What Movie Have You Seen Today?

General General Movie Discussion
528

I attended an early screening of 1917 last night. Lots of Bond alumni on this WWI epic (Sam Mendes, Roger Deakins, Lee Smith, Dennis Gassner, and Thomas Newman) and they all do a better job than in Spectre (aside from Deakins, who only worked on Skyfall).

1917 is a very impressive technical achievement, and it will be a supreme outrage if Deakins isn’t nominated for an Oscar. As a drama, it’s a very simple affair of two soldiers on an impossible mission through no-man’s-land. But the images Deakins wrings from this material are stunning. There’s a nighttime sequence in a bombed-out burning town that makes “war is hell” a literal statement.

The hype around the film is that it’s all done in “one-shot.” I think this decision (by Mendes, not Deakins) was unnecessary and gimmicky. It threatens to reduce 1917 to a stunt, and the need to keep the camera continually on the move calls attention to itself.

The film’s real strengths are in Deakin’s images and the visceral portrayal of war, right down to quotidian details. Like Dunkirk, this film is less about war than the subjective ordeal of surviving it. The soldier’s travails are unromantic and exhausting. There are frequent shots of rats, bloated corpses, ruined towns, miserable living conditions, and fleeting glimpses of beautiful, indifferent nature.

The two leads are not well-known, but the officers are (Andrew Scott, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong, Richard Madden, Colin Firth), and the all-star cameos inevitably detract from the realism.

3 Likes
529

Probably true of every movie Deakins has shot.

1 Like
530

TOKYO TWILIGHT (1957) by Yasujiro Ozu (4K restoration seen in revival at Film Forum, NYC)

No matter how familiar one is with Ozu, his films always surprise: can cinema really be this simple? Can he possibly be repeating that shot again? Did no one ever teach him about the 180-degree rule?

Still I am seduced once again, gladly turning myself over to Ozu’s intelligence, elegance, and restraint–no extravagant camera movement, frontality emphasized. music at a minimum. But when his characters finally let loose–most often quietly, once even in silence–the emotions unleashed make Tarantino tantrums look mild and juvenile by comparison.

TOKYO TWILIGHT is considered one of Ozu’s bleakest films and his most melodramatic, but we are far from Minnelli and Sirk. As Ozu himself said: “A lot of people now equate drama with sensational incident, such as someone getting killed. But that’s not drama; it’s a freak occurrence. Instead I think drama is something without sensational incident, something you can’t easily put into words, with the characters saying everyday things like ‘Is that right?’ ‘Yes, it is,’ ‘So that’s what happened.’’” TOKYO TWILIGHT deals with abortion, unhappy marriages, and aching secrets without ever raising its voice. I cannot help but be devastated by the routine delivery by a minor character of the story of one of the leads being used and abused by her lover–offhandedly delivered during a game of mahjong with the camera observing the scene in the most mild way.

We often talk in this community about scripts and their many writers, but only Ozu (often in collaboration with Kogo Noda) could write an Ozu film. Dialogue, gesture, performance and mise en scene are so interwoven that it is impossible to imagine characters saying any other words or moving in any other manner. Ozu’s is a cinema of justness and humility–but a proud/elegant humility. As he said: “I only know how to make tofu. I can make fried tofu, boiled tofu, stuffed tofu. Cutlets and other fancy stuff, that’s for other directors.” What we need in contemporary cinema is more tofu.

2 Likes
531

I haven’t seen this in years , I found it beautiful and sad and poetic at the time. There’s one scene where the father arrives in a sake bar and there’s a low shit of him framed on the left is a man dressed a bit like Brando in the Wild One , I vividly remember the shot as have such perfect composition and whenever I think of his work , I think of Eastwood’s re telling of Don Segal’s advice to him
" Shoot low and lean" . I need to check this film out again soon. Also need to find out if Segal was a fan of Ozu, I suspect he may have been.

1 Like
532

That scene comes right at the beginning. Adding to its poignancy/artistry, there is the hat left on a peg which is recognized by all the characters, who then proceed to talk about its owner (obliquely, of course). The audience is left in the dark, and only later do we learn that it is the hat of the husband of the father’s oldest daughter–a marriage that has not turned out as well as hoped and which the father pushed the daughter into. If the scene were made today, there would be much exposition, lamenting, and grousing–all in the service of peacock acting,

2 Likes
533

Ad Astra

Far better than the dumb popcorn Movie I expected. Thoughtful and ponderous, but not pretentious or melodramatic until the finale, in which it doesn’t know quite know where to go with it’s Colonal Kurtz-esque Tommy Lee Jones.

Though on the surface it would appear to owe a great debt to 2001: A Space Odyssey, it is in fact more a riff on Apocalypse Now. It’s made clear that McBride Snr (Jones) isn’t a fan of mankind and their ‘world eating’ tendencies, so he’s gone ‘off the programme’ as Apocalypse Now’s Willard says about Kurtz.

McBride Jnr is in the boots of Apocalypse Now’s man on a mission Willard (if you can imagine Kurtz being Willard’s dad, then thats the twist in Ad Astra’s AN quest narrative). Though such a twist would’ve been highly contrived in AN, it’s an authentic plot driver in Ad Astra and thematically justified on the father/son, God/mankind canvas of 2001 this film paints upon.

It’s tone is the most interesting, most successful and surprising aspect. It’s low key, dower and introspective. It reminded me so much of Sodenberg’s fantastic Solaris remake that I suspect director James Grey is a big fan.

Ultimately the plot falls away to simplistic statements on the unique preciousness of our planet and of family and loved ones and though Pitt is very good at understatement, he struggles a little when called upon to show high emotion, lurching briefly into melodrama. His limitations remind me of Eastwood’s acting; when a director recognises and respects those limitations (such as Tarantino In OUATIH) he’s among the best in that niche. These limitations slightly hamstring McBride Jnr’s emotional journey, which is central to story - the very journey the audience are supposed to be taking with the protagonist. But Keir Duller’s similar strengths and weakness didn’t stop Kubrick taking us on this journey. Ad Astra is more ambitious, with its father/son twist, so perhaps Grey needed an actor with more range that Duller, whereas Pitts is on par with Duller (Pitt has greater range, doing deranged and unpredictable with aplomb, but I’m not sure I’ve seen him ever in the convincing throws of emotional angst).

Max Richter’s score is a strong point, keeping proceedings and eyes on the ball: that this isn’t an action movie, or even a drama. It’s seeking insight into the deeper machinations that drive us as individuals; though the narrative takes us outwards towards deep space, the score takes us ever inwards towards the deeper space of the soul. The score owes absolutely everything to Cliff Martinez’s seminal score for Solaris… and that’s no bad thing.

It’s not a crowd pleasing movie and doesn’t hit a home run with its intent, but it’s thoughtful and (rare in this age) ‘adult’. It’s Rotten Tomatoes score is currently 84% form the critics and 40% from the audience and that’s a damming snapshot of why all the money is going into childish fantasy cinema and adult cinema is thinner on the ground than ever. In this case trust the critics: for 84% of the runtime Ad Astra is excellent.

2 Likes
534

So you went in expecting Michael Bay, left thinking 2001 and Apocalypse now…Definitely wouldn’t call either of them Dumb Popcorn movies…do you have whiplash for heavy a turn the film had you make?

I was totally ambivalent towards this film, probably would’ve slipped by me without notice. Kinda want to see it now.

1 Like
535

If I were expecting Bay I’d not have gone in at all :sunglasses:

Like you I’d never felt inclined to see Ad Astra, but last night couldn’t face the deep space journey cryogenic runtime of The Irishman that I’d originally planned to watch.

As a huge fan of the Solaris remake - inexplicably great - I liked Ad Astra’s similarly ponderous navel gazing at the symmetry between inner and outer space. Like Cliff Martinez’s Solaris score, it’s Richter’s work in Ad Astra that made this movie chime with my palate. Narratively it’s derivative and underwhelming in the finale, but tonally I loved it.

1 Like
536

It’s well worth a look

1 Like
537

I loved it completely.

1 Like
538

I watched Kingsman again - great fun!

539

I saw The Last Jedi yesterday, and bits of the other trilogies and Rogue Oneon TNT this weekend. TLJ has a lot of call backs to other Star Wars canon–Luke also defiantly tosses his lightsaber in ROTJ when refusing to kill his father at the Emperor’s behest. Luke first sees Leia as a projection, and Leia last sees Luke as a projection. They actually drop hints about that ability throughout the film, as Luke is amazed Rey can do that with Kylo because “the effort would kill you.” Even Canto Bight didn’t bother me that much this time around.

Rogue One was also a lot tighter and swifter than I remember. Leads right into New Hope. But I noticed something this time around. The whole “use the Force, Luke” at the end when he shuts off his computer isn’t really what he’s doing because Han shoots Vader’s ship, then tells Luke “let’s blow this thing and go home.” Then Luke fires. Seems more luck than the Force.

1 Like
540

Well, the force is what helps him shoot that tiny air vent WITHOUT the help of the computer (which does not help other pilots who try). So, yeah, the force makes the difference.

Apart from that - I re-watched THE LAST JEDI last week, too. It was my third time. The first time I liked it, the second time I had problems with it - but on this third time I absolutely LOVED it. Maybe being on a Rian Johnson (re-)appreciation high helped me to appreciate everything he did on this film, and as you say, there are so many references to previous films (even TFA) that one cannot possibly recognize everything on only one sitting. The film is densely layered with ideas, and they all correspond wonderfully with everything the Star Wars films have always done. It is the work of a true Star Wars fan, and it is almost absurdly funny that some “fans” did not pick up on that.

1 Like
541

I think unlike Force Awakens and now, Rise of Skywalker - it dared to engage in conversation with fans, it wasn’t bowing to their whims and it challenged how they see their heroes - whether that’s Poe demanding influence above his pay grade because he is a great pilot (but has no business deciding the strategy of the entire rebellion), Luke being a flawed but ultimately heroic character who has moments of weakness that lead to Kylo Ren etc…

I think Star Wars fans have shown is that they demand blind loyalty to Star Wars and everything they love about it frozen in carbonite, no room for nuance - everyone and everything is as it appeared in 1977 - no questioning, no modernisation, always keep both eyes on the past that has come before. Their unwillingness to allow the franchise to grow I think will hamper it for many years to come - it’s certainly hampered the new trilogy

2 Likes
542

The Rise of Skywalker, Star Wars, Episode IX

This is the way. JJ has spoken.

Disney was wise to return to JJ Abrams for this third installment of the sequel trilogy, and final episode to the trilogy of trilogies. He raised questions in The Force Awakens that only he could have, and should have answered. There is some course correcting from The Last Jedi but also some follow through in the concluding arc of the Skywalker saga.

Along the way, JJ inserts a few genuine twists and turns as the story unfolds. He both honors some of what Rian Johnson brought to the franchise, but also wagged his finger at other answers to his questions. At least one character of prominence in TLJ is mostly sidelined in TROS. One he answered in such a way so brilliant and simple, it’s a wonder no one thought of it in their head canon. But to say which question would be a spoiler, and it is best to watch TROS without knowing too much beforehand. Yet still he managed the nearly impossible task of bringing a satisfying conclusion to the sequel trilogy whilst integrating the others, one right off the bat in the opening crawl. It makes the title of another Star Wars movie foreshadowing in a way that honors Lucas that George probably did not intend.

Without going into detail, the characters have fates and arcs that are deserved, but also predictable. Such is the trap of final installments–you know where the story has to go, so its reveal is not a surprise. It wasn’t quite as inspired or exhilarating as Avengers Endgame, and it certainly isn’t the disappointment that Game of Thrones became, but Episode IX is the most satisfying of the concluding installments of each Star Wars trilogy. In philosophy there is thesis, antithesis and synthesis. In Star Wars there is Sith, Jedi, and Skywalker.

One final comment as Star Wars relates to the world in which we live politically. I remember a review of the Return of the Jedi questioning what kind of government the rebels had, and if it was worth rooting for. A recent episode of the Mandalorian also hypothesizes some benefits of Imperial Rule. Certainly, as TFA demonstrates, the New Republic was better at overthrowing tyranny than governing. On a more personal level, this galaxy far, far away could do with some parenting classes. Can no one raise a kid in this universe? It seems everyone is ready to ditch a child on a desert planet, slay one over perceived future evil doing, or give their only offspring to old men in robes who cheat at gambling. And where the hell is OSHA? They have light speed tech, but safety railing on bridges or stairs? Never heard of it.

If you choose to enjoy this final installment of Star Wars, there is much fan service to feast on. Some may choose to hate, and that’s a waste of a 42 year investment in movie story telling. Like those that insist on calling Baby Yoda “The Child.” (I’ve met two fortysomethings arguing this just this week.) It may not have been Lucas’ final story, and that may not be a bad thing, but it is a worthwhile conclusion.

Post script: A big hats off to John Williams. He scored and delivered probably his best soundtrack for Star Wars since The Empire Strikes Back. Yes, much of it is familiar themes, but its orchestrations are pure perfection, with callbacks and musical cues that are beautifully scored, whether understated or bombastic. I hope the Academy gives him another nod.

1 Like
543

Havn’t seen the film yet, but I can surmise

Summary

I’d argue it’s revealed in the trailer. Go JJ for having a reveal that works for all 9 and doesn’t contradict anything else. I’m trying to be vague in a spoiler caption, as apparently it was considered a spoiler for doing this for Endgame regarding Stark’s fate, but I’m sure you can guess what I’m trying hard not to say

544

Great review, and this particular sentence sums up what I feel, too.

Part of Star Wars always was the chance to become a kid again, able to dream yourself into another world. If you apply contemporary cynicism you just do not recognize the value these stories can offer.

Also, the level of vitriol spouted at Star Wars films (since the prequels) is completely off the rails. If I read on the net (or hear people talk about it in real life) and they call this new film or the whole final trilogy “complete failures” or “the worst films ever made” they clearly have only two gears: FANTASTIC and CRAP (actually, they can only use cusswords). And they haven’t seen films that are truly complete failures.

And I don’t think the current argument works: “well, those films make people feel very passionate”. That actually is a stupid excuse for expressing oneself without any intellectual filter. If you feel passionate, make your passions be understood in a way that actually explains your passions.

1 Like
545

Yeah, Rise of Skywalker is aggressively fine for me - for a corporation that has Marvel as a blueprint to use for huge universal storytelling, this whole trilogy has not felt like a trilogy nor was it told with any cohesion. I appreciated their willingness to let Rian Johnson experiment and do something new, but its clear they had no vision for what the series would be - and it turned into the same mess as the DC movies did.

For me, Rise of Skywalker is what Martin Scorsese is talking about when he describes movies as theme park rides more than probably any Marvel movie has ever done. For huge fans of the series, I can see why they would love it - it ticks the boxes mechanically and excitingly and answers all the questions - but for someone who is not a huge SW fan it felt like a rushed, slapped together story for a technically impressive and well made movie

546

Mess? Seems a bit strong. Especially as Lucas, despite his claims, blatantly didn’t have a master plan, unless he’s pro incest…

Craig’s Bond at least somewhat had an idea of where they could go if rights returned.

547

Sure but we aren’t in 1977 anymore where he was probably surprised how big a success it became along the way and world building like this didn’t exist in film really - it was full of “this was happening the whole time but you didnt know” contrivances, rushed relationship building and lazy “mcguffin russian dolls” as someone put it in a review- I totally get why people would love the film though - its a fun ride but it coasts by on being Star Wars.

Craig Bond had a similar problem in what it did once they had Spectre back they haphazardly changed course (or went back to the original course) to the detriment of the film they made - Star Wars haphazardly changed course after its fans went toxic and appeased them rather than make the best movie they could

1 Like