General movie chitchat

[Edmilson 7,466]

Jane Fonda on Jean-Luc Godard: ‘A Great Filmmaker. But as a Man? I’m Sorry, No.’
Fonda also opened up about Robert Redford in an unfiltered Cannes appearance: "He just has an issue with women."

[Thor 7,508]

I can see where Fonda is coming from. Godard was a problematic figure as a person. That gut-wrenching moment in Agnes Varda's FACES PLACES (2017) where they go to his house in Switzerland and he refuses to see her and co-director JR. But I also find some admiration in his uncompromising, unwavering belief in his life and art philosophy.

[Jay 37,369]

Well, Armie Hammer ain't going to jail, but Danny Masterson is

[Naïve Old Fart 9,534]

He's 250lbs, and there's two of him.

[Jay 37,369]

The French Connection, a Fox movie, now owned by Disney, has been censored (9 seconds removed) on all streaming media platforms including The Criterion Channel

 

https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/french-connection-refresher/

[Naïve Old Fart 9,534]

It's a good job that I've got the (uncensored) DVD 

Fucking Mouse.

[mstrox 6,651]

They say without nine seconds of The N-Word, the whole movie falls apart

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

Naughty?

[Edmilson 7,466]

I feel like, in pop culture, June of 2023 is kinda like a remake of December 2018:

• New Spider-Verse movie;
• New DC blockbuster directed by a guy mostly known for horror movies (Aquaman then and The Flash now);
• New attempt to restart the Transformers franchise after years of Michael Bay chaos (Bumblebee then and Rise of the Beasts now);
• New Disney musical based in one of their classics (Mary Poppins Returns then and The Little Mermaid now);
• And I think there is a new Bird Box movie coming or something...

[Jay 37,369]

You're not describing pop culture things, just movie things

[Edmilson 7,466]

Tomato tomahto

[Edmilson 7,466]

Never seen a movie from this guy before, but he is pretty well-regarded among indie cinema fans.

 

Xavier Dolan Retires From Making Movies: ‘Art Is Useless’

[mstrox 6,651]

He’s truly going out at the top of his game

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Has anyone seen 65? It drops on Netflix Saturday. The reason I ask is I wonder how it compares to Jurassic world? I don't worry how it compares to Jurassic Park which I can't think of anything that does. All the Jurassic world movies are inconsequential that's so nicest word I can come up with. There are a few moments in this trilogy that work really well. In the second part the brontosaurus on the pier is a marvelous scene tragic and tear inducing. And BD Wong's character being redeemed at the end of that James Bond / mission Impossible meats Jurassic movie. What amazes me is how good the effects were in the Avatar movie where they don't even look unreal. But a movie made in 1997 still has better effects than the last Jurassic world movie and it's not even close.

 

So I got off the track but I just want to know did anyone see 65 and did they like it. The only other thing I can think of like it was that Doctor who episode where a spaceship went back in time and it was the cause of the destruction of the dinosaurs.

[Thor 7,508]

7 hours ago, JoeinAR said:

Has anyone seen 65? It drops on Netflix Saturday. The reason I ask is I wonder how it compares to Jurassic world?

 

65 is by no means a great movie, but a decent monster potboiler that combines elements of PLANET OF THE APES, ALIEN and JURASSIC PARK. JURASSIC WORLD was also a pretty decent monster film in and of itself, but bereft of all the magic that defined the first three JP movies. Still, it might be just a tad bit better than 65. Pretty even, I'd say, if push comes to shove.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

6 minutes ago, Thor said:

the magic that defined the first three JP movies

 

Fixed.

[Thor 7,508]

Not really. Although not on the level of the first (obviously), both 2 and 3 are excellent films, IMO. And in any case considerably more worthwhile than any of the WORLD movies.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

Just now, Thor said:

both 2 and 3 are excellent films

 

Fixed. 

 

1 minute ago, Thor said:

And in any case considerably more worthwhile than any of the WORLD movies.

 

Haven't seen 'em.

[GerateWohl 4,370]

JP III is really a bad movie. People on a search for a mobile phone on some dino island with not one suspenseful or exciting moment.

Easily the worst in the series. Even though I haven't seen the last one.

And JW II was already a hard contender for the worst.

But at least I would call JW I much better than JP III and even better than TLW AS a movie.

[Thor 7,508]

17 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

JP III is really a bad movie. People on a search for a mobile phone on some dino island with not one suspenseful or exciting moment.

 

Not at all. It's a great little adventure film, molded on not only the recipe of the previous films, but old-school adventure films from the 30s and 40s. Plenty of exciting setpieces, although rarely with the kinetic virtousity that the first two have, of course (there's only one Spielberg, after all). The use of the satelite phone ring tone was a superb, little "Hitchcockian" device throughout ("the fear is stronger for what you don't see"). My only problem with it is that it's about half an hour too short.

 

17 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

And JW II was already a hard contender for the worst.

 

TLW is an absolutely brilliant film, severely underrated, that contains some of the most amazing setpieces in the history of cinema. Probably seen it some 30 times (obviously a bit up to the first film, which is my alltime favourite film and approaching 100 times by now).

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

34 minutes ago, Thor said:

old-school adventure films from the 30s and 40s

 

Yeah, Indiana Jones is great.

 

34 minutes ago, Thor said:

Plenty of exciting setpieces

 

Unfortunately that's not enough to make a good movie.

 

34 minutes ago, Thor said:

there's only one Spielberg, after all

 

Didn't his adoptive daughter venture into film?

 

34 minutes ago, Thor said:

contains some of the most amazing setpieces in the history of cinema

 

Indeed, but unfortunately that's not enough to make a good movie.

 

34 minutes ago, Thor said:

My only problem with it is that it's about half an hour too short.

 

My only problem with it is that it's 1 hour and 32 minutes too long.

 

34 minutes ago, Thor said:

TLW is an absolutely brilliant film

 

There's just too many dumb elements in this film to make it remotely brilliant to me.

[GerateWohl 4,370]

I said it before. My biggest issue with all JP sequels was, that JP showed us in a believable way, that the raptors were super efficient and smart hunters and you know, when you see them face to face you are already dead.

Then it went a little bit like with the stormtroopers in Star Wars. These super predators became more and more ridiculous with every movie and were no real threats anymore. When chasing one of the main characters, these escaped them by foot these dinosaurs stumbled around in a way that seemed to illustrate that these animals we're wiped out by evolution for their stupidity.

The only sequel that dealed with that in a believable way was the first JW movie.

42 minutes ago, Thor said:

Not at all. It's a great little adventure film, molded on not only the recipe of the previous films, but old-school adventure films from the 30s and 40s. Plenty of exciting setpieces, although rarely with the kinetic virtousity that the first two have, of course (there's only one Spielberg, after all). The use of the satelite phone ring tone was a superb, little "Hitchcockian" device throughout ("the fear is stronger for what you don't see"). My only problem with it is that it's about half an hour too short.

We obviously watched a completely different movie with the same name.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

Perhaps he watched the X-rated version?

[Thor 7,508]

33 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

I said it before. My biggest issue with all JP sequels was, that JP showed us in a believable way, that the raptors were super efficient and smart hunters and you know, when you see them face to face you are already dead. Then it went a little bit like with the stormtroopers in Star Wars. These super predators became more and more ridiculous with every movie and were no real threats anymore.

 

If you're now talking about the WORLD movies, I agree. The whole military angle with "super raptors" didn't appeal to me. That was among the many things that 'betrayed' the beautiful JP recipe of the first three films. My ideal sequel would have been a completely stripped-down story of one person trying to survive on Nublar or Sorna, or something like that.

 

33 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

We obviously watched a completely different movie with the same name.

 

I'm well aware I'm in the minority when it comes to my love of TLW and III, but I will stand on the bannisters and defend them until the day I die. TLW, in particular, displays stunning filmmaking techniques that should be recognized by everyone who likes to call themselves cineastes.

[GerateWohl 4,370]

TLW has two marvellous scenes and a great soundtrack. But like JS wrote:

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Unfortunately that's not enough to make a good movie.

 

And 

18 minutes ago, Thor said:

TLW, in particular, displays stunning filmmaking techniques that should be recognized by everyone who likes to call themselves cineastes.

I guess, that is something, that one could also state about The Rise of Skywalker. And it applies to almost every modern blockbuster. Still many of them are terrible movies. 

[Thor 7,508]

43 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

I guess, that is something, that one could also state about The Rise of Skywalker. And it applies to almost every modern blockbuster. Still many of them are terrible movies. 

 

RISE OF SKYWALKER? That isn't even remotely the same. That's a flawed journeyman production. Can never be compared to the likes of Spielberg, who will infuse his auteur trademarks and ingenuity even in the most mainstream blockbuster. Spielberg is like Scott, Nolan, Villeneuve etc. J.J. is more like Ron Howard, Richard Donner, Jon Favreau. At his best, he might flirt with some auteur ideas (like lens flares), but in cases like TROS, it just becomes a mess.

 

TLW is in a whole other league when it comes to filmatic language, and when it comes to bearing the stamp of the person who's made it.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,534]

1 hour ago, Thor said:

Spielberg is like Scott, Nolan, Villeneuve etc.

J.J. is more like Ron Howard, Richard Donner...

 

Even at his worst, Spielberg is better than the other three combined.

There is more genuine filmmaking, love, respect, and sheer craft in one minute of either THE OMEN or SUPERMAN, than there is is Abrams' entire cinematic output.

[Thor 7,508]

36 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

 

Even at his worst, Spielberg is better than the other three combined.

There is more genuine filmmaking, love, respect, and sheer craft in one minute of either THE OMEN or SUPERMAN, than there is is Abrams' entire cinematic output.

Just to be clear, I love the films of Howard and Donner. Even done podcast episodes on them. But auteurs they’re not. Just great “craftsmen”.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,534]

@Thor, would you call Spielberg "an auteur"?

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

An auteur is a director who makes the same film over and over.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,534]

Michael Bay! 

[A24 4,338]

Zack Snyder!

 

 

28 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

An auteur is a director who makes the same film over and over.

 

A movie auteur is someone who has a lot of creative control over every aspect of moviemaking. 

 

[JTN 2,030]

2 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Even at his worst, Spielberg is better than the other three combined.

I agree with everything you wrote, with the one exception of Ridley Scott.

Blade Runner is one of the greatest cinematic masterpieces of all time, and Alien is also a sci-fi horror classic. Even Thelma and Louise or Gladiator are great. 

Villeneuve, Nolan and Abrams on the other hand are nowhere near Spielberg or even Scott for that matter. The best of the three being Nolan, whose first few films were great then got worse with every new film he made. Memento is still his best and most original film imho. I like Insomnia, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but after that he became intoxicated by his own self importance and wanted to become Stanley Kubrick so much that eventually he became sort of a fancy Zack Snyder. 

55 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

An auteur is a director who makes the same film over and over.

Or someone whose every film is presented "A ... Film" and no one actually cares what the film is about, just that he made it and it must be amazing. One of the latest examples: Nolan. 

[Thor 7,508]

1 hour ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

@Thor, would you call Spielberg "an auteur"?

 

 

Of course.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,534]

Ok, @JTW, I'll give you that one.

BLADE RUNNER is better than WAR HORSE. Conversely, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND is better than A GOOD YEAR.

Apples and oranges, and horses for courses.

At their best, both directors are bloody brilliant, which is something you can't say about either Nolan, or Villeneuve.

[A24 4,338]

Believe it or not, but I have more Scotts than Spielbergs in my top 20 favorite movies of all time.

[Glóin the Dark 1,222]

8 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

At their best, both directors are bloody brilliant, which is something you can't say about either Nolan, or Villeneuve.

 

You certainly can! Memento and Incendies are both bloody brilliant. I wouldn't expect a new Nolan or Villeneuve film to be brilliant, but then I wouldn't expect that of Spielberg or Scott either - though the latter pair have made the two best films of the bunch.

[Jay 37,369]

On 07/07/2023 at 11:45 AM, JoeinAR said:

Has anyone seen 65?

 

You asked the same question here and got two replies... 

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

We get it, Joe, you're approaching 65.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

3 hours ago, Jay said:

 

You asked the same question here and got two replies... 

But i missed the responses and 65 premiers today on the Netflix.

 

 

[Edmilson 7,466]

65's marketing material reminded me of the 10-year-old Shyamalan flop After Earth. I hope it's at least better than that movie.

[JNHFan2000 2,966]

The Screen Actors Guild is also going on strike.

 

What's gonna happen next?

 

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1679570991180050432%3Fref_src%3Dtwsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet&ved=2ahUKEwi2-qTntYyAAxVNiqQKHVkHCysQglR6BAgPEAc&usg=AOvVaw1WKWl1Rwi1EuSPrgEDc-Ec

[TolkienSS 407]

Oh no, how are we going to survive this?

Who will now get paid for badly re-enacting movies that abuse our childhoods?

[A24 4,338]

Give us AI actors, now!

[Schilkeman 964]

7 hours ago, TolkienSS said:

Oh no, how are we going to survive this?

Who will now get paid for badly re-enacting movies that abuse our childhoods?

I wish we had other fingers available for responses. I would use them.

[Brónach 1,302]

that directors' union are clowns. why are they not in this too?

 

plus they don't have a comprehensive vfx + animation union; meaning everyone else has to do it too.

[Holko 9,526]

14 hours ago, JNHFan2000 said:

The Screen Actors Guild is also going on strike.

 

What's gonna happen next?

 

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1679570991180050432%3Fref_src%3Dtwsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet&ved=2ahUKEwi2-qTntYyAAxVNiqQKHVkHCysQglR6BAgPEAc&usg=AOvVaw1WKWl1Rwi1EuSPrgEDc-Ec

Good! That's what they're for. Fuck studios.

 

1 hour ago, Brónach said:

plus they don't have a comprehensive vfx + animation union

Given everything I know about how they work and how they're treated, they really really should.

[Brónach 1,302]

Fuck them studios and even more the megacorps that own them.

[mstrox 6,651]

But but but but how will this affect my leisure time???

[Naïve Old Fart 9,534]

Mike, you'll just have to talk to your family