Movie/TV recommendations

[ThunderPeel2001]

What were your thoughts about this ThunderPeel2001?

Interesting to read your thoughts, thanks for sharing them. There were major changes in the relationship between some of the characters (especially Doc and Mal, as you pointed out). It was a little jarring at first, but I found myself preferring this version of Mal (actually the original, hardened version from the pilot episode). Fox put pressure on Whedon and co to lighten the tone of Firefly, so Mal became a lot more cuddly pretty quickly, but I always found his "destroyed man" character to be infinitely more interesting. (Kind of like John Wayne's character in The Searchers -- but better.)

The first thing that really struck me, though, was just how fricking amazingly awesome the opening 10 minutes were. I just got goosebumps at how wonderful it was (with the music swelling in the final moments). I was blown away.

Sadly things started to go downhill after that. I hadn't seen it in 5 years either, but with the series fresh in my head, and sort of knowing what to expect, I could view it more objectively this time around.

The came to the conclusion that the biggest problem in the entire film was the first action sequence with The Reavers. They just weren't scary. At all. The moment they appeared on screen should have been shocking and unsettling in the extreme. It should have made people's adrenaline pump, squirm in their seats and created a genuine bogey-man to haunt the rest of the film. This would have paid dividends later on in the film, and also made the first chase sequence actually interesting, instead of a podrace.

Whedon tried to made the audience feel this terror by making all the character's totally scared at the thought of them -- but this can only ever work if the audience is already on the edge of their seat... but the Reaver attack took place in broad daylight, in the middle of an amusing scene. The Reavers were, essentially just stuntmen in bad costumes... it was so terribly lame.

There's the great character moment when one of the villagers runs after our escaping protagonists (where Mal, you know...), begging to be taken with them, but it really says something that I wasn't entirely sure if it was because his town was under attack, or because he just hated his boring life. Really not good.

There's other problems I have with the film, too (the crappy sets, the poor cinematography -- it really did look like a TV show, and not a "movie", etc.) but on the whole I loved it. I wish it had been more of a success, I'd love to be able to spend more time with those characters and in that universe (are you paying attention, BioWare?!). But for a reason why it failed where Star Wars once succeeded, I really think the lack of threat in guise of the Reavers made the later pay offs not all that exciting for the average cinema goer. That and the fact that the final triumph wasn't for the characters themselves, but for some unknown entity (the people of the 'verse) -- and we never felt any joy at the end (because there wasn't any, I guess).

I could write more, but I think that's more than enough Loved the film overall, but objectively the biggest problem I had was the complete lack of threat... something that could have so easily been fixed.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Also, there's obviously the structure stuff which I understand was very influential, but with my modern perspective and stupid brain, I don't have anything to add on that subject.

Ooh, ooh, I know! Rashomon was the first ever film to present the camera as an unreliable narrator. It kind of blew people's minds when they first saw it, and it was also the first Japanese film to become big in the West (which opened the door to us all appreciating Kurosawa's later works). The film itself obviously doesn't have anywhere near the impact as it once did (a lying camera is a staple of narrative tools, these days), and as such, I think it's fair to say that it's aged badly. Which isn't to say that it isn't good, it's just more historically interesting than artistically (IMO).

You're right to notice some of the fancy camera work, too. Some people claim it was the first film to ever point the camera into the sky and show light coming through the trees, for example. It also harks back to the age of silent movies, too, with long scenes being played out with no dialogue, and broad expressive acting (which was unusual for the time). It's interesting that this throwback to the "silent era" was something Sunset Blvd. did (in a different way) that very same year. People (I think) were beginning to look back over cinema, and were getting a bit nostalgic/beginning to re-asses those days and film itself in the early 50s. All About Eve questioned the idea of celebrity the same year, and a few years later, Singing in the Rain was set during the silent era (just as "talkies" were taking off). I find it quite interesting!

As for what I've been watching:

I saw The Seventh Seal recently. It was made around the same time as the films above. It's very strange... it has a narrative, but it's also incredibly artistic -- although not in the way you might imagine. I felt it wasn't so much a proper film, as a work of art, which was rather strange considering how ugly it was in places.

Last night I saw Greenberg, which I sort of hated and then, as it sunk in over the course of today, I found myself appreciating more. Quite touching and profound, in a way, if you can get past how much of a selfish, unlikeable twat, Greenberg is.

[JonCole]

I saw Rashômon on Saturday. I thought it was pretty good. This may be horribly uninformed and patronizing of me, but it seemed like the camera work was very modern for 1950. There was one shot that particularly caught my eye in which the camera took a curved path that crossed the path of the woodsman guy just ahead of him as he walked. I'm not describing it very well, and there's probably an elegant term for it, but it struck me as being very dynamic for a period I associate more with largely stationary camera work. I read that it was some of the earlier use of handheld cameras in film, which would explain it.

Also, there's obviously the structure stuff which I understand was very influential, but with my modern perspective and stupid brain, I don't have anything to add on that subject.

Also also, I have no problem with stationary cameras. Indeed, I tend to prefer static or more slow and precise camera work to shakycam and quick cuts and all that (though that too has its place). But while this was a bit shaky (being handheld), it was very very deliberately planned and effectively realized.

I think it's worth noting (on a tangential note) that there are a shitload of Kurosawa films available on Netflix Instant View, which are in my crosshairs for a one or two day mega-marathon.

Watched Toy Story 3 today... I'll probably write up a blog post on it in the near future, but in a shorter form:

- Far more mature themes than the previous two

- Just enough quality to fill out the whole movie (in other words, it feels really good for this to be the final sendoff so it ends on a high note)

- Really nostalgic for those of you who grew up with Toy Story, like me

[Patters]

WORDS

I think you misunderstand the nature of the Reaver threat, they don't need to look "shocking and unsettling in the extreme" they are homo sapien by their very nature, but they have lost the "human" part. They naturally would look pretty shit, I assume, as their ships would likely resemble slums. They would get by with whatever they have. It shows that their nature isn't completely dissimilar to those of humans.

Besides, to me, the scariest creatures in film and literature would be those that are very close to humans: Pod people, Zombies and Serial Killers. All of these appear human though there is something missing, which is where the fear stems from.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I think you misunderstand the nature of the Reaver threat, they don't need to look "shocking and unsettling in the extreme" they are homo sapien by their very nature, but they have lost the "human" part. They naturally would look pretty shit, I assume, as their ships would likely resemble slums. They would get by with whatever they have. It shows that their nature isn't completely dissimilar to those of humans.

Besides, to me, the scariest creatures in film and literature would be those that are very close to humans: Pod people, Zombies and Serial Killers. All of these appear human though there is something missing, which is where the fear stems from.

You misunderstood me, I think the idea of Reavers is scary... but the implementation of them in Serenity was not. I wasn't talking about how they "look" at all, I was more meaning that the audience has to believe that "these guys are fucking scary threat!" -- except they weren't. All our protagonists had guns, for example. It would have been good if we'd seen one of the townsfolk with a gun, get totally slaughtered none-the-less. We never saw the Reavers actually do anything, attack anyone, eat anyone, kill anyone. They just sort of stood there.

As an audience member I was all ready to buy into them being something to be scared of, but they never actually did anything. At least in the series they had Zoe's description: "If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh and sew our skins into their clothing, and if we're very, very lucky... they'll do it in that order." Of course they couldn't have literally shown that stuff, but they could have hinted at it, and made the audience scared enough about the idea of meeting one down a dark alley (in the way zombies are scary). That would have made the later scenes that much more tense.

So yeah, I totally agree that the concept could have been scary, it was just the execution, that was not.

Edit: Thinking about it, weren't the tribal people in Jackson's King Kong damned scary? (I seem to recall at least one jump moment.)

Edited June 21, 2010 by ThunderPeel2001

[toblix]

I just watched Phantasm, which, while being not very good, had some awesome stuff like:

• The marble set
  
• The Tall Man's creepy walk
  
• The soundtrack
  
• The metal sphere
  

[James]

broad expressive acting

Does that include the totally bananas laughter?

[ThunderPeel2001]

Does that include the totally bananas laughter?

It does actually. How very astute!

[Garple]

Okay, so that's Survival of the Dead. What a piece of crap. Does anyone know if Romero's films are intentionally bad? I mean, is he doing some Tarantino thing where he's paying homage to badly made films or something?

You've watched Night of the Living Dead, right? Because that's probably the greatest horror film ever made. I haven't seen any of his newer stuff but I assume he's just gotten old and lost his edge. I'd argue the same thing about Scorsese (his new films are not bad per se, but he'll never make another Taxi Driver).

[Garple]

I just watched Phantasm, which, while being not very good, had some awesome stuff like:

• The marble set
  
• The Tall Man's creepy walk
  
• The soundtrack
  
• The metal sphere
  

That's a great movie to watch with your friends on Halloween and laugh your ass off at how goofy it is. Also: Brainscan.

[Moosferatu]

It's been a few a while since I last checked up on British tv shows. I just started watching the current season of Dr Who, and it's got me interested again. Are there any other good recent BBC or Channel 4 shows? Fingers crossed for something as entertaining as Green Wing.

[Kolzig]

I finally watched the Watchmen yesterday.

It's been a few years since I read the comic book so I didn't remember everything exactly.

Way too much slow motion scenes, but that's exactly what I expected from Zack Snyder, "the visionary director".

From what I remember it was following the comic book scenes and storyline very carefully.

It was better than I expected, as my expectations were very low because of the director and also because Alan Moore's work usually doesn't transform that well to movies.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Kolzig

[Lu]

So that Akira live-action movie project that was ongoing, then cancelled, then picked up again, then cancelled and now picked up again. GREAT NEWS, IT SEEM TO BE THAT THEY'RE AIMING FOR IT TO BE A PG-13 MOVIE.

THANKS HOLLYWOOD.

”You would think,” said the director, who (along with his brother) became attached to the project earlier this year. If you’ve read the series or seen the excellent 1988 anime then you know this isn’t material you’d associate with teens. It’s very hard-R. Warner Brothers, on-the-other-hand, apparently thinks it has to be PG-13.

[ThunderPeel2001]

It's been a few a while since I last checked up on British tv shows. I just started watching the current season of Dr Who, and it's got me interested again. Are there any other good recent BBC or Channel 4 shows? Fingers crossed for something as entertaining as Green Wing.

People seem to love the Dr. Who spin-off, Torchwood. For comedies I personally enjoy things like The IT Crowd.

[Moosferatu]

I watched the first episode of Torchwood last night, and wasn't overly impressed. Should I give it another shot? Does it get better?

[Murdoc]

So that Akira live-action movie project that was ongoing, then cancelled, then picked up again, then cancelled and now picked up again. GREAT NEWS, IT SEEM TO BE THAT THEY'RE AIMING FOR IT TO BE A PG-13 MOVIE.

THANKS HOLLYWOOD.

You have a problem with it being pg-13 when they are setting it in neo newyork and having it revolve around 2 white guys in their middle thirties?

Pg-13 is the least of it's problems.

[Lu]

Don't remind me, Murdoc. Now you're just making me feel depressed.

[Murdoc]

Don't remind me, Murdoc. Now you're just making me feel depressed.

If it makes you feel better(which you probably know) they've been trying this since 1999(or at least that was the earliest time I heard it mentioned)

I think in any form, I don;t think a live action akira would be the way to go, for some reason my brain can only comprehend a horrible hollywood version or a lower budget japanese greenscreen thing.

Both of those I don't need.

[syntheticgerbil]

You have a problem with it being pg-13 when they are setting it in neo newyork and having it revolve around 2 white guys in their middle thirties?

Pg-13 is the least of it's problems.

Oh man, this can only spell disaster. Cancellation is all I can hope for.

[Forbin]

Seconded, definitely. Moon was probably my favorite movie of 2009. On the topic of Netflix Instant View, Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan is also on there, I hear. KHAAAAAAAANNNNN!

Also, just burned through season 3 of Burn Notice in a single day. Really entertaining show.

Moon was great, also Burn Notice is one of my favourite shows.

[ysbreker]

It's been a few a while since I last checked up on British tv shows. I just started watching the current season of Dr Who, and it's got me interested again. Are there any other good recent BBC or Channel 4 shows? Fingers crossed for something as entertaining as Green Wing.

I rather enjoyed the misfits. And Luther is also very good.

[Ben X]

I have a membership to the Prince Charles, too! Let's do a mini-Thumbs cinema trip!

My schedule today:

Greenberg at the Cineworld Haymarket, 12:30

Brothers Bloom at PCC 15:40

Bad Lieutenant New Orleans at PCC 1830

Anyone fancy any of that? (You will have to hate sun and football.)

[toblix]

Just watched Repulsion. That's one crazy girl. Hadn't seen any Polanski films before, but now I'm looking forward to Rosemary's Baby and The Tenant, which I've also got lined up.

[MrHoatzin]

Don't forget Chinatown, man.

[toblix]

Just watched Rosemary's Baby, which was great. It was a much easier film to watch than Repulsion, probably because it was a little less "artsy" and more like the capitalist Hollywood trash I'm used to consuming.

Don't forget Chinatown, man.

I definitely won't.