What have you watched recently? 3D!

Sad Professor

Darabont got a massive 200m payout for The Walking Dead and doesn't need to work anymore. I think the success of Shawshank probably went to his head and he developed the mindset that he's made his masterpiece and can die now. He was also apparently difficult to work with and threw massive tantrums.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121807082#Comment_121807082

Oh wow that's a nice number and clearly AMC effed up, though I'm reading it also went to the agency so wonder how much of the payout actually went to Darabont's bank account? Certainly the bits I've read about his time in The Waking Dead made it sound like some of the acrimony was due to Darabont's own intransigence so there's definitely blame to go around.

TWD was a show that never ever recovered from the loss of Darabont, not that the viewing figures spoke of that mind you. But that first season had such potential, with the quality drop something of a cliff face.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121806779#Comment_121806779

Ah yeah forgot he has a go at Indiana Jones 4 - wasn't that the "saucerman" draft that kind found its way into the final thing?

I suppose what I'm lamenting enough are the Darabonts, Donners, McTiernans of this world being an extinct species: absolutely top of the line pros who stop short at being auteurs or geniuses but consummate craftsmen who could helm mid-budget mainstream (sometimes blockbuster) entertainment that got bums on seats. They simply don't exist anymore, though the likes of Mangold or Stahelski are kinda keeping the flame lit.

silliussoddius

I find it funny that Darabont adapted two King stories with open endings, took them in completely different emotional directions and they both worked.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121808907#Comment_121808907

IIRC King even said Darabont's choice for The Mist was the better ending; the author of course famous for his often less than satisfying endings.

buried

Rolling Thunder (1977)

Never heard of this at all save for the fact the screenplay was written by Paul Schrader, who wrote or helped co-write some of Martin Scorsese's finest stuff. Absolutely fantastic 70's revenge thriller. Basic plot is two former POW Vietnam veterans, played by William Devane and Tommy Lee Jones, who come back home to Texas, totally traumatized from the event, one of them is brutally attacked by a gang of thugs and then the two veterans go out on the hunt for ultimate frontier revenge.

There are serious and blatant nods from this film that were shown in 'No Country For Old Men', which as everyone knows, also starred Lee Jones. I wouldn't be surprised if the Coen brothers seriously studied this thing because some of the shots set along the same Texas/Mexico border in this thing are visually carbon copies of the fantastic work they made for 'No Country...'

It's just great craic, violent as hell, shoddy pulpy sequential editing but intertwined with some fantastic writing especially some of the dialogue. Great way to spend a hour and a half, its free up on youtube too. 8/10

pixelburp

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

This felt like watching a slightly sketched out stage play, albeit one that crackled with naked provocation to the extent I could still absorb how and why it caused such a cultural splash when it first landed; but also a film whose production limitations could be quite obvious, no matter how much Tarantino's script, editing structure or notably cinematic direction tried to work around the constraints. Or indeed just leaned into the lack of shekels through the form of an in media res bank heist, the disparate criminals arguing over the particulars of events we never got to see; the character drama fuelled by a predominance of addled paranoia. I had forgotten just how little of the job itself was shown across the story, at most only ever seeing a few scenes in the aftermath but nothing at the jewellery store itself.

And because it was a first film, the various ingredients that would come to inform Tarantino's more visceral films often felt a little embryonic in places; tropes and tics that would become iterated over across the director's subsequent features felt a little half baked in places - or in the case of the intentionally vulgar, epithet riddled dialogue, perhaps a tad too Try Hard. Mind you, I was never much of a fan of that particular bullet in Tarantino's gun in the first place, so that element was always gonna chafe. But like I said, I could still perceive that sense of something that was a grenade in the room when it first came out.

Tony EH

^

I think it's still Tarantino's best film. 'Jackie Brown' being a close second.

Decuc500

Seen at the Dublin Film Festival:

Monster

The new film from Hirokazu Kore-eda. This starts off as a story about a boy who is being bullied by his teacher but as the film progresses we see the same scenes being played out from different characters viewpoints to gradually reveal what is really happening. That old narrative device but it’s done so brilliantly here. There’s a level of humanity in Kore-eda’s films that feels so natural and real. Monster is one of his best (which is really saying something). The emotional payoff is so powerful and well earned. Just a beautiful film.

Stolen

An Indian film that proves there’s more to Indian cinema than Bollywood. A man witnesses a baby being stolen from her sleeping mother at a train station and he and his brother get involved in the police investigation. Through a combination of social media, misunderstanding and the power of mob mentality, local people in this rural area come to believe that the brothers and mother of the baby are the actual child kidnappers. What follows is basically one long chase movie as the trio try to escape from the angry mob and get the baby back.

It’s got the immediacy of an Alfonso Cuaran film, the camera right in the middle of the action, long takes and great sound design, building to an anxiety inducing ending.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121822938#Comment_121822938

It definitely doesn't suffer the kind of bloat that would plague his later work; that lack of time, money or clout probably stopping impulses he'd later indulge. Agree about Jackie Brown being his best work, it's a shame he drifted so far from that as he went on, though Once Upon a Time... definitely seemed to claw back that more mature, reflective tone.

Fysh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121823008#Comment_121823008

Some of the drift is down to the death of Sally Menke, his editor through to Inglorious Basterds - although tbh as early as Kill Bill Part 2 you could already see the excessive preciousness and baggy writing creeping in, but it's impossible IMO to look at the jump from Inglorious Basterds to Django Unchained and not attribute it to a change of editor.

silverharp

1st episode of a Danish show Prisoner, Prison show from the guards perspective. Its good so far, I dont know if its one series and done?

edit I see not the TV thread, still worth a look though

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121823008#Comment_121823008

'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' is fine up until the ending where it takes a turn into stupid land. And this has been a problem for me with Tarantino's films for a long time. There is always a point where he loses me because he cannot restrain himself and he puts in a dumb scene or two that effectively ruins the movie to a certain degree. His best efforts, by a country mile, have been his first three films. But by the time we get to 'Kill Bill' you can see he's losing the run of himself. Although the nadir of his output will probably always be 'Inglorious Basterds'. That movie is out and out dreck. There's just too much dumb going on in that film.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121823150#Comment_121823150

'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' is fine up until the ending where it takes a turn into stupid land

What's more, the ending only even makes any kinda of "sense" if one's aware of the life of Sharon Tate, and what the ending uppends; like Tarantino thought he could do the Inglorious Basterds ending again and it'd be as effective. So it was just a completely out-of-nowhere about turn into Grindhouse madness when up 'til that moment was a mature reflection on creeping obsolescence - and felt a bit introspective on Tarantino's part.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121823054#Comment_121823054

Funny how often some of our biggest creative minds have these unsung people who were so quintessential to their success. Though like I said it'd probably be near impossible now for Tarantino to make a film as low-budget as Reservoir Dogs, which itself forced him to focus.

This content has been removed.

Jump_In_Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121822938#Comment_121822938

I respect all well made views so far, but Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece for me. Best Tarantino film IMO. Also appreciated The Hateful Eight.

Inglourious Basterds had one great scene about asking for 3 drinks in German. The whole build up was so tense. Also the opening scene was great, meeting Christoph Waltz for the first time, mesmerising performance.

pixelburp

I can't deny I'm dead curious to know what his Star Trek 4 treatment / script looked like, apparently centring around that famous "Gangster Planet" episode from the original 1960s series. It sounds so stupid, and there's not a hope in héll it'll get made (thankfully), but I'd love to know more, even if it was probably written as a joke.

This content has been removed.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121825755#Comment_121825755

'Pulp Fiction' is an excellent movie, no doubt. But 'Reservoir Dogs' pips it at the post. But I really like his three first films and would highly recommend each to someone who's never sat down to them.

As to 'The Hateful Eight' and 'Inglorious Basterds'...the former film is brilliant, until everyone starts spewing geysers of blood and we turn from a well made series of events into stupid land. In other words we reach the point where Tarantino loses me. The latter film contains, for sure, some tense scenes. Namely the two scenes you mention. But the rest is terrible.

pixelburp

The Animal Kingdom (2023)

Suffered a touch from being underwritten within its two main narrative pillars: the family drama angle didn't really have much sustenance in its plotting, but the broader & more arresting concept itself went a shade under-explored too. The idea of humans suddenly mutating into animals - in a manner that was brutal, painful and distressing as one's sapience evaporated - invited a spectrum of avenues to explore; not least how society and authorities would react to these sudden & random changes. There's something uniquely intriguing to me about these kind of stories of bodily change, whether they're played as metaphor, horror, aspiration or what have you - and this felt like a fresh idea, played straight.

Frustratingly little of those storytelling possibilities appeared though, outside of a few stock prejudicial comments from side characters & ones that hit all the tropes we've seen since the days of X-Men; the text of film content to render the public's perception as automatically hostile or fearful, even if more diverse opinions might have added layers of interest. While equally, the main "creep" (as the mutating people were called) we met was a violent and hostile bird man, leaving any potential thematic nuance a bit intangible, not even achieving something as hackneyed as "hey, maybe we're the animals here". It was like the writers came up with this singularly arresting concept then failed to think up anything interesting to do with it - bar one fun, macabre sequence at the fish counter in a supermarket.

Still, to the positives, starting with the absolutely fabulous creature effects that were deft combinations of practical FX and CGI augmentation, with results that straddled the line between something evocative - almost alluring after a fashion - and outright body horror; as said the transformations weren't cute or playful (take a look at Netflix's Sweet Tooth as a contrast, where its animal-children often sport different ears or fluffy tails - but rarely anything repulsive or distinctly "other"), but looked painful and disorienting as people's bodies slowly contorted and changed, their sense of self slowly ebbing away in tow. And while sure it was thinly sketched the family drama of the son's own change worked well enough: it sidestepped many lazy clichés of teenage angst that might have otherwise added a yawn inducing source of conflict; the son and dad's struggles founded on love and support, even as it became clear the father was about to lose a son, his wife already mutated. Both actors did the heavy lifting here and a bittersweet ending felt earned because little before it felt overcooked. Praise for Paul Kircher's physical performance in particular with the little ways he changed his stance and movement as he slowly changed, coupled with the practical FX.

Perhaps the most egregiously underwritten aspect of the movie though was the policewoman played by Adèle Exarchopoulos: taking the gong for the most superfluous character I've seen in a film in a long while. Removed from the plot her absence would have left no imprint and it left me wonder why she was a main character at all. I wondered if she was the victim of rewrites here: that maybe the initial point of her was to be a potential future path for the dad; where he'd have to weigh continuing the quixotic emotional tether of his wife, now a wild animal and beyond him, against the potential of a new partner and more human connection. Heck, there was even a specific moment when I thought OK, here we go; the classic accidental moment where two characters accidentally fell on each other, they stared into each other's eyes for a minute then ... oh wait; he just stood up. Never mind. Granted, the age difference felt a little much - but that never stopped films before when the writer/director externalised their midlife crisis.

This content has been removed.

silliussoddius

Watched the first two Pusher films. I think I was expecting something a bit more "actiony" but these are definitely more character driven films, especially the second one. I thought the first one came out later than it did, so there were a couple things that made me think "Trainspotting rip off" but they were both made the same year.

Definitely recommend them.

This content has been removed.

Homelander

Watched The Gift last night, a movie I'd always been meaning to watch but just somehow it kept sliding down the priority list. Saw it was on Prime and bit the bullet.

Absolutely found it enthralling from the start, for a first time effort from Joel Edgerton it's incredible. Pacing, tension, atmosphere, the nature of the unravel, the turns, all absolutely superb.

Don't want to say too much about the movie itself, but the premise is pretty simple - a couple move back closer to home, and the husband happens by chance to meet an old high school classmate who is a little over zealous in his attempts to befriend them.

As mystery/thriller/suspense type movies go, this was absolutely perfect and I couldn't rate it highly enough.

PTH2009

Watched 'Veronica Guerin' and noticed something intresting during the funeral scene. Why is 'the monk Gerry Huth' there ? Was he actually there in real life ?

Was this just a mistake by the prouders ?

NIMAN

Watched Dune Pt1 last night in preparation for hopefully seeing Pt2 in the cinema.

A good film for sure, but in terms of sci-fi classics like Alien, Star Wars etc, not even in the same ballpark for me. An enjoyable watch and by all accounts Pt2 is better, so looking forward to seeing how that pans out, as I never managed to read the book, having started it a few times over the years.

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121848686#Comment_121848686

Yeah, great film. Deserves to be more well known.

Decuc500

lo Capitano

This was the Surprise film at the Dublin Film Festival. It's rare that the festival would choose a subtitled film but I thought this was a great choice.

It's about two cousins from Senegal who make the journey north through Africa to find work in Europe. It's quite a tough watch at times as they have to deal with people smugglers, corrupt border guards and violent militia, everybody out to scam and steal every penny from desperate migrants. The landscape is deadly as well. The life and death journey across the desert is depicted really well.

Ultimately though it's a compassionate film. The cinematography is stunning and the soundtrack is a pumping desert blues.

It won the Silver Lion at Venice for best director for Matteo 'Gomorrah' Garrone and is up for the Best International Film at the Oscars.

pixelburp

Straw Dogs (1971)

In a word: yikes. "Depiction does not equal endorsement" is all well and good, but callous disregard can also be its own tacit misdeed.

This was as stiflingly bleak and transgressive as advertised, a film whose lingering cultural identity centred around a scene that certainly lived up to its reputation. Yet rather than some isolated incident of shock like the parrot in Citizen Kane, designed to rouse you out of complacency, this was a feature where the most infamous moment was a horrible inevitability, another horror among the embedded sense of depravity or looming threat of sexual violence. Yet even then, that scene didn't function as some grotesque narrative pivot around which lessons were learned, opinions changed and villains met with cathartic violence. Ultimately this was a story of monsters, both those in a community and domestic ones and where Peckinpah's repeated and infamous use of violence as a thematic device came to something of a crescendo - but therein lay the film's strength and most significant weakness.

The crucial contextual lynchpin here that transcended the thing from any kind of Revenge Fantasy was that Dustin Hoffman's character was no saint. He was easily as contemptible as the feral Cornish locals that circled his and Amy's house - or indeed her person: Hoffman's David possessed the thinnest patina of smiling and vaguely smug civility, all masking what amounted to controlling and psychologically manipulative behaviour at home; this was a marriage teetering on collapse before the film began and David's obvious insecurities, pettiness and emotional abuse merely mutated into a physical form by the end (threatened if not actualised, but what's the difference?).

When the switch flipped in his head in the last act, it was less like a triumphant Death Wish adjacent release of potential - where the ostensibly weak were pushed too far - but of a man embracing his own repugnant nature to the fullest as he stubbornly sheltered a child molester of all things, common sense be damned. All repressed impulses that were clearly signposted from the off in David's treatment of the housecat. So there was something fascinating, if horrifying and vulgar, at play in all this, but therein lay the largest problem when modern perspectives clashed with the old: simply put, Peckinpah didn't have the language, nuance - or maybe base interest to be honest - to interrogate the themes from the female point of view. Both main female characters suffered horrendous fates at the hands of violent men, yet neither were given agency, sympathy or any promise of an escape hatch - they were kinda deployed as tragic objects for the sake of Peckinpah's critique of male violence.

The more obvious narrative structure that would have tempered the pulse of this thing was if the marriage was a truly loving, pacifistic one: where two urbane equals were suddenly trapped and out of their depth, beset by shotgun-wielding locals. It's a format of the "Folk Horror" genre well understood, completely clichéd without doubt - and probably hated by rural tourist boards across the world. It can be crude and primal, but it can work, especially if as I mentioned a female perspective is used to interrogate the themes. Going double if the person wielding the shotgun at the end is the woman.

Instead the violence was relentless and inescapable in the life of Susan George's Amy, buttressed and trapped from the get-go by male toxicity emanating from both the men of her hometown and a dismissive, emotionally abusive husband. She seemed smart, capable and self-aware but was never given a chance. Peckinpah's rush to show the depths of masculinity run amok forgot about the woman at the centre of it all, left violated then inexplicably second-place to a child molester as her husband mutated into his final form; again, the boilerplate exploitation angle would have been David's rage be born from learning of the rape - but here, he never does. His entire murderous rampage never born from even a scintilla of concern for Amy - indeed he merely threatened to break her neck as she pleaded to simply hand the molester to the locals.

I'm almost half curious to see the remake 'cos I can't imagine even half the execution transferred over to 2011 vehicle.

Tony EH

An interesting reading on 'Straw Dogs', but I think reducing David Warner's character down to mere "child molester" doesn't take into account that the character is severely mentally handicapped. I'm not so sure he's just a child molester in the sense that we would know it or that would be commonly used. It's more that he has the brain and development of a child himself. I don't think there's any real calculations going on in that character's head.

I'm also not too sure that Susan George's character is all sweetness and light either to be honest. She's clearly supposed to be a girl that's used to a more, shall we say, "manly" other half in a relationship and she was the one time girlfriend of one of her rapists who never abandoned his "claim" over her. Something she doesn't seem all that upset about. The caveat there is that she doesn't deserve to be subjected to what she is.

Dustin Hoffman's mathematician, David, is someone that she's clearly settled for, however. But there doesn't seem to be any real affection there. Hoffman's character is dull and a bit of a coward and she's accustomed to something else entirely. He's certainly more intelligent than her, but he's been the butt of "toxic masculinity" himself, and he's experiencing it again with the characters in the village intimidating him and Amy wants him to be more of a "man".

Unfortunately what "more of a man" means in this case is being violent to other men who are violent to you. In other words resorting to a primitive behaviour, with all parties abandoning reason. The resulting siege of Trenchard's farm then plays out with David's intelligent violence combatting the stupid and drunken violence of the men looking to break into their house and lynch Henry Niles and probably do a mischief to the Sumner's too. David says "I will not allow violence against this house" and then has to succumb to his own innate violent tendencies to prevent that reality. Clearly, by the conclusion of the film, he's enjoyed his victory a bit too much.

I think that what Peckinpah was trying to achieve, and in many respects achieved, was for people to be disgusted by the casual and shocking nature of violent actions that seemingly come out of nowhere, but are actually the result of minor and constant chipping away at a situation. Which, all too often, is the case. Tense situations that can be easily resolved can and do explode into violence, leaving many wondering what the hell happened.

I think 'Straw Dogs' is a great film, albeit a flawed one, just like every one of Peckinpah's movies. It's a tough watch, for sure, and it presents an uncomfortable viewing that few other pictures do.

As an aside, it's one of cinema's little ironies that that the cuts imposed on 'Straw Dogs' made the rape scene even more problematic than it was in the uncut version.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121854457#Comment_121854457

An interesting reading on 'Straw Dogs', but I think reducing David Warner's character down to mere "child molester" doesn't take into account that the character is severely mentally handicapped. I'm not so sure he's just a child molester in the sense that we would know it or that would be commonly used. It's more that he has the brain and development of a child himself. I don't think there's any real calculations going on in that character's head.

Yeah maybe that's a fair point: I haven't been left with such a shivering sense of distaste for a mainstream film in a long while. I hadn't really considered that angle at all and came at my own conclusions due to the young girl's own oddly ... sexual demeanour; first with DAvid, then with David Warner's character when she seemingly got nowhere with David. Certainly Warner's actions felt more "innocent" than an outright predator, even if the outcome seemed the same - and just appeared to be yet another awful little aspect of The Worst Village In England (The Wicker Man was set in Scotland, ha).

I'm also not too sure that Susan George's character is all sweetness and light either to be honest. She's clearly supposed to be a girl that's used to a more, shall we say, "manly" other half in a relationship and she was the one time girlfriend of one of her rapists who never abandoned his "claim" over her. Something she doesn't seem all that upset about. The caveat there is that she doesn't deserve to be subjected to what she is.

I certainly think she gave as good as she got, and did seem to be superficially charmed by her boyhood fling still being having an interest, a charm that stopped once things got way out of hand ... but by and large David was a gigantic, controlling asshóle to her in his own right, the scales in that marriage felt quite lopsided as he seemed utterly incapable of dealing with her as being her own person. David often talking down to her, infantilising her, and even trotting out the classic "well if you dressed like that, what do you expect?". While with his psychotic break at the end, as I said he just outright threatened her. Am curious how that remake treats all that, or if the David Warner character even exists.

I think that what Peckinpah was trying to achieve, and in many respects achieved, was for people to be disgusted by the casual and shocking nature of violent actions that seemingly come out of nowhere, but are actually the result of minor and constant chipping away at a situation. Which, all too often, is the case. Tense situations that can be easily resolved can and do explode into violence, leaving many wondering what the hell happened.

I think 'Straw Dogs' is a great film, albeit a flawed one, just like every one of Peckinpah's movies. It's a tough watch, for sure, and it presents an uncomfortable viewing that few other pictures do.

Oh 100% "Bloody Sam" rode a very fine line between "this violence is awesome" and "this violence is terrible". The film very definitely left a feeling of disgust, but I suppose my modern eyes couldn't help see the ways that the women were just these things left to stir the pot but given no sense of agency or purpose - except to drive the men crazy. And I don't think Peckinpah meant to be misogonistic - I know nothing of the man's personality either way, 'cept he was constantly drunk by the end & Cross of Iron - it's more that I think in a rush to despair at one half of the human condition, he kinda sacraficed the other half.

A fascinating film for sure either way, though in my growing list of "great films I never wanna watch again"; was gonna put on The Getaway next, another Peckinpah I'd been meaning to catch up on. Why hello, Ali McGraw.

As an aside, it's one of cinema's little ironies that that the cuts imposed on 'Straw Dogs' made the rape scene even more problematic than it was in the uncut version.

Uh, it rang a little abstracted without any edits, but would I be right in spitballing the cut version only made it seem even more like Amy was into it?