Veltigar

I'm just here to complement @SpaceChampion on his choice of title We need more creative titling like this

Oh, this looks like it could be fantastic. Thanks for sharing! I guess things like that I could explain away because of

I finished the Ken Burns documentary The Vietnam War yesterday. I thought it was outstanding, though poorly titled. I think it would have been more appropriate to call the documentary something like "The People of the Vietnam War", as it felt more like the televised American equivalent of Svetlana Alexievich' Nobel prize winning books about the Soviet experience of Afghanistan and WW II (e.g. Boys in Zinc and The Unwomanly Face of War) than anything else. Like those books, Ken Burns put the people who lived through that era front and center and hearing all those testimonies from these people who had either fought in Vietnam (on all sides), lost people in Vietnam (on all sides) or had protested heavily against the War (some of whom really regretting a few of the methods used) was incredibly emotional. Whenever it shifted focus to the leadership decisions, I was less enthralled partly because that was clearly not where the heart of this documentary was and partly because it's just heart wrenching to see a successive series of POTUS' abandon their duty to the people. I hope that they show this documentary regularly in classes of American history, because it seems like a good illustration of what can happen when leaders are allowed to forsake the values of the nation. I also went to the theatre to watch Civil War. Going in, I was a bit apprehensive about it and that turned out to be a good thing, because I was pleasantly surprised. It got a lot of critiques for being vague and not taking a stand, but the vagueness actually worked to the film's benefit in my opinion. For example, there were a lot of jokes about the implausibility of one secessionist grouping in the film, but I thought the pairing made sense to highlight the perversity of the besieged POTUS I also liked the focus on war photographers. You'd actually think there would be more movies about that, because the early Magnum photographers who documented World War II were quite colourful characters. All in all, a pretty good flick and one that does feel appropriate for the time we live in what all its blurred lines and mutual incomprehension.

I went to see The Fall Guy as well and liked it. The story is dumb as hell, which is what keeps it from greatness, but the way the film sells the inanity of its plot is admirable. It all zips along quite nicely and never really lets up with the jokes and action. Gosling and Blunt are a golden combo and the supporting cast aces it as well (I really like what Ted Lasso has done for Hannah Waddingham's career). The banter is on point and the stunts are wonderful. It suffers a bit from the "Hollywood-is-so-amazing" kind of smugness I usually find a turn-off, but seeing how it's a love letter to stunts and stunt teams everywhere, I find that I can ignore it. Their creative contributions are indeed overlooked and it's high time for a dedicated Academy Award for stunt designers! I also watched a western written and directed by none other than Viggo Mortensen, who also plays the lead in The Dead Don't Hurt. It's a very poetic take on the genre, which takes a pretty standard plot and then elevates it by jumping back and forth through time. This creates dramatic space for an incredible cast to fill with some beautifully poignant performances. It's the type of film you see and that turns you quiet and contemplative. A real treat. I'd warmly recommend it just for the performances alone. Funnily enough, I just finished reading Elmore Leonard's Fire in the Hole, the original short story on which the show is based. If you haven't done so, I'd recommend it

I finished watching FX's Shogun yesterday. As stated in the dedicated thread for it, the show started with a bang and ended with a whimper for me. Contrasting it to the magnificence of Kurosawa's Ran which I watched the night before probably did not do it any favours, but I also thought it was plain underwhelming. In many cases, I felt the connective tissue (or groundwork or whatever you like to call it) wasn't there for the story beats they included to land properly. I then watched The Nightingale, an Australian film about an Irish convict in 1820s Tasmania who teams up with an aboriginal tracker to get revenge on some British soldiers. It was unrelentingly bleak, brutal and violent, which is pretty much the best thing about it artistically speaking. We still get far too few tales about colonial exploits and those we do have are often to gentrified to be palatable. This film, from the director of the horror sensation The Babadook, does not play that game. People are murdered for no reason all the time and the violence is a constant. Sad to say that it's probably quite accurate to the times depicted. The rest of the film cannot keep up with that decision however. There was a lot of buzz about how good the two leads were, but I thought the acting was pretty mid. I also didn't feel like most of the decisions made by the characters in this film made sense. I could understand that for the villains, who were really one-dimensional (fitting in this story though), but it struck me as inauthentic for all the other characters in the film. If you can't buy the character's actions and the performances that inhabit them, it's quite difficult to really get into the film. It reminds me a bit of Free Guy, a film I really hated, but they made a genius move casting Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt. That pairing actually makes it likely that I'll check this film out at some point, even though I have my doubts about the story as you do.

For me, this series started a lot stronger than it ended. From a bang to a whimper more or less. @Arakasi has a point that the show was able to go both too fast and too slow at the same time. I think the political machinations in particular were poorly handled and a I also felt like the character work was pretty shoddy near the end. I'm trying to give the show its due, without referring to the novel constantly, but to illustrate the flaws I think I can only make a book comparison:

I was finally able to watch Akira Kurosawa's Ran, to the surprise of absolutely no one, I will confirm that it's a master piece. Crazy to think how difficult it was to make this film, given how brilliant the result turned out to be. I have a lot of respect for what Kurosawa, battling depression, blindness, grief and financial insolvency was able to achieve here. The battle scenes are glorious. It's ridiculous how much better the battle sequences are when compared to those churned out by most film makers today who have so many more examples and such enhanced technology to work with. Even more delightful was his use of colour. I have a ridiculous fondness for the bold use of colours in movies and since I have only seen a selection of Kurosawa's black-and-white films before this, I was very pleasantly surprised. I thought the story in general was engaging, as the film certainly did not feel its length. The Shakespearean inspiration is clear, though it's not a straight adaptation of King Lear as I first thought. His Lord Hidetora is a far more malignant presence than Lear ever was and Lady Kaede feels like she's been transplanted from Macbeth. The mixture does work however and it becomes its own creature in the process, which really demines the traditional "the book was better" debate that you always have with more conventional adaptations. I also felt that the film was rather historically authentic to the period Kurasawa was invoking. There are for example large numbers of arquebusiers who play an important role in the story and at one point there is a scene in which two important Samurai generals seem to be wearing a more European style breastplate, which is accurate, as those were status symbols in the Japan of that era. The fact that not everyone was climbing over themselves to commit seppuku or behaved like some crazy archetype of Bushido also felt more realistic than in something like FX's series Shōgun (engaging though the latter is). If I had to sum up the three minor gripes I have with this film, it would be that:

Indeed, it's better! I'm not someone who does a lot rewatches, but I think the whimsical world depicted would be a main draw, as well as Emma Stone's glorious performance. As to your spoiler

I had the good fortune to see The Iron Claw yesterday, another wonderful film by A24, by far the most interesting studio working right now. I remember seeing the trailer for this a few months back and it seemed to me that there was some buzz for it back then, but that seems to have fizzled out somewhat as it didn't garner any nominations for the Academy Awards which is absolutely criminal, especially in a year that saw such a dearth in good male performances in both the lead and supporting category. The Iron Claw on the other hand is full of great performances by male actors. Zac Efron has never been better, Holt McCallany as the despotic wrestling patriarch was a revelation and all the other performers from Jeremy Allen White (who goes from The Bear to playing a character with bearish strength in this film) to Harris Dickinson to Stanley Simmons are outstanding as well. Each of the male supporting performances in this film was miles beyond Downey Jr.'s pity oscar performance in Oppenheimer. Zac Efron's Kevin Von Erich was also better than Cillian Murphy's Oppenheimer to me, so it's a real shame he did not even get a nomination for his leading role here. I guess wrestling is just to low-brow for the Hollywood brass. The story was also incredibly touching, with a lot of big emotions artfully channeled into these characters who were not equipped to healthily handle their emotions. I was flabbergasted to learn that director and writer Sean Durkin has actually downplayed the tragedy in the lives of the Von Erich dynasty, as their real life story is even more sad, but he did so to great effect. The narrative drive in this film never lets up and I was genuinely touched by their story. This despite not knowing anything about wrestling beyond what I learned from Mickey Rourke's 2008 film The Wrestler and South Park's parody of a few years ago. That being said, I saw it with a mate who has some knowledge of the sport and he loved it as well, so I guess it definitely treats the phenomenon of wrestling with respect. Out of all the films that had their original release in 2023, I think only Poor Things was better and it's actually really close for me in terms of quality. I'd definitely recommend seeing this film, it's a real treat and the type of film I want to see more off! I have read about this scene online and really hope someone will upload it to YouTube soon, because I'm very curious to see the result Quoted for truth. For that matter, in the original Star Wars the Empire Very lighthearted stuff indeed.

Book spoilers in my response, so don't click on this if you want to remain unspoiled

I got a chance to see the Argentinian film Los Delincuentes (The Delinquents) in theatre. It's an incredibly well-received film by critics so I was curious to see what made it so special. Unfortunately, the most joy I derived from watching the film came from reading some negative IMDB user reviews afterwards (though it still has a 6.8/10 user score, which I find odd) This film basically reads as a contemporary definition of self-indulgent film-making. While I thought some of the hysterically negative user reviews were a tad overwrought, I do sympathize with the people who felt cheated out of 3 hours of their life. There is some nice nature footage in the film and I did find the actors' portrayal of their characters convincing, but the story went out of its way to be simultaneously nonsensical and unengaging. I usually have pretty good experiences with smaller indy films, but occasionally a film comes along that reminds you that the negative stereotypes about arthouse films are at least sometimes true. The Delinquents is so obsessed with deconstructing the genre that it forgets to be clever about it. In that sense, it offers up the worst of both worlds. I'd recommend skipping this if you are doubting to see it. In general I agree that a show where you have to bracket off the majority of seasons could hardly be seen as the best ever (although that leaves the vexing matter of early Simpsons to resolve), but for True Detective I think it's certainly allowed because of the fact that it's an anthology. I think it's far easier to say that S1 of True Detective or The Terror is amongst the best TV ever, as each season in the series is a self-contained installment I see I phrased that poorly, I actually meant it broader that the entire situation was nonsensical, though I'll admit that knowing how the season is going to end (having read the book and while details while differ, everything is set up to largely end in the same place) might be giving me a leg up on spotting just why it's idiotic. I have explained below what my reading of it was. I'll also embed another spoiler box in the text below, where I hint at a mild book spoiler

Don't have much time for content lately, but I did manage to get caught up with Shōgun this week. I missed out on three episodes, but being able to do a mini-binge is not doing this series any favours. There are some outstanding scenes, where the costumes and sets really blew me away The attention to detail throughout remains by far my favourite aspect of the show. They really do seem to offer a window in the Japan of that era. On the whole however, there is a lot that doesn't make any sense. There are quite a few adaptation choices that are understandable (e.g. reducing the number of characters involved in certain scenes for instance, as that's just necessary to make it affordable) and a few that I think are real contributions (foregrounding Lady Ochiba a bit more, more focus on the Japanese characters although the latter is also necessary since so much of Blackthorne's reflections are thoughts and ill-suited for the screen), but in the whole I think the adaptation also makes a lot of nonsensical choices to get characters from here to there and crafts versions of the characters that are psychologically less compelling than their version in the books. I have actually seen some of the films on your list already. When I have more time to explore, I'll certainly browse through it for some inspiration for future forays into Indian cinema

I'll be the lone dissenter then. Didn't like BSC when I read it and The Heroes is still my favourite Abercrombie!

I have seen 500 days of summer and I didn't remember that at all XD Very good of you to remind me there. La La Land I'd disqualify because it's an explicit musical I guess? I'm more envisioning something like Top Gun but then all of a sudden the Sweet Balls of Fire sequence gets supersized to give us something like this Although come to think of it, a lot of these dance sequences really don't give a f**k about fitting in with the story. They just snap you out and go to completely different locales. I love the gall and brazenness of it all you know? I'm a sucker for those type of romance films though, so you'll have a hard time convincing me to give up on The Lunchbox, but please do try, what gems of (any of the various types of) Indian cinema do we need to check out? And agree on the skepticism about RRR. I was rather disappointed by it. Some amazing dance sequences, but in hindsight I would have rather watched those on YouTube, as the rest of the film was an incredible slog. I haven't seen The Marvels and probably never will because of how poorly it was received, but I'm guessing that even a dance sequence couldn't save that film from itself if the reviews are to be believed. That sequence in Black Panther didn't ring a bell either. I looked it up and it's very short, more like some fluff to set up the real scene rather than an actual B/Tollywood style stand-alone dance sequence no?

I do tend to genuinely enjoy the dance sequences though. When I went to see Fighter back in January, they were really the highlight more than the jet action. I'd actually like a western production to take a risk and include something similar. A bit like the mirror image of The Lunchbox, which excised the dance sequences to bring a western-style Indian film that was really great

I went to see Monkey Man, which was a pretty good experience. The people calling it Indian John Wick are on to something, although the action never quite rises to the Wick level (nor are their any cool dance routines, to really qualify for the title of Indian John Wick). Plotwise, you know what you are going to get pretty much from the get-go, so there is barely any tension in the film. In addition, I also thought some of Dev Patel's acting when his character was recollecting past trauma was a bit overwrought. That being said, it was all pretty good and there were flashes in this film that made me really excited about Dev Patel's future projects. Some were story-related beats, where Patel makes good use of his setting and knowledge of Indian culture, but there were also some nice 'directorial' flourishes that I quite liked. A final thing I liked was the fact that Dev Patel really did not hide his stance on the state of contemporary Indian politics. It probably doesn't move the needle one bit, but still nice for a celebrity to take a stance. To answer your question with my own interpretation of events: This was actually another flourish I really liked, since it's a lot more credible than the usual post-training montage step up in skills. I remember that film. Pretty good work-out songs in it. The story is absolutely preposterous, but I do agree that the cast gives such good performances that you can go along with it. Sad that it isn't more widely appreciated.

I went to see Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire two days ago. Between Godzilla Minus One and this, I'd say that Godzilla is on a bit of a role. Not that this is anywhere near as good as Godzilla Minus One, but it is the best thing the American monsterverse has produced since Kong: Skull Island and I did have a good time watching it.

We switched up the Scorsese/Shōgun pairings this week. Instead we watched the latest episode of Shōgun alongside 1988s Time of the Gypsies (original title Dom za vesanje), a Serbian film about the Romani people starring mostly non-professional actors from a Romani background. It's most famous due to its haunting score, including the achingly beautiful song Ederlezi. I'll begin with what is most definitely my most unpopular opinion of the moment and repeat my weekly observation that Shōgun looks stunning, but that some essential quality of the original is lost in this adaptation. Strangely enough this week's episode had an original element at the very beginning of the episode that I really liked (and added to the source material), before immediately squandering all the earned goodwill which some baffling decisions particularly the reduction of the agency of a significant character. Book spoilers below: Time of the Gypsies then, is a difficult movie to accurately discuss. We watched it mostly because of the music and I was expecting it to feel quite... boring or slow by modern standards (being 36 years old and Yugoslavian), however I thought it had remained a superbly interesting film that captivated my attention throughout. The first act is by far the strongest part of the film, as the viewer is plunged head-first into a bewildering representation of Romani culture, combined with a very strong helping of magical-realist influences by the way of Gabriel Garcia Marquez and consorts. As stated before, the cast is non-professional and are all from Romani backgrounds, but the film is also entirely shot in Romany and the first act takes place entirely within the Romani village from where our protagonist hails. In other words, you have very few anchoring points, since the film uses a language you have never heard, zooms in on a culture you usually do not get to see, and features levels of abject poverty that I don't think contemporary Western viewers are accustomed to seeing (and certainly not in a "European" context). I would say that the non-professional actors are not so much acting as giving you a slice of their life in that first act, but given the long history of persecution of Romani people and the difficulty of finding information about the reception and making of this film (e.g., the IMDB trivia is extremely limited) by the community I have zero idea about how accurate this film is (when filtering out the magical elements of course). The absurdity of it all often made us laugh and there is a sneaking suspicion that Sacha Baron Cohen drew most of his inspiration for the early scenes of Borat in his village in Kazakhstan from this film, but Time of the Gypsies plays it straight and manages to find a strange beauty into this time and place that is easy to overlook. Strongly helped by some absolutely stunning music, which is really the highlight of the movie. The story then takes a darker turn in act two and three, as the action moves mostly to Italy. I don't want to give anything away, but there are some truly abominable social practices on display and while it remained interesting, I did feel like the film bit of more than it could chew, trying to stuff too much story in too little film. I'll say that I was a bit disappointed in the ending, although I believe others will probably love it Aha okay, it is very popular then. I had seen there was a thread like @DMC had kindly shared, but I know no one in real-life who has given it a shot. Thanks for the information. It's a bonafide classic, but you know, de gustibus et coloribus non est disputandem. D&D's involvement makes me doubtful. Plus, I have the book on my shelf so kind of weighing which to tackle first, book or series

Is anyone watching 3 Body Problem? I find it so strange that I don't see more buzz for it online.

We're 400 posts into the old thread, so it time for a new thread! Started Mr. & Mrs. Smith. One episode in and while I see the potential, right now I'd say this is something I'll need to be in the right mood for to watch. Curious to see whether that will change in time.

Needed some diversion yesterday and made the faithful decision to go watch Anyone but you. I was not expecting much, so I was genuinely surprised by how good this film was. I had a truly awesome time watching it and it just made me wish Hollywood was still making this type of midbudget romcom at the same pace as they did in the 1990s. There was so much I liked, that it's kind of hard to determine where to begin. First, I thought the film was really cleverly plotted. It's loosely based on Much Ado About Nothing, which I did not know going in, and like other great modern updates of Shakespeare (Clueless, 10 Things I Hate About You, She's All That) it just works. It's a testament to the Bard's skills that his story can still feel this fresh after all those centuries. That being said, of course the screenwriters themselves deserve a lot of credit. They really did an excellent job crafting great jokes, weaving in references to Shakespeare and their plotting was also superb. Really effective set-ups and very satisfying pay-offs, sometimes even when I was not expecting it, which is rare. Second, the cast was terrific. They were all having so much fun. I was particularly taken in by their acting-within-acting fake performances, which just made me crackle with joy. The chemistry between the two leads was also off the chart. You really need that in a good romcom, it is not enough for both of them to look great individually, you really need to be rooting for the couple-to-be for a film like this to work. Of course, that's not to say that our two leads didn't also look great individually. I said it before, when Glen Powell first caught my attention in Top Gun: Maverick, but that guy has movie star written all over him. Sydney Sweeney on the other hand is quite a discovery. I have a friend who's a great admirer of hers, but I never saw her act in anything before. Based on this film alone I frankly get the appeal. She's not only stunning, but her acting was legitimately great here. Definitely someone to watch out for in the future! Third, I loved the setting. I have a great fondness for Sydney, Australia and Australians, so it was really lovely to see a film set there. The writers lovingly took the piss out of the place (the obsession with their coffee, the exaggerated lingo), but it definitely came from a place of real warmth, so full marks on that front. Fourth, I thought all the non-Shakespearean references were great as well. Lots of call-backs to the 1990s, early 2000s and all deftly employed to poke fun at the genre: There were also two minor points of criticism to be levelled at the film, although I do think these two points are a bit endemic to the genre and this film handled them better than most: All in all, this film was definitely something I would recommend, and will surely watch again in the future.

It would be very refreshing though. Perhaps he'd lose points on the adaptation front, but if it makes the final product better, I'd be all for it.

Did another Shōgun/Scorsese tie up by watching the latest episode of Shōgun and then following it up with Scorsese's Mean Streets. As to Shōgun, I can basically repeat my critique from all the previous episodes. It looks visually sumptuous and I'm quite fond of the actors, but story wise there is something missing for me. I finished up the novel last week, so this is the first episode where I know to what ending it is building, and I now think that I know what is missing. The novel is very good at explaining the cultural concepts that animate this faux-Japan. Leaving historical accuracy aside for a moment, it's very effective in giving us as readers a glimpse into a completely alien culture. I feel that is extremely hard to adapt and it shows on screen. I'm still enjoying the series however and I think it does a great job given the difficulties of the material. As to Mean Streets, this is definitely a film that is of its time. I have read quite a few reviews pointing out a lot of the very novel things Scorsese was doing (e.g. the use of rock music, the hand-held camera, etc.) and acknowledge the fact that it was very influential. That being said, as a dramatic piece of work it has aged terribly. I was bored throughout and if it wasn't relatively short I don't think I would have finished it. I think about 10 minutes in we checked to see whether it wasn't a three-hour extravaganza like most of Scorsese latter movies and I don't think my friend and I would have continued very long if that had been the case. In other words, if you're a completionist, a big Scorsese fan or a student of film history, this might be worth checking out. For anyone just looking for a good time, I'd recommend going elsewhere. Hmmm, they do refer to it as rotoscoping in most articles I have read about the film. You do seem to be right that they didn't trace over the frames on looking into it though. Quite confusing. I'm definitely tempted to check out the source novel, though the length is kind of daunting. Perhaps even more surprising is that the film makes me want to check out some of the peasant literature from my own country. I read a few of the books by our own naturalistic authors when I was in high school and also did not like them too much back them. Perhaps I should give them another shot. He was good in it that's true. The fact that the lead actress has only played bit parts in other things is kind of baffling to me, given her age. I'm assuming she is pursuing some other career and the acting is more of a side hustle. I think the weakest link for me was

I attended a screening of The Peasants (Original Polish title: Chlopi) and was very happy that I got the chance, for it is not getting as wide a release as it deserves. The film is a visual master piece, with a very unique style of "rotoscope" animation (i.e. an animation technique which uses live-action motion picture footage as its basis and then traces its animations over it, though whether that definition actually implies here is tricky see convo below) that is inspired by the realist style of painting and the Young Poland movement in particular. This is a very long-winded way of saying that the film is basically a collection of moving oil-painting and the effect is beautiful, as you can see in the trailer below. Particularly stunning are the two dance sequences (at a wedding and one a bit later). Over a 100 painters worked on this, which in and of itself is already fascinating. The visuals are not the only attraction however. The film is based on a novel by Nobel Prize winner Władysław Reymont that intrigues me, as the story begins and progresses in a kind of straightforward way for these type of naturalistic peasant stories before veering into a somewhat unexpected ending (which the trailer does not hint at). I also loved all the folklore depicted on screen. It feels like it really could have been a slice of life of Poland during the early 1900s and the whole atmosphere is improved even further by a wonderful score. It really gives the whole film a kind of eeriness which fits perfectly with the painted visuals. Finally, I thought lead actress Kamila Urzedowska did a great job inhabiting her character. Not all performances are equally strong, but she brings across the kindness of the character very well. The painted style also further magnifies her considerable beauty. If her English is any decent, I'd not be surprised to see her in bigger films from now on. Anyways, strongly recommend seeing the film. The promised trailer: I'll also share this very interesting article about the production process of this film:

^something, something by far the best film of last year which sadly didn't get more awards.