2024 MOVIES DISCUSSION THREAD

[HarryArchieGus]

2 hours ago, Tabe said:

"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. 

It didn't get across the horror to you. But to a lot of ppl, myself included, it most certainly did get across the horror of the situation. You complain about the running time, but want more murders? The book was the basis for the movie. It's not exactly uncommon practice for a screenplay to focus on certain elements or parts of the original material. Drawing attention to a story for one to do their own further reading is pretty welcome.

So what does a 40 something year old in the 1920s look like? Deniro is far from a kindly old grandpa in this movie - subtlety goes a long. long way with such a character. I'd say the same about the entire picture.

[zendragon]

On 3/6/2024 at 5:09 PM, Contentious C said:

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

  Hide contents

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.

 

I've read the book twice and both times came away so exhausted by Frank Herberts longwindedness that I've never read any of the sequels, and I guess this is why I prefer the various adaptations (both the recent films and the David Lynch version never saw the SCIFI mini series) much like I think The Godfather Films are superior to the book, in both cases I felt the source material was in need of an edit.

[Tabe]

10 hours ago, HarryArchieGus said:

It didn't get across the horror to you. But to a lot of ppl, myself included, it most certainly did get across the horror of the situation. You complain about the running time, but want more murders? The book was the basis for the movie. It's not exactly uncommon practice for a screenplay to focus on certain elements or parts of the original material. Drawing attention to a story for one to do their own further reading is pretty welcome.

So what does a 40 something year old in the 1920s look like? Deniro is far from a kindly old grandpa in this movie - subtlety goes a long. long way with such a character. I'd say the same about the entire picture.

What does a 40-something look like in the 1920s? He looks like a 40-something, maybe early 50s. There are photos of the guy. He didn't look *80*, which DeNiro most certainly does. Here he is at 48:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_King_Hale#/media/File:Face_detail,_William_King_Hale_(cropped).jpg

Meanwhile, you've got Scorcese saying dumb stuff like his friends "didn't even realize it was [DeNiro]". LOL, sure thing. I think he was cast - Leo too - because Scorcese was familiar with him and knew he'd get a good performance, not because he was the right guy for the job. 

And, just so we're clear, I have no issues with DeNiro's performance itself. And I appreciate his dedication in legit learning the Osage language. 

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

 

(sorry about the empty spoilers - it won't let me delete them) 

 

The run time was an issue because it was used poorly. The overly-long fire scene - which could've been cut completely - I've already mentioned. Lots of other places the movie could've been tightened up that would've freed time to show more. I can do long movies - the extended cut of "JFK" that's like 220 minutes is a favorite of mine. 

Although you seem to think I've never seen a movie based on a book before, or one based on real life, I am familiar with the concept. While it's not uncommon for movies to stray from the books or real story, it's also not uncommon for them to... not do that. 

[Andrew POE!]

Just saw two more movies. I may have found something besides doing Platinum trophy hunting on PlayStation:

Carol (Netflix, since it's coming off the service next week) - Great movie and Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara are absolutely gorgeous.

American Fiction - Just saw this in theaters. I loved the commentary and what the movie was trying to say. The ending did my head in. It can be compared to  a Woody Allen movie minus the main character getting the girl. Jeffrey Wright's character is much better written than any characters from Woody Allen though.

Spoiler

I do wonder if everything in the almost two hours leading to the ending didn't happen or what the truth actually is (did Monk make up everything about his family and his writing the book under a pseudoynm for the film or was is it all true? The film doesn't answer that)

 

[Andrew POE!]

Now watching The Banshees of Inisherin and planning on watching Love Simon, Get On Up, Savages and Please Stand By after that.

Edited March 10 by Andrew POE!

[AxB]

I saw someone saying that really Leo should have been playing the character De Niro played. Because he's 50 but you could buy him as a 1920s 40 year old.

Not sure who you would get to play an age accurate version of Leo's character. Hollywood's top two Youthful Men (Tom Holland and Tim Chalomet) are 27 and 28.

[HarryArchieGus]

5 hours ago, Tabe said:

What does a 40-something look like in the 1920s? He looks like a 40-something, maybe early 50s. There are photos of the guy. He didn't look *80*, which DeNiro most certainly does. Here he is at 48:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_King_Hale#/media/File:Face_detail,_William_King_Hale_(cropped).jpg

Thanks, this picture completely represents my point. Again, this criticism based on age is a bit ridiculous considering the precedence of common casting in film, television and stage of older for younger. I can't even think of an example of bad age casting because I generally find it pretty easy to adapt. KOTFM was obviously no exception.

Quote

Meanwhile, you've got Scorcese saying dumb stuff like his friends "didn't even realize it was [DeNiro]". LOL, sure thing. I think he was cast - Leo too - because Scorcese was familiar with him and knew he'd get a good performance, not because he was the right guy for the job. 

An off hand comment likely said in passing by Scorsese, who I have no reason to believe was lying, doesn't make for much of an argument, but it does offer some insight into where you're coming from. It also fuels an assumption I have - Marty is more than likely getting some backlash from Marvel Universe/Comic Book fans for his public disdain of those type of movies.

I would suggest Scorsese puts a bit more thought into his casting than you presume. 

Quote

The run time was an issue because it was used poorly. The overly-long fire scene - which could've been cut completely - I've already mentioned. Lots of other places the movie could've been tightened up that would've freed time to show more. I can do long movies - the extended cut of "JFK" that's like 220 minutes is a favorite of mine. 

Although you seem to think I've never seen a movie based on a book before, or one based on real life, I am familiar with the concept. While it's not uncommon for movies to stray from the books or real story, it's also not uncommon for them to... not do that. 

The run time was a hang-up for you, I get it. 'Used poorly' seems at odds with the ppl I've talked to and many, many of the top critics, or ones I care to read, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. I like movies that breathe, and I'm happy this one did. I love JFK, but that pace and editing is what worked for that movie. It doesn't mean it would work here with this far more sensitive story they were telling. It does help me better understand what you were wanting, but, again, it's not the film they were making. I trust (one of the all time great editors) Thelma Schoonmaker alongside Scorsese's choices. And for good reason. The goodwill they've built makes it easy to try and understand their choices before complaining. That said, I didn't have any complants. I thought this movie was beautifully performed, shot, cut, etc. I also thought it was exhilarting like many of the ppl I spoke with after seeing it. 

Curious what movies you did think were great in 2023?

Edited March 11 by HarryArchieGus

[odessasteps]

2 hours ago, Andrew POE! said:

Now watching The Banshees of Inisherin and planning on watching Love Simon, Get On Up, Savages and Please Stand By after that.

I thought Banshees was really good but never need to see it again. 

[Andrew POE!]

51 minutes ago, odessasteps said:

I thought Banshees was really good but never need to see it again. 

I would agree. I thought Padraic (Colin Farrell) ended up as an asshole and Colm (Brendan Gleeson) was a complete asshole who did a stupid thing that he can never undo. The movie was more of a gimmick than a story.

Spoiler

Colm complained about how 'being good' won't lead to him doing something memorable yet he hangs out with the local policeman and write a song that to be honest didn't sound that great or memorable.

 

[Curt McGirt]

Go figure that it is Oscar night and Friedkin Uncut is just finishing up on TV. He closes with the following line, Re: film competitions, whether it be Cannes or the Oscars or whoever:

"But I don't want a bunch of schmucks that call themselves judges sitting in a fucking room saying "Oh, La Dolce Vita is not as good as Batman vs. Superman." Fuck them and the horse they rode in on and the ship that brought them over here and the dog that walks behind them. Fuck them all! Except nine people. Fuck 'em all except six road guides, two pallbearers, and one to count cadence."

We'll miss ya, Billy.

[Curt McGirt]

Can't believe it, but I went channel surfing after and the OG Super Mario Bros. movie is on Cartoon Network.

I saw that in the theater as a kid and was so mad. Just the pits.

[Coletti]

We never watch this thing but the bit with Arnold, DeVito, and Keaton was worth it all. 

[Contentious C]

I'm more fond of Friedkin's "I don't give a flying fuck into a rolling donut" about Al Pacino's opinion of him.

[Johnny Sorrow]

2 hours ago, Curt McGirt said:

Go figure that it is Oscar night and Friedkin Uncut is just finishing up on TV. He closes with the following line, Re: film competitions, whether it be Cannes or the Oscars or whoever:

"But I don't want a bunch of schmucks that call themselves judges sitting in a fucking room saying "Oh, La Dolce Vita is not as good as Batman vs. Superman." Fuck them and the horse they rode in on and the ship that brought them over here and the dog that walks behind them. Fuck them all! Except nine people. Fuck 'em all except six road guides, two pallbearers, and one to count cadence."

We'll miss ya, Billy.

I read " The Friedkin Connection " a couple of months ago and it's the best. 

[Johnny Sorrow]

That bit on the Oscars with the five people fawning during the acting awards was fucking awful. Like, cringe level awful. It got to a point where it was hilarious how bad an idea it was. 
I loved all the Best Song performances . Billie Eilish killed and "I'm Just Ken" was a blast.

[Mike Campbell]

I finally caught Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning. Is it still considered part one, or are they pulling a Star Wars/A New Hope deal and retroactively changing the title?  I can appreciate some of the risks they took, like killing off a well known character (at least until the upcoming sequel) and almost doing a rehash of the first movie as far as the train and not knowing if the IMF ally can be trusted. But, the whole AI plot came off to me like they wanted to do something topical, and the "entity' gives off vibes like a less cool version of Skynet.

[elizium]

9 minutes ago, Mike Campbell said:

I finally caught Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning. Is it still considered part one, or are they pulling a Star Wars/A New Hope deal and retroactively changing the title?  I can appreciate some of the risks they took, like killing off a well known character (at least until the upcoming sequel) and almost doing a rehash of the first movie as far as the train and not knowing if the IMF ally can be trusted. But, the whole AI plot came off to me like they wanted to do something topical, and the "entity' gives off vibes like a less cool version of Skynet.

they changed it, but the oscars ignored that shit tonight and called it part one

[John from Cincinnati]

The steelbook I own says Part One. It’s Part One.

[Tabe]

19 hours ago, HarryArchieGus said:

Thanks, this picture completely represents my point. Again, this criticism based on age is a bit ridiculous considering the precedence of common casting in film, television and stage of older for younger. I can't even think of an example of bad age casting because I generally find it pretty easy to adapt. KOTFM was obviously no exception.

An off hand comment likely said in passing by Scorsese, who I have no reason to believe was lying, doesn't make for much of an argument, but it does offer some insight into where you're coming from. It also fuels an assumption I have - Marty is more than likely getting some backlash from Marvel Universe/Comic Book fans for his public disdain of those type of movies.

I would suggest Scorsese puts a bit more thought into his casting than you presume. 

The run time was a hang-up for you, I get it. 'Used poorly' seems at odds with the ppl I've talked to and many, many of the top critics, or ones I care to read, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. I like movies that breathe, and I'm happy this one did. I love JFK, but that pace and editing is what worked for that movie. It doesn't mean it would work here with this far more sensitive story they were telling. It does help me better understand what you were wanting, but, again, it's not the film they were making. I trust (one of the all time great editors) Thelma Schoonmaker alongside Scorsese's choices. And for good reason. The goodwill they've built makes it easy to try and understand their choices before complaining. That said, I didn't have any complants. I thought this movie was beautifully performed, shot, cut, etc. I also thought it was exhilarting like many of the ppl I spoke with after seeing it. 

Curious what movies you did think were great in 2023?

Don't really care if my "used poorly" opinion is at odds with top critics, to be honest. 

Yes, Hollywood tends to be a little off in their casting. Off by 32 years, not so much. But, since you mentioned critics, the ages being off is one of the most frequent critiques I've seen. 

I'm not a Marvel movie guy and don't have any preconceived notions or criticisms of Scorcese or his movies. I also don't much care what movies he's done previously, just the one I'm watching at that moment. 

Great movies in 2023? To be honest, didn't watch a lot of new movies last year. Godzilla Minus One was probably the best. 

Edited March 11 by Tabe

[Contentious C]

I watched stuff.  Who knows what precious opinions will be shared next!

Pearl - OK, fine, I watched it after all; my Paramount subscription was about to expire.  Turns out I should have picked something else, because this was on Kanopy or some nonsense instead.  Ah well; next time, American Gigolo.  But yeah, every bit as boring as X, maybe worse.  I think we understood after the first 14 times she was at loggerheads with her mom that bad things were going to happen eventually!  We get it!  Quit padding your movie with dumb bullshit just to hit a longer runtime!  The monologue was fine, but...otherwise, waste of time.  But, I suppose they got 2 films out of one film budget, so Kid Cudi made his money back, or something?  And the guy they cast as the new Superman does look an awful lot like a de-aged, taller Henry Cavill, so probably a good call there, too.

A Place in the Sun - Now here we go.  I think I grew up with so much of the "Liz Taylor in the tabloids" nonsense of the 80s that it's difficult for me to appreciate who she was.  Then, I watched Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? about 15 years ago, and that naturally blew me out of the water and up to somewhere best labeled 'ionosphere'.  This, on the other hand, was probably the first time I'd seen "Elizabeth Taylor, Dazzling Superstar" and OK, you got me, she might very well have been one of the prettiest women to ever grace the screen.  And putting her opposite Montgomery Clift - it's no wonder those two were so close while he was alive, because you can tell right away they have that *something* that makes a movie like this work. 

Of course, everything else about the story is...some of the most ass-backwards, insane, what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-people kind of stuff that naturally looks that way now because so much has changed in 70 years.  I read Sister Carrie in college and have thought ever since that Dreiser was a judgmental fuckface on his best day, and this plot doesn't really make me change my mind, but you do have to start wondering how different the world would be if the pill had been invented 20 or 30 years earlier.  The most awful thing this movie does, really, is turn Shelley Winters into a pestering, nagging, horrible shrew (a role she'd end up revisiting about once every 11 years) just because she expects someone, anyone, to do the right thing in a society full of people who literally cannot, will not say OUT LOUD what the right thing is.  Maybe that's what Dreiser was trying to say all along: the real American tragedy is our pathetic need to cling to puritanical bullshit despite its place as a see-through fig leaf, instead of speaking plainly and facing difficult truths.  I don't know.  Movie's pretty good, though, especially the acting.

Breakfast at Tiffany's - Yeah, it was Classics week around here, kinda, crossing things off the ol' Letterboxd watchlist.  Man, I wish I could say, "the past was really fucked up!" but hey, we're still fucked up, and YOU are fucked up if you think going back to times like this would make us better!  Actually, who the Hell am I kidding? This movie is about sugar babies, for Christ's sake: it's as 2020s as a film could be!  I should have watched Shiva Baby as a double feature with this.  Funny how much more stuff got binned for this, since Peppard's character is gay in the novella and Lula loses a baby (who evidently never exists here).  But hey, why not talk about a 13-year-old marrying an OLD MAN like that's normal and put Mickey Rooney in yellowface?  Sure!  That's cool!  Go for it!  Ugh. 

But this is another stellar case where it's best to ignore the time-specific details and focus more on the tone and the acting.  There's plenty of Capote's dialogue to pick it up, and the scene where Lula finds out about Fred is Audrey Hepburn on full display; you could call it overdone, but to me, it worked better than any other moment she had in the film.  Evidently, she found the role difficult since she was far more introverted than Holly, but I think the introvert is on display in that dark room.  Plus, the ending and Peppard's speech are all-timers that get at the heart of why people are still so screwed-up.  Yeah, more great acting, ignore the racism and grossness.

Tiptoes - After talking about Freeway a while ago, I had to indulge my morbid curiosity and sit through this.  And I gotta say, weird. 

OK, some of the disdain directed its way is deserving; when Peter Dinklage is *right there* in your cast, you really don't need Gary Oldman front-and-center (especially when McConaughey had already been in enough rom-coms to this point to be a star, and so casting Oldman as a top-billed guy wasn't entirely necessary). But...people seem hell-bent on criticizing this as somehow particularly insensitive to its subject matter, when, aside from a few lines, it's really not that at all.  Say, does anyone remember all the times we talked about Nerd Blackface?

Oh, I'm sorry: I forgot, most of the nation seemed totes-McGotes fine with The Big Bang Theory motherfucking CONSTANTLY engaging in broad, offensive stereotypes, because those could be anyone, right? Give it 13 years on TV and a bunch of annoying spin-offs, right?  Please. 90 minutes of this movie does more to engage and get people to think about its characters than that show ever did.  But sure, let's pretend this is cinematic arsenic.

Is this a good movie? Well, no.  It's not even close. It isn't funny, it isn't dramatic, it's more than a bit all over the place, and the ending is equal parts telegraphed and befuddling (maybe that's the 'theatrical cut' nature of it that Matthew Bright complained about, maybe not). I'm sure Chad Everett and Brian J. Anderson shared a moment together during their scenes to commiserate about how far they were from Mullholland Dr. after only two years. But this probably isn't as utterly terrible, nor as crassly offensive, as it's been portrayed for the last 20 years, either.

Not as bad as The Crow: Wicked Prayer, is what I'm saying.

Bottoms - Hey, let's take every over-the-top moment from Booksmart and turn it up to...not quite 69, because not everyone gets some in this movie?  But close?  Gotta say, though, I don't think I've seen a comedy that was quite this willing to be as committed to a bit, no matter how too-far-gone or how cringe-worthy certain parts of that could end up being, and I think that's to its credit.  You can't really do Yet Another Teen Comedy, But Make It Raunchy and have that fly unless you actually distinguish yourself, and the sheer absurdity of the jokes they run out there is Olympian in stature, if not always in quality.  It doesn't hurt that I love Ayo Edebiri, either.  Rachel Sennett's pretty great, too.  But the real scene-stealer is the kid who resembles Justice Smith, but manages to out-act Justice Smith inside of his first 30 seconds of screen time, leading me to wonder, why the FUCK does anyone cast Justice Smith in anything?

I already talked about Dune, go read that, too, I guess.

Edited March 11 by Contentious C

[Andrew POE!]

Watched more films leaving various streaming services, here's my thoughts:

Love Simon (leaving Hulu) - I dug the hell out of this movie. Sometimes, high school teenage movies just hit the spot. Living in Georgia myself, I was surprised that Simon didn't encounter more problems. Not really any dull sections of the movie, although Martin made me cringe every time I saw him (which is the point).

A Day in the Country (leaving Hulu) - Jean Renoir movie from the 1930's and rather short. Sylvia Bataille is a gorgeous woman and carried the movie. Although the kiss scene towards the end hasn't aged well at all.

Get On Up (leaving Netflix) - Movie was a tad long and a bit disjointed with its nonlinear format but Chadwick Boseman is incredible as James Brown. The movie doesn't really sink in regarding his life. I loved the sequence leading towards the end though.

[clintthecrippler]

Someone else here has watched TIPTOES! What a compelling piece of absolute insanity and career self-immolation. So many bad choices made with so many different aspects of that movie and I can't imagine that Bright's extended cut would have done that much more to make it less insane.

Also over the weekend I watched DEATH MACHINES. Some very delightful 1970s American-produced martial arts trash with multiple insane deaths in just the first 15 minutes alone, with 3 badass silent assassins trained (drugged?) to not feel pain under the guidance of a Japanese lady boss intent on taking over action from the mafia and innocent bystanders, mobbed-up sleazoids and biker gangs all falling in their wake. Some pacing issues as it drags during the middle of the movie (as many of these lower budget 70s genre flicks do) but the adrenaline of the first 15 minutes as well as a fun final fight help make sitting through that sloggy middle worth it. 

[HarryArchieGus]

What a great year for film! This was easily my favorite collection of 'Best Film Nominees' that I can remember. I'm always happy to see films and filmmakers I like get a commercial boost from the Academy. Particularly happy to see Zone of Interest take some hardware. I've long loved Glazer and was glad to see him get a nod for arguably his best yet, but especially happy for 'Best Sound'. I suspect the picture will play well on the small screen, but seeing this movie in the cinema was so captivating. Too unnerving for most I'd have to assume. What a year for Sandra Huller! Also glad to see Justine Triet win for the Anatomy of a Fall screenplay. There were a lot of films that challenged the times and momentum-building-relentless-misinformation, and AOAF was amongst the best. Teachers Lounge, which didn't win, also felt like a great awareness raiser. Lanthimos' Poor Things too! Between that and the Curse - what a great year for the talented Emma Stone. Nice to see Da'Vine Joy Randolph's wonderful supporting role in the excellent Holdovers take the win. Also, pleased to see first time director Cord Jefferson take home some hardware. I loved American Fiction. Oppenheimer and Nolan were certainly well deserving. I loved KOTFM and Barbie too. Past Lives was very thoughtful and really good. High(est) voter on the Maestro too. I'd argue more ppl would've been on board with it had they had the opportunity to see it in the cinema. Great sound picture. I was a little disappointed that maybe my favorite movie of all Kaurismaki's Fallen Leaves didn't get any of the Academy rub, but that's somewhat to be expected. Strange hearing Wes Anderson win for that strange and really interesting (I need to see it again) short take a win while not getting any attention for the excellent Asteroid CIty, but the field was strong nonetheless. Again, what a year!

[Curt McGirt]

1 hour ago, clintthecrippler said:

Also over the weekend I watched DEATH MACHINES.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx3ayoLzkiw Love the scene where the guy just casually lands on the cop's car, gets off the roof and swings around a kick to him through the window. 

Also, this reminded me of Death Machine (singular) from '94 with Brad Dourif. Lovely stuff! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ2DkxXbQ1Y

[odessasteps]

Happy 30th anniversary