Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched  (Read 684069 times)

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1940 on: January 25, 2018, 12:35:54 PM »
The Shape of Water (2017, Guillermo del Toro)   4/10

Somehow watching a movie about a mute woman who had underwater sex with an aqua-monster my reaction was, "I wish it had been weirder".

I was initially pretty excited with the film and how it dove in the deep end and didn't come up for air. I thought "great, we're skipping all the boring parts where the protagonist takes 400 years to figure out what we already know". The film goes hard and fast and it had me completely at a loss for where things might be headed. And then it didn't. It hit the breaks and became just another love story.

It had me and lost me.

I'm not in disagreement, as much as I am in confusion. As I was watching this a few days ago, I couldn't figure out where it could possibly go, except for where it went... Except for the end, which baffles me a little. Did he breath into her an aqua lung? :)

Please, I would love to know how it could have been weirder and what direction you would have liked for this to go. I'm super curious, since I couldn't come up with anything on my own.

I too so appreciated that the story didn't get bogged down in "waiting for the protagonist to get up to speed." What did you think of the acting? Sally Hawkins has been someone who's work you've liked before and what did you think of Richard Jenkins?  He's such a great supporting actor and I was really happy to see him get a chance to shine here.

There's a richness seeing all these actors together. From top to bottom you have have this world class cast. Specialists really. So often now a film's casting feels as though it was produced from a computer algorithm, factoring in an actor's qualities such as; their number of magazine cover appearances, their number of twitter followers, how recently their last big hit was, name recognition, and lastly their suitability for the part. For instance, pumped through the usual calculations I could see Natalia Dyer (of Stranger Things) playing Sally Hawkins' role. She would rank higher in all of the aforementioned criteria, and the film is vaguely related to what she's know for (a monster movie), so you could market to the same demographic. That's not to say I think Dyer is a bad actor, or would be a bad choice... I just think it would be the a choice made for business reasons. Where casting Sally Hawkins feels more genuine. Done because that's what felt best for the story. So for that I think this is a special and rare film.

I don't have a bad thing to say about any of the acting. I always find it tough to fully recognize great performances in films I'm less than enthusiastic about, but when I put my feeling about the film aside I do recognize there are some wonderful, effortless (looking) performances here.

What would I change? Always a tough question. One thing I would have eliminated would be the Russian mafia, cold war spy stuff. Those scenes just dragged and felt unimportant. But in a larger way I wish the film had found somewhere to take a darker turn. Not with regards to the monster (it does take a somewhat dark turn when he eats the cat, but with regards to Sally Hawkins. I wish her physical change had perhaps come sooner and the film could have built towards an ending which rivalled The Fly, and resembled it too in a way. Or to go a lighter direction, not keep keep the monster caged up in an apartment but take to the streets and consequences be damned. A problem I had with the script is that we are so often in a state of waiting. First it's a countdown to the day when Hawkins attempts the heist, then it's a coundown to when they try to make it to the canal. There is a lot of relationship and character stuff in the idle times, and admittedly some wholesome feeling whimsical sequences, but it felt perhaps a bit too restful given the context. At least for me.

The film was pleasantly unrestrained, as was Hawkins character. Her lack of hesitation about getting phsyical with this otherworldly thing sped the film along where other films might have made that the climax (with a lot of understandable but tiresome to watch reticence getting there). So bravo to the film for that. This ability of the monster to physically restore or alter people felt like it went unpursued, and I think the film could have taken many dark or light turns exploring it further. An alteration that allowed Hawkins and the monster to converse more thoroughly and deeply than their limited dialogue in sign language allowed may have opened some interesting avenues.

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1941 on: January 25, 2018, 06:28:29 PM »
Well, the two that would immediately jump to mind are Wasp, her Academy-Award winning short film, and Fish Tank. Both involve young mothers who walk a line of neglect of their children in pursuit of their own desires that were truncated by parental responsibility. Fish Tank is much more firmly positioned in the daughter's perspective than The Florida Project even, and obviously one of the things that captivated me about The Florida Project is she is much less burdened by being a parent, even as she has the similar risk of neglect due to being on the outs of society. These along with American Honey all focus on this economic periphery.

Red Road doesn't have the same economic setting (or family setting) but is gritty with verite styling (it mostly follows Dogme 95 rules and was produced by von Trier's company IIRC). This was her first film and though she hasn't stuck to Dogme, certain aspects of the aesthetic and values carry on throughout her work. Wuthering Heights is arguably an outlier being a period piece and literary but she still brings a sense of grime to the whole thing. It's no masterpiece theatre joint.

Thank you!  :) I have Fish Tank and American Honey on my Netflix queue (an account I revived last night) coming right after "Your Name".
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1942 on: January 25, 2018, 07:22:06 PM »
Fair warning, while Fish Tank is in my top 10 or 20 films all time, American Honey is a film I admire certain aspects of without particularly liking. It's Red Road I would tend to put with Fish Tank to stand across Tangerine and The Florida Project on quality terms.

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1943 on: January 25, 2018, 09:40:45 PM »
We should recruit this person to post on here.

:D

Quote
I second most things in this review btw. Especially the part about Jackman. But not the La La Land comment. Shame on you, person, whoever you are.

I was sorta hoping you wouldn't see that little comment. Are you going to write a review of the film? Did you have a favorite moment, or song, and a least favorite aspect?

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1944 on: January 25, 2018, 10:15:09 PM »
There's a richness seeing all these actors together. From top to bottom you have have this world class cast. Specialists really. So often now a film's casting feels as though it was produced from a computer algorithm, factoring in an actor's qualities such as; their number of magazine cover appearances, their number of twitter followers, how recently their last big hit was, name recognition, and lastly their suitability for the part. For instance, pumped through the usual calculations I could see Natalia Dyer (of Stranger Things) playing Sally Hawkins' role. She would rank higher in all of the aforementioned criteria, and the film is vaguely related to what she's know for (a monster movie), so you could market to the same demographic. That's not to say I think Dyer is a bad actor, or would be a bad choice... I just think it would be the a choice made for business reasons. Where casting Sally Hawkins feels more genuine. Done because that's what felt best for the story. So for that I think this is a special and rare film.

How excellent. Analytical and oh so intuitive. Love your approach to the possible whys and wherefores of filming. Sally is genuine. Honestly, I don't know who else could pull this concept off as well as her, being both awkward and ethereal. I hate to think of Natalia Dyer doing this kind of role. She isn't seasoned, nor as nuanced and was the least interesting actor in the series. Hey! Wait a minute!!! You've seen Stranger Things?! Okay, where's your commentary on it? What did you think? I marathoned through it this fall with my 12 year old and had to hold her back from watching faster, because I had other things I had to get done. Do tell, smirnoff! I'm interested in your take. (I haven't written anything yet, so have no call to demand a review from you! ;) )

Quote
I don't have a bad thing to say about any of the acting. I always find it tough to fully recognize great performances in films I'm less than enthusiastic about, but when I put my feeling about the film aside I do recognize there are some wonderful, effortless (looking) performances here.

:)

Quote
What would I change? Always a tough question. One thing I would have eliminated would be the Russian mafia, cold war spy stuff. Those scenes just dragged and felt unimportant.

:P Yeah, I wasn't thrilled with this aspect. There were some strange details missing in the story, like how would killing the monster hurt the Americans? They were going to kill it anyway. And how did the doctor happen to be an expert oceanographer and spying on Americans just at the right moment when the discovery was made? What possible big info could he have been feeding the Russians before this? The saline levels of the Amazon river?

Quote
But in a larger way I wish the film had found somewhere to take a darker turn. Not with regards to the monster (it does take a somewhat dark turn when he eats the cat, but with regards to Sally Hawkins. I wish her physical change had perhaps come sooner and the film could have built towards an ending which rivalled The Fly, and resembled it too in a way.

Oh! I'm beginning to see. Yes, this would have been something very dark and ultimately heartbreaking.

Quote
Or to go a lighter direction, not keep keep the monster caged up in an apartment but take to the streets and consequences be damned.

Ha! Like Splash! As it was, we got E.T. instead.

Quote
A problem I had with the script is that we are so often in a state of waiting. First it's a countdown to the day when Hawkins attempts the heist, then it's a countdown to when they try to make it to the canal. There is a lot of relationship and character stuff in the idle times, and admittedly some wholesome feeling whimsical sequences, but it felt perhaps a bit too restful given the context. At least for me.

And juxtaposed with the violence, I felt like I was watching two movies in a mashup. I never quite settled into the movie's confused tone.

Quote
The film was pleasantly unrestrained, as was Hawkins character. Her lack of hesitation about getting phsyical with this otherworldly thing sped the film along where other films might have made that the climax (with a lot of understandable but tiresome to watch reticence getting there). So bravo to the film for that. This ability of the monster to physically restore or alter people felt like it went unpursued, and I think the film could have taken many dark or light turns exploring it further. An alteration that allowed Hawkins and the monster to converse more thoroughly and deeply than their limited dialogue in sign language allowed may have opened some interesting avenues.

You know, if all filmmakers would just take a moment to go through the smirnoff filter before shooting, they'd have a much more coherent and dynamic product! :D Thanks for walking me through these ideas. The fact that there are so many unique and interesting options, is a compliment to the raw materials of the film. There is experimentation and imagination at play, but I believe like you, it could have been something even more wowing.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1945 on: January 25, 2018, 10:58:29 PM »
The Florida Project (2017, Sean Baker)   -   7/10

I was engaged from beginning to end, but every so often through the film I wondered if I was about to lose interest. What I mean is, it never set the hook. It reeled me in anyways, and maybe that's all that matters, but I went through the film with a worried feeling. What am I in this for, I wondered. What's the payoff? What justifies telling this story... picking these people in this place? A cathartic ending? A morality tale? A great tragedy? I don't believe any of these things were present. It is a slice of life... a tremendously genuine slice of life with moments of humour and frustration and disgust, all of which I felt. Having listened to discussion of the film (I didn't shield myself from it as I usually would) I get the sense that the heaviest emotional punches just didn't strike a chord with me as they did for others. For instance in the year end top 10 episodes of Filmspotting multiple times I heard people remark on a particular shot in this film. They experienced something breathtaking. For me I am quite sure I would not have registered the shot were I not primed to look for it. And I suspect there are likely other moments, which I wasn't primed for, that did indeed pass me by. My antenna may simply be tuned to a different frequency than this film requires... at least for maximum reception. Loved Bobbie as a character.


The Lost City of Z (2017, James Gray)   -   6/10

A bit of a mess. To much story squeezed into too little screen time? That feels like part of it. There's a general sloppiness or vagueness which I think may be a byproduct said squeezing. I couldn't tell if it was a lack of attention to detail, or just a decision that certain details don't warrant explaining, but far too many things went unexplained for my liking. For instance, every time they were on an exploratory mission the size and make-up of their party seemed to change scene to scene. They would be travelling up river, and in the next scene someone would be present who wasn't on the boat a minute ago. I kept asking myself, where'd they come from? It seemed like a lot of interesting material was skipped over... nitty gritty about how exactly one surveys an unexplored jungle. Details! I want details! How did they outfit for the trip? How did they cope with the insects? Why'd they use a raft one trip and a boat the next? Without specificity it all just becomes a bit of a bland jungle odyssey imo. In one scene they are travelling up river and yet they are not paddling, and it seems the flow of the river is propelling them. Please explain that. I know under certain circumstances the amazon can temporarily reverse flow due to tides and where rain has fallen... is that the case here? It would be interesting to know. Or is it a straight goof due to the lack of attention to detail I mentioned. :-\

I think Charlie Hunnam is great generally. I just like seeing him in things... he's like a young Sean Bean. Soft spoken but with a natural intensity. He's well cast here as a someone men would follow into the jungle. I really enjoyed him in this role, and feel the scene where he is making a case to the Royal Geographical Society about a lost civilization was his best in the film. Robert Pattinson is wonderful in his very warm and lived-in role as Hunnam's number two man. Much like Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany in Master and Commander, I finished the film wishing for their adventure to continue.

James Gray's strength as a director would seem to be in exploring characters and their relationships, and that was welcome here. But what was also needed was an appreciation for worldly details (which was absolutely present in the book). All in all the film scrapes by on an undeniably intriguing true story, beautiful settings, and a halfway engaging drama. Please Christopher Nolan, cast Charlie Hunnam in your next epic (and Hans Zimmer better score it). 
« Last Edit: January 25, 2018, 11:09:40 PM by smirnoff »

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1946 on: January 25, 2018, 11:43:59 PM »
How excellent. Analytical and oh so intuitive. Love your approach to the possible whys and wherefores of filming. Sally is genuine. Honestly, I don't know who else could pull this concept off as well as her, being both awkward and ethereal. I hate to think of Natalia Dyer doing this kind of role. She isn't seasoned, nor as nuanced and was the least interesting actor in the series. Hey! Wait a minute!!! You've seen Stranger Things?! Okay, where's your commentary on it?
I tend to say the least about the things I like the most, if that tells you anything. :)

Quote
I marathoned through it this fall with my 12 year old and had to hold her back from watching faster, because I had other things I had to get done.
That generated a few groans, I'm sure! From her and from you. :)) It's very much a "let's watch one more" kind of show.

Quote
:P Yeah, I wasn't thrilled with this aspect. There were some strange details missing in the story, like how would killing the monster hurt the Americans? They were going to kill it anyway. And how did the doctor happen to be an expert oceanographer and spying on Americans just at the right moment when the discovery was made? What possible big info could he have been feeding the Russians before this? The saline levels of the Amazon river?
The harder you look at it the more frustrating it can be! :) In some ways I am grateful for my lack of engagement. I didn't get to the point of these questions occurring to me. But they are entirely reasonable questions!

Quote
Ha! Like Splash! As it was, we got E.T. instead.

Speaking of which, the monster never gets a name. What do you make of that? Would it have made any difference? It seems like a choice.

Quote
You know, if all filmmakers would just take a moment to go through the smirnoff filter before shooting, they'd have a much more coherent and dynamic product! :D Thanks for walking me through these ideas. The fact that there are so many unique and interesting options, is a compliment to the raw materials of the film. There is experimentation and imagination at play, but I believe like you, it could have been something even more wowing.
I should open a school. :) In all seriousness the day I try and write a script is the day I probably shut up and never nit pick anything ever again. I should be so lucky to even see a film like this.

... but yea, it could have been a lot better. :))

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1947 on: January 26, 2018, 11:28:34 AM »
I tend to say the least about the things I like the most, if that tells you anything. :)

It does. As for me, I have no idea what to say about it, so it may or may not get a review down the road.

Quote
Quote
I marathoned through it this fall with my 12 year old and had to hold her back from watching faster, because I had other things I had to get done.
That generated a few groans, I'm sure! From her and from you. :)) It's very much a "let's watch one more" kind of show.

:)) It's as if you've been sitting in my family room with us! Yes, spot on!

Quote
The harder you look at it the more frustrating it can be! :) In some ways I am grateful for my lack of engagement. I didn't get to the point of these questions occurring to me. But they are entirely reasonable questions!

Good to hear. I thought maybe I was missing something or other. Nah, it's just a swiss cheese script.

Quote
Speaking of which, the monster never gets a name. What do you make of that? Would it have made any difference? It seems like a choice.

They kept saying, "Are you a god?" Naming something means it's understood on some level. hmm, let me borrow form T.S. Eliot to express the conundrum.

The Naming of [Gods] is a difficult matter,
It isn't just one of your holiday games...
[Their minds are] engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name:
His ineffable effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular Name.


In other words, I have no idea why he doesn't have a name, but I think you're onto something. :D (If anyone else has any idea, we can take it over to a spoiler thread.)

Quote
I should open a school. :) In all seriousness the day I try and write a script is the day I probably shut up and never nit pick anything ever again. I should be so lucky to even see a film like this.

... but yea, it could have been a lot better. :))

Ha! I feel the same way, but I do think some kind of focus group with people like you :) , could help many projects improve.

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 #1948 on: January 26, 2018, 12:39:09 PM »
The Post

Full of nice platitudes about the press' place in our society, but more noteworthy for some astoundingly good acting and Spielberg's energetic direction. Not much of the film is shocking, but that doesn't keep Spielberg from doing some of his magic and making the whole thing feel like it's teetering on a precipice. It helps that his cast is full of amazing actors, some of whom get tons of great things to say and do while others (Alison Brie and Bruce Greenwood, particularly) have only a scene or two to show off. There are few directors working today who could get so much out of a phonecall, bouncing and spinning from person to person as Streep gives one of her best performances in years.

B+


Columbus

How do you leave a place? How do you stay? What is a place? Who are you? Why do you like something? Why is somebody worthy of your love? What do you do when words aren't enough? You move.

A-
Check out my blog of many topics

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

philip918

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4580
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #1949 on: January 26, 2018, 01:05:02 PM »

Columbus

How do you leave a place? How do you stay? What is a place? Who are you? Why do you like something? Why is somebody worthy of your love? What do you do when words aren't enough? You move.

A-

Nominated for several Filmspots. Maybe you can second.