What have you watched recently? 3D!

ButtersSuki

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

A white director didn’t make Get Out. A black director did, and made a film from a distinctly black perspective. It’s part of the very fabric of the film. It doesn’t make the film good or bad in itself, but it’s impossible to separate Jordan Peele from the film he made because he’s an integral part of its DNA (ditto the cast).

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or sarcastic here or not tbh. Of course I'm aware that a white director didn't make the film. My point being that had the exact same movie been made by a white director I doubt it would have been subject to the same hype, reception, or critical appeal.

My opinion is that it is very much an over-rated piece of work; and pales in comparison to much/most of the early work of other black filmmakers, for example Spike Lee (note: I found Black KKKlansman disapointing too tbh, which also involved Peele). I'd be a huge fan of most of Lee's work. If I had to sum up Get Out in one word I found it "smug".

And I'm no Peele hater, I really liked Key & Peele, and Keanu!

I looked back for my reviews and scores of Get Out and Keanu respectively. I gave Get Out 4/10 after seeing it in the cinema, and Keanu 6.5/10.

Though I have it on Blu Ray, I've yet to watch Us.

Fysh

But a white director wouldn't have made the same film, which is Johnny's point. It is notable for the fact that it is a mainstream "horror" film that had an explicitly black perspective in the writing and direction. Whether the resultant film works for you is a different matter, but asserting that it's only well-received because of some sort of audience equivalent of Affirmative Action is a bit silly at best, IMO.

Fysh

Fysh wrote: »

But a white director wouldn't have made the same film, which is Johnny's point. It is notable for the fact that it is a mainstream "horror" film that had an explicitly black perspective in the writing and direction. Whether the resultant film works for you is a different matter, but asserting that it's only well-received because of some sort of audience equivalent of Affirmative Action is a bit silly at best, IMO.

2018 Oscar nominations for "Get Out"

Best Picture

Best Director

Best Original Screenplay (Won)

Best Actor


No way that film deserved those 4 nominations (in pretty much the biggest award categories) on simply its own merit.

S.M.B.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

World of Tomorrow: Episode Three - I'm not sure if Don Hertzfeldt has basically committed his career to making these 30 minute masterpieces every few years, but I'm not going to complain if he has.

No idea how I never heard of these short movies before the buzz surrounding this recent episode. Going to catch up on all three this week. Really enjoyed episode 1.

ButtersSuki

Fysh wrote: »

But a white director wouldn't have made the same film, which is Johnny's point. It is notable for the fact that it is a mainstream "horror" film that had an explicitly black perspective in the writing and direction. Whether the resultant film works for you is a different matter, but asserting that it's only well-received because of some sort of audience equivalent of Affirmative Action is a bit silly at best, IMO.

That's not really what I said to be fair. Nor did I say a white director would have made the film. I'd like if we could take colour out of the mix and judge a movie on its merits - crazy I know?!

There are far better "black" films (and I fell uncomforatable descibing films like that) to Get Out; take "School Daze" for example by Spike Lee, which touches on similar (not identical) themes to "Get Out" but asks the audiences far better and deeper questions. It's a movie that has stayed with me since my first viewing as a teen (I'm in my 40s now). The easy example would be Lee's "Do The Right Thing" of vourse, but I think that's an unfair comparison to hold "Get Out" up to. "School Daze" wasn't mainstream because of the time, there wasn't a market for it, etc.; I think "Get Out" benefitted enormously form its release timing because of the activism (yes) present in America at the time - and I say this as someone who spent 120+days in America in 2017 when the movie was released.

The Blacula movies are much better horror movies, perhaps even comedy-horror movies than "Get Out". I could list a wealth of black comedy movies that are superior it from a comedic perspective.

Again I go back to the "smugness" (my opinion) of "Get Out". There's a real "Emperor's New Clothes" feel to it in my opinion, where I felt at the time that if you said anything negative about it you were somehow seen to be not very woke, or even racist. Which is frankly, bollocks.

johnny_ultimate

ButtersSuki wrote: »

That's not really what I said to be fair. Nor did I say a white director would have made the film. I'd like if we could take colour out of the mix and judge a movie on its merits - crazy I know?!

More than happy to judge the film on its own merits - but you simply can’t remove Get Out’s black perspective from the mix, because it’s a central tenet of the whole thing Nothing to do with whether the film is good or not (and there are plenty of films from black American filmmakers I prefer to it), but to me saying ‘what if a white director made it?’ is like saying ‘what if a white director made Do The Right Thing?’. It’s an impossible hypothetical argument that voids the film of context & meaning and gets us nowhere.

And just to be clear here: I have no problem whatsoever with people not liking the film. I like it, but I’m only ever confident speaking for myself and my perspective - I’m not a big fan of declaring any film ‘overrated’ as I think it’s unfair on those who liked it. If there’s some people unfairly demanding people like Get Out for American culture war reasons, that’s dumb. But not seeing any of that here.

johnny_ultimate

S.M.B. wrote: »

No idea how I never heard of these short movies before the buzz surrounding this recent episode. Going to catch up on all three this week. Really enjoyed episode 1.

Enjoy, they’re all a trip! Assume you’ve seen It’s Such A Beautiful Day?

pixelburp

glasso wrote: »

2018 Oscar nominations for "Get Out"

Best Picture

Best Director

Best Original Screenplay (Won)

Best Actor


No way that film deserved those 4 nominations (in pretty much the biggest award categories) on simply its own merit.

Your first mistake is paying attention to what The Academy rates as its top movies. Ignore that backslapping ceremony as anything resembling a barometer of good cinema and you'll go far in your cinematic enjoyment the Parasites are not indicative IMO of a broad trend.

megaten

Birthday Wonderland

Another anime film from screenanime.com. Harmless enough fantasy children's film but it had a lovely warm palette to it which was nice for the cold days right now.

S.M.B.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Enjoy, they’re all a trip! Assume you’ve seen It’s Such A Beautiful Day?

Nope, I have somehow never even heard of Don Hertzfeldt until World of Tomorrow reviews started popping up on my letterboxd recently. Actually come to think of it, it may have been your review which first caught my eye as I believe I follow you.

I've managed to find the 3 WoT episodes on Vimeo on Demand and I believe Such A Beautiful Day is also there but Vimeo appears to be the worst streaming application ever invented for trying to surface paid content. I've been very close to giving up a few times but glad I've stuck at it so far.

Del.Monte

"Run All Night" (2015) Netflix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uDuFh-nC-c

Another Liam Neeson vehicle but one of the better ones. Bucket loads of shootings, stabbings etc as our hero tries to protect his son from his (Neeson's) long-time best buddy's quest for revenge for the death of his own son at Neeson's hands. 10/10

D'Agger

The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020)

Conflicted about this because the story is well told in typical Sorkin style so I did enjoy it overall, particularly because one or two elements of the story will have you wondering just how much creative license was taken. With that said, the performances are all solid, without being standout. Given the cast perhaps I was expecting more but I thought Redmayne was quite average, Gordon-Levitt was solid, Baron Cohen was fine....only Mark Rylance really stood out for me as having a really good performance. But the final scene went for 'powerful' and honestly felt like a throwback to the 90's or something, I felt it built up, built up and then utterly missed the mark - perhaps they advertised too clearly how it was going to end but I just threw my eyes to heaven when it did happen.

6.5/10


Last Man (2018)

Really enjoyed this though admittedly I'm a fan of Goslings deadpan (some might say 'wooden' ) acting but he was playing a test pilot & astronaut renowned for being analytical and cool under pressure and yet at there are emotional scenes that I thought he was excellent in. Well supported by a solid cast with Claire Foy, Kyle Chandler, Corey Stoll & Jason Clarke playing their parts really well, thought it was very well shot too.

8/10

Harry Palmr

Del.Monte wrote: »

"Run All Night" (2015) Netflix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uDuFh-nC-c

Another Liam Neeson vehicle but one of the better ones. Bucket loads of shootings, stabbings etc as our hero tries to protect his son from his (Neeson's) long-time best buddy's quest for revenge for the death of his own son at Neeson's hands. 10/10

Neeson really has turned into Charles Bronson for the 21st century

Harry Palmr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Neeson really has turned into Charles Bronson for the 21st century

as he's not far off 70 now I think that his hard man movie days are done probably after this latest "Honest Thief" (just out) and "The Ice Road" (already filmed in Feb 2020).

notwithstanding that it has been a great cash cow for him - a very profitable 10 years from the surprise hit Taken in 2008

Mad_maxx

Godzilla king of the monsters

crap and yet enjoyable and i preferred it to the 2014 one

p to the e

Baraka. This epic meditation on life, death and everything in between hasn't aged at all and the 8k restoration (a first of its kind) only adds to this masterpiece. The non narrative presentation doesn't take a stance on any of the issues it films but rather just shows you the way the world is (or was in 1992) and lets you decide.

Some of the scenery of rainforests, tribal celebrations, deserts and even dilapidated cityscapes, like the long gone Kowloon city, are stunning but are juxtaposed with cold manufacturing processes like battery hens or dark eras like Auschwitz or Tuol Sleng.

The director Ron Fricke was the cinematographer for first in the Qatsi trilogy so he has experience with such ambitious projects. I was lucky to see his follow up "Samsara" when it was in the cinema so had been meaning to watch this for some time. I managed to find it on Youtube recently so it's worth a watch if you have c90 minutes available.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRBJSKSBy-w

D'Agger

D'Agger wrote: »

The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020)

Conflicted about this because the story is well told in typical Sorkin style so I did enjoy it overall, particularly because one or two elements of the story will have you wondering just how much creative license was taken. With that said, the performances are all solid, without being standout. Given the cast perhaps I was expecting more but I thought Redmayne was quite average, Gordon-Levitt was solid, Baron Cohen was fine....only Mark Rylance really stood out for me as having a really good performance. But the final scene went for 'powerful' and honestly felt like a throwback to the 90's or something, I felt it built up, built up and then utterly missed the mark - perhaps they advertised too clearly how it was going to end but I just threw my eyes to heaven when it did happen.

6.5/10

That sums its up well. Rylance was the only one who fit the jigsaw properly, apart from Frank Langella who Sorkin indulged a bit too much with on the dialogue.
The last scene was a summation of the averageness of the film, which does just about hit the 6.5.

S.M.B.

p to the e wrote: »

Baraka. This epic meditation on life, death and everything in between hasn't aged at all and the 8k restoration (a first of its kind) only adds to this masterpiece. The non narrative presentation doesn't take a stance on any of the issues it films but rather just shows you the way the world is (or was in 1992) and lets you decide.

Some of the scenery of rainforests, tribal celebrations, deserts and even dilapidated cityscapes, like the long gone Kowloon city, are stunning but are juxtaposed with cold manufacturing processes like battery hens or dark eras like Auschwitz or Tuol Sleng.

The director Ron Fricke was the cinematographer for the Qatsi trilogy so he has experience with such ambitious projects. I was lucky to see his follow up "Samsara" when it was in the cinema so had been meaning to watch this for some time. I managed to find it on Youtube recently so it's worth a watch if you have c90 minutes available.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRBJSKSBy-w

Caught Samsara in the cinemas too and was blown away, tracked down Baraka soon after but haven't seen either in years.

Might have to give this a rewatch.

Tony EH

Del.Monte wrote: »

"Run All Night" (2015) Netflix
Another Liam Neeson vehicle but one of the better ones. Bucket loads of shootings, stabbings etc as our hero tries to protect his son from his (Neeson's) long-time best buddy's quest for revenge for the death of his own son at Neeson's hands. 10/10

Jesus really? The full 10?

Harry Palmr

Del.Monte is an aficionado of such films. If he says it's a 10 it's a 10!

budgemook

Do not question the review scores of Del.Monte.

Tony EH

'The Evil Dead'

Sam Raimi's ridiculously popular cheapy from 1981 - he actually started making it in 1979 - wasn't a hit with me when I first saw it in the late 80's. It was, to all intents and purposes, banned for much of the decade and when it was finally released on video, it was heavily cut. But with all the hype surrounding it, it simply couldn't have lived up to any expectations. That and the fact that it was made for a couple a quid and a bag of chips meant that the impression it left wasn't that deep. In the years after, 'Evil Dead II' became the only film of the series that I could say was enjoyable, with 'Army of Darkness' being relegated to a dumb waste of time where it always sat for me.

However, on recent viewing, 'The Evil Dead' revealed itself to be a very different film than I remembered and much more enjoyable than I recalled. In fact, I can say that it's the best of the series, although it's really a very different beast to anything that came after it. Modelling itself more after a straightforward horror rather than the silly Three Stooges slapstick of later movies, it has a completely different atmosphere altogether. There is still fun to be had, of course, but you won't see any of the nonsense that goes on in the likes of 'Evil Dead II'.

In 'The Evil Dead' we're introduced to Ash Williams, the ever tormented protagonist of the series, who travels to a remote cabin in Tennessee with his girlfriend Linda, his sister Cheryl and their 2 mates, Scott and Shelly. There they discover in the basement, the Book of the Dead (the film's original title) and a tape recorder with strange incantations, which they play (of course) and summon up a Kandarian demon who possesses Ash's companions and turns them into deadites.

It's all a load of bunkum of course, but it's impossible not to admire the sheer effort put into everything by the young and inexperienced film makers which results in a very pleasing, messy, grindhouse, classic shot on delightfully grainy 16mm film. It's story isn't anything to write home about and it's been done to death in subsequent years too (in fact it was a staple of horror years before), but that doesn't take anything away from it and at a mere 85 minutes, it races by in short order.

8/10


*As an aside, the commentary track on the blu ray by Bruce Campbell is a great listen.

Tony EH

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Del.Monte is an aficionado of such films. If he says it's a 10 it's a 10!

Well, it looks like I'll sitting down to some Liam on Netflix in the near future so. :pac:

chrislad

Watched 'Trial of the Chicago 7' - it was decent enough, but probably would have worked better as a 4 part series - it just seems kind of rushed along, but it was a quick 2 hours, and the cast was very good, Rylance and Langella, though a bit OTT, in particular.

Fuascailteoir

Tony EH wrote: »

'The Evil Dead'

Sam Raimi's ridiculously popular cheapy from 1981 - he actually started making it in 1979 - wasn't a hit with me when I first saw it in the late 80's. It was, to all intents and purposes, banned for much of the decade and when it was finally released on video, it was heavily cut. But with all the hype surrounding it, it simply couldn't have lived up to any expectations. That and the fact that it was made for a couple a quid and a bag of chips meant that the impression it left wasn't that deep. In the years after, 'Evil Dead II' became the only film of the series that I could say was enjoyable, with 'Army of Darkness' being relegated to a dumb waste of time where it always sat for me.

However, on recent viewing, 'The Evil Dead' revealed itself to be a very different film than I remembered and much more enjoyable than I recalled. In fact, I can say that it's the best of the series, although it's really a very different beast to anything that came after it. Modelling itself more after a straightforward horror rather than the silly Three Stooges slapstick of later movies, it has a completely different atmosphere altogether. There is still fun to be had, of course, but you won't see any of the nonsense that goes on in the likes of 'Evil Dead II'.

In 'The Evil Dead' we're introduced to Ash Williams, the ever tormented protagonist of the series, who travels to a remote cabin in Tennessee with his girlfriend Linda, his sister Cheryl and their 2 mates, Scott and Shelly. There they discover in the basement, the Book of the Dead (the film's original title) and a tape recorder with strange incantations, which they play (of course) and summon up a Kandarian demon who possesses Ash's companions and turns them into deadites.

It's all a load of bunkum of course, but it's impossible not to admire the sheer effort put into everything by the young and inexperienced film makers which results in a very pleasing, messy, grindhouse, classic shot on delightfully grainy 16mm film. It's story isn't anything to write home about and it's been done to death in subsequent years too (in fact it was a staple of horror years before), but that doesn't take anything away from it and at a mere 85 minutes, it races by in short order.

8/10


*As an aside, the commentary track on the blu ray by Bruce Campbell is a great listen.

Isin't it on that film that the coen brothers cut their teeth as well?

El Gato De Negocios

Tony EH wrote: »

'The Evil Dead'

Sam Raimi's ridiculously popular cheapy from 1981 - he actually started making it in 1979 - wasn't a hit with me when I first saw it in the late 80's. It was, to all intents and purposes, banned for much of the decade and when it was finally released on video, it was heavily cut. But with all the hype surrounding it, it simply couldn't have lived up to any expectations. That and the fact that it was made for a couple a quid and a bag of chips meant that the impression it left wasn't that deep. In the years after, 'Evil Dead II' became the only film of the series that I could say was enjoyable, with 'Army of Darkness' being relegated to a dumb waste of time where it always sat for me.

However, on recent viewing, 'The Evil Dead' revealed itself to be a very different film than I remembered and much more enjoyable than I recalled. In fact, I can say that it's the best of the series, although it's really a very different beast to anything that came after it. Modelling itself more after a straightforward horror rather than the silly Three Stooges slapstick of later movies, it has a completely different atmosphere altogether. There is still fun to be had, of course, but you won't see any of the nonsense that goes on in the likes of 'Evil Dead II'.

In 'The Evil Dead' we're introduced to Ash Williams, the ever tormented protagonist of the series, who travels to a remote cabin in Tennessee with his girlfriend Linda, his sister Cheryl and their 2 mates, Scott and Shelly. There they discover in the basement, the Book of the Dead (the film's original title) and a tape recorder with strange incantations, which they play (of course) and summon up a Kandarian demon who possesses Ash's companions and turns them into deadites.

It's all a load of bunkum of course, but it's impossible not to admire the sheer effort put into everything by the young and inexperienced film makers which results in a very pleasing, messy, grindhouse, classic shot on delightfully grainy 16mm film. It's story isn't anything to write home about and it's been done to death in subsequent years too (in fact it was a staple of horror years before), but that doesn't take anything away from it and at a mere 85 minutes, it races by in short order.

8/10


*As an aside, the commentary track on the blu ray by Bruce Campbell is a great listen.

Evil Dead is a smashing movie and easily in my top 10 horror GOAT.

It causes me severe rage when people say they prefer EDII to it. EDII is essentially National Lampoons present Evil Dead, it only exists because ED made a few quid but to get a wider release they essentially remade ED, cut out some of the nastier elements like the sexual assault by tree or pencil in the ankle and changed the color of the blood to greens and blues so it essentially isnt blood.

EDII is a bit of craic but it is in no way shape or form a horror movie, likewise AOD.

ED though, thats a bona fide horror classic.

Harry Palmr

Hot Fuzz (2007) Dir Edgar Wright

Frantic, flash, frenetic and fun

_Godot_

Shame

gmisk

The jewel of the nile.
It really hasn't aged well and isn't a patch on romancing the stone which is fantastic. But still fun.
The chemistry between Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas is brilliant.

Tony EH

Fuascailteoir wrote: »

Isin't it on that film that the coen brothers cut their teeth as well?

I think they were involved in editing. Joel Coen's name certainly pops up at the end.

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

Evil Dead is a smashing movie and easily in my top 10 horror GOAT.

It causes me severe rage when people say they prefer EDII to it. EDII is essentially National Lampoons present Evil Dead, it only exists because ED made a few quid but to get a wider release they essentially remade ED, cut out some of the nastier elements like the sexual assault by tree or pencil in the ankle and changed the color of the blood to greens and blues so it essentially isnt blood.

EDII is a bit of craic but it is in no way shape or form a horror movie, likewise AOD.

ED though, thats a bona fide horror classic.

'The Evil Dead' kinda got memory hole'd for me. I saw it when I was young and I wasn't that impressed. Then I saw 'Evil Dead II' and for years I just thought that the original was simply a rubbish version of the more polished "sequel". It stayed that way for decades. It was only on a whim that I bothered to sit down to it again and found that it was a vastly different picture than the one I had in my head.

I've watched it three times now in the space of a week. :pac:

It's resulted in a switch on the podium, with the original easily getting gold and 'Evil Dead II' and 'Army of Darkness' getting a distanced silver and bronze.

According to the doc on the blu ray, Raimi made the "sequel/remake" a comedy, partly, because he was brought to court in Britain over the original film during the Conservative's video nasties scare. So, he was like "Fuck that, I'm not going through that crap again". Hence, in most people's minds, Evil Dead is a comedy franchise with Ash being a sort of numpty that blunders his way through. I still have a fondness for the second film (and Bruce Campbell's a legend), but I thought 'Army of Darkness' was pants and the TV show was very poor indeed.

Kinda pleasing to revisit an old movie you'd written off and find out that you were wrong about it.