2024 MOVIES DISCUSSION THREAD

[Contentious C]

Really, almost any of the the non-theatricals are better than the theatrical, and there are a few.  The voiceovers would make sense from a "doing a noir like a noir" sense, but it's truly the nadir of tell instead of show with respect to execution, as we all seem to agree.  If I'd known the old Blu-ray release would have 5 discs with every separate version, I would have picked that up, but I've had a DVD copy for years.

I think the first time I saw the later versions, I had seen the first 20 minutes or so and then managed to skip the infamous unicorn scene before watching the rest of the film.  I still feel like it might be better that way, with more ambiguity about Deckard's status. 

Of course all this led me to go through my DVDs, which I have routinely ignored for about 10 years.  Turns out I have the Final & the Director's Cut as separate purchases.  And I had a HELL of a lot of DVDs purloined from various times and places; I used to feel bad about that, being the quick-turnaround Netflix abuser that I was in the olden days of 3-discs-at-a-time, but given how completely awful studios have become about physical media, I'm sort of happy I have some of the stuff I do.  Children of a Lesser God hasn't been released in years on anything besides DVD, nor has In the Bedroom (though it's easy to find on MID), and Shine is basically impossible to find nowadays (probably due to music licensing).  Those are all probably due for a rewatch.

Edited January 8 by Contentious C

[Technico Support]

I like the VO for the "noir" reasons, and I believe Deckard is human because it ruins the story if he's a replicant.  I've lost track of the different cuts and have no idea what the "Final Cut" even is.  At this rate, there should be a streaming cut where you check/uncheck the stuff you like or don't like before the film starts, and it shows you the version you'd want to see.  For me, it's:

VO - yes

Unicorn shit or anything that makes it obvious Deckard is a replicant - no

Shining flyover - no (just end with the doors closing)

 

[Curt McGirt]

If the Director's and Final are different then I've seen one of the two. I think Director's is it. Whatever the cheapo DVD is (you know the kind, cardboard case, plastic clip for the cover) that doesn't have the voiceover. 

I don't care about Deckard being a Replicant. That's what Ridley wanted anyway, right? To me it just means he's self-aware of his own lifespan and you wonder about the ambiguity of his future. It doesn't spoil the movie for me. 

[GuerrillaMonsoon]

Saw Iron Claw last night.

Pretty much agree with everything @Tabe said about it.

The pacing felt like a Royal Rumble where the ring fills with midcarders and you're just waiting for a big name to turn up and clean house. Just kept building the narrative of Kevin winning the NWA title that really seemed irrelevant to the main story for way too long and then like an hour in its like, well, better start killing off Von Erich kids.

[Technico Support]

19 hours ago, Curt McGirt said:

I don't care about Deckard being a Replicant. That's what Ridley wanted anyway, right? To me it just means he's self-aware of his own lifespan and you wonder about the ambiguity of his future. It doesn't spoil the movie for me.

For me, Deckard being human while the Batty is more "alive" than him in every way is the whole point.  "More human than human" and all that.  Deckard being a replicant is too cute by half, some lame Shymalan shit.

"Have you ever performed that test on yourself?" is supposed to be an insult to how cold-hearted and lacking empathy Deckard is.  It shouldn't be a hint at a plot twist.

Edited January 9 by Technico Support

[Curt McGirt]

Or it could just be a burn on how lesser he is functioning for what he's supposed to. I dunno. I'll pontificate more when I'm off my phone.

[Contentious C]

OK, OK, OK, fine, I'll drag myself into this to work both sides.

The ambiguity really should have been the point, since the whole film is drenched in that same ambiguity for literally every other meatbag walking the planet in that 2019.  Are any of them really alive, or are they just algorithms being herded from place to place like good little automatons to buy their Coca-Colas and other earthly delights? 

Making Deckard firmly human or firmly replicant defeats the purpose of either one, and cuts the number of interesting questions in half, at least.  His interactions with Rachael are coded differently depending on how you read him: if he's human, maybe he's a fetishist, or maybe he sees her as 'less-than' no matter what he tells himself (thus the scenes where he's rough with her), or maybe because he's a real boy, that's why he can really love.  Or if he's a replicant, then maybe his attraction to her is his true self outing in ways he can't admit to himself yet - the kind of reading Ridley Scott almost certainly intended, but then one wonders if that's just a form of "programming" within him/them, and whether that cheapens their relationship.  Then again, what's the difference in either case: is it a type of programming no matter who feels it?  Sure, you can still *pose* these questions no matter his status, but they are endlessly twisty if there is no *answer* to his status.

Similarly, there are Roy's choices, and they have entirely different consequences that are probably richer if Deckard isn't assigned to one category or the other.  Does he save him because he needs to prove he can be better than the prejudice he's lived through?  Does he do it because he's programmed to save humans who are helpless and just doesn't consciously know it?  Does he do it because he has just enough free will to say, "Fuck it" and do whatever the Hell he wants with his final moments?  This may be the one time where Deckard being potentially human is arguably a little less powerful than potentially replicant.  Saving another replicant, even one unaware of it and one who was trying to kill him, is a first-rate, Grade-A "fuck you" to the powers that be: "You may be as weak as they are, you may be misguided, you may be wrong for hunting me, but I'm going to do for you what no one ever did for me: I'm going to give you a chance to choose."

I'm not saying anything other critics haven't said for years (at least since the other cuts started dropping and there was some consternation about which was the intended message), but this is probably as clear a case of where "death of the author/creator" is a valuable tool for examining the work.  Fuck what Ridley Scott wanted to say about Deckard; what does Blade Runner tell you about you?

Edited January 9 by Contentious C

[Curt McGirt]

Well damn. I'm not gonna try and follow THAT.

[odessasteps]

I've read so many academic papers on Blade Runner over the years.... prob in the top 5 at least of Sci Fi movies, along with 2001, Metropolis, Alien (as discussed here recently) and .... not sure what the 5th would be? Solaris? Day the Earth Stood Still? Forbidden Planet? (Not counting anime or it'd prob be Akira) 

[Contentious C]

Stalker and/or Solaris probably warrant it, but penetration into society is always a concern: partly because Tarkovsky was nuts and seemed to enjoy making his movies as opaque as possible, partly because they're Russian.

I'd wager Planet of the Apes has probably received as much attention as anything else, given its particular place and time, sociologically, but it's not like I do research on that, nor would I expect it to be as rich a topic today (doesn't help that the new movies are kinda boring and almost intentionally surface-level).

The Terminator probably deserves just as much textual criticism and analysis as the others.  If I ever did video essays, I think I'd probably pit Blade Runner, Alien, and Terminator against each other to try to argue for and against each as the Sci-Fi GOAT.  Could be fun.

[odessasteps]

I don’t remember a lot of film criticism about Apes, at least in the 90s.

ive read a ton of stuff about 1950s invasion sci fi. I did forget Body Snatchers. You can double dip and include the 70s remake in that. 

I’ve been told the Matrix is the glaring omission from my lists. 

TV would likely be an interesting list too, prob topped by Trek and Twlight Zone and eventually X Files and Buffy. Both were still on when I was in grad school, so I can’t speak to them, academically. 

Edited January 11 by odessasteps

[Contentious C]

I guess The Matrix makes sense *now*, but that's, in many respects, an "advent of social media/video essayists" phenomenon.  It was that first movie to blend big ideas and palatable action just when blogs and whatnot were beginning to proliferate, but even in their own catalog, it wasn't new.  I mean, if you wanted to dig into the Wachowskis making trans narratives, you can just look one film back at Bound and it's all right there.  The only difference between that and The Matrix is bombast and kung fu.

Anyway.  Here's a bunch of highly unpleasant viewing experiences of one form or another.

Speak (2004) - Well, this puts to bed the idea Kristen Stewart could only act post-Twilight. If anything, you wish she'd been less credible and believable, because, cheese & rice, does this hit like a freight train sometimes. Not the first movie to recommend for a fan of hers, especially if (like me) you know a real-life instance of this subject matter.  Kinda interesting to see even this much of Columbus in a movie, at least to me, having spent a bit of time there. There are instances when the production choices are a minus, particularly with some of the fade-outs and music choices that make this feel just a little too afterschool-special for its own good. But Elizabeth Perkins and Steve Zahn bring it, too, so it isn't just one star outworking literally everybody else in every shot (even if it is close sometimes).  Still a decent enough movie, though.

Lady Macbeth - The performances are largely excellent, but titling this as such is a double-edged sword if there ever was one: who knows if it draws eyeballs if it isn't called Lady Macbeth, but it also gives away the game at nearly every stage.

At times, it's a little difficult to quite understand why *this* particular instance of fucked-up social hierarchy, misogyny, and power struggle is noteworthy: merely because it rises to murder? Things like this, stories like this, are probably still happening all over the world today, since arranged marriages are still a thing and women being treated as property is also still very much a thing. Are we supposed to care about this because the main character is White? Because the people she abuses aren't? Practically everyone who gets notable screen time is a hypocrite and a liar, even the seemingly innocent, who lie through silence as much as anyone else lies with their tongue. So it's a bit of a mixed bag: well-done, but hard to know why this was supposed to say something a thousand other things hadn't already said at least as well.

I guess a lot of people just wanted to stare at Florence Pugh's ass.

Sorcerer - Shout out to both JoBlo and Jeremy Sockman for putting this on my radar.  I'm not sure the hallucinatory sequences towards the end work for me in their entirety; the cut to such a wildly different landscape on an island otherwise ensconced in foliage is so jarring that it just feels like a bit of a cheat. But, it's quite possibly the only thing in the film that does cheat.

The most pernicious demon in existence is the voice that says things can change for the better. Of course, the real genius of the storytelling is that it sets up the audience to believe there's no way to go but up for these men, but the bottom is never truly plumbed. There's always another layer of degradation to find, an endless swamp of the soul to catch them. If anything, the suicides and accidents are kindnesses, with enough distance to understand them.  Enough has been made of the practical effects (and their sheer gonzo insanity) that I don't see any need to belabor that point, except to say it's a good thing they don't make movies like this anymore, and it's also a shame they don't make movies like this anymore, because, even in an inherently inauthentic medium, some things can't be faked.

Now, let me go the rest of my life without ever watching this again.  That said, you damn sure need to watch it.  Kinda weird, though: I spent a good chunk of my life thinking Roy Scheider sucked, but he just seems more and more like another guy on the Stevie Wonder/Elton John spectrum, who just kicked so much ass in the 70s that anything he did later was going to suffer by comparison.

Man Bites Dog - When Benoit started pontificating about "kingdoms by the sea", I hope I wasn't the only one thinking, "SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS! SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS!"

OK, maybe it was just me.

The hardest thing to deal with in this film isn't the violence, which, aside from one or two scenes, is relatively tame and relies more on jump cuts and timing to 'shock' than anything else (see Funny Games for a master class on how such moments can be 100% telegraphed and remain 100% effective; sure, the latter film probably exists in part due to this one, and got those things right by learning certain lessons, but be that as it may). It's trying to wrap my head around the painfully unfunny and boring character of Benoit, who, if he weren't a serial killer, couldn't manage to be the chief subject of a tax return or a grocery list, let alone a documentary. Jerry Seinfeld made a remark on Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee about how thoroughly irritating it is that unfunny people - nearly always men - think they're funny, and Benoit is a first-class example of that. If I had to spend 5 minutes in his presence, he wouldn't get the opportunity to murder me, because I'd unalive myself rather than put up with his pedantic self-absorption.

Of course, it's easy to say, "it's satire!" and claim that his shoddy jokes and tin pot intellectualism are part of the point (and they almost certainly are), but you wonder if there isn't a better film lurking in here, one that features a character who actually *was* as seductively charming and car-crash-hypnotic as the last 30 years of reviews have made Benoit out to be. The rest of it works and says what it intends to, but it feels too easy to dismiss, given that central figure is unlikable for a plethora of reasons that have nothing to do with his awful speech and awful actions.

Maybe I waited too long to get around to watching this; if I'd seen it ~10 years ago when I first became aware of it, it might have made more of an impact, but I think too many other films have done this better, and I tend to reward quality over innovation.

Edited January 12 by Contentious C

[RazorbladeKiss87]

On 1/10/2024 at 5:24 PM, odessasteps said:

I don’t remember a lot of film criticism about Apes, at least in the 90s.

ive read a ton of stuff about 1950s invasion sci fi. I did forget Body Snatchers. You can double dip and include the 70s remake in that. 

I’ve been told the Matrix is the glaring omission from my lists. 

TV would likely be an interesting list too, prob topped by Trek and Twlight Zone and eventually X Files and Buffy. Both were still on when I was in grad school, so I can’t speak to them, academically. 

Pretty sure we went to the same university and I can report that Apes was not really talked about in any of my sci-fi related pop culture or film classes, and that's in the 2000s.

[odessasteps]

I don’t remember a lot of sci fi stuff in my film classes while I was there. I’m sure in the history of cinema class (former pod guest Jim Naremore taught it that year) unless it was Metropolis or 2001. No sci fi in the Hitchcock class (taught by Barb that year). I think I had a Western class too. I’d have to find my old syllabi for the other classes. 
 

i remember watching 2001 for a paper I wrote, but i think that was for a paper about Kubrick. 

[Johnny Sorrow]

I just watched "Sorcerer" for the first time last night. I'd heard the guys on my fav podcast "Action Boyz" talk about it and I just finished William Friedkin's memoir  two weeks ago so I HAD to finally see it. I really enjoyed it. I need to see " The Wages of Fear" now as Sorcerer is a remake. I can't recommend Friedkin's book enough, it's a blast. And the stories about making "Sorcerer" are fucking bananas.  It was a gigantic flop both at the box office and critically. And it came out the week before Star Wars, which is another reason it faded away real quick. 

edit: And that Tangerine Dream score is awesome.

Edited January 13 by Johnny Sorrow

[Curt McGirt]

Well damn. Here's something I never knew: Lambert in Alien is trans. 

https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/416352626_18409104958023557_7788582681089373663_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=E9zuKEyyZ3gAX953_2w&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&oh=00_AfBhwARwqmHYefblEYnmzelPvbk7iAC5lZEn7Smuq5wp9A&oe=65A7DB6F

[odessasteps]

It’s really weird seeing yourg Cynthia Nixon in Amadeus as Mozrt’s maid. And seeing Kenneth McMilan in the directors cut. And remembering how good Jeffrey Jones was, before he was Ed Romney and being in Tim Burton movies (and being a sex offender). 
 

and in fun casting notes: we could have had Mark Hamill and Meg Tilly as Wolfgang and Constance Mozart. Forman was afraid people wouldn’t be able to believe Luke Skywalker as Mozart. Tilly hurt her leg playing soccer and had to pull out of the movie. 

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

My one-sentence review of the Holdovers:

Imagine Rushmore, except everyone's somehow even more unlikable.

[Curt McGirt]

Just finished watching Un Prophete (A Prophet) by Jacques Audiard. I was watching the Video Club with Edward Norton and he said The Godfather, Goodfellas, and this were the best gangster films ever. After watching it, I almost agree. You get to see this 19 year-old kid, Malik, an Arab in a French prison, get a six-year bid and run into the Corsican mafia. He's clearly been through some shit -- he's more scarred-up than Omar Little or John Rambo -- but we know nothing of his past. He comes in like he passed through a membrane from another dimension as this complete block of formless clay to be molded. He's given an immediate Catch 22: kill someone or be killed. From there he finds his destiny through guile, wits and a realization that he must form his own path. As he always insists, he works for himself, even if he is an errand boy for the Corsicans. Ebert wrote that he keeps his own counsil and that's the best way to put it. Niels Arestrup plays Cesar Luciani, the leader of the Corsicans, and his seemingly gentle touch is always underlined with menace with sudden violent reactions erupting from him whenever he doesn't get his way. It's a really wild world in this film. French prisoners get to wear what they want and are supplied with baguettes? It's a far cry from an American penitentiary. Also interesting is Malik's first victim being a companion to him like the friend who gets mauled in An American Werewolf in London, a ghost showing up when nobody else is around. Long film but worth it. 

[odessasteps]

 

[J.H.]

Hamill had been Mozart on Broadway and was amazing. An odd choice of play for a father to take a preteen son too but my dad was really about making sure I got "cultured".

James

[RIPPA]

I am not finding the thread but Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning has officially dropped the "Part One" part from its title as it prepares to be released on Paramount+

This is due to "Part Two" getting delayed and the promise of a new name

[twiztor]

i watched Blade Runner (the Final Cut) per the discussion here.

it was fine. i liked it well enough, but everything's so devoid of energy. it makes the film feel a lot slower than its pace actually moves at. i mean, i get that they were playing off the question about humanity (who's more "human", the emotionless man or the passionate android), and i do feel like that portion worked. I certainly don't understand the belief that many have of Deckard being a replicant (other than people missing the point that i just alluded to) as it's pretty clear that's not the point at all. 

i dunno. a solid movie. maybe 6.5/10? it certainly looked wonderful with the cyberpunk/futuristic aesthetics. felt like more flash than substance to me, though. 

[Contentious C]

Well, it's not really a "belief" - it's what some of us have mentioned about the unicorn dream sequence.  That wasn't in the original versions, and Scott added it back later to riff on the unicorn figurine that Gaff leaves at Deckard's door step at the end.  It's supposed to be, in Ridley's eyes, a 100% guarantee that he is a replicant, but you can tell how I feel about that from the post I wrote earlier.

Of course, almost none of that matters, because given the plot details of 2049, he almost certainly is one and that's a critical component of why K's search matters.  Niander Wallace wouldn't give a fuck if replicants could breed with humans, because it isn't necessarily self-sustaining.

[Mike Campbell]

On 1/10/2024 at 2:13 PM, Contentious C said:

If I ever did video essays, I think I'd probably pit Blade Runner, Alien, and Terminator against each other to try to argue for and against each as the Sci-Fi GOAT.  Could be fun.

Just for shits and giggles, would you be considering the theatrical cut of Alien, or the Director's Cut? I have some sort of recollection that Ridley Scott considers the DC version to be the "real" film.