The last movie you've seen thread 2016

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I saw the 1982 version of The Thing.  It was an absolute masterpiece (easily among the best horror films ever made) and John Carpenter's best film by far.  The special effects hold up quite well.  If you like horror or science-fiction, I'd highly recommend it.  There is one scene that I absolutely hated though (oddly enough, seeing dogs die in movies (or anywhere really ) always gets me extremely upset.  OTOH, the scene was extremely effective, so I can't complain too much.  I'd give The Thing (1982) five stars out of five.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Brilliant.

Watched this yesterday as well. I really liked it as well. I'm very happy they didn't fall for some of the too obvious clicheed ending possibilities they toyed with.

I saw it yesterday too and thought both the acting and cinematography were excellent.  The movie's commentary of the underbelly of both blockbuster/superhero/franchise movies and theatre was excellent.  While the satire of franchise films was pretty spot on, the film is actually even better when it goes after the pretentious, holier-than-though, and generally obnoxious muh Artistic Truth crowd.  Without spoiling anything, there is a scene involving a theatre critic that is probably the best scene in the whole film (essentially first among equals).  It was a good movie and I'm glad I saw it, but I will say that I didn't so much like Birdman as I found it really interesting.  It is often a pretty stressful movie to watch, imo (not that this is necessarily a bad thing).  That said, it is still pretty good and I'd recommend it.  I'd give it a B+

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Fargo

Hilarious. Just a shame it took this long to see.

You should check out the FX series of the same name.  It's excellent and if you like Coen brothers movies, I'm pretty sure you'll love it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Note: This was supposed to just be a paragraph, but somehow it turned into a megapost

Foxcatcher - I admired it more than I liked it (it's a pretty bleak and tragic movie).  Tatum and Redgrave are decent, but nothing special.  However, there are no words to describe just how incredible Steve Carrell is in the movie.  It's not just some gimmick performance where Carrell slaps on a prosethetic nose and begs for an Oscar, he inhabits the character the way Daniel Day-Lewis did in Lincoln or that Heath Ledger did in The Dark Knight.  Even his delivery of a line as simple as "You got a problem with me" is said with such venom and hatred bubbling just beneath the surface that thinking about the scene still gives me chills (yet Carrell never resorts to the sort of flashy "I'm ACTING" moments that a lesser actor might've used as a crutch when playing a role like this).  The movie is very dark and often way too slow, but Carrell's performance alone is more than worth the price of admission.  

Carrell's performance was really something to see and sadly, I doubt he'll even get nominated for Best Actor.  Foxcatcher is not really an "Oscars Movie" despite being marketed as one, and Carrell gives a subtle and controlled (yet paradoxically very emotional in a decidedly non-flashy sort of way).  Furthermore, there is no melodramatic/flashy "Look at me, I'm ACTING" scene.  It looks like Mark Ruffalo will probably get nominated for supporting actor, but his preformance was easily the weakest in the film. 

I'd give Foxcatcher a solid B overall, but I would still highly recommend checking it out if you're a fan of dark character studies or want to see Steve Carrell give a truly terrifying performance.  Just make sure you know what you're getting first, if a really dark take on events leading up to the Du Pont/Schultz tragedy doesn't sound like your cup of tea or if a movie moving at a pretty slow pace from beginning to end (with the exception of three scenes) sounds like it might get frustrating for you, you're probably better off waiting until you can reserve it at the library rather than paying to see it in theaters.

On a different note, one thing that I found kind of disturbing was that it seemed pretty obvious that Du Pont was suffering from very serious mental illness (it's not like he was high-functioning in public or something, at least from how he was portrayed in the movie) and yet he was so rich that no one, not other wealthy businessmen, not the local police, and not the members of Congress who met him seemed to even bat an eye at his behavior.  I don't know how accurate this aspect of the movie was, but one gets the impression that his family had so much money that they could simply shield him from the world during his childhood and that as an adult (and the heir to the Du Pont fortune), he had so much money that it basically didn't matter to anyone that he was clearly in need of professional help and had some sort mental issues (although I do see how without hindsight it would be hard to imagine that he would ever actually be dangerous).  It's sad because one can't help but think that the tragedy could've been averted if rather than just spoiling him while using the family's money to try to shield her son from any sort of adversity or pain while he was growing up, his mother had used it to put him in a top-quality mental hospital or whatever where he could at least get the sort of treatment and care that he clearly needed.  In a sense, it's really a cautionary tale about the dangers of the idea that money can fix anything if you have enough of it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Whiplash

I think people are over-rating it a little bit, but it's very good. The editing is technically very impressive, and the performances from both leads are amazing. I think at the end of the day though I'm just not super interested in the trials and tribulations of college jazz band. I do love a movie that evokes a consistent mood in the viewer though, and the whole thing makes you so tense and anxious.

So would you say it was really good for what it was, but not necessarily your cup of tea?

On a different note, I just saw the Immitation Game and was quite disappointed.  The acting by Cumberbatch was good, but nothing to write home about.  The characters were all very one-note (although Charles Dance and Mark Strong did the best they could with what they were given).  The story was also a great example of a time where a massive amount of artistic license was taken and it made the movie less interesting.  There's definitely a great movie to be made about Turing, but this sure wasn't it!

I'd give it a C-

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The Gambler

I only saw it because I was board and the screenplay was by the dude who wrote The Departed.  I expected it to be pretty meh, but it was surprisingly good.  Michael K. Williams' performance was easily the best part of the movie.  The female college student character was just sort of there for no clear reason and probably could've been cut out without the movie losing anything (although maybe that would've been considered too big a deviation from the source material; IDK since I wasn't too familiar with the story prior to seeing the film).  The movie's hardly perfect and the cinematography was especially problematic at times, but overall it was a pretty entertaining film with good acting by Williams, Goodman, and Wahlberg.  It's nice to occasionally stumble across a movie that wasn't even remotely on my radar and vastly exceeds my expectations in almost every way.

B+

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Mad Max: Fury Road

It's basically a video game, but does have some redeeming features.  The first is that the cinematography, costume design, sound, etc are excellent even for this type of movie.  Secondly, this is probably the closest thing to a female-driven (and perhaps even feminist) action movie I've ever seen.  It's not perfect in this regard (I'm not a fan of how the villain's wives were used, especially in the first act, although even some of them were given occasional bits of characterization), but I liked that they didn't objectify Theron's character (Furiosa) at all, gave her real agency and independence, and made her essentially the main hero of the story with Max relegated to the second fiddle role Furiosa would've been given in any other action movie.  It is also one of the rare times that the relationship between the male and female leads in this sort of movie wasn't sexual or romantic in any way, shape, or form.  They were just to damaged people trying to survive.

On the negative side, the film really isn't about anything (this is an action film, but it isn't enough fun to make the viewer overlook the lack of a real plot) and (odd as this may sounds) takes itself a bit too seriously during one scene in the beginning of the third act.  Additionally, although the movie is only two hours, it feels about twice as long and simply isn't enough fun for that not to become a real problem by the end of the second act.  Lastly, there's a really dumb subplot (if you can call it that) in which one of the minor bad guys does a pretty dumb and random Heel Face Turn when the character probably should've just been killed off in the first act to cut down on the runtime.

All things considered, I'd give it a C+

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Love and Mercy

Was that any good?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Me and Earl and the Dying Girl

This was basically a perfect movie. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Fright Night (the 1985 version)

An excellent horror film, easily one of the best (if not the best) vampire films ever made.  Like Gremlins, the movie did an almost perfect job of balancing the horror and comedy elements in a way that few films have managed before or since.  However, where Gremlins was a comedy with some horror elements, Fright Night is definitely a horror film with some comedy elements (mainly in the first half of the movie).  

I'm sure others have already thought of this, but there is also a lot of symbolism regarding the various sexual aspects of the vampire myth.  This is handled by Tom Holland (who wrote and directed the film) with varying levels of subtlety, depending on what a given scene requires.  However, with one big exception (and in that case it was absolutely what the story required and makes it work better as a result), the sexual symbolism is never front and center making it an interesting secondary layer that you only really notice once the film is over and you think about it a bit.  Aside from the obvious stuff that you see in stories like Dracula like Jerry Dandrige's desire to turn the protagonist's love interest into a vampire because she resembles a woman he loved before becoming a vampire, Jerry's interactions with two different male characters have unmistakable homosexual undertones (word of God has confirmed that at least one of these was intentional), and one might even argue that Jerry's vampirism is almost like spreading an STD (although this is a bit of a stretch imo).  Again though, this is very much a horror film (especially in the last third of the movie, which is by far the best part) and the sexual symbolism is generally takes a back seat to that.  

As for the acting, it is mostly meh (especially William Ragsdale as the main protagonist), but there are two standouts.  Chris Sarandon is well-cast as Jerry Dandrige, but it isn't as showy a role as one might expect.  Still, he single-handedly makes several lines that should be painfully cheesy work perfectly (ex: "Welcome to Fright Night...for real!" and "Amy awake, I command it!  Show me how much you love me!  Kill them both!").  You wouldn't think those lines could possibly work, but in Sarandon's hands, they feel like some of the best in the film (and that isn't d***ing with faint praise or anything like that).  Roddy McDowell gives what is easily the best performance of his career and steals the show as Peter Vincent (obviously a combination of Peter Cushing and Vincent Price), a washed up horror host who slowly starts to become his character ("I am Peter Vincent, the great vampire killer.  I am Peter Vincent, the great vampire killer...") as a psychological defense mechanism about 2/3s of the way into the movie and it is absolutely hilarious.

A few other things that standout are the makeup which is excellent and actually holds up surprisingly well (given that this was a low budget horror film from the mid-80s).  Ultimately, this is a film that "should" be an absolute mess on paper (I wasn't expecting it to work on any level and watched it, expecting a SY-FYI-style "so bad it's good" movie).  However, against all odds, it works almost perfectly for what it is (obviously it isn't Shakespeare or anything like that, but it isn't supposed to be).  I liked it so much that I decided to check out the remake from 2011, but sadly turned out to be complete garbage.  Aside from completely screwing up the tone and simply not being as good a movie, they absolutely butchered the Peter Vincent character.  Additionally, instead of the sexual predator aspect of Jerry's vampirism being very subtle/subtext like in the original, the remake does everything short of having him go door to door telling the neighborhood how often he is required to check in with his parole officer  Furthermore, where the Jerry Dandrige of the original was polite, cultured, yet extremely menacing when he wants to be(in a "there's just something kinda off about this guy, but I can't quite put my finger on it" sort of way), Colin Farrell played him as an obviously sadistic psychopath from his first scene in the remake.  Basically, the remake is absolutely awful.  Really the only good thing about it is the way that they rewrote the "Evil" Ed Thompson character, which was a huge improvement over the original's version of him.

Alas, Fright Night does have a few cringe-worthy flaws that keep me from giving it a perfect rating.  The main character, Charley Brewster, is so hard to believe as a high-schooler (the idea that a high-schooler already borderline believes vampires exist before he's even seen Jerry requires more suspension of disbelief than I have in me ) and he has a Scott Walker-esque dopiness to him that makes it hard to care what happens to him (especially in the first half of the movie, before it goes from horror-comedy to full horror).  This is neutralized somewhat by the fact that the other major protagonist, Peter Vincent, is introduced about 1/3 of the way into the movie and he's such an entertaining character that one can overlook the aforementioned problem most of the time.  The part about no one believing Charley is also not handled well in the sense that while obviously no one would believe him, (with the exceptions of the cop and Peter Vincent who react pretty normally) the dialogue people such as his mom and his girlfriend use when showing they don't believe him just doesn't work (and even with the cop, it only kinda works).  However, the biggest weakness is Charley's girlfriend, the character is very poorly written and simply never works imo.  At least a good 2/3s of her dialogue is either nails-on-chalk board annoying, makes absolutely no sense, is generally cringe-inducing, or some combination of the above (ex: upon finding out that Charley is convinced his neighbor is a vampire, her response is literally "Is this some kind of crazy plan to get me back?").

TL;DR: I'd give this movie a solid A, even though on paper it really "shouldn't" work on any level.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I saw Sicario last night.  It was alright, but nothing amazing like I was expecting (not awful or anything, just above average).  With a few big exceptions (two scenes in the first third and one near the end), this was a pretty slow, thoughtful film which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it really wasn't advertised as such and that was a bit jarring at first. 

One thing that is clear from this movie is that Denis Villeneuve can create suspense like nobody's business.  Prisoners was an excellent film, but I feel like even a lesser director could've made it very suspenseful even if they failed to pull it off overall.  However, despite being a fairly slow film (especially after the first third), it always feels like everything is building to something absolutely horrifying and this constant sense of dread hangs over even the slowest of scenes.  I suspect that's a pretty tough thing to pull off and if Villeneuve's next movie (The Story of Your Life) has the same sort mounting sense of dread in even the slower scenes then he may well deserve to join directors like David Nutter, John Carpenter circa 1976-1982, and Alfred Hitchcock circa 1951-1963 as one of the great masters of suspense. 

But I digress, there were some other good elements of Sicario that are worth mentioning.  The highlight of the film was definitely Benicio del Toro's performance (easily his best to date), but it's hard to talk too much about why or even his character without spoiling the best part of the movie.  All I'll say is that it's clear from the moment we see him that there is something very dangerous lurking just beneath his calm, quiet demeanor.  As for what that something is, that's the mystery at the heart of Sicario.  For most of the film, he exists on the outer edges of the plot like a single shark fin ominously circling a shipwreck survivor from a distance.  When he finally strikes, well...you really have to see it to fully appreciate it.  I don't think I can do it justice, tbh.  It may not be a flashy enough performance, but I wouldn't be surprised if del Toro gets a best supporting actor nomination, especially if it ends up being a weak year in that category.  That said, he could also easily get lost in the shuffle.  We shall see, not that it really matters or anything

From a technical standpoint, the cinematography was excellent and it is quite possible that Roger Deakins will finally win an Oscar for his work here after 12 (IIRC) previous nominations.  The music was also really good and while it was effectively used in certain scenes to ratchet up the tension and add to the sense of dread that I mentioned earlier, it was never used as a crutch to tell the audience how we're supposed to feel in the heavy-handed, lazy way that it is in certain movies.

TL;DR: For better or worse, Sicario is not the type of movie it has been advertised as and is simply a good, but not great movie with an excellent performance by Benicio del Toro.  It's also the sort of movie where one will likely come away admiring a number of individual components (some of the performances, the cinematography, etc) without necessarily enjoying the movie itself.  As good as some of those individual components are, I'd give the film itself a B-

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The first two V/H/S movies are probably the best two horror films of recent years and are still quite watchable even outside the original context.

For a non-anthology film, Sinister was very good, although I never saw the sequel as the reviews were atrocious.

I haven't seen either of the V/H/S movies, but I've the first one is good for what it is (didn't know there even was a second one).  That said, I'm still pretty confident The Babadook is the best horror movie in recent years.  I'd highly recommend it, if you haven't seen it.  It's not a slasher film or anything like that, but (at least imo) that is a good thing.  That said, if you prefer slasher-type horror films, I'd recommend You're Next.  It's a slasher film, but it doesn't really have very many of the usual cliches of the slasher sub-genre (ex: with two exceptions, the characters who die don't get killed by acting like complete idiots, there aren't any teenagers who get killed because sex/drugs, a lot of the deaths come as genuine surprises, etc).  In fact, it's so well made and the script is so strong that it really transcends the slasher sub-genre, despite being a slasher film through-and-through.  And without giving anything away, the ending is absolutely perfect (especially the way the end credits begin).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I really wasn't impressed by The Revenant. It was nice to look at, mostly, but I didn't feel like it tried to say anything beyond the immediate. For such an "epic" film, it felt really small and meaningless.

I agree, although Tom Hardy (the guy who played FitzGerald) was great!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I really wasn't impressed by The Revenant. It was nice to look at, mostly, but I didn't feel like it tried to say anything beyond the immediate. For such an "epic" film, it felt really small and meaningless.

I agree, although Tom Hardy (the guy who played FitzGerald) was great!

Definitely. I thought Hardy stood out far more than DiCaprio, and Gleeson was solid as well.

Yeah, DiCaprio was okay and I like him as an actor, but his performance really wasn't anything amazing (good yes, but it has nothing on his performances in movies like The Departed, Wolf of Wall Street, J. Edgar, Django Unchained, etc).  I feel like his awards narrative is more "he's due" than anything else.  I thought the guy who played the guy who stayed behind with FitzGerald, Glass, and Glass' son did a great job too. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nightmare on Elm Street (the original, obviously)

I gotta say, this was a disappointment.  I mean, it wasn't awful for what it was, but it was pretty unremarkable.  I'm not really sure why it's regarded as a classic.  *shrug* 
________________________________________________________
Poltergeist (1982)

This was a pretty fun movie and was quite good for what it is (with one big exception that I'll get to later in this post, it's not even a particularly scary movie).  The highlights were Zelda Rubinstein's performance as some sort of medium/psychic (she gave such a great performance that you completely forget how ridiculous most of the exposition she has to deliver actually is) and the clown attack which was easily one of the most effective jump scares I've ever seen (which is all the more impressive when you consider that even while watching the scene, it's almost impossible not to see it coming well before it happens).  Oddly enough, this quickly leads to what might be the most adorable annihilation of a genuinely scary movie monster ever to appear in a horror film. 

The film also does quite a good job of letting the viewer know something bad is gonna happen and then having long normal/relaxing scenes which go on for quite awhile until you've lowered your guard just enough not to expect what happens next (even if you knew it was going to happen when the scene began).  I don't know if Tobe Hooper or Steven Spielberg was the real director (there's been some debate about this), but whoever it was did a great job.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Well, in the absence of any really exciting movie, here are a few ranging from "fine" to "uggghhhh" I've seen recently.

The BFG: It's fun, harmless, kinda sweet at some points but nowhere near Inside Out or Big Hero 6. Can't stand the toilet humor, but it's fairly tame. Plot is basic. A bit of a letdown for a Spielberg movie, but all right.

Now You See Me 2: It's a lot of fun if you don't question all the ridiculous stuff. I've seen many critics focusing on all the incoherences and plot holes, but who cares? It's entertaining, visually interesting, and has fun characters. Morgan Freeman still rules.

Basic Instinct (seen on TV): I so wanted to like this movie. I love stories about ruthless manipulative sociopaths, and the fact that it's a woman for once is a great idea. Too bad that Douglas' character is a complete moron and asshole. I wouldn't have minded too much if he got what he "deserved" in the end, but somehow it turns into a lame "happy ever after" ending instead. The right ending would have been for him to get framed for the murders. I can't believe a "master of cinema" missed such an opportunity. Also far too many gratuitous and ridiculously overblown sex scenes, but I guess that's what people wanted to see. Meh.

Suicide Squad: This one I knew was gonna be awful ever since I saw the trailer, but still got talked into going to watch it. It's what I expected. Shallow, nihilistic, faux-edgy and clichéd. When you take out the basic premise of "bad guys saving the world" (which isn't handled well) it's the most generic action-movie plot ever. The reason for all the movie's events is that a woman had a really stupid idea (which is acknowledged even in the movie as a really stupid idea) and somehow everybody went along with it. There's a lot of creepy stuff that's just there to be SHOCKING, and no character is likable or interesting.

It's strongly implied that Michael Douglas' character is about to be murdered at the end of Basic Instinct.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It's strongly implied that Michael Douglas' character is about to be murdered at the end of Basic Instinct.

? She had two opportunities to kill him and didn't. I thought that implied the exact opposite.

Even then, I still think getting him framed would have been a lot more clever.

Suicide Squad struck me as a movie that could not possibly work as a PG-13. If they went all out and made it a very hard R ala Deadpool then maybe.

This could have helped, but above all it needed something to make us like or at least empathize with the characters. The only one who came close to that was the pyromancer (whose story was at least genuinely dark as opposed to "dark").

I think the makers of the film confirmed she was reaching for that ice pick at the end so she could kill him at the end.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Fair enough. I don't see the point of not showing it (in a movie that already had plenty of graphic violence anyway) if it wasn't to make the ending at least ambiguous.

Completely agree

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

La La Land - I went in really wanting to like this movie and left thinking "wait...that's it?  What's so great about that?"  The was a lot to like/admire on a technical level, it was confidently directed, and the music was good...but the whole thing felt empty b/c it wasn't really about anything beyond the bare-bones minimum plot necessary to even have a movie.  I guess the end could've worked, but the little montage Mia had dragged on way too long and eventually I just felt like "yes, yes, yes you're very sad and conflicted; we get it, can I please go home now?"  I also liked the fight at Sebastian's apartment b/c it was the only time I was truly invested in the story since - drumroll please - there were actually dramatic stakes for a conflict that didn't get perfectly resolved after two minutes.  Also, while Stone and Gosling both brought a great deal of charisma to their roles (as did J.K. Simmons in a small role), they were basically playing one-note stock types rather than actual characters and I often felt like I was watching "Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone fall in love and worry about whether they're talented/attractive/self-confident/whatever enough to make it in Hollywood: The Movie."  This felt a lot like Singin' in the Rain and I don't mean that as a compliment.  Solid C

Fences - This was basically a filmed play and would've been much better on Broadway.  That said, the acting (especially by Denzel Washinton, Viola Davis, and Mykelti Williamson) is absolutely incredible and I'll be shocked if Davis doesn't win best supporting actress at the Oscars.  B/B- but it'd probably be a B+/A- if I saw the play instead with the same cast.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Shouldn't this be updated to 2017?

Anyway, rewatched the Jim Carrey version of A Series of Unfortunate Events, it's better than I remember it.

While you may or may not be an exception, I suspect most people who grew up with those books as a beloved part of their childhood (myself among them) absolutely hated that movie and really liked the Netflix series (I liked the Netflix Series of Unfortunate Events so much that I decided to give them another chance and re-subscribe although I was already thinking about it given how good Beasts of No Nation was).  OTOH, I suspect most who did not grow up with the books (or simply didn't love them as kids) and/or saw the movie first probably found the Jim Carrey movie – while hardly a masterpiece – a forgettable, but inoffensive and perhaps even mildly entertaining children's film.  This is actually one of the biggest problems with the Jim Carrey film: the books have an incredibly specific and idiosyncratic tone that I haven't really seen anywhere else except the TV series which usually gets it right presumably due to the heavy involvement of Daniel Handler (although even then, the series is a bit lighter than the books at times).  The tone could best be described as what you might get if a Jewish, highly intellectual cross between Wes Anderson, Stephen Gammell, and Tim Burton (around the time he made Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands) memorized a dictionary and then decided to do a children's series with gradually increasing moral ambiguity, a Lost-style ill-defined yet omnipresent conspiracy, and a bunch of genuine Downer Endings while constantly breaking the fourth wall until it'd been reduced to a million microscopic pieces...and managed to make it work really well (at least until the last book, which was a mess).

Another problem with the movie was that Jim Carrey was a mind-blowingly awful choice to play Count Olaf.  Count Olaf was a legitimately dangerous and menacing villain in the books (especially the first nine before the Mystery Box arc really came to the forefront).  Yes, he was often the object of ridicule and an inherently ridiculous person (and a hilariously ignorant one), but he it never took away from the clear sense that this was a really bad guy with a certain low cunning who was above all a sadistic murderer, arsonist, and general monster who spent his days terrorizing three young children.  While Neil Patrick Harris was perfectly cast and gives easily the best TV/film performance of his career, even the series tends to soften the darkest aspects of the character.  They do the same with his henchmen (aside from the Hook-Handed Man who always seemed to have a mild Affably Evil/Punch-Clock Villain streak in the books).  The best example is the Bald Man with a Long Nose who is a generic dim-witted brute in the show, but never seems particularly menacing whereas in the books he's a pretty malevolent guy who it is hinted on several occasions might be a pedophile.  However, this all works because (likely due to Handler's involvement) the series doesn't omit the bad things Olaf and his henchmen do, so much as it smoothes out some of the rougher edges at times ("at times" being a key term).   

On the other hand, Jim Carrey in the film is basically just playing Jim Carrey doing generic Jim Carrey schtick.  His Count Olaf never feels even remotely dangerous nor are any of the bad things he does treated seriously by the film.  He seems far more likely to trip by accidentally tying his shoelaces together than to murder someone whereas in the books Count Olaf's malevolence is played straight when he does things like threaten to cut off a baby's toe with a long, serrated knife or murder a woman by pushing her into a lion pit and watching them eat her alive.  NPH actually manages to seem genuinely menacing, especially in the first two episodes of the Netflix series (which not coincidentally are easily the best and the most faithful to the book they're based on).  He's over the top about being evil in a way the book version wasn't, but it still works perfectly.  Furthermore, butchering the first three books into that mess of a screenplay doomed the film right out of the gate.  This series really can't work as a film b/c you'd need the child actors to stay young and the books *really* don't lend themselves to being crammed into two hours.  What Netflix essentially did was make four two hour movies (one for each of the first four books) rather than create a true season and it works much better.

Of course, the worst part of the film is that they Disneyfied and tacked on a horribly contrived happily ever after ending when the book series' whole claim to fame is being the antithesis of a Disneyfied children's series and never having anything other than a genuine Downer Ending.  Tbh, the only way in which the film is better than the TV series (aside from the makeup, although that one's more of a tie) is that Meryl Streep gave a far better performance as Aunt Josephine than Alfre Woodard did.

Of course, if someone didn't grow up with the books or saw the movie first, I can see how none of this would bother them too much.  In any case, I really liked the Netflix series b/c it's been nice to see an almost perfect adaptation of something that was really a special part of my childhood

Wow that...umm...ended up being a lot longer than I intended

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Get Out

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Streamed All The Way the other day. I loved it. If only modern Democrats could be more like LBJ.

As good as Bryan Cranston was in All the Way, I'd argue the film itself was pretty much a hagiography in the worst sense of the word.  I mean, if you want to see a more recent example of an actor give a great performance as a Democratic President in a program that portrays "perfect" President with no real flaws and offers a pretty unrealistic depiction of American politics, I'm pretty sure you can stream The West Wing on Netflix.  And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with enjoying All The Way as a movie (I didn't, but that's just me), but it's like JFK.  If you take it as an entertainment alone, that's fine, but don't watch it expecting to learn anything either.  It's about Lyndon Johnson the way that American Hustle is about ABSCAM.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Streamed All The Way the other day. I loved it. If only modern Democrats could be more like LBJ.

As good as Bryan Cranston was in All the Way, I'd argue the film itself was pretty much a hagiography in the worst sense of the word.  I mean, if you want to see a more recent example of an actor give a great performance as a Democratic President in a program that portrays "perfect" President with no real flaws and offers a pretty unrealistic depiction of American politics, I'm pretty sure you can stream The West Wing on Netflix.  And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with enjoying All The Way as a movie (I didn't, but that's just me), but it's like JFK.  If you take it as an entertainment alone, that's fine, but don't watch it expecting to learn anything either.  It's about Lyndon Johnson the way that American Hustle is about ABSCAM.

I mean yeah, I realized watching it that it was obviously going for a sympathetic portrayal and ignoring the more unsavory aspects, but I wouldn't say it was outright hagiographic. Besides, the demonization of LBJ is far more annoying to me, and I maintain that the Democrats would be much better off if they had leaders like him, rather than the spineless empty suits we get these days.

LBJ was a pretty complex guy and for all the good he accomplished in areas such as civil rights and widening the social safety net, let's not forget that he had a ton of political capital, large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, and an opposition party that wasn't composed almost entirely of legislative suicide bombers.  I'm skeptical about how much someone like Johnson would've gotten done if they were President from 2008-2016 and would argue that Obama really accomplished far more than anyone could've realistically expected given the circumstances. 

Not to be condescending or anything, but it's not like Republicans have been winning because Democrats are scared to use inflammatory enough rhetoric or something like that.  Those sorts of oversimplifications are really little more than ideological comfort food and I say that as someone who was an enthusiastic Sanders supporter in 2016.  The fact is that when you don't control either house of Congress and have a major party that would gladly support a bigoted, treasonous sex predator and gleefully try to break the government simply for short-term political advantage regardless of the consequences, it's going to be really hard to get a lot done, period. 

Also, it's worth remembering that Johnson lied to the American people to sell them on a disastrous and completely unnecessary war and actively tried to destroy the lives of those who tried to bring this to the public's attention.  Maybe it's just me, but that sounds a lot more like George W. Bush's administration  than it does anyone I'd want in the Democratic Party.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Fruitvale Station

A very powerful and well-made film.  I think part of way it left such a strong emotional impact on me when it was over was that the movie resists the temptation to sensationalize or melodramatically depict Oscar Grant's shooting or the events which took place on the last day of his life (nor does it lionize Grant the way many films like this would, he's not a perfect guy by any means).  As a result, watching the film just feels like spending a day in the shoes of an ordinary yet paradoxically still fairly complicated man.  Except instead of ending like any other perfectly normal day, it ends with a pretty horrifying (though again, never sensationalized) tragedy.  To give you an idea of how bad this 2009 police shooting was, the officer actually got convicted by a jury (albeit of involuntary manslaughter rather than second degree murder) and was sentenced to two years in prison, when's the last time that happened?