The Movie (and TV show) Watching Thread

[T'Chenka]

Howl's Moving Castle (2004) - 7.0 / 10

This is unfortunately a huge disaster of a film. It's clear to see that this film has sky high potential, and could have been basically a masterpiece or close to a masterpiece. Despite the potential, they decide to write a confusing story with lots of things left open-ended that shouldn't be, and the script falls apart into "WTF" territory in the third act. If they had just taken the time to re-write this script a few times, this could have been a top 3 Ghibli film IMO.

This description is very accurate for Your Name, which I watched last year. A grandiose visual with amazing details, and a completely non-working plot. I cannot say the same about Howl's Moving Castle, I definitely rate this animated film much higher than Porco Rosso. Howl's Moving Castle and Spirited Away are, in my opinion, the best works of Studio Ghibli, although I like almost all of their works in one way or another.

By the way, I have add that we are entering a frightening era when neural networks can devalue the visual part of animated films.

The overall plot of Your Name makes a lot more sense by comparison to Howl's Moving Castle IMO. Both have script issues but one is way worse.

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

I finally saw Baby Driver last night. It’s been on my watchlist for years. I thought it lost steam about 2/3 through. Solid concept though, just a bit lost in the execution at the end. It definitely earned the sound award nominations though.

In the vein of “Movies with Lily James where the soundtrack is integral to the movie,” I watched Yesterday, well… yesterday. Very good movie, moved me to tears at a moment near the end.

I’d recommend it to any Beatles fan. Interesting to see Kate McKinnon in an actual movie role as opposed to her work on SNL. A fun movie, somewhat predictable as a rom-com, but still enjoyable. I liked seeing all the other things that didn’t exist or changed in the world the movie took place in.

Spoiler alert: Beware spoilers

Show

Regarding the moving scene near the end, I figured it was going to be Paul or maybe Ringo making a cameo.

Also, the mention of “Thursday Night Live” was funny especially with McKinnon famously being an SNL alum.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Recently I saw ドラえもんのび太と雲の王国 (Doraemon no Nobita to Kumo no Oukoku/Doraemon: Nobita and the Kingdom of the Clouds). This is my first Doraemon movie. I guess I would rate it 9 out of 10.

The movie certainly wears its 1992 release year quite evidently, with a mentioning of the Ozone layer.

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

The opening was rather cryptic, I must say. What it represented did not become clear until later. The narrative between Sky people and Earth people played well enough to me. I could feel some kind of complex "there's something else to what's going on and I'll see what it is eventually" vibe. Nobita and the crew were clever in how they dealt with the difficult situation. Props to Doraemon for creatively solving the situation. I also enjoyed seeing Nobita and Doraemon build the Sky Kingdom.

In any case, the ending is my favorite part due to the creativity.

[Benjamin Frank]

My father's favorite movie was the 1969 movie mostly financed by the Soviet Union about the failed Zeppelin exploration of the Arctic, The Red Tent and the failed attempts to rescue the survivors. It starred Peter Finch and Sean Connery as Roald Amundsen.

My father was a merchant marine for about 10 years and was interested in explorers.

The film, The Red Tent, is a fascinating meditation on the human need for exploration and for guilt with some beautiful scenes of the Arctic.  Highly recommended.

Just saw it today - had to go with the Russian version since it was longer, missed Connery's trademark accent - and I was very pleasantly surprised. Thank you for the recommendation!

Truly stunning film, particularly on how it frames the whole scenario and how it handles Amundsen and - more importantly - Nobile. I was aware of the Italia disaster and expected sort of a linear portrayal, so the film's structure caught me off guard. It also has surprising emotional depth to it.

Would really like to see more films about the race to the North and the South Pole (a subject which I've found fascinating for a while), because there's so many amazing stories left to see. Also saw Scott of the Antarctic (1948) recently, also very engaging. Will try to give another attempt to Flight of the Eagle (1982), though I confess I couldn't get through the first half last time.

Not a movie, but an old radio play from 1938 by Orson Welles and the Mercury Theatre Players "Hell on Ice", based on the fictionalized account of the North Pole expedition in 1879 by Edward Ellsberg. This is a linear portrayal but Welles and company provide a sympathetic account.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

Watched Train to Busan. A very strong emotional drama and a parable about selfishness, although as a zombie film it is a rather ordinary movie.

Perhaps the authors should have taken some more original monsters instead of zombies, because typical zombies are very dissonant with the idea.

Watched the Taiwanese horror The Sadness (2021). In general, the level is slightly better than the amateur YouTube film, but I have never seen such aesthetically original zombies. Infected people start behaving like the bad guys from A Serbian Movie, nothing more, nothing less. It's exactly what Train to Busan lacked.

It seems to me that the ideas of The Sadness have a lot of potential. A remake or sequel left to more experienced filmmakers could be a great movie.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I haven't posted in close to a month, so I had a lot to catch up on in the previous pages:

1. Sorry all, I hate 'Magnolia!'

2. I agree that Studio Ghibli films suffer in the story department. The animation and creativity are always phenomenal but the plots always end up so convoluted and bordering on nonsense that it makes me not really care about the characters or conflict. My favorite Ghibli film is 'Castle in the Sky' since it is by far the simplest story while also still maintaining the wonderful visuals.

3. I watched 'Avatar: The Way of Water.' I found it superior to the first one but still just kind of not my thing. I enjoyed it while I watched it but it's not a movie that is going to stick with me or that I will ever want to watch again.

But I will still give it credit for special effects that are way better than its predecessor (as it should be after 13 years). The story was also less derivative. It wasn't the most original narrative ever, but it didn't constantly remind me of other movies beat by beat. And the characters are all better, especially Jake Sully now taking up the role of an overwhelmed father and my favorite of his "kids," Sigourney Weaver's daughter who kind of feels  like an outsider within the Navi clan. Quaritch too, coming back in Navi form is a little bit better too. Not entirely improved, but he has a relationship with another character that kind of adds something to him beyond just being a vengeance obsessed antagonist.

I can't get past certain flaws of its though. For one thing, being over three hours is a bit too much and I feel like some of that time could be shaved off by compositing or removing some of the child characters. Jake Sully and Neytiri have five kids as part of their family and the only ones who have the most bearing on the plot or the most character are three of them if you ask me. The oldest brother could have been merged with the younger brother and the youngest daughter, while cute, really served no purpose other than being kidnapped. Some things also were kind of rushed through or poorly explained such as how Sigourney Weaver's avatar from the last movie was able to be pregnant even after she died, but there might be a subtle divine contraception reason for that, but it's still a bit contrived.

So, in summation, if I were dragged to see this when it was in the theaters I don't think I would have complained regardless of its run time, but I also have no regrets waiting to watch it until it was streaming either. I'm curious where they're going to go with the third one because there are some loose ends that are certainly setting up another, already confirmed and filmed sequel. But I read that they are implying a volcano clan and still bringing Quaritch back, so I kind of fear that the movies will become repetitive: the Sully family meets a new Navi clan and Quaritch tries to capture or kill them all. I don't know if it can sustain itself, but 'Way of Water' made more money than expected, so clearly I'm the one who is outside the mainstream.

Other than that, I saw 'X' yesterday night. It was a very well-crafted homage to 1970's exploitation slasher and porn films, but kind of not my thing. I've been enjoying this wave of "elevated" artistic horror, but this one was just not all that amusing or entertaining to me. Maybe it's because I'm such a prude at times that the amount of sex and nudity combined with violence just kind of made me feel gross while watching it. But I'm sure that was intentional. It's still a very well-made horror movie in most every facet, I would recommend it to those who like slashers but in spite of its surface-level sheen, it kind of felt too familiar to me. And I guess that was another point, to take tropes and put them in a different context. So it does work, it's just not for me.

And maybe part of that is that I hated seeing what happened to Jenna Ortega in this movie. She is another one of those actresses who seems to have been bred to come across as innocent and cute as possible. But that was probably the point of her being cast in that role as well as an increasing number of horror roles.

I watched X because I was wondering what role Jenna Ortega has here. And I'm disappointed in two things.

Spoiler alert: BEWARE SPOILERS!

Show

Instead of giving this charismatic girl a survivor arc, the director chose a random porn actress who was little different from her deceased colleague.

And secondly, in the potential it could be something philosophically deep, but it turned out to be a banal slasher, where the only unusual concept is that the main villains die of senile weaknesses.

For example, if the old people in the movie were the same young people, but from their future, that is, from our days, when they have grown old. As I got older, I began to understand that the genre of life is body horror, and the movie initially set the direction for this idea.

4. I agree with you overall. And I wonder if Ortega, who wasn't really a household name until late last year with 'Wednesday,' would have had her character treated differently if she was a more famous actress when the film was made. In spite of that, my impressions of 'X' have actually improved slightly. I had a nightmare related to it a few weeks ago, that's probably not something I should admit, but I don't actually remember anything about it beyond not being able to heroically save Jenna Ortega. If a horror movie can manage to give me a nightmare about it, even if I didn't necessarily find it scary while watching, that actually tells me it stuck with me more. But it's still not really a movie I would ever want to watch again.

Additionally, another thing that helped improve my lukewarm reception to 'X' was watching it's prequel/spin-off, 'Pearl.' I kind of loved it. It's not as much of a true horror film as its companion movie, but it was a really neat character piece about Pearl and adds a little bit to her motivations in 'X.' Now, one doesn't necessarily have to watch 'X' before 'Pearl,' all it really would do is make you recognize some small connections and easter eggs, but if you watched 'X' already, even if you were only sort of positive to it at best, definitely watch 'Pearl.' It actually might be one of my favorite movies of last year, only behind 'The Northman.' I've seen it compared by some fans on the internet as "'Joker' for women.' And that is kind of accurate. I could see a lot of women identify with Pearl no matter how unbalanced she is because she is a victim of circumstances like Arthur Fleck was yet also makes mistakes of her own volition which she acknowledges, regrets, and tries to deal with whereas Fleck was entirely a victim of things outside his control which is why it probably resonated with edge-lord bros so much. It's almost kind of an insult to 'Pearl' to compare it with 'Joker' even though there are other apt comparisons like both movies being uplifted by an excellent lead performance by Mia Goth and Joaquin Phoenix respectively. But 'Pearl' at least managed to be an ode to the films it was inspired by without straight up ripping them off.

Oh, and there's also a scene where Pearl dry-humps a scarecrow-10/10 movie!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

ドラえもんのび太と鉄人兵団 (Doraemon: Nobita to Tetsujin Heidan/Doraemon: Nobita and the Steel Troops). The second Doraemon movie I've seen. A story that gave me a mix of mild sadness and nice action, and clever thinking. I guess a 8 of 10. There's a scene in the middle that one might want to cover parts of the screen during, just beware.

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

The mysteries surrounding the robot army is unraveled slowly and steadily. I find it rather admirable the utter tenacity and ingenuity and determination that Doraemon and crew displayed. I liked the scenes of damaged urban Tokyo. Of course, in the end, it is Shizuka that takes the lead near the end. The path of the character of Riruru reminds me of the path Paruparu took in Kingdom of the Clouds. It was greatly enjoyable seeing things reach their conclusion and I cried once again.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

Finally I got to Beau. While watching half.

Now I can assume that the reason for the fact that the movie was instantly removed from the Kazakhstani distribution was due to pornographic graffiti. Local people don't care much about the dicks at the electrical substation in front of the school, but seeing this in a movie is too much for them.

I have a comment on the first part of the movie. The vibe of the place that Beau lives in is exactly like in my hometown, but it's easy to recognize that this place looks so terrible only in his eyes. A truly aggressive society quickly develops a defense against itself. In the Beau house, the doors in the apartments are interior doors, the entrance door is glass. In my hometown, in all such apartment buildings, there are two doors in the apartments: the original wooden one and the steel one installed by the tenants, always with a peephole that looks like an optical sight. Steel doors are also installed in the entrances, its are equipped with unlocking intercoms. All windows on the first floor and some on the second floor have iron grills, which again aren't in the Beau world.

Further, Beau moves along the street by running, which in reality doesn't work. On the contrary, it immediately attracts attention, ignites the hunting instinct, and younger and much more athletic people would either catch up with him in a jiffy, or just trip him up or allow him to stick himself on the knife put forward. In practice, respectable citizens, who do exist in some numbers, just move briskly and carry pepper spray with them. Dishonest citizens are also afraid, so they carry push-button knives, sharpened screwdrivers and traumatic pistols with them. And in general, locals prefer to travel by car from door to door. Although not everyone has the opportunity to buy a car, many solve this issue through friendship with a motorist.

I will rate the movie as a whole when I finish watching it. So far very impressive. Ari Aster is a genius. I noticed this on Midsommar, but I didn't like that movie because it offended anarchists. People don't know anything about anarchists anyway and ideate them as crazy savages, and Midsommar firmly cements this represent. The idea of a movie about Beau, on the contrary, is sympathetic to me.

[Mr. Smith]

Just got out of Spiderman: Across the Spider-Verse...still processing, but....holy sh&^ that was amazing. 

Is this what people were thinking 40 years ago after Episode 5? Wtf?


As for Howl's Moving Castle...just read the book. So much better. Different. But better,.

[T'Chenka]

12 Angry Men (1957)
Didn't QUITE live up to the hype for me, but still amazing. Top 20 film of all time, of the films I have seen.

The Flash (2023)
This was entertaining for sure. As for the actual QUALITY of the film... well, there are good aspects and bad aspects. Worst parts are script issues, writing and some of the CGI. The best parts are the pacing and Ezra Miller, who was surprisingly good. Overall it's a mediocre film IMO... not BAD but not GOOD either. Just okay. Entertaining though. Worth a watch.

[RINO Tom]

It has its flaws, but I am ride-or-dyin' with MGM's FROM.  At least it's an original frickin' idea.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

I finished watching Beau.

This turned out to be not quite what I expected. Based on Midsommar, I would be content to replace the anarcho-primitivist commune with a bad part of city.

But this movie is on a much higher level. It's a new type of horror, I would call it fate-horror. Usually this idea was expressed through sitcom and tragicomedy characters, such as Al Bundy or Fantozzi. Even here, the comedy that is inherent in the cinema of such losers breaks through. But here the goal is not to entertain the viewer, but to take him by the scruff of the neck like a kitten and poke his face into his own improperly made life. It's hard for me to judge how a woman sees this movie, but I think it's aimed at women as well. Although my mother is not a billionaire at all and not the founder of a large successful company, but just a seamstress, I easily recognize in the mother of the protagonist what she is afraid to be.

In its own way, the movie is quite straightforward; it's easy to illustrate Freud's books with frames from it. At the same time, the image of a psychologist here is destructive for this profession, and also the movie as a whole is full of mysteries, like a subtle detective thriller. And these mysteries here are very interesting to solve.

I would like to note the excellent cinematography and excellent soundtrack. It seems that the people who did this are no less talented than Ari Aster.

It's a pity that the Kazakhstani distributors did not let me see the movie in the cinema. Probably the reason for the withdrawal from the rental could also be the indignation of the Kazakhstanis at the sight of a six-foot talking dick, although it was there as the most obvious Freudian symbol.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

There is stuff that happens here that makes no sense or doesn't connect well to the overall film. Is that bad writing? Is that part of some unforseen metaphor that we can't figure out? Ultimately, I think some things are just a little too weird but also don't fit into the script smoothly enough. I think the script could have been a little tighter and left slightly fewer question marks for us. You could see that Aster set himself up to be able to do so, if he had wanted to. He should have IMO.

What parts of the movie do you exactly find redundant?

[Ferguson97]

I watched the Jennifer Lawrence movie "No Hard Feelings". It was really funny and had a lot more heart than I expected it to. The two leads have great chemistry. The plot was mostly predictable, but that's not uncommon in this genre. 7/10.

[John Dule]

My thoughts on Asteroid City:



After seeing Asteroid City, I've finally identified what it is about Wes Anderson's style that irritates me so much. It's not the aesthetic of it-- his camera angles, color palettes, models, and sets are all intricate and beautiful. It's truly impressive that in an age dominated by committee-created blockbusters, one man's unique vision can still draw such an audience.

But increasingly, Anderson seems incapable of tailoring his style to fit the story he's telling. After The French Dispatch and Asteroid City, no longer do the Wes Andersonisms feel like natural products of the narrative. Rather, they are shoehorned in for the simple purpose of hitting particular stylistic beats. The Jeff Goldblum cameo. The sudden close-ups of vibrantly colored inanimate objects. The ironically deadpan delivery of a character expressing deep emotional grief. Every element must be thrown in at some point, lest Wes feel like he's letting down his dedicated fanbase. For a filmmaker with such an unconventional vision, he has ironically become a slave to his own formula.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the story layering of Asteroid City. Framing this film as a stage play (and then constantly interrupting its momentum with digressions to a secondary plot) adds nothing to the narrative. With The Grand Budapest Hotel, Anderson used his story-within-a-story technique brilliantly-- the layered structure made the film's tale feel like it came from a time that had long since passed, and most importantly, the story itself was allowed to unfold without interruption. But now that he's begun employing that approach in every film-- regardless of whether it's appropriate-- I've begun to wonder if Budapest was simply a massive fluke, the rare instance in which Anderson's default style actually elevated the story rather than detracting from it.

Despite what I've said here, I enjoyed Asteroid City. Multiple scenes made me laugh out loud, and the conclusion subverts the audience's expectations in a way that's actually satisfying. It's just frustrating to see Anderson once again smother an interesting story under layers of his trademark irony. Either his directorial choices are operating on a level I don't understand, or he is simply playing paint-by-numbers with the structures of his screenplays. I fear the latter is the case.

[Benjamin Frank]

Saw three documentaries from 1979.

1.The Secret Life of Plants. Saw this a few weeks ago. Based on a book from 1973. The first half is interesting with interesting evidence of unexpected behavior from plants based on a number of tests. The most known of these is likely polygrapher Cleve Backster's testing of plant reactions using polygraphs. The conclusion that plants must have consciousness and think is not really supported by the evidence as there are other explanations but that doesn't negate the interesting evidence presented. Stevie Wonder provides the music and there is a rather odd interlude of Wonder singing about the wonders of George Washington Carver and a couple other scientists. The second half of the film (it's about 1:30 hours long) is a complete waste of time, although some might like the visuals.

2.The Late Great Planet Earth. Loosely based on the 1970 Hal Lindsey book. An odd mess. Orson Welles provides the narration, which lends the film gravitas it doesn't deserve. Orson Welles was a liberal who respected religion but was not religious himself. However, if you think he took the job solely for the money you'd be wrong. Nearly all of the film, though it includes Welles quoting the Bible, is based on the threat of the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse, but from an almost entirely liberal environmentalist perspective. To be sure, Evangelicals were not really environmental science deniers in 1979, but it has nothing to do with Hal Lindsey's book. Only the last 20 minutes which Hal Lindsey narrates is based directly on his book. Of course, his 1970 book was completely wrong, which based on the definition of 'false prophet' given at the beginning of the documentary makes him one.

3.The Hellstrom Chronicle. A sort of pseudo documentary discussing the possibility of insects taking over the earth. 'Hellstrom' is the narrator who is supposed to have a PhD and discusses the subject with a kind of mock seriousness. At the end of the film it's revealed that 'Hellstrom' is a fictional character and the 'scientist' is played by an actor. However, all of the science on insects in the film is accurate to the understanding in 1979, and the theory that insects will inheret the earth from humans is serious conjecture (mainly based on insect adaptability and that it's known that one of the few things that would survive nuclear destruction on earth is the cockroach.)

However, some of the mock seriousness is strange. It's a very odd humor unlike the much clearer 'mockumentary' This is Spinal Tap. For instance, 'Hellstrom' says that bees in a colony live in a utopia as they all work as one to provide for the betterment of the colony, unlike humans who are too individualistic, and the film then procedes to show the various ways that bees in the colony kill each other, all be it for the ultimate betterment of the colony.

What has made the film a cult classic are the stunning visuals. If you're interested in insects, it's worth watching.

[Benjamin Frank]

Also saw Wonder Boys. 2000 film starring Michael Douglas, Tobey Maguire, Robert Downey Jr and Katie Holmes.

Michael Douglas plays an author (of a bestseller from 7 years ago) and a creative writing professor. Robert Downey Jr plays his agent and Tobey Maguire and Katie Holmes play two of his students. The events of the film might be ascribed to 'white male privilege' but the film is clearly not meant as a political comment.

However, it does highlight the problem of the film. Though it's meant to be a celebration of having a sense of purpose, I thought the theme was completely undercut by the ultimate fantasy nature of the film: ultimately nobody faces any real responsibility or even consequences of their actions. Without giving away spoilers, even the one character who is given punishment for their actions gets a punishment they wanted all along. It's just too easy to achieve your purpose when you can do so without having any responsibilities.

So, ultimately the film has no bite.

However, the characters are all interesting if 'quirky' in a Hollywood way, and at any time there are three or four choices the character in question can make, and it is both interesting and entertaining to see their choices.

So, entertaining to watch, but no real payoff at the end. Essentially a 3 out of 5 film.

[Mr. Smith]

My thoughts on Asteroid City:



After seeing Asteroid City, I've finally identified what it is about Wes Anderson's style that irritates me so much. It's not the aesthetic of it-- his camera angles, color palettes, models, and sets are all intricate and beautiful. It's truly impressive that in an age dominated by committee-created blockbusters, one man's unique vision can still draw such an audience.

But increasingly, Anderson seems incapable of tailoring his style to fit the story he's telling. After The French Dispatch and Asteroid City, no longer do the Wes Andersonisms feel like natural products of the narrative. Rather, they are shoehorned in for the simple purpose of hitting particular stylistic beats. The Jeff Goldblum cameo. The sudden close-ups of vibrantly colored inanimate objects. The ironically deadpan delivery of a character expressing deep emotional grief. Every element must be thrown in at some point, lest Wes feel like he's letting down his dedicated fanbase. For a filmmaker with such an unconventional vision, he has ironically become a slave to his own formula.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the story layering of Asteroid City. Framing this film as a stage play (and then constantly interrupting its momentum with digressions to a secondary plot) adds nothing to the narrative. With The Grand Budapest Hotel, Anderson used his story-within-a-story technique brilliantly-- the layered structure made the film's tale feel like it came from a time that had long since passed, and most importantly, the story itself was allowed to unfold without interruption. But now that he's begun employing that approach in every film-- regardless of whether it's appropriate-- I've begun to wonder if Budapest was simply a massive fluke, the rare instance in which Anderson's default style actually elevated the story rather than detracting from it.

Despite what I've said here, I enjoyed Asteroid City. Multiple scenes made me laugh out loud, and the conclusion subverts the audience's expectations in a way that's actually satisfying. It's just frustrating to see Anderson once again smother an interesting story under layers of his trademark irony. Either his directorial choices are operating on a level I don't understand, or he is simply playing paint-by-numbers with the structures of his screenplays. I fear the latter is the case.

The Royal Tenenbaums and Darjeeling Limited and Fantastic Mr. Fox were elevated by the style.

[John Dule]

My thoughts on Asteroid City:



After seeing Asteroid City, I've finally identified what it is about Wes Anderson's style that irritates me so much. It's not the aesthetic of it-- his camera angles, color palettes, models, and sets are all intricate and beautiful. It's truly impressive that in an age dominated by committee-created blockbusters, one man's unique vision can still draw such an audience.

But increasingly, Anderson seems incapable of tailoring his style to fit the story he's telling. After The French Dispatch and Asteroid City, no longer do the Wes Andersonisms feel like natural products of the narrative. Rather, they are shoehorned in for the simple purpose of hitting particular stylistic beats. The Jeff Goldblum cameo. The sudden close-ups of vibrantly colored inanimate objects. The ironically deadpan delivery of a character expressing deep emotional grief. Every element must be thrown in at some point, lest Wes feel like he's letting down his dedicated fanbase. For a filmmaker with such an unconventional vision, he has ironically become a slave to his own formula.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the story layering of Asteroid City. Framing this film as a stage play (and then constantly interrupting its momentum with digressions to a secondary plot) adds nothing to the narrative. With The Grand Budapest Hotel, Anderson used his story-within-a-story technique brilliantly-- the layered structure made the film's tale feel like it came from a time that had long since passed, and most importantly, the story itself was allowed to unfold without interruption. But now that he's begun employing that approach in every film-- regardless of whether it's appropriate-- I've begun to wonder if Budapest was simply a massive fluke, the rare instance in which Anderson's default style actually elevated the story rather than detracting from it.

Despite what I've said here, I enjoyed Asteroid City. Multiple scenes made me laugh out loud, and the conclusion subverts the audience's expectations in a way that's actually satisfying. It's just frustrating to see Anderson once again smother an interesting story under layers of his trademark irony. Either his directorial choices are operating on a level I don't understand, or he is simply playing paint-by-numbers with the structures of his screenplays. I fear the latter is the case.

The Royal Tenenbaums and Darjeeling Limited and Fantastic Mr. Fox were elevated by the style.

Yeah, those are good-- it's mostly his movies since Budapest that have dropped off for me. I think he's started to just plug in elements that worked in his past films with little regard for how they fit into his new ones.

[Mr. Smith]

My thoughts on Asteroid City:



After seeing Asteroid City, I've finally identified what it is about Wes Anderson's style that irritates me so much. It's not the aesthetic of it-- his camera angles, color palettes, models, and sets are all intricate and beautiful. It's truly impressive that in an age dominated by committee-created blockbusters, one man's unique vision can still draw such an audience.

But increasingly, Anderson seems incapable of tailoring his style to fit the story he's telling. After The French Dispatch and Asteroid City, no longer do the Wes Andersonisms feel like natural products of the narrative. Rather, they are shoehorned in for the simple purpose of hitting particular stylistic beats. The Jeff Goldblum cameo. The sudden close-ups of vibrantly colored inanimate objects. The ironically deadpan delivery of a character expressing deep emotional grief. Every element must be thrown in at some point, lest Wes feel like he's letting down his dedicated fanbase. For a filmmaker with such an unconventional vision, he has ironically become a slave to his own formula.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the story layering of Asteroid City. Framing this film as a stage play (and then constantly interrupting its momentum with digressions to a secondary plot) adds nothing to the narrative. With The Grand Budapest Hotel, Anderson used his story-within-a-story technique brilliantly-- the layered structure made the film's tale feel like it came from a time that had long since passed, and most importantly, the story itself was allowed to unfold without interruption. But now that he's begun employing that approach in every film-- regardless of whether it's appropriate-- I've begun to wonder if Budapest was simply a massive fluke, the rare instance in which Anderson's default style actually elevated the story rather than detracting from it.

Despite what I've said here, I enjoyed Asteroid City. Multiple scenes made me laugh out loud, and the conclusion subverts the audience's expectations in a way that's actually satisfying. It's just frustrating to see Anderson once again smother an interesting story under layers of his trademark irony. Either his directorial choices are operating on a level I don't understand, or he is simply playing paint-by-numbers with the structures of his screenplays. I fear the latter is the case.

The Royal Tenenbaums and Darjeeling Limited and Fantastic Mr. Fox were elevated by the style.

Yeah, those are good-- it's mostly his movies since Budapest that have dropped off for me. I think he's started to just plug in elements that worked in his past films with little regard for how they fit into his new ones.

I can agree with this. I was kinda underwhelmed by that dog movie.

[Progressive Pessimist]

^ I've loved or liked all of Andersons' films up to 'The French Dispatch' which I was very mixed on. So I was curious if anyone would comment on 'Asteroid City.' I think I'll wait to see it on streaming, but it sounds like it's better than his last film.

Anyway, as usual when I post again after over a week, I saw a few other movies for the first time:

Well, actually, I want to start with TV shows. This was back in May, but the 'Barry' finale was quite satisfying, and that's all I really want from a series finale. I wasn't sure what to expect, but somehow the episode wasn't as nihilistic as I expected, and it was still nihilistic as f***! My only real issue was the casting of Jaeden Martell in a role. He's just so boring! And he isn't even cute anymore, he is going through puberty in a really obvious way. But that's a minor complaint, check out the show itself, especially if you have a bit of a dark sense of humor like me. It's on Max and very bingeable, episodes are never longer than 35 minutes and the four seasons are only eight episodes each. Definitely my favorite show of the past few years.

Back to movies: My friend begged me to see 'Across the Spider-Verse' with him last Sunday. I found this movie to be very over-hyped. I thought it was way too long, there were too many scenes where it's nothing but characters talking, often very redundantly about things we already know and where little else is happening, and it's ending was very unsatisfying. I don't want to take away from the absolutely phenomenal animation, creativity, humor, and production overall though. A+ when it comes to all that. I just found the plot to be overly ambitious, as is often the problem with Spider-Man movies.

This movie sets up some very interesting concepts and ideas, but it doesn't resolve any and takes too long to get going after its prologue with Gwen and her dad, while also introducing new conflicts at the very end! I've seen comparisons of it to 'The Empire Strikes Back' and 'The Two Towers,' but those films were bridging sequels while also able to have their own self-contained conflicts that get resolved while still hinting at what is yet to come and ending in a satisfying way. It's more like the second Hobbit or Pirates of the Caribbean movies, I'm sorry to say. I'm sure that the third film will make this one better in hindsight when it comes out and delivers on what was set up, but that also means that this entry doesn't really stand on its own, and that's important to me when it comes to film franchises. I wish I could have loved this movie as much as seemingly everyone else does, but it was just too overstuffed and too frustratingly structured. And even though 2 hours and 20 minutes is a long running time (apparently the longest ever for a major animated film) the movie felt even longer than that to me. It felt like three hours, and that's never a good sign. I don't feel the running time in some movies that are even longer, so that definitely says something.

It was better than 'No Way Home' to me, on the flip side. I'll give it that. At least it was better at giving characters motivations and establishing how inter-dimensional travel works. But I should note that I think I am starting to get fatigued by the trend of media covering multiverse concepts as a whole. I think it's getting played out even though it's clearly not going to go away since it's a creative and appealing way to keep franchises going. Actually, while I'm on that topic, I also thought the movie caters a bit too much to the franchise's most hardcore fans. There were many Easter eggs jokes I understood and enjoyed without them interrupting the movie, but then I was also left not understanding others and being left with questions about details that seemed like set-ups but never really got fleshed out more like why the one Spider-Woman is pregnant, what Miguel's vampire powers are all about, who or what Miguel's hologram sidekick is, why the virtual reality Spider-Woman likes Miles so much after just meeting him, and so on. Really, the main theme with my criticism of the film is that it's just too much while also not having enough satisfactory payoff. I didn't hate it or dislike it though, I just think that all the hype makes me seem like that in comparison. A good movie can still have massive flaws, and this is one of them. I don't exactly regret seeing it in the theaters, but I probably won't watch it again unless I need a refresher for the third one.

Next movie: 'Breakfast at Tiffany's.' This movie is supposedly a "classic," but I didn't really think so. Audrey Hepburn is incredibly charming and endearing as always yet I couldn't help to just be bored. I get what they were going for with the themes of class and sophistication but that was all wrapped in the package of a romance movie, which I already have an aversion to, especially when the male love interest is duller than Jaeden Martell. Hepburn could do better!

And, of course, I have to mention the infamous Mickey Rooney yellow-face portrayal of a Japanese landlord. It's so offensively bad that it actually made me laugh while cringing. It's even worse than I thought just from hearing about it. I know that it was a different time, but this had to have been offensive and insulting even back in the 1960's! It's way too over-the-top and exaggerated. Why couldn't they just find a real Japanese actor? Even if he was still a stereotype there is no way it could have been worse than what they did with Rooney. It's actually kind of something to behold, and I'm morbidly glad I watched the movie just for that alone.

Looking forward to some 'Dial of Destiny' reviews, by the way. I read the plot spoilers and have no intention of seeing it!

[Kamala's side hoe]

In honor of Pride Month 2023, I'm sharing a link to Ang Lee's 1993 film The Wedding Banquet, which tells the story of a gay Taiwanese immigrant man who marries a Mainland Chinese woman in need of a green card in order to placate his traditionalist parents who don't know about his sexual orientation.

 

I've wanted to watch this film for some time now for a bunch of reasons. A big one is that it's set in the America my parents immigrated to, roughly around when they themselves got married. Its portrayal of traditional Chinese culture as Ang Lee understood it (his family was part of the Nationalist Chinese elites who fled to Taiwan following the Chinese Civil War) through the stages of the wedding ceremony is also interesting to me because I never got to attend any of my blood relatives' weddings growing up so I don't have much firsthand knowledge of Chinese wedding customs outside of TV and film portrayals.

Also, it's interesting to reflect on how attitudes on LGBT rights and individuals have changed in both the US and Taiwan since the movie was released 30 years ago- Taiwan was the first (and to date only; I don't think any others will follow suit in the foreseeable future) country in Pacific-facing Asia to legalize same-sex marriage (I've written about this here). (On that note, congratulations to Nepal for being the second country in Asia to legalize SSM!)

Fun fact: the actress who played the bride eventually became a legislator known for advocating for the rights of Taiwanese aborigines (she is half Atayal half Manchu herself).

[pikachu]

In honor of Pride Month 2023, I'm sharing a link to Ang Lee's 1993 film The Wedding Banquet, which tells the story of a gay Taiwanese immigrant man who marries a Mainland Chinese woman in need of a green card in order to placate his traditionalist parents who don't know about his sexual orientation.

 

I've wanted to watch this film for some time now for a bunch of reasons. A big one is that it's set in the America my parents immigrated to, roughly around when they themselves got married. Its portrayal of traditional Chinese culture as Ang Lee understood it (his family was part of the Nationalist Chinese elites who fled to Taiwan following the Chinese Civil War) through the stages of the wedding ceremony is also interesting to me because I never got to attend any of my blood relatives' weddings growing up so I don't have much firsthand knowledge of Chinese wedding customs outside of TV and film portrayals.

Also, it's interesting to reflect on how attitudes on LGBT rights and individuals have changed in both the US and Taiwan since the movie was released 30 years ago- Taiwan was the first (and to date only; I don't think any others will follow suit in the foreseeable future) country in Pacific-facing Asia to legalize same-sex marriage (I've written about this here). (On that note, congratulations to Nepal for being the second country in Asia to legalize SSM!)

Fun fact: the actress who played the bride eventually became a legislator known for advocating for the rights of Taiwanese aborigines (she is half Atayal half Manchu herself).

If you haven’t watched it, Comrades, Almost A Love Story is another really good Chinese movie that’s set in New York. Only the last 1/3 of Comrades is set in America (the first two acts are in Hong Kong), but it’s one of the best romances I’ve ever seen on screen.

[T'Chenka]

Past Lives (2023, directed by Celine Song)

Holy s__t! I finally got to see this movie, which has been incredibly hyped by critics and audience members that saw it at the Sundance Film Festival in January. It actually lived up to the hype. This film is amazing. IMO this is easily a top 5 film of the 2020s and a must watch film for anybody who is into cinema. It's a drama romance and has vibes that could be compared to Before Sunset, Drive My Car, Aftersun, and other things that seem kind of indie but also have very high level directing, screenplays, and acting.

Go see it. The only valid excuse not to is "I'm not a fan of cinema and I just like popcorn flicks".

[Kamala's side hoe]

In honor of Pride Month 2023, I'm sharing a link to Ang Lee's 1993 film The Wedding Banquet, which tells the story of a gay Taiwanese immigrant man who marries a Mainland Chinese woman in need of a green card in order to placate his traditionalist parents who don't know about his sexual orientation.

 

I've wanted to watch this film for some time now for a bunch of reasons. A big one is that it's set in the America my parents immigrated to, roughly around when they themselves got married. Its portrayal of traditional Chinese culture as Ang Lee understood it (his family was part of the Nationalist Chinese elites who fled to Taiwan following the Chinese Civil War) through the stages of the wedding ceremony is also interesting to me because I never got to attend any of my blood relatives' weddings growing up so I don't have much firsthand knowledge of Chinese wedding customs outside of TV and film portrayals.

Also, it's interesting to reflect on how attitudes on LGBT rights and individuals have changed in both the US and Taiwan since the movie was released 30 years ago- Taiwan was the first (and to date only; I don't think any others will follow suit in the foreseeable future) country in Pacific-facing Asia to legalize same-sex marriage (I've written about this here). (On that note, congratulations to Nepal for being the second country in Asia to legalize SSM!)

Fun fact: the actress who played the bride eventually became a legislator known for advocating for the rights of Taiwanese aborigines (she is half Atayal half Manchu herself).

If you haven’t watched it, Comrades, Almost A Love Story is another really good Chinese movie that’s set in New York. Only the last 1/3 of Comrades is set in America (the first two acts are in Hong Kong), but it’s one of the best romances I’ve ever seen on screen.

Ooh, another 90s film, I'll have to watch it sometime! The Wiki description says that the male lead character's plot reflects many aspects of the actor's lived experience.