• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

The Last Movie(s) You Watched... (quick one or two sentence reviews)

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,379
Trophy Points
228
DigModiFicaTion said:
Jurassic Park (1993)
...I don't like any of the actors or their acting performances...

pcvss.jpg


  ;)

Italianamerican (1974)
Martin Scorsese wisely preserves a moment in Italian-American cultural history through interviews with his parents Catherine and Charles. Scorsese films them in long unbroken takes and when his parents (mostly his mother) can spin yarns this good about the experiences of first generation immigrants, too much editing would just get in the way. The best bits are his mum showing him how to make meatballs, criticizing his teeth and bossing about him, his father and his crew.


Klaus (2019)
The handcrafted animation style is magical in this Netflix Santa origin story. The characters, comedy and story didn't quite hit the usual Disney/Pixar peaks for me and I'm not sure it would hold the attention of younger kids.

 

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
3,450
Reaction score
1,161
Trophy Points
118
TM2YC said:
I'm not sure it would hold the attention of younger kids.


I’m not sure what you consider younger kids but mine are seven and loved it.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,379
Trophy Points
228
Moe_Syzlak said:
TM2YC said:
I'm not sure it would hold the attention of younger kids.

I’m not sure what you consider younger kids but mine are seven and loved it.

Glad to hear that :) .
 

Duragizer

Well-known member
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
63
Trophy Points
63
Zamros said:
Jojo Rabbit is one of the best films I ever saw and you should see it too. I have spoken.

*looks up movie*

*plot synopsis looks alright*

*Scarlett Johansson's in it*

D5rn5vj.gif
 

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
3,450
Reaction score
1,161
Trophy Points
118
The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel. Horrible, typical Hollywood ridiculousness. The Chipmunks are male so of course they have to be incompetent and irresponsible. But the new female Chippettes are better performers and more responsible at everything. I mean the Chippettes never fail at anything. They are just superpowered with no explanation. I mean maybe if they were descendants of someone we know to be superior chipmunks i could buy it.
 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
TM2YC said:
The Report (2019)
 The story is engrossing but the limited sets look very cheap (especially congress) and I didn't like the cinematography either.

Yeah, this is not a movie you watch for the cinematography.  I can't fault the sets though, as it's essentially accurate.
09committee_xp-articleLarge.jpg

There's just not a lot to see.  Lines of people facing lines of people.  The offices are just normal offices, too.
90

I guess that Buddha is interesting.  I don't remember that being in the film.

The amazing thing is how the story isn't much to look at, but how the weight of it keeps you in the film.  Daniel Jones (the real analyst played by Driver) is an amazing underdog hero who sacrifices so much to do the right thing.  We rarely get stories like this anymore that aren't superhero movies.  I hope everyone gives this film a shot, it's a great vaccine for films like Zero Dark Thirty.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,379
Trophy Points
228
mnkykungfu said:
TM2YC said:
The Report (2019)
the limited sets look very cheap (especially congress)

can't fault the sets though, as it's essentially accurate... The offices are just normal offices...

Oh, I thought that was supposed to be the grander chamber that was on TV in the impeachment hearings recently, I didn't realise it was a smaller area. That it was lit in darkness (which surely isn't correct? shouldn't it bright office lighting?) added to the feeling they were trying to hide the corners of the set. This ill informed Brit :D is glad to be corrected, thanks.

That combined with the main setting being a 3/4 wall flat box probably gave the impression of cheapness. Of course the minimal design of that claustrophobic set worked well for dramatic reasons.

mnkykungfu said:
I hope everyone gives this film a shot, it's a great vaccine for films like Zero Dark Thirty.

How so? 'Zero Dark Thirty' was a great movie on this subject too.
 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
TM2YC even at the time that ZD30 came out, there was heavy criticism for its narrative.  It's a long, complicated subject to get into here, but essentially, movies in the US can be made with the assistance/blessing of the U.S. Department of Defense, or without.  They have a whole office to co-ordinate with the media.  If a TV/film-maker co-ordinates with them, then they get access to filming locations, equipment, personnel, even privileged information.  But this requires script approval by the DoD.  If they don't like how they're portrayed, and the film-makers insist on keeping it in the script, then DoD stops co-operating.  There was such an unprecedented level of cooperation between Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, and the DoD/CIA that there was actually a Senate investigation afterwards to determine if the CIA had breached protocol.

This begs the question: how can you present a fair and unbiased portrayal of controversial (possibly criminal) activities when the perpetrators of those activities have final approval over how they're presented?  In this particular case, it leads to the ZD30's CIA-approved narrative that their torture program was a necessary evil which lead to information which allowed the US to track down Osama Bin Laden.  Even at the time of the film's release, we knew this to be false, which many critics (including Pulitzer-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald) actively spoke out against.  Eventually, the controversy over presenting the movie in a docudrama style as "based on true events" while completely fabricating the narrative around the US' torture program tanked the film's Oscar chances.  Initially glowing praise meant it lead Oscar nominations.  But by awards time, it lost all of them except for Sound Editing.

The Torture Report actually has some scenes showing this narrative of "torture is a necessary evil" being propagandized to the American public through ZD30 and the TV series 24.  I'd add that you have to question a lot of other Hollywood films that have cozy DoD relationships, notably films by Michael Bay, Pete Berg, and Clint Eastwood.  They all often let jingoism leak into the way they supposedly present things as just 'the way it was'.  Ridley Scott might be the best example of towing the line.  He has a close DoD relationship, and I think he manages to convince them they're being well-represented while still telling stories that show some of the negative aspects.  Then there's Oliver Stone, who has a very contentious relationship with the DoD.  He often has to limit his filming locations or aspects of what he films, because he argues with the DoD so much.  So he ends up becoming one of these filmmakers who draw more on personal research and experience, even though he does attempt to co-ordinate with the DoD and see what assistance he can get from them.
 

DigModiFicaTion

DᴉმWoqᴉԷᴉcɑꓕᴉou
Staff member
Faneditor
Messages
8,607
Reaction score
3,505
Trophy Points
168
Dark Phoenix (2019)
Just like the comics and the cartoon, this story just isn't worth the investment. A bad movie is made tolerable due to the intensity of the score. The violence was pretty shocking for a PG-13 film. Sure there wasn't a ton of blood, but tons of characters get blasted and hacked to bits. The main problem with this story is that there isn't a clear antagonist. This is basically an alternate universe Captain Marvel, but 10 times worse. Oh, and how have Charles and Erik not aged? Aren't they're supposed to be Stewart and McKellan from X-Men ~10 years after this movie which is supposed to take place in the 90's? They should have just stopped after Days of Future Past. Thankfully with the merger this series my be laid to rest. They'll probably just reboot it though.....4/10
 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
DigModiFicaTion said:
Dark Phoenix (2019)
They'll probably just reboot it though....

Yeah, the multi-verse theory kicked off in SM: Far From Home provides the MCU with a good way to merge the FF/X-men characters into their universe.  "Alternate versions" provides a good excuse to re-cast and re-envision characters, too.  We'll see how it goes with Deadpool 3, which is a natural starting point due to his comic stories.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,869
Reaction score
2,379
Trophy Points
228
mnkykungfu said:
even at the time that ZD30 came out, there was heavy criticism for its narrative... etc

Yes I remember it getting criticized during the awards season campaign but I never understood the argument that ZD30 was condoning torture, excusing it, giving people a pass etc. The portrayal of so called "enhanced interrogation" in the film's opening scenes is totally harrowing. It shows it taking years to get Bin Laden because the info they obtained is a voluminous pile of nonsense.

I don't think a filmmaker working with official channels necessarily means a film is going easy on the government, or non cooperation means it's more truthful. e.g. Oliver Stone is the poster boy for presenting fiction as fact (not that I don't love some of his films). Plus it's the US DoD, not Russia or China's DoD, where the slightest criticism is not going to be tolerated.

mnkykungfu said:
the multi-verse theory kicked off in SM: Far From Home provides the MCU with a good way to merge the FF/X-men characters into their universe.

Oh, so you're saying I should actually make an effort to see that movie then :D .

The Spy Who Came In from the Cold (1965)
Richard Burton stars as a British/Russian double-agent in this moody B&W John le Carré adaptation. There are some great double-crosses and lots of grey area around how much of Burton's character's flaws are his cover act and how much is just him falling apart. Like most le Carré films, this the un-glamorous, corrupt and depressing opposite to the James Bond fantasy.

 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
TM2YC said:
Yes I remember it getting criticized during the awards season campaign but I never understood the argument that ZD30 was condoning torture, excusing it, giving people a pass etc. The portrayal of so called "enhanced interrogation" in the film's opening scenes is totally harrowing. It shows it taking years to get Bin Laden because the info they obtained is a voluminous pile of nonsense.

I don't think a filmmaker working with official channels necessarily means a film is going easy on the government, or non cooperation means it's more truthful. e.g. Oliver Stone is the poster boy for presenting fiction as fact (not that I don't love some of his films). Plus it's the US DoD, not Russia or China's DoD, where the slightest criticism is not going to be tolerated.

I've actually been emailing recently with a host of the podcast Filmspotting about this.  He also had the take that because the torture was portrayed so graphically, the film wasn't "condoning" it.  I'm with the group that disagrees.  As that critic himself noted, not one character in that film expresses doubt that the torture is necessary, or verbally condemns it.  (Despite many agents IRL requesting transfers out of the program or leaking to the press to expose it.)  As I said, the film portrays it as brutal, but necessary and effective.  THAT's the issue.  I won't take up any more of the space here harping on ZD30, but for those who are interested, I dug up an interview from back in the day that concisely hits most of the main details about why the film is problematic. 
The host is, of course, trying to provoke newsbaity overstatements, but the main points are all valid.

As far as SM:FFH, it's not a bad movie.  Definitely one to watch on the big screen for a fun Friday, but worth watching anyway as long as you're a fan of Holland's Spidey.  Otoh, if you don't like many Marvel movies, I don't think there's anything in it integral to the Fox merger.  Don't watch it reluctantly or you'll just resent it.
 

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
3,450
Reaction score
1,161
Trophy Points
118
Joker. I can’t say it was bad and Phoenix was certainly captivating. But it felt unnecessary in the worst ways. It is obviously very derivative but seemingly without any awareness of what those films were about. I won’t go into films like Taxi Driver other than to say they were commentaries on their time, they were important artistic statements about the time they existed. By setting Joker in the 70s it becomes an homage that fully misses the point. There’s plenty to sink your teeth into around those same themes in the modern age, so again the decision to not set the film in the present is baffling. This movie at best misses the point; at worst, it seems to have the potential to be wildly misinterpreted as something like Fight Club has.
 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
Moe_Syzlak said:
Joker. I can’t say it was bad and Phoenix was certainly captivating. But it felt unnecessary in the worst ways. It is obviously very derivative but seemingly without any awareness of what those films were about. I won’t go into films like Taxi Driver other than to say they were commentaries on their time, they were important artistic statements about the time they existed. By setting Joker in the 70s it becomes an homage that fully misses the point. There’s plenty to sink your teeth into around those same themes in the modern age, so again the decision to not set the film in the present is baffling. This movie at best misses the point; at worst, it seems to have the potential to be wildly misinterpreted as something like Fight Club has.

If you think so much has changed since the '70s that Joker's themes aren't "important artistic statements about the time...", then you've been living in a very different world than me.  I think the wave of sympathy and support for what's supposed to be a villain is predicated on people's recognition of a callous society where the system only works for the rich and the Haves think they can make their own rules, treat people however they want.  It's a great way to take the relevant parts of themes from Taxi Driver and King of Comedy and merge them with ideas from the comics The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns.
The film would actually be set around New York's entry into the '80s, but the time period isn't so important.  It's just an homage.  (And if you think that's derivative, you should watch a Tarantino film sometime.)  It could easily have been Detroit in the '60s.  The film doesn't miss the point at all, although some who view it sure do.  But that's okay, not all art will resonate with everyone.  Fight Club is a stone cold classic, and a film that speaks to me far more than anything by David Lean or Steve McQueen, for example.  But someone is welcome to love films by those guys...helps me to find my tribe. :)
 

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
3,450
Reaction score
1,161
Trophy Points
118
mnkykungfu said:
Moe_Syzlak said:
Joker. I can’t say it was bad and Phoenix was certainly captivating. But it felt unnecessary in the worst ways. It is obviously very derivative but seemingly without any awareness of what those films were about. I won’t go into films like Taxi Driver other than to say they were commentaries on their time, they were important artistic statements about the time they existed. By setting Joker in the 70s it becomes an homage that fully misses the point. There’s plenty to sink your teeth into around those same themes in the modern age, so again the decision to not set the film in the present is baffling. This movie at best misses the point; at worst, it seems to have the potential to be wildly misinterpreted as something like Fight Club has.

If you think so much has changed since the '70s that Joker's themes aren't "important artistic statements about the time...", then you've been living in a very different world than me.  I think the wave of sympathy and support for what's supposed to be a villain is predicated on people's recognition of a callous society where the system only works for the rich and the Haves think they can make their own rules, treat people however they want.  It's a great way to take the relevant parts of themes from Taxi Driver and King of Comedy and merge them with ideas from the comics The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns.
The film would actually be set around New York's entry into the '80s, but the time period isn't so important.  It's just an homage.  (And if you think that's derivative, you should watch a Tarantino film sometime.)  It could easily have been Detroit in the '60s.  The film doesn't miss the point at all, although some who view it sure do.  But that's okay, not all art will resonate with everyone.  Fight Club is a stone cold classic, and a film that speaks to me far more than anything by David Lean or Steve McQueen, for example.  But someone is welcome to love films by those guys...helps me to find my tribe. :)

I think you should reread my post. I very clearly state themes which those 70s films explore are very much still prevalent today which is why NOT setting it in the present seems to miss the point of the original 70s films which it pays homage. And I love Fight Club. But not because Tyler Durden is some hero the way some incels and alt-righters do. Joker feels to me like someone made a movie that worships Travis Bickel in the way those folks worship Durden.
 

Jrzag42

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
3,997
Reaction score
1,016
Trophy Points
138
Zamros said:
The Bee Movie is a movie that exists.

I used to have a shirt with the entire Bee Movie script back when it was a meme.
 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
Moe_Syzlak said:
I think you should reread my post. I very clearly state themes which those 70s films explore are very much still prevalent today which is why NOT setting it in the present seems to miss the point of the original 70s films which it pays homage. And I love Fight Club. But not because Tyler Durden is some hero the way some incels and alt-righters do. Joker feels to me like someone made a movie that worships Travis Bickel in the way those folks worship Durden.

Does a movie have to be set in the present to speak to the present?  Shakespeare is relevant today, as are futuristic sci-fi like ...haha...let's say, 1984.  A Joker origin story would clearly be set many years back.  DC did a Joker which was "current" and I'm good, thanks.  I think they found a way to lend a unique style to this version of the Joker which allows it to not immediately be dissed by everyone as "not as good as Heath Ledger".  And it still speaks to today.  Film homage+comics reference+modern commentary= win-win. 

As far as people worshiping Bickel, I think it was people cheering on a person that made a stand and "did something" when others seemed not to.  That kind of vigilantism is dicey.  Everyone thinks their own actions are justified, from Lincoln to Hitler.  One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.  The Batman films have already shown that both Batman and Joker are vigilantes who inspire followers.  This film sets that up.  I applaud it for making it believable that anyone would follow a deranged maniac.  But that's not the same as the film worshiping him.  Every character in the film that's not just part of a mob clearly comes out against the Joker by the end.  His actions eventually lose everyone's sympathy, as he loses Arthur.  The film is a tragedy, not a comedy.  It's asking us to understand the villains in our society as fellow humans, actually to be more human to everyone.  But that's not the same as condoning their actions.  Bit of a big ask for today's movie-going audience, I guess.
 

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
3,450
Reaction score
1,161
Trophy Points
118
mnkykungfu said:
Moe_Syzlak said:
I think you should reread my post. I very clearly state themes which those 70s films explore are very much still prevalent today which is why NOT setting it in the present seems to miss the point of the original 70s films which it pays homage. And I love Fight Club. But not because Tyler Durden is some hero the way some incels and alt-righters do. Joker feels to me like someone made a movie that worships Travis Bickel in the way those folks worship Durden.

Does a movie have to be set in the present to speak to the present?  Shakespeare is relevant today, as are futuristic sci-fi like ...haha...let's say, 1984.  A Joker origin story would clearly be set many years back.  DC did a Joker which was "current" and I'm good, thanks.  I think they found a way to lend a unique style to this version of the Joker which allows it to not immediately be dissed by everyone as "not as good as Heath Ledger".  And it still speaks to today.  Film homage+comics reference+modern commentary= win-win. 

As far as people worshiping Bickel, I think it was people cheering on a person that made a stand and "did something" when others seemed not to.  That kind of vigilantism is dicey.  Everyone thinks their own actions are justified, from Lincoln to Hitler.  One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.  The Batman films have already shown that both Batman and Joker are vigilantes who inspire followers.  This film sets that up.  I applaud it for making it believable that anyone would follow a deranged maniac.  But that's not the same as the film worshiping him.  Every character in the film that's not just part of a mob clearly comes out against the Joker by the end.  His actions eventually lose everyone's sympathy, as he loses Arthur.  The film is a tragedy, not a comedy.  It's asking us to understand the villains in our society as fellow humans, actually to be more human to everyone.  But that's not the same as condoning their actions.  Bit of a big ask for today's movie-going audience, I guess.

We obviously won’t agree and that’s fine. I’m glad you enjoyed it. This Esquire article basically sums up my feelings on how Joker missed the mark if you’re interested in more on my take. But I don’t think we should derail this thread any further. I’ll only add I think it should’ve been a product of its time. I don’t think Taxi Driver would’ve been as effective had it been set in postwar 40s as opposed to postwar 70s. And I don’t think Joker is as effective by not being a product of its time as we have different realities today than we had 40 years ago.
 
Top Bottom