Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched  (Read 684296 times)

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #610 on: March 03, 2017, 11:47:55 PM »
Apparently I'm going to be the grinch where that film is concerned.

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #611 on: March 04, 2017, 06:31:20 AM »
The Picture of Dorian Gray
Albert Lewin (1945)


« ...and God help you if you use voice-over in your work, my friends. God help you. That's flaccid, sloppy writing. Any idiot can write a voice-over narration to explain the thoughts of a character. »

I know Adaptation was released in 2002, putting it out of the reach of Albert Lewin as he, at his typewriter, with no malice and even less thought, glancing at an open edition of Wilde's novel, shock-full of annotations, all of them wrong, pressed those little black keys to form the word "narrator", impressed at his own intelligence for figuring out however a movie might convey a character's thoughts. In a hurry, he punched in the last few words to his forlorn page, unable to wait a minute longer for the cracking sandwich awaiting him in the kitchen, without a second thought for the day's work.

The stupidity of the script of The Picture of Dorian Gray is baffling. It is as if it had been written at the dawn of cinema, before anyone understood how a crafty close-up, a clever insert or a well timed camera movement. It is as if the script had been meant for the radio and someone forgot to adapt it. There were actual scenes where I told myself, as the camera fixed on Gray's ominous gaze, « Oh, Dorian is conflicted right now. » just a couple of seconds before the narrator told me that, indeed, « At that moment Dorian Gray became conflicted. ».

To the incompetence of the writing you have to add the fact that it does not understand the story it tells. Either that or it has chosen to tell a different, worse story than that of the novel, which is improbable because it quotes some dialogue verbatim and otherwise makes great efforts to be closely faithful to its original material. Lewin did not understand the importance of key elements of the story and in fact I wonder if he was not working from his nine year-old son's school notes.

There are a couple of redeeming features to the film that do not begin to redeem it. George Sander's performance is the best thing in the film, even though he is playing at half his All About Eve powers. Most of his lines are word for word Wilde, as badly chosen as they are; Lord Henry is a hard character to bungle. There are also a few great shots here and there, notably at some key moments in the plot, that use shadows and composition to rise to the levels of what the movie should have been.

4/10
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

Terrazine

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #612 on: March 04, 2017, 06:39:35 AM »
Logan (2017)

Fox has been hitting out of the ballpark lately with bold approaches towards the superhero genre (or concept) with its recent delving into the fourth-wall breaking of Deadpool, and now, a western spiritual journey practically made for a Johnny Cash song. In spite of my reservations towards their superhero movies (Deadpool included), I have to admit that they've been keeping the genre fresh and alive more so than the tiring wisecracking slapstick of Marvel (Civil War excluded... to some extent). Logan is the latest proof that superhero isn't really a genre and can be fitted into any kind of story.

More than anything, it's a difficult movie to watch. The overall atmosphere, mood, and the soundtrack bring with them a very gloomy and bleak world. Without going into too much spoilers, let's just say that in spite of Fox's attempts to mix in moments of humor in-between, you'll probably be grabbing for that tissue half of the movie.

Alas, it's a tale one should be familiar with - loss and redemption - told many times over throughout the ages. Much like his previous work, The Wolverine, James Mangold's style isn't so much about bringing an original and refreshing style to the superhero world, but rather, to tell a story full of character growth and substance, the way great stories should be told. In spite of my concerns about the film being overhyped, given by viewers the title of "The Dark Knight of Marvel", it was quite a satisfying tale I was glad I experienced. When I said that it's a "spiritual journey", I meant exactly that. It's a very slow film with heavy themes worth pondering over by the audience throughout its two and a half hours runtime (yes, you read that right; 2h 21m to be exact). So despite the familiarity and knowing exactly how it would have ended, I think I would've regretted more not experiencing the movie once.

Unfortunately, it is a bit overhyped. Just a bit. There were two points of the movie that I felt jarring or unnecessarily lengthy. The first one was the Las Vegas scene where Logan had to leave Charles and X-23 at the  hotel to change vehicle. I felt that scene could've been cut down shorter to tighten the overall pace of the story, which I felt was affected by other minor expository moments as well. Considering that it's inspired by the "Old Man Logan" comic book miniseries, I could see why the story almost felt episodic, like there were different parts/arcs meshed together into one film. Most comic book miniseries have such a pacing problem, where the story is dragged out by "filler moments" to fill in the pages, so I'm not surprised this pacing translated directly into the movie as well.

The second one was the final appearance of Will Munson, part of the family Logan was staying with. There was this incredibly awkward moment immediately right after Will helped take out the bad guy that I won't reveal too much about, but that moment felt weird, and came off as more comedic (in a bad way) than dramatic. Finally, the truth about what happened to the old X-Men was rather badly handled IMO. It was first revealed in the background through a radio broadcast when it should've been revealed to us through an emotional confession. That jarring editing made me greatly not care when Charles finally spilled the beans on what happened back then.

Despite these minor problems, Logan is still a solid movie worth watching. One thing to note about the Munsons is that, I was worried things would have felt way too slow and even boring when these unrelated strangers showed up as our heroes were given chase by the bad guys. But it turned out to be one of the most important arcs in the story as it allowed ample time for Logan and Charles to reflect upon what they had bitterly missed since the old days of the X-Men: a family.

Logan brings a solid closure to the X-Men franchise that Apocalypse probably didn't (I never watched it). There were enough Easter Eggs and nods to the comics to please the fans while maintaining a fresh and somber tone for those tired of the superhero shtick like myself. I'm looking forward to Mangold's next production with Fox. Or rather, Marvel could hopefully buy his talents over and allow him to shine in the MCU as well.

4/5

Next week, the king returns to the big screen as I revisit Skull Island. It's a double-combo release of great movies this month!
« Last Edit: March 04, 2017, 06:47:44 AM by Terrazine »

StudentOFilm

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3778
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #613 on: March 04, 2017, 05:34:02 PM »
Logan

With the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the filmmakers have been able to cross the superhero film with other genres (similar to when reading the Marvel comics). I've felt this helps keep the films from feeling too formulaic- Thor has fantasy elements, Captain America had a militaristic/espionage feel to it, Guardians of the Galaxy was Marvel's Star Wars for all intents and purposes. The X-Men series really only had that experience with a retro-feeling to X-Men: First Class, but for the most part they were derivative of Singer's original film but enlivened with additional casting/story/time period changes. Deadpool was really the first film to slide into a different style, almost to the point of where the fact that it's part of the X-Men universe is an afterthought. Logan is somewhat similar in that sense, except with the story revolving around Hugh Jackman's Wolverine and Patrick Stewart's Professor X, there is a sense of the familiar.

The script for this outing allows the characters to be in a place and mindset that's unfamiliar to me watching as it is to them. Jackman, Stewart and Dafne Keen are surprising with how empathetic they can be in the middle of blockbuster. For a film that becomes so tonally dreading as time goes on, the performers still draw me in with their bright characterizations- something I've never really felt with these three particiular characters in the comics. Not meaning to compare acting and directing to writing and illustrating, but I've always felt a certain distance with Wolverine, Professor X., and X-23 in the years of source material. Unlike the previous Mangold/Jackman outing where that film had a mystery build to... well not much more then where we started, the arc is fully complete in this instance with (as any who've been following the film's promotional material would know) Jackman bringing his tenure with the character to a definitive end.

Not as notable as a take on the superhero genre as say Nolan's Batman, but there is a lot here to appreciate. It still amounts to a solid outing that takes a turn only in the final act or so into a new territory at least as far as the films are concerned. The years and years and years of comics have certainly mined this territory before, but when you have world class actors like Stewart and Jackman bringing this to life, it feels so much livelier in their familiar hands.
"Be yourself, unless you suck."- Joss Whedon

My Switchboard

MattDrufke

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 738
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #614 on: March 05, 2017, 07:28:49 AM »
Logan (2017), Dir: James Mangold
Get Out (2017), Dir: Jordan Peele



I caught both of these films within a few days of each other, and each time I went in, I was more than aware of the buzz. Get Out has been receiving insanely good reviews (100% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes). My friend who writes for ComicVine and Gamespot wrote that Logan may be the best comic book movie of all time. People are losing their minds, which is rare to do so early in the year for two films. I was curious to see if they would live up to the hype.

Let's get this out of the way: Logan is not the best comic book movie of all time. As of writing this, I'm not even sure it's my favorite movie involving X-Men. But it is a good movie; a really good movie. It's dark and brooding and makes seamless transitions between hyper-violence and touching emotional moments. Hugh Jackman is really good in this, showing the emotional wounds while a fantastic make-up/special effects team shows his physical ones. This is a fantastic swan song for him as one of comic's most beloved characters: this is his Unforgiven. I think, however, I like Patrick Stewart in this film even more. So long in these films has he been the kind, gentle voice of reason, the moral center which keeps these films afloat. Here, even more than Jackman, he allows himself to play a man past his prime, maybe past his usefulness. He has never played Charles Xavier as feeble or weak in the past, but here he lets it all pour over him. His monologue is the best part of this movie, and it's a movie with a lot of great parts.

Jordan Peele's Get Out is also a really good movie bordering on great. What I love about this film is that while Peele makes the film thrilling and eerie and creepy, he also, masterfully, keeps the film just an inch away from simply being a very dark comedy. All of the story elements are there to make this film more silly than scary (especially a wonderful performance by Lil' Rel Howry, who is just laying it on thick and making it work). But Peele knows how to hold the reins and create a tone that keeps you tense and off-ease. It's not a typical horror/thriller; there's no big jump-scares or gross-out scenes. Peele knows how to slow burn this film until it's chaotic ending when he just pours gasoline all over the place and strikes the match.

Logan: A-
Get Out: A
@ihatemattdrufke

Jeff Schroeck

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 982
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #615 on: March 06, 2017, 09:45:24 AM »
Wings (Larisa Shepitko, 1966)

A defiantly triumphant moment at the end of Wings takes a perfectly fine film and elevates it into the realm of the very good, or at least it puts a positive and memorable cap on it.

The story follows a famous former fighter pilot who has settled into the unfulfilling life of a school headmistress. She is unmarried, dating a man who balks at the mention of marriage, and has a daughter who essentially ran away to marry an older man. On top of all this is the delinquent student she kicked out of school who is now missing. She tries to locate the kid, who she last saw drinking beer in a pub, in a scene with great staging, almost like a comedy sketch.

In the film's best sequence she takes a trip to her daughter's apartment and finally introduces herself to her son-in-law. The couple is having a small party, and the mom tries to insinuate herself into the group. It's a painful, comic scene that wouldn't feel out of place in a modern cringe comedy.

Throughout the film she takes trips to the airfield, where everybody remembers her fondly and she gets to bask in her former glory. There is a touch of sadness, though, as she also likes to sit in the air museum and listen to the guide talk about her and her cohorts' exploits.

4/5

don s.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2025
  • You had me at "Hello, here's $50."
    • my movie collection
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #616 on: March 06, 2017, 03:28:39 PM »
Nice review. I love that film.
My TV ain't HD / that's too real

Teal | Green | Lime Green | Orange | Red

jdc

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Accept the mystery
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #617 on: March 06, 2017, 03:33:10 PM »
Japan: a Story of Love and Hate

A BBC documentary that follows a couple in Japan that is barely struggling to get by and the stresses on their relationship.  Naoki was once an anarchist and later a successful business man.  But then lost everything during Japan's downtown in the early 90's. Now he only can work part time at the post office and depends on his younger girlfriend to help survive.  Often he is faced with the decision of either swallowing his pride or being homeless

Sometimes touching but often painful and not just the relationship.  Also, all good "sales motivational meetings" really just come down to sell more, work harder and don't hit any pedestrians. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH-kNnq7mFM

"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

DarkeningHumour

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 10453
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #618 on: March 08, 2017, 08:48:37 AM »
T2: Trainspotting
Danny Boyle (2017)


It is in the nature of some movies to be followed up with a sequel; for others, when a sequel emerges, it warrants justification. The Matrix series and the Star Wars trilogies were always thought as such, inter-movie arcs that would remain incomplete without the existence of the later episodes. Trainspotting, the original, was no such movie. Its arc was self-included, and satisfyingly so ; thus, T2: Trainspotting must, in the course of the story it tells, prove that it was worth it to come back to these characters.

Spoiler alert: the film does not pass the test.

Trainspotting, first of the name, concludes with a hopeful look on the future - moderated by what we have come to learn about the movie's characters and how they got here - and a life-affirming philosophy. T2 is less an expansion of its predecessor's themes than a look back. Instead of building upon it, the sequel mainly gazes back at the original, with lenses filtered by nostalgia and melancholy.

Danny Boyle seems obsessed with his past work, constantly inserting scenes of that movie into this one through flashbacks. His technique for doing so is superb: he is always able to come up with some new way to make his phantoms appear in the streets of present day Edinburgh. Unfortunately that results in a sort of navel-gazing feel transmitted by the director.

T2 cares about stories, about how to tell them and why. Spud has an entire arc that revolves around writing down his stories to overcome his addiction. This is probably a reflection of Boyle himself thinking back on his career at this point in his life. It is a nice meditation, but at no point a very insightful one.

And it certainly is not worth what it does to that twenty year old movie, now a cult classic. T2 informs our understanding of Trainspotting's open ending by filling in the blanks that should forever have remained virgin. The promise at the end of the 1996 movie is shattered by our cognizance of the wretched destinies of its characters. Hope fades into sorrowful remembrance: In their late forties, McGregor and crew mourn their youth and regret their mistakes.

I am not intrinsically opposed to melancholy movies. There is something about T2 however that is perniciously discouraging. The more you advance in the film the more it feels terrifyingly poisonous. It could not be a movie more of its time. « Where did we go wrong ? » it asks, « Remember how much promise we had ? » it laments. A 2017 film indeed. Perhaps its greatest sin is that it is contended with wallowing and proposes no escape.

6/10
« 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 #619 on: March 08, 2017, 08:57:51 AM »
Fences
Denzel Washington (2016)


Denzel Washington, talking, for more than two hours. That is basically what this movie is, an uninterrupted Washington verbal bonanza. Sure, other characters get to speak, but I would swear he has a fifteen minute streak of relentless talking at the beginning that allows no breaths.

It's too much.

There is also a story and stuff, but it's mostly a showcase for acting.

5/10
« Society is dumb. Art is everything. » - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/