Films The Official bit-tech Movie Thread - What have you seen lately?

Related - Buried in the interview attached below, Paramount's CEO says their animation division will only churn out franchise stuff now, no more original scripts.
So expect more Spongebob & Avatar: The Last Airbender.

https://variety.com/2023/film/featu...res-tmnt-mutant-mayhem-tom-cruise-1235679142/

 

Uncharted It was a thing/10

Must admit it was a film I didn't get engrossed by except for the five second cameo of Nolan North. He should have had the role and Matk Wahlberg isn't a Sully (e: although I'm aware if Drake wasn't a young actor it would probably have been a much slower paced film)

 

no uncharted film shall ever surpass the fan made one

 

Oppenheimer: A test of bladicular fortitude/10

Pretty good movie, has everybody in it. Robert Downey jr rather steals the show in the second half and there's a couple of scenes that I'm convinced are in there solely to prevent this mostly quite gentle film receiving a PG rating. Seriously, given the history I was expecting the last third to deliver something akin to HBO's Chernobyl. Instead it focuses on the reaction Stateside. The actual visuals it uses are no worse than anything in The Lord of the Rings films.

Still, if the weirdly incongruous thing used to bump the rating is Florence Pugh, I can roll with that.

 

The more I think about this the more baffled I am - have you been watching a lot of the Avengers films recently? Bit light on dialogue? Lots of silence and ponderous shots? If anything it needs slowing down and more quiet shots imho, there's a lot of very dense and consequential plot all crammed in the first 2/3rds, then it finally slows a little when they get to the desert.

BR2 is clearly inspirational and that's a massive jump up in terms of the pacing being very relaxed and grown up. I must admit I find this kind of film much more enjoyable these days than the typical 3 hours of plot into a 90 minute affair that most films seem to be these days.

 

John Wick 4 - Don't get it/10
Not really sure what's new here. Fights seemed slower, boring, repetitive and more amateurish than before, with mucho reliance on magic shield jackets and some amazing pain/injury tolerance (if you're on the right team), coupled with a distinct lack of intelligent lower body VATS usage (from the other team).

The tear-up after the card game was unexpectedly good, if again completely lasting-damage-free (to most). But I've no idea what this was adding to the franchise storyline. Watched it to the end for completeness but wouldn't recommend it if there are options.

 

Now now now.....

But no need to rush, it falls short of GotG2 and way way short of the first, even the soundtrack is lacklustre, it's just dosen't seem cohesive.
Ok, so it's watchable, but equally forgettable, although with some funny bits thrown in amongst all the bloody shouting, and sin of all sins feels like just a vehicle to launch individual charter films.

 

You mistake my tone, I wasn't complaining. My favourite film is Assassination of Jesse James, probably the most lazy, glacial movie ever made. I don't watch and can't abide nonstop CGI browbeating shlock (I still blame Day After Tomorrow and 2012 for setting that whole idiotic subgenre of CGI action going in earnest).

I dunno tho man I would still say Dune is really ponderous and slow. It has some setup of politics and characters but nothing very hard to follow, and the individual scenes really take their time in terms of cutting and editing.

Again it's not a complaint, I like that stuff, didn't realise I was brushing against a sacred cow by pointing it out.

Speaking of sacred cows,

Barbie
It is indeed very woke, as the prophecies foretold, and I make no secret of rolling my eyes at that sort of thing usually (not out of disalignment with the core values, so much as tasteful objection to the crassness of their forcible insertion into audience's faces via blunt and distractingly poor writing).

I loved Barbie, though, as the prophecies did not foretell. An absolute riot. Wears its values on its sleeve, for sure, but that's no bad thing if you have class and integrity about it. A sense of humour helps, too. The current crop of "you couldn't make Blazin Saddles today" incels forget that the makers of Blazin Saddles were diehard leftists. As were the Pythons and many other mould-breaking edgy comedy greats. Barbie is leftist and witty, and tongue-in-cheek, and unpretentious, and humble. It's so fscking meta that a film about the ridiculous standards women are held to manages to succeed by dramatically exceeding all standards and expectations. You go into it expecting tripe because it's the Barbie film, and rather than insult and lecture you on the wrongness of that and other preconceptions, it just politely and confidently goes about proving you wrong by being matter-of-factly brilliant.

It's so good that it has made me introspect and finally understand why I hate so many leftist-proganda media efforts despite holding a majority of leftist values. When the heroines all hit the ground together in Endgame and look fierce, when Eowen does a gender reveal and kills the witch king, when Captain Marvel lectures a young girl on not takin' no crap from the patriarchy, I cringe and loathe the filmmakers not because I hold opposite political beliefs but because to me it's a cardinal sin to be so humourless and self-important, to treat a blockbuster saturday movie as if it's an amendment to the constitution or a MLK speech. To be mediocre artistically, on top of being dour and preachy, is the final straw (LotR clearly isn't guilty of this, but many more recent films certainly are). Barbie delighted me (and much of the cinemagoing world, it seems) whilst advocating exactly the same ideas, and I couldn't be happier because it finally proved that the malaise in entertainment media isn't a political ideology, it's bad art, lazy writing, pretentious self-importance and humourlessness. In the same stroke it inevitably proved that much of the backlash against that malaise is also not political but tasteful in nature (a point which youtuber Critical Drinker has repeatedly attempted to make). It also codifies the first page of the rulebook on how to do political art well: at the very least, made decent art worthy of the message, have some humility in the scope and seriousness of the vehicle, pay some concessions to the limits of both medium and message, and try to have a sense of humour. You'll never change the world by berating people and huffing your frustrations, but you might change it by making people laugh and feeling included.

In other news. The capitalist media paradox identified by Mark Fisher in Capitalist Realism does loom over Barbie a bit. One of its most cutting and brilliant themes is a gloves-off teardown of shallow, calculating market manipulation of consumers to steer buying habits. But the film itself, however artistically integral and lovingly crafted, is itself a highly marketable product set to exorbit the stock price of a major toy company. It is simultaneously a scathing critique of corporate greed and a successfully marketed vehicle for corporate greed. The film even lampshades this exact paradox a couple of times with hilarious 4th-wall breaks, but it doesn't make it any less of a paradox.

Mark Fisher discussed the paradox with reference to Wall-E, which satirized the obedient chair-bound slushy-slurping consumer and the excesses of corporate reach even as it was screened to such people by such corporations.

The paradox might not bother most viewers, though. It bothers me. But I'm still parsing it.

 

I'll get to the rest later, but I'm gonna stop you right here

This wasn't portrayed in the film very well. It was actually Merry that was cheifly responsible for the demise of the Witch King. The dagger Merry uses to stab the Witch King was a blade forged by the Dúnedain during their war with the Witch King two thousand years prior to the end of the Third Age. When he stabbed the Witch King the dagger broke his link to the unseen world, allowing harm to come to him at last. Éowyn did deliver the killing blow, but without Merry and his dagger of Westernesse she'd never have survived the fight:

The original prophesy of the Witch King's demise was: "Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall." When Tolkein uses "man" or "men" he is not refering to "male humans", he means "humans in general". It always felt like a cheap copout that the prophecy of his death could be fulfilled solely with "LOL I'm not a dude *stab*".

I have quite a few nit-picks with the films, and it's not all "waaaaaahhhhh it was different in the book waaaaaahhhhhh"; there are many changes that affect the characters themselves and their motivations. Worst of all being Denethor. In the films he's a crazy old man who is incredibly cruel to his youngest son. Book Denethor was a strong and wise leader brought down by Sauron's influence; that so wise and steadfast a man could be driven to acts of madness by Sauron's influence from afar is one of the tragedies of the book. When he first started using the Palantír of Minas Tirth he was able to overcome Sauron, something that was incredibly difficult even for Aragorn. It took Sauron years of effort to bring about his downfall, and Sauron never managed to overcome his will and command him.

[/LotR nerd rant]

 

I really should finish reading the books at some point, but you've only redoubled my anxiety that doing so might diminish my enjoyment of the films :/

 

Don’t get me wrong, the LotR films are still up there among my favourite films of all time. The things they did well were done exceptionally well, and I can understand most of the changes made (like skipping the Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, and the Barrow Downs).

My other half still reckons that someone else will do another LotR film adaptation in our lifetime. I honestly hope it doesn’t happen… I’d rather a long-form TV series that doesn’t skip anything from the books.

 

........even Bombadil?

 

Yep, even Tom Bombadil

 

Spoiler: As someone who once read the books in one night, finishing them will not particularly damage the films for you, promise..

There is more going on in the books, more characters, more events, more time for the B and C plots to develop. In spite of that the Peter Jackson films are extremely efficient and effective adaptations that stand on their own merit. Knowing that Arwen effectively replaces Elrond's sons in the movie doesn't make the movie worse, in some ways it makes the movie better, condensing 3 characters into 1 makes the film easier to follow, but also gives more time to show Arwen and Aragorn's relationship and just why the heir of Gondor is so smitten with her.

I reckon Amazon's killed both pretty effectively. Maybe a 25th anniversary extended-extended cut of Jackson's movies, there's gotta be something left on the cutting room floor right?

 

Dungeons & Dragons: Hono(u)r Among Thieves: Solid 7/10

It's quite jarring to hear characters talking about locations like Neverwinter, Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, Waterdeep, etc, in a big budget film; I guess it's a testament to how much influence D&D has truly had on video games and other media. Doesn't try to be really deep and meaningful, doesn't try to change the world, or bring cinematography to new heights. Of course the characters feel a little bit clichéd, because they're literally portraying D&D character classes: bard, barbarian, druid, sorcerer, rogue, paladin, etc. Nice nod to the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon of old, as well. It's a fun fantasy film that does what it does very well and is thoroughly enjoyable. Of course there's CGI galore, but you can't really get away from that in a film set in the Dungeons & Dragons world, and some of the sequences are done incredibly well.

Greta Gerwig definitely knocked it out of the park with this one.

I was quite pleasantly surprised at its take on masculinity. For me, it neatly satirises "movements" like MRA and "influencers" like Andrew Tate; people who think that the answer to getting ahead and being successful in life is this twisted idea of hyper-masculinity, and that women are "conquests" to be won. Like I said, it's not always subtle in its messaging and it most definitely wears its heart on its sleeve, but the target audience this film is pretty damn broad.

EDIT: Meant to mention this bit...

Sadly, I think this is where its downfall will be. Mattel have already stated their intention to try and launch a "cinematic universe", and it's been suggested that some of the human characters in the film are a reference to the Bratz dolls...

If Mattel are actually serious about this, they will have a hard time trying to catch lightning in a bottle twice. I can see it very quickly devolving into hyper-capitalist shovelware. I don't think it will "overshadow" the Barbie film, but it would be a shame if it turned out to be the launch of a bland meaningless franchise.

Ah yes, that TV show... Visually, it's absolutely perfect. But in every other way... yikes. Its story-telling is a mess, and its characters are contradictory and inconsistent. There are a couple of stand-out performances, but key characters like Galadriel are just... off. And I haven't even talked yet about how much it butchers the lore; seriously, the Rings of Power were forged thousands of years before the downfall of Númenor, yet the show portrays them as happening around the same time.

 

You didn't at all - I was just surprised to read a criticism of that type when we generally agree (and you often put it much more elegantly than I could). Apologies if I was a bit brusque.

If anything I think it's too fast throughout - the people I know who hadn't read the book didn't follow the first act at all, and I would've liked at least another 10 minutes of the epic vistas and let the music really shine (it's also one of my favourite Zimmer soundtracks). It didn't feel rushed, but there are parts where you barely get to take a breath before we're onto the next crushing set-piece.

Perhaps I'm just clouded by its lovely imagery that I wish it was like Blade Runner 2049 where they really went to the full indulgence of pacing it down

 

The Flash - Running back in time to before I watched it/10

See score. No further comments.

 

@Krikkit I agree, 2049 was hypnotic. We won't get many films like that, though. Apart from anything else, it was philosophical, and philosophical blockbusters are like rocking horse **** (weirdly, as they are often successful - look at The Matrix).

I followed Dune easily, and Oppenheimer. And Inception. Everyone else I know described these films as confusing or hard to follow first time. It's extra weird because I'm scatterbrained and distracted most of the time. Maybe I save up all my attention span and concentration for films. I did once pause a film because the wife's crisp-eating stopped me hearing a line of dialogue, it gets that bad.

This is indisputably a 100% accurate prediction, we all know it. I actually think the scale of unexpected success is directly proportional to the subsequent speed with which executives begin meddling to try and recapture the lightning. Pre-Avengers they were giving Marvel movies a grudging amount of slack. Once Avengers surprisingly was incredible, they were feverish in winding Whedon back in, shoving treats down his throat and imploring him, DO IT AGAIN BUT MORE. Hollywood money printer go brrrrrr.

Side note, I'd forgotten about D&D. I really liked that film, thought it was solid. Funny, whimsical, detached and faithful to source materials. Some of the jokes have slipped into our local pop culture, which is the ultimate seal of approval. ("I really don't think we should continue this conversation...until JONATHAN gets here.")

 

Same, I actually managed to keep up with Primer the first time as well which was lucky.

My Mrs has a friend who watches and endlessly witters on through everything she watches, it's absolutely infuriating, and my Mrs has picked up a bit of a habit from her. More than once I've had to rewind 10s to catch a line of dialogue, and sometimes pull the whole scene back in if it's an interesting/important film for me.

 

I'd argue that The Matrix had a lot more that contributed to its success than just the philosophical side of things. The visual effects were absolutely ground-breaking for their time, and the fight choreography was so far ahead of Western cinema at the time.

And to be quite honest, philosophically it isn't even that "deep". The basic premise is one that we'd heard before: machines take over and enslave humanity, and a ragtag group survivors fight back against impossible odds. So far so generic. But admittedly this is coming from someone who'd watched a lot of anime, where a lot of the themes in The Matrix were not uncommon: blending of humans and technology, questioning the nature of reality, are you really "you", etc. Ghost in the Shell touches on a lot of that stuff (albeit with a different premise and setup) and that was out on video a full 4 years before The Matrix came out in cinemas. Admittedly a lot of that might have been new to mainstream Western audiences, but I've always been a weirdo outside of the "mainstream". EDIT: And I suppose the other qualifier you used was "philosophical blockbusters", so perhaps this entire paragraph is entirely irrelevant

Yeah, I really enjoyed it. Again I think there's a risk it will fall into the Hollywood money printer, because you can't just have a good film that stands on its own any more. You have to make All The Money, and keep making All The Money, otherwise why should the execs even bother to show up? Honestly, it's as if you people don't even consider the price of crewing a private luxury yacht these days...