Movies you've been watching...

[TedEH]

Cool to hear. Considering going to see that one this weekend.

 

[wankerness]

After reading a couple reviews, I went straight to the spoiler threads/videos for Glass cause they're wildly entertaining. Let me just say, I'm interested to hear your reactions to that one!

I keep watching horror movies even though it seems like every movie I love these days is NOT a horror movie.

Hold the Dark (netflix) - this is the third movie from Blue Ruin/Green Room guy, so once again it's unpredictable and contains some hideous violence. This time Jeffrey Wright is hired by Riley Keough (whose husband, Alexander Skarsgard, is currently at war in Iraq) to kill the wolf that stole her child. Things do not go as planned, and let's just say the literal wolves quickly fall by the wayside. It takes place in the far reaches of Alaska, so it's always dark. It's really moody, has a GIGANTIC body count, does feel like a horror movie sometimes, and is pretty highly recommended if you're looking for something different. It's a lot slower than his last two.

The Fourth Kind - I heard this was a brilliant found footage movie and was really scary, but then I started it up and found Milla Jovovich was the star, and that kind of says it all! It's a faux-documentary and has some decent ideas. She introduces herself as Milla Jovovich and says she's going to be playing the main character in recreations, and the recreations are basically the plot of the movie, but they're intercut with interviews from the "real" her and archival audio of her interviews with subjects. She's got a bunch of patients that have all been seeing an owl at night, but it seems they're actually being visited by aliens, etc. It gets weird. The jump scares are REALLY cheap. A lot of people like this, I was not one of them.

The Dark Knight/The Dark Knight Rises - I've seen these a few times of course, after upgrading my TV these were about the only 4K discs I had. I liked TDKR more than TDK this go-around even though intellectually I know TDK is the better movie. The bizarrely over-complex plot was endearing. Bane's voice is so great. Anne Hathaway is the best character besides Heath Ledger in any of these movies. The climax is far more exciting than anything in TDK. The CGI sure is terrible in the part where the stadium blows up, though.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

After reading a couple reviews, I went straight to the spoiler threads/videos for Glass cause they're wildly entertaining. Let me just say, I'm interested to hear your reactions to that one!

I keep watching horror movies even though it seems like every movie I love these days is NOT a horror movie.

Hold the Dark (netflix) - this is the third movie from Blue Ruin/Green Room guy, so once again it's unpredictable and contains some hideous violence. This time Jeffrey Wright is hired by Riley Keough (whose husband, Alexander Skarsgard, is currently at war in Iraq) to kill the wolf that stole her child. Things do not go as planned, and let's just say the literal wolves quickly fall by the wayside. It takes place in the far reaches of Alaska, so it's always dark. It's really moody, has a GIGANTIC body count, does feel like a horror movie sometimes, and is pretty highly recommended if you're looking for something different. It's a lot slower than his last two.

The Fourth Kind - I heard this was a brilliant found footage movie and was really scary, but then I started it up and found Milla Jovovich was the star, and that kind of says it all! It's a faux-documentary and has some decent ideas. She introduces herself as Milla Jovovich and says she's going to be playing the main character in recreations, and the recreations are basically the plot of the movie, but they're intercut with interviews from the "real" her and archival audio of her interviews with subjects. She's got a bunch of patients that have all been seeing an owl at night, but it seems they're actually being visited by aliens, etc. It gets weird. The jump scares are REALLY cheap. A lot of people like this, I was not one of them.

The Dark Knight/The Dark Knight Rises - I've seen these a few times of course, after upgrading my TV these were about the only 4K discs I had. I liked TDKR more than TDK this go-around even though intellectually I know TDK is the better movie. The bizarrely over-complex plot was endearing. Bane's voice is so great. Anne Hathaway is the best character besides Heath Ledger in any of these movies. The climax is far more exciting than anything in TDK. The CGI sure is terrible in the part where the stadium blows up, though.

I fucking hated Hold the Dark. I loved his previous films but that movie was kind of a mess as far as telling a coherent story. It did have some excellent effects and cinematography though.

 

[PunkBillCarson]

Cool to hear. Considering going to see that one this weekend.

Highly recommend watching Unbreakable and Split before doing so, even if you've already watched them. The way the movie was done, it feels like it's more suited to having done that.

 

[wankerness]

I fucking hated Hold the Dark. I loved his previous films but that movie was kind of a mess as far as telling a coherent story. It did have some excellent effects and cinematography though.

Eh, i thought it was all as coherent as intended, there was a bit of intentional ambiguity with the main incident’s motive and I think that throws a lot of people off, but some of the other stuff that people might miss had obvious clues and parallels if you were paying attention (and/or had the subtitles on to catch the mumbling during things like the bathtub scene). It’s definitely slow and the structure has issues. I think the big machine gun sequence was out of place in the movie. I’d give it like 6.5/10.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

Eh, i thought it was all as coherent as intended, there was a bit of intentional ambiguity with the main incident’s motive and I think that throws a lot of people off, but some of the other stuff that people might miss had obvious clues and parallels if you were paying attention (and/or had the subtitles on to catch the mumbling during things like the bathtub scene). It’s definitely slow and the structure has issues. I think the big machine gun sequence was out of place in the movie. I’d give it like 6.5/10.

If i have to reference the wikipedia synopsis (which I did) to figure out what the hell is going on in a movie, then the writers have fundamentally failed at telling a coherent story. I had to rewind some parts because I didn't get why he was killing those people (ie the deputies or the trapper at the mine). I guess it could have been worse, it could have been as bad as Bird Box..

 

[MFB]

I really enjoyed Split, but holy fuck did I hate Glass. I didnt even pay for the tickets, but now I just wasted two hours of my weekend.

 

[wankerness]

If i have to reference the wikipedia synopsis (which I did) to figure out what the hell is going on in a movie, then the writers have fundamentally failed at telling a coherent story.

I don’t agree with that statement, as you might have to if you weren’t paying attention during certain scenes. Also, some movies just drop language or are convoluted to the point where not everyone will be able to process them equally, and the answer isn’t always to dumb them down so everyone can clearly understand them (ex, not everyone’s going to get Annihilation right away- should we have had exposition pop in during that climax?). Or, simply, something is intended to be ambiguous and has no definite answer other than what the viewer decides. Like, imagine something like Mulholland Dr being re-edited to the point where ANYONE gets it at all times and the plot is the same to everyone.

I found his motivations in each specific scene to be irrelevant, and some of the stuff intentionally left out of the book to work better that way. I saw plenty of discussion with that kind of thing when going through interpretations of this yesterday, and it’s often frustrating to me. The director did what he meant to here. If he wanted a really straightforward movie with bluntly lascivious details, he would have made it! A bunch of people were trying to assign literal meaning to EVERYTHING and explain things that weren’t meant to be explained, particularly theories being pushed about

Spoiler

her molesting her son and killing him to cover it up, or the kid being a serial killer and that’s why she killed him,

etc. if you really want to add those detail, great! But they aren’t there, it’s ambiguous.

I’m not saying you have to like it, it’s definitely a flawed movie, just that your reasoning that the problem is that it needed to be clear and literal is a personal problem here.

 

[TedEH]

I hate Glass

I just saw it. I thought it was decent. Not brilliant by any stretch, but I was entertained.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

I don’t agree with that statement, as you might have to if you weren’t paying attention during certain scenes. Also, some movies just drop language or are convoluted to the point where not everyone will be able to process them equally, and the answer isn’t always to dumb them down so everyone can clearly understand them (ex, not everyone’s going to get Annihilation right away- should we have had exposition pop in during that climax?). Or, simply, something is intended to be ambiguous and has no definite answer other than what the viewer decides. Like, imagine something like Mulholland Dr being re-edited to the point where ANYONE gets it at all times and the plot is the same to everyone.

I found his motivations in each specific scene to be irrelevant, and some of the stuff intentionally left out of the book to work better that way. I saw plenty of discussion with that kind of thing when going through interpretations of this yesterday, and it’s often frustrating to me. The director did what he meant to here. If he wanted a really straightforward movie with bluntly lascivious details, he would have made it! A bunch of people were trying to assign literal meaning to EVERYTHING and explain things that weren’t meant to be explained, particularly theories being pushed about

Spoiler

her molesting her son and killing him to cover it up, or the kid being a serial killer and that’s why she killed him,

etc. if you really want to add those detail, great! But they aren’t there, it’s ambiguous.

I’m not saying you have to like it, it’s definitely a flawed movie, just that your reasoning that the problem is that it needed to be clear and literal is a problem with you, not the movie.

it really is the film's fault that it was less coherent, especially the machine gun shootout scene. There was no real explanation for his motivation, which was infuriating and made the scene basically filler.
i love ambiguous films when they're done well (ie annihilation), but ambiguous is different from coherent.if the director's intentions were to make a mediocre, hard to follow thriller then he succeeded.
I don't expect everything to be explained or tied up neatly in films but when a film only addresses character motivation through mumbled and obtuse dialogue ( keough's character and the wolf trapper's line about treating skaarsgard for psychoses, both of which i had to rewind and turn on subtitles for) they have fundamentally failed.

 

[PunkBillCarson]

When it comes to Glass, there was one of the twists that was a bit predictable, but overall, I thought it was a good movie. I wouldn't say I loved it as much as I loved Split, but I loved it more than Unbreakable. Of course, the highlight for me was James McAvoy's performances in both Split and Glass. Dude can fucking act. He's got crazy chops.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

When it comes to Glass, there was one of the twists that was a bit predictable, but overall, I thought it was a good movie. I wouldn't say I loved it as much as I loved Split, but I loved it more than Unbreakable. Of course, the highlight for me was James McAvoy's performances in both Split and Glass. Dude can fucking act. He's got crazy chops.

to quote a yt comment: crazy mcavoy is best mcavoy. he was perfect in Filth and split

 

[PunkBillCarson]

Never seen Filth. Good movie? I normally trust you on movies.

 

[TedEH]

Dude can fucking act.

He can. Buuuut at the same time, for me at least, he's one of those actors that I have trouble seeing through the actor into the character, if that makes sense. Kind of like how the guy who does the voice for Archer / Bobs Burgers / etc (H Jon Benjamin) is great at what he does, but regardless of what character he's playing I still hear H Jon first, and the character second.

 

[PunkBillCarson]

I wouldn't know, I've never seen Archer or Bob's Burgers. I guess I've never had that issue. The only thing that I can think of is when I have trouble seeing Chris Hemsworth as anyone else but Thor or Daniel Radcliffe as anyone but Harry Potter.

 

[TedEH]

Kind of like that, but it's more like I just see McAvoy as McAvoy instead of as the character. An extreme example would be Jack Black. It doesn't matter what character he plays, he's always just Jack Black.

You would think that Sam L Jackson would be another case of this... but when I think of it.... I find he's someone who is excellent at embodying the character first. As much as you see Sam L Jackson, I usually see the character first.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

Never seen Filth. Good movie? I normally trust you on movies.

if you like stuff like trainspotting/bronson or guy ritchie films (specifically snatch or rock and rolla) you'll like it. he's basically a deranged druggie scottish cop and it's a gloriously crazy movie

 

[Seabeast2000]

if you like stuff like trainspotting/bronson or guy ritchie films (specifically snatch or rock and rolla) you'll like it. he's basically a deranged druggie scottish cop and it's a gloriously crazy movie

Wait, what? On my shortlist. Thanks for the tip.

 

[PunkBillCarson]

if you like stuff like trainspotting/bronson or guy ritchie films (specifically snatch or rock and rolla) you'll like it. he's basically a deranged druggie scottish cop and it's a gloriously crazy movie

Trainspotting was a brilliant fucking movie. Thanks for the recommendation!

 

[wankerness]

it really is the film's fault that it was less coherent, especially the machine gun shootout scene. There was no real explanation for his motivation, which was infuriating and made the scene basically filler.
i love ambiguous films when they're done well (ie annihilation), but ambiguous is different from coherent.if the director's intentions were to make a mediocre, hard to follow thriller then he succeeded.
I don't expect everything to be explained or tied up neatly in films but when a film only addresses character motivation through mumbled and obtuse dialogue ( keough's character and the wolf trapper's line about treating skaarsgard for psychoses, both of which i had to rewind and turn on subtitles for) they have fundamentally failed.

There's a lot of explanation for his motivation immediately before he goes off, and unlike many things in this movie, they're not ambiguous! Deep resentment towards the way the natives are being shoved off their property and treated, and even more specifically anger towards the cops for not investigating anything about his child's death until days after. He feels they don't care about him. This is all in the long discussion with James Badge Dale from his front step. Combine that with the earlier scene in which he tells Vern that he's going to help to keep the cops off his trail, and yeah.

The mumbly thing was, again, intentional. It's not the filmmaker's fault if people are watching with the volume turned down too far or using an iphone or whatever. He made it to be shown in a theater where everyone's surrounded by very loud speakers and without distractions. I'm in your boat of having to rewind and turn on subtitles too. It would have made 0 sense if she was saying that stuff out loud considering ALL of her dialogue is creepily, quietly delivered and she's on the other side of the cabin and the listener just woke up.

You hate what the movie is, but these aren't failures. Ah well. I didn't really like this movie much so I am getting sick of defending it, even though I like these kinds of discussions!

I'm trying to preempt my usual yearly Oscar nominee run-through. "The Favourite" and "BlackkKlansmen" are the only ones left that sound like fun. I usually try to go through all of them before the ceremony since I like watching them but want to have some kind of stake to make them more involving. Seems like the other likely ones I haven't seen are Green Book (screw this), Vice (I don't feel like it, but sounds like it might be entertaining), and First Man (I still haven't even had the opportunity). Then there are the ones with a good chance to maintain popularity quotas like Crazy Rich Asians (been meaning to see this) and Bohemian Rhapsody (everything I've heard about this from anyone that knows anything is that it's awful besides the central performance and that its nomination would be a joke on the level of Extremely Loud...). The oscars need to institute a reverse practice of not nominating anything that wasn't released OVER three months ago, since there's still no way to see a few of these things.

I think my favorite movies of the year are:

Leave No Trace
Eighth Grade
Revenge

There's a small chance the first two could get nominated, at least!