@Th3solution Thanks for the tag; real glad you enjoyed Skyfall so much, and that you found its editing and pacing to be an improvement over Quantum of Solace because yeah, that instantly gives it an edge, regardless of anything else. I got lucky (wrong word, right sentiment) because I hadn't seen Javier Bardem act in anything before Skyfall, so I didn't have the No Country for Old Men problem you had. I found his brilliantly erratic and tonally scattershot performance captivatingly creepy throughout. Silva's an interesting spin on a classic villain idea, that's for sure, but it was his connection with Judi Dench's M (and the light it shines on Bond's relationship with her) which elevated the concept, and made for a nice change of pace.
Have you figured out a way to watch SPECTRE yet? Hope you enjoy!
"We want different things, Crosshair. That doesn't mean that we have to be enemies."
@RogerRoger Yes, definitely the aforementioned Dench’s excellent portrayal of M is on full display in Skyfall. It was a really good storyline, even if some of the narrative beats fell just a tiny bit shy of the high watermark.
Still on the lookout for Spectre. I’m usually not an advocate of renting movies because I figure if you ever want to watch the movie again then you’ve already paid the price to own it. I saw the BD preowned for $8. But what are the chances I’ll watch it again? 😅 Probably small. So I might just fork over the $4 to Amazon or Apple to rent it.
It’s strange how streaming services have conditioned me to be averse to paying to watch a movie. I used to rent movies nearly every weekend. Now it pains me because I have access to tens of thousands of movies on demand through my 4 or 5 streaming services. I wonder if I’ll get to that point with my video games eventually. So far I’ve not become dependent on services, but things are changing fast.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
@Th3solution Oh, for sure. Like all modern popcorn movies which try to feel more "weighty" than they actually are, there were some spectacularly silly moments of scriptwriting which felt overly contrived, but they were still few and far between when compared to your average blockbuster.
I totally understand what you mean. We paid full whack to rent No Time to Die a couple months back, because we figured it was Bond, it was something of a cultural event, and we'd get our money's worth. Flash forward to when it's being added to Amazon Prime for "free" and we felt like absolute muppets. At least four bucks is a comparatively small price to pay, compared to what some digital rentals charge nowadays, but I understand why it still stings!
When it's something specific like this, though, and it's an infrequent indulgence, then I can just about justify shelling out. Yes, your other services are serving up thousands of movies, but they're not this movie, and you wanna watch this movie. Of course, as soon as you rent SPECTRE, it'll get added to one of the services you currently subscribe to, but that's just the universe being a jerk.
"We want different things, Crosshair. That doesn't mean that we have to be enemies."
@RogerRoger For sure. I’ve always wondered about how the economics of these streaming services work. In this example, they got me with the strategy of offering the new entry on streaming but not its precursor. So they’ll make a few dollars on Spectre, which they wouldn’t have otherwise. I’m sure there’s a whole burgeoning subspecialty of Business economics with formulae and predictive models about how, where, and when to put entertainment media on a service.
I appreciate the situations when a whole franchise is all contained on one platform. I really like how all of WB is aligned with HBOMax so that any of the DC or Harry Potter films are complete and available in their entirety if you have that one service. Same with Marvel and Disney+ (minus Spidey, of course). Unfortunately Bond is strewn all over several services. Which is like most other franchises like Fast & Furious, Jurassic Park, or whatever. If you want to see them all you have to hop around or just buy them.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
@Th3solution It's either as you describe, a complex web of calculated traps to maximise revenue, or it's just a bunch of greedy companies running full tilt at a new trend, and making mistakes as they go. Given how haphazard and shambolic some streaming service launches have been, and how much of a rights minefield some back-catalogues have become, I'm tempted to say that it's a bit of both.
Bond's been a mess for years. You'd think that one of the most successful and recognisable names in cinema history would have no trouble getting funded and distributed, but he's needed various levels of support from MGM, Sony Pictures and Universal on a movie-by-movie basis, and that's just the Daniel Craig era! Note how none of those companies have their own dedicated streaming service, so they just make one-shot deals with Netflix, Amazon and anybody else who fancies buying a random Bond flick.
Funny you should mention Spidey, by the way, as Disney+ recently acquired the streaming rights to some of his back-catalogue, so we Brits can now watch the first two Tobey Maguire movies, both of the Andrew Garfield outings, and Homecoming. Spider-Man 3 and Far From Home are still swinging around on other services, however, and I think No Way Home has already been promised to somebody else for six months as well, and so Disney's having to wait for existing contracts to expire before they can finally claim to have the entire MCU and all Marvel movies under one roof. It's a freakin' minefield!
You'd think this streaming malarkey would've been ironed out by now, but it's still gonna take years.
"We want different things, Crosshair. That doesn't mean that we have to be enemies."
Just got back home from watching Jordan Peele's new film, Nope, and it was... pretty good. Definitely at least a partial return to form after the interesting but supremely messy Us, along with his horrendous reboot of The Twilight Zone. Although I feel like it might some engender some level of backlash of its own, since it's absolutely not the sort of film I think people have come to associate with the director. There's absolutely a little bit of social commentary regarding black representation in American mass media, but the themes of race and class aren't central to the narrative like they were in his previous two films.
I actually really liked the sort of film he ended up crafting, though. Much more of a classic Spielberg-type film than Spielberg himself has created in decades. Think, in particular, of genre classics like Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Unfortunately, it's also probably at least half an hour longer than it needed to be. Sort of a meandering script in the first half, subplots that don't really go anywhere, and it's a shame, because I could see people zoning out before the action kicks up in the pretty fantastic second half of the film.
Lots of little references to a variety of other films as well, including a pretty on-the-nose visual reference to Akira.
Strongly recommended to fans of sci-fi cinema if you can tolerate some slow stretches.
@RogerRoger@Th3solution Amazon own the rights to the Bond movies as they acquired MGM. There is probably an existing deal for another streaming service, as I was surprised that some of the films were not permanent additions on Prime.
EDIT: At least that will sort out any funding issues that the films had going forward.
@JohnnyShoulder Yeah, that deal was supposed to tidy everything up for Bond, but then we got that weird couple of months where Prime suddenly had the entire back-catalogue, and then didn't again. I'm sure they'll be permanent additions before long, but it's still a bit of a mess. You'd think Amazon's infinite pockets could've just bought out any pre-existing contracts, but hey.
***
@Ralizah I was supremely impressed by the trailer for Nope. Sounds like it's worth keeping in mind, if not rushing to see straight away. It's unfortunate, but also sadly understandable, that you reckon it'll engender a backlash because it's a Jordan Peele film which isn't entirely about the Black experience in contemporary America. I'd hate to see talent pigeonholed like that, and hope that people understand that, as individuals, we're more than just a bunch of labels.
"We want different things, Crosshair. That doesn't mean that we have to be enemies."
@RogerRoger Yeah, his analysis of the black experience isn't entirely gone (there's a pretty cutting subtext about how black involvement in the early developments of American cinema had been ignored, downplayed, and erased over time), but it's nice to see him not making variations of Get Out over and over. I'm just glad it turned out well, since he was starting to look like a bit of a directorial one-hit wonder.
It also avoids the tonal whiplash of his last film, Us, and integrates light humor and scenes of tension and horror in a way that feels organic.
Absolutely worth checking out when you get the chance.
@Ralizah Thank you; I will do, definitely. I haven't seen his previous works, but I don't live under a bridge, so am obviously aware of the cultural impact of Get Out, and want to see it someday, as well. Would you recommend that I watch it before Nope, or wouldn't it make much of a difference?
"We want different things, Crosshair. That doesn't mean that we have to be enemies."
@RogerRoger They're not connected in any way. I'd only recommend Get Out first insofar as it's his best film to date, and I feel like the film's extended satirical and metaphorical exploration of black alienation within the context of the American milieu also makes it his most important work to date.
But if you'd prefer something more straightforwardly enjoyable and less loaded down with the baggage of American racism, Nope might be a better place to start.
@Ralizah My thanks again. That's a useful description of both movies in relation to one another, because it means I can pick the right one to match my mood. Appreciate it, cheers!
"We want different things, Crosshair. That doesn't mean that we have to be enemies."
In preparation for watching the final film, I made my way through all the Fantastic Beasts movies.
This would be my third viewing of the first film (the awkwardly named Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them) and the second viewing of the second film (maybe less awkward but still excessively named Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald). I think it’s a pretty common assessment that these movies don’t really hold up to the Harry Potter legacy, and I’m going to agree that there is a charm that’s missing. However, like many of these big budget films, a repeat viewing does highlight some of the stronger aspects of the films and I found them more enjoyable this time around. Perhaps I was anticipating the imminent watching of the third movie so was more motivated to learn the characters and the labyrinthine plot twists this time around. Of course knowing the late movie twists in both cases meant that I could be on the watch for the clues peppered throughout the films, which also made things more engaging.
I also appreciated some of great acting on display this time around. Eddie Redmayne is quite outstanding in his portrayal of the socially awkward Newt Scamander, and Johnny Depp was chilling and mesmerizing as Grindelwald. Other supportive actors ranged from good to fair.
Both movies suffer from erratic pacing and the aforementioned confusing plot lines that Rowling’s work is known for. Although in the Harry Potter books/films there’s definitely more satisfying reveals than we end up with here and I think it’s on account of lack of time to cultivate these things. In the original HP series, some twists and reveals weren’t realized until 3-4 movies later, and here things seem much more rushed to get to the ‘gotcha’ moments.
A call-out to the visuals, especially in Crimes of Grindelwald. The CGI of the obscuris (sp?) is excellent in its portrayal of chaos, power, and destruction. It reminds me of the art style in one of my favorite games, Control. As for the ‘fantastic beasts’ themselves, they are more hit-or-miss in their art design and graphical believability. Most are actually a tad hokey appearing, but some are quite creative.
After refreshing my memory of the first two, I dived into Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore. In short, it’s more of the same, but didn’t leave as large an impression on me as I’d have hoped. I liked seeing the characters return and had grown interested in some of their plights, mainly Newt and Dumbledore. Unfortunately the charm of Jacob’s cute side story was flat this time around.
The elephant in the room (well, one of the two elephants, the other of which I’ll just say I’m watching this without regard to the creators current controversy, although I do think one can feel the strain of it on the execution of this newest film) is the switching of the actors for Grindelwald. The franchise has done this before, of course when Dumbledore’s actor was changed from HP2 to HP3. It eventually worked out there, and perhaps it will in this series, but I honestly had a hard time seeing Mads Mikkelsen in the role after Johnny Depp’s previous rendition. I think Depp better captured the combination of sociopathic derangement and charismatic crowd pleaser. I really like Mikkelsen, but it seemed his heart wasn’t in it and he was going through the motions relying of his default cold villain portrayal that we’ve seen before.
Again, I say all this just observationally, with earnest attempts to ‘separate the artist from the art.’ I know Depp and Rowling are very polarizing, so I endorse neither’s world view in these comments. I’m simply partaking of the product on screen.
As a whole, The Secrets of Dumbledore falls a little flat in the end, and it feels rushed and thrown together, which should be no surprise. I still enjoyed it enough to recommend it to fans of the franchise. The peek into the life of a young Dumbledore is reason enough. But as the film approached its halfway point I was checking my watch and seeing how much longer it was going to go. When the credits rolled, I had a slight disappointment that I hadn’t experienced with the first two films. I do think one day a few years hence I’ll give it a rewatch and see if it’s better on the next go around.
@nessisonett I wonder if the ending of Secrets was thrown together in an attempt to provide some closure rather than the original plans for more entries, because it did seem slightly tacked on. There is room for a sequel, but also a tying up of most loose ends. I wouldn’t be surprised if they read the room and decided to get out while there was still time.
I wish they gave the series a better send off, although I still found some enjoyment in this last film. But I’m someone who liked all the Star Wars entires, prequels and sequels, blinded by dedication and infatuation to the IP. Same with Marvel, DC, etc. I just love these certain fictional worlds so even when I objectively see the flaws, I have a hard time completely disapproving even the bad entries. 😄
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
Forums
Topic: The Movie Thread
Posts 6,781 to 6,800 of 8,942
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic