The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[WaynesterUK]

Hi Guys

I'm in the UK
I'm wanting some advice on which blu ray DVD release to buy that have the very best audio and video quality for Terminator 1, Terminator 2 and Terminator 3

I have a 55 inch 4K Panasonic Television
Denon 5.1 Surround Sound amp and Q Acoustics speakers
Pioneer Blu Ray Player

Any advice would be great as I'm so confused on how many releases there are for these films lol! I want the bestest versions 😆😆

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by WaynesterUK

Hi Guys

I'm in the UK
I'm wanting some advice on which blu ray DVD release to buy that have the very best audio and video quality for Terminator 1, Terminator 2 and Terminator 3

I have a 55 inch 4K Panasonic Television
Denon 5.1 Surround Sound amp and Q Acoustics speakers
Pioneer Blu Ray Player

Any advice would be great as I'm so confused on how many releases there are for these films lol! I want the bestest versions ����

I happen to have the UK remastered edition of T1. I know some folks have griped about the coloring (with most dark scenes appearing teal) and the lack of the original mono track. But the picture looks sharp as a tack and natural. It definitely bests the older 2006 release, and I don't think there's any better version available now. Frankly, I'm happy with this copy.

You might want to wait a bit for the T2 UHD coming out soon. It's supposed to be newly-remastered and everything. If you aren't into 4K yet, I think a regular remastered Blu-Ray will be available on its own. Should be due in this fall. I have many copies of T2--the 2015 US rerelease is the best so far, but has room for improvement (and is region-locked), so the new copy should be the best yet.

Not sure about T3. My copy is German, but I think it has lossy audio or something. The US version was 1080i in the past, but I think rereleases have been improved. Not sure about the English version--I figure there's only one edition of it and it should be the same for the UK. User scores for it look good.

Short answer--get these:

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Astro Zombie

Review

It's funny because I absolutely HATED her in Mad Max. Thought she was woefully miscast and had zero chemistry with Tom Hardy.

That said I absolutely LOVED her in Atomic Blonde.

[The Debts]

“No one ever leaves.”

For the longest time, director Gore Verbinski found himself being a one man Johnny Depp franchise making machine with the Pirates of The Caribbean films. The first one was a financial and critical darling and while its subsequent follow-ups were not looked upon as well as the first did, they never the less earned top dollar at the box office in the respective years they were released in. They then followed up that saga with the animated smash Rango, one of the few non-Disney/Pixar animated flicks to win the gold statue at the Academy Awards. However, the train had to end somewhere and it did with a new franchise that he and Disney tried to started with but failed miserably with the big budget Western Epic The Lone Ranger. It fell with a massive thud on both fronts and while Depp has been on a slow descending spiral since, Verbinski must have seen this opportunity to pursue grander projects. Bringing along Ranger writer Justin Haythe, the two set their course to create one of the strangest Hollywood productions of the year: A Cure For Wellness, an unrestrained and truly deranged epic horror film/psychological thriller that’s as nasty as it is beautiful.

Lockheart (Dane DeHaan) is a young, ambitious executive with only a few things on his mind: Money, business and himself. When the trading firm he works for finds out he’s been doing some meddling behind their backs, they decide to offer him a chance of redemption: Bring back the head of their firm to make sure a merger goes through smoothly and everything he’s done will be water under the bridge. His boss Pembroke (Harry Groener) sent the board an insane and rambling letter from a remote wellness center in the Swiss Alps and when Lockheart goes there to retrieve him, things go south pretty quickly when he winds up in a car accident that busts his leg and leaves him under the care of the facility’s head doctor (Jason Isaacs). During his time there, he also encounters a young girl named Hannah (Mia Goth), who acts younger than she looks. But Lockehart suspects quickly there’s something is not quite right with this place and soon finds himself in a much bigger and grander plot than he would have ever anticpated.

One thing that must be mentioned right off the bat is how gorgeous A Cure For Wellness looks. Reuniting with the DP Verbinski worked with on The Ring, Bojan Bazelli’s camera work is nothing short of exquisite to look at. The framing, coloring, color grading and laser guided precision of how it all looks is at times mind bendingly beautiful. You could take whatever shot from the film, from the most lovely landscapes to the dingiest dungeon, put it in a picture frame and mount it on your wall. The film as a whole is a technical masterwork, using its 40 mill budget and making it look like it cost doubly with its excellent costume design, amazing sets, tight editing and seamless CG used in places that you wouldn’t even expect. But if you think the film is nothing more than style over substance, do not fear; There is a story here in all of these beautiful trappings.

Prior to and during the time of release, Wellness was compared to Shutter Island in many ways from its premise to even its lead, who bears a mild resemblance to DiCaprio in his younger days. Yet I’d be willing to argue that’s selling the movie short: While they both appear to be similar works on the surface, the former is far more crazier than any of the inmates from the latter could ever imagine. Verbinski isn’t so much out to scare as he is out to disturb and make you feel sick during the two and half hour cinematic nightmare he’s designed. Poisonous water than makes you lose your mind, man eating eels that appear very frequently, dental work from hell, heaps upon heaps of body horror that even made a horror nut like me squirm, incestuous histories of mad barons, gaslighting galore and many other oddities that are worth finding out for yourself than me spilling the whole kit and kaboodle. The atmosphere is thicker than frozen butter and the pacing, for a film that’s as long as this, keeps up a really solid beat. Some have complained that the film should have been shorter but I felt like the film could have kept going for three hours and I still would have been hooked. In some ways, the film ends up coming off as a “What Could Have Been” imagining of what that failed live action Bioshock film was suppose to be all those years ago.

Performances across the board are also quite solid as well. Dane DeHaan not only redeems himself for his awful performance in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 but also proves he can carry a film with the right material. He near death looks and impish voice work well with his character, a work obsessed and snide businessman but much to my surprise, he winds up being more sympathetic than you’d think. When the film started, I want to see him got what was coming to him but by the end, I was rooting for him to get the hell out of this madhouse. The support cast is no slouch either, with Jason Isaacs doing his Jason Isaacs thing of being the most elegant bad guy you could picture while Mia Goth provides a childlike innocence with her performance and lack of eyebrows.

Of course, every film has its flaws and Wellness is not without them. In a film that’s as long as pretty as this is, it can be pretty easy to lose track of who’s who and what’s important to the plot and what isn’t. In my first two viewings, even I found myself wishing I had a small notepad to keep track of plot reveals to prevent myself from getting confused. On top of that, it can be pretty easy to guess what’s going on here, especially in the absolutely bonkers third act. There’s also some stuff about man’s greed and selfishness being a bad thing going on here but it’s all surface level in that regard, with Gore Verbinski and Justin Haythe’s priorities laying elsewhere in squick-o-riffic beauty than railing against the inhumanity of big business.

In spite of these problems, A Cure For Wellness always kept me hooked even when I was wondering what the hell was going as much as its protagonist was. With beautiful production design, an interesting if fairly predictable story, coupled with a haunting score by Benjamin Wallfisch, it’s a gothically designed thrill ride that kept me entertained from first frame to its utterly baffling last. At one point in the film, a character turns towards Lockheart and says to him “Magnificent, isn’t it?”. While that isn’t quite the word I would use to describe the film, it’s certainly one of a kind and easily one of my favorite films of this year.

[elcheca1]

I need to ask a question that has me confused, I buy many movies Bluray but I confuse something, sometimes I see in channels a movie such as Fox, HBO, and many more movies that are in Spanish and in HD but when I look for it to buy it in Bluray.com tells me that they are in English then that confuses me

[elcheca1]

Sorry if this is not the right place to ask this question

[L-Rouge]

TERMINATOR 2

Picture 4/5
Some Digital Noise Reduction is quite noticeable, some suburban day time scenery looks jammed with blotchy information, and skin detail at times looks artificially smooth creating a slightly washed aesthetic. Not as villainous as The Phantom Menace, however which is an achievement, given the relative vintage. Still it is the best I have ever seen it and it looks great through proper 4k projection

3d 4/5
Natural, excellent post conversion, though not in your face, quite subdued, avoids the "hallow skull" aesthetic met with early post converted movies, The opening close up of the T-800 model simply rocks, while most scenes are entirely acceptable without being outstanding. Once in a while you are reminded you are watching 3d. Arnies Jacket with light glistening through the bullet holes is a prime example of good subtlety, the scene is beautiful if ethereal with the ghostly lighting. Think the 3d itself though highlights the DNR.

Sound 3/5
showing it's age not as dynamic as a modern day movie, Our cinema didn't pick up low end detail but for 1991 excellent surround detail. and Brad Fiedel's music sure shines.

(the trailer at The Embassy also showed its age, so may not be a just this cinema)

Overall experience 5/5
Totally worth seeing this on the big screen, I consider it the best action film of all time, I was so awed when I first saw this film I had to see it again instantly, I had never seen anything on this level of technical mastery when viewed on my birthday back in 1992 (at home and on VHS no less). Terminator 2 is avante garde, and very rarely toppled by modern day efforts. There is some 90's father figure cheese in here for good measure, but amazingly my heart still sings at the awesomenes of the visuals, the menace of the villian and the coolness of Arnie.

I look forward to owning this on Blu-ray.

[Lepidopterous]

It (2017)

It is the

[Show spoiler]first of a two-film

adaptation of Stephen King’s 1986 horror novel. It takes place in 1988 and ’89, with a wonderful 80's coming-of-age Stand By Me feel mixed with intermittent dream-like sequences reminiscent of the Nightmare on Elm Street films (one of the sequels is playing in theaters in the film). The cast is all-around excellent, and are really what make the movie memorable. Bill Skarsgård (son of Stellan Skarsgård) draws heavy inspiration from Heath Ledger's Joker with his effective portrayal of the evil clown Pennywise. Mike from Stranger Things (Finn Wolfhard) is probably the standout performance of the crowd for me, although each of the kids does such a fine job. There were maybe a few instances of weak acting from some of the kids, but their overall group dynamic was just awesome to watch! They'll get you cracking up throughout the film's lighter moments.

The film's intentional cheesiness borders on full-on campiness from time to time, and it will occasionally feel like they push the 80s movie stereotype a bit too hard… but then one of the kids would cuss, or there would be some gruesome violence, both of which would obviously be completely unexpected in Sandlot, Goonies, or ET. So it is almost like those movies but made for adults who were kids in the 80s, rather than for kids in the 80s, like said films. This in my opinion actually makes It stand out from other homage productions like Stranger Things or Super 8, which are both films/shows that play by the rules and parameters of the 80s films they pay homage to.

I could certainly feel It's 135-minute runtime, and I think it could have used some tighter editing. The story is done fairly well, although they do introduce more ideas than they can handle—the rules of the universe are not clear at times, and you may be left with many questions—

[Show spoiler]but it's reassuring that the end title displays a "Chapter One."

The CGI is noticeably average at times, but redeeming at other times. We unintentionally went to an IMAX showing, but I'd say it is worth seeing in IMAX if you can spend the extra cash, mostly because a lot of the atmosphere in the film is designed around the sound/score (not in a cheap scares way, as there are no "sound-only scares", or "scary-only-because-of-the-sound scares"), and IMAX has incredible sound. This reason alone will also likely make it a worthy future purchase on blu.

I was bummed when I discovered that Cary Fukunaga was originally set to write, produce, and direct the film before exiting three weeks before the start of production due to creative differences (he wanted deeper and darker while WB wanted "archetypes and scares"), but he is still credited as one of the producers, and it looks like it would have been a wildly different film had he stayed on (if you're interested you can read his reasons here:

[Show spoiler]

"I was trying to make an unconventional horror film. It didn’t fit into the algorithm of what they knew they could spend and make money back on based on not offending their standard genre audience. Our budget was perfectly fine. We were always hovering at the $32 million mark, which was their budget. It was the creative that we were really battling. It was two movies. They didn’t care about that. In the first movie, what I was trying to do was an elevated horror film with actual characters. They didn’t want any characters. They wanted archetypes and scares. I wrote the script. They wanted me to make a much more inoffensive, conventional script. But I don’t think you can do proper Stephen King and make it inoffensive.

The main difference was making Pennywise more than just the clown. After 30 years of villains that could read the emotional minds of characters and scare them, trying to find really sadistic and intelligent ways he scares children, and also the children had real lives prior to being scared. And all that character work takes time. It’s a slow build, but it’s worth it, especially by the second film. But definitely even in the first film, it pays off.

It was being rejected. Every little thing was being rejected and asked for changes. Our conversations weren’t dramatic. It was just quietly acrimonious. We didn’t want to make the same movie. We’d already spent millions on pre-production. I certainly did not want to make a movie where I was being micro-managed all the way through production, so I couldn’t be free to actually make something good for them. I never desire to screw something up. I desire to make something as good as possible.

We invested years and so much anecdotal storytelling in it. Chase and I both put our childhood in that story. So our biggest fear was they were going to take our script and bastardize it. So I’m actually thankful that they are going to rewrite the script. I wouldn’t want them to stealing our childhood memories and using that. I mean, I’m not sure if the fans would have liked what I would have done. I was honoring King’s spirit of it, but I needed to update it. King saw an earlier draft and liked it."

Link

) The director who took his place is Andy Muschietti, the same director who made the Guillermo Del Toro-produced Mama, which I found to be a potential classic in atmosphere, setting, and character design, had it not been cheapened by so many jump scares and its poor writing (see my review here). As Muschietti's second film, It is a more polished Mama. The scares are actually effective (there are some genuinely frightening moments!) and the chemistry among the leads gives the film a lot of its weight. The film as a whole is a large improvement for the director, a fine horror flick to revisit in the future, and well-worth seeing in theaters.

4/5

[Pondosinatra]

Alien: Covenant



Rating: 3 out of 5

Taking place eleven years after Prometheus we find another spaceship headed to some distant planet on a colonization mission. Along the way disaster strikes and the crew awakens from hyper sleep in time to intercept a signal from a nearby planet that they decide to investigate. Sigh. Yes, that sounds almost identical to the plot of Alien - an iconic film for the ages and tied with Blade Runner for my favorite movie. Usually I abhor sequels, but this (and Prometheus before it) is helmed by Sir Ridley Scott who started the whole thing. So I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that in his hands the result won't suck. Unfortunately it looks like once again and with a much bigger impact than before he was fighting with the studio as to the direction he wanted to take things. Without giving it away, the middle of the film is a gut punch to the audience similar to what happened in Alien 3. I was like 'What? Are you serious?'. Afterwards I found out that up to 30 minutes of footage was filmed that was never used and obviously after shooting had started the story took a dramatically different direction. To be fair, Scott really can't win. One the one hand you have fans who appreciated Prometheus which attempted to evolve beyond horror in space into something new and unique. On the other you have fans who were pissed off and just wanted more blood and gore. Throw in a meddling studio always worried about their bottom line and you have the perfect recipe for something that while trying to please everyone, ends up alienating (ha) everyone. I did find I enjoyed it much more after watching it a second time and I highly recommend watching Prometheus again. It made one of the character's motivations make much more sense. Visually the film is beautiful and has some truly amazing sets and haunting imagery. The beginning is also an unrelenting assault upon the senses culminating in a horrific scene to equal the one in Alien. On the downside, beyond the issues with the story, I found the cast to be a letdown. Other than the android David you really don't find out enough about the crew to really give a crap about them, never mind even remembering their names. Only recommended for fans, but sadly even they will likely find the experience frustrating.

[Al_The_Strange]

First draft, first viewing--chances are my opinion of this movie could change and I might have to rewrite all of this one day.

mother!

Mother! What even is this film?

This is probably the weirdest and most insane home-invasion thriller ever constructed. After a few confusing images (a woman on fire, a man sets a glass heart on a stand and a burnt-down house magically repairs itself), the film depicts the quiet, tranquil existence of a couple in their big, rustic country home. The nameless man (Javier Bardem) is a poet struggling to find inspiration. The nameless woman (Jennifer Lawrence) works tirelessly to renovate and upkeep the home (which has a literal beating heart that only she can sense). One day, a stranger (Ed Harris) comes to the house--the woman doesn't like the intrusion, but her husband welcomes him in regardless and they hit it off phenomenally. But then the stranger's wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) comes around and acts like a total lush. Then their sons barge in with a big fight over a last will or something. As time goes on, one person after another pours into the house and causes such a ruckus, it drives the poet's wife mad. But that's only the first half of the story--just as the main couple decide to finally consummate their love and have a child, the poet writes something so spectacular the whole world comes to the house to try and take a piece of everything they have. The house becomes a literal warzone. Some scenes towards the end are just too brutal to stomach--you have been warned.

It all has to be seen to be believed--the film is so hyperbolic, it really doesn't make much sense on the surface level. The biggest problem is that the lead (the woman) doesn't demonstrate agency in this relationship--taking the film at surface level, I keep asking time and again why she would put up with all this crap going on in her own house. Why couldn't she work it out with her husband, who was just letting it all happen? It's kind of frustrating to watch all this chaos explode just because the leads didn't (or couldn't, or wouldn't) stand up to anything, or communicate with each other on a deeper level. Surely, no real wife would just let this go without pulling her husband aside and ask what the heck is he thinking? But that kind of talk just doesn't happen in this film--all the dialogue is brief and rather enigmatic. If that's not frustrating enough, the film is loaded with odd symbolic imagery that defies rationality. A house with a heart? Flesh-eating cultists in the basement? Blood drops that disintegrates wood floorboards? Frogs? A hidden door? Golden medicine? What does it all mean?!

It's a mess, slow to start, gut-wrenching to finish, and with no solid answers to guide audiences to what's supposed to be made of all this surreal nonsense. But there is a method to the madness--much like Only God Forgives, this is a movie that only makes sense as an allegory. It's not so much about a couple vs the world--it's a story about all mankind. The woman is mother nature--after all, this is mother!, she is a literal mother (eventually), and she's so down-to-earth she walks around barefoot and everything. Her hubby is God--the credits refer to him as Him, and he is solely motivated by finding "life" in his house (which must represent the Earth), and he does so through people, which he brings in with his words (and words were what gave life to the universe, per the Bible). That first group of home invaders mirrors the Old Testament stories of Adam, Eve, and everything that came afterward. The rest is all about the ages that happened afterward--times of war, strife, plunder, and natural exploitation. Inevitably, when mother nature is pushed too far, the apocalypse happens and the house (the world) is burned. And in a manner like 2009's Triangle, the film wraps these events in a constant loop.

Thinking about how the film aligns with these ideas, it does become an interesting piece of art that stimulates thought. I do appreciate the film's warning concerning respect for nature, as it underscores the insanity of mankind. There are flashes of other themes, such as the agony of being an artist, and deconstructing the dynamics of a domestic family. But there are things that don't marry well, and the main allegory falls apart if you think about it too hard. Biggest problem is that the film juggles two sides: the literal and the allegorical. The motivations and reasons behind the two leads wanting a child together makes sense on the surface, but doesn't make sense on the flipside because what happens and what's characterized on one side of the coin becomes illogical on the other.

I still wouldn't fault this film too far, because it is competently-made with impressive attention to detail. Strong visuals, intense performances, and an incredible sound design gives the film a fair amount of class (even if the experience overall is aggravating). Writing could have used some fine-tuning--I would have appreciated more dialogue that would have painted these characters in a more realistic and sympathetic light. Unfortunately, it feels like the characters act out of the whims of the script and the symbols they represent, and less as organic people.

I really can't recommend this film for casual viewing--it's a crazy yarn that will frustrate more than enlighten. The allegories are interesting, but they fudge up the story in weird ways and needed more fine-tuning. For anybody who value Darren Aronofsky's films, this is still worth seeing for what it is, but right now this is my least favorite of his filmography.

3/5

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

mother!

[Show spoiler] Mother! What even is this film?

This is probably the weirdest and most insane home-invasion thriller ever constructed. After a few confusing images (a woman on fire, a man sets a glass heart on a stand and a burnt-down house magically repairs itself), the film depicts the quiet, tranquil existence of a couple in their big, rustic country home. The nameless man (Javier Bardem) is a poet struggling to find inspiration. The nameless woman (Jennifer Lawrence) works tirelessly to renovate and upkeep the home (which has a literal beating heart that only she can sense). One day, a stranger (Ed Harris) comes to the house--the woman doesn't like the intrusion, but her husband welcomes him in regardless and they hit it off phenomenally. But then the stranger's wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) comes around and acts like a total lush. Then their sons barge in with a big fight over a last will or something. As time goes on, one person after another pours into the house and causes such a ruckus, it drives the poet's wife mad. But that's only the first half of the story--just as the main couple decide to finally consummate their love and have a child, the poet writes something so spectacular the whole world comes to the house to try and take a piece of everything they have. The house becomes a literal warzone. Some scenes towards the end are just too brutal to stomach--you have been warned.

It all has to be seen to be believed--the film is so hyperbolic, it really doesn't make much sense on the surface level. The biggest problem is that the lead (the woman) doesn't demonstrate agency in this relationship--taking the film at surface level, I keep asking time and again why she would put up with all this crap going on in her own house. Why couldn't she work it out with her husband, who was just letting it all happen? It's kind of frustrating to watch all this chaos explode just because the leads didn't (or couldn't, or wouldn't) stand up to anything, or communicate with each other on a deeper level. Surely, no real wife would just let this go without pulling her husband aside and ask what the heck is he thinking? But that kind of talk just doesn't happen in this film--all the dialogue is brief and rather enigmatic. If that's not frustrating enough, the film is loaded with odd symbolic imagery that defies rationality. A house with a heart? Flesh-eating cultists in the basement? Blood drops that disintegrates wood floorboards? Frogs? A hidden door? Golden medicine? What does it all mean?!

It's a mess, slow to start, gut-wrenching to finish, and with no solid answers to guide audiences to what's supposed to be made of all this surreal nonsense.

But there is a method to the madness--much like Only God Forgives, this is a movie that only makes sense as an allegory.

[Show spoiler]It's not so much about a couple vs the world--it's a story about all mankind. The woman is mother nature--after all, this is mother!, she is a literal mother (eventually), and she's so down-to-earth she walks around barefoot and everything. Her hubby is God--the credits refer to him as Him, and he is solely motivated by finding "life" in his house (which must represent the Earth), and he does so through people, which he brings in with his words (and words were what gave life to the universe, per the Bible). That first group of home invaders mirrors the Old Testament stories of Adam, Eve, and everything that came afterward. The rest is all about the ages that happened afterward--times of war, strife, plunder, and natural exploitation. Inevitably, when mother nature is pushed too far, the apocalypse happens and the house (the world) is burned. And in a manner like 2009's Triangle, the film wraps these events in a constant loop.

Thinking about how the film aligns with these ideas, it does become an interesting piece of art that stimulates thought. I do appreciate the film's warning concerning respect for nature, as it underscores the insanity of mankind. There are flashes of other themes, such as the agony of being an artist, and deconstructing the dynamics of a domestic family. But there are things that don't marry well, and the main allegory falls apart if you think about it too hard.

Biggest problem is that the film juggles two sides: the literal and the allegorical. The motivations and reasons behind the two leads wanting a child together makes sense on the surface, but doesn't make sense on the flipside because what happens and what's characterized on one side of the coin becomes illogical on the other.

[Show spoiler]

I still wouldn't fault this film too far, because it is competently-made with impressive attention to detail. Strong visuals, intense performances, and an incredible sound design gives the film a fair amount of class (even if the experience overall is aggravating). Writing could have used some fine-tuning--I would have appreciated more dialogue that would have painted these characters in a more realistic and sympathetic light.

Unfortunately, it feels like the characters act out of the whims of the script and the symbols they represent, and less as organic people.

[Show spoiler]I really can't recommend this film for casual viewing--it's a crazy yarn that will frustrate more than enlighten. The allegories are interesting, but they fudge up the story in weird ways and needed more fine-tuning. For anybody who value Darren Aronofsky's films, this is still worth seeing for what it is, but right now this is my least favorite of his filmography.

3/5

I think you nailed a big criticism I myself had with this film after my first (and only, so far) viewing. The story should make sense on its own if it is going for symbolism/allegory, or else it no longer offers "double" meaning. I love that you challenge this.

And while that may have elevated this film to an even higher level, the question is would you accept the film's family construct as simply the tools Aronofsky chooses to tell

[Show spoiler]the story of the Bible?

In other words, what if Aronofsky's primary goal is not to indirectly tell us

[Show spoiler]the story of Genesis/New Testament,

which is what you and I both assume here- but to directly tell the story, using an artist, his wife, and their house? I say this not simply to challenge you, but because Aronofsky has gone on record saying their intention was for the audience to realize immediately what the film is about and who J Law and Javier Bardem are supposed to be.

IMO this in a way does excuse the criticisms of heavy-handedness/overtness/spoon-feeding, because there is no point in being subtle if it is no longer symbolism.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I think you nailed a big criticism I myself had with this film after my first (and only, so far) viewing. The story should make sense on its own if it is going for symbolism/allegory, or else it no longer offers "double" meaning. I love that you challenge this.

Thank you sir. I think watching all those Youtube videos deconstructing things (mostly the Wisecrack channel) helps me think more critically.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

And while that may have elevated this film to an even higher level, the question is would you accept the film's family construct as simply the tools Aronofsky chooses to tell the story of the Bible? In other words, what if Aronofsky's primary goal is not to indirectly tell us the story of Genesis, which is what you and I both assume here- but to directly tell the story, using an artist, his wife, and their house? I say this not simply to challenge you, but because Aronofsky has gone on record saying their intention was for the audience to realize immediately what the film is about and who J Law and Javier Bardem are supposed to be.

IMO this in a way does excuse the criticisms of "heavy-handedness/overtness/spoon-feeding, because there is no point in being subtle if it is no longer symbolism.

I personally don't mind heavy-handedness in my movies, especially if it's not dialogue-related. Subtlety would only work here if the literal plot was made more logical and the allegory diminished in scope, but that's clearly deviating from Aronofsky's vision. And I do admire how the ending goes all-out. In its own way, it reminds me of all those crazy children's stories and fairy tales--like that one about the guy who drank an entire ocean. Even stories like Old Man and the Sea and Moby Dick are hyperbolic allegories--why should mother! be held in less regard?

I do agree that both sides need to work--those other stories could be taken at both face value and as allegories, it becomes frustrating when one side works and another doesn't. Only God Forgives frustrated me at first because its plot didn't make much sense either (and I couldn't suspend enough disbelief). I ultimately warmed up to it because its allegory was so darn good, and I got a better sense of the characters.

I think the Genesis story fits in to mother! just fine as-is for the first half of the story (as I see it, the Genesis arc ends with the

[Show spoiler]funeral reception, during which the breaking sink may represent the flooding that prompts nature to literally kick humans out of her house

). It's the New Testament events (the last hour or so) I struggle to pin down for the following reasons:

[Show spoiler]

• If the baby is meant to be Christ (because it is given to the people, is "martyred," then eaten like communion, and God (Bardem) wants to forgive them), then why is nature (Lawrence) involved? Aronofsky decided to combine nature and the Virgin Mary together for some reason. What would have made better sense (and probably would have made better drama) is if Bardem picked a random stranger to bear the child with, instead of Lawrence. Then that character could be the Virgin Mary of the movie. But as it is, it's too convoluted to work, imo, because the relationship between nature and mankind should remain indifferent, but giving away nature's baby to the people creates a relationship that doesn't really match up with anything.
• On top of that, there's no resurrection shown or implied (except maybe by Bardem saying they must be forgiven). The manner in which the baby thing happens is a stretch anyway--God gave his own son as a way for mankind to find forgiveness of sins, but in the movie Bardem gives his son away senselessly and without any indication that there's a greater plan. He comes off as clueless and perhaps selfish in the film, and if Aronofsky thinks God is clueless, then the message of the film is rather troubling and perhaps a little too anti-Christian (although I don't mind it being cynical).
• The entire allegory is missing one key character: Satan. You could argue that he's present in the masses that invade the house. But the Bible specifies him as his own character who challenges mankind constantly, sometimes winning and ultimately loosing. Wouldn't it make more sense if: the story begins with a house full of servants, one of them rebels and takes a bunch of the servants with him, then they influence the invaders as they come in? Couldn't it work better if Bardem had a beef with such a character and tried to attack him from a distance? And vice-versa? Then the battle over the baby would have a different kind of dramatic weight, and perhaps there could come a point in which the home-invaders decide to dismiss the Devil to show a form of salvation (although I suppose the final end-game would have the Devil worm his way into the house, convince a bunch of people to follow him, then apocalyptic fire wipes him out in addition to everyone else).

Something about the relationship between God, nature, and the people needed to be nailed down better. It's easy to see how men and nature didn't get along, but the God-nature relationship seemed way too distant (hence my complaints about their lack of communication, although I think that's a bigger problem for the literal side of the story). The two probably aren't meant to understand each other, but God should be in control of nature. Unfortunately, having it that way would probably make the movie seem sexist.

I'm also still at a loss over what all the hearing problems in the beginning of the film were supposed to mean (if anything).

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

[Show spoiler]I personally don't mind heavy-handedness in my movies, especially if it's not dialogue-related. Subtlety would only work here if the literal plot was made more logical and the allegory diminished in scope, but that's clearly deviating from Aronofsky's vision. And I do admire how the ending goes all-out. In its own way, it reminds me of all those crazy children's stories and fairy tales--like that one about the guy who drank an entire ocean. Even stories like Old Man and the Sea and Moby Dick are hyperbolic allegories--why should mother! be held in less regard?

I do agree that both sides need to work--those other stories could be taken at both face value and as allegories, it becomes frustrating when one side works and another doesn't. Only God Forgives frustrated me at first because its plot didn't make much sense either (and I couldn't suspend enough disbelief). I ultimately warmed up to it because its allegory was so darn good, and I got a better sense of the characters.

I think the Genesis story fits in to mother! just fine as-is for the first half of the story (as I see it, the Genesis arc ends with the

[Show spoiler]funeral reception, during which the breaking sink may represent the flooding that prompts nature to literally kick humans out of her house

). It's the New Testament events (the last hour or so) I struggle to pin down for the following reasons:

[Show spoiler]


•*If the baby is meant to be Christ (because it is given to the people, is "martyred," then eaten like communion, and God (Bardem) wants to forgive them), then why is nature (Lawrence) involved? Aronofsky decided to combine nature and the Virgin Mary together for some reason. What would have made better sense (and probably would have made better drama) is if Bardem picked a random stranger to bear the child with, instead of Lawrence. Then that character could be the Virgin Mary of the movie. But as it is, it's too convoluted to work, imo, because the relationship between nature and mankind should remain indifferent, but giving away nature's baby to the people creates a relationship that doesn't really match up with anything.
•*On top of that, there's no resurrection shown or implied (except maybe by Bardem saying they must be forgiven). The manner in which the baby thing happens is a stretch anyway--God gave his own son as a way for mankind to find forgiveness of sins, but in the movie Bardem gives his son away senselessly and without any indication that there's a greater plan. He comes off as clueless and perhaps selfish in the film, and if Aronofsky thinks God is clueless, then the message of the film is rather troubling and perhaps a little too anti-Christian (although I don't mind it being cynical).

Is it convoluted though? Or is it less convoluted to combine the two?

Let me explain why I think he paired them. There is the message of

[Show spoiler]our lack of respect for Earth, which is most directly evident to me when her own house is being altered and painted over by strangers at the first party. From the beginning of the film, Man's presence feels intrusive. I think this is where Aronofsky is most brilliant. His decision to craft a story about respecting Mother Earth by essentially retelling the backbone of the Bible, and to personally connect the message to audiences through the family construct, is genius--because Man really is intrusive and disrespectful to God and His creations throughout the Bible. I found the pairing of those ideas synergistic to the power of the story.

The decision to make J Law both Mother Earth and the Virgin Mary may feel convoluted, but it is effective at amplifying our feeling of intrusion and betrayal to keep the story told through her eyes. During labor, nobody would give her privacy (Mary & Joseph seeking shelter). They received the gifts. He remained hovering over her as she kept her baby from Him, reflecting God patiently waiting for Jesus' (the baby's) time on Earth (J Law), until He takes Jesus back from Earth to sacrifice for Man's sins. The baby being carried and then killed by the crowd of people to the horror of Mary (also J Law) echoes the Stations of the Cross. Aronofsky's displaying His murder so mercilessly is his way of shoving in our faces how repulsive and barbaric Man really is. When she is upset that He invited all the people into their home, he responds along the lines of, "No, I want them here," reflecting God's mercy despite our sins. The juxtaposition of the baby's corpse being eaten immediately after His death is to reflect the hypocrisy of Man that we would worship someone who we ourselves destroyed- worship Him to the point of eating His body and blood (communion). The smearing of the ashes further displays our rituals. J Law then going apeshit I think was supposed to represent the storm that happens at the moment of Jesus's death (Storm = Earth wrecking havoc).

Aronofsky's films work because they are simple and personal. He isn't trying to answer every question, he just sticks to the backbone and uses it to push the theme.

[Show spoiler]Man is intrusive and disrespectful--okay, how? Reckless to Mother Earth. Reckless with our messiah. Self-destructive to one another. Into an Aronofsky-trademarked Downward Spiral Climax.

Is it senseless and clueless though? God also gets angry with man in the Bible after they kill Jesus, yet it was all in His plan. We are never once in the film clued into Bardem's reasoning for things. They just sort of happen. That is also how life is, at least within a Christian faith. Things just sort of happen, and Man assumes God has the answers and plan for them. So your same argument can apply to the Bible, and is thus more of a spiritual one than a logical one. We are left unequivocally frustrated at Bardem's enigmatic nature, just as Man is with God.

• The entire allegory is missing one key

[Show spoiler]character: Satan. You could argue that he's present in the masses that invade the house. But the Bible specifies him as his own character who challenges mankind constantly, sometimes winning and ultimately losing. Wouldn't it make more sense if: the story begins with a house full of servants, one of them rebels and takes a bunch of the servants with him, then they influence the invaders as they come in? Couldn't it work better if Bardem had a beef with such a character and tried to attack him from a distance? And vice-versa? Then the battle over the baby would have a different kind of dramatic weight, and perhaps there could come a point in which the home-invaders decide to dismiss the Devil to show what the Bible ultimately shows (although I suppose the final end-game would have the Devil worm his way into the house, convince a bunch of people to follow him, then apocalyptic fire wipes him out in addition to everyone else).

You bring up a good point about the film missing

[Show spoiler]the resurrection, Satan, etc. But did it feel incomplete to you? I think the message was clear. What would Satan have added? He chose the story of the Bible to elucidate our lack of respect for all that God has created for us. If he intended to include Satan, I think it would have appeared in the form of temptation way back before Eve shattered the crystal. The frog was, I believe, made to represent evil- as it is seen hopping out of the basement (hell). And the bleeding hole in the floor... while I am still uncertain as to what it represents, I interpreted it as the stain made by Man on Mother Earth since the Fall of Man (its origin is from the blood from Abel's death, and resides right near where the crystal [or apple] was displayed). In this vein, it can also represent sin, or shame, as J Law repeatedly tries to hide it from God. It could have also been a pit or portal to hell or the underworld. It glows firey red at one point and then drips into the basement, and it is in the room where the "apple" was kept- which was offered to Eve from the devil himself.

I'm also still at a loss over what all the hearing

[Show spoiler]problems in the beginning of the film were supposed to mean (if anything).

If you are referring to the intermittent episodes

[Show spoiler]of pain that she has, I am also unsure and still waiting for my second viewing in hopes of better understanding that. Are they her earthquakes and storms? They seem to be brought about by stressful events.

The yellow potion as well. I haven't quite figured this out yet myself. A common interpretation is its association with The Yellow Wallpaper, a classic short story by Charlotte Perkins Gilman about a woman in post-partum depression in a house with her oppressive husband.

Another possibility is a sort of McGuffin or red herring, meant only to occupy the audience or mislead us into thinking she is mentally unhealthy.

My preferred theory is that it is a symbol of purity. And that consuming it somehow brings her back to baseline. In the Bible, the color yellow is associated with fire, which in turn, has always been associated with the purification process. It has similarly been thought to represent trials of faith, and in the film, the potion may end-cap each time she is put through a trial in her own house. The act of consuming it may be an act of resistance, which can be interpreted as Mother Nature being at odds with her Creator and represents her taking efforts to restore balance to Earth (e.g. the great flood, the ice age, the asteroid that is thought to have led to the extinction of dinosaurs).

I think I would have to watch the film a second time to observe the timing of when she drinks it, when gives up the drink, etc. Is it just as she gets pregnant that she gives up the potion?

[Show spoiler]Something about the relationship between God, nature, and the people needed to be nailed down better.

I see what you did there

It's easy to see how

[Show spoiler]men and nature didn't get along, but the God-nature relationship seemed way too distant (hence my complaints about their lack of communication, although I think that's a bigger problem for the literal side of the story). The two probably aren't meant to understand each other, but God should be in control of nature.

Unfortunately, having it that way would probably make the movie seem sexist.

Re: the communication-

[Show spoiler]the allegorical theme IMO explains their age difference and distant dynamic, which was uncomfortable at first, but then quickly becomes apparent it is deliberate and not due to lack of acting chemistry. Overall I really think they both get lost in their roles. Javier Bardem was such a perfect choice for the role of Him

, and J Law really delivers a gut-wrenching performance too.

I think sexism exists on a spectrum of perception shaped by the individual. By J Law's standards, the film involving a traditional wife confined by her husband was already a role she said she never grew comfortable with even by the end of production, but was more than okay with after learning the director's vision.

If you want to see a strong and deeply thematic film about Man and Nature, I highly recommend The Red Turtle.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Is it convoluted though? Or is it less convoluted to combine the two?

Holy cow, you brought up a lot of excellent points that might make me change my mind.

I dug the theme of respecting nature/Earth, but I didn't consider that it would be the basis for reinterpreting Biblical events. Maybe I was getting too hung up on the symbolic roles.

Some of the interactions

[Show spoiler]between Him, mother, and the baby threw me off--I could understand mother not wanting to give up the baby out of love and maternal instinct, and I could follow Him wanting to hold the baby because it's his, but I initially didn't see it syncing with the Virgin Mary. But the parallels you brought up are good details I forgot about at first. I suppose instead of being one distinct symbol, J-Law's role is blurred across multiple interpretations of the term mother, and that's how art should be.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

You bring up a good point about the film missing

[Show spoiler]the resurrection, Satan, etc. But did it feel incomplete to you? I think the message was clear. What would Satan have added? He chose the story of the Bible to elucidate our lack of respect for all that God has created for us. If he intended to include Satan, I think it would have appeared in the form of temptation way back before Eve shattered the crystal. The frog was, I believe, made to represent evil- as it is seen hopping out of the basement (hell). And the bleeding hole in the floor... while I am still uncertain as to what it represents, I interpreted it as the stain made by Man on Mother Earth since the Fall of Man (its origin is from the blood from Abel's death, and resides right near where the crystal [or apple] was displayed). In this vein, it can also represent sin, or shame, as J Law repeatedly tries to hide it from God. It could have also been a pit or portal to hell or the underworld. It glows firey red at one point and then drips into the basement, and it is in the room where the "apple" was kept- which was offered to Eve from the devil himself.

I suppose the movie didn't need those other aspects in it to work. I do kinda wonder if they could have reinforced the symbolism though.

I wasn't sure if the basement really meant hell or not, but the more I think about it the more sense it makes. I did find it interesting that

[Show spoiler]oil becomes the means in which total destruction happens. You have a lot of great points in this paragraph, I can dig them.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

If you are referring to the intermittent episodes

[Show spoiler]of pain that she has, I am also unsure and still waiting for my second viewing in hopes of better understanding that. Are they her earthquakes and storms? They seem to be brought about by stressful events.

It hit me:

[Show spoiler]mother nature was still getting in tune and was out of balance, until she found union with God.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

[Show spoiler]Another possibility is a sort of McGuffin or red herring, meant only to occupy the audience or mislead us into thinking she is mentally unhealthy.

Yep, I can see that. As these episodes happened, I kept thinking back on Black Swan and was expecting more fooling around with the audience.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

[Show spoiler]My preferred theory is that it is a symbol of purity. And that consuming it somehow brings her back to baseline. In the Bible, the color yellow is associated with fire, which in turn, has always been associated with the purification process. It has similarly been thought to represent trials of faith, and in the film, the potion may end-cap each time she is put through a trial in her own house. The act of consuming it may be an act of resistance, which can be interpreted as Mother Nature being at odds with her Creator and represents her taking efforts to restore balance to Earth (e.g. the great flood, the ice age, the asteroid that is thought to have led to the extinction of dinosaurs).

I think I would have to watch the film a second time to observe the timing of when she drinks it, when gives up the drink, etc. Is it just as she gets pregnant that she gives up the potion?

That could be. I can't remember if

[Show spoiler]she dumps the stuff after making love or after waking up and announcing she's pregnant. Either way, it's right when she knows it.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I see what you did there

...it was unintentional.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Re: the communication-

[Show spoiler]the allegorical theme IMO explains their age difference and distant dynamic, which was uncomfortable at first, but then quickly becomes apparent it is deliberate and not due to lack of acting chemistry. Overall I really think they both get lost in their roles. Javier Bardem was such a perfect choice for the role of Him

, and J Law really delivers a gut-wrenching performance too.

I agree, and I can appreciate how the casting choice accentuates the overall picture. I didn't even question the age gap, it just worked for me.

What I was thinking was that maybe Him should have directly controlled mother, giving her orders and such. But now that I think about it, it's probably Aronofsky's view that God creates nature than leaves her alone, which is what happens in the movie and explains why the two seem to act on their own accord.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I think sexism exists on a spectrum of perception shaped by the individual. By J Law's standards, the film involving a traditional wife confined by her husband was already a role she said she never grew comfortable with even by the end of production, but was more than okay with after learning the director's vision.

Didn't think of that. I think I just figured the two had mutual respect, and mother worked out of her own love and motivations without being directed or controlled by Him. But maybe the submission is implicit, especially if it's an unspoken rule of the film (and this is one of those films that has its own rules).

Originally Posted by DjMethod

If you want to see a strong and deeply thematic film about Man and Nature, I highly recommend The Red Turtle.

Well, I did see that one and it was interesting. Wasn't a fan of the pacing though.

[Al_The_Strange]

Here's something a little more laid-back.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle

In 2014, Kingsman: The Secret Service dropped an unassuming street rat into the hyperbolic world of British spies, and it spat him out as a proper gentleman. He killed lots of people, cursed like a rapper, defied authority, killed the chief, and fornicated a princess...like a gentleman. Such was the insane roller-coaster ride of a truly unique and colorful film that deconstructed the spy genre and flipped all the familiar tropes and cliches on its head. It's as if Joan Jett sung a Bond theme.

In this adventure, Eggsy is still at the top of his spy game, and he's juggling his career and his relationship with princess Tilde. After an encounter with a former henchman who managed to escape the carnage of the first film, all heck breaks loose and the Kingsman hierarchy is bombed. Eggsy teams up with Merlin, who follow a lead and wind up teaming up with the Statesman: the American cousins to the Kingsman, who are all about that whisky, rodeos, and cowboy stuff. They all track down a crazy supervillain who holds the world hostage in exchange for legalizing all drugs.

I welcomed a sequel, and there are times when The Golden Circle feels like a spirited romp. Action scenes are fast and extreme. The fights are still fresh and inventive, going so far as choreographing lassos, whips, umbrellas, baseballs, donuts, robots, bowling pins and balls, and even Elton John in eye-popping movement and detail. A cool car chase in the beginning and an elaborate setpiece with a falling gondola are also pretty cool.

Unfortunately, there is an awful lot of padding in between these scenes, and very little of it pops as much as it did in the first film. The reason is, the story just isn't as interesting. The big evil plot is as outlandish as it can be, and the villain is probably the most interesting aspect. But even she follows in the same hipster shoes that Samuel L. Jackson previously filled--they just swap nerdy stuff for nostalgia. The main story arc with Eggsy doesn't really have much room for growth--his most significant changes already happened in the first movie, so all his drama is around sustaining his position. That means a lot of interactions with Tilda, her parents, and other characters. It's a lot of talk, but little depth and direction. The only other arc worth mentioning involves a character we all know and love--it adds interesting levels of drama, to the point where it might overshadow the other angles the film tackles.

Few other aspects hold the film back. The cast has some impressive names--the main leads deliver phenomenally, including Julianne Moore and the supporting players. However, Channing Tatum is totally wasted and ultimately upstaged by Pedro Pascal. Halle Berry has zero personality in her role. A few characters are killed off in disappointing ways. On top of all that, the plot is just all over the place geographically, and the film doesn't even try to explain the logistics of anything.

What makes the film redeemable in my eyes are the ways it continues the trend of deconstructing the spy genre. Even though the gentleman theme is carried over, everybody still curses up a storm, and the violence is still pretty brutal. The film does not shy away from showing how far the villain will go to instill loyalty in her subordinates--I'm starting to think Vaughn has a thing against hamburgers. The film challenges the sanity of politicians (which only makes sense in this day and age) and drug policy. As far as the good guys go, their competence is consistently challenged though a number of twists and betrayals. For a change though, Eggsy doesn't sleep around the same way Bond does--he asks for permission. Above all, subtlety and deception that spies love so much goes out the window--Eggsy straight up grabs a certain thing from the bad guys and makes a run for it as if shoplifting, and it's all the funnier.

The film is very punchy, thanks to its lively camera movements and composition. Everything looks slick and colorful. Few special effects don't hold up that well, but for a movie as cartoony as this, I hardly cared. Music can be rather distracting.

A fair bit of fun, but not quite as endearing. There's a certain punch and originality missing in this follow-up, as it carbon-copies so much of the first film and just smoothens over the bumps with some rather lackluster character beats. It doesn't amount to much more in the end, save for expanding this crazy universe a bit. The first film is like a shot of potent whisky--this is watered down by comparison.

3/5

[Lepidopterous]

I've had the evening off and spent it with music as opposed to movies or television, so I'm going to leave an... atypical short film review. Here are my thoughts on a music video series by Kygo themed around death and grieving. Hope you enjoy

All three comments have spoilers, so watch the videos first if interested!

Kygo, Selena Gomez - It Ain't Me - YouTube

It Ain't Me - Kygo & Selena Gomez

[Show spoiler]Written and Directed by Phillip R. Lopez
Executive Produced by Maximilian Guen
Cinematography by Todd Martin
Video commissioned by Toby Andrews

This video is a bit eccentric and dark, and touches on persistence and not giving up. After a motorcycle crash, we see a woman get up relatively unscathed while her boyfriend is severely injured. She supports him through his recovery, stays by his side, and gives him the strength to pull through to the "light."

[Show spoiler]At the end, the man wakes up and sees that she was never there. He realizes that she died in the crash and it was the spirit of her that kept him going the whole time. She is the butterfly at the end (notice her winged and lepidopterous dress in his dream). I initially found it a little odd she would dance around his bed, before I learned it was the energy she left him with, or her ghost/spirit there with him keeping him alive and awake. This one is much more valuable the second time through after knowing the twist.

___________________________________________

Kygo & Ellie Goulding - First Time - YouTube

First Time - Kygo & Ellie Goulding

[Show spoiler]Production Company: Mirada
Directed by: Mathew Cullen
Written by: Cornelia Funke and Mathew Cullen
Executive Producer: Javier Jimenez
Producer: David Hebenstreit
Cinematographer: Stefan von Borbely
Production Designer: Michael Whetstone

This is a tough one to interpret, but I believe it is about

[Show spoiler]how the toxicity of depression and PTSD can overcome someone's life. As a child, a boy finds out that the girl he grew up with is dying, then discovers that anytime he feels sad or angry, he catches on fire and begins turning to stone. After her death he begins having nightmares that he is being burned alive (PTSD). It is only as an adult (played by Kygo) when he begins to finally express himself (playing piano) that he begins to be freed of the petrification of his depression. In the end it turns out the woman in black (Ellie Goulding) was the spirit of the girl...

Overall probably the most open to interpretation of the three videos, and certainly thought-provoking.

___________________________________________

Kygo - Stargazing ft. Justin Jesso - YouTube

Stargazing - Kygo (feat. Justin Jesso)

[Show spoiler]Written and Directed by Phillip R. Lopez
Cinematography by Todd Martin
Executive Produced by Maximilian Guen
Produced by Ryan Hawkins
Co-Produced: Samuel Caron and Pierre-Philippe Côté Video commissioned by Toby Andrews
Color: Mikey Rossiter at The Mill.
VFX: Oblique, Montreal.

This third installment is made by the same team as the first video, which might be why I find I like them both better and for similar reasons- because they are more straightforward yet still open to interpretation and rewarding.

"You can always find me in the stars.”

Love, Dad

We see a boy who is really into space, as he’s seen playing with his toy space shuttle at the very beginning.

[Show spoiler]When his father dies suddenly from a heart attack, the boy becomes determined to find him again "in the stars," so he follows his dreams of going into space. With the help of a teacher, librarian, and old neighbor, he begins to build his rocket. Before supplying him with a piece for his ship, the old man makes a motion with a wrench near his head, telling the boy he needs to grieve and "repair" his mind. But every time his mom tries to talk to him, she finds his barriers up and he won’t let her inside his head (“Keep Out”). It is here when we see the man reassure the mother that the part he gave to the boy was only for pretend (he tells her not to worry as he points to a toy).

As the boy completes his project, the mother discovers it, and becomes overwhelmed with emotion. She is finally let into his mind, so she does the best thing she can to show him she is there for him… She creates flyers for the whole town to come see and support her son as he “launches” the rocket—and to everyone’s surprise, it actually flies! The rocket blasts off, and the video takes an unexpected turn into fantasy and inspiration, as the boy is met with elation and wonder. It symbolizes that the boy has reached closure and has finally found peace in his grieving process. He finds his father in the stars and finally feels his dad’s presence and strength with him again.

The video ends with the mother alone at the altar, where the boy was previously with her. Was the rocket a metaphor for his suicide? Did he truly join his dad among the stars? It don't believe we're left with a clear answer. But there is what appears to be the boy standing at the very edge of the altar at the end of the video. Or is it?

[Lepidopterous]

Bonus post if anyone was a fan of the above (brief off-topic post/addendum): one thing I appreciate about Kygo is he is an artist first, and a DJ/Producer second. He's a talented pianist and writes his own music before then transposing them into electronic melodies and dance tracks. For further evidence of this, here is Lindsey Stirling's beautiful rendition of Kygo's first video, "It Ain't Me":

It Ain't Me - Lindsey Stirling and KHS (Selena Gomez & Kygo Cover) - YouTube

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

[Show spoiler]I've had the evening off and spent it with music as opposed to movies or television, so I'm going to leave an... atypical short film review. Here are my thoughts on a music video series by Kygo themed around death and grieving. Hope you enjoy

All three comments have spoilers, so watch the videos first if interested!

Kygo, Selena Gomez - It Ain't Me - YouTube

It Ain't Me - Kygo & Selena Gomez

[Show spoiler]Written and Directed by Phillip R. Lopez
Executive Produced by Maximilian Guen
Cinematography by Todd Martin
Video commissioned by Toby Andrews

This video is a bit eccentric and dark, and touches on persistence and not giving up. After a motorcycle crash, we see a woman get up relatively unscathed while her boyfriend is severely injured. She supports him through his recovery, stays by his side, and gives him the strength to pull through to the "light."

[Show spoiler]At the end, the man wakes up and sees that she was never there. He realizes that she died in the crash and it was the spirit of her that kept him going the whole time. She is the butterfly at the end (notice her winged and lepidopterous dress in his dream). I initially found it a little odd she would dance around his bed, before I learned it was the energy she left him with, or her ghost/spirit there with him keeping him alive and awake. This one is much more valuable the second time through after knowing the twist.

___________________________________________

Kygo & Ellie Goulding - First Time - YouTube

First Time - Kygo & Ellie Goulding

[Show spoiler]Production Company: Mirada
Directed by: Mathew Cullen
Written by: Cornelia Funke and Mathew Cullen
Executive Producer: Javier Jimenez
Producer: David Hebenstreit
Cinematographer: Stefan von Borbely
Production Designer: Michael Whetstone

This is a tough one to interpret, but I believe it is about

[Show spoiler]how the toxicity of depression and PTSD can overcome someone's life. As a child, a boy finds out that the girl he grew up with is dying, then discovers that anytime he feels sad or angry, he catches on fire and begins turning to stone. After her death he begins having nightmares that he is being burned alive (PTSD). It is only as an adult (played by Kygo) when he begins to finally express himself (playing piano) that he begins to be freed of the petrification of his depression. In the end it turns out the woman in black (Ellie Goulding) was the spirit of the girl...

Overall probably the most open to interpretation of the three videos, and certainly thought-provoking.

___________________________________________

Kygo - Stargazing ft. Justin Jesso - YouTube
Stargazing - Kygo (feat. Justin Jesso)

[Show spoiler]Written and Directed by Phillip R. Lopez
Cinematography by Todd Martin
Executive Produced by Maximilian Guen
Produced by Ryan Hawkins
Co-Produced: Samuel Caron and Pierre-Philippe Côté Video commissioned by Toby Andrews
Color: Mikey Rossiter at The Mill.
VFX: Oblique, Montreal.

[Show spoiler]This third installment is made by the same team as the first video, which might be why I find I like them both better and for similar reasons- because they are more straightforward yet still open to interpretation and rewarding.

"You can always find me in the stars.”

Love, Dad

We see a boy who is really into space, as he’s seen playing with his toy space shuttle at the very beginning. When his father dies suddenly from a heart attack, the boy becomes determined to find him again "in the stars," so he follows his dreams of going into space. With the help of a teacher, librarian, and old neighbor, he begins to build his rocket. Before supplying him with a piece for his ship, the old man makes a motion with a wrench near his head, telling the boy he needs to grieve and "repair" his mind. But every time his mom tries to talk to him, she finds his barriers up and he won’t let her inside his head (“Keep Out”). It is here when we see the man reassure the mother that the part he gave to the boy was only for pretend (he tells her not to worry as he points to a toy).

As the boy completes his project, the mother discovers it, and becomes overwhelmed with emotion. She is finally let into his mind, so she does the best thing she can to show him she is there for him… She creates flyers for the whole town to come see and support her son as he “launches” the rocket—and to everyone’s surprise, it actually flies! The rocket blasts off, and the video takes an unexpected turn into fantasy and inspiration, as the boy is met with elation and wonder. It symbolizes that the boy has reached closure and has finally found peace in his grieving process. He finds his father in the stars and finally feels his dad’s presence and strength with him again.

The video ends with the mother alone at the altar, where the boy was previously with her. Was the rocket a metaphor for his suicide? Did he truly join his dad among the stars? It don't believe we're left with a clear answer. But there is what appears to be the boy standing at the very edge of the altar at the end of the video. Or is it?

Theory #2: Notice the boy is wearing

[Show spoiler]the same smiley face shirt as the woman who turns out to be dead the whole time in the first video (It Ain't Me). This may represent that the boy does in fact die. (They also appear at the same time in the videos)

Either way, I do believe the workshop represents his grieving process; or if he dies, his depression (severe grief). When the mother discovers his space shuttle in the workshop, smoke can be seen coming out of the vehicle. This may be when she discovers his body, the post card, and the rocket all at once, and can explain why she sits down to cry.

At the 3-minute mark, she is seen counting down from 3, then gets startled with the thought of him and his father. This may be her remembering them. The flyers may be for his memorial, and the crowd of lights for his vigil. Perhaps the rocket making it to the stars does represent his death, and his reuniting with his father. The boy being at the corner of the altar at the end may be him watching over his mom, as this differs from when he is seen at his mom's side earlier in the video. Or it may be a clip from the past, back when he was at his father's funeral with his mom, when he was still alive.

I think the above is less likely, but it does fit. My preferred interpretation is still that the closed-off workshop represents his barriers and grief, and the rocket represents his thoughts--as the old neighbor tells him to "work on it" with the wrenching motion.

Theory #3: Same as #2, only

[Show spoiler]the old man represents God guiding the boy back to his father, and the end is him going to heaven. A lot of ways to interpret this video.

[Pondosinatra]

Blade Runner 2049

'

Rating: 4 out of 5

30 years after the events of the original movie we find Officer K, himself a Replicant, who's job is to hunt older model Replicants - Androids with an open ended life span. During one assignment in which he 'retires' the suspect he stumbles across a long buried secret which leads him to end up questioning his own origins and searching out someone from the past for answers. The original Blade Runner is my favourite film of all time. Period. When I heard they were making a sequel I died a little inside, but due to Ridley Scott's involvement I held out hope that at least it wouldn't be an abomination. Now that it's finally here some reviewers have suggested it bests the first one in some ways. I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but it is definitely a visual masterpiece that more than lives up to it's predecessor. I'm not one to usually go see a movie in the theatre, but this absolutely needs to be seen on the big screen, preferably in the Imax format. Sadly the box office numbers haven't been great so it's likely it won't be playing for long. This is a long film - make sure you go to the bathroom first - which is likely a big reason for the poor numbers. But I found myself utterly mesmerized by the images on the screen. Performances are great. This is easily the first movie in so so long that Harrison Ford is truly acting and not just being himself. And I really enjoyed Ryan Gosling. For me the only real criticism was the story which while logical and nothing inherently wrong with it, left me a bit underwhelmed. The decades it took for this sequel to be realized is likely unprecedented in cinema history - at least it was worth the wait.

[Al_The_Strange]

Thor: Ragnarok

Thor has been on two stand-alone adventures and two Avengers films, saving two different worlds twice. Although he was previously shown as an Asgardian with his heart set in Earth, Ragnarok--the apocalypse--comes to his homeworld. To save it, he looks for answers across the stars, fights incredible enemies, forms unlikely alliances, and ultimately emerges as the guardian to save his people.

Previous Thor films had their sparks of action, style, and character beats, but were always hampered by their bland style, stilted drama, and underdeveloped villains. Ragnarok...still has an underdeveloped villain. Which is sad, because Cate Blanchett's performance is a joy to watch as she gleefully throws spears at everyone and uncovers the lies of Odin. I found Hela's appearance and actions imposing in its own right, and her connection to the story has implicit motivations I can jive with. A better villain than Malekith, Ronan, Kaecilius, a hair worse than Ego, Ultron, and Loki (Tom Hiddleston returns in Ragnarok, mischievous and slippery as ever, delivering the right balance of deadpan humor and tragedy). The story also feels like it's shaped from the same cookie-cutter that spat out Iron Man 3: these are both stories in which the hero loses his home and primary powers, is banished to some place with no allies, and is forced to return and reclaim everything with fantastic heroics.

Even if this is just another Marvel cookie, it is one glazed in pure color with sparkles. The plot stalls a little when Thor hangs around Sakaar, but it's very quick to introduce new characters and problems that inevitably have to be solved to bring Thor back to Asgard. What makes this work is the sheer amount of levity. There's about as many laughs here (maybe more) than an Avengers film. Heck, if Drax showed up and started laughing more, it might come off as another Guardians of the Galaxy film. But Thor maintains its identity by maintaining its focus on Thor's heritage (not even extended cameos by Dr. Strange and Bruce Banner can distract from Thor, Odin, Loki, and Hela), and through the eye-popping action sequences. The combination of Norse myth and space fantasy is more sublime than ever--fantastic sequences, such as a line of Valkyries on winged horses bearing down on Hela, or the high-powered fight between Thor and Surfur, brings the fantasy to vivid life.

Juggling princely charm and lunk-headed goofiness, Chris Hemsworth is a joy to watch in this film. Lesser characters aren't too shabby either though--Jeff Goldblum really chews the scenery, as if Mr. Malcolm from Jurassic Park suddenly became power-mad. I enjoyed Tessa Thompson's character and performance. Karl Urban is a nice surprise--his character pulled out a few surprising punches in the beginning and end. Idris Elba returns as Heimdall, and his character plays into the story much more significantly than before (and it's a nice touch). All these characters are united by an okay script that stands out more for the humor. The film is nicely-ordained with awesome-looking sets, props, costumes, and special effects. Mark Mothersbaugh's film score tries to capture a certain 80s fantasy vibe, and it marries well with what's on-screen.

I could see how somebody could walk away from Ragnarok feeling like it's more of the same. The plot goes through some of the same beats we've seen in other superhero flicks (especially third-parters). The villain is still a tad undercooked. But at the very least, it's far from bland. Every time Thor pummeled his enemies (set to the beat of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song"), I was awestruck as the camera followed his hammer slamming into so many fire minions, or as he came slamming down in an explosion of lightning. In between the gorgeous action and fantasy scenes, the humor brings light to flavor to a franchise that could have easily become droll. In the end, it's just the right flavor of movie I crave.

4/5
------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:

• This is the 4,000th movie I've rated on Letterboxd. Woohoo!
• I've previously reviewed the other Thor movies and rated them pretty highly. Nowadays, I'd probably drop their scores to 3/5 each.
• Is it me, or is Marvel Phase 3 the funnest phase of the lot? I've found GOTGv2 and Spider-Man: Homecoming to be equally enjoyable.