The Hunt for the Red October is hilarious. Sean Connery gives possibly the worst performance of his illustrious career. And I just realized that the signs inside the submarine are in Ukrainian for some ineffable reason. Funniest stuff since Charlie Chaplin.
Speaking of whom, I saw his Caught in a Cabaret on TMC. From 1914 (isn't amazing to see a movie that's more than a century old?), it's one of his earlier work but he is already brilliant. Given that physical comedy is only amusing when unpredictable, and that these early movies were the foundation of the genre, it's impressive how funny they still are. And unlike October, intentionally so.
The last movie you saw Thread
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
Jude, is it out?
Speaking of Charlie Chaplin, this tweet links to a short video explaining pre-CGI effects.
https://twitter.com/ThingsWork/status/1 ... 6546302976
Speaking of Charlie Chaplin, this tweet links to a short video explaining pre-CGI effects.
https://twitter.com/ThingsWork/status/1 ... 6546302976
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
It's playing in Ottawa currently. I assume it's playing everywhere else?
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
If you ever get the chance to watch Excalibur with the Directors commentary, do it! During one shot of the lakeside Camelot, Boorman describes how Camelot was inserted into the shot using a prism in front of the lens with a model to the left of the camera reflected into the scene.
Also, when you think about movies like Jason and the Argonauts or Clash of the Titans, green screen in those days meant that when you developed the negative, everything green would come out transparent so the footage could be literally layered on top of another film and as a result the live actors and the stop motion had to be choreographed frame for frame, 24 frames a second. CGI is for amateurs.
Also, when you think about movies like Jason and the Argonauts or Clash of the Titans, green screen in those days meant that when you developed the negative, everything green would come out transparent so the footage could be literally layered on top of another film and as a result the live actors and the stop motion had to be choreographed frame for frame, 24 frames a second. CGI is for amateurs.
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
Has anyone else seen Bohemian Rhapsody? I went to see it on Tuesday. Queen was just a wee bit before my time and then just a bit out of my orbit at the time. I don't think I knew that all of those songs were theirs, so that was fun. So much terrific music! Anyway, I wasn't sure how I felt about the lead, but I didn't know Freddie Mercury well enough to say whether he did a good job or not. I thought he was...affected and very odd.
What I can say that I did NOT appreciate in the theatre was when some bozo let out a very loud cry of disgust the first time Freddie kissed another man.
I mean, come on, dude. What did you expect? You did know Freddie was gay, right? And just GTFO, honestly.
(It really annoyed me. Clearly.)
What I can say that I did NOT appreciate in the theatre was when some bozo let out a very loud cry of disgust the first time Freddie kissed another man.
I mean, come on, dude. What did you expect? You did know Freddie was gay, right? And just GTFO, honestly. (It really annoyed me. Clearly.)
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
Yeah, it seems odd that someone would care enough to come see a movie about Freddie Mercury and yet be surprised that he was gay (or bi, I guess?).
Queen to me is interesting in that they don't sound like anyone else I know, and yet there are some songs that I always forget are theirs.
Was the movie more fun than watching Queen videos for two hours?
Queen to me is interesting in that they don't sound like anyone else I know, and yet there are some songs that I always forget are theirs.
Was the movie more fun than watching Queen videos for two hours?
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
I think some dudes love "We. Will. We. Will. Rock You. [thump thump] Rock You. [thump thump]" so much that they will come and see a Queen movie without knowing anything else about Queen.
I'll bet none of them have even seen Flash Gordon.
I'll bet none of them have even seen Flash Gordon.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
The movie was good, entertaining, probably less weird than Queen videos (of which I've only seen a couple). 
I think Muse favors them, if you're looking for a similar(ish) band.
I think Muse favors them, if you're looking for a similar(ish) band.
-
RoseMorninStar
- Posts: 12880
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:07 am
- Location: North Shire
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
Love Queen. Loved Freddie Mercury. What a talent. I can't wait to see the movie. Hopefully sometime this week. (Love Muse too) There is no one quite like Freddie Mercury. The genius, the vocal talent, the drive, the over-the-top showmanship. He was a force of one. His knowledge and love for music was broad and leaned not just classical but operatic. There are some who have/had a few of the qualities. David Bowie. Prince. Led Zeppelin. Michael Jackson (showmanship). Kansas, Styx, Aerosmith. A handful of others. I just love it when rock & classical collide! There is nothing better than some good rock and then enter the violins &/or cellos!
Maybe Luke Spiller of The Struts but is he an innovator or just an imitator? I don't think he has the vocal range.
Ain't nobody like Freddy. ;D
There is no one quite like Freddie Mercury. The genius, the vocal talent, the drive, the over-the-top showmanship. He was a force of one. His knowledge and love for music was broad and leaned not just classical but operatic. There are some who have/had a few of the qualities. David Bowie. Prince. Led Zeppelin. Michael Jackson (showmanship). Kansas, Styx, Aerosmith. A handful of others. I just love it when rock & classical collide! There is nothing better than some good rock and then enter the violins &/or cellos!Maybe Luke Spiller of The Struts but is he an innovator or just an imitator? I don't think he has the vocal range.
Ain't nobody like Freddy. ;D
My heart is forever in the Shire.
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
I just saw (appropriately for Remembrance Day) Peter Jackson’s new film, They Shall Not Grow Old. It’s a First World War documentary constructed pretty much entirely from contemporary footage (some colourised) and voice overs from veterans (archive footage, as they’re all dead now).
I really liked it for how much detail it went into on everyday experience, from what the men thought when they enlisted, to what basic training was like, to what it was like at the Front during quiet times, to what it felt like to come home. There’s no maps or politics or descriptions of campaigns, but I was engaged for the entire film and came away knowing more than when I went in.
It also reminded me how good a filmmaker Peter Jackson can be if you just give him sounds and visuals and don’t require him to write dialogue or come up with a plot on his own. I wish he was more cognisant of his strengths and weaknesses, because he can produce some amazing film when he plays to his strengths.
I don’t know how much airtime the film will get in the U.S., but it seems to have a pretty broad release through the Commonwealth.
I really liked it for how much detail it went into on everyday experience, from what the men thought when they enlisted, to what basic training was like, to what it was like at the Front during quiet times, to what it felt like to come home. There’s no maps or politics or descriptions of campaigns, but I was engaged for the entire film and came away knowing more than when I went in.
It also reminded me how good a filmmaker Peter Jackson can be if you just give him sounds and visuals and don’t require him to write dialogue or come up with a plot on his own. I wish he was more cognisant of his strengths and weaknesses, because he can produce some amazing film when he plays to his strengths.
I don’t know how much airtime the film will get in the U.S., but it seems to have a pretty broad release through the Commonwealth.
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
I believe its on BBC2 tonight.
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
It’s a film like a large bowl of spaghetti – it has a lot of plot threads but without any real central structure, and I have to admit I did find it hard to get through. And to continue with the culinary analogy, it’s kind of bland despite its very high-quality ingredients. I found myself wishing for the end before the two hours was up, and the audience I saw it with had no reaction at the end beyond an almost immediate stampede to the doors (even with the major reveal in the final scene, which I won’t spoil).
To explain what I mean, it has some great acting, great direction, impressive sound and visuals (although we’re so used to CGI now these big set-pieces all become a bit interchangeable after a while), a few good moments of visual humour, great visual design, and some good dialogue. I can’t fault David Yates’ directing or any of the actors. The problem is that it all serves a real mish-mash of a story. It tries to continue with the whimsical ‘Magical Creatures’ theme of the first film, combine it with some typical Harry Potter tangled mysteries and shocking reveals, and then throw in the rise of the Third Reich for good measure. It’s a bit like someone’s tried to make a special Agatha Christie-themed episode of All Creatures Great And Small based around The Origins of the Second World War.
J. K. Rowling has been able to combine whimsy and high drama before; it’s one of the causes of the success of the Harry Potter books. Here, though, I think she’s overstretched herself. The Crimes of Grindelwald script suffers from the same sort of bloat as The Order of the Pheonix, where too much narrative is built around too little plot. And she doesn’t seem to have been able to replicate some of her past magic. The Harry Potter books are marked by striking, memorable and entertaining characters. Creating them has long been one of her greatest strengths as a writer. But outside of Newt Scamander and, to a lesser extent, Gellert Grindelwald, I’m not as taken with any of her new ones.
Jude Law has been getting a lot of praise for his Dumbledore, and he’s definitely nailed the kindly confidence of the original. But he seems to be lacking something of the quirkiness. Dumbledore is possibly my favourite fictional character, and I definitely approve of Law’s performance, but I can’t say I was excited to see him on screen in this new manifestation. Again, I think the fault is with the script rather than Law's acting. And the visual design, for that matter. Law is strikingly dressed in plain, well-tailored contemporary Muggle suits. Much to my disappointment, the plum-coloured suit Harry sees in the pensive in The Half-Blood Prince is nowhere to be seen. Indeed, wizarding attire of any sort is absent. Some fans complained there were too many Muggle clothes in the Harry Potter films, but here it’s taken to a whole new level. Only Grindelwald rocks the boat with his Regency Era-inspired heavy metal look, which I do like, although it’s hard to see where exactly it would have come from.
It’s worth talking a bit about Grindelwald, because I actually think he’s quite a strong villain, both in writing and acting. He’s not the usual psychopath trying to take over the world because reasons like so many fantasy, sci-fi and superhero film antagonists. Voldemort was certainly creepy, but by the end of the series he was becoming so over-the-top you had to wonder why anyone actually followed him voluntarily. Grindelwald is perfectly believable, and does manage to achieve that villain sweet spot of being both comprehensible and menacing (he should probably have a German accent, but the writers and/or Depp might have felt that was too clichéd). He doesn’t commit all that many crimes, though, somewhat belying the title of the film. I’m curious to see where the character goes.
In the wake of The Last Jedi I’ve been speculating on how to make a film in a franchise with a large existing fanbase which both wins over casual viewers and satisfies your hardcore fans. The Crimes of Grindelwald is clearly pitched to fans, with its numerous references and tie-ins to the books (yes, you get to see Nurmengard!). But I’ve found that a lot of fans still found the film dull and confusing. There must be a middle ground between letting J. K. Rowling write whatever she wants without editorial intervention and setting fire to the canon.
It’s a film like a large bowl of spaghetti – it has a lot of plot threads but without any real central structure, and I have to admit I did find it hard to get through. And to continue with the culinary analogy, it’s kind of bland despite its very high-quality ingredients. I found myself wishing for the end before the two hours was up, and the audience I saw it with had no reaction at the end beyond an almost immediate stampede to the doors (even with the major reveal in the final scene, which I won’t spoil).
To explain what I mean, it has some great acting, great direction, impressive sound and visuals (although we’re so used to CGI now these big set-pieces all become a bit interchangeable after a while), a few good moments of visual humour, great visual design, and some good dialogue. I can’t fault David Yates’ directing or any of the actors. The problem is that it all serves a real mish-mash of a story. It tries to continue with the whimsical ‘Magical Creatures’ theme of the first film, combine it with some typical Harry Potter tangled mysteries and shocking reveals, and then throw in the rise of the Third Reich for good measure. It’s a bit like someone’s tried to make a special Agatha Christie-themed episode of All Creatures Great And Small based around The Origins of the Second World War.
J. K. Rowling has been able to combine whimsy and high drama before; it’s one of the causes of the success of the Harry Potter books. Here, though, I think she’s overstretched herself. The Crimes of Grindelwald script suffers from the same sort of bloat as The Order of the Pheonix, where too much narrative is built around too little plot. And she doesn’t seem to have been able to replicate some of her past magic. The Harry Potter books are marked by striking, memorable and entertaining characters. Creating them has long been one of her greatest strengths as a writer. But outside of Newt Scamander and, to a lesser extent, Gellert Grindelwald, I’m not as taken with any of her new ones.
Jude Law has been getting a lot of praise for his Dumbledore, and he’s definitely nailed the kindly confidence of the original. But he seems to be lacking something of the quirkiness. Dumbledore is possibly my favourite fictional character, and I definitely approve of Law’s performance, but I can’t say I was excited to see him on screen in this new manifestation. Again, I think the fault is with the script rather than Law's acting. And the visual design, for that matter. Law is strikingly dressed in plain, well-tailored contemporary Muggle suits. Much to my disappointment, the plum-coloured suit Harry sees in the pensive in The Half-Blood Prince is nowhere to be seen. Indeed, wizarding attire of any sort is absent. Some fans complained there were too many Muggle clothes in the Harry Potter films, but here it’s taken to a whole new level. Only Grindelwald rocks the boat with his Regency Era-inspired heavy metal look, which I do like, although it’s hard to see where exactly it would have come from.
It’s worth talking a bit about Grindelwald, because I actually think he’s quite a strong villain, both in writing and acting. He’s not the usual psychopath trying to take over the world because reasons like so many fantasy, sci-fi and superhero film antagonists. Voldemort was certainly creepy, but by the end of the series he was becoming so over-the-top you had to wonder why anyone actually followed him voluntarily. Grindelwald is perfectly believable, and does manage to achieve that villain sweet spot of being both comprehensible and menacing (he should probably have a German accent, but the writers and/or Depp might have felt that was too clichéd). He doesn’t commit all that many crimes, though, somewhat belying the title of the film. I’m curious to see where the character goes.
In the wake of The Last Jedi I’ve been speculating on how to make a film in a franchise with a large existing fanbase which both wins over casual viewers and satisfies your hardcore fans. The Crimes of Grindelwald is clearly pitched to fans, with its numerous references and tie-ins to the books (yes, you get to see Nurmengard!). But I’ve found that a lot of fans still found the film dull and confusing. There must be a middle ground between letting J. K. Rowling write whatever she wants without editorial intervention and setting fire to the canon.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46098
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
Túrin, did you like the first Fantastic Beasts film better?
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
-
RoseMorninStar
- Posts: 12880
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:07 am
- Location: North Shire
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
We saw 'Fantastic Beasts' yesterday as well. I agree with Túrin. So much was right, but it didn't all come together as one might have expected with so many wonderful individual parts. Still, it wasn't bad, but it lacked something...
I'm not good at analyzing, but from other reviews I've read, they seem to find the fault with JK. Rowling writing the screenplay. Their opinion is that she is an excellent writer of books but she should have let an experienced hand write the screenplay.
I'm not good at analyzing, but from other reviews I've read, they seem to find the fault with JK. Rowling writing the screenplay. Their opinion is that she is an excellent writer of books but she should have let an experienced hand write the screenplay.
My heart is forever in the Shire.
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
Yes. It had less going on, was able to put more time into its characters, and had a much simpler and stronger central plot (find the creatures and put them back in the case). A chart of the plot of Crimes of Grindelwald would look a little like a diagram of political alliances and enmities in the Middle East.Voronwë the Faithful wrote:Túrin, did you like the first Fantastic Beasts film better?
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
Bohemian Rhapsody. I'm a huge Queen fan, so I was predisposed to love this, and I did. I honestly disagree with every negative review. His sexuality was not whitewashed. His relationship with Mary Austin was beautifully portrayed. The band were shown pretty much as most fans would know them to be. John was the quiet one, Brian the cerebral one, Roger the horndog and Freddie the flamboyant one. And Freddie's intense shyness and vulnerability was beautifully captured in an incredibly sensitive performance by Rami Malek. Easily the best biopic I've ever seen.
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46098
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
I'm glad you liked it, Al. I've been waiting to see what you thought.
Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk
Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
I haven't seen Green Book, but I did see the trailer multiple times. I had no idea that it was Viggo Mortensen I was watching until the local theater sent me a promotional email. Why wasn't I informed?
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Re: The last movie you saw Thread
I actually ended up watching that last night. Viggo and Ali are both very good in it though the movie in general, while pleasant, is ultimately fairly forgettable imo.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists