|
Post by Horselover Fat on Aug 19, 2024 19:32:43 GMT
The Office quickly starts to suck. Except for Creed.
|
|
|
Post by Horselover Fat on Aug 19, 2024 19:35:46 GMT
King of the Hill, on the other hand, is very good. Level three will send an egg through a brick wall. Tornado chasers call it “Humpty’s Revenge.”
|
|
|
Post by Horselover Fat on Aug 19, 2024 19:36:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 20, 2024 12:59:26 GMT
Went to see Alien: Romulus (2024) last night. Right off the bat I'll say it's the best Alien movie in a very long time. It fits right in with the early films without feeling like a total rehash, and has nods to the other films without those moments feeling forced. In short, it's the rare occurrence of the filmmakers actually understanding what made the concept great in the first place.
For that matter, it's just smart filmmaking, period. I saw Borderlands (2024) last week and it was like a tutorial in how not to make a movie. Random A-list cast thrown together, expo dump at the beginning explaining the world but never spending a second actually building out the world or the characters. Despite their talent, the actors were playing one dimensional stock characters walking through a movie set. Romulus is filled with actors I didn't recognize making their way through a world that felt lived in. To be fair, the Alien franchise is already established in your mind, but still, you need to structure your story and characters from the beginning if you expect anyone to give a shit about what happens to them. The first ten minutes of this movie do exactly that, and what's more, it feels in line tonally and visually with what you saw in the first two films (as opposed to garbage like Prometheus and Covenant).
As a fan of the franchise, I can't stress enough how impressed I was with this film. Inventive action involving the staples of the xenomorph threat-- facehuggers, acid blood, shit going sideways as all hell breaks loose-- all that fun stuff is used in clever new ways. It's an action/horror/thriller so sometimes people make questionable decisions, but again the characters are so fleshed out that the occasional bad call totally tracks in the moment, unlike lesser films. The visuals are impressive without feeling too 'clean;' Hell, the opening credits even have a retro feel that I really dug. It's truly a return to form for the franchise. It isn't perfect, there are minor changes I would've made here and there, but overall an excellent film.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Aug 20, 2024 13:38:33 GMT
Went to see Alien: Romulus (2024) last night. Right off the bat I'll say it's the best Alien movie in a very long time. It fits right in with the early films without feeling like a total rehash, and has nods to the other films without those moments feeling forced. In short, it's the rare occurrence of the filmmakers actually understanding what made the concept great in the first place. For that matter, it's just smart filmmaking, period. I saw Borderlands (2024) last week and it was like a tutorial in how not to make a movie. Random A-list cast thrown together, expo dump at the beginning explaining the world but never spending a second actually building out the world or the characters. Despite their talent, the actors were playing one dimensional stock characters walking through a movie set. Romulus is filled with actors I didn't recognize making their way through a world that felt lived in. To be fair, the Alien franchise is already established in your mind, but still, you need to structure your story and characters from the beginning if you expect anyone to give a shit about what happens to them. The first ten minutes of this movie do exactly that, and what's more, it feels in line tonally and visually with what you saw in the first two films (as opposed to garbage like Prometheus and Covenant). As a fan of the franchise, I can't stress enough how impressed I was with this film. Inventive action involving the staples of the xenomorph threat-- facehuggers, acid blood, shit going sideways as all hell breaks loose-- all that fun stuff is used in clever new ways. It's an action/horror/thriller so sometimes people make questionable decisions, but again the characters are so fleshed out that the occasional bad call totally tracks in the moment, unlike lesser films. The visuals are impressive without feeling too 'clean;' Hell, the opening credits even have a retro feel that I really dug. It's truly a return to form for the franchise. It isn't perfect, there are minor changes I would've made here and there, but overall an excellent film. Interested in seeing both of these. Alien Romulus because I've heard your same sentiments from pretty much everyone I know who's seen it. I love the first one, don't love the second as much as everyone else seems to, and don't care or remember much about any of the others (never even saw Covenant), and like the idea of returning to the confined horror roots of the first.. and Fede Alverez sure seems like the right guy to make that happen. And Borderlands because it's like a classic disastrous production that the studio just kept throwing money at to make it work... which of course always seems to have the opposite effect. This thing has been in the works for years and stories of long stretches overseas, rewrites, reshoots, recastings, bringing in new directors, and convoluted post production problems have all been really fun to read about all while the studio has been trying to suppress these stories and actively promote the movie and pretend like they're happy with it.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Aug 23, 2024 17:06:26 GMT
Went to see Alien: Romulus (2024) last night. Right off the bat I'll say it's the best Alien movie in a very long time. It fits right in with the early films without feeling like a total rehash, and has nods to the other films without those moments feeling forced. In short, it's the rare occurrence of the filmmakers actually understanding what made the concept great in the first place. For that matter, it's just smart filmmaking, period. I saw Borderlands (2024) last week and it was like a tutorial in how not to make a movie. Random A-list cast thrown together, expo dump at the beginning explaining the world but never spending a second actually building out the world or the characters. Despite their talent, the actors were playing one dimensional stock characters walking through a movie set. Romulus is filled with actors I didn't recognize making their way through a world that felt lived in. To be fair, the Alien franchise is already established in your mind, but still, you need to structure your story and characters from the beginning if you expect anyone to give a shit about what happens to them. The first ten minutes of this movie do exactly that, and what's more, it feels in line tonally and visually with what you saw in the first two films (as opposed to garbage like Prometheus and Covenant). As a fan of the franchise, I can't stress enough how impressed I was with this film. Inventive action involving the staples of the xenomorph threat-- facehuggers, acid blood, shit going sideways as all hell breaks loose-- all that fun stuff is used in clever new ways. It's an action/horror/thriller so sometimes people make questionable decisions, but again the characters are so fleshed out that the occasional bad call totally tracks in the moment, unlike lesser films. The visuals are impressive without feeling too 'clean;' Hell, the opening credits even have a retro feel that I really dug. It's truly a return to form for the franchise. It isn't perfect, there are minor changes I would've made here and there, but overall an excellent film. I thought it (Alien: Romulus) was very good; comfortably the third best film in the franchise (which, admittedly, isn’t that high a bar). The only thing I really hated was the digitalized likeness of… you know who (on my phone so can’t do spoiler tags). It was totally distracting, never looked real, and it wasn’t even the same character as… you know who - so what was the point? Just a highly misguided decision.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 23, 2024 18:09:46 GMT
Went to see Alien: Romulus (2024) last night. Right off the bat I'll say it's the best Alien movie in a very long time. It fits right in with the early films without feeling like a total rehash, and has nods to the other films without those moments feeling forced. In short, it's the rare occurrence of the filmmakers actually understanding what made the concept great in the first place. For that matter, it's just smart filmmaking, period. I saw Borderlands (2024) last week and it was like a tutorial in how not to make a movie. Random A-list cast thrown together, expo dump at the beginning explaining the world but never spending a second actually building out the world or the characters. Despite their talent, the actors were playing one dimensional stock characters walking through a movie set. Romulus is filled with actors I didn't recognize making their way through a world that felt lived in. To be fair, the Alien franchise is already established in your mind, but still, you need to structure your story and characters from the beginning if you expect anyone to give a shit about what happens to them. The first ten minutes of this movie do exactly that, and what's more, it feels in line tonally and visually with what you saw in the first two films (as opposed to garbage like Prometheus and Covenant). As a fan of the franchise, I can't stress enough how impressed I was with this film. Inventive action involving the staples of the xenomorph threat-- facehuggers, acid blood, shit going sideways as all hell breaks loose-- all that fun stuff is used in clever new ways. It's an action/horror/thriller so sometimes people make questionable decisions, but again the characters are so fleshed out that the occasional bad call totally tracks in the moment, unlike lesser films. The visuals are impressive without feeling too 'clean;' Hell, the opening credits even have a retro feel that I really dug. It's truly a return to form for the franchise. It isn't perfect, there are minor changes I would've made here and there, but overall an excellent film. I thought it (Alien: Romulus) was very good; comfortably the third best film in the franchise (which, admittedly, isn’t that high a bar). The only thing I really hated was the digitalized likeness of… you know who (on my phone so can’t do spoiler tags). It was totally distracting, never looked real, and it wasn’t even the same character as… you know who - so what was the point? Just a highly misguided decision. It's funny that while succeeding in capturing the tone and overall 'feel' of the originals, the worst elements to it (and they're very brief) were the ten ton Easter Eggs. Ian Holm's random cameo (is it a cameo or more of a minor supporting role, because he's in several scenes?), the "Get away from her, you bitch!" callback (which to me was pretty cringe in an otherwise outstanding screenplay), and the creature design of the final alien (reminding me that Prometheus and Covenant exist, whether I like it or not) were my biggest nitpicks of the movie.
Well, that and I don't really understand why Andy had to be overridden with the 'company comes first' programming to create tension. At the beginning of the film, they establish his prime directive as 'keeping Rain safe.' Doing what's best for her, in a pure, unfeeling logical sense, is naturally going to conflict with helping others at some point, so therein lies the conflict. The added wrinkle of Andy interfacing with the computer and changing personalities and priorities wasn't necessary. I guess it allowed the actor to stretch his legs playing two characters, and added a bit more menace to the situation, but do we need more menace with a space station full of xenomorphs? I suppose narratively speaking, it allows him to be a creep but still achieve redemption at the end, because any bad decisions weren't really his fault. I don't know, I think it works better if he simply values her life more than theirs. But those are really my only nitpicks. As you said, easily the third best in the franchise, even if that bar is incredibly low. It's better just to say it's a solid sequel that does (almost) everything right.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Aug 25, 2024 16:24:17 GMT
The Ministry of Ungentlemany Warfare - Guy Ritchie’s latest, which seems to have gone straight to streaming (Amazon Prime, at least here in Canada). Henry Cavill stars as the leader of a small commando tasked with sabotaging the supply line for the German U-boats that are strangling the British war efforts. Loosely based on a real WWII operation planned with the participation of a certain Ian Fleming. The commander of the clandestine operation is rumoured to have been the inspiration for the famous character Fleming created later when he switched careers from military intelligence to fiction writing.
So here we have a movie made by a director whose work I usually (but not always) enjoy, with a subject matter that’s right up my alley - daring dangerous WWII missions - so I had high expectations, which unfortunately were not fulfilled. Something did not click, and I am not sure what. The director’s trademark humour felt flat. The characters were not particularly engaging. Also I couldn’t understand an important plot point at the time, and could only make some sense of it afterwards, when reading about it.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 25, 2024 20:56:35 GMT
The Ministry of Ungentlemany Warfare - Guy Ritchie’s latest, which seems to have gone straight to streaming (Amazon Prime, at least here in Canada). Henry Cavill stars as the leader of a small commando tasked with sabotaging the supply line for the German U-boats that are strangling the British war efforts. Loosely based on a real WWII operation planned with the participation of a certain Ian Fleming. The commander of the clandestine operation is rumoured to have been the inspiration for the famous character Fleming created later when he switched careers from military intelligence to fiction writing. So here we have a movie made by a director whose work I usually (but not always) enjoy, with a subject matter that’s right up my alley - daring dangerous WWII missions - so I had high expectations, which unfortunately were not fulfilled. Something did not click, and I am not sure what. The director’s trademark humour felt flat. The characters were not particularly engaging. Also I couldn’t understand an important plot point at the time, and could only make some sense of it afterwards, when reading about it. I'm also a Ritchie fan, and the subject matter is a formula for what I want out of a movie. I saw this in the theater a few months ago, and I agree with your take 100%. While it wasn't a tough watch, somehow it just never came together. I don't know if there wasn't enough on the page, or this cast didn't know what to do with the material; but this movie, while certainly not being serious, wasn't as fun as it clearly wanted to be. The psychotic nature of the Alan Ritchson character is really the only character trait I can remember about anyone in the film. The main villain seemed to be in a different movie. Also, there wasn't that classic Ritchie twist to top things off. The mission unfolds almost without a hitch. Things go a little sideways, but I can't recall the heroes having to use their wits to conjure up a plan B from scratch. I guess that's it-- for a Ritchie movie, it's simply not as clever as we're used to, in any sense. I've seen worse movies for sure, but as Ritchie movies go, last year's Operation Fortune was far superior despite being a total box office bomb.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 26, 2024 14:07:55 GMT
Contrary to what you've read, The Crow (2024) is not terrible. It's nowhere near as good as the original, but it isn't the disaster the box office take or critical response suggests it is. It's fine. I'm going to get into spoilers a little with this review for two reasons. 1. It's a remake of a 30 year old movie, so what am I spoiling that would take away from your enjoyment of this version? 2. I don't think anyone on this board actually cares about this movie.
The 2024 version spends much more time with Eric and Shelly as a couple (though their love story still feels rushed somehow, but it still works), but in doing so, the 2024 version lacks the worldbuilding of the original. It doesn't have the army of memorable supporting characters which really gives the 1994 version its charm. (If a movie like that can have 'charm,' I don't know what other word to use.) The snappy dialog is missing, that snark that defined the era of the first movie. 2024 delves a bit more into the supernatural, focusing on this demonic element with the villains. Even including this, the villains are somehow entirely bland. The main villain is played by Danny Huston, who plays the stock Danny Huston villain to a T. And I don't mean that as an insult necessarily; he plays that role very well, which is why he plays that role so often. But we're not seeing anything fresh here, demons and devils or not. There's this purgatory train station that works as a concept, but it gets used too many times in the screenplay. Once was probably enough; twice, why are we doing this again; three times, enough already. I do like the idea, though.
The action isn't quite at the same level as the original either, but that's going to happen when you go from a martial artist in Brandon Lee to a capable actor not known for his action roles in Bill Skarsgard. The action was a little more raw here though, and 2024 did have some fun kills. It takes a while to get there, but it's fun when it happens. Though to be honest, I still don't understand why he throws severed heads at the audience who were just there watching an opera performance. As far as I can tell, those people weren't part of this death cult. Maybe they were and it wasn't explained, I don't know. Either way it was good for a laugh.
Another thing people remember about the 1994 version is its use of its excellent soundtrack, and I thought 2024 did a fantastic job of replicating that part of the formula. It's a broody, angsty story about young love and tragedy and mortality, and the musical choices need to fit the tone of this movie, not just be there because the director likes the band. And boy did they nail it. All I know is it's a win anytime Boadicea by Enya kicks in. (And if you don't know the inspiration for that song, look her up. But I digress...)
The major noticeable difference between the 1994 and 2024 versions are the generational overtones. 1994 was aimed at a gen x crowd, 2024 at gen z. So by definition, the 1994 version is much more cynical and almost self-deprecating at times, whereas 2024 seems a bit whinier and self-absorbed. Eric and Shelly were victims of a terrible crime in the original, but up until then they were poor, but were generally happy with their lives. In 2024, awful things just seem to happen to them all of the time, as the big bad world just keeps shitting on them. They both suffer from some kind of 'trauma' (as everyone apparently does now); Eric is even bullied by other 'inmates' at a rehab facility for reasons that remain unclear. It's effective filmmaking, I don't mean to be overly dismissive of these elements. It's just something I noticed, having seen the original at age 17 and watching this at age 47.
All in all I thought it was a decent take on the material. I do believe the original is superior, but as a fan of that film, this movie did not insult my sensibilities the way some legacy sequels or remakes have done. I remember the sequels to the original being pretty lousy, and a show starring my guy from Brotherhood of the Wolf, Mark Dacascos. Though I wonder if, now that I'm older, they wouldn't bother me as much, either. Or maybe they really are that bad. All I can say for sure is I think The Crow (2024) is worth a watch if you enjoyed the 1994 version.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Aug 26, 2024 14:46:31 GMT
Contrary to what you've read, The Crow (2024) is not terrible. It's nowhere near as good as the original, but it isn't the disaster the box office take or critical response suggests it is. It's fine. I'm going to get into spoilers a little with this review for two reasons. 1. It's a remake of a 30 year old movie, so what am I spoiling that would take away from your enjoyment of this version? 2. I don't think anyone on this board actually cares about this movie. The 2024 version spends much more time with Eric and Shelly as a couple (though their love story still feels rushed somehow, but it still works), but in doing so, the 2024 version lacks the worldbuilding of the original. It doesn't have the army of memorable supporting characters which really gives the 1994 version its charm. (If a movie like that can have 'charm,' I don't know what other word to use.) The snappy dialog is missing, that snark that defined the era of the first movie. 2024 delves a bit more into the supernatural, focusing on this demonic element with the villains. Even including this, the villains are somehow entirely bland. The main villain is played by Danny Huston, who plays the stock Danny Huston villain to a T. And I don't mean that as an insult necessarily; he plays that role very well, which is why he plays that role so often. But we're not seeing anything fresh here, demons and devils or not. There's this purgatory train station that works as a concept, but it gets used too many times in the screenplay. Once was probably enough; twice, why are we doing this again; three times, enough already. I do like the idea, though. The action isn't quite at the same level as the original either, but that's going to happen when you go from a martial artist in Brandon Lee to a capable actor not known for his action roles in Bill Skarsgard. The action was a little more raw here though, and 2024 did have some fun kills. It takes a while to get there, but it's fun when it happens. Though to be honest, I still don't understand why he throws severed heads at the audience who were just there watching an opera performance. As far as I can tell, those people weren't part of this death cult. Maybe they were and it wasn't explained, I don't know. Either way it was good for a laugh. Another thing people remember about the 1994 version is its use of its excellent soundtrack, and I thought 2024 did a fantastic job of replicating that part of the formula. It's a broody, angsty story about young love and tragedy and mortality, and the musical choices need to fit the tone of this movie, not just be there because the director likes the band. And boy did they nail it. All I know is it's a win anytime Boadicea by Enya kicks in. (And if you don't know the inspiration for that song, look her up. But I digress...) The major noticeable difference between the 1994 and 2024 versions are the generational overtones. 1994 was aimed at a gen x crowd, 2024 at gen z. So by definition, the 1994 version is much more cynical and almost self-deprecating at times, whereas 2024 seems a bit whinier and self-absorbed. Eric and Shelly were victims of a terrible crime in the original, but up until then they were poor, but were generally happy with their lives. In 2024, awful things just seem to happen to them all of the time, as the big bad world just keeps shitting on them. They both suffer from some kind of 'trauma' (as everyone apparently does now); Eric is even bullied by other 'inmates' at a rehab facility for reasons that remain unclear. It's effective filmmaking, I don't mean to be overly dismissive of these elements. It's just something I noticed, having seen the original at age 17 and watching this at age 47. All in all I thought it was a decent take on the material. I do believe the original is superior, but as a fan of that film, this movie did not insult my sensibilities the way some legacy sequels or remakes have done. I remember the sequels to the original being pretty lousy, and a show starring my guy from Brotherhood of the Wolf, Mark Dacascos. Though I wonder if, now that I'm older, they wouldn't bother me as much, either. Or maybe they really are that bad. All I can say for sure is I think The Crow (2024) is worth a watch if you enjoyed the 1994 version. The reviews, both from critics and fans, have been truly abysmal. I'm kinda interested in checking it out still. Also, once I do, I intend to waste everyone's time by writing some long rambling nonsense on the entire Crow 'franchise.' All I will say in response to your points now is that some of the sequels were really that bad (one in particular is really something else) and the show had Mark Dacascos, so it had at least one good thing going for it, and that the comic source material is different than any of the filmed work it inspired and is worth checking out. I'll get into more (way more than anyone will want) later.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 26, 2024 15:57:39 GMT
The reviews, both from critics and fans, have been truly abysmal. I'm kinda interested in checking it out still. Also, once I do, I intend to waste everyone's time by writing some long rambling nonsense on the entire Crow 'franchise.' All I will say in response to your points now is that some of the sequels were really that bad (one in particular is really something else) and the show had Mark Dacascos, so it had at least one good thing going for it, and that the comic source material is different than any of the filmed work it inspired and is worth checking out. I'll get into more (way more than anyone will want) later. Can't wait to talk some Crow later! I'm sure the sequels were that bad, I literally can't remember anything about them (which kind of says it all). The comic is great and very different from anything we've seen on the screen. Though oddly, both the original comic series and the original movie have many similarities with the Charlie Sheen movie The Wraith (1986), from the basic plot right down to some of the character names. You may think you have too much to say about The Crow, but I can assure you, there's no such thing as having too much to say. Hell, sitting in the (mostly empty) theater with my wife before the movie started on Friday, I was doing a 'top ten best quotes from The Crow' list off the top of my head. Goons, you've found your audience!
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Aug 26, 2024 20:06:49 GMT
Contrary to what you've read, The Crow (2024) is not terrible. It's nowhere near as good as the original, but it isn't the disaster the box office take or critical response suggests it is. It's fine. I'm going to get into spoilers a little with this review for two reasons. 1. It's a remake of a 30 year old movie, so what am I spoiling that would take away from your enjoyment of this version? 2. I don't think anyone on this board actually cares about this movie. The 2024 version spends much more time with Eric and Shelly as a couple (though their love story still feels rushed somehow, but it still works), but in doing so, the 2024 version lacks the worldbuilding of the original. It doesn't have the army of memorable supporting characters which really gives the 1994 version its charm. (If a movie like that can have 'charm,' I don't know what other word to use.) The snappy dialog is missing, that snark that defined the era of the first movie. 2024 delves a bit more into the supernatural, focusing on this demonic element with the villains. Even including this, the villains are somehow entirely bland. The main villain is played by Danny Huston, who plays the stock Danny Huston villain to a T. And I don't mean that as an insult necessarily; he plays that role very well, which is why he plays that role so often. But we're not seeing anything fresh here, demons and devils or not. There's this purgatory train station that works as a concept, but it gets used too many times in the screenplay. Once was probably enough; twice, why are we doing this again; three times, enough already. I do like the idea, though. The action isn't quite at the same level as the original either, but that's going to happen when you go from a martial artist in Brandon Lee to a capable actor not known for his action roles in Bill Skarsgard. The action was a little more raw here though, and 2024 did have some fun kills. It takes a while to get there, but it's fun when it happens. Though to be honest, I still don't understand why he throws severed heads at the audience who were just there watching an opera performance. As far as I can tell, those people weren't part of this death cult. Maybe they were and it wasn't explained, I don't know. Either way it was good for a laugh. Another thing people remember about the 1994 version is its use of its excellent soundtrack, and I thought 2024 did a fantastic job of replicating that part of the formula. It's a broody, angsty story about young love and tragedy and mortality, and the musical choices need to fit the tone of this movie, not just be there because the director likes the band. And boy did they nail it. All I know is it's a win anytime Boadicea by Enya kicks in. (And if you don't know the inspiration for that song, look her up. But I digress...) The major noticeable difference between the 1994 and 2024 versions are the generational overtones. 1994 was aimed at a gen x crowd, 2024 at gen z. So by definition, the 1994 version is much more cynical and almost self-deprecating at times, whereas 2024 seems a bit whinier and self-absorbed. Eric and Shelly were victims of a terrible crime in the original, but up until then they were poor, but were generally happy with their lives. In 2024, awful things just seem to happen to them all of the time, as the big bad world just keeps shitting on them. They both suffer from some kind of 'trauma' (as everyone apparently does now); Eric is even bullied by other 'inmates' at a rehab facility for reasons that remain unclear. It's effective filmmaking, I don't mean to be overly dismissive of these elements. It's just something I noticed, having seen the original at age 17 and watching this at age 47. All in all I thought it was a decent take on the material. I do believe the original is superior, but as a fan of that film, this movie did not insult my sensibilities the way some legacy sequels or remakes have done. I remember the sequels to the original being pretty lousy, and a show starring my guy from Brotherhood of the Wolf, Mark Dacascos. Though I wonder if, now that I'm older, they wouldn't bother me as much, either. Or maybe they really are that bad. All I can say for sure is I think The Crow (2024) is worth a watch if you enjoyed the 1994 version. The reviews, both from critics and fans, have been truly abysmal. I'm kinda interested in checking it out still. Also, once I do, I intend to waste everyone's time by writing some long rambling nonsense on the entire Crow 'franchise.' All I will say in response to your points now is that some of the sequels were really that bad (one in particular is really something else) and the show had Mark Dacascos, so it had at least one good thing going for it, and that the comic source material is different than any of the filmed work it inspired and is worth checking out. I'll get into more (way more than anyone will want) later. Allez Cuisine!!
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Aug 26, 2024 20:58:52 GMT
I loved the new French adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo. It’s three hours long but I did not check the time even once, which is something that’s becoming increasingly rare even when I go see much shorter movies. I have never read the book and to be honest I am not even sure I ever watched any of the previous adaptations, so I was only aware of the general lines of the plot. Edmond Dantès is unjustly imprisoned and when he finally escapes years later he vows to exact revenge on those who wronged him.
There is a reason why the story is a classic and even though the movie apparently takes many short cuts, that reason is still gloriously on display. As are the millions of Euros that the fantastic production values must have cost. Well worth watching on a big screen near you, if the opportunity presents itself.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 26, 2024 22:37:32 GMT
I loved the new French adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo. It’s three hours long but I did not check the time even once, which is something that’s becoming increasingly rare even when I go see much shorter movies. I have never read the book and to be honest I am not even sure I ever watched any of the previous adaptations, so I was only aware of the general lines of the plot. Edmond Dantès is unjustly imprisoned and when he finally escapes years later he vows to exact revenge on those who wronged him. There is a reason why the story is a classic and even though the movie apparently takes many short cuts, that reason is still gloriously on display. As are the millions of Euros that the fantastic production values must have cost. Well worth watching on a big screen near you, if the opportunity presents itself. I thought the 2002 film was pretty good. Just watched the trailer for this and now I definitely want to check it out.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Aug 27, 2024 19:54:13 GMT
After meaning to watch this movie for years I finally got around to seeing Before the Devil Knows You're Dead from 2007 last night.
This was Sydney Lumet's final film, and it has a terrific cast which includes Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marissa Tomei, Amy Ryan, Albert Finney, and an early performance from Michael Shannon (certainly before he was on my radar).
It's a rough, tight, intense crime drama, and it was kind of an emotionally draining experience. It's setup as kind of a traditional tragedy, but the script jumps around to show different character perspectives at different times... which makes getting into the plot a little tough to navigate without spoilers. A lot of what happened along the way, even early on was legitimately surprising, so I wouldn't want to go into too much detail.
But this is a crime drama and a tragedy, so you know that it's not gonna end well for very many of the participants.
The basic plot is that Ethan Hawke is a sorta down on his luck estranged father just trying to scrape by, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman is his seemingly more successful brother who has some mounting problems, and aspirations, of his own. One day the Hoffman character proposes that the Hawke character commit a robbery, and they'll split the money, since they both could use it.
And that's about all that should be explained. The rest of what happens is some rough stuff and all of these characters, even the ones you might start off liking, do stupid and ultimately some do horrible things. The fact that this robbery will not go well is telegraphed from the beginning, but the details as to why and how, and the ramifications of that are shocking but also entirely truthful to the story and the characters.
And it's just so fucking sad to see any Phillip Seymour Hoffman performance. He was so damn good. Not to wade too much into spoiler territory, but in this film there are scenes where he's taking drugs, and it feels extra poignant knowing that that's what killed him.
Other than a mildly annoying editing technique that's used in occasion, and the obligatory text telling us which character we are following and when we are seeing him in relation to the timeline, the direction is as sure handed and sharp as any of Sydney Lumet's legendary work. This guy has made some of the finest films in the history of the medium, and he lost nothing in his deftness of craft by the end of his career. It's not his best work to be sure, but it's worthy of being his final piece.
It's an extremely unpleasant watch, but it's also kind of thrilling to see so many great artists at the top of their game.
Even thought they're not very much alike, this reminded me a bit of William Friedkin's Bug in that they're both late stage films from great directors who seemed to be on a mission to prove that they hadn't lost their edge or their ability to create tension out of character and imagery... plus both came out around the same time, feature Michael Shannon before he was as well known, and were written by prominent playwrights.
I also recently watched She's Funny that Way, another star studded late career entry from an old veteran, this one being Peter Bogdanovich.
This one was also his last film (fictional film, at least), but was much less successful. He was trying to do something of a modern screwball comedy, but it all feels kinda dumb and superfluous... which I suppose you could say about most screwball comedies. It stars Owen Wilson as a theater director that has a habit of overpaying prostitutes to tell them to quit that line of work and pursue their passions out of some sort of savior complex or something. Imogen Poots (the silliest real name in showbiz) is the prostitute in question here, and she leaves that life to go become an actress.. which leads her right back to him when she auditions to be in his play, which happens to star his wife who had a fling with the lead male in the play. Meanwhile Jennifer Anniston is dating Will Forte who is the playwright, and also treating Imogen Poots as a therapist, and also an old guy who is obsessed with this dynamic young prostitute, and so on and so on with even more character crossovers that eventually all converge in silly scenes where everyone is at the same place at the same time while some try to avoid one another and others try to get to the bottom of things.
It's all just OK. By the end it felt like a lot of effort for not much payoff and like trying to stretch an old formula to modern sensibilities when it was never quite going to work.
But, Imogen Poots makes her ludicrous, cartoonish, outdated, New York City accent work for her even up til the end when one final cameo feels like one or two or a dozen silly jokes too many. I wasn't sorry to have seen it, but it's not up the the standard of Bogdanovich's best work.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Aug 27, 2024 21:40:21 GMT
After meaning to watch this movie for years I finally got around to seeing Before the Devil Knows You're Dead from 2007 last night. This was Sydney Lumet's final film, and it has a terrific cast which includes Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marissa Tomei, Amy Ryan, Albert Finney, and an early performance from Michael Shannon (certainly before he was on my radar). It's a rough, tight, intense crime drama, and it was kind of an emotionally draining experience. It's setup as kind of a traditional tragedy, but the script jumps around to show different character perspectives at different times... which makes getting into the plot a little tough to navigate without spoilers. A lot of what happened along the way, even early on was legitimately surprising, so I wouldn't want to go into too much detail. But this is a crime drama and a tragedy, so you know that it's not gonna end well for very many of the participants. The basic plot is that Ethan Hawke is a sorta down on his luck estranged father just trying to scrape by, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman is his seemingly more successful brother who has some mounting problems, and aspirations, of his own. One day the Hoffman character proposes that the Hawke character commit a robbery, and they'll split the money, since they both could use it. And that's about all that should be explained. The rest of what happens is some rough stuff and all of these characters, even the ones you might start off liking, do stupid and ultimately some do horrible things. The fact that this robbery will not go well is telegraphed from the beginning, but the details as to why and how, and the ramifications of that are shocking but also entirely truthful to the story and the characters. And it's just so fucking sad to see any Phillip Seymour Hoffman performance. He was so damn good. Not to wade too much into spoiler territory, but in this film there are scenes where he's taking drugs, and it feels extra poignant knowing that that's what killed him. Other than a mildly annoying editing technique that's used in occasion, and the obligatory text telling us which character we are following and when we are seeing him in relation to the timeline, the direction is as sure handed and sharp as any of Sydney Lumet's legendary work. This guy has made some of the finest films in the history of the medium, and he lost nothing in his deftness of craft by the end of his career. It's not his best work to be sure, but it's worthy of being his final piece. It's an extremely unpleasant watch, but it's also kind of thrilling to see so many great artists at the top of their game. I remember being really positively impressed by it when it came out. Don't remember much else other than the Phillip Seymour Hoffman character being a functional regular heroin user, which I didn't think was possible.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Aug 28, 2024 0:52:42 GMT
After meaning to watch this movie for years I finally got around to seeing Before the Devil Knows You're Dead from 2007 last night. This was Sydney Lumet's final film, and it has a terrific cast which includes Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marissa Tomei, Amy Ryan, Albert Finney, and an early performance from Michael Shannon (certainly before he was on my radar). It's a rough, tight, intense crime drama, and it was kind of an emotionally draining experience. It's setup as kind of a traditional tragedy, but the script jumps around to show different character perspectives at different times... which makes getting into the plot a little tough to navigate without spoilers. A lot of what happened along the way, even early on was legitimately surprising, so I wouldn't want to go into too much detail. But this is a crime drama and a tragedy, so you know that it's not gonna end well for very many of the participants. The basic plot is that Ethan Hawke is a sorta down on his luck estranged father just trying to scrape by, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman is his seemingly more successful brother who has some mounting problems, and aspirations, of his own. One day the Hoffman character proposes that the Hawke character commit a robbery, and they'll split the money, since they both could use it. And that's about all that should be explained. The rest of what happens is some rough stuff and all of these characters, even the ones you might start off liking, do stupid and ultimately some do horrible things. The fact that this robbery will not go well is telegraphed from the beginning, but the details as to why and how, and the ramifications of that are shocking but also entirely truthful to the story and the characters. And it's just so fucking sad to see any Phillip Seymour Hoffman performance. He was so damn good. Not to wade too much into spoiler territory, but in this film there are scenes where he's taking drugs, and it feels extra poignant knowing that that's what killed him. Other than a mildly annoying editing technique that's used in occasion, and the obligatory text telling us which character we are following and when we are seeing him in relation to the timeline, the direction is as sure handed and sharp as any of Sydney Lumet's legendary work. This guy has made some of the finest films in the history of the medium, and he lost nothing in his deftness of craft by the end of his career. It's not his best work to be sure, but it's worthy of being his final piece. It's an extremely unpleasant watch, but it's also kind of thrilling to see so many great artists at the top of their game. I remember being really positively impressed by it when it came out. Don't remember much else other than the Phillip Seymour Hoffman character being a functional regular heroin user, which I didn't think was possible. It's sad, but I think that's the reality of how Phillip Seymour Hoffman was actually living at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 28, 2024 12:00:53 GMT
But, Imogen Poots makes her ludicrous, cartoonish, outdated, New York City accent work for her even up til the end when one final cameo feels like one or two or a dozen silly jokes too many. I wasn't sorry to have seen it, but it's not up the the standard of Bogdanovich's best work. Her name cracks me up, it sounds like Dutch slang for diarrhea. "Man, I hit up the Amsterdam Taco Bell and ended up with the Imogen Poots."
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Aug 28, 2024 14:56:57 GMT
But, Imogen Poots makes her ludicrous, cartoonish, outdated, New York City accent work for her even up til the end when one final cameo feels like one or two or a dozen silly jokes too many. I wasn't sorry to have seen it, but it's not up the the standard of Bogdanovich's best work. Her name cracks me up, it sounds like Dutch slang for diarrhea. "Man, I hit up the Amsterdam Taco Bell and ended up with the Imogen Poots." Agreed. As I said earlier in the post; she has the silliest (real) name in show business.
|
|