9
votes
Midweek Movie Free Talk
Have you watched any movies recently you want to discuss? Any films you want to recommend or are hyped about? Feel free to discuss anything here.
Please just try to provide fair warning of spoilers if you can.
Does anybody want to talk about:
Singin' in the Rain (1952): ★⯪☆
This has a 20-minute movie-within-a-movie that totally interrupts the plot. Multiple times I thought, "This is still a part of that bit?" Maybe it says something about me that the singing and dancing by itself wasn't enough to keep me entertained. Disappointing since this movie is universally well-reviewed.
Sabrina (1953): ★★★ (rewatch)
Flow (2024): ★★☆
Finally got a chance to watch this. I'd been hoping for The Wild Robot to win best animated movie last year, and I still would now that I've seen Flow, but I can see why others liked this one. The entire thing is presented literally except for that one scene, and maybe I'd have given it full stars if it was literal the entire way through. It's impressive how well this movie tells its story with literally no dialogue. I agree with all the Letterboxd reviews confused about how all the animals seem to know how to do that thing (that would be a mild spoiler to specify).
12 Angry Men (1957): ★★★ (rewatch)
The Sound of Music (1965): ★★⯪ (rewatch)
The Boy and the Heron (2023): ★☆☆
I had the same problem with this movie as I did with Howl's Moving Castle. It never explains how the magic works, so I was confused most of the time and had trouble following along. I left feeling stupid again because I got crossed up by a kids' movie. I've enjoyed other Ghibli movies with magic (e.g. Spirited Away and Totoro), and I don't understand why some of them work for me and others don't. The last "canonical" Ghibli movie I want to see is Princess Mononoke, so hopefully that works out.
I watched 12 Angry Men for the first time about 2 months ago. My reaction can be summed up as, "Yeah, it's a classic alright!" I love when something actually lives up to its billing.
12 Angry Men will hold up for a long time. It doesn't depend on special effects or being flashy. It wasn't even in color at a time when that was really taking off. It totally relies on good writing and actors nailing their performances, and they did.
I watched Singin' in the Rain after being somewhat disappointed with both Babylon and The Artist, that also dealt with Hollywood's transition to talkies, and I liked this original classic way better. Yes, it is too long, definitely the last sing and dance segment just goes on for ever, but the general screwball comedy throughout worked for me.
In the special features on the blu ray, one of the presenters said that they basically wrote the songs and dances first and threw together a story to tie them together. I think that may have just been a part where they couldn't come up with anything to make it work, so they just rolled with it.
Flow, that one scene also kinda threw me for a loop, and I never really reconciled it with the rest of the story. Part of me wondered if maybe the story was supposed to have biblical inspiration, what with the flood and the boat, and so maybe it represented bird jesus? But I couldn't find any evidence of that from interviews with the director. Anyway, Im not religious and it's very beautiful animation, so in the end I've just left it as being a pretty scene. Overall, I liked the movie so much I saw it 2x in rapid succession.
It is not often my opinion of a film changes so drastically throughout, but that happened with Weapons. I was really into it from the start, with its creepy unsettling premise of kids running away with no apparent reason in the middle of the night. It seemed somewhat grounded in reality with a believable depiction of the immediate aftermath, with the parents unjustifiable yet understandable urge to find a scapegoat. That whole thing tapped into the underlying fear most parents have when they leave their kids in someone else's care.
Everything was nicely setup for an intriguing mystery. Then the film started to go on a tangent with switching viewpoint showing events from a previous hidden angle, to basically fill in the blanks. But in that process the creepy mystery falls apart with explaining too much and goes straight to madness ending on a completely different note than where it started. In its own right, how it ends is completely bonkers and funny for what it is worth. I was just disappointed that it ruined what it started. While they do try to explain it, I was not convinced that a months of police couldn't have done what a single parent could do with a map and a ruler.
I can see it is possible to see all kinds of themes and commentaries in this, especially as it clearly is about weaponising children, I am just not seeing much interesting here. Many seem to point to school shootings, but that is only surface level if at all. If I were to stretch it, I would say that maybe there could be something about the concept of "think of the children" is being misused, but I am really not seeing anything deep or thought provoking with how this film ultimately unfolded.
I have a hard time rating is, as I probably started at 4 and ended and 2. Being both entertained, impressed, annoyed and disappointed.
FWIW Aunt Glady’s is supposed to be an allegory for alcoholism/addiction and how it ruins homes.
Did you not like Barbarian?
Haven’t seen any other Zach Cregger films. Is Barbarian similar or completely different?
Similar. There’s also a social commentary aspect to it, and a mystery that gets explained. And also, since he’s a comedy guy, there’s a lot of humor in it like there is in Weapons.
That one’s interesting because the philosophy with that is they went “it’s gonna be David Fincher upstairs and Sam Raimi downstairs.” So there’s two different styles within the same film.
I watched Nouvelle Vague (2025) last night and... well, it's been a while since I was so captivated by a film. I still can't believe Linklater directed it.
The cast is pretty much perfect -- but Zoey Deutch as Seberg is a real stand out.
I used to work at a movie theater and was notorious among staff for being "elitist," in that I was and still am very particular about what I choose to watch (odd brush to be tarred with considering it was an arthouse cinema but whatever). As such, the majority of popular films and franchises miss me entirely, and I had the least film knowledge among them all. However, I usually end up hearing/seeing something referenced enough to know the gist of it. At one point, a manager recommended me Mike Judge's Idiocracy in reference to the Trump administration, and his previous film Office Space as a satire of the experience of working in corporate America. I told him they really didn't look like my cups of tea, but he insisted, citing their resonance with multiple conversations we'd previously had. So I put them on my to-watch list with very low priority.
After years of dismissing it, I struggled through watching Idiocracy maybe three or four months ago, and I was probably saddened more than anything that what was considered absurd 20 years ago was actually so prescient. A couple days ago, I finally got around to watching Office Space... or at least I attempted to. I fell asleep after 20 minutes (I wasn't particularly tired or anything), then woke up and gave it another shot. I made it through 45 minutes and turned it off. I just couldn't do it. Like Idiocracy, I didn't find it funny at all - which is fine, I guess, everyone's sense of humor is different - but upon reflection I realize the cinematography was really boring to me as well. I don't know if it's a stylistic or even thematic choice, because I recall a similarity to Idiocracy in that regard, or that's just how his stuff is, but the visual language being so uninteresting was a subtle kind of discomfort I've not previously consciously realized.
In the end, I'm left really annoyed - probably with myself, more than anything - because I try to be an open-minded person, but practically anytime I follow someone's recommendation despite my misgivings, I don't enjoy it, I don't learn anything, and I feel almost dumber for the experience. I generally do my best to be clear and specific about my tastes beforehand to avoid wasting people's time, and I tend to get considered pretentious as a result. Bleh.
To be clear, this is not some existential problem I'm having, it's just that dealing with what feels like a catch-22 gets old.
I consider myself an elitist, but I’m able to compartmentalize on everything.
Like, I like Office Space a lot, and I don’t think much negatively about the way it’s shot because that’s not particularly important for that type of film. But it’s also meant to look boring.
A lot of James L Brooks and Woody Allen films (minus Manhattan I suppose) look flat, they don’t do anything special with their visuals. But the writing and acting is where those shine.
I mean, I figured it was meant to look boring, but maybe it's too effective if it actually bored me out of watching it? Too effective for me, anyways.
Sounds like this is simply about having a different way to enjoy movies. Most people watch them for entertainment, and obviously most blockbusters are only blockbusters because they have the broadest appeal possible which most of the time means it's not very artistic because it cannot be daring lest it pushes a lot of movies-as-entertainment people away. You are clearly a movies-as-art type of person, which yeah, the former are going to see that as pretentious a lot of the time. But.. fuck that! You do you! I understand it sucks though, to not be able to relate. I feel the same with a lot of animated stuff for example. However let me spin it to be a good thing: you respect those other people enough to rely on them and trust them on their recommendations. That you end up not enjoying it is not your fault at all..!
It is entirely that, and that's a conversation that I get pressed into a lot when discussing likes and dislikes, because it's easy to come off as hipster without explanation. I end up having it multiple times before people insist on recommending me stuff. My viewpoint is that, essentially, the majority of mainstream media is made for people who are looking to destress after working long hours at jobs they don't like, etc. so they just want to relax, to turn their brains off. I don't know about movies-as-art because I'm not especially a cinephile, but the media I seek out and enjoy in any format are at least trying to say something, or trying to engage with interesting ideas - I'm looking to turn my brain on. Typically, this is the point in the convo where they hum with understanding and then make it a point to find something they like to recommend to me. It doesn't help that lots of the things I use as examples of the things I do like, they often haven't heard of before. I tend to get better results online through forums like these, usually in smaller quantities but more accurate to my taste.
I don't feel any guilt about it or anything - I'm very comfortable trusting my own instincts rather than someone else's advice. But not leaving room to be surprised or simply wrong is not a great habit to have, and it costs time that I don't like feeling that I wasted. I guess maybe there's a broader conversation about malleability/evolution of preferences and what I might think of as general levels of self-awareness that could possibly be had... like, I'll say I haven't had a particular food since I was younger because I didn't like it, and people will ask how I'm sure I don't like it now, and it always seems the most absurd question to me - I've always known quite clearly why I like something or not, and it doesn't have anything to do with my age... but that's an argument for another day.
Wicked: For Good
I understand that the second half of the Broadway musical is considered weak. But I'm still shocked at the mixed reviews this got, especially compared to the surprisingly positive reviews the first part got.
I liked the first part more than I thought I would, especially Ariana Grande's performance which converted me into a fan of hers in general (I began listening to all her music after seeing the film and haven't stopped). Jonathan Bailey's performance and character I thought was really fun and interesting too.
Yes, this part is less entertaining. It's messier, less coherent and less character focused. It also somehow feels rushed despite it being an entire film. But there's nothing significantly worse about this film. The craft is the same, which makes sense since both films were shot back to back.
Grande is still a stand out, except that her performance played more to her comedic strengths in the first part.
Nouvelle Vague
So I don't actually care about the French New Wave. The only films I've enjoyed from that era have been The 400 Blows and Cleo from 5 to 7 (I also like Jacque Demy's films but he's not really from that school of thought).
I thought this was soooo boring. Whenever I don't like a Linklater film they tend to be really boring to me. I don't like Breathless, so I didn't watch this in awe of anything. Zoe Deutch was good but that's about it.
This makes me wonder if I should see it at all. I was only vaguely interested in the first one, but eventually saw it based on positive word of mouth. I thought it was just okay. If the new one is "very similar to the first, but the story is messier," then I might skip it. I find that I'm kinda dumb and struggle to enjoy movies that are more about the craft than the story.
I wouldn’t say that’s the case here with these films. I think Wicked is mostly popular because of its narrative.
I’m going to watch Sisu 2 tomorrow and I’m excited, I loved the first one a lot. Will update this comment with a review tomorrow after watching.
Edit: Massively disappointed in this sequel, quite honestly I wish it wasn't made lol. I don't recommend it, I wrote a review off-site but it boils down to: Terrible writing, terrible direction (even tho it's the same director as the first movie) and terrible line delivery from the villain, avoid avoid avoid. Sisu 1 is still great.
I watched Casino the other night and was sort of underwhelmed. It reminded me too much of Goodfellas, which is maybe my least favorite Scorsese film that I've seen (which I know is a pretty controversial opinion). I have no idea why the first like 20ish minutes of Casino is a voiceover narration. At some point you just gotta get on with the fucking movie, Martin.