Movies Serious Movie Discussion

[HenryFlower]

 

[BAM]

I understood your point. You just misunderstood HuntersCreed's point, and the point of this thread. There's nothing ironic about us talking about Nolan. We've been doing it since 2008. And we do it seriously

no you haven't. The issue in the OP was about repetition, Batman was just used as an example, hence the Bale comment. Volodya was complaining about repetition, to my understanding, not Batman itself.

the irony was that of all the things to be repetitious about, it was the one highlighted in the OP

that said, we're getting a repetitious ourselves, maybe we both move on.

 

[Highway99]

Any opinions on the the world of Italian exploitation of the mid/late 60's to the late 80's?...the giallo, poliziotteschi (crime film), spaghetti western and horror film? From filmmakers like Bava, Leone, Corbucci, Agento, Fulci, Gastadi and more?

This might be considered too schlocky to discuss in the thread such as this, but I haven't read this era of Italian cinema being discussed much by the users here.

 

[Bullitt68]

no you haven't. The issue in the OP was about repetition, Batman was just used as an example, hence the Bale comment. Volodya was complaining about repetition, to my understanding, not Batman itself.

the irony was that of all the things to be repetitious about, it was the one highlighted in the OP

that said, we're getting a repetitious ourselves, maybe we both move on.

It's one thing if people who don't post in here pop in to take shots. That's whatever. The question was a dumb one anyway. Obviously more than Batman is discussed in here. Anyone with eyes who can read the last page alone can see that, to say nothing of the thousands of conversations that have been had in this iteration of the SMD which dates to 2017, let alone the millions of conversations that have been had over the 15 years that this thread has existed. It was a lame complaint from someone who didn't care enough to learn about the thread before posting in it or to enter with a friendly first post. (We've interacted before, @volodya, so this is nothing personal, but I've got to call out shenanigans.) I wouldn't have even responded to that post. I only responded because you joined in, and you brought HuntersCreed and the whole history of the thread into it to boot, and I know you know better. HuntersCreed died, so he can't stand watch over his baby anymore. In his stead, I'll always defend the SMD, even from fellow members past or present.

We'll always be cool. Just don't put me in the position of having to beef with you, Vincent. It's no fun

 

[BAM]

It's one thing if people who don't post in here pop in to take shots. That's whatever. The question was a dumb one anyway. Obviously more than Batman is discussed in here. Anyone with eyes who can read the last page alone can see that, to say nothing of the thousands of conversations that have been had in this iteration of the SMD which dates to 2017, let alone the millions of conversations that have been had over the 15 years that this thread has existed. It was a lame complaint from someone who didn't care enough to learn about the thread before posting in it or to enter with a friendly first post. (We've interacted before, @volodya, so this is nothing personal, but I've got to call out shenanigans.) I wouldn't have even responded to that post. I only responded because you joined in, and you brought HuntersCreed and the whole history of the thread into it to boot, and I know you know better. HuntersCreed died, so he can't stand watch over his baby anymore. In his stead, I'll always defend the SMD, even from fellow members past or present.

We'll always be cool. Just don't put me in the position of having to beef with you, Vincent. It's no fun

I get the sentiment, but the OP is pretentious. Doesn't mean I think that the thread as a whole is pretentious or that Creed was either, from memory he was a relatively easy going guy, I knew him mostly from plats. If anything, I think the OP can cause folks to be intimidated from posting in it, when from my experience the thread is fairly accessible. I think it should be tweaked and the snark removed.

 

[Bullitt68]

Any opinions on the the world of Italian exploitation of the mid/late 60's to the late 80's?...the giallo, poliziotteschi (crime film), spaghetti western and horror film? From filmmakers like Bava, Leone, Corbucci, Agento, Fulci, Gastadi and more?

This might be considered too schlocky to discuss in the thread such as this, but I haven't read this era of Italian cinema being discussed much by the users here.

To reiterate, the whole point of this thread isn't to pick "serious movies" - and then exclude and make fun of "non-serious" movies and the people who like them - but rather to talk about movies seriously. There's nothing that's too anything to discuss in this thread.

On the subject of Italian exploitation films, we need to throw up the @europe1 "Where-Did-You-Even-Hear-Of-That-Movie?!" signal. He's the resident expert on this cinematic realm. For my part, as a relative novice, I've always thought that Suspiria was overrated and I much prefer Deep Red in the old school giallo world. And I dig the poliziotteschi stuff that I've seen, especially since it's fun seeing Henry Silva show up. The Italian Connection is fun to go along with The French Connection and The Chinese Connection. (I wonder how many "Connection" movies they made in the '70s.) The Manhunt is my favorite of Silva's, though I've still never tracked down Cry of a Prostitute.

What Italian films from this era and these genres do you like? I'm assuming that you were turned onto these films in the second degree courtesy of your Tarantino fandom. I know that's how I got started

Here's also a cool article on poliziotteschi films from the film journal Offscreen: https://offscreen.com/view/file_under_fire.

 

[Highway99]

To reiterate, the whole point of this thread isn't to pick "serious movies" - and then exclude and make fun of "non-serious" movies and the people who like them - but rather to talk about movies seriously. There's nothing that's too anything to discuss in this thread.

On the subject of Italian exploitation films, we need to throw up the @europe1 "Where-Did-You-Even-Hear-Of-That-Movie?!" signal. He's the resident expert on this cinematic realm. For my part, as a relative novice, I've always thought that Suspiria was overrated and I much prefer Deep Red in the old school giallo world. And I dig the poliziotteschi stuff that I've seen, especially since it's fun seeing Henry Silva show up. The Italian Connection is fun to go along with The French Connection and The Chinese Connection. (I wonder how many "Connection" movies they made in the '70s.) The Manhunt is my favorite of Silva's, though I've still never tracked down Cry of a Prostitute.

What Italian films from this era and these genres do you like? I'm assuming that you were turned onto these films in the second degree courtesy of your Tarantino fandom. I know that's how I got started

Firstly, I understand the point you made, I just meant that I find that a lot of the time when I hear these movies discussed they are seen as nonsensical perhaps those who are on the pedantic side see value in them.

Yes, I got interested in this era of Italian cinema by way of Tarantino, bolstered by the small community on youtube that promote these films.

Personally, as far as these films are concerned I favor visual style and atmosphere over logical plot. So I love Suspiria for that reason. But I also love Deep Red and his first nine films for that matter(excluding The Five Days (1973)).

I usually love Argento's style as he was something of a disciple of Mario Bava who I consider the director who overall made the probably the most aesthetically pleasing horror films I've ever seen. Films like Black Sunday (1960) and Blood and Black Lace (1964).

And because I'm more lax on the plotting, I love the surreal nightmarish quality of Lucio Fulci's work. The atmosphere he creates in his films (often with the help of composer Fabio Frizzi) is the reason I come back to his stuff most often of all the Italian films of that era. The Gates of Hell Trilogy is just a blast to watch as are many of his others.

And many of the films I mentioned are on Tubi, so they can be watched there to help people decide if they would like to buy the blurays or continue with these genres. They have a section devoted to Italian horror/giallo.


And Cry of the Prostitute is available on youtube in pretty decent quality if you don't mind watching it there:

 

[Bullitt68]

Personally, as far as these films are concerned I favor visual style and atmosphere over logical plot. So I love Suspiria for that reason. But I also love Deep Red and his first nine films for that matter(excluding The Five Days (1973)).

I always come to films (and TV shows, and books) for story first, then style, but I also love genre pieces, so I love seeing people who specialize in a genre give different formulas different twists. I haven't seen The Five Days, but outside of Deep Red and Suspiria, I also really like The Cat O' Nine Tails.

I usually love Argento's style as he was something of a disciple of Mario Bava who I consider the director who overall made the probably the most aesthetically pleasing horror films I've ever seen. Films like Black Sunday (1960) and Blood and Black Lace (1964).

Black Sunday rules. I haven't seen Blood and Black Lace, but I also liked Black Sabbath with Boris Karloff. It certainly helped that Bava went from cinematographer to director. I literally just watched Hard Rain which was also directed by a cinematographer and right away you see how on-point the visuals are when the person in charge has that skill-set.

And because I'm more lax on the plotting, I love the surreal nightmarish quality of Lucio Fulci's work. The atmosphere he creates in his films (often with the help of composer Fabio Frizzi) is the reason I come back to his stuff most often of all the Italian films of that era. The Gates of Hell Trilogy is just a blast to watch as are many of his others.

Never made it around to his stuff. I do love atmosphere, though. It's why I love the old Val Lewton RKO horror films and why the creepier efforts of Lynch and Kubrick are so enjoyable. I'll have to bump Fulci up on my to-see list.

And many of the films I mentioned are on Tubi, so they can be watched there to help people decide if they would like to buy the blurays or continue with these genres. They have a section devoted to Italian horror/giallo.

And Cry of the Prostitute is available on youtube in pretty decent quality if you don't mind watching it there

Huh, in recent years I've never even thought to look for films on YouTube. With how strict they've gotten with podcasts and shit, I figured they'd wiped all the movies. Thanks for the heads-up. And I don't know what Tubi is, but I avoid it when I'm looking for movies on my TV. Is it like watching a movie on YouTube (with or without commercials?) or is it like watching a movie on cable (panned-and-scanned and/or edited for content?)?

 

[Highway99]

I always come to films (and TV shows, and books) for story first, then style, but I also love genre pieces, so I love seeing people who specialize in a genre give different formulas different twists. I haven't seen The Five Days, but outside of Deep Red and Suspiria, I also really like The Cat O' Nine Tails.



Black Sunday rules. I haven't seen Blood and Black Lace, but I also liked Black Sabbath with Boris Karloff. It certainly helped that Bava went from cinematographer to director. I literally just watched Hard Rain which was also directed by a cinematographer and right away you see how on-point the visuals are when the person in charge has that skill-set.



Never made it around to his stuff. I do love atmosphere, though. It's why I love the old Val Lewton RKO horror films and why the creepier efforts of Lynch and Kubrick are so enjoyable. I'll have to bump Fulci up on my to-see list.



Huh, in recent years I've never even thought to look for films on YouTube. With how strict they've gotten with podcasts and shit, I figured they'd wiped all the movies. Thanks for the heads-up. And I don't know what Tubi is, but I avoid it when I'm looking for movies on my TV. Is it like watching a movie on YouTube (with or without commercials?) or is it like watching a movie on cable (panned-and-scanned and/or edited for content?)?

Tubi has ads, but are usually spaced out every 15-20 minutes which it better than most other free ad tier services. I watched Fulci's The New York Ripper a while back and got lucky and got 3, 30 second ads for the whole movie. So sometimes you get lucky as far as ads are concerned.

From everything I've watched on there, there is no editing for content. You might get a different cut of a movie at worst.

The downside of tubi is that for the quantity of moves they offer, the quality is sometimes bad, but the majority of the time is at least watchable. I watched The Band Wagon last night and the aspect ratio was weird, but it was fine for a movie I've seen before.

I know several physical media fanatics that use tubi to decide if they want to buy the movie to watch it in the best quality possible.

Using Suspiria as an example of average quality:

https://tubitv.com/movies/326260/suspiria


Lady Frankenstein as an example of bad quality:

https://tubitv.com/movies/465038/lady-frankenstein

So it's up to the individual what quality they are willing to accept.


As a hack, if you use the Firefox browser and download ublock, then you will have no ads for tubi, youtube or anything.

 

[europe1]

Hey Bullitt and the gang!

To show my cards:

Ferrari — damn fine.

Killers of the Flower Moon — overindulgent in that classical "you get final edit" kind of way, but still really good.

One of the things I liked about Killers is simply DiCaprio's character being such a pathetic, weak-willed person. He's one of those infuriating people who basically agrees with whoever talked to him last. The dude does love his wife. But his uncle is also telling him to kill her for the landrights. So he's going to huff and puff and cry about it even while murdering her. He really registered as that kind of person who could kill someone sister and still earnestly say: "But hon I really love you!"

Ferrari was just really strong in its characters. Detailing their drives and obsessions and how it leads to downfalls. I did remember thinking the ending needed to be stronger. Cruz denying his son the Ferrari name is a real gut-stab. Yet Mann tells it via a fade to black and then Adam Driver taking his son to his brothers grave. Its way to soft for the interpersonal hurt being done, feels concillatory even.. Especially when contrasted with the horrorshow crash scene. Mann had a perfect oppertunity to combine a great visceral catastrophe with an emotional apocalypse but dropped the ball.

Or maybe my standards has been lowered so much because modern cinema sucks.<45>

On the subject of Italian exploitation films, we need to throw up the @europe1 "Where-Did-You-Even-Hear-Of-That-Movie?!" signal. He's the resident expert on this cinematic realm. For my part, as a relative novice, I've always thought that Suspiria was overrated and I much prefer Deep Red in the old school giallo world. And I dig the poliziotteschi stuff that I've seen, especially since it's fun seeing Henry Silva show up. The Italian Connection is fun to go along with The French Connection and The Chinese Connection. (I wonder how many "Connection" movies they made in the '70s.) The Manhunt is my favorite of Silva's, though I've still never tracked down Cry of a Prostitute.

What Italian films from this era and these genres do you like? I'm assuming that you were turned onto these films in the second degree courtesy of your Tarantino fandom. I know that's how I got started

Here's also a cool article on poliziotteschi films from the film journal Offscreen: https://offscreen.com/view/file_under_fire.

Obviously I love both Suspiria and Deep Red.

Deep Red was kind of a transitional movie for the genre. Where Giallos stopped being rooted in the real world ala the Hitchcock influence and started moving into supernatural territory. Remember the psychic chick at the beginning of the film? A hint where Argento would take it.

Tarantino? No he wasn't an bridge to Italy at all for me. By the time stuff like Django and Inglorious came out I was already way into the pasta. Sergio Leone probably was if I have to name names. Maybe John Carpenter's association with the giallo stuff. Alongside just hours of browsing movie forums and cinephile websites.

But honestly... I've never really been that into the poliziotteschi. And I've REALLY never dug Henry Silva whose obviously one of the genre's premiere names. The dude just have one of *those* faces. The kind of faces you see and then think about a butt. And not a sexy chick butt mind you. No one of *those* butts!

I think my problem with poliziotteschis is that I -- and most italian cinephiles in general -- were drawn to Italian cinema due to its stylistic and atmospheric qualities. That mix of deep cultural history and hypermodern pizzazz. And poliziotteschis just buck that trend. They're to close to what you could get from America. And oftentimes they do feel like inferior second-rate copies. So when I do find poliziotteschis I enjoy they're more in the vein of the B-movie pulp.

I've seen the Italian Connection but remember basically nothing about it.

Poliziotteschis to namedrop? Uhh...

I remember thinking Caliber 9 was really fun in that sleazy pulpy way.



Beast With a Gun was one of those films I've always remembered for its shock sleaze factor.



But mostly I prefeer pre-poliziotteschi crime films. What you would conventionally call quality films. I'm sure I've namedropped Day of the Owl a lot.



But honestly, I've kind of drifted away from Italian films lately. Not really an active choice. I watch a lot less films in general in comparison to when I was most active on Sherdog. So they were a casualty of that. I know people I can gab with about classic American movies or 80s movies, but not really Italian ones. So that was probably why. As such they're not really living rent-free inside my headspace like they used to.

So what's currently dominating my headspace? Mostly Gregory Peck and King Vidor. I used to have a religious conviction that Gregory Peck cannot be in a bad movie. Then I watched Mackenna's Gold and now I'm an atheist again. Man that was a trainwreck.

I mentioned liking Italian cinema for the style and atmosphere. But, man, King Vidor could just *set* a scene. His sense of time and place. Impeccable.

A lot of classical actors had that titanic charisma about them. But, man, none of them made it feel as natural as Gregory Peck. The dude just *is*. It serves him especially well when he takes it to really far places.

Like that scene in Twelve O'Clock High when he has a panic attack when boarding the plane.


Or in David and Bathsheba (a King Vidor one) where he has a flashback while visiting the battlefield.



So yeah I'm vibing with Gregory Peck a lot.

Will probably have to watch Peck's Mobey Dick next. Haven't seen it.

Michelle Pfeiffer was great,

She's the only person alive who can pull of a "meow" line reading.

but she was a little too unhinged at times.

That's summarizes the entire movie.

Batman Returns is Burton playing with his weirdboys.

 

[moreorless87]

no you haven't. The issue in the OP was about repetition, Batman was just used as an example, hence the Bale comment. Volodya was complaining about repetition, to my understanding, not Batman itself.

the irony was that of all the things to be repetitious about, it was the one highlighted in the OP

that said, we're getting a repetitious ourselves, maybe we both move on.

To be honest I feel like the real issue is "serious" film discussion on Sherdog is dying out, there was at one stage 5+ years ago a supprising strong culture of his in the Mayberry, greatlty supprised me when I found it as I normally posted about such stuff elsewhere but a lot of those posters seem to have been scared off by the rising tide of alt right inceldom which has become so dominant on these forums. As fewer people post on the subject there tends to be less overlap in taste, especially whether you follow the arthouse scene or not and so blockbusters become more of a common ground.

I would argue as well people often seem to have this view that love of "art cinema" goes hand in hand with dislike of "pulp cinema" but in my experience that tends not to be true a lot of the time. I would argue you actually have a lot of crossover between the two, stuff like Italian pulp cinema has always tended to have a cinephile following and whilst it might on one level be aiming "low" the better examples actually often aim "high" in terms of how there shot and indeed sometimes in themes in them.

The audience which really tends to dislike pulp cinema in my experience is lovers of prestige Hollywood drama, the kind of person who thinks Spielberg only got good after Jurassic Park.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

I watched Dune Part Two and I thought it was really good. Well, I have a couple opinions about it. I thought it was good, but the final battle was all messed up. They barely showed any of the fighting and suddenly he's in there dueling with Feyd. They could have shown the assault on the capital city.

 

[Bullitt68]

I watched Dune Part Two and I thought it was really good. Well, I have a couple opinions about it. I thought it was good, but the final battle was all messed up. They barely showed any of the fighting and suddenly he's in there dueling with Feyd. They could have shown the assault on the capital city.

Does the story conclude? Because watching part one and getting to the end of that long and boring movie that was all set-up in which nothing happens was one of the most frustrating moviegoing experiences that I've ever had. If the story is over, I'll go back and watch them both back-to-back. But Kill Bill that shit wasn't. That first film wasn't a storytelling whole, and I'll be damned if I watch another movie that's not even a complete movie.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

Does the story conclude? Because watching part one and getting to the end of that long and boring movie that was all set-up in which nothing happens was one of the most frustrating moviegoing experiences that I've ever had. If the story is over, I'll go back and watch them both back-to-back. But Kill Bill that shit wasn't. That first film wasn't a storytelling whole, and I'll be damned if I watch another movie that's not even a complete movie.

Spoiler

It kind of concludes in that they take over Arrakis but then they leave open room for the 3rd movie because it's reported that the other houses are not accepting him as emperor. So it's setting up a fight with the rest of the galaxy or whatever. The ending was just very anti-climactic and weird in that it didn't show anything at all. It could have been amazing.

 

[jeff7b9]

Does the story conclude? Because watching part one and getting to the end of that long and boring movie that was all set-up in which nothing happens was one of the most frustrating moviegoing experiences that I've ever had. If the story is over, I'll go back and watch them both back-to-back. But Kill Bill that shit wasn't. That first film wasn't a storytelling whole, and I'll be damned if I watch another movie that's not even a complete movie.

I haven't seen Dune 2 but based on your post, for what it is worth, I would probably suggest you skip it.

"Long and boring" so to speak is that directors style. Clearly not your cup of tea, which is fine, but it is an artistic choice, the director even going so far as to say he "doesn't like dialgoue, feels it gets in the way of a film and if people want dialogue go watch theater"
(or something pretty close to that sentiment.)

It is a different taste. "Show me don't tell me" and with a HEAVY emphasis on scenery and visuals, as well as to a different extent relying on the score to convey mood.


All that long winded stuff basically to say, if you didn't like the first one, you will likely hate the second one, which if I am not mistaken is even longer run time than the first.

For me Dune 1 is a go to "Fall asleep to" movie... as it is nearly as effective on rematch without high volume while wife is sleeping and relatively inconsequential if I tune and and out or doze off.

 

[HenryFlower]

@Bullitt68 you don’t strike me as a Villeneuve fan. his sci-fi/action efforts are the antithesis of Nolan’s in a lot of ways, so it wouldn’t surprise me. happy to be wrong though!

 

[moreorless87]

Does the story conclude? Because watching part one and getting to the end of that long and boring movie that was all set-up in which nothing happens was one of the most frustrating moviegoing experiences that I've ever had. If the story is over, I'll go back and watch them both back-to-back. But Kill Bill that shit wasn't. That first film wasn't a storytelling whole, and I'll be damned if I watch another movie that's not even a complete movie.

Not seen it yet but yeah I would guess so, its the second half of the first Dune novel which is reasonably self contained although they are I believe planning to adapt the second one.

Honestly I felt the first Dune was pretty Nolanish, less of a thriller than Nolan tends to go with I spose but more plot heavy compared to BR2049.

 

[Bullitt68]

Spoiler

It kind of concludes in that they take over Arrakis but then they leave open room for the 3rd movie because it's reported that the other houses are not accepting him as emperor. So it's setting up a fight with the rest of the galaxy or whatever. The ending was just very anti-climactic and weird in that it didn't show anything at all. It could have been amazing.

Not seen it yet but yeah I would guess so, its the second half of the first Dune novel which is reasonably self contained although they are I believe planning to adapt the second one.

Ugh, they're making more? Are they trying to turn Dune into LOTR, create a whole universe across multiple films? Once I learned that the first one wasn't a standalone film, I was under the impression that it was a Part 1 and Part 2 situation. Fucking hell, man. As a film professor with students writing papers, I'll have to watch it because it's likely I'll get papers on it, but my viewings will be strictly business, and I'm not expecting much pleasure, though I'm always happy to be proven wrong with a great film.

I haven't seen Dune 2 but based on your post, for what it is worth, I would probably suggest you skip it.

"Long and boring" so to speak is that directors style. Clearly not your cup of tea, which is fine, but it is an artistic choice, the director even going so far as to say he "doesn't like dialgoue, feels it gets in the way of a film and if people want dialogue go watch theater"
(or something pretty close to that sentiment.)

It is a different taste. "Show me don't tell me" and with a HEAVY emphasis on scenery and visuals, as well as to a different extent relying on the score to convey mood.


All that long winded stuff basically to say, if you didn't like the first one, you will likely hate the second one, which if I am not mistaken is even longer run time than the first.

For me, it's not about this style or that style, it's about execution case-by-case. 2001 is one of the greatest movies ever and it's a sci-fi movie that starts in prehistoric times with no dialogue for the first and last 20+ minutes. Hell, I'm also a huge fan of slow cinema, which is exactly what it sounds like. Good is good, and I just don't think that making movies by making an entire 2.5 hour movie nothing but set-up for a subsequent movie down the road is a good way to use the art of film. If you want to tell long, sprawling sagas, make a TV show. In short, it's the production model that's bugging me more than the quality of Villeneuve's filmmaking.

@Bullitt68 you don’t strike me as a Villeneuve fan. his sci-fi/action efforts are the antithesis of Nolan’s in a lot of ways, so it wouldn’t surprise me. happy to be wrong though!

I wouldn't go so far as to call myself a fan, but I'm also not a hater. I still haven't seen Incendies, but I enjoyed Enemy (bonus points for ambition though it had more mood/atmosphere than psychology/philosophy and I would've liked more of the latter to fill the film out), Prisoners is a solid B+ that I warmed to more after repeat viewings (though many an SVU episode does it better, and the script was quite lacking, but Gyllenhaal turned in his most underrated performance and Jackman was solid all the way through), Sicario is also right there in B+ territory (more script problems, as the Del Toro arc was more compelling than the Blunt arc and we sort of lose track of Blunt as the film progresses, but I loved the depiction of the cartels and there were some excellent set-pieces), and Arrival is the closest that he's come to an A film but I still think that the film's time-language conceit is too goofy and deus ex machina for me to put the film in the same league as the sci-fi A team.

Blade Runner 2049 is interesting in that I'm not wild on Blade Runner, so I wasn't particularly eager to see the new one, but I literally have no memory of 2049. I remember watching it, but I don't remember anything about the plot or anything that happens in the film, nor do I remember whether I liked/loved or disliked/hated it. Nothing stuck. I'll have to rewatch that one to have an opinion. It's really just Dune that pissed me off, and again not because it's inherently bad, but because the production model of making and releasing a film that isn't a complete storytelling unit grinds my gears.

To go back to jeff's comment though in connection with yours here, it's true that I prefer Nolan's (and Cameron's) action-oriented style to Villeneuve's style. Villeneuve seems to want to combine an arthouse aesthetic with mainstream genre conventions and star power, but I don't think that he's cracked that code yet. He's not good enough with mood and atmosphere to rely on it like Kubrick or Lynch nor does he have anything particularly profound to say and so he cannot rely on conceptual interest like Tarkovsky or Cronenberg. But as I keep saying, cinematically speaking, I'll reserve judgment on Dune until I see the two films back-to-back and (hopefully) see him unfold a full, cohesive story.

Honestly I felt the first Dune was pretty Nolanish, less of a thriller than Nolan tends to go with I spose but more plot heavy compared to BR2049.

I don't remember any details beyond Jason Momoa and Josh Brolin, and I remember their scenes being pretty actiony. It's certainly closer to Interstellar or Tenet than it is to 2001 or Stalker.

 

[Bullitt68]

And while I'm here, I also finally got around to The Iron Claw. Another 2023 letdown. Literally all of the big movies that I wanted to see from last year let me down with the exception of Ferrari. The Iron Claw was just lacking in focus. It's longer than it needs to be and yet it leaves out major (and fucking cinematic) moments from the real story, and it's never clear whether we're watching Efron as the surviving son realize how toxic his family dynamic was or whether we're watching the father's family empire crumble. Maura Tierney was also short-changed by being given a hollow character. Lastly, for nerdy nitpicking, Efron's character in real life was the pretty boy with the leaner body while White's character was the jacked hulking monster, yet in the film it was clearly Efron who took the role seriously and hit the weights and the roids to get huge, while White looked like he didn't even bother lifting to prepare for the role and looked way too small and soft. Just missed too many of the character and theme targets for me.

 

[ufcfan4]

And while I'm here, I also finally got around to The Iron Claw. Another 2023 letdown. Literally all of the big movies that I wanted to see from last year let me down with the exception of Ferrari. The Iron Claw was just lacking in focus. It's longer than it needs to be and yet it leaves out major (and fucking cinematic) moments from the real story, and it's never clear whether we're watching Efron as the surviving son realize how toxic his family dynamic was or whether we're watching the father's family empire crumble. Maura Tierney was also short-changed by being given a hollow character. Lastly, for nerdy nitpicking, Efron's character in real life was the pretty boy with the leaner body while White's character was the jacked hulking monster, yet in the film it was clearly Efron who took the role seriously and hit the weights and the roids to get huge, while White looked like he didn't even bother lifting to prepare for the role and looked way too small and soft. Just missed too many of the character and theme targets for me.

Bummed to hear that. As someone who was a pro wrestling fan back in the day, I was excited for this one and glad to hear about the positive response. I’ll still watch it, of course, at some point.

My hope is that the critical acclaim does serve as an impetus for some other wrestling stories being told on film as there are a good amount of them that could lend themselves to that.

Weirdly enough, I feel Efron and White would be pretty good as Shawn Michaels and Marty Jannetty respectively if some movie were ever done about Michaels’ story.