NOW WATCHING

CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
final1.jpg

>
Click to expand...


Before I image-searched that, I thought it was supposed to be a biographical film about Francis Bacon (the second one). Then I realised you've been putting the link there lately. Whatever.


Watched Full Metal Jacket just now with wife. She insisted. I saw it for the first time in about ten years... and honestly, I probably like that even less than I did before. As I've given up on trying to pretend I like Kubrick (which every movie afficionado is supposed to, of course), I really don't feel the need to fight for this one. And mind ye - I might dislike Kubrick in general, but this particular movie is also very... bland, actually.

I guess that after dozens of war movies I'm really sick of the genre in general. I'd probably never refuse to rewatch Kwai or Lawrence of Arabia (or Cross of Iron) and of course there are war movies that truly are among the best films ever, genre be damned (I mean especially Thin Red Line and Apocalypse Now), but after watching many others from Green Berrets to Hart's War to Idi i smotri to Enemy at the Gates to Remagen to Bridge Too Far to Pearl Harbor and whatever else I'm kinda tough sell on that one, it seems.

The main problem I had was that... well... what did it bring to the table? That Apocalypse or Platoon didn't say better? And Kubrick might be an obsessive twit and have visionary visuals and whatever - I see it in Barry Lyndon, in Odyssey, in The Shining, even... but I don't see it here. I'd like to say that the urban warfare is beautifully shot, but I honestly don't see it. Not here.

Also, while I kinda feel that Kubrick really had little to say in general (and I know I'm treading on thin ice here) and his movies were always kinda predictable and shallow, I always kept that apart as maybe something that only I have problems with (though later some other people confirmed it to me, so I was relieved), but here it really shines. Apart from the fact that war is hell and training for it no less so, there's little to be found otherwise. I kinda could read something along the "thousand yard stare" theory and the elbow-rubbing of the desk jockey Joker with the blokes that were really in the field and hate him for it, for not putting his life and sanity on the line... but that's not pronounced enough in the final product. Private Pyle going psycho is both kinda clichéd and also it does not really resonate afterwards in any way.

R. Lee Ermey is very charismatic and wonderful to watch, I'll give it that.

Sorry to all the fans thereof (or of Kubrick), I'm not trolling, it's was just a movie that IMHO belongs in the lower parts of the filmography of a director who's not one of my favourites in general (my favourites being probably Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut). I guess I'd give it more leeway if it was made earlier, not as late as 1987, I guess, but that's hardly any consolation. And that's about that, I guess.
 
Last edited:
I honestly haven't seen enough of Kubrick to judge his career as a whole, but I do think that Dr. Strangelove is a pretty fantastic statement on / parody of nuclear war. Was quite a great film.
 
That's fair enough. I saw it for the first time last summer so perhaps another viewing would be necessary, but it was a pretty fascinating film with a lot of subtle points of humor that stood out quite well amongst the threat of certain death.
 
Well, let me put it this way - I don't hate Kubrick and I even respect him in a way. I think his movies are mostly very good, sometimes even excellent. But there's been this cult made around him that I really can't stand, because compared with other directors, he's very limited in his view and he doesn't deserve that downright adoration he gets. Visually, he's no Kurosawa or Leone or even Sorrentino and thematically... well, I like my "thinking" directors to be philosophers, either explicit (Malick, Tarkovsky, Allen) or implicit (Leone) or kinda both (Cronenberg, Scorsese). All of these make me think, while Kubrick mostly... doesn't. Again, not a diss, not a disrespect, even, just a limitation. Maybe it's just me.

I'm being very careful, because after what I'd seen, I didn't respect Paul Thomas Anderson very much. And then I'd see There Will Be Blood. Now, let me put it this way - I haven't seen the movie since that first time about four years ago and if I'm not gonna watch it for the next five years, I'm quite OK with that. But that's one of the most excellent movies I'd ever seen. It makes me sick to my stomach, it's positively demonic in essence, but it's absolutely astonishing. From a director who's otherwise leagues under Kubrick in almost every way. Yet Stanley has never managed to put out anything quite like this.

However I honestly and fully support any fan of Kubrick that's here. Million times better than being a fan of Trier or Aronofsky.
 
JudasMyGuide said:
The main problem I had was that... well... what did it bring to the table? That Apocalypse or Platoon didn't say better?
Click to expand...
On a slightly related note, can I get an Apocalypse Now review from you? Your writings are quite interesting reads and I love that movie so I'd be interested in hearing your take. :D
 
No need to, it's a cool pick. One of his movies that doesn't overstay his welcome, in fact. […] Holy star longevity, Batman, Kirk Douglas is still alive? WTF?

I might write something down about Apocalypse later, but I can't seem to find the time today.
 
MrKnickerbocker said:
I really enjoyed it and the first one. Some very positive surprises in both movies.
Click to expand...
I actually liked the second one better than the first. I was curious to see how they were going to make the sequel, since the unpredictability of the Scream/Groundhog Day mash-up really is what made the first one so fun and original, and in a second film that aspect would be lost through familiarity. I was scared they were going to mess it up, especially since the trailer looked like a total rehash of the original's plot (I liked the trailer, but would be disappointed if the film ended up being Happy Death Day 1½).

However, never once did I catch myself thinking, "oh, I've seen this before". I was pleasantly surprised throughout the whole film, and I thought the mystery was very well constructed. I had my guesses about the identity of the killer, but I couldn't figure out the actual one. I also like how they brought minor things from the first one (like Tree's relationship with her mom) to the front in the second one, really helped keeping the film refreshing and original.

The post-credits scene was so fun, and I'm very curious as to where they're going to be heading in a third film.
 
Same here! I really get the same vibe from this series that I got the first time I watched Scream. It's more clever than it deserves to be and it's just the right amount of self-aware.
 
images


Got poltergeists on the brain after finishing the Enfield book. Is this film meant to be all that frightening? I have no idea what to expect.
 
I'm over an hour in and not much supernatural stuff has actually happened. It doesn't even feel like it's supposed to be a "real" horror film. The scene with the guy tearing his own face off was kinda shocking, but that was brought down by the obvious effects, reminded me of the Terminator repairing its own eye.
 
Last edited:
I don't get how people can find films like Poltergeist scary after having seen The Exorcist, which, released nearly 10 years earlier, was far more shocking and had better special effects.

Then again, there are people who think that the original Evil Dead is scary, so...
 
I've never found Exorcist scary. I guess it was shocking, but I'm not so convinced about it being scary. I'm still mildly freaked out by the Alien films, though.
 
Number 6 said:
I don't get how people can find films like Poltergeist scary after having seen The Exorcist, which, released nearly 10 years earlier, was far more shocking and had better special effects.

Then again, there are people who think that the original Evil Dead is scary, so...
Click to expand...

Exorcist wasn't quite as bad as I expected, but was still pretty scary in places. Poltergeist just felt like a child-friendly horror film, though perhaps that's what they were going for? Even in the final act, nothing really frightening happened. Big hole in the wall, some corpses and then the house imploded. OK.

I don't know if I'd find Evil Dead scary, but I'd definitely be put off by the gore. :puke:
 
For me scary is an odd word to describe something in a film. Scary idea, maybe. I find plenty of stuff disturbing (for example), but actually scary to watch? No.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top