Last Movie Seen

[kongs_speech]

Saint Omer. Do I respect it? Absolutely! Did I enjoy it, feel moved or take much away from it? Sadly, no. By far my favorite component of the film was the framing of the shots. The DP really has a knack for properly framing faces. The courtroom drama, which is quite restrained, didn't do anything for me. By the time the film finally ended, I had grown impatient. I do understand and appreciate why others have responded strongly to it, but I have to chalk this one up as just not being my jam.

[Gordon_Gekko]

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.

+1
Really great film. Haven't seen a silenced and touched audience like today in a cinema for a while.

[St. Gloede]

Get ready for the 1930s arthouse/experimental power-pairing I never knew existed nor knew that I wanted:

The great Charles Dekeukeleire in the director's chair, known amongst other things for the legendary shorts Combat de boxe (1927) and Impatience (1928) - as well as one of my favourite silent features, Histoire de détective (1929) and none other than:



The power-pairing of Dekeukeleire and Painlevé makes this a must-see in itself, but more so, this has to be one of the big unsung arthouse classics of the 30s, a decade with quite few to choose from so always exciting to find one.

It was wonderful to see Dekeukeleire actually take his rather unique and "extreme" visual style into the sound era without really making any compromises - well, with the exception of some audio components, as it is often clear audio is not exactly natural - though this is not a big negative in a film as dreamlike-lyrical as this.

The pastoral setting, couples with unique shots of windmills, either placing them in the centers, or cropping most in favor of the sails, set the mood, as faces are shot, sometimes partially cropped, and the peace may just be broken my an enigmatic tramp who may just be of hell itself.

My one dislike was adding the full synopsis, spoilers and all, to the beginning of a film - not sure if this was a decision made at the time to explain the film to audiences who may have found it difficult to follow, or added since for similar reasons - not knowing the story may have made it feel more "natural" in terms of progression, but the film still fires on all cylinders.

Yes, it can come across as a little rough around the edges, but it brushes this away by just having fun with itself, complete with a large set of comical setups and re-enactments as the villagers spin yarns and tweak the truth about this "magical invader". Frequently extreme in its compositions, and more evocative than narrative, especially in its emotional climax, co-driven by the marvelous effects created by Jean Painlevé.

Painlevé's contribution is of immense visual, poetic and cinematic value, working on-top off and overtaking the images as the climax unfolds and everything ruptures. It is well worth waiting for and shows off some of his most beautiful work. The following screens are taken from another forum I visit where I can across the recommendation:













Oh, and it is available for free on vimeo (no subs, but they exist):

https://vimeo.com/214181082

I can share the synched subtitles if anyone need them.

[pitchorneirda]

I can share the synched subtitles if anyone need them.

Please do

[St. Gloede]

I can share the synched subtitles if anyone need them.

Please do

Here you are: https://www.transfernow.net/dl/20221220eDeuNoRH

[cinewest]

I have read White Noise and strongly disliked it.

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

I remember liking it back when (early 80's) and going on a brief DeLillo binge thereafter. Can't remember much about it at the moment (aside from it being a kind of social satire), but maybe the movie will refresh my memory.

[hurluberlu]

Avatar: The Way of Water
All James Cameron's cinema synthetized in a 3 hours epic: grandiose, fun, wonderful...
8+ [IMAX 3D]

[Good_Will_Harding]

Babylon

The latest in Damien Chazelle's oeuvre. While I'll share my initial thoughts here, this is definitely something that'd be worth discussing more in depth once more users have had a chance to see it, particularly one Chazelle / La La Land superfan in our midst. In any case, I will say that I greatly admired the ambition and scale of this whole production, as well as a handful of supporting players who I enjoyed quite a bit and would've liked to have seen more of, like Jovan Adepo's jazz trumpeter, Li Jun Li as a fellow actress who interacts with the leads on a number of occasions, and Olivia Hamilton (Chazelle's real-life wife) as an overzealous director who struggles with the transition from silent films to talkies - and then there's Tobey Maguire in an extended cameo, which was probably the best sequence in the film. All very memorable performances that I would've loved to see more from.

Expanded thoughts - enter if ye dare

But overall, I really did not like this much at all.

This one lost me pretty early on, with gags about elephant shit and women's urine occurring within just the first five minutes of its three-plus hour long runtime. And the self-conscious attempts at debauchery don't stop there, making the vomit heavy midsection from Triangle of Sandess seem like mere child's play in comparison. If I didn't know this was directed by Damien Chazelle, I would've assumed that whoever directed this hated old Hollywood films, was embarrassed to be making a film about them at all, and wanted to bring them down a few notches.

And the reason I highlighted certain supporting players before is because the nominal leads of this are pretty uninteresting. Brad Pitt fares the best and has plenty of charisma to spare, but newcomer Diego Calva falls pretty flat. It's not so much the performance, but rather the way the character is written, as his role in the story is extremely passive and he kind of just falls into one situation to another without much in the way of conflict. I had a very hard time believing his transition from starry-eyed hired grunt on set to cool, calculating studio executive.

And then there's Margot Robbie, and here comes my searing hot take for the century... what is the big deal with her? Seriously people, what are we doing here? Ever since her breakout in The Wolf of Wall Street, she's been getting showered with plaudits from film fans and awards bodies alike and I just cannot understand the hype. She has talent to be sure, but is far from one of the best currently working actresses, let alone in the under-forty category. My honest feeling here is that her talents are massively overstated because people just find her to be extremely attractive (and even on that front I don't find her to be all that extraordinary either ), and the character she plays in this (crass, lewd, hyper-confident and sexually frisky ingénue) she can pretty much do in her sleep by now.

So yeah, not a fan of this. As far as old Hollywood revivals starring Brad Pitt and Margot Robbie, I greatly preferred Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood. I won't act like that one is anymore mature or concerned with accurately portraying its chosen time period. But it was far less obnoxious and felt as if it had more reverence for the subject matter. Heck, I'd even say The Artist was a more thoughtful and interesting portrayal of the transition from silent pictures to sound than this was. I could maybe see myself getting more out of this on future viewings, since I suppose the extremely crude nature caught me off guard, but there were more issues I had than just the scatological stuff.

[OldAle1]

OK...

Chazelle Satyricon (2022)

Just scattered thoughts at the moment - have to think about this more, and hopefully see it again. My guess is it's not going to last long on the big screen so I'll have to act quickly. But - surprising myself because I kind of had a bad feeling going in - I loved it overall. It was certainly the most *fun* I've had in a new movie since EEAAO back in the spring, and while it is no question a big mess with plenty of flaws, it's a big mess in a way that makes me not care so much. I kept feeling, starting around the halfway mark, much the way I've felt during several Spike Lee films - it's simultaneously too long and too short, too many things packed into one package but also too much stretching of some elements that really don't need to be emphasized so much. It's about the excesses of Hollywood and the end of an era yes, but it's also about Hollywood's aggressive disdain for "art", and about how an artform that early on seemed to promise more freedom and choices for marginalized people (anybody who wasn't a straight white man) became in a very short period of time no more progressive or open than anything else in society. It doesn't manage to integrate all of this in a particularly cohesive manner, but I felt at every moment like it was bursting at the seems, trying to say a whole lot of stuff at once and for me that is typically a positive thing - at least if it's the product of a filmmaker who really does have some ideas and some skill, and obviously I feel that way about Chazelle.

I don't disagree with GWH that the beginning endless party-orgy and all the scatological stuff was overdone and perhaps unnecessarily gross, but I guess I feel like one of the points of the film (not terribly well rendered unfortunately) might be how the past is always remembered for the good parts more than the bad, through rose-colored glasses. Jean Smart's amusing critic character at one point mentions that she knew Proust, and that and the sort of coda of the film set in 1952 I think are signs that Chazelle has a greater design than simply saying "wow, wasn't old 1920s Hollywood just fucking nuts". And the last sequence shows a young filmmaker even more pessimistic about the future of the art form - in fact I'd have to say that this film reads in many respects like him throwing everything he can into one big monstrosity because he doesn't believe it will be possible for a guy like him to make the movies he wants (at least, for cinema viewing) in the very near future. This is a last-chance film, an epitaph made by a filmmaker still young but realizing that his brand of the art form no longer holds any value to most people. And as such, I have to salute everything that went into it - I'm glad that Chazelle seems to be keeping the same crew through several of his films now, the professional relationships show in the editing, photography, sets and costumes and especially the music, another terrific piece of work by his regular collaborator Justin Hurwitz. I liked the performances overall - I do get GWH's criticism of Robbie I guess; I'll just say I don't really know what to make of her myself, she's not a favorite but I think she's fine in this role - but just fine, not spectacular. As is Calva in a fairly bland role. Pitt is pretty terrific though, and the secondary roles are generally excellently done. Early on it sounded like the film was going to hew a bit closer to some of the real Hollywood scandals and personages; I'm glad it didn't, and none of the characters are written to really be close analogs of real people, with the arguable exceptions of Olivia Hamilton and Li Jun Li - simply because Dorothy Arzner and Anna May Wong were respectively the only significant female director and female Asian-American star of the period in question.

In the end this feels, like I said in the first paragraph, like too much/little - maybe a tighter film of 2 1/2 hours with some little subplots and characters cut and some lengthy scenes (particularly the first) shortened, or an even more expansive 4-hour work that could have pulled all the various threads and characters together better and made a stronger argument for why we, or why they at least, should mourn the end of that era and the end of cinema (or at least theatrical exhibition). In any case for me this delivered enough that I'm not going to be too harsh on the areas that were problematic - at least not yet. I have the feeling most here will be much less charitable or positive.

[Good_Will_Harding]

I see not even a "once in a generation" snowstorm (as it's been dubbed by the media - though it feels like we get a once in a generation climate event every other year now) could keep you away for too long I'm glad you managed to get more out of it than I did. You make some very good points about it being somewhat self-reflective of Chazelle's affinity for the era and how it's quickly becoming less of a point of interest for general audiences these days, and I too am curious to see how it does financially. Post-COVID, just about any serious dramas aimed at adults that are released during the fall-winter awards season are doomed to either failing outright or getting banished to video on demand/streaming before they have a chance to reach a wider audience. I think this could do at least moderately well, considering the big names in the cast and the seemingly more upbeat tone, at least compared to the likes of She Said or Women Talking (the latter of which has yet to receive a wide release, though I wouldn't bet on it being a smashing success). In any case, this one does give you quite a bit to chew on, probably too much as you say, but there's definitely something there underneath all the elephant dung and projectile vomiting. I probably just need to let it stew for a bit before I go back for round two, though again the chances of it lasting very long theatrically are uncertain for the time being.

[OldAle1]

We were lucky here to not get nearly as much snow as originally projected - maybe 3-5", maybe even less. Mostly the extreme cold and wind is the problem - it's -4 right now which I think might have been the high and winds have been strong all day. But my closest theater is less than a 5 minute drive, and I have underground heated parking, so no biggie. Only two other people at the screening, but then I did go to the 10:45 AM showing, and there were only about 5 other cars in the parking lot, so the audience for Avatar, which was the only other film with a first showing before 11, wasn't that big either at that hour. Lots of cars when I left though which makes me happy even if most of them are there for Cameron or kiddie movies; I've worried about this theater going out of business since I moved here and I'm still rather amazed that it survived COVID.

Women Talking and The Whale are the two major potential Oscar competitors that haven't opened yet I guess; I've missed a few others like Banshees but not being as obsessive as I used to be about that stuff I guess I'll just be ok with making due with video. Still a couple of nominees from the last 2 years that I haven't bothered with yet.

I think what I dig most about Chazelle in general is a verve and dynamism of a particular sort that I just don't feel like I see in very many other directors - certainly it's most evident in LLL and Whiplash but it's here too - for one thing despite it's runtime this never felt boring (though the first scene was just about starting to get there), and the scene-to-scene/shot-to-shot editing was as excellent as usual in his films. It's really the structure of the film as a whole that is problematic I guess though as I said, I just enjoyed it enough regardless of this that I didn't fault it too much. Probably helps that I tend to have fewer problems with long films than most people.

[St. Gloede]

I just rewatched News From Home, I somehow did not connect to it at all the first time I saw it (back in 2012), this time it became an instant favourite and I couldn't believe how Akerman managed to craft two so unique and powerful films back to back - she was in her 20s, and essentially showcasing two completely different ways of making films. This one shot ahead of Dielman for me - the contrast between her mother's letters and the complete lack of human connections shot in NY is striking. The visuals reveal nothing of her life (or maybe they reveal all) as her mother pleads with her to write more often, asks about work and friends and gives mostly the same phrases letter after letter, with the generally unremarkable notes on family and friends.

I love the final long take, leaving NY, likely indicating that she is going home - but leaving the city almost a mystery - or rather a city that exists in itself rather than in relation to her life there. We see shots from cars, of street corners, people on the subway, but just nothing that directly attaches us to her. We don't even see her home, any belongings, her ... Meanwhile the noises often overpower the letters, with parts swallowed or not shared, while other times we hear next to nothing. It is heartbreaking in some ways, alienating in others, and consistently intriguing and stimulating in form and "narrative".

I'll definitely be revisiting Je tu il elle and The Meetings of Anna soon, especially the former as it was another Akerman I just didn't connect to at the time. (2010)

[Good_Will_Harding]

Ale: Yeah, we didn't get the worst of the extreme weather here in northeastern PA either. And there were certainly a number of individual sequences in Babylon that played very well to Chazelle's strengths in terms of quick editing and building momentum (the initial 'shooting with sound' scene with Robbie was expertly crafted and the mounting frustration from everyone on set was very palpable and pretty funny as well). And while it might not seem like it, Banshees makes for a pretty memorable theatrical trip, if there's a good audience that's in tune with its sense of humor (as well as the picturesque Irish vistas sprinkled throughout). If that gets rereleased once Oscar nom's come out, I'd probably go for round two.

Gleode: Glad you went back to News from Home! My favorite from Akerman, and Je tu il elle is a close second.

[blocho]

Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery

Even more clearly indebted to The Last of Sheila than its predecessor, this predictably feels less fresh than Knives Out. It also has a notable comedy deficit for a movie that's 140 minutes. About two-thirds of the laughs come from one character, and her laughs are a bit rote (she's an idiot). The whodunnit itself is clever despite the presence of one massive plot hole. Overall, I still enjoyed the movie, including some fun cameos and light skewering of the rich and famous.

[Torgo]

I was another one to take the chance and onion out right before Christmas.

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.

Like in Don't Look Up, the tech mogul parody was the highlight of the film. Pleasing to have Edward Norton in such a big role again, we didn't get to see him often during the last decade.
Truly inbreathiating!


blocho, what's the plot hole you couldn't look away from? (Spoiler tags included, of course)

[blocho]

I was another one to take the chance and onion out right before Christmas.

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.

Like in Don't Look Up, the tech mogul parody was the highlight of the film. Pleasing to have Edward Norton in such a big role again, we didn't get to see him often during the last decade.
Truly inbreathiating!


blocho, what's the plot hole you couldn't look away from? (Spoiler tags included, of course)

Oh, it's just that ...

Spoiler

Ed Norton's character would have immediately recognized that Janelle Monae was not in fact his former partner, yet he didn't do anything about it until a lot of other things happened. I suppose that could be explained by the fact that he's an "idiot," except it's not in keeping with how he reacts to every other time he is threatened. I suppose, in the end, that's not a huge plot hole. Just a minor one. And I'm not the type to quibble over these things anyway, given that the rest of the complicated story is well constructed.

[kongs_speech]

We were lucky here to not get nearly as much snow as originally projected - maybe 3-5", maybe even less. Mostly the extreme cold and wind is the problem - it's -4 right now which I think might have been the high and winds have been strong all day. But my closest theater is less than a 5 minute drive, and I have underground heated parking, so no biggie. Only two other people at the screening, but then I did go to the 10:45 AM showing, and there were only about 5 other cars in the parking lot, so the audience for Avatar, which was the only other film with a first showing before 11, wasn't that big either at that hour. Lots of cars when I left though which makes me happy even if most of them are there for Cameron or kiddie movies; I've worried about this theater going out of business since I moved here and I'm still rather amazed that it survived COVID.

Women Talking and The Whale are the two major potential Oscar competitors that haven't opened yet I guess; I've missed a few others like Banshees but not being as obsessive as I used to be about that stuff I guess I'll just be ok with making due with video. Still a couple of nominees from the last 2 years that I haven't bothered with yet.

I think what I dig most about Chazelle in general is a verve and dynamism of a particular sort that I just don't feel like I see in very many other directors - certainly it's most evident in LLL and Whiplash but it's here too - for one thing despite it's runtime this never felt boring (though the first scene was just about starting to get there), and the scene-to-scene/shot-to-shot editing was as excellent as usual in his films. It's really the structure of the film as a whole that is problematic I guess though as I said, I just enjoyed it enough regardless of this that I didn't fault it too much. Probably helps that I tend to have fewer problems with long films than most people.

I haven't had a chance to go see Babylon yet, but I'm rewatching your favorite movie right now. Only saw La La Land once when it was new.

[Torgo]

I went to see Three Thousand Years of Longing yesterday (...)

it's a pretty good film - in fact for the first half to two-thirds, I thought it had the potential to be a great one. (...) I think the last was a bit wonky and muddled - (...) But the Djinn's tales are marvelous, the use of color and production design are excellent, and most of all, given that this is basically a 2-person film, the two stars are just wonderful together.

A late 100% agree with OldAle!


It's as tragic how much it bombed at the Box Office as it is not surprising.

(...) it didn't feel like enough time was spent on that portion of the film to make as big of an impact as was intended. If anything, it comes across a more of an extended epilogue rather than the emotional climax of the story.

Well said.


(Just so you guys know - I DO read what you write about films, and I MAY and WILL use it against you!)

[kongs_speech]

I thought Three Thousand Years of Longing was exquisitely made but added up to surprisingly little substance. I didn't like the flashback structure much either.

[Torgo]

It's a bit like Thor 4: a bright fantasy pic with lots of CGI & colors where in the end, everything is about love; only that it doesn't suck ass.

[St. Gloede]

Been binging Akerman (with a detour of 3 Duras rewatches) the last few days and Almayer's Folly is a new favourite for me.

While Golden Eighties or Tomorrow We Move are probably the Akerman's for non-Akerman fans, this feels like the Akerman for the minimalist/arthouse viewers who never connected with her more sparse look, as ... just wow, this film is so visually lush:






Opening in stark neon lights, we follow the back of an ominous man into a rather kitsch sequence set in Malaysia featuring a lip-synch bar performance with backup dancers and an awkward/quirky murder reminiscent of Tsai-like surreal madness, we instantly know this won't be your standard Akerman film. It does leave surrealism somewhat behind after this sequence, as we circle back in time, but we are still thrown into a psychologically restless (and visually stunning) journey into displaced identities and madness.

Oh, did I mention this is a Joseph Conrad adaptation? (Not read his works myself, but can certainly see comparisons to Apocalypse Now! here)

Akerman's common motifs of alleys, streets and houses are replaced with shots of vast jungles and an oppressive hut where a slowly degrading white man, Almayer lives with the Malaysian wife he married just for the rights to her family's gold mines (nothing can be found) and the daughter he says is his world.

Both husband and wife drift into variations of madness, with Almayer becoming a desperate, distraught and pitiable figure, clinging to dreams of Europe and turning his daughter white. The shots of him in his hair or walking as if almost collapsing around his terrain we see a rather tragic existence, even with servants around. He is isolated, alone, ill and in a rather futile state. My mind also wanders to certain Herzog protagonists here, though Almayer's has even less energy or motivations, his dreams almost eaten up by the time we meet him as a young-ish man, and decaying throughout the runtime.

In contrast, we have our second protagonist, the other Almayer, his daughter Nina, sent to a boarding school only to return as an adult. A stoic, broken, yet still powerful figure - especially in contrast to her father's lack of power - and the clashes and contrast between them are simply striking and evocative.

This is a film that will likely speak to fans of films from around the same time by other minimalists, such as Jauja by Alonso and Zama by Martel, and as such it is clearly a less unique" work by Akerman's standards (who's films are sometimes without proper comparison points). It is interesting to see Akerman "simply" adapt a work, and create something visually stunning and emotionally haunting, and just flex her style and flourish muscles a little, and it is a really exciting film in contrast with her previous works.

Note: This was Akerman's very last feature film - and her first since the charming, quicky and frankly very accessible comedy Tomorrow We Move from 2002. I'm still to see her last film, No Home Movie, which is also one of her most acclaimed, really looking forward to it.

[hurluberlu]

Been binging Akerman (with a detour of 3 Duras rewatches) the last few days and Almayer's Folly is a new favourite for me.

Get ready for Pacifiction then.

[St. Gloede]

Been binging Akerman (with a detour of 3 Duras rewatches) the last few days and Almayer's Folly is a new favourite for me.

Get ready for Pacifiction then.

Happy to hear that, yet to synch with Serra, but over the last several years my tastes have clearly changed in terms of minimalism, and rewatching films by Bresson, Duras, Ozu and Akerman I did not connect to before had completely flipped experiences this time around, so very happy to give Serra another shot.

[hurluberlu]

Been binging Akerman (with a detour of 3 Duras rewatches) the last few days and Almayer's Folly is a new favourite for me.

Get ready for Pacifiction then.

Happy to hear that, yet to synch with Serra, but over the last several years my tastes have clearly changed in terms of minimalism, and rewatching films by Bresson, Duras, Ozu and Akerman I did not connect to before had completely flipped experiences this time around, so very happy to give Serra another shot.

I had not seen anything from Serra before - The Death of Louis XIV has been on my watchlist for a while. But whatever your experience was, I would say forget it is Serra, think Akerman, Lynch, Denis...

[St. Gloede]

Very tempting sales pitch indeed, will make it a top priority (it was not on my list of must-sees or should-sees from 2022 so thank you for this one!).

[kongs_speech]

I guess I'm effectively kicking everyone's beloved puppy by admitting this, but I really didn't care for Aftersun much at all. It's a fine enough concept for a film, but I feel that it lacks depth and proper development. I found the characters underwritten and the lead actress somewhat annoying. I don't understand the massive love for Paul Mescal, either. He was alright. On paper, this is a film that really should have resonated with me, but I wasn't moved for a single moment. The musical moment near the end nearly reeled me in, but then the film ruined that too by strangely distorting the iconic song. I don't know. Obviously this is a film that people have strong positive feelings about, and I respect that. For me, however, it's all a big shrug. It ranks alongside Bones and All as one of my biggest disappointments in 2022 cinema. I would be actively annoyed if something so middling ends up wasting a Best Picture slot.

[Torgo]

Do you have a Letterboxd where you keep the reviews flowing? Or do these just happen on-and-off for a few of our threads?
Are there any plans to resume the weekly ratings-drop in our very thinly populated weekly thread?

[kongs_speech]

Do you have a Letterboxd where you keep the reviews flowing? Or do these just happen on-and-off for a few of our threads?
Are there any plans to resume the weekly ratings-drop in our very thinly populated weekly thread?

I'm active on there, yeah.

Hmmm, I guess I could do that. Hadn't really considered participating since I let Onderhond take it over a year ago or whenever that was (what is time anymore?), but there isn't any real reason why I couldn't contribute.

[Lakigigar]

I saw Modern Times for the first time. I gave it 8/10 and here's my review (with spoilers): https://letterboxd.com/lakigigar/film/modern-times/

It was my third Chaplin film after The Kid and The Great Dictator, and probably my favourite Chaplin film so far. The two 'biggest' Chaplin films left to see are City Lights and The Gold Rush now, which would put me to 5. Although maybe his more modern films would also be worth a watch. And there is probably plenty of discover in the silent era too. But i'll (for now) keep it to City Lights and The Gold Rush given they count as 1 check on a combined 63 lists (and probably for a reason).

Modern Times is also the second oldest film to get an 8+ (after M) and maybe the first silent film if you consider it a silent? Of course, that could maybe change as I watch more.

[pitchorneirda]

I guess I'm effectively kicking everyone's beloved puppy by admitting this, but I really didn't care for Aftersun much at all. It's a fine enough concept for a film, but I feel that it lacks depth and proper development. I found the characters underwritten and the lead actress somewhat annoying. I don't understand the massive love for Paul Mescal, either. He was alright. On paper, this is a film that really should have resonated with me, but I wasn't moved for a single moment. The musical moment near the end nearly reeled me in, but then the film ruined that too by strangely distorting the iconic song. I don't know. Obviously this is a film that people have strong positive feelings about, and I respect that. For me, however, it's all a big shrug. It ranks alongside Bones and All as one of my biggest disappointments in 2022 cinema. I would be actively annoyed if something so middling ends up wasting a Best Picture slot.

Phew, I thought I was the only one. The reviews are so overwhelmingly positive that I thought I had missed something and was planning to rewatch it soon. What social pressure can do...

[kongs_speech]

I guess I'm effectively kicking everyone's beloved puppy by admitting this, but I really didn't care for Aftersun much at all. It's a fine enough concept for a film, but I feel that it lacks depth and proper development. I found the characters underwritten and the lead actress somewhat annoying. I don't understand the massive love for Paul Mescal, either. He was alright. On paper, this is a film that really should have resonated with me, but I wasn't moved for a single moment. The musical moment near the end nearly reeled me in, but then the film ruined that too by strangely distorting the iconic song. I don't know. Obviously this is a film that people have strong positive feelings about, and I respect that. For me, however, it's all a big shrug. It ranks alongside Bones and All as one of my biggest disappointments in 2022 cinema. I would be actively annoyed if something so middling ends up wasting a Best Picture slot.

Phew, I thought I was the only one. The reviews are so overwhelmingly positive that I thought I had missed something and was planning to rewatch it soon. What social pressure can do...

Other people have told me they weren't really feeling it either. At least we're not completely alone.

[hurluberlu]

I guess I'm effectively kicking everyone's beloved puppy by admitting this, but I really didn't care for Aftersun much at all. It's a fine enough concept for a film, but I feel that it lacks depth and proper development. I found the characters underwritten and the lead actress somewhat annoying. I don't understand the massive love for Paul Mescal, either. He was alright. On paper, this is a film that really should have resonated with me, but I wasn't moved for a single moment. The musical moment near the end nearly reeled me in, but then the film ruined that too by strangely distorting the iconic song. I don't know. Obviously this is a film that people have strong positive feelings about, and I respect that. For me, however, it's all a big shrug. It ranks alongside Bones and All as one of my biggest disappointments in 2022 cinema. I would be actively annoyed if something so middling ends up wasting a Best Picture slot.

Phew, I thought I was the only one. The reviews are so overwhelmingly positive that I thought I had missed something and was planning to rewatch it soon. What social pressure can do...

Other people have told me they weren't really feeling it either. At least we're not completely alone.

It’s an impressive directing debut but I didn’t find it really engaging.
7

[Pretentious Hipster]

I know no one will believe me, but this legit one of the greatest films I've seen in a very long time. Outsider art at its best, but at the same time it is "legit good" because of its subversion of tropes, absurdist parodic humour, and some fantastic action sequences despite the poor animation.

[Good_Will_Harding]

Let the Brendanissance begin, baby.

The Whale

Big exhale after this was over.

This one finds Darren Aronofsky in rare sympathetic mode, similar to The Wrestler, albeit while still dabbling with the same funereal tone of something like mother! It's a tricky balance to pull off, but I think this gets there, partly due to the inherent melodrama of the subject matter, but largely because of the cast, of course headed by Brendan Fraser turning in a performance that, while I've enjoyed some of his previous roles, I simply did not think he had in him. It's easy to be cynical about awards friendly narratives about actor comebacks and physical transformations (though the degree to which the obesity of the protagonist is portrayed here is achieved via fat suit, to varying degrees of believability), but it's Fraser's towering performance here which anchors and drives the proceedings all the way through. He's clearly channeling real pain into this performance and he's truly deserving of the accolades he's already collected and those yet to come. There are a handful of solid supporting turns here as well, such as Hong Chau and Sadie Sink adding to their already impressive bodies of work this year, and Samantha Morton once again showing up for a single scene to equally impactful results as in She Said. While there's probably a larger conversation to be had around the potential "fatphobia" on display here, and certainly there is some tragic body horror gawking that might qualify, this one really worked for me on the whole, and it delivers a much more authentic and raw experience than the average Oscars search party cluttering the art house theaters around this time of year.

[GruesomeTwosome]

The Whale (Darren Aronofsky, 2022)

A play adaptation that takes a number of sensitive topics and shamelessly used them as tools to manufacture audience reaction. Writer Samuel Hunter said that the story was written with optimism and hope as the central themes because it was the only way the it could have worked, not sure if that's true when your method of conveying said themes is to simply have your character preach positivity as the go-to reaction for all the bullshit you put him through, in the end it's just another way to make us feel more sorry for the character. The "mic drop" scene had me rolling my eyes so hard I would have walked out it wasn't nearly the end of the film.

As far as I can tell the only thing the film adaptation offered is an additional layer of manipulation with the score blasting through key scenes, might as well have replaced that with a countdown that says "3...2...1...now cry!". The older I get the less patience I have for films that constantly try to tell you how you should feel at every given moment, especially one as obnoxiously transparent as this, a generous 3/10.

I saw The Whale yesterday and I pretty much agree with the above. As I think I’ve said in another thread recently, Aronofsky is one of the most starkly “hit-or-miss” directors for me, and sometimes his usually blatant heavy-handedness works on me, and sometimes it really grates. The Whale was mostly the latter for me. Fraser and Hong Chau do the best they can with this but I just could not channel the emotional connection that some seem to have gotten from this. Ivan is bang-on about the manipulative use of music in this one.

And today I saw the Avatar sequel, and I basically felt exactly the same about this as I did about the first one - the visual spectacle is obviously the highlight and for me, really the only reason to see it, on the big screen of course. Like the first Avatar, I doubt I’ll ever feel inclined to see it again (at home on a TV). Otherwise it’s the same ol’ trope-y Cameron writing

Spoiler

(and is he really gonna carry over the same one-note Quaritch as the villain once again for the next film, and perhaps all of the sequels? How boring that would be)

.

[kongs_speech]

Upon its release in 2003, Anything Else was widely derided as one of Woody Allen's biggest failures. Aside from a mention on Quentin Tarantino's 2009 list of the 20 best films since he began directing in 1992, it has garnered little love in the resulting years. If I had seen it sooner, perhaps I'd come closer to agreeing with the consensus. At minimum, I doubt I would have ever failed to appreciate the wit on display. I also disagree strongly that the film is overlong or sluggishly paced. I'd suggest instead that it takes its time in a deliberate way not dissimilar from the European art cinema that Allen has always worshipped. Perhaps it is only now, though, twenty years later, that Anything Else is distinguishable as some sort of masterwork.

Allen's character is an unusual twist on his trademark neurotic persona. Dobel (Allen) behaves erratically and is a self-proclaimed survivalist with a particular fixation on what he perceives as the inevitability of a rise in antisemitism and the return of Nazis. In 2003, this likely landed as an odd quirk played mostly for laughs. Today, it resonates with a sense of retroactive tragedy. The Dobels of the world were right. The Nazis returned with a vengeance. For evidence of this most wretched phenomenon, look basically anywhere.

The humor of Anything Else is sharp and clever, particularly in the dialogue between Dobel and his young mentee Falk (Jason Biggs). Christina Ricci is ideally cast in the role of Amanda, Falk's fiancee whose impulsive flightiness makes Annie Hall look like the definition of stability. It's the film's bleakness and cynicism, however, that really stands out in contrast to the usual warmth of Allen's comedies. Although the film is very moving at times, especially the final scene between Dobel and Falk, it has a very somber philosophy about it. Anything Else suggests that we are ultimately alone and must look out for ourselves, as no one else is dependable. This thought is anything but comforting, yet it is a valid one that likely crosses many of our minds when we feel low. This tug-of-war between laughter and the crushing weight of existence is what defines the film.

[kongs_speech]

Damien Chazelle seems to have essentially achieved his goals with Babylon. He made his Boogie Nights. The difference is, while Babylon is often dazzlingly brilliant, it is too flawed to reach the level of PTA's porn epic, nor the other obvious inspirations: Singin' in the Rain, The Day of the Locust and The Wolf of Wall Street. As tremendous as most of Chazelle's film is, it struggles in regards to pacing, narrative structure and a bland lead performance. It is just remarkable enough to make the viewer wish it were perfect.

Much has been said about the first ~30 minutes of Babylon, in which a debauched orgy unfolds in the mansion of a Hollywood super-producer. It's true, this extended opening is magnificent, colorful and vibrantly alive. As a whole, the movie is visually sublime -- truly a big-screen experience. Once the title card finally appears, the film has many spectacular sequences, yet notable blemishes as well. Babylon feels simultaneously rushed and bloated. Although the 189-minute runtime is felt, the pacing is always frantic and hurried along, which eventually instills the viewer with a feeling of fatigue. As quickly as the film runs thorough its enormous narrative, it still neglects to adequately develop two of the most interesting side characters, jazz wizard Sidney Palmer (Jovan Adepo) and Anna May Wong-type starlet Lady Fay Zhu (Li Jun Li).

Babylon's expansive ensemble is, by and large, superb. Among the many noteworthy performances in minor roles are Olivia Hamilton, Tobey Maguire, Eric Roberts, Jeff Garlin, P.J. Byrne, Rory Scovel, Spike Jonze, Max Minghella and Samara Weaving. Although the character of crude party-girl actress Nellie LaRoy isn't at all outside Margot Robbie's usual wheelhouse, it must be said that the actress plays the part to perfection. Adding another career-caliber performance to his resume, Brad Pitt brings heart and world-weary cynicism to his Jack Conrad, a titan of silent Hollywood who struggles with the transition to acting in talkies.

Alas, the weak note in the huge cast is its ostensible lead. Diego Calva does not deserve all the criticism for the character of Manny Torres, a small-time assistant who rises through the ranks to become a Hollywood power player. While Calva often feels wooden in the role, Manny is simply an underdeveloped character. As the protagonist, he is always reacting to chaotic situations, yet we know very little about who he is as a person. Manny is likable, kind-hearted, and adept at problem-solving. Beyond this, he lacks development. There is something to be said for the idea of an ordinary man defined by his response to the larger-than-life personalities around him, but it doesn't result in the kind of commanding central presence Babylon needs.

The historical anachronisms of Babylon are decidedly revisionist, clearly a deliberate choice by Chazelle. The filmmaking shown at the end of the silent era more closely resembles that of the 1910s, while the fashion and dialogue are very 21st century. (Was anyone saying "fuck yeah" in 1928?) These odd inconsistencies actually work in Babylon's favor, contributing to the lucid fever dream quality rather than attempting to retell established reality. With a polarizing ending, Chazelle swings for the fences in the grandest way, which pays off in an emotionally stirring final scene that pays tribute to a specific Old Hollywood classic while incorporating a component that gives it the feeling of the Nicole Kidman AMC ad on cocaine. For better and worse, that's what Babylon is: the Nicole Kidman AMC ad on cocaine. Somehow, chaos feels good in a place like this.

[Torgo]

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.

Having seen The Menu + Triangle of Sadness back to back this evening (in addition to Glass Onion a week ago), I must say this is the GREATEST time to see rich fucks suffer on canvas.
Loved all of them, I wonder why?

[Torgo]

wrong answer: because I envy them >.>
You may leave the comment section now, Ben

[Torgo]

Hehe, I caught up with your local reviews to learn that most of our usual participants disliked or even hated Triangle.
That's okay with me, I don't need to defend it. It took some time to build up and the last third was .. strange, hollow even. But I still had a good time at the yacht; so much that it feels like the anarchic, crude comedy I maybe just needed now. I almost experienced an Enter the Void level of sickness and got so much masochistic giggles out of that.
I'm rather uncertain if Östlund truly deserved his second Palme at his age for all this Sadness, yup, yup. On the other hand, I never estimated his works to be subtle, sincerely not The Square and especially not the one-note film Play (come, beat me up!). Usually, I find myself eye-rolling at what cinephiles call "clever" or even "intellectual" when it comes to class struggle, and not because I'm in the wrong team. Certainly, I won't claim that anything that is satirized in Triangle shows new insights (how?) or is amazingly inventive - and it doesn't have to be, at least for me.
And a lot of that is true for The Menu, too. Or Don't Look Up. Or ...