Watch, Watched, Watching: My Queen's Gambit brings all the boys to the yard

[Week]

6 hours ago, dbunting said:

Watched The Little Things on HBO max today. It had a good cast but the movie was just underwhelming to say the least. Not something I will ever watch again.

Saw it over the weekend - do not recommend. It was written about 30 years ago and feels that dated. Malek is bad (I generally like him). Denzel is Denzel but I'd rather watch anything else he's been in rather than this.

[Veltigar]

On my quest to revisit more high-quality Alfred Molina performances, I watched Chocolat yesterday. It's one of those movies I must have seen once or twice back in the day but hardly had any recollection about. Just goes to show you that memory isn't perfect because I greatly enjoyed it.

It was really surprising to see how many heavy-hitters were in this. You have Juliette Binoche, Judy Dench, Johny Depp, Alfred Molina, Carrie Ann Moss, Lena Olin, Peter Stormare and a bunch of other actors you have definitely seen before and who are always reliably good. 

It isn't surprising then that the acting was phenomenal. Really enjoyed seeing all these great actors working together. The story itself is very diverting and it does a very good job at portraying this kind of cloistered, small-minded village world which Vianne and her chocolate magic are able to blow open completely. Obviously it is again a sort of hyper-real version of what such a village would have been like in real-life, but it is crazy to think just how short ago this takes place and how common these types of villages were back then (there are probably a few still out there, but it must surely be a dying breed).

I think the only place where the story doesn't add up is the timing. If I'm correct, I guess they imply that all of it happens during Lent, but forty days seems a bit short to get this entire story to come to a boil. Still, a real nitpick all things considered. 

Really sad that this came out in 2000. It deserved more awards than it got, but in a year with Gladiator and Crouching Tiger, you know it's going to be tough. Still, they should have beaten Erin Brockovich for a best actress nod I'd say.

18 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

People can have different opinions and they are all valid blah blah blah but @Veltigar disliking Spiderman 2 tells me all I need to know about him. I hear he hates puppies too!

I mean, if they are inconsistent and one-day convince me that they are completely able not to pee on my carpet and the next day I come in and they crap everywhere I feel like I have reason to dislike those puppies

18 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Edit: Expanding a bit so this isn't just a joke post, I never really followed comics and growing up I had a vague understanding of the superhero genre through the old Christopher Reeve superman movies (thank you Channel 5? The Bounty in the celebrations box of TV channels, whoever thought I would be grateful for Channel 5?)  but outside of that not much. However I did see Spiderman 1 and 2 and watched them repeatedly on DVD. I just loved them so much, they were everything they needed to be. Were they deep, meaningful and focused on realism? No. Were they trying to be? No. And if you went into them expecting that then its unsurprising you didn't enjoy them. But for me there was enough action, slapstick, emotion and fun to deliver the perfect movies for me.

Good that you expanded a bit, but I do feel like you are making quite a lot of assumptions. I actually remembered them being cartoony, with the exception of Alfred Molina's performance (who really belongs in a better movie, but I have beaten that dead horse enough to make my point).  Even if I hadn't seen and remembered them, the fact that Sam Raimi directs them is a pretty clear give-away.

That being said, I didn't necessarily dislike it because it wasn't realistic. I am very happy to accept a piece of entertainment that goes beyond realism (case in point, Sam Raimi's onw Army of Darkness). Heck, I think the most cartoony character of the entire Spiderman trilogy is J.K. Simons editor and he's hilarious. However, even when a piece of entertainment tries not to be realistic it has to be internally consistent and I feel that this movie failed on that front.

Like, why is Peter Parker making such a big deal out of his secret identity while he's seemingly doing everything in his power to reveal it? How come he's struggling for money while this world (which is basically our own but with superhero's and a casual disregard for human life and the laws of physics) should offer him plenty of ways to improve his financial situation? And I could go on, but there is a mismatch there because it feels like it takes a cartoony set-up and tries to infuse realism in there without actually finding a good way to connect them intellectually. That's just lazy in my book.

Obviously, it doesn't help that I dislike both Dunst and Maquire as performers, that's a bias I'll gladly admit too, but that's definitely an important aspect of it too.

 

[Heartofice]

One thing I liked about Maguire and Dunst was that they really didn’t look like they should be in superhero movies, they really didn’t seem like the characters I’d imagined on the surface. But they both brought their own selves to the role and added something unique. Both added vulnerability to what could have just been irritating characters. 
 

As for making money? What are we expecting here? For Peter Parker to start robbing banks?

[Veltigar]

14 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

One thing I liked about Maguire and Dunst was that they really didn’t look like they should be in superhero movies, they really didn’t seem like the characters I’d imagined on the surface. But they both brought their own selves to the role and added something unique. Both added vulnerability to what could have just been irritating characters. 
 

As for making money? What are we expecting here? For Peter Parker to start robbing banks?

Endorsements, licensing deals, pictures with fans, etc.  Not exactly rocket science to come up with a legal way of making a quick buck as a superhero in that setting (not to mention the illegal things like robbing a bank or you know, impounding money from drug dealers, etc.) . Heck he could even make more money delivering pizza's as Spiderman than as Peter Parker 

 

[Heartofice]

25 minutes ago, Veltigar said:

Endorsements, licensing deals, pictures with fans, etc.  Not exactly rocket science to come up with a legal way of making a quick buck as a superhero in that setting (not to mention the illegal things like robbing a bank or you know, impounding money from drug dealers, etc.) . Heck he could even make more money delivering pizza's as Spiderman than as Peter Parker 

 

Lol, I guess you’d have to eliminate anything that was immoral as clearly he wouldn’t do that. Then you’d probably need to be paid only in cash because otherwise it’s too traceable. 
 

Then you don’t really want to be ruining the Spidey brand by doing pizza deliveries or doing overly commerical stuff that makes you a corporate shill. 
 

Im pretty sure there are comic books where all this stuff actually happens.

Anyway, the entire point of the movie is that Peter undergoes hardships and responsibilities as a result of trying to do the right thing and be a good person. You could of course just have him doing some adverts for Sony and never having to work again.. but then you don’t have a film.

[john]

That’s literally part of the story. He wants to be rich and famous, uncle gets killed, becomes superhero. Spider-Man doing endorsements!?! Pfffft. You clearly UNDERSTOOD NOTHING from those movies, Velt. 

[Werthead]

13 hours ago, Vaughn said:

I was hoping for 'The Matrix: Clean Install'

I watched 'Blade Runner' the other night for the first time in a while. I had forgotten how heavily the Matrix aesthetic references the whole end scene, where Roy is chasing Deckard around that ruined building in the rain. Grotty tile and beads of running water, etc...

Yup, not to mention Dark City, which The Matrix even inherited sets from.

I do think the Wachowskis do their best work when they basically don't have any money.

[Veltigar]

1 hour ago, john said:

That’s literally part of the story. He wants to be rich and famous, uncle gets killed, becomes superhero. Spider-Man doing endorsements!?! Pfffft. You clearly UNDERSTOOD NOTHING from those movies, Velt. 

Hey, that was in movie 1, I didn't rewatch that one  

Aside from that, I'm not saying he needs to get rich of this thing. If Spiderman wants to stick to only being moderately selfish (since he refrains from becoming a FTE superhero), he still needs enough money to keep himself fed, clothed and housed. All the non-illegal ways of making money I provided as examples above could do that easily.

Not to mention the added advantages. If he doesn't want to get rich, he can have companies that endorse him spend more money on charitable donations. Think about what a Spiderman Foundation would be able to do? Instead of waiting for poverty and despair to drive people into crime, he could bring them meals-on-weals, educational grants, proper housing, etc. to alleviate their suffering immediately. 

Plus, there is the effect his image could have on things. There is this one scene were Peter jumps of his bike and tells some kids who saw it to sleep early, eat their vegetables and all that kind of crap. Imagine him doing that as Spiderman on TV, what effect would that have on childhood obesity in NYC? 

Anyways, we're digressing. The fact of the matter is that I still have not seen a clear retort for my assertion that this movie is not internally consistent. It's easy to jump in on one example provided (though I do find it funny that everyone steers clear of my argument about Parker callously exposing his "precious" secret identity), but why not engage with the entire argument, namely that this movie frames its story along serious lines (e.g. I have to protect my secret identity otherwise bad guys will murder my family or life is hard because I have money problems and have to juggle those with being Spiderman) but then does not really treat these topic seriously at all?

Now, that makes me not like this film (well, that and the casting but let's park that somewhere else for now), but it is perfectly possible to admit to some property not being very good on one dimension of storytelling and still loving it. Lord knows, I have my guilty pleasures as well.  

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Lol, I guess you’d have to eliminate anything that was immoral as clearly he wouldn’t do that. Then you’d probably need to be paid only in cash because otherwise it’s too traceable. 
 

Then you don’t really want to be ruining the Spidey brand by doing pizza deliveries or doing overly commerical stuff that makes you a corporate shill. 

I mean, look at what J. Jonah Jameson is doing with his brand at the moment. Clearly Peter has no problem with being portrayed as the menace of NY, because he keeps selling his damn picture to a dude who shits all over his brand and is basically slandering him on a daily basis XD

When Peter was stuck in that elevator with that random PR agent, he should have fallen on his knees and offered to do unspeakable things to that guy if only he'd take him on as a client and help him clear up that mess 

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Im pretty sure there are comic books where all this stuff actually happens.

Not really relevant for this discussion about the movie, but nice to see that someone is engaging with the material XD

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Anyway, the entire point of the movie is that Peter undergoes hardships and responsibilities as a result of trying to do the right thing and be a good person. You could of course just have him doing some adverts for Sony and never having to work again.. but then you don’t have a film.

Perhaps I would have preferred that?

In any case, his hardships don't need to be financial in nature. There is no question that the existence of superheroes wouldn't always be rainbows and butterflies, but then it would perhaps be nicer not to create unnecessary drama by zooming in on a non-issue like his personal finances.

I would also reiterate the point I made up top about no one engaging with the gist of my argument, but only zooming in on the example of Peter's personal finances (and not on the whole my secret identity is superduper important but I don't take any trouble to maintain it) which I gave to indicate the internal consistencies within this film 

 

[Iskaral Pust]

@Veltigar you’re badly missing the point. The core of the character is that Peter Parker is one of the downtrodden, the overlooked, the precarious.  And Spiderman is a hero of the regular working class Joes.  He doesn’t save the world a lot, he stops muggings and armed hold-ups.  And then he gets drawn reluctantly into bigger and more complex situations, but mostly he just wants to keep his head down and help regular people.  He mostly operates just in his local neighborhood.  He’s like an alternate version of Batman without the money, resources, respect, looks or confidence.

You may not like the inconsistency of someone with the powers to be a superhero, however local and low level, while still being a workaday guy with money troubles and pining after a girl out of his league.  But that’s who the character is.  The character is designed to appeal to kids who feel like Peter Parker.  He has to be a relatable (and slightly emo) hero rather than aspirational hero like Superman, Batman or so many more.  So the character needs to retain all of his headaches and problems, however illogical.  His victories have to be minor, personal and unsung.  JJJ undermining him feels frustrating (and why would Peter continually enable it?), but it’s part of keeping Peter a downtrodden underdog character.

So when you criticize the movie for not having him raking in money as a YouTuber, you’re really just resisting the suspension of disbelief that this character requires.  He’s not for you.  It’s the same as obsessing why Batman can’t just get some grief counseling and live his life as a billionaire philanthropist and help a lot more people.

[aceluby]

Watched Doctor Sleep yesterday, the three hour directors cut, and was actually pleasantly surprised.  Obviously they just hit you over the head again and again with forced nostalgia, but I thought the parts that didn't do that were great to watch and I didn't mind the length

[DMC]

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Both added vulnerability to what could have just been irritating characters. 

I'm a big fan of the first two Spidermans but Dunst definitely irritated me.  Maguire is little too wide-eyed for my tastes as well.  I do like how Holland brings the "smartass kid" aspect to it, because that's the Spiderman I grew up with in the 90s cartoons.

[BigFatCoward]

Watched first episode of it's a sin, god I can just tell it's going to fucking awful and bleak. Keeley Hawes being a dowdy middle aged mum is a weird look for her. 

[Zorral]

12 hours ago, Veltigar said:

How come he's struggling for money while this world (which is basically our own but with superhero's and a casual disregard for human life and the laws of physics) should offer him plenty of ways to improve his financial situation?

This is what I thought about too when Buffy goes walk-about, at one point, and when she goes broke after her mother dies.  Really? the only jobs you can think of getting is working in a diner and fast food  joints?  You have all the stuff to do a whole lot better even if you're still kinda, sorta a kid w/o a college degrees. You are very smart, you were raised special and always treated special, even though your dad turned into a class A ahole (he had been pretty good in the first season or so). That just didn't quite work, though, maybe it did?  She was being invisible, in the diner, and at the bottom of everything in the fast food place.  

Cordelia went for a high fashion dress place -- and Faith, she doesn't work at all, she's a criminal, I guess?  And Willow?  she doesn't ever work for money.

[Zorral]

Started Gommorah season 3.  First episode fairly flat.  The second one starts to find the groove.

[Hereward]

I have been waiting for Deutschland 89 for years. So excited to see it’s on More 4 at the end of this month. 

[briantw]

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

Started Gommorah season 3.  First episode fairly flat.  The second one starts to find the groove.

The third episode of season three is my favorite in the entire series.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Rewatched Chinatown for the first time the other night. I cannot believe I missed a very critical detail in the final shot the first time around.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, briantw said:

The third episode of season three is my favorite in the entire series.

I just watched it!  Again, that cinematography/photography -- that line of scooter/cycles rolling out, with some of the signature chords from Morricone's Fistful of Dollars stuff -- woo.  I just melted.  Then there was other stuff, from which, per usual, I averted gaze . . . .   So... Italian, for whom the design is always the objective to tell us what we should know about what is going on.

[Isis]

On 2/2/2021 at 10:34 PM, BigFatCoward said:

Watched first episode of it's a sin, god I can just tell it's going to fucking awful and bleak. Keeley Hawes being a dowdy middle aged mum is a weird look for her. 

Might binge this tomorrow while I'm off. Dealing with some super heavy negative stuff IRL so kinda fits.

[WarGalley]

On 2/3/2021 at 10:25 AM, Zorral said:

Started Gommorah season 3.  First episode fairly flat.  The second one starts to find the groove.

Another reason for me to get HBO Max. I haven't seen S4 yet and bloody Youtube recommendations revealed a massive spoiler. I basically had to stop googling about it to further avoid spoilers.