The Movie (and TV show) Watching Thread

[Benjamin Frank]

Erik the Viking, 1989 film starring Tim Robbins.

Written and Directed by Terry Jones

5/10
Terry Jones is a member of the Monty Python Troupe which, in addition to coming up with bizarre and unique humor was also a very literate and knowledgeable group (I believe they met studying philosophy.)

The film utilizes elaborate sets and effects in a fantasy film in much the same way as American Monty Python member Terry Gilliam's Time Bandits and Brazil (a dystopian fantasy.)

I found viewing the film interesting in that while I enjoyed following the hero journey of Tim Robbins' character Erik the Viking and his group, and they went to some interesting places along the way, I liked nothing else about the film. The setup to the jokes virtually never have any payoff (I laughed twice, and for the throwaway jokes) and the scenes overall drag on way too long.

There are also more serious ideas explored that end up going nowhere such as differences and arguments between fathers and sons, mutually assured destruction and, mainly, differences between perception and reality and its consequences.

Film critic Roger Ebert regarded Erik the Viking as one of the worst movies ever made.

[Benjamin Frank]

The Conversation, 1974 film starring Gene Hackman
Harrison Ford and Cindy Williams (Laverne and Shirley) have smaller roles. Both also appeared in American Graffiti.

Film that I liked (more than Erik the Viking) but I had to break up viewing it every once in a while due, I think, to its slow pace.

The film came out in an era of conspiracy films like the Parallax View, Marathon Man and the China Syndrome, but this is actually a much smaller film, ultimately about the character played by Gene Hackman.

Gene Hackman plays a surveilance expert with his own company and is hired by both the public and private sector.  Apparently not unusual with spies, he is also fairly paranoid and very private and secretive.

In the film, he is hired by a private company to record a conversation between a couple which is what the name of the film derives from.

The film is mostly Gene Hackman's character listening to the conversation between the couple over and over again, but each time he has learned a little more about the situation so the possible meaning of the words of the couple keeps changing.

The film is a comment on those three things, and is not meant to be about wide conspiracy theories.
1.The film came out around the same time as the Privacy Act was added to the Freedom of Information Act, and I have to think that writer, producer and director Francis Ford Coppola must have been inspired by thinking "the same government that spies on us doesn't want us to know about what it does."

2.The ambiguity of the meaning of words.

3.How paranoia can consume a person's life.

Excellent movie, but it is fairly slow paced without a great deal of action. A good deal of the film is the same conversation being played over and over.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I just saw that a new 'Expendables' movie is coming out soon.

I don't want to hear s*** about President Biden's age if you go out and see this.

[T'Chenka]

I just saw that a new 'Expendables' movie is coming out soon.

I don't want to hear s*** about President Biden's age if you go out and see this.

Apparently it's boring and bad.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I just saw that a new 'Expendables' movie is coming out soon.

I don't want to hear s*** about President Biden's age if you go out and see this.

Apparently it's boring and bad.

No real surprise there as the first three were pretty bad too. It was kind of a fun gimmick in the first one but the movie itself was a real waste of potential.

[You don't see any blue avatars now]

I just saw that a new 'Expendables' movie is coming out soon.

I don't want to hear s*** about President Biden's age if you go out and see this.

I have no problem with our President's age and I'd need to watch the middle two before I were to go out and see this (which, honestly, I don't have that much interest in doing).

[Progressive Pessimist]

I just saw that a new 'Expendables' movie is coming out soon.

I don't want to hear s*** about President Biden's age if you go out and see this.

I have no problem with our President's age and I'd need to watch the middle two before I were to go out and see this (which, honestly, I don't have that much interest in doing).

I'm just making the point that people aren't complaining about "gerontocracy" in the movie industry. Do people really still want to see an elderly Stallone in action movies?

[You don't see any blue avatars now]

I'm just making the point that people aren't complaining about "gerontocracy" in the movie industry. Do people really still want to see an elderly Stallone in action movies?

I figured as much, but still. IIRC, he's quitting the Expendables after this movie anyhow.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

A woman I know suggested that I watch with her the Kazakh movie "Tomiris"(2019), which she is excited about. In general, the fact that the movie unambiguously portrays the Massagetes as ancestors of Kazakhs ethnically identical to modern Kazakhs and speaking a kind of "proto-Turkic" language, in this case a version of it invented especially for the movie, could indeed be taken just as a promotion of Dariga Nazarbayeva to the presidency (this movie was commissioned by the Ministry of Culture and Sports of Kazakhstan and Nazarbayev's other daughter), but... I realized that this is not a harmless thing at all when she said that her lineage is Argyns, which is descended from Argun, the husband of Queen Tomyris. Actually there is no historical information that Tomiris' husband's name was Argun. This character is completely invented by the authors of the movie. In addition Tomyris lived in the 6th century BC, and the Argyns are known from about the 13th century AD, and there is quite a significant time gap here. By the middle of the movie, my suspicions about the historical accuracy of the movie had grown stronger, and I informed her of this, which deeply angered her. She accused me of ignorance in the sense that if I don't know the history of Tomyris it means that I don't know the history of Kazakhstan. I decided not to touch this topic in conversation with her any more, since, as it seems, she considers the Massagetes to be her direct ancestors. Besides, we know about Tomyris only from an unreliable Herodotus' tale in which Cyrus' head is brought to her, and about 99% of the movie is fiction taken from the screenwriter's head: it's strange to consider it a history of Kazakhstan. Overall this reminds me of the way the ruscists idolize some "ancient Russes".

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

Another disturbing thing is that the fictional leader Spargap, supposedly Tomyris' father, who is eager to rob all neighboring sedentary peoples without regard for the consequences, is presented as an unambiguously positive character, while the audience knows almost nothing about him besides that. And the fictional two dudes who kill him for the sake of establishing peace and peaceful trade between Massagetes and Khorezm are presented as unambiguously negative, and the valiant Tomyris kills them in the middle of the movie. It is clear that the nomads had practically no other choice but to rob the settled peoples, but the authors of the movie did not bother to explain it, they thought that the characteristic property that the film language assigns to villains will be perceived by the modern viewer as a positive trait, and peacefulness, desire for cooperation and trade as negative along with betrayal. Putting such a thing into the Kazakh national ideology you can get a society of total crime and war crimes. Perhaps I took this movie too seriously, but in Kazakhstan the theme of Tomyris and Kazakh Massagets is really being pushed far beyond the movie.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

IRL I don't even have anyone to discuss it with because the people around me are incapable of perceiving the history in a format any more difficult than TikTok yellow press. It's the result of Soviet education, which is proudly called “the best in the world” here.

[T'Chenka]

Fair Play
2023
director Chloe Domont
Phoebe Dynevor, Alden Ehrenreich, Eddie Marsan,
Sebastian de Souza, Rich Sommer, Sia Alipour

7.5 (almost 7.0) / 10

Haven't written a review in a while, so let's just make it short and hopefully not too scatterbrained.

This was pretty damn good. The first half was "good", with some moments that stood out as particularly good moments, but then the film really blossomed for me in the second half. Pacing and directing are really solid. The editing is subtlely good too. Eirenreich is mostly good, save one scene (IMO), but Dynevor is great. Not amazing, mind you, but very very good. She has a future in Hollywood if she has a good agent.

Highly recommended film. Don't expect a masterpiece, but it's a very solid film. It felt very "2023", in a good way. Love that.

EDIT - Netflix bought this movie and it's available on Netflix now as of 3 days ago.

[T'Chenka]

Re-watched my favourite movie.

The Breakfast Club (1985)

Absolutely amazing. Some pacing issues and the script gets kind of silly in the last 10 to 15 minutes, but overall, just great stuff. A cultural classic that lives up to the hype. Not a masterpiece, but truly a great film.

Anybody who has not seen it is doing themselves a disservice by not seeing it.

[Benjamin Frank]

Nashville, 1975 movie, directed by Robert Altman.

I won't put in spoilers except for one thing. This is a two hour forty minute with 24 characters. Although previous Altman movies had many characters (MASH might have been the first) this is the first one to make full Altman use with overlapping dialogue and unconnected characters intermingling.

People here interested in American history and politics should see this movie because it is one of the more influential films of the time, but there are three things to know:

1.The narrative unfolds without explanation, for those who don't want any explanation, skip to the second point. The narrative is quite simple: a third party presidential candidate is campaigning* and putting on a fundraising musical/rally during the 1976 Presidential primary in Tennessee and a senior campaign staffer is going around trying to get musicians to perform at the rally.

2.This is not a musical, but there is apparently a full one hour of mostly country music in the film. It is not a musical because the characters don't break out singing, but the songs do serve to advance the narrative.

3.One of the characters in the film, Opal, played by Geraldine Chaplin, an apparent documentary reporter with the BBC ruins the film for me. Her character is so unbelievably if not impossibly stupid she is beyond Jar Jar Binks level obnoxious. Jar Jar Binks didn't annoy me all that much because for most of The Phantom Menance he was paired with Qui-Gon Jinn who leavened Jar Jar Binks' obnoxiousness with grace. There is none of that here. Opal seemed to be in this film for around 40 minutes of the 1 hour 40 minute non music. Although I'm sure it just seemed that long to me. In addition to having a grating voice, these are examples of her annoying stupidity that combined to be nails on a chalkboard level for me:

1.On meeting the wife (played by Lily Tomlin) of the Presidential candidates' Tennessee campaign manager who happens to be recording gospel music with an all black choir, she asks "are you a missionary?"

2.Later in the scene, she exlaims how it's wonderful that everybody there, both the blacks and the whites, get along so well with each other.

3.By far her most unpleasant: when the wife says her two children are deaf, Opal replies "that must be horribly disappointing for you." By this point I was like "Altman, whatever point you're trying to make with this character, it's enough." But, no, she goes on and on and on and on....

Without this character, I'd give Nashville a 9 out of 10 (with an extra point for the music) but, with this character the most I can give it is a 4 out of 10.

*That an independent Presidential candidate was campaigning in Presidential primaries should in no way be seen of a lack of understanding from Altman. Nashville was written in 1974 and released in 1975 after only the 1972 Presidential primary had been opened up to voters in general. So this was new and it was before even CNN yet alone the modern internet. Also, it was after George Wallace, who ran for the American Independence Party in 1968 ran in the Democratic primaries in 1972. Altman also seemed to be aware of this mistake in the film as one of the musicians in a band asked to perform replies "We can't support him, we're registered Democrats."

[You don't see any blue avatars now]

Got a few thoughts on the new season of Quantum Leap. It's pretty good.

Spoiler alert: This Took Too Long! (Season 2, 2023)

Show

The rest of the cast (save Ian) make appearances only through flashback, and at the end of the episode, we find out why: Ben was missing, presumed dead, for three years, and the project has been shut down for one. This caught me off guard, but it makes sense and I'm here for it (after all, the original Quantum Leap took place not three, but six years in the future) Despite Ian being Ben's observer for this and the next episode, Mason Alexander Park is not moved ahead of Caitlin Bassett in the opening credits for these episodes.

Spoiler alert: Ben and Teller (Season 2, 2023)

Show

In this episode, we catch up on the rest of the gang, in particular, Addison. Addison is now in a relationship with Tom (new cast member Peter Gadiot), who, while I respect him for being able to pull Addison out from being suicidal, I'm not as big a fan as the rest of the gang (and seeing as Addison hasn't even kissed him on-screen, it's possible that, now that she's set to become the observer again, that she falls for Ben all over again). Which, this is honestly one love angle I can get behind. The guy who taught Addison to love vs. the guy who taught Addison to love after the other guy's presumed death, and they can't even see each other to directly compete. Plus, Quantum Leap has a rich history in cuckoldry (see: Sam, a married man for most of the series [though unconfirmed until the season 4 premiere] who has a friendship with Al that makes you wonder if they do more than put right what once went wrong together, sleeping with just about anyone who looks at him).

Ian serves as the observer for this leap again, because Addison and Tom don't make it to the project until about halfway through the episode, and Addison gets cold feet about seeing her ex-fiancé again. She eventually enters the imaging chamber at the end of the episode to give Ben the "Where Are They Now?", and next episode, she returns as observer full-time.

[Frodo]

Thoughts?  I think I might see this:

[T'Chenka]

La Haine (1995) - 9.0 / 10

Before Sunrise (1995) - 8.5 (almost 9.0) / 10
Before Sunset (2004) - 8.0 (almost 8.5) / 10
Before Midnight (2013) - 8.0 / 10

[John Dule]

My thoughts on Killers of the Flower Moon:



Between Rupert Pupkin, Henry Hill, Nicky Santoro, Bill the Butcher, Frank Costello, and Jordan Belfort, Martin Scorsese is singlehandedly responsible for introducing dozens of criminals-- both real and fictional-- into the popular imagination. These characters have always elicited a strange dual reaction from viewers (myself included). On the one hand, we recognize their vice, impulsiveness, and sociopathy for what it is. But at the same time, we've always had a not-insubstantial degree of respect for their fringe lifestyles, confident monologues, and obscene wealth. In a world where film bros look up to characters as pitiable as Travis Bickle, one could be forgiven for thinking that Truffaut was right: movies inherently glamorize everything they portray, and so trying to depict any behavior in a negative light in this medium is self-defeating. No matter how scummy the character, someone will always embrace him.

But after The Irishman and now Killers of the Flower Moon, Scorsese has managed to de-glamorize his subjects to an unprecedented degree. I defy anyone to watch this behemoth of a movie and leave the theater quoting Leonardo DiCaprio's character, emulating his body language, or admiring his life of crime. Ernest Burkhart is the embodiment of the banality of evil-- a stupid man of average means with a "gut problem" and a hopelessly pliable sense of morality. Like a weathervane, he obediently follows the direction of whatever instinct is acting on him at a particular moment, whether it be pressure from his uncle, his own greed, grief, instant gratification, familial loyalty, or shame. As someone who enjoys stories of redemption, I found myself waiting for a change in this character that never came. Eventually, I had to accept that any development on his part would be fleeting at best and completely deceptive at worst.

There have been some objections to the way this story was told through Ernest's perspective rather than through the eyes of the Osage people. But given that American audiences are largely white, this decision makes the film far more effective. As the murderers' plan gradually reveals itself, the viewer is sucked into their scheming along with Ernest. The plan is almost never spoken of in literal terms, even when the plotters are in private together. What they are doing-- the fact that they are reduced to stealing from a people they consider inferior-- is far too shameful to acknowledge, even in the company of their fellow conspirators. These white characters, who arrogantly spit out words like "savage" at the first sign of Osage impropriety, cannot bear to confront the far deeper savagery of their own actions. Instead they rely upon euphemisms, pointed implications, and mutual understanding to communicate their true intentions. The result is that as Ernest comes to inhabit his dual roles of loving husband and detached killer, we feel complicit in his moral decay. The message to the audience is deeply uncomfortable: had we lived in this time and place, we may very well have followed the same path that corrodes this character's soul.

Of course, the scenes from the perspective of Ernest's wife Mollie (Lily Gladstone) are just as impactful-- albeit in a different way. There is a constant tension in her scenes with the white characters, all of whom expertly capture the right mix of feigned respect, condescension, and unwarranted confidence in their own ability to deceive. At the same time, she seems to see right through their façade, but a lack of evidence and a punishing sense of hopelessness prevent her from giving voice to her fears. Gladstone, who was also the star of a film I saw earlier this year called Fancy Dance, has an incredibly expressive face and intelligent eyes that can convey both resilience and tired resignation with a single look. She is excellent in this movie, though I do wish we'd gotten more of an insight into her character's suspicions about the family she regrettably married into.

Given Scorsese's long career of making movies about criminals, it feels strange to say that this is his best crime drama. But in a way, it accomplishes something none of his other films have: it elicits true disgust from the audience, unadulterated by even the slightest modicum of grudging respect for its reprehensible characters. This film features no memorable one-liners, funny Quaalude scenes, or take-charge antiheroes who (if nothing else) exert masculine dominance. It's a movie about a pack of dishonorable vultures fighting over scraps, deceptive and ashamed. I went into this movie with no context for the true story, but it's not like I'm a stranger to the general shamefulness of the treatment of Native Americans-- and yet it still managed to shock me due to the scale and depth of the betrayal at its core. This is a fantastic film, and well worth the time it demands.

[John Dule]

... and some thoughts on The Killer, the new David Fincher movie that just dropped on Netflix.



With The Killer, David Fincher proves that self-awareness is a necessary but not a sufficient element of a compelling satire. Yes, on a basic level, this movie knows what it is doing: it deconstructs the "silent assassin" archetype with a pretentious, self-congratulating protagonist who lives a less-than-glamorous existence renting AirBnBs and ordering Amazon packages. It occasionally mocks the pseudo-philosophy of teenage nihilists with cliché-ridden monologues, and it indulges in mundanities and anticlimaxes in order to demystify the type of lifestyle it portrays. So please Fincherites, don't say I didn't get it.

But again, self-awareness isn't all it takes to make good satire. The problem here is that the satire just isn't particularly sharp or consistent. The character of the killer is no Leon, but he's also reasonably competent and slick. As a result, the movie stops short of disrespecting its protagonist as much as he deserves. And as with most crime thrillers that ostensibly condemn the actions of their antiheroes, this allows the killer to have a little too much control and power to be truly laughable. I'm not asking for the movie to turn him into a slapstick goofball-- but if this is truly a middle finger directed at people who unironically identify with Tyler Durden, I'm afraid the satire at play here is perhaps too subtle. The movie's conclusion especially feels unearned, and it somewhat undermines its central criticism of the killer's choices and worldview.

My lack of enthusiasm for The Killer might be due to having just seen Killers of the Flower Moon, a movie that unequivocally succeeds in condemning and deprecating its criminal protagonist. And the film is still completely watchable as a simple stripped-down thriller. I was just personally hoping for a movie that did more with this gimmick-- a gimmick I found interesting when I first heard about it, and to which this screenplay seemed afraid of committing itself.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Currently watching The Empire Strikes Back on ABC rn

[T'Chenka]

1960 - The Apartment - 9.5 / 10

2003 - Oldboy - 8.5 (almost 9.0) / 10
2008 - Milk - 8.5 (almost 9.0) / 10

2023 - The Holdovers - 8.0 / 10

2016 - The Handmaiden - 8.0 (almost 7.5) / 10

2008 - Frost/Nixon - 7.0 / 10
2017 - First Reformed - 7.0 / 10

1999 - 10 Things I Hate About You - 6.5 / 10
1992 - Single White Female - 6.5 / 10

1983 - The Right Stuff - 6.5 (almost 6.0) / 10

2020 - Borat Subsequent Moviefilm - 6.0 / 10

2015 - Eddie The Eagle - 6.0 (almost 5.5) / 10

[T'Chenka]

The Holdovers
2023
director Alexander Payne

Paul Giamatti, Dominic Sessa, Da'Vine Joy Randolph,
Brady Hepner, Michael Provost, Jim Kaplan,
Ian Dolley, Naheem Garcia, Carrie Preston

8.0 / 10

Another banger from Alexander Payne. Giamatti and Payne are the stars of the show here; the lead performance and directing are both great and they carry the film on their shoulders. Sessa has a career ahead of him, I think. Randolph is IMO being overhyped and over-praised, but yes, she's good in this role. The screenplay meanders throughout the film a little bit, but it starts strong, ends strong, and has a lot of strength throughout the film. Editing and musical score were both decent IMO.

Overall: strong recommendation as a crowd pleaser drama with sprinkles of comedy that everybody will like or love, but probably nobody will have as their best film of the year. Don't expect a masterpiece but you'll probably like it. There's a lot of buzz about people saying this is one of their favourite Christmas movies now, and they're going to watch it every holiday season from now on.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Saw the first Lupin film earlier.
Was a great experience. 9 out of 10.

[GoTfan]

Saw Songbirds and Snakes last night. Not bad for a first date.

All told, I think that, much like the book, too much is crammed into too short a timeframe to make it believable. I didn't buy the love story in it because there was so little time for it to develop. Tom Blyth and Rachel Zegler were fantastic though. I still pretty firmly believe that Zegler's got a great career ahead of her, if not as an actress then as a singer; her voice is something else.

I have always said that Mockingjay did not need to be split into two parts. If one entry could have benefited from being in two parts, it was this one. They tried to cram too much into too short a time frame and it ended up all the weaker for it.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I've got a few movies I saw the first time (will try to keep them brief):

-'The Baby:' I try not to post about the weird, obscure, cult films I tend to watch since I imagine so few of you care, but I sought out this one because of a  B-movie podcast I listen to declared it the best movie they covered on the show (it's called Trash in the Can-check it out if you're interested in bad movies, like I am). It was definitely an interesting film, and not really bad or too obvious of a low-budget at all, but it was way too padded to reach the runtime it wanted to. It has a really intriguing premise involving a social worker working on a case featuring a grown man who behaves like a toddler, and features a truly jaw-dropping twist ending. I just wish it was a 'Twilight Zone' short or something instead of the ninety minute feature length film it was. It would have been much more satisfying to me. That aside, it was still worth watching as a truly bizarre film like this only could have been made in the 1970's, and is kind of a neat time capsule of exploitation movies of the time. I still recommend it to anyone morbidly curious. Just feel free to fast forward through some of the agonizingly slow scenes where almost nothing happens.

-'Malcolm X:' This Spike Lee biopic reminded me a lot of a Scorcese film, and appropriately it turns out Scorcese once taught Lee at NYU film school. I can't say that I liked it as much as I like certain Socrcese films, it's a fairly typical (though very well-made) biopic about Malcolm X's life. What elevates it is Denzel f***ing Washington's performance. The guy is truly one of the most charismatic men alive, even still today. He makes this three hour biopic worth it, you just can't take your eyes off him and more than deserved his Oscar for this role.

-'Sisu:' Probably my favorite film of 2023 so far that I've seen. Imagine a Quentin Tarantino film (specifically 'Inglorious Basterds' and/or one of his spaghetti westerns) blended together with 'John Wick,' 'First Blood,' and a splash of 'Mad Max: Fury Road.' It's a simple revenge film about a Finnish prospector who crosses paths with Nazis during World War II and naturally, much violence ensues. It's increasingly absurd and unrealistic as it goes along, but is just such an incredibly satisfying action film in the end, and kind of what the doctor ordered in this time where it's very complicated to be a Jew. The protagonist isn't a Jew, but when isn't it fun to see Nazis get torn to shreds by anyone? Not only that but it's also an incredibly pretty film too. I suppose it's hard to make the otherworldly Finnish Lapland look ugly, but it contrasts well with the gratuitous amount of blood and gore that ends up blanketing the bucolic landscape. I also found it an interesting choice to have the Nazis all speak English while our protagonist remains silent (until the very end of the film) and the other Finnish characters speak their native language.

My only gripe is that we see our protagonist using his pick-axe throughout the film, yet never shatters a Nazi's skull with it. Big wasted opportunity there to me. Check it out though, it's f***ing badass, dumb, fantastical fun. Also it's only ninety minutes long! I seriously thought this film would be longer. It looks like the kind of film that would be.

Also I want to address two recent trailers I came across:

-Netflix's 'Avatar: The Last Airbender:' It certainly appears more authentic and probably balances the tones from the series better than the Shyamalan disaster, but it still feels pointless to me when the animated series its based on is such a masterpiece.

-Yorgos Lanthimos' 'Poor Things:' This looks insane. Like Wes Anderson and Terry Gilliam saturated with Lanthimos' signature twistedness on top of everything. I am very eager to see it.

I also really want to see 'The Holdovers.' I heard its Alexander Payne returning to form, which is more than welcome since he is one of my favorite directors.