The OtherArena Forum IndexThe OtherArena Forum IndexThe OtherArena Forum Index The OtherArena
"Best not to think about it. I know that's a problem for you... not thinking. " -Steve Yohe
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Yohe's Movie Update
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 80, 81, 82, 83, 84  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The OtherArena Forum Index -> Entertainment
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 3069
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought the first show of WATCHMEN was weak, but it got better & I thought it might become something worthwhile, but the last few were kind of weak. It interesting enough to watch, but nothing special. ---Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jdw
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 17128

PostPosted: Sat Jan 04, 2020 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Mandalorian is exceptional after the disappointment of Skywalker.

Massive kudos to Favreau for creating and largely writing this. It's an amazing balance act that he walks. He keeps things tight with 8 episodes, mostly under 40 minutes each. You'd think the demand would be for 10-12 episodes, and the standard would be 50-60 minutes each, and at the very least 42-44 minutes with the potential of broadcast syndication somewhere down the line. That seems not to have been any part of the plan. Each episode seems to be given the amount of time needed to breath, no less, no more. The season as a whole is also given the episodes it needs, no more and no less. Despite what is tight for a modern limited series in the US, there are a lot of scenes in the season that have room to breath that you don't see these days.

Favreau is extremely ballsy in being willing to go long stretches without dialogue. Mando isn't really a man of words. The Kid isn't a kid of words at all. It's a big refreshing.

Favreau is extremely ballsy in putting the lead character under a mask for the entire freaking season. Steve might appreciate the skill needed by everyone involved to be able to pull this off. It's like having the mask made Dick Beyers learn all sorts of ways to sell things in a made beyond the easy-cheap ones of simple facial expressions. There is no cheat here like Iron Man where we see Downey's face "within" the mask. Here, via script, performance, direction, camera work, and other actors playing off him they were able to convey a Character without him being able to use any facial expressions while also being a man of few words. It frankly is a really good character as Star Wars characters go. That a big chunk of his performance had to be opposite a puppet / CGI character, and at times still other CGI characters, it one hell of a challenge. They really pull it off.

The supporting cast is good. Carl Weathers is freaking 71, and it's really cool to see him get a spot here. I really enjoyed Gina Carano in this. Werner Herzog had nice spots. Giancarlo Esposito has been a great heel actor for some time, it was nice to see him pop up, and will be cool to see him develop.

One the other things that I think Favreau was excellent was in avoiding overbooking this. There was the big surprise at the end of Episode 1 with The Kid that was instantly all over the place on the net once it was revealed. Shows and movies these days are booked to have surprises left and right, so I was worried this would be overbooked with twisty turns in every episode. Favreau really resisted the temptation to book it that way. The heeling went as expected. There were some characters where heel turns would have been shitty given what had gone on, and Favreau didn't screw with them to get cheap pops. There was at least one where it would have been okay given what had happened, but Favreau also ducked that and stayed true to the way the character evolved. You got to the end where it wasn't overbooked, and it just stuck to Story and Character rather than trying for Russo-Booking. That made me happy as heck.

This is in the end a bit what I posted about earlier when talking about Solo - this is in the period after Return of the Jedi and long before Force Awakens. It's off in a corners of the galaxy where things are messy. There are left over Imperial elements trying to carve out their base of power. The post-war Rebels limited characters with one exception, and that one is trying to stay under the radar. There are lots of nods to elements, places and races that have shown up in earlier movies, so it clearly feels part of the verse. But it's also creating it's own spot, it's own history, and it's own story. Something like this could have boiled these 8 parts down into a 2 hour movie, ended up with a good movie that didn't have to get so closely drawn into the Main Line of Star Wars like Solo was. The timing for this wouldn't have worked given when Favreau pitched it, but this type of this would have been smarter in hindsight given what a mess Solo ended up and the damage it caused to the Lucasfilm efforts.

On the other hand, a 2 hour version of this wouldn't have been as good. This really works as it is, as a smaller scale production, that's both tight but has room to breath, is episodic while also has a major arc and secondary arcs. Not everything needs to be a Big Movie and a Big Production. It's really cool this was made, nailed what it wasn't to do so well, and gives hope that more of these can some down the pike.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 3069
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2020 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw MARRIAGE STORY two weeks ago on Netflicks. It's a good movie covering the problems of divorce between two likable people. Acting is good & both Driver & Johanson will probably get nominated, but it's an easy movie to make & that type of movie has been done before. I have trouble getting emotional over two talented, smart, semi-rich people, who create their own problems in life, just because things aren't wonderful. She marries him, because her career is small time, and he is an important director, and then divorces him because he is a important director... and makes her feel small. He is never shown as a bad guy & he never does anything terrible to anyone. Both people have movie star charm & tons of major friends. Driver can't get over the idea of not being around his kid. Fuck be a man....it's over. All kid belong with there mother, and the courts see it that way. Live with it, move on, and get another woman. Basically, when the move ends, that's what they do. If you two were friends, just give the woman everything she wants, and be happy it's over. A wife is supposed to like you & be happy, and if they don't it will be hell having them around. Fuck Lawyers. So I thought the movie was fine to watch & some people can learn from it, but I can't get all emotional over two rich, talented people, living great lives, singing... who are going thru a rocky part of their life story. so ***1/2 Nice but I wouldn't give it a Oscar. It's a movie for upper class people, who can't tolerate minor uncomfortable moments in their lives.

I might have liked it better in a theater. It does make a difference, just like with THE IRISHMAN. Netflicks messes themselves up.--- Steve Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 3069
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2020 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isn't the name Scarlett perfect for a movie star?----Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 3069
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LITTLE WOMEN is a woman's movie. I had to fight myself to not walk out on it. It was killing me. Dialog was shit. Good actors but the writing was terrible. Timothee Chalamett was the worst. It was like spending two hours sitting around with my grand daughters. The ending was better & the death & the romance worked for me. I am a very romantic kind of guy. I give it *** because women probably love it & I don't want to piss them off. Not on my best picture list & the strongest scene is in the trailer. ---Steve Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 3069
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I haven't gone to many movies this year. Went thru long periods where there was nothing I wanted to see. I see 2019 as a terrible year for movies. I'm wondering how there going to explain not nominating the Avenger movie, when most people loved it. Not me, but it pretty much worked & was hard to make. Let the casual movie go'er have something to root for.

I'm thinking that 1917 has to a good movie....I'm hoping anyway. My top 6 so far:

1-JOKER
2-ONCE UPON A TIME...IN AMERICA
3-THE KING (Netflicks)
4-FORD VS FERRARI
5- THE HIGHWAYMEN (Netflicks)
6-THE TWO POPES

Now I go watch the GG. ---Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 3069
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 12:04 am    Post subject: 1917 rules 2019. Reply with quote

The Golden Globes got it right, 1917 is a movie more that worthy of the Best Picture. It is a cinematography masterpiece. ****1/3. It's as close to a perfect movie as you can get. Ranks with the best war movies of all time. See 1917 in IMAX. --- Steve Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 3069
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1917 has the gimmick that gives the film the appearance of being one long big cut. One unedited scene that seems like actual time. Something rarely tried in history. Of course, it isn't. I worried about that going in. But I have to say the gimmick editing never takes away from the story. It draws you in & makes you feel the reality of the film. It's all very smooth, and brings something to the film, and works. After the film starts, I rarely thought of anything but the story. --- Steve Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 3069
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bought & watched the DVD of THE LIGHTHOUSE last night. This black & white film would seem like something I would like, but I was very disappointed. Good acting & I could see the director making a good film at some point, but it is not entertaining & is depressing. Have no idea what the message was. Showed off dialog of the period & they thought they were writing something major, and I didn't care. **9/10. The horror stuff wasn't working for me. Two Tom's drinking & jerking off on the high seas.

I can see Robert Pattinson as Batman. I think he has the tools, if they attempt to stick with the JOKER style or maybe any style. Anything will be better than the last one. ---Steve Yohe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 3069
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PARASITE a Korean film with sub-titles has been getting push for Best Picture Oscar this Sunday, so I went to see what the big push was about. It's a well made good movie & interesting & fun to watch. I thought it was going to be a movie about class warfare with two families learning to be together, but that was wrong. But it's about a poor family of conmen who lie their way into jobs with a rich family. At first it works for both sides, until the poor family goes over the line. The movie goes from being a Gary Grant type comedy, to Alfred Hitchcock, and ends up as a Sam Peckinpah movie. I liked it ***2/3. But it's not the Best Movie of the year. My money is on 1917. This is worthy of a nomination. --- Steve Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jdw
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 17128

PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve Yohe wrote:
MAD MAX: FURY ROAD is a film I'll like more as I watch it over and over. It's a major film. But I have trouble seeing any actor other than Mel Gibson as Max. It bugs the shit out of me. It's like a “Man With No Name” film without Clint Eastwood. Tom Hardy is a good actor, but he isn't yet a major movie star. I know Gibson ate with Hardy & gave his permission...and Gibson sat with Miller at the premiere & liked the film. But it bugs me. Gibson being old might have fit in well with the plot. All the leaders and bosses were old farts, who lead because they lived in the civilized age & knew shit. Gibson would have been a cool old guy who also had lived thru everything. Anyway George Miller fills the film with a world filled with Heavy Medal references to Richard Corben, Moebius, and John Ford. I think he is one of the great directors. Wish he'd work faster. I don't think this is as good as ROAD WARRIOR or BEYOND THUNDERDOME, but it's major ****1/4. Charlize Theron's role was set up to steal the movie & she almost does.


Watched this again last night... the first time in a couple of years.

It holds up. The earlier Mad Max movies are like jobber films compared to this, and that's while admitting they are perfectly okay smaller movies. Fury Road is like art... it's that well crafted on every level.

The one who kind of steals the movie is Nux. There's so much shit going on that his character arc and his performance is about the 10th thing you notice when watching it. But they put a good amount of thought into it, and the performer really nails it well turning from the early dipshit into a sad figure into having his own hero moments. Really quite good.

Theron isn't set up to steal the movie. She's set up to be the movie, as much as Max is. They are literally billed as co-leads in that old school fashion where one is slightly above the other, while the other is on the "left" (i.e. first read) side. She's flatout fantastic in it. It's funny that she got nominated this year for a lesser role, yet this one got ignore. A ton of strong acting without being able to convey her thoughts through words. She's terrific.

I'm glad it was Hardy in this rather than Gibson. I don't need to see the jerk off methods that Miller would have had to go through to cover for a 60 year old Gibson having to be carried through this. Hardy nailed it, convey well a character who is quite fucked up and not at all in touch with much of his own humanity beyond survival. I love his arc of reaching a point of not just helping Furiosa in her redemption, but also finding his own.

The craft that went into it is well rewarded by all the Oscars it pulled in.

Just a great movie that still feels like an impossible miracle of a movie all these years later.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 3069
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Without the first three films, this one would never had been made. The 2nd changed the culture....good or bad. Fucked up pro wrestling for sure.

All four are different, all four are good films. Have you ever seen ROAD WARRIOR in 70MM?

I like Gibson. Great guy. He was a huge star at one time. I liked his films. He's a good director. As a movie star I liked him a lot. Nothing you say can change that. Because I'm right.

Couldn't you just review the film over again, without bring back my old fucked up review. You went looking for that thing? You & Ken, as far as I know, are the only ones who read them.--- Steve Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Steve Yohe



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 3069
Location: Wonderful Montebello CA

PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nux was played by Nicholas Hoult, who was the lead in TOLKIEN, a movie you would hate to see, but he was really good in it. He also is The Beast in the X-Men movies, but they suck. ---Yohe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jdw
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 17128

PostPosted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve Yohe wrote:
Couldn't you just review the film over again, without bring back my old fucked up review. You went looking for that thing?


I was trying to remember what we both said about it 5 years ago. I was surprised that I said nothing about it since I loved it at the time.


Quote:
Without the first three films, this one would never had been made.


I get that. That's always the case with sequels and remakes.


Quote:
All four are different, all four are good films.


I agree. I said the prior three were perfectly okay smaller movies. Fury Road is art compared to them.


Quote:
Have you ever seen ROAD WARRIOR in 70MM?


Like I remember what I saw The Road Warrior in nearly 40 years ago.

On Tuesday, I watched Fury Road on my TV and it was art. :)


Quote:
I like Gibson. Great guy. He was a huge star at one time. I liked his films. He's a good director. As a movie star I liked him a lot. Nothing you say can change that.


I get that, other than the "great guy" thing, which is just you fucking around with a poor joke.

But the rest is a bit like saying I love Sean Connery and I don't want to watch a Bond movie without him. Connery was 76 in 2006 when Casino Royal came out. At the time, I'd rather see a non-famous Daniel Craig give it a crack than rolling out old man Sean.

That's what I felt about Fury Road. Mel was old. I don't want to see him running around doing an epic Mad Max movie at that time. I also liked Hardy a good deal by that point, thinking he acted circles around an overrated Gandolfini the year before in The Drop. I was ready for seeing what he could do in this, and thought he was really good. Theron was terrific, and they play off each other really well.

Yeah, I know who Nux is going all the way back to when he was the kid in About A Boy. Often things are first impressions, and the character is really a dipshit to start and sucking in Max's blood on top of that. It's hard to shake that impression, even as you "get" that the character changes over the course of the movie. What struck me hear was how really good his performance and the character was.


Because I'm right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jdw
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 17128

PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spoilers...



I liked The Witcher a decent amount. Not saying it's great~! or the it was without flaw... but I liked it.

Getting to the biggest issue some people had with it: the Timeline.

I get that it was jarring to some folks once they realized that the three primary characters weren't moving along the same timeline until Episode 5 (when Geralt & Yennefer align) and Episode 8 (when they fully align with Ciri). In fact if you hadn't read the stories/books, you would have known things were "out of time" until Episode 4.

I find it cool for few reasons:

First, this lets them pull from various parts of 8 of the original 13 short stories to build the first season while also having Ciri there right from the start. I kind of like the original Sword of Destiny story where we first meet Ciri, but given how they were diverging the timeline, they had to adjust how they pulled elements of that story into the series. So I like how they were able to have Ciri's story develop across the 8 episodes rather than be backloaded.

I also like how they were able to get elements of her backstory/origin into the season while at the same time having her story "current". The out-of-time timeline let them do that in a fashion that wasn't a flashback. The backstory with Calanthe, Ciri's parents, Eist, and Mousesack is in Geralt "current" timeline. I like that.

In turn, it also allows them to get in Yennefer's backstory in "real time" rather than as a flashback or as a lot of dialogue.

All this isn't unique. Dunkirk is similar in being out-of-time, with several storylines taking place in their own "real time", each moving forward, eventually to link up / join at various times to a point where at the end they are all on the same time. I think we as viewers should be able to handle this, whether a read of the stories or not.

If you haven't read the stories, I think it's a pretty cool "Oh... wait" once you get to Episode 4, and then start wondering when everything will get synched. I think they're smart to instantly go into the next episode to the story that links up Yennefer and Geralt. Just well laid out.

* * * * *

The first season lightly touches on bigger political issues. This isn't Game of Thrones, which eventually ate Martin up to the point he's stuck. This is more traditional Fantasy and Sword & Sorcery, where there's some political, some twistyness, lots of action, lots of personal interaction, and if you're lucky some character growth.

They out-of-time aspect enhances some of the twistiness. In the early parts of Ciri's storyline, you think Calanthe is a heroic good grandmother. By Geralt's timeline, you learn that she really isn't very good. Eventually in Ciri's you get that point as well.

The novels that follow the short stories get more complicated, and eventually may be more difficult to adapt. The final book could be tricky. But the effort could be interesting.

* * * * *

The cast is perfectly fine. Cavill is very solid. Chalotra is good as Yennefer. Freya Allan is solid as Ciri. Joey Batey is good humor as the bard. The overall acting isn't off the charts, but you don't watch Sword & Sorcery for that. You just need some solid work, some proper over-the-top or theatrical stuff, and you're fine. This hits those.

* * * * *

The production was decent. Some stuff is going to have to be CGI. The effects were okay. Costumes were solid.

* * * * *

Again, overall I liked it and look forward to the next season.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The OtherArena Forum Index -> Entertainment All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 80, 81, 82, 83, 84  Next
Page 81 of 84

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
The OtherArena topic RSS feed 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group