The Movie Thread....what are you watching?

[juansolo]

In the end the trilogy feels like most of JJ Abrahm's TV series, where there is an amazing opening, then it rapidly becomes apparent that he had no long term plan in mind and just writes on the fly hoping it will turn out. Oh this was cool (plot veers left) Oh that's neat (plot veers right) ooo the fans like that (spirals around it for a while) wait now where was I going again?

Hit the nail on the head there. The guy has so much form in this that I'm surprised no one has noticed. I think the guy has a few great ideas, but has no idea whatsoever how to end something in a satisfying way. Him and Lindelhoff are two big warning signs for me to not go see something for exactly this reason.

[somnif]

Ok, on a vastly different side of the coin....


Saw 'Knives Out' today. Written, Produced, and Directed By Rian Johnson, the "Hack" that "ruined star wars".

And it was a god damned Delight.

Smart, funny, clever, it was great. The story was well thought out, the acting was stellar, the characters all on point (Though I cannot get the thought of Daniel Craig delivering his James Bond lines in a ridiculous Southern Drawl out of my head now...), it was just an overall excellent movie.

And I seriously hope they make more flicks about Craig's character, because watching him work was addictive. Very much a "holistic" approach (if anyone has read Douglas Adams).

Seriously, go see it if you can. If you like mystery flicks, its top notch. If you like character pieces, all of these folks were delightfully terrible people. If you like dark humor, it's filled to the brim. 

[jimilee]

I really liked Knives Out, except for the part where my wife figured it out and told me before we got to that part.

I just saw Jumanji 2 today. It was a good movie. It was more like another movie and not a sequel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[matmosphere]

I saw Star Wars. I liked it a lot. Was it perfect, no, is anything though. I don't know why people get so bent out of shape about this stuff, I had a good time and there was plenty of closure to the overall story.

Is it as good as the original thee, no but it's probably better than the other 5. It manages to get the spirit of the originals right while not just doing the same stuff over again.

There was one in thing I'd change, but the more I think about it what ended up in the movie was there for a reason.

Juansolo, you might not want to hear this but you should go see it.

[juansolo]

I have a friend who buys EVERYTHING on UHDBD... I'll get to see it eventually whether I like it or not

[juansolo]

The Witcher (TV Series) - This is going to be a long one. To start, I've not read the books and though I have the games, I've not played them. I have an idea what goes on however. I am also very much into fantasy fiction in all it's guises (film, TV, book, computer games, desktop RPGs).

This series has problems...

If you've played D&D, this is obviously very heavily influenced by it. Not a bad thing as it's a rich well to tap, however it often feels a bit like D&D fan fiction. Some of the dialogue particularly so and not in a good way. This is somewhere in-between GOT and LOTR, it wants the boobs and the swearing, but it also wants the monsters and the adventure. It's hard to explain but GOT has a grittiness that fits it's world that is mostly politics. LOTR is high fantasy, which is what I think this is trying to be, but it's jarring for some reason. The closest to the tone I think it's trying to achieve for me would be the original Conan the Barbarian, which it's just not hitting. It's often too lightweight for that.

The direction is the next big problem. The story spans many years, with some characters that age slowly or not at all, and others that are supposed to but don't appear to. The timelines are mixed up constantly and there is absolutely no explaination of this when it happens. So the first thing you realise you're not in the current timeline is that a character is missing, oh, one second he's in an older timeline? Hang on aren't those kids grown up now? Is that the grand daughter or the daughter? Who is this now? What is the law of surprise? This is easily the biggest problem.

If I'm being picky, some of the relationships form suddenly out of nowhere with all the depth of an anime. The main character has little development. The two leading ladies get more, and indeed Jenifer's story is quite well realised and interesting. Though her motivations change/evolve over what it supposed to be a long period of time, but it's compressed over a couple of episodes. So it again seems a bit jarring and just makes her seem a bit schiziod. Ciri we get a little of, but a lot of that is obviously to be revealed. The three of them are well cast and genuinely interesting characters. Jenifer so far being the most layered. I honestly wish the first season had just been her... But that's just me wanting them to do justice to an interesting character.

The three actors who play these roles are what saves the show for me. Geralt, despite as a character having all the nuance of Judge Dredd, is well played, as are the two ladies. I really want to know where they go from here. The 'bad guys' are there... We haven't had enough of them yet for them to be anything than 'ominous evil threat'. Which is dull to be fair, but they haven't been the focus of this season. If anything I feel they've tried to do too much with too little time. It all feels like it's rushing to introduce everyone and some parties are just not getting the love.

So there you have it, it's flawed, but ultimately interesting bordering on enjoyable. What it does do is make me want to see where it goes from here with a hope that they employ better writers and directors, and that the show runners learn to slow down a bit, and try to be more coherent.

[somnif]

The Witcher (TV Series) - This is going to be a long one. To start, I've not read the books and though I have the games, I've not played them. I have an idea what goes on however. I am also very much into fantasy fiction in all it's guises (film, TV, book, computer games, desktop RPGs).

This series has problems...

If you've played D&D, this is obviously very heavily influenced by it. Not a bad thing as it's a rich well to tap, however it often feels a bit like D&D fan fiction. Some of the dialogue particularly so and not in a good way. This is somewhere in-between GOT and LOTR, it wants the boobs and the swearing, but it also wants the monsters and the adventure. It's hard to explain but GOT has a grittiness that fits it's world that is mostly politics. LOTR is high fantasy, which is what I think this is trying to be, but it's jarring for some reason. The closest to the tone I think it's trying to achieve for me would be the original Conan the Barbarian, which it's just not hitting. It's often too lightweight for that.

One thing to keep in mind is this first season is based largely on a few short stories written in 1986-1990, it's... archaic, in high fantasy standards. I chuckle at the GoT comparisons as, well, look at the dates, it all started before Martin got any of his stuff published.

Which just shows how trope-y the genre is, I suppose.

As for the show, I enjoyed it well enough, but yeah it's not perfect. Some of the acting is very wooden (Triss, a lively and vivacious "big sister" type character in the books and games, in the show seems to think forehead wrinkles are the height of emotional exposition). The makeup on one character is phenomenal early on, but after her "transformation" she gets... faker looking, which is bizarre given the circumstances (eye shadow should not be applied by masonry trowel!). Cavil does a great job with what he's given, which is very little admittedly, but the banter is fun nonetheless.

So, 7 or 8 out of 10 depending on ones tolerance for high fantasy tropes. Looking forward to season 2, just wish the delay wasn't quite so long.

[madbean]

Saw 1917. Holy god what a movie. And the score - perfection!

[juansolo]

Took my godkids to the cinema. I wanted to see Sonic, they wanted to see 1917.

1917 - Where Shaving Ryans Privates was astounding for the Normandy landing sequence, the whole premise of the rest of it was just nonsense and ruined it for me. Even though it was technically excellent. This is different in that things in WW1 were much smaller and there was just this ever present dread which this film captures perfectly. That and watching young kids who thought they were signing up for an adventure, face the reality of being used as cannon fodder. Superbly shot, scored and cast. It really is a bit of a masterpiece.

Joker - I went into this one with a bit of trepidation as it's been described as this generation's Taxi Driver. I don't like Taxi Driver... More of a study of mental illness than anything else and Phoenix portrays it well. His decline is realised with understanding and pity for the character. Which is how all good villains should be, because as far as they're concerned they're the heroes. It is grim and cynical, but not a seminal masterpiece or an incendiary hate piece as the media has tried to sell it. It's a good film with a stunning central performance.

It makes me want to see a Batman film done in a similar style in this universe. We got nattering about casting afterwards and my choice for Bruce Wayne/Batman in this world would be Ryan Gosling. Someone easily as capable of being as disturbed and violent as the character should be. As far as I'm concerned no-one's come close to getting that right since Keaton.

The Irishman - Scorsese flexing for 3.5 hrs. There's some proper acting (in capitals) going on here, and some of that is really good. There's a look between Pesci and DeNiro with no words said that's just brilliant. The setting is stunningly realised, Pacino dials down the 'woo' enough to make a charismatic Hoffa. Some of the aging/de-aging effects can be a little uncanny valley, but it's not that distracting. It's well done but for me it's too long and spends too much time admiring the scenery and the acting... That's not that it ever was a numb-bummer (when you notice when a film is long and start shuffling), it's just that I felt it could be tighter and slightly less self-indulgent. It feels like it was aiming for the Oscars if you see what I mean. Well worth a watch, certainly, from a nice comfy sofa, with snacks.

Wind River - From the dude who wrote one of my favourite films of all time (Sicario) and one I thought was just bloody brilliant (Hell or High Water), comes the third part of his modern frontier trilogy. Wind River covers a murder on an Indian reservation from the point of view of a local and a out of place FBI agent, played really excellently by Hawkeye and Scarlett Witch. It feels much more like a Scandinavian noir than a Hollywood film and is all the better for it. Indeed avoiding many of the usual Hollywood tropes which is really rather refreshing for something from the other side of the pond. Highly recommended.

John Wick 3: Parabellum - If video games were films. Better than 2, not as good as the first. You know what you're in for.

Phantom - It's been a while since we had a sub flick of any worth. This one has a lot of Hunt for Red October about it. Some big (B list) names dotted around. Nothing earth shattering. There are worse ways to spend 90 mins.

[pickdropper]

After the Academy Awards, my wife and I checked out Parasite while it was still in the theater.  It was quite a good movie.  Very well done.

[juansolo]

Parasite was on my list because I like the director's other stuff. Sadly with the exposure, it's expensive on disc now, so I'll be grabbing it when I can pick it up for under a tenner.

[juansolo]

Citizenfour - So I was bimbling around the interwebs as you do and ended up watching an fascinating interview with Edward Snowden going into his past and his role at the NSA. I decided I wanted to learn more about the incident as I didn't really follow it at the time so picked up Citizenfour, the documentary of the actual whistleblowing as it happened. Which is even more fascinating and, quite frankly terrifying. Made worse because you have to remind yourself every now and then that it's real. Long have I known there's a US listenting station not far from where I live, I just never realised just how far it's went. Everyone with an interest in technology and how it can be abused should watch it.

[Willybomb]

Joker - I went into this one with a bit of trepidation as it's been described as this generation's Taxi Driver. I don't like Taxi Driver... More of a study of mental illness than anything else and Phoenix portrays it well. His decline is realised with understanding and pity for the character. Which is how all good villains should be, because as far as they're concerned they're the heroes. It is grim and cynical, but not a seminal masterpiece or an incendiary hate piece as the media has tried to sell it. It's a good film with a stunning central performance.

It makes me want to see a Batman film done in a similar style in this universe. We got nattering about casting afterwards and my choice for Bruce Wayne/Batman in this world would be Ryan Gosling. Someone easily as capable of being as disturbed and violent as the character should be. As far as I'm concerned no-one's come close to getting that right since Keaton.

I was somewhat disappointed in that there wasn't really any hint at the completely unhinged mastermind criminal genius that we generally consider the Joker to be.  It was a movie about a delusional guy with a gun, that set of something of a Batman origin.  Phoenix was great though.  The Wayne storyline was a good idea, and would have supported the Batman/Joker ying/yang thing in a way I didn't see coming.  BUT, like the rest of the movie, no great payoff.

Ledger's Joker is still the best.

[juansolo]

Ledger's Joker is still the best.

This is gonna be controversial...

Where as I may not have a favourite Joker or Joker movie, I think the Dark Knight is one of the most overrated films of all time. How much of this comes from Ledger's performance or untimely death afterward I don't know. But the film itself is just a set of loosely linked action set pieces, Batman/Bruce Wayne is barely in it, and when he is it's using the riduculous uninteligable voice someone thought was a good idea... Indeed it could easily be called Die Hard with the Batman it feels so little like a Batman film and more like a Joker film. Which is the ONLY thing that saves it. Batman Begins is a better Batman film.

I still prefer Keaton and think Batman Returns is the best of the lot in terms of being an actual Batman film.

[alanp]

Where as I may not have a favourite Joker or Joker movie, I think the Dark Knight is one of the most overrated films of all time. How much of this comes from Ledger's performance or untimely death afterward I don't know. But the film itself is just a set of loosely linked action set pieces, Batman/Bruce Wayne is barely in it, and when he is it's using the riduculous uninteligable voice someone thought was a good idea... Indeed it could easily be called Die Hard with the Batman it feels so little like a Batman film and more like a Joker film. Which is the ONLY thing that saves it.

I'm going to have 'Die Hard with Batman' stuck in my head now when I think of that movie. Thanks.

What annoys me about Joker's characterisation in that movie was that he claims to never plan anything, he just acts... despite coming up with plans that need a lot of detail work -- Batman is going to be here, so we need to put two things far enough away that the travel time will mean that if we use X timer, he won't be able to travel to both... not to mention the bank heist at the start... what, a load of yellow busses just HAPPEN to be going past at JUST the right time?

And artists are automatically more popular after they're dead. Everyone knows this.