2020 Vision ... at the Movies!
This is the thread to talk about films we've seen, from the big-screen multiplex blockbuster to the obscure indie art film. If it's on the big screen (or is a feature film on the small screen, in these days of streaming services etc), this is the place to talk about it!
This discussion has been closed.

Comments
I have to say I was slightly apprehensive about what it would be like, given the death of Carrie Fisher, who was supposed to be a major part of this film.
Overall, I enjoyed it - it was nice to see some of the old characters return, though poor Rose Tico got a bit of a raw deal, and it wrapped the story up pretty well.
This is only the third film I've seen by Ken Loach, the other two, Riff Raff and Raining Stones, being almost three decades ago. But this one shares some distinct characteristics with the earlier ones, in terms of being about a working-class man, acting on behalf of his family's well-being, who faces exploitation and degradation at the hands of capitalists.
Good to see Loach's marxism keeping up with the times: in this film, he takes on the "franchisee" scams by which corporations offload risks to their workers, each supposedly the owner of a franchise. The particular ruse this time around involves a delivery company, and its highly exploitative relationship with one of its drivers.
The family are Mancusians transplanted Newcastle, and Loach's camera does an elegant job of focusing on those aspects of the city that especially work to create an old-school working-class vibe, with one gloriously out-of-place exception.
I'll also observe that Loach seems to have toned down
Well-written and well-acted, if a little didactic in its politics. I'd recomment this, with the caveat that if you've seen other stuff by Loach, it might not seem entirely original.
Is there any sense in which you would recommend it? I ask, because I have limited access to English language movies, and some of the reviews have made it sound interesting in a "Just have to gawk at a horrific car crash" sort of a way.
I find it to be a modern day version of a Medieval morality play. Every cat has a history, or some foible. Some control others and expect them to be “useful.” Another is a glutton. Others wastrels or sneak thieves. But each and every one wonders if, hopes that, they might be the one to go “to the heavy side layer” -- the place of refreshment, refurbishment, happiness in oneself. And when only one is selected, they all celebrate that one of them has indeed gone to “paradise”, leaving each remaining cat the hope that next year will be their year for salvation.
And old theme, made over in a form we find easy to discount. But, I suspect, morality plays are a bit out of date if played openly, so here it all hides behind the dance and singing. And if Judi Dench is going to be the gatekeeper of Heaven -- what fun!
Rey had gone back to Uncle Owen's moisture farm to bury Luke and Leia's lightsabers.
Added spoiler function
jedijudy-Heaven Host
Thank you!
jedijudy-Heaven Host
I've actually ended last year/started this one catching up on some of the films I've meant to see in recent years but hadn't, inspired by seeing lists along the lines of 'best movies of the decade'.
I personally wouldn't consider that a spoiler, as it doesn't relate to a plot point, but more generally to how the characters are portrayed. I'm not sure if anyone with a higher bar for spoilers might feel differently, but to me "spoilers" are things that relate to plot twists and endings of stories. For example, if in my post about Knives Out above, I had said that I figured out a bit of the plot in advance but I hadn't worked out that
Ta. Well, in recent weeks thanks to local library system...
I though Arrival was utterly marvellous, so good in fact that I watched it twice and still loved it the second time. Definitely, for those who know it, a movie that plays differently the second time.
Baby Driver was very entertaining, wild and mad but in a good way. The editing team deserve all the accolades they received.
And Whiplash, which got a great deal of critical acclaim, was a colossal disappointment to me. It's one thing to have nasty characters, but the whole philosophy of the film was just off.
I know this is a movie not a TV thread but ... gosh, I miss Rome.
There were rumors of a possible Rome movie after the end of Season 2, but nothing ever came of it.
Compulsion
I think I have now seen every significant film made about Leopold and Loeb, the other three being Rope, Swoon, and Murder By Numbers.
Unlike Rope and MBN, this one doesn't bowdlerize the story by making the victim of into an adult, though unlike all the other films, it elects not to show the murder on screen. Presumably, showing a child being beaten and choked to death wouldn't have gotten past the Hays Code/studio bosses/general public outrage in 1959.
In clear contrast to Rope(where the boys kill an adult in their apartment and get caught within ninety minutes), this one follows the details of the crime fairly closely, albeit with a couple of somewhat annoying Hollywood add-ons, eg. one of their friends is, quite coincidentally, a cub reporter who plays a significant role in solving the case, and also gets involved in a romantic subplot of a heterosexual nature.
On that last note, I think Compulsion has the second most prominent gay theme of all the films, after Swoon. (Though I'm not entirely sure about Murder By Numbers, it's been a while). Though of course, being the late 50s, no explicit wording is actually made.
While this film is famed for starring Orson Welles as the Darrowesque lawyer, he actually doesn't show up on screen until the second half. I actually felt slightly deflated at his arrival, as I'd been enjoying the storyline about the boys' crimes, social circle, and the ongoing investigation. Welles, of course, does a credible job, though his portion of the film arguably descends into an anti-death penalty message movie.
And no review of an LNL film would be complete without discussing the treatment of Nietzsche, and this one is probably the worst of the bunch: in a university class, one of the killers suggests to his doddering old professor that the Ubermensch is held to a different standard of morality than the herd because he is a leader of society and has to make a lot of complicated decisions for the benefit of all. Which I don't think is what Nietzsche was saying.
Some things were surprising.
All in all, a good movie, and I'm glad I went! (Plus, they gave me a large popcorn and a large drink for free to celebrate another swing around the sun!)
We watched the 2017 Murder on the Orient Express, last night. Extremely silky, but quite fun.
I saw Little Women a few days ago and must admit that I was underwhelmed. The acting, costumes and scenery were all admirable, but the construction of the story was appalling. I don't know who decided to have the action flip backwards and forwards in time, but I found it extremely irritating. There seemed to be an attempt to turn the story into multiple romances rather than a family saga. There were also mistakes made such as showing a Christmas tree when the story was set pre the use of Christmas trees, plus John Brooke was depicted as well and truly alive when according to the true story he died early in his marriage.
I guess that film goers who haven't really read the books would enjoy the film, but those who know the books well, I would say 'give it a miss'. I rate it 2/10.
Last night I saw Parasite, which was amazing: brilliant, funny, creepy, sad, and deeply thought-provoking. The cinematography was beautiful, the sets were perfect, the performances were wonderful, and I'll be thinking for weeks about the many layers of the story and its commentary on class warfare. I cannot recommend highly enough. It's that rare movie that is extremely entertaining and also has a lot to say. I knew very little about it going in, except that it's on zillions of "best movie of the year/decade/whatever" lists, and I'm glad, as there are a couple of plot twists I did not see coming at all.
John Hurt made an excellent baddie as the Marquis of Montrose, and Tim Roth was thoroughly evil without any redeeming features - the duel was between him and Rob Roy, who was of course noble and wise and honourable.
I thoroughly enjoyed it, and there were little bonus features like the woman singing at the Highland celebrations being the lead singer of the band Capercaillie - and all that glorious Scottish scenery.
I loved it, too! Sally Hawkins simply becomes her characters, she was wonderful in "Jasmine," too. Maudie's "romance" with the Ethan Hawke character was too harsh for my husband and son, but to me it was perfectly real and ultimately very tender between the two lonely souls.
Yes, that was a beautiful movie. Some people think the relationship between Maudie and her husband is too tender as they see the real-life Everett Lewis as having been at least borderline abusive, but I guess a lot of that is in how you interpret the little we know about the interaction between two people who are now dead and not able to speak for themselves. As a story within the movie it's poignant and lovely, I thought.
Although it's set in Nova Scotia, the movie was shot here in Newfoundland, which is always a big deal for us here. Also, if you're ever in Halifax, NS, go to the art gallery and see Maudie's whole house which has been restored and rebuilt inside the museum, with all her paintings all over everything. It's amazing to see.
Hm, thanks for that. I'm a pretty huge fan of Greta Gerwig(hat tip to Bunny With An Ax for pointing her out on these forums), but not quite to the point where I'd be a compleatist. And I generally dislike period pieces set before the industrial age, and I REALLY am not a fan of movies where the narrative jumps around in time. (That often seems like it's being used to add artificial gravitas to the story).
Haven't fully made up my mind that I won't see it, but your post has been duly entered into the record.
About all I remember of Rob Roy is the scene of the hero making happy peasant love to his wife under a tree, followed soon after by a scene where it is implied, albeit with plausible deniability, that the aristocratic villain might be some sort of decadent homosexual.
Kinda left a bad taste in my mouth, though I suppose typical enough of the portrayal of upper-crust Hollywood baddies.
The person making love to his wife under the tree wasn't the Marquis, it was Rob Roy.
The Marquis was the guy who, when it was suggested he might be a "buggerer of boys", replies with something like "Oh no, I stopped short just as soon as I realized it was a boy I was mounting."
And yes to the Marquis's comments, Archie being the other villain of the piece.
(This film is so rooted in a very standardized genre, there's no way I can describe it without the viewer likely figuring out the basic ending.)
Yes, we're smack-dab in the territory of The Lottery, The Wicker Man, and The Dark Secret Of Harvest Home. (Have I missed anything that predates Shirley Jackson?) Only this time around, Aster has gone to the trouble of creating some fairly complicated theology and rites, including one for an impregnation ceremony. (Woo-hoo!)
Like I say, nothing strikingly original about the plot, and the elaborate ceremonies and ritual chanting tend to drag on a little, but this is also quite well-crafted, visually speaking, and an eerie pleasure to look at, if nothing else. I recommend this for horror buffs, who will likely be underwhelmed by the storyline, but still interested to see what sort of wine can be poured into old wineskins. And fertility-cult film virgins might enjoy being dragged kicking and screaming to the altar.
I get the impression that maybe, the screenwrtier was in a hurry, and had to concoct a scene that highlighted both the man's total jerkoffery AND his compassionate heart, at the same time, and just patched that together in a few minutes.
I'm a dozen years late or so, but There Will Be Blood was very good. The 2 central performances are both compelling. And the film has a much more unflinching eye towards those characters.
Hard to answer, because, as I suggested, it sort of depends what you're looking for.
At a basic aesthetic level, yes, it's quite well-made, especially on a visual analysis. (Interesting use of extremely vibrant colours, for a horror film.) And some of the horror portrayed is pretty disturbing.
Story-wise, it's not gonna be that captivating for anyone familiar with the subgenre in question. I pretty much knew what was more or less gonna happen by reading the headlines of the reviews. And, it kind of diverts into shock and gore on a couple of occassions, with mixed results.
But, if you're a film buff, you'll probably enjoy feeling superior in your ability to critique the film within its cinematic context. (I'm being somewhat faecitious about the superiority complex, but you know what I mean: it's a self-aware genre flick.)
So, overall, yeah, I'd recommend for anyone who likes horror of the psychologically disturbing variety, whether they're novices or grizzled old veterans. That said, if you are someone who is put off by the idea of a guy
There Will Be Blood is more my kind of movie than Whiplash. An exact comparison might be a little unfair, though, since There Will Be Blood isn't really purporting to examine serious relations between individual human beings: it operates on more of a metaphorical level, with the two respective characters symbolizing(perhaps) capitalism vs. Christianity during the robber-baron era. It's hard to imagine a real-life businessman, for example, behaving the way Daniel Plainview does at the end of that film.
But yes, judging each film by what it was trying to do within its respective parameters, TWBB is the superior portrayal of unpalatable human behaviour.
But a 5 min SNL skit with Adam Driver riffing on the film made me laugh:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7HD2xG92-0