NOW WATCHING

I have seen both Conjurings in cinema and... I don't know, honestly. I mostly liked both. Both movies were technically great, they worked as films. But I missed something to make them... stand out a bit, or something. For example Sinister is a one-trick pony that gets worse with each viewing. But I shat bricks when I saw it in the movie theatre and I was chalk-white when I walked out. And I remember it very well (mowing lawn - ugh). With both Conjurings, I wasn't really scared for most of the time. I remember thinking during the first one - okay, another exorcism. I saw Mama that very year and man, it was much more innovative (IMHO) and it gave me serious creeps. And The Exorcism of Emily Rose at least gave the exor-theme an unique twist.

Maybe I'm personally scared by other things (just for the record, I think The Thing, Event Horizon, Rosemary's Baby or Shutter (the Thai one) are the cream of the crop in that regard), but I fail to see where the huge popularity arises - the Conjuring series is good, but I don't see where it breaks through to true greatness. Oh, and I still haven't seen Annabelle, nor do I really intend to.

IRYO, though.
 
Annabelle Creation was well done but u can probably skip the first Annabelle film (although i liked it better the 2nd time)
 
I love all Conjuring movies (even the Annabelle ones), and honestly, to me, they're among the best horror movies ever made. They're the only ones that truly scare the crap out of me, much more than films like The Exorcist, for example (I understand why it got so popular in its time, but nowadays I wouldn't even call it a horror film). Granted I do get scared easily, but that's mostly while I'm watching the film - it all goes away after it's ended. The Conjuring movies, however, stuck with me for a very long time after seeing them. I saw all but the first one in theaters (just because I wasn't old enough), and I left completely terrified each time.
 
Number 6 said:
nowadays I wouldn't even call it a horror film
Click to expand...

Fully agree with that. The Exorcist is a stellar movie, but it's not really a horror film, IMHO. Or, at least, not for the most part.

Go watch the original Thai version of Shutter, I'm interested what you're going to think about that one. In my book, that's a merciless, unrelenting horror flick if I ever saw one.
 
Oh, mother! was another one that stuck with me for a very long time. I think I'm still not over that movie (and I've already seen it about 5 times). Very shocking! Need to watch it again some time.
 
[regarding Shutter]

P.S. - also, it has a creepy cool and original twist at the end that's actually been properly foreshadowed the whole movie.

Number 6 said:
Oh, mother! was another one that stuck with me for a very long time. I think I'm still not over that movie (and I've already seen it about 5 times). Very shocking! Need to watch it again some time.
Click to expand...

Well...

Sorry to disappoint you, but here's my commentary thereon

JudasMyGuide said:
19255611.jpg
mother.jpg


So we watched two movies yesterday, Sleepy Hollow (1999) and mother! (2017). I don't remember when was the last time I wasted so much time during a single day watching such dreck. Warning - spoilers and profanities ahead.

Regarding Hollow - I can't really say I was disappointed, because that'd mean I'd actually had serious expectations. I was looking for a movie that would get me into that proper autumnal mood and in that regard I guess it really works. The fallen leaves, the visible cold, In Mist She Was Standing whatever. Unfortunately that's about it. The story feels incoherent and sometimes defies logic altogether, Depp is probably one of the most overrated actors ever (I mean, he was rather "cute" here, but his characters are much too alike for my liking and he also fails to resonate emotionally with me in any way) and the movie couldn't even decide what fucking genre it wants to be - this sometimes works (Evil Dead 2), but here it certainly didn't because you really wouldn't be scared by this if you're over three and despite the occasional snigger this movie is no comedy either, let alone the fact that most "funny" moments consist of Depp getting some shit (blood) in his face. Apart from the atmosphere, the best thing about this would be the Christopher Lee/Walken cameos.

Oh, and for 105 minutes it feels overlong as fuck.



mother!... first of all, sorry about the possible spoilers, but this movie is pretty much impossible to talk about otherwise. If I were to sum it up in two words, I'd borrow a song name from Blixa Bargeld's Einstürzende Neubauten - Tanz debil. The last time I was this riled up by artistic pretensions of a director who couldn't help but to make his incompetence more and more conspicuous throughout was probably watching the excretions of Lars Von Trier and damn if I wasn't reminded of his Antichrist several times over.

I never really liked Aronofsky all that much (the only movies I actually appreciated were Pi and Black Swan), but I at least respected him as a director. I think I can safely say that's over now.

The way I see it, there are 4 main "interpretations" of the movie:

- the Aronofsky Himself/male artist point of view - this actually makes the most sense and could be seen as a commentary on the fact that many artists tend to be knobheads who use their work as a reason to act as dicks. I guess that seeing the whole movie in this way would make it look like Aronofsky thinks he's the God (which, well, might not be that far from the truth because 1.) that's more or less the state of the affairs nowadays with many people, 2.) thanks to the never-ending fellation of all "artists" nowadays he might be almost forgiven for thinking so). Well, "Him's profession is as a poet, and his narcissism, hunger for praise and casual neglect of his marriage all seem to be tied to his art".

- the feminist point of view - makes little sense, if only because in the end it again falls into the "men act, women are" cliché. Well, maybe not even that, because ... you know what? Fuck it. Let's just say that if I was a woman (and my wife is and feels the same), I still would be pretty much offended by the movie's portrayal thereof. Let's cut the crap - Lawrence's mother here is no actual person (I'll get to this later) - she is great and a "hero" mainly because she gives birth - again, interesting message nowadays when intentionally childless couples start to spread.

- the environmental point of view - allegedly the main idea of the creators - I guess this kinda makes sense, but 1.) it doesn't really tell us anything new, does it? Except for possibly "Saint-Martiners, we're sorry but you're dead because the US didn't ratify Kyoto". 2.) Also, considering the beginning and ending, that is, the endless repetition, it really makes no sense, because you could (and probably should) interpret it as "more or less the contrary to climate change activists' warnings of irreversible harm and it affirms denialists' belief that climate change is a matter of "natural cycles" that naturally repair themselves". Also, the "Gaya's vengeance" aspect is pretty dumb in general, because philosophically it makes no sense and is a cheap, third-grader way to explain catastrophes. BTW what about those disasters on other planets where no-one "loots"?

- the Abrahamic religion point of view - Both the most offensive and the most ignorant part/interpretation. I don't know what it is that makes everyone think they are experts on religion and theology and are both entitled and erudite enough to comment thereon, but it's getting tiresome. Aronofsky here tries to pick certain parts of Abrahamic religion (but only parts) and then tries to put his kinda spin on it, but he only makes it obvious he knows jack shit. I will refrain from commenting on the "eucharist", apart from saying that I've probably never seen anything so stupid, misinterpreted and ... well, disgusting. The level of idiocy here is simply immeasurable.

(I suppose someone could see the movie as a commentary on the immigrant crisis/Trump vs. Mexico issues, but considering the fact how the movie sees the "invaders" and what would the message then be and considering it was made in Hollywood, there's no way that was intentional. I'd still like to see it that way, if only for the fact that injecting racism and xenophobia would make Aronofsky's struggle for a perfectly offensive film complete).

The symbols and allegory are nonsensical, because they sometimes work and sometimes don't, the director obviously can't make up his mind what point he actually wants to make and in the end, it's just plain old "throw everything on the wall and something sticks". The film's chasing too many rabbits and most get away. It's no wonder it feels underbaked.

Despite this, it could have worked - I mean, Black Swan is really about nothing in particular, yet it's a great thriller movie that keeps you on the edge of your seat. This bogging smegma of a movie is no thriller. It's not scary, it's not unnerving, it does not thrill. It's not psychological, either. The characters are not even real characters. They are cheap cardboard trash that revolve around a single theme each. To put it simply, if we scratch the symbolism and allegory (which should always come second in a good story, after the storyline and characters), the movie doesn't even work as a movie. Where's the fucking story???

Lawrence's acting is good, albeit a bit histrionic, but that's way too small a comfort.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Aronofsky's main intention was to spark controversy and be the "talked-about" director. Unfortunately, I already helped in that regard by this rant here. So let's just make peace with that by saying I will never ever support any of his creations again.

And for anyone thinking I can't stand it because it's offensive to religion - no, that's simply not true. First of all, that would be weird coming from the bloke who has Simons in his avatar, but I also really like to have worthy opponents. Go read Ivan's rants (and short story) in Brothers Karamazov. Or some stuff by Eco. That's some stuff. Devilishly clever, thought-provoking, ingenious, even. Aronofsky is just the next Dawkins. He might have thought of himself being the next Hitchens, but he's not. He's just the next Dawkins.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter how the world is, what truly matters is the way the "artists" see it, right?

Sorry for the rant. I just had to get it out of my system. Fuck it. Judas out.
Click to expand...
 
I loved The Handmaid's Tale episode from yesterday.

Canadian lady's trolling of Serena was masterful. "I work so much... and read... and work SO MUCH... no time for anything from work and reading". And also when they gave her the schedule in pictures. I think they are going for a redemption arc with Serena, I just hope she doesn't get a happy ending, because her changing her mind won't redeem her from all the death her ideas brought.
 
JudasMyGuide said:
19255611.jpg
mother.jpg


So we watched two movies yesterday, Sleepy Hollow (1999) and mother! (2017). I don't remember when was the last time I wasted so much time during a single day watching such dreck. Warning - spoilers and profanities ahead.

Regarding Hollow - I can't really say I was disappointed, because that'd mean I'd actually had serious expectations. I was looking for a movie that would get me into that proper autumnal mood and in that regard I guess it really works. The fallen leaves, the visible cold, In Mist She Was Standing whatever. Unfortunately that's about it. The story feels incoherent and sometimes defies logic altogether, Depp is probably one of the most overrated actors ever (I mean, he was rather "cute" here, but his characters are much too alike for my liking and he also fails to resonate emotionally with me in any way) and the movie couldn't even decide what fucking genre it wants to be - this sometimes works (Evil Dead 2), but here it certainly didn't because you really wouldn't be scared by this if you're over three and despite the occasional snigger this movie is no comedy either, let alone the fact that most "funny" moments consist of Depp getting some shit (blood) in his face. Apart from the atmosphere, the best thing about this would be the Christopher Lee/Walken cameos.

Oh, and for 105 minutes it feels overlong as fuck.



mother!... first of all, sorry about the possible spoilers, but this movie is pretty much impossible to talk about otherwise. If I were to sum it up in two words, I'd borrow a song name from Blixa Bargeld's Einstürzende Neubauten - Tanz debil. The last time I was this riled up by artistic pretensions of a director who couldn't help but to make his incompetence more and more conspicuous throughout was probably watching the excretions of Lars Von Trier and damn if I wasn't reminded of his Antichrist several times over.

I never really liked Aronofsky all that much (the only movies I actually appreciated were Pi and Black Swan), but I at least respected him as a director. I think I can safely say that's over now.

The way I see it, there are 4 main "interpretations" of the movie:

- the Aronofsky Himself/male artist point of view - this actually makes the most sense and could be seen as a commentary on the fact that many artists tend to be knobheads who use their work as a reason to act as dicks. I guess that seeing the whole movie in this way would make it look like Aronofsky thinks he's the God (which, well, might not be that far from the truth because 1.) that's more or less the state of the affairs nowadays with many people, 2.) thanks to the never-ending fellation of all "artists" nowadays he might be almost forgiven for thinking so). Well, "Him's profession is as a poet, and his narcissism, hunger for praise and casual neglect of his marriage all seem to be tied to his art".

- the feminist point of view - makes little sense, if only because in the end it again falls into the "men act, women are" cliché. Well, maybe not even that, because ... you know what? Fuck it. Let's just say that if I was a woman (and my wife is and feels the same), I still would be pretty much offended by the movie's portrayal thereof. Let's cut the crap - Lawrence's mother here is no actual person (I'll get to this later) - she is great and a "hero" mainly because she gives birth - again, interesting message nowadays when intentionally childless couples start to spread.

- the environmental point of view - allegedly the main idea of the creators - I guess this kinda makes sense, but 1.) it doesn't really tell us anything new, does it? Except for possibly "Saint-Martiners, we're sorry but you're dead because the US didn't ratify Kyoto". 2.) Also, considering the beginning and ending, that is, the endless repetition, it really makes no sense, because you could (and probably should) interpret it as "more or less the contrary to climate change activists' warnings of irreversible harm and it affirms denialists' belief that climate change is a matter of "natural cycles" that naturally repair themselves". Also, the "Gaya's vengeance" aspect is pretty dumb in general, because philosophically it makes no sense and is a cheap, third-grader way to explain catastrophes. BTW what about those disasters on other planets where no-one "loots"?

- the Abrahamic religion point of view - Both the most offensive and the most ignorant part/interpretation. I don't know what it is that makes everyone think they are experts on religion and theology and are both entitled and erudite enough to comment thereon, but it's getting tiresome. Aronofsky here tries to pick certain parts of Abrahamic religion (but only parts) and then tries to put his kinda spin on it, but he only makes it obvious he knows jack shit. I will refrain from commenting on the "eucharist", apart from saying that I've probably never seen anything so stupid, misinterpreted and ... well, disgusting. The level of idiocy here is simply immeasurable.

(I suppose someone could see the movie as a commentary on the immigrant crisis/Trump vs. Mexico issues, but considering the fact how the movie sees the "invaders" and what would the message then be and considering it was made in Hollywood, there's no way that was intentional. I'd still like to see it that way, if only for the fact that injecting racism and xenophobia would make Aronofsky's struggle for a perfectly offensive film complete).

The symbols and allegory are nonsensical, because they sometimes work and sometimes don't, the director obviously can't make up his mind what point he actually wants to make and in the end, it's just plain old "throw everything on the wall and something sticks". The film's chasing too many rabbits and most get away. It's no wonder it feels underbaked.

Despite this, it could have worked - I mean, Black Swan is really about nothing in particular, yet it's a great thriller movie that keeps you on the edge of your seat. This bogging smegma of a movie is no thriller. It's not scary, it's not unnerving, it does not thrill. It's not psychological, either. The characters are not even real characters. They are cheap cardboard trash that revolve around a single theme each. To put it simply, if we scratch the symbolism and allegory (which should always come second in a good story, after the storyline and characters), the movie doesn't even work as a movie. Where's the fucking story???

Lawrence's acting is good, albeit a bit histrionic, but that's way too small a comfort.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Aronofsky's main intention was to spark controversy and be the "talked-about" director. Unfortunately, I already helped in that regard by this rant here. So let's just make peace with that by saying I will never ever support any of his creations again.

And for anyone thinking I can't stand it because it's offensive to religion - no, that's simply not true. First of all, that would be weird coming from the bloke who has Simons in his avatar, but I also really like to have worthy opponents. Go read Ivan's rants (and short story) in Brothers Karamazov. Or some stuff by Eco. That's some stuff. Devilishly clever, thought-provoking, ingenious, even. Aronofsky is just the next Dawkins. He might have thought of himself being the next Hitchens, but he's not. He's just the next Dawkins.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter how the world is, what truly matters is the way the "artists" see it, right?

Sorry for the rant. I just had to get it out of my system. Fuck it. Judas out.
Click to expand...
Well, I love both! And mother! is my fourth favorite movie of all time. :p
 
I'm feeling stupid. Accidentally spoiled to myself something about Supernatural (I'm about 4 episodes away from the season 13 finale).

However, I'm actually glad that Lucifer dies (and, luckily, I still don't know how). Couldn't stand him anymore! Which kinda sucks, because he remained one of my favorite characters on that show for years, until season 12. He's a prick. :facepalm:
 
I love it very much! I caught up when season 11 had just barely ended. Season 12 was my first new season. It was torture having to wait a week to see the next episode after binge-watching 11 23ish-episode seasons. Good luck! :p
 
Gravity Falls has got to be the best cartoon series ever created. I should rewatch all of it sometime. Brilliant!
 
I was without internet for a while so I watched my Lethal Weapon DVDs. I've seen 1-3, missing 4, but I have to say that it was hard to enjoy them. The mindless destruction, reckless driving, not following protocol/policy, not getting warrants, etc. was just too ludicrous. Also, EVERYTHING blows up in these movies! Fucking explosions galore lol. The entertainment I get out of them now is different than the one originally intended lol.
 
Oh, I also watched the new Tomb Raider movie. I REALLY enjoyed it. I felt as far as video game adaptations go it was pretty good. As always it could have been better, but the final product is fairly solid.
 
Onhell said:
I was without internet for a while so I watched my Lethal Weapon DVDs. I've seen 1-3, missing 4, but I have to say that it was hard to enjoy them. The mindless destruction, reckless driving, not following protocol/policy, not getting warrants, etc. was just too ludicrous. Also, EVERYTHING blows up in these movies! Fucking explosions galore lol. The entertainment I get out of them now is different than the one originally intended lol.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're getting too old for that shit.

I've only seen the first two. Love the first - it's a Christmas classic, just like Die Hard :D Thought the second one was so-so, but maybe I need to see it again. Have you been watching the Lethal Weapon TV series? I've heard good things, haven't actually got round to starting it yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top