Woo, so I finally got out of baby-raising prison and saw like an actual movie!
Arrival was pretty good.
The story itself is very gripping even as it's fundamentally not, like, viscerally exciting and props to them for pulling that off. They manage to make first contact exciting and gripping without having to mine the well of action threats or the like. Frankly, the one part where they do try to inject like physical drama into the whole thing is probably the silliest bit of the whole thing. It still works, but it's the silliest. There's a part about mid-way through the film where they could have gone that way too but the director wisely chooses to focus on where the real drama is and leave the action for another movie where it wouldn't be a distraction.
The movie is also really emotionally effecting. The ending is quite powerful I think. But it also exposes what I think is the key weakness of the film which is mainly that it kinda splits right down the middle. The first half and the second half, while they make sense together and one definitely sets up the other, feel like very different movies in many ways. It feels like it starts as hard sci-fi and then pivots into a much more emotional "it's the feels that matter" state at the end. And it still works and it's still great but it also feels like a bit of a letdown because the movie raises so many questions and then answers them in ways that don't really feel like they fit with the tone in which they were posed.
Other minor issues are that the characterisation is pretty barebones for the most part. Most of the cast, while distinguishable from one another, are essentially one note. It doesn't really spoil the film, you don't even really notice it much while watching honestly, but it's there. You think about it later and it's hard to remember who they are beyond their role in the plot for the most part.
The other thing is there's a point where the writer clearly just didn't know how to continue to move the story forward in a more natural but timely way and just resorts to a hard cut, jump X time into the future, insert random narration by the main character about what has been happening. Again, not a big issue but it's there and it feels a bit jarring. Especially after the great pacing throughout the preceding chunk of the movie and the bit afterwords too.
But anyway, really good film, totally worth seeing, very emotionally impactful imo. A smart well made sci-fi film exploring interesting ideas, which are always nice to see.
+4
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Mr. 3,000 (Netflix) was a decent movie, nothing to stand out for sports comedies like it's a D2 but nowhere near as terrible as Big Green. Probably a step below Eddie. Bernie Mac was a selfish baseball player who quit right when he got 3000 hits, ten years later during a hall of fame stat audit it turns out he was 3 hits shy, gets signed up by his old team the Brewers to get his hits again and to draw fan attention since the team is perennially bad. Yada yada yada he learns wisdom with age and tries to set the new all-star on the team to be a team player, get the girl, and it was nice to have the Brewers be the main team and not act like they were in any way competitive a decade ago. There's quite a bit more drama than comedy here, and some of the player on the team get annoying and just fail at delivering jokes (the spanish player duo), but Bernie Mac was always decent if not properly utilized in some stuff and the schmaltzy ending was actually done well.
Eddie Redmayne was fantastic as the just this side of autistic Mr Skamander, each of the beasts got a moment to shine, and a glimpse deeper into the world and lore of Harry Potter was quite welcome.
I didn't realize how much I would enjoy not knowing what was going to happen ahead of time and while I have a few nit picks, and I'm riding high off just seeing it, it's probably in my top three of the Potterverse films.
Nit picks:
Colin Farrell needed a moment at the end, after Creedence is killed, to add a shade of grey to the morality of the world. "He broke the law" should've been followed with "He was TWELVE! We never taught him the law!" Or something. Not a generic "The law is bad and makes me feel bad!" Speech.
Surprise Johnny Depp is surprising.
Most heroic moment is Kowalski walking out into the rain.
J.K. Rowling did some great monster invention. They're fun and they have a nice range of size, threat, and function without being pre-existing mythological creatures.
The execution scene was pretty fucked up.
I love the background magic in the Potter films. Using magic for mundane things always fascinated me more than big spectacle-style Magic.
I love the background magic in the Potter films. Using magic for mundane things always fascinated me more than big spectacle-style Magic.
It's one of the (many) reasons why Prisoner of Azkaban is one of the best of the films, if not the best. I love the throwaway scene of this one wizard stirring his tea by means of magicking the spoon, while reading A Brief History of Time. It's also why I'd consider Deathly Hallows Part 1 my favourite together with Azkaban, since so much of it is set in the 'real' world. I've generally found the two worlds rubbing against each other more interesting than the magic theme park that is Hogwarts.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I love the background magic in the Potter films. Using magic for mundane things always fascinated me more than big spectacle-style Magic.
It's one of the (many) reasons why Prisoner of Azkaban is one of the best of the films, if not the best. I love the throwaway scene of this one wizard stirring his tea by means of magicking the spoon, while reading A Brief History of Time. It's also why I'd consider Deathly Hallows Part 1 my favourite together with Azkaban, since so much of it is set in the 'real' world. I've generally found the two worlds rubbing against each other more interesting than the magic theme park that is Hogwarts.
The shootout in the diner in DH1 feels like it should be leading into a much more interesting movie that isn't Harry Potter.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Nocturnal Animals: I didn't like it, and after seeing the awards it got and hearing the praises from everyone else in the group I was with, I'm wondering if I'm becoming some sort of movie misanthrope.
I thought it was ham-fisted and redonkulously p-word.
Stylewise (with some things about the story, but no super crazy plot spoilers):
The opening credits scene is visually shocking, but while it ties into what is happening in the beginning, it does nothing to set the plot or characters or anything, so it just seems more like Shocking Visuals! in order to be Shocking!
The music is melodramatic as hell. Look, it's not a happy movie, and anyone watching is under no illusions about the feels they should be feeling, but for some reason the movie will hammer out these super moody violin (and other strings) music that sounds like it escaped from Days of Our Lives.
You know those cuts where they switch between a scene with X and a different scene that also has either X or something like X so that things are all visually connected? Well I hope you like that sort of stuff, because there's so much of that that it is almost a parody. Guy in rain cutting to woman in shower. Guy in bath cutting to woman in bath cutting to guy on edge of bath cutting to woman in bath (because Amy Adams isn't gonna show that much skin). Closeup of a guy's face under red light cutting to a closeup of the same actor's face under red light so that the first word of dialogue post-cut is his name because there's no way to tell exactly who you're looking at).
Dialogue so sparse that it seems more like a hyper-efficient exposition dump than a natural conversation that sets the scene and lays things out.
Painfully obvious visual foreshadowing. And it wasn't just passive, they have a character stop and have a conversation about the painfully obvious visual foreshadowing.
'Bad' tension. OK, so there's tension in the movie, but it's not what I consider a particularly 'good' sort of tension, for given values of good and bad, YMMV. It's more the 'I know something bad is going to happen', and all you're doing is waiting for that shoe to drop. It's not the tension that comes from the uncertainty of what is going to happen. And the particularly bad bit is that it's not like Alien, where you know something bad is coming, but you're not sure what, it's a situation where you know exactly what's coming, and you're just stuck watching it develop.
Story spoiler
Three rednecks in west Texas force a Volvo with a man and his wife and daughter off the road. You know that's heading straight to rape/murder land, like there's a 110% guarantee that that setup is taking the express train to darkeness, and then you're stuck being miserable waiting for it to happen.
The characters are remarkably thin. Nor are they developed naturally, more that they say what they are feeling, and say what they were feeling, and hey look, they say they feel different now than how they felt in the past so something something character development?
There's a number of other gripes, but those are the main ones. I think it suffered from having to run two stories in its two hours, so both ended up feeling bare bones. Casting was pretty damn great though. Adams is solid as always (though wasted on the role) and Gyllenhaal is pretty damn awesome (his role is a bit beefier).
High points of the movie: Amy Adams has really nice legs. When the movie ended, one of the people in the audience actually let out a guffaw of laughter.
Low points: No Lego Batman trailer.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I love the background magic in the Potter films. Using magic for mundane things always fascinated me more than big spectacle-style Magic.
It's one of the (many) reasons why Prisoner of Azkaban is one of the best of the films, if not the best. I love the throwaway scene of this one wizard stirring his tea by means of magicking the spoon, while reading A Brief History of Time. It's also why I'd consider Deathly Hallows Part 1 my favourite together with Azkaban, since so much of it is set in the 'real' world. I've generally found the two worlds rubbing against each other more interesting than the magic theme park that is Hogwarts.
Yeah, I'll note that that wizard is being played by Ian Brown; the lead singer of the Stone Roses, a very influential British music band, whose first album is very highly regarded.
I suspect it is his request for a cameo why we got that scene, rather than any attempt at world building.
I'm sure Brown didn't determine the specifics of the cameo; if he did, then the scene still feels organic to the movie as a whole, and in particular to the first part of Azkaban (basically everything until Harry goes to Hogwarts).
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I enjoyed it, but didnt love it, havent had the time to rewatch it a couple more times to see if I pick up more, but would enjoy hearing other peoples takes on it.
MWO: Adamski
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Nocturnal Animals has been getting buzz because it's Tom Ford, who's some big fashion designer and turning into a film director who also apparently was suffering from depression or something. I just remember a big PR push a few months ago with the Toronto Film Festival and it seemed to be more about the man than the film itself.
I love the background magic in the Potter films. Using magic for mundane things always fascinated me more than big spectacle-style Magic.
It's one of the (many) reasons why Prisoner of Azkaban is one of the best of the films, if not the best. I love the throwaway scene of this one wizard stirring his tea by means of magicking the spoon, while reading A Brief History of Time. It's also why I'd consider Deathly Hallows Part 1 my favourite together with Azkaban, since so much of it is set in the 'real' world. I've generally found the two worlds rubbing against each other more interesting than the magic theme park that is Hogwarts.
The shootout in the diner in DH1 feels like it should be leading into a much more interesting movie that isn't Harry Potter.
It reminded me of the trailer (never seen the actual movie) for Night Watch.
Nocturnal Animals suffers from having 2 storylines and 1 completely overpowers the other.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I kinda liked Moana, despite my Disney apathy
lots of positive female stuff there
+6
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
Haven't seen much in theaters lately, but Arrival tonight was very well-made, and very affecting. Should be getting to Moana with my son by this weekend, and I feel like I kind of need it after that last movie.
I watched "Once Upon and Time in the West" again recently and goddamn that movie is good. Its frankly amazing how it manages to be so succinct in a 160 minute movie that has i think 8 plot points. And maybe 10-15 "scenes"
As an example. Every death* in the movie that is shown is a direct consequence or requirement of a plot point. None are shown for character purposes. Cheyenne (Jason Robards) kills only 4 people in the movie and its implied that he kills about 12. The first people Cheyenne kills are off screen, done entirely in audio as you hear the gunfight but follow the protagonist(Claudia Cardinale). Later in the film Cheyenne is needed to escape going to prison in order to give some exposition at McBain Station. But he has escaped before and this has nothing to do with any of the character conflicts in the film.. so the entire section, if one was ever filmed is cut. You see only the aftermath... which resolves the conflict between Frank(Henry Fonda) and the railroad baron.
*except one. But this is an OK exemption for a number of reasons.
I watched "Once Upon and Time in the West" again recently and goddamn that movie is good. Its frankly amazing how it manages to be so succinct in a 160 minute movie that has i think 8 plot points. And maybe 10-15 "scenes"
As an example. Every death* in the movie that is shown is a direct consequence or requirement of a plot point. None are shown for character purposes. Cheyenne (Jason Robards) kills only 4 people in the movie and its implied that he kills about 12. The first people Cheyenne kills are off screen, done entirely in audio as you hear the gunfight but follow the protagonist(Claudia Cardinale). Later in the film Cheyenne is needed to escape going to prison in order to give some exposition at McBain Station. But he has escaped before and this has nothing to do with any of the character conflicts in the film.. so the entire section, if one was ever filmed is cut. You see only the aftermath... which resolves the conflict between Frank(Henry Fonda) and the railroad baron.
*except one. But this is an OK exemption for a number of reasons.
have you watched Fist Full of Dynamite / Duck you Sucker recently? Re-watching Sergio Leone movies is incredibly illuminating, from the sheer quality of story telling to the way he establishes geography of his action scenes. The fact that he did it all without story boarding is mind blowing.
But yeah, if you haven't seen Duck you Sucker, you should make it your mission to watch it.
0
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
I am watching The Revenant. Is very pretty. I am super confused about a plot point!
Glass' group is attacked by some Arikara guys looking for a kidnapped woman.
Later these Arikara guys trade some of the pelts they stole from Glass' group to some French trappers for some guns and horses.
Then these French guys kill Glass' new Pawnee bro. It turns out they have the kidnapped Arikara woman? But they make mention of the cost of the horses, implying they took her after the deal with the Arikara guys
So... wha happen? Am I just confused and there's multiple kidnapped women, or did the Arikara actually trade with the people they were hunting?
Oh brilliant
0
Options
Dr. ChaosPost nuclear nuisanceRegistered Userregular
edited December 2016
Whenever someone mentions The Revanant, my mind immediately jumps to the David Anders vampire zombie flick.
I watched "Once Upon and Time in the West" again recently and goddamn that movie is good. Its frankly amazing how it manages to be so succinct in a 160 minute movie that has i think 8 plot points. And maybe 10-15 "scenes"
As an example. Every death* in the movie that is shown is a direct consequence or requirement of a plot point. None are shown for character purposes. Cheyenne (Jason Robards) kills only 4 people in the movie and its implied that he kills about 12. The first people Cheyenne kills are off screen, done entirely in audio as you hear the gunfight but follow the protagonist(Claudia Cardinale). Later in the film Cheyenne is needed to escape going to prison in order to give some exposition at McBain Station. But he has escaped before and this has nothing to do with any of the character conflicts in the film.. so the entire section, if one was ever filmed is cut. You see only the aftermath... which resolves the conflict between Frank(Henry Fonda) and the railroad baron.
*except one. But this is an OK exemption for a number of reasons.
have you watched Fist Full of Dynamite / Duck you Sucker recently? Re-watching Sergio Leone movies is incredibly illuminating, from the sheer quality of story telling to the way he establishes geography of his action scenes. The fact that he did it all without story boarding is mind blowing.
But yeah, if you haven't seen Duck you Sucker, you should make it your mission to watch it.
I always felt that "duck" was the worse of the Leone westerns. I haven't watched it in a few years. It might be better than Good/Bad/Ugly.
In the end Once Upon a Time in the West is the only one cast better than "Few Dollars More". And that makes most of the difference. None of the others have the heart or thematic power to make up for the lack of Gian Volontè and Lee Van Cleef. (And West would have been worse off with Eastwood or Coburn probably. Though I want to say that someone could have done better than Bronson I am not sure who that someone is)
Edit: also not sure it's right to call "duck" a western. It not only doesn't occur in the "west" (being 1910, past the point of pacification) but it's more rightly a war film.
I am watching The Revenant. Is very pretty. I am super confused about a plot point!
Glass' group is attacked by some Arikara guys looking for a kidnapped woman.
Later these Arikara guys trade some of the pelts they stole from Glass' group to some French trappers for some guns and horses.
Then these French guys kill Glass' new Pawnee bro. It turns out they have the kidnapped Arikara woman? But they make mention of the cost of the horses, implying they took her after the deal with the Arikara guys
So... wha happen? Am I just confused and there's multiple kidnapped women, or did the Arikara actually trade with the people they were hunting?
They were lied and manipulated into doing the dirty work.
I watched "Once Upon and Time in the West" again recently and goddamn that movie is good. Its frankly amazing how it manages to be so succinct in a 160 minute movie that has i think 8 plot points. And maybe 10-15 "scenes"
As an example. Every death* in the movie that is shown is a direct consequence or requirement of a plot point. None are shown for character purposes. Cheyenne (Jason Robards) kills only 4 people in the movie and its implied that he kills about 12. The first people Cheyenne kills are off screen, done entirely in audio as you hear the gunfight but follow the protagonist(Claudia Cardinale). Later in the film Cheyenne is needed to escape going to prison in order to give some exposition at McBain Station. But he has escaped before and this has nothing to do with any of the character conflicts in the film.. so the entire section, if one was ever filmed is cut. You see only the aftermath... which resolves the conflict between Frank(Henry Fonda) and the railroad baron.
*except one. But this is an OK exemption for a number of reasons.
have you watched Fist Full of Dynamite / Duck you Sucker recently? Re-watching Sergio Leone movies is incredibly illuminating, from the sheer quality of story telling to the way he establishes geography of his action scenes. The fact that he did it all without story boarding is mind blowing.
But yeah, if you haven't seen Duck you Sucker, you should make it your mission to watch it.
I always felt that "duck" was the worse of the Leone westerns. I haven't watched it in a few years. It might be better than Good/Bad/Ugly.
In the end Once Upon a Time in the West is the only one cast better than "Few Dollars More". And that makes most of the difference. None of the others have the heart or thematic power to make up for the lack of Gian Volontè and Lee Van Cleef. (And West would have been worse off with Eastwood or Coburn probably. Though I want to say that someone could have done better than Bronson I am not sure who that someone is)
Edit: also not sure it's right to call "duck" a western. It not only doesn't occur in the "west" (being 1910, past the point of pacification) but it's more rightly a war film.
The setting is one of my favourite parts of Duck, You Sucker! It still feels like a western, but then Sean's put-putting around on a motorcycle. And there's a tank... 1910 Mexico has a real clash of eras going on. And the score - more great Morricone.
(It also confused me the first time I watched it when Juan and Sean meet and Juan is like, "hey, we have the same name!" First time I realised some names get translated and Sean/Juan/Jean/Jon/Johann/John/Ivan/Ian/Giovanni are all the same.)
If I'm ranking Leone's westerns I'd go:
Once Upon A Time In The West
For A Few Dollars More
Duck, You Sucker!
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
A Fistful of Dollars
I am watching The Revenant. Is very pretty. I am super confused about a plot point!
Glass' group is attacked by some Arikara guys looking for a kidnapped woman.
Later these Arikara guys trade some of the pelts they stole from Glass' group to some French trappers for some guns and horses.
Then these French guys kill Glass' new Pawnee bro. It turns out they have the kidnapped Arikara woman? But they make mention of the cost of the horses, implying they took her after the deal with the Arikara guys
So... wha happen? Am I just confused and there's multiple kidnapped women, or did the Arikara actually trade with the people they were hunting?
The answer is "whatever, who cares, did you know Leo actually ate a real horse liver, omigod he is so dedicated give him an award."
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+9
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Also "shut up and watch this gorgeous second unit footage. A camera operator literally froze his balls off in a creek while filming this shot but he's so dedicated to the craft he just kept filming until magic hour was over."
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Except for one sequence near the end I thought The Revenant was fuckin' fantastic, and that it did a bunch of interesting things that don't get nearly enough credit in favor of lol'ing over how much Leo wanted that Oscar.
Not that Leo didn't totally want that Oscar.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
I am watching The Revenant. Is very pretty. I am super confused about a plot point!
Glass' group is attacked by some Arikara guys looking for a kidnapped woman.
Later these Arikara guys trade some of the pelts they stole from Glass' group to some French trappers for some guns and horses.
Then these French guys kill Glass' new Pawnee bro. It turns out they have the kidnapped Arikara woman? But they make mention of the cost of the horses, implying they took her after the deal with the Arikara guys
So... wha happen? Am I just confused and there's multiple kidnapped women, or did the Arikara actually trade with the people they were hunting?
The answer is "whatever, who cares, did you know Leo actually ate a real horse liver, omigod he is so dedicated give him an award."
It was more:
"Why is Leo nominated again? We already gave him that Oscar he sold his soul for for Wolf of Wall Street."
"No we didn't, remember? We gave it to McConaughey so we could feel good about ourselves being progressive."
"Right, right. Fuck. Um ... whatever, just give him this one then. He lost a testicle to frostbite for this last one or something didn't he? We need to give this guy a break before he gets himself killed."
shryke on
+2
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
I wonder at what point during production did they realize
"Oh shit, Tom Hardy gave a much better performance...fuck it we're still pushing Leo for the Oscar."
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+1
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
edited December 2016
I was pulling hard for Leo with Wolf of Wall Street.
I so wanted the best actor award to go to a guy that does a line of coke off a hooker's ass.
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
I watched "Once Upon and Time in the West" again recently and goddamn that movie is good. Its frankly amazing how it manages to be so succinct in a 160 minute movie that has i think 8 plot points. And maybe 10-15 "scenes"
As an example. Every death* in the movie that is shown is a direct consequence or requirement of a plot point. None are shown for character purposes. Cheyenne (Jason Robards) kills only 4 people in the movie and its implied that he kills about 12. The first people Cheyenne kills are off screen, done entirely in audio as you hear the gunfight but follow the protagonist(Claudia Cardinale). Later in the film Cheyenne is needed to escape going to prison in order to give some exposition at McBain Station. But he has escaped before and this has nothing to do with any of the character conflicts in the film.. so the entire section, if one was ever filmed is cut. You see only the aftermath... which resolves the conflict between Frank(Henry Fonda) and the railroad baron.
*except one. But this is an OK exemption for a number of reasons.
have you watched Fist Full of Dynamite / Duck you Sucker recently? Re-watching Sergio Leone movies is incredibly illuminating, from the sheer quality of story telling to the way he establishes geography of his action scenes. The fact that he did it all without story boarding is mind blowing.
But yeah, if you haven't seen Duck you Sucker, you should make it your mission to watch it.
I always felt that "duck" was the worse of the Leone westerns. I haven't watched it in a few years. It might be better than Good/Bad/Ugly.
In the end Once Upon a Time in the West is the only one cast better than "Few Dollars More". And that makes most of the difference. None of the others have the heart or thematic power to make up for the lack of Gian Volontè and Lee Van Cleef. (And West would have been worse off with Eastwood or Coburn probably. Though I want to say that someone could have done better than Bronson I am not sure who that someone is)
Edit: also not sure it's right to call "duck" a western. It not only doesn't occur in the "west" (being 1910, past the point of pacification) but it's more rightly a war film.
The setting is one of my favourite parts of Duck, You Sucker! It still feels like a western, but then Sean's put-putting around on a motorcycle. And there's a tank... 1910 Mexico has a real clash of eras going on. And the score - more great Morricone.
(It also confused me the first time I watched it when Juan and Sean meet and Juan is like, "hey, we have the same name!" First time I realised some names get translated and Sean/Juan/Jean/Jon/Johann/John/Ivan/Ian/Giovanni are all the same.)
If I'm ranking Leone's westerns I'd go:
Once Upon A Time In The West
For A Few Dollars More
Duck, You Sucker!
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
A Fistful of Dollars
I always forget if My Name Is Nobody is a Leone film or not, but I rank it pretty high (acting is not that great, but I love the plot and the things it says about heroes and legends). I also like TGTBaTU a lot higher than you do (Eli Wallach is amazing). Yes, the story is meandering, but I have a fondness for those type of stories. Once Upon A Time is still the top on my list.
I wonder at what point during production did they realize
"Oh shit, Tom Hardy gave a much better performance...fuck it we're still pushing Leo for the Oscar."
The Revenant's filming schedule stretching on as long as it did meant that Tom Hardy had to drop out of Suicide Squad. I'd say that's a bigger reward than any trophy ;p
Posts
Remake A Christmas Carol? Bah, Humbug!
Arrival was pretty good.
The story itself is very gripping even as it's fundamentally not, like, viscerally exciting and props to them for pulling that off. They manage to make first contact exciting and gripping without having to mine the well of action threats or the like. Frankly, the one part where they do try to inject like physical drama into the whole thing is probably the silliest bit of the whole thing. It still works, but it's the silliest. There's a part about mid-way through the film where they could have gone that way too but the director wisely chooses to focus on where the real drama is and leave the action for another movie where it wouldn't be a distraction.
The movie is also really emotionally effecting. The ending is quite powerful I think. But it also exposes what I think is the key weakness of the film which is mainly that it kinda splits right down the middle. The first half and the second half, while they make sense together and one definitely sets up the other, feel like very different movies in many ways. It feels like it starts as hard sci-fi and then pivots into a much more emotional "it's the feels that matter" state at the end. And it still works and it's still great but it also feels like a bit of a letdown because the movie raises so many questions and then answers them in ways that don't really feel like they fit with the tone in which they were posed.
Other minor issues are that the characterisation is pretty barebones for the most part. Most of the cast, while distinguishable from one another, are essentially one note. It doesn't really spoil the film, you don't even really notice it much while watching honestly, but it's there. You think about it later and it's hard to remember who they are beyond their role in the plot for the most part.
The other thing is there's a point where the writer clearly just didn't know how to continue to move the story forward in a more natural but timely way and just resorts to a hard cut, jump X time into the future, insert random narration by the main character about what has been happening. Again, not a big issue but it's there and it feels a bit jarring. Especially after the great pacing throughout the preceding chunk of the movie and the bit afterwords too.
But anyway, really good film, totally worth seeing, very emotionally impactful imo. A smart well made sci-fi film exploring interesting ideas, which are always nice to see.
Eddie Redmayne was fantastic as the just this side of autistic Mr Skamander, each of the beasts got a moment to shine, and a glimpse deeper into the world and lore of Harry Potter was quite welcome.
I didn't realize how much I would enjoy not knowing what was going to happen ahead of time and while I have a few nit picks, and I'm riding high off just seeing it, it's probably in my top three of the Potterverse films.
Nit picks:
Surprise Johnny Depp is surprising.
Most heroic moment is Kowalski walking out into the rain.
J.K. Rowling did some great monster invention. They're fun and they have a nice range of size, threat, and function without being pre-existing mythological creatures.
The execution scene was pretty fucked up.
I love the background magic in the Potter films. Using magic for mundane things always fascinated me more than big spectacle-style Magic.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
The shootout in the diner in DH1 feels like it should be leading into a much more interesting movie that isn't Harry Potter.
I thought it was ham-fisted and redonkulously p-word.
Stylewise (with some things about the story, but no super crazy plot spoilers):
The music is melodramatic as hell. Look, it's not a happy movie, and anyone watching is under no illusions about the feels they should be feeling, but for some reason the movie will hammer out these super moody violin (and other strings) music that sounds like it escaped from Days of Our Lives.
You know those cuts where they switch between a scene with X and a different scene that also has either X or something like X so that things are all visually connected? Well I hope you like that sort of stuff, because there's so much of that that it is almost a parody. Guy in rain cutting to woman in shower. Guy in bath cutting to woman in bath cutting to guy on edge of bath cutting to woman in bath (because Amy Adams isn't gonna show that much skin). Closeup of a guy's face under red light cutting to a closeup of the same actor's face under red light so that the first word of dialogue post-cut is his name because there's no way to tell exactly who you're looking at).
Dialogue so sparse that it seems more like a hyper-efficient exposition dump than a natural conversation that sets the scene and lays things out.
Painfully obvious visual foreshadowing. And it wasn't just passive, they have a character stop and have a conversation about the painfully obvious visual foreshadowing.
'Bad' tension. OK, so there's tension in the movie, but it's not what I consider a particularly 'good' sort of tension, for given values of good and bad, YMMV. It's more the 'I know something bad is going to happen', and all you're doing is waiting for that shoe to drop. It's not the tension that comes from the uncertainty of what is going to happen. And the particularly bad bit is that it's not like Alien, where you know something bad is coming, but you're not sure what, it's a situation where you know exactly what's coming, and you're just stuck watching it develop.
Story spoiler
The characters are remarkably thin. Nor are they developed naturally, more that they say what they are feeling, and say what they were feeling, and hey look, they say they feel different now than how they felt in the past so something something character development?
High points of the movie: Amy Adams has really nice legs. When the movie ended, one of the people in the audience actually let out a guffaw of laughter.
Low points: No Lego Batman trailer.
Yeah, I'll note that that wizard is being played by Ian Brown; the lead singer of the Stone Roses, a very influential British music band, whose first album is very highly regarded.
I suspect it is his request for a cameo why we got that scene, rather than any attempt at world building.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
MWO: Adamski
It reminded me of the trailer (never seen the actual movie) for Night Watch.
lots of positive female stuff there
He even has a
Improperly labeled spoilers?
*looks at thread title* well, we almost made it
As an example. Every death* in the movie that is shown is a direct consequence or requirement of a plot point. None are shown for character purposes. Cheyenne (Jason Robards) kills only 4 people in the movie and its implied that he kills about 12. The first people Cheyenne kills are off screen, done entirely in audio as you hear the gunfight but follow the protagonist(Claudia Cardinale). Later in the film Cheyenne is needed to escape going to prison in order to give some exposition at McBain Station. But he has escaped before and this has nothing to do with any of the character conflicts in the film.. so the entire section, if one was ever filmed is cut. You see only the aftermath... which resolves the conflict between Frank(Henry Fonda) and the railroad baron.
*except one. But this is an OK exemption for a number of reasons.
Sorry.
No this is a joke based on a movie that recently came out.
pleasepaypreacher.net
have you watched Fist Full of Dynamite / Duck you Sucker recently? Re-watching Sergio Leone movies is incredibly illuminating, from the sheer quality of story telling to the way he establishes geography of his action scenes. The fact that he did it all without story boarding is mind blowing.
But yeah, if you haven't seen Duck you Sucker, you should make it your mission to watch it.
Later these Arikara guys trade some of the pelts they stole from Glass' group to some French trappers for some guns and horses.
Then these French guys kill Glass' new Pawnee bro. It turns out they have the kidnapped Arikara woman? But they make mention of the cost of the horses, implying they took her after the deal with the Arikara guys
So... wha happen? Am I just confused and there's multiple kidnapped women, or did the Arikara actually trade with the people they were hunting?
(the superior revenant film, no doubt)
I always felt that "duck" was the worse of the Leone westerns. I haven't watched it in a few years. It might be better than Good/Bad/Ugly.
In the end Once Upon a Time in the West is the only one cast better than "Few Dollars More". And that makes most of the difference. None of the others have the heart or thematic power to make up for the lack of Gian Volontè and Lee Van Cleef. (And West would have been worse off with Eastwood or Coburn probably. Though I want to say that someone could have done better than Bronson I am not sure who that someone is)
Edit: also not sure it's right to call "duck" a western. It not only doesn't occur in the "west" (being 1910, past the point of pacification) but it's more rightly a war film.
They were lied and manipulated into doing the dirty work.
MWO: Adamski
The setting is one of my favourite parts of Duck, You Sucker! It still feels like a western, but then Sean's put-putting around on a motorcycle. And there's a tank... 1910 Mexico has a real clash of eras going on. And the score - more great Morricone.
(It also confused me the first time I watched it when Juan and Sean meet and Juan is like, "hey, we have the same name!" First time I realised some names get translated and Sean/Juan/Jean/Jon/Johann/John/Ivan/Ian/Giovanni are all the same.)
If I'm ranking Leone's westerns I'd go:
Once Upon A Time In The West
For A Few Dollars More
Duck, You Sucker!
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
A Fistful of Dollars
The answer is "whatever, who cares, did you know Leo actually ate a real horse liver, omigod he is so dedicated give him an award."
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Not that Leo didn't totally want that Oscar.
It was more:
"Why is Leo nominated again? We already gave him that Oscar he sold his soul for for Wolf of Wall Street."
"No we didn't, remember? We gave it to McConaughey so we could feel good about ourselves being progressive."
"Right, right. Fuck. Um ... whatever, just give him this one then. He lost a testicle to frostbite for this last one or something didn't he? We need to give this guy a break before he gets himself killed."
"Oh shit, Tom Hardy gave a much better performance...fuck it we're still pushing Leo for the Oscar."
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I so wanted the best actor award to go to a guy that does a line of coke off a hooker's ass.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
I always forget if My Name Is Nobody is a Leone film or not, but I rank it pretty high (acting is not that great, but I love the plot and the things it says about heroes and legends). I also like TGTBaTU a lot higher than you do (Eli Wallach is amazing). Yes, the story is meandering, but I have a fondness for those type of stories. Once Upon A Time is still the top on my list.
edit: curse you autosave.
I'm sure lots of Best Actor winners have done coke off a hooker's ass.
...Oh, you mean on screen...
...you mean in a film, right?
The Revenant's filming schedule stretching on as long as it did meant that Tom Hardy had to drop out of Suicide Squad. I'd say that's a bigger reward than any trophy ;p