Media itt: movie/film discussion - Beware Spoilers

brightobject

there like moonlight
is a Top Artistis a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus
saw black dynamite with Blue_Tornado a few days back
-stars michael jai white as:
-black dynamite
-blaxploitation parody
-it's about black dynamite
-black dynamite
-one of the funniest movies i have EVER seen, highly recommend

I THREW THAT SHIT BEFORE I WALKED INTO THE ROOM!
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
so vonFiedler. You mentioned before about how you think originality is overrated. can you expand on that? I have an argument with a good friend of mine which basically boils down to experimentation vs execution. I would love to hear what you have to say about originality.
It's not really a question of experimentation vs. execution.

There are a lot of different kinds of stories, but there are three big ones. Character stories, about the development of a character. Thematic stories, which try to impart messages. And plot stories, which try to surprise people with a clever plot structure.

The truth is that for a long time, until the the 20th century, plot stories were not very well regarded. Mystery novels were often considered trash. Now the reverse has become true. People are obsessed with plots, originality (a good plot has to be clever), etc. Plot twists have blown up (even googling best plot twists gets you mostly movie plot twist results). Character and thematic stories get criticized all the time by people rating them by the same standards as a plot story, which doesn't work at all. Complaining that things were "obvious" in a thematic show like ERASED is like complaining that a movie has poor controls. Some Character and Theme stories get by successfully but they are a minority and usually pay some heed to modern plotting practices.

Most people are even somewhat aware of the futility aspect of originality. South Park covered this with "Simpson's Already Did It" 15 years ago. In a short hundred years, pretty much everything's been done. On the other hand, classic literature stayed fresh BY referencing the works that came before them. When a work of art actually says something, then another artist can say something back. The literary conversation is a tangled web of artists talking back and forth to one another. Nobody was concerned about covering similar ground, because they each thought they could bring their own opinion to the table.

Predictability is in no way directly tied to quality either. Predictable is bad if I predict that the story is going to be lame. For instance, I know how La La Land was gonna turn out as soon as I saw WINTER pop up on the screen and since I didn't like the cookie cutter plot I had predicted, I didn't like watching it on screen either. But I can predict plots in such a way that I enjoy them too. "Yeah, I see where this going, and I like it." Because something that's predictable is usually sensible too. Like, sometimes there's just a RIGHT way to tell a story, and it pisses me off when people fuck up a story just to be unpredictable. Just think for yourself, how many times have you watched a movie and then the plot suddenly turned in a way that made no sense and angered you? But that's unpredictable, so it should be good, right? No.

Want proof of what I'm talking about? What's one of the biggest sins of a plot based story? Coincidence. And what's touted as one of the greatest story's ever told? Romeo and Juliet. That story is given motion 99% through coincidence. So either you think that Shakespeare, a man whose name invokes good writing, was legitimately not as good as our modern movie industry (be sure not to miss Transformers 6, coming inevitably to a theater near you), or maybe that shit was intentional. In fact, there's a whole genre called the Comedy of Errors that's all about moving a plot through coincidence. Because the plot didn't matter. Romeo and Juliet is a story about the nature of young love, not about the mechanics of how two young idiots hooks up, because that would be boring.

It's not experimentation vs. execution because the truth is, we haven't actually experimented with execution all that much. Movies are a multimedia art force. Plot is really a small part of what goes into them. But when it's the only thing that matters, everything else tends be kind of samey and dictated by current trends. Try and tell all the different stories you want, some asshat producer is gonna insist that a Hans Zimmerman style "brrrrrrrrrr" drone over it.

I like some really good plot stories as much as anyone else, but I really despise the plot meta we live in.


EDIT:
In other news, La La Land is now the highest ranking musical on IMDB at #31. Which begs the questions: are you fucking kidding me? Good musicals have a hard time even making it onto the list, but this oscar bait hollywood circle joke coca cola commercial opening disappointment can get #31 on the merit of a single good song? What the fuck.
 
Last edited:

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
I like word sounds. Therefore I liked watching Lucky Number Slevin just now.

It likes saying lots of good word sounds as fast as it can and I like that.

Carry on.
 
MY TOP 20 FILMS OF 2016 (20-11)

Link here if u wanna read it on the site :)

(This list is based on UK Release Dates)

We’ve survived 2016. Amid celebrity deaths, Trump, Brexit and Toblerones, the year has hardly been a happy one. At least there’s a silver lining to be found in the wonderful array of films 2016 has to offer, right? Well, yes and no. Blockbusters and high-profile sequels haven’t given us much to cheer about: Star Trek Beyond, Finding Dory, Ghostbusters, Jason Bourne, The Magnificent Seven, and, from my own more personal viewpoint, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Captain America: Civil War, The Jungle Book and Rogue One were all met with a shrug. Batman v Superman, Suicide Squad, Independence Day: Resurgence and X-Men: Apocalypse fared even worse. But, if you scour the year’s filmography and dig deep, there’s some daring, exciting, extraordinary films worth watching amid the insufferable commercialised safety of big-brand blockbuster.

Inevitably, I didn’t manage to see every single film available this year. There are many films that may have made this list had I had the chance to see them. These films include Things to Come, The Childhood of a Leader, The Valley of Love, The Assassin, Son of Saul, Lemonade, Your Name and Julieta.

As always, a Top 20 doesn’t leave room for all of the great films on display this year. Some fell just short of making the list, but deserve a mention all the same. The Invitation is a thriller involving a gathering that’s, on the surface, a dinner party, managing to create more tension than any film this year despite a rather meagre payoff. 10 Cloverfield Lane is similar in the sense that it takes place in a contained area, the plot unwinding in a gripping, unpredictable fashion as we realise whether John Goodman’s character’s talk of aliens is true or a symptom of his obviously unhinged state. The Club is a drama that gives insight towards paedophilia and preisthood. It’s a disturbing, morally-muddied take on the subject, culminating in a brutal finale.

American Honey is an intentionally meandering mood-piece on America’s wistful youth, using first-time actors and improvising its scenes in order to emphasise its gorgeous, sun-soaked realism. Always Shine is a fierce, faux-horror study on jealousy between actors and the female role in an inherently sexist Hollywood, shimmering with style and brutality. And Hail, Caesar! is a delightful offering from the Coen Brothers, following Josh Brolin’s character as he deals with a selection of barmy, interlinking affairs in an atypical few days of 50s Hollywood.

And so begins the Top 20…

20. POPSTAR: NEVER STOP NEVER STOPPING

2016 has been a fantastic year for comedy. Sure, we’ve had the odd Bad Santa 2, but we also had Neighbours 2, and despite being savaged by critics, I thought both Grimsby and Zoolander 2 were hilarious. And another reason for this brilliant comedic year comes in the form of Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping, detailing the rise and inevitable fall of ‘Conner4Real’ (Andy Samberg) following his break-up from a previous boyband. It’s a satirical riff on celebrity culture and egotism, acted and directed by The Lonely Island, a trio of comedy-musicians that became internet sensations with such nuanced work as Jizz in My Pants. So the humour is vulgar and immature, right? Well, yes, while also being both clever and hilarious. Popstar‘s true feat is that, in the face of dick jokes and Seal getting attacked by a pack of wolves, it manages to craft an emotionally rewarding and satisfying tale of friendship. No, seriously. Despite the laugh-a-minute approach of the film, there’s genuine heart to be found, the film finding an impressive balance between the crude, the cutting, and the charming.

19. THE NEON DEMON

Nicolas Winding Refn’s previous two films, Drive and Only God Forgives, are two of my favourite films of this decade. The Neon Demon may not reach those heights, but it certainly maintains Refn’s penchant for bloody violence and stylish set-pieces. Following model-in-training Jesse as she rises up the ranks of the fashion industry, the film explores beauty standards, vanity and jealousy, the shelf-life of models and their bloodthirsty pursuit of obtaining youth, and, er, occults. It’s a hodgepodge of venomous and surreal ideas gloriously realised by Natasha Braier’s glitzy cinematography and Cliff Martinez’s electrifying score. The film glides along with an underlying sense of dread before veering off in a totally unexpected manner that ramps up the shock factor – unexpected even when considering Refn’s track record. And the shock factor has a place rather than used just for the sake of it, propelling and fleshing out Refn’s deranged method of symbolism and meaning. The Neon Demon makes it very clear, in gloriously polished fashion, that beauty is ugly.

18. KUBO AND THE TWO STRINGS

Animation company Laika have found a niche in making grotesque and unsettling flicks palatable for a younger audience. Each of their films – from Coraline to Paranorman deal with mature themes in a careful and inspiring manner, often integrating creepy set-production and character design that would give even an older audience the jitters, and Kubo and the Two Strings is no different. Kubo focuses on loss and how it provokes the titular character to fulfil a quest very similar to a story he tells the village-folk as a way of busking. It’s a sweet, sentimental story that’s involving enough. But in truth, the story only serves as a vehicle for the film’s greatest strength: it’s wonderful animation. Astonishingly hand-crafted rather than digital, there hasn’t been a more beautiful stop-motion animation in the history of cinema (though a film appearing higher up on this list does run it close). As Kubo and his oddball sidekicks journey through caves and deep in the ocean, we are introduced to a wide variety of eye-popping visuals. Elevated by an impressive, suitably-strumming score, Kubo is an absolute joy to watch.

17. PATERSON

Paterson is a story about a man called Paterson who lives in Paterson, who’s a bus driver played by Adam Driver. This is fitting – the film takes on a subtly surreal tone where everything Paterson does seems to fit in place with a prior event: A painting of a waterfall, the name of a poet. A more appropriate way of describing Paterson would be that it’s less of a story and more an ordinary segment of his life, following Driver’s character for a week, fixating on his routine. He’s an aspiring poet, an affectionate boyfriend, an inquisitive bus-driver. There’s nothing much more to the film; much like Boyhood, the film revels in its delightful simplicity, rather than opting to manufacture drama. The film’s not heart-pulsing or action-packed, nor does it have to be – the camera lingering on a matchbox or eavesdropping on a conversation between two passengers is riveting enough. The film is simply a lovely two hours of cinema that functions as an ode to the creative mind.

16. SPOTLIGHT

Last year’s Best Picture winner, Spotlight, crept up on us. With The Revenant expected to be awarded the prize, Spotlight began picking up awards at an increasing pace, until it was thrust into the, er, spotlight (sorry), and received the attention that it deserves. Likewise, the film itself is an unassuming investigative piece that creeps up on you, shedding light on paedophilia in the church and how knowledge of it was hushed and swept under the rug rather than condemned. Unlike this year’s The Club, Spotlight takes a less personal approach and a more objective viewpoint, allowing the audience to develop their own sentiments of rage and indignation. Aside from fumbling a fleeting moment of outburst from Mark Ruffalo’s journalist, the film isn’t showy or heavy-handed. While its nearest competitor, The Revenant, was praised for sweeping camera movements and sumptuous visual effects, there’s nothing of the sort on display here. Rather, Spotlight adopts a minimalist approach, the camera held steady and the score barely noticeable. In that sense, it’s technically perfect: it allows a potent script and believable acting to flourish, leaving the audience with a devastating ending without drawing attention to itself.

15. VICTORIA

Victoria is a 140-minute thriller in which its central protagonist, played wonderfully by Laia Costa, inadvertently involves herself in a robbery after a harmless night of clubbing, drinking, and smoking. The snag? It’s a single take. This obstacle doesn’t prevent Victoria from managing high ambitions, however. We follow the titular character as she joins a group of four men, talks philosophy, plays the piano, takes part in a robbery and outruns the police, all in one take. The method of filming doesn’t mask the grittiness of the situation, and provides realism and panic to stakes that we as an audience are engaged by. The film is deeply emotional, impressively action-packed, daring, unpredictable you name it. Its cinematography leads us to believe that these are real people, stuck in a real situation, and their plight is one we should be interested in, and, inevitably, devastated by.

14. THE BIG SHORT

On paper, a movie about banks is tricky business. The problem is that nobody in their right minds should care: it’s all adjustable-rate mortgages and collateralised debt organisations. However, Adam McKay, director of Anchorman, makes it look easy, birthing a film about the housing market collapse of the mid 2000s that’s not only interesting and informative, tinged with McKay’s impressive knack for eking out humour, but also ferocious in its criticism of the banking industry. Make no mistake, the slick self-aware explanations of financial jargon and the knowingly-cheesy fourth wall breaks are all bells and whistles for a serious, cutting film imbued with a political current. There’s no mistaking the fact that the final few moments of the film provide anger rather than relief, solemnity rather than celebration. It’s a study on morally grey characters: their profit is a huge amount of people’s loss, and McKay’s greatest trick is to stir the audience into celebrating along with them before realising the significance of the situation.

13. UNDER THE SHADOW

2016’s most downright terrifying film of the year goes to Under the Shadow, an Iranian-language horror with a disturbing threat that may or may not exist in the form of a Djinn. There’s a sociopolitical undercurrent to the events taking place: Narges Rashidi’s Shadeh, the central character to the film, is seen fleeing from her apartment with her daughter. Rather than being consoled, she is arrested for not covering herself up. It is made clear that Shadeh not only has to face the horrors haunting her apartment, but the horrors of the outside world. Yet these themes of sexism and intolerance in religion don’t overcrowd the simple, calculated story at the heart of Under the Shadow. Supernatural happenings occur, and with the introduction of a few marvellously unsettling dream sequences, the camera swaying with Shadeh’s movement, it’s not made immediately apparent whether the Djinn is tangible or simply a fiction created by Shadeh’s insomniac-ridden mind. Under the Shadow functions beautifully on many levels: as a statement on Iran’s sociopolitical climate, as an ode to their mythology, and as an intensely frightening horror story.

12. THE NICE GUYS

Shane Black is gradually becoming one of my go-to directors for comedy. 2013’s Iron Man 3 is my favourite movie from the Marvel Universe, and that’s because it was a comedy begging to not being taken seriously, with a comedic twist worth the ticket price alone. The Nice Guys maintains its director’s sense of riotous fun with a 70s detective caper, lead by the duo of Russell Crowe’s straight-faced Jackson and Ryan Gosling’s endearingly clueless Holland. It’s a supremely enjoyable and stylish pastiche of the 70s, complete with cheesy afros and funky house parties. There’s little discernible substance, and the film acknowledges the lack of harm the two characters go through, Gosling stating his own invincibility amid a flurry of gunfire, but there’s enormous amusement to be had listening to the protagonist’s Ritchie-esque banter and watching as they faff their way through a rather serious investigation. It’s the year’s best definitive comedy, in a year full of great comedy.

11. THE REVENANT

While The Neon Demon argues that there’s ugliness in beauty, The Revenant argues that there’s beauty to be found in ugliness. At least, that’s what the film’s cinematography suggests, often giving the appearance of a nature documentary rather than one man’s (Leonardo DiCaprio) cold-blooded tale of survival and revenge. It’s brutal film-making, realised in high definition, orchestrated with panoramic camera movements that capture blood, dirt and snow in all its gritty detail. Interspersed with floaty dream sequences, the film is elevated beyond a simple revenge tale to a study on the concept of revenge itself, the morality behind the actions you take in order to pursue it, and the marvels of human endurance. The Revenant is a visceral, spiritual journey supported by stirring performances, an unsparing tone and its juxtaposing, visually arresting imagery.

Join me next week for my Top 10 Films of 2016.
 

Pilo

uses walther
is a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnus
I went to watch Arrival last week which I was considerably hyped up to see especially considering it was the first time tickets weren't sold out and I had enough free time on my hands. The theater was jam packed but luckily I still managed to squeeze in near the bottom.

I'm not going to spoil anything but suffice to say the movie was pretty amazing, it's about this cunning female linguist who needs to work with the government in order to communicate with aliens who have made first contact and landed in several locations around the world. As the plot progresses things get pretty hectic to say the least and there were a couple moments that had me on the edge of my seat. The movie is also thinly laced with a few neat themes about communication but I'll let anyone going to see it discover them on their own.

That said the plot was a bit convoluted at times and there were a few loose ends that remained untied even after the movie was finished which is definitely a notable flaw in the writing. However, I was able to look past these flaws and still thoroughly enjoyed the movie, I'd definitely recommend seeing it before it leaves theaters.
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Gotten a bit behind on this. But there won't be any big updates for a while, I suspect. Now it's just a slog to get through these Indian films.

#24: La La Land
Yes, this film has steadily grown on the list since I last bitched about it. Apparently it's a better movie than Spirited Away, Leon, and It's a Wonderful Life! This time tomorrow, it will probably surpass Silence of the Lambs. All because of hype from people who never gave a shit about musicals before and never will after this.

In the trailer you might have heard Andre 3000 tell Ryan Gosling that he's not innovating on jazz. Which is funny coming from a movie that just wants to be Singin' in the Rain. The problem is Singin' had a good plot. La La Land doesn't. It's about how hard it is to make it in Hollywood, cept of course these two make it really easily. But will their relationship survive? I'll give you a hint. The plot uses seasons as symbolism and it ends in the fall. Oh boy, I bet there will plot contrivances!

Just keep wanking off that hollywood dick. The more crusty your film is from the cum stains of hollywood dreams and glory the more likely you'll get the best picture. It's tried and true.

The epilogue is okay, but an epilogue doesn't save a movie. Frankly, this film barely warranted watching at all, and I could have just picked up the soundtrack to save myself the trouble. Not even all of the songs are any good. I was ten minutes into the movie when I realized I wasn't watching a coca-cola commercial.

I was really disappointed, I wanted this film to be good. Thankfully, the other movie I was the most hyped about, A Monster Calls, delivered in full. Check it out.

#90: Hacksaw Ridge
I've seen people calling this the most realistic war movie in years. The first thing that happens in the first war scene is a man picks up the torso of a dead man and uses it as a shield while running forward and shooting, never reloading. In fact, no one ever reloads in this movie.

Hacksaw Ridge is really bipolar. The war scenes are beyond awful. You can guess how effective Vince Vaughn is as a drill sergeant. But the first half is pretty watchable. And the highlight scene of the film, where Doss singlehandedly rescues like 50 people, is pretty great.

I always seem to come back to the saying, "No war movie is truly anti-war." That's sure as shit true of this one. You should have known that when you watched the trailer and saw the main character do a Street Fighter flying kick on a grenade. In fact, it's a pro-war movie. Even the MC has no qualms about participating in a righteous war against those yellow savages (there's a terribly important Seppuku scene featuring characters we had never seen before). And yet this is fundamentally an anti-violence story. A true story about a man who never fires or even touches a gun. It's anti-violence but it's pro-war. It's kind of headache inducing...

#143: The Bandit
I might never know why some Turkish films got shuffled in with the Indian ones. But I shouldn't complain, because they aren't fucking garbage. In fact, this one was really very good. It's basically the Turkish Unforgiven. There used to be bandits in Turkey. When one gets out of a 35 year prison sentence, he finds that all the other bandits are dead. His village is underwater. And he was informed on by his best friend, who stole his money and his girl. Now the bandit wants to track him down, it's just that... he's also turned over a new leaf.

The movie is mostly dramatic and subtle for a long time, but you just know that it's going to build up to an epic climax. And well, I don't want to spoil anything, but it's certainly not disappointing. I'd see it for yourself.

#146: A Wednesday
Another movie saying. Bad movies can be funny, but bad comedies are just painful. So if I have to watch more Indian films, I'd rather they were thrillers like this. A Wednesday is bad. It uses obvious green screens for "wall mounted tvs". At one point, to build suspense, someone off screen physically throws a cat into the frame. But this short of shit is a hundred times funnier than the jokes in Andaz Apna Apna.

The movie also ends with some really garbage political soapboxing. It's just... so facepalmy and yet someone thought this shit was really poignant. Some people still do if this shit is on the top 250!

#243: Rogue One
This film will not be on the IMDB top 250 by next week. I thought it was pretty good. It really makes you appreciate the sacrifices for the death star plans. Most of the characters are really great (the main character is not, but she's great in A Monster Calls). I don't know how intentional it is, but I think it's a pretty big statement when you're making a film universe and in the second film it's full of great characters that all die (shouldn't be a spoiler).


Go watch A Monster Calls.
 
Last edited:
MY TOP 20 FILMS OF 2016 (10-1)

Link here if you wanna read it on my site!

(This list is based on UK release dates.)

10. THE WITCH

“What went we out into this wilderness to find?” And so begins The Witch, a film that from its very first few moments makes it clear how committed it is to portraying New England folktales of witchcraft in all its grotesque detail. The film uses these notions of evil magic as means to threaten a disgraced family cast into exile. After losing their youngest child, the madness and paranoia of the family escalates, leading to a crazed, unpredictable final act full of disturbing scenes. This is a film intended to be watched with one eye hidden behind the covers: there’s an unbearable sense of unease present throughout the film, created by the dulled palette of the cinematography, the droning score and some magnificently creepy shots of animals. Accompanied by some magnificent portrayals of characters each complex, sympathetic and deranged, The Witch is 2016’s greatest horror film, a simmering exercise in losing control that’s packed with lasting imagery.

9. HIGH-RISE

One of the year’s most divisive films, High-Rise is an unapologetically blunt and brash satirical thriller, adapted from J.G.Ballard’s novella. Unsurprisingly, director Ben Wheatley is a perfect match for the material, crafting a dangerous and delirious film with the off-kilter mania he’s known for, and in turn producing his best work yet. The film uses a high-concept building as both its setting and its main character: it’s the symbol of progression into regression the film bases its sparse plot around. Within it, the screen is bloated with bold colours and flashy editing, a cacophony of noise and violence. Luke Evans’ Wilder embodies this spirit, giving a wild and menacing performance that has to go down as one of the year’s best. The film belongs to him, despite it following Hiddlestone’s Dr. Robert Laing instead, a more quietly dangerous figure without the sensibilities we would assume of him at first glance. As he and each other character loosens their grip on perception and judgement, the film tightens its grip on its audience, and we can only watch on, and, fascinatingly, enjoy the absence of morality put forth on screen. High-Rise is a film that deserves high praise.

8. NOCTURNAL ANIMALS

It’s very difficult to pin down a genre for Nocturnal Animals. In one instance, it’s a satire, and then it’s a thriller, and then it’s a romance, and then it’s a western, and then… you get the idea. It’s an ever-changing, twisting film, laced with an unpredictable danger, with one key theme at its core: revenge. Amy Adams’ Susan is the target, and the delivery of a typescript to her from her ex-husband Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a damning review of Susan’s actions disguised as an irresistible gift. The film then digresses into a wonderful tonal boiling pot of guns and decor, shaped exactly as you’d expect from a fashion designer-turned director, Tom Ford. It’s an uneasy and treacherous traversal through the mind of a man who feels betrayed, his emotions discerned through powerful imagery and unmissable parallels: the close-up of Susan’s piercing eyes, the naked bodies strewn across a couch. These ideas aren’t repressed by Ford but allowed to burst at the seams, getting the message across in a magnificently melodramatic manner, and crescendoing towards a brutal finale that’s every bit as brutal as it is inevitable.

To read my review on Nocturnal Animals, click here.

7. ARRIVAL

2016 may not have been sci-fi’s strongest year (Arrival is the only film of the genre that appears on this list), but it did have its seemingly-annual groundbreaker in the form of Arrival. An alien flick but not really, the film is a powerful cry for humanity’s togetherness, conveyed via an intellectually stimulating and thoughtful character piece. The character in question is Amy Adam’s Dr. Louise Banks, a linguist challenged with interpreting and understanding alien dialect before the threat of war against the extra-terrestrial creatures is realised. It’s intense and tinged with uncertainty, the film appearing as a standard, if interesting and absorbing, fare, before pulling the rug from under you and laying bare its central themes. This is a film directed by Villeneuve without his usual flair, instead sensibly allowing the script to unfold. And what an astonishing script it is! It’s imaginative and heartfelt and bubbling with ideas and sociopolitical statements. As far as sci-fi goes, Arrival is a welcome, er, arrival in a genre that’s continuously evolving and changing with each passing year.

To read my review on Arrival, click here.

6. THE HATEFUL EIGHT

I’m hardly Tarantino’s biggest fan, and I struggle to enjoy Westerns (Hell or High Water and Westworld both falling victim to that preference), so The Hateful Eight had the makings of a film that I’d find easy to hate. What a welcome surprise, then, to find a film as downright enjoyable as this. The film is a largely contained western thriller set in one shack, where eight characters have to stay the night and try to get along. Obviously, this all goes pear-shaped, and despite the restrained setting, what follows is an unbridled showdown of guns and mayhem. It’s a first and second act of palpable tension, magnificently constructed by Tarantino, and a third act of balls-to-the-wall violence. Using segments voiced over tongue-in-cheek by narrator Tarantino, there’s a distinct sense of fun cast over the narrative, managing to make the most despicable crimes incredibly enjoyable to watch unfold. That’s not mentioning how technically astounding The Hateful Eight is. Ennio Morricone’s score is a sweeping melody deserving of its Oscar, packing a sinister tone and helping the film maintain its tension. The visuals are stark and cold when focusing on the shack’s surroundings, and warm and cosy on the inside, cleverly juxtaposing the gunslinging brutality on screen. And the camerawork is kinetic and alive, intent on capturing each character’s demise in all their gory detail. It may have been released in January, but The Hateful Eight is still vivid in my mind.

5. ANOMALISA

Charlie Kaufman’s directorial debut, Synecdoche, New York, is my favourite film of all time. We’ve had to wait 8 years for his sophomoric effort, and it doesn’t disappoint. The film is a stop-motion animation that follows David Thewlis’ Michael Stone, a customer service expert who finds it much easier to tell other people how to talk to humans than do it himself. Like every one of Kaufman’s central protagonists, he’s a flawed character, insecure, cynical and controlling, but also deeply sympathetic. The choice of stop-motion isn’t a gimmick but integral to the plot, conveying the film’s themes of loneliness, human connection, and the Fregoli delusion in interesting, wholly unique ways. Despite its obvious animated appearance, Anomalisa is one of the most realistically human films of the year, precisely capturing conversations and mannerisms in a beautifully relatable way. It’s stop-motion like you’ve never seen it before: the camera moves in and out of rooms as if it were live action, focusing on a rainy window pane or the butt of a cigarette. It’s much less grand than Synecdoche, and much more personal, managing to carry a substantial amount of emotional heft in its short runtime; there’s no film-maker out there able to capture the human condition as deftly as Kaufman can.

4. NOTES ON BLINDNESS

Films are built around senses, and Notes on Blindness is no different. The smell of rain. The noise of a tape whirring. The image of a wave engulfing a supermarket aisle. It is the latter sense, sight, that has been taken away from John Hull, a theologian whose life is explored in this docu-drama. Over the course of his life after being diagnosed as blind, he taped several recordings talking about his affliction, how he was dealing with it, and what it meant to him. Notes on Blindness takes these soundbites and incorporates it into reenactments of certain scenes described, often metaphorically. It’s an unassuming film: there’s no grand, half-baked statements on philosophy and religion. They each play a part in Hull coming to terms with his loss of sight, but don’t overcrowd the film’s poignant simplicity. Funnily enough, despite focusing on the absence of images, the film’s cinematography is excellent, depicting powerful moments – the smile of a child, or a wife’s glance frozen in time – with significant attention, highlighting the gravitas of the accompanying narration. Make no mistake: Notes on Blindness may be small-scale at first glance, but it’s not slight. It’s an ambitious examination on what it means to be blind, demonstrated with irresistible emotional weight.

3. SWISS ARMY MAN

Swiss Army Man may very well be the greatest farting corpse movie I’ve ever seen. Director duo Daniels (Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert), best known for their crazed, surrealist music videos, give themselves a challenging task for their first effort at making a feature film: they hate acapella, survival storylines and fart jokes, and Swiss Army Man contains all that and more. It’s a film that caused walkouts at Sundance and spurred The Guardian to award it one star and five stars in separate reviews. The film is a philosophical adventure following Paul Dano’s Hank as he’s stranded on an island, and Daniel Radcliffe’s Manny as his Rigor Mortis-rescuer. As the title suggests, Manny is a dead body seemingly possessed with supernatural powers, able to talk, or use his boner as a compass, or to fart across water like a jetski. These crude and objectively weird moments is one of the messages the movie is trying to make: why is there such stigma against the weird and wacky? Instead of looking down on the quirks of others, we should embrace each person for who they are. This message, along with themes of isolation and yearning to be cared for, are portrayed with the Sundance-y flair of someone who knows their craft without being conditioned to adhere to strict filmmaking practice. As the film industry becomes increasingly saturated with schlocky flicks barely worth paying attention to, amid the guff, it’s refreshing to see a completely original, hilarious and heartfelt drama with not a bone in its body borrowed from another director’s methods. Like Manny, Swiss Army Man has a voice of its own.

2. EMBRACE OF THE SERPENT

Embrace of the Serpent plays out like a fever dream. Taking two narratives, 30 years apart, both following an explorer looking for a rare plant with the aid of an Amazonian tribesman, and intertwining them to a satisfying whole, the film is a ferocious, pioneering exploration of contrasting ideologies. There’s no absolute truth the film presents, leaving us to decide for ourselves who’s in the right, if there even is indeed a ‘right’ in the first place. It’s a maddening expedition in both narratives, depicting child abuse, sickness and false Messiahs in interesting and often heart-breaking ways. There is a definite sadness to the story, and a political undercurrent too. We grow to understand tribesman Karamakate’s way of thinking, and empathise with his loss of connection with the surrounding jungle later in his life. He’s played in his youth with wonderful angry petulance by Nilbio Torres, an actual Amazon native, and his interactions with German explorer Theo von Martius (Jan Bijvoet) form the heart of the movie’s statements on colonialism and materialism. Meanwhile, the narrative of the movie that takes place 30 years later functions moreso as an aching for the past, and as an understanding and acceptance of change. Much like Swiss Army Man, Embrace of the Serpent is a film unlike anything you’ve seen before; a psychedelic, searing portrayal of two cultures both clashing and attempting to understand one another.

1. A BIGGER SPLASH

To state what A Bigger Splash is about presents a demanding challenge. On its surface level, it’s a film about four rich figures living in a villa together on a holiday glittering with sunshine, two of whom are increasingly unwelcome. On its second level, it’s a contained drama about change, and refusal to accept change, leading to inescapable sexual tension that threatens to separate the foursome. And on its third level, it’s a subtle example of escapism, the sunny holiday setting and expensive, expansive villa a way to ignore fame, loneliness, and the more troublesome affairs of the modern world. Brilliantly, the villa is also their trapping. The four characters in question are Marianne (Tilda Swinton), a famous singer who’s impermanently lost her voice, both literally and metaphorically, her husband Paul (Matthias Schoenaerts), a reserved, enigmatic figure, Harry (Ralph Fiennes), a restive and exotic old flame of Lane’s, and Penelope (Dakota Johnson), the troubled and troublesome (probable) daughter of Harry. Each of these four characters are wonderfully complex, despicable yet irresistible, pervaded with poignancy. There’s the obvious character interactions of Harry attempting to rekindle the flame with Marianne, but less explainable mannerisms, such as the tricky actions of Penelope throughout the film. Simply put, the film is so interesting, and not just because of the characters. Director Luca Guadagnino approaches A Bigger Splash as a scientific experiment, overflowing with quirky edits and jittering camerawork, using sensual zooms in on peeled fruit or shimmering water to transport the audience to the film’s location, while simultaneously using fourth-wall breaks that somehow work in context of how much fun the film is. But it’s fun laced with venom and melancholy, and as the credits roll, there is an unmistakable sadness that accompanies the overwhelming delight of watching 2016’s best film.

-Gus Edgar
 
la la land should win all the (technical) awards (also Emma Stone gives such an amazing performance wowsa)

I haven't seen Moonlight yet so I don't know if it deserves to win best picture but holy hell what a great oscar race this is turning into, Manchester by the Sea and La La Land are both extraordinary films and I'd be happy if either won the award. They're so different that it's impossible to say which one's better.

Gosling can do basically anything. He can tapdance, give dramatic performances, give comedic performances, be charismatic as hell, be a dreamboat. He can't sing all too well unfortunately lol (he tried his darndest bless him)
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
I saw both Sing! and Rogue One today and both movies were really really great. Sing!s finale was perfection and Rogue One was just such a great damn Star Wars movie. It fell victim to forcing a few too many cameos but I thought they were brief and tasteful enough that it didn't matter.
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
We know the oscars rarely do anything right, but for the love of all that is holy, someone give a best actress to Viola Davis for Fences.
 
I recently just saw Arrival and while I really want to like this movie the ending is a mess and I have questions.

I'm absolutely confused by the ending of the movie. The Heptapods' weapon that they give humanity is their language, which enables people to become omnipresent through time. It makes sense because towards the beginning of the movie, they said that language was the first weapon used in terms of conflict (or something of the sense).

But what the hell is up with the ending? The main character Banks seemingly gets told the answers to the mass destruction problems that they are facing from a conversation she had in the future which sets the actions in the past and just ends in a causality nightmare of absurd proportions. This movie did such a good job of being a pretty factual and close to reality movie that it is just off putting to have it end in complete bullshit like the future affecting the past.

And then that is going on with the heptapods at the end? Their ships just disintegrate out of no where. Is that them "dying off" or is it them heading back? You would think if they are omnipresent that they would realize that they are no longer in threat and would stay to continually interact and further form closer bonds with the people of Earth. Why do they leave? If they die, that's a pretty strange moment in time for them to just die... right when they were about to get destroyed to hell and back. And like I said, if they need humanities help in 3000 years and gave us the knowledge to help them, why would they not stay to develop a relationship and a better bond especially now that we are just beginning to communicate?
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I recently just saw Arrival and while I really want to like this movie the ending is a mess and I have questions.

I'm absolutely confused by the ending of the movie. The Heptapods' weapon that they give humanity is their language, which enables people to become omnipresent through time. It makes sense because towards the beginning of the movie, they said that language was the first weapon used in terms of conflict (or something of the sense).

But what the hell is up with the ending? The main character Banks seemingly gets told the answers to the mass destruction problems that they are facing from a conversation she had in the future which sets the actions in the past and just ends in a causality nightmare of absurd proportions. This movie did such a good job of being a pretty factual and close to reality movie that it is just off putting to have it end in complete bullshit like the future affecting the past.

And then that is going on with the heptapods at the end? Their ships just disintegrate out of no where. Is that them "dying off" or is it them heading back? You would think if they are omnipresent that they would realize that they are no longer in threat and would stay to continually interact and further form closer bonds with the people of Earth. Why do they leave? If they die, that's a pretty strange moment in time for them to just die... right when they were about to get destroyed to hell and back. And like I said, if they need humanities help in 3000 years and gave us the knowledge to help them, why would they not stay to develop a relationship and a better bond especially now that we are just beginning to communicate?
The movie puts forward that idea that the language we think in affects how we perceive reality. When the main character learns to think in the language of the heptapods, she perceives reality the way that they do, and they don't see time as a linear construct (which, it's not. That's relative old science at this point). Arrival isn't "factual". It's science fiction. The ideas in it are sound, but without the real world existence of heptapods or tralfamadorians (Arrival borrowed HEAVILY from Slaughterhouse Five with all of these concepts) it's just that, ideas. That's the difference between something being bullshit and something being science fiction.

And no, they don't die. They just go back. The idea was that by endowing humans like this, they would have an ally 3000 years from now. They don't stay and get a better bond because they kinda know they don't have to, non-Euclidean view of time and all that.


Honestly, I thought you'd find more fault with the assertion that language is the basis of civilization. I know language is the movie's whole deal, but that's a really backwards attitude. Besides, agriculture is the basis of civilization.
 
The movie puts forward that idea that the language we think in affects how we perceive reality. When the main character learns to think in the language of the heptapods, she perceives reality the way that they do, and they don't see time as a linear construct (which, it's not. That's relative old science at this point). Arrival isn't "factual". It's science fiction. The ideas in it are sound, but without the real world existence of heptapods or tralfamadorians (Arrival borrowed HEAVILY from Slaughterhouse Five with all of these concepts) it's just that, ideas. That's the difference between something being bullshit and something being science fiction.

And no, they don't die. They just go back. The idea was that by endowing humans like this, they would have an ally 3000 years from now. They don't stay and get a better bond because they kinda know they don't have to, non-Euclidean view of time and all that.


Honestly, I thought you'd find more fault with the assertion that language is the basis of civilization. I know language is the movie's whole deal, but that's a really backwards attitude. Besides, agriculture is the basis of civilization.
Yes, the movie is sci-fi, but to me that doesn't give it the right to center its ending in breaking fundamental rules of life. There is a difference between this movie and say... Back to the Future. The fundamental plot of this movie is "What would happen if Aliens tried to make contact with us?" They put a lot of detail into executing this experiment and it captivates me. The ending doesn't fit because it's a jarring departure from reality when the movie tries to set this up as being as happening in the real world right now. To me, a movie loses something when it unnecessarily fucks around with science/history when it doesn't have to. They did not need to open a can of worms of causality at all. It was unnecessary, it didn't fit, and it made for a weird and weak ending.

In a movie like Back to the Future, they get more of a pass with fucking with causality because the whole premise of the movie is "What would happen if you went around time and changed things?" The whole point of the movie existing is dealing with fucking up causality and it fits because breaking that law of physics is critical to the story. In Arrival, it didn't have to be.

When it comes to their "departure" what you say I can accept, but how hard was it for them to make the fact that they would be leaving and not dying any clearer? Disintegrating into a pile of dust or whatever doesn't really show that they're leaving per ce. It's just one conclusion. I could easily make an argument that they were dead. Again, just showing them leaving the atmosphere then disappearing would give a better ending for the audience. They could have cut 10 seconds out of the entire life and times of the main character's life flashforward to do that better. But your answer makes sense. I'm just not convinced that it's what really happened and they didnt die.
'
Spoken language comes before agriculture in terms of human involvement, so it is an acceptable answer to me. I don't think Also, Ian the scientist said that Louise was wrong and that it wasn't language it was science. And while he doesn't get into what is "science" and how it applies, to me the selection and domestication of plants and animals would fit into rudimentary science. I guess the fact is that you need some form communication to achieve pre-civilization and eventually civilization gives the whole assertion a complete pass. They don't really dwell on it too much anyways.
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Yes, the movie is sci-fi, but to me that doesn't give it the right to center its ending in breaking fundamental rules of life. There is a difference between this movie and say... Back to the Future. The fundamental plot of this movie is "What would happen if Aliens tried to make contact with us?" They put a lot of detail into executing this experiment and it captivates me. The ending doesn't fit because it's a jarring departure from reality when the movie tries to set this up as being as happening in the real world right now. To me, a movie loses something when it unnecessarily fucks around with science/history when it doesn't have to. They did not need to open a can of worms of causality at all. It was unnecessary, it didn't fit, and it made for a weird and weak ending.

In a movie like Back to the Future, they get more of a pass with fucking with causality because the whole premise of the movie is "What would happen if you went around time and changed things?" The whole point of the movie existing is dealing with fucking up causality and it fits because breaking that law of physics is critical to the story. In Arrival, it didn't have to be.

When it comes to their "departure" what you say I can accept, but how hard was it for them to make the fact that they would be leaving and not dying any clearer? Disintegrating into a pile of dust or whatever doesn't really show that they're leaving per ce. It's just one conclusion. I could easily make an argument that they were dead. Again, just showing them leaving the atmosphere then disappearing would give a better ending for the audience. They could have cut 10 seconds out of the entire life and times of the main character's life flashforward to do that better. But your answer makes sense. I'm just not convinced that it's what really happened and they didnt die.
'
Spoken language comes before agriculture in terms of human involvement, so it is an acceptable answer to me. I don't think Also, Ian the scientist said that Louise was wrong and that it wasn't language it was science. And while he doesn't get into what is "science" and how it applies, to me the selection and domestication of plants and animals would fit into rudimentary science. I guess the fact is that you need some form communication to achieve pre-civilization and eventually civilization gives the whole assertion a complete pass. They don't really dwell on it too much anyways.
The whole premise of Arrival is "what if language affects how we perceive reality" which is backed up them saying that multiple times throughout the film.

I mean, what is your ideal ending that "doesn't mess with science and history"? They give us an actual weapon? What exactly does the movie then say about anything? Science fiction has these thought experiments because they too affect how we perceive reality.
 
The whole premise of Arrival is "what if language affects how we perceive reality" which is backed up them saying that multiple times throughout the film.

I mean, what is your ideal ending that "doesn't mess with science and history"? They give us an actual weapon? What exactly does the movie then say about anything? Science fiction has these thought experiments because they too affect how we perceive reality.
It's pretty much proven that language affects how we perceive reality. There isn't a what if about it.

My ideal ending? Get rid of the whole "The Chinese are going to blow up the aliens right fucking now unless we do something" premise. It adds unnecessary conflict to an already tense moment. You can still have the Chinese and other nations threatening to attack, but give Louise the time she needs to do something about it not last second. The language should still be the weapon and the key to the movie. How you could solve the China mess would be to replace General Tso or whatever his name is with the Chinese linguist. Louise in addition to all her weird dreams could also have dreams with the Chinese linguist and all the other linguists from around the world. When Louise reaches this level of understanding and omnipresence she will join the other linguists in the understanding of the "weapon" and end with with. Then the aliens can leave by taking off and not dissolving and you can end with the flashbacks of Louise's life after the arrival.

Good Science Fiction needs to have good thought experiments. This movie does, but ruins it with a cop out that you can affect the past by changing the future. Reality breaks down when you allow that. You can't have a swing move before you push it. It's one of the many problems with going faster than the speed of light... the implication of having a cause that happens AFTER an effect has massive implications to physics and life as a whole. Time needs to be a river where you can move forwards and backwards but you cannot change the river itself as everything that has happened has always happened and will always happen again. Lost does a good job of sticking pretty well to these rules while making it entertaining.

Really any way that you cut it, as long as you change the part about learning how to solve the Chinese problem by being told the information from the future and clarifying what the hell is going on with the aliens, this movie would jump from being the 6/10 I have it now to being a 8/10 on par with Interstellar (which had its own ending problems) and The Martian.
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Time needs to be a river where you can move forwards and backwards but you cannot change the river itself as everything that has happened has always happened and will always happen again.
Why does it NEED to be that way? That's literally not how the aliens seen it, and again, this is an old sci-fi concept.

I love your input in this thread buddy but sometimes I think you want to be watching documentaries.
 

brightobject

there like moonlight
is a Top Artistis a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus
i cant believe someone is unironically saying time should work a certain way in reference to a scifi movie about temporal omniscience
 
Not a CERTAIN way. It's the understood way that we believe time should work and they didn't need to break that rule. But whatever.

Anyone have any documentaries for me to watch? If not, heads up, I'm probably going to go see Patriots Day tonight. :)
 
January 2017 has been a preeeeetty good month for films. These are all the 2017 films I watched in January (based on UK release dates)

Silence - ★★
I'm all for films intentionally not being enjoyable to watch, but I'd hope they would at least 1) Stimulate a reaction other than something like a mum looking at her son's grazed knee, and 2) Be executed well technically rather than the lazy sound editing/cuts/pacing we get instead. It's achingly slow but not interesting enough to hold attention, before laying the symbolism on thick and sickly in the final stretch. It looks pretty, though.

A Monster Calls - ★★★★
Gorgeous visuals aid a mature and fresh insight towards grief, backed up by Lewis MacDougall's heart-wrenching performance. I do wish that they fleshed out the bully storyline a little more, however.

Endless Poetry - ★★★
Jodorowsky's second in his auto-biographical trilogy is weird and wonderful in places, weird and insufferable in others.

La La Land - ★★★★
One of those films where I really want to give it five stars (a la Interstellar). The ending is incredible, many of the scenes are beautiful, Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling are a joy to watch together, and Stone in particular deserves her Oscar nomination (and should hopefully win). The songs, however, are a little underwhelming on screen, and somehow work much better when listening to them without the accompanying film. This is probably because Chazelle seems more interested showing off how great he is behind the camera rather than in front of it. And, the film's biggest flaw imo, is that it seems muddled in its central message. I don't think all the different interpretations of each scene, especially the ending, is a sign of a complex film in this case: just a sign of a confused one.

Manchester By The Sea - ★★★★★
This is superb filmmaking on every level. Heartbreaking, funny, extraordinarily-acted, mature and unsentimental, words cannot describe my adoration for this film. I saw it at the London Film Festival last year and it's stuck by me ever since.

Jackie - ★★★
Those last 20 minutes were really something, weren't they? Jackie is a very unique-looking, ambitious study of a First Lady who we never actually really get to know during the course of the film. It's almost as if the close proximity of the camera to each character's face is an attempt to hide the rather astounding emotional distance that the film suffers from. Portman is superb in a transformative role, the score is haunting, if too frequent throughout, and the dialogue is soundbite-y. A mixed bag.

Split - ★★★
Yeah, ehh. Not quite getting the extreme praise for this film, other than the Shyamalan-is-back! narrative that people are latching on to. It's a silly film that's intense some of the time, stupid some more of the time, and intensely stupid for its remainder. Also, ugh the writing is still very very clunky. The film's not afraid to go to some dark places, and that's admirable at least, and for a popcorn flick it's exactly what you want: mindless, incredibly enjoyable fun.

T2: Trainspotting - ★★★
Ultimately a disappointment. There are some incredible sequences to be found in this flashily-edited, incohesively-edited film, but the film digresses into a standard cliched ending. It's uneven and messy, but I have no doubt my opinion is heavily affected by my high expectations going into this film. The two things the film definitely deserves credit for is keeping each character consistent with the original, and focusing on the idea of nostalgia. It's a shame that Boyle chooses to throw everything and the kitchen sink in in terms of themes though - I could do without many of the subplots.

Other films I saw in January were:
The Exorcist (4/5)
Trainspotting (4/5) (rewatch)
Things to Come (3/5)
The Childhood of a Leader (4/5)
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Just saw Lion so let's have an Oscar movie rundown.

#9: Hacksaw Ridge (5/10)
This film is really bipolar. It begins well enough with the character's backstory. Goes downhill as soon as Vince Vaughn shows up. Gets comical during the "realistic" war segments. Is spectacular during the centerpiece scene of the film. This film is just too stupid and flawed for it to be considered for best picture though.

#8: Hidden Figures (5/10)
I swear this film was not nominated before I just relooked at the list. I've looked at the list dozens of times since it was first announced and there were always 8 nominees AND obviously the Disneyfied history answer to "get more black movies into the Oscars" wouldn't cut it. But I guess it did. It seems like there is some good history here, but we get 10 minutes of that and the rest is defined by a scene where a white woman says "You know we don't have anything against you people" and a black woman replies "I know.... (punchline) you think you don't" and then god on high descends a pair of sunglasses onto her face as she drives away on a Kawasaki.

#7: La La Land (6/10)
Massively disappointing but certainly has its merits and charms. I just wish people would stop falling for the Hollywood circle-jerk and maybe look into some musicals that actually have a fair amount of good music in them.

#6: Manchester By the Sea (6/10)
Entertaining enough as long as the mystery box remains unopened. Once it gets opened halfway through the movie, you feel like the designated driver at the bar at 2 AM wishing your friends would realize the party was over and let you take them home.

#5: Moonlight (7/10)
A movie about being gay and black and it's at least interesting enough with some exciting moments, though it's also dull at parts and occasionally artsy-fartsy.

#4: Lion (8/10)
Slows down a lot in the middle but it's a pretty touching story, so it's ok with me.

#3: Fences (8/10)
Strong play. Amazing performances. Very well adapted. Still really obviously just a play on the big screen.

#2: Arrival (9/10)
Total ripoff a Slaughterhouse 5 but instead of being dreadfully cynical, it's actually hopeful.

#1: Hell or High Water (10/10)
The movie that aught to win but won't. Obviously it has to be a great film to be a 10/10, but it's also just I think the most relatable and entertaining film on the list, which is why it won't win.

All of these movies are better than the gutless made for tv snoozefest that was last year's best picture winner, but I think as a whole the best picture nominees were less exciting to experience and definitely more boring. 2016 was jam-packed with movies that weren't just amazing, but the kind of well made and artistic endeavors. If I was giving a little allowance to the Oscar mind-set (not nominating Civil War, Cartoons, or stuff that I thought was good but got bad reviews otherwise), I'd have liked to see a nomination list of:

A Monster Calls
Arrival
Don't Think Twice
Fences
Hell or High Water
Hunt for the Wilderpeople
Lion
Silence
Sing Street
Swiss Army Man

Edit: YOLO added Swiss Army Man
 
Last edited:

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
Just got around to seeing Arrival and I am supremely disappointed that La La Land is the hype of the year and not this. I guess romance-musicals just have a lower threshold of critical popularity. I had my eyes on Villeneuve since Sicario which I thought did an interesting job; but this one is going to genre-defining. It is so understated yet extremely cerebral.

I can't remember the time I felt so deeply introspective and sublime during a movie.
 

vonFiedler

I Like Chopin
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I guess romance-musicals just have a lower threshold of critical popularity.
But as I keep saying, not really. Most people don't like musicals and La La Land probably won't turn them. It's valued because it's the hollywood circle jerk of the week. You too can be famous!

Anyway, it's been a bit since I talked about the Top 250, but the good news is I am SO close to finishing it. The bad news is some films are not easy to obtain in English and I have had to work around that. Anyway...

#158: Rang De Basanti
This was the first Indian film that didn't annoy me within five minutes. And more than that, it actually has pretty good music in it. As if India caught up to the 80s. And while Aamir Khan is in it, he's less totally annoying and more Steve Buscemi from 30 Rock. So an Indian movie that is kind of well made has to be really exciting right? But then you realize that it's really boring. It's allegedly about a white woman trying to film a movie about Indian freedom fighters against England, but 2/3 of the film is just a bunch of college kids farting around in the countryside.

Like all these films, it tries to be political and deal with government corruption. But so does Neil Breen. It's just a little hard to take a character seriously saying "We're fighting for roofs over our head and food in our stomachs" when the characters are lounging Friends style in the poshest restaurant I've ever seen that happened to be decorated with giant paintings of Goku (this is the BEST scene, btw).

And no Indian film would be complete without a wacky dramatic turn, so when one of the character's boyfriend dies in a fighter jet malfunction, the whole country riots! Muslims and Hindus are fighting each other! What can a gang of college kids do about it? Obviously they find the secretary of defense on the street and shoot him the fuck to death. I am told this is a wonderful patriotic film.

#174: Munna Bhai M.B.B.S.
And now for a bigger twist... I... liked... this... movie... It's still kind of bad. But when I saw it had a sequel, I put it on my watchlist. It's an odd feeling. But like, early in the film, the main character (who is a mob boss) sets up a pretend medical clinic with the help of his henchmen because he routinely has to trick his father into thinking he's a doctor. And you watch the scene and you think... wow... there's humor in this. It's not just a bunch of sound effects that in the west are meant to pacify toddlers. There are actual jokes.

Munna Bhai is actually a lot like other bad Indian Masala films. But the devil is in the details. Sudden tragic events? It takes place in a hospital, so this isn't actually jarring. Some sparse musical scenes? At least they are pretty good. Forced romance? Nah, it's actually a bit more integral to the plot.

But I think if this movie really wanted to be inspirational, and it's sappy melodrama like all Masala films are, why couldn't Munnai Bhai succeed in becoming a doctor? Maybe he needed to learn the value of hard work, and he's not so smart so he only scrapes by with low scores, but his excellent bedside manner would make up for it. That might have been a movie that made my Top 250. Still, this is easily the best Indian film I've ever seen.

#177: Sholay
By far the oldest Indian film on the list. And the thing is, a bunch of other films I've already talked about had direct references to it. This is the Citizen Kane of Indian films. It's not that bad, but it's not that good either. It starts out with a good gunfight. Actually there are a lot of amazing practical effects in this film. Then it goes into a really catchy song. So things are looking up! But it's over three hours long, and not well filled. Again, these movies feel like they have to be every genre at once. At its best, this film is a western (it's plot is taken from Seven Samurai, except with just two defenders). If it stuck to that, I think it could have rivaled Sergio Leone. But because the main characters waste so much time with other genre stuff, they literally let the bad guys get the jump on them multiple times. As for the music, everything is pretty bland after the first song, and the later songs all exist just to have pretty girls dance.

#216: Drishyam
Not a Masala film! When one family gets into wacky NTR hijinks, one man needs to protect his family after they murder a total douche. How does he so? Some death note level shit. It's a bit worth watching for the magnificent bastardry, but not much else.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 2)

Top