Veltigar

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.

Stop trying to poop @Deadlines? What Deadlines? and get to work giving us a box office prediction. Will Dune 2 get the 700-800 Million USD @Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II needs to make a third one?

I just read that Dune 3 is probably going to be a thing. I'm a bit surprised, since apparently Villeneuve wants to write and direct it himself. He must really be into the source material to spent his creative prime years solely on this property

The Guardian apparently published this article last week: Sharon Stone names producer who ‘told her to sleep with co-star’ | Sharon Stone | The Guardian She details why she think she didn't get any bigger roles after this. It's quite sad really. Ah yes, I love that film. The beginning of Leo's luck with the ladies, I'm sure of it.

I had not. It's a beautiful trailer. Made me speechless with emotion for a bit. Thanks for the recommendation.

I spent quite a bit of time staring at the screen this week. I saw Dune 2 in theatre, the latest episode of Shogun and finally Casino. Dune 2 was marvellous, well worth the (IMAX) price of entry. Visually it's stunning, even better than the first film. However, the biggest step up was in terms of engagement. The first one could be a bit ponderous at times, but I thought this second film zipped along tremendously well. The latest episode of Shogun gets pretty much the same review as all of them so far. Visually, it's breath-taking. I like the actors, but the story is not always gripping me. I have picked up the book and have now surpassed the point we arrived in the show, so curious how that will influence my appreciation of the rest of the show. We then switched to Casino, which I have to admit was a disappointment. The first hour was all voice over and I'm just not a fan of it as a storytelling device. Scorsese is pretty much the only director who can sometimes get away with it, but in Casino it was just too much. It also felt a bit like an inferior knock-off to Goodfellas in some parts, particularly with Joe Pesci's character. Like, his performance was legitimately great, but it felt very similar to the ground he already thread on in Goodfellas. I hear that his performances as mobsters are often regarded as the most realistic ever by former gang members, so I can't blame him too much for it, but still I can't pretend to say that I was gripped by the film. On the upside, I did feel like Sharon Stone gave a great performance in the film. Very out there and it actually makes me wonder how she wasn't able to build on this in her later career, because of the top of my mind, I can't think of a meatier role for women in a Scorsese film than this. So yeah, I'm glad to have finally seen it, but I don't believe I'll rewatch it any time soon.

Saw the latest episode. I'm still enjoying the visual representation of the time period, but I do think the story gets progressively less engaging for me. This was also the first episode I saw after having read the associated parts in the source novel (I believe I'll be able to finish the novel by the time I'll see episode 5) and I wasn't a big fan of some of the adaptation choices made. So still, pretty good, but a bit on the decline. I hope it recovers.

What a stunning film. Visually, I would be very surprised if anything else came close this year. However, Furiosa is still coming, so it might be a very interesting year for the technical awards. This film was meant to be seen in IMAX. I also thought that it was a lot more gripping than the first film. I would definitely be curious to know more about this universe.