7
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.
Jurassic Park (1993)
Liked: John Williams' score.
Disliked: Child actors.
Verdict: 🟢
The Negotiator (1998)
Liked: John Spencer's voice.
Disliked: Cotton Eye Joe.
Verdict: đźź
Training Day (2001)
Liked: Denzel Washington
Disliked: Car crash damage.
Verdict: 🟢
Man On Fire (2004)
Liked: "Creasy's art is death. He's about to paint his masterpiece."
Disliked: A repeated shot.
Verdict: 🟢
Man On Fire is great. I love Tony Scott.
Jenna Ortega said that was the movie that made her wanna be an actress, and that she wanted to be the Puerto Rican Dakota Fanning.
Nice! Training Day and Man on Fire are classics! Denzel made amazing films in the 2000's
Anyone wanna talk Dark City? With some caveats it went straight among my top 5 best science fiction.
Spoilers
The set design and overall look of this fantasy-ish Metropolis inspired city is amazing, and we are just thrown into it without much explanation - keeping the feeling of "what the hell is going on" for quite some time. The theatrical release of this apparently ruined it by starting with a voiceover explaining the whole mystery, which thankfully was fixed in the director's cut.The comparison to The Matrix is hard to look past, as it really follows many of the same beats, look, themes and to an extent scenes as well. The Matrix has to reveal its premise earlier, or else Neo's training arc wouldn't make sense. Dark City can keep the confusion of the world going for much longer, making that gradual reveal much more satisfying. The downside however for me was the ending, which is just one big deus ex solution. The Matrix does the same thing basically, but that was more earned from the story, whereas here it comes almost out of nowhere.
I understand The Matrix ended up being the more popular film of the two, and had I seen Dark City at the same time I likely wouldn't have appreciated it for what it does. So not a bad thing finding out about this overlooked film years later.
The Criterion Channel has put together a great selection of Murderous Melodramas and I have been having so much fun with it. Does what it says on the tin - stylish excess, lovely Technicolor, ridiculous melodrama combined with various scheming murder plots.
The highlight so far has been Written on the Wind (1956). The plot is full on soap opera, with rich oil barons and their mess of a private life. Not the least thanks to the performances, with Lauren Bacal's unimpressed demeanor and Robert Stack's desperation. Gorgeous environments and sets, a loud score screaming the emotional beats in capital letters and every character acting utterly self-destructive, yet it never tips over into ridiculousness or camp.
With Niagara (1953) we get Niagara Falls and Marilyn Monroe, a great combo. Fantastic setting with plenty of use of the beautiful location, delivering more than just scenery as it falls naturally into the narrative. Admittedly Monroe is more looks than acting capability here, but then Jean Peters makes up for it as she was the most interesting and fully fledged character. And arguably the true main character along with Joseph Cotten who plays Monroe's husband. Interestingly to see how Monroe is clearly depicted as the ultimate sex symbol, and when Max Showalter - playing the husband to Peters - tries to (literally) picture Peters like that, she isn't willingly playing along. Mirroring Peters' real acting career choices as well, at least according to her Wikipedia saying she did try to fight the Hollywood push to make her sex symbol. Monroe may get top billing and the immediate eye catching look, but I end up falling for Peters and her down to earth persona, her intelligence and genuine empathy where others were too occupied.
Leave Her To Heaven (1945) is somewhat like a prototype for this type of film. Lovely Technicolor texture everywhere. It is somewhat slower going and less bombastic than the movies from the 50s in this vein, but what it does have - is Gene Tierney as the ultimate archetype of a scheming psychopathic woman. Her jealousy is all consuming, her manipulation goes above and beyond - ending in a wild finale. I was quite surprised with how far it goes, especially with one quiet drawn out horrible scene, as it didn't expect that kind of display of calculated calm cruelty from Hollywood in the 40s. I admit it was a bit boring at times, but all worth it for where it ends up.
Also watched Desert Fury (1947) and Violent Saturday (1955), both a bit more crime noir feeling, with an added element of domestic soap opera drama. And jealousy galore of course.
I watched Leave Her to Heaven a few days ago as well. The set design really blew me away. It had a maximalist approach to every scene that I found gorgeous. The depth of visual detail kept me rapt. Gene Tierney had an impressive performance, but it was the production as a whole that I'll remember the most from it.
Agreed about Leave Her to Heaven. Even though the movie telegraphs it in advance, I'm surprised how much they were allowed to show in "that one scene" under the production code. It's not quite a match, but it has shades of Obsession (1945).
Adding Obsession to my list :) The code had weird priorities back then.
Spoilers
According to its Wikipedia article they were apparently more concerned with hints at infidelity and the self inflicted miscarriage (abortion) than straight up child murder.I change my mind, I don’t think Brand New Day is trying to be The Dark Knight. I think it’s trying to be The Batman. Including that it feels very comic booky and it’s a little too long.
Anyways, one thought I’ve had for years now was regarding the casting of Homecoming. Because, once Disney took over production duties it led to them putting Zendaya in the film. Disney loves having plans for their stars.
Here’s the thing. During Shake it Up, which I saw as a kid, it was a bit obvious that Disney was prioritizing Bella Thorne, not Zendaya. They would often pit them against each other to spark competition. From what we know, Disney had a plan to make Bella Thorne a huge actress with the goal to echoe Emma Stone’s career. Unfortunately, Thorne rebelled and started doing some crazy stuff like directing porn. So, by the time Spider-Man came along and the role of MJ was clear, Thorne was no longer an option so they went with Zendaya.
But, imagine a world where Thorne followed the plan set by Disney. I think she would have been locked for the MJ role. Her career probably looks entirely different after that. Zendaya probably isn’t as famous as she is now, but she still would have done Euphoria so she would be more of an artsy actress. So many implications there, including on Tom Holland’s personal life.
Would you recommend Brand New Day to someone who hasn't quite caught up with the MCU yet and is sensitive to spoilers?
I don’t know what you mean by sensitive to spoilers. But, I don’t think it’d make sense if you haven’t seen No Way Home. In turn, No Way Home doesn’t make sense without Far From Home. And Far From Home doesn’t make sense without Avengers: Endgame.
Both Brand New Day and No Way Home directly continue from the previous film’s cliffhanger.
Thanks! Hopefully I can catch up quickly and still see it in theaters. Given its box office numbers, it should have a decently long run.
I watched the new one without having watched any of the others ( maybe one I can’t remember) and it was fine. Haven’t watched Endgame either. Sure there’s probably some things you don’t catch but it’s not intricate fine art in it self so you’ll be entertained either way.
I do think the opening especially would be a bit jarring. In the sense of why did X happen and then why did Y happen and why are we where we are. The opening monologue recaps all that, but I think having the context of the previous films helps a lot. And also it helps to have the context of what the Home trilogy did with the characters and the relationships between them.
I would rather someone have all that going in. It’s a bit like watching The Dark Knight Rises without having seen Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. You could enjoy that independently but the context of how the characters got there is pretty important.
Fair points and come to think of it I did ask my 12yo a lot of questions during the movie haha. We decided to watch all the Avengers films afterwards for the first time because of the Doomsday trailer and we’re at Endgame now. Hot damn there’s a lot of stuff to get around
One Night Only
For those of you that don’t know. This is the movie where sex is illegal except one night a year. Basically the purge but for sex. Lots of people have been complaining about the premise, saying something about fascism, yada yada.
I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with the premise. I think it could be interesting, and I think this does interesting things with that premise. The best stretch of the film is when the characters are operating within the limits of this world. But, because we need to fill 100 minutes of a romcom in it, the characters all react in such a non human way. It makes Monica Barbaro’s character insanely unreasonable. Like, just have sex with him for fuck sake.
Another issue I have, this is the second movie I’ve seen where everyone treats Callum Turner as this incredibly hot guy. They did the same with Eternity and I will not be gaslit into this. I said Noah Centineo should have been him in Eternity and I think he could have been him here. And I’m not just saying that cause he looks like me, he plays the charming good guy much better than Turner does. Turner just comes across as villainous a little bit, I really hope he’s not Bond lol.
Also came out that they cut out most of the sex scenes in this because test audiences were uncomfortable with sex. It’s become a trend for younger millennials and GenZ to hate sex on screen. Because, morality or whatever. That wouldn’t improve it, it’s not like there was gonna be a graphic sex scene with Barbaro involved or anything like that. Her body is tea regardless.
It’s a disappointing because I really like Anyone But You with Glenn Powell and Sydney Sweeney (who make hilarious cameos in this film). But that film was better written, the characters were funnier and not frustrating. The dynamic of pulling back actually made sense there. It’s a comfort watch for me. He also did Easy A and Friends With Benefits. A really solid romcom director, which is a dying breed. Hope he keeps making stuff like this, just with better scripts.
Most movie sex scenes are just gratuitous with no chemistry. I'm not sure not wanting to see it is puritanical.
But as to your point about not being gaslit, I saw the headline for the AP review so I looked up the movie and came across a reddit post discussing it. One person said that if you look at his Wikipedia, you'll see that the 2026 version of him is basically not as hot as the 2018 photo, so maybe he's cashing in on a face that he's
ageddeveloped out of.Depends on the director of course, but it does seem like the concept of eroticism in film is becoming a lost form. Eroticism is different from porn, and maybe because hardcore porn has become so easily accessible, the concept of proper erotic sexuality on screen is becoming harder to even accept as a possibility for viewers these days. Or filmmakers don't know how to do it anymore.
When did run-of-the-mill Hollywood movies ever do it properly where it wasn't titillating and actually served the plot, character development, etc? I'm struggling to think of many that couldn't just be skipped/implied.
Run of the mill Hollywood are probably not good examples of many things, but what I am advocating a bit against is the notion of whether sex in movies is "necessary". Necessary for what? Plenty of things in movies can be deemed unnecessary on some parameters, but movies are a visual medium that convey more than just plot. You can communicate two people having sex by having a long explicit sex scene, or do it like they did in the 1930s by showing the couple embracing, panning the camera to the window and cut to breakfast the next morning. Or everything in between. I would say the movie landscape would somewhat boring if every depiction of people having sex would be reduced the 30s version. Same could be applied to many other aspects of movies. Like you can show someone getting shot completely offscreen or with full on blood brain splatter. Cut to the core, it communicates the same thing, someone is shot dead, but in general we accept that - "unnecessary" - violence at various levels of explicitness, is one element among many that makes a complete movie. The same can be said about depiction of eroticism in general.
I honestly don’t think he was ever attractive. I remember seeing the trailer for Only Living Boy in New York back in 2016, and thinking he was a bit odd looking. Which is why he was probably a model, because he had a unique look to him.
I wonder how much of him being considered “hot” is just that he’s with Dua Lipa.
Haven't been to the cinema by myself in a very long time, only for seeing things with the kids like Toy Story and Super Mario Galaxy, but yesterday I caught a special event showing of Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma and will be the highlight of the year for me. With that title and starring Gillian Anderson, it is tailormade for me personally. Sort of thematic/interpretive(?) spoilers below.
This film is made with so much love for the 80s slasher films like Halloween and Friday the 13th, but the good thing is that offers so much more than mere fanservice and references (though it has plenty of those too). You don't get a slasher pastiche, but a wild satirical sexual awakening story wrapped in a double meta-narrative reaching directly to the viewers (or me at least) own relationship with these type of movies. Katie Welsh writes in a review:
(hangs my head in shame)
The film is screaming its metaphors from the rooftop. The killer in this fictional franchise is literally called Little Death, acknowledging the established interpretation of slasher films connection between death and sex, and the le petite mort concept of orgasm being a little death. Part of the main idea in the film is the two female characters that can only find their own true sexual desire and get an orgasm through the killer, called Little Death, as they get stabbed to a bloody death by an enormous fishing spear.
There is enough self awareness in the film to make it genuinely ambiguous whether the over analyzing is really just an excuse to find an artistic reason to like seeing skampy clad teenagers screaming while they are "penetrated" by big sharp phallic objects. It really hits a personal nerve, as my wife is often looking at the tv and puzzled asking what the hell I am watching (I am not making it easy by being a fan of Italian giallo and Verhoeven), and there is undeniably elements of eroticism in these films. The screaming in terror and final breath as death occurs are eerily close to the sounds of pleasure, making these films sit in a conflicting place in your body when you watch them. What makes the film brilliant in my mind is that it refuses to give a definitive resolution to these of questions. There is a core message about going back to basics, "flesh and body fluids" and stop overthinking, but there is also enough self aware mocking satire of its own discourse, pulling the rug on the whole analysis, that fans or slashers are not given a completely free pass.