|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 10, 2021 14:05:22 GMT
Great film on BBC the other night: The Wife (2017) with Glenn Close and Jonathan Pryce as a married couple who travel to Stockholm when Pryce wins the Nobel prize for literature. Features flashbacks to their early days. It’s easy to see the big reveal coming, but it didn’t detract the from my enjoyment in any way. Terrific performances by the leads. www.imdb.com/title/tt3750872/referenceI never saw it, but I remember most of the reviews around awards time saying that Glenn Close was amazing in a mostly stupid and terrible movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Jan 10, 2021 14:09:58 GMT
Great film on BBC the other night: The Wife (2017) with Glenn Close and Jonathan Pryce as a married couple who travel to Stockholm when Pryce wins the Nobel prize for literature. Features flashbacks to their early days. It’s easy to see the big reveal coming, but it didn’t detract the from my enjoyment in any way. Terrific performances by the leads. www.imdb.com/title/tt3750872/referenceNever has your sig been as relevant as with this post. Do we call that irony or sincerity? I had forgotten all about my sig!
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Jan 10, 2021 17:34:53 GMT
Great film on BBC the other night: The Wife (2017) with Glenn Close and Jonathan Pryce as a married couple who travel to Stockholm when Pryce wins the Nobel prize for literature. Features flashbacks to their early days. It’s easy to see the big reveal coming, but it didn’t detract the from my enjoyment in any way. Terrific performances by the leads. www.imdb.com/title/tt3750872/referenceI never saw it, but I remember most of the reviews around awards time saying that Glenn Close was amazing in a mostly stupid and terrible movie. She's definitely the best thing about it. It would still be watchable though even without her. |
|
|
|
Post by tristramshandy on Jan 10, 2021 17:48:19 GMT
Well.. I don't know how far along you are... But not every movie that's a little outside of the mainstream has to have to place on purgatory of have one character who's actually imaginary. That's everyone's theory for every movie ever. Seriously, I don't know exactly when this trend started, but it's been the prevailing theory for every film of the last 20 years at least. "He's actually dead at the end." "So and so isn't real." "They're in purgatory." I've even heard that theory for Up In The Air. When adults' major form of entertainment is content that was meant for twelve-year-old boys, this is what happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Jan 11, 2021 14:45:17 GMT
Seriously, I don't know exactly when this trend started, but it's been the prevailing theory for every film of the last 20 years at least. "He's actually dead at the end." "So and so isn't real." "They're in purgatory." I've even heard that theory for Up In The Air. I imagine it started from the one/two punch of Fight Club and The Sixth Sense in 1999. After that everyone thought it was so smart to imagine every movie was doing exactly the same thing and that they'd be smart if they could decipher that. I remember people going on about that same old fucking theory with No Country for Old Men, and how the Javier Bardem was actually in Tommy Lee Jones' imagination because he represents the cruelty and the chaos of the changing universe. That whole thing was fine in those other movies, but that's not a Cormac McCarthy or Coen Brothers kind of thing. At some point the mainstream online pop movie analysts had a hard time understanding that a story or character could represent an idea or theme without having to literally be that. For some reason they don't accept subtext and need everything to be literal text. Applying that to Up in the Air is pretty hilariously stupid. I am pretty sure that this interpretation was applied to Clint's character in "Pale Rider" which is from 1985.
There is another western, this one from the early 70s, where the matter is not open for interpretation. The twist that the protagonist had come back from the dead is made clear at the end. That movie is High Plains Drifter (1973)
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 11, 2021 15:05:59 GMT
I imagine it started from the one/two punch of Fight Club and The Sixth Sense in 1999. After that everyone thought it was so smart to imagine every movie was doing exactly the same thing and that they'd be smart if they could decipher that. I remember people going on about that same old fucking theory with No Country for Old Men, and how the Javier Bardem was actually in Tommy Lee Jones' imagination because he represents the cruelty and the chaos of the changing universe. That whole thing was fine in those other movies, but that's not a Cormac McCarthy or Coen Brothers kind of thing. At some point the mainstream online pop movie analysts had a hard time understanding that a story or character could represent an idea or theme without having to literally be that. For some reason they don't accept subtext and need everything to be literal text. Applying that to Up in the Air is pretty hilariously stupid. I am pretty sure that this interpretation was applied to Clint's character in "Pale Rider" which is from 1985.
There is another western, this one from the early 70s, where the matter is not open for interpretation. The twist that the protagonist had come back from the dead is made clear at the end. That movie is High Plains Drifter (1973)
There are certainly examples in film, going back decades, of the "it was all a dream/they're actually dead/so and so was never really there" theme, but it only seems to have completely taken over film theory in the last 20 years. As goons pointed out, it's lazy analysis. Not only for the reasons he mentioned, but I feel it's almost a cop out for viewers if they aren't comfortable with how the film ended. To be so heavy handed with metaphors would be to remove half of the creative process. It's boring to view films this way. Viewed as an abstract, every film is a dream. It's a fictional story. It's art, so it's up to the individual to interpret it any way they want; but people should put some effort into deciphering what the filmmakers were trying to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Jan 13, 2021 23:24:05 GMT
The Others A delicious twist ending Turns out Nicole Kidman and her kids were dead all along folks - I love these movies - never saw it coming did you?  |
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 13, 2021 23:34:55 GMT
I watched The Trial of the Chicago 7 last night.
I think the judge was a figment of Abbie Hoffman's imagination the whole time. The last name thing can't be a coincidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Jan 13, 2021 23:59:29 GMT
Minority Report. Decent action flick. Standard heroics from Tom Cruise.
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 14, 2021 1:48:14 GMT
Minority Report. Decent action flick. Standard heroics from Tom Cruise. There are some cheesey moments, but there are some interesting philosophical concepts at play there too. It's also a movie where the annoying 'what really happens at the end?' theories actually might have some traction. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Jan 14, 2021 9:38:59 GMT
Minority Report. Decent action flick. Standard heroics from Tom Cruise. There are some cheesey moments, but there are some interesting philosophical concepts at play there too. It's also a movie where the annoying 'what really happens at the end?' theories actually might have some traction. Oh, I thought it was fairly clear. What are those theories. |
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 14, 2021 12:17:34 GMT
There are some cheesey moments, but there are some interesting philosophical concepts at play there too. It's also a movie where the annoying 'what really happens at the end?' theories actually might have some traction. Oh, I thought it was fairly clear. What are those theories. The idea is that the ending is too perfect and too tidy, and while that is a very Spielberg-ian thing, it kind of fits neatly into the story that that might be 'all in his mind,' as the sort of thing we were making fun of earlier. When the guy puts Tom Cruise in that prison where they essentially induce a coma he says something like, 'They say it's peaceful, they say you see everything you've ever wanted.' So if he goes into that coma and sees everything he wants to happen then the rest of the movie plays out in the ideal way for his character: he escapes, he solves the conspiracy, he takes down his boss, they dismantle the program, they free the 'pre-cogs,' and he gets back with his wife and they have another child. I may have gotten some details wrong since I haven't seen it in years, but I saw it a lot when it used to be on HBO all the time years ago, and while those theories are often silly, it does actually really line up with the way this one plays out. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Jan 14, 2021 14:22:24 GMT
Oh, I thought it was fairly clear. What are those theories. The idea is that the ending is too perfect and too tidy, and while that is a very Spielberg-ian thing, it kind of fits neatly into the story that that might be 'all in his mind,' as the sort of thing we were making fun of earlier. When the guy puts Tom Cruise in that prison where they essentially induce a coma he says something like, 'They say it's peaceful, they say you see everything you've ever wanted.' So if he goes into that coma and sees everything he wants to happen then the rest of the movie plays out in the ideal way for his character: he escapes, he solves the conspiracy, he takes down his boss, they dismantle the program, they free the 'pre-cogs,' and he gets back with his wife and they have another child. I may have gotten some details wrong since I haven't seen it in years, but I saw it a lot when it used to be on HBO all the time years ago, and while those theories are often silly, it does actually really line up with the way this one plays out. Ah, cool. I hadn't even considered that. |
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Jan 14, 2021 18:35:38 GMT
Howl (2015)
Werewolf movie
Let's give it a whirl
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 14, 2021 19:13:53 GMT
Howl (2015) Werewolf movie Let's give it a whirl It's ok. Good setting, decent effects, but severely lacking in story and characters. |
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Jan 15, 2021 14:31:59 GMT
The Relic
Penelope Ann Miller - love her
Read the book 6 zillion times
Have seen the movie 3 million
Never gets old
Monster/Creature kills people inside a Museum
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 15, 2021 14:54:39 GMT
The Relic Penelope Ann Miller - love her Read the book 6 zillion times Have seen the movie 3 million Never gets old Monster/Creature kills people inside a Museum Never saw it. I see that it's free on Amazon prime. Maybe I'll check it out. |
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Jan 15, 2021 14:58:07 GMT
The Relic Penelope Ann Miller - love her Read the book 6 zillion times Have seen the movie 3 million Never gets old Monster/Creature kills people inside a Museum Never saw it. I see that it's free on Amazon prime. Maybe I'll check it out. Book is way better than the movie - by far - blows it away
One of my favorite books which is why I enjoy the movie though
I wouldn't recommend going into it with high expectations but always found the atmosphere of a crime/mystery/thriller/horror in a museum intriguing
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jan 15, 2021 15:16:24 GMT
The Relic Penelope Ann Miller - love her Read the book 6 zillion times Have seen the movie 3 million Never gets old Monster/Creature kills people inside a Museum Never saw it. I see that it's free on Amazon prime. Maybe I'll check it out. It's probably not worth your time. I saw it in the theater, and to be fair, I remember literally nothing about it. But that kind of says it all.
|
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Jan 15, 2021 15:24:59 GMT
Never saw it. I see that it's free on Amazon prime. Maybe I'll check it out. It's probably not worth your time. I saw it in the theater, and to be fair, I remember literally nothing about it. But that kind of says it all. You don't remember how hot PAM looked?
|
|
