This would work even better with a stream, or if you set a time in GMT for us to watch at.

Unfortunately I already watched the RLM review, so I know a bit about what to expect, but I'd still be willing to watch.

>>24149

A stream would be a cracking idea, but my upload rate is dogshit so I couldn't host it myself. If someone wants to that would be cool.

I'd say around 1900 GMT.

>>24148
My brother goes to see Star Wars films he knows will be shit purely so he can watch the Red Letter Media videos the next day.

Well I watched it, and overall it wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting. But then I usually do feel less harshly about these sorts of rehash reboot sequels than most people.

What cheapened the whole affair was having the constant intercutting of footage from the old films. It was not shit enough that it would have stood up on it's own without all that nonsense. But I suppose we needed all that for the zoomers who somehow haven't seen the originals.

It feels like they more or less tried to follow the pacing of the original, but they bloated it out too much. The first film always felt like an epic but when I've re-watched it in more recent years, I'm always surprised by how quickly it clips along- Neo gets rescued, they train him up, then it all goes wrong on their first proper time in the matrix, and after that the last half hour is all the big climax where they rescue Morpheus and Neo unlocks his powers to become the One. This one does something similar, just with a lot of padding inbetween.

Also Keanu hasn't given a performance this wooden in years, I can't tell if he's just hamming it up at this point or if he's just phoning it in. I'll have to watch Bill and Ted to compare and contrast.

Also Carl from Starship Troopers is getting on a bit.

>>24152

Oh and the action scenes were really very sloppy, that's a big shame. Considering the original Matrix was one of the most fresh and interesting action films, you would have thought the one thing they'd do right in a reboot is to get some good action set pieces in there. Sure they didn't want to just re-hash the cliches, but I mean... Come on, what's really the point of a Matrix sequel otherwise? I mean yeah the original was actually quite deep underneath the action, but you're never gonna replicate THAT part, you might as well give the gunfights and kung-fu a bigger budget.

>>24148
I'm going to see it at the cinema tomorrow.

>>24148
So how is this second Matrix film everyone's been talking about?

>>24154
I couldn't be arsed leaving the house, in the end.

>>24156
Pissed and bluepilled.

I thought it was pretty good considering how bad it could have been. Only thing that didn't really work for me was Smith.

It was a pretty clever film actually if you consider all the meta stuff to be a valid part of a film's appraisal. I'm sure we've all either watched it or watched a video review by now, and we know how the central conceit is basically to just subvert the whole idea of a Matrix sequel.

Now, that's fine, but the thing is this film isn't going to age at all. It's a film of here and now, and it will have no lasting relevance. And I think they knew that- That's why all of it looks so cheap and naff. That's one of the biggest things I noticed about it all, it didn't feel like a big budget movie, it felt like a Netflix adaptation. It might have had a high budget, but the crew certainly didn't agonise over the process of making it.

It's nice if you're an arty farty film critic snob who likes to think about the deep stuff and the meta-context; if you actually wanted a good Matrix sequel, though, you're shit out of luck.

It's kind of the exact opposite of Denee Veelnuh's Dune. That film is exceptionally well made, but straight as an arrow, with all the subtextual depth of a drink coaster. In fact all of Dennis Veelnerv's films are like that, people wank over them but they're always just really hyper-focussed, "one note", very literal. He even managed to make Blade Runner too straightforward somehow.

Watched the new Resident Evil movie the other night.
Complete and total dross.
All the talk about keeping it close to the source material was clearly just marketing spiel.

>>24267

This also seems entirely redundant for Resident Evil, now, because many of the new games are more cinematic than the actual films. The first 70 minutes or so of REVII gameplay more closely resembles a film than any of the Paul W. S. Anderson nonsense.

I really enjoyed watching bits of REVII. It borrows heavily from horrors The Texas Chainsaw Masssacre with the father, Saw with the son's sadistic games, and various "found footage" films like the Blair Witch Project. The sense of horror for the series has come a long way since "Itchy. Tasty.":

>>24267
It looked absolute shit from the trailers, and I say this as a fan of the Anderson movies and (most) of the video games. The CGI looked laughable, like something from a Tim & Eric skit. The upcoming Netflix series should be interesting, due to Lance Reddick playing Wesker.

Finally got around to watching Don't Look Up.
It was "fine".
A lot of smug, quitde honestly a lot of unwarranted smug in all fairnes seeing as the world does look like the world is sort of moving on the whole climate crisis thing with the global meetings and the G20 and that.
Again, "fine".

>>24276
Oh, it was rubbish. The whole thing was so on-the-nose and lacking any real nuance, even to the point they had scenes of hundreds of thick yanks in the street chanting "don't look up!"

The only saving grace was Jonah Hill's character, and even then only because it was nostalgic for the kind of comedy that him and his mates would routinely put out a decade ago, but comedically the world has moved on substantially.

>>24276
>>24277

I couldn't help but wonder what someone like Chris Morris would have done with the concept, or Mike Judge ala Office Space/Idiocracy.

I do feel like it's one of those films where the people snubbing it are largely just indignantly trying to pretend the didn't feel called out. But nevertheless, what didn't help is that the whole thing had the air of a self-satisfied, snarky Cracked article or something. It felt very much like you're supposed to be one of us laughing at people like them.

I've a feeling this will become a trend in movies in future though, if it isn't already. The in-group mindset of social media communities will start spilling over into mainstream media, and everything you watch will make you roll your eyes and cringe internally, because even if you like it, you don't want to feel identified with one of the tossers on Twitter stroking their knobs about how much they get it.

>>24276
It's really not though, that's the point. In terms of taking action we're "for the jobs the meteor will provide".

>>24277
I was going to say that Jonah Hill was undeniably the best thing about this movie and criminally under-utilised thrughout.

>>24278
Funnily enough, it did sort of remind me of Idiocracy if Idiocracy had been made by someone with a severe lack of the understanding of nuance.

What the movie could have done, rather than taking a stab at tech giants(?) was go after energy conglomerates. Rather than trying to shoot the comet down, they could have had it where the solution instead was to move the Earth out of the way with a massive rocket engine strapped to that Mexican desert (in the dinosaur extinction crater for added symbolic effect) with the caveat being it will require all fuel resources to be diverted there affordably.
Cue in some Armando Ianucci bureaucratic comedy and you've got a movie that whilst literally is even more on the nose, has more to actually say about the issues it raises.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=OLd4EqQywwQ
For all your own knob-stoking about how you get it more than the people involved, it appears you really don't.

>>24281
>knob-stoking

Sounds painful, m7.

So I finally watched this Don't Look Up, and while it is certainly a very blunt movie, I don't really get where the criticisms are coming from.

It lacked nuance? Sure, but that's about as valid of a criticism as attacking Keith Lemon for being unsubtle. I really don't think subtlety is what they were going for. And besides- Americans simply aren't very good at it. I see the comparisons to Idiocracy certainly, but the other thing it reminded me of quite strongly was The Thick Of It, only in a much more directly cynical manner.

The character that seems to come at the focus of most people who disliked the movie is the tech-CEO strawman. I thought maybe people were rustled by a bit of an unfair portrayal of Musk-esque billionaire idealists; but then, I saw this article about Musk's own experiments with putting brain chips in monkeys.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-neuralink-experiments-monkeys-extreme-suffering-animal-rights-group-2022-2?r=US&IR=T

https://consequence.net/2022/02/elon-musk-neuralink-brain-chips-monkeys-died/

>Neuralink chips were implanted by drilling holes into the monkeys’ skulls. One primate developed a bloody skin infection and had to be euthanized. Another was discovered missing fingers and toes, “possibly from self-mutilation or some other unspecified trauma,” and had to be put down. A third began uncontrollably vomiting shortly after surgery, and days later “appeared to collapse from exhaustion/fatigue.” An autopsy revealed the animal suffered from a brain hemorrhage.

>Jeremy Beckham, a research advocacy coordinator with the PCRM, told Insider that out of the 23 monkeys, seven survived

You really don't even need to strawman this kind of stuff.

>>24328
>You really don't even need to strawman this kind of stuff.
I've been working on a piece of fiction where some characters get arrested for giving away food, showing how cruel the regime they live in is and it just feels cartoonish, unbelievable over-the-top stuff. Despite the fact that it's happened and continues to happen, here, in the West. It's hard as fuck to satirise the reality we're in.

>>24329
That's a law in Hungary, right now, for giving food to begging refugees and immigrants, to dissuade them from going to Hungary. If they start dying of starvation, it's illegal not to let them starve. I assume you were already aware of this, but this is a law in a country that's honestly called Hungry. You're right: some things are beyond satire.

First thread found that looks like a 'film club' or 'free' films thread, so I'll put this here.

Today The Whale made me cry in a public cinema. Thankfully there were only 6 other people watching (all women), so I got away with a little blubber without drawing much attention.

The film is really good. I mean it's not that good but the subject matter touched home pretty close, being the child of a morbidly obese parent (talking 6XL minimum). I'll definitely buy a copy on DVD when it's released later this month.

The portrayal of binge eating is really quite accurate. I've never really understood how Americans can enjoy eating milkshake poured together with burgers (there's clips of it, for real), but the chaotic sense of the binge eating scenes really strike me as honest. I've felt like that before, when you just hate fuck yourself with food. It can become a horrible experience, especially when you're watching yourself do it.

My main complaints with the film is how 'theatrical' it is, and I don't mean flamboyant or exagerated. There're moments when a character will appear to be leaving the scene but abruptly stop in the door way before any other character has asked them to wait. It's clear they're meant to be implying thought, emotion or whatever, but it just looks like how I expect an actual play would run, like in a live theatre. There're other instances of this sort of thing but I'm not perceptive enough to specifically point them out - it's just a feeling throughout the film. This complaint is shared between a number of professional reviews, too, though I don't agree with some of their generally low ratings.

Pretty shit tier review I guess, I just wanted to talk about it.

Oh and the orchestral score is absolutely incredible. If you liked the music of Dysco Elysium, you'll like this. Check it out;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw1-S-36uAM

>>24721
I agree about the theatrical feel but once you realise it is a play and just go with it, it's fine.

>>24721

I haven't seen this yet, but I've certainly been meaning to. I always find films interesting that take an apparently "washed up" actor, or one who was typecast in certain roles, or otherwise just not taken very seriously, and showing that they have real acting chops. It seems like that's what this is for Brendan Fraser (aka him from The Mummy).

>>24721
I was thinking about bunking off work tomorrow to watch it. I've done a fair amount of binge eating also and let's just say my parents don't have the best impulse control in the world, so I think like yourself I'll have a small weep in the back of the cinema also. I think it being a Darren Aronofsky film put me off it, because it's 50/50 if a film of his will be trite dreck or not, but you've talked me around.

Honestly a very good review as well. You described how it made you feel, the film's style and what it's about without bullet pointing every single event in the film like some professional reviewers, who often seem desperate to hit a word count. Which in their defense they probably are, but that doesn't help me any.

>>24723
>showing that they have real acting chops. It seems like that's what this is for Brendan Fraser
I'm not sure if he has real acting chops because they're mostly buried behind a massive fat-suit, but it's definitely a film showcasing how his eyes do this.

This is apparently a thing. Rowan Atkinson and Olivia Colman starring and The Divine Comedy doing the music. Has the potential to not be total shit but I won't hold my breath.

>>24728
Does Willy Wonka really need an origin story? Also Timothee Chalomet as the lead, I find him a bit of a charisma vacuum.

>>24729
Now that Netflix owns Dahl they are going to turn his work into their own fucking cinematic universe.

>>24730

I think you're correct and it pains me.

>>24733
He is.

>The agreement struck by Netflix, which already has a deal in place with the Roald Dahl Story Company (RDSC) to license 16 titles, will help it build its content arsenal in the streaming wars against rivals including Disney+, Amazon Prime Video and HBO Max.

>Netflix’s total production budget under the existing licensing deal is $1bn and includes the Jojo Rabbit director, Taika Waititi, creating a TV series based on the world of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and an adaptation of Matilda the Musical.

>“These projects opened our eyes to a much more ambitious venture,” Netflix said. “The creation of a unique universe across animated and live-action films and TV, publishing, games, immersive experiences, live theatre consumer products and more.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/22/netflix-acquires-works-of-roald-dahl-as-it-escalates-streaming-wars-matilda-bfg

>>24734
Why does everything have to be a universe in America?

>>24735

"Universe" is the film industry's preferred euphemism for "sequels, prequels, spin-offs, remakes and lazy cash-ins for the same old shit".

>>24735
New intellectual properties are a creative risk. Making films that already have an existing fanbase before the script has even been written is lucrative and profitable. When you put it that way, you'd be an idiot not to spend your studio's budget on a tenth Fast & The Furious film instead of some mental hippy shit about psychedelic space-fairies or whatever. And this is why that second film does not exist, even though it would clearly be fantastic.

>>24737
This summer, Nicholas Cage will feed your head and go intergalactic in... Some Mental Hippy Shit About Psychedelic Space-Fairies or Whatever.

>>24738

I'd rather watch that than another pointless Fast and Furious sequel.

Part 1 was already absolute tripe.

Alright, I watched it again to make sure and so I can now confirm Serpico is one of the best films I've ever seen.

Internet meme film Cocaine Bear was better than I expected it to be.

But then again, I think lots of films are better than I expect them to be nowadays. I can't tell if my taste is just getting worse in old age, or if it's just because the edgy cynical teenlad thing is wearing off, meaning I am able to enjoy things in a more uncritical, unpretentious way that I couldn't before.

Anyway on the face of it it sounds like it's just another Sharknado vs Giant Octopus or whatever, but it's really nowhere near as bad as those. It's not exactly going to win any Oscars, obviously, but I mean it's just one of those good old fashioned "people slowly get picked off in gruesome ways" horror-lite movies. It put me strongly in mind of films like Final Destination, actually. There used to be loads of films like this in the late 90s and mid 00s, and maybe that vibe is what made me like it so much, it was nostalgic in a way.

Hack frauds Mike and Jay said it was shit, but they're honestly wrong about fucking everything these days, I swear to god. I think they really are going senile.

>>24764
I caught the trailer, looked too gimicky for my liking. Looking forward to watching D&D Honor Among Thieves at the end of the month. Might also catch Shazam!, the series of which I thought was pretty funny on Netflix, Prime or where ever I saw it.

>Hack frauds Mike and Jay
Oh that's who those guys are. Might take a look at some of their videos.

Any other film critics and industry insiders we should know about?

>>24769
I can't see this working. The Room was earnest; its whole thing was that it didn't know it was shit. If Tommy Wiseau makes another film, it will either be better and therefore pointless, or equally bad but self-aware now. Even if Tommy Wiseau truly is mentally deluded, someone else must have told him this film is expected to be a punchline and that's why they're funding it.

>>24770

You're spot on of course, but on the other hand, if he says "oh hi shark" in it, it'll make millions.

Best film about the occult I've ever seen, and apparently it only cost 50k to make.

>>24769

Is this film ever going to come out? I've been hearing about it on and off for years.

The Weird Al Yankovic film was pretty good. It was very funny to start off with, only has a bit of a wobble in the middle where it sorta struggles to keep its tone straight and Daniel Radcliffe's acting chops definitely get stetched a bit too thin, but recovers it for an audible mirth ending. There's a wealth of references and subtle jokes to spot if you're a fan of Yankovic and music in general, too, which showed it was made with some love.

I had no idea what to expect going in but when the penny dropped what they were doing, a parody of musician biopic movies, about a guy who has spent his entire career doing musician parodies, it had me. I think it's also interesting watching the variety of stuff Radcliffe does to try get away from being "the Harry Potter kid", the problem is he's just really not a very good actor. He wasn't as a kid, and after 20 years of practice, he still isn't.

Fallout Nuka Break is kind of okay. The story sucks, the acting is poor, numerous jokes fail to land, but the costumes are pretty good and the scene dressing (lighting, props, etc) are impressive.
It's a fan film - check it out if you like the Fallout series.
Apparently the game developers liked it so much they added an ingame item referencing the series.

'Scar's makeover in the second series is fucking awsome though.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq8swQ7kpg

>>24774
The trailer is awesome, i loved that atleast.

Been re-watching Tarantino's films lately. Apart from obviously having watched my DVD of Pulp Fiction so many times I can recite most of the dialogue from memory (as I imagine a great many teenage lads did) I've only seen most of his films once, so it's been a good several years since I've seen most of them. It's interesting how my impressions have changed over time.

The one I always remembered liking the least was Inglourious Basterds. At the time, I think it must have been too much of a stylistic departure from the over-the-top action in Kill Bill, and didn't have enough of those quotable lines. But upon this revisit, I'm almost close to considering it his best film. On the surface it looks like an indulgent, trashy Jewish revenge fantasy, but it conceals a lot of very sharp stabs at post-war revisionism and the idea of heroism in war. It pulls off a similar trick Paul Verhoven did with Robocop and Starship Troopers, a film with some real substance masquerading as a b-movie. You could say that about many of Tarantino's films, but it's certainly the most true of this one. Meanwhile at the heart of it there is just the constant, agonising, simmering tension of every scene, so thick you could cut with a knife. And of course, you have to give it to Christoph Waltz, who just steals the entire movie.

Conversely, Django Unchained is one I remember enjoying a lot the first time, but has fallen dramatically in my estimations. It's just very flat, with very dull dialogue compared to any other Tarantino movie, and unlike Basterds, it comes off as very heavy handed and blunt with its subject matter. I mean, really it doesn't need to be subtle and multi-faceted when you are dealing with the unambiguous evil of human slavery, but even so, I do feel it ends up coming to the films detriment. It starts off well and has some great performances, Leo especially, but loses its way around the midpoint. I think the main issue is how the plot changes gear, in an attempt to generate the same tension with the Candyland dinner scene as the pub shootout scene in Basterds. Except tension building falls flat, and then the climax feels much more contrived, rather than a satisfying pay-off of the tension boiling over.

What's also interesting is how his early films, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown hold up. Reservoir Dogs is obviously a very impressive debut, but you can see all the elements in there that would make his later films great, all the concepts are in there that he develops and matures later in his career. Pulp Fiction comes off as a bit more juvenile than I remember, but I can't really step back and assess that movie, it's too connected with a lot of personal memories and feelings. Jackie Brown is perhaps his most underrated movie, but it's easy to see why it's the one most often glossed over and forgotten about (other than Death Proof, but that one doesn't even really count).

Haven't watched Kill Bill or the most recent two yet. I'm expecting Kill Bill to either hold up a lot better, or a lot worse than I remember. Hateful Eight is one that people seem to dislike, and I can barely remember anything about, so that has potential to surprise me. I will probably make a sequel to this post when I have watched them.

>>24930

Surprised you didn't get around to Once Upon A Time in Hollywood. It's such wonderful, tense, ridiculous wish fulfillment and a really brilliant meta-statement on violence in film. It might sort of encapsulate Tarantino's career to me.

I intend to get around to Jackie Brown at some point, since apparently it's the one time Tarantino did something a bit more mature and talky.

>>24931

Yeah, I was going basically in order of "how long is it since the last time I saw this one", so Unce Upon A Time In Hollywood will likely be the last one I get around to.

That was the first one I actually managed to go and see in the cinema, though, and I remember it very fondly. I liked the fact it told a much more personal story about two mates and how life changes and moves on, rather than his usual plots about thugs and lowlifes. It was a much warmer film than his others.

>>24930
I really like Hateful Eight. That could be because it's almost tailor made for me; revisionist Western, beautiful nature shots, being cold, anything to with The Thing nand it's completely fucking miserable. However, it does look a bit weird on my telly because it was filmed in a super-widescreen format, but that's tough shit. Art shouldn't care about my wants and needs.

It was National Something Or Other Day yesterday, so the cinema near me was doing tickets for £3. We decided to go and see Oppenheimer, which was one of those films where you're interested in seeing it, but not quite sure if you want to see it in a cinema where you'll have to hold in a piss for 3 hours or risk missing a vital piece of story information; but at 3 quid why not. Anyway as it turns out, people will actually go to the cinema if you bring tickets down to the kind of money they're actually worth, and every single screening was booked up until 10pm. So, fine, late night movie it is.

I shared a moment of bonding with the blokes either side of me, who each also had their missus out cold against their shoulder by about half an hour in, profound understanding expressed in the "what are they like, eh?" eye roll as the lights came back up, and we had to nudge the womenfolk awake and pretend nobody saw them flat out sleep through the whole fucking thing.

Anyway the film itself was pretty good, certainly better than the last bag of shite Nolan curled out. Lots of "Oh it's that guy!" moments because it has actors you've seen in other things but wouldn't know by name, and the big ones are cast in roles that really allowed them to blend in, which you don't often see. Iron Man is made to look very old and different, and I didn't even recognise Matt Damon for half the movie because he has a moustache.

What I liked is how it spends about as much time focusing on American McCarthy era commie paranoia as it does on the development of the atomic bomb, and uses the character study of Oppenheimer himself as a way to demonstrate just how much of an effect the machinery of American politics had in shaping the post-nuclear world. I'd say, however, that it does kind of rely on the viewer understanding a lot of the stuff already, or else it might fly over their head, but then again it's not integral to the movie, it still has a solid story about a bloke being framed as a traitor because he pissed off the wrong people even if you don't grasp the history behind it.

Out of all Nolan's movies it reminded me of The Prestige the most. The science is all glossed over, it's treated as merely a plot device, for what is really a feud between two men, with a reveal late in the film that you might well already have pieced together if you were paying attention.

The big explosion bit was a let down though. They try to do it all artistically, but really it was the cinematic equivalent of edging, but done badly, so the timing is all wrong and you just end up with an unsatisfying ruined orgasm. I can let it off because obviously it was an intelligent movie nit a big explosion movie, but still.

I am unsure how I felt about this film. Despite being based on a true story, I found the relationship between the two leads unconvincing. Because Leo di Capri Sun's character Ernest is such a completely evil bastard, and a fucking idiot, that any affection he expresses towards his wife rings hollow, but the character doesn't appear to realise that himself. It also makes his wife, Mollie, look like something of an idiot by assosiciation, rather than breathtakingly understanding as was I think the intent. In reality I suspect the dynamic between the two was much more straightforwardly abusive, but that is speculation on my part Regardless, after that scene where he sends Anna away about a third of the way into the film, I would have been glad to see Ernest slow garrotted to death in a filthy ditch. However, he keeps crying and moaning like I'm supposed to feel any differently about him, while becoming an even more loathesome person.

It was also the first and only time I have eaten a pork pie in a cinema.

I watched that Everything Everywhere All At Once one last night. I thought it was pretty overrated in the end, considering how I heard so many people rave about it. Ended up being a pretty trite sentimental story, just dressed up in what seemed to be not much more than a thin plot excuse for as much 2000s era "lolrandom XD" shit as possible.

Like, I guess I can see the appeal, and I can understand what people like about it I guess, but it didn't come off in a good way for me.

Pretty good film, but it's ultimately being carried by Richard E. Grant's brilliant performance. That's not a bad thing, as the whole film's about him, or rather he's a vessel for the whole him. As in if you cut basically everyone else out of the film, you'd still get the gist of it.

According to the Channel 4 website you can watch it there for just another FIVE(!) hours, so hop to it, because according to this thread, noone here actually watches films.

Mad God is a very, very surreal stop motion animated movie made by the bloke who is famous for animating ED-209 in Robocop. It's roughly what you would get if The Neverhood/Skullmonkeys was set in the Warhammer 40k universe, and Klayman was in the Death Korps of Krieg. It's a Tool music video that's an hour and a half long.

People have described it as horror, and it is very bleak, but it I also found it quite funny and charming in places. It is very much a love letter to the medium. I think a lot of the horror aspect mainly comes from the inherently uncanny valley feeling of stop motion animation, but the film entirely leans on that as a strength and maximises the wierdness. Really the weakest parts are the places where suddenly it has real human actors and even the odd bit of CGI here and there, which feels a bit jarring, and to me kind of cheapened the effect, but it never allows anything to feel anywhere approaching normal.

There's not much to say about the plot, because it has no dialogue, and is very open to interpretation. The storytelling is entirely visual and I think you could be forgiven for just interpreting it as a series of weird visual scenes slapped together. Either way the central themes of the movie are utterly nihilistic. It seems to portray a cycle of creation, death, and rebirth where seemingly the sole purpose of existence itself is suffering. There is relatively long scene where people made of literal shit are repeatedly and unceremoniously killed as they toil on pointless and extremely hazardous tasks, and their faecal splatter remains scooped up to be fed into bio-mechanical beings that endlessy defecate into the machinery that produces more shit people.

It's certainly not subtle. And yet, its not a complete downer, as the central characters appear to be intent on breaking the cycle, so in that way I actually interpreted it as quite optimistic.

Anyway it's probably either very much Your Kind Of Thing, or you'll think it's complete bollocks. If you find it hard to pay attention with the lack of dialogue, it would probably go very well with a playlist of late 90s/early 2000s industrial like Nine Inch Nails or Rammstein.

Mama mia! This whole film's a mess.

Ugly as sin, the whole thing looks like a perfume advert, very regressive gender poltics, with the two female leads being a Madonna and a whore respectively, in fact the whole thing comes across as strangely reactionary, despite having a terribly on the nose Trump-a-like character who meets the same fate as Mussolini, and no one's acting in the same film. If that last point doesn't make sense, trust me when I say you'd know it if you saw it. On top of all that I had to behold Jon Voight grabbing Aubrey Plaza's arse and giving it a shake, so that's seared in from now until I'm dead.

The only positive thing I can really say is that I laughed from beginning to end. I hope the other two oddballs in the cinema to watch this thing at a 9am showing weren't pissed off, because I'm not lying when I tell you that my mirth was audible. It was so bad I had to take a moment to collect myself after leaving the screening.

I genuinely recommend going to watch it, if only so I can talk to one of you about and feel slightly less like I wasted my money and time.

I finally watched Dune 2: The Twin Towers. It was pretty good. Better than the first one because more actually happens, and I think it still had the same strong visual style and just overall pleasant watchability as the first one.

But what's really confirmed, for me, is how bland of a pairing this source material is, with a director as boringly competent as Denee Veelnuh. It's completely sterile. There isn't an ounce of soul to it. It's technically very competent and there's nothing to really criticise about it, but it's just boring. This is a sci-fi universe so out there that only Moorecock wrote anything wackier, this is the setting Warhammer 40K copied most of it's homework from. And Veeluh manages to make it fucking boring.

I can kind of see the rationale here. Game of Thrones IN SPAAAACE is a solid premise, but the problem is that the characters and the actual plot itself are the weakest parts of Dune. Sidelining the worldbuilding and setting is a decision that will appeal to fart sniffing wankers who are reviewing your movie in the papers, but it's a waste of potential for anyone who actually likes sci-fi.

It even manages to waste Christopher Walken. Great casting, but he gets absolutely nothing to work with. That said, Timothy Chamois is coming along very nicely as an actor, he definitely steps up for this. Highlight of the film is probably this chap on the poster. Delightfully charismatic sadist baddie, who completely upstages Gorilla Man Bautista from the first one.

>>25156

I did watch this film earlier tonight. It was brilliant. Refreshingly small-scale, unambiguous, and actually funny. It put me in touch again with why I hate adertising so much. It wasn't heavy-handed or mean-spirited or cynical, even though it does feature cynical characters, In fact, the core message was surprisngly sincere. It feels so rare to watch a measured piece of fiction with a purpose, with a writer that wasn't hedging their bets.

Richard E. Grant's performance is perfect in it. Part slapstick, part actual-mental-breakdown, you alternately laugh and sympathise with him.

Even the special effects have that excellent 1980s quality to them, being really well done as practical effects and slightly grotty.

It's maybe a cliche to say, too, but it really does bear on the modern day alarmingly well, too. The issues haven't changed, only intensified. I don't want to spoil one of the best lines in the film, but his point about "Our bombs contain a secret ingredient: Peace" just hit far too close to home for me.

Thanks for the recommendation.

>>25156
>>25393
I think I have a bit of a crush on Richard Grant; he has a wonderful expressiveness. As for the film itself, it's interesting enough but I must lack the intelligence to really understand the message - boo false advertising at the cost of za warudo, followed by some weird monologue doubling down on the exploitivity(?) and celebration of advertising?

The penultimate scene with the two Grants talking via the TV videotape was good. There were a few missed beats in the dialog as I processed what was happening, but it was a satisfying, even suprising, callback.

Grants earlier act of insanity was a touch on the nose.

>>25405

The story is about a man working in advertising on the surface, but beneath that, it's a critique of the "greed is good" philosophy underlying our current economic system and how it tends to commodify every aspect of human life. This is why Grant's character takes it to its logical extreme in his recorded VHS panic attack: he's screaming that even the air we breathe will eventually be bought and sold (and advertised) as a commodity. It may seem absurd, but he's someone that's been dedicating the bulk of his working life extolling the importance of a pimple cream and other crushingly mundane goods, so it seems plausible to him.

The film hints at alternatives, e.g. when Grant's character is arguing with his alter ego on the hospital bed, and they're discussing whether people should buy a car (i.e. individualistic, profitable) or take the train (i.e. collective and planned) when they travel. The alter ego suggests that people "hate the train", using free market rhetoric to justify personal gain. When it's suggested that the public might like trains more with the right approach, he dismisses it as "fucking communism".

The most subtle line in the film is definitely Julia's quiet expression of doubt in the penultimate scene. When the alter ego suggests he's just giving people "what they want", and not acknowledging how crass and manipulative a force advertising is, she simply responds, "what if it's not?". That line, and her decision to leave at the end, is a nice reinforcement that we have the choice not to listen and to think of alternative ways of living, not what advertising insists. The end scene then plays as a straight farce, the alter ego character lays out his stunningly shallow view of the world with all of its wastefulness and stupidity as Grant skips up and down fields what is essentially an advertisement for capitalism.

This was my essay, thank you for reading.

As an aside: I gently disagree about the earlier "insane" act that Grant puts on. I think that sort of silliness and slapstick draws people in and makes the film more of a comedy. It would be a very different film (probably too dry and dour) if it were a more "serious" depiction of a mental breakdown. My partner and I really liked the setup and were laughing out loud at it. I think it's a testament to Grant as an actor that he could make that so funny but then be so genuinely moving during his recorded video.

Another aside: the first thing that popped into my mind when thinking of films to compare it to is Fight Club, which is basically the more macho, Americanised, convoluted, and CGI-laden variation on a very similar premise. Maybe American Psycho, to a lesser extent. In retrospect, I actually like this specifically British take on the genre quite a lot.

Final aside: Rachel Ward is extraordinarily pretty in this.

Going back to the OP, I haven't actually watched The Matrix since release. Does it still hold up, and considering the world today, is it more relevant?

>>25411
Eh, I watch the trillogy about 3 times a year, wouldn't say it's any more relevant now than it ever was, though I'm not a particularly informed individual nor perceptive to media themes.
The CGI in Revolutions (2) doesn't hold up at all.

I just watched Society (1989) and very much want to talk about it with someone, but it's also the kind of film that's far more enjoyable if you don't know what's going to happen.

So, if you're going to watch it, don't look up reviews, don't do image searches, don't look at plot synposes, just watch it. All I'll say outside of spoilers is that it's a horror mystery that was ahead of its time in many ways.

No, really, watch it first. Okay, it's one of those films that made me both genuinely uneasy and also laugh uproarously. Yes, it's visually disgusting, and the imagery will certainly stay with me. I wish they had dropped the "plonking" 80s comedy stings, not to remove the humour entirely, but more to let the tension build a bit. As it is, I feel like absolute madness of the ending wasn't built up enough, and felt a bit blindsiding. That said, those last 30 minutes really do feel like a nightmare, it's really well done.

The satirical message is straightforward but not unwelcome. It's not subtle, but it's not preachy or insistent. In fact, I'd describe the tone of the film as "confused and disgusted", like the fever dream of someone who is generally upset with decadent wealth. The satire might have had a bit more impact if they showed more of Billy's friendship with his less well-off friend, or maybe making a few offhand comments about how he likes living with money, but he "wonders where it all comes from", or something similar.

>>25435
>Society (1989)
Yeah I'll take a look sometime next week, thanks for the recommendation.
Here's a link for anyone else interested - https://archive.org/details/society_20240229

>>25435
The plants on the table at one minute and ten seconds into the film are birds of paradise flowers.

>>25437

Not sure I get the significance of this. Is it something I missed?

>>25438

It's not at all significant but unless you ID'd the flowers yourself then you did miss it.

There was some pampas grass not long after that.

>>25439

/v/ - Horticulture

>>25440

There were some fantastic succulents in series 1 of Foundation.

I'm Gonna Git You Sucka is a fun blaxploitation parody film if you've got a spare 80 minutes to waste. In honesty it's a bit shit, but there numerous 'cameos' of recognisable actors when they were young and a fair few decent frameworks of jokes.

I'm developing a sincere enthusiasm for exploitation films, particularly parodies. They tend to be full of atmosphere and larger than life characters, and generally seem to offer a more believable representation of life in the era than other films I've encountered.

https://archive.org/details/im-gonna-git-you-sucka-1988


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWNQTqMkezc

>>25442
It also has Chris Rock's first ever film appearance, and his youthful pestering of Isaac Hayes is one of the best parts of the film in my opinion.

>>25442
Also, I was into blaxploitation parodies a few years ago, and I have some DVDs on my shelf of a full three different such films. In my opinion, you really need to watch Black Dynamite, because it's brilliant, while Undercover Brother is probably about equally as good as I'm Gonna Git You Sucka. I haven't seen Dolemite; have you? Is it good?

>>25435
The film is utterly bizarre. How the fuck did you find it?

Apart from the ending, what bothered me most were the numerous loose ends in the narrative. The main character is framed as experiencing hallucinations but nothing appears to be done with it. It's also hinted that he's adopted which is resolved offhand toward the end, as though it was only ever covering an issue of the plot. And what's the deal with that big dumb woman? In one scene I thought the actor was wearing a prostheitc mask but it turned out to be their actual face (pictured) - what the fuck? I guess she might be a reference to aristocratic inbreeding or unvarrying genetics regardless of class.

I didn't understand the upper class to be 'shape shifters' as Wikipedia suggests (Read post viewing, thanks for your thoughtful use of spoilers), instead thought the whole ending scene was some abstraction for the viewer rather than reality for the characters. I would have much prefered the group to have literally eaten the captives, atleast then I could have got off to it.
I was half expecting a big reveal of the main character being carted off in a straight jacket while the elites are back to normal and his 'eaten' friend looks on in concern, but no, you just get a shitty joke.

The effects themselves were good and I enjoyed the horror sound effects, but the soundtrack and 'plonking' as you say jarred horribly. Were the film played a bit more seriously i reckon it could have been alright - it's certainly sexy enough.

It reminds me somewhat of Brazil, only shit.

>>25445

IMDb suggests the whole film was just written as an excuse to do the special effects. It doesn't add anything about the plants sadly.

Can you recommend some films set in and around the interwar period? WWI inclusive but not necessarily war films. Films set in and around Spain might be best, but not exclusively.

>>25455

Paths of Glory is one of my favourite films of all time. It's set during WWI, but speaks to timeless themes.

>>25455
Pan's Labyrinth is set in 1944, but I thought it was set earlier than that so perhaps you'd be willing to consider it. Assuming you haven't seen it already, of course.

>>25455
El Sur is set around 1950 I think but you must watch it those are your tastes. There's also a very good but very dark and unredeeming Italian film about WWI called Uomini Contro (the English title of which is 'Many Wars Ago').

>>25456
>>25457
>>25459
Cheers lads, I'll give them a watch or rewatch as appropriate. More still welcome.

I feel like I should make an effort to watch David Lynch's filmography, given that I have read/watched a lot of guff about him recently what with him turning up dead and that. Trouble is I just don't think I like him (as a director I mean, I've never met him) that much.

Even when I was a pretentious stoner and psychedelic dabbler in my mid 20s, for whom the trippy surreal shit should have been right up my street, I bounced off of Eraserhead two or three times and never made it more than about half an hour in. Similar to Terry Gilliam's Brazil, I think I just struggle with it because it seems so loose and unstructured, just a sequence of events that happen rather than a narrative.

I get on a lot better with David Cronenburg's style of surrealism, which feels a lot more cohesive. His films are weird but they are internally consistent in their weirdness, they always have a sort of disorienting dreamlike narrative but it's still a clearly defined narrative. And they also have loads more sex and violence, which I tend to prefer.

I think that's the issue really, Lynch's work is usually too arty for me, and that's not because I don't like arty stuff, but because I like art to be vulgar and crass in defiance of that poncy pretentious concept of art.

>>25467
Blue Velvet has some sexy bits. Have you seen that?

And Twin Peaks has plenty of consistent narrative, although it is the nature of TV series to be much longer than films, so you’d be taking a risk, even though I love it. Watch out for the third series that was made a few years ago; I predict you will despise that. I hated most of it, but I really loved a couple of parts which are exactly what you said you don’t like.

>>25467
>Even when I was a pretentious stoner and psychedelic dabbler in my mid 20s, for whom the trippy surreal shit should have been right up my street
If this is the mindset you're approaching David Lynch films with, then no, don't bother. I'm not even his biggest fan or anything, but you sound like kind of a fucking numpty.

>>25471

Everyone was a numpty in their 20s, at least some of us have the capacity to be self aware about it.

>>25467

I'd suggest giving Eraserhead another chance. The plot is extremely barebones, deliberately, but the themes it deals with and the visuals it uses to represent them are pretty compelling.

It's one of those films I had massively different reactions to with a difference of age. As an edgy teenager, a lot of the surrealism and unpleasantness came off as comedic. As an adult, it seems more nightmarish and exposes genuine vulnerabilities. Basically, my attitude towards it changed completely with my own proximity to fatherhood and all its attendant fears. What seemed like an impenetrable film about a general anxiety towards biology, family life, and the high stakes of adulthood back then all of a sudden becomes very real when... well, you're at the mercy of biology, family life, and high stakes of adulthood.

Another mini-film review: I watched After Hours, tonight.

It's one of Scorsese's lesser known films, and from what I understand he picked up the script from another director and completed it while waiting to begin work on The Last Temptation of Christ.

If anyone is familiar with the absolute train wreck film Ryan's Babe, After Hours is like the competent version of that story: an average guy makes a mundane decision (in this case, going to meet up with a nice girl he struck up a conversation with earlier that day) that takes him down a strange path filled with eccentric people and odd coincidences.

I enjoyed it. Anyone who's had a bad night out should be able to sympathise with protagonist Paul's exhaustion and panic. Even though it's labelled a comedy, Scorsese sets the film in a very grimy-feeling 80s New York, somewhere you could believe the characters from The Warriors are running around causing chaos, so that it does at points feel dangerous and unsettling. The only straight "comedy" parts involve the burglars, played by Cheech & Chong, who seem really out of place.

The issue is that it almost feels a bit beneath Scorsese. You have this brilliant motif running throughout the film of being trapped or captured, like Julie's mousetraps around her bed or Kiki's elaborately bound hands during her BDSM session with her partner, that suggests he's maybe hinting that sex invariably leads to entanglement and peril. Beyond that, though, there doesn't seem to be a deeper meaning past "be careful when wishing for excitement". The film ends with a very cool dynamic shot showing Paul where he started, but I can't help but wonder if the film might have been improved with just a line or two extra. Paul is teaching another person how to use word processing software, the student expresses dissatisfaction and boredom, Paul wearily replies that you should appreciate peace when you have it. Or maybe I'm just nitpicking and wishing for meaning in what is just a fun, weird tale.

Support the Girls is a comedy/drama about some women who work in a restaurant that is legally distinct from Hooters but is just Hooters really. I had never heard of it, but I discovered it for free on streaming platform Tubi, and it played a little clip of it which was hilarious. So I made a point to watch the whole thing.

It's not all as good as the clip, but the characters are likable and there are multiple funny moments. For free, it's definitely worth watching. Apparently Andrew Bujalski, who wrote and directed it, is known for making ballets where everyone just mumbles and you can't make out what anyone's saying, so it's good to know it's not just me. It adds to the low-budget realism, but I can't say I'm a fan of feeling like I'm missing half the plot. In many ways, perhaps this ballet is not amazing, but if you discover it on your own and you've never heard of it, your standards will be lower and you will absolutely love it.

>>25543
>known for making ballets
Hey, a new wordfilter! I assume it's new. I don't watch many ballets - fuck - f*lms.

This also gives me an opportunity to add to my previous post the answer to the question you're all thinking: it is approximately as good as Coyote Ugly.

>>25543
I just watched it. What was the funny part?

>>25546
The opening scene where the woman arrives for the job interview is the bit I'm referring to.
>Hi, I'm here for the job interview
>Oh! You're early. We like that, haha
>Cool. Am I hired then?
For all I know, this is an ancient line that people use all the time, but I've never heard it before and it really tickled me.

>>25548
The knob gag was disapointing. Might have been better if all but the last knob only went up to ten - baiting you into confusion sorta thing. Or one of the dude used a wrench to literally crack the knob further, damaging the amp and keeping in vibe with the bands level of dumbness.

>>25548
So a load of self-referential shite then.

I'm only 35 but sociecty has already changed so much. At the cinema today, first time in years. I was among a mob of roaring autistic retards, clapping and yelling all throughout the emotional triumps of the ballet as they can't contain their excitement. My sister says many spectactualr ballet showings are like that these days. I even saw a couple of trans kids, or atleast strangely/cross dressed. What the fuck is going on? Keep up or be left behind, I guess.

Anyway, A Minecraft musical theatre is almost entirely forgettable. It's a ballet for kids - my nephew enjoyed it, I think. The generic plot is slapped between minecraft montages. And that's about it. I can't remember any character names. Oh, appart from Chungus - which got a huge roar from the meme crowd.
The way the zombies move is distinctly CGI over body-motion capture in a way so obvious it's slightly unnerving. Maybe it was all the squares moving in circular motion.

>>25554

Personally I just can't get over how they made the creepers fluffy. They are obviously cactuses, not some kind of weird cat. It's incredible how videogames have quite literally eclipsed Hollywood as a market altogether in terms of cultural relevance and profitability in the last decade, but we still get these adaptations made by people who seem to have only read the Wikipedia, or at best, TVTropes entry for a franchise.

I kind of want to see the Minecraft motion picture to see how bad it is, but I won't be doing so until I can torrent it. This weekend however I shall be watching the Sonic the Hedgehog ones, because I remember the first one fondly (even after all the forced meme nonsense about his weird teeth) but never realised they somehow snuck another two out behind my back while I was busy with on and off class A drug addiction.

>>25555
>They are obviously cactuses, not some kind of weird cat.
It's probably because they hiss, which incidentally I didn't hear any of in the ballet possibly because of all the fucking audience noise.

What I'll say in positive of the ballet though is that the use of colour was very effective in defusing the tension from the mildly horrible scenes. I could imagine being a child reassured by the friendly, safe bold colours of the main lead characters after being scared of the shadowy and dark pig/zombie scenes.

>I kind of want to see the Minecraft motion picture to see how bad it is
To be honest it's not exactly bad, it's just a forgettable, a colourful memey kids ballet. And that's it. There're some hamfisted emotional scenes that grated horribly but maybe I'm just an arsehole.

>they somehow snuck another two out behind my back while I was busy with on and off class A drug addiction.
Dude I'm on the net every single day and didn't hear a thing about Sonic 2 & 3. Is Rouge in it yet? Is she voiced by a sexy latina milf or what?

>>25556

I believe they have followed the original Megadrive game sequence so we have sonic, Tails and Knuckles already. Rouge was first in one of the Dreamcast games I think? So there might be another two or three to go, if it gets that far.

I was always more of a Blaze the Cat man myself, mind you. So I might be waiting a while.

Forgot which thread you were talking about Her in, but I just saw the poster for this. It's by Jordan Peele so probably not terrible. I plan to watch assuming it's a sequel.