Serious Movie Discussion XLII

[Ricky13]

Hey, @theskza (and @ufcfan4 and @Shot): I'm on a huge Sorkin kick right now. I watched Charlie Wilson's War for the first time (not that great but better than I was expecting considering the two leads were Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts), I rewatched The Social Network (I think this was my third viewing and I'm still liking it more with each rewatch), I rewatched Moneyball (the most un-Sorkin of all of his scripts, but I just love that story and I really liked both Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill, plus the two home run scenes, first during the streak and then at the end with the fat kid afraid to run to second base, are just gold), and then I rewatched Steve Jobs. I honestly think I'm ready to do something I never thought possible: I think I'm ready to bump Tarantino from the #1 spot and proclaim Aaron Sorkin as the GOAT screenwriter. Add A Few Good Men to the list (not to mention The West Wing, Studio 60, and The Newsroom, some of the greatest TV out there) and he's just fucking beastly. And Steve Jobs just won't get out of my head. I liked it even more the second time, and that ending with his daughter hit me even harder than the first time. I even had to watch it a third time a few days later. Now it's been almost two weeks (and I've cranked through Studio 60 and two seasons of The West Wing since) and Steve Jobs is still in my head. That's got to be one of the top ten scripts ever. And more so these last two times than the first time, I've really gained an appreciation for Danny Boyle's direction. The way he shot the film, the way he edited it, and most impressively, the way he used sound and music, it's just phenomenal.

I've been wanting to post about this. Over a decade a ago I used to watch The West Wing sporadically; an episode on cable every few weeks or even months. I remember liking what I saw but never watched it serially. I've begun watching an episode every couple days from the first season recently. It's so good. I think that kind of writing is largely absent in TV today: solid episodic writing while maintaining (an admittedly tenuous) serial thread. There's some very cool things about binge-watching but it's meant a lot of lazy-ass writing of recent (see Stranger Things).

I like Sorkin's early work. Challenge and motive to fight it are rooted in character, and he uses elegant shorthand to get there. It allows him to have his fun with the dialogue. I'm not a fan of his railing against tech, and I think he's terrible with women. He frequently portrays them as strong, independent, but surrogates them against male characters (himself) to lose arguments with. Galloway and Mandy come to mind off the top of my head. I'm OK with CJ so far. Though there was this early exchange:

Josh Lyman: You know what, C.J.? I really think I'm the best judge of what I mean, you paranoid Berkeley shiksa feminista... Wow, that was way too far.

C.J. Cregg: No, no. Well, I've got a staff meeting to go to and so do you, you elitist, Harvard, fascist, missed-the-dean's-list-two-semesters-in-a-row Yankee jackass.

Josh Lyman: Feel better getting that off your chest there, C.J.?

C.J. Cregg: I'm a whole new woman.

There's no way there's a movie from last year that surpasses Steve Jobs, right?

Two things. First, you sound like old man Spielberg going back on young man Spielberg's ballsy move to have Richard Dreyfuss get on the ship at the end of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Why? Because no one else has. Because it's once-in-a-lifetime shit.

So is fatherhood? One could argue you could have another kid or come back after your adventure to contribute, but there's still that first pesky little earthling, created in your image, that you'd have missed out on raising during a formative period. Or in the case of Interstellar, her entire lifetime.

As for "no one else has", that's the split isn't it? I accept that argument inasmuch as I can see it being a point of view many would hold. However, I believe most parents would look at a choice like that and come to Stevie's conclusion.

And second, it's better than the Close Encounters case because dream world means dream time. They get to live a life together and then come back to their kids.

Yes, but that's the best-case scenario. In order to even hope to get there you'd have to choose not to worry about this:

All this is beside the point. My beef isn't that Cobb chooses to explore limbo. Parents make that choice sometimes. Many work too hard. Others engage in high-risk sport. But I can see why it's not a black and white thing.

It's that Nolan doesn't dissect that decision in a film whose engine is a father's (Cobb's) love for his kids. Think of the children's role within the script. How do they function in how Nolan engages you? What comes first: the puzzle or human nature?

Why don't we see their faces? It leaves the option open that Cobb is dreaming. Why does Cobb not think about the dangers of being brain-dead before he chooses to explore limbo with Mal? No limbo with Mal, no prior inception experience for Cobb. What is the only effect we notice that their excursion into limbo has had on their kids? Mal yelling at Cobb that they're not real, further engaging us with the cat-and-mouse nature of the dreamscape.

Which is all fucking cool, of course. It's just not all it could be.

If you ever had the time/inclination, I think you'd enjoy Todd McGowan's book The Fictional Christopher Nolan. I pretty much reject the entire thesis of the book, but it's a stimulating read all the same. He's also a very engaging writer, so even though it's heavy on the philosophy, it doesn't feel like you're doing work to get through it.

Very cool. Thanks mang.

 

[europe1]

Ohh... that gif makes me laugh. It's like Conan just explained to the audience how his martian underlings will vanquish earths defences and install him overlord of the world!

I don't see Godfather II as being slow to get going

I should probably have explained that. It's not that I think Godfather 2 is slow to get going. More that it's slower to reach it's peak and continue thrumming along after that. For me (ignoring the De Niro stuff) Godfather 2 peaks right around the ending of the Cuba-story and keeps being a masterclass after that until the ending. The things that preceded it was still an 8/10 or a 9/10 but after the Cuba stuff it reaches that lofty perfection status and flatlines until it finishes in terms of quality.

from when Tessio and Clemenza give Vito the money and wish him well to when Vito confirms

But then you've got De Niro whacking Fanucci and Ciccio

Upon further consideration, De Niro can assassinate as many different kinds of delicious pastas as he likes, I still prefer the aforementioned scenes from Godfather 1.

Tried to watch Suicide Squad

For me it was pretty much the textbook example of an avarage movie.

His analysis of Predator is just one of the single greatest breakdowns of an individual film I've ever had the pleasure of reading.

Now that sounds like you just threw down the gauntlet to me!

I've never said this before, nor could I have ever imagined a situation in which I'd have reason to say it, but the next time I read it, I'll be on the lookout for sodomy

Dude it's in the freaking title of the chapter even!

I've always seen contemporary action movies as continuing the Western themes you're mentioning here. If there's a difference, I think it might be that, in the case of films like Shane or The Searchers, the question is whether or not there's a place in the world for people like Shane or Ethan Edwards. In the case of films like Cobra or Marked for Death, however, the question is whether or not we need people like Marion Cobretti or John Hatcher. In other words, maybe we can say that, in Westerns, characters are confronted with a changing world in which they may no longer be needed, whereas in action movies, the changing world is confronted with characters for whom there may still be a need.

I'm leaning towards similar conclusions... but of course I won't be satisfied until I read 200 pages of sociological probing of the phenomenon and all of its subfacets.

Arnold: Schwarzenegger and the Movies

Yvonne Tasker's Spectacular Bodies

Tom Shone's Blockbuster

These three have already been subjected to my control!

... but I've already started reading other stuff so it'll take me time to get to them.

but NO WAY is Fiona even comparable to Starbuck. Not even close. Starbuck is way more interesting.

Never watched Battlestar Galactica, but the old analogy, bulky, keypad-heavy design of the original series certainly peaked my campy sci-fi intrests. It's looks like they've just strapped huge remote controllers to her frame!

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

@europe1 the new Battlestar Galactica series is really a great TV show - one of my favorites. Never watched the original.

 

[Bullitt68]

NO WAY is Fiona even comparable to Starbuck. Not even close. Starbuck is way more interesting.

I think it'd be fair to say our responses to Starbuck and Fiona are identical...except the exact opposite.

IDK, how that last season went and how everything had gone down with the CIA and them totally betraying Mike over the whole show and that being exposed again and again and AGAIN... I was like dude, patriotism is not the highest moral value here and he knew that, but his friends were stuck on that ideal and he had to stick with them and I get that, but when he shot Sonya I totally disconnected. I felt like James felt, "I have made an error, please kill them." After what happened with Nate and the show turned up like 100degrees, and how season 7 was ramping up following that and what happened with Simon at the very end... Mike was right there, and to turn back at the last second was so disappointing to me.

I was hoping my memory and my notes (I'm planning on writing something down the road on Burn Notice and Human Target, so the last time I watched Burn Notice, I made some notes) would hold up well enough for me to be able to converse with you, but unfortunately, I'm too fuzzy on Michael's turn at the end to offer a meaningful response. I do remember when he has the line, "The real battle becomes the one within yourself." And in my notes, for Season 7 Episode 12, I wrote, "Michael lying to the CIA for James, he’s ready to go rogue for good, but with Sonia and not Fi?" I knew he could never sustain the rogue thing. He and his crew may do their own thing, but what James was doing was a different animal. Sam even tells Michael that straight-up. The CIA didn't exactly do right by Michael, no one could deny that, but I'm remembering it becoming less about right and wrong for Michael and more about simply who he wanted to be and what kind of life he wanted. And the Michael Westen he would've been had he followed James and Sonia wasn't acceptable to him.

I felt similarly about Hannibal Season 3 episode 2 -- it just didn't work for me. Fortunately, that wasn't the finale, altho you have a problem with the actual finale. I've heard rumors they're waiting for the Amazon contract to expire and might bring the show back on Netflix.

http://collider.com/hannibal-season-4-bryan-fuller/

I had a problem with the epilogue for the finale. It would've been absolute perfection without those three fucking seconds. And, based on what Dancy is saying there about things restarting (and back with the first season?), I'm ambivalent about a fourth season at this point.

Then again, "leave well enough alone" is always my position on shit like this, so do with that what you will.

I'm down to check out Human Target.

I forgot to mention it in my last post, but I'll mention it to you now so that the Battlestar Galactica/Burn Notice connections may continue: The character Chance helps in the Pilot is played by Tricia Helfer.

The West Wing [...] It's so good.

Just a couple of nights ago I watched the one where Martin Sheen's secretary dies. That scene when he's in the church after the funeral and he orders everyone to leave and to seal the church is one of the most unbelievably cool and inspired things in the history of TV. It's like Sheen is talking shit as he walks up to a staredown with God. And he's such a boss that he pulls it off. Not only is Sorkin's writing spot-on, but the way it's shot with Sheen walking down the aisle ready for a fight and the camera tracking behind him. My money's on Sheen

I think he's terrible with women.

I've never understood where this comes from with his writing. Every time he comes out with something new, the way he writes for women ends up on the table and he gets ripped to shreds. It happened with The Newsroom and I can't for the life of me even see where the other side is coming from.

He frequently portrays them as strong, independent, but surrogates them against male characters (himself) to lose arguments with. Galloway and Mandy come to mind off the top of my head. I'm OK with CJ so far. Though there was this early exchange

I'm confused. Is that exchange an example of why the way Sorkin writes for women is bad?

Off-topic: I love Bradley Whitford. I'm watching an episode from Season 3 right now where he's trying to come up with an excuse to be around the woman in charge of the Women's Leadership Coalition rather than just asking her out. The scene with him and Richard Schiff brainstorming options is gold.

First off, that was a perfect gif response. A work of art in fact. Second, I know that given my track record with Mad Max my word might not be worth what it'd otherwise be worth, but I swear that I didn't intend any baiting there. I honestly thought Mad Max was from 2014. Third, Steve Jobs > Mad Max erryday.

Spoiler

So is fatherhood? [...] I believe most parents would look at a choice like that and come to Stevie's conclusion.

We're all somebody's child, and I know I like to think I was a big deal when I showed up, but if you were to count the number of people who have the opportunity to be fathers (where "opportunity" is understood at its broadest) and then count the number of people who have the opportunity to board a spaceship and explore the universe with another life form/the number of people who have the opportunity to navigate dreamspace, I think it's pretty clear which side is going to have the higher tally.

I'm not saying I'd make the same choices as those characters or that everybody should make those same choices. I'm just trying to defend the logic.

My beef isn't that Cobb chooses to explore limbo [...] It's that Nolan doesn't dissect that decision

If you ask me, Nolan didn't dissect that decision because it didn't need dissecting. It just needed 15 seconds:



For as often as Inception gets shit for being so full of information and so loaded down with explaining shit, that's a perfect example of both dramaturgical and thematic economy that doesn't lose any of its profundity.

"I tried not to come but..." / "But there's nothing quite like it."

Think of the children's role within the script.

I can't help thinking of the original opening credits sequence from Everybody Loves Raymond where Ray tells us he has a daughter and twin boys but then adds for our benefit, "It's not really about the kids."



I know that proves your point, but I thought it was relevant and funny. Honestly, the kids have always been the loose thread for me. That's the thread where, if you pull on it, it's going to bring the whole thing down. Cobb knows how many of these shady types? He couldn't have figured out a way to have his kids with him, or at least near him, while he was coming up with a more permanent solution? He couldn't have gotten Eames to dummy up some kiddy passports and bring them out to hang with Grandpa Caine?

They definitely have a "necessary evil" feel to them, which for me is the only blemish on an otherwise flawless masterpiece.

It's just not all it could be.

All it could be vs all it needs to be. Broadly speaking, and I know we've talked about this before, this is the heart of the Nolanverse. He makes huge, lengthy films, but he trims fat like nobody's business.

Very cool. Thanks mang.

Now that sounds like you just threw down the gauntlet to me!

All of his analyses are insightful (although I find it disappointing the low esteem in which he holds Arnold's work from Jingle All The Way to Collateral Damage) but his write-ups for The Terminator, Commando, and Predator form the strongest portion of the book IMO, and for me, his analysis of Predator is the most impressive of the bunch.

These three have already been subjected to my control!

 

[europe1]

low esteem in which he holds Arnold's work from Jingle All The Way

Just for the record -- Hercules in New York is by far Arnold's best comedy.




In other news, it's that time of the month again!

Oi, Bullit! You are a fancy typist. What is a word that describes something in-between "very good" and "great"? I need it to describe Whirlpool and Angel Face!

I definitively see the similarities between Angel Face and Gone Girl. Jean Simmons certainly has that devilish manipulator thing going. That said, it was noteworthy how relatively ineffective she was as a villian compared to Amazing Amy. It feels like Mitchum always managed to keep her at arms-lenght. She never really managed to ensnare him in her web like Amazing Amy did or Joan Bennett in Woman in the Window. Hell, even Mitchum's girlfriend sees right through her and calls her out on it when they're having their dinner. The motorcar "accidents" where a riot though. Dat ending man.

I would rate Whirlpool a tad below Angel Face. Part of me wondered if this was just Bullitt's fiendish attempt to lure me into the Gene Tierney = Aphrodite cult that he's running. Normally I hate the word "dated" in film and think that people who use it simply arn't capable of engrossing themselves into the world of the movie they're watching... but I thought the hypnosis stuff felt a bit... dated. But overall the acting and cinemotography was just so slick and enjoyable that it overshadowed that aspect. Jose Ferrer man, you don't get villian performances like that anymore. There was some sort of auditory acting back then that has just been lost in today's industry.

As an added bonus, I saw a third Preminger film, River of no Return. On the script and acting front it definitively felt like a phone-in. It basically has two things going for it, the grand vistas are drop-dead gorgeous and Marlin Monroe is drop-dread gorgeous. So yeah, plenty of beautiful things to point the camera at, but my God the script and characters are dumb! The only way Monroe's characters decisions and judgements make sense is if she only had two brain cells and they are fighting each other!

Going back to Jose Ferrer and amazing audiotory acting, I also saw Moulin Rouge from the 50s. He and his amazing voice made the movie. Just watching him trodding along as a dwarf with that aristocratic prounaunciation to everything was good enough for me. Good movie overall.

On the Cagney front, I dug into his early carrer and pulled out The Crowd Roars (which is definitively one of those titles that feel like it should be followed with an exclamation mark!). Really good actually.
It's sort of an interesting film in that it shows what unpleasant characters Cagney could have been playing a lot more of if his prime hadn't been in the Haze-code era. Cagney is an ace racecar driver. The thrust of the drama is really in his emotionally callous attitude towards his longtime groupie whom loves him, and his younger brother that is in a similar situation. Cagney threats them badly, despite them doing nothing untowards to deserve it, basically just because of the reputation of their buisness. It's an early Howard Hawks film too, and he directs it really well, cramming out some great moments in the film. It has the whole Hawksian "a man has to be proffesional" yarn that he was always fascinated with simmering along in the narrative. So yeah, very good actually.


To go back even further in time, I had never actually seen Chaplins Goldrush before. Honestly, I expected a bit more. It had that prototypical Chaplin charm to it which always seem to elevate his films. But I found it nowhere near as funny as, say, Modern Times (I chuckle at the mere thought of the feeding machine), or as poignant as The Great Dictator. It was a good, funny movie but nowhere near the upper echalons of what Chaplin achieved.


To jump forward about a 100 years in the future, I finally saw The Conjuring. Excluding non-conventional movies like It Follows or The Witch, I've thought that pretty much everry horror movie from the last decade or so has been avarage at best (and most even below that). The Conjuring really is the only "standard" horror movie I can think of that I truly enjoyed. The whole "paranomal investigator" premise was excacuted neatly, giving the film a fun spirit. Speaking of fun, I actually thought the film was really funny in places! Just things like introducing the main character as "the only non-ordained Demonologist recognized by the Catholic church" gave me a hearty chuckle. So yeah, just a well-done movie.


From now on it's just going to be films related to Italy...

Firstly, I saw Roman Holiday for the first time. Honestly I did not fall for the Hepburn allure. Towards the end the pathos between her and Gregory Peck turned poignant, as they cannot see each other again, but most of the movie just felt like an okay ride through Rome. It didn't do much for me. Okay film but nothing spectacular.

Then I watched an actual Italian film, A Special Day (Una Giornata Particolare). Like I said earlier, another one of those films that you need a word in-between "very good" and "great" to describe.
It has this theme going, about how the internal-lives and tribulations of two ordinary, unspectacular people can be more poignant and moving than all of the ostentatiousness and pomp that fascism can muster. It's a good theme, and well-excecuted, but it sort of wears this theme on it's sleeves. When it thirty mimutes left you feel as if you've already understood everything and the movie is just running it through to the end.

Lastly on the Italian front, I saw Malena. Also situated in that uncomfortable borderlands between the good and the great. It stars Monica Bellucci, soo... it kind of raises that age-old gender issue about how one cannot make a movie about sexualization without simultaniously sexualizing the very
character that theme is about. Outside that minefield of contradictions, paradoxes and duel-meanings, I did enjoy the storytelling of the film. How beauty can both elevate you to the top of society yet simultaneously curses you to be mistreated because of it, especially in a hypocritical honour-culture with it's fucked-up attitude towards sex.
And this scene was just soooo funny, sad and revealing at the same time.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Shit, I think the casuals could teach the hardcores a thing or two about movie watching. Too many people get too inside their own heads trying to outsmart the film instead of using their minds to follow through on the philosophical implications of DiCaprio's journey.

Also, since you didn't explicitly say it, I've got to ask you: Does the top fall or does it keep spinning?

I'm pretty decided that the top does fall, but I believe that could still entail different conclusions about Cobb's final reality.

The top is a shitty totem, that's the clue. Whether or not such an elaborate film can co-exist with that fact without it ever becoming relevant is the golden thread.

@Ricky13 I'm going to go through The Prestige and Interstellar again and get back to you on that other stuff. I really love Nolan so I'd like to flesh that out with my own thoughts too.

Sorkin is great too, minus Steve Jobs which I found utterly bland. Also re: The Newsroom, I just caught Jeff Daniels again in Looper and thought smug leader with knowledge of the future was just a perfect role for him lol.

"I'm from the future - you should go to China."

 

[Hogey]

Watching taxi driver for the first time, man this shit is dark. I think there are a lot of travis's in this world, hell maybe everyone has expirenced a little bit of Travis before, not to his extreme. Shieet

 

[Rimbaud82]

Finally got round to seeing Paths of Glory last night, what a film...

 

[Ricky13]

Just a couple of nights ago I watched the one where Martin Sheen's secretary dies. That scene when he's in the church after the funeral and he orders everyone to leave and to seal the church is one of the most unbelievably cool and inspired things in the history of TV. It's like Sheen is talking shit as he walks up to a staredown with God. And he's such a boss that he pulls it off. Not only is Sorkin's writing spot-on, but the way it's shot with Sheen walking down the aisle ready for a fight and the camera tracking behind him. My money's on Sheen

Not reading this because I haven't seen it. Will then go back to it. I'm watching it old school from a lack of time.

I've never understood where this comes from with his writing. Every time he comes out with something new, the way he writes for women ends up on the table and he gets ripped to shreds. It happened with The Newsroom and I can't for the life of me even see where the other side is coming from.

What I've seen of Sorkin's includes: Studio 60, The Social Network, Steve Jobs, first season of The West Wing, Sports Night, A Few Good Men, Charlie Wilson's War, Moneyball. I remember almost nothing about Sports Night or Studio 60.

Sorkin's sexism is difficult to unpack from being entangled with his brand of uber-liberalism. It's worth looking at how his female characters are allowed to handle the wheel. I think it was Mamet (or maybe Goldman?) who said that his favorite definition of an act change was: when an event propels the plot or sub-plot to a point from which it can't return. A short scene like the opening to Inglourious Basterds is hence, a "chapter".

Sorkin's women aren't influential enough to cause narrative propulsion. They're vehicles for change, never agents. Joanne Galloway is used to hire the firebrand Kaffee. She is professional, a workhorse. Kaffee is never sprung into action by her persuasive nature. She is "compelling" but "also useless". What makes him take up the case is something Ross says. What first makes him think he might win is Markinson's reappearance. What gets him to put Jessop on the stand is something Weinberg says.

Donna (The West Wing) plays audience surrogate, Miss Landingham a motherly figure (and it looks, from your post, like the best way she can influence act change is by dying!). What I anticipate most about C.J. is hers and Danny's sexual tension. When she fucks up, it's secondary to some truth being concealed from her by the boys club. When she does something cool, like making poll predictions correctly, her analytical skill is left undepicted. She insists it isn't flowery "female intuition", but Sorkin doesn't bother to write her insight into the narrative. You can't have complexity of character without complexity of action.

Solutions: 1) Have C.J. fuck up something that has them scrambling. 2) Have the White House fuck up something that she heroically tones down during a press briefing - then have them all contemplate whether that was a good thing.

Charlie determines the direction of his relationship with Zoe. When he decides to ignore the Secret Service's advice, it's because "a man stands up". When he decides not to, it's because he is convinced by Danny that Zoe has a hard enough time with daddy already.

Solutions: 1) Have Zoe break up with Charlie. 2) Have Zoe side with Charlie to complicate her relationship with dad.

Sam Seaborn rescues his women. His relationship with the call-girl comes from a place of righteousness. This is tone deaf. She was doing fine before he showed up. The throughline of that sub-plot is thus propelled by defence of the rights of a powerful white man. Later, Ainsley Hayes defeats him during a TV debate. However, it is he who ends up firing the guys that harrass her.

Solutions: Stop rescuing women who don't need it. They got to where they are by kicking ass.

In terms of character traits: Sorkin's females are never feminine. They argue like men, with men (and when they don't, they're ditzy). And he thinks he's doing them a favour because he points out they can:



For a show that lives and breathes off the sentiment that the existence of humanity depends on our putting ourselves in others' shoes, it is entirely unable to empathise with its female viewers. Women don't have to be revered. They need to be fully fleshed out characters full of earthly complexity, and from there will flow high drama.

Further, "these women" is lip service. Argumentative Mandy goes down in flames, and never wins an argument with Josh (Sorkin surrogate). The show picks and chooses the issues relevant to its fictional world, but when the First Lady champions child labour reform, the show proclaims it a non-issue via Seaborn. The implication: lady Bartlet was letting her motherly nature make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Sorkin in fact thinks very little of smart women. I almost threw something at the screen at the end of this clip:



The effect of all this is that dramatically, Sorkin's women are boring. They are all tone, no content. They're forceful, smart, professional, but they're never big-picture, wise or resilient. Letting women be women might sound odd to our male-world attuned ears:



But once you take the chance, it will often be glorious:



All that said, I love the show. It's full of this stuff, but there's tons to admire. Like you, Whitford is probably my favorite person on it.

First off, that was a perfect gif response. A work of art in fact. Second, I know that given my track record with Mad Max my word might not be worth what it'd otherwise be worth, but I swear that I didn't intend any baiting there. I honestly thought Mad Max was from 2014. Third, Steve Jobs > Mad Max erryday.

I was proud of that one.

And I do believe you forgot.

I'm not saying I'd make the same choices as those characters or that everybody should make those same choices. I'm just trying to defend the logic.

Eh. I know. Don't bother saying this. We both like to argue just to argue. What the hell else would we do?

I'd take on the rest of your post but I'm truly fucked for time now. One major argument at a time, I s'pose.

 

[chickenluver]

Was international independent video store day yesterday. The local store had all Criterion releases 50% off.

 

[El Chimpo]

bought and watched Diablo tonight...7/10...not many westerns like that..good mix of thriller with action

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

So tonight I caught a screening of a theatrical performance of Frankenstein directed by Danny Boyle in 2011 and featuring Benedict Cumberbatch as Victor.

Some of the script was a little strange but overall it was enjoyable, and Miller killed it as the monster. I thought they played with the chronology and skipped around with some of the thematic elements in a way that left the whole narrative feeling sort of disjointed though, so that was a bit unfortunate. Maybe if I was actually in the audience and not watching on-screen I would have felt differently.

One of my favourite stories of all time.

 

[Coolthulu]

They should make a movie with Jeff Bridges, Kurt Russell, Keri Russell, and Connie Britton called Wind Tunnel so we can ooh and aah over their great hair. Directed by Terrence Malick. Obviously. I'd watch that movie over and over again.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

They should make a movie with Jeff Bridges, Kurt Russell, Keri Russell, and Connie Britton called Wind Tunnel so we can ooh and aah over their great hair. Directed by Terrence Malick. Obviously. I'd watch that movie over and over again.

My roommates and I all had hair like this after discovering Road House in our first year of university:

Or, y'know, as close as we could get to that.

 

[Coolthulu]

My roommates and I all had hair like this after discovering Road House in our first year of university:

Or, y'know, as close as we could get to that.

Right on haha. Swayze is the fucking man & Road House is the King Shit of Fuck Mountain of 80's cheese. I can watch it anytime.

 

[chickenluver]

So tonight I caught a screening of a theatrical performance of Frankenstein directed by Danny Boyle in 2011 and featuring Benedict Cumberbatch as Victor.

Some of the script was a little strange but overall it was enjoyable, and Miller killed it as the monster. I thought they played with the chronology and skipped around with some of the thematic elements in a way that left the whole narrative feeling sort of disjointed though, so that was a bit unfortunate. Maybe if I was actually in the audience and not watching on-screen I would have felt differently.

One of my favourite stories of all time.

I've been wanting to catch this. It is a mostly faithful adaptation? I really love the original novel (1818 text > 1831 text) but I might actually love the 1931 film more, even though it's so different. Then again I haven't watched the movie since reading the book.

I've heard mixed things about the film Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, but I should probably give it a watch considering I like De Niro and Branagh.

 

[CerebralKnievel]

Has anyone else watched the Wailing yet? A captivating and somewhat metaphorically driven exploration of morality and suspicion, and overall just an amazing suspense-building film which rises into a fractured, mysterious.... Well, I don't want to give anything away.

 

[Joseph Budden]

Has anyone else watched the Wailing yet? A captivating and somewhat metaphorically driven exploration of morality and suspicion, and overall just an amazing suspense-building film which rises into a fractured, mysterious.... Well, I don't want to give anything away.

Yes, myself and @iGnP have seen it and had a discussion awhile ago about it. Brilliant film, one of the years best for sure.

 

[CerebralKnievel]

Yes, myself and @iGnP have seen it and had a discussion awhile ago about it. Brilliant film, one of the years best for sure.

I don't want to give anything away here but.....

Spoiler

Thanks ending...!!!! Oscillating back and forth with indecision.. which one is it?? Is it both???

Such an amazing film.

 

[Joseph Budden]

I don't want to give anything away here but.....

Spoiler

Thanks ending...!!!! Oscillating back and forth with indecision.. which one is it?? Is it both???

Such an amazing film.

Spoiler

I wish I could discuss it more in detail with you but what a mindfuck this movie was lol and its been a little while since I watched it. As far is the ending, iirc I thought the voodoo guy worked with the devil, who was the old man