Serious Movie Discussion XXXVIX

[SoulBrotherNo1]

No one ever mentions Benjamin Button

Its for the better. Its an oscar bait pseudo-deep non-drama that bores through 3 hours.

 

[theskza]

I've never seen it and never had the desire to.

 

[Shot]

Its for the better. Its an oscar bait pseudo-deep non-drama that bores through 3 hours.

Ha, yea I was trolling. I thought it was alright. Some scenes were well done but as a whole its one of finchers worst

 

[Bullitt68]

With my recent Fincher kick, I went back through some interviews an old professor of mine gave talking about him (last year he put together this book of Fincher interviews) and there's a lot of cool stuff in them for anybody interested, particularly on Fight Club (he absolutely loves that movie, to the point where he puts it alongside Citizen Kane and 2001 for its importance ) and Zodiac (the interviewer in the second link loves that movie, so he brings it up a lot ):

Interview #1

Interview #2

Bullitt's a big boy.

[YT]LDaf-kILl2k&start=28&end=43[/YT]

I think Bullitt watches movies a certain way.

It's always a weird experience to hear other people talk about the way I am (and it probably says something about me that it happens enough for me to be able to say "always" :redface

He watches Fincher and compares his technical ability to Kubrick.

In fairness to myself, Kubrick is an acknowledged reference point for Fincher. But in any event, I find it strange that there are people who don't connect movies to other movies, filmmakers to other filmmakers, etc., and even stranger that, for some people, this is even a choice in the first place and not simply a matter of ignorance/disinterest. That films, perhaps even more than they come from an auteur, come from other films, is what makes Stanley Cavell's concept of automatism (from his book The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film) so compelling. It's more than some postmodernist hyper-referentiality. It's just a fact of the cinema that films are constantly in communication with each other and that you can trace so many different "conversations" between so many different films/filmmakers. Is it crazy to want to hear as much of as many of these conversations as possible?

He watches animation but during he's thinking he'd rather see Spencer Tracy, a real person, acting a character. He can't take in the artwork telling the story, and if he did it's inferior by default, being animation.

[YT]mbxOD9mRL14&start=125&end=128[/YT]

In other words, as much as he's comparing things "objectively", he's exactly like us. He likes what he likes. That's all that's affecting his viewings.

A few years ago, I would've taken the notion of objectivity as a compliment and would've sought to corroborate its validity. At this point, however, I tend to shy away from that term. I think it'd be more accurate to say that I try to make my "tendencies" and opinions not as objective as possible but as explicit as possible. They're inherently subjective, but they're not merely assumed, they're not unquestioned. That saying "the unexamined life isn't worth living" kind of fits with the way I look at movies inasmuch as the film fan who doesn't examine their own stances with respect to film(s) isn't (my idea[l] of) a film fan. IMHO, it's only by watching, thinking, speaking, and writing from a conscious perspective subject to examination, interrogation, and potentially transformation that one can really be alive to film(s) and experience a truly profound relationship with movies.

I could never watch movies like he does.

I think you're closer than you think you are :icon_twis

I think The Social Network was a combined effort from everyone. Sorkin had a fantastic script, but by watching BTS you can see how dedicated Fincher was with making this movie the best it could be. 99 take scenes, scenes had to have the perfect natural lighting, stuff like that. The editing was amazing stuff. The acting was great. It's a brilliant film.

The movie was so aggravating that I really don't anticipate watching it again. I don't mean that negatively, I just mean, as I ranted about quite a bit back when I first watched it, that I was so on Eisenberg's side and found him so sympathetic that having to deal with the way the story unfolded was supremely frustrating and far from what I'd call a pleasurable experience. However, with respect to the Fincher/Sorkin battle for authorial supremacy, I am absolutely willing to allow for the possibility that I was ignorant regarding the nuances of Fincher's later style and that, rather than it being a case of Sorkin overshadowing Fincher, I simply noticed/appreciated Sorkin's screenwriting presence more than Fincher's directorial presence.

To settle that, it would take another viewing, but that's not going to be on the table for the foreseeable future.

Rooney Mara was my favorite part of TGWTDT.

Looking back, I noticed that I was so excited to talk about Gone Girl that I didnt' really say too much about why I found The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo to be such a subpar film. I'll take that opportunity now on the basis of your fondness for Mara in the film. To me - and, again, this is a product of my having been a voracious reader of these types of mystery/thrillers and of my inability, even now, of turning off that aspiring screenwriter part of my brain that breaks down stories for how best they'd appear on film - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a perfect example of a failed adaptation. Now, I'm saying this without having actually read the book, so if any of this is falsifiable, please someone tell me that it's false, but based on my inferences, it seemed clear that, in the book, Mara was the main character. That is to say, the book was about her, and the rest of the story was a matter of creating a series of events through which she could navigate. In the film, however, that didn't really come through. I felt like Daniel Craig was the star and the film was about that family and that old case, which made Mara feel extraneous, so much so that, when Fincher would divert so much time and energy to following Mara's plight with her guardian and fat rapist Jack Black, I would get bored and agitated. If Fincher's goal was to make a film with Mara as the main character, he failed. Likewise, if his goal was to make a parallel narrative with two equal leads, he also failed. The film felt from the very beginning like a Daniel Craig-driven whodunnit and all the time I was spending with Mara was just me waiting with increasing impatience for when she would become relevant to the murder mystery.

Added to which, the murder mystery itself was really boring and ended in a really stupid fashion. Unless there were substantial changes, this isn't really the film's fault; then again, if this is the way the book went, then maybe they should've changed some stuff up. The fact that there are two serial killers stretched the plausibility (the island is so fucking tiny and they're all related, how do you not notice that not one but two of your fucking relatives, living in the same house, are both psycho serial killers :redface, especially considering how many victims there were between the two of them over such a long period of time. They also never actually followed up on the religious angle, which seemed entirely negligible to Fincher even though that was the coolest part (and provided him a chance to improve upon the disastrous disappointment that was Se7en, but alas, he just provided another disappointment which was disappointing for different reasons).

Basically, it was a film with a ton of potential but which really didn't live up to any of it. Not completely without merit, plus I'm a sucker for mysteries, but it could've been a million times better.

 

[Bullitt68]

One of the things that really impresses me about the film is the way it transitions from Ruffalo/Edwards' investigation being front and center to Gyllenhaal taking center stage in a very seamless manner. I love the early stuff and I think it only gets better and more intriguing down the stretch.

This is a small criticism, but I would've liked it better if those lines intersected more. They seemed such self-contained stories, but Gyllenhaal was clearly obsessed with the case from the very beginning, and I would've liked it more if it felt like he was closer to the events during the initial investigation so that the handover, so to speak, didn't feel like such a distinct break. I know that, since it was based on a true story, it wouldn't have made sense to just shove Gyllenhaal into the thick of the investigation when that character wasn't really ever on the inside, but all the same, if Fincher didn't so clearly demarcate the Ruffalo/Edwards investigation from Gyllenhaal's, I think it would've flowed more smoothly and there would've been a better sense of how thoroughly the Zodiac consumed those people.

I'm glad you're watching Girl With the Dragon Tattoo as well because, in my opinion, both that and Zodiac are key examples of Fincher's ability to make something like research, which you wouldn't think would translate well to film, compelling.

Less so in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, IMO, but generally speaking, I'd agree with this. Again, it helps that I like mysteries, but Fincher did convey the puzzle aspect of the Zodiac investigation for Gyllenhaal and made the attempt to put the puzzle together extremely compelling.

The scene with the couple getting attacked in broad daylight while having their picnic getaway is probably the most disturbing sequence in the film. Very tense and creepy.

And, to connect back to when we were talking about Prisoners:

Spoiler

That scene is the exact opposite of Granny getting the drop on Jackman. The scene in Zodiac is so disturbing because it unfolds with a horrifying logic and plausibility, even a tedium that adds to the effect.

Also, did you ever watch any of American Horror Story? It's a shitty show that I'm in no way recommending - in fact, I'd recommend never wasting your time with it if you haven't watched it before - but in the last season, they had this demented clown (played, fittingly enough, by John Carroll Lynch!) and there's a similar scene you might enjoy for its connection and as a standalone exercise in horror:

[YT]GNuGf4X9XcM[/YT]

Jesus man. You liked that piece of shit?

How come you didn't?

Take for example the time where Craig asks her to "find a killer of women" and there is this breif moment of shock on her face.

I didn't interpret that as shock. I interpreted that as intensity, like, "Am I going to get to kill some piece of shit?"

Idk how I forgot Seven in my Fincher rankings.

Maybe it's an unconscious effort to convince yourself that it's not worth remembering.

Spoiler

No one ever mentions Benjamin Button

 

[europe1]

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a perfect example of a failed adaptation. Now, I'm saying this without having actually read the book, so if any of this is falsifiable, please someone tell me that it's false, but based on my inferences, it seemed clear that, in the book, Mara was the main character.

Umm... nah I wouldn't really say that.

The novel is a lot like the Amerikanski film. Mikael and his murder mystery is the main character, while Lisbeth is the hefty moon that spins around him. However, the reception for her character was so great, that in the sequels she assumed more of the "main character" role.

In the film, however, that didn't really come through. I felt like Daniel Craig was the star and the film was about that family and that old case, which made Mara feel extraneous, so much so that, when Fincher would divert so much time and energy to following Mara's plight with her guardian and fat rapist Jack Black, I would get bored and agitated. If Fincher's goal was to make a film with Mara as the main character, he failed.

Yeah I got the same impression too. It's kind of an inversion of the Swedish original. Where the Lisbeth character received more prominence. While Fincher shifted the spotlights more towards Craig and the mystery.

Again, as I said earlier, I think part of it is about how Mara and Rapace played the character. Rapace angry, crusading performance simply drawed your attention more than Mara's relatively meek and non-commited version of the character.

 

[Bullitt68]

So, to gear up for a viewing of the most recent X-Men movie, I'm going to revisit the original trilogy and then rewatch First Class (never gave a shit about the solo Wolverine ones and will continue to ignore them). I remember almost nothing of the original trilogy except that I liked it more than I thought I would. I had a similar reaction when I watched First Class and that's when I decided to go back through the earlier films so I could keep up with the reboot. Tonight I'm going to try to marathon the first three films and then do the new two tomorrow night.

I'm also thinking that, after X-Men, I'll revisit the original Spiderman movies (never did see the third one with Tobey) and then check out the more recent ones they did, even though the newer ones look like they're even more kid-friendly than the Tobey ones.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

How come you didn't?

Above all it was boring, and finchers sleepy aesthetic just made it duller.

It started off cool with the clues and then it just solved everything an hour in. Then it carried on until nothing else happened.

 

[Spawned_Fighter]

Watch the documentary Touching the Void. I just did last night and it's incredible. Unbelievable story and the best reenactment scenes I've seen in a doc. Hell, they could have left the narration and interviews out and let the reenactment stand for itself and it would have still been damn good

thanks. ill queue that right up

Vertical Limit
Cliffhanger (well,kind of)

thought of vertical limit instantly myself

Also, did you ever watch any of American Horror Story? It's a shitty show that I'm in no way recommending - in fact, I'd recommend never wasting your time with it if you haven't watched it before - but in the last season, they had this demented clown (played, fittingly enough, by John Carroll Lynch!) and there's a similar scene you might enjoy for its connection and as a standalone exercise in horror:

[YT]GNuGf4X9XcM[/YT]

thats just overall awesome

 

[ufcfan4]

So, to gear up for a viewing of the most recent X-Men movie, I'm going to revisit the original trilogy and then rewatch First Class (never gave a shit about the solo Wolverine ones and will continue to ignore them). I remember almost nothing of the original trilogy except that I liked it more than I thought I would. I had a similar reaction when I watched First Class and that's when I decided to go back through the earlier films so I could keep up with the reboot. Tonight I'm going to try to marathon the first three films and then do the new two tomorrow night.

I'm also thinking that, after X-Men, I'll revisit the original Spiderman movies (never did see the third one with Tobey) and then check out the more recent ones they did, even though the newer ones look like they're even more kid-friendly than the Tobey ones.

I think you will like Days of future past. I actually think it's probably my favorite of those films.

Oh man can't wait to hear your thoughts on Spiderman 3 and The Amazing Spiderman 2. I have a lot to say bout both of them lol.

 

[Shot]

So, to gear up for a viewing of the most recent X-Men movie, I'm going to revisit the original trilogy and then rewatch First Class (never gave a shit about the solo Wolverine ones and will continue to ignore them). I remember almost nothing of the original trilogy except that I liked it more than I thought I would. I had a similar reaction when I watched First Class and that's when I decided to go back through the earlier films so I could keep up with the reboot. Tonight I'm going to try to marathon the first three films and then do the new two tomorrow night.

I'm also thinking that, after X-Men, I'll revisit the original Spiderman movies (never did see the third one with Tobey) and then check out the more recent ones they did, even though the newer ones look like they're even more kid-friendly than the Tobey ones.

I LOVED Days of Future Past. My favorite comic adaptation not made by Chris Nolan.

I actually think you'd be a huge fan of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. It's more of a superhero Jason Bourne-esque espionage movie at times than any other comic movie I've seen.

 

[theskza]

While we're on Fincher, it's worth mentioning he gets amazing performances out of his actors. Gone Girl gave us great stuff from Affleck, Pike, and Tyler fucking Perry. Justin Timberlake in The Social Network. The three leads in Zodiac.

Of course this isn't including Brad Pitt. Pitt sucks. There's a reason why his best performance is a dumbass that the Coens created with him in mind to play.

 

[ufcfan4]

While we're on Fincher, it's worth mentioning he gets amazing performances out of his actors. Gone Girl gave us great stuff from Affleck, Pike, and Tyler fucking Perry. Justin Timberlake in The Social Network. The three leads in Zodiac.

Of course this isn't including Brad Pitt. Pitt sucks. There's a reason why his best performance is a dumbass that the Coens created with him in mind to play.

Thought Pitt was good in Fight Club. I love Se7en but the "what's in the box" histrionics from Pitt are pretty comical on subsequent viewings.

 

[Shot]

While we're on Fincher, it's worth mentioning he gets amazing performances out of his actors. Gone Girl gave us great stuff from Affleck, Pike, and Tyler fucking Perry. Justin Timberlake in The Social Network. The three leads in Zodiac.

Of course this isn't including Brad Pitt. Pitt sucks. There's a reason why his best performance is a dumbass that the Coens created with him in mind to play.

I think Pitt's very good performances outweigh his bad. He was good in Moneyball, Snatch, and Fight Club. Troy, on the other hand, is an outrageously bad performance.

Thought Pitt was good in Fight Club. I love Se7en but the "what's in the box" histrionics from Pitt are pretty comical on subsequent viewings.

Pretty much. My first viewing I didn't think anything of it. Now it's like a joke within the movie. Whenever I hear somebody talk about Se7en, you'll inevitably hear someone else shout "WHATS IN THE BOXXXXX?!?!?!" seconds later.

 

[Shot]

From my interactions with him, I think Bullitt watches movies a certain way. I've said this to him. He watches Fincher and compares his technical ability to Kubrick. He watches animation but during he's thinking he'd rather see Spencer Tracy, a real person, acting a character. He can't take in the artwork telling the story, and if he did it's inferior by default, being animation. A movie's performances mean as much to him as its function.

In other words, as much as he's comparing things "objectively", he's exactly like us. He likes what he likes. That's all that's affecting his viewings.

I could never watch movies like he does. But it makes for interesting debate, his opposing approach.

This brings up an interesting point. When I watch movies, I don't know shit about the technical aspects of it. The only thing I'll look for is how the visual style will often try to convey something thematically within the movie itself. But overall, that's all secondary.

The story is what comes first to me. I remember reading a Stephen King quote, "I'm just a sucker for a good story." That pretty sums up my enjoyment of movies, books, and shows as a whole. I don't give a shit if the cinematography is good or the performances are excellent, if the story doesn't grab me, I don't give two poops about it. This is pretty much why I can't watch abstract, avant-garde movies.

Different people look for different things, and that's the beauty about taste.

 

[ufcfan4]

I think Pitt's very good performances outweigh his bad. He was good in Moneyball, Snatch, and Fight Club. Troy, on the other hand, is an outrageously bad performance.



Pretty much. My first viewing I didn't think anything of it. Now it's like a joke within the movie. Whenever I hear somebody talk about Se7en, you'll inevitably hear someone else shout "WHATS IN THE BOXXXXX?!?!?!" seconds later.

Troy has a lot of problems but I think it's enjoyable. I think I'm just a sucker for those epic type movies that remind me of some of the classic sword and sandal epics I'd watch with my family as a kid- like Quo Vadis and Ben-Hur.

Pitt definitely seemed to be phoning it in in that one. Or maybe he was miscast. I don't know. But I agree that was some subpar work from him. Bana on the other hand was pretty damn good. Not really sure how to gauge Bloom's performance in that one, but all I know is that I couldn't look past the general shittiness of his character. Dude starts a fucking war over a hot chick and then completely pusses out when Brendan Gleeson is tooling him in a fight.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

Can't hate on brad pitt. He's in a ton of movies I like - love.

 

[Flemmy Stardust]

This brings up an interesting point. When I watch movies, I don't know shit about the technical aspects of it. The only thing I'll look for is how the visual style will often try to convey something thematically within the movie itself. But overall, that's all secondary.

The story is what comes first to me. I remember reading a Stephen King quote, "I'm just a sucker for a good story." That pretty sums up my enjoyment of movies, books, and shows as a whole. I don't give a shit if the cinematography is good or the performances are excellent, if the story doesn't grab me, I don't give two poops about it. This is pretty much why I can't watch abstract, avant-garde movies.

Different people look for different things, and that's the beauty about taste.

I let technique just kind of wash over me unless it draws positive or negative attention to itselt

 

[ufcfan4]

Snake Eyes- watched this because of a post from Henry Flowers in another thread. I don't really have much awareness of De Palma's work outside of Scarface, which I find over-the-top and amusing and Carlito's Way which I really like. I've seen a handful of other things like the original Mission Impossible but I've missed a lot of the work he's most known for like Dressed to Kill and Blow Out.

Snake Eyes was okay. It didn't really leave much of an impression on me one way or another. I liked the opening sequence leading into and including the assassination. The way things were shot conveyed a sense of frenetic energy and chaos. But after that, I just couldn't find much to really praise.

Cage was amusingly and enjoyably over-the-top in the earlygoing. When the film required him to be more serious, he did that competently enough. It just seemed like he relied too much on his wild-eyed hooting and howling at times. That's fine if it fits the role, but Cage has done that so many times in different roles that it almost seems redundant.

Sinise is awesome. I consider him a pretty underrated actor who is consistently good. But

Spoiler

I thought the movie lost something once it revealed that Sinise was behind the conspiracy. I read a De Palma quote where he said that they had that come to light early in the film because the movie isn't meant to be about who committed the crime but about the way the incident impacts the friendship between two people. Okay- that's fine. But I just felt like I was getting Ransom deja vu with Sinise as this seemingly upstanding law enforcement professional who in reality has done something terrible.

.

I expected more of a mystery and expected a more intriguing narrative. Ultimately, it did not amount to much. Not a bad movie but an unmemorable one.

Charlie Wilson's War was good not great. Sorkin is usually pure win in my book. With this film, I wouldn't have even been able to tell you it was his screenplay had I not read the fact going in. It's good, it just doesn't fit my typical conception of Sorkin's dialogue.

Hanks gave a solid performance in a sort of atypical role for him. Roberts didn't have much to do but made the most of her scenes. It was Hoffman who stole the film though and it upset me to think about the fact that he is gone.

One thing I found about the movie is that the war stuff made me really uneasy when I was watching it. There is a scene where a Soviet helicopter pilot is basically callously talking about his refusal to be monogamous with his girlfriend while he is about to start raining machine gun fire down on some Afghani villagers. Two Afghani freedom fighters, meanwhile, start setting up an anti-aircraft gun. The whole vibe of the scene was weird, almost surreal to me. I think the scene, and the overall film, had a legitimate and intentional ambivalence about it. If you are considering Wilson and Gust the heroes of the film than the moment where the Afghanis take down that first copter should be a triumphant one. But, I think the filmmakers deliberately make it tough to find it triumphant. The whole movie is about supplying insanely destructive weapons to a people being invaded and oppressed. Characters cool and calmly talk about killing Russians and hundreds of millions of dollars are somehow levied to finance the arms. There is something almost cynical about the film.

Granted, we know the Soviets are doing devastating damage to the Afghan people and are the default villains of the film. But the whole notion of fighting fire with fire and the implied escalation and unintended consequences are quite unsettling.

I really liked Hoffman's little fable about the boy and the Zen master at the end. Pretty fitting description of the film's stance and message.

 

[Ricky13]

In fairness to myself, Kubrick is an acknowledged reference point for Fincher.

Heh. I just used that because everybody uses it. I don't know if I've ever seen you compare the two. But clearly, you have.

But in any event, I find it strange that there are people who don't connect movies to other movies, filmmakers to other filmmakers, etc., and even stranger that, for some people, this is even a choice in the first place and not simply a matter of ignorance/disinterest.

I compare things too, as you note later. However, I am much less likely to link the "worth" of a film (to me, there is no such thing) to its influences or what it's aping. Perhaps because in my experience, those similarities are almost always in form. To extrapolate worth from form makes it likely that I'll miss 1) the way it functions dramatically, or 2) what it has to say.

If ever I compare things, it's with respect to what it's saying, and how it goes about saying it dramatically. So instead of a more obvious connecting line between, I don't know, Goodfellas and American Hustle, I'd draw one between Goodfellas and Nightcrawler. I see far more similarities between the latter two because of how they engage with the audience.

This is also why I more often compare writers (of novels, not screenwriters) to filmmakers. Form is no longer important so I can get down to the meat of the way the art is engaging with me.

Is it crazy to want to hear as much of as many of these conversations as possible?

Not at all. It's just not something I could do. Doing that takes me away from the story.

Please note: I'm not saying I wouldn't analyse a film. I just don't spend much time deciding how "good" it is anymore.

The story is what comes first to me.

Me too. At some point it became so important to me that I began wondering why certain things worked on me and others didn't. That leads you to the writing process and only much later, technique.

None of those things will take you away from appreciating story, mind, as long as you think about how they got you to engage, and not whether they suck or not. You will have preferences for how a filmmaker works, but a good story will usually do most of the work for itself.

Ironically, it's the ones that recognise this that are the greatest. That take their hands off the controls and dictate a scene based on the question: What does the hero need/want in this scene? The greats: the Coens/Tarantino/Mann, are actually not flashy with their technique at all, and in fact get simpler as they get better.