What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Newer Films)

[Disco Stu 15,495]

From everything I've heard (and boy I wish I could see this in my local theater), it's honestly amazing this movie's made as much money as it has!  With a different star it would have opened at a couple of European film festivals, showed in NY, LA, and Chicago and that's it.  So JLaw's presence probably got this movie seen by many more people than it ever would have been otherwise.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Koray Savas 2,251]

A Burton-Bonham Carter situation?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Yes except HBC is an impressive actor  

[Fancyarcher 350]

Film Stars Don't Die In Liverpool - Pretty good, with some decent direction and a terrific performance from Bening as Gloria Grahame. I just wish I could have watched it when my foot wasn't swollen, and I wasn't limping. Maybe I would have enjoyed it even more. As it stands, it's pretty good, if a bit melodramatic for my tastes. I did like the fade-in / fade-out sequences quite a bit as well. - 7.5 / 10

[Matt C 452]

 

19 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Seems to be a recurring problem with that actor!

 

He was decent in Chronicle. But he was an awful Harry Osborn in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and forgettable in Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets.

 

He was better in Tulip Fever than those two films, but not by much. Alicia Vikander was also miscast in Tulip Fever, likely due to her resemblance to Ms. Portman, but she wasn't too bad apart from not having chemistry with either lead.

[Hurmm 91]

6 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

Oh, yeah, I understand the logic behind it (as I like to think someone like Aronofsky would have preferred hiring a better actress than Lawrence), but it's still a shame when a director has to resort to something like that to get his film seen by as many people as possible, instead of getting to choose whoever he feels is right for the role.

 

That reminds me: there's actually another well-known actress that shows up in the film and that feels completely out of place in it. Seriously took me out of the film for a few seconds. That was distracting.

 

EDIT: Forgot Aronofsky and Lawrence. Oh well, that explains it...

 

Most of reviews heap a lot of praise on her though. I don't think she's a bad actress, and she was perfectly cast in Silver Linings Playbook, but apart from that she's always been quite middling. Annoying even, sometimes. 

 

How would you compare mother! with Aronofsky's other movies?

 

 

Just saw Wonder Woman. What's all the fuss about? A pedestrian superhero movie if there ever was one. It plays it so safe, and is basically a less good version of the first Captain America. The other DCEU movies are bad, but most of them have some parts that are at least intriguing. This is almost completely boring from start to end. I wouldn't rate it higher than BvS to be honest. 

[A24 4,326]

52 minutes ago, Hurmm said:

 

Just saw Wonder Woman. What's all the fuss about? A pedestrian superhero movie if there ever was one. It plays it so safe, and is basically a less good version of the first Captain America. The other DCEU movies are bad, but most of them have some parts that are at least intriguing. This is almost completely boring from start to end. I wouldn't rate it higher than BvS to be honest. 

 

Exactly! Right on the money! 

 

52 minutes ago, Hurmm said:

 

and she was perfectly cast in Silver Linings Playbook, but apart from that she's always been quite middling. Annoying even, sometimes. 

 

 

 

Right on the money, again!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[A24 4,326]

24 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

OK, having now read some articles about possible interpretations of the film (my own interpretation seems to have been completely way off the mark!), and seeing the film in this new light, I've now decided to give it 7.5/10. Good stuff.

 

 

Go read another interpretation and there's a good chance you'll change your score again.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Quintus 5,399]

That's what happened with Twin Peaks. People were baffled and unsure how to feel about episodes; until they read up on them afterwards, found some micro analysis, or read some twaddle about how everything they just watched synched up with something else from 25 years ago. Then it was majestic. Their ego assured them that being told how to feel was okay. It was going to be okay to praise these things based on someone else's determination.

[publicist 4,643]

On the other hand, at least something that makes people think, engages them. Twaddle of course included.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Quintus 5,399]

12 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

While I understand what you mean, and I don't deny that can be happen from time to time, I'd like to ask you this: are you never willing to reassess a film you've seen but didn't like on first viewing, after reading an interpretation of it that puts the story in a different light? 

 

Absolutely. But in general, I'm very much a 'first impressions' kind of guy. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Disco Stu 15,495]

The last movie I remember being kinda lukewarm on at first and eventually hailing as a masterpiece after 2 rewatches was Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.

 

But that's a little different from what you're talking about I guess.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Yeah.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Here's something pretty fun.  The critic Matt Singer has a long thread where he's posting people's descriptions of reactions to mother! witnessed in movie theaters:

 

Open this tweet in a new tab to see the full thread

This one is my personal favorite:

 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Sweeping Strings 2,344]

Kingsman : The Golden Circle - almost as much fun as the first one, although it maybe takes a little too long to ... 
 

Spoiler

establish that Harry Hart isn't actually dead and to get him back out 'in the field' again. 

 
I'd welcome a third.   

[A24 4,326]

Trailer looks colorful but I didn't really enjoy the first one. Could be a Netflixer.

[Fancyarcher 350]

I just saw Kingsman: The Golden Circle myself. I actually liked it. Not as good as the first, a bit too overstuffed and long, but there's a lot to recommend. The action sequences are incredible, and the reason for bringing back Firth / Harry wasn't as absurd as I thought it was going to be. Overall it's solid, and I wouldn't mind another installment. 

[Muad'Dib 1,800]

Anyone else's seen Wind River and was severly underwhelmed by it? It started out with great promise, but it crumbled into pieces by the end.

 

Loved the Bronson-vibe that Renner has, though.

[KK 3,307]

 

mother!

 

Huh. I liked it. Subtle, intriguing and puzzling by the time you get to its unhinged climax (which may be one of Aronofsky's crowning achievements). The film plays like an elaborate, carefully constructed Rorschach test where various psychological shades are layered upon each other for the audience to project their own interpretations and experiences onto. Was this about a bad breakup? The futility of human relationships? Motherhood? Is it all a political statement? Or just about a crazy lady and her house? Does the answer matter? Are there any or many right answers? It leaves much to the imagination and that makes one of the year's more exciting films...

 

...Or so I thought, until I came home and stumbled onto Aronofsky and Lawrence "explaining" the whole affair. And I was underwhelmed, to say the least. I'm not sure if I was disappointed with the "explanation" itself, or with the fact that we got one. Probably a bit of both. But suddenly, something so abstract and curious became quite literal and even a little narrow minded. The film became one giant metaphor where every little thing has some direct parallel. And frankly, that's just a little boring. This is where the work would have greatly benefitted from a lack of answers from its creator! 

 

It's still very well made. Atmosphere is ace, acting was good and the climactic setpiece was riveting! It's certainly an experience worth having. Only lacking in the VFX department. But ultimately, when explained, it aims more for the short-term thrills (a la Gravity and Dunkirk) than the kind that lingers with you long after. And I still think had Aronofsky stayed silent on the press front, like Lynch, the film would have meant a lot more to me. And I would probably be singing its praise come awards season.

 

P.S. I don't entirely understand why the film was as polarizing as it was. I think it was just marketed all wrong. Both the posters and teasers have been pretty misleading I think.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[A24 4,326]

 

Well, they say Aronofsky's film is too much about 'hidden meanings' but that he forgot to create an intriguing narrative. Without the latter, one has little or no desire to find out about the former.

[KK 3,307]

On 9/25/2017 at 2:56 AM, BloodBoal said:

But while I'm not particularly interested in what the movie is actually about

  Hide contents

(the Bible allegory, not the environmental tale attached to it as well)

I do find it interesting how Aronofsky presented it. That is the best aspect of the movie, as far as I'm concerned. Makes you reconsider those topics/stories in a different light, and that was most likely the director's first objective, and in that regard, he achieved it really well, methinks.

I'm not a religious man at all, nor does religion in all its forms interest me that much, so I never approach a film with the religious angle in mind, so when watching the film, I was looking at it thinking about the motherhood aspect much, much more (because of the title, the fact that everything revolved about being pregnant, etc.).

 

In case you want to know my interpretation of it as I was watching it... Basically, I though it was about a woman who either was pregnant but lost the baby, and thus was afraid to have another one thinking the same experience could happen again, or simply about a woman afraid of having a baby because she thought she was going to lose it. The whole film was taking place inside her mind. The house was meant to represent her body, the visitors some aspects of her personality/her self-destructive impulses (for example, Ed Harris' character could represent nicotine addiction, as everytime he was in fact smoking, Lawrence's character had trouble breathing and when touching the walls of the house, you could see "the heart" turning darker...). And the whole movie was about her trying to take care of her body in order to create a good environment for a (new) baby. And when she finally has it, she becomes overprotective, and is afraid others might harm him, etc. So, to put it simply, the movie was simply about motherhood (hence the title), the house represented the body of the pregnant woman, Lawrence's character could be the maternal instinct, the visitors bad impulses/bad traits of her personality... Though there were obviously things I couldn't figure out: Bardem's character, the crystal... But since I was so focused on the motherhood aspect of the film, the most obvious BIble stuff (like Cain and Abel, God giving Jesus to mankind...) completely flew over my head and it was only after reading about it that it all seemed so obvious to me...

 

 

It's definitely clever, and quite interesting. And there's no question that this is all well done. But a part of me wonders what's the point? What is the movie trying to say? In the end, it almost plays like a writing exercise. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think something like this is more suited for a short film than a full feature. 

 

I did like the way the way the relationship between Bardem and Lawrence's characters were explored, and would have preferred more of than that than all the other minute allegorical details.

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

6 minutes ago, KK said:

 

It's definitely clever, and quite interesting. And there's no question that this is all well done. But a part of me wonders what's the point? What is the movie trying to say? In the end, it almost plays like a writing exercise. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think something like this is more suited for a short film than a full feature. 

 

I did like the way the way the relationship between Bardem and Lawrence's characters were explored, and would have preferred more of than that than all the other minute allegorical details.

 

 

Sounds like it's basically a "punk" performance art piece.  The whole point is just to generate extreme reactions.  One day I'll be able to see it and judge for myself.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

23 minutes ago, KK said:

It's definitely clever, and quite interesting. And there's no question that this is all well done. But a part of me wonders what's the point? What is the movie trying to say?

 

It's simply Aronosfky giving his point of view on all this stuff:

Spoiler

the Bible (or in a larger sense, religion), environmental issues...

 

23 minutes ago, KK said:

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think something like this is more suited for a short film than a full feature.

 

That I can more or less agree with. In a way, the movie does feel too long for what it is telling, but at the same time... the fact that it is long participate in reinforcing the oppressive atmosphere, and in making the rising tension feel more palpable (making you think: "When will it stop escalating? When is this madness going to end?")... As a short film, I am not sure it would have been quite as effective.

 

23 minutes ago, KK said:

I did like the way the way the relationship between Bardem and Lawrence's characters were explored, and would have preferred more of than that than all the other minute allegorical details.

 

I think the relationship between both characters was developed just fine throughout the film. There was no need for more than what was there (or at least, I didn't feel the need for more).

[Koray Savas 2,251]

How’s the score?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Didn't notice any music. If there is any, it must be mixed very low and certainly doesn't carry any scene.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

It's really not a good year if you're wanting to hear an original score from Johann Johannsson.....

 

Quote

Jóhannsson produced close to 90 minutes of original music for Mother! But during a double screening of the rough cut—one with the score, another without—the two men began to realize they needed a new approach.
 

“When I write music for a film, I’m not writing a solo album, and I’m not writing a personal piece,” says Jóhannsson. “I’m part of a team of artists. So I think like a filmmaker more than a composer.” It was easy, he says, to follow Aronofsky’s process—and “arrive at this conclusion, that the film needed no music.”
 

Initially, Jóhannsson’s instinct was to throw out everything he’d written. Aronofsky had different ideas. “We decided to try two different approaches,” Jóhannsson explains. “One, which was using less score and using [it] in only a few select places; and another more radical approach, which was to write another score which was more sound-design [focused], based on processing live acoustic instruments and kind of incorporating that into the soundscape of the house.”
 

The film eventually gravitated much more towards the second choice, with Jóhannsson’s role in the film became less of a composer and closer to that of a sound consultant.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/09/mother-movie-jennifer-lawrence-darren-aronofsky-score-johann-johannsson

[BloodBoal 7,538]

It's no different than the music he generally writes!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Hardy fuckin’ har

[Matt C 452]

The Lego Ninjago Movie

 

Nowhere as fun as the first Lego film or even Lego Batman. The structure is similar to the former (replete with a live-action bookend), but for a movie that runs 90 minutes (plus end credits), it feels bloated. Some of the irrelevant humor is poorly placed or timed, and I felt myself drifting off to sleep through the middle. And the voice cast was a mixed bag -- Dave Franco stood out like a sore thumb, while Justin Theroux was a delight as Lord Garmadon.

 

Warner Animation Group needs to shake things up if they want to stay in business. Teen Titans Go! might be a nice course-correction for next year...

[KK 3,307]

11 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

It's no different than the music he generally writes!

 

Booooo!!

 

On 9/26/2017 at 1:31 PM, BloodBoal said:

 

It's simply Aronosfky giving his point of view on all this stuff:

  Reveal hidden contents

the Bible (or in a larger sense, religion), environmental issues...

 

 

That I can more or less agree with. In a way, the movie does feel too long for what it is telling, but at the same time... the fact that it is long participate in reinforcing the oppressive atmosphere, and in making the rising tension feel more palpable (making you think: "When will it stop escalating? When is this madness going to end?")... As a short film, I am not sure it would have been quite as effective.

 

Agreed. Just conceptually, it seems like the kind of thing an indie filmmaker would write for a short film. There's something a little laboured and workman-like about the whole affair from a screenplay point-of-view.

 

On 9/26/2017 at 1:31 PM, BloodBoal said:

 

I think the relationship between both characters was developed just fine throughout the film. There was no need for more than what was there (or at least, I didn't feel the need for more).

 

It was. But I just wish the film decided to fixate on something more intangible and complex like a human relationship rather than an elaborate metaphor.

[Matt C 452]

Kingsman: The Golden Circle

 

It's entertaining in spots, but flabby plot-wise. You didn't really need Channing Tatum or Halle Berry (who appear for 10-15 minutes) in the plot when it could've just been Jeff Bridges and Pedro Pascal (who is terrific). Taron Egerton anchors the film just fine, but he and Colin Firth look bored the second go-round. Julianne Moore is wasted as Poppy, she comes off goofy than threatening. Elton John, surprisingly, is the scene stealer in the whole film.

 

Matthew Vaughn, bless him, tries to avoid sequelitis, but he doesn't succeed. One of the biggest failings of this film is that Vaughn and Jane Goldman retcon Firth's character's demise so that he can return here -- and it's just contrived as hell. It's bigger and flashier than The Secret Service, but that's about it.

[Quintus 5,399]

Sounds like Men in Black II. I'll probably skip it and wait for part III, which hopefully won't be like Men in Black III, but probably will be. 

[Fancyarcher 350]

I really didn't think it actually was like MIBII, only when it came to the memory plot, it's better anyway. I actually didn't think Moore was wasted either. Her villain just wasn't as well-done as Jackson's from the first. Bridges should have had more scenes though, and Tatum was indeed underused though. 

 

Stronger - It's an inspirational film to be sure, but it's actually quite good, well-done, and even emotional. Jake Gyllenhaal is terrific, but Tatiana Maslany is especially great, as her character has to go through a lot of grief. Hopefully her film career is a successful, because she's a superb actress. 8.5 / 10

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Yeah I've been looking forward to Stronger since I heard about it.  I'm in Gylenhaal's corner for sure, he's a great actor and they need to make up for not nominating him for Nightcrawler.

[Fancyarcher 350]

He's terrific and would definitely be worthy of a nom.  Same with Maslany. Sadly the film has yet to make much of a splash, and best actor this year is very competitive, that I'm not sure Gyllenhaal will get nominated, he could be lost in the shuffle anyway. Hopefully he'll eventually get a second Oscar nom soon enough though, he's turned out to be a really good actor these past few years. 

[Matt C 452]

3 hours ago, Fancyarcher said:

I really didn't think it actually was like MIBII, it's better anyway. I actually didn't think Moore was wasted either. Her villain just wasn't as well-done as Jackson's from the first. Bridges should have more scenes though, and Tatum was indeed underused though. 

 

 

For all her dastardly schemes and testing her henchmen's loyalties, Poppy just wasn't threatening. (That opening bit with the meat grinder came close but no cigar.) Moore played it too sweet and quirky, she needed a bit of her ice queen villainy from Seventh Son. It also didn't help that she had guys and robot dogs doing her dirty work.

[Fancyarcher 350]

25 minutes ago, Matt C said:

 

For all her dastardly schemes and testing her henchmen's loyalties, Poppy just wasn't threatening. (That opening bit with the meat grinder came close but no cigar.) Moore played it too sweet and quirky, she needed a bit of her ice queen villainy from Seventh Son. It also didn't help that she had guys and robot dogs doing her dirty work.

 

I thought Moore played it "crazy happy psycho" like.

 

I didn't take issue with Moore's performance, so much as I thought that Poppy's execution of her plan wasn't so great. I think she needed to more psychical and imposing, and she came off more like a "care free crazy", from her action. It wasn't well thought-out, and as a result the villain really suffered. 

[Sweeping Strings 2,344]

The relatively low-key nature of her demise amused me, considering how some other characters meet their ends (fed into a meat-grinder, landmine, ripped apart by robot dogs etc).      

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Kingsman: The Golden Circle

 

This movie doesn't slow down or stop long enough to let you breathe. The action sequences are perhaps the most over the top I've ever seen. And I think I said that about the first one, but at least that had some real humour to back it up. This reminded me of Men In Black II, where the trainee from the first film becomes more authoritative and assertive in the sequel, but the old mentor is still needed... and needs his memory back with the de-neuraliser. How is it Sarah Harding still looks great at near 60?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Gingers age well!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Clearly!

[Hurmm 91]

mother!

 

Umm, I'm not sure what to think of this. Right now I'm more inclined to agree with KK's opinion. This thing is so steeped in the allegorical that by the end it appears that is its only goal. For an allegory to really work it needs to have some semblance of reality that we can still relate to. The beginning of mother! certainly has this, but minute-by-minute Aronofsky strips this thin veneer of relatability bit by bit, where characters do things that make absolutely no sense, and he throws everything crazy into the mix for the last half hour. By that point there is only CRAZY on screen. And crazy without a point of reference to NORMAL somewhere in picture... doesn't fully work.

 

It still feels like an impressive picture, and it's utterly unthinkable that a major studio funded this for mainstream release. I'll have to watch it again when it's out on home media.