What MOVIE(s) have you been....seeing? watching?

My wife and I rented the new Hellboy tonight and man that movie was something. A barely coherent, hyper violent blast of frenetic nonsense and gore. I loved it, but I'm not surprised that it got savaged when it came out. The fact that it exists at all is baffling, as I'm not really sure there's a large enough audience for wildly over the top splatter action comedies about witches and fairies and shit to justify the budget on display.

I'm not horror buff, but the wife and I did enjoy US which we got at the redbox in our grocery store. We'll probably watch whatever Mr. Peele puts out in the future.

Echo in the Canyon was a slight if entertaining "documentary" (more of a memoir or reminiscence) about the Laurel Canyon music scene of the mid-60s. This was bookended, coincidentally enough, by Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (I'm going to stop guessing where the ellipsis is supposed to be), whose ostensible subject is the Manson family murders in 1969 that was at least symbolically the end of that California artistic era in some sense. I can see why audiences gave Once Upon lower marks than some other Tarantino films, and I myself spent about the first 30 or 40 minutes wondering where it was going, but especially after a scene with Brad Pitt's character and a certain historical personage on set, I was locked in for the rest of it, have thought about it quite a bit, and would happily see it again.

Ah_Pook wrote: My wife and I rented the new Hellboy tonight and man that movie was something. A barely coherent, hyper violent blast of frenetic nonsense and gore. I loved it, but I'm not surprised that it got savaged when it came out. The fact that it exists at all is baffling, as I'm not really sure there's a large enough audience for wildly over the top splatter action comedies about witches and fairies and shit to justify the budget on display.

The first Hellboy (2004) probably made a few bucks, and the second one, in 2008, did better than the first, and earned a higher share of its money from overseas. But the 2019 movie straight-up lost money ($21m domestic and no international release, apparently, against a production budget of $50m), so I don't think anyone will have that idea again soon.

I was highly entertained by Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and found the metaphorical aspects of the story very thought provoking. It's very much a character driven thing like Jackie Brown, and very different than Pulp Fiction or Inglorious Basterds.

Today I saw The Adventures of Robin Hood, the 1938 film with Errol Flynn.

I wanted to see an Errol Flyyn movie because I was told they were very influential and established many ideas and concepts in action cinema. Futhermore, I hadn't seen any "swashbuckler" films, with the exception of recent movies like one of the worse Antonio Banderas Zorro film. I had the feeling I knew the genre in the same way I know Psycho: From contextless parodies of the original by people who haven't watched the original.

The most striking aspect of the film is its honesty. There's no lampshading, subersive or parody element in it. It presents the story and its characters with the naturality of someone that knows no different. Robin is good, and he gets no explanation for his cockyness because that's simply who he is. Similarly, Prince John doesn't have a complex motivation, he just wants power and very matter-of-factly pursues it.

There's something very refreshing about it. I noticed I'm very used to establishing scenes where the movies tells you why the main character points guns at people. Here, Robin Hood just does because he's confident and a bit mean. And he is mean. It made me think that for all the talk about Tony Stark being "egocentric", he doesn't actually do much to reflect that. Most of his egocentrism consists in him dismissing others' concerns in slow talk scenes. Robin Hood's personality is all conveyed through action, through what he does.

It also made me think that for all the talk about "clearcut heroic characters and villains", Robin Hood is a richer and more flawed character than the typical modern hero. He is, quite frankly, kind of a dick and points weapons at people with the joy of a gangster trying out a new gun. Few heroes are allowed that kind of personality in the modern blockbuster and, most importantly, are not allowed to simply state it. Seeing this film really shows how often modern films include unnecessary scenes to explain a character's personality when they aren't needed.

It's also refreshing to see fight scenes with a modest amount of shots instead of fast-paced editting that denies us the ability to see the stage for ourselves.

Of course, the film is dated in a myriad of ways. The production values are low by modern standards, with extras looking particularly silly in sword fights. Most importantly, the film ocasionally dips into naïveté or melodrama. There was no need for a Robin Hood Refugee Camp and the second part fares rather poorly in pacing compared to the first. I don't think it's a truly great film, but it's a very good one.

It's mostly nostalgia (I saw it as a young kid), but I really enjoy that film whenever I watch it. I especially love the action scenes which, as you note, you're allowed to just watch. It's this one that has them fence their way off screen but leave their shadows projected on the castle wall, until they come back on isn't it?

(Double checked... yep...

)

The Seahawk isn't bad from memory if you're after another one of his swashbucklers. Pirates and whatnot from memory.

It's a beautiful scene, probably the best in the film. In fact, seeing that scene a couple days ago is what led me to watch it.

For all the complaints about hitting each other' swords, seeing that on screen is far better than the now-standard technique of introducing a cut between two blows to make them look faster. I've been comparing that scene with one from The Pirates of the Caribbean. I know, low-hanging fruit, but it's a good example:



Compare the speed of the cuts and the prevalence of dutch angles to convey motion. But for me the most glaring issue is that they used two different shots to show Sparrow jump into the wheel. I know physical stunts are on the way out, that there's no actual wheel and so on, but it's so dissapointing. I just wish the opportunities given by modern techniques did not obscure or replace simpler, more humane ones with presence on the screen.

I think the best example of what I mean is the difference between LOTR and the Hobbit. The former looks great because most of the actual space exists within the film. The later looks awful because even forest scenes are CGI.

This movie also made me realize something: In most modern films, when horses go through water, they use a digital effect! Conversely, this film has a very unconvincing "ride in front of the projector screen" scene that seemed completely unnecessary given they had actual horses and actual riding scenes. I'm told the colour system they used required a complex array of cameras and lightining, so that's probably the reason.

Oh, Adventures of Robin Hood is definitely a great film...to say “they don’t make them like that anymore” is an understatement. The real trees in some of the forest scenes were actually painted because Michael Curtiz thought they weren’t green enough for the Technicolor.

The clip above is one of the great action scenes...it’s fun because it’s NOT technical advisored to death. It’s not realistic swordplay. It’s closer to how kids play sword fight than realism.

Flynn’s swagger carries the whole film, the scene where he comes in with the deer is just amazing. Basil Rathbone is also jusr wonderful in it.

As for the melodrama, that is really just the narrative style of 1938. It’s really not until Welles that you get the more serious, earnest tone in Hollywood pictures.

I watched Arctic on Amazon Prime. I'm a Mads Mikkelsen fan, and this entire film is all Mads, all the time.

The setup is that he is the lone survivor of a plane crash in... the Arctic. The film moves along quickly, spending no time at all on anything not essential to the story. If survival stories interest you, check it out.

Just got back from Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Hmm.... I almost don't know what to say. It is the most different Tarantino film I have seen, and I believe I have seen them all.

There are a ton of stars in it, and it is exceptionally well acted. Brad Pitt in particular, kills it.

Not much happens for a great deal of the film. It just kind of lopes along, scene to scene. I kept waiting for it all to come together. And it kind of does...



I can't say I liked it, but I can't say I disliked it.

I'm trying to think of this movie. Saw it on broadcast TV around 1980, late at night. Scared the beejuzes out of me but it wasn't a horror flick. It followed some knights on a quest and the scene that freaked me out was one where the knights are lost in a desert and literally die from sun/ blisters. My Google skills fail me because I can't find anything about it.

hotseatgames wrote: Just got back from Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Hmm.... I almost don't know what to say. It is the most different Tarantino film I have seen, and I believe I have seen them all.

Saw it Tuesday: dichotomouspurity.blogspot.com/2019/07/h...ack-of-interest.html

Detective Pikachu was so much better than it had any right to be. They could have pulled a Disney and just released a live-action remake of the first movie. They could have given out cards for the TCG and everything, and it would have done just fine.

Instead they took a chance. The lead isn’t Ash. There’s no Team Rocket. Gen 1 Pokémon are most prominent, but there are plenty of later types mixed in there. It’s a new city. There are no gyms or Elite Four. It’s a noir? For some reason?

The plotting is atrocious. It plays like an eight-year-old’s mash-up of Pokémon and Chinatown on Fanfiction.net. There isn’t so much detecting as people explaining the plot to the lead. (No shade on him. Justice Smith acquitted himself as well as Mark Hamill in Empire having to act mostly around puppets and tennis balls.) But I was smiling and enjoying myself the whole time, and no sequel was set up. Nice.

After three months of exhausting home renovations, I finally wrapped things up last weekend and goofed off yesterday. Watched three movies:

Hard Eight (1996) felt like it was going to be a good inside look at the life of a professional gambler. But first-time director Paul Thomas Anderson takes things in a different direction, instead delivering a twisted tale of young love and crime, Vegas-style. Samuel L. Jackson and Gwenyth Paltrow are solid in key roles, but the movie is dominated by the steely presence of a classy old gambler played by Philip Baker Hall. Philip Seymour Hoffman shows up for one scene to chew on the scenery, and nearly overstays his welcome. The characters feel comfortably familiar, but the story takes some surprising turns.

Hamburger Hill (1987) seemed impressive when I saw it back in the day. There were too many Vietnam War movies at the time, because Baby Boomers were obsessed with the Vietnam War all through the '80s. Hamburger Hill more or less tells the true story of an unusually vicious battle in Vietnam centered on a single large hill. Though there was a lot of great music of the era that could have been used, this soundtrack settles for a few mediocrities. There is a lot of action, periodically interrupted by various scenes of tension in the ranks, especially racial tension. Very young Dylan McDermott and Don Cheadle are present, though Cheadle is relegated to a supporting role. The action feels a bit contrived in places, repetitive at times, and the movie is about 20 minutes too long.

King of New York (1990) features a star-studded cast, including Christopher Walken, Laurence Fishburne, Wesley Snipes, David Caruso, and Steve Buscemi. Walken delivers a great performance as crime boss just released from prison who wants to take over all organized crime in New York City and use a lot of the profits to address various ills of society. There is a lot of action as his organization ruthlessly eliminates the competition and then fights back against vigilante cops. Buscemi has a minor role. Caruso plays a bigger role, which I found disappointing because he has always struck me as an obnoxious Irish caricature masquerading as a human being. Both Fishburne and Caruso deliver over the top and nearly cartoonish performances, while Walken dominates his every scene with a steely gaze and a crisp demeanor. As much as I enjoy Walken's later self-mocking schtick in other movies, I wish that he could have stayed eternally as cool as he was in King of New York.