Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Onhell, Sep 1, 2004.
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me
Goddamn, WTF?! It's been at least 12 years since I watched this for the first time and I don't remember a second of it. It's ridiculous.
I saw Dunkirk today. It's Nolan's best since The Dark Knight, hands down. Thrilling from start to finish. The narrative was interesting - there are not many character moments. Instead, Nolan just throws you into these events, and makes you feel the intensity very effectively. Cinematography is top-notch and the sound was amazing. They played it really loud here, which definitely enhanced the experience. Now this is a minor thing, but I think this film would benefit from R-rating. It's PG-13 so there's no blood and gore, but I think that a couple of stronger scenes could make it even more impactful.
I definitely want to watch Dunkirk, still on the fence on the "return" of Twin Peaks though.
ANYWAY I just saw the most incredible movie EVER! It's a Russian movie called The Guardians. This thing is Robocop meets the Avengers, meets the Blues Brothers, meets Star Wars LOL. In short it is a Russian Avengers, 4 superheroes get recruited to fight their "creator" who has gone rogue. Their powers are.... interesting for some of them and it is just fun as hell.
You basically have the flash, the invisible woman, a werebear and magneto fight the villian from the second Iron man movie, which oddly enough was Russian lol.
If you thought watching a chimp ride a horse in Planet of the Apes was awesome, wait 'til you see a bear with a machine gun! Oh but it gets better! Wait to see that bear get punched in the face! In the fucking face! LOL Such a fun movie.
Just been to see Dunkirk and very impressed - best war film for many, many years! I don't think it suffered from a lack of blood and gore, you certainly get the message through incidental music, cinematography, and sound. It has bags of atmosphere. The sounds plays a major role in the realism, and the plot stays compelling without needing to fall back on gimmicks, overblown heroic action sequences, or faux emotional side plots. It kept unbelievable WTFs mostly to a minimum, which was good.
Except for the miraculous feats of the gliding Spitfire
I was also pleased at it being a departure from the usual political statements of incompetent and deceitful snooty generals staying behind the lines and sipping pink gin while wisecracking 'regular guys' do the real work. It was more a film about people pulling together and helping each other in rough times. And who can resist cheering on Spitfires or civilians turning up en masse to help the troops?
It's in a different vein to the Saving Private Ryan type of film that's become a formula for modern depictions, and if you're into Hollywood mainstream quirky megafast action and wisecracks, you might find it too sedate.
Want to see Dunkirk for sure, I will some time this week
Spanish Affair 2 (Ocho apellidos catalanes). Now I really want the hipsters thread back, please.
Hail, Caesar! (2016) - The Coen Brothers' latest, about a "fixer" in 1950s Hollywood, charged with making sure that everything at the studio runs smoothly. The main plot revolves around the kidnapping of the star of Hail, Caesar! A Tale of the Christ, the studio's current prestige project. The real fun lies in the cast and the loving recreations of various kinds of movies. I enjoyed it a lot, though I'm not entirely sure what to make of it as a whole. Since there are numerous religious themes in the film, and the main character seems to find a kind of salvation in making movies, perhaps it can be taken as a love letter to the artform itself.
After Hours (1985) - A relatively unknown Scorsese film made on a shoestring budget while he struggled to get The Last Temptation of Christ off the ground. The set-up is simple: an office worker meets a woman at a restaurant, and later the same night he goes to see her at her apartment. Various events unfold. What's special about the movie is the way it captures the sensation of a (bad) dream. The situations the hero encounters are ordinary and familar, but the distant, unpredictable behaviour and off-key emotional responses of the characters he meets gradually remove any sense of being on steady ground, of knowing what's going on and what you can do about it. It's a supremely disconcerting movie. Highly recommended.
The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) - Seeing a Scorsese movie reminded me that I never got around to this one. It's about a stockbroker (Leonardo DiCaprio) who gets rich through shady deals and ends up going to jail. Thematically and stylistically, it's reminiscent of Goodfellas and Casino, with the same heavy use of voiceover to provide you a sense of insider perspective. What it lacks in comparison to those earlier films is precisely that sense of insider perspective. The movie doesn't give you enough details about the various deals and transactions to make you feel like you're part of them, which means that the endless scenes of DiCaprio giving speeches and partying aren't grounded in anything other than sheer spectacle. Or perhaps the problem is simply that I don't find DiCaprio nearly engaging enough to carry a three hour movie. Towards the end I was looking at anything except his perpetually tense facial expression, like the blinds in the office windows.
The Godfather Part III (1990) - I decided to rewatch this as I'd only seen it once many years ago and didn't really remember it. After seeing it again, I no longer wonder why that is. You can, of course, point to issues with the story, with individual scenes, with actors, and so on, but as a whole the film is not badly made. The deadly problem is that it has no thematic weight. The first two films formed a tragic arc: Michael Corleone tries to escape the world of the Sicilian mafia and forge his own identity in the new world, but is drawn back into it to protect his family, which he then ends up destroying in his pursuit of power. The story is complete at that point, and so Part III amounts to little more than a three hour elaboration on the final shot of Part II, showing Michael's spiritual isolation and inability to escape what he has done. The end result is something rather strange, a movie that is well put together yet feels thoroughly inconsequential. The Godfather Episode III: The Force Awakens?
I enjoyed Hail Caesar, not their best movie, but fun
Godfather III is a good movie, the problem is 1 and 2 are just fantastic, it will always suffer in comparison
Going to see Dunkirk in an IMAX tonight. I've been looking forward to this since Christmas.
What can I say, in terms of tension and intensity, the film delivered what it promised. I knew I wasn't to expect a regular film in terms of plot or character development, so what I got was fine for me. The film had a lot of moments. The second StuKa attack at the beginning had me shiver all over, I could really feel the horror and dread that the sound of these things alone must have spawned. The scenes with the trapped soldiers in the boats (the one that got torpedoed and then the fishing boat) were equally terrifying, and the air scenes were brilliantly shot. The film perfectly conveyed the message that all these soldiers who are turned into demi-gods by historical memory were basically just regular guys who were lucky if all they had to watch out for was that they wouldn't shit themselves. The fact that we were with the soldiers made the experience so personal that in the end, I was equally puzzled as the soldiers when they were celebrated at home, when all they did was survive, rough and dirty.
However, one thing I'm not convinced of is that the non-linear narrative made it better. It's true that it does something to confuse things and therefore gets you in one line with the people onscreen in the sense that you don't know what the hell is going on, but I am not sure that it added to the intensity of the film. For example, we already saw the guys abandon the fishing ship before we even saw them got on it, and I don't know if that was helpful for this particular subplot. Wouldn't it have been more intense if we hadn't actually known how far out in the sea they already were? I appreciate the skill with which three narratives of different lengths (one week, one day, one hour) were woven together, I'm just thinking - maybe I saw a bit much of that lately. The novelty has worn off, and it starts raising the question whether it really is a necessary dramatic device. I know it's a Christopher Nolan trademark, but he really has to be careful not to go Shyamalan about it.
Anyway, despite that, the film as a whole was great and delivered what it promised. It's a truly intense war film that portrays the horror of war without having to go into Saving Private Ryan territory, and does not surrender to hero worship or aesthetic wankery the way Fury did.
Just saw Dunkirk, I was surprised and impressed. I thought it was pretty restrained for a Nolan film
Off to see Dunkirk in 10 minutes on IMAX, been looking forward to this one
Watched Frank the other week. Fucking superb film. Had some elements that sort of reminded me of Buckethead actually. Read the Guardian article with the guy would did the screenplay (played by Domhnall Gleeson in the film) explaining what story elements were based on real events; so funny.
Saw Get Out (2017) today. Pretty cool movie, with actually both a good idea and execution thereof for once. There's also some interesting social overlap there (which I don't really expect from horror movies today anymore, after the stupidity that was The Purge), in fact the way it handles racism is actually pretty cool and apt. Allison Williams is very pretty and the movie seems to be over in a heartbeat. Some genuinely creepy moments, too, courtesy of the good old Uncanny Valley.
Considering me and wifey just wanted a passable horror movie, we definitely got more than we expected. Also, rummaging on the TV Tropes page afterwards made me think the movie was actually really clever, but maybe it's just the wine.
So decided to watch this based on your feedback and O...M....G. LOVE going into a movie with ZERO expectations and knowing next to nothing about it. VERY pleasant surprise. I am a big fan of suspense/thriller/horror and it is hard to find nowadays, so I agree this one delivered and was at the very least competent and above average at best.
I really enjoyed Dunkirk, saw it on an IMAX screen, it was really nicely shot and was just loud as hell
Some specific comments
When I heard it was shot on 70mm, I was expecting something like a 1960s/70s epic type war movie, beyond some shots here and there, but that was not the case at all. not complaining, I just thought it interesting.
It also had a bit of a horror movie aspect to it ... you never really saw a German in the movie , even at the end their faces were obscured.
I think I expected more. Currently midway the film and can't help but root for the villains. But at least I've finally seen Springsteen in a drag.
Spoiler: Dunkirk stuff
Bingo! I thought not showing Germans was an interesting feature of the film. I assumed it meant they could completely focus on the relationships between British civilians/different sections of the armed forces/the French, instead of reducing it to goodies v baddies. War films are so bad for cheesy Comedy Nazi stereotypes and over-egging bad guy credentials, which I suppose is something that's difficult to avoid once you show the face of the opponent. It was more people versus bullets, torpedoes and planes.
Separate names with a comma.