Movies

[The Duck]

But Punch Drunk Love is less an "Adam Sandler move" then just a good movie that coincidentally happens to have Adam Sandler in it. It's a disservice to conflate with anything that typically characterizes an Adam Sandler movie, excepting the basic physical presence of Adam Sandler.

I think it's worth noting that his performance is legitimately good in it, but it's true that most of what makes that movie work is Paul Thomas Anderson's direction and Philip Seymour Hoffman.

I would say that the huge blip that is Punch Drunk Love, where he plays a real character with actual depth, makes the rest of his career look a lot worse in comparison, because he showed that he has some capacity to act but chooses to play himself or just make trash. A lot of what the Best of All Time podcast rags on is how cynical Sandler's entire career is since he makes movies based on where it's going to shoot and as an excuse to put his buddies in movies to make fun of them (and to have shameless product placement).

[Grefter]

A lot of what the Best of All Time podcast rags on is how cynical Sandler's entire career is since he makes movies based on where it's going to shoot and as an excuse to put his buddies in movies to make fun of them (and to have shameless product placement).

Literally the exact opposite of that mang, but the rest of the point is spot on yeah.  Sandler these days is literally on a gravy train for he and his friends that is mostly maintaining itself entirely on brand inertia to fund itself while paying him to be writer/producer/lead actor.

[dunie]

How did you think it worked as a racial commentary? There's a lot there but I didn't think it was quite as deep as others I'e read. Like, I think it's fairly upfront with what it's saying (most of my strongest reactions were from things like the microaggression montage rather than anything conventionally horrifying) and plot-wise, things escalate to the point where I think it loses the thread. I almost wish it had more of the polite white liberal bullshit since that's where most of the commentary was to me but things ramp up pretty quickly.

They turned gossip about racial politics into some useful fodder. His friend was a great "repoussoir" figure. I'm sure there's a better and easier term for that, but he spoke aloud what a black theater audience could have easily projected about traits and white folk. The reasons for that home business's existence did not feel as insidious as the movie wanted. In my opinion, they could have went deeper into it rather than a vignette of previous comments. I thought the microaggressions went well but I was disappointed that most of the currency for "horror" resided primarily in the black folks' actions. It was a good movie though, and I wonder what it would be like if he kept to the suspense drama?

I'll say that my favorite characters were the mother and his friend. I don't even remember that characters' names. Was the black guy Jackson? Because if it was, that's even funnier given the intense swing of emotions white america expressed in the mainstream for Michael. Was it Michael? Bah! For me, the teacup stood as the most classed and obnoxious piece of material culture tied to colonial dominance and confusing labor identity in early America. I loved all the scenes with the teacup.

To backtrack though, I think the sexual politics tied into the racial one made good use of stereotypes about black males. But her "search" towards the end made me question why she even reached out to him in the first place. Leaving the movie, I felt more vindicated as a racialized viewer than something like Django, which I'm sure the whole board knows I loathe. But I couldn't watch it again since most of the scenes don't have much mileage for being (except the beginning scene, teacup scenes, cop scene, "end cop scene.")

Edit* AND THEY BROUGHT MAXINE BACK (re: Living Single, one of my favorite shows as a kid)

[Sierra]

I saw Logan. You should too.

There's a lot I could comment on, but I'm inclined to wait until other people chime in about seeing it, so I'll just pick one for now: the villain getting shot the instant he tries to monologue = aces.

[Cmdr_King]

Worth praising the actress they got.  Sure, they only ask her to do one thing the whole movie, but damned if she didn't prove there's a lot of ways to do "intense staring as a prelude to murdering everyone in a room"

[Sierra]

There are many worse premises to launch a movie on than just "Let's put three really good actors on a road trip together."

[The Duck]

I thought Logan was okay and am really unsure why it didn't land for me like it did for so many others. There are so many disparate things about it that I should fucking love like the setting, the road trip idea, the influence from classic westerns, the personalized stakes, the Children of Men vibes, themes about parenting and caring for someone who is infirm, but for some reason it didn't come together for me. It is very true that it handles heavier themes in a much better way than most superhero movies but I feel like that's grading things on a curve. There isn't anything special with the way that it's written and most of what makes things work is based on your previous attachment to Patrick Stewart and obviously Hugh Jackman over the past 15+ years (like, it's genuinely upsetting to see Jackman hobbled and Stewart not his usual sharp self). Their performances are really good, and they always have been, and the girl does a lot of strongly expressive nonverbal acting.

A lot of things that happen in the interim years between movies that are mentioned that are hugely consequential but didn't really have the impact that they should. I think I wanted the pace to be slower, to live in this world that they establish a little longer, to have more of a road trip, and more time for these characters to be together ("let's just take a moment"). The story is constrained and that's definitely a good thing, but I can't help but feel like this is a story that didn't need villains (at least these villains, who are shitty and boring) when the main conflict is with time, aging, and a world that has left you behind.

Again I think every part of this that involves superhero-like conflicts just bored me and I don't think Mangold does interesting action. The movie earns its R rating but the way the action is shot is very same-y, so even though things can be brutal, they're brutal in the same sort of ways. Life is also really strangely cheap in this and that comes into weird juxtaposition with the main characters self examining their life decisions.

I think it'd be good if they made more movies with superheroes that were more like this and not dumb world saving bullshit but I still didn't think this was a standout in the grander scheme of things.

There are some other points here:

*So the Deadpool 2 trailer came before this and holy shit did it not fit the tenor of this movie.
*Wholesale lifting from Shane is a bit on the nose but I won't complain because Shane.
*Initially I thought Xavier's death was a dream, and the following scene of Logan saying that it wasn't him was probably the best of the film.
*When talking about Eden, I liked the point about how even though both Logan and Xavier don't believe it's real, it's real to the girl and that kind of lie is worth something. Keeping up a known lie for the sake of a kid is a compelling idea to me for whatever reason ... of course Eden is and it was a real idea to the other kids as well. The comics being in universe was kind of cute
*The kids using their dumb powers and making goofy faces to kill the shitty villain was really funny to me and I don't know why.
*The ending was good and turning over the cross to an X made a lot of the nerds in my theater sob. It didn't have a huge impact on me but one thing coursing throughout these movies is that Logan has been through a ton of shit and never finds any peace and this in its way is a good way to send him off ("so this is what it feels like").
*I wouldn't care if they never made another X-Men movie again.


John Wick 2: This wasn't as good as the first but it's everything I wanted.

[Fenrir]

I recommend Raw. Saw it at an early screening with the director. Cool stuff.

[Meiousei]

So yesterday I decided to watch "Logan" (against my better judgement) based on the talk in mIRC. Lemme say right now, I did cringe. Like up until a certain point, I was cringing at this movie. No spoilers for me, so I'm just going to be as vague as possible. I liked it, but the story was just so gosh darn depressing that I couldn't just go home with that mindset.

So I watched a second movie "Lego Batman Movie". I think what CK said is about right:

[19:05] <%CmdrKing> Holy contrast batman

But at any rate, it did cheer me up. I did found something interesting at the end. The Two Face was voiced by Billy Dee Williams (I saw that in the credits and I was surprised, given what happened in the live action originally.)

[Fenrir]

I've been in a conteplative sci fi mood lately.
Arrival was one of my favourite movies of 2016, and I watched and enjoyed Moon, Soderberg's Solaris...

I then tried 2001.
Do not watch 2001 in 2017

[The Duck]

I've been in a conteplative sci fi mood lately.
Arrival was one of my favourite movies of 2016, and I watched and enjoyed Moon, Soderberg's Solaris...

I then tried 2001.
Do not watch 2001 in 2017

Children of Men is a really hard watch nowadays.

Have you seen Tarkovsky's Solaris? He can be slow in terms of pacing but his movies are really good. Stalker's worth watching too.

[Grefter]

Has it aged not so great or ?  Because I haven't watched it in ages and uh you probably can remember how excited it made me all those years ago.

[The Duck]

Oh no, it is still fucking brilliant, but its text resonates a lot more nowadays.

[Captain K]

X-Men Apocalypse:  This is the most emotionless and plotless movie I've seen in some time.  But damn that Quicksilver scene is fucking brilliant.

[LordDirtyBrit]

I've been in a conteplative sci fi mood lately.
Arrival was one of my favourite movies of 2016, and I watched and enjoyed Moon, Soderberg's Solaris...

I then tried 2001.
Do not watch 2001 in 2017

What a coinsidence, I'm watching 2001 as well. What's the issue with watching it in 2017, other than quite a few of the computer predictions being completely wrong?

[Fenrir]

I'll track down OG Solaris, I've been meaning to for a while


2001 has just badly aged. Might be the slowest movie I've seen? But the issue is not that it's slow, it's that it's slow and (mostly) obvious. I often knew what the movie wanted me to think minutes before scenes ended. Do we need like thirty minutes of men in monkey costumes to understand that dawn of mankind = tools = weapons?
Obviously this was all palatable in the day because it was awe inspiring, but it isn't anymore.

I mean I think it's telling that you wrote a DL post while watching it no problem.

Props for the cinematography/design/ending though.

[The Duck]

You can get away with watching 2001 at 1.5x speed and the experience is generally better for it.

[superaielman]

I've been in a conteplative sci fi mood lately.
Arrival was one of my favourite movies of 2016, and I watched and enjoyed Moon, Soderberg's Solaris...

I then tried 2001.
Do not watch 2001 in 2017

Children of Men is a really hard watch nowadays.

Have you seen Tarkovsky's Solaris? He can be slow in terms of pacing but his movies are really good. Stalker's worth watching too.

OOC why is Children of Men a hard watch?

[Grefter]

Oh no, it is still fucking brilliant, but its text resonates a lot more nowadays.

[The Duck]

Fen have you seen Under the Skin?

[Fenrir]

Yes!

I'm actually looking at its poster in our bedroom right now

[The Duck]

Under the Skin is one of the more original things I've seen in years. The score is incredibly unsettling and technically, I think the director is kind of a genius in creating an alienating mood.

I'm not sure what else has come out recently sci-fi wise that you might like... maybe Ex Machina which is half a good movie but I don't think it totally lands.

[Sierra]

I think, Gourry, your summation of Ex Machina was, "I've never seen the first half of this movie before, but I've seen the second half a thousand times." Apt description. I think it's worth watching for the novel bits even if it does make too many textbook decisions for the ending. There is plenty of genuinely unsettling material in there (the dance sequence, the surveillance montage) before it runs out of ideas.

Under the Skin was deeply weird, and part (along with Lost In Translation and Her) of what makes me not mind Scarlett Johansson as a casting choice for Ghost in the Shell--playing figuratively or literally alienated organisms seems to come naturally to her (however, since this is the only remotely encouraging thing about it, I still don't have good expectations).

I haven't watched much new lately, other than the 2014 Godzilla. About which I'll only say that speaking as someone who grew up on Godzilla, I was pleased to encounter a non-blasphemous adaptation. And I guess I did over the weekend watch Dr. Strange, which was very much just yet another Marvel movie. What a waste of a supporting cast.

[NotMiki]

I have no idea what my expectations for GitS are.  You make a good point about Johansson, but she's also starred in some serious dreck.  So I dunno.  And it seems like the movie - at least the trailers - has liberally stolen very specific shots from all of the prior animated GitSs.  Maybe that means the director understands what is cool and good about GitS!  Maybe it means he has no idea and is desperately parroting what worked before.  SAC suffered marginally from bouts of franchise narcissism, but it was also, on the whole, brilliant.

[Hunter Sopko]

I think it'll be beautiful visually and a wreck plotwise. They seem to have melded all the plots of the GitS franchise together, and I've seen articles that place Kuze as the villain.