Finally saw Joker. Good film, but I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I'd hoped. Gioachino Fenice does what Joaquin Phoenix does, the rest felt like a competent remix of themes and scenes already seen.
I saw the Star Wars today.
Well, I'm gonna be the contrarian of the forum and throw some well deserved praise at it because it has earned it and I don't see anyone mentioning it. Here it goes: it's not as unwatchable as Star Trek Into Darkness. It tries its hardest to suck just as much, but kinda falls short.
/End praise.
The rest should go in the spoiler thread, although I imagine everything has been said at this point. Star Wars is dead. And no, don't be cunts and go: "see, this new trilogy makes the prequels better in retrospect, they are just slightly bad, misunderstood films". Pls. The prequels still suck ass. The characters suck, the story sucks, they've aged terribly, they were incompetently made, and Lucas was the first of the bunch to completely miss the point of its own creation, not only thematically, but focusing on all the crap that doesn't matter (the endless lightsaber fights, the power levels, the kid friendly stuffing, the action figure first design, etc.) Maybe it's time to realize there are very little places to go with feature Star Wars.
Mandalorian is as good as it is gonna get from now on, and I imagine someone at Disney is on their knees begging Favreau to waste the next 8 years of his life trying to right the course. If he isn't CEO of Disney by next year thanks to all the money he's making them, he might just accept. And it will not end well, because let's face it, as much as I love him, we've all seen Jungle Book and Lion King.
Did I say Star Wars is ded? RIP. Again.
Well, I'm gonna be the contrarian of the forum and throw some well deserved praise at it because it has earned it and I don't see anyone mentioning it. Here it goes: it's not as unwatchable as Star Trek Into Darkness. It tries its hardest to suck just as much, but kinda falls short.
/End praise.
The rest should go in the spoiler thread, although I imagine everything has been said at this point. Star Wars is dead. And no, don't be cunts and go: "see, this new trilogy makes the prequels better in retrospect, they are just slightly bad, misunderstood films". Pls. The prequels still suck ass. The characters suck, the story sucks, they've aged terribly, they were incompetently made, and Lucas was the first of the bunch to completely miss the point of its own creation, not only thematically, but focusing on all the crap that doesn't matter (the endless lightsaber fights, the power levels, the kid friendly stuffing, the action figure first design, etc.) Maybe it's time to realize there are very little places to go with feature Star Wars.
Mandalorian is as good as it is gonna get from now on, and I imagine someone at Disney is on their knees begging Favreau to waste the next 8 years of his life trying to right the course. If he isn't CEO of Disney by next year thanks to all the money he's making them, he might just accept. And it will not end well, because let's face it, as much as I love him, we've all seen Jungle Book and Lion King.
Did I say Star Wars is ded? RIP. Again.
Marriage Story
A very good movie that I think would be even better if Baumbach was a better director; too often the distance and cleanliness of his imagery isn’t doing the visual storytelling the script deserves, because the latter is wonderful. One could argue he keeps it simple so that the script is the focus, and that the sheer concept and writing alone should be emotionally engaging enough, but I wanted a little more heartstrings pulling, I dunno.
Still, its remarkably accurate, realistic and - possibly its chief positive outside its leads - manages to tell the history of a relationship in just two hours. There’s a real beauty to so many of the lines and observations the film makes, as if only this couple could have said and done these things; and yet it’s also incredibly identifiable. Baumbach’s real success here is casting two outstanding actors to depict the marriage.
Johansson is as good as she’s been since Under the Skin, offering nuance and complexity to the less showy role. Driver, while being contrastingly saddled with both an unlikeable character and what’s most likely the protagonist (curious and revealing self-laceration from Baumbach), is magnificent. His ego, his arrogance, his love for his son, the final half-hour (knives and songs and letters)... there are very few better male performances this year, and it just made me wish even more ‘TRoS’ had given him something worthy of his talents.
Very good. I didn’t find it revelatory like some people have (it’s not terribly different in quality or substance than Kramer v Kramer for instance), but a very solid movie.
A very good movie that I think would be even better if Baumbach was a better director; too often the distance and cleanliness of his imagery isn’t doing the visual storytelling the script deserves, because the latter is wonderful. One could argue he keeps it simple so that the script is the focus, and that the sheer concept and writing alone should be emotionally engaging enough, but I wanted a little more heartstrings pulling, I dunno.
Still, its remarkably accurate, realistic and - possibly its chief positive outside its leads - manages to tell the history of a relationship in just two hours. There’s a real beauty to so many of the lines and observations the film makes, as if only this couple could have said and done these things; and yet it’s also incredibly identifiable. Baumbach’s real success here is casting two outstanding actors to depict the marriage.
Johansson is as good as she’s been since Under the Skin, offering nuance and complexity to the less showy role. Driver, while being contrastingly saddled with both an unlikeable character and what’s most likely the protagonist (curious and revealing self-laceration from Baumbach), is magnificent. His ego, his arrogance, his love for his son, the final half-hour (knives and songs and letters)... there are very few better male performances this year, and it just made me wish even more ‘TRoS’ had given him something worthy of his talents.
Very good. I didn’t find it revelatory like some people have (it’s not terribly different in quality or substance than Kramer v Kramer for instance), but a very solid movie.
By Freewheelin Go To PostWatching the Entourage movie coming down from my first acid trips is one of my favorite movie experiences. So bad but so entertaining
By Flutter Go To Post
🤣🤣
N8 posted an article by Film Crit Hulk from a year ago, and speaking of Nolan:
😬
For instance, I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s the reason “singular tone” people tend to love the work of Christopher Nolan by comparison. And please know, I love his work too, and find him to be a damn smart storyteller. I think the reason The Dark Knight works is because it’s thematically freaking brilliant and has a lot on its mind. But, for many others, that’s just an added bonus. They tend to like all his films because no one commits harder to a serious singular tone. It’s like he makes every film in that slightly blue-gray lighting, with the cold hard people doing cold hard things. And all the while, that propulsive, energetic, Hans Zimmer-ian score pushes forward with driven angst. And it doesn’t matter if someone’s cracking a joke in the moment, Nolan will never break the tone for it (which is why a lot of the jokes in the movie don’t really land, but they’re not really intended to land. Landing would ruin all that serious energy). Why do people love and need this so much?https://observer.com/2018/05/the-two-crucial-filmmaking-elements-causing-all-your-movie-feuds/
😬
Ah yes, the singular serious tone. Remember when he literally gets this point across by having Matthew Mcconaughey threaten a robot with stripping his pre-programmed joking paramaters in Interstellar? It's one thing to avoid any form of levity in your heavy, fourth dimensional drama (still need to have the most pointless space madness scene in it since Sunshine for some reason; a twist with blockbuster appeal I guess), but to go out of your way to introduce it and then immediately shut it down is something else.
What a fucking dry, stuck up cunt.
What a fucking dry, stuck up cunt.
Eh, same criticism could be lobbed at Fincher, who just happens to be a more accomplished and talented filmmaker.
“Serious men doing serious things” is not a real line of criticism in and of itself
“Serious men doing serious things” is not a real line of criticism in and of itself
By HasphatsAnts Go To PostEh, same criticism could be lobbed at Fincher
Villeneuve as well
Fincher and Villeneuve at least when they explore different topics and participate with different writers don't try to shoehorn some concept dealing with time into every single one of their stories.
I could never see Nolan make Gone Girl or The Social Network. That's too whimsical for him.
It's been almost two decades since Nolan attempted to direct somebody else's screenplay. I'd be surprised if he ever will again.
And that paragraph was clearly a criticism of the type of stories he writes, not how he directs them.
I could never see Nolan make Gone Girl or The Social Network. That's too whimsical for him.
It's been almost two decades since Nolan attempted to direct somebody else's screenplay. I'd be surprised if he ever will again.
And that paragraph was clearly a criticism of the type of stories he writes, not how he directs them.
By diehard Go To Postehhh Dunkirk was too whimsical. Could have used some time element.The three segments that overlapped all took place over a different amount of time... he still played with that topic just from an editing perspective. Much like Memento being told backwards.
It's why you hear the same line of dialog from the same actor from the same spot twice.
I don't like Clint Eastwood movies. You should hear me rant about Million Dollar Baby win Best Picture over The Aviator.
By reilo Go To PostFincher and Villeneuve at least when they explore different topics and participate with different writers don't try to shoehorn some concept dealing with time into every single one of their stories.
I could never see Nolan make Gone Girl or The Social Network. That's too whimsical for him.
It's been almost two decades since Nolan attempted to direct somebody else's screenplay. I'd be surprised if he ever will again.
And that paragraph was clearly a criticism of the type of stories he writes, not how he directs them.
But this is not exactly the same criticism you posted from that article is it? If he’s just addressing the writing and not the oeuvre, why mention the color grading and the music at all?
This is valid, that wasn’t
By HasphatsAnts Go To PostBut this is not exactly the same criticism you posted from that article is it?It's part of his writing style because he writes within a box.
This is valid, that wasn’t
There's three things you can expect from a Nolan movie:
- Subject of time*
- Serious overtones and nothing whimsical or a single joke
- A dead wife
*Unless he's writing Batman
I could watch The Aviator right now, then watch it again. What a fucking movie.
Could also watch Unforgiven tbf
Could also watch Unforgiven tbf
By Punished Go To PostWhy do you want/need whimsy or jokes?He's a bond fan.
By NinjaFridge Go To PostDisappointed in myself for waiting this long to see Pop Star: Never Stop Never StoppingAt least you’re a better person now.
By Pennywise Go To PostHe's a bond fan.Even Batman cracks a joke once in a while. Well, not in Nolan Batman, but yea.
The only Nolan film I seriously have a problem with is Dunkirk. For a WW2 movie, it sure felt too clean.
By Flutter Go To PostThe only Nolan film I seriously have a problem with is Dunkirk. For a WW2 movie, it sure felt too clean.And there's not enough gags.
Villenueve
A masterwork
By NinjaFridge Go To PostDisappointed in myself for waiting this long to see Pop Star: Never Stop Never Stopping
A masterwork
Here's a thought experiment:
I'd like to see Nolan reboot Indiana Jones. Indy has to stay the same character that we already know. He cannot use Hans Zimmer. He cannot let Indy discover time travel.
Could he do it? Can you picture it? I honestly can't.
I'd like to see Nolan reboot Indiana Jones. Indy has to stay the same character that we already know. He cannot use Hans Zimmer. He cannot let Indy discover time travel.
Could he do it? Can you picture it? I honestly can't.
Does it really matter that he couldn't do it, assuming that it's true?
He's very good in his comfort zone. Not perfect, but still.
He's very good in his comfort zone. Not perfect, but still.
By Laboured Go To PostAt least you’re a better person now.
By n8 dogg Go To PostVillenueveThe Lonely Island are the only rappers with something to say innit
A masterwork
By reilo Go To PostHere's a thought experiment:Nobody needs a reboot of Indiana Jones.
I'd like to see Nolan reboot Indiana Jones. Indy has to stay the same character that we already know. He cannot use Hans Zimmer. He cannot let Indy discover time travel.
Could he do it? Can you picture it? I honestly can't.
might as well have nolan direct a marvel movie then
just let the man make his niche movies, lord knows we are lacking in those these days
just let the man make his niche movies, lord knows we are lacking in those these days
By Hitch Go To PostDoes it really matter that he couldn't do it, assuming that it's true?I think it matters because despite my quibbles with Nolan as a writer, I think he's one of the most technically impressive directors out there.
He's very good in his comfort zone. Not perfect, but still.
Him attempting to direct somebody else's writing and let the script do the story work might be movie magic. But we'll find out.
By Pennywise Go To PostNobody needs a reboot of Indiana Jones.Nobody was asking for one, hence thought experiment to hone in on a point.
By reilo Go To PostHere's a thought experiment:but why
I'd like to see Nolan reboot Indiana Jones. Indy has to stay the same character that we already know. He cannot use Hans Zimmer. He cannot let Indy discover time travel.
Could he do it? Can you picture it? I honestly can't.