Whatcha Watching?

[Zorral]

47 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

The reason there's less really quality ones is almost entirely because Steven Spielberg isn't as good anymore. 

It seems from over here its because the studios have flooded, saturated both large and small screens with these franchise so-called tent poles, adaptations of YA sf/f, dystopias, games, etc.  So much of them, so much repetition, almost all of it mediocre at best.  More and more viewers just don't care, nor are there enough showrunners and producers and directors who know how to do those -- or care either, really, to be honest.  But most of all, there is just way too much of it, and very little of it is even adapted from properties that have 'soul' so to speak, to start with.

Edited December 17, 2023 by Zorral

[KingAerys_II]

The new Batman is not a masterpiece, it's not at the same level of the Bale trilogy Batman, best Bruce Wayne, but Pattinson Batman is better than Affleck Batman. 

 

[Ran]

Have now also seen Sea of Love for the first time, directed by Harold Becker, starring Al Pacino at the cusp of his redefining Scent of a Woman turn and an incredibly passionate, brassy performance from Ellen Barkin (who afterwards said she didn't think the director liked her much, and cites some egregious behavior from him; Pacino she had no issues with). It's a neo-noir mystery thriller, Pacino as a detective on the case of a serial killer of guys who placed singles ads in a particular magazine, and Barkin turns out to be a potential suspect... but of course, they strike sparks, and one thing leads to another.

John Goodman is also in it, and he's great. I'd say much of the movie is very good, but the denoument is rushed and not particularly good -- it's not quite "cheating", but the solution to the mystery is very much underplayed and given little attention for much of the movie, so it feels a bit "out of nowhere" unless you apply some metaknowledge to the film.

The titular song features heavily, both the original (most of the movie) and the Tom Waits cover (at the end). Trevor Jones provides a nice, jazzy, atmospheric score. Pacino's great in this, a little of his future "Hoo-ah" guy starting to appear, but some of the wounded, nebbishness of his earlier days still  present. And Barkin, again, is just smoldering on the screen. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Re-watched Klaus with various family members last night. Re-watch for me; first time seeing it for them. Easily top 5 Christmas movie for me. 

They loved it. Mom especially got a kick out of it. 

I cannot praise it enough. ‘Doesn’t get nearly enough love IMO.

[Ran]

7 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

I cannot praise it enough. ‘Doesn’t get nearly enough love IMO.

Love the little Sami girl in it:

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Easily top 5 Christmas movie for me. 

You're about to start a food fight. 

[williamjm]

I watched Godzilla : Minus 1, which I thought was very good. I think where it really stands above the American Godzillas is having characters who the audience can actually care about, that means that the film is about more than just waiting for the next scene of Godzilla destroying things. Towards the end there are a couple of bits of manufactured drama which I think are a bit unnecessary, but despite that it's still a satisfying ending to the character's story arcs.

8 hours ago, Ran said:

And that led me to wonder: do you Brits or Aussies actually bother watching American sports films? Like, Field of Dreams or The Natural, or Bull Durham for that matter? Hoosiers? Obviously, the experience of sports is universal, but I wonder if sports that aren't really played in your country are of much interest when dramatized or fictionalized.

I think they are probably watched a lot less than they would be in America. I haven't seen any of the films you mention and other than Field of Dreams I've barely heard of the others. I think there's probably a couple of issues, for a start it's inevitably going to be more difficult to market a film about an obscure topic and I think a lot of audience might be nervous, rightly or wrongly, that they won't be able to properly appreciate it without a good understanding of the sport.

For example, I did watch Moneyball a few years ago and I thought it was an okay film but I think without having a background in baseball it's difficult to really understand why the things that happen in the film were so revolutionary.

[Kalbear]

9 hours ago, Ran said:

Raiders of the Lost Ark was nominated for 9 Oscars, winning 5. It was a nominee in Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, and Best Original Score. It's a phenomenal film, and is so good that it's on Sight and Sound's 250 greatest films at #211, it's #66 in the AFI's list of the 100 greatest American movies. 

If someone doesn't lthink it's all that great for whatever reason, that's their view, but it's in the 21st century's canon of great films, so far. Maybe the 22nd century will think different.

Ive found that one of the better gauges of "is this a legitimately awesome movie or is it my nostalgia?" is to show it to my kids.

Raiders? Legitimately good movie they were absolutely enthralled by.

Any of the other ones? Nope. Particularly surprising to me was last crusade, which I remembered as being decent but was really badly paced.

Same is true for aliens, terminator 2 and the matrix - all movies we forced the kids to watch over protests of "but it's so oooooold" that still slap.

 

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, williamjm said:

I think they are probably watched a lot less than they would be in America. I haven't seen any of the films you mention and other than Field of Dreams I've barely heard of the others. I think there's probably a couple of issues, for a start it's inevitably going to be more difficult to market a film about an obscure topic and I think a lot of audience might be nervous, rightly or wrongly, that they won't be able to properly appreciate it without a good understanding of the sport.

I find this very interesting. I've watched all those films Ran named, and I love every single one. And even though I enjoy watching basketball (Hoosiers), mostly b/c my dad played and love it, I don't know the first thing about baseball but i find all 3 baseball films n that list excellent even if I'm so very ignorant on the subject. I'd also add Eight Men Out, The Rookie, A League of Their Own and Major League - in case you decide to do a deep dive into baseball films!

 

[williamjm]

22 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I find this very interesting. I've watched all those films Ran named, and I love every single one. And even though I enjoy watching basketball (Hoosiers), mostly b/c my dad played and love it, I don't know the first thing about baseball but i find all 3 baseball films n that list excellent even if I'm so very ignorant on the subject. I'd also add Eight Men Out, The Rookie, A League of Their Own and Major League - in case you decide to do a deep dive into baseball films!

I think it's definitely possible that we do miss out on some good films due to the relative obscurity of the subject. I think A League of The Own is the other baseball film I've seen other than Moneyball.

[Mexal]

Just saw Spirited Away for first time in anticipation of Boy and the Heron tomorrow. So good and so weird. What a mind Miyazaki has.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

13 hours ago, Ran said:

This does make me wonder something, though. The draft from the podcast was 100% American films, but in the "discards" someone did bring up Chariots of Fire, the only Oscar winner among the films they could have picked but didn't. But, of course, it's also a British film. And that led me to wonder: do you Brits or Aussies actually bother watching American sports films? Like, Field of Dreams or The Natural, or Bull Durham for that matter? Hoosiers? Obviously, the experience of sports is universal, but I wonder if sports that aren't really played in your country are of much interest when dramatized or fictionalized.

I remember Chariots of Fire being kind of a big deal back in the day. It’s weird that aside from the soundtrack that film kind of fell down the memory hole as soon as it left theaters. Like, it’s never really cited anywhere as being influential or inspiring future film makers. It didn’t even make Rolling Stone’s top 100 films of the ‘80’s. I can’t remember the last time I saw it on TV. 

On 12/15/2023 at 5:10 PM, KingAerys_II said:

I am going to watch Interstellar, Watchmen and Blade Runner when I will have the occasion. 

Of the three cuts of Watchmen, the directors cut is the best. The ultimate cut incorporates the Black Freighter material, which is fine, but is detrimental to the flow of the film. 

[SpaceChampion]

Speaking of LOTRs, The Return of the King was premiered in theatres 20 years ago on the 15th.

This article discussed how it "heralded the end of one Hollywood age—and the beginning of our current one" of chasing franchise IP:

https://gizmodo.com/lord-of-the-rings-return-of-the-king-20th-anniversary-1851090713

 

 

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

12 hours ago, polishgenius said:

The reason there's less really quality ones is almost entirely because Steven Spielberg isn't as good anymore. 

.

I think he’s still as good, it’s just that the type of films he prefers to make these days veers less towards the blockbuster adventure films he did in the 80s or even the sci fi he did in the early 2000s which I think was his best work (minority report). 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Any of the other ones? Nope. Particularly surprising to me was last crusade, which I remembered as being decent but was really badly paced.

They didn't like Temple? That's a bummer. In my experience kiddos love that one unless it scares them too much. 

[Slurktan]

10 hours ago, KingAerys_II said:

The new Batman is not a masterpiece, it's not at the same level of the Bale trilogy Batman, best Bruce Wayne, but Pattinson Batman is better than Affleck Batman. 

 

Pattinson Batman is better than Bale Batman because you know.... he actually gets a movie that's about him and not Harvey (Dark Knight) or isn't idiotic like Batman Begins or Dark Knight Rises.  Plus he gets to be a detective for once.  As well its basically the only serious time on film where at some point in the film (so Adam West one and Batman & Robin don't count)  Batman acts like a hero instead of a rich white psycho who likes to pick on inner city thugs to make them scared.

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They didn't like Temple? That's a bummer. In my experience kiddos love that one unless it scares them too much. 

Other than the fact that it’s racist as fuck towards Indians  and was even banned here yeah. The last crusade was the only decent sequel to raiders.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II

[Kalbear]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They didn't like Temple? That's a bummer. In my experience kiddos love that one unless it scares them too much. 

There were a couple okay parts but the pacing is trash and some of the fx are very dated. Short round can only do so much.

[BigFatCoward]

9 hours ago, williamjm said:

I think they are probably watched a lot less than they would be in America. I haven't seen any of the films you mention and other than Field of Dreams I've barely heard of the others. I think there's probably a couple of issues, for a start it's inevitably going to be more difficult to market a film about an obscure topic and I think a lot of audience might be nervous, rightly or wrongly, that they won't be able to properly appreciate it without a good understanding of the sport.

For example, I did watch Moneyball a few years ago and I thought it was an okay film but I think without having a background in baseball it's difficult to really understand why the things that happen in the film were so revolutionary.

i've seen them all but i'm a sports junkie. I think baseball (and Golf) are much easier to make decent films because they are pretty much a dead ball game, anything where the action is open ended never really looks good for me. 

[KingAerys_II]

4 hours ago, Slurktan said:

Pattinson Batman is better than Bale Batman because you know.... he actually gets a movie that's about him and not Harvey (Dark Knight) or isn't idiotic like Batman Begins or Dark Knight Rises.  Plus he gets to be a detective for once.  As well its basically the only serious time on film where at some point in the film (so Adam West one and Batman & Robin don't count)  Batman acts like a hero instead of a rich white psycho who likes to pick on inner city thugs to make them scared.

The new Batman is good movie, nothing more, Batman Begins and the Dark Knight Rises are part of a trilogy, regarded as the best Batman movies, then there are Burton movies that are good as well, but the trilogy won some oscars