|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 8, 2022 2:55:17 GMT
I love that. And despite the low budget, it is not as if the film appears cheap or inadequate in any way.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 8, 2022 2:42:04 GMT
Kiki Layne says a lot of her scenes were cut.
The fact that all these people associated with the film seem compelled to air their complaints in public indeed suggests a chaotic and divided production, combined with today's technology trapping ostensible adults in a state of stunted adolescence.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 8, 2022 2:26:19 GMT
I viewed Don't Worry Darling last night and deem it "pretty good," meaning above-average, but less than a full-fledged "good" film. It is a curious movie, attractive in many aspects yet difficult to characterize as to its ultimate quality or caliber. The material is creative, an era-blending mix of contemporary pictures such as The Matrix movies, Avatar, Passengers, and the like, combined with The Stepford Wives (I am referring to the unforgettable 1975 original, not the remake with Nicole Kidman, which I have not seen) and even some vintage 007. (Indeed, the villainous lair on a desert mountaintop reminds one of 1971's Diamonds Are Forever.) And Olivia Wilde shows herself to be quite a cinematic director, with some impressive compositions, a nice showcasing of depth within the frame, vibrant yet nuanced lighting, and a balanced mix of stiller shots and dynamic camerawork, most notably during the climactic car chase when Wilde's camera athletically tracks and pans to follow the Florence Pugh character's car and then stops—emphasizing both Pugh's escape and the revelatory establishing shot of the "Victory" company headquarters. Furthermore, the film's editing and production design are undeniably skilled and impressive, with a nice feel for period detail (most of the movie seems set in the mid-sixties) and musical choices (both diegetic and non-diegetic). And without exposition, the film suggests some potent themes for the audience to ponder—the excessive desire for happiness as opposed to reality, the way that both prescription pills (or "modern medicine") and digital technology can be manipulated to fulfill that dangerous desire, and both the allure and the fallacy of nostalgia and historical escapism. Indeed, Don't Worry Darling powerfully suggests that an alleged utopia can actually be dystopian and does so in a socially and historically resonant manner. So you have a visually stylish film derived from highly imaginative source material that achieves an intelligent, engrossing blend in the form of a conspiratorial thriller. Therefore, why does the movie—while compelling and intriguing—feel like something less than an unqualified success? The problem may be that while eerie and creepy enough, and certainly dystopian, Don't Worry Darling is not that thrilling in the end. That deficit may reflect the film's stylization and bending of time, which inhibit the naturalistic immersion that propels many thrillers. On the other hand, much of the film's attractiveness comes precisely from its stylization and its creative alterations of time and place, mind and body. So perhaps Don't Worry Darling is one of those paradoxical movies where strengths prove to be weaknesses, but at least it is engrossing and mildly tense (if not truly thrilling) over its two-hour running length.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 8, 2022 1:26:21 GMT
Yeah the trailer was really well done and Pine looks like he's in top form in this. my oly concern is how the trailer feels like it might've tipped a sleight of hand a bit much. IE: simulations? maybe sentient androids? etc. Pine possibly being a Dr. Frankenstein whom sees his utopia as his world and may perhaps be the only actual human here I also hope its more overt thematic aspects regarding patriarchy and misogyny are approached in a much more nuanced fashion as well. ... a very nuanced and intelligent interpretation from the trailer!
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 8, 2022 1:21:27 GMT
Really? Not even Black Widow or Little Women? Nope. I skipped BLACK WIDOW (I counted the other day, I've actually skipped more MCU content than I've seen) but may someday get around to watching it. And I haven't seen the new LITTLE WOMEN. Really loved the 90s one as a kid, so wasn't keen to see a remake, although I hear it was pretty good and that F.P. was stunning in it. I did not care for Little Women (2019), but Midsommar, from earlier that year, is a good horror film—intriguing and ironic, with a strong sense of composition—and a fine showcase for Pugh's ability as an actress. I saw it three times in the theater that summer. Come to think of it, Pugh's role there is not entirely dissimilar from her protagonist in Don't Worry Darling.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 8, 2022 1:04:31 GMT
Given the current re-releases of E.T. and Jaws (I saw the former twice, once in IMAX, in August, and I just viewed the latter in IMAX and next plan to see it in 3D), I wonder if Spielberg is preparing the public for a quasi-biopic about himself.
I missed the re-release of E.T. I watched Jaws on IMAX just yesterday, and it was fantastic. My first time seeing it on a big screen.
I have now seen Jaws six times in the theater since June 2015, although this was the first full-fledged re-release that I have witnessed. My fifth viewing, a month ago, was my first in IMAX, and maybe the first time that it has ever been shown in IMAX. Watching the film on an IMAX screen proved an excellent experience, I concur. I viewed Jaws in 3D (and XD) the next day, and while 3D did not add a lot, it did not detract from the film, either. The ocean waves seeming to lap all the way into my seat, especially at the start of the film and again at the end, was relatively worthwhile. I could go into further detail, but Jaws takes on fresh relevance in light of COVID. Also, part of what makes the film special is that it is a movie about masculinity and cultural ethos as much as a giant shark, to the point where it is virtually impossible to imagine Jaws being made today. Oh, a film about a giant shark could of course be made (and has been made, recently), but not Jaws.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Sept 8, 2022 5:03:39 GMT
Given the current re-releases of E.T. and Jaws (I saw the former twice, once in IMAX, in August, and I just viewed the latter in IMAX and next plan to see it in 3D), I wonder if Spielberg is preparing the public for a quasi-biopic about himself.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Sept 7, 2022 5:00:34 GMT
Butler is effective (in a role that only gives him fleeting opportunities to "act" as opposed to perform), but if there is an Oscar nomination here, it will probably be for Hanks as Best Supporting Actor. He manages to be both slimy and slightly sympathetic, creepy and charming (not easy combinations to achieve), and until the film's climactic chapter, I was not entirely sure of the character's true nature, meaning that Hanks renders the figure quite ambiguous.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 31, 2022 3:44:24 GMT
From a recent interview with Bryce Dallas Howard: "It's very sad to say goodbye to something so wonderful. But also, I'm very excited for the folks who will carry the Jurassic saga forward, you know? It will be with a largely different cast and all of that, and that's something that is to be celebrated. I know as a fan what I want to see moving forward, and I hope it comes to fruition, I really do." screenrant.com/jurassic-franchise-future-new-cast-howard-response/ So I guess it’s not the end?She may not know herself, or she may be somewhat confused. I suspect that by the mid-2030s, Universal will have rebooted the Jurassic series for a new generation of kids ( Jurassic Universe?). But to pump out a fourth movie in this series in a couple more years would at least risk oversaturation and a diminishing box office yield. Also, the climax of Jurassic World: Dominion represents a tasteful blend of homage and parody, which would indeed suggest a goodbye to this set of Jurassic movies. Returning Laura Dern and Sam Neill to the fold—bringing them back while it remained feasible to do so—indicates the same. The studio could always change course, but the intention seems to have been that Jurassic World ends here.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 20, 2022 6:38:42 GMT
By the way, the film strikes me as an example of a movie that is at once too fast-paced and overlong ... sometimes the two can go together.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Aug 20, 2022 6:22:54 GMT
I viewed Everything Everywhere All at Once twice in the theater, over three months apart—which says something about the film's shelf life and surprising success. The first time, I deemed the movie "decent/mediocre," and on the second occasion I considered it "decent"—basically the same feeling, but since I was prepared for it this time, I found it slightly more favorable. But I basically see it as an average film.
The best part about it is the editing, which is dynamic and impressive—the editing of a couple of shots of an umbrella in an elevator, early on, especially stands out. The use of mise en scène is also commendable at times, and certainly all the stunts and effects are skillful. Upon my second screening, I came to better appreciate the coordination, deftness, and dexterity of those elements. And I appreciate the idea of rendering internal chaos and psychology "external," as if we could physically manifest the swirling tumult inside people's minds and hearts. But as some other posters have already indicated, this approach becomes overdone and overwrought, compromising the film's moral and philosophical concerns and leaving Everything Everywhere All at Once imbalanced.
Granted, there is nothing original about those moral and philosophical concerns—a midlife crisis movie, wondering what could have been, contemplating whether one's life choices and path were for the best, whether one's progeny redeems a missed chance at celebrity. These concerns appear in films rather regularly, but still, they are wittily, engagingly, and humorously presented here. The movie features soul and metaphor (i.e. the bagel) and philosophical curiosity, even as it ultimately slides toward banal sentimentality. One just wishes, again, that these elements enjoyed more development, as opposed to the constant thrust toward quasi-Matrix-style hijinks, without the gravitas. Indeed, Everything Everywhere All at Once saps its potential for gravitas, almost as if it lacks full confidence and conviction in its thematic material and instead opts for flippancy and stylization as a means of distinguishing itself from other movies with this sort of subject matter. But while its cinematic crispness should be commended, one can argue that the film just goes overboard in its hyperkinetic approach. Conversely, more balance could have drawn out the movie's humanistic and allegorical potential.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jun 9, 2022 10:08:53 GMT
Eh, it was good but nothing special. Not as cheesy as the first one, but way too many member berries moments. nothing special? u must be joking. some of the stunts are completely unique extremelly daring stunts unseen in another movie. those are not cgi planes. amazing stunts and practical effects. i remain a huge fan of this unique feat. ... special in those regards, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jun 9, 2022 9:56:13 GMT
I just saw Top Gun: Maverick (in XD) and would consider it "decent." The film could hardly be more formulaic, predictable, or unrealistic, and it obviously lacks the originality of the original. But the sequel is not as overbearing as the borderline-obnoxious original Top Gun (after all, the late Tony Scott is not the director of this one, although I appreciate the tribute to him at the end) and the flight scenes seem more extensive, more dynamic, and more thrilling in this edition, especially in the climactic battle sequences. (And I viewed the original Top Gun in the theater in 2016, 2018, and 2019.) There are some comical moments (more and better humor than in the original), Cruise is in fine form, and Jennifer Connelly adds some grace. The scene where the Cruise and Connelly characters essentially have to act like teenagers to avoid the latter's teenaged daughter offers some genuine comedy and constitutes the best part of the movie. I do retain one ideological complaint. Unless I missed something very early in the movie, the filmmakers never identify the uranium-enriching enemy. Iran would represent a logical guess, or maybe North Korea, although that country already debuted a rudimentary nuclear arsenal a few years ago. But as far as I could tell, the enemy is utterly generic—nameless and faceless. Similarly, Top Gun: Maverick completely skirts the politics of the US launching some kind of preemptive or preventative strike. And I understand the matter: the movie wants to focus on entertainment—on characters and action—rather than geopolitics and politics, which can be controversial even in this kind of vehicle. But to entirely skirt such matters and the national identity of the enemy is to make it akin to the James Bond movies, which are pure fantasies. Top Gun is not supposed to be a total fantasy, but it risks entering that territory by just whitewashing all geopolitics and politics from its subject matter, even though such elements would be inherent to its plot. So, rather like the original from 1986, it tries to have matters both ways—to glory in the militarized thrill and danger while making those elements antiseptic, socially and politically. Most viewers probably will not notice or care, but for me, this artificial neutralization of inherent controversy was a bit of a distraction and a problem. Aside from the spectacular flight scenes, the film is quite conventional; the nature of the filmmaking is basically the same as director Michael Bay's recent Ambulance, a commercialized mode of moviemaking subtly and wittily parodied in writer-director Roland Emmerich's Moonfall from earlier this year. But Top Gun: Maverick is certainly competent and entertaining enough, and I give Cruise credit for waiting over three decades before consummating a sequel. The generational difference in age helps the film, and I respect the fact that Cruise has not been making sequels of Top Gun every few years, in contrast to the typical Hollywood trend (or even Cruise's trend in other movies). Probably the most intriguing aspect of the movie was to learn, during the closing credits, that "Renee Russo" served as a post-production sound assistant. (Okay, that is Renee Russo, not Rene Russo, but it amused me.)
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jun 9, 2022 9:01:39 GMT
That is the proper attitude and suggests that the studio understands the nature of this film's commercial success.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jun 8, 2022 10:18:49 GMT
I read the plot synopsis yesterday, and it seems like it could be either intriguingly artistic or too much of a gross-out flick. I will probably give it a try, but I do carry some apprehension regarding the latter prospect. I just viewed Crimes of the Future, and I actually found it more "intriguingly artistic" than "a gross-out flick." It has its grisly and sadomasochistic elements, of course, but unlike Nora, I did not find it revulsive or overly gross. The gore factor was not excessive for me, and the film is quite artistic. The cinematography is crisp in a solid, spare sort of way, and the fact that the filmmakers shot the movie in Athens, Greece, adds to the visual look. Indeed, Crimes of the Future is quite mesmerizing and engrossing—it truly held my attention, which is all the more remarkable given that the narrative is thin and irrational, there are no characters worth caring about, and the thematic value is modest at best. In other words, Cronenberg helmed a truly atmospheric movie. The film offers eerie quietude and constant tension, along with excellent sound mixing as the actors' voices slightly echo through spare or empty space, adding to the atmospherics. Perhaps in part because of the black, shrouding, monk-like costume worn by the male protagonist, played by Viggo Mortensen, Crimes of the Future even reminded me of an Ingmar Bergman film, such as The Seventh Seal (1957). It is not, of course, nearly on the level of a Bergman classic, and this movie is grislier and tawdrier in a modernistic sense, but there is a similar sense of quietude, symbolism, metaphor, and enveloping atmosphere. Of course, the story does not make much sense, as Mortensen's character essentially acknowledges at one point. Apparently, the deliberate ingestion of plastics produces aberrant organs that can then be passed on to one's progeny. Moreover, surgery—or just violent cutting—replicates and replaces sexual pleasure. At best, this idea approximates the notion of violence supplanting sex in some people's lives, usually those of male loners. (It is, for instance, arguably an inchoate or unstated theme in Don Siegel's Dirty Harry, from 1971.) But presenting the idea so directly, as in Crimes of the Future, feels flimsy more than profound. The film fares better, thematically, in its suggestion that if one really thinks about it, the idea that plastic surgery creates or enhances beauty is bizarre and absurd. Had Cronenberg centered his movie around that one thematic concept and reoriented the plot to match it, Crimes of the Future could have become something greater. The movie's conclusion—right before the closing credits—was not one that I understood while watching it. But I seemed to grasp it in the restroom afterwards. The dénouement is ironic, almost to the point of suggesting that the whole movie is a black comedy, even though it is never funny. Like many stylized science-fiction films, the characters in Crimes of the Future are cold and fail to generate humanistic interest. I concur with Nora that Kristen Stewart, looking younger, more innocent, and less sophisticated than in some of her other roles, offers the most intrigue. Incidentally, there is quite a bit of female toplessness, with French actress Léa Seydoux, coming off her role as James Bond's wife in No Time to Die, displaying her sensuous figure (trim pubic hair included) in a way that she of course could not in the 007 film. So, there is that. (Actually, one wonders if the plot constitutes an excuse for showing female nudity.) Overall, I deem Crimes of the Future "pretty good," meaning above-average, albeit less than a full-fledged "good" film. As I have noted, the movie certainly has its flaws, but it also makes for a worthwhile cinematic experience and the performances are quietly intense. I encourage anyone interested to see the picture for yourself and then gauge whether your response is more like mine or Nora's (although our assessments certainly overlap).
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jun 4, 2022 6:19:21 GMT
I read the plot synopsis yesterday, and it seems like it could be either intriguingly artistic or too much of a gross-out flick.
I will probably give it a try, but I do carry some apprehension regarding the latter prospect.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jun 4, 2022 6:17:03 GMT
... planning on seeing it soon.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jun 4, 2022 6:00:29 GMT
The Northman was utterly incredible! The cinematography showing off the vast terrain of Iceland was amazing to see. The booming score was also a real treat. Definitely see this on the biggest screen possible. Violent af, weird af, trippy af, epic af, intense af etc etc . The Northman was like a combination of Gladiator / Braveheart on shrooms. And I mean that in the most sincere best way. It definitely won't be a lot of movie goers' cup of tea but I loved every second of it.The director (Robert Eggers) is a flat out genius with the amount of detail he puts into his films (whether it be the art direction, costumes, authentic dialogue, long tracking shots that build tons of tension etc etc) Just an incredible young director and I can't wait to follow his career (he's not even 40 years old yet and has already directed 3 really good / weird as hell films in The VVitch, The Lighthouse and The Northman) I rather agree with this assessment, except that I found the effect decrepit, stilted, alienating, and—at times—repellent. (See my first post in this thread.) But it is is ironic how we sort of saw the same characteristics yet just responded to them very differently.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jun 4, 2022 5:56:21 GMT
I loved it, too. There hasn’t been an unashamed tough-guy movie this brazen since The Revenant.Eggers really is the man. He was somehow able to keep his distinct indie style in a large Viking epic and make it work. The Revenant, though, offered much more space for implicit reflection and genuinely-felt suffering, both for its protagonist and the viewer. Conversely, I found those aspects missing in The Northman. Also, The Revenant is simply a sheer historical epic (in a Western setting), whereas The Northman seems to want to blur genre lines at times. That dynamic may signify ambitiousness, but it also creates an erratic feel in my judgment and may actually suggest commercialism as much as an independent spirit. In other words, if The Revenant is a sadomasochistic movie, the sadomasochism is authentic. If The Northman is a sadomasochistic movie, the sadomasochism is contrived.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jun 4, 2022 5:42:46 GMT
I viewed The Northman back on April 21 (in XD, no less) and found it "mediocre" and (thankfully) forgettable for the most part. My main problem with the film is that it tries to force its ideas and tone, relying too much on brawn than finesse (rather like its characters, I suppose). There is not enough nuance, not enough character development, and not enough focus on theme. Rather early, one can tell that The Northman is sort of a blend of Ben-Hur and Oedipus Rex, but when Nicole Kidman's mother character deliberately makes out with her returning adult son in some sort of attempt to reestablish her authority or intimidate him or whatever, the film effectively becomes a highly bizarre horror movie, at least for the moment. Either way, that whole scene proved way too freaky and repellent for me, to the point where I would never want to view The Northman again. And unfortunately, that scene is the only memorable one in the movie. There are some dynamic tracking shots early on (for instance, when the king returns home), and the early sequence in the forest where the marauders kill the king and the young prince manages to scamper off and escape is eerily well-realized—tautly shot and edited in the mist. Overall, technical aspects such as cinematography and editing constitute The Northman's strengths, but they stand out more because the storytelling and character development are so lackluster in comparison. The cinematography and editing are not, in my view, Oscar-worthy, although I take the original poster's point about the Icelandic locations (I mean, they are better than CGI virtual mimicry). The movie's technical attributes, while better than the rest, sometimes call too much attention to themselves. Overall, the film is sort of a pastiche of traditional epic, action, horror, and mystical fantasy. Indeed, the movie's final portion cycles through a variety of potential endings, almost as if the filmmakers could not decide how exactly to conclude The Northman and kept extending the story instead. Had I seen it twenty-five years ago, when I was in high school, I might have liked the movie better, but in that case, that Nicole Kidman scene might have freaked me out even more. As for writer-director Robert Eggers, I liked The Lighthouse better—I viewed it twice in the theater in the fall of 2019, and it was more artistic and eccentric. Some of the shots and incidents in that black-and-white movie prove truly memorable. Even there, though, I only found The Lighthouse to be "decent/pretty good," meaning slightly above-average, because the style called too much attention to itself and inhibited deeper immersion in the story. Also, while the boozy dialogue often proved rich, the overall attempts at humor were arguably overwrought. The result was an intriguing black comedy yet one that felt too much like a museum piece to be observed rather than a movie to be felt. The Northman, conversely, lacks that artistic quality in its cinematography and material, and the film is too numb to be felt. I appreciate the different opinions, though.
|
|