Serious Movie Discussion XXXVIX

[Bullitt68]

No.i was put off by the reviews.It wasn't exactly on top of my to-watch list

It was actually pretty good, and as a bigger Walter Hill fan than I am, you'd probably like it even more than I did.

I watched Stallone's recent Bullet to the Head, directed by Walter Hill. The Korean cop was horrible, but Stallone was great (equal parts bad ass and sarcastic jerk, and he was great at both), Jason Momoa was a vicious villain, and it was fun seeing Christian Slater and Adebisi as bad guys. I was disappointed, however, with how they ended the movie. After the final action scene, they could've ended it on a perfect note, but instead, they tack on one more pointless scene that I'm 100% certain Hill only included so he could have Stallone say John Wayne's famous line from The Searchers, "That'll be the day." And the payoff wasn't worth it and it made me knock off a ton of points. But the action was solid and Stallone did a great job.

 

[Ricky13]

Snowpiercer – On the negative side I think this movie was trying to make some point about class structure but it never commits to one side or the other. On the one hand the people from the tail are clearly presented sympathetically as being oppressed and treated brutally by the people in power on the train and justified in their attempt at bringing about a revolution. On the other hand...

The society on the train lives in disharmony. In fact, the self-sustenance of the train depends on it. Disharmony leads to revolution. This is Wilford's aim. He was once Curtis, rebelled, fought his way up the train, only to find what Curtis did.

Parallels can be drawn with the director's autocratic Korea, or even a system of capitalism, where it often happens that leaders require people to be weak in order to continue to stay strong.

That is the system on the train. It, via Wilford's manipulations, hopes to "arc" the chief rebel Curtis to the stage where he comes to the understanding that the "greater good", that is, the survival of the species, is dependent on its very children to drive the engine. Curtis is portrayed at the start to want revolution because it will foster the qualities of a free-living society once freedom is achieved. This is a noble goal. However, he himself is unaware of the forces at play, on both conscious and subconscious levels. He sees notes from the head the train. Someone is helping him, but he does not know who - conscious. He forces Mason to eat sushi, then kills Mason - subconscious. "Any one of us would gladly trade places with you." That's when the subconscious and conscious are one. By saying this, he has admitted that he is the same as Wilford, which is why this comes at the end of the film.

Spoiler

When Curtis and the two Koreans succeed and get what they want they turn around and instantly fuck everything up by wrecking the train and in spite of the presence of the polar bear which implies that life is returning to the outside world I don't see any way that everybody doesn't wind up dead. So essentially the movie ends up backing Wilton's utilitarian views on class structure.

Spoiler

I can see why Curtis and Nam's actions are confusing, but they're wholly in line with the revolution conceit.

It's really quite beautiful, the idea at the end of it that the only way to overhaul the system that survives on the inevitability of human weakness and that provides false hope by allowing controlled revolution, if you can't do it from inside it, is to either escape from it laterally, hence Nam's hole in the "side" of the train, or to destroy it altogether, which is what happens as a result in the film.

So nobody is really good or bad. Including Curtis. Such a meaningful subversion. His character's journey up the train is full of little events that are thrown in so obliquely as to seem insignificant when you watch it the first time because he's obviously doing these things because he's good; I mean, he's a rebel looking out for his people, right? But by the end of the movie, the same actions are far more in line with Wilford's.

For instance, he doesn't tell his friends what is in the protein blocks for "their own good". He kills Mason, who is unarmed. Forces Mason to consume the blocks while he sits there eating sushi. Curtis sums it up himself in the end when he says to Wilford, "Anyone on this train would trade places with you." What the fuck?

The genius of the film is that really, Curtis is not the protagonist. Nam is. Curtis is the guy who thinks he's doing the right thing in the service of the greater good. Nam recognises it all, on the fringes. You think he's about to have this great realisation when Curtis tells him his story at the end, but instead, he pretty much tells him, "Nice story, buddy. Doesn't change shit. We either escape from the side, or remain part of the system."

Noah

The family drama at the end is what made this film for me. Some of us discussed this a few pages back.

Great film.

He cannot guarantee it'll happen anytime soon, but he'll be sure to post his thoughts once he gets around to it :wink:

Too late now brah. You missed it. That excitement in a fully expectant crowd as the lights go down before something fucking amaaaaaaaazing and once in a decade or more lights up the big screen.

I'm glad I finally know what it was like for people to have seen T2 or Aliens or Jaws on the big screen when they were released. Fury Road is why I take chances at the movies.

But you missed it! Why? Because trailer was bad or PhD or some shit. Stupid, stupid man. You're our MOVIE GUY.

Speaking of PhD, how's that going? I managed to get admitted to the one I wanted too, phew. Full ride, international fees on a scholarship. Plus I can keep working on the reg. Only mine will be social-life-shatteringly hard.

I don't like Friedkin's movies and I've never managed to sit through that one beginning to end and don't ever care to.

I don't understand this shit. How does one not like The French Connection? For fuck's sake. I can't find a flaw in the damn thing. What will it take Bull, huh? What will it take?

The #2 film noir behind The Maltese Falcon IMO and just one of the GOAT. Joseph Cotten is so fucking underrated and he KILLS IT in this one, and Welles brings the heat, too. And the cinematography is phenomenal. And that score!

I saw the recent digital restoration of this last week at the movies. It looked even better. I didn't like the film as much but still very good. Felt a lot more of a stylistic exercise this time around.

I still recommend the shit out of it to anyone.

 

[europe1]

Antman was - completely mediocre. A fun action-comedy basically. Perfectly in the middle as far as the history of movies go.

That was my experience across the board with John Ford. It took me a long time, but I came around to his films a few years ago. I'm still not wild about him, but the man knew how to make a fucking movie.

What do you think of Ford on the whole?

I can't really give a solid opinion on John Ford since I've only seen five of his films. The only movies I've seen of his are The Searchers, Liberty Valance, Stagecoach, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, and Apache Fortress.


She Wore a Yellow Ribbon felt like military pornography. Soldiers riding about, acting all soldiery, doing soldiery things. But as an action movie it falls kinda flat. Hell, my favorite part was probably Joanne Dru promenading around and eye-fucking every male in the unit (she was mighty cute tucked away in that yankee uniform!). In fact, the entire film was very pretty-looking, with great attention to detail, and that those lightning-effects were very cool. But all-in-all it felt a bit effectless and unfinished, it's one of those movies that has no real catharsis and instead just fizzles out along the way. Which definitively leaves a bad taste behind. Not a bad movie but... as I said, effectless.

Fort Apache tough... was a downright boring, tedious and criminally overlong affair! Something like 90% of it was sappy, interesting drama. At least the Southerner/yankee love triangle in Yellow Ribbon was watchable. All human interaction in this one was just a drag! Christ, some of those Z-grade Westerns John Wayne did for Lone Star in the 30's were more watchable than this crap! And I hate the whole "Indian wars happened because one guy in high-command was inept and unfamiliar with the territory, huh, huh, huh" trope! Even the action scenes felt unengaging.

I'd much rather watch a contemporary, run-to-the-mill action-western like Only The Valiant than a Ford flick like this one! Hell, I didn't even know Ford made it until you asked me about my opinion of him! And looking at IMDB.... this movie has a 7,6 rating!!!? How the hell can people have such a high opinion of this film? Has anyone here actually seen it and LIKED it? Please explain what's so special about it!

Christ... now I know how Bullitt feel about Tarkovsky films!


Stagecoach though... is one great B-action movie! It's so good in fact that it has the dubious honor of being the only John Wayne film my father likes! I remember genuinely enjoying the romance between Wayne and the Prostitute, and how they contrasted with the more "respectable" members of the Stagecoach (and putting a prostitute in such a sympathetic role must have been pretty ballsy for the 30's). I like how Wayne is presented more like a "normal guy" as oppose to the "Hero-Worship" treatment he recieves in many other roles (such as Liberty Valance, where they literally grieve at their hero's coffin). The stunts are still amazing. Still... as far as contemporary action movies go... The Adventures of Robin Hood has it beat. But yeah... it's easily a great, groundbreaking film.


One gripe that I've had with all his films so far though... is the comedy. It's not funny. He seems to really love jocular caricatures (drunk irishmen ahoy!). It even drags down his better films like Liberty Valance and Stagecoach. Ford Apache was especially painful in regards to this faux humor, goddamn movie was brimming with that crap!

The Searcher's I saw as a kid. I remember really enjoying it. But since my memory isn't fresh at all I can't really say anything special about it. I agree with the majority opinion.

Spoiler

When Curtis and the two Koreans succeed and get what they want they turn around and instantly fuck everything up by wrecking the train and in spite of the presence of the polar bear which implies that life is returning to the outside world I don't see any way that everybody doesn't wind up dead. So essentially the movie ends up backing Wilton's utilitarian views on class structure.

Spoiler

I think that you're thinking to logically on a scene that is intended to be viewed on an emotional/symbolical level. Of course no one could survive out there in real life. But the Polar Bear showing up is meant to give us a nice emotional catharsis to the journey we've been on, and to symbolise the return of life to the earth. You're not meant to intepret it rationally in the first place.

And...

Spoiler

Did anyone else get a nice kick out of seeing Captain America admit that he knew what baby meat tasted like!?:icon_chee

 

[Francis Rossi]

Stagecoach is fantastic. I'm far from a John Wayne fan, but I really enjoyed it.

 

[Bullitt68]

Too late now brah. You missed it. That excitement in a fully expectant crowd as the lights go down before something fucking amaaaaaaaazing and once in a decade or more lights up the big screen.

I'm glad I finally know what it was like for people to have seen T2 or Aliens or Jaws on the big screen when they were released. Fury Road is why I take chances at the movies.

Seriously, Ricky. Jaws? Terminator 2? What in the crazy fuck are you doing putting a movie I haven't heard a single person IRL talk about alongside two of the biggest movies in the history of the universe? And here I am thinking I sometimes get carried away with hyperbole :redface:

And anyway, that scenario of yours with all of that excitement and anticipation wouldn't have been my experience anyway, because even if I had dragged my ass into a theater, that wouldn't have been my state of mind. So it's not like I had the chance to have that perfect fantasy moviegoing experience. All I missed was scale and sound, which, I grant you, are not insignificant, but I'm not one for whom the theater experience is make-it-or-break-it, nor does that one seem like an Avatar or a Gravity where it's theater or nothing.

In short: Stop bitching and I'll watch it eventually and maybe I'll retroactively join you in calling me stupid.

But you missed it! Why? Because trailer was bad or PhD or some shit. Stupid, stupid man. You're our MOVIE GUY.

You know, in his (amazing) book The World Viewed, Stanley Cavell admits the following:

"I have mentioned my increasing difficulty over the past several years to get myself to go to new movies. This has to do partly with an anxiousness in my response to new films I have seen [...] but equally with my anxiousness in what I feel to be new audiences for movies [...] as though I cannot locate or remain together with my companions among them."

I have something similar going on. I feel disconnected from new movies and from the people who like them. And the worst part is that the only way to not be disconnected is to reconnect with them, but my feeling of disconnection is keeping me from it. It's an annoying loop I'm caught in, and while I tell myself that one of these days I'm going to get organizized, today is not that day.

Speaking of PhD, how's that going?

Awesome. I've done two conferences, one of which I helped run; I've published another essay in an academic journal and have another one coming out next week hosted on a martial arts blog; I've got another publication in the pipeline for the journal I'm the reviews editor on, which means I'm also doing super important business prior to the journal's inaugural issue coming out in October; I'm contracted to write a book chapter on predecessors of action movies in early film history; and, last but not least, I'm in the process of ordering plenty of leatherbound books and making sure my apartment smells of rich mahogany.

It's been busy as fuck, but other than getting to teach, which is next on my list of shit to do, I literally can't imagine anything that'd make this experience better.

I managed to get admitted to the one I wanted too, phew.

Congrats! Pretty soon, you and I can make the rest of these peasants refer to us as Dr. Ricky and Dr. Bullitt :wink:

Full ride, international fees on a scholarship.

Same here. That's the only way to fly. Where are you going to be studying?

Only mine will be social-life-shatteringly hard.

What are you saying? That writing about the Bruce Lee movies that I've seen fifty trillion times isn't hard?

Spoiler

I don't understand this shit. How does one not like The French Connection?

I've crossed paths with it numerous times over the years and I've never been able to stay the course. It just feels flat and lifeless. In fact, other than Friedkin's Michael Mann impersonation with To Live and Die in LA, he just sucks.

What I don't understand is how anybody in the Academy could think The French Connection was even worthy of being placed alongside let alone considered superior in any respect to A Clockwork Orange. Now that's some fucked up shit.

I can't really give a solid opinion on John Ford since I've only seen five of his films. The only movies I've seen of his are The Searchers, Liberty Valance, Stagecoach, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, and Apache Fortress.

I figured, if you'd seen any of his films, they'd be the Westerns. Ironically, for my Ford pedestal, two of the three (Mary of Scotland with Katharine Hepburn, with whom Ford became obsessed, and The Last Hurrah with Spencer Tracy) aren't even Westerns. The one that is a Western is, of course, The Searchers, which I highly recommend revisiting.

That's the one that I really came around to and started the ball rolling with my Ford appreciation. Stagecoach is bad ass, just super slick classical filmmaking that really set a new standard for action aesthetics and really raised the bar for Westerns, but The Searchers is Ford's Vertigo or 2001.

One gripe that I've had with all his films so far though... is the comedy. It's not funny. He seems to really love jocular caricatures (drunk irishmen ahoy!). It even drags down his better films like Liberty Valance and Stagecoach. Ford Apache was especially painful in regards to this faux humor, goddamn movie was brimming with that crap!

I couldn't be more with you on this. His "comedy" is painfully unfunny.

 

[europe1]

I've crossed paths with it numerous times over the years and I've never been able to stay the course. It just feels flat and lifeless. In fact, other than Friedkin's Michael Mann impersonation with To Live and Die in LA, he just sucks.

Wait... are you implying that The Exorcist sucks? Listen, thrashing Bridge Over The River Kwai is one thing... but now you're just taking it to goddamn far mister!

Here's something to pile onto your mental torments... Mad Max: Fury Road is easily the best action movie made since we entered the twenty-first century! And you missed it at the cinema, buddy! Think about that when you go to bed tonight!

I figured, if you'd seen any of his films, they'd be the Westerns. Ironically, for my Ford pedestal, two of the three (Mary of Scotland with Katharine Hepburn,

From IMDB:

John Ford liked to bully actors on the set, and this was no exception. At one point he said to Andy Devine, "You big tub of lard. I don't know why the hell I'm using you in this picture." Undaunted, Devine replied, "Because Ward Bond can't drive six horses." Likewise he attacked Thomas Mitchell, who eventually retorted, "Just remember: I saw Mary of Scotland! (1936)," effectively humbling the director.

I couldn't be more with you on this. His "comedy" is painfully unfunny.

Maybe it has something to do with the populist nature of his films - and the populist nature of Westerns in general. Basically, low-brow humor to appease the masses, grinded down so to appease the lowest-common denominator. A lot of westerns seem to have liked jocular cariactures. Hell, even the Spaghetti Westerns indulged heavily in this trend. It wasn't until the American Anti-Western phase during the 60's/70's that we seem to have gotten rid of them (and thank god for that!).

 

[Bullitt68]

Wait... are you implying that The Exorcist sucks?

My apologies. I didn't mean to imply that The Exorcist sucks. Let me state for the record, in no uncertain terms, with no ambiguous implications: The Exorcist sucks.

The Exorcist is seriously one of the worst movies ever made. It took me three or four piece-by-piece viewings to finally be able to say I'd seen the whole thing (noticing a pattern? my reason for not dealing with The French Connection coming into focus?) and it was only worth it in its providing the context for me to be able to appreciate one of the greatest openings in film history:

[YT]vM39qojtwsU[/YT]

Here's something to pile onto your mental torments... Mad Max: Fury Road is easily the best action movie made since we entered the twenty-first century! And you missed it at the cinema, buddy! Think about that when you go to bed tonight!

From IMDB:

Fuck Thomas Mitchell.

[YT]AJEzUo18ZcE[/YT]

Mary of Scotland is an amazing movie with Ford's most beautiful cinematography; unbelievable period costuming and set design; tremendous acting from Hepburn and Frederic March in the leads as well as support from one of my personal favorites, John Carradine; and my pick for one of the greatest close-ups in all of cinema and the greatest Hepburn close-up ever recorded (the scene is obviously best in context, but if you're not going to bother with the film, at least watch from 35:42-40:10. As soon as the music kicks in and she sees the man she loves and Ford captures that singular face in close-up, that's the magic of the movies, I get chills every time).

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

Seriously, Ricky. Jaws? Terminator 2? What in the crazy fuck are you doing putting a movie I haven't heard a single person IRL talk about alongside two of the biggest movies in the history of the universe? And here I am thinking I sometimes get carried away with hyperbole :redface:

Well, you know how much I love those two films? I loved Fury Road even more.

I have full confidence you will, at the very least, like it a lot.

 

[chickenluver]

Mad Max Fury Road:

Meh/10

 

[KOQ24]

My apologies. I didn't mean to imply that The Exorcist sucks. Let me state for the record, in no uncertain terms, with no ambiguous implications: The Exorcist sucks.

The Exorcist is seriously one of the worst movies ever made. It took me three or four piece-by-piece viewings to finally be able to say I'd seen the whole thing (noticing a pattern? my reason for not dealing with The French Connection coming into focus?) and it was only worth it in its providing the context for me to be able to appreciate one of the greatest openings in film history:

[YT]vM39qojtwsU[/YT]

Fuck Thomas Mitchell.

[YT]AJEzUo18ZcE[/YT]
.

what about Sorcerer?
Friedkin's masterpiece imo.

 

[Ricky13]

Seriously, Ricky. Jaws? Terminator 2? What in the crazy fuck are you doing putting a movie I haven't heard a single person IRL talk about alongside two of the biggest movies in the history of the universe? And here I am thinking I sometimes get carried away with hyperbole :redface:

I suppose "in real life" implies you're excluding the interwebz. I don't know who you discuss film with in real life; I can only point to the online community. Not that consensus means shit, but it is not an uncommon opinion that this is one of the best action films ever made, including among your pals here. Forget about story and the things that make story work, all of which it nails, but on the visceral and hence, technical level, it is an absolute game-changer, and is inspiring budding filmmakers to step up..

A common complaint with modern action is too much CGI/quick cutting, and the lamentation of the move from celluloid to digital which many believe is responsible for a lack of immediacy and reduction in dynamic range. Fury Road is shot with generous amounts of CGI and alters frame rates seemingly at will. It is shot entirely on digital yet retains a gorgeous colour palette. The action is both grounded and coherent during a two hour chase.

It's a pleasant shock seeing its synchronous execution via tools and techniques considered to be detrimental to the progression of the action film. Add a universal story told with no fuss and that's a classic in the vein of those great films I cited.

And anyway, that scenario of yours with all of that excitement and anticipation wouldn't have been my experience anyway, because even if I had dragged my ass into a theater, that wouldn't have been my state of mind.

Now I'm sad.

All I missed was scale and sound, which, I grant you, are not insignificant, but I'm not one for whom the theater experience is make-it-or-break-it, nor does that one seem like an Avatar or a Gravity where it's theater or nothing.

I would argue it absolutely is a theater experience. And is very similar to the films you mention above in that they all tell deceptively simple stories to maintain the thrill of more tangible techniques best appreciated on a big screen.

But you will lose less watching it on video than the other two, I suppose. Only because it's far better storytelling.

In short: Stop bitching and I'll watch it eventually and maybe I'll retroactively join you in calling me stupid..

Most of my consternation is directed at you with tongue firmly in cheek. I don't expect you to love the cinema experience like I do. But I will always push people in that direction. I think we've both gained and lost a lot with the advent and spread of home cinema.

And the worst part is that the only way to not be disconnected is to reconnect with them, but my feeling of disconnection is keeping me from it. It's an annoying loop I'm caught in, and while I tell myself that one of these days I'm going to get organizized, today is not that day.

I felt like this for a long while. Then figured that the universal appeal of certain genres (eg. superhero) and styles (eg. surrealist) was something I was missing out on just because some part of me felt I was above it. Maybe that's not what you're thinking, but the way you rigorously compare films/eras/directors makes me think it is? Please take no offence and feel free to put me in my place. It's just my observation that often your criticism of films is linked to what they're imitating or simply not as good as. True Detective is a shitty Hannibal. The French Connection is no A Clockwork Orange. The Duellists is no Barry Lyndon. When often each of these things we have to try to engage with on their level to appreciate. I'm sure you do give them a fair chance, but the frequency with which you often launch into comparative analyses does make me wonder whether that's not on your mind when you watch something. I suppose that also comes with how much you've seen.

For instance, I don't like The Boondock Saints because it is a vile and stylistic ode to and hence, justification for vigilante justice, executed by forcing empathy on viewers for unrelated atrocities the protagonists are subject to at the start of the film. Would I be incorrect in suggesting you feel similarly, but that your primary ire is directed at the way it apes Tarantino? (I think this because you've reviewed a few shows and films unfavourably for their Tarantino IOUs)

Awesome. I've done two conferences, one of which I helped run; I've published another essay in an academic journal and have another one coming out next week hosted on a martial arts blog; I've got another publication in the pipeline for the journal I'm the reviews editor on, which means I'm also doing super important business prior to the journal's inaugural issue coming out in October; I'm contracted to write a book chapter on predecessors of action movies in early film history; and, last but not least, I'm in the process of ordering plenty of leatherbound books and making sure my apartment smells of rich mahogany.

So much for not being as busy as me.

Congrats! Pretty soon, you and I can make the rest of these peasants refer to us as Dr. Ricky and Dr. Bullitt :wink:

Fuckers should be calling me that already. :icon_chee I actually am a doctor (medical).

Same here. That's the only way to fly. Where are you going to be studying?

University of Nottingham. Thesis in metabolic physiology, especially as it pertains to exercise.

 

[europe1]

Anyone have any grand thoughts on Easy Rider?


I liked it much more than I thought I'd would - seeing as important films of that era are often referred to as "growing pain films", important to the development of the industry but not enjoyable to watch. I kinda liked spending time with Billy and Captain America on their journey across the states. And it presented its message smartly. Freespirited hippies are more in-tune and unhypocritical with the concept of freedom than the bellicose, close-minded conservatives are whom guard the "Status Quo".

Yet at the same time - their own lifestyle isn't perfect, they fail in their quest to hunt down the American Dream (which is self-fullfilment... or whatever). They engage in drugs and adventure yet still do not achieve the state-of-mind they are searching for. The hippi movement likewise, is criticised. The closest thing they encounter to the American Dream along their way -- is ironically the nuclear-family they dine with at the beginning. They live of the land - yet have the proficency and know-how that the dimwitted hippies lacks, while not being so intolerant and belicose as the rednecks are.

It helped that it avoided some of the "ugliness" that later drug movies indulge in. Take Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas as an example. Sure it might be fun to be that high, but being the sober one witnessing it is a fucking drag. That Easy Rider took a more mellow, "philosophical" approach to its drug culture certainly helped the characters likability and to communicate the message it tried to get across. (save that one scene of course, which really wasn't that bad anyways considering how unglamorous it was).

My apologies. I didn't mean to imply that The Exorcist sucks. Let me state for the record, in no uncertain terms, with no ambiguous implications: The Exorcist sucks.

The Exorcist is seriously one of the worst movies ever made. It took me three or four piece-by-piece viewings to finally be able to say I'd seen the whole thing (noticing a pattern? my reason for not dealing with The French Connection coming into focus?) and it was only worth it in its providing the context for me to be able to appreciate one of the greatest openings in film history:

Um...

[YT]TzwGwsdaeQo&start=51&end=56[/YT]

Now I finally understand what Jack Burton went through.

You didn't even like the begining in Iraq?

One of the things I really liked with the Exorcist - upon repeated viewings - was how the demonic possession mirrored the dysfunctional sexuality of psychologically troubled adolescents. Teens with a lot of psychological trauma often grow up becoming hyper-sexualized, and you can see that in the way Regan is depicted. It starts budding at the beginning of the movie when she's uncorrupted - and then goes overboard whence she's possessed. Other features she's depicted as having (like urinating herself) are also signs of psychologically dysfunctional youths.

It's nice to notice stuff like that during repeated viewings.

For instance, I don't like The Boondock Saints because it is a vile and stylistic ode to and hence, justification for vigilante justice, executed by forcing empathy on viewers for unrelated atrocities the protagonists are subject to at the start of the film.

Ouch... so not a Death Wish fan then?:wink:

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

im pretty sure wet hot is going to be my favorite show ever. the trailer alone was better than breaking bad.

 

[theskza]

Ex Machina is easily the third best movie of 2015. It's a simple story that's straightforward yet mysterious, and although there's a twist

Spoiler

lacking

that's ok here. It works nicely. I love the thought provoking dialogue. It was very engaging. The performances were great, and Oscar Isaac is probably my favorite actor at the moment. He kills it here, even more so than in Inside Llewyn Davis. Most importantly the movie was entertaining. One of my favorite scenes this year is the dancing scene. It's hilarious and great stuff. 9/10

 

[ufcfan4]

Ex Machina is easily the third best movie of 2015. It's a simple story that's straightforward yet mysterious, and although there's a twist

Spoiler

lacking

that's ok here. It works nicely. I love the thought provoking dialogue. It was very engaging. The performances were great, and Oscar Isaac is probably my favorite actor at the moment. He kills it here, even more so than in Inside Llewyn Davis. Most importantly the movie was entertaining. One of my favorite scenes this year is the dancing scene. It's hilarious and great stuff. 9/10

Great movie. I don't know why but I kept thinking Isaac looked like David Krumholtz in that movie- even though Krumholtz has never had a shaved head and rarely has facial hair lol.

The dialogue was definitely compelling. While Isaac stole every scene he was in, the exchanges between Gleeson and Vikander thoroughly intrigued me. There was a compelling, creepy, and tense vibe throughout pretty much the entire movie.

The actors were great, the dialogue was captivating, the ideas were thought-provoking. Definitely a very good film.

Spoiler

Vikander leaving Gleeson to die...cold-blooded. Wasn't too big a fan of that. Could have at least given him some courtesy AI sex before doing it.

.

 

[theskza]

I got a Krumholtz vibe, too, but as the movie went on it became an Oscar Isaac vibe. Dudes awesome. Agree about the conversations between the other two leads. They were fascinating.

Spoiler

Yeah that was pretty cold lol

 

[Bullitt68]

Well, you know how much I love those two films? I loved Fury Road even more.

[YT]vqBK_ANTm0s&start=29&end=36[/YT]

I suppose "in real life" implies you're excluding the interwebz.

Well, yeah. You can find anybody talking about anything on the Internet. But when The Dark Knight came out, you didn't even need the Internet: Every single person was talking about it.

I've heard nobody talk about Fury Road. So to put it on the same level of movie phenomenon as Jaws or Terminator 2?

you will lose less watching it on video than the other two, I suppose. Only because it's far better storytelling.

It's just my observation that often your criticism of films is linked to what they're imitating or simply not as good as [...] I suppose that also comes with how much you've seen.

I definitely think the latter explains the former. However, if I am to be charged with holding films to higher standards due to the wealth of my viewing history, that's not a charge that I find all that objectionable.

That said, my relationship with new movies isn't quite what you were talking about in terms of being "above" them. I'm not. Aside from thinking Christopher Nolan is a genius, I love Thor, I'm a fan of the original Transformers trilogy, I'll watch Seth Rogen in anything, etc. It just seems fewer and farther between that I find something that really connects with me, while the stuff that's in between just seems so middling. It lacks the kind of redeeming sparks that used to be found in films across the wide spectrum of quality while the actors that populate the new movie universe aren't as compelling or endearing to me.

I try not to romanticize the outsider status, and I'd love nothing more than to be able to connect more strongly and more easily with new stuff, but it's yet to happen. I don't know if it'll take a change in the movie landscape or a change in my personality landscape, but I'm always comfortable leaving things like that to time to sort out.

Would I be incorrect in suggesting you feel similarly, but that your primary ire is directed at the way it apes Tarantino?

You would not.

I actually am a doctor (medical).

You get the double whammy, then. Nobody will be able to give you shit about not being a "real" doctor.

[YT]VYn2eWPPUfI&start=4[/YT]

University of Nottingham.

So you're studying at the place where you've been working. Has it always been your plan to do a PhD in addition to being a real doctor or did an opportunity present itself while you were there?

Thesis in metabolic physiology, especially as it pertains to exercise.

[YT]2KYqnDuw040[/YT]

I like checking out weight lifting and diet studies once in a while, but man, the terminology is an ass kicker.

Anyone have any grand thoughts on Easy Rider?

It's a growing pain film.

I finally understand what Jack Burton went through.

What can I say?

You didn't even like the begining in Iraq?

The only thing I liked about that movie was when it ended.

im pretty sure wet hot is going to be my favorite show ever. the trailer alone was better than breaking bad.

I don't know how I didn't know that this was a thing, but now that I do know, I can't wait to see it. They actually got everybody back, including my man Meloni

 

[Francis Rossi]

Anyone have any grand thoughts on Easy Rider?


I liked it much more than I thought I'd would - seeing as important films of that era are often referred to as "growing pain films", important to the development of the industry but not enjoyable to watch. I kinda liked spending time with Billy and Captain America on their journey across the states. And it presented its message smartly. Freespirited hippies are more in-tune and unhypocritical with the concept of freedom than the bellicose, close-minded conservatives are whom guard the "Status Quo".

Yet at the same time - their own lifestyle isn't perfect, they fail in their quest to hunt down the American Dream (which is self-fullfilment... or whatever). They engage in drugs and adventure yet still do not achieve the state-of-mind they are searching for. The hippi movement likewise, is criticised. The closest thing they encounter to the American Dream along their way -- is ironically the nuclear-family they dine with at the beginning. They live of the land - yet have the proficency and know-how that the dimwitted hippies lacks, while not being so intolerant and belicose as the rednecks are.

It helped that it avoided some of the "ugliness" that later drug movies indulge in. Take Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas as an example. Sure it might be fun to be that high, but being the sober one witnessing it is a fucking drag. That Easy Rider took a more mellow, "philosophical" approach to its drug culture certainly helped the characters likability and to communicate the message it tried to get across. (save that one scene of course, which really wasn't that bad anyways considering how unglamorous it was).

Easy Rider was one of the first videos I got when we finally got a VHS in the mid-90s (we had a neighbour's old Betamax ), and it's been a favourite of mine ever since. It's genuinely fucked up at points, the scene with Peter Fonda high as a kite on acid talking to the Virgin Mary springs to mind, and that ending... I think coming out in 1969 really helped it, being pretty much the end of the free love era. A year later, it was the 70s, so nope, and any earlier than 69 and it would have seemed out of place.

Poor Jack Nicholson though, getting murdered by some rednecks. I've never worked out whether he was meant to be decapitated or not.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Easy Rider is great, one of my favourites too.

 

[europe1]

So I watched 4 films in one day (ain't vacation great!?). It was going to be five but... Rio Bravo was crudely interputed by an insolent cousin of mine. So four it was.


I saw Dial M For Murder for the first time. Despite having heared it called one of Hithcock's best... I thought it to be the worst of his I've seen so far (except, probably, The Man Who Knew To Much, which I find to be his most inconsistent film). I just don't think the intricacy of the murder plot added much to the overall experience. Feutures such as Rear Window and Rope managed to convey more thrills with a much simpler premise. While a film like Frenzy communicated its plot in a more pedagogic manner, resulting in a more enjoyable experience.

The characters I also found rather unengaging in comparison to his other work - they are Murder Mystery people striped to their bare bones. The villians in Rope thougth themselves Ubermenschs. The darkly humerous relationship between Stewards and Kelly in Rear Window was a joy to see unfold. And Cary Grant in North By Northwest was an absolute blast to watch! But as I said... these folks seem like nothing but murder mystery characters. They lack the zap I saw in other of Alfred's works.

Sure the gimmick of setting it all in one house was fun to see... and in the end the film was a very good one... but as I said, one of my least favorite from **** so far.



I also saw 1953's Scaramouche. It was a superb swashbuckling tale set in pre-revolutionary France. Very enjoyable. A smug, glacier-cold aristocrat whose a master fencer provokes a young revolutionary into a duel... and promptly kills him. The revolutionaries apolitical friend swears vengence and dedicates his life to swordsmanship in search of revenge. It all cultimates in a 15 minutes duel that covers more geographical ground than the ending brawl in Blazzing Saddels. Beutiful women abound too. One thing I found intruging was how the film introduces the villian first. Stewart Granger is the protagonist and Mel Ferrer the antagonists, both are very enjoyable to watch. As I said - highly watcable, recommended if you want a swashbuckling adventure.



Then I watched 1958's Hercules with Steve Reeves - which set off the Peplum crazy in Italy until the Spaghetti Westerns took over.

I've probably watched about 20 Peplum films before this one (yes... I watched 20 Peplum films before watching Dial M for Murder :icon_chee) and the highest I've ever rated one of them on IMDB before this one was a fiver (1960's Messalina). Hercules was the most watchable Peplum films I've seen so far... but it's still a fiver on IMDB. There are some of those lovable shadows and colors that many Italian pulp films seems to have. The various adventures were also delivered speedily - keeping the escapade quick-paced in comparison to the other Peplum films I've seen. Though, oddly, the story mostly plunders the Jason and Odysses mythos for material instead of Herculeas ones. Still... perfectly avarage film.

It's interesting to compare the Peplum wave with the Spaghetti Western wave that succeeded it. Namely, why did the Spaghetti days produce so many great works of film while the Peplum's produced barely none?
I've watched far more than a fistfull of Spaghetti Westerns, and although a few have been definitively on the boring end (like Pokerface, Django Meets Sartana! Kill the Wicked! Kid Vengence, etc) the vast majority of them have some distinct sense of quality to them - either as populist fun, or as smart anti-westerns. Hell, there are scores of great and recognizable Spaghetti Westerns outside the Leone stuff, and you can easily find hidden gem by diving into the Pasta Pool (like The Stranger and the Gunfighter, Massacre Time, Seven Winchesters for a Massacre).

Yet the Peplum trend never spawned a Corbucchi or a Solima or a Petroni/Damiani/Parolini... no authors to make memorable and entertaining films. Why? They are essentially the same. Low-budget Italian genre-flicks. Yet the end-result is drastically diffrent. Did the counter-culture zeistgeist of the late 60