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

For me, his best role was still Oberyn Martell in Game of Thrones.

 

I've never quite understood this saying. On the face of it, it sounds like an ideal situation to me.

 

That depends very much on who's wearing the coat.

I'm not sure Pedro Pascal is my ideal candidate for such a situation.

 

Not with that attitude.

 

Quite. It's not very open-minded.

Unless you've seen him in fur coat AND knickers and simply prefer that.

 

12 Angry Men (1957) - Compelling /10

Rented this off the Rainforest to watch for three reasons: 1) it's a film that I've been aware of my whole life and am aware is considered a cultural icon; 2) it's my father's favourite film (he was 7 when it was released and arguably influenced his career choice); and 3) there's a certain court case going on at the moment that has invaded my Youtube feed and people keep referencing this film, but from the context, it looks like the people referencing it have never watched or understood it.

This is one of those films that I watched start to finish in one sitting, which is a rarity for me. Although the premise is weirdly "boring", the acting is second to none and makes it utterly captivating. I can see why it's been included on the National Film Registry's list. To discuss anything about it would be impossible to do without spoilers, but hopefully most people are aware that it revolves around a jury of 12 discussing a murder case in which if the defendant is found guilty, he will face the chair.

It's just over 90 minutes long. If you haven't watched it, I highly recommend it.

 

Death on the Nile (2022) directed by Kenneth Branagh from a screenplay by Michael Green, based on the 1937 novel by Agatha Christie, and the second big screen adaptation of the novel following the 1978 film with Peter Ustinov.

Although it has some heavyweight producers behind it --Branagh, Ridley Scott, Judy Hofflund, and Kevin J. Walsh; and an ensemble cast of equal acting heavyweights (Russel Brand excepting, whose presence makes one wonder just what dubious compromat his agent had on the casting director) it felt to me a rather overcooked production which at 2 hours + was way too long.

Branagh is a better actor than director, and it shows. Sweeping CGI scenes of the Nile seemed to try and evoke the grandeur of LoTR, but felt rather static and flat. The score sometimes did not seem fitting to or in sync with the scenes, which dragged on in some places, then hurried along as if they had glanced at their watch and gone "****, is it that late already?" It tries hard to lean into the classic Christie vibe, down to bullet wounds appearing as discrete round dots with a stylised trickle of blood (whereas in reality the .22 employed would ricochet around the body before making a bigger exit than the actor playing the victim and leaving, shall we say, a lot of colour on the walls).

The original plot will be well-known and the film stayed close to it, which is a pity since already knowing whodunnit kind of removes all the mystery. Like an episode of Columbo, the film therefore has to rely on the how entertainingly clever Poirot manages to unravel the plot. Unfortunately unlike Peter Falk's Columbo, Branagh fails to bring any charm or cleverness to the role of Poirot. Sacre blue, his performance is boring. So boring! Capable actor as he normally is, his performance here is blander than British cuisine. It's as far from David Suchet's impish interpretation of a twinkly-eyed, vain OCD genius as the MoM-z14 galaxy is from Earth, to the extent that Branagh is possibly the first actor to be upstaged by his own moustache (which, frankly, should have had separate billing).



I mean, look at that magnificent moustache. Look at it!

Moreover a considerable prologue of the film dwells on his experience in the WWI trenches, and the subsequent loss of his nurse fiancé, without making it very clear how this contributed to the man he became --except for his moustache, which covers a facial scar acquired in the war; specifically in an explosion which killed his captain, and which he perceives as a personal failure on his part (he spotted the booby trap and warned him, but was too late). Thus the moustache covers his narcissistic injury, his sense of shame. However one has to wonder what was the point of including that in this film --especially as it is a sequel to to Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in which Poirot's character was already established (although I recall this film to also be rather long and lacklustre). Cutting this would have saved us 15 minutes of boredom, right there.

French and Saunders manage to portray their roles without one immediately seeing French and Saunders, which is an achievement in its own right. Gal Gadot is underwhelming (but she always is). Annette Bening phones it in as British eccentric rich old lady. Emma Mackey tries to channel Margot Robbie as the crazy spurned lover.

There are some jarring details. Although several murders occur on the cruise ship S.S. Karnak, at no point is the captain seen to be involved in their management and investigation. In fact neither he nor the crew is seen at all. The mother of Poirot's friend wishes to hire him to investigate her son's fiancé, his engagement to whom she is much opposed. It's obviously because she is Black; this is 1937 after all. However at no point whatsoever does anyone say it is because she is Black. Which they definitely would have, because: this is 1937 after all. But she and her lounge singer mother get the best lines, and she is also the one to confront Poirot about his arrogance and narcissism; the callous insensitivity with which he interrogates and accuses people in single-minded pursuit of the murderer.

The only scene that left an impression on me is well after the murder has been solved, the trip is over and Poirot is found 6 months later in a night club in London, watching the lounge singer perform by himself in the early morning closing hours. His moustache is shaved off. His scar is visible. Perhaps he is a more chastened, modest man, aware of and at peace with his human limitations. But again, the scene drags on too long and seems too disjointed to make that very clear. The film itself, perhaps, reflecting the hubris and human limitations of the actor who had a go at directing it.

5/10. A for effort, F for artistic interpretation.

 

The Dog Stars

Basically a road movie with a plane instead of a car and one big action scene per act, some thriller and horror elements towards the end but for Ridley Scott comparisons I probably got more out of The Martian or Black Hawk Down. Haven't read the original novel though, it's tempting to track that down as the whole post-apocalyptic scenario is reduced in scale compared to all the flying around, the book might go into more detail.

 

The Harder They Fall
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10696784/

A black western with a Soul & Reggae soundtrack, shot in a very tarantinoesque style.

Not bad / 10, but not something worth a second watch

 

The Hunt for the Red October

36 years late and it's till a bloody good film, only watched it this time as a catch up as I'm listening to Tom Clancy's Act of Defiance which brings the story full circle, albeit with Ryan now as President instead of a lowly CIA case officer.

 

Give me a ping, Vashilly - one ping only.

 

Pavarotti, coming outa their asses!

 

Family movie night the other night

Barbie 7.5/10
Predator badlands 10/10
How to train your dragon live action 6/10

Children and wife may rate them different

 

mando and grogu - notbad/10

not a massive starwars fan but i did enjoy watching mando whilst it was on before disney went full marval metaverse crap, movie pacing was a bit off but then reading how it was the canned season 4 crushed into a 2h film i can kinda see it. looks and sounds nice tho

 

It was Paganini.

 

Who's telling this story, me or you?

 

Wasteman (Netflix) - 7 out of a 10 stretch
Surprisingly engaging. Fairly standard prison drama but the leads are all pretty good. Worth a watch.

Pressure (Cinema) - 6.5 millibars
Was good up until the last part after the rain starts. Brendan Fraser excels again (as much as possible within the role given, at least); starting to really rate this guy lately. Then it just gets covered in glitter and sugar and wrapped up quicker than presents at 3am on the 24th. I get that that part isn't what the film was about, but a bit more gravitas on the impact of the forecasting wouldn't have gone amiss. One for the streaming release.

 

Predator Badlands
0 minutes to 40 minutes: great.
40 minutes to 50 minutes: what the actual **** am I even watching, who thought this would work.
50 to 100 minutes: oh actually it's working out okay.

There was a right catfight about whether this film is good or awful. I think it's kinda fine.

Visuals and effects are masterful. I like the Destiny 2 sort of sci-fi aesthetic and this is all that. The grimy militaristic sensibilities and horror-gore of the original films are long gone. I don't miss them. The original film is kinda gross to watch (though it's entirely a matter of personal taste).

I like that all the enemies are predators, weird exobiology monsters or androids - it allows them to have really gratuitous ultraviolence without upsetting sensitive little snowflakes like me. I just don't like the evil, sticky red horror of most cinematic violence. Not any more. I find it unpleasant and feel no particular obligation to justify my impulses. I find it traumatic. I didn't used to; when I was young and naive I rather liked Saw, Hostel, Predator and the like. But now it activates real life **** that I'd rather not have activated. So I'll take a double helping of green predator goop and white android goop and lots of flamboyant PG-13 dismemberment thanks.

I also like the film's details: the tech gubbins of Weyland-Yutani, the android special effects, all the predator gizmos. I loved all the alien ecology that's on show. A lot of visual artists clearly had a lot of fun thinking up alien flora and fauna. At times it's like a David Attenborough special that's gone through a portal to hell.

The film's most obvious problem is how saccharine and anthropomorphizing it is. The predators have expressive eyebrows. They emote like humans. This feels really basic like it's pandering down to super dumb audiences and families and it misses a trick. The original predator design has distinctly wolf-like eyes and a fairly rigid brow. It evokes the wolf. This comparison is even trickled into the script of Badlands. But what makes wolves so terrifying and uncanny is how expressionless and sphinx-like they are. They mirthlessly smile an open mouth full of teeth. Their brows don't move. They don't communicate emotion in a way that makes much intuitive sense to humans. They are more alien than dogs; they don't emotionally connect with humans. (Dogs evolved to do this.) By making the predators' faces move exactly like human faces, they introduce critical amounts of cringe for me and rob the species of its otherworldliness, its menace. Even the scary predators aren't scary in this film because they move, act and emote like people. The original Predator was a wolf; this film has dogs.

The cutesy monsters are very Pixar. I can see why a lot of people hated any of it being in a Predator film. But taking it on its own merits and setting the IP aside, it all works fine.

Thematically and emotionally this film works. If it has political overtones that annoy some, well, they're not particularly offensive overtones, to me. The core theme and question is: if a culture is ruthless, unfeeling, morally bankrupt, barbaric and cruel, should we try to internalize its values and belong, or should we reject and strain against it? Our android and predator protagonists here decide to reject their native cultures and create their own. This is a distinctly progressive sentiment; it rejects tradition and posits change as virtuous. People up to their necks in the culture wars will be reminded of our current political binary and see woke lib propaganda, but that's seeing shapes in clouds. These questions are eternal for all social species and transcend the current Trump-vs-blue-hair binary. I think it's a worthy theme for a sci-fi project, and this film handles the subject matter well, albeit quite safely.

Heartily agree, I found films 1 & 2 in the Branagh set totally missable.

Persevere with film 3 (A Haunting In Venice) if you've the patience left - I'd be interested to know what you think, I thought it absolutely slapped. A perfectly paced clockwork masterpiece of storytelling and suspense, with horror elements that the writing handles very cleverly. It's my favourite Poirot film tied with the David Suchet Five Little Pigs.

 

I’d be interested to learn how much of that “unflinching, inexpressive” facade of the original Predator was down to the technology available at the time. Was it intended to be that way from the start, or was that a byproduct of the fact that they just couldn’t make the prosthetics emote in an anthropomorphic manner. It could well be the case that the lack of subtlety in the prosthetics was a “happy accident” that further informed the creative direction of the character.

Either way, it doesn’t change how the OG Predator is perceived by audiences, even at the time. Maybe I’ve just watched too much Corridor Crew on YouTube, but I find myself more and more interested in the craft of filmmaking.

 

I bloody love Corridor Crew.

Definitely a happy accident! It was the rubber mask, melting wax era of horror. But they struck gold. I don't even like the original Predator very much as a film (it's one-dimensional and has no arcs or emotions beyond the instinctive terror of being preyed upon, like so many unimaginative slasher flicks of that era) but I'll concede that the predator face reveal is one of the most terrifying and iconic moments in monster cinema. A truly great alien design. And Badlands went "okay cool now superimpose that face on a family having an emotionally charged argument about whether or not the youngest son is good enough for daddy's approval".

Still liked the film. But alongside the first film...yeah, I think wolves vs dogs is the best way I can describe the comparison.