Recommend a movie

[Travesty]

So I wouldn't recommend WW84, because holy sh*t, was that a terrible movie. I really liked the first one, this.......was bad.

You have been warned.

[Kamdan]

So I wouldn't recommend WW84, because holy sh*t, was that a terrible movie. I really liked the first one, this.......was bad.

You have been warned.

Heed this warning. Anyone who gave this a  positive review was obviously paid off. There's a lot of denial going on but it's easily going down as one of the worst comic book movies ever.

[The Laughing Fish]

So I wouldn't recommend WW84, because holy sh*t, was that a terrible movie. I really liked the first one, this.......was bad.

You have been warned.

That bad, huh? I guess Snyder's warrior influence was sorely missed. 

Let's hope this will be the last time Geoff Johns writes a script for a DC adaptation.

[thecolorsblend]

Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood

Finally watched Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood near the end of December. Missed it in theaters because reasons but I saw the price had dropped way down on iTunes after Christmas and knew I had to check it out.

My thing has been Cape-Free Cinema in recent times. That means no superheroes. I want to watch FILMS. Priority is given to period pieces, true stories/autobiographies and the cinematic works of David Fincher (for whom Mank was all of the above, btw).

Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood. Rly enjoyed it. Rick Dalton is obviously a composite but the movie is better for that, if you ask me. I don't think using an irl has-been actor as the lead character would've worked. Esp considering that jaw-dropping ending.

Probably my favorite scene is where Cliff half-spars/half-rly fights Bruce Lee. There are apocryphal tales of Bruce Lee getting owned by westerners and this seems to fit in that milieu. I remind myself that Bruce Lee was his own best publicist so there might be something to those stories of Lee getting his ass kicked.

For me, the promise of the premise of Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood is Hollywood as it was in the late Sixties. The founders of Hollywood from the Twenties and Thirties were retiring and selling their movie studios to corporations. The industry was radically shifting, the tastes and preferences of wide audiences were moving away from all those plot-free beach movies of the early Sixties and basically nobody rly knew what to do or which direction to go in.

That aimlessness along with the general insanity of the late Sixties personified by the Manson family are what rly give Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood its mojo.

Tarantino claims he's retiring after his tenth movie. But if you ask me, stuff like Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood is proof that he should reconsider that. I'm not a big Tarantino guy. Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, the Kill Bills and, now, Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood are the only movies of his I've seen. But Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood was so enjoyable that I lament his choice to call it a day after the tenth movie.

Either way tho, Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood is a no-brainer recommendation, if you want to avoid superheroes, this is the movie for you.

[The Dark Knight]

I am a big Tarantino guy. He's neck and neck with Snyder with me. They are macho men who understand the power of cinema and go the whole way with their vision, provoking debate and controversy.

They're the best in the business. No doubt about that whatsoever.

I am very nostalgic about Pulp Fiction. The dialogue is hilarious and the moments are unforgettable. Chopping the film up out of sequence makes it so much better. So much more thought provoking and unique. Jackie Brown is a damn good film, y'all. I like Pulp a lot more, but I possibly prefer Samuel L in this compared to Pulp. What a badass role. I dig how he dies, too. Walks in, gets shot, and then silence. Following a character for two hours or more and then nothing. THAT is realism.

Inglorious Basterds is a near masterpiece, and if you like the alternate reality angle of Once Upon A Time you need to check it out. My relationship with Kill Bill isn't as strong but I still think they're a lot of fun.

Not a common choice, but The Hateful Eight is my fave from Tarantino because it has the simplicity of a stage play. Minimal locations powered purely by the script and the strength of the performances. I love that simplicity. Tarantino's greatest asset is mounting and releasing tension, and that gets a good workout here. It's a slow burn but so rewarding when it all comes together. Stay with it. Let the atmosphere build. If you haven't seen the movie what the hell are you waiting for?

Once Upon A Time is another slow build but it's one I like. It's about BEING in that era. Driving around the streets, walking the streets and letting that world envelope you. As someone fascinated by Manson and that time it was rewarding to see how Quentin spliced his universe in with the real world events. Visiting Spahn Ranch, seeing the girls out and about on the streets and all that stuff. Very cleverly done.

He's had some good endings, but Tarantino's last scene here is right up there. Satisfying, hilarious but also melancholic. I walked out of the cinema with goosebumps when I first saw it.

[thecolorsblend]

For reasons I don't particularly understand myself, I've been on a big Vietnam war kick lately. I've been watching some documentaries about the war but mostly it's been movies. Obvious stuff, rly. Platoon. Full Metal Jacket.

And the granddaddy of them all, Apocalypse Now.

Now, I myself would quibble with that. I always saw Apocalypse Now as a war film. Specifically, an anti-war film. The insanity, the brutality, the sheer lack of mercy and compassion, the utterly blurred moral lines, that's all war. Whether it's Okinawa, Baghdad, Saigon, Berlin, Kabul, it's all the same, war brings out the worst in man. Pray for peace.

Now yes, the occasion of this film is Vietnam. No denying that. But the point is that it could've been anything and you'd have the same result.

Still, the insanity is what most people associate with Vietnam so it is a good fit. But I think the film is saying it all goes much deeper than one war in the late Sixties.

The weirdest thing about Apocalypse Now is that until Willard reaches the Kurtz compound, the film is a series of otherwise disconnected vignettes. The scenes all fit with the basic "war is always chaos" theme that the movie embraces with both arms. But I think one reason Coppola keeps recutting the thing is because the scenes don't necessarily relate to each other all that much. Willard gets his orders to go to the Kurtz compound and then Willard arrives at the Kurtz compound. You can have as many or as few scenes between those two events as you want. Because it's already insane enough that an Army captain is terminating an Army colonel. Everything that happens between those two events reinforces the basic craziness at the heart of the story and, indeed, at the heart of war itself.

I adore this film. More than most, I consider this to be a movie where you just savor the acting and performances. You get some Coppola all-stars like Robert Duvall and G. D. Spradlin strutting their stuff but you also get Dennis Hopper snorting who the hell even knows what before cameras start rolling.

Anyway. It's fair to ask which version you should watch. Maybe it's hypocritical of me to say considering I just pointed out how disconnected the scenes mostly are with each other. But I actually recommend the theatrical version. For me, this is the purest distillation of the "War is chaos" theme. The other cuts include scenes which tend to politicize Vietnam specifically. And for me, that detracts from the movie's comments about war in a more general way.

Still, there are three cuts: theatrical, Redux and Final Cut. So pick your poison, I guess.

[BatmanFurst]

I just rewatched this on 4K for the first time a few weeks ago. Every time I watch this movie I keep forgetting how the ending feels like a horror movie. It always makes me uncomfortable.

[thecolorsblend]

Kicked off my annual Lord Of The Rings rewatch tonight. It's a bit obvious to recommend The Fellowship Of The Ring. It's a true classic. History has spoken on that. And who am I to argue with history?

The performances in this outing never get old. That's praise I don't necessarily extend to the sequels, for the record. But here, the characters and the acting have mostly the right balance. It helps that FOTR has the fewest digital effects of all the movies. I read somewhere that The Battle Of Pelennor Fields from ROTK has more CG shots in it than the entirety of FOTR. That should tell you something. I'm not anti-CGI. Far from it. But there's a grit and an internal reality to FOTR that kind of gets lost in TTT and, to a larger extent, ROTK.

Still, I do have some quibbles with FOTR. There are times when things get a bit too melodramatic for my taste. Perhaps it's to be expected with two female writers being paired up with a director mostly known for gory creature features up to then. Peter Jackson seemed content to let the women write whatever emotional stuff they wanted while he focused his attention on production design, battle sequences, costume design, etc. But still, slow motion crying is a bit over the top.

I'm aware that some Tolkien purists despise the LOTR films. I can even sympathize with their reasons too. But I think I can be more pragmatic about it than they can. LOTR as a book was going to be adapted into film. That's an immutable fact. Inevitable. So, on that basis, I think it's fair to ask if Jackson's trilogy is worthwhile. And for me, the answer can only be yes. I shudder to think what might've happened if LOTR had been put through the Hollywood machinery with anybody besides Jackson to protect it and advocate for it.

Maybe a different filmmaker might've done even better with the source material. But I don't see how that's possible. And for damn sure, I don't know who that filmmaker might be.

So all in all, I find the LOTR films entertaining and engaging visualizations of the novel. Are they perfect? No. Are they better than the book? Please.

But for what they are, I find them to be a triumph. They're a testament that the people involved were 100% invested in doing the best job they possibly could in adapting LOTR in a way that works for film. Nobody phoned it in, nobody did anything half ass, everybody was completely committed. I understand that Christopher Tolkien didn't approve of the movies or some of the creative directions Jackson went in.

And Christopher Tolkien is the biggest Tolkien fan in history. He was allowed to say, do and think whatever he wants and I'll shut up and listen to him. He earned that loyalty from me a thousand times over during his life.

But I see tremendous value in the films and I think I always will.

[The Dark Knight]

I'm aware that some Tolkien purists despise the LOTR films. I can even sympathize with their reasons too. But I think I can be more pragmatic about it than they can. LOTR as a book was going to be adapted into film. That's an immutable fact. Inevitable. So, on that basis, I think it's fair to ask if Jackson's trilogy is worthwhile. And for me, the answer can only be yes. I shudder to think what might've happened if LOTR had been put through the Hollywood machinery with anybody besides Jackson to protect it and advocate for it.

Re-reading the books again and taking my sweet time has reaffirmed their superiority. Tolkien's use of the English language, character development and plot progression is practically flawless. But Jackson did perhaps the best possible job I can imagine in terms of cinematography, soundtrack and casting. The general story is there, even though it lacks the depth of Tolkien's tome. But that's to be expected. Without the films the brand wouldn't be what it is today. Some see that in a negative and positive sense. Did the brand need the movies? No. But they created a brand new audience. I rank LOTR as the best fantasy genre in books and films.

[thecolorsblend]

In the big scheme of things, Insomnia will probably not be considered Christopher Nolan's most memorable film or his masterpiece or whatever. Still, having just watched it for the first time, I have to say it's pretty good. It lacks a lot of the twists and turns that Nolan would go on to become famous for. But then, this wasn't his script. Back then, he was a lean and hungry director who was already refining his talents. Recurring visual motifs, a semi-irredeemable lead character, a mystery that unravels, reravels and unravels again, a lot of the hallmarks that would define his later work are already present here.

In a lot of ways, this is a less sophisticated film than Memento. I don't think anybody questions that. But at the same time, that doesn't mean Insomnia doesn't have merit. On the contrary, it has considerable merit.

It's an enjoyable film. It lacks the edge-of-your-seat suspense of Memento and the twist(s) of The Prestige. But at its core, it's the story of a guy who has been covering up for his misdeeds for far too long and it all finally comes back to haunt him. Will Dormer faces deserved justice. And for that novelty alone, I'd say that Insomnia is worth a watch.

(Most of you have probably already seen it tho)