Films Recently Watched

[caze]

random headline: 

 

‘Mother!’ Is the Worst Movie of the Year, Maybe Century

[iococoi]

The God Of Cookery

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116426/

 

 8 pissing beef balls/10

Edited September 17, 2017 by iococoi

[Squee]

so it's bad? 

 

Well, it's better than IT.

 

mother! is ok, but it'll definitely divide the audience. The metaphors are thick like custard and you're constanly hit over the head with them.

I could stare at Javier Bardem's huge face all day though.

[usagi]

his asymmetrical nostrils are quite captivating, I'll give you that.

[ghOsty]

Rolling my eyes, at all the jaded cinephiles in this thread bashing "IT"... 

 

Went and saw "IT" yesterday, and I enjoyed it, looking forward to the 2nd part.

 

No, it wasn't the most terrifying horror film I've ever seen, however, I didn't at all expect it to be... I can't speak for how faithful it was to the novel, as I haven't read it. Nor, do I have overly strong memories of the 90s adaptation with Tim Curry, it's been a while since I've seen that one, but from what I remember it wasn't all that spectacular either... maybe it's time to lower the rose-tinted nostalgia goggles.  

 

The new adaptation overall was fun, and it had it's creepy moments... (Have we all forgotten how to simply enjoy a movie for being a fun watch, and not necessarily a complex cinematic experience by some wanky auteur?) The atmosphere was done well, the CGI was pretty cool, and I thought the kids did a good job overall. Sure it may have been somewhat like a long episode of Stranger Things, but I enjoyed that series, because it's fun as well, and clearly there's many people who agree.

 

I do plan on reading the novel, and maybe my opinion of the film will change after I complete the novel, but I doubt it...

 

 

I went into this being led to believe it was going to be scary/disturbing on an Exorcist level.

(Well there's your problem, even watching the trailer it clearly wasn't that type of horror... also The Exorcist is NOT that scary, and hasn't really aged all that well)

 

Seriously guys, if you've not seen it, don't waste your money. It's like an extended episode of Stranger Things.

(Stranger Things is a pretty fun series, and it's pretty popular because it does exactly what it aims to do pretty well)

 

The scares are practically non-existent and the Pennywise in this version isn't remotely as good as Tim Curry's interpretation. If you want dark/disturbing, watch Twin Peaks, not this crap.

(It had it's moments, but NO it wasn't the scariest film I've ever seen... Nostalgia goggles...  "Muh Lynch" Come on, Twin Peaks isn't THAT dark or disturbing... if anything it had even MORE humor than this film did)

 

Cannot believe it's taken so much money. All aboard the Stephen King/Stranger Things hype train.
(Huh, weird... it's almost like it's not that bad of a film and people kinda like that aesthetic isn't it?)

[Redruth]

mother!

 

Hmmmm... seems like Aronofsky wants to remind us that he was once an auteur.

 

Javier Bardem/ 10

 

 

 in an good way?

The God Of Cockery

[zaphod]

 

Rolling my eyes, at all the jaded cinephiles in this thread bashing "IT"... 

 

Went and saw "IT" yesterday, and I enjoyed it, looking forward to the 2nd part.

 

No, it wasn't the most terrifying horror film I've ever seen, however, I didn't at all expect it to be... I can't speak for how faithful it was to the novel, as I haven't read it. Nor, do I have overly strong memories of the 90s adaptation with Tim Curry, it's been a while since I've seen that one, but from what I remember it wasn't all that spectacular either... maybe it's time to lower the rose-tinted nostalgia goggles.  

 

The new adaptation overall was fun, and it had it's creepy moments... (Have we all forgotten how to simply enjoy a movie for being a fun watch, and not necessarily a complex cinematic experience by some wanky auteur?) The atmosphere was done well, the CGI was pretty cool, and I thought the kids did a good job overall. Sure it may have been somewhat like a long episode of Stranger Things, but I enjoyed that series, because it's fun as well, and clearly there's many people who agree.

 

I do plan on reading the novel, and maybe my opinion of the film will change after I complete the novel, but I doubt it...

 

 

I went into this being led to believe it was going to be scary/disturbing on an Exorcist level.

(Well there's your problem, even watching the trailer it clearly wasn't that type of horror... also The Exorcist is NOT that scary, and hasn't really aged all that well)

 

Seriously guys, if you've not seen it, don't waste your money. It's like an extended episode of Stranger Things.

(Stranger Things is a pretty fun series, and it's pretty popular because it does exactly what it aims to do pretty well)

 

The scares are practically non-existent and the Pennywise in this version isn't remotely as good as Tim Curry's interpretation. If you want dark/disturbing, watch Twin Peaks, not this crap.

(It had it's moments, but NO it wasn't the scariest film I've ever seen... Nostalgia goggles...  "Muh Lynch" Come on, Twin Peaks isn't THAT dark or disturbing... if anything it had even MORE humor than this film did)

 

Cannot believe it's taken so much money. All aboard the Stephen King/Stranger Things hype train.

(Huh, weird... it's almost like it's not that bad of a film and people kinda like that aesthetic isn't it?)

 

 

what if i didn't find it fun?

[Overand]

I quite enjoyed mother!

 

It wasn't subtle or super deep but it was audacious, darkly funny, absorbing and aesthetically interesting. It took a while for the balls to hit the wall but once they did I was happy. 

 

It, on the other hand was kinda boring. Over reliant on schlocky jump scares, the actors and cinematography were all good but the sound editing was terrible and cliche as was the soundtrack. The Stand By Me-ish scenes worked a lot better than any of the actual "scares." but if I wanted to watch a good version of Stand by Me I could just watch Stand by Me.

[WeAreOceans]

Everything I've heard about mother! makes it sound like pretentious schlock but I am a little intrigued. Although I cannot stand Jennifer Lawrence.

[Squee]

Ok, so I finally have something that resembles an opinion on mother!.

It was a beautiful and super uncomfortable tour de force and it won't leave my mind anytime soon - which means that it at least left some kind of impression on me.

There were things about the movie that made me roll my eyes though.

 

So during the opening scene where Jennifer Lawrence runs around the house... I almost knew it was coming and when it did I couldn't help but think, "really?". During the beginning you see her only with her back to the camera. Then when she finally turns around they serve the teenage boys exactly what they've been waiting for for the last couple of years. A quick glimpse of JLaw's nipples and areola poking through her thin shirt. I felt so dumb.

 

 

Anyway, besides that the acting was great and this is quite possibly the first movie where I've actually enjoyed Ed Harris' presence who always just plays that-Ed-Harris-guy. Good to see Michelle Pfeiffer again.

Again, it was pretty on the nose about what "it was" which was a bit annoying.

 

7/10 ... I think?

[tec]

Baskin - Disappointed by this as I was saving it for when I was in the mood for some sick shit. The build-up was good but then the end is Clive Barker fan fiction and the reveal of a man who has some kind of disability or is just very ugly. Perhaps the budget wasn't there but a slight reveal of the madness drawn on the walls would have been better than nothing.

Edited September 19, 2017 by tec

[Silent Member]

I thought disability man did a pretty great job with what he had, but yeah, the ending was a real let down.

[Hail Sagan]

Here's my verbose, add little to the conversation review of IT.

 

 

Saw IT finally, and had the feeling going in that I would be a bit let down considering I saw the original mini-series. The person I was with never saw the TV miniseries or read the book so I was really interested in what her take would be more so than mine. She really enjoyed it. I actually liked it as well, though it's hard for me to watch things and enjoy them when I basically already know what's going to occur. The mini-series has some serious sentimental value for me as I was as old as the kids on the show when I saw it with a friend late at night and was shook for about a week or so after. Tim Curry was fucking great, and I loved how much more he clowned it up as a character. While I think the scares were less telegraphed in the miniseries I bet if I went back in rewatched it they would probably have the usual cues and obvious set up that permeated the most recent version. I think a huge part of what made IT so scary to me as a kid was that after what happened with Georgie, the sudden realization that kids were being murdered by this thing, made all the subsequent scenes way more fucking scary. I didn't know at the time if more members of the loser's club would be killed. Plus I was like 10 or some shit at the time.

 

Take away the suspense of not knowing what's going to happen, and add years of watching films, particularly a lot of horror films that kind of burned me out on the genre itself, and it's just going to make for a significantly less visceral experience in my opinion. I also don't get the criticism I've heard from a few people saying this was too long. The best way you could bring a book of that size, with that many characters and backstories to the screen and actually do it justice I think would be in a longer miniseries form on a premium cable network like HBO or SHO. I'm sure someone a Lynch, Aranofsky or Kubrick could have pulled it off with such limitations, knowing what to omit and how to make you feel for so many characters in such a short amount of time, but how many of these types are around? 

 

Things I liked:

 

The sailboat scene with Georgie was a great, grim way to open up. Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise. Not as much as Curry, but he had a different enough take on the character to make him feel fresh. I still think they should have turned the make up down a bit, but he did a good job. The loser's club. Basically all the kids, Bev in particular, gave good performances. All the immature dialogue was appreciated as well. Well shot, and I didn't find the CGI to be overbearing in most parts. I also enjoyed how detached and strange all the adult characters seemed. They really emphasized their age, making them seem damaged, weathered, condescending and impossible reason with. I didn't mind the fact that it was set in the 80's, it really did seem to kind of pay homage to Stranger Things for successfully paying homage to IT and Stand By Me. Im also happy that Freddy Krueger didn't make a surprise appearance after seeing the the poster at the theater and remembering the wolf man appearance from the miniseries. Apparently that was actually being considered, how shitty would that have been for both sides?

 

Things that sucked:

 

All those obvious fucking music cues in every scene indicating a scare would arrive in the next 3 seconds. The fact that Mike, who was the one that revealed Derry's history in the original series, and in the book as well as I've learned, was relegated to being the muscle, while the fat kid took on the role of learning what was going on. i feel SJW as fuck for saying this but when Mike rolled up to the old house with a gun it did feel a bit cringeworthy. Also the fact that the bullies basically called each kid out for there differences like being fat, being a stutterer, etc. But when they got on Mike's case they never really addressed the obvious reason why they were fucking with him. Also the lack of development revolving around the lead bully. They had that kid go from aspiring sociopath to patricide in an instant. That was handled very poorly.

 

Overall I enjoyed it. Not a great film by any means, but a welcome update with some good acting, a potential star-making performance from Bev, and a step in the right direction for King's vision being realized on film. He has notoriously been responsible for being involved in and interfering with what turned out to be horrible adaptations of his novels after Kubrick turned a great book into a great film in which he incorporated a few of his own ideas, and left out some of King's. Most notably the conclusion, which I could understand would drive you a little nuts, but I think the reverberations of that butthurt are finally starting to fade. It's nice to see King green light something that's a little different from his work (or was this actually a more faithful adaptation than the miniseries outside of it being set in the 80s?). For a guy as visionary as he I bet it's pretty difficult to relinquish control like that.

 

I just realized I'm still writing this drawn out and shitty review. Sorry.

 

Where this film stands in the years to come will likely be determined by all the kids out there. I have to imagine, that for all its flaws and lack of nuance, the story is still there, and still strong. IT resonates strongest with kids, not with a bunch of jaded scarfs like us who nitpick boutique cinema online.

 

[eugene]

strong island - this docu is about a black guy who got killed by a white man in some kind of unclear altercation and whom the white grand jury quickly accused of being guilty in own death due whitey's alleged self defense, which prevented the start of an actual trial. i sort of expected an in depth exploration of institutional racism in american judicial system but got pretty much none of that. instead we get an overly emotional (often spiced up with cringeworthy theatrics) account of the family members about how the guy who got killed was a really, really good guy and how his death deeply affected them. something really rubs me wrong about this kind of setup. instead of establishing and investigating the role of institutional racism in this case this docu takes it for granted from pretty much for the start and tries to get your identification with the victim and his family by drowning you in tears and snot and implicit anger. it's quite a bit of a misuse of the idea of a documentary film i think. if you wanted an exploration of an american black family experience then denzel's recent "feces" was solid enough and much better presented and less manipulative than this one. as for actual documentary of american racism, i guess i'll try "i am not your negro".

[usagi]

I've seen a bit of I Am Not Your Negro and look forward to watching it in full. it opens well at least, along the lines of what you're saying.

[dr lopez]

i am not your negro was good and legitimately moving. saw it at Magic Johnson 9 on Frederick douglass which was actually totally great because everyone was gettin fuckin angry and yelling and sayin fuck this and fuck that and booing bill buckley. would imagine a screening at a university cinema filled with liberal arts professors hmming and aahhing and solemnly nodding would have made the film seem trite. I became v worked up when they showed pics of trayvon etc although now it might seem a little cheap. anyway it works because james baldwin is an interesting, intelligent person and not a gushing biography. 

[MadameChaos]

rewatched Dark City recently, 9/10 weird kiefer sutherland x futuristic apocalypse vintage sci-fi

[Redruth]

starred up

[zaphod]

go on...

[Auditor]

Saw Mother! and enjoyed it for the most part. I thought I knew what it was about, but then I got home and read that Aronofsky claims that it is a bible allegory combined with a warning about destroying the environment. If so, it was completely underwhelming and pretentious as tits. I saw the film as a big metaphor for the narcissism and other shortcomings of a lot of artists. 

 

Some guy on Reddit agrees with me and did a great writeup about it, so I will quote it:

 

 

I don't think the biblical analogue is a perfect fit. A more appropriate fit, and the one that I (incidentally) subscribe to, sees the film as an illustration of the creative process, played out in graphically Freudian terms. In this interpretation:
The house is the larger mind/inner intimate being of Javier Bardem, the artist. It's lived in by his wife, who has rebuilt it after a personal tragedy. Because the wife has participated in the rebuilding, it's their life together.
Javier Bardem's character is the ego, the conscious mind of the artist.
Jennifer Lawrence's character is the wife/partner of the artist. She is an interloper in his mind, in his intimate self. (I think this better explains the attitude of the various house guests towards her, and their fundamental lack of respect for her authority in the house.) She is not a true partner of the artist; as she says at the end, Javier Bardem's character doesn't love her, he only loves how much she loves him. He needs her love to keep his house (his larger being) in order, so that he can help create.
The tonic is a representation of self-repression required by the artist's wife to allow her to live in intimacy with the artist. It's important that she mixes the tonic with the paint; it's a part of the house (part of the artist's mind), so by ingesting it, she takes some of his characteristics into herself. It illustrates her subservience to him. When she doesn't take it, she's in disharmony (physical discomfort) with the artist/house.
The people are, collectively, the id, the subconsious mind of the artist. The id craves the creative output of the artist. It propels him (violently) toward the act of creation. More on them later.
Ed Harris's and Michelle Pfeiffer's characters, and their children, are an event or personal story either told to or witnessed by the artist. The events in the second half of the film are the artist's attempts to process the tragedy/trauma he witnessed into a creative act.
The crystal is a memory of a prior lover treasured by the artist. The vileness of the death of the son destroys the goodness of the memory of love the artist has; it's what animates him. By destroying the good memory, the trauma of the event cannot be erased by the artist or the artist's wife.
The bloodstain is the trauma continuously borne by the artist after witnessing the death of the son. It's meaningful that the trauma never disappears, but keeps recurring, and also that the bloodstain is in the bedroom put aside for the baby. More on that later.
The film's second half signifies the id's attempts to overtake the conscious mind with grief at the death of the son in the first half. The artist is having trouble processing death (specifically, the death of the son), and it boils over into the larger mind (the house) of the artist. The id is only placated by a creative act, which brings us to...
The newborn son is the creative act inspired by the wife of the artist. The artist uses the wife for inspiration of his creative act, then turns it over to his id to placate it and help him process the trauma. Hence his speech about making the child's death mean something.
Jennifer Lawrence's character's destruction of the house represents the wife leaving the artist out of disgust. She realizes what the artist has done with the creative act she inspired (used it to selfishly recreate a violent act), so she leaves him. The trauma of her leaving him burns out/destroys the life they have created together.
The second crystal signifies the memory the artist creates of his and his wife's time together. He keeps that memory safe while he recreates the house with a new wife/lover, thus restarting the creative process over again.

 

[zaphod]

that sounds pretty dire

[Auditor]

My gf just told me that apparently there was a scene where 

Ed Harris' character has a chest wound, therefore making him Adam creating Eve (Pfeifer)

but I was taking a piss. 

[hello spiral]

Yeah I enjoyed mother! a lot. Went in knowing very little, enjoyed it as an ott and intense arthouse experience in a mainstream cinema, and yeah I got the narcissistic artist thing from it same as auditor.

 

Then I read Aronofsky's own explanation/interpretation..........eh

Glad I went in as a blank page.

Aronofsky needs to take lessons from Lynch in keeping your fucking mouth shut.

[usagi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt__kig8PVU

[MadameChaos]

Saw Mother! and enjoyed it for the most part. I thought I knew what it was about, but then I got home and read that Aronofsky claims that it is a bible allegory combined with a warning about destroying the environment. If so, it was completely underwhelming and pretentious as tits. I saw the film as a big metaphor for the narcissism and other shortcomings of a lot of artists. 

 

Some guy on Reddit agrees with me and did a great writeup about it, so I will quote it:

 

 

I don't think the biblical analogue is a perfect fit. A more appropriate fit, and the one that I (incidentally) subscribe to, sees the film as an illustration of the creative process, played out in graphically Freudian terms. In this interpretation:

The house is the larger mind/inner intimate being of Javier Bardem, the artist. It's lived in by his wife, who has rebuilt it after a personal tragedy. Because the wife has participated in the rebuilding, it's their life together.

Javier Bardem's character is the ego, the conscious mind of the artist.

Jennifer Lawrence's character is the wife/partner of the artist. She is an interloper in his mind, in his intimate self. (I think this better explains the attitude of the various house guests towards her, and their fundamental lack of respect for her authority in the house.) She is not a true partner of the artist; as she says at the end, Javier Bardem's character doesn't love her, he only loves how much she loves him. He needs her love to keep his house (his larger being) in order, so that he can help create.

The tonic is a representation of self-repression required by the artist's wife to allow her to live in intimacy with the artist. It's important that she mixes the tonic with the paint; it's a part of the house (part of the artist's mind), so by ingesting it, she takes some of his characteristics into herself. It illustrates her subservience to him. When she doesn't take it, she's in disharmony (physical discomfort) with the artist/house.

The people are, collectively, the id, the subconsious mind of the artist. The id craves the creative output of the artist. It propels him (violently) toward the act of creation. More on them later.

Ed Harris's and Michelle Pfeiffer's characters, and their children, are an event or personal story either told to or witnessed by the artist. The events in the second half of the film are the artist's attempts to process the tragedy/trauma he witnessed into a creative act.

The crystal is a memory of a prior lover treasured by the artist. The vileness of the death of the son destroys the goodness of the memory of love the artist has; it's what animates him. By destroying the good memory, the trauma of the event cannot be erased by the artist or the artist's wife.

The bloodstain is the trauma continuously borne by the artist after witnessing the death of the son. It's meaningful that the trauma never disappears, but keeps recurring, and also that the bloodstain is in the bedroom put aside for the baby. More on that later.

The film's second half signifies the id's attempts to overtake the conscious mind with grief at the death of the son in the first half. The artist is having trouble processing death (specifically, the death of the son), and it boils over into the larger mind (the house) of the artist. The id is only placated by a creative act, which brings us to...

The newborn son is the creative act inspired by the wife of the artist. The artist uses the wife for inspiration of his creative act, then turns it over to his id to placate it and help him process the trauma. Hence his speech about making the child's death mean something.

Jennifer Lawrence's character's destruction of the house represents the wife leaving the artist out of disgust. She realizes what the artist has done with the creative act she inspired (used it to selfishly recreate a violent act), so she leaves him. The trauma of her leaving him burns out/destroys the life they have created together.

The second crystal signifies the memory the artist creates of his and his wife's time together. He keeps that memory safe while he recreates the house with a new wife/lover, thus restarting the creative process over again.

 

 

yeah i read it as an allegory about fame and the destructive nature of celebrity and hero worship in general. not sure i liked it as it was so heavy handed.