Movies + TV series: Past and New Recommendation

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Yes the shortside lighting; the bleach bypass; the use of dynamic use reds with a cyan tint in that blackness as main character theming.

What I most had in mind though was that very process of taking what they shot with the ARRI cameras and animorphic lenses and printing it on 35mm film before scanning it back into digital. It all provided actual texture.

The effort is notable because it was an actual attempt at something compared to the rest of the slop on the playing field.

It was the opposite of the third movie I forgot to mention-- Free Guy-- the less said the better, but it was in the same range as The King's Man.

------------------

All that said, yes; it all collapses under its own weight. For any scene that looked sorta cinematic, two scenes would look tv quality. Some of that is on the Warner Brothers budgeting [my understanding this film, before COVID, was a mid-budget property]; a lot of it is on the director though.

For all the fancy camera manipulation, there is no energy or action to any of the shots...especially the action shots.

Just an example: the car chase scene had everything going for it, a lot of good ideas; so how did it end up underwhelming? There was nothing kinetic going on there. At no point was I really engaged. The movement of everything was just...off. Like some of the acting, particularly from Andy Serkis who always looks uncomfortable acting in his own skin. On and on and on...

The director made such a big deal about how much he was copying David Fincher (specifically Seven and Zodiac), and I am hardly a David Fincher fan, but the comparisons only hurt the Batman. Zodiac is mostly a bunch of actors sitting around in a newsroom, and there was more energy and excitement and intrigue in each frame than the Batman could ever muster.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

I think that the talented and creative people that were once attracted to the film industry now go into other fields.

Yes, there is plenty of that. And plenty could be said of the domestic audience (let alone now having to cater every specific movie to a global audience).

There's the financial side too.

The US movie industry has priced itself out of a lot of the movie business.

I think about Tom Hanks and his movies.
What Tom Hanks movies during his run of success would be made now? How many would be financially feasible?

Most of them are out, including Castaway and Saving Private Ryan-- maybe one or two for streaming? Splash&Big would have an okay shot of surviving, if they could be rejiggered into long-term serials.

Forrest Gump and Apollo 13 could make the cut because historical material still has some cache, but they likely wouldn't be big successes in today's market.

I can't think of anything else.

[noddy]

Yes the shortside lighting; the bleach bypass; the use of dynamic use reds with a cyan tint in that blackness as main character theming.

What I most had in mind though was that very process of taking what they shot with the ARRI cameras and animorphic lenses and printing it on 35mm film before scanning it back into digital. It all provided actual texture.

The effort is notable because it was an actual attempt at something compared to the rest of the slop on the playing field.

It was the opposite of the third movie I forgot to mention-- Free Guy-- the less said the better, but it was in the same range as The King's Man.

------------------

All that said, yes; it all collapses under its own weight. For any scene that looked sorta cinematic, two scenes would look tv quality. Some of that is on the Warner Brothers budgeting [my understanding this film, before COVID, was a mid-budget property]; a lot of it is on the director though.

For all the fancy camera manipulation, there is no energy or action to any of the shots...especially the action shots.

Just an example: the car chase scene had everything going for it, a lot of good ideas; so how did it end up underwhelming? There was nothing kinetic going on there. At no point was I really engaged. The movement of everything was just...off. Like some of the acting, particularly from Andy Serkis who always looks uncomfortable acting in his own skin. On and on and on...

The director made such a big deal about how much he was copying David Fincher (specifically Seven and Zodiac), and I am hardly a David Fincher fan, but the comparisons only hurt the Batman. Zodiac is mostly a bunch of actors sitting around in a newsroom, and there was more energy and excitement and intrigue in each frame than the Batman could ever muster.

yes.

the other thing that struck me, in a jolt out of immersion kind of way was how they framed it.

the absurdity of the rich man in the silly costume requires a certain level of support from the movie itself, to not come across as idiotic.

the 60's batman and the burton and schumacker batmans just embraced the sillyness - so batman was normal within the context.

the noire type gritty batman of nolan or snyder is again, an absurd situation, which allows that character to exist.

with this one, the modern grittyness, the realism in the joker and his legion of internet fans, left the whiny goth boy in the costume looking incongruous and irrelevant.

maybe it is the feature of this iteration, but to me it just was a mess of tonal imbalances, too aware of its woke political place in the world, without having any fun with that self awareness.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Yes the shortside lighting; the bleach bypass; the use of dynamic use reds with a cyan tint in that blackness as main character theming.

What I most had in mind though was that very process of taking what they shot with the ARRI cameras and animorphic lenses and printing it on 35mm film before scanning it back into digital. It all provided actual texture.

The effort is notable because it was an actual attempt at something compared to the rest of the slop on the playing field.

It was the opposite of the third movie I forgot to mention-- Free Guy-- the less said the better, but it was in the same range as The King's Man.

------------------

All that said, yes; it all collapses under its own weight. For any scene that looked sorta cinematic, two scenes would look tv quality. Some of that is on the Warner Brothers budgeting [my understanding this film, before COVID, was a mid-budget property]; a lot of it is on the director though.

For all the fancy camera manipulation, there is no energy or action to any of the shots...especially the action shots.

Just an example: the car chase scene had everything going for it, a lot of good ideas; so how did it end up underwhelming? There was nothing kinetic going on there. At no point was I really engaged. The movement of everything was just...off. Like some of the acting, particularly from Andy Serkis who always looks uncomfortable acting in his own skin. On and on and on...

The director made such a big deal about how much he was copying David Fincher (specifically Seven and Zodiac), and I am hardly a David Fincher fan, but the comparisons only hurt the Batman. Zodiac is mostly a bunch of actors sitting around in a newsroom, and there was more energy and excitement and intrigue in each frame than the Batman could ever muster.

yes.

the other thing that struck me, in a jolt out of immersion kind of way was how they framed it.

the absurdity of the rich man in the silly costume requires a certain level of support from the movie itself, to not come across as idiotic.

the 60's batman and the burton and schumacker batmans just embraced the sillyness - so batman was normal within the context.

the noire type gritty batman of nolan or snyder is again, an absurd situation, which allows that character to exist.

with this one, the modern grittyness, the realism in the joker and his legion of internet fans, left the whiny goth boy in the costume looking incongruous and irrelevant.

maybe it is the feature of this iteration, but to me it just was a mess of tonal imbalances, too aware of its woke political place in the world, without having any fun with that self awareness.

There is something incongruous about the movie introducing the character as living in the shadows while it proceeds to spend the next 3 hours showing batman socializing with rooms full of cops; walk down a street and knock on the front door of a nightclub; [then the second time smuggle the batsuit in somewhere in his regular suit?] attend a very well-lit and public memorial then convention. That same introduction tells the audience that everyone in Gotham is fearful then undermines that the rest of the way.

I could get over that if the character, more so than ever, wasn't a vehicle for misery porn.

When I read that it is the most modern comics-accurate Batman characterization to date, it makes it hard not to see why the comic books industry is in the decline that it is.

In that inch-deep depth of comic books characters, Bruce Wayne's parents death has become everything-- more than an origin to the point of arrested development-- and it isn't all that interesting.

Now that his father is either just as lousy as everyone else, if not downright evil, and his mother is clinically insane and clearly passed her illness to him; who are we exactly watching on screen?

A mentally ill young man with severe trauma who everyone indulges to the extreme for a variety of reasons.

It's not even deconstructing of the character or archetype; it's something beyond that.

[noddy]

who are we exactly watching on screen?

A mentally ill young man with severe trauma who everyone indulges to the extreme for a variety of reasons.

It's not even deconstructing of the character or archetype; it's something beyond that.

exactly.

"neuro divergance" is the hot new trend of the moment, maybe its more on point than I realised.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

The thrill is gone.

Hollywood is now mere content for the internet, just as books were once for movies.


-----------------

Came across someone who made an analogy that as the cult of the artist as god bloomed during the renaissance, so has the cult of the fandom as god during the great awokening.

increasingly of late - hollywood is also gross people, the other half and I noticed the lack of charismatic leads in the current crop of movies

they arent sending us the best people.

Yes, here the missus observed that people in movies are theoretically getting prettier but they're never horny; they're increasingly sex-less cogs with no strong attractiveness.

[Typhoon]

Watched this years ago during a trip to the US, found it entertaining.

Free on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF8Tf_Olq-Y

PF8Tf_Olq-Y

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Netflix has released a posthumous comedy special from the late Norm MacDonald.

Half of it is a practice or demo reel of MacDonald going through material he may or may not have used for a future Netflix special for which he was contracted.

The other half is a celebrity pampering session where a number of professional peers say nice things about him. The first half is worth a watch, the 2nd is not.

Contra Netflix itself saying that this was new material for a special, some of the jokes were old bits that have been floating around for some time, and some of it was clearly addressing cancel culture (and MacDonald's own convoluted cancelling before his death) and his own mortality.

3-rixFNgCqA

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

A40llPbg4mA

We watched The Terminal List starring Chris Pratt as a Navy Seal commander who is one of two survivors of an ambush on his platoon during a highly covert mission. He returns home to his family with memories of the event in conflict with the Navy's own evidence and initially, questions about his own culpability and subsequently questions directed at the navy itself.

Critics heavily panned it but audiences love it-- and here I am firmly with the audience even if I can't say I loved it. The 1st episode is slow but I think it picked up after that. It's a solid and fairly grounded action-suspense series.

The only warning I have is that, even at the end, it's a bit of a downer.

It reminded me of a hybrid of:

- Rambo (the real first one, where Rambo was an actual character disillusioned and not the steroid-comic book rambo of the rest of the franchise)

- Harrison Ford's Jack Ryan movies

- Harrison Ford's The Fugitive

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Top Gun: Maverick:

Not a fan of the original, liked this a lot better; maybe because of the actual flying.

[noddy]

I attempted the terminal but it was utterly tedious, gritty, realistic millitary is a million miles from entertainment for me.

Yes, here the missus observed that people in movies are theoretically getting prettier but they're never horny; they're increasingly sex-less cogs with no strong attractiveness.

absolutely - the levels of charisma in modern hollywood is absolute rock bottom - its really quite shocking how sub par these folks are, almost anti charisma.

this is the real crime of wokeness - its on par with the worst of self flaggelating religions in terms of being pre guilty for everything and unable to express anything.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Mr. Jones--

TWCWeUQowNA

A drama about the suppression of the soviet famine by western journalists and the powers-that-be. It was good, if a bit depressing.

[Typhoon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3oWrNQo_Ng

l3oWrNQo_Ng

Watched a few episodes, rather better than I had expected.
Directed by Michael Mann.

[Nonc Hilaire]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3oWrNQo_Ng

l3oWrNQo_Ng

Watched a few episodes, rather better than I had expected.
Directed by Michael Mann.

Standard plot so far but the 90’s Japan setting is great. Any recommendations for contemporary Japanese setting in any genre?

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

The new German adaptation of "All Quiet on the Western Front" (so I guess the original German title in English: "In the West, Nothing New")

qFqgmaO15x4

From an article in USA Today about remaking the famous movie:

Remaking an Oscar-winning movie is a dicey proposition. Why mess with success?

But when German director Edward Berger decided to redo Lewis Milestone’s 1930 epic “All Quiet on the Western Front” for Netflix (streaming Friday), he was on a mission to tell the futile (and fatal) tale of a 17-year-old World War I German conscript from a German point of view.

As Berger saw it, whenever American or British directors make war movies, it is impossible to avoid letting well-earned heroism seep into such efforts, befitting their victors' point of view.

As a result, Berger wanted to anchor his "All Quiet" to the national yoke of loss and shame that burdens many Germans.

“When it comes to both world wars, as a German there is nothing to be proud of in that part of history. There’s only guilt, terror, horror and a deep sense of responsibility to the past,” says Berger, 52. “That’s in me. That’s in my kids.”

The result is possibly one of the most searing and soul-crushing depictions of warfare that has ever muddied the screen. It has the staggering battle sequences of “Saving Private Ryan,” the gruesome trench warfare of “1917” and the exploration of quieter moments in soldiers' lives seen in "Apocalypse Now.”

I'm not quite there in comparing it to 1917, Apocalypse Now or Saving Private Ryan.

But it is definitely searing and soul-crushing. To a point that all the good technicalities of the movie (good, effective acting/moments of stunning cinematography) are lost in a very bleak, gruesome, jarring and disturbing movie.

I regret having turned it on.

[Typhoon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3oWrNQo_Ng

l3oWrNQo_Ng

Watched a few episodes, rather better than I had expected.
Directed by Michael Mann.

Standard plot so far but the 90’s Japan setting is great. Any recommendations for contemporary Japanese setting in any genre?

Not a film, but a TV series:

IMDB | He Who Can't Marry a.k.a Unmarried Man| Kekkon Dekinai Otoko | 結婚できない男

Genre: comedy

There was a follow-up Season 2, but it's not quite as good.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Tokyo Vice was good. Thanks.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Barbarian- don't watch many horror movies but turned that one on and it was okay. The first half is the best and I think it peters out as it somewhat as it hits one on the nose with its message.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Blood Debt's ending:

[noddy]

The thrill is gone.

Hollywood is now mere content for the internet, just as books were once for movies.


-----------------

Came across someone who made an analogy that as the cult of the artist as god bloomed during the renaissance, so has the cult of the fandom as god during the great awokening.

increasingly of late - hollywood is also gross people, the other half and I noticed the lack of charismatic leads in the current crop of movies

they arent sending us the best people.

Yes, here the missus observed that people in movies are theoretically getting prettier but they're never horny; they're increasingly sex-less cogs with no strong attractiveness.

stumbled across someone who has written a huge rant on this.

https://bloodknife.com/everyone-beautiful-no-one-horny/

When Paul Verhoeven adapted Starship Troopers in the late 1990s, did he know he was predicting the future? The endless desert war, the ubiquity of military propaganda, a cheerful face shouting victory as more and more bodies pile up?

But the scene that left perhaps the greatest impact on the minds of Nineties kids—and the scene that anticipated our current cinematic age the best—does not feature bugs or guns. It is, of course, the shower scene, in which our heroic servicemen and -women enjoy a communal grooming ritual.

On the surface, it is idyllic: racial harmony, gender equality, unity behind a common goal—and firm, perky asses and tits.

And then the characters speak. The topic of conversation? Military service, of course. One joined for the sake of her political career. Another joined in the hopes of receiving her breeding license. Another talks about how badly he wants to kill the enemy. No one looks at each other. No one flirts.

A room full of beautiful, bare bodies, and everyone is only horny for war.

We’re told that Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are an item, but no actual romantic or sexual chemistry between them is shown in the films. Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor utterly lack the sexual chemistry to convince us that either of them would be thirsty enough to commandeer a coma victim’s body (as they do in Wonder Woman 1984) so they can enjoy a posthumous hookup. In defiance of Norse mythology, Chris Hemsworth’s Thor smiles at Natalie Portman like a dumb golden retriever puppy without ever venturing to rend her asunder with his mighty hammer, so to speak. Not that the competition is any better. Despite accusations of being an incel icon, it is Heath Ledger’s Joker, not Christian Bale’s chaste and sexless Batman, who exudes the most sexual energy in the Dark Knight trilogy.

etc

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

The thrill is gone.

Hollywood is now mere content for the internet, just as books were once for movies.


-----------------

Came across someone who made an analogy that as the cult of the artist as god bloomed during the renaissance, so has the cult of the fandom as god during the great awokening.

increasingly of late - hollywood is also gross people, the other half and I noticed the lack of charismatic leads in the current crop of movies

they arent sending us the best people.

Yes, here the missus observed that people in movies are theoretically getting prettier but they're never horny; they're increasingly sex-less cogs with no strong attractiveness.

stumbled across someone who has written a huge rant on this.

https://bloodknife.com/everyone-beautiful-no-one-horny/

When Paul Verhoeven adapted Starship Troopers in the late 1990s, did he know he was predicting the future? The endless desert war, the ubiquity of military propaganda, a cheerful face shouting victory as more and more bodies pile up?

But the scene that left perhaps the greatest impact on the minds of Nineties kids—and the scene that anticipated our current cinematic age the best—does not feature bugs or guns. It is, of course, the shower scene, in which our heroic servicemen and -women enjoy a communal grooming ritual.

On the surface, it is idyllic: racial harmony, gender equality, unity behind a common goal—and firm, perky asses and tits.

And then the characters speak. The topic of conversation? Military service, of course. One joined for the sake of her political career. Another joined in the hopes of receiving her breeding license. Another talks about how badly he wants to kill the enemy. No one looks at each other. No one flirts.

A room full of beautiful, bare bodies, and everyone is only horny for war.

We’re told that Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are an item, but no actual romantic or sexual chemistry between them is shown in the films. Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor utterly lack the sexual chemistry to convince us that either of them would be thirsty enough to commandeer a coma victim’s body (as they do in Wonder Woman 1984) so they can enjoy a posthumous hookup. In defiance of Norse mythology, Chris Hemsworth’s Thor smiles at Natalie Portman like a dumb golden retriever puppy without ever venturing to rend her asunder with his mighty hammer, so to speak. Not that the competition is any better. Despite accusations of being an incel icon, it is Heath Ledger’s Joker, not Christian Bale’s chaste and sexless Batman, who exudes the most sexual energy in the Dark Knight trilogy.

etc

That's probably where she copped the line from.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpGfyp6MxkM

cpGfyp6MxkM

[Typhoon]

The thrill is gone.

Hollywood is now mere content for the internet, just as books were once for movies.


-----------------

Came across someone who made an analogy that as the cult of the artist as god bloomed during the renaissance, so has the cult of the fandom as god during the great awokening.

increasingly of late - hollywood is also gross people, the other half and I noticed the lack of charismatic leads in the current crop of movies

they arent sending us the best people.

Yes, here the missus observed that people in movies are theoretically getting prettier but they're never horny; they're increasingly sex-less cogs with no strong attractiveness.

stumbled across someone who has written a huge rant on this.

https://bloodknife.com/everyone-beautiful-no-one-horny/

When Paul Verhoeven adapted Starship Troopers in the late 1990s, did he know he was predicting the future? The endless desert war, the ubiquity of military propaganda, a cheerful face shouting victory as more and more bodies pile up?

But the scene that left perhaps the greatest impact on the minds of Nineties kids—and the scene that anticipated our current cinematic age the best—does not feature bugs or guns. It is, of course, the shower scene, in which our heroic servicemen and -women enjoy a communal grooming ritual.

On the surface, it is idyllic: racial harmony, gender equality, unity behind a common goal—and firm, perky asses and tits.

And then the characters speak. The topic of conversation? Military service, of course. One joined for the sake of her political career. Another joined in the hopes of receiving her breeding license. Another talks about how badly he wants to kill the enemy. No one looks at each other. No one flirts.

A room full of beautiful, bare bodies, and everyone is only horny for war.

We’re told that Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are an item, but no actual romantic or sexual chemistry between them is shown in the films. Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor utterly lack the sexual chemistry to convince us that either of them would be thirsty enough to commandeer a coma victim’s body (as they do in Wonder Woman 1984) so they can enjoy a posthumous hookup. In defiance of Norse mythology, Chris Hemsworth’s Thor smiles at Natalie Portman like a dumb golden retriever puppy without ever venturing to rend her asunder with his mighty hammer, so to speak. Not that the competition is any better. Despite accusations of being an incel icon, it is Heath Ledger’s Joker, not Christian Bale’s chaste and sexless Batman, who exudes the most sexual energy in the Dark Knight trilogy.

etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACNPIlDVKwY

ACNPIlDVKwY

[crashtech66]

Lately I have had trouble interesting myself in contemporaneous shows. I'm not enough of a critic to be able to articulate the reason for my apathy, but I do know that a rescreening of Lord of the Rings, for example, can still command my undivided attention and emotional involvement. Possibly some of this has to do with age, but is it just that?