Main Menu

Last movie watched...

Started by SmallBlueThing, 04 February, 2011, 12:40:44 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

darnmarr

Ingrid goes west
A very modern film, I guess. Watching it felt like a fairly good episode of Black Mirror to me.

You know you're old when watching stories of contemporary tech (that you haven't bothered catching up with* ) feel a bit like watching speculative science fiction...


*In this case 'Instagram'.

manwithnoname

Quote from: pictsy on 18 January, 2018, 11:01:17 AM
It  The effects were well done and it was satisfactorily creepy throughout.  I did have some problems with the film.  The loud blasts of noise were awful.  They took me out of the film and just ruined the effect.  Some of the kid characters were poorly fleshed out as well and I found it difficult to connect to the group as a whole because of this.  Because of this, the bleak tone of the film ended up being too bleak for me.  The horrible adults everywhere, the bullies and IT were too much antagonism for me because it wasn't offset by enough levity and/or likeable characters.  I just found it hard to get invested and the tone was just tiring me out.  I mean this wasn't the case throughout the film but it happened enough for me to start feeling bored and just wanting it to wrap up.  That all being said, it was a good film that has a lot going for it.

My opinion on the film is probably skewed because I have a fond place in my heart for the mini-series.  Specifically the kids sections.  Ever since watching it as a kid, viewing the mini-series has always had me very much invested in what the characters are doing and the danger that seems to be ever present.  I know the adult sections of the mini-series are far from great, but they had their charm (for me, at least).

Comparing the two I can't say I prefer the film over the mini-series and as it currently stands with only one film, I'd probably choose watching the mini-series over the film.  I actually think that they are both as good as each other, because the film does some really great stuff.  It just fails more where the mini-series excelled and vice-versa. 

A second viewing of the film may change my opinion, now I know what to expect.  I might also need to rewatch the mini-series to check if nostalgia might be messing with my judgement too much.

I was a massive fan of the book when I was a kid (14 or whatever), and the characters and setting really resonated. I loved it and it also really scared me. There was so much detail, so much to take in, that it felt real.

And so the mini-series, while enjoyable, didn't come close to matching the book, even though Curry was excellent.

I haven't re-watched it, or re-read the book for decades, so I watched the film thinking it would be a relatively clean slate, but no. It all came flooding (floating?) back.

I thought it was great. Scary and immersive, and much better than the mini-series. But I do agree that the film, despite being "the first half" of the book, seemed to skim over some of the characters. I remembered more about Richie Tozier and Ben Hanscom from my memories of 30 years ago, than I got from the film, it was a long running time, but the introduction to each kid was a scary vignette, and that was about it.

Bev and Bill were the only ones who had any kind of depth on screen.

But I still thought it was very good, and Pennywise was great. Maybe the problem is, like with the (truncated) two-part miniseries, there is just TOO much book to film.

It would perhaps have been better served in a high-budget Netflix series over 8-10 episodes.

pictsy

Groundhog Day  I love this film.  Definitely one of my favourites.  I love the concept of repeating the same day over and over again, the way it is presented in the film and the implications it raises in my mind.  I also think it is great that there is no explanation as to why it is happening and it's not entirely clear why it stopped, either.  It gives the film a real enigmatic quality.  With the dark tones, the feel good moments and the characters it just oozes entertainment.  I do wonder about the nature of what is happening to him sometimes.  Like the idea that each time the 24 hours ends a version of Phil carries wakes up the next morning in some alternate dimension thingy.  Also, how Phil will cope when he stops repeating.  A lot of his agency at the end of the film will disappear as he loses a ridiculous amount of control on his environment.  Would he not be in some way institutionalised into the repeating structure of his life by that point?  It seems unlikely that he'd not be left with some degree of trauma.

I really love this film.

SmallBlueThing(Reborn)

Leatherface
The new one, not the old one. This is Texas Chainsaw 8, and an attempt to tell Mr Face's origin story- which I'm sure has been done at least once before, probably twice.
This time, however, it largely works. It's a good story, with a central narrative question ("which one of these kids is Leatherface?") that successfully twists and turns a bit throughout the ninety minute running time.
Doesn't feel like any of the other films in the series, at times more resembling The Devil's Rejects, but benefits from a strong cast, some nice shooting, and some joyful grue.
It could be argued that only the first ten minutes and the last fifteen are necessary, but I think that's disingenuous to the story they were trying to tell. For the most part it works very well, and the end while being predictable, is satisfying, and the only time it reverts to type.
Top half of the franchise then, better than some, but obviously not in the same league as Hooper's two originals. As if that were possible.
SBT

TordelBack

#11809
Quote from: pictsy on 19 January, 2018, 11:09:29 AMI also think it is great that there is no explanation as to why it is happening and it's not entirely clear why it stopped, either.  It gives the film a real enigmatic quality.

I've thought about Groundhog Day rather too much over the years, and even more-so since I became effectively addicted to the recording of Tim Minchin's sublime musical adaptation, but I think Phil finally breaks the cycle when he stops striving to be somewhere/when else, stops trying to manipulate people and just experiences and enjoys the day he has. 

It's always tempting to see it as some sort of Quantum Leap fix-everything type of deal, but I think the set up of the last day indicates that his journey is from complete self-imposed insulation from his surroundings to completely embracing and appreciating them, not least by accepting and respecting the agency of others.  As the musical puts it (suggesting that there being two Phils is no coincidence), he emerges from his burrow, and doesn't see his own shadow. 

I think that he could bring that perspective into the world, and live a good life, day to day.

pictsy

Quote from: TordelBack on 19 January, 2018, 12:32:26 PM
Quote from: pictsy on 19 January, 2018, 11:09:29 AMI also think it is great that there is no explanation as to why it is happening and it's not entirely clear why it stopped, either.  It gives the film a real enigmatic quality.

I've thought about Groundhog Day rather too much over the years, and even more-so since I became effectively addicted to the recording of Tim Minchin's sublime musical adaptation, but I think Phil finally breaks the cycle when he stops striving to be somewhere/when else, stops trying to manipulate people and just experiences and enjoys the day he has. 

It's always tempting to see it as some sort of Quantum Leap fix-everything type of deal, but I think the set up of the last day indicates that his journey is from complete self-imposed insulation from his surroundings to completely embracing and appreciating them, not least by accepting and respecting the agency of others.  As the musical puts it (suggesting that there being two Phils is no coincidence), he emerges from his burrow, and doesn't see his own shadow. 

I think that he could bring that perspective into the world, and live a good life, day to day.

It could be that the cycle is to do with Phil and Rita's relationship.  There are indications of this in the film.  Phil apparently falls for her when he first sees her.  He also ends up meeting most of her criteria for her ideal man by the end.  It is a driving force for Phil and provides for some of the big beats of the film.  Phil's initial inability to relate to Rita because of what an arse he his.  At this point he has no real way of processing his feelings.  When he initially realises what is going on he goes to Rita for help, but is unable to convince her.  Realising that he is stuck in the situation he embraces his egotism and the notion of having no consequences to his actions.  He manipulates people and his surroundings.  He tries to manipulate Rita to get what he wants, expressed at sex at this point.  He still has the desire to connect but fails over and over again. 

When he realises he is getting nowhere he becomes depressed and we enter the suicide montage.  That turns out to be just as pointless and frustrating and Phil is broken.  He reaches out once more to Rita, using what he knows to simply try and convince her.  He wants her to believe him.  When she does and when she decides to stay with him it is another major turning point, this time to the positive.  With a more positive outlook on his situation and thanks to some input from Rita which he takes to heart, Phil endeavours to make the most of things and become the person he needs to be to be with Rita.  The final cycle shows us him achieving that.

I actually prefer your interpretation to this idea, but this is why I seriously love this film.  It is just such fun to think about the film and what it is doing.  If they explained what was happening and why, this film would not have resonated so well with me.

TordelBack

You're right to cite Rita as the key, in so much as their relationship is the visible litmus for Phil's drawn-out transformation.  I don't think Phil is either stuck or released because of Rita, but I do think that by letting go of the objective of trying to persuade her to shag him (initially) and like him (subsequently), and instead just concentrating on being his best self, is what brings everything to a conclusion. 

I agree that pondering the whys and wherefors is the real joy of the film, even if they may not all be there in the filmmakers' intent. 

BTW, if you haven't caught up with the musical version you definitely should - it takes the time to look at the inner lives of some of the minor characters (Ned, Nancy, Ralph), and is a fascinating companion to the movie.  (Memorably when Bill Murray went to see it, he showed up again the following night). 


Tiplodocus

GERALD'S GAME
Blimey! Let's think about all of the things that make for uncomfortable viewing and squeeze as many of them into one movie as possible. But I really enjoyed it. Carla and Bruce look purdy and give great performances (not always subtle). Bruce is especially good as the Jessie that is full of self loathing and doubt.
Be excellent to each other. And party on!

Buttonman

The seventh and last Michael Caine Definite Article film The Magus - unless someone can find me a copy of the unreleased 'The Debtors'?

Mattofthespurs

Quote from: Buttonman on 20 January, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
The seventh and last Michael Caine Definite Article film The Magus - unless someone can find me a copy of the unreleased 'The Debtors'?

Watched this a few months ago after reading the book.

I enjoyed it but the book is better imo.

TordelBack

#11815
Finally got round to watching Man of Steel and Batfink vs Superjesus: Pre-Credits Montage for Justice League, back to back.  They were in no way as bad as I was expecting, and as episodes of a story that rather clumsily continues into Wonder Woman/Justice League, they were actually pretty enjoyable.  In particular I liked how the second film was entirely built around the central flaw of the first (Superman's complete disregard for non-Lois bystanders, which was appallingly distracting, to the point that I was getting hoarse screaming at the screen). 

Now don't get me wrong, there was some really powerful stupidity on display, and an almost wilful decision to not show us Superman being remotely Supermanish, but, well, there were good parts too.  Cavill, Affleck, Adams and Shannon (as Zod) were all fine in their parts: even Eisenberg's Lex was at least vaguely original, if hard to connect with the source character. I enjoyed all the Kryptonian beetle-y designs, and (heaven help me) I enjoyed the Batman-Superman punch-up, and (oh god, can't believe I'm saying this) the Trinity versus Doomsday one too. 

In the first movie, Pa Kent's death scene was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen committed to the screen, followed closely by the USA's anti-alien military command/task force being like four people

In the second, it was Lois's inexplicable spear hide-and-seek game, and the FAILURE OF ANYONE TO TELL ANYONE ELSE WHAT WAS GOING ON, JUST ONE IN SINGLE SHORT SENTENCE, EVER.  And Gotham being visible from the Daily Planet.  Oh, and the World's Greatest Detective's failure to Google 'White Portuguese'.  And the name 'White Portuguese'.

But other than way too much snarling, posing and not enough (any?) heroing, and not including any kind of Superman that I recognise, I don't think these things deserved the bad rep they have.  Rather looking forward to Justice League now.

JamesC

Quote from: Buttonman on 20 January, 2018, 09:37:00 AM
The seventh and last Michael Caine Definite Article film The Magus - unless someone can find me a copy of the unreleased 'The Debtors'?

Have you watched The Swarm already? That's always good for a laugh. I like the caption at the end which makes it clear that the film is about evil foreign bees and not good, hardworking American bees.

Tiplodocus

The last two thirds of FANTASTIC VOYAGE. Actually does a pretty good job of keeping the tension going and has some special effects which still look cool today.

The music though is oddly generic sixties movie music. I dunno if that's this score got recycled a lot or, was itself, recycled.

Boy did I have a crush on Raquel Welch back in the day - as did a lot of people I suspect. You you fosters might have to look her up. Sort of like Kelly Brook but better at acting. Could she sing? I recall reading somewhere she was dubbed in those TV specials (which remain fascinating insights into how TV used to be).
Be excellent to each other. And party on!

Professor Bear

A terrible politician who couldn't even win an election in the UK against bolsheviks mere months after winning WW2, Winston Churchill is fetishised uncritically in Darkest Hour, and with almost supernatural synchronicity, I checked Twitter after seeing the film and and some Irish guy was doing a poll about what people thought of Winston Churchill, and obviously the usual minor incidents blown up out of all proportions were being tossed about, like his founding the Black And Tans, his Indian genocide, deploying tanks against Scottish strikers, "I hate Indians they are a beastly people with a beastly religion", the Bengal famine being the fault of Indians for "breeding like rabbits", his military campaign against Afghan civilians including women and children, his targeting civilians during the war, his internment and rape and torture and murder of Kenyans - you know, the usual Trot whataboutery and fake news, but Darkest Hour is having none of that, it shows the real Churchill: man of the people, salt of the Earth, misunderstood by his own party who wanted to kowtow to the Nazis and undermined by socialists of the Labour Party, including the literally frothing-at-the-mouth Atlee.
Darkest Hour is basically 2 hours of Churchill being wanked off in front of you in an embarrassingly unironic way to the point that even if you know absolutely nothing of what Churchill did to non-English subjects of the British Empire - especially the ones that come in darker hues - this is borderline parody stuff, the first few minutes alone making me think of Churchill: The Hollywood Years, only this is arguably funnier as long as you never remind yourself it's supposed to be taken seriously.

IAMTHESYSTEM

Quote from: Professor Bear on 21 January, 2018, 03:42:25 PM
A terrible politician who couldn't even win an election in the UK against bolsheviks mere months after winning WW2, Winston Churchill is fetishised uncritically in Darkest Hour, and with almost supernatural synchronicity, I checked Twitter after seeing the film and and some Irish guy was doing a poll about what people thought of Winston Churchill, and obviously the usual minor incidents blown up out of all proportions were being tossed about, like his founding the Black And Tans, his Indian genocide, deploying tanks against Scottish strikers, "I hate Indians they are a beastly people with a beastly religion", the Bengal famine being the fault of Indians for "breeding like rabbits", his military campaign against Afghan civilians including women and children, his targeting civilians during the war, his internment and rape and torture and murder of Kenyans - you know, the usual Trot whataboutery and fake news, but Darkest Hour is having none of that, it shows the real Churchill: man of the people, salt of the Earth, misunderstood by his own party who wanted to kowtow to the Nazis and undermined by socialists of the Labour Party, including the literally frothing-at-the-mouth Atlee.
Darkest Hour is basically 2 hours of Churchill being wanked off in front of you in an embarrassingly unironic way to the point that even if you know absolutely nothing of what Churchill did to non-English subjects of the British Empire - especially the ones that come in darker hues - this is borderline parody stuff, the first few minutes alone making me think of Churchill: The Hollywood Years, only this is arguably funnier as long as you never remind yourself it's supposed to be taken seriously.

Hollywood is forever rewriting history dumping historical accuracy in favour of a good yarn.Churchill is synonymous with the Victory in WW2 so anything that detracts from that is ignored.
"You may live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension."

http://artriad.deviantart.com/
― Nikola Tesla