Offline
Interestingly, one image that still wasn't working was the Trump mugshot, although, again, it's viewable when you edit the post. I fixed it, but it's a strange exception. I wonder if there may be some random other images like that.
Offline
He's too ugly for this forum.
Offline
Still running into the odd and seemingly random images and links that are stubbornly refusing to embed. Also images don't seem to be formatting automatically like they used to, so any of the larger pictures are pushing out of the margins.
Still curious to understand what exactly changed yesterday evening.
Offline
Is that a confession or something?
Offline
Somewhat spoiler-proof enough to serve as an excuse to disregard any semblence of suspense, even if you weren't aware of the context from Dracula, the film helpfully informs their illiterate audience from the get-go that this is the vessel which brought Count Dracula from Romania to London, and maybe the illiterate audience isn't already aware how all of that ends for everyone on board. All of that aside, it still manages to be an exceedingly stupid picture for a couple of handfuls of reasons, but I'll just keep my criticisms to the stale style of filmmaking which weds a trite script and overwrought performances while tossing all of the cliches of ersatz prestige that were already falling out of fashion 20 years ago. (Unsurprisingly, the film appears to have been in development hell since 2003, going through a dozen or so scriptwriters along the way.)
It should be telling enough that the few minutes of the Demeter footage in the hundred-year-old Nosferatu remains far more visionary, striking and evocative and a single CG frame of this try-hard bore.
5/10
I didn't have the highest expectations here, given the mountain of bad press surrounding the production, but all-in-all it's not a bad film. It's also not terribly original, but as a "sci-fi" conceit (not a spoiler as this was in all of the promotional materials), it's about as intriguing as a 2nd tier Black Mirror episode. Fine performances from Pugh and Pine are the obvious highlights, and Styles isn't too bad either. It has a fair number of cliches but it's playful about them. The "twist", as such, is a yawn and whatever point it's trying to make doesn't really amount to much. Breezy enough to blow through its two hours harmlessly.
6.5/10
Also titled The Colony on Netflix, this 2021 sci-fi has exactly one thing going for it, Nora Arnezeder, who manages to radiate despite being given an awful haircut and mudgrime make-up, and drearily lensed in dull grey, poorly lit unnecessary shaky-cam close-ups because darkness and anxiety is the idiot art school dropout's substitute for depth. In addition to being an endlessly ugly film, it's got a shit script which serves as a kindergarten allegory about, um, colonialism. It turns out that some people think they're better than other people, and just because no one else involved with this film is half as good as Nora Arnezeder probably won't dissuade them from perpetuating their gross production designs in future equally awful films.
4/10
Offline
I wouldn’t have minded Demeter if I could see what the hell was happening. I’m sure the projection in my theatre was at least partially at fault, but it would be nice if they still bothered to light movies.
Offline
Rock wrote:
I wouldn’t have minded Demeter if I could see what the hell was happening. I’m sure the projection in my theatre was at least partially at fault, but it would be nice if they still bothered to light movies.
I think it was the CGI but there was some pixilation visible in the shadows/clouds at the end too. And, btw, why did they always wait until night to try to find the guy? Like, they didn't notice that he never attacked in the day? And they already knew which cargo crate he was sleeping in? And they didn't think to dump the contents of that crate on deck in the bright sunlight? Anyway, whatever. I'm not a vampire stickler. Just one those annoying things. Like, "Hey, let me read this book in the rain so it smears all the pages." I'm just saying!!!
But I feel like I really can't stress enough just how much I hated the acting. All of it. Terrible. I was thinking that Game of Thrones will someday be seen as the most toxic influence on acting technique in this generation.
This was a legitimate disappointment because I was hoping for a low-key indie sleeper. I had no idea it was Dreamworks. That's actually pretty embarrassing for them. It would have been embarrassing in 2003 too.
Offline
I thought Hawkins and Dastmalchian were pretty good. The bearded guys I couldn’t tell apart.
Offline
You going to TIFF this year, Rock?
Offline
Yes sir. I’ve been writing quick reviews on Letterboxd. I’ll post links later in the week. Haven’t really been on my laptop and I find it harder to post links here on mobile.
Offline
Rock wrote:
I find it harder to post links here on mobile.
Is this a problem resulting from the other recent issues with the site?
Offline
Nah, it’s just that the mobile site doesn’t bring up the buttons to insert tags so I have to type them manually.
Offline
This would-be thriller has a lot of banal symbolism that's not very subtle or very well written, but it does have what is basically a one-man-Willem-Dafoe-show, and there's much worse ways to kill your time. Just pretend that Dafoe is actually trying to escape from the cage of the film's pretensions, and it goes down much easier.
6.5/10
Despite the many critical references, Jordan Peele is less of a Spielberg and more of a JJ Abrams type of filmmaker. Or worse, maybe a Shyamalan. That's due to his films being somewhat high-concept affairs that inevitably collapse in their third acts into completely cliched blockbuster beats and melodramatic contrivances. Ultimately, Peele is a bit of a hack, but he can pass on his skills as long as his story intrigues.
The story of Nope is a lot less intriguing than Get Out though. Thematically, the film is muddled to the point of incoherency. All of this blab about "spectacle" and "exploitation" from the critics' reviews don't really add up to anything beyond whatever they're projecting. Is the alien here the exploited spectacle, akin to such "wild animals" like chimps and horses, or presumably black talent in the movie industry? You can see how the Siegfried and Roy allusion can turn into a rather unsavory backhanded compliment. And even with this alien's ludicrous character design, in terms of its supposed animal nature, its plastic bag visual design (American Beauty?) isn't any more sensible, or spectacular. Apparently it's supposed to say something about Covid too. Fine, whatever. None of it makes a whole lot of sense, and I imagine the common defense is that it isn't supposed to, like some incomprehensible Lovecraft monster or something (which would amusingly muddle the race politics further, haha.) I did appreciate the Muybridge shout-out though. "First movie star" is a bit of a stretch, kinda like citing the "stars" of William Dickson's 1896 film Dancing Darkies.
6/10
Pretty much what you'd expect from a Batman movie that opens with a Kurt Cobain song, except no guest appearance from The Crow. Overemo, immature and tacitly sociopathic (without Joker's satirical bluff).
4/10
Offline
I didn't hate The Batman (it looks nice enough and has one pretty great car chase), but I have no idea why it needed to be 3 hours long. Long and ponderous does not a good movie make. For all the flak Nolan got for his Batman movies, they were positively light on their feet in comparison.
Offline
Rock wrote:
For all the flak Nolan got for his Batman movies, they were positively light on their feet in comparison.
It seemed like this one was very self-consciously trying to out-grit the Nolan films, which is a losing bargain. (Rises already proved the limitations of Nolan's grit.)
"Hate" is a strong word. Did I hate this film? I knew what I was getting into. Suffice it to simply say that I had no respect for it.
Offline
Everything I watched during TIFF this year:
Offline
Jinnistan wrote:
Rock wrote:
For all the flak Nolan got for his Batman movies, they were positively light on their feet in comparison.
It seemed like this one was very self-consciously trying to out-grit the Nolan films, which is a losing bargain. (Rises already proved the limitations of Nolan's grit.)
"Hate" is a strong word. Did I hate this film? I knew what I was getting into. Suffice it to simply say that I had no respect for it.
I think part of the problem with this one is that it’s too obviously aping David Fincher. Nolan has influences as well (Heat is an obvious reference for The Dark Knight), but his movies don’t feel quite so slavish. This one hews too closely to Seven as a Batman movie, and quite frankly, I’d much rather just watch Seven. (This is putting aside the fact that I don’t particularly like David Fincher.)