|
Post by klawrencio79 on May 7, 2024 16:59:27 GMT
I'm going to see Enemy of the People in a few weeks in NYC with Strong and Michael Imperioli in the two leads. I'm pretty stoked for it! Heard very polarizing things about this production. Haven't seen it myself, and can't say I'm terribly familiar with the play (I think I saw the movie with Steve McQueen a million years ago), but I've heard that the cast is great, but that some of the re-writing of the classic text is rubbing some theater goers the wrong way. I'll be interested to hear your review. Enemy of the People was FANTASTIC! It was shown in theater-in-the-round in a very intimate space (Circle in the Square Theater on 50th and Broadway). Strong and Imperioli are both great, as are Victoria Pedretti and a wily and mischievously delightful David Patrick Kelly, who kinda stole the show every time he was on stage for me. The show is as poignant today as it was back when it was written, although I can't say how different this iteration is from the original text if we're being honest. Even still, at 2 hours with a short intermission where they handed out drinks to anyone who wanted them, I highly recommend this. Great actors doing what they do best is always going to work for me.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 9, 2024 16:25:54 GMT
Challengers was great! Luca Guadagnino (Call Me By Your Name, Bones and All) directs Zendaya in this movie about a love triangle in the world of professional tennis. Stylish direction, good acting by all three leads (in addiction to Zendaya, Josh O’Connor and Mike Faist, who both looked only vaguely familiar), a compelling drama of three people with very distinct personalities and goals, an interesting plot structure that takes us back and forth between different time periods.
Zendaya has grown on me. When she first appeared on the scene I thought she was kind of annoying, but I now see that she has the makings of a star.
Well worth a trip to the multiplex.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on May 9, 2024 18:46:00 GMT
Challengers was great! Luca Guadagnino (Call Me By Your Name, Bones and All) directs Zendaya in this movie about a love triangle in the world of professional tennis. Stylish direction, good acting by all three leads (in addiction to Zendaya, Josh O’Connor and Mike Faist, who both looked only vaguely familiar), a compelling drama of three people with very distinct personalities and goals, an interesting plot structure that takes us back and forth between different time periods.
Zendaya has grown on me. When she first appeared on the scene I thought she was kind of annoying, but I now see that she has the makings of a star.
Well worth a trip to the multiplex. I definitely want to check this out, the soundtrack is fantastic! Call me crazy, but I love the Suspiria remake, which also has an incredible score.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 9, 2024 19:54:16 GMT
Challengers was great! Luca Guadagnino (Call Me By Your Name, Bones and All) directs Zendaya in this movie about a love triangle in the world of professional tennis. Stylish direction, good acting by all three leads (in addiction to Zendaya, Josh O’Connor and Mike Faist, who both looked only vaguely familiar), a compelling drama of three people with very distinct personalities and goals, an interesting plot structure that takes us back and forth between different time periods.
Zendaya has grown on me. When she first appeared on the scene I thought she was kind of annoying, but I now see that she has the makings of a star.
Well worth a trip to the multiplex. I definitely want to check this out, the soundtrack is fantastic! Call me crazy, but I love the Suspiria remake, which also has an incredible score.
I remember a friend of mine highly recommending Guadagnino's Suspiria, but since his taste in movies and mine couldn't be more different, I never checked it out. I may do so now, after Challengers and your endorsement.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on May 9, 2024 21:15:22 GMT
I definitely want to check this out, the soundtrack is fantastic! Call me crazy, but I love the Suspiria remake, which also has an incredible score.
I remember a friend of mine highly recommending Guadagnino's Suspiria, but since his taste in movies and mine couldn't be more different, I never checked it out. I may do so now, after Challengers and your endorsement.
It's pretty long and isn't the easiest watch, but there are some horrifying and memorable sequences in it. Plus, Thom Yorke did the score and that automatically gives it a good grade from me.
|
|
|
Post by Winston Wolfe on May 12, 2024 16:30:31 GMT
Watched Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes last night. I certainly don't agree with that tv spot that says "It's the best movie of the franchise." I haven't watched all the ones from the 60s and 70s, but it's not even better than the last 3, so there's that. It dragged its feet at certain times and overall could've been about 20-30 minutes shorter. That being said, I enjoyed it enough. It's unlikely this will change whatever opinion you had of the previous trilogy. But if this is the start of a new trilogy, which is likely, I don't think it's going to be able to stay as entertaining as it's been. Like many franchises, I think it's time to put this one to bed.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on May 16, 2024 12:43:38 GMT
I saw The Fall Guy the other day. Really wasn't sure what to expect going in - even having seen numerous trailers I couldn't nail down what this movie was going for or even what it was going to be about beforehand. I wasn't expecting much, but it basically delivered a fun two hours. Definitely a little more rom-com in flavor than I was counting on, but I've seen a lot worse.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 16, 2024 17:49:35 GMT
I saw The Fall Guy the other day. Really wasn't sure what to expect going in - even having seen numerous trailers I couldn't nail down what this movie was going for or even what it was going to be about beforehand. I wasn't expecting much, but it basically delivered a fun two hours. Definitely a little more rom-com in flavor than I was counting on, but I've seen a lot worse. That was pretty much my take. A little too much romcom energy, but it was decent overall.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 21, 2024 20:52:48 GMT
I watched the four-episode miniseries “Archie” over the long weekend. The titular Archie is Archie Leach, a.k.a. Cary Grant. Jason Isaacs plays him from adulthood until old age.
I enjoyed because I am a sucker for Old Hollywood stories, fictional or otherwise, but if I am honest I wish it had been longer and covered more of his life and career. A lot of the runtime is dedicated to his relationship with Dyan Cannon (his third or fourth wife, and mother of his only child), which is not surprising considering it is partly based on her book. A huge chunk of his career is simply skipped over. It starts with his childhood in England, then we see him traveling to New York and finally his break in Hollywood, but then it jumps to a time decades later when he is already a huge movie star.
Anyway, it’s well made and acted, it has good production values and it’s only four episodes of less than 50 minutes, so it’s not a huge investment of time for those who might be interested in the subject matter.
After finishing the mini-series, I figured I should watch a Cary Grant movie. Initially I thought of North by Northwest, which I haven’t seen in ages, but eventually I picked one that was new to me – I Was a Male War Bride (Howard Hawks, 1949). Screwball comedy with Cary Grant playing a French officer working closely with an American female officer (played by Ann Sheridan) in occupied Germany after WW II. They hate each other, then they fall in love and get married, then they have to navigate the bureaucracy to get him permission to accompany his new spouse back to the USA.
Funny and thoroughly enjoyable comedy, although not nearly as much as top-shelf Cary Grant comedies such as Arsenic and Old Lace, Bringing Up Baby, Holiday, The Awful Truth or My Favorite Wife.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on May 24, 2024 18:53:35 GMT
On Friday, I watched Dream Scenario (2023). I'm not going to say too much because you should go in knowing absolutely nothing about it. Don't watch the trailer. All you need to know is that it features Nic Cage at his very best, and this is a quintessential Charlie Kaufman movie with which Charlie Kaufman has absolutely no affiliation whatsoever. But this is what movies are all about - no underlying IP, no shared universe, just a good script, committed performances and a whole spectrum of emotions. It isn't a perfect movie by any means, it's just damn entertaining and even a little heartbreaking. There's also one scene where I laughed harder than I have in quite some time. Highly recommend. For those who have seen it: I think I can watch 5 hours of random people having crazy dreams and Nic Cage just sort of walks into the frame and does absolutely nothing. Watched this last night. I mostly liked it, it has a great supporting cast, and lately my tolerance for Nicolas Cage has grown higher. I like him in this mode where he's just a guy. He's quirky in the way a dull, older, lame academic is, and he's finally playing a character with his actual, natural hairline. And yes that scene was hilarious. It seems to be about viral fame and cancel culture, but I think it loses the point it's trying to make at same point. Mostly when discussing movies I feel like I have to argue that not every story has to be about all things. When someone says 'this movie portrays all men as terrible' I feel like I have to remind them that maybe this movie is just portraying THESE men as terrible. Not everything has to represent everything it relates to. But this feels like it's clearly trying to represent what happens to someone who hits viral fame, and then is canceled, but it in this case he's 'canceled' essentially for not really doing anything. In the beginning he gets famous for not really doing anything (he doesn't do the work he's been wanting to but wants credit for colleagues that are doing the work) and he's happy to accept it, and then everything turns and nobody knows why. I suppose he's sort of in a gray area with regards to infidelity (hilariously so) but the way people turn on him is so extreme and violent that it appears that the movie wants to argue that 'cancel culture' is out of control and destroying the lives of the innocent. That's one perspective, certainly, but it doesn't account for the people who do deserve the hate they receive. I guess a bad line of comparison to draw could be someone like Louis CK, who did engage in uncool behavior that was sort of a grey area and lost his top-of-the-world status very swiftly, but then was also widely blamed for things he never actually did... which is what happens here... but of course he was also getting credit for things he never actually did too... But this story just sort of details the downward spiral without really seeming to have a whole lot to say about that. I didn't expect it to moralize for the audience, but I thought maybe a specific perspective might emerge and I don't feel like it ever did. And then the final stretch of the movie involves a sci-fi element that piggybacks on the concept and how this is exploited by hilarious annoying and obnoxiously dressed Gen-z douche bags, but that doesn't ever move towards explaining the concept. It's just kind of accepted. I guess when you introduce a fascinating idea it's hard to be fully satisfying, sometimes. You either explain it, and then it's always a little disappointing, or you never really explain it leave the audience a little frustrated. I didn't need it explained, but I kinda felt like adding the sci-fi thing was a little out of place, even if the way it was utilized was fitting. My wife described it as the movie just turning into a Black Mirror episode at the end, which I thought was apt. In any event, it was nice to see a good, original, black comedy. Even if there are things that didn't fully work I always respect an attempt like this. I felt similarly about American Fiction, which I watched recently; Some of the messaging gets muddled and lost, and some of the plot details went in a direction that I don't think was for the best, but overall they both engaging, well acted and well made in completely different ways. I'll also point out that there are some kinda brilliantly subtle ways that the feeling of certain moments really put you in the mode of dreams. The performances work but also just different little technical things like the different way some of those scenes are lit, or the way they're in slightly slower motion or the frame is fogged up, or the disparity between the sound effects that are playing in the reality of a scene vs the dream that's being described. Small touches like that really work and make it feel dreamy and odd the way a lot of other films get that kind of thing wrong (looking at you Inception), so I appreciated that on a technically artistic level.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on May 24, 2024 19:18:37 GMT
Watched Unfrosted last week, and there's really not too much to say about other than that it's mostly not great and fairly forgettable, but I think the response to it and it's star has been completely ridiculous. It's not very good, but there are funny things in it and the basic premise is amusing. Literally everything in it is a silly joke so it's success rate isn't great, but there are a handful of funny moments and performances, and it's very well designed as it's bright and colorful and visually fun.
But the movie itself doesn't really matter. The thing that I have found odd is how the internet (including this board) has somehow decided that Jerry Seinfeld is the enemy of the people. Maybe it's a brief moment that will pass, but I find this shit so strange and yet so typical.
A few pages back it was stated that he's been in the news for 'railing against cancel culture' or something like that (and I don't mean to single out this board, because apparently that's the broad perception), but I guess that just depends on your personal algorithmic perspective, because to me he was in the news for promoting his movie everywhere.
There have been all sorts of quotes and prices reacting to an out of context quote from an interview he did with The New Yorker, ya know that old alt-right publication, where he said that TV comedy suffered because of the 'extreme left and PC crap.' All of these responses said 'What about Always Sunny in Philadelphia?! What about Curb Your Enthusiasm!? Maybe you just dont know how to navigate whats acceptable nowadays! Stand up comics can say whatever they want! BOOMER!!'
I, apparetly, was in a unique position of actually listening to the interview in question, and every single one of those points was addressed in the brief 2 minutes or so that this was being discussed. The interviewer, David Remnick, brought up the question of a show like Curb and Seinfeld said he didn't think a new show from a younger writer could get away with the same jokes and that really what he was talking about is how on TV you write a joke or story and now it gets passed through multiple levels of executives and advertisers and gets diluted and loses the original creativity, and how it's the job of the writer or comic to navigate that and understand how the 'goalposts have moved' and adjust your work to suit that, and how a lot of people are being drawn to more stand up these days because there is no committee policing it and you get the singular, undiluted material.
Pretty much he already said what everybody was shouting at him online, and if anybody would have actually listened to him maybe they would have understood that. Naturally, anybody could still disagree with him, but it was kinda surreal to listen to that and then later see the response and see how incredibly uninformed that response was. If any of these people just listened to like an additional 45 seconds instead of just seeing a quote outside of the context of the conversation then they may still take issue with it, but it would certainly make about 95% of the negative reaction to it null and void.
It's also worth noting that this all seemed to stem from one sentence, about 5 to 10 seconds, out of dozens of hours of interviews that he had done. I know Jerry Seinfeld doesn't need me to defend him, and I'm not even really doing that, but it was a weird thing to see happen.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 24, 2024 21:47:24 GMT
Watched Unfrosted last week, and there's really not too much to say about other than that it's mostly not great and fairly forgettable, but I think the response to it and it's star has been completely ridiculous. It's not very good, but there are funny things in it and the basic premise is amusing. Literally everything in it is a silly joke so it's success rate isn't great, but there are a handful of funny moments and performances, and it's very well designed as it's bright and colorful and visually fun. But the movie itself doesn't really matter. The thing that I have found odd is how the internet (including this board) has somehow decided that Jerry Seinfeld is the enemy of the people. Maybe it's a brief moment that will pass, but I find this shit so strange and yet so typical. A few pages back it was stated that he's been in the news for 'railing against cancel culture' or something like that (and I don't mean to single out this board, because apparently that's the broad perception), but I guess that just depends on your personal algorithmic perspective, because to me he was in the news for promoting his movie everywhere. There have been all sorts of quotes and prices reacting to an out of context quote from an interview he did with The New Yorker, ya know that old alt-right publication, where he said that TV comedy suffered because of the 'extreme left and PC crap.' All of these responses said 'What about Always Sunny in Philadelphia?! What about Curb Your Enthusiasm!? Maybe you just dont know how to navigate whats acceptable nowadays! Stand up comics can say whatever they want! BOOMER!!' I, apparetly, was in a unique position of actually listening to the interview in question, and every single one of those points was addressed in the brief 2 minutes or so that this was being discussed. The interviewer, David Remnick, brought up the question of a show like Curb and Seinfeld said he didn't think a new show from a younger writer could get away with the same jokes and that really what he was talking about is how on TV you write a joke or story and now it gets passed through multiple levels of executives and advertisers and gets diluted and loses the original creativity, and how it's the job of the writer or comic to navigate that and understand how the 'goalposts have moved' and adjust your work to suit that, and how a lot of people are being drawn to more stand up these days because there is no committee policing it and you get the singular, undiluted material. Pretty much he already said what everybody was shouting at him online, and if anybody would have actually listened to him maybe they would have understood that. Naturally, anybody could still disagree with him, but it was kinda surreal to listen to that and then later see the response and see how incredibly uninformed that response was. If any of these people just listened to like an additional 45 seconds instead of just seeing a quote outside of the context of the conversation then they may still take issue with it, but it would certainly make about 95% of the negative reaction to it null and void. It's also worth noting that this all seemed to stem from one sentence, about 5 to 10 seconds, out of dozens of hours of interviews that he had done. I know Jerry Seinfeld doesn't need me to defend him, and I'm not even really doing that, but it was a weird thing to see happen. Goons, let's not get carried away. Nobody labeled Seinfeld an 'enemy of the people.' He just comes across as yet another out of touch old guy complaining about how hard comedy is now. He's made a lot of comments lately about how 'the movie business is dead,' Howard Stern has been 'outflanked' by comedy podcasts (which he then walked back out of respect for Howard), 'PC crap' is ruining comedy; and he isn't entirely wrong on any of those fronts. But you put it all together with Unfrosted, (which comes off as a poor man's attempt at a ZAZ comedy from 40 years ago), and he kind of looks like a guy who doesn't know what's funny anymore. Don't quote me, but I'm pretty sure everyone on this board still loves Jerry Seinfeld. I just think it's wild that he decided this gonzo project was going to be his directorial debut, and he's had a tough look in the media lately.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on May 24, 2024 22:04:42 GMT
Watched Unfrosted last week, and there's really not too much to say about other than that it's mostly not great and fairly forgettable, but I think the response to it and it's star has been completely ridiculous. It's not very good, but there are funny things in it and the basic premise is amusing. Literally everything in it is a silly joke so it's success rate isn't great, but there are a handful of funny moments and performances, and it's very well designed as it's bright and colorful and visually fun. But the movie itself doesn't really matter. The thing that I have found odd is how the internet (including this board) has somehow decided that Jerry Seinfeld is the enemy of the people. Maybe it's a brief moment that will pass, but I find this shit so strange and yet so typical. A few pages back it was stated that he's been in the news for 'railing against cancel culture' or something like that (and I don't mean to single out this board, because apparently that's the broad perception), but I guess that just depends on your personal algorithmic perspective, because to me he was in the news for promoting his movie everywhere. There have been all sorts of quotes and prices reacting to an out of context quote from an interview he did with The New Yorker, ya know that old alt-right publication, where he said that TV comedy suffered because of the 'extreme left and PC crap.' All of these responses said 'What about Always Sunny in Philadelphia?! What about Curb Your Enthusiasm!? Maybe you just dont know how to navigate whats acceptable nowadays! Stand up comics can say whatever they want! BOOMER!!' I, apparetly, was in a unique position of actually listening to the interview in question, and every single one of those points was addressed in the brief 2 minutes or so that this was being discussed. The interviewer, David Remnick, brought up the question of a show like Curb and Seinfeld said he didn't think a new show from a younger writer could get away with the same jokes and that really what he was talking about is how on TV you write a joke or story and now it gets passed through multiple levels of executives and advertisers and gets diluted and loses the original creativity, and how it's the job of the writer or comic to navigate that and understand how the 'goalposts have moved' and adjust your work to suit that, and how a lot of people are being drawn to more stand up these days because there is no committee policing it and you get the singular, undiluted material. Pretty much he already said what everybody was shouting at him online, and if anybody would have actually listened to him maybe they would have understood that. Naturally, anybody could still disagree with him, but it was kinda surreal to listen to that and then later see the response and see how incredibly uninformed that response was. If any of these people just listened to like an additional 45 seconds instead of just seeing a quote outside of the context of the conversation then they may still take issue with it, but it would certainly make about 95% of the negative reaction to it null and void. It's also worth noting that this all seemed to stem from one sentence, about 5 to 10 seconds, out of dozens of hours of interviews that he had done. I know Jerry Seinfeld doesn't need me to defend him, and I'm not even really doing that, but it was a weird thing to see happen. Goons, let's not get carried away. Nobody labeled Seinfeld an 'enemy of the people.' He just comes across as yet another out of touch old guy complaining about how hard comedy is now. He's made a lot of comments lately about how 'the movie business is dead,' Howard Stern has been 'outflanked' by comedy podcasts (which he then walked back out of respect for Howard), 'PC crap' is ruining comedy; and he isn't entirely wrong on any of those fronts. But you put it all together with Unfrosted, (which comes off as a poor man's attempt at a ZAZ comedy from 40 years ago), and he kind of looks like a guy who doesn't know what's funny anymore. Don't quote me, but I'm pretty sure everyone on this board still loves Jerry Seinfeld. I just think it's wild that he decided this gonzo project was going to be his directorial debut, and he's had a tough look in the media lately. I was obviously exaggerating, but the point is that of the hours and hours and hours of interviews that he did most of the takeaway that I saw, was just of people taking two or three sentences completely out of context and responding with things that already addressed. I saw multiple articles and posts and whatnot (including those made here) where people just clearly didn't listen past the quotes that were isolated to make people mad and react. Even here, the charge that he's made 'a lot of comments' recently, which really boil down to like 2 or 3 statements, is a misrepresentation, like I said before. The 'PC crap' comment in its context addresses everything everyone says he didn't acknowledge but people really enjoy being mad at someone, and there was a major wave of backlash online, and it was very, very silly and misguided.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on May 25, 2024 1:43:24 GMT
Flipping back and forth between the Rangers game and HBO airing this very nicely remastered print of Stop Making Sense. I feel like I've seen this before, I've definitely never realized how much Cillian Murphy looks like young David Byrne. It's kinda crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 26, 2024 15:52:18 GMT
Ended up seeing Furiosa (2024) last night. I'll start by venting about Fury Road (2015). One of many things I didn't like about Fury Road was how it felt like a completely different world from the original trilogy. It's the definition of over the top sequelitis; just a bigger, louder, more nonsensical version of the original. Gasoline and ammunition are valuable commodities that are hard to come by in those movies; in these they came up with 'Gastown' and the 'Bullet Farm' in order to justify massive hordes of goons endlessly driving the wasteland, firing at each other for hours on end.
Then of course there's calling it a Mad Max movie where Max barely does anything and Tom Hardy just grunts his way through the four lines of dialog he actually has. The feminist commentary literally written on the walls (as if we needed to be told women aren't 'things' or we couldn't tell Furiosa is a badass and also a woman, so you better spell it out for us) was the icing on the cake.
At some point watching Furiosa, I just decided to accept that this is an alternate reality, separate from the original trilogy. It makes everything much more enjoyable, and you can focus on the stuff that makes Mad Max movies great. The actions is fun and inventive, and the creative details that fill out this world (costumes, wacky names, quirks of language ['Guzzleine, 'lady & gentlemens',etc.], the dude doing charades behind every Dementus speech) enhance the experience significantly. Also, I thought the characters seemed more fleshed out in Furiosa, which was a plus. And there's no shortage of testosterone in these flicks, that's for damn sure. Hot rods, monster trucks and guns, what else is there to life?
As an aside, there is a cameo by Max himself (not played by Gibson or Hardy), but it's only one scene with no speaking lines in the background (well, technically foreground).
All in all, Furiosa was a fun ride, but I still have no interest in ever watching Fury Road again. Furiosa, while certainly worth watching as an action fan, just made me want to rewatch The Road Warrior, which to me is the best of the franchise.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 27, 2024 15:36:22 GMT
Devs - Miniseries from a couple of years ago created, written and directed by Alex Garland (Ex-Machina, Annihilation, Civil War). Eight episodes of about 50 minutes each. I read some good things about it and decided to check it out, on Disney+. It starts as a thriller about a ultra-secretive project at a high-tech San Francisco company, then it becomes something else when we find out that said project is a quantum computer so powerful that it can trace cause-and-effect and for all intents and purposes view the past and the future I was enjoying it a lot until the end, which didn't make a whole lot of sense to me and kind of contradicted itself. But it's a well-made series with many interesting ideas that I am glad I watched. Also, Near Dark (1987), a vampire movie that was Kathryn Bigelow's first solo feature film. Several actors from her future husband James Cameron's Aliens appear in it - Bill Paxton, Lance Henriksen, Jenette Goldstein. A young man gets far more than he bargained for when he tries to pick up a beautiful young woman who happens to be sunlight-intolerant. An interesting if not particularly innovative take on vampire stories, but a bit unpolished. A more experienced filmmaker could possibly have turned the same story into a more memorable entry in the sub-genre. As it is, well, let's just say that there is a reason why I had never heard of this movie before. Still, worth a watch.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 27, 2024 15:50:19 GMT
Ended up seeing Furiosa (2024) last night. I'll start by venting about Fury Road (2015). One of many things I didn't like about Fury Road was how it felt like a completely different world from the original trilogy. It's the definition of over the top sequelitis; just a bigger, louder, more nonsensical version of the original. Gasoline and ammunition are valuable commodities that are hard to come by in those movies; in these they came up with 'Gastown' and the 'Bullet Farm' in order to justify massive hordes of goons endlessly driving the wasteland, firing at each other for hours on end. Then of course there's calling it a Mad Max movie where Max barely does anything and Tom Hardy just grunts his way through the four lines of dialog he actually has. The feminist commentary literally written on the walls (as if we needed to be told women aren't 'things' or we couldn't tell Furiosa is a badass and also a woman, so you better spell it out for us) was the icing on the cake. At some point watching Furiosa, I just decided to accept that this is an alternate reality, separate from the original trilogy. It makes everything much more enjoyable, and you can focus on the stuff that makes Mad Max movies great. The actions is fun and inventive, and the creative details that fill out this world (costumes, wacky names, quirks of language ['Guzzleine, 'lady & gentlemens',etc.], the dude doing charades behind every Dementus speech) enhance the experience significantly. Also, I thought the characters seemed more fleshed out in Furiosa, which was a plus. And there's no shortage of testosterone in these flicks, that's for damn sure. Hot rods, monster trucks and guns, what else is there to life? As an aside, there is a cameo by Max himself (not played by Gibson or Hardy), but it's only one scene with no speaking lines in the background (well, technically foreground). All in all, Furiosa was a fun ride, but I still have no interest in ever watching Fury Road again. Furiosa, while certainly worth watching as an action fan, just made me want to rewatch The Road Warrior, which to me is the best of the franchise.
Very much looking forward to watching Furiosa some time this week or more probably next. I thought Fury Road was a fantastic action movie and I wasn't particularly bothered by any inconsistencies with the Mel Gibson Mad Max trilogy. I will approach Furiosa the same way!
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on May 28, 2024 9:05:30 GMT
Ended up seeing Furiosa (2024) last night. I'll start by venting about Fury Road (2015). One of many things I didn't like about Fury Road was how it felt like a completely different world from the original trilogy. It's the definition of over the top sequelitis; just a bigger, louder, more nonsensical version of the original. Gasoline and ammunition are valuable commodities that are hard to come by in those movies; in these they came up with 'Gastown' and the 'Bullet Farm' in order to justify massive hordes of goons endlessly driving the wasteland, firing at each other for hours on end. Then of course there's calling it a Mad Max movie where Max barely does anything and Tom Hardy just grunts his way through the four lines of dialog he actually has. The feminist commentary literally written on the walls (as if we needed to be told women aren't 'things' or we couldn't tell Furiosa is a badass and also a woman, so you better spell it out for us) was the icing on the cake. At some point watching Furiosa, I just decided to accept that this is an alternate reality, separate from the original trilogy. It makes everything much more enjoyable, and you can focus on the stuff that makes Mad Max movies great. The actions is fun and inventive, and the creative details that fill out this world (costumes, wacky names, quirks of language ['Guzzleine, 'lady & gentlemens',etc.], the dude doing charades behind every Dementus speech) enhance the experience significantly. Also, I thought the characters seemed more fleshed out in Furiosa, which was a plus. And there's no shortage of testosterone in these flicks, that's for damn sure. Hot rods, monster trucks and guns, what else is there to life? As an aside, there is a cameo by Max himself (not played by Gibson or Hardy), but it's only one scene with no speaking lines in the background (well, technically foreground). All in all, Furiosa was a fun ride, but I still have no interest in ever watching Fury Road again. Furiosa, while certainly worth watching as an action fan, just made me want to rewatch The Road Warrior, which to me is the best of the franchise. We happen to be in London for a few days so we're seeing this in IMAX at Leicester Square tonight!
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on May 28, 2024 14:40:37 GMT
On Friday, I watched Dream Scenario (2023). I'm not going to say too much because you should go in knowing absolutely nothing about it. Don't watch the trailer. All you need to know is that it features Nic Cage at his very best, and this is a quintessential Charlie Kaufman movie with which Charlie Kaufman has absolutely no affiliation whatsoever. But this is what movies are all about - no underlying IP, no shared universe, just a good script, committed performances and a whole spectrum of emotions. It isn't a perfect movie by any means, it's just damn entertaining and even a little heartbreaking. There's also one scene where I laughed harder than I have in quite some time. Highly recommend. For those who have seen it: I think I can watch 5 hours of random people having crazy dreams and Nic Cage just sort of walks into the frame and does absolutely nothing. Watched this last night. I mostly liked it, it has a great supporting cast, and lately my tolerance for Nicolas Cage has grown higher. I like him in this mode where he's just a guy. He's quirky in the way a dull, older, lame academic is, and he's finally playing a character with his actual, natural hairline. And yes that scene was hilarious. It seems to be about viral fame and cancel culture, but I think it loses the point it's trying to make at same point. Mostly when discussing movies I feel like I have to argue that not every story has to be about all things. When someone says 'this movie portrays all men as terrible' I feel like I have to remind them that maybe this movie is just portraying THESE men as terrible. Not everything has to represent everything it relates to. But this feels like it's clearly trying to represent what happens to someone who hits viral fame, and then is canceled, but it in this case he's 'canceled' essentially for not really doing anything. In the beginning he gets famous for not really doing anything (he doesn't do the work he's been wanting to but wants credit for colleagues that are doing the work) and he's happy to accept it, and then everything turns and nobody knows why. I suppose he's sort of in a gray area with regards to infidelity (hilariously so) but the way people turn on him is so extreme and violent that it appears that the movie wants to argue that 'cancel culture' is out of control and destroying the lives of the innocent. That's one perspective, certainly, but it doesn't account for the people who do deserve the hate they receive. I guess a bad line of comparison to draw could be someone like Louis CK, who did engage in uncool behavior that was sort of a grey area and lost his top-of-the-world status very swiftly, but then was also widely blamed for things he never actually did... which is what happens here... but of course he was also getting credit for things he never actually did too... But this story just sort of details the downward spiral without really seeming to have a whole lot to say about that. I didn't expect it to moralize for the audience, but I thought maybe a specific perspective might emerge and I don't feel like it ever did. And then the final stretch of the movie involves a sci-fi element that piggybacks on the concept and how this is exploited by hilarious annoying and obnoxiously dressed Gen-z douche bags, but that doesn't ever move towards explaining the concept. It's just kind of accepted. I guess when you introduce a fascinating idea it's hard to be fully satisfying, sometimes. You either explain it, and then it's always a little disappointing, or you never really explain it leave the audience a little frustrated. I didn't need it explained, but I kinda felt like adding the sci-fi thing was a little out of place, even if the way it was utilized was fitting. My wife described it as the movie just turning into a Black Mirror episode at the end, which I thought was apt. In any event, it was nice to see a good, original, black comedy. Even if there are things that didn't fully work I always respect an attempt like this. I felt similarly about American Fiction, which I watched recently; Some of the messaging gets muddled and lost, and some of the plot details went in a direction that I don't think was for the best, but overall they both engaging, well acted and well made in completely different ways. I'll also point out that there are some kinda brilliantly subtle ways that the feeling of certain moments really put you in the mode of dreams. The performances work but also just different little technical things like the different way some of those scenes are lit, or the way they're in slightly slower motion or the frame is fogged up, or the disparity between the sound effects that are playing in the reality of a scene vs the dream that's being described. Small touches like that really work and make it feel dreamy and odd the way a lot of other films get that kind of thing wrong (looking at you Inception), so I appreciated that on a technically artistic level. Great stuff as always!! It's funny that you mentioned about how the cancel culture theme is present but not the main focus of the movie, to the point of the movie practically ignoring it at various points throughout. As I watching this, I remember having fleeting feelings about that being in it, but it kinda washed over me and became an element of the film that I had forgotten entirely. I'm all for the halcyon days of movies just being movies. I'm glad that Jaws eschews all this nonsense from the book about a mayor's moral compass being destroyed due to his mafia ties, and the love triangle among Brody, Ellen and Hooper. Sometimes a movie just needs to be about a killer fish and the townspeople trying to address it. Simple, direct storytelling, not speechifying. I think that's why I loved Dream Scenario as much as I did, because I didn't really think about what the movie was trying to say, if anything. And an amazing comp on American Fiction, which is a movie I expected to have a lot more to say but surprisingly the whole concept about white people using black literature for their own purposes became the backdrop, almost like a B-plot. From the trailer, it looked like that's what the entire movie was about, so imagine my surprise when it was really just a character study about Jeffrey Wright (who is brilliant as always). In the one, it almost had the opposite effect on me where I was expecting the messaging to be a little more front-and-center, and in that one regard, I do think it does the overall experience a bit of a disservice. Now to go totally astray..... a few months ago, we talked about the silliness of the recent spate of Liam Neeson action thrillers, all of which are basically the same movie and of varying degrees of equality. Well, yesterday, I randomly started watching Cold Pursuit and I have to say, this one was significantly better than the others. Not because it was a good movie, but it was so batshit and tonally all over the place, and had such weird, random little character moments that I had no choice but to enjoy it.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 28, 2024 18:11:56 GMT
Now to go totally astray..... a few months ago, we talked about the silliness of the recent spate of Liam Neeson action thrillers, all of which are basically the same movie and of varying degrees of equality. Well, yesterday, I randomly started watching Cold Pursuit and I have to say, this one was significantly better than the others. Not because it was a good movie, but it was so batshit and tonally all over the place, and had such weird, random little character moments that I had no choice but to enjoy it. I couldn't get into it for this reason. It never decided what kind of movie it wanted to be. A couple of moments stand out in my memory. The receptionist telling the Native Americans they needed a reservation, and the question Neeson asks one of the guys before he kills him. "Greatest quarterback ever, Elway of Manning?" Now I'm hardly a Coloradan, only having lived there a short time. But that question is a no brainer for all true Broncos fans. The guy answers correctly, Neeson nods in agreement, and shoots him anyway. Good times.
|
|