Last Movie Seen

[outdoorcats]

Three people here talking about Armageddon Time! That's more people than how many saw it on the first week of its theatrical run!

@kongs_speech - They fit in really well, so it's even more of a surprise that all of that really happened, that a young Gray really did meet those two people and listen to that speech. A great case of "truth is stranger than fiction."
@Gruesome - They were really, really good. Repeta nailed a difficult balance between playing a character meant to be precocious, annoying, and awkward, but still sympathetic. (for example, some of his behavior at the first dinner scene makes more sense in hindsight when you consider that

Spoiler

children who receive physical discipline/violence actually tend to become more rebellious and aggressive.

[GruesomeTwosome]

Three people here talking about Armageddon Time! That's more people than how many saw it on the first week of its theatrical run!

Yep, I was literally the only person in my screening…

[1SO]

At Long Last Love (1975)
★ ★ ★
The briefest chapter in Tarantino's new book is a defense of Peter Bogdanovich's Daisy Miller (1974) and the performance by Cybill Shepherd. Tarantino believes Bogdanovich bends the film to Shepherd's strength by turning this period comedy of manners into a Howard Hawks style fast-paced screwball. I watched it, and I don't agree at all. The story doesn't lend itself to screwball comedy and won't be bent except in brief moments. As for Shepherd, she isn't comfortable in the time period and among these characters, and she sticks out as a disastrous piece of casting (★ ½)

At Long Last Love is Bogdanovich's love letter to 1930s musicals, with over a dozen Cole Porter songs. (This is aggressively musical, with maybe two minutes of dialogue between songs.) Barely released in 1975 by a studio that sold it as a rom-com starring Cybill Shepherd and Burt Reynolds, destroyed by most critics for the cast not having musical credibility and quickly re-edited into a version that cuts out a lot of Shepherd's songs. In 2013 a proper "Definitive Director's Version" was released. It's what I saw, and once I got over the cast not being as good as Fred and Ginger I have to admit, it's lovely.

The casting is odd, filled out by Madeline Kahn and an Italian named Duilio Del Prete who speaks like Chico Marx. There's also a 3rd couple played by Eileen Brennan and John Hillerman, and they're excellent throughout. It's a story where they keep changing (hetero) partners, and all four are given equal weight while they sip the songs like champagne. All four throw themselves into the spirit of the project, and Shepherd is the best of the bunch. This is the charm Tarantino saw in Daisy Miller, the most I've enjoyed Shepherd outside of Moonlighting. Burt Reynolds is surprisingly good too, once you get past the fact that he's singing and dancing. He brings his twinkle to this and not his "too cool" detachment.

[kongs_speech]

Three people here talking about Armageddon Time! That's more people than how many saw it on the first week of its theatrical run!

Yep, I was literally the only person in my screening…

I went with my roommate and his mom. We were the only three people, the screening had open captions and the movie was only there a week. It wouldn't shock me if we were the only people who saw it in that theater all week.

[Torgo]

Three people here talking about Armageddon Time! That's more people than how many saw it on the first week of its theatrical run!

Yep, I was literally the only person in my screening…

I went with my roommate and his mom. We were the only three people, the screening had open captions and the movie was only there a week. It wouldn't shock me if we were the only people who saw it in that theater all week.

Beware that Onder doesn't find this thread and use it as an argument in the theatrical discussion ..

[Onderhond]

I'm not out to convince others what they have to think of/feel about the theatrical experience. People like what they like

[OldAle1]

She Said

The latest procedural journalism awards hopeful in the vein of All the President's Men, The Post, and Spotlight, the latter of which this very clearly tries to emulate, from the tone to the pace and structure, as well as the musical score and overall aesthetic, with this making good use of its New York locales the same way Spotlight did with Boston. As someone who majored in English-journalism back in college, I'm required by law to see any film remotely dealing in that world ASAP and luckily this one was pretty engaging throughout, though I didn't like it quite as much as any of the three I mentioned.

While Carey Mulligan turns in a reliably solid performance, it's actually Zoe Kazan who impressed me more out of the two leads. I've seen and liked her in plenty of stuff beforehand, but here's she able to exhibit a real sense of vulnerability that pairs very well with the subject material. This might be a strange thing to highlight, but the way she listens to testimonials of victims is really strong display of non-verbal acting, not just with her facial expression and eyes, but also with her posture and body language doing a lot of heavy lifting as well. Can't really explain why, but those are the elements of her performance which immediately stood out to me.

All in all, a pretty solid film that probably could or should have been great, but this sometimes tends to get lost in a more self-congratulatory tone, when the systemic trends of abuse and sexism this seeks to expose are still very prevalent issues in the film industry and didn't exactly go away when he-who-must-not-be-named did. For a much better film handling that same thematic material, seek out The Assistant from a few years ago. Even still, I'm glad this is out there to tell the story to as wide of an audience as possible.

I just saw this myself, and my thoughts are pretty much in line with yours. It's very much the traditional journalists-as-heroes story-of-the-moment kind of film and the ones you call back to are obvious antecedents (and all of them better films I think, though none are great pieces of filmmaking IMO). Agree with you about Kazan vs Mulligan - I think if it were to get one Best Actress nom, I'd hope it would be for her. And her emotional scenes, particularly the one where Ashley Judd calls her at the end, were very strong. But the cast in general is very good - I also loved Andre Braugher as no-nonsense editor Dean, who from the first moment obviously thinks Weinstein is pure scum, but has enough self-control and integrity to keep it all in at all times. And I suspect Jennifer Ehle will be getting some awards consideration for a strikingly emotional and powerful performance as a woman whose life was clearly derailed by her early encounter with HW. Actually, I think her performance points to the best thing about the film - how clearly all of these women, and by implication large numbers of women worldwide and through history, have had their lives altered by the abuse or even just condescension heaped on them by powerful men. I think the film could have been better had that theme been kicked up a notch and the, as you say, self-congratulatory "aren't we at the venerable Gray Lady so wonderful for finally getting this story out there" element were muted or just left out altogether - I mean, those who see this film get the journalistic points.

All in all, fine, glad I saw it. There were three young women sitting right behind me and they didn't make a sound through the whole film except to sigh bigtime at the end.

[blocho]

I also loved Andre Braugher as no-nonsense editor Dean, who from the first moment obviously thinks Weinstein is pure scum, but has enough self-control and integrity to keep it all in at all times.

I just want to jump in here to mention that the actual Dean Baquet is a man who is sorely lacking in journalistic integrity. This is not meant to disagree with your understanding of the character or of Braugher's performance. I couldn't do that -- I haven't seen the movie.

There were many problems with Baquet's tenure as the executive editor of the Times, but if I had to point at one thing that showed a lack of integrity, it would be how he handled another story that involved an accusation of sexual assault.

I apologize for this random digression away from movies.

[Good_Will_Harding]

Yeah, the whole cast of She Said was pretty great, and Andre Braugher's editor was definitely a highlight too. No comment on how the real life person may or may not have done their job well, since that conversation, while interesting and worth having, doesn't necessarily impact my views on the film as a whole.

The Fabelmans

Mama Spielberg: "Son, you are going to have to make a choice about whether you pursue a career in film at the expense of alienating those closest to you, or you can compromise and quietly suffer like your father and I."

Stevie Jr: "I am going to direct Bridge of Spies."

I haven't exactly been shy about how much I was looking forward to this puppy, and while it met my expectations in a number of ways (hands down the most deeply personal film Spielberg has ever made, a reverent and detailed recreation of his earlier life, probably the most unapologetically Jewish film made by an A-list Hollywood auteur since A Serious Man, featuring one of the most understated and minimal scores from the genius John Williams), there were still plenty of surprises to be found here as well.

First and foremost, this isn't entirely the wistful, steely-eyed look back at Stevie's early days that many of us justifiably assumed it would be. Oh, there are definitely elements of that in here, mostly early on and almost all to do with the discovery of his passion for filmmaking, and how he's able to channel any feelings about his turbulent home life through his craft. However, with the depiction of Spielberg's home life and his parents' marriage... well let's just say that I see now why he wanted to wait until they had both passed before he decided to make this. Now of course neither of them (played well by Paul Dano and Michelle Williams) are portrayed in a completely good or bad light, but this does get pretty direct and confrontational sometimes, and even Spielberg's self-insert protagonist isn't shown in a completely flattering light at all times either. In a lot of ways, the film this reminded me of most wasn't anything Spielberg has made, but actually Richard Linklater's Boyhood, as it covers nearly the exact same period of time in the lead character's life, and even ends at a similar point.

[kongs_speech]

Bones and All.

Disappointment of the year. It's nothing but a self-consciously artsy Twilight that thinks it's a profound statement on romance and generational trauma. Taylor Russell is great in the lead, especially given the questionable dialogue she has to perform. The cinematography and score are beautiful, and I appreciate the attention to 1980s period detail. There is one really enjoyable scene featuring David Gordon Green and Michael Stuhlbarg, which unfortunately doesn't really matter at all in the overall storyline. Otherwise, I found the film to be kinda awful. I'm on record as not being a fan of Timothee Chalamet's acting style, but jeez, he's dull here. Russell is doing all the heavy lifting in their scenes together. They have no chemistry. Mark Rylance is hammier than a Thanksgiving pork dinner. His character is impossible to take seriously, despite the film's insistence. There's also a mean streak that feels unnecessary and off-putting. Now, you might be thinking "no shit, Kong, it's a cannibal film." That's not what I'm talking about, obviously. It's a cannibal movie. People are going to be butchered and eaten. It's more the casual, tossed-off way in which the film treats two specific truly heinous acts, especially a reveal during the climax that simply felt cheap.

I am still excited for what Luca Guadagnino does in the future. Suspiria is remarkable. But yeah, Bones and All sucks.

[Ebbywebby]

Bones and All.

Disappointment of the year. It's nothing but a self-consciously artsy Twilight that thinks it's a profound statement on romance and generational trauma. Taylor Russell is great in the lead, especially given the questionable dialogue she has to perform. The cinematography and score are beautiful, and I appreciate the attention to 1980s period detail. There is one really enjoyable scene featuring David Gordon Green and Michael Stuhlbarg, which unfortunately doesn't really matter at all in the overall storyline. Otherwise, I found the film to be kinda awful. I'm on record as not being a fan of Timothee Chalamet's acting style, but jeez, he's dull here. Russell is doing all the heavy lifting in their scenes together. They have no chemistry. Mark Rylance is hammier than a Thanksgiving pork dinner. His character is impossible to take seriously, despite the film's insistence. There's also a mean streak that feels unnecessary and off-putting. Now, you might be thinking "no shit, Kong, it's a cannibal film." That's not what I'm talking about, obviously. It's a cannibal movie. People are going to be butchered and eaten. It's more the casual, tossed-off way in which the film treats two specific truly heinous acts, especially a reveal during the climax that simply felt cheap.

I am still excited for what Luca Guadagnino does in the future. Suspiria is remarkable. But yeah, Bones and All sucks.

Why does the story need to take place in the '80s?

[kongs_speech]

Bones and All.

Disappointment of the year. It's nothing but a self-consciously artsy Twilight that thinks it's a profound statement on romance and generational trauma. Taylor Russell is great in the lead, especially given the questionable dialogue she has to perform. The cinematography and score are beautiful, and I appreciate the attention to 1980s period detail. There is one really enjoyable scene featuring David Gordon Green and Michael Stuhlbarg, which unfortunately doesn't really matter at all in the overall storyline. Otherwise, I found the film to be kinda awful. I'm on record as not being a fan of Timothee Chalamet's acting style, but jeez, he's dull here. Russell is doing all the heavy lifting in their scenes together. They have no chemistry. Mark Rylance is hammier than a Thanksgiving pork dinner. His character is impossible to take seriously, despite the film's insistence. There's also a mean streak that feels unnecessary and off-putting. Now, you might be thinking "no shit, Kong, it's a cannibal film." That's not what I'm talking about, obviously. It's a cannibal movie. People are going to be butchered and eaten. It's more the casual, tossed-off way in which the film treats two specific truly heinous acts, especially a reveal during the climax that simply felt cheap.

I am still excited for what Luca Guadagnino does in the future. Suspiria is remarkable. But yeah, Bones and All sucks.

Why does the story need to take place in the '80s?

There's a pickup truck with a Regan/Bush '84 bumper sticker, and that's about as deep as its political commentary goes. They did a nice job making it look like the '80s, but I suppose there's no real reason why it actually needs to take place then.

[GruesomeTwosome]

I LOVED the technical aspects of Bones and All. It really is gorgeously photographed; off the top of my head without looking at a list of every 2022 film I’ve seen so far, it would currently top my list of “best looking” film I’ve seen for the year. And I had no idea that was a Trent Reznor/Atticus Ross score until the end credits, and the music was excellent.

But yeah, as much as Guadagnino brings on the blood and puts together some pretty fucked-up scenes, there’s no escaping the story’s YA book origins. Taylor Russell was quite good in the lead, but Timothee Chalamet is doing his “aren’t I just too cool and irresistible to young women (and men)?”, wannabe this-generation-James Dean thing, and I agree with kong about Mark Rylance’s ham of a character that seems to belong in a different movie. I think the film would have been better served if Rylance’s initial scene was his only time on screen (but even then, I still don’t much like his theatrical, mannered approach here). And Chloe Sevigny (who I love) was utterly wasted in her role. The cinematography, music and atmosphere in certain points of the film were enough for me to mildly like it I suppose, but overall a disappointment for me too.

[Good_Will_Harding]

Haven't seen Bones and All yet, but I hope to get around to it this week sometime (Glass Onion takes priority though, since that leaves theaters tomorrow). I thought Guadagnino's Suspiria remake was actually quite good, so I'm curious to see how he handles this particular subject matter.



Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio

Leave it to the busiest travelling days of the year for there to finally be some great films in theaters. As expected, on a purely aesthetic and technical level, this is nothing short of exceptional. I never fail to be impressed by stop motion animation, whether in short or feature length, and this is one of the most detailed and singular I've ever seen; to say nothing of how deeply moving the manner in which this adapts its classic story is. Add to that some really lovely music (both the musical score and the original songs, with the "Ciao Papa" sequence damn near bringing me to tears), and this amounts to one of the better films I've seen in what's turning out to be a pretty impressive fall/winter season. Definitely worth seeing on the big screen if you're able.

[OldAle1]

I REALLY feel like I'm in the boonies these days - I'll have to drive 1 1/2 hours (each way) if I want to see Pinocchio - and almost the same to see The Fabelmans. And of course they aren't at the same theater. Difficult, if not impossible, to see them both on the same day, and I don't know if I'm up to driving that much two days in a row this week (because I think Pinocchio will be gone after Wednesday, hell the Spielberg film might be too give the poor box office).

I did go to see Glass Onion today, which was pretty much what I expected, all in all, after it's predecessor. I think I have to continue to see every Ryan Johnson film in the cinema - I've seen all of them and that's probably some kind of feat given the 1-week-only rollout of this one, and the fairly minimal release of his first two films. What a strange career he's had in just 6 features. Anyway, like Knives Out this has a large and entertaining cast, but like that film this ends up just focusing on a few of the characters, in this case our suave detective (Daniel Craig), a woman (Janelle Monae) who had her great idea stolen by a billionaire, and that billionaire (Edward Norton). It's all in the context of a murder-mystery game that billionaire is hosting on his private island, with the other players all also being current or former business associates, all of whom just might have reasons to want to kill him. Like the first film this is really a 1920s-30s idea dressed up in modern clothing, but that's all fine. And it's fine that the billionaire is sort of an amalgam of Zuckerberg and Musk, and is quite odious and stupid - more films that mock billionaires, please. What's less good is that the mockery doesn't go far enough, the film is longer than it needs to be at 140 minutes, and there are too many characters that really get short shrift - Peg (Jessica Henwick) for example seems to be there just for a scene where our rich guy treats her like a lowly servant. Anyway, it's enjoyable I think for those who like this sort of film, and the main actors - those for whom those are not appealing enough pulls can probably find something better to do with their time.

[Good_Will_Harding]

Oof, yeah the release strategies for everything that isn't Black Panther 2 this fall have been extremely confounding and frustrating. For the Spielberg and Del Toro films, I had to drive nearly an hour to see them (also at separate theaters). Glass Onion is also playing at one of them, but I need to go tomorrow or I'll miss out. At least this is consistent with Netflix's anti-release strategy since the beginning, which always seemed to me like poor business to just abandon what amounts to money on the table in numerous cases. But the meager rollout for the latest and most clearly personal work by one of the architects of the modern blockbuster mold is especially puzzling. I think it's even playing on less screens in the US than Netflix's one week rollout for their next franchise hopeful. Maybe Universal is playing the long game for awards season, or they could've just gotten cold feet after She Said did such poor business.

[OldAle1]

So yesterday's hour-plus-each-way drive - necessary these days to see just about anything that's not superheroes, horror, or animation - was for

The Fabelmans

First I will note that this was playing on one screen in one cinema in a county of 600,000 that holds the state capitol and a major university. And while admittedly I was seeing an early matinee and on a weekday, the fact that there were only four other people at the screening for an extremely well-reviewed film from one of the very few directors who is a household name was pretty depressing. The film at this point looks like it will be *very* lucky to hit $10 million total domestically - and I assume it will make very little elsewhere, as these kinds of domestic dramas about specifically American subjects really don't tend to travel well. Even if it ends up with lots of awards nominations and wins, it's chances of breaking even or turning a profit are slim. Spielberg's previous West Side Story ended up with only $76 million despite equally high praise and many Oscar noms. All part of the gloomy and obvious conclusion that I have to make now, that cinema not involving lots of action, blood, or cartoons is essentially dead as something that can be seen on big screens in the USA. I hope those of you who appreciate things other than the MCU, Halloween and Pixar in other parts of the world continue to have better choices than we in the increasingly adolescent-defined American culture.

Thankfully the film was worth the drive, though after one viewing, and a day to think about it, I can't yet say that I find it "great". It's certainly, for me, Spielberg's best since A.I., but then I haven't loved any of the films in that period so that isn't on it's own high praise. What the film really manages to achieve that surprises me a bit is a certain amount of self-criticism, most especially of the director's treatment of women in his films as secondary characters. It's not just that the mother figure of Mitzi (Michelle Williams in a performance that I think certainly could finally get her an Oscar) dominates and centers the film, but also the subtle (yeah, a weird word to use about a Spielberg film, but I think fairly accurate here) critique of how the young Sammy Fabelman (Gabriel LaBelle as a teenager, another really fine performance) is only really interested in "boy's adventures" type stories - westerns, war movies, etc - and how he just doesn't seem to understand or take girls seriously. I was thinking that the fairly minimal attention played to Sammy's three sisters was a bit of a problem in the film, but I think it sort of falls in line with how the young Fabelman/Spielberg seems to see girls - as just something there, or a nuisance, or a sexual fantasy - his first halting experience of romance seems highly colored by an inability to see women as "real" in the same way that the soldiers and cowboys in his films are. The other major element in the film of course is the relationship between Mitzi - the somewhat free-spirited, emotional, artsy pianist - and hubby Burt (Paul Dano), an intellectual scientist and engineer who, while not portrayed as cold or distant or anything, still seems at times to be a bit unable to relate to others on a simple emotional level. And of course this gives us the push-and-pull of Spielberg's own filmmaking career, the technical wizardry mixed with huge dollops of sentiment. Here we see how equally his parents' legacies both affected him.

Cinematically this has plenty of callbacks to earlier films, both Spielberg's (E.T. in particular, especially in the dreamy, over-lit lighting) and his models/idols De Mille and Ford - with David Lynch's humorous, over-the-top take on the latter director acting as sort of a punchline at the end of a film which at times does seem to take itself a bit too seriously - at first I wasn't crazy about it, but the more I think about it, the more I like it. It's an "it's only the movies" moment, after 2 1/2 hours of characters showing us that, yeah, maybe movies don't change the world in the same way that computers or wars do - but they're still pretty damn important. We need them. And The Fabelmans in showing us how Steven Spielberg became who he was through the push-and-pull of his parents, and just as much through their breakup, articulates this as well as most autobiographical films have.

[outdoorcats]

I apparently missed any chance to see Pinocchio in theaters. Thanks, Netflix.

I did manage to catch Glass Onion at literally the last possible screening, and it was super, super fun. Not quite as good as Knives Out - mainly because it doesn't have a perfect ending and last shot like Knives Out did. I very much want there to be many more movies with Benoit Blanc as this generation's Poirot.

[Torgo]

So have I missed any talk about RRR on here or has it not caught on? An anti-colonial buddy-movie epic from a neglected area of production with gonzo action scenes whose choreography is only matched by an insane dance sequence seems like it would check so many boxes for the forum.

I hate that this is another film title impossible to search for in the Forum, but I was able to remember your comment here.
Truly a hype film on LB.

[kongs_speech]

Rio Bravo is Tarantino before Tarantino. No wonder he talks about it so often. The way Hawks largely relies on dialogue (or sometimes, a notable lack thereof) and strong characterizations to advance the story rather than action (except in a few very memorable scenes) must have been mind-blowing at the time. I'm astonished and inspired by this film. Where else are you gonna find a sidekick as cool as Stumpy? What a disgrace that such a masterwork has lost its slot in the Sight & Sound top 100.

[Good_Will_Harding]

White Noise ('22 - Baumbach)

The latest from Noah Baumbach, which I wasn't exactly chomping at the bit to see, but I was always going to check it out anyway, since I typically like his works and in particular really liked his most recent effort, Marriage Story. Plus, I'll always take the chance to see a Netflix original production on the big screen, so long as they still offer them that way. And I was actually quite pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this. It's certainly this director's most ambitious film to date on just about every front - visually, in terms of the scope and scale of the production, and regarding the many genres this tries to splice into a single story (dark comedy, apocalyptic thriller, domestic drama, etc) - to the point that even if I didn't know beforehand that this was adapted from a novel (Don DeLillo's cult classic of the same name), I would've suspected it after a certain point. However, there's still plenty of Baumbach's familiar deadpan humor and familial dysfunction baked into the proceedings as well, which is what I suspect drew him to this project the most. This has a pretty strong first two thirds, but does somewhat lose its way in the final act, by making a hard pivot that I'm sure worked better on the page. However, on the whole I still thoroughly enjoyed this, and it really stands out as a very unique entry into Baumbach's filmography.

[blocho]

I just saw the new Pinocchio in theaters, and I enjoyed the movie less than I did the post-screening Q&A with Guillermo Del Toro and co-director Mark Gustafson. But that doesn't mean the movie's bad or you shouldn't see it. Rather, Del Toro is such an affable and insightful speaker that it would be hard to enjoy any movie as much as him ruminating for 30 minutes. Also, I hate musicals.

Musical numbers aside, Pinocchio is a typically Toroesque dark fable. I think the pacing is a bit rushed, but it's otherwise a rewarding movie that explores themes of family, death, authority, and obedience. The thematic connection between puppetry and fascism is particularly elegant, although I'm guessing that flew over the heads of the many children in the audience (as did the Schopenhauer reference).

Incidentally, my favorite part of the Del Toro Q&A is that he brought the models of Pinocchio and Geppetto that were actually used in the movie and then invited the children in the audience to come up to the stage and play with the models. He then spent the first ten minutes mainly interacting with the kids and ignoring the questions from the interviewer.

[1SO]

I've seen everything but Skinamarink (which I am watching soon) and Dead Slow Ahead.

Skinamarink (2022)
★ ★
A new kind of Horror film, ditching 98% of plot to focus almost exclusively and sound and images that create feelings of dread and anxiety. Taking place in one house in the middle of the night, the film asks that you shut out all distractions and watch only at night. You're expected to lean into the screen to try and make sense of the dark and often murky images. There's a constant feeling that something bad is happening and while jump scares are minimal, there are a few moments where a quick burst of noise is jolting. More often we get familiar household objects or faces, only they're slightly distorted or found in unexpected places.

At 100 minutes, this is a mighty ask for the viewer and I would expect opinions to be on the extreme ends, depending on if the style grabs you. There are moments where I was able to lock into what was being attempted, but the lack of drama and dramatic build left a giant hole in the experience. I believe the technique will eventually produce a better result or will influence a more mainstream project, and I'm curious to explore this trend.


Dead Slow Ahead (2015)
★ ½
I can't find a single article supporting why this is labeled a Horror movie. It's like the observational documentary Leviathan (2012), and that has more startling and grotesque imagery than this, which is largely about the lulling effect of machinery in repetition while staring at empty corridors and blueprints.

[Torgo]

Dead Slow Ahead (2015)
★ ½
(...) the lulling effect of machinery in repetition while staring at empty corridors and blueprints.

But .. isn't that the true horror?, as opposed to fantasy creatures such as vampires and zombies, which result in mere thrilling entertainment? Aren't films like Earthlings, Come And See or Shoah the ultimate horror films, for their horror is real?

Spoiler

For Christ's sake no, and I hate inclusions like that

[outdoorcats]

What a disgrace that such a masterwork has lost its slot in the Sight & Sound top 100.

I mean, to be fair, outside of Tarantino, how many people would pick this as one of their top 10 films of all time? (Top 10 American westerns, maybe) It's great, but there's too many masterpieces out there to be bothered by its exclusion IMO.

White Noise ('22 - Baumbach)
...

I don't know that the sudden shift in tone(s) necessarily works better in the novel; it's a very experimental and unusually-structured book, extremely episodic (most chapters are 1-2 pages long and feel like self-contained short stories). If anything I was just impressed that it was adapted as faithfully as it was, albeit with some of the rougher edges smoothed over.

[1SO]

Dead Slow Ahead (2015)
★ ½
(...) the lulling effect of machinery in repetition while staring at empty corridors and blueprints.

But .. isn't that the true horror?, as opposed to fantasy creatures such as vampires and zombies, which result in mere thrilling entertainment? Aren't films like Earthlings, Come And See or Shoah the ultimate horror films, for their horror is real?

Spoiler

For Christ's sake no, and I hate inclusions like that

Until I read the Spoiler I thought I was going to have to explain my self, which would've been more pretentious than calling DSA a horror film.

[blocho]

Where else are you gonna find a sidekick as cool as Stumpy? What a disgrace that such a masterwork has lost its slot in the Sight & Sound top 100.

While I don't really care about this list, you are 100% right about Stumpy. I am down to party with him any day.

[Torgo]

I was as surprised as you all how much I loved Good Luck to You, Leo Grande, and I think the reason must be: Emma Thompson.

[Good_Will_Harding]

BARDO, False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths

Woof.

OK, first and foremost let me just say that I did get to see this on the big screen, and was glad I made the effort. Like I said with White Noise, I'll take any opportunity to see a Netflix original production in theaters while I still can, and this one always has something interesting going on with the visuals, whether it's the framing, shot composition, camera movement, etc. However, this does follow the trend of having a washed out color palette, though it's hardly the worst example of this.

Cinematography aside, this completely fell flat for me, on the whole. Alejandro González Iñárritu has always been a hit or miss director for me, and this film perfectly exemplifies both his strengths and shortcomings in equal measure. The actors all do very well, there's a handful of interesting ideas and touching moments, and I've already praised the visuals, but nearly everything positive in this film is completely undercut by just how thuddingly ponderous and unsubtle the proceedings are. There's heaps of social satire and commentary on the entertainment industry, but it's of the most obvious, self-amused variety - and at nearly three hours of runtime, this puppy really wears out its welcome after a while. Also, between this and Blonde, I need to know what in the fuck is going on with Netflix and this sudden fixation on talking dead fetuses/babies?

Anyhow, I think Peter Griffin's thoughts on The Godfather sum up my views here:

[Torgo]

First, thanks for giving us that great clip. My aversion for Family Guy is known anywhere, but that's just a fantastic scene, I'll give them that.

Regarding Bardo .. it's not doing strong with the critics; 50ish scores at both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. Maybe some of the weakest or polarizing response on Innaritu in a decade, so a review like yours was looming ahead.

[blocho]

That Family Guy clip has haunted me for years. Since I'm easily the most movie-obsessed person in my group of college friends, one of them started using the "would you says it insists on itself" line anytime I talked about a movie. And then everyone picked it up. They still do it to this day, 15 years later.

[Torgo]

My condolences, must be tough what you're going through. 15. years. of your. life.

[prodigalgodson]

First, thanks for giving us that great clip. My aversion for Family Guy is known anywhere, but that's just a fantastic scene, I'll give them that.

+1

[OldAle1]

White Noise ('22 - Baumbach)

The latest from Noah Baumbach, which I wasn't exactly chomping at the bit to see, but I was always going to check it out anyway, since I typically like his works and in particular really liked his most recent effort, Marriage Story. Plus, I'll always take the chance to see a Netflix original production on the big screen, so long as they still offer them that way. And I was actually quite pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this. It's certainly this director's most ambitious film to date on just about every front - visually, in terms of the scope and scale of the production, and regarding the many genres this tries to splice into a single story (dark comedy, apocalyptic thriller, domestic drama, etc) - to the point that even if I didn't know beforehand that this was adapted from a novel (Don DeLillo's cult classic of the same name), I would've suspected it after a certain point. However, there's still plenty of Baumbach's familiar deadpan humor and familial dysfunction baked into the proceedings as well, which is what I suspect drew him to this project the most. This has a pretty strong first two thirds, but does somewhat lose its way in the final act, by making a hard pivot that I'm sure worked better on the page. However, on the whole I still thoroughly enjoyed this, and it really stands out as a very unique entry into Baumbach's filmography.

I saw this myself yesterday. Kind of amazed that it showed up here (well, here being an hour away). Happy to see a few other people at the screening - and there were very few cars in the parking lot for the 15-screen multiplex in general. There IS an audience for stuff other than superheroes, Hollywood. Really, there is. But I guess us middle-aged people aren't as easy to figure out, and we don't go buy White Noise action figures or video games. Fuck.

Anyway, yeah, there's an audience, but I don't think even in the best of times it would be huge for this film, which on one viewing strikes me as sort of a melange of 4 parts 70s conspiracy thriller, 2 parts David Lynch (mostly in the last act), and 1 part Steven Spielberg (mostly in the family dynamics and dialogue). Given it's 80s provenance - the novel was published then and the film is set in 1984 - this isn't all that surprising I suppose. But it does make for an odd experience overall, starting with the highly artificial and often stilted-seeming dialogue/acting. Maybe that's more typical of Baumbach's films than I'm remembering? In any case it was kind of offputting for much of the film - Adam Driver in particular just doesn't feel like a real person to me at all here, I always feel like I'm just watching him acting. Greta Gerwig comes off a little better, I think the particular kind of self-consciousness on display plays more to her strengths. But I got more used to the fakery as the film went on, and, not knowing the source or having read anything about it, I found the particular twists and moves in the story fairly entertaining. I suppose if one had to cast it as a single genre "black comedy" might be the best fit, though it wasn't "funny" really - slightly amusing at times, but more amusing to think about afterwards. I liked the look of the picture a lot though, again, it took some getting used to, and I think the artificiality in that area (lots of primary colors, very much an 80s gloss to everything though not as neon-heavy as a genre film from that time would have been) helped win me over to the fakery of the acting and situations eventually. I particularly love the dining scene just before the Toxic Event, where all of the veggies are an extremely precise and uniform color - orange carrots, deep green beans, bright yellow corn - that probably corresponds exactly to the colors on the cans they (presumably) came out of.

There is of course a lot here, content-wise - the alignment of Hitler, Elvis, car crashes in our cultural history, the notions of fakeness that keep coming up (Driver's character is a Hitler-studies prof who doesn't speak German; his family with Gerwig has a fake quality to it, and of course the supermarket, the canned goods, the processed everything, the notion that we're getting further away from what was once reality all the time - Ronald Reagan, that era's Trump). But I think even those who don't want to dive too much into what it all means may find it enjoyable enough just for it's ambition at trying to deal with all this detritus of 20th-century consumerist-authoritarian history. Or maybe not. In any case I was just pleased to see something that had the audacity to assume the audience weren't all total idiots, and might want to use their brains to do some of the work themselves. That's harder and harder to find at the multiplex these days here in cheeseland.

Anyway I'm glad I made the effort to go see it - even though the audience wasn't that expressive, this still felt like a film where seeing it in a cinema had a particular effect on me that wouldn't be duplicated at home alone. And now I want to read the book (which I own, along with several others from the author, all sitting, gathering dust, for 25+ years, sigh).

[Good_Will_Harding]

Ahh, well I'm glad you were able to see it theatrically and enjoyed it. I haven't read the book yet either, though I don't even own a copy myself, but it's definitely been on my radar for a while, even since before the film came out. Now might be as good a time as any to finally cross it off the list.

[OldAle1]

Ahh, well I'm glad you were able to see it theatrically and enjoyed it. I haven't read the book yet either, though I don't even own a copy myself, but it's definitely been on my radar for a while, even since before the film came out. Now might be as good a time as any to finally cross it off the list.

I'm not sure why I never read it, or anything else by the author; my copy is a trade pb, I think the first printing of that edition, from 1986 - I've also had Libra for quite a few years and Underworld in a first HC edition that I bought new, back when I was kind of a serious book collector. That was also around the time I read Toni Morrison's first 5 novels and loved them all, and DeLillo is in the same generation and I remember him being talked up in some similar ways (though they are clearly very different writers). So I think I intended to read him and wasn't just buying the books for the hell of it, but never did. Maybe now.

The more I think about the film the more I like it, that's a good sign. If it were playing closer I might see it again - it's definitely not my favorite for the year, not even top 3-4, but it does feel like it might give more on a second viewing than some of the films I liked more initially.

[outdoorcats]

Glad to see more love for White Noise, the only film I've ever seen that kept a packed theater in their seats through the whole end credits!

Spoiler

[blocho]

I have read White Noise and strongly disliked it.

That being said, plenty of people love it, so tastes obviously differ.

[Good_Will_Harding]

James Cameron looking at the state of American blockbusters for the past dozen years...

Ava2r

Alright, that was certainly a lot of movie to take in, but my initial reaction is that it's a pretty entertaining time overall. Nobody has ever accused James Cameron of being the strongest dramatist in the world, but he does have the fundamentals of crafting a satisfying sci-fi/action structure down, and having gotten the initial setup from the first film out of the way, this much belated sequel definitely plays to a lot of his strengths. And when you get right down to the nuts and bolts of modern action filmmaking from the digital age of the last thirty-plus years, there probably isn't anyone out there who does it better. Sure, there's no shortage of action spectaculars or genre tentpoles these days, but the way Cameron executes it all is just more... I don't know, elegant and formal than your average Disney/Marvel/Star Wars joint of the last decade. Plus, the creation of the underworld world here, in addition to everything previously established from the first film, is nothing short of jawdropping. Now to wait another thirteen years for the inevitable followup.

And for any other film score buffs out there who want to hear James Horner briefly rise from the grave, there's a few moments in the soundtrack that suggest an alternate reality where he lived to write the music for this puppy, particularly the first seventy seconds here:

[Good_Will_Harding]

Going from one single word title that starts with the letter 'A' to another, both on complete opposite ends of the spectrum in every conceivable way - budget, subject matter, tone, etc.



Aftersun

Don't want to talk this one up too much, since it's so small scaled and intimate, but this completely blew me away - albeit not all at once though, since it definitely takes its time in revealing its true intentions and risks coming across as too slight for much of its runtime, but eventually it gets to where it's going and the emotional wallop this packs is a real doozy. Major credit goes to its lead acting duo portraying the father/daughter at the center (Paul Mescal and Frankie Corio, neither of whom I believe I've seen in anything before this) but this also remains one of the most fully realized debut features I've seen in quite some time. It's as much of a stunning intellectual exercise, as it is deeply personal and specific. I'll definitely see this one again and in theaters if I'm able, in order to fully understand the whole experience, but even after just one viewing, I found a great deal to appreciate about this.