Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

2014 MOVIE OMNIBUS THREAD


RIPPA

Recommended Posts

 

Has anybody seen "Enemy"? It's with Jake Gyllenhaal from last year. It's about a guy who rents a movie and one of the actors looks exactly like him-- so he attempts to track the actor down. It is interesting and strange and I'm not sure I understood it all.

 

Yes, I've seen it twice now, and Jae and I had a PM conversation about it.  I think I've got it figured out enough now that I'm comfortable with it, but I certainly wasn't there after one viewing, and Jae pointed out at least one thing that I still hadn't noticed after the second time I saw it.

 

I think I've still got a long rambling PM about it in my mailbox that I could send to you.

 

No thanks about the PM, but thanks for the offer.

 

For a good portion of the movie, I was working under the theory that he had completely split personalities until it became apparent that it wasn't the case. I thought this especially because the co-worker who recommended the movie said that it was a "local movie", so it seemed feasible that he could be an actor in a split personality and done the movies and not be aware of it. And with that impression, I figured that when he saw the movie, it caused him to have a psychotic break. I concluded that this wasn't the case in the scene where the actor followed the professor and then followed the girlfriend from that point onto the bus.

I think the part that was most confusing to me was the ending of the movie where the professor turns the corner and the actor's wife is a "demon" of some sort. I thought this was just part of the strange dreams he had related to a psychotic episode. Somebody mentioned a theory to me about alien involvement. Maybe like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".

Did your conclusions have anything to do with aliens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ethan Hawke rules, one of my favorite actors that nobody talks about. He openly said "I don't like horror movies at all really but this material is good" and started working in them. He killed it in Brooklyn's Finest, killed it in Training Day, killed it in Assault on Precinct 13 (which I finally watched after resisting for years and found out it was actually good). Very underrated dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Enemy, PRISONERS is pretty damn tremendous. Add Denis Villenueve to the list of directors you should be watching. Incendies. Prisoners. Enemy. All pretty great movies. Jake Gyllenhaal and Villenueve clearly get each other too. Jake's best work has come from these two collaborations.

 

I think what struck me the most about Prisoners was just how spiritual it all was. Not just Hugh Jackman's character who is obviously religious, but how the film plays out as this kind of religious fable, but without being super overt about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Has anybody seen "Enemy"? It's with Jake Gyllenhaal from last year. It's about a guy who rents a movie and one of the actors looks exactly like him-- so he attempts to track the actor down. It is interesting and strange and I'm not sure I understood it all.

 

Yes, I've seen it twice now, and Jae and I had a PM conversation about it.  I think I've got it figured out enough now that I'm comfortable with it, but I certainly wasn't there after one viewing, and Jae pointed out at least one thing that I still hadn't noticed after the second time I saw it.

 

I think I've still got a long rambling PM about it in my mailbox that I could send to you.

 

No thanks about the PM, but thanks for the offer.

 

For a good portion of the movie, I was working under the theory that he had completely split personalities until it became apparent that it wasn't the case. I thought this especially because the co-worker who recommended the movie said that it was a "local movie", so it seemed feasible that he could be an actor in a split personality and done the movies and not be aware of it. And with that impression, I figured that when he saw the movie, it caused him to have a psychotic break. I concluded that this wasn't the case in the scene where the actor followed the professor and then followed the girlfriend from that point onto the bus.

I think the part that was most confusing to me was the ending of the movie where the professor turns the corner and the actor's wife is a "demon" of some sort. I thought this was just part of the strange dreams he had related to a psychotic episode. Somebody mentioned a theory to me about alien involvement. Maybe like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".

Did your conclusions have anything to do with aliens?

 

 

No.  Tough to explain and keep it brief, but I eventually ended up believing that the two of them are one person (I mostly agree with the first post here).  There's more of a connection between the two of them - quickest evidence is that the professor has half of a torn photo which ends up appearing whole in a frame on a bookshelf in the actor's house.  Also the professor's mother talks about him liking blueberries, he says he doesn't, but then we find out that the actor likes blueberries.

 

A lot of the movie is symbolic.   His wife has turned into a giant spider.  Spiders throughout the movie represent him feeling trapped in his marriage.  The professor's reaction to the transformation isn't shock or horror, like it should be, but an exasperated sigh.

 

Also, the movie is circular (which is what the "history repeats itself" speech alludes to).  At the end, the actor's wife talks about the professor's mother having left him a message.  At the start of the movie, they play the mother's phone message, and there's a quick shot of the wife looking worried, because the guy is feeling trapped in his marriage again.

 

The weird "sex club" scene near the beginning is basically the guy going out to pick up a mistress.  He thinks doing this will solve all his problems (represented by the woman almost squashing the spider), but it doesn't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, fuck critics.  The Fault In Our Stars manages to tackle the issue of mortality without being sappy or nihilistic.  I really enjoyed the parts I didn't bawl through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the end of Friends With Benefits. Stealth marketing. They want to make a RomCom that people who don't like romcoms will watch, so they tell  everyone it's just a film about shagging. When it's not. It's just a formulaic romcom with a very slightly unusual premise.

 

The main characters did get a bit less unlikeable towards the end though. Still... needed more Woody.

 

Speaking of which, they had him playing Basketball again in this movie. Is he actually really good at it, like, or was it just that the director is a fan of White Men Can't Jump and wanted to pay homage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck, I spent nearly an hour writing a post about what I watched this week and my browser crashed.  I'm not rewriting it again.  Anyone who knows anything about movies should have seen thses already:

 

Mutantes: Punk Porn Feminism

Scorpio Rising

We Were Here

Cinemania

Incident at Oglala

BlankCity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote something quick about SAVING MR. BANKS here: http://letterboxd.com/jaekrenfrow/film/saving-mr-banks/

 

While I was watching it I kept thinking of that movie Blindside and kept expecting an exchange between Walt Disney and his secretary

 

Secretary: She's changing your life.

Walt: No. I changed hers.

 

Then this morning I found out that it's the same director, and am both disappointed that it didn't happen, but pleased that I picked up on his directing tricks enough to identify him. Just like the Blindside, it's not particularly good, but there'e some decent performances. Emma Thompson really didn't have to do much of anything here, and she's still better than most actresses who work there ass off. Tom Hanks is weirdly devious as Walt Disney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen it, but the general opinion seems to be that even the critics who have liked the previous movies are punting on this one.

 

 

I hold it as an article of faith that there is no way it is as bad as Revenge of the Fallen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it a banable offence to say the new Transformers movies is actually good? Like... Really, really good?

Because it totally is.

No, but people might put you on ignore, for fear of what other crazy things you might say

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rewatched the BTTF trilogy recently, and comparing the end of BTTF and the re-shot version on the beginning of Part II, Michael J. Fox is so much more confident as an actor it's almost distracting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it a banable offence to say the new Transformers movies is actually good? Like... Really, really good?

Because it totally is.

It was exactly what it is advertised as. The people that saw the first three , hated them and then went to see the fourth are the worst.

I enjoyed it because things got blown up and dinosaur robots were running around. It was everything it was advertised to be. If I wanted a thoughtful plot I would have gone to an art house theatre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is it a banable offence to say the new Transformers movies is actually good? Like... Really, really good?

Because it totally is.

It was exactly what it is advertised as. The people that saw the first three , hated them and then went to see the fourth are the worst.

 

Exactly.  I wanted no part of the 3rd one, but stuck it out since I suffered through the first two.  I have zero designs of seeing this film, because I already know I'll hate it.  There is no point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was pleasantly surprised that the third one was the best of the first three, but that's an incredibly low bar to hurdle.

 

I may or may not eventually watch this on redbox/netflix/hbo/etc, but no way am I paying to see it in a theater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may or may not eventually watch this on redbox/netflix/hbo/etc, but no way am I paying to see it in a theater.

Of course I'm probably never going to watch this, but I have to wonder why even bother watching it on a TV screen. If I'm going to sit through something like that it would have to be in a movie theater. Of course the only way I would do THAT is if it were free, but still. It just seems like if you're going to watch a Michael Bay film, especially if you think you won't like it, it needs to be an immersive experience so you get Optimal Bay-ness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of brain-dead popcorn flicks, I watched The Wiz for the first time in probably 30 years on one of the HBO channels this morning. There's a bunch of fun set-pieces (Emerald City, Evillene, Tin Man) and it's a treat seeing all the different NYC landmarks popping up- the cinematographer definitely earned his money on this. That said, Diana Ross is really grossly miscast as Dorothy... ridiculously old for the part and never had the acting chops to begin with. Seriously, you replace her with someone else (Stephanie Mills?) and the movie is 10 times better. We have the technology to digitally replace someone in a film, yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Micheal Jackson being crucified and mocked by the crows scared the shit out of me as a kid. 

I saw Transformers last week and it was terrible, Mark Wahlberg playing a native Texan was the first clue It was going to be bad. A inconherant mess that was three hours.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/midnight-rider-filmmakers-charged-with-involuntary-manslaughter-in-sarah-jones-death-1201257716/

 

The director of Midnight Rider and two producers have finally been charged in the connection with that camerawoman who died on set. If you read up on it it's a pretty hideous story: Basically, they never got permission to film on the line from the rail company, didn't tell the crew and the only warning everyone got was that if a train came they'd have at least 60 seconds to get out of the way. Turns out it was actually way less.

 

The filmmakers are obviously recklessly inept people, but I wonder if part of this is how the movie business can "glorify" filmmakers who take risks and bend the rules in the name of "art". I mean, everyone heaps praise on Stanley Kubrick, but he was incredibly callous towards his actors and drove them to the point of exhaustion with his obsessivness. (Although in fairness, he never actively endangered any of them that I know of, so maybe it's not a great comparison).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...