The Movie (and TV show) Watching Thread

[T'Chenka]

I also really want to see 'The Holdovers.' I heard its Alexander Payne returning to form, which is more than welcome since he is one of my favorite directors.

People have been telling me that based on how Focus Features usually handles their film releases, we should expect it to be available on VOD (and on the internet more generally) probably on Tuesday Nov 28th, in 11 days. There's no official news or announcement about that, but it seems likely to be what will end up happening.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Antlers (2021)



Why are little kids so scary? Music and film production were great.

[T'Chenka]

Hello, Dolly!
1969
7.0 (almost 7.5) / 10

The Iron Giant
1999
7.0 (almost 6.5) / 10

13 Going On 30
2004
6.5 / 10

Kajillionaire
2020
6.5 (almost 7.0) / 10

[Progressive Pessimist]

Hello, Dolly!
1969
7.0 (almost 7.5) / 10

The Iron Giant
1999
7.0 (almost 6.5) / 10

13 Going On 30
2004
6.5 / 10

Kajillionaire
2020
6.5 (almost 7.0) / 10

When I turned 30 I officially grew to hate '13 Going On 30.' What moron thinks turning thirty is anything but existential misery?

[Landslide Lyndon]

The Iron Giant
1999
7.0 (almost 6.5) / 10

Ι don't get why this is considered something of a timeless masterpiece.
It's good but simplistic and predictable.

[John Dule]

The average fan of Harold and Maude:

1) Owns at least one top hat
2) Describes himself as an "Anglophile" because he can quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail verbatim
3) Wears eyeshadow for high school theater classes unsolicited
4) Treats Halloween costumes like a competitive sport
5) Has never been diagnosed with a mental illness, but secretly romanticizes the idea of having one (a cool one like multiple personalities or schizophrenia, not generalized anxiety disorder)
6) Got into steampunk after it became cool and stuck with it long after it wasn't anymore
7) Owns a leather aviator cap with goggles; has never flown a plane
8) Has a stupid favorite flavor of pie (probably huckleberry)
9) Owns at least thirty different mugs, none of which match and half of which are in the sink with teabags in them
10) Read either The Stranger or The Sorrows of Young Werther at the age of 15 and used that as the foundation to restructure his entire personality
11) Has at least four house plants, all of which are dying of neglect
12) Manages a checkout counter at a grocery store, but aspires to one day manage a checkout counter at a vinyl record store
13) Thinks Humboldt County, California is the epicenter of civilization
14) Imagines he would be good at whittling; has never tried it
15) At least once in his life, has moved the Bible to the "fiction" section of Barnes & Noble
16) Owns a pipe because he thinks it would be cool to smoke out of a pipe (doesn't smoke)
17) Thinks that bluntly oversharing inappropriate personal information in a deadpan tone is a fun personality quirk
18) Owns nunchaku, and will insist on correcting you if you refer to them as "nunchucks"
19) Bathes irregularly
20) Has a hamster with a name like Skeletor or something

I do not say any of this to be mean. I just call it like I see it.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The average fan of Harold and Maude:

1) Owns at least one top hat
2) Describes himself as an "Anglophile" because he can quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail verbatim
3) Wears eyeshadow for high school theater classes unsolicited
4) Treats Halloween costumes like a competitive sport
5) Has never been diagnosed with a mental illness, but secretly romanticizes the idea of having one (a cool one like multiple personalities or schizophrenia, not generalized anxiety disorder)
6) Got into steampunk after it became cool and stuck with it long after it wasn't anymore
7) Owns a leather aviator cap with goggles; has never flown a plane
8) Has a stupid favorite flavor of pie (probably huckleberry)
9) Owns at least thirty different mugs, none of which match and half of which are in the sink with teabags in them
10) Read either The Stranger or The Sorrows of Young Werther at the age of 15 and used that as the foundation to restructure his entire personality
11) Has at least four house plants, all of which are dying of neglect
12) Manages a checkout counter at a grocery store, but aspires to one day manage a checkout counter at a vinyl record store
13) Thinks Humboldt County, California is the epicenter of civilization
14) Imagines he would be good at whittling; has never tried it
15) At least once in his life, has moved the Bible to the "fiction" section of Barnes & Noble
16) Owns a pipe because he thinks it would be cool to smoke out of a pipe (doesn't smoke)
17) Thinks that bluntly oversharing inappropriate personal information in a deadpan tone is a fun personality quirk
18) Owns nunchaku, and will insist on correcting you if you refer to them as "nunchucks"
19) Bathes irregularly
20) Has a hamster with a name like Skeletor or something

I do not say any of this to be mean. I just call it like I see it.

'Harold and Maude' is meh.

[GoTfan]

Saw Napoleon.

All around, I thought it was a pretty decent film. Advice: turn off your historian's brain when watching, because it will kill it.

[T'Chenka]

Just got home from seeing Saltburn. It is EXCELLENT. Very deranged and kind of sick. Great cast. Great movie.

4.5 / 5 stars and HIGHLY recommended (if you can handle watching f__ked up movies).

In my opinion, it's just as good as Oppenheimer... but I'm not one of those people calling Oppenheimer a modern masterpiece. Tiebreaker scenario, I'd say Saltburn is the better film overall.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Joaquin

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cz4cPpJNHpw/

He is starting to get a good list of bangers together for his resume.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I recently watched "No Country for Old Men" and while admittedly the Coens' craft is insane I was thinking that I can't be the only one who was underwhelmed by the script of this movie.

First of all, there is a serial killer on the loose (a cop being among his victims) and the only one who goes after him is the ancient sheriff of a tiny county? Where is the state police, the FBI, the media?
Then you have the entire plot hinging on Josh Brolin's character having a sudden bout of conscience about a drug lord who was already at the brink of death hours ago and going back to a crime scene in the middle of the night to give him water?
I mean, WTF? This is the kind of lazy writing for which critics routinely eviscerate Hollywood blockbusters but here they are giving a pass because the movie is made by a couple of auteurs? 

[Ferguson97]

Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes (7/10): The worldbuilding was the best part of the movie. It really felt like it was in the same universe as the Hunger Games trilogy, just ~65 years in the past. I liked the focus on how the war affected everyone, particularly people in the Capitol. The performances were all great, especially Jason Schwartzman as Lucky Flickerman. My biggest disappointments, however, was how much they cut from the book! The book was my favorite of the series, so I was pretty surprised with how much they cut. Everything that was included was really great, but the amount of stuff that was removed made me feel like I saw an incomplete film. Overall I liked it, but it made me want to re-read the book more than anything else.

Exam (7/10): I love movies where it's just people sitting in a room and talking. The decisions made by the characters didn't always make sense, but I liked the dynamics between the characters. They all felt distinct and realistic for the most part. I won't spoil the ending, but the twist was surprisingly not that predictable.

Triangle (6.5/10): Fun premise, but it was very underutilized. I think the movie could've been 15-20 minutes longer. I went into this movie cold, so I really knew nothing about the "twist", I don't know if that was marketed in the trailers or not. The characters weren't super enjoyable, but the acting was mostly good, and the premise was interesting enough to keep me interested.

The Stepford Wives (1975) (7.5/10): The first two acts went on for way too long, and the third act should have been at least 20 minutes longer - but oh man, that third act was just flawless. The performances were great, the movie's villain was extremely creepy, and the protagonist was easy to sympathize with. Katharine Ross was fantastic.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes was a pretty good movie. Went in with mixed reviews, but I think that considering the movie is about someone who becomes a brutal dictator, they did a good job.

Really painted a picture as to why Snow hates the districts, particularly with the bombing scenes. Also really loved the foreshadowing (recognized the names "Crane", "Flickerman", "Heavensbee" and several more) and I appreciated the Katniss reference.

Also Hunter Schafer is hot lol

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Just saw Napoleon

[T'Chenka]

Just saw Napoleon

Was it any good? I heard that it was an occasionally boring comedy from somebody ().

[You don't see any blue avatars now]

Also Hunter Schafer is hot lol

Literally the only thing I've seen her in was the first episode of Euphoria (I didn't like it enough to justify my continued perusal), but I agree.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Just saw Napoleon

Was it any good? I heard that it was an occasionally boring comedy from somebody ().

Ridley Scott’s weird over-defensiveness about it does not bode well imo.  Ridley Scott is clearly a very talented guy, but dear Lord is he inconsistent.  You truly never know what you’re going to get with him. 

He’s made brilliantly directed masterpieces like Alien, technically brilliant films that are decidedly meh on a substantive level like Black Hawk Down, films that have merely solid workman-like competent direction yet are still among the best in their genre due to everything else being exceptional like Gladiator…and he’s made embarrassing dumpster fires like The Counselor, films that seem like a fully realized vision where every creative choice was wrong like Hannibal, lazy cash grabs like Prometheus, and everything in between. 

Admittedly I haven’t seen Napoleon, but the vibe I get from reviews and Scott’s interviews is that he really thought he’d made a true masterpiece or at least one of his very best films.  However, American and British critics have basically said “meh, it’s above average, but nothing special aside from some good battle scenes” and French critics have been absolutely scathing.  It has also gotten some criticism for poor historical accuracy which, with this sort of movie, isn’t unreasonable to bring up.  It almost feels like Scott is doing the director version of a mom who thinks her kid is perfect in every way yelling at the teacher at a parent teacher conference because her kid only got a C+ on their math test.

[Ferguson97]

I just finished watching "Dark" on Netflix, and holy moly -- go watch this right now. This is one of those series that is better served going in completely cold, imo.

[Ferguson97]

Columbus (6.0/10): This movie is very well-acted and is beautifully shot but is mostly hollow. The characters were not particularly likable or interesting, but they weren't so annoying or despicable that I felt as if I was supposed to not like them. It's one of those movies where you keep waiting for the other shoe to drop, and it never does. Most of the movie is just the characters saying they won't do a thing, and then at the very end, they just do the thing.

Thoroughbreds (8.0/10): I went into this movie cold, and that's my recommendation for anyone else too. The trailer, which I only watched after finishing the movie, gives away basically everything. As for the movie itself, it was well-acted, intriguing, and entertaining. I only have two major critiques: the ending, while satisfying, was a tad rushed, and the interactions between the main characters should have been fleshed out more beyond the plot itself.

[T'Chenka]

I just finished watching "Dark" on Netflix, and holy moly -- go watch this right now. This is one of those series that is better served going in completely cold, imo.

Yeah, Dark is an absolutely amazing show that sadly nobody has seen. People REALLY need to give it a chance.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Watched Hunger games Ballard of the Songbird and Snakes it reminds me of today's society rich owning poor people and these 40 K rich people tax cuts and where is it gonna go. It should go to reparationss not only did George Floyd family get 33 M it's the right thing to do.  CONSEQUENTLY, middle class don't need anymore stimulus checks they already got theirs they want more, that's too much to ask

We are still in class society Rich v poor instead of owning slaves the poor do minimal skilled jobs for the Rich

I get a lot of politics out of every movie I see just like Anatomy of a Fall probable cause leads to prosecution and there was probable cause that she had a fight with her hubby that could of lead her to kill her hubby. But reasonable doubt can lead to an Acquittal, it doesn't mean the defense is innocent it just means they aren't guilty and it can't be appealed

[Middle-aged Europe]

I just finished watching "Dark" on Netflix, and holy moly -- go watch this right now. This is one of those series that is better served going in completely cold, imo.

Yeah, Dark is an absolutely amazing show that sadly nobody has seen. People REALLY need to give it a chance.

It started out great, but I thought that it got a bit too convoluted by its third season when... (spoilers below)















... it was revealed that everyone was somehow biologically related with everyone through the use of time travel, often in a incestuous manner. Suddenly you were getting the younger version of your own great-aunt pregnant so that your son could eventually become your half-brother or something.


Fun fact about Dark though: That school building in the fictional town of Winden that is extensively depicted especially in the earlier seasons is IRL located at the Western outskirts of Berlin and I visited that film location sometime last year, I think.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I finally saw 'Pig!' There is little I can say about it that John Dule didn't already beautifully say in his favorite movies thread. Go read that a few pages back in the off-topic board.

What I can add is that as someone who doesn't handle grief in the best way and has owned pigs as pets in his lifetime (I actually watched with my piggy), with the previous one dying horribly a few years ago, the pathos of this movie worked for me on a whole different level. I think I would go to the extent Nicolas Cage did for his pig if someone ever abducted mine. And with that notion, as appealing as 'John Wick' with Cage and a pig still is, this film delivers catharsis in a much different, yet still satisfying way., especially when dealing with the subject matter of attachment and loss which is kind of overdone in certain types of cinema.

I would also say that there is one particularly outlandish segment in the film which really sticks out since nothing gets that out-there for the rest of the movie. It did work in a metaphorical sense too though. This isn't a criticism as much as it's just an observation about something distinct in an already distinct movie.

It's definitely one of the best movies of 2021 when it came out. I think I might put it second to 'Red Rocket' though-I love that movie and have watched it on more than one occasion. Meanwhile, I loved 'Pig' too, but I don't know if I'll ever want to watch it again. It was a little too raw and saddening for me. I identified with it, perhaps, a bit too much and I was kind of inconsolable when the movie was over. That's a good thing in a way though, movies should evoke emotion like that.

[John Dule]

Saw Ridley Scott's crappy Napoleon biopic. My thoughts:



In order to fit messy historical events neatly into the mold of storytelling convention, filmmakers are often forced to choose between dramatic heft and factual accuracy. What an unpleasant surprise it is, then, to come across a biopic that chooses neither.

Ridley Scott's Napoleon is too lazy to be educational, too silly to be dramatically involving, and-- most importantly-- far too obsessed with its subject's sex life. From Alan Turing to Stephen Hawking and now to Napoleon Bonaparte, Hollywood seems incapable of telling the story of any historical figure without placing undue emphasis on their romantic entanglements. Don't get me wrong-- delving into a character's love life isn't necessarily a bad decision for a biopic. But when the character in question invented the computer or subjugated all of Europe, perhaps we can all admit it's silly to make their sexual kinks the focal point of the story.

If we're being extremely charitable to Scott, it's possible that he intended to use Napoleon's relationship with his wife Josephine as a lens into deeper aspects of his character. If that's the case, this never comes through. Scott's analysis of Napoleon seems to be that he was a man of little ambition and huge ego who was swept along by the tide of history rather than guiding it himself. Joaquin Phoenix plays the character as borderline bumbling and dense, acting oafish at dinner parties and lecherous in front of his guards. In his private life, Scott's Napoleon is an incurable simp who takes his frustration with his wife's adultery out on Prussian artillerymen. A deep dive into the motivations of a transformative historical figure this ain't.

Even non-historians and non-Frenchmen will see this for what it is: a hit piece by an English filmmaker on a French historical figure, but one that doesn't have the guts to fully commit to its character assassination of Napoleon. Rather than make The Death of Stalin in revolutionary France (which could've been a fantastic film), Scott masks his true intentions with the loftiness and gravitas of a serious biopic. The result is a confused tonal mess that feels like two films spliced together. One film is the historical drama in which Napoleon and Josephine (Vanessa Kirby) narrate their purple prose-packed love letters to each other from ornate living rooms with crackling fireplaces. "Dearest Josephine." "My Darling Napoleon." Cut to: goofy scenes in which Napoleon gets chased out of a building by a mob and screams at an English ambassador "You think you're so great just because you have boats!" The tone of this film is as fickle and inconsistent as a 19th century European military alliance.

But even if a biopic doesn't fully interrogate the motives of its subject, it can still have utility. 1970's Waterloo was somewhat silent on the ideology, motives, and psychology of Napoleon, but it still managed to distinguish itself with a stunningly accurate depiction of the final days of the emperor's reign. But if history buffs come to Scott's Napoleon looking for that level of attention to detail, they will be disappointed. The movie speeds through the most crucial events in Napoleon's life, glossing over his victories and the tactics that made his name synonymous with military genius. On the rare occasion that substantial screen time is devoted to a battle, the events still feel rushed and poorly paced. It is likely impossible to get a full understanding of Napoleon's military career from a 160-minute movie, but if a director were to seriously attempt this, they would probably devote more time to Borodino and Russia than to Joaquin Phoenix doing physical comedy with an Egyptian mummy.

With a great historical film (Killers of the Flower Moon comes to mind as a recent example), an audience member could go in with no information and come away with a better understanding of the events and figures involved. This movie is not a great historical film-- it is more like a sequence of ideas for scenes, all of which feel cut short, and none of which give the audience any context for what is being depicted. Napoleon stares down dozens of faceless interchangeable armies; the stakes of the battles are never established, nor are the motivations of the sides explained. Those hoping to learn something from this movie will come away only with a few rudimentary facts: (1) There once was a man named Napoleon, (2) He fought the British, (3) He was totally down bad for his wife, and (4) There used to be a place called "Prussia."

Napoleon, like so many of Ridley Scott's other recent films, is defined by waste. A waste of talent, a waste of sets and costumes, and most importantly a waste of the audience's time. As Napoleon himself once said, "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." The days of Ridley Scott's glory are long past.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Saw Ridley Scott's crappy Napoleon biopic. My thoughts:



In order to fit messy historical events neatly into the mold of storytelling convention, filmmakers are often forced to choose between dramatic heft and factual accuracy. What an unpleasant surprise it is, then, to come across a biopic that chooses neither.

Ridley Scott's Napoleon is too lazy to be educational, too silly to be dramatically involving, and-- most importantly-- far too obsessed with its subject's sex life. From Alan Turing to Stephen Hawking and now to Napoleon Bonaparte, Hollywood seems incapable of telling the story of any historical figure without placing undue emphasis on their romantic entanglements. Don't get me wrong-- delving into a character's love life isn't necessarily a bad decision for a biopic. But when the character in question invented the computer or subjugated all of Europe, perhaps we can all admit it's silly to make their sexual kinks the focal point of the story.

If we're being extremely charitable to Scott, it's possible that he intended to use Napoleon's relationship with his wife Josephine as a lens into deeper aspects of his character. If that's the case, this never comes through. Scott's analysis of Napoleon seems to be that he was a man of little ambition and huge ego who was swept along by the tide of history rather than guiding it himself. Joaquin Phoenix plays the character as borderline bumbling and dense, acting oafish at dinner parties and lecherous in front of his guards. In his private life, Scott's Napoleon is an incurable simp who takes his frustration with his wife's adultery out on Prussian artillerymen. A deep dive into the motivations of a transformative historical figure this ain't.

Even non-historians and non-Frenchmen will see this for what it is: a hit piece by an English filmmaker on a French historical figure, but one that doesn't have the guts to fully commit to its character assassination of Napoleon. Rather than make The Death of Stalin in revolutionary France (which could've been a fantastic film), Scott masks his true intentions with the loftiness and gravitas of a serious biopic. The result is a confused tonal mess that feels like two films spliced together. One film is the historical drama in which Napoleon and Josephine (Vanessa Kirby) narrate their purple prose-packed love letters to each other from ornate living rooms with crackling fireplaces. "Dearest Josephine." "My Darling Napoleon." Cut to: goofy scenes in which Napoleon gets chased out of a building by a mob and screams at an English ambassador "You think you're so great just because you have boats!" The tone of this film is as fickle and inconsistent as a 19th century European military alliance.

But even if a biopic doesn't fully interrogate the motives of its subject, it can still have utility. 1970's Waterloo was somewhat silent on the ideology, motives, and psychology of Napoleon, but it still managed to distinguish itself with a stunningly accurate depiction of the final days of the emperor's reign. But if history buffs come to Scott's Napoleon looking for that level of attention to detail, they will be disappointed. The movie speeds through the most crucial events in Napoleon's life, glossing over his victories and the tactics that made his name synonymous with military genius. On the rare occasion that substantial screen time is devoted to a battle, the events still feel rushed and poorly paced. It is likely impossible to get a full understanding of Napoleon's military career from a 160-minute movie, but if a director were to seriously attempt this, they would probably devote more time to Borodino and Russia than to Joaquin Phoenix doing physical comedy with an Egyptian mummy.

With a great historical film (Killers of the Flower Moon comes to mind as a recent example), an audience member could go in with no information and come away with a better understanding of the events and figures involved. This movie is not a great historical film-- it is more like a sequence of ideas for scenes, all of which feel cut short, and none of which give the audience any context for what is being depicted. Napoleon stares down dozens of faceless interchangeable armies; the stakes of the battles are never established, nor are the motivations of the sides explained. Those hoping to learn something from this movie will come away only with a few rudimentary facts: (1) There once was a man named Napoleon, (2) He fought the British, (3) He was totally down bad for his wife, and (4) There used to be a place called "Prussia."

Napoleon, like so many of Ridley Scott's other recent films, is defined by waste. A waste of talent, a waste of sets and costumes, and most importantly a waste of the audience's time. As Napoleon himself once said, "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." The days of Ridley Scott's glory are long past.

That sounds about right; as always, thank you for the excellent and thorough review.  The saddest part of all this is that Scott is so clearly convinced that the film is his magnum opus.  Like, it sounds like he feels this was his fully released creative vision…and that vision was the world’s dullest dumpster fire. 

Anyway, I’m hoping Ridley Scott has one more great film in him before he passes away (he’s like 86), but I don’t think he’s made a great movie since Gladiator (and the fact that he is currently working on Gladiator 2 does not inspire confidence that we’ll be getting a good movie from him anytime soon).  Black Hawk Down was great on a strictly technical level, but was pretty weak on substance and doesn’t hold a candle to the book.  American Gangster was good as entertainment (I certainly enjoyed it), but it was like 90% fiction, fell badly into the trap of glamorizing its violent, drug-trafficking antagonist, and isn’t really anything special (a lot of fun though if you just want to turn your brain off for a few hours).  The Martian and All the Money in the World were over-hyped meh films imo.  The rest of his post-2000 output has been pretty bad.