.

Mildred Pierce is a story that is fraught with noir themes whatever its version yet that only comes off in the noir version, which creates a fantastic study case for own the genre's style plays in molding the feel of the movie. Noir revels in provocative sexuality but Mildred Pierce remains a product of its time and the miniseries is the most sultry of the two. It is more graphic and obvious, but not vulgarly so, and there is much talk of legs. When presented with the opportunity of a momentary liaison Mildred says yes when in the movie she remains chaste.

Curtiz is better behind the camera than Haynes. His is a beautiful film, shot in perfect noir fashion, with efficient, brisk editing. He captures the story and the characters with the necessary swiftness the adaptation requires. Haynes still benefits from his longer format however, which allows him to better develop the characters ; the emotional punch towards the middle of the story is much more powerful in his version.

The performances are another interesting point of comparison. Haynes gets to age his children characters by changing actresses while in the earlier movie Veda perpetually looks sixteen. The mannered style of the forties contrasts with the more realistic approach of later decades which makes it hard to juxtapose them but Kate Winslet is the best of the bunch while Joan Crawford remains quite good. The Montes are played completely differently ; I don't know which I prefer.

7/10
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

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 #563 on: February 23, 2017, 08:41:30 AM »
Damn it, I meant Corndog, sorry.

I don't think this is the first time Junior and I have been confused as the same person. We are homies after all.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #564 on: February 23, 2017, 10:16:08 AM »
That makes me wonder, is there any horror film besides The Shining that's well over two hours and feels worth the runtime?he Wailing is a recent example that I felt could have worked much better in 90 minutes.

A few Japanese ones:

Kwaidan
Noriko's Dinner Table
Shura a.k.a. Demons
The Inugami Family

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #565 on: February 23, 2017, 10:31:41 AM »
Never seen any of those, but I'll try to get to them eventually.

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #566 on: February 23, 2017, 11:40:42 AM »
The Lego Batman Movie
Chris McKay (2017)


I cannot predict how many people will watch The Lego Batman Movie but I will predict that its appeal will be universal for those who do watch it. It is a movie that has something for everyone:
  • Superhero fans,
  • Lego enthusiast,
  • People who like animated movies,
  • People who enjoy laughing,
  • Bodybuilders and other shredded abs aficionados,
  • Orphans,
  • Anyone who hates Superman,
  • Romantics,
  • Those who like absurd comedies,
  • Emos, goths and other darkness-committed fashion minorities,
  • Nerds,
  • Videogame players who have had girlfriends who would say « pew pew » when playing FPSs,
  • People not called Christopher Nolan,
  • Those who still remember the sixties,
  • Family-story types,
  • Feminists,
  • The Lego Group shareholders.
I haven't tried but I am convinced there is no way to explain the movie to anyone who hasn't watched the original The Lego Movie without sounding insane.

« It's a Batman movie, except in a Lego World. So he can build his Batvehicles anywhere, because he is a master builder. And he is a total douche in this universe and adopts Robin by mistake. And the joker is in like hate-love with him and they totally have a romantic arc. And Batman records his own music and likes metal a lot. Joker tries to get him to tell him he hates him by destroying Gotham after being sent to the phantom zone. Oh, I almost forgot, there are references to previous Batman movies, but don't worry about the continuity, because there isn't one. Batman saves the day with the help of his other Batman'ed up supervillains and his shredded abs. And Voldemort is in this movie. »

It makes no sense, it is preposterous and silly and dumb, and I love it. It is surprising how many parts of it work. It is a genuine entry in the Batman canon - well, sort of.

It is however not as good as The Lego Movie. It might be funnier, with a higher concentration of jokes, but the writing is overall not quite as good. I cannot recall the animation of that previous movie well enough to compare them, but it seems to me it was better, and the sets more inspired. It is the McKay's first feature film and you can sense the directing is not as good as it was under Lord and Miller. What's more surprising is how less used the Lego side of it all is used, with Lego building, being reserved here almost solely to Batman and only for constructing vehicles. Finally, whereas TLM expanded into new territory in its last act, which propelled to movie to new heights, there is nothing remotely similar in its universality here.

The voice work leaves a bit to be desired too, and I was surprised at the amount of talent behind when credits rolled. I am not sure Will Arnett was the best person for the main role, although he does do a good douche. Also, why on Earth is Ralph Fiennes not voicing Voldemort too?

« Everything is awesome... »

8/10
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 11:58:18 AM by DarkeningHumour »
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

goodguy

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2099
  • Colleen West was here.
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #567 on: February 23, 2017, 11:53:57 AM »
The Lego Batman Movie

... I will predict that its appeal will be universal for those who do watch it.
...
It is however not as good as The Lego Movie.
...
8/10

------- 4/10 -------
144) The Lego Movie  (Phil Lord, Christopher Miller)

Ah, well, you almost had me convinced there (I still might watch it anyway).


PeacefulAnarchy

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2132
    • Criticker reviews
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #568 on: February 23, 2017, 01:24:04 PM »
Same, although the complaint that it doesn't have some tacked on meta connection to the LEGO™ Brand building blocks is a positive for me so I may still enjoy it if it succeeds at being fun rather than preaching about the power of imagination brought about thanks to the wonders of LEGO™ Brand building blocks, available at a store near you.

jdc

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Accept the mystery
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #569 on: February 23, 2017, 01:30:43 PM »
That makes me wonder, is there any horror film besides The Shining that's well over two hours and feels worth the runtime?he Wailing is a recent example that I felt could have worked much better in 90 minutes.

A few Japanese ones:

Kwaidan
Noriko's Dinner Table
Shura a.k.a. Demons
The Inugami Family

Not really horror but The World of Kanako has moments of horror
"Beer. Now there's a temporary solution."  Homer S.
“The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations” - David Friedman

 

love