Movies you've been watching...

Spaced Out Ace

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,686
Location
Indiana
Another quality post. Whatever your opinion is thank you for sharing it, I have stopped caring.
If you don't get it, I'm not sure discussing it will make for much of a worthwhile endeavor.

For those interested, this is apparently the next Bond.

 

This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.

nightsprinter

resident pat metheny fanatic
Contributor
Joined
Jun 18, 2023
Messages
1,119
Reaction score
1,825
Location
ʻOumuamua
I've grown pretty fond of Jamie Dornan after watching both seasons of The Tourist and think he'd do well as Bond despite him stating he doesn't want to be an action star. I'd also give a nod to Jack Lowden.

And like I mentioned, I enjoy Idris Elba so if he's the guy, then I'm sure it will be fine.
 

SalsaWood

Scares the 'choes.
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
2,632
Location
NoVA
Yea, I don't get it because I don't follow entertainment news even slightly. Still having a hard time putting it together, honestly. Feel free to explain it to me rudely if that's the only way you can manage.
 

nightflameauto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
3,233
Reaction score
4,101
Location
Sioux Falls, SD
I would consider myself a Bond fan. I've seen all the movies, met Ian Fleming and got his autograph, but lost it when we moved back to the states. While Craig's residence in the franchise has definitely been different, I don't think it's necessarily a step backwards. Brosnan was peak modern Bond (meaning anyone after Moore), and I think Craig's movies are greater in how they tried to not rest on the laurels of the franchise, but lesser when at times they still failed to be compelling otherwise or move beyond those Bond tropes in meaningful ways. Craig's Bond is emotional which I don't prefer, I think it detracts from the typical Bond characteristic of being a snarky, calm, and intelligent action hero. Craig left a bad taste in people's mouths because he wasn't really a Bond character as written, he was just some guy who was basically as resourceful as Bond- but obviously wasn't like any of the other Bond roles otherwise.

Idris would nail the traditional Bond vibe I think, that's why I mentioned Bond at all. Would be a great way to pull the franchise back out of the identity crisis that the Craig movies have slumped it into. Again, I don't dislike the Craig movies, but they are definitely different and I totally see how traditionalists would have been turned off by them. I attribute this completely to the writing and not the actor of course, but if they were to do a new Bond movie true to the series then Idris would fucking rock that shit. I can't think of another English actor right now who would fit better, and as patriotic as I am no Hollywood American should be a Bond, being English is a big part of the character (fuck Nelson, doesn't count).
See, I'm a sorta/kinda Bond fan after Sean was out. I get why they keep trying to milk the cow, but the sophisticated quasi-cool, quasi-douche Bond character just shouldn't be a thing anymore. The premise was shot after three actors, and trying to find another is just beating a dead, rotted, bones falling apart corpse.

Idris deserves way better if he's gonna be an action / spy hero.
I think that's actually a great summary of Villeneuve's Dune movies. They're visually stunning and solid films on their own, but I agree that it's better to treat them as a love letter to the actual story instead of criticizing it for now being faithful. The source material is pretty fucking dense, especially the first book being like 600+ pages, so translating that into a movie is damn near impossible to do 1:1. It could work as a series in the same vein as Game of Thrones, but if memory serves @wheresthefbomb said that SyFy tried that some years ago.
We have the box sets of those Sci-fi channel (pre rebrand to SyFy) mini-series. Aside from the effects being what you would expect from a TV series at the time, they're really quite fun to watch and do an admirable job of capturing the story. Arguably, better than the new films. Granted, they spend more hours on them, so that's to be expected. They also don't saturate the entire color palate with monotones, though that's a personal nit that I tend to pick at more than it deserves.
 

Spaced Out Ace

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,686
Location
Indiana
See, I'm a sorta/kinda Bond fan after Sean was out. I get why they keep trying to milk the cow, but the sophisticated quasi-cool, quasi-douche Bond character just shouldn't be a thing anymore. The premise was shot after three actors, and trying to find another is just beating a dead, rotted, bones falling apart corpse.

Idris deserves way better if he's gonna be an action / spy hero.
Connery, Lazenby, and Moore were great. Pierce Brosnan did a decent job or attempting to balance Connery and Moore. I agree, though. The cash cow is pretty beat at this point, and Idris Elba could do a million other things than be Bond #7 (just counting Eon). Hell, you could make an argument that by the time Moore took the role, the idea was already done between the fifteen spoofs and loads of clones.
 

wheresthefbomb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
5,770
Reaction score
10,203
Location
Planet Claire
I think that's actually a great summary of Villeneuve's Dune movies. They're visually stunning and solid films on their own, but I agree that it's better to treat them as a love letter to the actual story instead of criticizing it for now being faithful. The source material is pretty fucking dense, especially the first book being like 600+ pages, so translating that into a movie is damn near impossible to do 1:1. It could work as a series in the same vein as Game of Thrones, but if memory serves @wheresthefbomb said that SyFy tried that some years ago.

The syfy dune miniseries are pretty good for being an early 2000s adaptation. There's some jank in the CGI and budgetary constraints but it still holds up pretty well imo. They did all of Dune and Children of Dune iirc.
They do a much better job at world-building and character development than any of the movie adaptations do. Part of that is just the fact that they devote many more hours to it, but it's also a credit to the writers for sure. One of the better things Sci Fi channel ever gave us. The CGI is definitely janky but I found it pretty easy to look past. If anything I think that as CGI has gotten better, filmmakers tend to over-rely on it whereas when it was obviously kinda crap, they were more likely to only use it when there were no better options. In short, I highly recommend finding copies of the miniseries and devoting a weekend to them. The first two are widely available online, I had to go to the public library for Children.
 

KnightBrolaire

Say yes to Chugs
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
21,619
Reaction score
29,551
Location
Minnesota
They do a much better job at world-building and character development than any of the movie adaptations do. Part of that is just the fact that they devote many more hours to it, but it's also a credit to the writers for sure. One of the better things Sci Fi channel ever gave us. The CGI is definitely janky but I found it pretty easy to look past. If anything I think that as CGI has gotten better, filmmakers tend to over-rely on it whereas when it was obviously kinda crap, they were more likely to only use it when there were no better options. In short, I highly recommend finding copies of the miniseries and devoting a weekend to them. The first two are widely available online, I had to go to the public library for Children.
One quibble I have with the Syfy Dune miniseries is that they focus too hard on the political machinations without really exploring the religious machinations that Paul and Jessica/The Bene Gesserit do to make Paul the Mahdi/Kwisatz Hadderach. They really gloss over that particular aspect. The Villeneuve films have the opposite problem where they do a fantastic job of covering the religious machinations but suck at the political machinations or even really explaining how important Spice is (which the miniseries does literally in the opening scene). I would agree that the miniseries does a better job of fleshing out Paul and Chani in particular. I'm also not as much of a fan of how Paul basically abandons Chani for Irulan in the Villeneuve version, rather than it being a deliberate political power play like it is in the books and the miniseries. The miniseries also handles Paul's sister better, and does a better job of showing that the war took years rather than months in Villeneuve's version. Also the dude who played the Baron in the miniseries (Ian McNeice) was chewing scenery like a motherfucker. I would argue his performance was only rivaled by the dude who played the baron in Lynch's version. Stellan Skarsgard's version was plenty menacing, but lacked the depravity/sadism that the others had.

Villeneuve's version is obviously way more aesthetically pleasing in terms of cinematography and fight scenes, bu the miniseries still does well given its limitations.

Both are superior to the Lynch version overall imo.


IDK I like all of them but I think the Villeneuve version is probably the one that captures the underlying religious aspects the best.


You can find both the Syfy dune miniseries and Children of Dune on YT fyi
 
Last edited:

BlackMastodon

\m/ (゚Д゚) \m/
Contributor
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
8,599
Reaction score
5,395
Location
Windsor, ON
or even really explaining how important Spice is (which the miniseries does literally in the opening scene).
You mean that a single sentence immediately after the opening credits with a booming, Mongolian-throat-singing-type voice saying "He who controls spice, controls the empire/galaxy/whatever" isn't enough to convey how valuable and important spice is?
 

MFB

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
16,919
Reaction score
7,142
Location
Boston, MA
Inside Man

I was checked out about 20 mins into this, just, any movie that immediately tells me that the protagonist is going to be one step ahead every time? Why should I care then, you've removed all stakes that something might go wrong.
 

KnightBrolaire

Say yes to Chugs
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
21,619
Reaction score
29,551
Location
Minnesota
Conjuring 1/2 - MEH. I've seen 1 before and there are some cool shots that are done practically but for the most part it's meh to me. 2 was so fucking boring I fell asleep watching it.
 

SalsaWood

Scares the 'choes.
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
2,632
Location
NoVA
Watched Atlas last night. Found it to be really boring in the middle, REALLY boring. Not really Lopez's fault. It's a pretty slim plot that doesn't get contextualized well off the bat. Not good, not bad, just meh.
 

Wiltonauer

SS.org Regular
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
981
Reaction score
853
Location
EEUU
What Lies Beneath (2000). I suppose if I wanted to enjoy this movie more, I might have gotten around to watching it sooner, preferably before the same film had been made with different proper nouns a few dozen times. Was anything original about it when it came out? I’m asking because I don’t remember; I was too busy watching French movies and modding my RG550 back then. While the credits were rolling, I couldn’t help thinking that the film could have omitted the supernatural elements entirely, and it would have been better for it. Michelle Pfeiffer and Harrison Ford are easily good enough that this could have been a psychological thriller or a straight-ahead drama. I looked up Ebert afterwards, and he called it back in 2000. Like I said, I think I’ve now seen this same movie with different pairs of actors an unsettling number of times.
 

Seabeast2000

Deathcult® NPC
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
6,255
Reaction score
7,780
Is it a "This scary ghost just needs some justice after all" flick?
 

Wiltonauer

SS.org Regular
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
981
Reaction score
853
Location
EEUU
Is it a "This scary ghost just needs some justice after all" flick?

Absolutely. The upside is that you get to see Pfeiffer, Ford, and Zemeckis doing what they’re best at. Leading up, it works quite well as a spooky psychological suspense story. Setting and mood are highly effective, and the camera work and performances are solid throughout. There’s one line that Pfeiffer delivers, during an argument with Ford, that hits a resonant peak with the soapy melodrama and jarringly takes me out of it. Zemeckis adds a few flourishes that are a bit out of place. The climax is silly and has been done to death by now — spooky fun would be tolerable in a low-budget B movie, but not something you imagine Harrison Ford would have good things to say about. There’s a classy touch by the Pfeiffer character as an epilogue, followed by an unnecessary visual effect that puts a cheesy finish on things, like the sheen on a Polaroid. I suppose if it’s a movie we’re tired of seeing by now, it’s a reminder about imitation and flattery, because it’s done at a relatively high level.
 

nightflameauto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
3,233
Reaction score
4,101
Location
Sioux Falls, SD
Watched Atlas last night. Found it to be really boring in the middle, REALLY boring. Not really Lopez's fault. It's a pretty slim plot that doesn't get contextualized well off the bat. Not good, not bad, just meh.
We watched Atlas over the weekend too. In the continuum that Pacific Rim kicked off and Atlantic Rim quasi-parodied, it's no Atlantic Rim. Would have been about 20% better if Lopez would make exploding noises with her mouth when describing her fights to somebody right after they happened like they did in Atlantic Rim, or having a big "WE'RE CANCELING THE APOCALYPSE!" speech from somebody of Idris Alba's stature, but hey, I'll take my mecha fantasy any way I can get it at this point.

And Lopez is still entertaining, which is more than you can say of several of her generation of actors at this point.

I did like the idea that AI + human > AI or human. I don't buy it today, but it's better than the constant "AI WILL KILL US ALL" prattling, and way better than the deluded tech giants telling us they'll save us all by taking away our jobs.
 

SalsaWood

Scares the 'choes.
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
2,632
Location
NoVA
@nightflameauto *Atlas Spoilers, kinda*

I actually really liked Lopez's performance and went into it thinking she was going to drag it down, but I was surprised. She knocked it out of the park, it was just the pacing of the movie that I hated. Her character's behavior in regard to consistently reinforcing the delusion that she has multiple options at points of crisis, and thus insisting on sandbagging herself because of emotional undertones that the audience hadn't yet been fully informed about, is what annoyed me. If they had just given the beginning another 10-15 minutes to build up the setting and backstory more I think it would have gone a long way. Probably would have saved me wondering what her character's problem is for a large portion in the middle of the movie.

The VFX and sound were great for once. Still kind of felt middle of the road as an adventure to me, comparison to the X/Y Rim movies is fitting. The trope of being friends with AI which is overtly humanized to augment us or fill our needs, but yet not smart or insightful enough to realize such is basically slavery within that frame, is pure fantasy to me. Not saying it's totally unrealistic, just saying it's a very bubblegum outlook on things. The movie is what it is, and it's not bad, but could have been a lot better with just different proportions of things.
 

zappatton2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
1,604
Reaction score
2,195
Location
Ottawa, ON
Man, I'm going to visit a friend over the weekend and we were so looking forward to getting out to a theatre to see "In a Violent Nature", but it's not playing anywhere near us :(

I figured for sure it'd get enough hype to open up in more than one theatre in the entire freakin' city :(
 
Top