What have you watched recently? 3D!

Fysh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120560458#Comment_120560458

To a certain extent I think that might be a bit of an issue with Oshii's approach to story in general. Case in point - I stuck on Patlabor: The Movie the other night (another one of his) as it's free to stream on ITV, and despite it being about big stompy robots and a plot that has a lot of overlap with GitS, I got bored and turned it off after 20 minutes.

That was partly because the ITV version only has a painful English dub - but also because after a solid cold-open/credit sequence scene, the film dumps so much leaden exposition (required to set up the story at the chosen start point) that you can almost hear the thud of impact. It's even acknowledged in the film by having the characters who are listening to the monologue shown to be dozing through it, which is a cute gag but not enough to pull it back.

I need to rewatch Avalon at some point as I recall enjoying it but suspect it probably has similar issues...

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120561984#Comment_120561984

Funny been wondering about Patlabor, how that was; also looked gorgeous in that technologically exacting way. And the irony in all this is that this is all visual storytelling we're advocating .., something you'd think would be an automatic reflex for an animated movie. A medium that emphasises its visual palette shouldn't even needed exposition really.

The Last Emperor (1987)

Finally braved the 3h40m runtime to watch this epic saga of the last Emperor of China.

Appointed at the age of three just as the family had abdicated the throne, and China became a republic, the Emperor was allowed to remain in name and privilege but not allowed to leave the Forbidden city and influence the country anymore. The film follows him until his death and documents what is quite an extraordinary life.

Directed by Bernardo Bertolucci, it is a sumptuously shot, flawless in production. It feels like its been made by an Italian such is the artistic detail at every turn. Filmed towards the end of the golden age of film when epic movies were still made, and the skill and artistry of film was there to behold. We have lost so much of that if not all of it now because of Cgi. Crowds are not real anymore, extra's are generated images, the challenges of filmmaking are not what they were, and it takes massively away from the end product are our potential to emotionally connect. None of that here with something that must have taken forever to shoot and edit, but got its just rewards with 9 Oscars.

The Emperor is played by 3 different actors as he grows up, and is tutored in his teenage years by Peter O'Toole who commands your respect on the screen with an excellent performance, guiding the Emperor through the devious actions of the eunuch's he was surrounded by.

This is a fascinating history lesson to say the least, how Japan was a completely different animal than it is now and its endeavours for the total domination of East Asia and every country in it. Flooding china with opium, operating prison camps, massacring 100's of thousands of people. China on the other hand fractured, corrupt and weak. How things have changed in that 100 years since then.

The film carries the time well, and only starts to drag a little bit in the final act but it still holds the attention all the way. Highly recommended 9/10.

monkeyactive

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

One I had not managed to re watch since its release.

Its just great. Packed with a who's who of British Actors. John Hurt , Stephen Graham, Tom Hardy , Cumber batch and on and on.

It really grabs you by the scruff of the neck this film . the pacing is perfect , your tugged along at a nice clip and the story and investigation flow nicely in well a edited mixture of time line jumping. Very stylish too.

A Spy classic

high marks/ 10

pixelburp

Silent Hill (2006)

Scene to scene, I vacillated between thinking this was either some kind of abstracted, demented genius - or total incoherent trash. And I'm honestly not sure where I landed by the film's end; the obvious place to settle is somewhere in the middle ... but even that feels like cheating somewhat. The video-game adaptation has become notable in being an unbroken succession of failures (ignoring TV & The Last of Us), and I think one of the pitfalls has often been the inescapable dissonance between an interactive narrative, often powered by reality-indifferent puzzle boxes - and cinema's fundamentally non-interactive format, formed from emotionality and thematic goals. So scripts sometimes fell over themselves trying to get distance from that "lesser" media, save for a few easter eggs and nods towards the games to placate the fans; with Silent Hill through, it kinda felt the filmmakers really wanted to embrace all those structural eccentricities and tropes of "video game logic" into the cinematic form - but nor am I convinced they actually pulled it off. Was my occasional confusion the point?

Assuming it was I suppose, the execution quite brazenly ran with this sensibility of foggy, dream logic and rarely compromised; the titular town a baffling nowhere place whose two modes were both eerie and disturbing in different ways, the palette of the games translated quite successfully. Both aesthetics were quite striking: the empty town transforming from ash-suffocated decrepitude into a nightmare form, one built entirely of rusty metal panels and barbed wire. It was and remains a fairly unique visual gimmick for a horror film; the latter, industrial variant of Silent Hill looking like Freddy Kruger's summer holiday destination. On the other hand, knowing some of the Silent Hill lore myself, certain iconography just didn't work within the context of this original story. The infamous "Pyramid Head" monster was the most obvious example here: in the original game he had a distinct, psychosexual purpose within the overall theme - yet here he was just a big 'aul monster, stomping around out of an obligation towards brand management. No explanation given for his presence, no hints towards a purpose relative to the town's secrets. Yet again though - was that the point? 

ozmo

Taking title literally..."What have you watched recently? 3D!"

Going through our collection of 3D BluRays -

Watched Guardians of Galaxy 1 recently + Watched Guardians of Galaxy 2 + Christmas Special this weekend in prep for 3rd film.

Great films - but GoTG1 is probably best film for 3D effects I've seen so far.

nachouser

Currently watching "The Covenant" by Guy Ritchie. I'm shaking my head at how unlike a Guy Ritchie film it is. Remarkable, so far.

jj880

Tetris (2023)

Enjoyable true story of how Tetris got released. A lot of twists and turns and people involved you wouldn't expect.

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Amongst Thieves (2023)

Thought this would be crap but was surprised mostly by the comedy and Hugh Grant plays a weasely snakey character very well. Ignore the cgi overkill.

What Is A Woman? (2022)

Interesting (and controversial) documentary about transgender rights and associated changes in society. Very interesting I thought. Some mad stuff going on in the USA / Canada around this.

jj880

The Night Of (2016)

8 episode whodunnit series from HBO. After the initial episode which was a bit far fetched I thought this was really good. Some great performances and gripping story.

nachouser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120577198#Comment_120577198

Yeah, I watched D&D a couple of days ago. Michelle Rodriguez was great in it. It's probably about 20 mins too long, but overall I found it a lot of fun.

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120577481#Comment_120577481

Got Covenant on here now. Never heard of it before seeing your post. Promising start to it. Didnt enjoy Ritchie's last movie Operation Fortune so hopefully this is better.

flasher0030

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120577530#Comment_120577530

Did you enjoy Covenant, now that you have seen it in full. I am hoping to throw it on tonight.

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120579952#Comment_120579952

I would say better than average. Although not based on a particular true story it highlights a part of the war in Afghanistan that I wasnt aware of but now definitely makes sense:

Spoiler Warning

The bond between some members of US military and their Afghan interpreters

Worth a watch for sure.

Fysh

I ended up sticking on Nobody last night, on the basis that it's 90 minutes, has been talked up favourably for good action, and stars Bob Odenkirk.

The positives are that the action is strong - crunchy fights with some inventive choreography, and filmed with some flair while prioritising clarity. Though it managed to undermine itself fairly badly early on by

Spoiler Warning

showing Hutch get stabbed in the side during one fight and literally go jogging the next day, not even bothering with stitches.

I could deal with that if it were the only flaw, but the bigger issue is that any time there aren't fists or bullets flying the writing is absolute arsegravy, and the tone is balanced too far into straightforward/po-faced for that to work in the first half of the film.

The final action set piece fully leans in to the daftness of the premise and is much better for it, but the rest of the film mistakenly thinks it's got anything whatsoever of interest to say about its characters and suffers for it.

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120581961#Comment_120581961

I enjoyed it overall but it is a well of toxic masculinity in which a man saves his marriage and earns the respect of his son by killing a bunch of goons.

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582764#Comment_120582764

Come on toxic masculinity? Really? Its just a movie. I recommend no-one watch Hocus Pocus. Full of toxic femininity 😅

Fysh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582864#Comment_120582864

I think it's legitimate comment - right from the start of the film every character talking to Hutch is all but saying "you're a loser for not immediately jumping to violent escalation to protect your family", even one of the cops FFS. It could work if it was tongue in cheek (or e.g. only one character saying it), but instead we're beaten over the head with it repeatedly, and the tone of the film is so damn po-faced for too long that for me it didn't land at all.

Not helped by the wife's absolute lack of significant response to her husband coming home having clearly been in a brawl (with a ****ing stab wound he gets her to half-arsedly patch up, ffs!).

Compare it to something like The Drop or A History Of Violence, which are admittedly very different films to Nobody, but which correctly understand the outcome of someone discovering that their partner or close friend is capable of, and has committed, brutal acts of violence - i.e. terror and flight.

Instead we get a guy whose problems are all his own fault, but who we're apparently supposed to root for, whose main obstacle is himself, and who we're supposed to cheer on as he decides to return to his violent ways. Heck, even the inciting incident is a half-thought-through load of arsewater - the couple who break in are apparently desperate and broke enough that they steal his watch, but then keep it instead of pawning it. The only real way to square it with the film is to assume that "they're willing to resort to violence 'for their family'" is the message (incidentally, that's the two of them leaving the baby home alone to go out and commit burglaries, but sure I'm clearly thinking this further than the writers did so who cares).

The more I think about it, the more I'm actively annoyed at how stupid the writing in this film is 🤬

nachouser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120583778#Comment_120583778

"OK, pitch me."

"Uh, the guy from Better Call Saul as a retired hit-man?"

"SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!"

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120582864#Comment_120582864

@Fysh put it better than I could ever but the message of the movie is essentially "real men resort to violence" and I agree that when even the cop is basically chastising him for not escalating matters, it's ridiculous. All that said I think I probably enjoyed it more than they did but it was niggling at me throughout.

Tony EH

'Dungeons and Dragons'

No...not that one. The 1980's cartoon and my god what a slog. But unfortunately Uncle Tony was trapped by the nephew and nieces and under his own suggestion (duh) I ended up watching the entire series over a couple of days with them last weekend.

It wastes zero time getting to the gist, as within less than a minute our heroes, a guy with a bow and arrow, a guy with a shield, an awful magician, a kid with a club and a couple girls with a magic cloak and a stick are chucked into the crazy world of dungeons and dragons because of an ill advised go on a fairground ride. There they meet a dodgy little geezer called the Dungeon Master and a couple of sods who I can't remember the names of that are the baddies of the show. Plus there's an annoying unicorn that follows them around. They end up getting into all sorts of 20 minute adventures over the course of 20 something episodes.

A favourite of mine as a kid, returning to this as an adult really lets you know that some things are best left in the past. This TV show is no exception. But I will say that it was entertaining to see familiar characters on the screen and very pleasant to get a nostalgic recall of musical beats and stings that I haven't heard since the mid 80's.

The littlest loved it (but thought the bad man was scary), the middle one thought it was good (even if it was "really old") and the eldest lad thought it wasn't great but watched it all anyway. Now they want to see the movie.

My god, what have I done?

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120583778#Comment_120583778

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120584914#Comment_120584914

You both aren't wrong. Im a newcomer to this thread. Was expecting some ideas on stuff worth watching. Didn't think it would be debating toxic masculinity and the message of a movie. Message for who? Is someone gona watch this and think this is how they should behave? Its an action movie. Think I'll head back over to the Netflix recommendations thread.

nachouser

Nah, hang around this thread. It's a really good source. Some excellent posters. Now and again someone will post something you don't agree with, but hey ho. Don't get dragged into arguing. Same as any sub.

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120585250#Comment_120585250

Sorry I may have diverted the thread off topic. Obviously most people know it's a movie but the likes of Andrew Tate and his followers are the types who would see Hutch as some sort of ideal and they'd also be the types who would criticism him for "not manning up" anyway, as you were.

Fysh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120585250#Comment_120585250

Your mileage may vary, but I tend to need context around reviews so I know whether I'd share the same view on a film as the reviewer. There tends to be a lot of chat about the films being watched in this thread, so if that's not what you're after it may not be the right one for you.

One thing I will say about Nobody, despite my gripes above - the bus scene and the climactic warehouse scene are both tremendous, so even if you only skip about and watch those, they are worth watching.

I love a good action movie, but I've learned over time that I can be quite picky about what films have the combination of ingredients that work for me. Personal high-watermark action films are things like The Raid, Crank, District 13, Chocolate, Fury Road - if you haven't seen any of these, I'd strongly recommend them. I can rewatch any of them because whatever flaws they have, their strengths just blow me away, every time.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Saw Polite Society in the cinema tonight.

I enjoyed it, it's not perfect and it takes a massive swing in the 3rd act that didn't work for me as well as the rest of the film, but it was still a fun time.

I see a lot of people making the Edgar Wright comparison, specifically to Scott Pilgrim, and I can see why, but also I fully hated that film, so I wouldn't take it as a ringing endorsement in itself, but it probably is the best film to us to try to describe Polite Society.

Honestly it's just kind of refreshing to see some new faces in British film making, both behind and in front of the camera.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120585250#Comment_120585250

This thread has always had a little debate, it's not just a shopping list of films people watch. Well, it is ostensibly, but sometimes a particular film will spawn a bit of chatter and it'd be a poor film forum if there wasn't a degree of dissection here and there. God knows Boards has got quieter, I'd hate for here to dry up cos people won't or don't debate. Personally I enjoy when people elaborate on a film and what it was made it good or bad in their eyes; reductive "film good, plenty smashy smashy" comments don't really bring much IMO & isn't why I post here.

"Messaging" is just a way of saying that sometimes a theme can sneak through the script that can make it hard to ignore when certain things keep happening in the actual plot. It's not always clear the director/writer ever meant that but many a film has a conclusion or message it wanted to impart to the audience. Good films can make this very subtle that it becomes subtext, but if when viewing a movie you keep feeling like it's hammering you over the head, it's hard to ignore.

Nobody did have a weird vigilante streak that seemed to glory in this idea that Bob Odenkirk was a wimp for not going Violence First; not like there wasn't an easier way to have a Dadbod John Wick film, without having the script constantly tut the lead didn't immediately hulk out. The action was good, especially that bus scene - but the framing around it sometimes whiffed of an armchair Rambo exercising his fantasy of what passed for manliness. All a bit Death Wish sequel really. Wasn't as annoyed as Fysh was mind you, but it wasn't a choice that worked for me either.

budgemook

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120585250#Comment_120585250

Eh, the Netflix thread currently debating whether McGregor should have a documentary or not 😁

Tony EH

'The Haunting of Hill House'

If ever there was an example of a TV show or movie spectacularly stretching out its source material (which, ironically, it also largely ignores), it's Netflix's adaptation of Shirley Jackson's novel of the same title. 'The Haunting of Hill House' which could easily have had its story wrapped up in around 6 episodes drones on and on for a seemingly interminable 10 instead, and by the half way mark really starts to feel it. Perhaps it was a fault with my binge watch and such a malady wouldn't be felt if one were to watch it week by week. But I remain unconvinced.

'The Haunting of Hill House' is about, well...a haunted house, which is the current work effort of upper middle class couple, Hugh and Olivia Crain, who along with their five children, Steven, Shirley, Theodora, Nell and Luke move into the huge property in order to do it up and flip it so they can buy their "forever home". As one could suspect, things don't go so well.

'The Haunting of Hill House' shares so little with the original novel that one would be forgiven for wondering why it was even called that in the first place. Aside from the name there are some overlaps, of course, such as some character names, the ghostly goings on, and some passages of dialogue and text. But there's precious little here you could call Jackson's work. And, in a way, that's fine as 'The Haunting of Hill House' was more successfully brought to the screen in 1963 in Robert Wise's 'The Haunting' and trying that again would have probably resulted in an exercise in redundancy. But if a production isn't going to even try and adapt an existing story, then why even bother using the name? Especially when the name doesn't really have an awful lot of clout these days?

That aside, the TV adaptation is littered with some of the most unlikeable people possible. I don't know what it is about modern American TV show/movie writing, but the ability to write compelling, interesting, and attractive characters seems to be a really tall task for the contemporary screenwriter. But most of these people, at least in their adult form, are horrible folk. People who you'd just never wish to be around, which the exception of Nell who manages to hold onto some appeal at least. Perhaps that was the point, though, as they've all been carrying around so much excess baggage that it makes them into husks of awfulness that any grounded person would want to run away from them.

In kid form, however, they are far more charming and it's the little folk that end up acting the adults off the screen. I, increasingly, found myself drawn more toward what was happening to the children over the course of the show and checking my watch when the grown ups were on, because the kids ended feeling a lot more authentic than their adult counterparts. Especially trying in this area are Hugh and Olivia Crain, played by Henry Thomas and Carla Gugino, who never, ever, feel like they are genuine people. They are full to the brim of fake parenting skills and cardboard family values, although both Thomas and Gugino try their best. But I never once felt that I was watching the real parents of five children, or even just a real married couple.

In fairness, though, the show does start off very well with a genuinely interesting first and second episode. But by episode three, the writing is on the wall and you know you're in for a long haul. And while the show, over all, feels lengthy and a bit of a chore it does have enough in it to keep you relatively into the events unfolding on the screen. In addition, episode six is one of the better hours of TV I've sat down to in quite a while and with a bit of tweaking could work as a self contained short story in its own right.

Acting wise, the show can be uneven, and the tendency for the story to meander can really test the patience, especially by episode 7 onwards. But there's a couple of good casting choices going on too. Elizabeth Reaser and Lulu Wilson are excellent as the adult and child Shirley. Both even look so alike that you can easily buy into each actress being one in the same. Victoria Pedretti plays adult Nell and is the only adult sibling that could be called pleasant, and she is well supported by Violet McGraw who's adorable as the little button nosed version.

There's also some great subliminal and shifty things going on in the background of image too. Statues can appear to be moving as light falls on them. The odd spooky, silent, presence can be glimpsed for just a moment, off to the side or standing in a doorway, and there's a real sense of foreboding happening when the Crain family are in the house. Other more prominent ghosts can be hair raising to a degree, like the "bent neck lady" that seems to specifically haunt the young Nell or the creepy man that Luke sees in the basement. But trying to spot the "hidden" ghostly beings was, probably, the most interesting thing about the whole show and director Mike Flanagan uses the 2.00:1 frame excellently, even if the over all image is very dull and muddy in that modern digital way.

Ultimately, what hangs over Netflix's effort is that Shirley Jackson's source material is just far, far, superior. But even if the show had been called 'The Haunting of Crain Mansion', it still would have tumbled to an unsatisfactory and foreseeable conclusion, even if there is quite a bit to be enjoyed along the way.

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120586709#Comment_120586709

Yeah I see that now. That thread only really kicked off on mcgregor this morning after my comment you quoted. Typical timing 😅.

pixelburp

Pitch Black (2000)

Accidentally the second Rhadha Mitchell starring vehicle watched in about a week. Ha.

At once economic and canny in how it made good use of a limited budget & setting, while also suffered from visual flourishes best described as After Effects filters. Much of the location shooting had a really effective & oppressive use of overexposed shots, all to drive home how hostile and scorching the environment was - the picture searing the eyes with digital intensity; but then David Twohy would throw in some deeply cheap-looking lens flares, incoherent editing cuts or - most distractingly - a sudden switch to a negative image as a way to release tension. So when this film didn't look surprisingly striking, it kinda looked a bit shít.

But still. That wasn't enough to hobble the goodwill generated from a very entertaining bottle / monster thriller & Alien knock-off, one with an excellent and engaging central gimmick powering the tension. Maybe with a few extra dollars and creativity more could have been done with the idea of being trapped within infinite darkness - but what we actually got still worked just fine as a B Movie. Performances all had the right amount of ham, stereotypes never excessively over-cranked - though I'm not even sure what to make of the fact that this film gruesomely (budget notwithstanding) killed off 3 of its 4 child characters. If I had one grumble about the script's structure, it'd be how Keith David's character seemed relatively unbothered by the fact all three of his sons were killed in front of him.

We know where the "Riddick" universe went after this: The Chronicles of Riddick morphing something robust and simple into a glorious folly, Vin Diesel's grumbling killer turned into a messianic figure; but the starting point has endured along the strata it was made. The third film tried to reset back to type while also encompassing all that madcap Space Opera of Chronicles... but as is often the case, it's very hard to recapture the magic that worked the first time. Part of that perhaps being how Riddick himself was a side character in this; the true lead here was Radha Mitchell's ethically compromised pilot. The subsequent films fell too much in love with the Bad Boy schtick of Vin Diesel's second(?) most famous character, pushing him too far into the limelight - ironically enough given this film's premise. As with many of these types of characters, they're arguably best used sparingly and as a Wild Card - and certainly not as the Chosen One.