|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 18, 2017 8:11:54 GMT
Here is something else that I did not like about Arrival—something that I had forgotten about yet had observed while viewing the film for the second time.
I am not a political conservative, I do not vote Republican, and I consider religion to be mythology—which can be used productively or abused depending on the person or the group. But I thought that in a couple of aspects, Arrival treated conservatives condescendingly or on a stereotypical basis.
***SPOILERS for Arrival***
In one instance, a soldier is listening on an electronic device to some Alex Jones-type right-wing conspiracy theorist who is ranting about how the government is colluding with or appeasing the aliens—something to that effect. The soldier then decides to sabotage Louise Banks' (Amy Adams) communication mission by planting an explosive, only for the alien to save Louise by banging up against the glass and effectively throwing her back and out of harm's way.
Sure, you could always have some Timothy McVeigh type in the military, but keep in mind that McVeigh became a terrorist after serving in combat in Iraq in 1991—who knows what exactly that experience did to him? And there are obviously some soldiers who listen to Alex Jones or whomever, but the chances of them going out and sabotaging their own army, while on duty and in uniform, are microscopic. Yes, Arrival is obviously a movie, but I found this development to be condescending and preposterous in any event, as in real life, a mere grunt surely would not be able to just walk into a highly sensitive and supposedly secure military area, where crucial diplomacy was occurring, and plant a bomb with no checks or protocols to stop him.
Then there is an instance where the media mentions a church in North Dakota (or one of the Dakotas) whose congregation members had burned themselves alive because they believed that the aliens' arrival was a sign of Armageddon. And, sure, there are religious crazies out there and Arrival is just a movie, but in this way, too, I felt that the film was treating conservatives and the "Heartland" condescendingly—inadvertently pandering, in a sense, to conservatives' stereotypes of Hollywood and its supposedly snobbish manners and elitist mores.
These matters are not big deals by themselves, but they epitomize the ways in which I find Arrival haughty, pandering, and clichéd while straining to come across as earnest, noble, and sophisticated.
... just some honest observations.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 18, 2017 6:31:36 GMT
...Rebel Without a Cause (Nicholas Ray, 1955). The film is not only iconic and iconographic but incredibly iconoclastic, both in terms of content and visual style. Nicholas Ray broke all kinds of taboos in daring fashion.
I viewed The Edge of Seventeen twice, and I ultimately thought that it was a "good/very good" film—underrated, a smoother and more organic mix of contrasting elements than what Manchester by the Sea offered (although the latter is weightier and thus slightly better), and featuring a wonderful performance by Woody Harrelson that deserved a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 18, 2017 6:26:33 GMT
***SPOILERS for Arrival***
I believe that she has already lost her daughter, though; the Amy Adams figure mentions that she was married, and her mother calls her on the phone early on and worries about her because of what she has endured. Basically, since time is (supposedly) shown to be nonlinear in this film, the Jeremy Renner character becomes her old-new husband and the old-new father of her daughter, and the Amy Adams character is willing to go through the experience again because time is nonlinear and can be relived. In other words, the aliens tell her that the past and future merge and recycle, thus allowing her to relive the joys before the tragedy.
... or so the film says. Personally, I did not find these ideas to have been sufficiently explored or worked out beyond a fairly superficial level.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 18, 2017 6:04:02 GMT
I am curious to hear from those who didn't like Arrival. No criticism at all, we are all entitled to our tastes. Just genuinely curious. I was going to post these comments of mine in a thread on Arrival, but I will do so here and then add them to that thread: *** I basically loathe Arrival, which I saw twice (basically seeing it again, on an Oscar pass, just to check my original assessment and also because it received a slew of Oscar nominations that I found difficult to fathom). And I actually liked it even less the second time—I consider Arrival the most overrated release of 2016 and possibly even worse than Selma, which I deemed the most overrated movie of 2014 despite it, too, being a Best Picture nominee. After seeing Arrival the first time, I ascribed the adjective "lousy" to it after briefly, before the very ending, considering it perhaps "lousy/decent." After viewing Arrival the second time, I just considered it "terrible"—basically carrying the same meaning as "lousy," but indicating my increased frustration with the film. When a movie that you already consider poor becomes even worse to you after a second viewing, that is certainly a sign that it is not going to work for you—even though I fully understood the "plot twist" the second time, which had not fully been the case the first time. Basically, I believe that Arrival is sentimental tripe and a pretentious, draggy affair that—for a ton of critics, viewers, and Academy members—got away with passing off gimmicks and clichés as profound ideas. The film constitutes a classic case of seeming cerebral by creating the illusion of something grand and important while actually being mechanical and hollow—an empty shell, so to speak. The movie tries to be a sort of " E.T. for adults," but without any of the charm, humor, or soul of E.T. Amy Adams is always good, as is a (somewhat wasted, given the size and nature of his role) Forest Whitaker, and some of the cinematography is impressive in terms of epic-looking compositions, lighting, and aerial tracking shots. Otherwise, I feel that the movie is basically a travesty. Yes, it tries to say something about time being nonlinear (which does not make sense on a literal level unless you are entering some outer space realm, which Arrival does not) and regrets or the lack thereof and whether one would redo one's life if one understood the tragedies that would come. But the film engages these ideas in such a pretentious, nonsensical, skeletal manner that I find it completely unconvincing. The clichéd jocularity of the Jeremy Renner character fails to mesh with the film's overall mood and tone (which are sober to the point of extreme and unwarranted self-importance), and some of the lines are incredibly stilted and unrealistic (like when the Whitaker character says something early on to the Adams character along the lines of, "You took care of that insurgent translation," and she replies, "You took care of those insurgents"). Now, I have to respect the fact that some people really respond to Arrival, including a critic such as Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times, whom I like. I guess that for some people, the film indeed plays in a cerebral manner. But again, for me, the cerebral aspects proved extremely pretentious and hollow, basically an indulgence in intellectual gimmickry to try and cover what is actually a banal Hollywood blockbuster. ( The Martian is somewhat similar in that respect, but it is not nearly as self-important or pseudo-intellectual. And I guess that the term "pseudo-intellectual," as much as anything, explains my problems with Arrival. Another adjective that I find apt is "condescending" or "pandering.") If someone found Arrival genuinely moving or felt that it challenged their view of the world, do not hesitate to say so or explain why. I enjoy trying to figure out why movies work better for others than they do for me.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 18, 2017 2:14:24 GMT
Well, I did see Le Prince's Roundhay Garden Scene, but that only lasts 2 seconds or something. What are the two pictures from the 1870s that IMDb lists? I might have seen those as well, I did check out some of the world's oldest films a few years back. They are Passage de Venus (1874) and Sallie Gardner at a Gallop (1878), though calling either of them a film is stretching things considerably....neither were meant to be projected. So what are they, exactly?
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 18, 2017 2:11:12 GMT
Well, let us face reality: IMDb is not bringing the boards back. IMDb was a trinket for Amazon, and Amazon obviously decided that the message boards were more of a liability than an asset, especially as the company increasingly waded into the movie production business. I wish that Amazon had sold IMDb to someone who cared and would have made a proper investment in policing and improving the boards.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 18, 2017 2:07:12 GMT
The lack of the individual boards in the IMDB app is a big loss. If they came back i'd use them. That is where The Movie Database or the IMDb Archive can complement this board. So far, what I have seen on this board is that people actually tolerate opinions different from their own and do not necessarily attack someone with a different opinion or someone capable of expressing an eloquent opinion. In more recent years on IMDb, if you offered a different viewpoint or an articulate, in-depth assessment, some posters were so insecure that they would assault you.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 17, 2017 20:53:43 GMT
I enjoyed all of Brosnan's Bond movies as well. Like you said, he was a good mix of light-hearted humor (from the Connery/Moore era) and seriousness. I would have liked to have seen more Bond movies starring him. I think people are unnecessarily harsh on him, just because they like to jump on the whole dark/gritty/serious/depressing bandwagon of Craig's Bond movies. I prefer a more "Marvel-esques" Bond movie than a "DC" one. I thought that Spectre was a little less dour and evoked a little more humor from Craig. Before that, I had not cared for Daniel Craig as James Bond basically for the reason that you indicated.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 17, 2017 20:32:41 GMT
That's really the only good thing in that movie, at least for me. I always hated Dench's "M" and I was glad that her character was killed in Skyfall. I don't like the new nerdy kid "Q". It's funny how Craig's Bond went from a newly appointed 00 agent to a has-been on the brink of retirement in just a span of three movies! There is some truth to this. However, the lifespan of a secret agent probably isn't very long. A pro athlete (on average) usually has a 5 year career. The very best are lucky to play 10 years. So, a secret agent on the top of his game (physically and mentally) couldn't last longer than 10 years before they are a has been. I think Spectre should have been the 3rd installment (with a better plot) and Skyfall (retirement/has been) story should have been the 4th. That would have been slightly better. Although the idea of aging was intriguing and worthwhile (before the film simply abandoned it), I do not believe that working as a secret agent is really analogous to being a professional athlete. A professional athlete is constantly at risk to injury and thrives or suffers based on split-second reaction times that decline with age or physical toll. A secret agent deals with some physical risks, but if he does not suffer grievous injury and avoids mental burnout, a twenty-year or even thirty-year career is not implausible. ***SPOILERS for Skyfall***
What was that plot point in Skyfall regarding the exposure of Bond for the sake of the organization or mission? Was that M who did that to him? It was one of about three intriguing thematic concepts that Skyfall suggested and then basically abandoned.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 17, 2017 19:54:57 GMT
For me, it's the crappy, nothing film "Spotlight" over both The Revenant and Max Max Fury Road. I thought that Spotlight,which I viewed twice in the theater, was arguably a better film than the The Revenant, which I also saw twice in the theater (and on a really big screen). Both were "very good" movies in my view, but the two "great" films of 2015 were The Walk (which received no nominations) and Bridge of Spies. As for Mad Max: Fury Road, I did not see it in the theater, but I felt that the Academy Awards attention that it received was ridiculous. The movie struck me as an empty video game. I found Spotlight extremely engrossing, intimate, socially important, and moving with some of the best ensemble acting of any movie in recent times. Indeed, it offers the virtues of old-fashioned filmmaking with the frankness and iconoclasm of modern times. Among the nominated films, Bridge of Spies would have constituted a better choice, but Spotlight was not a bad one. The Revenant certainly offers more in the sense of a cinematic experience and spectacle, but Spotlight is more subtle and sophisticated. Obviously, the two films are extremely different, rendering the question of superiority dubious if not moot.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 17, 2017 19:38:19 GMT
My Netflix DVD pick: PASSENGERS - During the 120-year journey of the "Starship Avalon" to a distant planetary colony, a computer glitch rouses mechanic Jim Preston from hibernation decades ahead of schedule. Desperate for company, Preston wakes up female journalist Aurora Lane. Cast Jennifer Lawrence, Chris Pratt, Michael Sheen, Laurence Fishburne, Andy Garcia Director Morten Tyldum www.imdb.com/title/tt1355644/Are you looking for people's thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 17, 2017 19:34:14 GMT
Okay, there's more information on the drafts feature here. Thank you; my "Enable Drafts" option was set to "No," so I have now changed it to "Yes." I imagine that this change should take care of matters. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 17, 2017 19:31:15 GMT
Hmm. That's news to me. I don't think I've ever had that problem. Maybe I just haven't left my computer in mid-post for very long. Could it have something to do with your screen saver or sleep mode? Are you being logged out for inactivity? Cat sitting on your delete key? ... not being logged out, and it has not been an issue with other message boards. *Now that I have changed my "Enable Drafts" option, I will see if that takes care of matters.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 17, 2017 6:23:56 GMT
For a recent year, how about Argo over Django Unchained?
... although I doubt that Django Unchained constituted the runner up in the balloting.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 17, 2017 6:07:11 GMT
I am not sure if someone has raised this matter yet, but if one begins writing a post and then leaves the computer for awhile (or even a modest bit), what one had written disappears.
Is there a way to avoid that development? Matters would just be more convenient that way.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 17, 2017 6:04:51 GMT
1. Gravity - the best of the four because it is consistent beginning to end, very entertaining film 2. Interstellar - most interesting and daring of the four but the scenes on Earth detract from the film 3. The Martian - enjoyable, predictable Crusoe on Mars 4. Arrival - easily the worst of these films, so glad the Academy did not give Adams a nomination for acting, though they did nominate the film itself, my least favorite film of 2016 ... I basically saw them the same way.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 17, 2017 5:43:30 GMT
i think costner wanted to create his own films - but found it really hard to get the budgets after waterworld/ postman / dances with wolves (as it was films like that again) I suppose he is now just accepting acting work because he can not finance his own stuff, Your theory makes some sense, but Costner enjoyed modest success with his self-directed Open Range (2003). The film was not a hit, ranking fifty-first among domestic releases in 2003, but nor was it a flop, and based on its budget, it certainly proved profitable. 2003 box office grosses"Open Range" economic dataI have long wondered why Costner has not directed since then.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 17, 2017 5:37:53 GMT
Clint Eastwood, but Steven Spielberg would also be up there.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 17, 2017 5:35:31 GMT
From the moment it was released, Live and Let Die has been my least favorite film. Live and Let Die strikes me as a fairly weak entry, but there is that curiosity element in terms of James Bond (and a new James Bond at that) travelling to Harlem and then the swampy South—James Bonds meets Blaxploitation and Deliverance, with Paul McCartney singing the title song. The combination makes no sense and would have been utterly unimaginable a decade earlier, but as a historical artifact or curio, I find it intriguing, sort of like Paint Your Wagon (Joshua Logan, 1969), the Western musical co-starring Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 17, 2017 5:30:10 GMT
For me, it continues to alternate between Die Another Day and A View to a Kill, but as now, the latter holds the title as worst Bond film to date. Both of those films have good elements in it although they don't make for a good cohesive whole. Christopher Walken was a great classic and mentally disturbed Bond villain and the showdown on the Golden Gate Bridge was one of the film's highlights. Roger Moore felt a tad passionate in his final outing than he did in Octopussy, although he was clearly too old for the role. Whatever facelift he had before filming failed miserably. Patrick Macnee and Grace Jones were fine Bond allies. The title song by Duran Duran is still one of the series's best. However, the storyline was an updated rehash of Goldfinger with just replacing gold with microchips, and it felt tired. Besides the showdown, which I already mentioned, the action sequences felt lacking. Bond driving in one-half of a car in Paris descends the film into further parody, and the San Francisco car chase didn't make it any better. To top it off, they included "California Girls" during a rather impressive ski chase in the pre-titles sequence. At least Die Another Day holds up better, and actually has some lively elements going for it. The first half was still rather impressive to watch at building the mystery of who betrayed Bond in North Korea. The fencing scene and Pierce Brosnan and Rosemund Pike's performances were good stuff. Madonna's title song, the CGI effects, the infamous sky surfing scene, the invisible car, Halle Berry's corny dialogue, and Graves's death is still laughably bad. The villain scheme almost gives Hugo Drax's plan in Moonraker a run for its money at how over-the-top and ridiculous it can be. A View to a Kill strikes me as fairly weak, but as you said, the use of the Golden Gate Bridge at least provides some memorable iconography. And I love the ending in the shower, for that is worth—a nice way for Moore to go out. I actually have never seen any of the Brosnan films—I have to do so at some point.
|
|