The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Star Trek Into Darkness doesn't really boldly go where no sequel has gone before,

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Anyone here see The Squid and the Whale?

Opinions please.

I like the film, but be aware some of the content can be a bit off putting. Not Greenberg offputting, but still. It's a pretty interesting, finely acted account of a family in the middle of a divorce.

I've yet to see Baumbach's Margot at the Wedding. Anybody see that one?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I like the film, but be aware some of the content can be a bit off putting. Not Greenberg offputting, but still. It's a pretty interesting, finely acted account of a family in the middle of a divorce.

I've yet to see Baumbach's Margot at the Wedding. Anybody see that one?

Tell me more about offputting. Offputting as in depressing, negative and realistic?

Tell me more about Greenberg too, please.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Tell me more about offputting. Offputting as in depressing, negative and realistic?

Tell me more about Greenberg too, please.

Offputting as in uncomfortable, but his films are always meant to be oddly life-affirming. Baumbach will show you things most directors won't: the awkwardness of a 40 something Ben Stiller at a College party, Stiller manically erupting for petty reasons. In Squid & the Whale, the central teenage kid wipes his semen on the locker of a girl he likes, etc.

His humor can be a little dark (not quite Todd Solondz dark), his camera can be a little too "docu-realistic," in short, he's the quirky evil opposite of Wes Anderson. There's not really a whole lot of artifice in his work.

Dammit, phone's on 5%

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Offputting as in uncomfortable, but his films are always meant to be oddly life-affirming. Baumbach will show you things most directors won't: the awkwardness of a 40 something Ben Stiller at a College party, Stiller manically erupting for petty reasons. In Squid & the Whale, the central teenage kid wipes his semen on the locker of a girl he likes, etc.

His humor can be a little dark (not quite Todd Solondz dark), his camera can be a little too "docu-realistic," in short, he's the quirky evil opposite of Wes Anderson. There's not really a whole lot of artifice in his work.

Dammit, phone's on 5%

Would you say his depictions of dysfunctional family dynamics are accurate/realistic?

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Would you say his depictions of dysfunctional family dynamics are accurate/realistic?

I would say so. It makes you ponder the causal relationship between the split and the increasingly erratic behavior of the children. It does have a realistic quality to it, especially in the character building stand point: these are very flawed, instantly recognizable characters.

It's not a world I would love to revisit often, but at a taught 80 minutes, you don't have much to lose.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

[/SPOILER]

I finally got around to seeing Ivan's Childhood last night. I agree, wow.

I did not love it quite as much as you did, but I appreciated all the things that you mentioned. Cinematography, sound etc. Some of those forests were eerie looking.

Film 4/5

No PQ/AQ rating as I only saw it on DVD.

Glad you enjoyed it! It's certainly the first Criterion I will buy in the impending sale. Have you seen any of his other stuff? I also really enjoyed Solaris, and I happen to catch The Mirror a while back as well. The Mirror is something completely different, I think it would drive some people insane if they tried to watch it--but I was hooked the entire time.

@jhiggy

Funny you mention Letter Never Sent when comparing the two, I had it arrive last month on a blind buy and still haven't watched it yet. The comparison alone makes me want to watch as soon as possible, though.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Glad you enjoyed it! It's certainly the first Criterion I will buy in the impending sale. Have you seen any of his other stuff? I also really enjoyed Solaris, and I happen to catch The Mirror a while back as well. The Mirror is something completely different, I think it would drive some people insane if they tried to watch it--but I was hooked the entire time.
.

Only Solaris. But The Steamroller and the Violin sounds like something I might like.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I pretty much came up with that a week ago.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

His humor can be a little dark (not quite Todd Solondz dark)

Solondz is hard to beat for pure, pitch-black humour; Happiness is possibly one of the most disturbing films ever released.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Solondz is hard to beat for pure, pitch-black humour; Happiness is possibly one of the most disturbing films ever released.

I agree.

Happiness is absolutely unforgettable. There were few works in the 90's with a more distinctive authorial voice.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I agree.

Happiness is absolutely unforgettable. There were few works in the 90's with a more distinctive authorial voice.

I'd agree with that, but add the caveat that it's not always for the most dignified, or respectful, reasons. Still, it's a helluva ride, whatever you take from it.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

[/SPOILER]

Well written Al.

Hey, I noticed a huge gaff in the film. What I had seen didnt dawn on me until much later in the film. It just popped into me head and I giggled. It didnt hurt my enjoyment at all, but its really big. Did you spot it?

[Show spoiler]After they bag acouple of baddies, Dr. Schultz invites Django to be his partner while they hunt that group of bad brothers. Schultz offers Django 30% (if I remember correctly) of the bounty and says (paraphrasing) "Work with me during the winter and when the snow leaves you are free." Django agrees. We then see winter arrive. We see winter become heavier as it settles in. We see them riding through deep snow. We see Django bathing in that pond/hot spring. We see Django practice his quick draw and target practice in deep snow, shooting the snowman. Then... More winter riding.

Then we see them at the top of a big hill looking down at their next target, the man plowing a field with his son at his side. After some discussion, they kill the target right in front of the boy.

The VERY next scene they are traveling through the snow again, carrying on with business. Still deep in the winter months.

The gaff is, WTF was that man doing plowing a field, getting ready to plant crops in the middle of "WINTER"? Schultz and Django were atop a huge GRASSY hill in sniper position, looking down on a green meadow and a DIRT field being plowed...... in WINTER??? Where did the snow go???? LOL.

After they collect the body and ride off they are back in WINTER again??

WTF?

I wonder if it was a scene he added, but added at the wrong place/time? Or, if he just needed the guy to be outside doing something (as a target) and just spaced out on the continuity of it all?

Thank you.

I popped the disc in to see what the deal was there. It didn't really register on the first viewing, because

[Show spoiler]it's actually a flashback scene (...or, a flash-forward?). The film clearly fades from the snowy pond scene into the grassy-knoll-assassination scene, before cutting back to the snowy stuff (specifically, the next scene is Django shooting the snowman up). It all kinda shows in a semi-montage fashion how he became such a good shot and wicked hunter.

It was funny to think about in retrospect, but there is method to the madness: Tarantino basically cut in a scene in the middle of all the winter stuff to further screw around with the narrative, and produce the illusion that Django's recollecting something.

The only bad thing I notice here is, if the one scene is meant to be spring and it's Django's first bounty, then does that mean every other bounty up to then was all Dr. Schultz? Or, if it's meant to be in the autumn before the winter stuff, then why is the guy plowing a field in harvest time? Maybe it's the former, I don't know, but it does seem weird to put a scene from the future in there.

[SimBelm]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Solondz is hard to beat for pure, pitch-black humour; Happiness is possibly one of the most disturbing films ever released.

I think Yorgos Lanthimos is up there, especially with Alps.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I'm going to do Jvince review for...

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

The Good: Great Acting from the whole cast, Cumberbatch is on top form. Special effects are stellar (not a single dud shot, which really is a rarity). Humour is less intrusive and sharper. Very interesting stuff done with the villain. Just heavily entertaining.
The Bad: Is it a story really worth telling

[Show spoiler]or better said, re-telling

? Lags in middle a little. Sometimes too much going on at once. Disappointing climax.
The Bottom Line: Star Trek Into Darkness doesn't really boldly go where no sequel has gone before, but it still carries the same sort of joy as the first film, although it lacks the surprises and risk taking that film took.
8/10

“Into Darkness” may not boldly go where no “Trek” adventure has gone before, but getting there is such a well-crafted, immensely pleasurable ride that it would be positively Vulcan to nitpick

Scott Foundas for Variety on May 2.

[jvince]

Room 8 - YouTube

Room 8 (2013)
dir. James W. Griffiths

The Good: Great concept. Well-executed. Nice special effects.

The Bad: The idea isn't that original; it's reminiscent of Christopher Nolan's 1997 short, Doodlebug, only this one's tighter and more refined. Some might see the twist coming.

The Bottom Line: A solid Twilight Zone-esque short about prison overcrowding (I guess).

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I'm going to do Jvince review for...

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

The Good: Great Acting from the whole cast, Cumberbatch is on top form. Special effects are stellar (not a single dud shot, which really is a rarity). Humour is less intrusive and sharper. Very interesting stuff done with the villain. Just heavily entertaining.
The Bad: Is it a story really worth telling

[Show spoiler]or better said, re-telling

? Lags in middle a little. Sometimes too much going on at once. Disappointing climax.
The Bottom Line: Star Trek Into Darkness doesn't really boldly go where no sequel has gone before, but it still carries the same sort of joy as the first film, although it lacks the surprises and risk taking that film took.
8/10

Lol...

I was hoping it would be even better than the previous one...

This has been an underwhelming year so far. Man of Steel better not suck.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I'm curious about this film. Can you do me a favor please? When you say "Hipster" and "Pretentious", can you describe the type of hipster and pretentious? Or maybe make a comparison to some other charaters in films? I'm trying to decide if I should give this a shot. Thanks.

It's not "mainstream hipster." I admit I actually like a lot of those, like (500) Days and Eternal Sunshine because they're mostly accessible and done in a fun and entertaining way. The characters in Frances Ha are all smug and self-absorbed and shit, more like the ones in the obscure films, kinda like in mumblecore, where Gerwig started.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Thank you.

I popped the disc in to see what the deal was there. It didn't really register on the first viewing, because

[Show spoiler]it's actually a flashback scene (...or, a flash-forward?). The film clearly fades from the snowy pond scene into the grassy-knoll-assassination scene, before cutting back to the snowy stuff (specifically, the next scene is Django shooting the snowman up). It all kinda shows in a semi-montage fashion how he became such a good shot and wicked hunter.

It was funny to think about in retrospect, but there is method to the madness: Tarantino basically cut in a scene in the middle of all the winter stuff to further screw around with the narrative, and produce the illusion that Django's recollecting something.

The only bad thing I notice here is, if the one scene is meant to be spring and it's Django's first bounty, then does that mean every other bounty up to then was all Dr. Schultz? Or, if it's meant to be in the autumn before the winter stuff, then why is the guy plowing a field in harvest time? Maybe it's the former, I don't know, but it does seem weird to put a scene from the future in there.

There is still a problem though...I think...

[Show spoiler]When Schultz discusses partnering up with Django, one of the targets he mentions for a future job is the guy in the field. They partner up as winter begins, then they kill the guy during a green season, then transport his body during winter. If killing the guy is a flashforward, how did they transport his body backwards in time?

Is my memory of the chain of events correct? I dont own the Blu-ray to check.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

There is still a problem though...I think...

[Show spoiler]When Schultz discusses partnering up with Django, one of the targets he mentions for a future job is the guy in the field. They partner up as winter begins, then they kill the guy during a green season, then transport his body during winter. If killing the guy is a flashforward, how did they transport his body backwards in time?

Is my memory of the chain of events correct? I dont own the Blu-ray to check.

At work now, so I can't put the disc in again. From what I remember though,

[Show spoiler]the springtime scene is not the only bounty they had. After that flashforward scene, the film shows Django shooting a snowman, and then shooting a bunch of other people in the woods during the winter, and then they ride up to the cabin with a couple of bodies on the horses. Based on that visual information, I assumed the cabin scene was showing the bounties for all the extraneous people they got in the winter, and not the main bounty they had in the spring. In fact, as is my interpretation, they never do show the bounty being collected for that springtime scene.

The actual sequence of scenes is:

1.) Django and Schultz team up
2.) They ride to the mountains
3.) Django takes a dip
7.) Springtime assassination scene
4.) Django shoots snowman
5.) Mass murder in the woods (winter still, presumably multiple bounties involved, may or may not be related to spring scene)
6.) They ride to a cabin (never really understood the point of this scene anyway )

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

At work now, so I can't put the disc in again. From what I remember though,

[Show spoiler]the springtime scene is not the only bounty they had. After that flashforward scene, the film shows Django shooting a snowman, and then shooting a bunch of other people in the woods during the winter, and then they ride up to the cabin with a couple of bodies on the horses. Based on that visual information, I assumed the cabin scene was showing the bounties for all the extraneous people they got in the winter, and not the main bounty they had in the spring. In fact, as is my interpretation, they never do show the bounty being collected for that springtime scene.

The actual sequence of scenes is:

1.) Django and Schultz team up
2.) They ride to the mountains
3.) Django takes a dip
7.) Springtime assassination scene
4.) Django shoots snowman
5.) Mass murder in the woods (winter still, presumably multiple bounties involved, may or may not be related to spring scene)
6.) They ride to a cabin (never really understood the point of this scene anyway )

That sequence is how I remember it as well. And you are correct, they never show them collect the farmer target. That was what seemed jarring to mer when I thought about it. So, it still confuses me why it would be in that order. Or, it confuses me as to why they would inject the flash forward, IF that's what it is.

Check it out when you get home.