Topic: The Movie Thread

@Ralizah Lol, sorry about that 😂. My internet sucks, so I just kept on hitting Post reply... oops.

@TheTetrisGuy Oh, believe me, I understand. I live in a rural area that's not the go-to place for stable internet.

I thought Despicable Me 3 was WAY better than the second one. Primarily because it shifted the focus back onto the human characters instead of those annoying minion things.

A little break from E3 ...
I watched a couple movies last week. Both mediocre but worth mentioning.
Maze Runner The Death Cure - I felt obligated to watch this, mostly because a friend has tried to convince me how good the books are, and also because I managed to suffer through the second movie, The Scorch Trials, and I needed closure. Surely the third installment would be better, I tried to convince myself. Well it wasn’t. The movie was one ‘deus ex machina’ event after another. Constant running around, hand-wringing catastrophization of events, and never really feeling connected to characters. I actually like Dylan O’Brien and Ki Hong Lee but something feels shallow with the whole thing here. Perhaps the post-apocalyptic setting with the kids saving the world has been done too much. I don’t know. All I know is that when characters die in the movie I don’t really even feel remorse, so that’s not a good sign.
Jumanji - another mediocre movie, but actually a little better than I expected. Perhaps because it is a video game movie, I give it some leeway on the predictable plot and stereotypical characters. I’m not even a fan of The Rock, but I liked his character here, despite the lack of originality. Jack Black does his normal solid comedy, playing a self-obsessed teenage girl. Overall, the film is hardly a classic, but it is mildly entertaining if you enjoy video games. Just don’t get your hopes up and expect Citizen Kane or Casablanca.

I might go watch The incredibles 2 sometime this or next week. Thought the first one was really good.

Watched Hereditary last night. What a fantastic horror movie! Love the way the visual language feeds into and reinforces the absolutely insane narrative. It's also, amazingly, the director's first film. He's only 31, and already has one of the best horror movies of the 2010's to his credit.

Also a great acting showpiece. Toni Collette gave the performance of her life, and Alex Wolff does a great job as her son.

Best film of 2018 I've seen so far.

@Ralizah need to get on that. I will wait til haloween and watch it along with A Quiet Place and The Taking of Deborah Logan.

@kyleforrester87 A Quiet Place is an absolute cracker of a film. Sounds like you have quite an evening ahead of you on Halloween!

I'm of the opinion that a lot of 80's movies aren't nearly as good as people make them out to be. The Back to the Future films in particular. And The Last Starfighter. Any John Hughes movie. Heck, even E.T. is... just OK.

But I do think Ghostbusters is one of the greatest comedy films ever made. Almost every scene and line of dialogue is iconic or memorable. The sequel isn't bad, but it's definitely not a classic. Although even the second film is a masterpiece compared to the dumpster fire that was the 2016 reboot.

@KratosMD The 2016 one is just aggressively unfunny. It's more like a series of bad SNL skits than anything resembling a proper Ghostbusters film. I think a lot of that comes down to the choice of director, though: who in their right mind thought the guy who directed Bridesmaids could make a good sci-fi/comedy family film?

Never seen Jaws? I enjoy it. The film is a classic precisely because they keep the shark off-camera for most of the film, maintaining a feeling of suspense. This was due to the limitations of the mechanical shark they were using in the first place. A PERFECT example of creativity arising to address design limitations. If you're interested, this is a great article on the subject.:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31105/how-steven-spielbergs-ma...

Although it's a mid 70's movie, so it's even older than you're expecting.

@KratosMD You're not alone. I'm constantly the guy saying "but I've never seen [insert popular 80s movie considered a classic]" and when people react with shock and make me watch them, I'm often slightly bored, or I have to try and view it in context of its release window. Of course, the older stuff I grew up watching, like Star Wars, the original Star Trek films, Burton's Batman, Indiana Jones, the old Bond films, etc. is all awesome, so I do "get it" but it's increasingly challenging the further we get and the more things progress.

For example, I only saw The Back to the Future Trilogy a couple years ago. The first two films were genuinely kinda dull, but I loved the third one, because it just took its concept and went full throttle, and the special effects held up the most. Apparently, it's the one everybody hates, but there we go. I had a blast.

Ghostbusters was one of those that was perfectly fine in historical context, but was carried entirely by the actors, and I don't think I'll ever watch it again. I thought Ghostbusters II was just as fine as the original.

I've never seen Jaws. Might be too late for me now. Best of luck!

Love the original Ghostbusters. I remember watching it and it's sequel when they first aired on British television. Jaws is awesome too. I was legitimately terrified when I watched it as a child! These days I feel a little sorry for the shark. They're very fascinating creatures.

'80's films are kinda awesome, though I can enjoy a good film no matter the era it was made, including black and white pictures. I have to admit that with '80's and early '90's films I'm transported right back to my childhood and simpler times. Not that that's the primary appeal of watching them, but nostalgia is a powerful thing. ET still makes me cry every single time I watch it. As an adult it's also interesting to notice subtexts and appreciate jokes that went right over my head as a child. It's just as interesting to watch a film I previously loved and realise it's actually a load of crap. Kids are so easily pleased.

@Ralizah Ghostbusters 2016 is legitimately one of the worst things I've seen. The cast is definitely talented, but are so wasted. The script and direction are woeful. Every single joke falls flat. I actually don't think a new film with the original cast - without Harold Ramis - would have worked any better.

@mookysam Well, there is certainly the issue of Ghostbusters being a hugely nostalgic property. I think there would have been some resistance to ANY sort of new take on it, and remaking it was probably a bad idea to begin with. But it could have turned out a thousand times better in the hands of a more suitable director. Paul Feig directs baudy gross-out comedies. The original Ghostbusters carefully balanced surprisingly creepy ghosts with a very dry sense of humor. It was just never going to turn out well.

At least the culture war has moved on from it and everyone can just admit it sucks now. The Last Jedi is the new "you're a bigot if you don't like it" movie in the Western world.

@KratosMD I feel like it's one of those movies everyone should see at least once. It's one of the most important films ever made. One of the first true blockbusters. Definitely the first summer blockbuster. One of the first wide-release films. It's also the movie that first established the legendary nature of Spielberg's career.

On the subject of 80’s movies:
After reading Ready Player One I went back to watch a couple of the referenced movies and so I watched “War Games” and “Blade Runner” a year or two ago. Both were extremely disappointing. Don’t get me wrong, they each had their merits and served to usher in new ideas into cinema and I can appreciate their greatness in context, but the tech in War Games is just so archaic... the modem things with the landline phone, those computers, it’s just so ancient that I had trouble taking the plot seriously. Plus all the security we have nowadays just to log into simple work stations, much less the federal government nuclear launch codes. Technology has just come so far that its hard to enjoy a movie like that. As for Blade Runner, it has stood the test of time better, given how awesome Harrison Ford is, of course, but it has that late 70’s early 80’s weird Stanley Kubrick vibe where the plot is so slow and everything seems so cryptic. The portrayed technology holds up better and the acting is good, but I have to admit that I didn’t like it as much as I’d hoped. I need to get around to BR2049 one day. Hurry and put it on Netflix, people!

@Th3solution You'd be surprised at the types of technology still in use by some branches of defence in developed countries.
I recall a report from a year or so ago out of the Pentagon. They were still using 8" floppy disc drives and the majority of associated legacy systems to operate nuclear launches among other things.
Hackers will hack. The technology of any given era is only as good as those trying to break it - in America alone the DOD is under almost constant attack from those trying to get in. And plenty do.

On the films - I think there's some stuff you just have to grow up with. War Games is especially a product of its time. The Cold War plot points were still pretty raw, the threat of actual nuclear war, possibility of orbital defence platforms being real and the 'Supercomputer' being a thing that made the news a lot sold it well.
There were very few people with the luxury of a domestic dial-up connection in 1983, so it was an fairly exotic thing to watch. Even by the time I can remember seeing it in '88 I had no notion of 'real people' having access to that.

I still find Blade Runner a joy (in the Director's Cut form). It's pure Scott though - Kubrick almost always makes at least half of a good film - then gets bored and makes it in to something else; not necessarily worse, but certainly its rarely where I'd want the film to go (2001 and The Shining being my only real exceptions).
Scott was the go-to guy for an engaging slow burn. Blade Runner easily still being his best work.

2049 is alright. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck... it never doesn't feel like 'someone else doing Blade Runner'; though they probably couldn't have found someone better than Villeneuve to do it (I'm glad Scott didn't, he's just the worst now)- it does enough to make you think that he cares about what he's doing.

It's pretty divisive among my friends. Most agree that it looks and sounds great. Performances across the board are strong, even Ford manages to look like he isn't just there for the cheque (like in TFA & Indy 4) - but you either go along with the core conceit, or you don't. I don't, I find it extremely silly and a bizarre extrapolation of the previous story and characters. But there you go.

@Th3solution urgh, that reads really ranty - sorry.

@Th3solution That's an issue for a LOT of movies in that the tech can become very dated very quickly. It also seems particularly bad in Sci-fi as you have much better tech now than they are portraying that we will have in the future. Bladerunner though is set in 2019 and we still don't have the flying cars and there isn't really a great deal of 'tech' in the movie. The tech is mostly the billboards and the 'replicants' of course.

Probably the greatest sci-fi movie, Alien, looks very dated if you consider the tech. All the computers with their 70's type and 'Mother' is a massive, computer with less ability than a mobile phone - at least you can speak to your phone and it will speak back (Siri for example). Talking of Mobiles, that also dates things. The amount of times that horror movies have someone breaking down in a car or similar situation that today would be a simple 'mobile' call solution instead of getting out to look for a phone and ending up at the 'creepy house on the hill' situation. Again though, you can look at these as more 'historic' settings - that the 'horror' was occurring in whatever time period its set - unless its a futuristic 'sci-fi' horror of course.

In things like War Games, despite how dated the tech is, you can look at it as a more 'historic' thing as it wasn't trying to be 'futuristic'. Its not set in 2020 for example and therefore much easier to accept that it is an 80's movie. If they made the film in 2018 and set it in the 80's, then that level of tech would still be relevant. You look at Alien though and if that was made today, I doubt it would be so technologically dated. I know it had some tech we still don't have, like those sleep pods for example that suspend life or humanoid synthetics either but the computers etc certainly wouldn't look like they do. You wouldn't expect a WW2 film to show mobiles and touch screen computers so I think War Games is OK in that its a representation of the time-period its set in - regardless of how dated the tech is by today's standards.

Bladerunner is one of the best movies of its time - although the 'proper' directors cut is the one to watch. I loved the theatrical cut because when I watched it, that was the 'only' cut of the movie (I am old) but for any newcomers, I would say watch the definitive edition, the Directors cut that Ridley Scott actually did.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I still love Alien although its becoming increasingly dated from a tech perspective. You almost have to think that the ship was built in the 1970's and been in service for centuries with a retrofit upgrade...

@BAMozzy VHS Noir, voice over version or the last stuff from the workprint boxed set?

I love the voice over. I didn't see it without the voice over until I bought the first DVD release of the theatrical cut. Much disappointment ensued.

@KALofKRYPTON I think the Final cut - the one that Ridley Scott had complete creative control over and the one without the Voice-over. I don't 'dislike' the voice over but it does change the overall vibe - it becomes more of a 30's 'detective' story and is less ambiguous too - especially the added 'ending' and removal of the Unicorn dream sequence in the original Theatre release. Those things were added/removed because the exec's didn't think that people would get it, that people had to have a happy ending and couldn't cope with some questions being left open - like was Deckard a replicant himself?

The 'best' version is open to interpretation - is it the one that the Director himself envisioned or is it the one that 'audiences' liked best. Personally I think both have merit and I do think that some of the changes to the lighting in the Final cut affect the mood as its not quite so dark. You can argue that the Dream sequence doesn't really add anything - other than more questions that aren't resolved, the voice over changes the vibe too - both are equally valid arguments for or against certain versions.

I watched the original theatrical cut first - because that was the ONLY version available. Maybe by the time the Final cut released, that 'voice over' became unnecessary because I was already aware of the dialogue and what that added in. I watched the Theatrical cut again recently as its on Sky just as a refresher before the new film and it felt lacking in some ways too - it lost some of that depth for me and the voice over felt almost cheesy now. By depth I mean that its 'telling' you rather than leaving it open for you to create your own monologue and interpretation.

Either way though, the Theatrical and Final Cut are perhaps the best two and I would argue that the Final Cut is the definitive version - the version that we 'should' of and 'would' of got had Ridley Scott been allowed the complete creative freedom to make the film in the first place.

@BAMozzy I don't mind The Final Cut, but I find Scott and his motivations ever questionable. It remains a surprise that he didn't lobby to do 2049 if I'm honest. Perhaps he's just too busy ruining the Alien story (just a bit more, every time).
According to Scott (now), there was never any intention to suggest that Deckard was actually a replicant. It's not something I've lent credence to. I also think it's a lazy story beat anyway.

I like a film that is somewhat open to interpretation, if that is the desired response. It can be a fine line to balance what the studio and director and even audience want, certainly in a case like Blade Runner where so much was shot in the end.

As I say, I'll forever prefer the 'original' home video Director's Cut. The voice-over sets the stage for me, Scott doesn't like it, Ford didn't even like recording it - but i think it creates a tighter piece of film.

In the 'Director's Cut ruining film stakes - I don't think I've ever been so put out as with Donnie Darko.

@KratosMD Great film! I'd even suggest working through the Jaws sequels, just to see how bad they get!

I would suggest watching 2001 (at least) twice before fully opining on it. There are many instant takeaways from the film - but it is absolutely worth consideration from several perspectives. A thing I've tried with a small handful of films including this; is to watch them tired; watch them drunk; watch them first thing; watch them when I'm happy; watch them sad, alone, with friends or just watching something several times within a few days. Or whatever combination of those - I've often and occasionally still do (been a while since I've watched it) come away with new impressions and thoughts on the narrative.