First Impressions: The FILMS of 2023

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

The Killer - I thought I'd be on solid ground with a thriller starring Michael Fassbender, directed by David Fincher and scripted by Andrew Kevin Walker ... and so it proved. Fassbender's titular hitman gets embroiled in an international manhunt after a job goes wrong. There are perhaps hints of what his Bond's colder side would've been like had Fassbender landed the job in his performance. Something that tickled me was that his character's many aliases are TV and movie characters (Felix Unger, Archibald Bunker, Lou Grant etc) and nobody ever picks up on it.
 

[Holko 9,529]

Still: A Michael J. Fox Movie - I loved it! Some really inspired creative filmmaking went into telling the story using all kinds of relevant footage, newly shot standin footage and of course interview and live documentary footage. My favourite part was the montage showing the hell of doing Family Ties and BTTF at the same time.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

I'm all for brining back intermissions in long films! And not just for the convenience, but there's a certain nostalgia about intermissions that harkens back to the days of the Hollywood epic. Scorcese, who's a film historian and lover of all things cinema, knows this and shouldn't be having a go at cinemas who give their customers a pee break.

 

[Chen G. 3,950]

In the films of yesteryear, though, the intermission was built into the story. It wasn't just slapped unto the film by theatre owners.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

Yes, of course. But if the occasional cinema choses to do it, I don't think it's something that Scorcese (or the suits at Apple) should really be having a cry over. It's not a good look. I don't care if his "artistic vision" is for people to be stuck in their seats for 3.5 hours.

[Chen G. 3,950]

Just now, Nick1Ø66 said:

It's not a good look.

 

That it certainly ain't, yes.

[JNHFan2000 2,966]

I really don't like intermission. I agree that in the past they were build into the film, but when it happens these days it feels like a commercial break on tv. It's horrible and completely takes you out of the experience of the film.

 

Although, on KOTFM I wouldn't have mind an intermission. I would've been able to walk out without bothering other people

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

I'm all for brining back intermissions in long films! And not just for the convenience, but there's a certain nostalgia about intermissions that harkens back to the days of the Hollywood epic. Scorcese, who's a film historian and lover of all things cinema, knows this and shouldn't be having a go at cinemas who give their customers a pee break.

 

I'd support intermissions being brought back - as integral parts of their films. It's a difference when a film is structured in such a way to allow for a (not so) sudden break and leave room for stopping and starting it, as opposed to a projectionist just shutting down the film at an arbitrary point and then starting it up again. I still remember the harsh cuts in the LOTR films, and the awkward continuations several frames into the next scene. Granted, it probably works better in these days of digital projection, but chances are you still get a sudden break right in the middle of a significant music cue (ok, there aren't many of those either…).

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

I'd support intermissions being brought back - as integral parts of their films. It's a difference when a film is structured in such a way to allow for a (not so) sudden break and leave room for stopping and starting it, as opposed to a projectionist just shutting down the film at an arbitrary point and then starting it up again. I still remember the harsh cuts in the LOTR films, and the awkward continuations several frames into the next scene. Granted, it probably works better in these days of digital projection, but chances are you still get a sudden break right in the middle of a significant music cue (ok, there aren't many of those either…).

 

Oh, I agree completely. An intermission should be inserted by the filmmakers themselves, and at dramatically appropriate moments. I just think studios having a go at the occasional cinema that put their own in there to cater to their customers is a bit heavy-handed.

 

I don't know about intermissions in the LOTR theatrical presentations, but the faux intermissions (for disc change) on the EE DVD's are quite well-placed. 

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

13 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

but the faux intermissions (for disc change) on the DVD's are quite well-placed. 

 

The key word being "quite". I suppose it's the best they could do, but they're still jarring. FOTR part 2 starts with a connecting scene that clearly wasn't meant to stand out as much as it does by being preceded by a break.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

As I recall, the intermission in FOTR comes at just after the moment the Fellowship is formed...which to me is thematically appropriate. It's definitely a turning point in the film.

[Schilkeman 964]

Yeah, it ends in the great “where are we going?” line. A perfect stopping point.

[Glóin the Dark 1,222]

The break in The Fellowship of the Ring is at the perfect place. I don't like the other two at all. I think The Two Towers should have an uequal split with the smaller segment (the transitional phase which ends at the closure of the Black Gate) followed by the larger one (which has the feel of a disaster movie in its own right). The Return of the King should be a three-parter!

 

I could have used an intermission in Killers of the Flower Moon, not least because my leg started to ache half way through, but if the film-maker hasn't approved one then he would be quite entitled to object to cinemas doing it of their own accord; that's just vandalism.

[Chen G. 3,950]

22 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

As I recall, the intermission in FOTR comes at just after the moment the Fellowship is formed...which to me is thematically appropriate. It's definitely a turning point in the film.

 

Right. And the scenes at the beginning of the second part serve as a kind of "soft" reintroduction to the film just before the Fellowship leaves. Its really perfect.

 

I like the other two as well. The Two Towers in a cliffhanger, like a lot of films (2001 and Zhivago come to mind) would close part one on a bit of a cliffhanger. "War will make corpses of us all. Bind their hands" and again a fairly soft landing back into the film with Gimli making jokes with Eowyn. The Return of the King, too, immediately after the introduction of Grond into the story.

 

I'll be honest, even though I love it, An Unexpected Journey really needs an intermission to make the pacing work. The 3D edition, I'm told, has an intermission right after Azog sends the Orcs off to "send word. There's a price on their heads" which again is pretty much perfect. I use it as a break, because it really helps the film; a little bit like Kingdom of Heaven (another film that really needs that intermission: the version absent the intermission is a lesser film for it).

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

46 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

I could have used an intermission in Killers of the Flower Moon, not least because my leg started to ache half way through, but if the film-maker hasn't approved one then he would be quite entitled to object to cinemas doing it of their own accord; that's just vandalism.

 

Meh, I think "vandalism" is a bit of a strong term. Intermissions used to be put in longer films at UK cinemas as a matter of course, and they've started to do it again, to the approval of audiences, and the studios really don't have much to say about it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not insensitive to respecting the wishes of filmmakers when it comes to presenting their work in the way they want it presented. I'm one of those people who care about seeing a movie in the proper aspect ratio. And would I personally want an intermission arbitrarily put into a film that's not meant to be there? No.  

 

But just watching a film in the cinema, with loud patrons, crying babies, people chomping on popcorn, etc. is often a compromised experience. Watching at home on the small screen is a compromised experience. Back in the days before digital, faded, broken prints, the projection bulb at the wrong temperature, films shown in the wrong aspect ratio, etc. was a compromised experience. Somehow, filmmakers and patrons lived through those dark times.

 

I just think Scorcese (who I quite like) & Apple are being a little precious about the whole thing.

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

Right. And the scenes at the beginning of the second part serve as a kind of "soft" reintroduction to the film just before the Fellowship leaves. Its really perfect.

 

Legolas (iirc) walking down some steps for a handful of frames, followed by a quick cut. It always feels off to me on its own. If they had put an intermission there, I imagine we would have gotten some kind of establishing shot instead.

[KK 3,307]

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

But just watching a film in the cinema, with loud patrons, crying babies, people chomping on popcorn, etc. is often a compromised experience. Watching at home on the small screen is a compromised experience. Back in the days before digital, faded, broken prints, the projection bulb at the wrong temperature, films shown in the wrong aspect ratio, etc. was a compromised experience. Somehow, filmmakers and patrons lived through those dark times.

 

Yes, but with how far technology has come with the degree of control of the theatrical experience, I think it's fair for the director to want to curate that experience as much as they can.

 

And the variables around different theatres just randomly breaking up the film at any point of its duration without the director's knowledge...that is an understandably painful concession for any director, especially someone like Scorsese, who at this stage of his career, has definitely earned that level of command over how he wishes his films to be presented to the world.

 

To your broader point, yes, I'm a big fan of bringing intermissions back for epics of this length. As long as they're built into the design of the work.

[Chen G. 3,950]

In a way its easier with a Scorsese film because he tends not to have "timelocked" plots: i.e. "X must happen in Y number of days" so the entire plot feels like its moving close to the passage of time in the diegesis.

 

The kinds of movies that used to have intermissions usually charted several years in the course of the characters' lives, and so it was easier to nestle an intermission into that. I mean, in Lawrence of Arabia, you come back from intermission and its been a good few months!

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

For what it's worth, for my own film nights I adhere quite strictly to Lorelai Gilmore's movie night rules:

 

Except for the toilet break rule. But I do try to do toilet breaks (when requested) at fitting moments in films.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

5 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

For what it's worth, for my own film nights I adhere quite strictly to Lorelai Gilmore's movie night rules:

 

Except for the toilet break rule. But I do try to do toilet breaks (when requested) at fitting moments in films.

 

Checks writing credits for this episode ("The Fundamental Things Apply")

 

Yep, it's a man. Only men have movie night rules like that.

[Jay 37,372]

 

No Hard Feelings

 

Pretty amusing rom-com (I guess you can call it that) that actually felt like it had new things to explore instead of the same old tropes over and over again.  Jennifer Lawrence is a 30something bartender and Uber driver in Long Island, perpetually annoyed by the fact that it's become harder and harder to live there as more and more rich people drive up all the property values and taxes.  After her car gets repossessed, she meets two of these rich outsiders who had placed a Craigslist ad asking for a young lady willing to pop their 19 year old son's cherry in exchange for a Buick.  The clunkiness of the setup cannot be denied, but once Lawrence gets together with the boy (Andrew Barth Feldman), the movie really sings for a while as their friendship groves as they are thrust into a variety of different situations.  Lawrence again proves how talented she is (don't know why she has so much fake tan here she looks orange, nor why she seemingly has work done on her face already), and her scenes with Feldman really make the movie worth watching, along with lots of funny parts and amusing commentary.  A subplot about Lawrence's father was well done too, and Matthew Broderick and Laura Benanti are fun as the parents.

 

It's on Netflix

[Tom Guernsey 2,286]

I have to admit that the placing of intermissions in the live to picture films I’ve seen have been pretty great. Jurassic Park was right after the T-Rex attack, Jaws was I think round the time they set off on the Orca, can’t recall the others offhand but most felt fairly well placed if not actively good in terms of leaving on a kind of cliffhanger/pivotal moment in the film. 

[rough cut 1,714]

Reptile (2023) IMDb 

 

A good movie. It’s a who-dunnit but the plot is a little bit too thin to keep you guessing, but the atmosphere is A+. I wouldn’t mind if Netflix turned this into a franchise as Benicio Del Toro is great in his role of Tom Nichols, a worn-out-not-all-clean-but-good-hearted detective. I’d gladly watch more of him reprising his role.

 

The movie would do better without Justin Timberlake though. Why the director chose to cast him is beyond me. He’s a terrible actor and comes with connotations that doesn’t help the movie.

 

I once had a conversation with a friend about Timberland’s acting where he asked “Can bad actors ruin a good movie?” Before I could answer he grabbed my arm and looked me in the eye, and a pleading word came out if his mouth as he answered his own question. “Yes”.

 

None the less, I can recommend to watch this movie.

[Glóin the Dark 1,222]

19 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Back in the days before digital, faded, broken prints, the projection bulb at the wrong temperature, films shown in the wrong aspect ratio, etc. was a compromised experience. Somehow, filmmakers and patrons lived through those dark times.

 

Sure they did, but that doesn't make it unreasonable to object to those things. Phantom Thread was projected in the wrong aspect ratio when I first saw it, and I don't think I was being "precious" when I let the staff know about the problem (and accepted their offer of a refund and a new ticket).

 

The Guardian article seems to imply that some UK cinemas were inserting intermissions in Oppenheimer. In that case, "vandalism" is certainly not too strong a word, especially if the break was placed anywhere within the middle hour.

[Mr. Who 919]

I get the point of an intermission when it’s intended by the director but I’d prefer to watch a long movie without it. For instance if I watch Avatar 2, Oppenheimer, LOTR or movies like this in the cinema I’m going for the experience and if they stop the movie and the lights come on it just takes me away from the film experience.

 

I saw Titanic a few years ago with an intermission and the stopping point kind of worked but we were just waiting for the movie to start again so it didn't really add any benefit. 

[LB Makes Stuff 240]

Five Nights at Freddy’s

 

Kind of goofy and bad, but not the worst thing I’ve ever seen. There’s some fun moments here and there, but it’s nothing groundbreaking. Wasn’t close to being scary though. The closest thing to “horror” comes in about halfway through the film when some kids break in, everything else just feels like a thriller.

The score itself is also pretty fun. I do appreciate the vocals throughout, and the main titles are pretty interesting to listen to. Though I do wish the rumored Jason Graves (original listed composer on IMDb) did the score, I really like his Dead Space stuff a lot, and I think that the Chris Young-y sound would’ve made for a great experience…

The fans seem to enjoy it, so more power to them. 6/10 for me.

[JNHFan2000 2,966]

Quiz Lady

 

This is really one of those comedies that is mostly fun because of the two leads. Awkwafina & Sandra Oh are both great here. Both are playing somewhat against type. Awkwafina plays the more calm amd subdued character while Oh is loud and always on. I thought Oh especially was funny. She's always been funny without really trying to be funny in roles in Grey's Anatomy or Killing Eve. But here she's deliberately funny, and it really works. Add to that the terrific chemistry between the two and that is really the best reason to watch this film.

 

There are also some fun (small) supporting roles by Holland Taylor, Will Ferrell, Jason Schwartzman & Tony Hale. They all do solid work and make sure that the film remains fun.

 

The script is just okay and the directing is solid, but doesn't add too much to the film. 
This film is a perfect watch for an afternoon or evening when you need something fun for 90 minutes.
 

 

 

NYAD

 

With a fearless lead performance by Annette Benning, this is a wonderful (if a bit formulaic) film about overcoming boundaries, no matter what age.

It's a remarkable true life story about swimmer Diane Nyad crossing 100 miles from Cuba to Florida. And failing 4 times due to different circumstances. The final time she tries, at the age of 65, is fantastic to watch.

The previous film from the directing duo was Free Solo, another film about one person overcoming incredible odds. Their directing here is again very good. I especially love the way some of the swimming and ocean scenes were filmed.

 

Like I said, Benning gives a stellar performance as Nyad. Never wanting to resort to the rules that society has written for people her age. Even after multiple near death experiences, she still wants to prove that she is able to do it. Some call it stupid, I admire it.

Jodie Foster is also fantastic as her best friend/coach. Foster is still able to surprise me with her performances after so many years. She is incredibly funny and has so much heart. I actually would say that the heart of the film lies with her. She's the backbone of the film and is always there to suppprt Nyad.

 

The one thing that didn't entirely work for me were the flashbacks. They were a bit distracting and didn't fit the film. I would rather have had Benning tell us what happened instead of showing. It felt like they belonged to another film.

 

Other than that, I thought this was great. Very well made and acted and a real feel good story. And we could all use those these days.

[Mr. Who 919]

19 minutes ago, JNHFan2000 said:

Quiz Lady

 

This is really one of those comedies that is mostly fun because of the two leads. Awkwafina & Sandra Oh are both great here. Both are playing somewhat against type. Awkwafina plays the more calm amd subdued character while Oh is loud and always on. I thought Oh especially was funny. She's always been funny without really trying to be funny in roles in Grey's Anatomy or Killing Eve. But here she's deliberately funny, and it really works. Add to that the terrific chemistry between the two and that is really the best reason to watch this film.

 

There are also some fun (small) supporting roles by Holland Taylor, Will Ferrell, Jason Schwartzman & Tony Hale. They all do solid work and make sure that the film remains fun.

 

The script is just okay and the directing is solid, but doesn't add too much to the film. 
This film is a perfect watch for an afternoon or evening when you need something fun for 90 minutes.
 

 

 

NYAD

 

With a fearless lead performance by Annette Benning, this is a wonderful (if a bit formulaic) film about overcoming boundaries, no matter what age.

It's a remarkable true life story about swimmer Diane Nyad crossing 100 miles from Cuba to Florida. And failing 4 times due to different circumstances. The final time she tries, at the age of 65, is fantastic to watch.

The previous film from the directing duo was Free Solo, another film about one person overcoming incredible odds. Their directing here is again very good. I especially love the way some of the swimming and ocean scenes were filmed.

 

Like I said, Benning gives a stellar performance as Nyad. Never wanting to resort to the rules that society has written for people her age. Even after multiple near death experiences, she still wants to prove that she is able to do it. Some call it stupid, I admire it.

Jodie Foster is also fantastic as her best friend/coach. Foster is still able to surprise me with her performances after so many years. She is incredibly funny and has so much heart. I actually would say that the heart of the film lies with her. She's the backbone of the film and is always there to suppprt Nyad.

 

The one thing that didn't entirely work for me were the flashbacks. They were a bit distracting and didn't fit the film. I would rather have had Benning tell us what happened instead of showing. It felt like they belonged to another film.

 

Other than that, I thought this was great. Very well made and acted and a real feel good story. And we could all use those these days.

How was the score?

[JNHFan2000 2,966]

1 hour ago, Mr. Who said:

How was the score?

 

Which one.

 

Actually both are there, but not too noticable. Desplat's score does make itself known a bit more in some places, but I thought it was mixed pretty low

[Tallguy 3,401]

Titanic should have had an intermission. Not just cause it's hella long but also because it feels like the kind of movie that should have one.

 

Intermissions should be a thing again, dammit. It's funny, I would think it would be the theater owners objecting (the logistics have got to be nuts in a multiplex) and the Artiste Throwbacks like Tarantino Remembering How it Was.

 

We watched A Haunting in Venice.

 

1) I loved it. I love Branagh's Poirot. I get that he's not fat. But this particular iteration, post war, retired, very weary. I liked it. The supporting cast was good, as they're supposed to be in this type of film. It wasn't quite the "cast of a thousand stars" that the previous two films were. Michelle Yeoh was unsurprisingly good. Tina Fey was surprisingly good.

 

2) We watched it at home. There were bathroom breaks, dog interruptions, we stopped to back cookies. I said "This is why I like to watch movies in the theater." I was rebuffed. Then I saw this thread this morning. Perfect timing.

[Chen G. 3,950]

1 minute ago, Tallguy said:

Intermissions should be a thing again, dammit. It's funny, I would think it would be the theater owners objecting (the logistics have got to be nuts in a multiplex) and the Artiste Throwbacks like Tarantino Remembering How it Was.

 

Intermissions were only ever really in practice in roadshow showings in old movie palaces: by the time the movies dripped down to the smaller theatres, they were cut-down and the intermission removed. Our contemporary multiplexes just don't allow for intermissions.

 

And, really, back in the day, the intermission was worked into the story. Our films, which tend to have timelocked plots, don't allow for that.

 

[Tallguy 3,401]

15 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Our films, which tend to have timelocked plots, don't allow for that.

 

That's only because they don't make them that way. We have filmmakers who still LOVE making 3 1/2 hour movies.

[Chen G. 3,950]

35 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

We have filmmakers who still LOVE making 3 1/2 hour movies.

 

Its not a question of how long the movie is.

 

The Return of the King extended edition is four hours long, but the plot is timelocked: the main plot unfolds over the span of a couple of days, and it MUST unfold over that period of time: there's a timelock built into the plot.

 

Whereas The Godfather (which was going to have an intermission) is a far, far shorter movie (2 hours 56 minutes sans credits), but the plot unfolds across nearly a decade.

 

When you have these big time lapses between scenes, you can put an intermission and then the audience accepts that, between the time they left after part one, and came back for part two, a couple of months or even years had passed in the world of the film. When the film's events take place over something that feels closer to real-time, its harder to tear the audience away from the movie without it feeling artificial.

[Schilkeman 964]

1 hour ago, Tallguy said:

I love Branagh's Poirot.

There is only one Poirot, only one.

[Tallguy 3,401]

3 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

There is only one Poirot, only one.

 

No, there is a best Poirot. And I think we're all thinking of Albert Finney.

 

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

When you have these big time lapses between scenes, you can put an intermission and then the audience accepts that, between the time they left after part one, and came back for part two, a couple of months or even years had passed in the world of the film. When the film's events take place over something that feels closer to real-time, its harder to tear the audience away from the movie without it feeling artificial.

 

When did this become a hard and fast rule? Or any kind of rule? In some cases there is a time jump (Lawrence of Arabia, Ben Hur) but My Fair Lady (for example) does not.

 

Stage plays have intermissions all the time. Mouse Trap certainly does not have a time jump but it has an intermission.

 

Audiences are smart. But they have bladders.

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

19 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

Stage plays have intermissions all the time. Mouse Trap certainly does not have a time jump but it has an intermission.

 

Audiences are smart. But they have bladders.

 

And think of TV/streaming series, where a cliffhanger at the end of an episode and a pickup at exactly the same moment one week later has become anything between an art form and a cliche. But in neither case does it stop people from watching series.

 

Cinemas make intermissions for two reasons: 1) Audience bladders and 2) for selling more food and drinks (which in itself is party dependent on #1). Yes, a 15 minute intermission means that your 4 hour movie now needs a 4:15 time slot. But unless that's just the amount of time that forces you to have one screening less per day, I suppose the extra time is more than compensated by the extra food & drink sales.

[Chen G. 3,950]

1 hour ago, Tallguy said:

When did this become a hard and fast rule? Or any kind of rule? In some cases there is a time jump (Lawrence of Arabia, Ben Hur) but My Fair Lady (for example) does not.

 

I'm not saying its a rule, I'm saying it makes it easier.

 

And, really, I think the ideal for any film should be to play straight through. Only when we start pushing Flowers of the Killer Moon lengths do I really see the grounds for having an intermission.

[JNHFan2000 2,966]

Past Thursday & Friday I saw Fellowship Of The Ring & The Two Towers Extended edition in theatres.

 

Combining both showing only one person went out to go to the toilet.

 

So it really depens on the film if people feel like they can do a bathroom break. It didn't happen with Avengers: Endgame or Titanic earlier this year. But with KOTFM, multiple people went out (some didn't come back at all) to go the bathroom.

 

So I would say it really depends on the film

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

55 minutes ago, JNHFan2000 said:

So I would say it really depends on the film

 

It mostly depends on how much you drink before the film…

[Tallguy 3,401]

Saw the extended Das Boot. When they were stuck on the bottom of the sea my friend had to go to the facilities. When he got back he asked what did he miss. I said "They stopped leaking". He of course replied "So did I!"

[Chen G. 3,950]

Wasn't the extended Das Boot a miniseries? Dunno if that counts...

[Glóin the Dark 1,222]

5 hours ago, Tallguy said:

Titanic should have had an intermission.

Yeah, I watched Titanic with an intermission that was just long enough that they missed the iceberg and it was a jollier film all round.

[Brónach 1,302]

On 29/10/2023 at 4:04 PM, Nick1Ø66 said:

films shown in the wrong aspect ratio

 

i still see films not filling the whole screen and audio issues and shitty chairs and cinemas who won't change dying lightbulbs and you can't see stuff

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Wasn't the extended Das Boot a miniseries? Dunno if that counts...

 

The first extended (vs the originally shown theatrical) version was a TV series (with varying episode splits, apparently). The extended extended *film* version is a film (and supposedly the original version that was shortened for the original theatrical run against Petersen's intentions.

 

So it's difficult to say what it counts for or against…

[Tallguy 3,401]

5 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Wasn't the extended Das Boot a miniseries? Dunno if that counts...

 

2 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

The first extended (vs the originally shown theatrical) version was a TV series (with varying episode splits, apparently). The extended extended *film* version is a film (and supposedly the original version that was shortened for the original theatrical run against Petersen's intentions.

 

So it's difficult to say what it counts for or against…

 

This was the 3 hour (or whatever, really long) version that was in the theaters in the US in the late 90's.

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

18 hours ago, Tallguy said:

 

No, there is a best Poirot. And I think we're all thinking of Albert Finney.

 

 

 

Mmm ... if small-screen Poirots are being included, I reckon very few would vote against David Suchet. On the intermission thing ... maybe if cinemas would stop selling bucket-sized drinks, people's bladders could hold out until the end.  

 

[Tallguy 3,401]

53 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Mmm ... if small-screen Poirots are being included, I reckon very few would vote against David Suchet.

 

I'm pretty sure that's who @Schilkeman was referring to. I mean, it's not even a contest.

[Schilkeman 964]

2 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

if small-screen Poirots are being included, I reckon very few would vote against David Suchet.

 

2 hours ago, Tallguy said:

I'm pretty sure that's who @Schilkeman was referring to. I mean, it's not even a contest

Yes, of course. On a screen of any kind.

[JNHFan2000 2,966]

The Marvels

 

A lot has been said about this film, before it was even released, especially by people who haven't even seen the film. Now with the release of the film, the reception has been mixed. There are people who hate it and those who love it. Let's just say I'm mostly on the side of the latter. I really enjoyed the film and although I feel some things could've been better, it's nowhere near as bad as some people claim.

 

The cast is great, especially the main trio. Vellani to me was the standout. Her giddiness and clear joy of being there is very infectious and I couldn't help but be inspired by it. The way she lights up every scene she's in, ensures that Larson is able to lighten up a bit as well. Up till this point she has been very stoick and a bit hard to reach. But here she showed more emotion and playfullness that was a nice change of pace.
Teyonah Parris is the science geek of the trio, which I thought was a great development. It was a treat to see her discover her powers and she gets quite the power up in the film.

 

All three women are very powerful, which is really cool to see. And each of them is able to hold their own in a fight. It was especially cool to see Kamala fight. My favorite battle/fight was the very first in the film. The music, the fight choreagraphy, the switching places, the camerawork. It must have taken a lot of planning to pull off, but I thought it was terrific.

 

The film is 1 hour and 45 minutes and it moves very fast, which I enjoyed. But I do feel that maybe 10 to 15 minutes could've been added to flesh out some characters and emotional moments a bit more (the training halfway through could've been longer, I loved that).
Another example, the villain is only really here so the trio come together, but doesn't do a lot after. And there are interesting things going on with Carol being afraid of her own power, but it's not explored enough.

 

So yeah, kudos to Nia DiCosta for some very strong visuals and action. It might not be perfect, but I had a really good time, and sometimes that's all you need!

 

Oh, and those post credits scenes. Been a long time since I screamed that loudly in a cinema!!!! 
 

[Jay 37,372]

 

Shazam! Fury of the Gods

 

Oh man, the kid playing the main character aged so much in between the filming of these two movies, we literally didn't recognize him at first and thought the opening scene was about some new character for a bit!  Overall this film just isn't as good as the first.  I can't exactly put my finger on why, because many individual elements are fine; I liked it being about a team of superheroes who are also family; Helen Mirren and Lucy Liu were delightful as the villains; Rachel Zegler was more interesting here than she was in West Side Story by a mile; and there was some fun creatures and stuff.  But it somehow doesn't all come together to create anything that compelling or memorable.  The bonus credits scenes, tying things into Amanda Waller's plans and bringing back Mark Strong's villain character from the first movie, were way more compelling, but with WB giving up on the DCEU and rebooting it under Gunn I guess that means nothing now.

 

It's on Max