Topic: The Movie Thread

@KALofKRYPTON a better director at the helm and that could have been a decent film

@FullbringIchigo Possibly.
From what I recall, the script was stronger as originally written - but not by much. Probably not enough to save it from at best - mediocrity.

@Frigate You really ought to read the GN at some point. It blows the film out of the water, imo, and is one of the better comic series from the 1980s.

@Ralizah I agree the graphic novel of Watchmen is something special. It's like the holy grail of comic books.

@Frigate There's a whole lot the film does very right. Perfect fodder for Snyder's style.
Try out the Transmetropolitan series

@Ralizah @JohnnyShoulder
It's not a popular opinion, but I actually prefer the film these days.

@KALofKRYPTON The ending of the Watchmen film is far better than the book & actually makes sense. David Hayter did a great job with the script

@KALofKRYPTON The only thing I'll grant is that the way the film ends is a lot easier to take seriously in a modern context. Watchmen was a product of and commentary on the 1980s and the paranoia engendered by the Cold War, so it needed to be updated a bit for an adaptation.

With that said, there's a lot of complexity and subtext that's left out of the film version. I also detest the juvenile fixation on ultraviolence, which wasn't really a feature of the original story (the ridiculous blood spurts and bone snapping everywhere goes against the deconstructive approach to violence in the GN). And, most importantly, Rorschach's profoundly atheistic and existentialistic understanding of life was almost removed entirely from the film, and that philosophical baggage is incredibly important to understanding him as a character.

Also, and I can't really call this a flaw, but I hated it: the almost complete lack of any original music. Nearly all the music in the film is licensed, from what I remember. But an original score is a big part of a film's identity, so it ended up hurting the film as an experience for me.

It's not a terrible adaptation, though. Way more faithful to the comic than something like V For Vendetta, which barely even resembled the source material.

@Ralizah We've been here before...

@KALofKRYPTON Yeah, I thought about that after I posted. Unfortunately, my memory is terrible, so this same scenario probably plays out anytime someone mentions that they prefer the film version of Watchmen.

New take, then! The motion comic is the definitive Watchmen movie. It works surprisingly well.

@Ralizah It's definitely well done!

Saw Glass last night. Really like Unbreakable and Split. I knew that Glass would be a bit poor based on the reviews, and unfortunately they were not wrong. Not a very good film at all.

Still, glad I wrapped up the trilogy and didn't leave it hanging.

@kyleforrester87 That's a shame, really enjoyed the previous films. Think I'll waiit until it comes on Blu-Ray/streaming.

@JohnnyShoulder it's worth seeing if your a fan and has its good bits, but in the end... naw.

@RogerRoger I’m so glad you liked Han Solo; it really is actually better than it deserves to be. I agree that the decreased sales performance is likely from the disappointment over The Last Jedi (a movie I actually liked more than most people did). I’m curious how you felt about the reveal of Maul at the end

@kyleforrester87 As for me, I just watched Split in preparation for going to see Glass tomorrow. I have seen almost all of M. Night’s movies I think, except for Split, that is until tonight. Since it had such lukewarm reception, I was just kinda waiting for it to drop on Netflix or something, but when Glass came out I found out I needed to watch Split first.
As for how I liked it — well, I’d say it’s a solid movie, and a very interesting take of disassociative disorder and the complexity of the human mind. The pacing was fair, the acting was quite good (James McAvoy really stretches himself with this one) and although I’ve seen construction of tension and thrillers done much better, it was an adequate job. It had Shyamalan’s trademark subdued character responses (he loves to just have actors stare silently into the camera for long periods of time, frozen in either terror, contemplation, fear, aggression, or confusion). But it works for his movies. I suppose it allows you, the viewer, time to absorb and feel the emotion that he’s trying to feed you at the time. And the twist at the end did take me by surprise, but it wasn’t nearly as jaw dropping as the closing reveal in The Sixth Sense or Unbreakable or even Signs. But overall, it was good and perhaps I like it a little more given I know that the sequel is out and I can go straight into that tomorrow.

After I see Glass, I’ll post my [unofficial] rankings of M. Night Shyamalan’s movies.

@Th3solution look forward to hearing what you think of Glass.

I saw Glass yesterday and quite liked it. Granted, it's slow, talky, pretentious, and belabors its superhero analogy to the point of exhaustion, but the same was true to a lesser extent of Unbreakable, and everyone seemed to love that.

I got what I wanted from it, though. Some extremely fun performances from McAvoy and Jackson. Continued deconstructive superhero worldbuilding. Good cinematography.

It's not perfect, but Shyamalan's love for his themes and characters are clear (I love how they got back the same actor who played the son in Unbreakable 19 years ago or so). It's a self-funded passion product in the age of the death-by-committee corporate blockbuster. I'll take it over another noisy, big-budget Marvel epic any day of the week.

@RogerRoger It really is crazy how much better these SW spin-off films are in comparison to the actual mainline entries.

@Th3solution The only thing that keeps Split from being offensive to the point of absurdity on DID and mental illness more broadly is the superhero angle Shyamalan takes with it. The entire concept behind that film is misbegotten, though, which is why it'll always be my least favorite film in the trilogy.

I watched Split over the weekend as I hadn't seen it before and was sort of interested in Glass. I was entertained by it, with the caveat that I knew that the film was linked to Unbreakable and that the mental illness aspect of it was actually a way to get the 'superhuman' element across. Not sure I would have liked it as much without that knowledge

@Ralizah Yeah, I agree with you to an extent and I have to admit I squirmed in my seat a little with the portrayal of mental illness and abuse. There were parts that were uncomfortable to watch due to those issues. But as you say, the concepts he’s trying to get across about the human mind having the power and ability to change our physical nature, even to the point of developing superhuman qualities, and that being a victim of abuse empowers an individual makes the way the story’s told understandable. Still, I can’t say that I have the right to disagree with anyone offended by the film since I don’t suffer from any of the malady’s portrayed in it. DID is so extremely rare that I assume the target group is so small there isn’t a voice loud enough to complain about their portrayal or its misappropriation. Now those who are victims of child abuse on the other hand, are unfortunately more common and I’m not sure how they feel about the message. Certainly in the end the fact that the main girl had a past history of physical abuse came to be an advantage in her ability to be a survivor througout the ordeal and in the end to be recognized by The Horde / Beast as someone who was pure enough to be spared. But I can see how it still may hit a sour note to a child abuse victim watching the movie and be interpreted as trivializing their situation. Like I say, I can’t speak from that perspective. I would have liked to see the uncle have his come-uppance though. Maybe he’ll show up in Glass, but there was only the implication at the end that she tells the cops about him but we never know for sure
But one thing I really like about Shyamalan’s shows is that they make you think. And a movie that has me pondering and talking about the message days later is a success in my book.

@Ralizah "but the same was true to a lesser extent of Unbreakable, and everyone seemed to love that." lesser extent being the key words to be honest. Plus, back when Unbreakable came out, we didn't have a new Superhero movie every month like we do now, so it had a bit more rope to hang itself with in this respect in my opinion.

All said though it wasn't terrible and was fun to watch. Just, could have been better. I thought the end was annoying, that "secret society" didn't add anything to the movie for me, and anyway they would have just explained the filmed evidence away as some kind of viral marketing campaign, and it'd be yesterdays news. Who knows, maybe the whole thing was actually a documentary and the studios marketed it as a fictional film and sold it to us

@kyleforrester87 All valid criticisms.

The film could probably have used a few less on-the-nose lines about the superhero analogy (I'll admit to rolling my eyes a bit when Elijah's mother decided to join in on the hamminess by explaining what a showdown is. Or: "This isn't a showdown. It was an origin story all along!"). And, yeah, the climactic twist being the inability of a massive shadow society to remove a video from Youtube, or even just recontextualize the footage by putting pressure on the national media isn't... great. With that said, the moment-to-moment of it throughout is great, and, coming off a year defined by the bloated mass that is Avengers: Infinity War, I liked that Shyamalan's film felt like a pseudo-grandiose satire of it.

And, to be honest, I really like the secret society that kills supers. It makes perfect sense in the context of that universe, and is also a great mockery of America's political landscape, which is consumed by paranoia about shadowy forces intent on controlling and/or destroying all opposition.

@Th3solution You risk offending people any time you play with controversial themes that go to deeply personal places, such as child abuse and mental illness. I honestly had to be badgered into seeing the film, as it looked like it was designing to exploit public fears about mental illness (I'm not generally a huge advocate of artists needing to be "socially responsible" with their art, as I find that's a quick way for prudes and censors to shut down diverging viewpoints and enforce their moral whims on everyone else, but there's absolutely something troubling about the majority of cinematic depictions of mental illness linking it to violence and depravity when actual data on the subject doesn't bear this out). I feel like Shyamalan is coming from a good place with the way he approaches these themes, and he's more interested in the potential that comes with re-mythologizing aspects of human life that have been rendered utterly clinical by modern society. I would have been more comfortable had the film gone a different direction with it, though. Why does the guy with DID have to a serial killer who literally consumes young women? Why not use the superhero analogy to create a character who is able to uses his abilities for good? Imagine this scenario: DID is still a super-power, and, instead of preying on the innocent like a monster, he's a spy working for the government who is able to use the drastic changes in personality and body language when he switches to do his job better. Or something to that effect.