Topic: The Movie Thread

Oh. While it's technically anime, ANYONE who likes "So bad it's good" horror NEEDS to watch Dracula, Sovereign of the Damned. Grab some alcohol and a few friends and it's an absolute blast.

@Ralizah if it wasn't a remake and I wasn't so fond of the original, I might feel the same.

@KALofKRYPTON I think that is the worst thing about remakes (with films anyway), is that they hardly improve upon the original and are usually much worse. That also means your memory of the original is probably forever stained with the remake. Which is why i usually never bother remakes or reboots of films that I grew up with. I don't think there is a person on earth that can convince me to watch the most recent Ghostbusters movie.

@JohnnyShoulder
The problem these days is that there's such a reluctance for IP owning studios to develop new material when a remake/reboot/sequel offers the potential for 'guaranteed' returns.
It's a shame.

I only read the other day that Jacob's Ladder is being remade. For the life of me I can't imagine what anyone could hope to add to that film other than an over reliance on cgi.

I get it to a point with something that was bad, or just old enough and handled in a way to be a significantly reinvigorated experience (like The Fly), but certainly iconic stuff from pop culture, or just even firmly already a serviceable film that gets remade is just a damning testament to the industry.

If you meet anyone who actually wants you to watch the Ghostbusters reboot, get a hitman hired!

I think, when people in the future are learning about this current period of American history, Ghostbusters (reboot) is going to be a fascinating historical piece for a variety of reasons.

As a film, though, it's mediocre-to-bad, and it's possibly one of the most aggressively unfunny comedies I've ever seen.

Also, Disney needs to stop with the live-action remakes. They started on a high note (Cinderella is fantastic and manages to simultaneously be reasonably faithful to the original while also dramatically improving it in certain ways, and The Jungle Book was a pretty fascinating film on a technological level), but the remakes have just been getting weirder and worse over time.

I swear to god, I already couldn't forgive them for the way they ruined Beauty and the Beast, and now they're going after my all-time favorite Disney film, The Little Mermaid. Shame on them for not casting a red-haired actress!

Nothing in their older catalogue is safe.

@Ralizah The reaction to The Little Mermaid casting is rather interesting. Most people, outwardly at least that I've seen are very much on board.
Now of course there are plenty of fans out there who want a cast that reflects the cartoon characters they grew up with. Unfortunately, much as those of us who don't particularly want the next James Bond to be black, these fans are instantly dismissed as Disney (or insert pretty much any studio) is well aware that they can make just as much coin from the positive diversity media coverage as they could out of life long fans.
This all once again touches on the remake culture (I'll leave Bond out of it for this), but the more they want to flog a franchise without including original actors, they will come up against modern politics - ergo the new project will be shaped by the times as opposed to the perceived originality of vision as the preceeding works.

But then you also have the Liberal bubble which won't let you disagree and dominates entertainment media:
Don't like Ghostbusters (reboot)? You must be a cave dwelling misogynist.
Don't want a black Bond? You must be a bigot and racist.

I don't know if you recall, but the same media machine reared up during casting for the live action Aladdin. It was all rage and indignation that a mixed indian/caucasian woman was cast as Jasmine or that the production admitted that they were struggling finding a male lead.
All of this Liberal vitriol shot at them, seemingly in defence of the animated Aladdin film of all things! Which from a Liberal stand point is actually pretty indefensible for its orientalism (It's a great film, but if you don't know much about where the story actually comes from and it's cultural history - and that in comparison with the Disney cartoon - I do suggest looking it up).

I saw Midsommar tonight. I'm still trying to process what it is I actually watched. In many ways, it's a far harder film to peg than Hereditary, which, while very original and well-constructed, still hews to many of the aesthetic and structural conventions associated with horror cinema. This film goes to a lot of dark places, but I never really felt like the intent was to provoke a fear reaction in the viewer. There is some very disturbing imagery, but the way it crops up in the film is almost... organic, and it's not really segregated from the sunlit world the cult in the film exists within. There are a variety of moods elicited by the film, and the film will often jump from terror to something so bizarre that one's only reaction is to laugh at it; but they don't feel incongruous, as such shifts usually do. The mood of the film is one of uneasy dreaminess: you, along with the characters themselves, are never quite sure if what you're seeing is entirely real, or even how to interpret situations that crop up. The film frequently provokes laughter, but little of it is from actual comedic content; rather, the film brazenly puts the characters and, by extension, us, in uncomfortable situations, and laughter seems to be the best way to process that.

Thematically, aside from the usual "fish out of water" ideas that are inherent to material like this, we get a pretty uncompromising look at loneliness, grief, and the subtle but deeply negative long-term impact of struggling to cope with something when one doesn't have a social support system to fall back on. In a very twisted way, it also acts as a sort of celebration of family, community, and the sense of belonging we all inevitably yearn for at some point in our lives.

The film is also, in many ways, the story of an ugly break-up. It's literally one insofar as the main couple, quite from the beginning, clearly has an unhealthy dynamic going on. Structurally, though, the film acts as a sort of odyssey from terror to grief to acceptance of the past.

This structure is the biggest reason I'm hesitant to label this a "horror film." It's, more appropriately, a drama with horror in it.

The cinematography and editing here are just fantastic. There's a scene, early on, when the characters are driving through Sweden on their way to the land where the cult is situated, and the camera slowly twists around so that it's literally upside-down. The effect is clear: the characters are leaving behind the mundane world they're used to and entering a new one with its own rules and sense of logic. Scenes are framed throughout in such a way that they communicate important aspects of the plot and the way character relationships are developing without anyone ever having to say a word.

The sound design is excellent as well. There's often an almost startling lack of ambient noise that heightens the effect of what you do hear immensely. What you don't hear is just as crucial to the impact certain scenes have as what you do hear.

Despite being a very lengthy 2.5 hours, the film never really dragged for me. While it does often luxuriate in its cinematography, setting, and/or sense of atmosphere, it rarely, if ever, feels needless. The immersion one experiences when watching it is crucial to sympathizing with the characters and being able to fully appreciate how things develop, especially near the end.

The climax and denouement are wild, but in a much less gimmicky way than Hereditary was. What transpires in its final half-hour or so, upon reflection, feels like the logical conclusion to all the build-up throughout the rest of the film.

If I had one criticism, it'd be that, while I really liked the main couple in terms of how they evolved (or didn't evolve) throughout the film and embodied certain themes, I feel like several of the other American and/or British characters were fairly generic and stereotypical, and they didn't really add much to the film for me.

I also feel like the marketing for this film will be its downfall. The film is NOT like Hereditary, and won't scratch the same itch that film did. It's being marketed as a sort of 'creepy cult horror movie,' and, while that's not entirely untruthful, it's going to give people the wrong expectations going in. This isn't the first time this has happened with an A24 film. The excellent psychological drama It Comes At Night was also marketed as horror, and there was a big audience backlash when people realized it wasn't actually a horror movie. Go in expecting a horror movie and I guarantee that you won't be fully satisfied with it.

Mulan trailer.

Features some big name actors like Donnie Yen, Jet Li and also Gong Li.

Wonder if Mushu's in it.

@Ralizah That’s a great write up for Midsommar. It makes me more interested to see it, actually. I’m not usually a fan of the eclectic or fringe type of cinema nor do I really care for horror. But the way you describe it makes it sound like a film that is neither overly obtuse nor gratuitously horrific. I don’t mind every now and then having a movie that doesn’t follow convention and elicits emotion in unique ways, but I have to be in a very specific mood to watch something scary. I’m curious now enough about Midsommar to put it in my mind as something to watch out for down the road when the mood strikes for something different, which means I think it’ll be a future rental.

@Ralizah I saw the trailer and it just looks like The Wickerman for a new generation to me, i’ll give it a watch anyway but one for the sofa I think.

@WanderingBullet That Mulan trailer wasn't bad. I do hope that they don't make the character seem incredibly stoic, though. The biggest problem with movies that emphasize women heroes is often that they're afraid of showing their heroines failing and then improving before inevitably becoming show-stealing badasses. That's the biggest difference between Luke Skywalker and Reye, imo: one is unrealistically talented at everything from the start, and the other is just a normal person who kind of stumbles into heroism. When they finally get there, though, the destination is all the more rewarding because of where they started.

Mulan needs to be kind of dorky and struggle with her natural physical limitations as a woman like she did in the cartoon.

@Th3solution "a film that is neither overly obtuse nor gratuitously horrific" is a good way to describe it. While much of the film is dreamlike, subtle, and eerie, it's almost never obtuse. And, yeah, the use of horrifying violence and imagery is VERY restrained.

Apparently there are some interesting parallels between this film and The Wizard of Oz that were quite intentional, so that'll be interesting to keep in mind when I rewatch it eventually, and I'm happy to see that people are seeing this more for what it is (something akin to a modern-day Grimms Fairy Tale) than what it's being marketed as (a new-age answer to the classic folk-horror exploitation film).

@kyleforrester87 Watch it on a big TV, then. It's a gorgeous film.

@Ralizah Having watched the trailer, it does feel like the movie might have more of a serious tone compared to the cartoon. Or maybe they just haven't showed the funny parts, yet.

I watched Life of Pi last night on a whim since I needed a change of pace and cleanse the palate of Sci Fi, Fantasy, Superhero, Post-Apocalyptic, Action movies. What a great movie this is, and of course a better book. I like a little philosophy sprinkled in, the cinematography and art direction is outstanding, and the acting is really good. It’s different than the movies I typically watch and the books I typically read, but yet it’s among my favorites. I read the book a couple years ago before seeing the movie, and I remember being so amazed. The person who told me to read it said it was a true story so I read the whole thing slack-jawed and dumbfounded by the tale. I had recently read another excellent survival at sea book, Unbroken (whose movie adaptation is not nearly as good as LoP’s) around that time too, which is completely a true story so I was gullible about LoP being true right up until the end.
What I love about LoP the most is the uncertainty and mystery with which the story ends with never coming right out and saying whether the occurrences on the raft were real or a fabrication of his mind. It hints heavily that it was an imagined tale, but doesn’t quite commit. I like it when books and film let you draw your own conclusion. To me it would make sense from the inference that the animals on the boat were representations of real people that were killed out of the delirium and madness created of the incident. And that his psyche formulated the tale of Richard Parker and the animals as a defense mechanism to deal with what he had witnessed and what he had done for survival. That Richard Parker was a creation of his own mind as a scapegoat for emotions, remorse, guilt, and trauma that he could not handle without descending into insanity. Although some people would see the story at face value as a crazy set of occurrences with a bunch of animals and he was recounting the truth of what happened. I’m a sucker for a psychological twist ending.

@Ralizah so contrary to what I said I decided to book tickets to see Midsommar tonight 👍🏻

@kyleforrester87 I went to see it last Tuesday. My initial reaction upon leaving the cinema was that it was incredibly well done but I wasn’t quite sure of what to make of the experience. Not as instantly gratifying as Hereditary.
However, as the days have gone on, I love Midsommar and will definitely buy it when it’s released on blu-ray. It’s not a horror movie, but it does have some horrific themes and imagery. It’s a bizarre, surreal experience, like having a weird dream that you can’t quite place into your waking reality.
In my opinion, Ari Aster is a creative genius.

@jacobia I didn’t like Hereditary a great deal (although the ending was very memorable), we’ll see - although at 2.5 hours it’s a bit of a commitment for something I’m not sure about 😂

@kyleforrester87 Great! Be sure to post your impressions. Ari Aster is quickly becoming one of my favorite modern directors.

It's long, but I found it to be incredibly immersive. A lot of that, I think, is just how beautifully filmed it is: I could go on and on about the cinematography on display. I'd take a repeat showing of this over an Avengers movie any day of the week.

@Th3solution The latest issue of Empire (a movie magazine here in the UK) did a feature this month in which a couple of their writers watched through the Harry Potter films and ranked them. Made me think of you and your recent revisit. See if you agree with their order.

1. Goblet of Fire
2. Prisoner of Azkaban
3. Deathly Hallows, Part 2
4. Order of the Phoenix
5. Half-Blood Prince
6. Deathly Hallows, Part 1
7. Philosopher's Stone
8. Chamber of Secrets
9. Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them
10. Crimes of Grindelwald

Oddly enough, they ranked the Bond films around the time I re-watched a bunch of them, too. This is the part where we suddenly realise we're colleagues at a random magazine and never knew it.

I liked Fantastic Beasts more than any of the HP films. The books were OK, but the films always felt rushed to me.

@RogerRoger Very interesting! I’d like to think they consulted the Push Square forums for ideas and direction on their articles, but it appears they were close but not quite in line with my personal rankings. I’d flip the top two and put Prisoner #1 and Goblet #2 or #3 maybe. And I’d move Order about 2-3 spots down. Other than that, they are pretty in line with my thinking. I actually haven’t watched Crimes of Grindewald for a second time yet, but based on my one viewing in the theater I’d probably agree that it’s at the bottom. That opinion may change after a rewatch.
Did they get the Bond films right? 😄
Honestly, I think the collective expertise on this forum probably trumps most of the professional periodicals in terms of sheer insight and accuracy of critique.

On a separate but related note - I have begun my rapid sojourn through my next movie series, the 22 MCU films. I started with Cap America First Avenger, then Cap Marvel, then Iron Man, followed by Iron Man 2. I’m following a recommended order I saw online that follows the chronology and the themes in a way that makes the most sense (Cap Marvel being second overall because of it when the story takes place). The next one will be The Incredible Hulk, a movie I saw only once several years ago. I won’t bore everyone to tears with a break down of each film, but some basic unexpected impressions I have are that Cap America TFA is much worse than I remembered and Iron Man 2 is much better than I remember. Mickey Rourke was quite exceptional as the villain. Also, it’s quite awkward seeing Tony Stark flirt with Black Widow in this film, knowing who their relationship evolves in the later movies.

I’ll post more impressions in broad strokes going forward every 5 or so films.