View Full Version : Confessions of a Self-Proclaimed Movie-Buff
I saw it this afternoon and really liked it.
The French coward thing has always been an enormous lie -it really is total BS. When the French have lost, it hasn't been for that reason.
By the way, in the film at the beginning one of the characters passes through a French defensive position, so for that reason and a comment at the end about then evacuating the French tells you that is who is holding off the Germans during the evacuation, but they go into no more detail then that (actually I don't think the words Nazi or German are ever even used in the film and no clear human is ever depicted for the enemy).
There's no question that many French fought bravely, both at the onset of the war and to the end in the resistance. But the French collectively got their reputation as Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys the hard way, they earned it.
It's not just cowardice, it's also a reaction to a sense of arrogance belying widespread ineptitude and lack of moral resolve. This was embodied by General Charles de Gualle insisting on a entering Paris as their liberator and sharing as a one of the victors in WWII when he and the free French played only a tiny part in making any of that happen.
The nature of their capitulation also played a part in earning them this reputation. The French government collaborated with the Nazis to preserve their power. This included sending Jews to concentration camps. Almost two million French soldiers surrendered and went to work in German factories and fields. The vast majority of them were kept in work detachments rather than in camps and yet more of them became "free workers" than escaped back to France. Even many of the Free French and resistance fighters viewed these men as cowards.
The "French coward thing" is an subjective opinion and anyone is free to decide for themselves whether it's deserved. But "enormous lie" and "total BS" are pretty hard to support, at least with regard to the French collectively in WW2.
Napoleon
07-30-17, 09:05 PM
There's no question that many French fought bravely, both at the onset of the war and to the end in the resistance. But the French collectively got their reputation as Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys the hard way, they earned it.
It's not just cowardice, it's also a reaction to a sense of arrogance belying widespread ineptitude and lack of moral resolve. This was embodied by General Charles de Gualle insisting on a entering Paris as their liberator and sharing as a one of the victors in WWII when he and the free French played only a tiny part in making any of that happen.
The nature of their capitulation also played a part in earning them this reputation. The French government collaborated with the Nazis to preserve their power. This included sending Jews to concentration camps. Almost two million French soldiers surrendered and went to work in German factories and fields. The vast majority of them were kept in work detachments rather than in camps and yet more of them became "free workers" than escaped back to France. Even many of the Free French and resistance fighters viewed these men as cowards.
The "French coward thing" is an subjective opinion and anyone is free to decide for themselves whether it's deserved. But "enormous lie" and "total BS" are pretty hard to support, at least with regard to the French collectively in WW2.
Nothing you say has anything to do with cowardliness. Funny everything specific you mention above happened after the French were defeated in the field.
Anyone seen Dunkirk? I have not seen it yet but I am reading about the battles surrounding the evacuation. The common joke these days is that the French are cowards but apparently they fought well enough to save about 100,000 soldiers, having thousands of themselves captured because they held so long there was no time left for them to get away. It's from Wiki and we all know that may not be correct but I'm hoping someone here has more knowledge.
As I mentioned in my other post, the French coward thing has more to do with a collective lack of resolve from leadership than the individual fighting man. The French government was ready to surrender even before the events of Dunkirk. It was only Churchill's resolve that convinced them otherwise.
All of that aside, I really enjoyed the film. I was a little concerned about the effects early on. Some of the planes looked a little too perfectly in formation so I was afraid it was going to be another film full of bad CGI flight scenes and planes defying physics. As it turns out most of the flight scenes were practical effects either with planes or models and they were spectacular.
While there are some annoyances in the details but I'll allow them some room for dramatic license and not quibble too much. They did a great job of capturing that feeling of imminent doom of the men in that circumstance. I think that's what the lack of a visible enemy and relentless soundtrack drove home, that they were fighting against time as much as anything.
I saw one review that said it was bad because it has Harry Styles in it so how is anyone going to see him as anyone but Harry Styles? To which I respond, "Harry who?"
Nothing you say has anything to do with cowardliness. Funny everything specific you mention above happened after the French were defeated in the field.
If you just want to call them arrogant people who lack moral courage and sell out their allies in hopes of securing their own power and influence because "cowards" is a little too broad, that's fine by me. For most people "coward" has become the shorthand joke, but maybe "Landos" would be better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpE_xMRiCLE
France still had significant army, navy, and air forces in the South of France and North Africa that had not been defeated. They could have withdrawn those forces to North Africa if they had the will to fight. Instead they hoped to buy an easy peace for themselves by sending millions of men to work in German factories and fields and paying massive "administrative fees" to the German treasury.
TravelGal
07-31-17, 02:12 PM
Wow. Quite the thread! I read the opinions above through a new filter these days. One of my best friends is now opening up about what it was like to live in Poland during and after WWII. I can only say that through her I'm learning, once again, that what we read and know as fact is not always the way it seemed to the people living through it.
NRC, I'm with you on Harry Styles. I had to look back through the thread to try to spell the name correctly. LOL.
datachicane
08-01-17, 12:06 AM
nrc, you're a good guy, but that may be the goofiest thing I've ever read. Did the Germans "lack moral courage" or "sell out their allies" when they surrendered? France was defeated, their homeland occupied, and it wasn't an unreasonable assumption that the same fate would befall Britain shortly. What were they supposed to do, fight to the death in the gamble that the U.S. would eventually enter the war? For eighteen long months? Even assuming that the gamble pays off at all, what do you think would have been left of France at the end of that eighteen months?
de Gaulle was a nasty piece of work, no argument, but to paint all of France with that brush? Pretty bizarre revisionism from the comfort of 20th century American exceptionalism IMHO.
Moving away from historic geopolitical discussions...
At my son's request, we went to see Baby Driver. As summer entertainment goes, it was great. Think Pulp Fiction meets Fast and the Furious. Well worth it.
They released the opening 6 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XMuUVw7TOM
nrc, you're a good guy, but that may be the goofiest thing I've ever read.
I appreciate your endorsement but the goofiest thing you've ever read is the same as the position of the French Prime Minister (who resigned) and many others at the time, including Churchill and de Gualle.
Did the Germans "lack moral courage" or "sell out their allies" when they surrendered? France was defeated, their homeland occupied, and it wasn't an unreasonable assumption that the same fate would befall Britain shortly. What were they supposed to do, fight to the death in the gamble that the U.S. would eventually enter the war? For eighteen long months? Even assuming that the gamble pays off at all, what do you think would have been left of France at the end of that eighteen months?
That's a not a valid comparison because the circumstances were in no way similar. Germany was completely crushed and overrun from the east and west. They were trapped between advancing armies with no opportunity to escape and no-place to go even if they could.
As I already explained in my previous post, France still had significant forces in Southern France and North Africa which were never defeated in the field - they simply surrendered them. At the time of the surrender the French army still controlled the Southern half of France from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean.
After Dunkirk the British evacuated another 200,000 men from Southern France. The French had a significant naval fleet in North Africa. They could have used it to withdrawn at least as many of their men from Southern France as did the British, probably more. Those additional forces along with the French Navy could have made a huge difference in the North African campaign. With the addition of the French Navy threatening German supply lines the campaign would have been shortened considerably.
The sad thing is most of the French who did escape at Dunkirk were repatriated and ended up POWs anyway. Most of them were either immediately returned to Southern France while the battle continued, or later declined to fight for de Gualle because the French government had capitulated.
de Gaulle was a nasty piece of work, no argument, but to paint all of France with that brush? Pretty bizarre revisionism from the comfort of 20th century American exceptionalism IMHO.
de Gualle was a major figure through the post war period and played a big role in shaping impressions and attitudes about the French. The irony is that while he did the right thing in continuing to fight, his arrogance and seeming ingratitude and disloyalty to the West served to reinforce attitudes about the French in the post-war period.
We finally got to see Star Wars The Last Jedi last night. I have pretty mixed feelings about it. I will ramble on and include spoilers.
While I enjoyed parts of this episode tremendously, I was at times bored or annoyed so it's hard to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'd have rather had another pure dose "give the fans what they want" than a sometimes clumsy attempt to get too creative with the sacred texts (so to speak).
The opening segment is a perfect example of the equally cool and exasperating nature of this movie. While I suppose it's no more silly to imagine space bombers patterned after WWII bombers in the same way that we've accepted WWII dogfights between space fighters in this genre, it comes off as a little too inane even for a WWII bomber fanboy like me.
Is it possible to make space bombers even more slow and clumsy than their 20th century inspirations? And I'm sure they have some ridiculous explanation for why space bombs are going to fall like gravity bombs but I don't even care to hear it. Even as I'm reveling in the call backs to my bomber heroes, right down to flight gear and ball turrets, I'm rolling my eyes over the execution.
That's the general problem with this installment. While the good outweighs the bad, it's not by as much as I'd like. It feels like there's at least half an hour in there wasted on building story lines that amount to nothing or don't really advance the main story. Likewise, the dialog is sometimes right on point sometimes ridiculous and painful.
The stories of Luke, Leia, Rey, and Kylo are the meat of this episode. The story line between Rey and Kylo is good, although Kylo almost seems sometimes like a SNL spoof of himself. Again, it's a dialog problem. The story line between Rey and Luke is a bit painful at times as it's a little hard to buy Luke's "no more Jedi" hermit shtick but it feels okay in the end.
It's unfortunate that Leia's part in the story feels entirely peripheral. They even bring in Laura Dern to take over as head leader lady after Leia is implausibly blasted into space before flying back on board Mary Poppins style. As a result Dern's character ends up sacrificing herself in a way that would have been a fitting end to Leia's story.
I realize that filming was complete before we tragically lost Carrie Fisher, but it's sad that they did so little with Leia that they couldn't edit it into some kind of fitting curtain call. They've already said that they're not going to digitally recreate Leia, so that seems to mean that they've dumped the challenge of scripting a fitting end to Leia's story that will occur entirely off screen. That's a shame.
Here's how I would have handled it. First of all it's a shame that they never had a face to face confrontation between Leia - err General Organa - and Kylo. If they had filmed something like that they would have had everything they needed to create a great ending for the character. I would like to have seen Leia confront Kylo alone, buying time as everyone else is escaping the base. At the climax Kylo strikes out a Leia to remedy his weakness earlier in the film only to find that she too was immaterial and fades out. Then cut to her body still in her life support chamber, having never left it since her space walk. Her body disappears and the blanket falls.
It would have been tough to pull off without the dialog in existence, but if they can recreate Peter Cushing for Rogue One, I think they could have done it for Leia for one brief scene with dramatic cave lighting and acoustics to help hide the trick. The character deserves more than she's likely to get from an off screen ending in the next episode.
This movie had some of the greatest moments in the Star Wars saga and those are enough to make this better than any of the "prequel" episodes. That and the core story line are enough to make this an enjoyable episode overall. But just barely. The way some of the story lines, characters, and Star Wars canon are handled continue to grate. Clearly many die hard fans disapprove. So I'm left to wonder how this film will hold up over time.
datachicane
01-02-18, 04:50 PM
I agree with your assessment of Last Jedi, with a couple of additional spoilerish gripes:
The subplot dealing with Poe's being taught lessons re: expensive victories vs. more strategic planning would be fine, except... after focusing on the cost in lives and equipment of his (idiot gravity) bombing campaign, the screenplay completely overlooks the cost of his subsequent mutiny and mission to disable the Empire's tracking device. His actions not only delayed the evacuation of the Resistance, but revealed the evacuation plan to the Empire, directly resulting in a bloodbath that eventually allows the entire Resistance to fit comfortably within the confines of the Millennium Falcon. The Response? Laurel Dern, by now back in command after being imprisoned during his mutiny and fully aware of the cost of his recklessness, says "I like that kid". :saywhat: Sure, he single-handedly wiped out the Resistance, but hey, the kid's got a likeability contract for the next umpteen films.
The nifty hyperspace kamikaze sequence, wherein we're deprived of Laura Dern and her Gerry Andersen UFO moonbase regulation hair. Two nitpicky questions- why not try this trick with, say, the medical frigate before it becomes the first casualty, before the entire Resistance fleet is wiped out? ...and if physics works this way, wouldn't you imagine that someone, somewhere in the vast universe would invent, I dunno, maybe a hyperspace torpedo to accomplish the same thing? Did it just never occur to anyone?
This is probably way too nitpicky, but when Luke give his "if you strike me down in anger" line to Ren, when, in fact, he's a gazillion miles away making it impossible for Ren to strike him down in anger, peevishness, perversity, or anything else, is he just screwing with the kid? What possible reason is there for that line, other than the fact (and I'm certain this is what happened) it was written as a nice callback to Obi-Wan's nearly identical line to Vader, and a script tweak three weeks later left Luke all astrally-projecty on the fish planet instead. Eight films in, why start quibbling about script continuity now?
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_PghOQcqRn0-SilZF3Dw6jMYgMmv1m1iKeuQOzSfXjHwIBpDH3-nqqb5qaIxg65cim9OU3aHGKeKVw_9ito5t9RGQYrBM5wUqNTvJ vVj_9YA744AllJP5pfEJeMDz49yiTK-fUxcQX6_XK_5iYsg2yy4-Rgym6IFF_IgbW0B4KApAuSdoo3k1xeeWsLepzgIqS8HnaTQbWJ c_NaSu1Wid4-yg8tBviBMQwIhL8Asq5LHvw8xtjJ8ejPN7QROHcgR25a7ueypS sizTnqv9lg_6KCYSkUHYNJNk-EhHeYxxS3zUnVJhHRhNFvGJ9Q_e6O6PdxfvqisC36NsgE7khdl Pc0Lk1_ci9-vgPcfgsBGEIsAhsZTNHcS8KKHlWNRhLt7adl6-F2HiB1aj6gc4MD_kb9inR2ninuqdK2lf2UR4K7b8SAUJqXZNj4 eVskgsJQGIr3TGLNccmL7nQeFazekZBeUkW1kMETrI6msH6Z0m p3Q1TYwUG9zGbs-4JbpMh75GMUbnadsiBgIso9u8RjP7aYszmJa-qekj5wMOydjnN7mt4ITXb5E0X7qb3-fo2x8B-qQV-KGiL8DuJ9s3crMI0aJphaGSChhPrGFNv4=w842-h472-no
The original film was no great art, but the thing did have a proper, satisfying story arc (Farm kid goes to the big city, does good). This film made me feel like I was watching chess pieces get pushed around the board by the competing interests of the marketing department and the art director, with the explicit goal of maximizing revenue extraction over the greatest number of years. It felt like an exercise in marketing and manipulation, and any actual artistic merit that arose out of it was purely by chance.
Oh, yeah, and Luke's metal hand should've fallen with a thunk at the end.
chop456
01-03-18, 02:31 AM
Agree with both assessments 100%. I saw it after work and maybe it was because I was tired, but I actually considered walking out about halfway through the utterly pointless casino scene(s). I watched Rogue One the next day to get the taste out of my mouth. Remove the blind monk guy from that movie and it's pretty great.
I knew after the first "Can you hear me now?" scene that I was in for a long 130 minutes. The sea cow/elephant? Revisiting a Usual Suspects character? Recreating the battle of Hoth? The calico penguin? Ugh.
dirtyboy
01-03-18, 11:05 AM
How can you guys can complain and not mention Leia coming back to life in outer space? It was so embarrassing it took me out of the movie for about 30 minutes. It was the worst scene in a movie full of bad scenes.
How can you guys can complain and not mention Leia coming back to life in outer space? It was so embarrassing it took me out of the movie for about 30 minutes. It was the worst scene in a movie full of bad scenes.
I worked it in there, "They even bring in Laura Dern to take over as head leader lady after Leia is implausibly blasted into space before flying back on board Mary Poppins style."
Honestly at this point I'm trying not to think about it too much. The more I think and read about it the more I'm pulled to the dark side. :(
stroker
03-01-18, 11:54 PM
If anyone goes to see "Annihilation" speak up. I'd written it off as another formula horror movie but apparently there's more to it than that. At least that's what the review said.
Avengers Infinity War spoiler free review: Wow.
At our latest Super Hero smash-up-and-joke-athon I was happy to see the trailer for "Bohemian Rhapsody," a movie about Queen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqD6UY-G9eo
I'm hoping this will be worthwhile. Grrl is concerned about the enormity of the Freddie Mercury character's dental appliance but I'm not so sure. Freddie's overbite was really quite something. I think it may just look worse because the actor doesn't have Mercury's big square jaw line which balanced it out a bit.
Anyone see Solo? I'm very ambivalent about it now after the last Star Wars movie. :\
WickerBill
06-01-18, 08:16 AM
Saw Solo.
Liked it enough that I'll probably watch it again at home when it is available. Didn't love it.
It's funny - if I look at individual performances, I thought some actors did very very well - Donald Glover, Emelia Clarke, Woody Harrelson. But since it's a stand-alone story, I didn't really sink into it like I have the other films.
TravelGal
06-01-18, 12:45 PM
Has anyone seen Black Panther? Coming home on the plane, I saw it. That is, SAW it. Two rows down on the aisle from my seat. No sound but great video. LOL. It's seemed like a never-ending video game within a game. Spoilers are okay for me because I doubt I'd sit through it again, even with the sound. :laugh:
stroker
06-02-18, 11:36 AM
one of the chains is showing the original Raiders of the Lost Ark next weekend. I'm taking the girls (10 and 8) to see it for the first time on the big screen. Booyah!
TravelGal
06-02-18, 12:14 PM
one of the chains is showing the original Raiders of the Lost Ark next weekend. I'm taking the girls (10 and 8) to see it for the first time on the big screen. Booyah!
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
This looks interesting.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1950186/
Logan director James Mangold is doing "Ford v Ferrari," a film about Ford's effort to beat Ferrari at LeMans. Looks like a first rate cast with Christian Bale as Ken Miles, Matt Damon as Carroll Shelby, Jon Bernthal as Lee Iacocca, and introducing some guy named Alex Gurney as Dan Gurney.
Sounds like this is a Shelby/Miles/Iacocca/Ford story so I imagine Gurney's is a bit part but you couldn't get anyone with a better look for that part.
We went to see Avengers Endgame this weekend. The magnitude of the achievement of this movie is unlike any I can think of in cinematic history. To wrap up such a sprawling, long running story line with so many characters with such an entertaining and satisfying conclusion is an amazing accomplishment. It's far from a perfect film. There's just too much in there to hope that they could get through it without a single misstep. But the way it tells an epic story that respects fan expectations without pandering to them is a blueprint for how to handle a franchise.
I was going to compare this to the smoking wreckage of the Star Wars franchise, but I don't suppose that's fair. Thanks to Stan Lee, the Marvel Comics Universe, with all its characters and major story lines, are pretty well laid out. There are so many great stories, heroes, and villains in the MCU that there's no need for a committee of Hollywood writers and studio executives to create their own from scratch.
stroker
05-01-19, 08:13 AM
I'm conflicted about Endgame. Can't tell if I'm just sad that it's "over", pissed off about the SJW stuff, disagree with the overall plot direction, unhappy with the glaring time travel holes, annoyed with the changes to significant characters or just didn't like it very much. I walked out of the theater with sort of a big "Meh". I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer so maybe it's just me. Maybe it's just that it was so hyped that it couldn't possibly meet my expectations.
datachicane
05-02-19, 02:58 PM
Superheroes <snif> :\
The whole genre gets a big shrug from me. The fact that it's become the central theme of pop culture seems downright inexplicable. Maybe it's just because I'm an old guy, but seeing folks discuss the literary merits of The Hulk as if it were Nabokov makes me fear for a future where Gilligan's Island becomes indistinguishable from Citizen Kane.
If I'm in a mood for superheroes, I prefer mine from Ben Edlund.
chop456
05-02-19, 11:19 PM
Superheroes <snif> :\
The whole genre gets a big shrug from me. The fact that it's become the central theme of pop culture seems downright inexplicable. Maybe it's just because I'm an old guy, but seeing folks discuss the literary merits of The Hulk as if it were Nabokov makes me fear for a future where Gilligan's Island becomes indistinguishable from Citizen Kane.
If I'm in a mood for superheroes, I prefer mine from Ben Edlund.
^Exactly this except that I don't know who Ben Edlund is. :gomer:
datachicane
05-03-19, 12:53 AM
^Exactly this except that I don't know who Ben Edlund is. :gomer:
Created The Tick, a fine superhero for folks who don't like superheroes. Dumb as a rock, probably insane, has a pet dog whom he believes can talk (said dog actually being a capybara with a perpetually runny nose).
I'm conflicted about Endgame. Can't tell if I'm just sad that it's "over", pissed off about the SJW stuff, disagree with the overall plot direction, unhappy with the glaring time travel holes, annoyed with the changes to significant characters or just didn't like it very much. I walked out of the theater with sort of a big "Meh". I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer so maybe it's just me. Maybe it's just that it was so hyped that it couldn't possibly meet my expectations.
The "SJW" stuff mostly amuses me in the Marvel Universe. These are almost entirely characters that have existed since the '70s interpreting stories that were mostly written in the '70s, '80s, and occasionally the '90s. I can't help but chuckle at Hollywood's moral preening over minor tweaks to stories and characters that Marvel's "toxic fanboy culture" gobbled up decades ago.
It probably helps that none of my favorite characters from childhood have suffered from big makeovers. It also helps that I was accustomed to Marvel's remaking characters by the time I (mostly) grew out of comics. For example, I read The Defenders as a kid but I never cared enough about Valkyrie to be bothered that they made a Nordic heroine a woman of color. Whatever. I'm sure they'll get around to the blond haired, blue eyed Wakandan soon enough. :rolleyes:
Time travel is always going to create holes because it's not real. :) I felt like they did a pretty good job of explaining the "many worlds" theory of time travel. And in true comic book fashion you can explain around anything that happens in those bits. They kind of confused it by going for the baby AntMan gag, one of two truly cringeworthy moments in the movie.
Superheroes <snif> :\
The whole genre gets a big shrug from me. The fact that it's become the central theme of pop culture seems downright inexplicable. Maybe it's just because I'm an old guy, but seeing folks discuss the literary merits of The Hulk as if it were Nabokov makes me fear for a future where Gilligan's Island becomes indistinguishable from Citizen Kane.
If I'm in a mood for superheroes, I prefer mine from Ben Edlund.
Mankind has been telling superhero stories since before we had any way to even record them. There are reasons for that. Maybe their current popularity has something to do with those same reasons.
It also probably has something to do with the fact that it takes big explosions and epic scenes to make a trip out to the cinema worthwhile today.
Created The Tick, a fine superhero for folks who don't like superheroes. Dumb as a rock, probably insane, has a pet dog whom he believes can talk (said dog actually being a capybara with a perpetually runny nose).
Also a fine superhero for folks who love superheroes. Have you watched the Amazon series? I can't do it. Patrick Warburton was made for that role. The shots I've seen from the Amazon series don't measure up in any way.
datachicane
05-03-19, 04:23 PM
Also a fine superhero for folks who love superheroes. Have you watched the Amazon series? I can't do it. Patrick Warburton was made for that role. The shots I've seen from the Amazon series don't measure up in any way.
Warburton owned that part, no doubt. BTW, he's an executive producer on the Amazon series. The pilot and the first few episodes were off to a rocky start, and Serafinowicz is no Warburton, but it was pretty solid by the middle of the first season, and the 2nd season was decent, too. It's worth the price of admission for Dangerboat alone, and Jackie Earle Haley's The Terror channeling Buddy Rich on drums was a fine moment in television. A bunch of stuff they couldn't have got away with on Fox (The Terror blinding the Flag Five with 'weaponized syphilis' and killing them all, etc.).
TravelGal
06-05-19, 05:51 PM
Real planes, not CGI. Could be worth a look when they finally bring it out. Top Gun/Maverick
https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/top-gun-maverick-release-date-cast-story-soundtrack-news/?utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-brief
Real planes, not CGI. Could be worth a look when they finally bring it out. Top Gun/Maverick
https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/top-gun-maverick-release-date-cast-story-soundtrack-news/?utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-brief
I think those are real planes (mostly) but they've done some creative effects to bring things in closer together.
We went to see Star Wars: Whatever It's Called today. Spoiler-free review. I think they did about as good a job of salvaging things as you could hope for after the disaster of the previous episode. They push the right buttons and it's like a satisfying ending to a TV series that has gone on well past it's prime. Not that there aren't things that you can complain about - there are plenty. But they had a lot to do to both fix the mess created by the last episode and wrap things up in a satisfying way.
datachicane
01-07-20, 07:59 PM
Saw a few films in the last few weeks, mostly at my local arthouses.
Jojo Rabbit was a very nice piece of filmcraft. If I was going to nitpick, Rebel Wilson (of whom I have no particular opinion) could have ended up on the edit room floor without leaving a ripple, but even the more obvious bits of foreshadowing (Jojo and mom's shoes in the dance scene, for instance) were nicely played. Sam Rockwell is putting together a very nice body of work. I saw it with my 20-yr old film geek daughter, who was shocked when I explained that some of the bits she assumed were absurdist (recruiting child soldiers and marching them off in paper uniforms, for example) were true. When reality reads like a Dadaist nightmare, well, that's all I'm going to say about that.
Saw Fantastic Fungi, assuming it was going to be a proper exploration of all things mycological, which would make a pretty cool film. Even walked up to the ticket counter with my family and announced that we were there for the 'shrooms. Unfortunately, about 15 minutes in (15 minutes studded with terminology and factual errors at that), the film touched on the psychoactive properties of psilocybin, and from there went into straight infomercial mode. Look, I'm no prude about drugs- I lost track of my number of Dead shows sometime in the '80s- and I'm fully aware and appreciative of the potential of psilocybin as a treatment for depression, but this was off the rails. Cringe-inducing CGI reenactments of the 'stoned ape' theory (which for the uninitiated is BS crediting psilocyin with the evolution of human intelligence), countless breathless and repetitive accounts of the wonders of 'shroom trips, invariably from folks wearing 'shroom-themed garb, talk about its potential for improving the human race, etc., etc., on and on for the remaining runtime. Look, it's impossible to talk about fungi without touching on the psychoactive bits, but I didn't sign up for 70 minutes of slow-mo overlays of flowers blooming (plain old angiospores, mind you). It's like walking in expecting Antonio Damasio and getting Deepak Chopra.
Little Women was, well, Little Women. This one did better than most of the umpteen film adaptations of throwing light on Alcott's reasons for marrying off the folks that she did (and a nice bit of work throwing Alcott's real-life exchanges with her editor into Jo's mouth), but then wimps out like all the rest by casting Prof. Bhaer as too young and too good-looking, and making him appear far more supportive of Jo's work than the books do, thereby negating the whole point. Ah, well. Pretty to look at, some nice shots, and I've never seen Saoirse Ronan in a bad film, but it'll be completely out of mind in a month.
With people being put into lockdown (sorta), I'd imaging more movies will be watched.
I need to vent. :)
The newest Terminator movie is RUINED every time Linda HAMilton is on the screen.
It was infuriating to watch.
I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but when Arnold is more believable as a human being than Linda, well...
Discuss.
TravelGal
03-22-20, 07:41 PM
G. I haven't seen it so can't discuss. I just watched CoCo two nights ago. (From 2017. I'm a little behind.) It was fun to watch because I knew that Disney had used an actual village as the background for the Pixar animation. I happened to be IN that village for the Day of the Dead in 2017. The Disney crew had left the day before. They had been there for 3 months, filming every doorway and courtyard. I recognized the church instantly. The townspeople pointed out every place the crews had been, down to where they parked the catering trucks. :)
We finally got a chance to watch "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood." Great movie. Highly recommended if you have the stomach for Tarantino's violence. This one isn't as violent as some but if you don't care for it this one won't lose as much as most in translation to basic cable when it gets there.
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
SPOILERS FOLLOW
I love the way Tarantino can weave interesting stories and characters into a larger narrative. I must admit that I'm a sucker for this thing he's created where we get the cathartic release of cheering for seeing karmic justice dealt out retroactively against some of history's worst villians. So I can't say that I was terribly surprised by the ending but it was still a thrill and and a very sweet, satisfying ending before the melancholy of slipping out of the fairy tale.
I've seen some nitpicking about historical glitches (that was a 1971 Beetle! The Green Hornet ended in 1967!) and quibbles over portrayals (Bruce Lee wasn't such an jerk!). But I accept that this isn't a documentary or biopic. This is a Hollywood fairy tale. And in six year old Quintin Tarantino's world Bruce Lee was a badass but his stunt man hero could still beat him up.
I'm disappointed to hear that he still plans to retire after his next film. I hope that he'll continue to write and that we'll still get some of his creativity and vision drip fed into an industry that desperately needs it.
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
END SPOILERS
TravelGal
07-21-20, 01:02 PM
I just watched it a couple of months ago. I must say, as a local, it's a little eerie to see everything you know at the background in almost every scene. I'm definitely heading back to Musso & Franks as soon as restaurants open again for indoor dining although I doubt if Brad Pitt will be there. :D Side note: the Bruce Lee 30 for 30 was a little lengthy but an eye-opener for me since I only vaguely remembered his career. He was quite the trailblazer.
For summer fun, I'm wondering if you've all seen Mortal Engines? 2018. Peter Jackson (think Hobbit). Watched it last night. Just enough plot to hold the special effects together. I'm a sucker for special effects, at least this kind. Mega-cities on wheels rolling across the earth menacing other smaller settlements. And everything else is smaller. Decent dialog except for some cringe-worth lines but hey, I figure it's a family film. It's lumbered a bit by Christian Rivers' direction (think King Kong 2005, or forget it if you can.) Nevertheless, I'd watch it again, just for the "machinery" scenes. Also, it introduced me to Jihae who Rolling Stone claims, "has an illegal amount of screen presence. "
It looks like we may finally have to give in and subscribe to Netflix. At least for month.
"The Devil All The Time," is a movie based on the novel by Donald Ray Pollock. It arrives on Netflix September, 16th.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIzazUv2gtI
Pollock grew up in a tiny village called Knockemstiff near our home town of Chillicothe. He worked at the paper mill there for most of his life and started thinking about what he could do to keep himself busy when he retired. As an avid reader he decided to try his hand at writing. Within a few years he had a few short stories published and won a writing scholarship to Ohio State. By the time he finished the program he had published his first collection of short stories, titled "Knockemstiff."
"Knockemstiff" has been called "Gothic hillbilly noir." It is one of the grimmest, darkest books that I've read. I'm still puzzling out how it could be so enjoyable in spite of the characters and stories that seem irredeemable. I think it has to do with how he draws such vivid characters and stories with such economy of words. Being familiar with the setting probably helped but his work has been widely acclaimed so there's more to it than that.
"The Devil All The Time," was Pollock's first full novel. Again the story is grim and many of the characters are nobody that you'd want to know. But here there are some characters that are sympathetic in their motivations if not always their actions. Pollock also shows a talent for weaving multiple story lines together into a larger narrative that is compelling and feels organic.
The trailer looks better than I had hoped. There are a lot of story-lines and I wouldn't have expected them to work them all in. The cast is getting a lot of attention with multiple players from big franchises. It will be interesting to see the reaction to their heroes taking such a dark turn.
20 min. documentary about filming "Full Metal Jacket" (1987), a short drive away from Stanley Kubrick's country estate. :thumbup:
_uWJZtgSD0A
stroker
10-19-20, 12:05 PM
Has anyone been to see Chris Nolan's "Tenet", yet?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.