Movies you've just watched

[Vexorg]

Not a movie, but a couple of days ago I got a chance to see a local production of Matilda: the Musical. I understand this had been a rather successful play on the West End (over 3,000 shows and still running) and on Broadway (with a run of over 1,500 shows) and although the local production wasn't quite up to the same standards it amazes me that 9-11 year olds can memorize all the lines, songs and choreography needed to put on a full play. I know some of the plot of the musical varies from what was used in the 1996 movie adaptation (haven't read the original, not sure which is closer) but it's a pretty standard Roald Dahl plot (miserable childhood, magic powers, well deserved comeuppance to some really horrible people). One thing the play does is to cast a man in the role of the tyrannical Miss Trunchbull, taking a cue from Monty Python's tendency to use a man to play the role of a very ugly woman, and I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with an uglier character than Miss Trunchbull. Overall I enjoyed the play quite a bit. Not sure if I would have spent what the tickets would have cost (not cheap) if someone else didn't buy them though.

[BryanM]

Oh my god what.

I saw this poster in a youtube video and thought it was just some jokey dumb meme a fan whipped up:



And that was days ago and everything was fine.

Then, today, the internet keeps telling me, no - it's real.

And there's more. It stars.... Jim Carrey.... as Dr.Robotnik.

Is this... really real? It has to be some kind of incredible prank, right?

[Durandal]

Oh my god what.

I saw this poster in a youtube video and thought it was just some jokey dumb meme a fan whipped up:



And that was days ago and everything was fine.

Then, today, the internet keeps telling me, no - it's real.

And there's more. It stars.... Jim Carrey.... as Dr.Robotnik.

Is this... really real? It has to be some kind of incredible pank, right?

[soprano1]

Horrifying.

[copy-paster]

Just finished watching original Die Hard with my mom and lil bro, they really enjoyed it. This and Gremlins are probably my go to christmas movie.

[Zen]

Re-watch

Alien 3 - David Fincher - (2010 Alien Anthology - Assembly Cut) - "Christmas" review!

Liked the inferior 1992 Theatrical Release but love the Assembly Cut.
It's a close second, in my order of preference, in the film series.

Trigger warnings for everyone!;
I guess most fans were understandably angry and dismayed, that Ripley's new little family were DOA? Well . . . my only gripe was that Ripley made it.
Yeah, fuckin drown the bitch, Fincher!

Proceed;

Alien 3's script, really had no business with Ripley's story arc at all. That notion would not have flown with the studios, of course.
No, Alien 3 is more a; "XYY Xeno-Judgement - An ALIEN story". A violent, sci-fi, John 3:3 tale.

With the weakest part of the film (Ripley) removed, associated expectations would have been gone and we could all have got on with the business at hand; luxuriating in Fincher's Alien.
Unfortunately, it was not to be and Fincher took it from both ends - audience and studio.

Although I like Ripley as a character, in Alien 3 I feel we get "Sigourney spillover", which by the way, really came to the fore with ms Weaver's onscreen nonsense,
in Alien: Resurrection (1997) - Jean-Pierre Jeunet.

Which brings me to my next point; Alien 3, is a Man's film. That's right, I said it! (Shaddup, this is my "Christmas" review!)
Remember when everyone was "i'm done with this shit!", when it became immediately clear, that surrogate-daughter-bot was toast?
And remember The Few, those good men who, unfazed, narrowed their gaze, took in Fiorina 161 Class C Work Correctional Unit,
with it's double Y's and wondered, "what's going on here then?!"? Yeah, this review is for you!

With the background Alien menace happily simmering, I wanted to know what each of these gentlemen had done;
least, to worst. In that order. Sound-off!

And what a cast! -


Charles Dance - an IRL, perpetual, successful screen test.


Brian Glover -"Leon Arras the Man From Paris" and a fine natural actor.


Pete Postlethwaite - Well, what can be said? One of the very best.


Charles Dutton - He basically was expected to play Moses, here. I think he succeeds.


Paul McGann - McGann'S "Golic", threatened, at any given moment, to dominated the whole show.
This is basically "I", if he had eventually been subsumed by Withnail. An exhibition in the art of being "in character". Superb.


Before we had to suffer the usual Jaws in space bullshit second half, we got some fine acting, great Fincher visuals, Dillon's speech; https://youtu.be/LTBbuQmeWvM
and Elliot Goldenthal's capturing of the mood and reaching a few heights while doing it; https://youtu.be/p_4nAJsUYe0?t=83

It was all very, very good indeed. It could have been great.


In remembrance of Alien 3; the true last survivor of the Nostromo.




EDIT;

SUPT. ANDREWS. M51021. THIS IS RUMOUR CONTROL. THESE ARE THE FACTS;

TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT FROM INMATE GAIJINPUNCH, "85" IS TO BE ALLOWED A WORD ON HIS EXCLUSION FROM HONOUR ROLL;

Spoiler

[GaijinPunch]

Alien 3

That was the best thing I've read in this thread in ages! Always been an Alien 3 fan. Saw it in the theater, and despite it's flaws, really dug it. As I was a youngster then, it was hard for me to point out a lot of the finer cast members. I would later grow to appreciate Pete Postelthwaite, and realize that Golic was actually "I" not after seeing Withnail and I not that long ago, but after the 2nd time just two years ago.

I can't say which version I like better... I actually had something akin to the work print (well, it was an ACTUAL work print) on Nth generation VHS before the official release made it to home video. It was without soundtrack (one of the the best parts of the film), and only about half, from memory, of the changes that made it to the anthology version. (The Golic sub-plot was in tact, but the alien still originated from a dog, not an ox/cow).

And just like Alien 3, your Christmas Review (ho ho ho) is missing something that would have made it great, despite being such high quality. Even if you didn't feel his performance worthy (I did) I definitely think it deserves inclusion for sake of completion.





I can almost hear him say, "...we've got an alien that shits itself."

[garrz32]

Gremlins 2..Absolute classic, to many clever jokes/funny parts to write about but my favourite part is when the gremlins actually stop the film when it's being showed in the cinema, and Hulk Hogan tells them to restart it

[Zen]

missing something

FIXED IN THE EDIT

[GaijinPunch]

Haha... well done. I would assume as an actor it's hard to break away from Danny the Drug Dealer.

[Vexorg]

Mary Poppins Returns: ***

It's pretty clear from the start that there was zero chance of this film matching (or even being in the same league as) the original, and I'm guessing nobody at Disney expects it to do so. I suspect most of the current wave of Disney live action remakes will be forgotten long before the original films are, and this likely falls into the same category. An unnecessary sequel nobody asked for, telling a story that had no particular need to be told, with characters nobody will remember. Emily Blunt makes a mostly convincing Mary Poppins but is clearly no Julie Andrews. That said, the film does have its moments (the animated sequence is a nice little stylistic throwback to 60s Disney animation that actually works quite well aside from some slightly too obvious CGI in places) but spends most of its time alternating between trying too hard (The Light Fantastic number) and barely even bothering. I suspect the kids will like it, but won't watch it more than a couple of times before forgetting it.

[blackoak]

Little late in my reply, but thanks Zen for all you wrote on A Dark Song. I didn't know about the Crowley stuff with the Boleskine house actually. It would be too long-winded to respond in detail to each of your points, but let me say that I appreciated the movie more having read them. I'll probably watch it again sometime with my brother, and will keep those thoughts/questions in mind.

I think it's rare for a horror movie to deeply disturb me, on a conceptual basis. Off the top of my head, the only one I can call to mind is The Vanishing (Spoorlos), and it's not exactly conventional horror. Because the conceptual basis of so much horror is essentially the fear of death/bodily injury (or rather, that's where the plots always funnel into by the third act), my enjoyment of horror is usually more piecemeal: a frightening scene here, a rarefied atmosphere there--but seldom a lasting dread. When that does happen, though, I always end up asking myself... did I really want to see/know that? hahaha. I've heard good things about Beyond the Black Rainbow, and have actually been putting off watching it on the chance that it might truly be horrific.

Actually, mysticism (cannabis) also helps me enjoy horror of a lesser caliber. Seems to dim/distort the conceptual engine of my mind enough to feel old-fashioned fear again.

...in other news, been catching up on horror this xmas break. Let's see...

The Conjuring - pretty goddamn dumb, but reaches some "bare minimum" requirement for what i can enjoy in a (bad) horror movie

The Conjuring 2 - does not meet that bare minimum, avoid

The Killing of a Sacred Deer - The stilted, polemical nature of the directing/acting reminded me of Fassbinder's World on a Wire. My charitable interpretation of the movie is that it's trying to say something about suffering that will be hard for me to describe in a word or two. I don't think it's a straight adaptation of Iphigenia. I think it uses the greek conception of tragedy to get closer to an idea that has haunted me for a long time, that one must eventually come to know all suffering/pain--the opposite of a worldview grounded in luck and chance, where one luckily or artfully manages to avoid misfortune and that's that.

After all, this movie isn't really a standard "revenge" flick. While not living particularly remarkable or moral lives, it's clear that none of the characters really deserve what happens to them. So I rather liked these ideas about equity and suffering, but... ultimately I didn't like this movie. I think it would have worked better as a short piece, and that a lot of the side/sub-plots merely dilute or confuse. If you're going to make didactic philosophical films, I think it's best to be concise.

Penance (Shokuzai) - A miniseries by kiyoshi kurosawa. Pretty bad overall, though the first few episodes have their moments. It felt like there was a better idea here that got buried under the just-so-story resolution typical of cheap j-doramas (and in fact this originally aired as a dorama)

[Mischief Maker]

Krampus (2015)

I was expecting something along the lines of Gremlins, but this was a much darker Christmas horror movie. A little boy is shamed for believing in Santa just before his dysfunctional family comes over for Christmas and he loses hope, tearing up his christmas list and throwing it out the window, only for the shredded letter to summon Santa's shadow, Krampus.

It's really good, but it'll definitely give little kids nightmares.

[Zen]

Stick with the tried and true Christmas viewing list, or try something new?

Gave Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) - Drew Goddard, a shot.

I chose poorly . . .

Absolute, unadulterated shit.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's one I wish I had seen before watching this film;



Don't be fooled by the publicity machine, operated by the usual suspects, nor the "review" scores. There is a clique at work here.

Try to Imagine Joss Whedon doing a Tarantino film. That's Bad Times at the El Royale.
This may not be a bad thing, if you are a Buffy boy. In which case you can safely ignore this review, as I am not talking to you . . . ever!

Drew Goddard initially does his best, to hide all of the above from the general viewer.
For example, the trailer is slick but I note that it shows but a brief second of one of the main characters, Cynthia Erivo, apparently singing.

You know those youtube video's of auditions, with title's like "She sang and then this happened!!". Yeah, fuckin cringe.
Well, Drew Goddard makes Cynthia Erivo's singing , a major and progressively ridiculous, plot device. Continual . . . unaccompanied . . . and loud.
Why? You'd have to see for yourself. The plot devolves into all sorts of "woke-ness".
You have been warned.

It was my first time seeing John Ham. Not bad, in an Alec Baldwin kinda of way but no where near as engaging.
Chris Helmsworth was awful, limited, boring, limited, cringey, oh and limited.
As for Jeff Bridges - the Dude is going to do, what the Dude is going to do. It is what it is.

Here is a "The Hollywood Reporter" puff piece. The softball questions are ridiculous and telling;
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat- ... ts-1151419

And here is a picture of the "boys", at "The Hollywood Reporter's 4th Annual Nominees Night", in 2016;



I also note that The Hollywood Reporter, is no longer allowing comments? What a surprise!

Finishing on an even more negative note ;
One of these characters wanted to direct a Star Wars film.
He was denied.

I foresee a chance emerging, for the other to do so.
Be afraid.

[JBC]

I watched Gozu the other night. It was quite an experience.

[neorichieb1971]

Mary Poppins

This is definitely in the Angela Lansbury Disney vibe. Lots of weird aspects, flying around and talking to cartoon characters.

Weird thing is though MP actual contribution to the resolution of the movie felt half baked to me.


I liked the Royal Dalton music hall scene on the porcelain bowl. There were some other bits that felt good to watch.


I never learn going to the cinema to watch a Disney movie. Every fucking time a bunch of kids makes noises through the whole movie. Not only that but they didn't turn up until the movie started so I had this "freedom" vibe until they turned up and sat right behind me kicking the shit out of chair.

[EmperorIng]

Want to give some props to Zen. I flip-flop back and forth on Alien 3. I generally admire it. I dislike the treatment towards Aliens pretty vehemently, and even if I separate myself from that, there are still many problems within the movie (which you allude to). Certain elements though are outstanding: set design, the actors' performances, tone, music (though the composer would go on to reuse tracks for other movies, ha!). Infinitely better, even in its mess-form, than anything that came after it. Though I have a soft spot for the "so shit it's fun" Resurrection... compared to the "so shit it's really shit" double-combo of Prometheus and Covenant.

Speaking of Disney movies... I went with sis and friend to see a special showing of Return to Oz in the theater. Man, what I'd give for Disney to greenlight movies like this again. Even with a somewhat shaky plot structure, this little contained children's nightmare movie far outclasses anything you'd find in their schlock marvel, star wars, and endless live-action remake factories.

Oh boo hoo, it's so scary the bad spaceships blew up some people. Yawn. How 'bout a fuckin' a-bomb going off in the Emerald City and everyone you love is DEAD, Dorothy!? Oh by the way, let's open the movie by locking you in a dirty insane asylum full of screaming inmates! It's refreshingly mean-spirited. Taking your happy memories and twisting them into something terrible. Mad Max meets Frank Baum.

Special props (no pun intended) to Nicol Williamson as the smarmy, evil claymation villain. Nicol Williamson is great in nearly anything, animated or not. It reminded me of his Merlin (from Excalibur) where he can flip a switch from polite to menacing in a flash.


He also sports an animated death so heavy metal that it outclasses anything about dumping some water on a witch. It's worth seeing the movie to see this with fresh eyes, so spoilers of course.

Spoiler

There still is plenty of whimsy and silliness in the movie, and sentimentality sometimes rears its dreaded head, but all of that is often overshadowed by the bizarre fever-dream imagery. I think the plot suffers for it - the movie feels a little rushed and needed more time to space things out, instead of nearly being a horror-show roller coaster. But I appreciate the risks it took in going so far out of its way to disassociate itself from the 1938 movie. The character design is strange and fascinating, resembling more of a child's imagination than men in suits. The movie is very reminiscent of Dark Crystal in terms of a more fantastical, effects-driven bleak fantasy. I was expecting a normal kids movie with maybe one 'scary' scene, but I left very pleasantly surprised.

[Vexorg]

Funny you mention The Dark Crystal, just watched it last night with my wife (I think I'd seen bits and pieces before but not the whole movie). For something with a "nightmare fuel" reputation among people that watched it as kids I didn't see a whole lot in the movie that really felt all that scary. Some of this may be dated special effects, but compared to some of the other FX-driven 80s fantasy movies (stuff like Krull, Neverending Story, Labyrinth, etc.) it doesn't hold up quite as well. There's some serious Uncanny Valley action going on with Jen and Kira and the Skeksis feel more like "bungling villain" types than anything that would actually be menacing, but overall the puppets were well done.

There's a prequel series coming to Netflix next year (The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance) which is going to be done with the same puppetry as the original movie, and allegedly no CGI except for green screen to remove the puppeteers. Should be interesting to see how it turns out...

[GaijinPunch]

[BryanM]

Re-watched one of the better Christmas movies: Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Of course the script is good, the execution is good.

This is possibly the best example of the "rule of two", where you repeat a subject or location only twice, occasionally thrice, and that serves to create familiarity without things getting old. It's extremely rigid about it to the point where every scene has something in it that comes back later - Roger freaks out about his wife cheating on him > Eddie broods about the better times he had with his girlfriend and brother. Roger performs to Merry-Go-Round Broke Down > Eddie does the same. It's a reward for actually paying attention instead of napping through the film.

Roger is also a pretty good "plot facilitation character" (there's gotta be a concise term for this, since it's such a common archetype) - does a good job of getting into trouble, but completely worthless when it comes to getting out of it. The "asshole" variety of this (as opposed to Roger's klutziness) is probably my favorite character type these days.

While not nearly as grimdark as Who Censored Roger Rabbit, there is still some dark stuff in here. That shoe that Doc Brown murders to demonstrate to the audience what The Dip does? It's only crime was loving him (or at least, his shoe). It's like they killed a puppy on screen man.

I used to hate the pointless cartoon gun and bullets as a kid, but now it might be my favorite joke in the movie.

Though I have a soft spot for the "so shit it's fun" Resurrection... compared to the "so shit it's really shit" double-combo of Prometheus and Covenant.

Oh yeah, it's like a parody of itself.

There are actually very few on screen deaths in the first two movies. Often someone would just get carried offscreen, presumptively for weird sex stuff. (Thank god the kitty was okay.) "Rawr it's a monster wot kills u" isn't that novel. At some point it's really no different than those memes about those haunted video games wot kill u.

Fullblown over the top metal spectacle is certainly more entertaining than... whatever the zany random crap Scott is throwing into his movies is supposed to be. (I wish he'd just make that dream male robot fetish film he's obsessed with making, and let someone else exploit the Alien franchise.)

Really this is what they get for violating the rule of two. The only way to escalate anything now is to enter the realm of full blown comedy.

Man, what I'd give for Disney to greenlight movies like this again. Even with a somewhat shaky plot structure, this little contained children's nightmare movie far outclasses anything you'd find in their schlock marvel, star wars, and endless live-action remake factories.

I kind of assume the audience that'd be more open to that kind of stuff have moved on to niche cable TV shows and the like. That movies as a medium are largely dead thanks to the more even amount of money put into them. ("A limerick wrapped in an eternity" is my negative description of the format.) In fact a smaller budget probably makes them better at this point - every single scene isn't a CGI cartoon'd up greenscreen.

Of course a Disney more open to the darkness is one who'd have been willing to make that Roger Rabbit 2 flick. It's just not gonna happen, so we'll have to make it ourselves. Paper maché is better than CGI anyways.

[soprano1]

The Killers (1946)
Nice noir movie with Burt Lancaster and Ava Gardner, based on a Hemingway short story.

[Zen]

Funny you mention The Dark Crystal, just watched it last night with my wife (I think I'd seen bits and pieces before but not the whole movie). For something with a "nightmare fuel" reputation among people that watched it as kids I didn't see a whole lot in the movie that really felt all that scary. Some of this may be dated special effects, but compared to some of the other FX-driven 80s fantasy movies (stuff like Krull, Neverending Story, Labyrinth, etc.) it doesn't hold up quite as well. There's some serious Uncanny Valley action going on with Jen and Kira and the Skeksis feel more like "bungling villain" types than anything that would actually be menacing, but overall the puppets were well done.

There's a prequel series coming to Netflix next year (The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance) which is going to be done with the same puppetry as the original movie, and allegedly no CGI except for green screen to remove the puppeteers. Should be interesting to see how it turns out...

I sense great blasphemy here!

The Dark Crystal (1982) - Henson, Oz; is a masterpiece!

[Zen]

(I wish he'd just make that dream male robot fetish film he's obsessed with making, and let someone else exploit the Alien franchise.)

Could it be argued, that he already did? Blade Runner.

Although it seems that Scott is now a parody of himself, what would A.I have been if Scott had tackled it?
I am forever doubtful that any proclaimed Spielberg - Kubrick detente existed.

[GaijinPunch]

Bird Box

Oh boy. This is what you get when a company like Netflix, which has amassed a fortune off of a quality over quantity business strategy, starts producing "movies". Part Blindness, part The Ring, part B-movie, featuring some well known actors (Sandra Bullock, John Malkovich, BD Wong) all giving performances that are neither here nor there. None particularly bad, but the writing is below average. Directing, about on par w/ a TV movie which this essentially is. It's even shot in a 1:2.35 ratio which is not utilized in the least. Gets a couple of kudos for having some balls in the fucked up department, but a huge missed opportunity in the suspense department. Quite a bit of cheese. It has generated a few good memes though!

[Ixmucane2]

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

A straightforward story (Miles Morales, bitten by a radioactive spider, quickly learns how to be a sufficiently good Spider-Man and prevents a villain from doing a bad thing) with the nice complication of a team-up of different spider-persons from parallel universes.
Excellent animation and special effects, looking as good as the best drawn mainstream comics but in motion. This film simply couldn't have been made live-action or in a realistic 3D non-style.
There is a post-credits scene that, although perfectly appropriate and relevant, turns out to be the silliest in all Marvel superhero movies so far.

[Zen]

Bird Box

Oh boy. This is what you get when a company like Netflix, which has amassed a fortune off of a quality over quantity business strategy, starts producing "movies". Part Blindness, part The Ring, part B-movie, featuring some well known actors (Sandra Bullock, John Malkovich, BD Wong) all giving performances that are neither here nor there. None particularly bad, but the writing is below average. Directing, about on par w/ a TV movie which this essentially is. It's even shot in a 1:2.35 ratio which is not utilized in the least. Gets a couple of kudos for having some balls in the fucked up department, but a huge missed opportunity in the suspense department. Quite a bit of cheese. It has generated a few good memes though!

Goddamn it was bad!

Should have stopped myself when I knew that Bullock was in it, but the "omg! scariest film ever", got me. I had to see it, like a sucker!

Yeah, it had a little, Blindness (2008) going on. That film was not bad by the way. The only distraction being Moore.
I don't know about you but once Julianne appears in a film, it's just a matter of time before she is naked, fucked, raped, or all of the above. It's beyond jaded at this point. "Art", apparently.

Speaking of Blindness (2008), Perfect Sense (2011) - David Mackenzie, is perhaps similar but is far superior and just as brutal, iirc.

[BryanM]

Could it be argued, that he already did? Blade Runner.

Hm, maybe. But it's way toned down and subtle about it - one element buried among half a dozen.

It's not like in Covenant where the guy is a mary sue god and the camera lingers at weird angles suggesting it would be really great if he kissed the copy of himself.

Two movies (with a third in limbo) of explaining where the zombies came from. Is there a more expensive example of missing the freaking point than these prequels?

Imagine - a movie covering the childhood and adolescence of Freddy Krueger. Is that not an absolutely dreadful idea? Now let's do that same thing, but with Boba Fett or Jabba the Hutt.

Although it seems that Scott is now a parody of himself, what would A.I have been if Scott had tackled it?
I am forever doubtful that any proclaimed Spielberg - Kubrick detente existed.

It's kind of incredible how incestuous the Hollywood elite is. Who was gonna write Roger Rabbit 2? Why, our good friend JJ Abrams. Who produced A.I.? Why our good friend, Kathleen Kennedy. It's amazing their movies don't seem like they're all the same thing more than they already do.

I'm sure they were decent friends. The "you gotta have a fax machine in your bedroom so you get my notes" is a very typical Kubrick interaction.

[GaijinPunch]

Goddamn it was bad!

Not really sure why I bother w/ these Netflix movies. It's not even my account at my house so I don't have anything to justify. Bullock doesn't bother me per se. At least not like I assume she does most. That being said, I'd never go see something b/c she is in it either.

but the "omg! scariest film ever", got me. I had to see it, like a sucker!

I learned my lesson when I heard how "scary" House on Haunted Hill or whatever the fuck was. Very unscary... except when you consider how much money Netflix rakes in and how bad 98% of their programming is.

Yeah, it had a little, Blindness (2008) going on. That film was not bad by the way. The only distraction being Moore.

Don't remember much about it, other than it being entertaining. Julianne Moore I kinda like but honestly, I've not seen her in a film in... a very very long time. Not sure how I've pulled that off.

Speaking of Blindness (2008), Perfect Sense (2011) - David Mackenzie, is perhaps similar but is far superior and just as brutal, iirc.

Interesting -- will check out.

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

last film i watched was this cool polish surrealist thing called The Hour-Glass Sanatorium.

the cover fuckin' rules too

[GaijinPunch]

Sicaro: Day of the Soldado

Honestly, better than I thought it would be. No Emliy Blunt this time, who was the weak link the first time around. Story gets a bit convoluted at times, and the general plot is fueled by elements that Trump supporters will have you believe are every day occurrences, and thus require a 5 billion dollar fence. Pretty intense. Score was nice.