Serious Movie Discussion XLII

[europe1]

You guys seem to be up on the new shit. How come nobody around here is talking about Fences?

I only really go to the multiplex with friends, and frankly, I don't have a single friends whom I could con into watching Fences with me. Especially after I tricked several of them into paying for movies like Arrival and Bridman. Though I would really want to see it on the big-screen.

Damn... I really need better friends.

A few brief anecdotes just for the hell of it...

To add fuel to the fire, I sat close to two feminine teenagers during a screening of Django Unchained. One of them was jaw-ajar, totally engrossed, looking as if she was undergoing the formative faze of her life. The other one was pulling at her arm, groaning constantly, begging her friend to leave with her since the movie absolutely sucked. The kept bickering at each other for quite a while, the Django-loving teen really struggling to decisively shut her friend down and enjoy the movie. I would say that I was bothered by this if I didn't find it so strangely humorous.

 

[europe1]

It's that time of the year where I list some of the movies I've seen... again. Mostly obscure stuff on this one too.


I forgot to write on here that I watched Live by Night in theaters as well. It was also really good, actually. Very solid gangster movie. Really episodic, though. So this guy swears revenge yet spends half-a-decade doing other stuff? That said, I scratched my head when, suddenly, out of nowhere! The Klan emerges! Because it's the South you see!


Keeping up with the fairly new stuff, I watched Eastwood's J. Edgar. Attention-capturing performance by DiCaprio. I sort of liked the early parts better though, where his "mommy issues" and closeted sexuality were hinted at rather than becoming the focal point. I'm not certain where Eastwood wanted to go with the J. Edgar Hover biography. Was he in the right? Was he a necessary evil? Was he a corrupter of America? Is it a statement that people who are right early on can, in their inability to see change, become evil with time? It's difficult to tell since everything is from Hover's viewpoint and he's an unreliable narrator, and all viewpoints seem to have some support in the narrative. I also found it weird that, while Hover has these fascist tendencies to talking about the Unamerican activities of his enemies, his own "unamerican" inklings (homosexuality, illegal surveillance, bypassing democratic institutions) have little focus to how they would be a problem in the society which he lived in.


Remaining in that approximate time period, Sullivan's Travels! A good movie times two! Can't say I thought it was very funny but it was an engaging story. The point of it all started to dawn on my near the end. Sullivan wants to make "message movies" yet learns that escapism has a value of it's own since it comforts the poor and downtrodden. However, on a meta-level, the film Sullivan's Travels is about how film can be both escapism and a message-movie at the same time, since it's supposed to provide low-brown entertainment and simultaniously inform us about the value of having empathy for said poor and downtrodden. Harkoning back to my B-movie roots, this narrative device sort of reminded me of what the 1985 horror movie House did. Which is about a horror writter who laments that no-one is interested in his serious Vietnam story about his personal experiences and trauma. But House the horror movie, is about how a film can be a horror story and on a subtextual level deal with how people relate to wartime trauma.

And that Veronica Lake dame...

Know which director Sullivan's Travels name-dropped? Ernst Lubitsch! Know what else I watched from the 30's? Trouble in Paradise! While not reaching the dramatic heights of Shop Around the Corner it was a really heartfelt story. Rich people acting rich and sophisticated! Dat posture on Herbert Marshall though. It's like he's the embodiment of aristocratic manners. Can't recall ever seeing such a dignified face or frame before... though I suppose George Sanders could give him a fight in the highborn portrayls. Also interesting that the movie gave us more sympathy for Kay Francis, the person being seduced, than Miriam Hopkins the wife. Which made Marshall's eventual decision a lot more impactful and harder to fortell.


Talking about dudes acting all aristocratic and shit, Waterloo! Rod Stiger as Napoleon and Christopher Plummer as Lord Wellington. Those field-battles were grand and epic at a level unrivaled in film. Just thousands of identically uniformed men marching in formation, officers aplomb and stylish as hell. Definitively something you won't see anywhere else. Bondarchuk's beautiful depiction of aristocrical splendor (and underlying meaness) is one of the few things that can be legitimately compared to Barry Lyndon. Stiger's portrayl of Napoleon is... well... genious mind trapped in a tortured body and all. But his anxieties and physical weaknesses are so... emphasised by Stiger that it starts seeing weird that the whole of France would follow him so willingly (the movie also has enough internal-monologue voice-overs to give me Dune flashbacks). Also, much of the movie is a series of historic pastiches, short-scenes meant to capture some historical event or moment, which makes the plot feel more like a series of events rather than an organic narrative.


*Intermission Time*


Unfortunately, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold with Richard Burton failed big time. He tried creating some sort of grim, cynical statement about Cold War politcis but in excecution it just felt bland, dry and unpedagogical. It was one of those films that just reeked of an actor searching for academic respectability, a yearning to be seen as serious an actor. The film is just dominated by everyone talking in hushed tones
about the intecracies of spy-work and it's inumerable amoral faccets. But Burton acting all scraggly and wizzened for almost two hours just doesn't work for the most part. It's the same tone from hither to thither, making it so that nothing feels emphazised or highlighted. Like most of these films it sort of elevates itself near the ending, but overall Spy Who Came in From the Cold was a definitive dissapointment.


Hey do you know those types of movies that center around a duel between two awesome stars but unfortunately ends up being really bad? Those always sucks, don't they? Well fuck those movies because I watched Death Hunt with Charles Bronson and Lee Marvin motherfuckers! Shit was legit aweomse. Both of them lodged up in the snowy Canadain mountains playing stoic, grim-faced badasses, with Marvin as a policeman on a manhunt after Bronson. They only share about 15 seconds of screen-time togheter but in that short moment they play off each other so amazingly that it's effect ripples through the rest of the film, really laying an undercurrent for the proceding manhunt that follows. The movie was sort of mediocre up until that moment and I was getting a bit worried there for a while, but yeah, in the end, Bronson and Lee Marvin really delivered.


Keeping up on the positive note, dear God All That Heaven Allows looked amazing. Those were some pretty colours. The only other Douglas Sirk movie I've seen is There's Always Tomorrow but I noticed his mastery of pristine visuals in that production too. I'm usually not a sucker for these mid-life drama pictures but I would be lying if I wasn't a tiny bit touched by all that transpired. With subjects matter like this one it's very easy to roll your eyes and mutter phrases like "oh please" or "rich-people problems", but Barbara Stanwych really nailed the emotional agony going on inside her character. When her son rolled in the TV things became peculiarly nightmarish. And talk about throwing shade on Television! That bloody box is likened to becoming a frigid, cloistered nun or something!<45>


Reaching back to the silent period, I saw Fritz Lang's other sci-fi epic, Woman in the Moon (yes, not ON the Moon, IN the Moon). Supposedly it's one of the first "hard science-fiction" films ever released. But, really, the movies downfall is a lack of cohesion. Two hours pass before the bloody rocket ceases being earthbound. Before that, a lot of time is spent on build-up, a sub-plot about an international cabal of scientists who want to hijack the voyage (the leader obviously being an evil American). There's also a melodramatic love-triangle including the protagonist and his assistant. The hard sci-fi stuff is... uhh... lovably quaint? They attach straps to the floor of their rocket which one can insert ones instep into so to negate the effects of zero gravity, for instance.

But yeah, all these clashing tones drags Woman in the Moon down. It's really slow-paced too. Fritz has some smile-inducing silent cinema ticks going. It's still a good movie though... just nowhere near as good as your fantasy could make it.

That title is just baffling, btw. Based on it I went in expecting something like Vouge to the Moon featuring the cave-dwelling amazon women! Especially considering those-kinds-of-movies prominence in later days (like in the 50's there was lovable stuff like Queen of Outer Space, Cat-Women of the Moon, Missile to the Moon (probably the best one). And of course in the 80's there was that segment of... Amazon Woman in the Moon). But actually... I was instead baffled by how feminist this movie was. During the aforementioned sci-fi heydays of the fifties, female characters inevitable commented in some way on their "traditional, domestic, feminine" position in society. They were starship secretarys or housewives in space. There was a very delimited gender policy, basically. Here the female lead is a straight-laced science-type in her own right, and even wears men-clothing as if it was perfectly natural! She's a bit saintly, a moral focal-point, but it's really remarkable how progressive her portrayl is in light of how conservatively the genre would develop on these issues for almost 40 years forward.


Lastly, (boy this was a long one), disappointing sequel time. I mentioned way back around Christmas seasons that I got the Lady Snowblood sequel, and I finally watched it. The first Snowblood production was great, a really iconic and awesome chambara film, weighted-down a tad by it's strange 70's stylings. The sequel is... another example of shoehorning a character into a completely unrelated story. Meiko Kaji's character is basically irrelevant until the action scenes. It develops on the first film though, in depicting a Japan where a certain segment of the population has adopted Western cloths and mannerism, giving it sort-of an interesting look. It's an alright film.

And no... they don't explain how the hell Snowblood is supposed to be alive considering she was killed in the ending of the first movie.


Another disappointing follow-up was.... Dr Phibes Rises Again. Which is especially hard to admit since it's stars my Lord and Savior Vincent Price. But it's basically the ur-example of a speedy cash-in. The first one was a really witty and funny proto-Saw movie. It proved definitively that Price is the only actor capable of giving an awesome overacting performance without even moving a facial muscle or saying a word!

While Phibes was a mastermind in the first film, in this one he seems dumb and shortsighted, his plans making no sense (but to be fair the other characters are also atrociously handled). In the first film you thought you saw the products of years of planning. In this one he just pulls stuff out of his ass, having an army of robots hidden around every corner! And there is to much of him and Vulvania just faffin about. He has a score of pointless, long monologues that were really effective in the first film but here totally lose their sense of specialty by how frequent and irrelevant they are to what is going on. He's basically narrating a summary of what has happened every 15's minute! But hey... at least it has Vincent Price.


The End

Oh, and Woo's Last Hurrah for Chivalry is now one of my favorite martial-arts movies, right up there with stuff like Eight Diagram Pole Fighter, Enter the Dragon, and the best Jackie Chan stuff. Fantastic fighting and Woo's heroic bloodshed fetishes work marvelously in the martial world. Just needed to get that in.

 

[chickenluver]

Anybody see Kinski Paganini?

 

[Lucifer Alpha]

Split's ending is total shit

I don't want to spoil it...but no..that was awesome. Long time in the making.

 

[Ricky13]

Do you mean the historical context of the films themselves or the subject matter of the films?

In either case I don't think you have to worry. No prior knowledge needed for Parajanov imo. His films are like poems, just put one on and let it wash over you.

Sorry I missed this. Trying to catch up some.

Thanks. Will dive right in.

I love how pathetic and matter-of-fact that line delivery is all at once.

Good for you man.

It always impressed me that Sweet Chin Music typically looked as good as it did. Probably not the easiest move to make look convincing but it very often did.

Didn't he used to slap his thigh really hard to sell it?

So let me just exhale after seeing Manchester...

Whoooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (how you type an exhale anyway?)

Not what I expected at all. I went in with nearly no preparation expecting to cry like a little girl (even the previews were torturous) but I actually found the best description of the tragedy in Manchester to be numb. Like it was presented clearly and unequivocally, yet functionally, as if the hard-hitting drama just wasn't the point. And having said that I think the necessity of that sort of dull functionality was a recurring motif, with Lee's job, Patrick's routine, and the general procedure of the film and the characters in it carrying them all onward (like the sea!). But somehow, and it would take me probably about 4-5 re-watches to figure out exactly how, they managed to present that brute functionality in a way that was totally endearing. From the completely unexpected and almost disturbingly organic humour to the slightest of gestures toward the acknowledgement of meaning (notice where this was overt it was completely out of place and uncomfortable), this film was downright lovable in a way that totally snuck up on me.

I've having a hard time explaining how it felt. It's sort of similar to when I watched Forrest Gump for the first time (no idea if that comparison makes any sense) in terms of the combination of emotional exhaustion and amusement, but within a so much more local, relate-able environment. And though it did feel long at no point did I feel like I wanted it to stop - as I could sense the final scenes bringing everything to a close I wanted so badly to keep moving forward with these characters, to find that enjoyment and place with them in their community, and to express some kind of respect for their lives despite the lack of outward sophistication. It felt honourable, for lack of a better word.

I'd say it hit me like a ton of bricks because I'm so stunned but it was more like a ton of feathers. Pleasant feathers. I might go see it again.

@Ricky13 make sense of this please, I don't know what I'm doing. And that soundtrack? Bizarre.

@Caveat

Sorry I'm so late to this stuff about Manchester by the Sea. Truth is, I don't know quite where to start. But here goes.

At the heart of Lonergan's movies is usually a really fucked-up, honest-to-God truth that most filmmakers won't touch. And he doesn't just hand it to you. He puts you through the wringer by scripting really complicated middle class people with histories they're repeatedly dealing with, either with someone else they lived that history through, or alone. And he presents them as honorable people, trying their hardest to just get through the day, which is what you felt so strongly. (It's the best kind of dialogue-heavy writing to me. If you're going to make your characters go blah-blah-blah, hide what they really mean when they say/do something.)

I think, however, that he isn't necessarily saying any of it is a good thing, this quiet desperation with which the Northshore folk are living. They hide the rough stuff deep down, and you can see this with the kid, and with Joey's wife and her unhappiness, and with how Joey doesn't actually talk to his brother about taking over as the kid's guardian. They all have deep-seated issues they won't talk about because it's not how you handle it on the Northshore.

However they manifest as acts that really just aren't very nice, like having two girlfriends at once because you can, or being an asshole with your friends in the basement with a sick wife upstairs, or punching out people in bars, or being passed out naked on the couch when your kids walk through the door, or springing guardianship on a brother who is just barely able to live by himself without shoving a gun in his mouth and splattering his brains.

And the cool thing - if one can call it that - about the movie is that seeing everyone in this latent pain makes it hard to see why Lee's is so different. Most viewers will figure out that it's bad to cheat on your girlfriend or be shitty to your wife. The thing is, in the middle of that mess, will they see the truth hidden in Lee's story?

What all these people are committing are mistakes. So how do you measure them? By whether they intended to make them, or how accidental they are?

Not really. Lonergan says that ultimately, a mistake is evaluated based on damage, based on cost. With most mistakes, there's the notion that one can learn from them, that being good helps, that a mistake has the potential to lead to a kind of redemption that will define who you are. And the people in the life of the person who made the mistake understand this. They see a person make an error, and develop an opinion of the person based on how he/she responds to that error. It informs them of the person's character. That is how mistakes are beaten.

But there are some mistakes that trying to shake off oneself simply changes nothing, because the cost is brutal enough that there's no access to that arc of redemption. The person is stuck at the point of being good to overcome it, seeing it do nothing for themselves or the people around them. Where instead of seeing admiration in people's faces for their trying to overcome it, they see pity.

And I think that's what Lonergan understands with Manchester by the Sea, and that he's not afraid to say, however harsh it is. That some mistakes, as Lee says, you "can't beat...".

 

[chickenluver]

@Caveat @Ricky13 What did Lee mean when he said "There's nothing there"?

Did he mean that he feels numb to the pain and grief, or was he talking about the feelings between him and his wife?

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

@Caveat @Ricky13 What did Lee mean when he said "There's nothing there"?

Did he mean that he feels numb to the pain and grief, or was he talking about the feelings between him and his wife?

That was one of the best lines I've heard this year. So empty and soul-crushing.

My interpretation was essentially that he was emotionally numb in general, which could apply to both things you've suggested. He was unable to feel any longing for his ex-wife or old life and didn't feel the need to try to absolve himself through her forgiveness.

Extending from @Ricky13's great post above, I got the feeling that he not only abandoned any need to be forgiven (if there ever was one), but that any attempt to deal with that or call attention to it would only make things worse. You can tell by how swiftly he moves through the city - purely for functional purposes and expressly avoiding any extended lingering or socializing - that he's really trying not to rock any boats while he's there.

 

[Ricky13]

Holy shit LOGAN!

Paging @Flemmy Stardust: must watch because it's got tonal touches from 3:10 to Yuma (remake), which I know you like (and I fucking adore). Also, there's elements of Looper in there.

Also paging @Bullitt68: It's a perfect example of a comic book film telling its own story within a larger one. You gonna like.

Also paging everyone else.

I dislike the X-Men movies; a lot. Except First Class which is boss, and The Wolverine which is also Mangold. Bryan Singer is generally awful to me (his movies anyway, except that one film where Kevin Spacey is an invalid). I liked Logan a fair bit. Further viewings will happen though.

@Caveat @Ricky13 What did Lee mean when he said "There's nothing there"?

Did he mean that he feels numb to the pain and grief, or was he talking about the feelings between him and his wife?

Cav has you covered.

That was one of the best lines I've heard this year. So empty and soul-crushing.

Man that scene.

What's hardest for me with that whole sequence is he's still being so nice. It's not a line so much that gets me, just his shoulders, and him looking at the floor, and his saying, "No, no, it's OK...." initially before completely breaking down. Like, this pity is useless which is why you shouldn't bother feeling bad for me. Jesus. I haven't seen everything from last year, but I'm willing to say it's one of my favorite performances ever. He's great in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford as well.

 

[Bullitt68]

Holy shit LOGAN! [...] @Bullitt68: It's a perfect example of a comic book film telling its own story within a larger one. You gonna like.

In the giant coincidence file, the gf - who hates all things Hollywood, mainstream, action, and superhero, among many other hates - saw a trailer for Logan and thought she might like it, so we're seeing it in an hour and a half.

You weren't crazy about The Wolverine, am I remembering that correctly? I was surprised by how good it was, so I'm hoping Logan is at least on part with it if not better.

 

[Ricky13]

In the giant coincidence file, the gf - who hates all things Hollywood, mainstream, action, and superhero, among many other hates - saw a trailer for Logan and thought she might like it, so we're seeing it in an hour and a half.

You weren't crazy about The Wolverine, am I remembering that correctly? I was surprised by how good it was, so I'm hoping Logan is at least on part with it if not better.

Nope. I love The Wolverine.

Same director. I think you'll dig.

Enjoy your date homie.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

Holy shit LOGAN!

Paging @Flemmy Stardust: must watch because it's got tonal touches from 3:10 to Yuma (remake), which I know you like (and I fucking adore). Also, there's elements of Looper in there.

Well I never payed any attention to Wolverine. I just assumed it was continuing on from Origins, which I didn't like...

...And I probably would have done the same with Logan. But if Ricky is saying it's good and that it shares similarities with 2 of the very best movies of this century, I may just have to check em out.


Btw, I think the only movie I've seen in months is Keanu, and I actually liked it. Laughed my ass off.

 

[Ricky13]

Well I never payed any attention to Wolverine. I just assumed it was continuing on from Origins, which I didn't like...

...And I probably would have done the same with Logan. But if Ricky is saying it's good and that it shares similarities with 2 of the very best movies of this century, I may just have to check em out.

So Origins was its own thing. James Mangold, the guy who directed the 3:10 to Yuma you like so much, and other stuff with a pretty distinct voice, like Cop Land and Girl, Interrupted, directed a different film called The Wolverine, which is excellent. A lot of people have a problem with the ending (it gets a bit campy tonally, but sticks the landing thematically, methinks), but it's generally considered a pretty badass film (Bullitt likes it too, by the way).

Same guy's now done Logan. I'm not sure it's as good as Looper or 3:10 to Yuma - those are genuinely pantheon films for me - but it's doing things really nicely. Doesn't explain too much, jumps into action sequences, some of which go on for a while without being boring at all.

It's brutal about things, like the cost of being a mutant on both yourself and others. It's also very old school with things like lighting, and writing aspects like sticking to character arcs, and making the film a road trip with a destination one person wants to go but the other reluctantly is helping with; just simple shit like that on which you can hang some real good action, character growth, you know? I'd say my first viewing was pretty damn fun.

You'll have a good time at the very least. The action is stellar.

Btw, I think the only movie I've seen in months is Keanu, and I actually liked it. Laughed my ass off.

You kidding? Keanu was awesome!

Though I'm partial to those guys. You going to watch Get Out?

 

[chickenluver]

Logan was awesome

 

[europe1]

Logan was awesome

Everyone on here and on the rest of Sherdog is praising Logan to high-heavens.

Various friends of mine opened a discussions to go see it at two different occasions... yet I vetoed them both times. From the trailer it looks like absolute dreck. Wizened, old-aged Logan having to babysit a child, fighting dork-looking enemies with neck-tattoos to save her. It just reeks of cringy emotionalism and plot-tropes that I don't like, and the whole ordeal looks dull visually too.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

Went to see Hidden Figuers and John Wick 2 instead, btw.

In the giant coincidence file, the gf - who hates all things Hollywood, mainstream, action, and superhero, among many other hates

So... have you informed her that Above the Law is the greatest film of all time yet? I mean... it just sounds like you should have some really potent warstories about ironing out those relationship-kinks with her.

 

[Bullitt68]

Yeah, so first, I'm going to start by combining @Ricky13's and @chickenluver's reactions: Holy shit Logan was awesome!

Second, to the skeptics: @Flemmy Stardust, what Ricky's saying about 3:10 to Yuma is legit. The Looper connection either isn't there or I'm just not clear what Ricky means by it (probably the latter as I only watched Looper once and it's been a while whereas I watched 3:10 to Yuma a bunch of times when it came out and it's much fresher in my head), but it's 3:10 to Yuma-ness plus its all-around bad assness is more than worth the price of admission.

And @europe1, the fucking movie is thematically anchored by/in Shane. They even watch the fucking movie at one point. Though, when you watch it - and you will watch it, and soon, because the Shane thing is that fucking important to this movie and so worth your checking it out - you and I can have a discussion of the implications of the specific way it was used.

As for my general reaction, Logan is not just better than every other X-Men movie - and I love that franchise - and it's not just better than every Marvel movie - and I love that franchise, too - it's on a fucking par with Nolan's Batman movies. I might say, in the entire superhero realm, my Olympic pedestal as of this moment is The Dark Knight Rises, The Dark Knight, and Logan. It's that good.

First, the R rating helped tremendously. And the opening scene lets you know right off the bat that this shit is going to be brutal. The brutality is signaled quite literally, but all the way down the line, I'm talking physically, psychologically, emotionally, morally, everything, it's just a brutal fucking movie. That's not to say it's a downbeat, whiny movie. It's just rough as fuck.

Second, Ricky, you were right about the whole "telling its own story" thing. I thought they did a superb job with not only the characterization of Logan but also with Professor X. And I loved the way they threaded the hope theme through their different worldviews (and, specifically, their different responses to the tragedy that befell them) and used Laura to embody it.

And, lest I forget to mention it, the action was on fucking point. Watching Jackman snarl his way through some ferocious carnage was quite a treat, and Laura was fantastic, too. @Dragonlordxxxxx in his review compared her to the Kick Ass girl, but fuck that silly shit. Laura is in a class by herself as far as bad ass kids go. For me, after the opening scene, the two best action scenes were, first, the hotel scene (from conception to execution, it was just brilliant), and second, the end forest scene (just for sheer primal awesomeness).

With The Wolverine, I expected it to suck and was surprised by how good it was. With Logan, I expected it to be at least as good as The Wolverine, maybe not quite that good but at least close, but holy fuck was I surprised at the level this movie was operating on. In most respects, The Dark Knight is a superior film, but the tone of the film, its gravitas, the sense of an ending, the desperation in the hero's quest, it placed Logan right there alongside The Dark Knight Rises as an utterly epic close to a moving saga. I was never as emotionally invested in Wolverine as I was with Batman, so it didn't hit with quite the same impact, but I've loved watching Jackman throughout the X-Men films and I connected to that character very strongly after The Wolverine, and that combined with how well they told this story and how incredibly Jackman performed, Logan for damn sure hits with some real fucking impact.

Anyone even remotely interested in X-Men movies, comic book movies, or action movies should get their ass out to the theater. You won't be disappointed. And, if you are, it just means you suck.

I dislike the X-Men movies; a lot. Except First Class which is boss, and The Wolverine which is also Mangold.

Nope. I love The Wolverine.

I must've remembered you weren't an X-Men fan and lumped that in with The Wolverine. My mistake. Have we ever talked about your beef with the X-Men movies? I think the third one sucked (even if it had some merits) but the first two are top-notch IMO. I even went back to check out my last post from when I rewatched the whole franchise and I went so far as to call X2 the best non-Nolan superhero movie. Now it's the second best behind Logan, but still, that's high praise from me yet you're saying you dislike the franchise, and a lot, at that. What gives?

Well I never payed any attention to Wolverine.

Did you bother with The Wolverine? If you did, what did you think of it? If you didn't, I'd definitely recommend checking it out and then giving Logan a shot. The latter is more your speed for the reasons Ricky mentioned, but the former is pretty damn good, too.

So... have you informed her that Above the Law is the greatest film of all time yet?

Believe it or not, she's skeptical

I mean... it just sounds like you should have some really potent warstories about ironing out those relationship-kinks with her.

Let's just say things aren't boring

 

[europe1]

thematically anchored by/in Shane. They even watch the fucking movie at one point

And @europe1, the fucking movie is thematically anchored by/in Shane. They even watch the fucking movie at one point. Though, when you watch it - and you will watch it, and soon, because the Shane thing is that fucking important to this movie and so worth your checking it out - you and I can have a discussion of the implications of the specific way it was used.

Great! Now I'll have to find some way to explain to my friends why I suddenly have done a 180 degrees shift on the movie when I previously vetoed it without appearing like some capricious, arbitrary fool.

 

[Dragonlordxxxxx]

@Bullitt68 Glad you loved Logan. Thanks for reading my review. Congrats on your GF (first time I've heard about it). Did she enjoy the film as well?

 

[Bullitt68]

Great! Now I'll have to find some way to explain to my friends why I suddenly have done a 180 degrees shift on the movie when I previously vetoed it without appearing like some capricious, arbitrary fool.

Just tell them a nerd on a forum said you should see it.

@Bullitt68 Glad you loved Logan.

I'm still surprised just how much I loved it. I already want to rewatch it.

Thanks for reading my review.

It's rare that I post in your threads, and it's rarer still that I see any of the movies your threads are about in time to join discussions and see who said what, but if that rare situation presents itself, the first thing I do is read your review. I especially liked the apt comparison between Logan and Unforgiven relative to their genres. The Shane thing is explicit, but no less prominent for being implicit is the William Munny manner Logan goes through the events in the film.

Congrats on your GF

Did she enjoy the film as well?

As much as she could enjoy an action movie. It's just not her type of movie. Nevertheless, she loved Laura and she thought Jackman and Stewart performed very well. Not to mention seeing the movie was her idea in the first place. I can't ask for more than that.

Well, eventually I'm going to make her watch Seagal, so I guess I can ask for more

 

[Dragonlordxxxxx]

Not to mention seeing the movie was her idea in the first place. I can't ask for more than that.

Nice.

Well, eventually I'm going to make her watch Seagal, so I guess I can ask for more

Good luck being single again.

 

[Ricky13]

Wizened, old-aged Logan having to babysit a child, fighting dork-looking enemies with neck-tattoos to save her. It just reeks of cringy emotionalism and plot-tropes that I don't like, and the whole ordeal looks dull visually too.

Those are pretty staple action tropes, no?

Might I suggest you're tired of them being done badly? You'd be missing out, friendo.

You're a classic film fiend, so maybe I have to use that. The Logan/child thing rang very Paper Moon to me. You like that movie?

And as Bull says, Shane's through-line (thematically) is this film's as well.

ALSOWHATTHEFUCKTRAILERSDON'TMEANSHITWHENWILLPEOPLESTOPTHIS!

(I'm only joking, but I'm really not.)

....and John Wick 2 instead, btw.

How did you like it?

I'm in the minority in that I like those films but I think they suffer from not having enough stakes-wise to justify their run-times. At about the 3/4 mark, most of the cause-and-effect is less cause-and-effect as much as it is reveal-and-effect. Stops moving, you know? New characters, expansion of the interior world (the whole secret cabal thing). Then it gets pushed into a corner, resorting to reminding you repeatedly of why John's still doing this with dialogue ("you can't help enjoying revenge" etc.).

They're less functional than people are making them out to be, I think.

I think the action was better this time. A little more urgency to the choreography.

Yeah, so first, I'm going to start by combining @Ricky13's and @chickenluver's reactions: Holy shit Logan was awesome!

Noice.

The Looper connection either isn't there or I'm just not clear what Ricky means by it (probably the latter as I only watched Looper once and it's been a while whereas I watched 3:10 to Yuma a bunch of times when it came out and it's much fresher in my head), but it's 3:10 to Yuma-ness plus its all-around bad assness is more than worth the price of admission.

Was referring to the functional aspects of how the kid is unveiled as what she is.

I think it leads to the most effective action scene of the film (the one that evolves into a car chase).