Anything Movies

Also, I really like the fight between Luke and Vader in ESB for having surprisingly little score. There's very not much music during the fight. The scene where Vader is force throwing **** at Luke has some, and the short scene where Luke is in the hallway has a note on the high strings. Other than that, the entire fight is played pretty much directly with no score whatsoever. It's a great technique because it adds far more suspense.

The other tack is to do what Marvel films do: plaster every scene with recycled temp music that smashes your head in with the most cliche, direct cues. Oh, I guess this time being punched through a wall was really serious, unlike the last four, because now we hear low sinister tones.

Last post for tonight: Catch Me If You Can is great. Definitely worth a watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reid

Casino is a goddamn amazing film. I think Goodfellas is still the 2nd best Scorsese film (nothing will beat Taxi Driver), but Casino is incredible. Goodfellas just wins on pacing and editing. Casino has much more granularity on a horribly ****ed up marriage in the context of horribly ****ed up mob life.

I dunno what to say. Scorsese rules.

Edit: Let's just say if Casino was by any other director, I would probably consider it their magnum opus. For it to be third for Scorsese just speaks to his incredible directing talent and shouldn't take anything away from that film.

---

Wow, I've seen 9 Scorsase films and not even heard of Casino. I had no idea, I should watch it.

The YouTube channel History Buffs is excellent (and quite addictive). I mention this because I somewhat recently watched his reviews of Casino and Goodfellas. If you like those movies I think you'll really like his videos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wookie06

The YouTube channel History Buffs is excellent (and quite addictive). I mention this because I somewhat recently watched his reviews of Casino and Goodfellas. If you like those movies I think you'll really like his videos.

---

You were right, those were super interesting videos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reid

Casino is a goddamn amazing film.

---

I watched it about a year ago and I found it a little derivative, to be honest. It took too much from Goodfellas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eversor

I watched it about a year ago and I found it a little derivative, to be honest. It took too much from Goodfellas.

---

In which ways?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reid

You were right, those were super interesting videos.

---

I had no idea though the steadicam shot was considered such a great scene. It's good but I never thought of it as highly as I guess some do. That makes more sense of Reverend Jones' comment on the last page...

The zolly shot near the end was cooler. I'm also a sucker for those.

Holy crap, I just found out that I agree with Reid on some stuff.

Casino was fantastic, one of my all time favorite movies (also watch Heat if you haven't already).

I also agree that the latest Avengers movie was meh. I didn't feel like my time was completely wasted. It was enjoyable. There were some good scenes and whatnot. But it was really predictable with the only mystery being, "are they actually going to permanently whack any of these heroes?"

I also recently watched Captain Marvel because I was afraid I was going to miss out on something if I watched Avengers first. I enjoyed some of it but she's like the Marvel version of Superman. Totally overpowered with no significant weakness. Interesting story on this one and the sci-fi aspects were ok. But eh...

Both of them were like eating cake. It's nice when you're doing it but after you sorta wonder whether you should have done it in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reid

In which ways?

---

In like... every way. It's like they're made from the same formula.

A lot of the same actors reappear and play effectively the same characters in both movies, the distinctive use of voiceovers and music to interweave episodic sequences together (and a lot of the music is pretty similar, esp. The Rolling Stones), the gradual arc of a gangster advancing through the career and abundance turns into excess until it becomes unsustainable and his life falls apart and everyone in the mafia begins to turn on each other, the male fantasy of a man as a provider (both movies have a scene where the main character shows their wife a new fancy home and she's astonished by how nice her new home is), the relationships between the main characters and their wives follow parallel arcs with each other and with the turn from abundance to excess... a bunch of other things (although listing those things, it shares lot of them with twolf of wall street, too.)

I mean don't get me wrong; I did enjoy watching Casino, but it seemed a little like Scorsese rehashing familiar terrain. I don't think it'd make my list of top 5 Scorsese movies.

Heat is an amazing that I also rewatched in the past year or so (although of course that's Michael Mann and not Scorsese)

Cape Fear is also really fun to watch and surprisingly topical politically, although quite camp. It does a fantastic job of telling a story about individual characters that really focuses on those characters and the personal drama between them, while subtly saying something about the hypocrisy of both southern values and upper middle class life and the way that the ostensive civility that both entail are premised on violence and exclusion (and the anxieties, paranoia and precariousness that define upper middle class life, given that it depends on violence and exclusion). It also manage to have all sorts of fascinating racial undertones despite not having many African American characters.

And DeNiro's character we find out read Nietzsche in prison so of course you'd like it for that reason, Reid. :p

It's not a movie but this Chernobyl miniseries on HBO kicks ass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eversor

In like... every way. It's like they're made from the same formula.

A lot of the same actors reappear and play effectively the same characters in both movies, the distinctive use of voiceovers and music to interweave episodic sequences together (and a lot of the music is pretty similar, esp. The Rolling Stones), the gradual arc of a gangster advancing through the career and abundance turns into excess until it becomes unsustainable and his life falls apart and everyone in the mafia begins to turn on each other, the male fantasy of a man as a provider (both movies have a scene where the main character shows their wife a new fancy home and she's astonished by how nice her new home is), the relationships between the main characters and their wives follow parallel arcs with each other and with the turn from abundance to excess... a bunch of other things (although listing those things, it shares lot of them with twolf of wall street, too.)

I mean don't get me wrong; I did enjoy watching Casino, but it seemed a little like Scorsese rehashing familiar terrain. I don't think it'd make my list of top 5 Scorsese movies.

---

You have some good points, they do cover much of the same ideas and in a similar way. I find it's a bit different in style and tone, and is different enough to not feel like it's just piggybacking off the success of Goodfellas. I do know what you mean though about Scorsese films.. he does tend to make films with similar themes. Someone starts out as a young criminal, gets successful and married, then the lifestyle and authorities catch up to them by the end. I guess it's something to consider that accurate portrayals of mafia life will tend to play out similarly?

But yeah, I can see the complaint. I must have an easier time overlooking the flaws or something.

Another shoutout to Lord of the Rings, because Helm's Deep is actually pretty accurate to medieval castle sieges. Using ladders to overwhelm the defenders at the walls was common, as was using castles to slow down an invading army while one's allies arrive. Tolkein clearly had a deep admiration and respect for history, but it's worth pointing out nonetheless.

unbelievable. you racist piece of ****.

uhh

Rewatched Revenge of the Sith. It's certainly the best of the prequels, but with the internet being stupid and saying it's "one of the best SW films", no. I mean it's actually a bit watchable, there are scenes where you just watch and it goes by okay. Besides the obvious cringey dialogue in places, there's just so many odd choices.

For instance, when Padme lands on Mustafar, Anakin says "I saw your ship" as he runs up to her. It's small, but I find it odd. Did he really need to say that? Why bother telling the audience how Anakin knew to run up to her? Another is after Yoda and Sidious have their beyblades tournament in the councilroom, you have a short (<2 second) shot of Yoda's cloak landing on some junk beam sticking out. Why did we need to see that? There's many of these small moments that have no purpose. Another less pertinent example: we see a close up of Obi Wan picking up Anakin's lightsaber, because apparently it's really important we see this detail for continuity with Episode IV (narrator: it wasn't an important detail), but this same film contradicts what Leia says in Ep VI about her mom. So like, why are you focusing on these details while blowing past far more serious ones? It's just odd is all I can say.

The Anakin-Obi Wan lightsaber duel is obviously far too long and tedious. I don't see why Yoda and Sidious had to fight other than for fan service. It's ultimately pointless. Oh, and like R2D2 in the opening scene serves no purpose whatsoever and as far as I can tell is only there for fan service.

Edit: there's also a bit of a pacing issue. The exposition to **** which matters ratio is poor, and too many ideas shouldn't have made it into the final script.

At some point someone here mentioned Wes Anderson. A friend in the department mentioned Wes Anderson, so I looked up a couple scenes on Youtube.

I have no complains. Technically his film is good. Some clever directing and tight editing. The train scene I watched from The Grand Budapest hotel was trying to be funny, but the humor didn't really work on me. Not sure why. Probably won't see the whole film, but I understand why people would like it.

One last post for now: I've noticed that films which tend to "feel right" during exposition are films which accomplish more than just the exposition. A good example is basically everything Scorsese does. Casino does have a ton of narration. It usually doesn't feel awkward, though, because while the narration is playing you're watching scenes which exemplify the narrator's point. A good example, Spilotro narrates about Ace Rothstein's meticulous nature as he measures the accuracy of dice on the floor. It helps the exposition move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reid

At some point someone here mentioned Wes Anderson. A friend in the department mentioned Wes Anderson, so I looked up a couple scenes on Youtube.

I have no complains. Technically his film is good. Some clever directing and tight editing. The train scene I watched from The Grand Budapest hotel was trying to be funny, but the humor didn't really work on me. Not sure why. Probably won't see the whole film, but I understand why people would like it.

---

Who cares about that. If you want to cheat and pretend to understand what the film is about without actually experiencing it, you should just read the script. Watching scenes in isolation is like skipping to a theorem in a topology book without understanding the definitions and saying "yeah, this theorem uses all the same definitions I saw in my analysis class, but I never liked 'topology' anyway".

Most of Wes Anderson's stuff in isolation makes me cringe, but at his best (watch Rushmore sometime), they are adorable.

Another director that you have to experience wholeheartedly is probably Tim Burton. He, and Anderson, use music and cinematography to suck you into the emotional being of the characters on the screen. It's such an intimate experience that you have to embrace it and also not chop it up or put it under the microscope.

I'll also mention that the soundtracks to Wes Anderson's films are simply amazing. (Rushmore was originally intended to have an all Kinks soundtrack, but was expanded to other 60's bands as well, and has one of the most amazing uses of the Who's "A Quick One While He's Away").

Edit: also investigate Anderson's partnership with Devo's Mark Mothersbaugh. After Devo, Mothersbaugh turned to film scores, and did much of the instrumental music in Rushmore, and IIRC some of Anderson's other movies as well. There is also a breathtaking use of an instrumental Devo jam from their debut record, in Anderson's later film, The Life Aquatic.

That said, there is probably one reason not to watch Wes Anderson's movies: if you don't like Bill Murray, because he is in most of them.

That said, lest I oversell We Anderson, I should warn you that his movies represent a triumph of form over substance: plot and even character development seem somewhat secondary to the aesthetic he is trying to craft by putting you into the vibe of the scenes he puts them in. I.e., if you get a kick out of experiencing life as Max Fischer, you don't really care about the plot, so much as what Max is feeling at the moment, and how those feelings are channeled through things like music, the visual aesthetic juxtaposed with dialog and music, etc. Are you starting to see why Eversor might have suggested that the best time to watch Wes Anderson's movies is your early 20's?

And if you want to lampoon this aesthetic, well, look no further than the SNL parody of Wes Anderson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Jones

That said, there is probably one reason not to watch Wes Anderson's movies: if you don't like Bill Murray, because he is in most of them.

---

Who doesn't like Bill Murray?

For whatever reason: my mother. Don't ask me why...

I like Bill Murray just fine, but I'll say it caaaan get pretty tempting to develop a "**** 'em" attitude toward someone around whom a weird meme-y cult of personality develops. Your Chuck Norrises and the like (who, hey, has plenty of other characteristics to make me say "**** 'im".)

Should I watch John Wick 3 if I didn't see the second one? I liked the first, and I've heard 3 is "almost as good" as that one.

My opinion is likely unpopular but if you haven't already ruined John Wick by seeing the second one then skip the third as well. I haven't seen it but I did watch the second one (this is all discussed here before somewhere) and I don't think it's all that. If you really do want to see it then you probably really should watch the second one first.

The third one picks up immediately where the second one ends so I'd probably recommend seeing it beforehand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Jones

Who cares about that. If you want to cheat and pretend to understand what the film is about without actually experiencing it, you should just read the script. Watching scenes in isolation is like skipping to a theorem in a topology book without understanding the definitions and saying "yeah, this theorem uses all the same definitions I saw in my analysis class, but I never liked 'topology' anyway".

Most of Wes Anderson's stuff in isolation makes me cringe, but at his best (watch Rushmore sometime), they are adorable.

---

How else should you judge whether to not watch something? Seems a bit unwieldly to only believe a movie isn't worth watching until you've seen it.

So, can someone tell me if I'm crazy here? I feel like Star Wars prequel fans have just completely taken over and are the only people talking about Star Wars. But maybe my understanding is wrong.

For those who are observant, Obi-Wan's flip at the end of Ep I is basically the same as Anakin's flip at the end of Ep III. In my view, the way this was written is just awful. Having Obi-Wan try that move and fail, then warning Anakin, is much better screenwriting. It puts Obi-Wan in the position of more learned and masterly, and shows Anakin is still immature, while establishing why it would be stupid to do that move. I feel like you're stuck in a trilemma with the Star Wars prequels. Either:

• The flip was a good idea and Ep III is confused
• The flip was a bad idea and Ep I is confused
• Darth Maul basically gave up and allowed himself to die in Ep I

Yet people seem to argue in circles that there is not really a contradiction in writing. So uh, does my position make sense or is there something I'm missing?

The story is, Obi-Wan spent decades obsessing over that fight against Maul, how he would have done things differently, and how he might have beaten his flip if their positions were reversed. He invented a defense for it. And Anakin knew all of this, but wanted to beat Obi-Wan on his best terms because he was just that arrogant.

But this was all written so poorly that nobody had any idea this is what was happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reid

How else should you judge whether to not watch something? Seems a bit unwieldly to only believe a movie isn't worth watching until you've seen it.

---

The best way to judge whether or not to consume media is to read about it, not to consume isolated pieces of it. For example, can you imagine doing this for a book? Just start flipping around in a Harry Potter book and deciding if it's your cup of tea?

For example, if I showed you 10 minutes of the middle of Barry Lyndon, will you have learned anything at all about what kind of movie it is? Looking at clips in isolation is like taking a high-pass filter, or trying to understand a foreign language by studying its syntax alone: every complex work of art needs prolonged periods of consumption in order for its peculiar dialect and context to percolate in your mind. Art is about creating fundamentally new experiences which can't be compressed and transported outside their original medium.

As of 2019, the natural language is still the only way humans can communicate complex thoughts in a small amount of time. It's said that a picture is worth a thousand words, but I don't agree at all. The best way to learn about what new art to consume is to read about and talk to people who have experienced it is already, and can relate those experiences to you in language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon`C

The story is, Obi-Wan spent decades obsessing over that fight against Maul, how he would have done things differently, and how he might have beaten his flip if their positions were reversed. He invented a defense for it. And Anakin knew all of this, but wanted to beat Obi-Wan on his best terms because he was just that arrogant.

But this was all written so poorly that nobody had any idea this is what was happening.

---

Ah, I see. Yeah since none of that is on screen whatsoever, I don't blame myself for seeing it as terrible screenwriting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Jones

The best way to judge whether or not to consume media is to read about it, not to consume isolated pieces of it. For example, can you imagine doing this for a book? Just start flipping around in a Harry Potter book and deciding if it's your cup of tea?

For example, if I showed you 10 minutes of the middle of Barry Lyndon, will you have learned anything at all about what kind of movie it is? Looking at clips in isolation is like taking a high-pass filter, or trying to understand a foreign language by studying its syntax alone: every complex work of art needs prolonged periods of consumption in order for its peculiar dialect and context to percolate in your mind. Art is about creating fundamentally new experiences which can't be compressed and transported outside their original medium.

As of 2019, the natural language is still the only way humans can communicate complex thoughts in a small amount of time. It's said that a picture is worth a thousand words, but I don't agree at all. The best way to learn about what new art to consume is to read about and talk to people who have experienced it is already, and can relate those experiences to you in language.

---

I think 10 minutes can teach you quite a bit about a film, yeah. Of course it's not perfect, but if the point of not watching something is to save time, then you're going to have a not perfect heuristic for determining which movies to watch.

I'll keep him in the backlog since you're being so insistent.

haha, don't worry, I don't insist on anything. I just think that watching clips is more likely to mislead than anything, for all the reasons I explained. Although if you don't like a clip, you probably won't like the movie either.

https://i.redd.it/1oha4twkmlz21.png

Bad sign for the Star Wars brand moving forward. Star Wars youtube channel views. Obviously each spike is when a new trailer is released. The Episode IX trailer seems to have sparked little interest.

Wow, next thing you know and someone will be able to snag up Star Wars for a few million bucks.