Titanic and LotR, definitely. Avatar, sure. Jurassic Park, probably.
I dunno whether DKR fits the template of what I'm thinking about in my mind. It was huge, but it felt like a terrific movie, not the seismic pop culture thing that Burton's Batman felt like (to me, at least).
Some of it might be the age at which I experienced those movies. Or didn't experience them, as I've still not seen Avatar. I suspect a fifteen year old today might put the Hunger Games movies right up there, or the Twilight franchise.
LOTR was definitely an event. For me it was the reason I first ever skipped school. I flat out told my teachers that I wouldn't be at school and they could find me at the 10:30 showing. The next day they just asked me how good it was.
And we're missing the obvious one. Star Wars Episode 1. Im gonna go out on a limb and say that it was the most anticipated film of all time. A new Star Wars film 14 years the last one. people queued around the block to get into my cinema. There were people in costumes, mock lightsaber fights in the aisles and people of every age waiting to watch it with a sense of anitcipation I haven't seen anywhere else when it comes to a film.
I watched Gone Girl yesterday, and while I'm more than a little ambivalent about the plot and some of the things it does, I found Fincher's direction and Pike's acting absolutely fantastic. Will have to think a bit more about the film as a whole, though; there are things I definitely liked, but it left me with a rather bitter taste, and not necessarily the one I think it was going for.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I'm probably going to get a bit of stick for this, but in terms of events, I'm going to say some of the Harry Potter films when they were released at Christmas. I remember going to all of the earlier ones with my family / girlfriend. Bonus points in that I live in Oxford, so coming out of the cinema I'm pretty much in Harry Potter land anyway.
I remember thinking to myself "what am I going to go and watch at the cinema when this series finishes?". I'll lump the LotR films with this as well for pretty much the same reasons.
Has anyone seen the commercials for Horrible Bosses 2?
Is it just me or does the movie look..cheap? I can't explain it properly, but it looks like it was shot in a different film than other movies. Reminds me of when I watched older movies in an HD set.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
It looks like it's always shot in the dark. Remember how in Veronica Mars they would have classrooms with no lights on? Sort of like that.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
You said it's a true story so now I have to believe it.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Here Comes the Boom, it's got a lot of things going against it right off the bat, but it's got a certain charm to it that holds your interest despite the predictable plot.
This is a Sandler movie on a lateral move, so it becomes a Kevin James movie where he just uses a lot of his friends, a lot who you'll recognize from King of Queens. And instead of a lot of product placement it's more just a big UFC and MMA promotional tool, with a really by the books story. Burned out teacher fights in MMA to raise money to save music program at his school because kids need the arts (and also Henry Winkler is 70 and going to be a dad, so double guilt and finger of shame for cutting such an important institution), and he learns how to love teaching again.
The school stuff is pretty weak, despite the kids actually being cast well, with the added bonus of the movie not really focusing on them for a wacky sidekick or whatever. The real highlights are the fighting and training stuff, which makes sure it does a checklist of all the big MMA moves but this also seems to be where banter is improvised, and you can sort of see that on screen. Winkler is actually doing a really strong role here, giving it 110% and you just can't scoff at him, even when he has to give a cliched speech or has a sad. And while a lot of the fighting basically centers around James taking punishment like he's Homer Simpson boxing, it's choreographed well enough and the film respects you enough to not have James just be an MMA savant.
It's a perfect plane movie, nothing you need to pay attention to but when you do it can entertain you. It reminds me a lot of the movie Fun Size, a film that is predictable and has a lot of mandated things to do, but is earnest in what it's doing.
Agreed, Here Comes the Boom deserves its RT scores, 38% critics, 66% audience liked it. It's not a good movie, but it's also plenty watchable. I have no problem with earnest predictable fare like that movie. I feel the same way about other Happy Madison movies too, when they're just trying to be fun family type movies, and not Sandler plays his own twin sister or there's a Deer running through his house pissing in his face or whatever.
I like Batman Returns better than the rest. Michelle Pfieffer's Catwoman is incomparable, and while Keaton and Devito were both perfectly good, it was Pfeiffer that made the film for me. I'm still sad that the Catwoman film Pfeiffer and Burton were committed to never got made. It was one of those things where they just needed a great script, but a great script never came along and a lousy or mediocre script wouldn't have been acceptable.
Yeah her catwoman was the best part of a great movie for me. I mean I liked Keaton and Devito, but Returns is Catwoman's movie and she owns it. They even did the "Hero interacts with a villain and indirectly aids them in becoming a villain" thing better than Spiderman recently did with Electro.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
star wars episode 1 was definitely an "event". was prometheus? I hate to mention that but it seems like there was definitely a lot of build up around it.
I think of an event as a movie everyone is talking about before it comes out and then everyone is talking about after it's been out and they've seen it. So not like a surprise hit (like The Matrix) and not a big lead up and sort of tepid response (like TDKR imo but it's arguable). That's why I mentioned TDK. Lots of anticipation for that and post-screenings it was just a huge thing.
Not sure if Avatar or Titanic qualify. Can't remember if there was huge hype for those anymore.
Also, I saw Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit because for some reason I can't turn down Chris Pine and wtf, I had a few hours to kill.
It was ... sorry, what was I talking about? Right, Shadow Recruit. It was forgettable. The movie isn't like bad, but it is just mostly unmemorable. It's just dull but not dull enough to be really boring. Shit happens, occasionally it's mildly interesting but mostly it's just whatever. Nothing at all stands out about it. It maintains a rather low key, low energy tone for 90% of the movie, which is in strange contrast to the apparent seriousness of the bad thing they are fighting. And then suddenly in the last 15 minutes it randomly perks up into a fast-pased spy action thriller, covering more ground in 15 minutes then it did in the preceding 90. Though mostly at the expense of any sort of semi-grounded reality the rest of the film had sort of lived in.
It's got maybe one interesting facet where they show Jack Ryan as not-a-spy. He's physically capable to some extent but when he's got to go all Casino Royale on a bitch, I think they actually do a good job of establishing that it's plausible and showing him panicking and freaking the fuck out over it. It's a great beat the film then doesn't do much with other then go "Well, I guess your a badass action hero now" and then the end of the movie basically confirms this.
No one is bad in it, but no one is at all memorable in it either. If it comes on TV and you can't find the remote, you'll be fine but don't bother going out of your way.
I think of an event as a movie everyone is talking about before it comes out and then everyone is talking about after it's been out and they've seen it. So not like a surprise hit (like The Matrix) and not a big lead up and sort of tepid response (like TDKR imo but it's arguable). That's why I mentioned TDK. Lots of anticipation for that and post-screenings it was just a huge thing.
Not sure if Avatar or Titanic qualify. Can't remember if there was huge hype for those anymore.
Avatar was definitely an event, as was Avengers. Huge build up, huge expectations, everybody seeing it. All three Lord of the Rings films were similar. Titanic was actually a pretty slow burn if I remember correctly, with it kind of falling off at first and then a determined subset of people just. Kept. Going. One guy in my high school went eleven times. I remember switching between four radio stations playing that damn Celine Dion song. Titanic and Frozen have a lot in common.
For recent event films Avengers was one, the first Hobbit film, the first Hunger Games, most of the Harry Potters (but especially Goblet of Fire), nothing the last couple of years though.
I want to say Spider-Man (Sam Raimi) was an event film.
+4
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I do remember Spider-Man was a big thing, not only because it was a high budget superhero movie but it was the first big post September 11th movie that clearly had a connection to NYC (including that teaser that actually had the WTC in it)
Jurassic Park was an event for sure, I remember the queues for it went around the block the cinema was on. Also, I think Terminator 2 probably qualifies.
+5
Options
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
I don't know about T2 (I was a little too young for that) but JP? Yeah, event.
Simpsons Movie too given its marketing blitz including turning every 7-11 into a Kwik-E-Mart.
I recall TDKR feeling like more of an event film than TDK, which is part of why it underwhelmed me. Way too much build up.
Also, it's just not a very good movie.
And in saying this, I think you're being rather kind to the film.
I agree, and I could go on and on, but I already have before, many times, and I no longer have the inclination or energy to do so.
I will say, however, that I find it a very disappointing film, as many great elements exist in the film that could have combined to create something truly amazing, possibly even better than TDK. It's mediocrity is more disappointing because the film is lesser than a sum of its parts.
Then again, I feel much the same way about Interstellar.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Last AFI report.
First up, Faults.
An interesting exercise in tone, Faults starts out funny, with the comic antics of the severely pathetic Dr. Ansel Roth (Leland Orser), and gradually becomes something much, much darker. Dr. Roth's mustache and dress make him look very much like Donald Sutherland in the 70s (Don't Look Now, Invasion of the Body Snatchers), and he comports himself with a rumpled dignity even when trying to scam a $5 meal out of a hotel restaurant. He's fallen on hard times, but he used to be one of the top "deprogrammers," gentlemen who specialized in the 80s in kidnapping people who had fallen under the influence of cults and using techniques of mental manipulation in order to get them to renounce their potentially dangerous belief in "the group." As the story begins, Roth is approached by a middle-aged couple who would like to hire him to deprogram their daughter (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who is in this movie because she's married to the writer/director), whose life is being controlled by a cult called Faults. To say that Roth is underprepared for such a challenge would be an understatement, but hey, he needs the money. The rest of the movie takes place in an anonymous motel room, and is essentially an extended test of Roth's own will and faith in his methods. Could the supernatural powers Winstead's character attributes to Faults be real?
This is mostly a two-hander, although a few character actors pop up in supporting roles (including Lance Reddick, who post-The Wire seems to always be hired for his ability to portray menacing intelligence), and so it would be utterly awful if Orser and Winstead weren't up to the task. Thankfully, they are and then some, both performers throwing themselves heedlessly into very tricky roles and finding great success there. The technical aspects of the film are all quite good, particularly the editing and smart, restrained script, which keep up the pace without getting too repetitive (something a lot of independent films have problems with). My main problem with the movie is the twist ending, one of those that's obvious if you think about the premise for five seconds but also one of those twists that needs a lot of groundwork in order for the movie to sell it; the result is that the end drags quite badly. Still, it's an interesting and entertaining story, well-told--so much so, in fact, that the movie might have been better off playing its narrative straight through to a less complex but equally dramatically satisfying conclusion.
There's no trailer out yet for this film, but it does have distribution and will be released in early March of next year.
Last but not least, The Duke of Burgundy, the new movie by Peter Strickland (Berberian Sound Studio).
One of the audience members in the Q&A for this movie called it "an homage to a genre that never existed," and that seems apt, although Strickland said he drew inspiration from filmmakers like Jess Franco and certain exploitation movies of the '60s. Certainly I've never seen anything quite like it, even in structure, as the movie alternates between scenes of a relationship between Cynthia (Sidse Babett Knudsen) and Evelyn (Chiara D'Anna), scientific lectures on the behavior and identifying marks of butterflies and moths, and expressionistic shots and montages of light, shadow, and insects. It's all supposed to mirror or act as metaphor for the central relationship, but the connections were a little obscure for me at times, particularly in the climatic montage, which seemed to be taking the story in a direction belied by the actual ending.
At any rate, the main story is mostly enough to carry the film. Strickland warned that the movie might drive some couples to divorce, and he's not wrong--his refined, elegant portrait of a lopsided BDSM relationship is enough to make anybody look twice at themselves or their partner. To be fair, younger sub Evelyn is not only selfish and demanding but boring as well, asking Cynthia to work through a single detailed scenario (Cynthia playing the cold, aloof mistress in fancy clothes and Evelyn her put-upon maid) day after day in exacting repetition, to the point where Evelyn has written out cue-cards and dialogue for both of them. (One instruction reads something along the lines of, "When I come to the door and ring the bell, make me wait somewhere between one minute and five, only no longer or I'll get bored and frustrated, but also don't open the door after only one minute because that's no fun either, and...") Not only is she "topping from the bottom" but, to make matters worse, Cynthia doesn't seem to enjoy the game at all, but goes along with it because she loves Evelyn. One starts to wonder who's really controlling whom.
This is a dense, observational film, with little spoken and much conveyed through images, reactions, and sound. It demands rigorous attention, patience, and interpretation. In other words, it demands study, just as the women in the film study their butterflies. Like those, both Evelyn and Cynthia are beautiful creatures pinned and trapped under glass, Evelyn by her desires and Cynthia by... Evelyn's desires. Restrained yet sensual, erotic and engrossing, The Duke of Burgundy is a bold and playful cinematic treatment of love, sex, and kink. But it will appeal to and resonate with anyone who's ever felt like half of an uneven pair. Or anybody looking for something they haven't seen before.
No trailer for this one either, but the clip below should give you an idea of the film. I'm pretty sure the movie has distribution, and anyway I'll bet it ends up on Netflix right next to Berberian Sound Studio.
That's it for AFI this year. I did go to one other movie, Turkish coming of age story The Blue Wave, but found it so utterly boring that I walked out halfway through, so it wouldn't be fair to review.
Festival recap:
Bad/boring: Thou Wast Mild and Lovely
Decent/good: A Most Violent Year, The Midnight Swim, Reality, Over Your Dead Body
Very good: Haemoo, A Hard Day, Faults, The Duke of Burgundy
Excellent: Song of the Sea, It Follows, Tu Dors Nicole
That said, the best movie I saw while the festival was going on wasn't even at the festival--Birdman. I don't know if that says more about the festival or Birdman, though.
I think of an event as a movie everyone is talking about before it comes out and then everyone is talking about after it's been out and they've seen it. So not like a surprise hit (like The Matrix) and not a big lead up and sort of tepid response (like TDKR imo but it's arguable). That's why I mentioned TDK. Lots of anticipation for that and post-screenings it was just a huge thing.
Not sure if Avatar or Titanic qualify. Can't remember if there was huge hype for those anymore.
I still think because of all the buzz about Ledger's performance, TDK was the most talked about movie since Return of the King came out. More than Avatar, The Avengers, or DKR... there was just an insane amount of pre and post release hype.
The movie is trying too hard to be cool, but it's streets behind. I thought it was a Roland Emmerich movie to begin with considering how much it's trying to be cool and "subversive"; in the first twenty minutes for instance you have something that feels written by committee as not to offend people; the gang members, riding around in a Ford Excursion with 24" pimped out rims, in L.A., are.....chinese? A bully is....some french kid who sounds like he isn't even french? Hancock is trying too hard to be washed up jerkstore, and the damage done would kill people (pretty sure he killed cops in the opening scene) but is ignored instead for just the $$$/PG-13 angle. On top of that Bateman's character, his usual straight laced guy he plays, is trying to make people just give away things for free because.....that's what Hollywood producers think should happen from companies? He's not really being a good PR guy or just a businessman with any real understanding of what he's doing, but he's the everyman so he's got to be right. Come on, brahs.
The special effects are very weak too for a 100 million dollar movie, considering this came out around the same time as Iron Man and Hulk, and as mentioned the shaky cam (and the freckle filter used to really show spots on everyone's face) is really annoying and pointless. Also, a lot of helicopter establishing shots. The story (which I heard had Scientology overtones) is fairly weak and goes to pretty convenient places just to keep the rapid pace going without being very interesting. I get the feeling they didn't even have a real story about Hancock played out. And just general banter and interactions people have with each other feel very forced and staged and well, dumb. A bank robber (some redneck white guy so it's easy to not like him, see?) with his henchmen are shooting at Hancock for like five minutes, and he picks them off one by one with speed and the guy is dumb enough to go "what's going on?!" Bro, really, bro?
I guess the only things that I appreciated was them sticking to the ending without pulling away at the very end in a much more Hollywood manner, and that it's a tight 90 minutes. There's some other quick things that made me perk up but on the whole are largely washed out in bad.
Good thing you made Breaking Bad after writing this, Vince Gilligan.
I watched Hancock on a flight from San Francisco to Wellington. This was probably ideal because I can't imagine any other situation where I would have sat through it, especially the third act when it flies off the rails.
The movie is trying too hard to be cool, but it's streets behind. I thought it was a Roland Emmerich movie to begin with considering how much it's trying to be cool and "subversive"; in the first twenty minutes for instance you have something that feels written by committee as not to offend people; the gang members, riding around in a Ford Excursion with 24" pimped out rims, in L.A., are.....chinese? A bully is....some french kid who sounds like he isn't even french? Hancock is trying too hard to be washed up jerkstore, and the damage done would kill people (pretty sure he killed cops in the opening scene) but is ignored instead for just the $$$/PG-13 angle. On top of that Bateman's character, his usual straight laced guy he plays, is trying to make people just give away things for free because.....that's what Hollywood producers think should happen from companies? He's not really being a good PR guy or just a businessman with any real understanding of what he's doing, but he's the everyman so he's got to be right. Come on, brahs.
The special effects are very weak too for a 100 million dollar movie, considering this came out around the same time as Iron Man and Hulk, and as mentioned the shaky cam (and the freckle filter used to really show spots on everyone's face) is really annoying and pointless. Also, a lot of helicopter establishing shots. The story (which I heard had Scientology overtones) is fairly weak and goes to pretty convenient places just to keep the rapid pace going without being very interesting. I get the feeling they didn't even have a real story about Hancock played out. And just general banter and interactions people have with each other feel very forced and staged and well, dumb. A bank robber (some redneck white guy so it's easy to not like him, see?) with his henchmen are shooting at Hancock for like five minutes, and he picks them off one by one with speed and the guy is dumb enough to go "what's going on?!" Bro, really, bro?
I guess the only things that I appreciated was them sticking to the ending without pulling away at the very end in a much more Hollywood manner, and that it's a tight 90 minutes. There's some other quick things that made me perk up but on the whole are largely washed out in bad.
Good thing you made Breaking Bad after writing this, Vince Gilligan.
Funny thing is, I'm pretty sure Hancock was a movie that started with what was supposedly a really crazy edgy script about a well-meaning but destructive superhero. The script floated around for like a decade with everyone agreeing it was good but no one willing to make it and then it got bought and extensively worked over and then we got the movie we got.
That's 'cause one of those is score (instrumental invented solely for the movie) and the other is soundtrack (existing music appropriated by a film, often in the interest of using its cultural connotations). It's incredibly difficult to write music for a comedy you'd want to listen to otherwise (Desplat's work with Wes Anderson, maybe?), but pretty easy to find neat counter-cultural music that won't age badly because it's already a few decades old when you use it.
I'll concede it's a silly comparison... but the point is when I was watching Dave I was like 'ack this music is terrible.' Something is grating to me about the kind of light orchestral music that you get in movies like Dave and Mrs. Doubtfire. Luckily I don't think you hear it much any more.
FantastikaBetting That The Levee Will HoldRegistered Userregular
Went and saw Whiplash tonight. I heard it was pretty good but wasn't totally sure what to expect. But I gotta say that it was pretty awesome. I think J.K. Simmons probably has every supporting actor award this year wrapped up after this. He is magnetic in it. In any given scene, his character has about 3 different layers going on. It's just great work. And Miles Teller more than matches him during the film. They're like a great jazz duo. A lot of give and take between them during all their scenes together. I have to single out the last band performance in the movie as well. There's so many awesome twists and turns in that sequence. It's amazing. Highest recommendation I can manage. One of the best movies of the year.
The movie is trying too hard to be cool, but it's streets behind. I thought it was a Roland Emmerich movie to begin with considering how much it's trying to be cool and "subversive"; in the first twenty minutes for instance you have something that feels written by committee as not to offend people; the gang members, riding around in a Ford Excursion with 24" pimped out rims, in L.A., are.....chinese? A bully is....some french kid who sounds like he isn't even french? Hancock is trying too hard to be washed up jerkstore, and the damage done would kill people (pretty sure he killed cops in the opening scene) but is ignored instead for just the $$$/PG-13 angle. On top of that Bateman's character, his usual straight laced guy he plays, is trying to make people just give away things for free because.....that's what Hollywood producers think should happen from companies? He's not really being a good PR guy or just a businessman with any real understanding of what he's doing, but he's the everyman so he's got to be right. Come on, brahs.
The special effects are very weak too for a 100 million dollar movie, considering this came out around the same time as Iron Man and Hulk, and as mentioned the shaky cam (and the freckle filter used to really show spots on everyone's face) is really annoying and pointless. Also, a lot of helicopter establishing shots. The story (which I heard had Scientology overtones) is fairly weak and goes to pretty convenient places just to keep the rapid pace going without being very interesting. I get the feeling they didn't even have a real story about Hancock played out. And just general banter and interactions people have with each other feel very forced and staged and well, dumb. A bank robber (some redneck white guy so it's easy to not like him, see?) with his henchmen are shooting at Hancock for like five minutes, and he picks them off one by one with speed and the guy is dumb enough to go "what's going on?!" Bro, really, bro?
I guess the only things that I appreciated was them sticking to the ending without pulling away at the very end in a much more Hollywood manner, and that it's a tight 90 minutes. There's some other quick things that made me perk up but on the whole are largely washed out in bad.
Good thing you made Breaking Bad after writing this, Vince Gilligan.
Funny thing is, I'm pretty sure Hancock was a movie that started with what was supposedly a really crazy edgy script about a well-meaning but destructive superhero. The script floated around for like a decade with everyone agreeing it was good but no one willing to make it and then it got bought and extensively worked over and then we got the movie we got.
The craziest thing about Hancock for me is that it outgrossed Iron Man worldwide in the same year.
The whole 'event movie' thing is also a cultural issue. I don't think Switzerland does event movies; you are unlikely to find people dressed up for the premiere of Star Wars or The Dark Knight, you're not going to have the sort of buzz that you seem to get in the US or other places. Switzerland, at least the German speaking part, also isn't too keen on genre fare, especially if the genre in question is sci-fi or fantasy. The closest you might have got are the Harry Potter films, because of the way kids went crazy for the whole HP thing, and you might get a couple of mates making an event out of a movie, but it'll be on a much, much smaller scale.
We are truly the Neutral Planet in some respects.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Posts
I dunno whether DKR fits the template of what I'm thinking about in my mind. It was huge, but it felt like a terrific movie, not the seismic pop culture thing that Burton's Batman felt like (to me, at least).
Some of it might be the age at which I experienced those movies. Or didn't experience them, as I've still not seen Avatar. I suspect a fifteen year old today might put the Hunger Games movies right up there, or the Twilight franchise.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
And we're missing the obvious one. Star Wars Episode 1. Im gonna go out on a limb and say that it was the most anticipated film of all time. A new Star Wars film 14 years the last one. people queued around the block to get into my cinema. There were people in costumes, mock lightsaber fights in the aisles and people of every age waiting to watch it with a sense of anitcipation I haven't seen anywhere else when it comes to a film.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I remember thinking to myself "what am I going to go and watch at the cinema when this series finishes?". I'll lump the LotR films with this as well for pretty much the same reasons.
Is it just me or does the movie look..cheap? I can't explain it properly, but it looks like it was shot in a different film than other movies. Reminds me of when I watched older movies in an HD set.
This is a Sandler movie on a lateral move, so it becomes a Kevin James movie where he just uses a lot of his friends, a lot who you'll recognize from King of Queens. And instead of a lot of product placement it's more just a big UFC and MMA promotional tool, with a really by the books story. Burned out teacher fights in MMA to raise money to save music program at his school because kids need the arts (and also Henry Winkler is 70 and going to be a dad, so double guilt and finger of shame for cutting such an important institution), and he learns how to love teaching again.
The school stuff is pretty weak, despite the kids actually being cast well, with the added bonus of the movie not really focusing on them for a wacky sidekick or whatever. The real highlights are the fighting and training stuff, which makes sure it does a checklist of all the big MMA moves but this also seems to be where banter is improvised, and you can sort of see that on screen. Winkler is actually doing a really strong role here, giving it 110% and you just can't scoff at him, even when he has to give a cliched speech or has a sad. And while a lot of the fighting basically centers around James taking punishment like he's Homer Simpson boxing, it's choreographed well enough and the film respects you enough to not have James just be an MMA savant.
It's a perfect plane movie, nothing you need to pay attention to but when you do it can entertain you. It reminds me a lot of the movie Fun Size, a film that is predictable and has a lot of mandated things to do, but is earnest in what it's doing.
Yeah her catwoman was the best part of a great movie for me. I mean I liked Keaton and Devito, but Returns is Catwoman's movie and she owns it. They even did the "Hero interacts with a villain and indirectly aids them in becoming a villain" thing better than Spiderman recently did with Electro.
pleasepaypreacher.net
CSI: Neptune High
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
Also, it's just not a very good movie.
Or more recently John Wick was an event. There is no right or wrong way to judge an "event" movie.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Not sure if Avatar or Titanic qualify. Can't remember if there was huge hype for those anymore.
It was ... sorry, what was I talking about? Right, Shadow Recruit. It was forgettable. The movie isn't like bad, but it is just mostly unmemorable. It's just dull but not dull enough to be really boring. Shit happens, occasionally it's mildly interesting but mostly it's just whatever. Nothing at all stands out about it. It maintains a rather low key, low energy tone for 90% of the movie, which is in strange contrast to the apparent seriousness of the bad thing they are fighting. And then suddenly in the last 15 minutes it randomly perks up into a fast-pased spy action thriller, covering more ground in 15 minutes then it did in the preceding 90. Though mostly at the expense of any sort of semi-grounded reality the rest of the film had sort of lived in.
It's got maybe one interesting facet where they show Jack Ryan as not-a-spy. He's physically capable to some extent but when he's got to go all Casino Royale on a bitch, I think they actually do a good job of establishing that it's plausible and showing him panicking and freaking the fuck out over it. It's a great beat the film then doesn't do much with other then go "Well, I guess your a badass action hero now" and then the end of the movie basically confirms this.
No one is bad in it, but no one is at all memorable in it either. If it comes on TV and you can't find the remote, you'll be fine but don't bother going out of your way.
Avatar was definitely an event, as was Avengers. Huge build up, huge expectations, everybody seeing it. All three Lord of the Rings films were similar. Titanic was actually a pretty slow burn if I remember correctly, with it kind of falling off at first and then a determined subset of people just. Kept. Going. One guy in my high school went eleven times. I remember switching between four radio stations playing that damn Celine Dion song. Titanic and Frozen have a lot in common.
For recent event films Avengers was one, the first Hobbit film, the first Hunger Games, most of the Harry Potters (but especially Goblet of Fire), nothing the last couple of years though.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Simpsons Movie too given its marketing blitz including turning every 7-11 into a Kwik-E-Mart.
And in saying this, I think you're being rather kind to the film.
I agree, and I could go on and on, but I already have before, many times, and I no longer have the inclination or energy to do so.
I will say, however, that I find it a very disappointing film, as many great elements exist in the film that could have combined to create something truly amazing, possibly even better than TDK. It's mediocrity is more disappointing because the film is lesser than a sum of its parts.
Then again, I feel much the same way about Interstellar.
First up, Faults.
An interesting exercise in tone, Faults starts out funny, with the comic antics of the severely pathetic Dr. Ansel Roth (Leland Orser), and gradually becomes something much, much darker. Dr. Roth's mustache and dress make him look very much like Donald Sutherland in the 70s (Don't Look Now, Invasion of the Body Snatchers), and he comports himself with a rumpled dignity even when trying to scam a $5 meal out of a hotel restaurant. He's fallen on hard times, but he used to be one of the top "deprogrammers," gentlemen who specialized in the 80s in kidnapping people who had fallen under the influence of cults and using techniques of mental manipulation in order to get them to renounce their potentially dangerous belief in "the group." As the story begins, Roth is approached by a middle-aged couple who would like to hire him to deprogram their daughter (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who is in this movie because she's married to the writer/director), whose life is being controlled by a cult called Faults. To say that Roth is underprepared for such a challenge would be an understatement, but hey, he needs the money. The rest of the movie takes place in an anonymous motel room, and is essentially an extended test of Roth's own will and faith in his methods. Could the supernatural powers Winstead's character attributes to Faults be real?
This is mostly a two-hander, although a few character actors pop up in supporting roles (including Lance Reddick, who post-The Wire seems to always be hired for his ability to portray menacing intelligence), and so it would be utterly awful if Orser and Winstead weren't up to the task. Thankfully, they are and then some, both performers throwing themselves heedlessly into very tricky roles and finding great success there. The technical aspects of the film are all quite good, particularly the editing and smart, restrained script, which keep up the pace without getting too repetitive (something a lot of independent films have problems with). My main problem with the movie is the twist ending, one of those that's obvious if you think about the premise for five seconds but also one of those twists that needs a lot of groundwork in order for the movie to sell it; the result is that the end drags quite badly. Still, it's an interesting and entertaining story, well-told--so much so, in fact, that the movie might have been better off playing its narrative straight through to a less complex but equally dramatically satisfying conclusion.
There's no trailer out yet for this film, but it does have distribution and will be released in early March of next year.
Last but not least, The Duke of Burgundy, the new movie by Peter Strickland (Berberian Sound Studio).
One of the audience members in the Q&A for this movie called it "an homage to a genre that never existed," and that seems apt, although Strickland said he drew inspiration from filmmakers like Jess Franco and certain exploitation movies of the '60s. Certainly I've never seen anything quite like it, even in structure, as the movie alternates between scenes of a relationship between Cynthia (Sidse Babett Knudsen) and Evelyn (Chiara D'Anna), scientific lectures on the behavior and identifying marks of butterflies and moths, and expressionistic shots and montages of light, shadow, and insects. It's all supposed to mirror or act as metaphor for the central relationship, but the connections were a little obscure for me at times, particularly in the climatic montage, which seemed to be taking the story in a direction belied by the actual ending.
At any rate, the main story is mostly enough to carry the film. Strickland warned that the movie might drive some couples to divorce, and he's not wrong--his refined, elegant portrait of a lopsided BDSM relationship is enough to make anybody look twice at themselves or their partner. To be fair, younger sub Evelyn is not only selfish and demanding but boring as well, asking Cynthia to work through a single detailed scenario (Cynthia playing the cold, aloof mistress in fancy clothes and Evelyn her put-upon maid) day after day in exacting repetition, to the point where Evelyn has written out cue-cards and dialogue for both of them. (One instruction reads something along the lines of, "When I come to the door and ring the bell, make me wait somewhere between one minute and five, only no longer or I'll get bored and frustrated, but also don't open the door after only one minute because that's no fun either, and...") Not only is she "topping from the bottom" but, to make matters worse, Cynthia doesn't seem to enjoy the game at all, but goes along with it because she loves Evelyn. One starts to wonder who's really controlling whom.
This is a dense, observational film, with little spoken and much conveyed through images, reactions, and sound. It demands rigorous attention, patience, and interpretation. In other words, it demands study, just as the women in the film study their butterflies. Like those, both Evelyn and Cynthia are beautiful creatures pinned and trapped under glass, Evelyn by her desires and Cynthia by... Evelyn's desires. Restrained yet sensual, erotic and engrossing, The Duke of Burgundy is a bold and playful cinematic treatment of love, sex, and kink. But it will appeal to and resonate with anyone who's ever felt like half of an uneven pair. Or anybody looking for something they haven't seen before.
No trailer for this one either, but the clip below should give you an idea of the film. I'm pretty sure the movie has distribution, and anyway I'll bet it ends up on Netflix right next to Berberian Sound Studio.
--
That's it for AFI this year. I did go to one other movie, Turkish coming of age story The Blue Wave, but found it so utterly boring that I walked out halfway through, so it wouldn't be fair to review.
Festival recap:
Bad/boring: Thou Wast Mild and Lovely
Decent/good: A Most Violent Year, The Midnight Swim, Reality, Over Your Dead Body
Very good: Haemoo, A Hard Day, Faults, The Duke of Burgundy
Excellent: Song of the Sea, It Follows, Tu Dors Nicole
That said, the best movie I saw while the festival was going on wasn't even at the festival--Birdman. I don't know if that says more about the festival or Birdman, though.
I still think because of all the buzz about Ledger's performance, TDK was the most talked about movie since Return of the King came out. More than Avatar, The Avengers, or DKR... there was just an insane amount of pre and post release hype.
The movie is trying too hard to be cool, but it's streets behind. I thought it was a Roland Emmerich movie to begin with considering how much it's trying to be cool and "subversive"; in the first twenty minutes for instance you have something that feels written by committee as not to offend people; the gang members, riding around in a Ford Excursion with 24" pimped out rims, in L.A., are.....chinese? A bully is....some french kid who sounds like he isn't even french? Hancock is trying too hard to be washed up jerkstore, and the damage done would kill people (pretty sure he killed cops in the opening scene) but is ignored instead for just the $$$/PG-13 angle. On top of that Bateman's character, his usual straight laced guy he plays, is trying to make people just give away things for free because.....that's what Hollywood producers think should happen from companies? He's not really being a good PR guy or just a businessman with any real understanding of what he's doing, but he's the everyman so he's got to be right. Come on, brahs.
The special effects are very weak too for a 100 million dollar movie, considering this came out around the same time as Iron Man and Hulk, and as mentioned the shaky cam (and the freckle filter used to really show spots on everyone's face) is really annoying and pointless. Also, a lot of helicopter establishing shots. The story (which I heard had Scientology overtones) is fairly weak and goes to pretty convenient places just to keep the rapid pace going without being very interesting. I get the feeling they didn't even have a real story about Hancock played out. And just general banter and interactions people have with each other feel very forced and staged and well, dumb. A bank robber (some redneck white guy so it's easy to not like him, see?) with his henchmen are shooting at Hancock for like five minutes, and he picks them off one by one with speed and the guy is dumb enough to go "what's going on?!" Bro, really, bro?
I guess the only things that I appreciated was them sticking to the ending without pulling away at the very end in a much more Hollywood manner, and that it's a tight 90 minutes. There's some other quick things that made me perk up but on the whole are largely washed out in bad.
Good thing you made Breaking Bad after writing this, Vince Gilligan.
You know what hasn't aged well? 90's comedy soundtracks.
Although there are exceptions....
Funny thing is, I'm pretty sure Hancock was a movie that started with what was supposedly a really crazy edgy script about a well-meaning but destructive superhero. The script floated around for like a decade with everyone agreeing it was good but no one willing to make it and then it got bought and extensively worked over and then we got the movie we got.
That's 'cause one of those is score (instrumental invented solely for the movie) and the other is soundtrack (existing music appropriated by a film, often in the interest of using its cultural connotations). It's incredibly difficult to write music for a comedy you'd want to listen to otherwise (Desplat's work with Wes Anderson, maybe?), but pretty easy to find neat counter-cultural music that won't age badly because it's already a few decades old when you use it.
[/pedant]
We are truly the Neutral Planet in some respects.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods