The Movie (and TV show) Watching Thread

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Has anyone seen The Father? It's incredibly depressing, but it's an amazing visualization of dementia. Having seen my granddad go through a similar experience, it was painful to watch this. Probably Hopkins' best performance ever.

I thought Anthony Hopkins was much better in Magic, Nixon, and especially The Two Popes and The Silence of the Lambs, although it wasn’t a bad performance by any means.  

I’d argue The Father was a brilliant idea for how to depict dementia that should’ve been a great movie on paper, but somehow managed to just be passable.  The acting, directing, script, etc were all solid, but it just didn’t click for me.  Idk, maybe it’s b/c I saw it early in the morning and I was still kinda groggy, but I didn’t really have strong feelings about it one way or the other tbh.

I completely agree with you about Nomadland though.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Dirty Harry: 1/5

Wait Until Dark: 5/5

Everything Everywhere All at Once: 5/5

Nope: 3.5/5

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Just saw Napoleon

Was it any good? I heard that it was an occasionally boring comedy from somebody ().

Ridley Scott’s weird over-defensiveness about it does not bode well imo.  Ridley Scott is clearly a very talented guy, but dear Lord is he inconsistent.  You truly never know what you’re going to get with him. 

He’s made brilliantly directed masterpieces like Alien, technically brilliant films that are decidedly meh on a substantive level like Black Hawk Down, films that have merely solid workman-like competent direction yet are still among the best in their genre due to everything else being exceptional like Gladiator…and he’s made embarrassing dumpster fires like The Counselor, films that seem like a fully realized vision where every creative choice was wrong like Hannibal, lazy cash grabs like Prometheus, and everything in between. 

Admittedly I haven’t seen Napoleon, but the vibe I get from reviews and Scott’s interviews is that he really thought he’d made a true masterpiece or at least one of his very best films.  However, American and British critics have basically said “meh, it’s above average, but nothing special aside from some good battle scenes” and French critics have been absolutely scathing.  It has also gotten some criticism for poor historical accuracy which, with this sort of movie, isn’t unreasonable to bring up.  It almost feels like Scott is doing the director version of a mom who thinks her kid is perfect in every way yelling at the teacher at a parent teacher conference because her kid only got a C+ on their math test.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Saw Ridley Scott's crappy Napoleon biopic. My thoughts:



In order to fit messy historical events neatly into the mold of storytelling convention, filmmakers are often forced to choose between dramatic heft and factual accuracy. What an unpleasant surprise it is, then, to come across a biopic that chooses neither.

Ridley Scott's Napoleon is too lazy to be educational, too silly to be dramatically involving, and-- most importantly-- far too obsessed with its subject's sex life. From Alan Turing to Stephen Hawking and now to Napoleon Bonaparte, Hollywood seems incapable of telling the story of any historical figure without placing undue emphasis on their romantic entanglements. Don't get me wrong-- delving into a character's love life isn't necessarily a bad decision for a biopic. But when the character in question invented the computer or subjugated all of Europe, perhaps we can all admit it's silly to make their sexual kinks the focal point of the story.

If we're being extremely charitable to Scott, it's possible that he intended to use Napoleon's relationship with his wife Josephine as a lens into deeper aspects of his character. If that's the case, this never comes through. Scott's analysis of Napoleon seems to be that he was a man of little ambition and huge ego who was swept along by the tide of history rather than guiding it himself. Joaquin Phoenix plays the character as borderline bumbling and dense, acting oafish at dinner parties and lecherous in front of his guards. In his private life, Scott's Napoleon is an incurable simp who takes his frustration with his wife's adultery out on Prussian artillerymen. A deep dive into the motivations of a transformative historical figure this ain't.

Even non-historians and non-Frenchmen will see this for what it is: a hit piece by an English filmmaker on a French historical figure, but one that doesn't have the guts to fully commit to its character assassination of Napoleon. Rather than make The Death of Stalin in revolutionary France (which could've been a fantastic film), Scott masks his true intentions with the loftiness and gravitas of a serious biopic. The result is a confused tonal mess that feels like two films spliced together. One film is the historical drama in which Napoleon and Josephine (Vanessa Kirby) narrate their purple prose-packed love letters to each other from ornate living rooms with crackling fireplaces. "Dearest Josephine." "My Darling Napoleon." Cut to: goofy scenes in which Napoleon gets chased out of a building by a mob and screams at an English ambassador "You think you're so great just because you have boats!" The tone of this film is as fickle and inconsistent as a 19th century European military alliance.

But even if a biopic doesn't fully interrogate the motives of its subject, it can still have utility. 1970's Waterloo was somewhat silent on the ideology, motives, and psychology of Napoleon, but it still managed to distinguish itself with a stunningly accurate depiction of the final days of the emperor's reign. But if history buffs come to Scott's Napoleon looking for that level of attention to detail, they will be disappointed. The movie speeds through the most crucial events in Napoleon's life, glossing over his victories and the tactics that made his name synonymous with military genius. On the rare occasion that substantial screen time is devoted to a battle, the events still feel rushed and poorly paced. It is likely impossible to get a full understanding of Napoleon's military career from a 160-minute movie, but if a director were to seriously attempt this, they would probably devote more time to Borodino and Russia than to Joaquin Phoenix doing physical comedy with an Egyptian mummy.

With a great historical film (Killers of the Flower Moon comes to mind as a recent example), an audience member could go in with no information and come away with a better understanding of the events and figures involved. This movie is not a great historical film-- it is more like a sequence of ideas for scenes, all of which feel cut short, and none of which give the audience any context for what is being depicted. Napoleon stares down dozens of faceless interchangeable armies; the stakes of the battles are never established, nor are the motivations of the sides explained. Those hoping to learn something from this movie will come away only with a few rudimentary facts: (1) There once was a man named Napoleon, (2) He fought the British, (3) He was totally down bad for his wife, and (4) There used to be a place called "Prussia."

Napoleon, like so many of Ridley Scott's other recent films, is defined by waste. A waste of talent, a waste of sets and costumes, and most importantly a waste of the audience's time. As Napoleon himself once said, "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." The days of Ridley Scott's glory are long past.

That sounds about right; as always, thank you for the excellent and thorough review.  The saddest part of all this is that Scott is so clearly convinced that the film is his magnum opus.  Like, it sounds like he feels this was his fully released creative vision…and that vision was the world’s dullest dumpster fire. 

Anyway, I’m hoping Ridley Scott has one more great film in him before he passes away (he’s like 86), but I don’t think he’s made a great movie since Gladiator (and the fact that he is currently working on Gladiator 2 does not inspire confidence that we’ll be getting a good movie from him anytime soon).  Black Hawk Down was great on a strictly technical level, but was pretty weak on substance and doesn’t hold a candle to the book.  American Gangster was good as entertainment (I certainly enjoyed it), but it was like 90% fiction, fell badly into the trap of glamorizing its violent, drug-trafficking antagonist, and isn’t really anything special (a lot of fun though if you just want to turn your brain off for a few hours).  The Martian and All the Money in the World were over-hyped meh films imo.  The rest of his post-2000 output has been pretty bad. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Since it was nominated for BP, I watched the Barbie movie last night. It was funny at points, but I honestly didn't like the ending at all. I'm not sure what the message was supposed to be about male/female relations-- it seemed almost pessimistic about our ability to put aside our differences and treat one another as equals, and that left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe there's something I'm not understanding about it, but I'd rate it as mediocre for that reason. The jokes were also pretty hit-and-miss.

The final line of the movie is also extremely dumb. I don't know if that was supposed to be a subversion of "girl power" tropes or if it was genuine, but either way it didn't work.

No, you’re not missing anything.  It’s a dull, unremarkable, and decidedly meh film at best.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

My overall take is that it was a very well made film with a good story, and impressive use of the framing device for the epilogue...but Scorsese needed an editor. There's no reason this movie couldn't have been an hour shorter. [...]

This is the biggest reason I've hesitated on watching it. It's also why I never watched "The Irishman." That's a lot of time to spend on something that I'm not even sure will be captivating for me. Not sure why movies in the twilight of his career keep getting longer and longer. What is it about these stories that can't be told in a slightly more concise manner?

Killers of the Flower Moon absolutely needed to be that length; excellent movie!  The Irishman sucked though.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Election, 1999, starring Reese Witherspoon, Matthew Broderick, Jessica Campbell (RIP) and Chris Klein.

Finally saw this. Not quite what I was expecting, but very smart and entertaining. 8.5/10

Spoilers
There seems to be some dispute as to the point the film is making. Some say it's about politics, some say it's about the 'American dream' and I say it's simply about two conflicting personalities, albeit, as the film is a satire, hyperbolically exaggerated personalities.

It seems I've already been beaten to writing that Tracy Flick was misunderstood.

For those not familiar Reese Witherspoon plays Tracy Flick, a high school student overachiever who decides to run for student council President. Matthew Broderick plays Jim McAllister an American history and civics teacher who is responsible for overseeing the student council including the student council elections.

As such, had Tracy Flick won the election, as she tells him, she and he would be working closely together the next school year. For at least a couple reasons McAllister does not like Tracy Flick, and this realization sends him searching for an opponent who can beat her in the election.

He hopes he's found such a person in Paul Metzler played by Chris Klein. He is the popular school football quarterback who suffered a leg injury skiing and is depressed that he can no longer play football. McAllister tells him that he can find a purpose putting his energy into the student council instead.

There is also additional story involving Paul's sister played by Jessica Campbell who enters the election at the last minute.

Anyway, the main reason McAllister doesn't like Flick is because he regards her as an overachiever who wants to impress everybody with her perfection and accomplishment. This is where the notion that the film is about 'the American dream' comes from (which I don't disagree, but I don't think is complete.)

McAllister is an idealist who wants to be a teacher to improve the lives of the young people he taught if not the world. Flick, in contrast, is an achiever who wants to accomplish things, and they could be anything, for personal gain and a sense of achievement.

In short, these are two conflicting personalities with completely different attitudes on 'the meaning of life.' This wasn't the only movie around this time to explore this, but such films as American Beauty and, in its own way, The Big Lebowski ("sh**t yeah, the achievers") also went into this. The difference is, the countering character in those films were, or wanted to be, "slackers", whereas McAllister was a success, having accomplished his goal not only of becoming a teacher, but winning the 'best teacher of the year' at the school a record number of times.

All of the characters are given voiceovers, and to Tracy Flick though, this is no success, but she disparages McAllister for 'doing the same thing year after year with no change.' McAllister doesn't disparage Flick like that right until the end of the film, but it's clear that he is concerned about her 'work/life balance'.

As far as I'm concerned, the reason the film is set in a high school is because this is the one place where a person like McAllister could have some control over a person like Tracy Flick, and the reason the plot revolves around an election is simply because getting elected student council president is the highest visible achievement a high school student can have.

The film has several dramatic turns for the characters, all of whom are flawed like actual humans, but probably the most important is when Tracy Flick tries to get a corner of one of her large election posters to stay up properly. She turns over a garbage can to get up to the corner and, when the garbage can slides she falls off ripping her own poster and nearly breaking her leg in the process. This was likely meant as an allusion to when Paul Metzler broke his leg skiing. Some write ups on the film say that she decided to cheat at this point and rips down (nearly) all the election posters, but I think otherwise. There is a similar scene in American Beauty where the perfectionist achiever played by Annette Bening gets frustrated and destroys something. Similarly, I think Tracy is simply frustrated with herself for being so stupid as to use an overturned garbage can on a school surface to get up on and for nearly breaking her leg and for ripping her poster, and she acts out this frustration by ripping up all the election posters she sees.

So, the thing is, Tracy Flick is actually not a bad person, she's no sociopath. At one point she expresses genuine concern for Jim McAlister, she's just a person from a lower middle class background (single mother who worked her way up to become a paralegal) who did not get any breaks and who wants to live what she regards as the American dream (or has been told is the American dream.) She even recognizes that she's sacrificing being popular and having fun to become successful because she works very hard and simply can't stand not getting what she wants and puts in a lot of work for.

In contrast is Paul whose multimillionaire father owns a very large cement plant. He is a genuinely nice person, but he doesn't recognize his privilege (for those who think that's a new concept) because he's stupid. I don't know if the writer of the film was trying to make the cynical point that the only people who are nice are stupid.

The reality is nature favors diversity and the world needs both idealists like McAlister and driven achievers like Flick, as flawed as they both are. The film expresses reservations with how tough achievers can be, but certainly Tracy Flick would be a much better CEO to the world than Elon Musk.

So, anyway, a very thought provoking movie, and I've left out most of the story. But, the film is also very funny even if not, for me, laugh out loud funny.

Edit to add: It's interesting how movies can get reevaluated in the same way as presidential administrations. There are some views that the character of Jim McAllister was never the idealist whose desire was to be a teacher that he told us he was, but that his character was a charming liar the whole time, including in his voice overs, and that he actually was probably never anything more than a slacker (and a creep) who 'settled' on becoming a teacher because it was a job.

I think it's also important to note that McAllister is an extremely gross and generally morally bankrupt individual.  I'd go much farther than your last paragraph and argue that although it was not the film's intent (I think the film pretty disturbingly views Flick and McAllister as more or less equally flawed), McAllister is very much the villain of the film.  While it is very well done piece of satire, the film has aged very badly, especially in light of the fact that Alexander Payne himself has faced credible allegations of statutory rape.

Between the fact that one of the big reasons he hates Tracy Flick is that he blames her (objectively a victim of statutory rape) for the fact that his best friend and one-time fellow teacher got fired for having sex with her, McCallister himself has a pedophilloic sexual fantasy about Tracy Flick, ends up destroying his marriage by having an affair, attempts to rig an irrelevant student council election due to a dumb semi-one-sided vendetta against one of his students (admittedly a rather annoying individual), etc, McAllister is objectively a pretty unstable individual who should not be allowed to work around children. 

I mean, yes, Tracy Flick is a self-absorbed and generally obnoxious/irritating individual, but there's simply no comparison here.  The dude is a horrible human being who repeatedly behaves both immorally and unethically throughout the film.  Like, he's just a really bad person.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I think it's also important to note that McAllister is an extremely gross and generally morally bankrupt individual.  I'd go much farther than your last paragraph and argue that although it was not the film's intent (I think the film pretty disturbingly views Flick and McAllister as more or less equally flawed), McAllister is very much the villain of the film.  While it is very well done piece of satire, the film has aged very badly, especially in light of the fact that Alexander Payne himself has faced credible allegations of statutory rape.

I wasn't aware of Alexander Payne. That's sick.

Based on this, then I did miss the theme of the film. I overlooked that Tracy Flick was a woman as I thought the point was 'the 'overachiever/striver' could be male or female just as the 'idealist' could be male or female. It didn't matter.

However, given that McAllister isn't the idealist he makes himself out to be, it's clear the theme of the film was his sexism and that he couldn't handle Tracy Flick's ambition because she's a woman.

There is also the scene in the film where they're trading vague accusations and threats at each other and it seems like McAllister is really speaking about himself, but a few seconds later, it's clear he isn't.

So, based on that McAllister is a liar who lies to us about himself in his voiceovers. He's not necessarily a 'villain' he's an everyman who wants people (and probably himself) to believe that it's not that he has a problem with ambitious women, it's just that he has a problem with that ambitious woman.

I need to see the film again.

Edit to add, as with Presidential Administrations, re-evaluations can go too far. Tracy Flick is hardly some heroine either. She looks with disdain at those who lack her level of ambition. This is her quote on McAllister (who as far as she knows is simply an idealistic teacher.):

Now that I have more life experience, I feel sorry for Mr McAllister. I mean, anyone who’s stuck in the same little room, wearing the same stupid clothes, saying the exact same things year after year for all of his life, while his students go on to good colleges and move to big cities and do great things and make loads of money – he’s gotta be at least a little jealous. It’s like my mom says, the weak are always trying to sabotage the strong.”

I’m not saying Tracy Flick is a good person, only that McAllister is significantly worse.