2024 MOVIES DISCUSSION THREAD

[Bustronaut]

Like sticking your hand in something is any less prurient.  Some would argue it's moreso!

[Curt McGirt]

Point (of the finger... or fist) taken

[Curt McGirt]

Jesus H this might be the sickest movie burn I've read. I had Facebook set up to random and somebody on this page, that I don't even follow, had dropped this bomb from on high directly onto Killers of the Flower Moon. 

Quote

The Movie Blues Rental Zone  · 

Join

Suggested for you  · The Movie Blues  ·   · 

so i guess ill discuss this here bc this movie is basically out of the algorithm but man, this KOTFM was really beat. Here are the top 10 things that i could not abide by in this movie

1. the jack white all-caucasion radio play ending revue starring martin scorcese himself left me pretty stunned at the end. in a film that was supposed to be the least white-ego film of his career (or at least since silence). imagine if at the end of Silence, Marty came out with a samurai top knot and was like abbidy abbidy abba that’s alllll folks like wtf

2. too long. they didnt even use the time well for cool murder stuff it was just like 70 scenes of gilbert grape giving his wife fake insulin

3. not enough brendan fraser. and by that i mean his size, he was not fat enough

4. lily gladstone was not that great other than the meta commentary that arises out of a character who has a bunch of white men exploit her for money, which is exactly what this movie did to her in real life

5. leo is too old. men getting back from the war were like 19 lol this man is out here with the denchers from Red Dragon acting like gilbert grapes uncle for 3.5 hours

6. the entire first two thirds of this movie followed the exact same plot structure of goodfellas and all of Scorcese’s other coming of age gangster fables. Silly white man stumbles into crime world, gets taken under the wing of the big boss, becomes wildly successful, gets in trouble, turns on the boss and his life goes to sh*t. It’s literally the departed with diabetes

7. not violent enough. what happened here. this movie was supposed to be brutal, the only thing i actually cringed at was a woman self administering a shot she desperately needed

8. the main character of this film should’ve been Robert DeNiro. The focus on Leo was a cop-out, needed 3 hours of de niro doing colonel sanders with leo as his little dipshit cousin

9. other than like 2 interesting tracking shots, this movie was shot like poodoo

10. the version of this movie that we got was the PT Anderson REWRITE of a different script to set it more from the native point of view. are you serious? this movie was about looney tunes white people murdering every native in town while a woman died in bed. KOFTM was a cascading ocean of white faces and characters and other than gladstone the only other native characters were like drunk nutcases, and it ended with an all white hootenany where they whitesplained the rest of history to the audience lol thanks marty

6/10

Despite some of the funnies in it... hot damn that feels true.

[HarryArchieGus]

On 3/2/2024 at 8:30 PM, (BP) said:

At some point I watched and enjoyed Minnie and Moskowitz. I was going to go on a Cassavettes kick after that, but I started with Husbands, and it was so interminably dull and self indulgent that I gave up. 

Husbands to me was fascinating. It felt like a successful blurring of fiction/non-fiction. I was fascinated by the John Cassavetes catalog long before I saw Husbands. I totally get your reading. I wouldn't recommend that film as a starting point. I wouldn't recommend it as a follow-up to your liking M and M either. The movie I would highly recommend you see before you decide on Cassavetes is - A Woman Under the Influence. It is intense and beautiful, and features one of the best acting performances I've ever seen - Gena Rowlands as Mabel Longhetti. Peter Falk, at his most insane, opposite Rowlands, completely holds his own and then some. There's some real hard truth in this movie, and seeing it helps unlock the rest of the catalog. The movies in the Criterion set are the ones to go to after that - Faces, (the debut) Shadows, and Killing of a Chinese Bookie. Those are the most accessible, but accessible doesn't seem like quite the right word. Opening Night and especially Love Streams are best to save for if you love those others enough that you need more. If you find that urge you will not be disappointed. I also highly recommend the documentary featured on the Criterion/Five Films set called A Constant Forge. For me his movies made more sense when I better understood what he was trying to achieve, and what he would do to achieve it. I'd read Cassavetes on Cassavetes, which remains one of my favorite books, but A Constant Forge gives a good tidy summary of what you need to know. 

Edited March 6 by HarryArchieGus

[HarryArchieGus]

On 3/2/2024 at 7:19 PM, Contentious C said:

It's a good thing I'm not in charge of member titles, or you'd be, "The Guy Who Liked Something, Anything about Nymphomaniac".  I looked up her part but I couldn't for the life of me tell you who she was in that.

There was plenty of acclaim for Nymphomaniac upon it's arrival, and for good reason - it's a thoroughly gut wrenching and captivating film. Lars Von Trier is an excellent if challenging filmmaker. Anti-Christ, Dogville, Dancer in the Dark, Melancholia, and The Idiots are all pretty incredible achievements. Breaking the Waves feels deserving of 'one of the greatest films ever made'. Clearly Nymphomaniac isn't an easy film to watch nor will it be for everyone, but that doesn't reflect it's quality. 

[Contentious C]

Yeah, because what would cinema be without that Uma Thurman scene?

[odessasteps]

Dare I ask which one? I could see people meaning either foot scene in PulpFiction or Kill Bill V1.

[HarryArchieGus]

1 hour ago, Curt McGirt said:

Jesus H this might be the sickest movie burn I've read. I had Facebook set up to random and somebody on this page, that I don't even follow, had dropped this bomb from on high directly onto Killers of the Flower Moon. 

Despite some of the funnies in it... hot damn that feels true.

What feels true about that? There seems to be an overreaching want to hate on KOTFM based on it's running time. I thought they made the most of their minutes with relentlessly excellent performances, photography and storytelling. 

[Curt McGirt]

I don't agree with all of it, liked it better. There were two moments that I thought were particularly great. But those are some pretty stinging points of argument that I can't really begrudge anyone for having. It does feel like a very white-oriented film while not wanting to be. And yes -- god, yes -- it IS too long.

[HarryArchieGus]

27 minutes ago, Curt McGirt said:

I don't agree with all of it, liked it better. There were two moments that I thought were particularly great. But those are some pretty stinging points of argument that I can't really begrudge anyone for having. It does feel like a very white-oriented film while not wanting to be. And yes -- god, yes -- it IS too long.

 206 minutes is what it took to tell this thoughtful story. What is a white-oriented film? 

[Curt McGirt]

Okay, "white oriented" is probably an improper terminology. But this is a movie told by white people about white people killing native people where you see the perspective of the white people and pretty much only one native person. I can't complain that anybody that says the representation is off is wrong. 

[HarryArchieGus]

1 hour ago, Curt McGirt said:

Okay, "white oriented" is probably an improper terminology. But this is a movie told by white people about white people killing native people where you see the perspective of the white people and pretty much only one native person. I can't complain that anybody that says the representation is off is wrong. 

It's most certainly a sensitive subject. Yeah, you can place an argument of representation over many, many films if you like. I would suggest to do so here and write this story off would be pretty ignorant. It sounds like an argument made by somebody that didn't care to watch the movie. It may be worth some of your time learning what went into the making of this movie.

Edited March 6 by HarryArchieGus

[RazorbladeKiss87]

https://viralstyle.com/hicham-hammokassse/8igskskskkosu-1-1-1-1

A shirt for the Dune 2 fans.

[Contentious C]

Just got back from sticking m--nah, just kidding, I don't eat popcorn in the first place.  Spoilers ahoy.

Spoiler

I think what I was struck most by - aside from the sound editing & mixing that are just as assaulting as the first film and are therefore almost literally striking you - is that it's the anti-Gigli, a movie so bad the only thing that saved it was 3 minutes of Christopher Walken.  Here, Walken might be close to the only weak link in the Blockbuster to End All Blockbusters. 

But BOY do they elide or toss out a LOT of the weird from the book.  Baby plots (both of them)?  Mostly gone or pushed into the future.  All of the Baron's internal weirdness being expressed?  Gone.  The notion of Paul as being the end goal instead of merely one stir stick in the Bene Gesserit pot?  Gone.  The Fenrings as a colossally weird pair of manipulators?  Just one manipulator doing that manipulating with her vag.  Chani as someone still shown respect as a love interest?  Nah, let's have her get all emo about stuff instead of understanding that Paul is pulling strings that he has to pull. 

Some of the changes I get, but some of them just flatten out the profile of a story that was weird and icky and nutso in some good ways (also some bad, but more good ways than bad).  Hard to tell what they could do with Messiah, assuming they choose to make it in 5-10 years time, but it might necessitate some big changes considering what they did here.

But, the scope is ridiculous, the acting is good, the action scenes are mostly excellent (though Zendaya is NOT a hand-to-hand fighter), and Austin Butler kind of steals the show in spite of the kookiness of his make-up.  I don't think it's as breath-takingly great as some do, but, yeah, it's way up there anyway.  Still like Arrival and Incendies better out of Denis' movies, though.

 

Edited March 7 by Contentious C

[Tabe]

On 3/5/2024 at 7:53 PM, HarryArchieGus said:

 206 minutes is what it took to tell this thoughtful story. What is a white-oriented film? 

It absolutely did not need 206 minutes. At least 5 minutes was wasted on the one fire scene alone. 

The casting here was atrocious. In real life, the Leo character was in his early 20s and significantly younger than the fed investigating the case. Having Leo play that character AND still keep the "son" dialogue from the fed was STUPID. Who calls a guy older than them "son" while not trying to be insulting? And DeNiro's character was at least 40 years younger than DeNiro. Portraying him as this kindly old gentleman was a misfire of the highest order. Good grief. 

The movie undersold the horror. It focused on the one guy and his wife while doing a terrible job of showing how widespread the murders were and how much exploitation was involved ALL OVER EVERYWHERE in that community. 

And, yeah, I agree with what the guy said about Gladstone's performance. It was fine. Nothing special, nothing revelatory or spectacular. Fine. 

And, yeah, the radio thing at the end was very much out of place. 

The movie was fine. But it was too long and did not do a good job of capturing the book. The book is 400 pages on unrelenting, increasing horror and disgust. It digs a deep hole and just keeps digging. The movie completely missed that mark. 

6/10 is about right. 

Edited March 8 by Tabe

[Andrew POE!]

So I watched quite a number of films this week:

Dune Part Two - Jesus Christ, this movie was dull. I was looking at my watch about an hour into the film.

Spoiler

I dug the first 30 minutes with the overlapping voiceovers and the maneuvering around the Harkonnen enemies - very Kurosawa-esque with how that was set up. But the rest of the movie was boring and did little to explain ANYTHING and little to make you care about anything. The first movie did a better job of explaining the world - it showed you and it told you. This, I have no understanding of why Paul Atreides doesn't want to be the person of Fremen legend. He doesn't want it either. Then he takes a drink of sandworm blood, has a drug experience where he realizes things that aren't explained, and....all of sudden he wants to embrace his destiny?

Why did Chani seem to be for him doing it at the start, then seem against it, then is really against it and gets moody about it when Paul embraces his destiny? The last five minutes gave me whiplash - he tells Chani he will always love her....then asks for the hand of the Emperor's daughter in marriage. Chani should have walked up to Paul and slapped the shit outta him again for that. No wonder she was like 'f this, I'll ride a sandworm' at the end of the movie.

The Holdovers - '70s style movie with '80s style characters. After seeing Dune Part Two, this hit the spot and was better for me. Story, characters, character motivation, attention. There were moments that weren't that good (middle of the film was a bit ponderous).

Anatomy of a Fall - Slower paced movie but really well done. A lot of the complaints I read online were that it was 'boring,' which wasn't the case for me.

Mission: Impossible II - Holy shit 2000 was a strange time for movies. Unintentionally hilarious and just bad at times. I loved the first 30 minutes though and it was very stylish. Problem is it turns into "Tom Cruise shoots dudes, you never see him shoot them, you see a cut to them getting shot." And motorcycle jousting made me bust out laughing.

Repo Man - Bud wouldn't want Ethan Hunt in his car either. The movie doesn't offer any explanation as to the car or the purpose of it, which is the point.

Edited March 9 by Andrew POE!

[Lawful Metal]

Dune 2 was boring. 

[HarryArchieGus]

9 hours ago, Tabe said:

It absolutely did not need 206 minutes. At least 5 minutes was wasted on the one fire scene alone. 

The casting here was atrocious. In real life, the Leo character was in his early 20s and significantly younger than the fed investigating the case. Having Leo play that character AND still keep the "son" dialogue from the fed was STUPID. Who calls a guy older than them "son" while not trying to be insulting? And DeNiro's character was at least 40 years younger than DeNiro. Portraying him as this kindly old gentleman was a misfire of the highest order. Good grief. 

The movie undersold the horror. It focused on the one guy and his wife while doing a terrible job of showing how widespread the murders were and how much exploitation was involved ALL OVER EVERYWHERE in that community. 

And, yeah, I agree with what the guy said about Gladstone's performance. It was fine. Nothing special, nothing revelatory or spectacular. Fine. 

And, yeah, the radio thing at the end was very much out of place. 

The movie was fine. But it was too long and did not do a good job of capturing the book. The book is 400 pages on unrelenting, increasing horror and disgust. It digs a deep hole and just keeps digging. The movie completely missed that mark. 

6/10 is about right. 

I'm gonna side with Scorsese on the running time and the inclusion of 'the fire scene'. Nothing about the casting was remotely atrocious. Ray Liotta is supposed to be 21 years old in Goodfellas, I didn't have any issue suspending my disbelief there and the same goes here. I think you might be amazed to find your age complaint relevant in a lot of films. Curious of how anybody would come to the conclusion that they undersold the horror of this story. Your reasoning suggests you were looking for a different story than what was being told. The book was better than the movie, ya don't say!?!  

[JLSigman]

13 hours ago, Andrew POE! said:

So I watched quite a number of films this week:

Dune Part Two - Jesus Christ, this movie was dull. I was looking at my watch about an hour into the film.

  Hide contents

I dug the first 30 minutes with the overlapping voiceovers and the maneuvering around the Harkonnen enemies - very Kurosawa-esque with how that was set up. But the rest of the movie was boring and did little to explain ANYTHING and little to make you care about anything. The first movie did a better job of explaining the world - it showed you and it told you. This, I have no understanding of why Paul Atreides doesn't want to be the person of Fremen legend. He doesn't want it either. Then he takes a drink of sandworm blood, has a drug experience where he realizes things that aren't explained, and....all of sudden he wants to embrace his destiny?

Why did Chani seem to be for him doing it at the start, then seem against it, then is really against it and gets moody about it when Paul embraces his destiny? The last five minutes gave me whiplash - he tells Chani he will always love her....then asks for the hand of the Emperor's daughter in marriage. Chani should have walked up to Paul and slapped the shit outta him again for that. No wonder she was like 'f this, I'll ride a sandworm' at the end of the movie.

 

It makes much more sense in the book. With the time skip removed, they've taken out a few important plot points that explain why Paul was the way he was.

Spoiler

So in the book, there's a couple of years between Paul going into the desert with the Fremen and then coming back out to fight the Harkonnens. He might have never come back out if they hadn't sent their killers to the seitch where he was living and kill his infant son.

They also made Jessica his father's wife, which she never was in the books. She was always just his concubine, because there was always a thought that Duke Leto would marry someone for political reasons. So that's what Paul does at the end. He loves Chani, but has to marry the Emperor's daughter to secure his throne.

 

[Curt McGirt]

Couldn't they have explaned those things with a few lines of dialogue, or even a good old fashioned voiceover?

[Andrew POE!]

1 hour ago, Curt McGirt said:

Couldn't they have explaned those things with a few lines of dialogue, or even a good old fashioned voiceover?

Why would they do that when they can make 'cinema' that people like Hideo Kojima love?

[Andrew POE!]

Just saw The Zone of Interest.

Spoiler

The Zone of Interest was almost sleep inducing due to how it was presented (which I wonder if that was the point). What the movie was about was unnerving because of the sounds you hear in the distance and what the characters are seeing that you cannot see. The music was completely terrifying. I can recommend it in a sense, but the movie sticks with you after it's done. The ending scenes stick out in my mind.

 

[Andrew POE!]

Just saw Drive-Away Dolls.

Spoiler

Hilarious but dark movie and basically a Coen Brothers movie in all but name. Margaret Qualley literally acted like Johnny Depp from Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas meets George Clooney from O Brother Where Art Thou? Short movie but sticks the landing. Pedro Pascal plays a severed head.

 

[Tabe]

21 hours ago, HarryArchieGus said:

I'm gonna side with Scorsese on the running time and the inclusion of 'the fire scene'. Nothing about the casting was remotely atrocious. Ray Liotta is supposed to be 21 years old in Goodfellas, I didn't have any issue suspending my disbelief there and the same goes here. I think you might be amazed to find your age complaint relevant in a lot of films. Curious of how anybody would come to the conclusion that they undersold the horror of this story. Your reasoning suggests you were looking for a different story than what was being told. The book was better than the movie, ya don't say!?!  

"The book was better" was absolutely not central to my critique. However, having read the book, I went in with knowledge of the real story and I just don't think Scorcese did it justice. Not when he's got 80-year old DeNiro playing this kindly old grandpa version of a 40-year old psychopath. Just... no. 

How did they undersell the horror in the movie? Because the real story is anywhere from 60-100 murders committed by dozens of people across nearly two decades. The movie just didn't get that across. 

[Johnny Sorrow]

I watched "The Holdovers" tonight and I absolutely loved it. It's everything I want in a movie. It looks beautiful, the music is awesome, it hits both comedically and poignantly, and the performances are incredible. I laughed and cried in a way that felt real. Paul Giamatti has to win Best Actor, right?  I hope so. I've loved him since Private Parts.

Edited March 10 by Johnny Sorrow