Which Films have you seen lately? 19 - Get Your Film's Name Outta Your Mouth

[zxcvbob]

I started The Big Lebowski last night. I'll finish it tonight. I've never had a White Russian drink before but I want one now

 

[Fippy]

X was so bad..i'd rather watch old Friday the 13th films.
They are not very good either, but at least had Jason.

 

[Synobun]

Into the Beat. 9/10. I think I have accidentally stumbled onto a European Hallmark-esque genre of movies: a female ballet dancer falls in love with a male rogue-ish hip-hop dancer. No, really. I've already watched Battle, which was a Norwegian film with this premise. Now this movie, which is German. I see there are at least two others on my list, Break and Let's Dance, both French. All with the same setup. They all have the Netflix icon, so maybe Netflix forgot they'd already assigned this movie to someone and they just kept assigning it?

Anyway, this is much better than the first movie of this premise I watched. The protagonist is far less annoying, and the dancing and choreography is much better.

 

[EvaDK]

FF The Secrets Of Dumbledore
Certainly an improvement on the previous film, but I still left the theater, thinking 'meh' to myself. The whole experience is just too joyless and the overly convoluted plot, attempts to be two or even three different narratives all at the same time. The film comes alive, when it forgets to be a big franchise entry with 87 moving parts and just presents us with subtle character moments.

 

[Fippy]

The Negotiator. 8.5/10. I came into this expecting it to be a boring, slow-burn kind of movie. Surprisingly, it maintained a decent level of intensity throughout. Pretty good flick.

Very good movie yup, merci for the suggestion / review.

 

[Takhisis]

FF The Secrets Of Dumbledore
Certainly an improvement on the previous film, but I still left the theater, thinking 'meh' to myself. The whole experience is just too joyless and the overly convoluted plot, attempts to be two or even three different narratives all at the same time. The film comes alive, when it forgets to be a big franchise entry with 87 moving parts and just presents us with subtle character moments.

I was watching some streamers today saying more or less that. Convoluted plot, quite less of the titular Fantastic Beasts™ than the title warrants, etc. enough to make me spend my money elsewhere.

 

[Synobun]

I was watching some streamers today saying more or less that. Convoluted plot, quite less of the titular Fantastic Beasts™ than the title warrants, etc. enough to make me spend my money elsewhere.

Ignoring Rowling's concerted efforts at torching her legacy, the Fantastic Beasts franchise, in general, is an exercise in nightmare-ish mismanagement and ill conception. It really demonstrates how Rowling's Harry Potter series was a flash in the pan. Every subsequent media she's conceived or outsourced has been a disaster and bordering on disrespectful to the sentiments held by the fanbase.

 

[MaryKB]

Ignoring Rowling's concerted efforts at torching her legacy, the Fantastic Beasts franchise, in general, is an exercise in nightmare-ish mismanagement and ill conception. It really demonstrates how Rowling's Harry Potter series was a flash in the pan. Every subsequent media she's conceived or outsourced has been a disaster and bordering on disrespectful to the sentiments held by the fanbase.

Kindly like the Wachowskis and the original Matrix movie? (being a flash-in-the-pan)

 

[Grendeldef]

Appaloosa https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800308/

I wanted another western to get that green from my eyes, it worked. This is fine, easy to like & digest, nothing even remotely new or original on sight but the casting mostly works. Minor complaints about Zellweger. She's not likable, dislikable or interesting enough. Much like Zellweger herself the character is without any edge. Replace her with Bening from Open Range and it would be better. The world would be the quite same without this being made.

 

[Synobun]

Kindly like the Wachowskis and the original Matrix movie? (being a flash-in-the-pan)

I read that they didn't even want to make the latest Matrix movie, but were effectively forced into doing it because the studio would make their own if they didn't.

Honestly, you could notice. I really didn't like the early sequels, but the fourth was shockingly bad.

 

[Takhisis]

Ignoring Rowling's concerted efforts at torching her legacy, the Fantastic Beasts franchise, in general, is an exercise in nightmare-ish mismanagement and ill conception. It really demonstrates how Rowling's Harry Potter series was a flash in the pan. Every subsequent media she's conceived or outsourced has been a disaster and bordering on disrespectful to the sentiments held by the fanbase.

Oh yes, she's been a PR disaster for a few years. I for one would say the efforts at ruining the series came with the extensive editing of the storyline in order to ‘improve’ it for the films. I got out at film #4 IIRC.

and then the Fire Nation attacked came the Cursed Child book…

I read that they didn't even want to make the latest Matrix movie, but were effectively forced into doing it because the studio would make their own if they didn't

Kindof how they forced James Cameron's hand and he finally made a film that retroactively disavowed all previous sequels to T2 after 25 years of a divorce settlement depriving him of the rights to it.

Kindly like the Wachowskis and the original Matrix movie? (being a flash-in-the-pan)

Honestly, you could notice. I really didn't like the early sequels, but the fourth was shockingly bad.

I can disagree with the first part, i.e. I still thought they were good yet not at the level of the original one. Yet, with the ongoing trend, I suppose I'll do the same as with Terminator and watch the fourth when it inevitably comes on non-premium cable which we can afford…

 

[Grendeldef]

Big hand for Costner then - no sequels. I respect that while I have been enjoying a number of sequels to this date.

 

[EvaDK]

Big hand for Costner then - no sequels. I respect that while I have been enjoying a number of sequels to this date.

Costner had a small part in Batman Vs Superman which is an official follow-up/sequel to Man of Steel. Had Princess Diana not been killed in 1997 in Paris, we would have gotten a The Bodyguard 2 starring her and Costner; it was in the script stage when she died, both she and Costner were onboard. But I get your point.

 

[Grendeldef]

Live & learn if one is spared from the mighty special liberation operations. I haven't been bold enough to watch either of those but Houston & Di may have had more in common than just snorting coke on a back seat of a limo then.
Any ideas about the script or even direction where The B2 might've gone?

 

[EgonSpengler]

All the Old Knives (2022) and The Batman (2022) both exceeded my expectations, and in some of the same ways. Both feature great performances and lovely cinematography. Both suffer from needlessly labyrinthine plots that don't end up surprising. They both handled flashbacks well: All the Old Knives used them to good effect, and The Batman didn't use them at all. I always have to brace myself when flashbacks or voiceovers are used. The Batman did use voiceovers, but they were forgettable rather than grating or insulting, so I guess that could've been worse. My reservation about The Batman still stands, it's way, way too long. I wish I could have seen the visuals on the big screen, it's a gorgeous movie, but I couldn't even sit still for 3 hours in my own home - I had to pause it and go for walk.

Great casts on both movies, with surprisingly enjoyable performances by both male leads. Chris Pine in Knives was less the comedic and/or action guy I've seen before, and I think this may have been the most I've enjoyed one of his performances. I think I'd never seen Robert Pattinson in anything before, and I was concerned that he seemed very slight and very young to portray Batman (honestly, Batman is just hard to cast - I don't think I've been totally sold on any of the actors who've played him), but he pulled it off. His Bruce Wayne is unlike previous incarnations; it took me a little bit to figure out what he doing, but I think it worked. The women in both movies - Thandiwe Newton in Knives and Zoe Kravitz in Bat - were also both great, and I hadn't seen either one a ton before. I would like to have seen both stories from their perspectives, which I think speaks to their performances (hmm... any chance we could get Newton & Kravitz to do a movie together one day? some kind of thriller, I'm thinking...).

A decent weekend for films. I'm putting both of these in my Top 5 for 2022 for the time being, although I haven't seen a lot of 2022 films yet. I'll be a little disappointed if these aren't bumped out of my Top 5 by the end of the year, but I won't be bummed out if they make my Top 10. Would recommend both to anyone who thinks they're up your alley, but probably not to anyone who only wants the cream of the respective genres.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Into the Beat. 9/10. I think I have accidentally stumbled onto a European Hallmark-esque genre of movies: a female ballet dancer falls in love with a male rogue-ish hip-hop dancer. No, really. I've already watched Battle, which was a Norwegian film with this premise. Now this movie, which is German. I see there are at least two others on my list, Break and Let's Dance, both French. All with the same setup. They all have the Netflix icon, so maybe Netflix forgot they'd already assigned this movie to someone and they just kept assigning it?

Anyway, this is much better than the first movie of this premise I watched. The protagonist is far less annoying, and the dancing and choreography is much better.

S'funny you mention this sub-genre, which I have to admit I've enjoyed over the years, as I just noticed that Save the Last Dance (2001) is on one of my streaming services. I remember liking that one, but I don't think I've seen it since it came out. No idea how it holds up.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The Batman (2022)

Spoiler :

I think there were a handful of things that one could pick on this movie for, but the one that really stuck in my craw the most was the ending. The Riddler's final "power move", the culmination of his plan, was a total non-sequitur. His whole idea of blowing up the sea walls to drown downtown Gotham came out of left field, and didn't make any sense in the context of what we knew about The Riddler and what he'd been doing up to that point. It was completely bizarre, like the movie's own writers hadn't been reading their own script.

(a) That Gotham even had sea walls in the first place was never established. I mean, that abrupt reveal didn't just violate Hitchcock's "bomb under the chair" idea, it wasn't even in the same zip code as Hitchcock. I think Hitchchock himself rolled his eyes and threw up his hands, and said "oh, for [fork]'s sake..."

(b) The Riddler had spent the entire movie targeting Gotham's elite. I don't think he ever specifically claimed any kind of brotherhood with Gotham's working class or everyday people, or even the other orphans in the facility, but he was clearly mad at the city's wealthy and powerful over their failure to follow through on their promises to improve the city. I sort of understood the horde of snipers to take out the gathered functionaries - it was a little boring, but okay - but what the [fork] does flooding the city do? What point does it make? Completely bizarre and didn't follow what had come before.

(c) I've only watched the movie one time, but I bet if I went back and watched it again, knowing what I know now, I wouldn't see a single clue or foreshadowing of what The Riddler is planning. I'd like to be wrong here, but at least on the one viewing, there isn't a single thing I can think back on and say, "okay, that thing was a clue I didn't understand at the time, but in retrospect it makes sense now."

The movie was enjoyable - very enjoyable, really - on the merits of the photography, the performances, the design, the costumes, the car chase. Michael Giacchino's score was great. All of the superficial stuff was great - and it's a movie, the superficial stuff is at least half the reason we watch - but the substance of the murder mystery was never compelling, and that ending was just complete nonsense.

Oh, I will say - and this isn't a spoiler - that this film does answer the question of why Bruce Wayne doesn't use his wealth and position to improve the city in meaningful ways instead of putting on a mask and punching muggers one at a time. I always thought it was a pretty clear part of the mythology, but I've seen people ask that question recently. Maybe not here. Anyway, this movie shows why he doesn't just use his wealth to fix things.

 

[Synobun]

Shot Caller. 2/10. This movie had no point to it. None. Character motivations were nonexistent. It utilized flashback scenes to "explain" how the protagonist became who he is, but all these scenes did was add more questions. Ending was nonsensical.

 

[Kyriakos]

The Batman (2022)

Spoiler :

I think there were a handful of things that one could pick on this movie for, but the one that really stuck in my craw the most was the ending. The Riddler's final "power move", the culmination of his plan, was a total non-sequitur. His whole idea of blowing up the sea walls to drown downtown Gotham came out of left field, and didn't make any sense in the context of what we knew about The Riddler and what he'd been doing up to that point. It was completely bizarre, like the movie's own writers hadn't been reading their own script.

(a) That Gotham even had sea walls in the first place was never established. I mean, that abrupt reveal didn't just violate Hitchcock's "bomb under the chair" idea, it wasn't even in the same zip code as Hitchcock. I think Hitchchock himself rolled his eyes and threw up his hands, and said "oh, for [fork]'s sake..."

(b) The Riddler had spent the entire movie targeting Gotham's elite. I don't think he ever specifically claimed any kind of brotherhood with Gotham's working class or everyday people, or even the other orphans in the facility, but he was clearly mad at the city's wealthy and powerful over their failure to follow through on their promises to improve the city. I sort of understood the horde of snipers to take out the gathered functionaries - it was a little boring, but okay - but what the [fork] does flooding the city do? What point does it make? Completely bizarre and didn't follow what had come before.

(c) I've only watched the movie one time, but I bet if I went back and watched it again, knowing what I know now, I wouldn't see a single clue or foreshadowing of what The Riddler is planning. I'd like to be wrong here, but at least on the one viewing, there isn't a single thing I can think back on and say, "okay, that thing was a clue I didn't understand at the time, but in retrospect it makes sense now."

The movie was enjoyable - very enjoyable, really - on the merits of the photography, the performances, the design, the costumes, the car chase. Michael Giacchino's score was great. All of the superficial stuff was great - and it's a movie, the superficial stuff is at least half the reason we watch - but the substance of the murder mystery was never compelling, and that ending was just complete nonsense.

Oh, I will say - and this isn't a spoiler - that this film does answer the question of why Bruce Wayne doesn't use his wealth and position to improve the city in meaningful ways instead of putting on a mask and punching muggers one at a time. I always thought it was a pretty clear part of the mythology, but I've seen people ask that question recently. Maybe not here. Anyway, this movie shows why he doesn't just use his wealth to fix things.

Well...

Spoiler :

I think the only reason he blew the sea walls - and, consequently, the only reason there were sea walls in the first place - was to have something to keep the dignitaries in the building for a little more. Which, obviously, is more than just overkill - let alone that it failed as a plan. He could have just used better fans/recruits as snipers.
I also agree that it was entirely out of style for what was up to then a serial killer/loner with relatively few resources. But he did remote-control a car and sent it to the cathedral with a body inside; there isn't much continuity in what he was able to do, so supposedly needed the Batman to get the mobster arrested so that he can shoot him, instead of shooting him when he very publicly entered the cathedral for the funeral.

In other words, the plot doesn't appear to be very logical.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Well...

Spoiler :

I think the only reason he blew the sea walls - and, consequently, the only reason there were sea walls in the first place - was to have something to keep the dignitaries in the building for a little more. Which, obviously, is more than just overkill - let alone that it failed as a plan. He could have just used better fans/recruits as snipers.
I also agree that it was entirely out of style for what was up to then a serial killer/loner with relatively few resources. But he did control a car and send it to the cathedral with a body inside; there isn't much continuity in what he was able to do, so supposedly needed the Batman to get the mobster arrested so that he can shoot him, instead of shooting him when he very publicly entered the cathedral for the funeral.

In other words, the plot doesn't appear to be very logical.

Spoiler :

When Batman is looking at the bomb around the District Attorney Colson's neck, Colson mentions that The Riddler made him drive the car into the cathedral.

The Batman trivia: Peter Sarsgaard, who played D.A. Colson, is married to Maggie Gyllenhaal, whose character got blown up by Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight.