Movie Discussion Thread

Watched the new Pet Sematary today. Mother of Christ the bait and switch they pulled honestly made me yelp. Fans of the novel (haven't seen the older film adaptation) can still watch this— it's inferior to the book in terms of story development and the ending is bleh, but my expectations of book to film are always low so I'd say it about met expectations.

Nitpicks, the sound wasn't very excellent (not a fan of the high pitched needles to build anxiety and they abuse it here) and there's something very TV movie/direct-to-VCD about the camera work. Latter could just be pandering to older crowds who saw the original, but there were some damn good shots and well-executed transitions mixed in IMO.

Acting by adults predictably good, but kids overall in modern cinema are getting better at playing characters (which makes me worry about their IRL well-being, really). Genuinely unnerving, but not Octavia Spencer playing Ma levels. Special (practical?) effects were impressive, face apparently blanched a few times while watching.

Main dude looks like a mix of Owen Wilson, Andrew Lincoln, and Tom Hanks, and it was pretty hard to unsee.

Lastly, Church is every bit as cute and iconic here as Goose was in Captain Marvel.

 

I saw the new Pet Sematery as well and didn't think much of it. The original movie was better. I never read the book.

What's up with all the remakes of classic 70-80's horror films? I like the old stuff in all their cheesy goodness. Hollywood is just getting lazy IMO.

 

Not to mention all the Disney stuff yeah? The recent live action Aladdin was a few steps forward, a few back, and I haven't heard very many nice things about Dumbo and The Lion King— the fact that I love both latter films to death played a role in my deciding not to see the rehashes. I did enjoy the new IT and am looking forward to the second chapter coming out whenever. I appreciate that they left out one of the more WTF bits from the book in the remake (yes I mean the kid orgy), so that's something to its credit; even re-reading the book with an open mind it's hard to justify.

Tempted to watch the original Pet Sematary now. Not like there are loads of new movies that pique my interest, except maybe Yesterday just for the Beatles tie-in. Might watch the new Annabelle with the family too since we all like cheap horror and Blumhouse never fails to satisfy the fast food-cinema craving.

I can see why people would think Hollywood's getting lazy what with the rehashing and all, but at the same time there are loads of "original" films that just don't get due attention. Crawl had a great trailer and I'm tempted to watch it with my brain shut off, plus I've been waiting for the Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark adaptation since I first caught wind of it years back— that one definitely won't live up to my hype, but I'm still making an effort to catch it.

 

Hollywood likes to say that it's a successful property, so why not exploit it? Yet remakes fail more often than not. This flies in the face of their logic.

The real reason they do it is because they need an excuse in case it fails, to save their (already tenuous) jobs. "Hey, I was just exploiting a successful property, not my fault! I did everything right!". It takes the spotlight away from them. Because if it's an original and it fails, it's easier to blame the person who greenlit it. And they can kiss their ass goodbye.

It's all fallout from studios being bought by corporations in the 60s. Before that studios were owned and run by moguls, (cigar chompers like Jack Warner, Loius B Mayer, etc) and the bucks stopped with them. They weren't getting fired, because they owned the place. They could take risks on exciting properties and answered to no one.

The 60s and 70s golden age was the result of the corporations having no idea how to make movies, so they hired young film geniuses like George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Francis Coppola, Hal Ashby, Milius, Scorsese, Bogdanovich, etc. And we got magic. But then the producers took charge after a few costly bombs (Heavens Gate, 1941, New York New York, etc) and when Star Wars and Jaws proved concept blockbusters with a simple formula were the key to making ungodly sums of money, the lightbulb went off.

And we've been in movie purgatory ever since.

 

And to be fair, plenty of great films still get made. But probably inspite of the system not necessarily because of it.... and usually from smaller production companies that focus more on originality.

 

IMO neither PET SEMATARY fully captured the escalating dread of the Stephen King novel. No shame in that...even the best adaptations necessarily excerpt & spotlight the original text.

Still, the 1989 film had its own peculiar delights--Fred Gwynn's sly performance & the winsome/terrifying work by then 3-yr old actor, Miko Hughes as Gage, the adorable youngest child who winds up playfully homicidal (that scalpel vs achilles tendon scene w/Fred Gwynn will never quite leave me).

The scene where the father puts down his reanimated son (who first says "Come out and play, Daddy!" then, "No fair!" when the needle sticks his neck) is a skin-crawling inversion of parental protectiveness.

Sure there were deviations from the novel, but at least the production aimed higher than direct-to-video schlock. IMO they tried hard for a cinematic realization of the book's unnerving plot.

2 factors may help explain whatever superiority the 1989 film has over the later version: Stephen King himself did the screenplay; and I think the director, Mary Lambert had the sensitivity/mindset to really nail this plot's queasy admixture of conflicted family life, reanimation, and matricide/homicide.

 

Just saw Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. Amazing, amazing movie. I’m not really a frequent movie goer but by far the best thing I have ever seen in a theatre.

 

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood was indeed fantastic. I was most impressed by Tarantino's ability to make you feel like you were in that time period. That technique was wholly unique among his filmography, something he's seemed to have perfected in this one. This movie I think actually has alot in common stylistically with the movie Boogie Nights. That film was made by his pal Paul Thomas Anderson and I can see similar DNA.

 

I saw and thoroughly enjoyed "Luce".

It's based on a play by J.C. Lee, (executive producer) and it raises a lot of relevant questions, and doesn’t offer easy answers or the comfortably tied up ending often found in Hollywood fare.

The acting was really excellent on all levels. Sure the headliners Kelvin Harrison Jr., Octavia Spenser, Naomi Watts, Tim Roth can bring it, but thankfully the smaller parts weren't left out either. Andrea Bang & Marsha Stephanie Blake in particular moved me at least as much as the principals.

Definitely worth seeing IMO, it didn't feel like 1hr 49min to me.

 

Finally saw ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD. There were a several compelling scenes, but overall, I didn't much care for it. Had hoped to be in the hands of a Master for 2'37"...instead I found myself in the hands of a Master of reminiscence.

Still thinking through how I feel about the film. Maybe comment in a bit more detail later.

Admission: I left when the murder scenes were getting started. Just didn't feel up to seeing that stuff.

 

I think you'd really need to see the whole thing before passing judgement. You may still not care for it, but at least you'd fully know what you don't care for.

And the final scene brings home the entire point of the film. Like his other films, the violence (besides being funny) primarily functions as a mechanism to advance character and thematics.

The movie is far more than mere reminiscence. It has some pretty compelling sociopolitical and thematic layers that are not all that obvious. It's actually very sympathetic to Sharon Tate.

And this isn't directed at you, but reminds me of some people who see Tarantino as some sort of violence fetishist. He has admitted to enjoying cinematic violence. And I do too. There is a primal thrill to it. But he always uses it to progress theme and character... bringing a "soul" to his work.

In Pulp Fiction, Jules and Vincent's violent ways have dire consequences for the both of them. A wake up call. Jules accepts and adapts. Vincent doesnt and pays the price. It's a moral lesson. The violence between Butch and Marcellus results in an honorable amends between them. While the depraved hillbillies get their just deserts. Pumpkin and Honeybunny are irrevocably changed by their near death experience.

And on it goes for his other films. And Once Upon A Time... is no different. Underneath his violent mean streak, Tarantino is a moralist. Much more than your average Hollywood filmmaker who treats violence as inconsequential and meaningless as a videogame.

The only film I think he failed to live up to with regard to this moralistic pursuit is Hateful Eight. I didn't spot any of the soul he brought to his previous work and felt it was a mean and nasty spiteful exercise in depravity and ultraviolence. Maybe that was his point (a major influence was John Carpenter's nihilistic The Thing), but if so it's a point I don't care for.

OUATIH I felt was a much needed return to form.

 

OUATIH finale was very funny, made the movie for me. Also extremely violent.

...and The Last Jedi still sucked.

 

Agree with everything @ColtMrFire said. I respond strongly to nostalgia even for times and things I have never been a part of. That and the ending of this movie thrilled me so it left a very strong lasting impression when I left the theatre.

I think if you can't stomach the violence then you will never receive the full satisfaction this film offers. That's just it's nature by design. I left the viewing feeling like I had a full meal with a particularly good dessert.

 

I saw it as just more of an experience than a traditional movie, and I enjoyed the experience, although that's partially on account of being a somewhat recent transplant to LA.

 

The Farewell is well worth seeing.

All the acting is excellent, particularly Awkafina and the actress who plays the grandmother. There are some small stylistic touches that are more for the mainland Chinese audience, but that's subdued and you get a lot of good performances and writing.

Recommended.

 

Can't wait to see The Farewell, I really liked Crazy Rich Asians.

 

Well stated. The Coen's at their best are like this as well.

 

Just saw Apocolypse Now Final Cut in IMAX.
Really a great experience to see it in IMAX, so big.

 

Leave No Trace is a wonderful piece of filmmaking. Watched it without any expectations and was thoroughly impressed.

Raw, moving and powerful. Conveys meaning and emotion by doing less and saying little. Loved how it carefully skirted the backstory of the main characters and avoided messing things up. The actress who plays Tom (?) simply stole the show.

There's a great crop of young actors / actresses coming out that are really worth keeping an eye out for.

 

Watched Aquaman and Venom at home in 3D. The movies were alright but the 3D effect was superb. Vastly superior to anything I've seen, incredible depth of field without the hazy artefacts I've been used to.