Movies | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Movies

Scoop

Tiger Legend
Dec 8, 2004
25,008
14,270
Leave the World Behind, on Netflix. Stars Julia Roberts, Ethan Hawke and Mahershela Ali, with a Kevin Bacon cameo. Pretty good (apart from the deer).
Yeah, I didn’t mind it. Not an all timer but shows how fragile America is.

Saltburn, I don’t know where to start. Creepy, disgusting, perverted but brilliant. Can’t decide if I hated it or loved it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

tigersnake

Tear 'em apart
Sep 10, 2003
23,747
12,242
Leave the World Behind, on Netflix. Stars Julia Roberts, Ethan Hawke and Mahershela Ali, with a Kevin Bacon cameo. Pretty good (apart from the deer).
Liked it a lot. A few flaws, what hollywood film with big stars isn't, a lot of Coburgs knocks are legit but apply to every hollywood film ever made, but some real strong points and highlights. I never really had an opinion on Julia Roberts, but she is getting better with age.

Recently watched Nitram, story of Martin Bryant, had avoided it for obvious reasons but incredible film. I couldn't fault it. One of those amazing stories that could never be made up. I was glad they didn't show the ending that we all know about. The film is his life story until that point. Made by the same guy who made Snowtown which I have also avoided but is also apparently excellent.
 

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
30,113
12,531
Yeah, I didn’t mind it. Not an all timer but shows how fragile America is.

Saltburn, I don’t know where to start. Creepy, disgusting, perverted but brilliant. Can’t decide if I hated it or loved it.
I watched Saltburn and certainly didn’t love it! Just felt like it was trying to be disgusting for shock value. When it wasn’t trying to be disgusting was just boring.
 

tigersnake

Tear 'em apart
Sep 10, 2003
23,747
12,242
Here's a random fil-related rant. Recently watched 2 films about pop music phenomena, Taylor Swift and Milli Vanilli. Bear with me, I've always found pop music culturally very interesting, some I hate, some I like, some I love, but its all interesting culturally. Huge selling pop music has often been dismissed as disposable, lacking depth and sung by artists with limited talent, and sometimes that is true, usually it isn't. The Monkees for example, a marketing-driven creation, but they actually became good. The Bay City Rollers I would say are in the no talent category, then there are the uber-talented like MJ and Beyonce.

So Taylor Swift, if you haven't heard of her you have been living under a rock, Swiftmania for tickets, made a $ billion in 23, a $billion in a calander year! She is obviously a great show woman, and great business woman, but talent-wise I was amazed. She cannot dance, at all, nothing. All she does is strut to the beat, and she makes that look hard. Song-wise, I got bored and skipped every half hour, I wanted to understand, I know its an old-man cliche but it all sounded like the same song, for 3 hours. Every single thing, every facial expression, every movement, every eye-gaze, every apparent impromptu joke is rehearsed within an inch, millimetre, of its life, and stiff as a board. I fully understand I am not the market, but I'm a fan of pop artists who I am not the market for, and usually I can appreciate it on some level even if I don't like it, but I'm at a loss here. I still found the film interesting because I think we are looking at the widest chasm ever, by far, in the money to talent ratio,

Milli Vanilli, good film. Those poor kids, who just wanted to be pop stars, were chewed-up and spat out by an evil German record producer who made most of the money and got-off scott free while they became a pariah to the point of suicide. Amazing and tragic story, recommended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Coburgtiger

Tiger Legend
May 7, 2012
5,049
7,270
With the greatest of respect, either you haven't seen many films this year, OR usually only watch French art films.

A good story, no matter the budget or format, lives through its characters.

This particular story tries to survive through the charisma of the actors playing the characters.

It's a vacuous reflection of substance.

Not a single character in the movie behaves like a human being, has any form of arc or growth, or has any depth beyond their labels of 'bored wife' 'dopey dad' 'teenager' 'Guy' and 'Guy's daughter'.

I get that there was supposed to be an element of satire in the nuclear family, but you have to actually make a point with satire, not just be the thing you're satirising.
*Choppy zoom in for discomfort*

I suppose setting up dimensionless characters would be okay in an apocalyptic action movie. But this is designed as some sort of character based thriller. The majority of the movie is dialogue shot in a single location. But the tension and character interactions amount to sitting around in a mansion saying.
'Oh no, what's happening, my phone isn't working. Do you know what's happening?'
'Maybe I know something, but I'm a flawed person who can't trust, so I won't tell you. Oh no, my phone isn't working, do you know something?'
*Violin screeches*

I think what irritated me is the faux depth. It felt like a two hour long Jayden Smith tweet. 'Is The World Even Real When You Are Looking At Your Phone. America Is An Illusion.'
*Flip camera sideways to show that we're looking at the world sideways*
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tigersnake

Tear 'em apart
Sep 10, 2003
23,747
12,242
A good story, no matter the budget or format, lives through its characters.

This particular story tries to survive through the charisma of the actors playing the characters.

It's a vacuous reflection of substance.

Not a single character in the movie behaves like a human being, has any form of arc or growth, or has any depth beyond their labels of 'bored wife' 'dopey dad' 'teenager' 'Guy' and 'Guy's daughter'.

I get that there was supposed to be an element of satire in the nuclear family, but you have to actually make a point with satire, not just be the thing you're satirising.
*Choppy zoom in for discomfort*

I suppose setting up dimensionless characters would be okay in an apocalyptic action movie. But this is designed as some sort of character based thriller. The majority of the movie is dialogue shot in a single location. But the tension and character interactions amount to sitting around in a mansion saying.
'Oh no, what's happening, my phone isn't working. Do you know what's happening?'
'Maybe I know something, but I'm a flawed person who can't trust, so I won't tell you. Oh no, my phone isn't working, do you know something?'
*Violin screeches*

I think what irritated me is the faux depth. It felt like a two hour long Jayden Smith tweet. 'Is The World Even Real When You Are Looking At Your Phone. America Is An Illusion.'
*Flip camera sideways to show that we're looking at the world sideways*
Dumb? fair enough, but dumbest of the year by far? The level of dumb is standard at worst, more intelligent than most at best. What are our comparisons? Cocaine bear? Any super hero film? Thats why the french art film comment, compared to Euro films, and if its the only hollywood film you see, fair enough, dumb as dogshit. But I'd challenge you to watch a random sample of 20 American films and argue that.

I have to say my expectations of Hollywood films are extremely low. If I make the choice to watch one, as long as there are a few interesting elements, I'm happy. Thats putting aside the guilty pleasure, so bad its good, I want to watch something brainless factor, 'that was crap, but I enjoyed it', which is a whole different thing. To take your argument to its endpoint, no character really behaves like a real person ever. Nobody ever has conversations in real life like they do in the movies.

I don't know if the characters must be developed for the film to be good necessarily holds all the time. Its definately a factor sure. But European films tend to have good character development, but can be dull as dishwater. Hollywood films often have little or no character development but can be entertaining. Oppenheimer for example, I liked it, not much character development, but you'd be hard pressed to find a better story, so IMO it was hard to stuff-up. I liked it, but it could have been done much better.

I liked LTWB, but I'll admit there were bits when I was thinking 'thats very well done', and bits where I was thinking 'come off it'. And that reflected the bits when they behaved like real people, albiet hollywoodish,, and when they didn't.

Like I said, I don't altogether disagree with you, but there has to be context and reference points. I found the film, and this discussion, interesting.
 

MD Jazz

Don't understand football? Talk to the hand.
Feb 3, 2017
13,524
14,049
I have to say my expectations of Hollywood films are extremely low. If I make the choice to watch one, as long as there are a few interesting elements, I'm happy. Thats putting aside the guilty pleasure, so bad its good, I want to watch something brainless factor, 'that was crap, but I enjoyed it', which is a whole different thing. To take your argument to its endpoint, no character really behaves like a real person ever. Nobody ever has conversations in real life like they do in the movies.
Agree with this. I watch movies almost exclusively to be entertained. I didn't really like LTWB much.

For reality and mental stimulation I'll watch documentaries.
 

Coburgtiger

Tiger Legend
May 7, 2012
5,049
7,270
Dumb? fair enough, but dumbest of the year by far? The level of dumb is standard at worst, more intelligent than most at best. What are our comparisons? Cocaine bear? Any super hero film? Thats why the french art film comment, compared to Euro films, and if its the only hollywood film you see, fair enough, dumb as dogshit. But I'd challenge you to watch a random sample of 20 American films and argue that.

I have to say my expectations of Hollywood films are extremely low. If I make the choice to watch one, as long as there are a few interesting elements, I'm happy. Thats putting aside the guilty pleasure, so bad its good, I want to watch something brainless factor, 'that was crap, but I enjoyed it', which is a whole different thing. To take your argument to its endpoint, no character really behaves like a real person ever. Nobody ever has conversations in real life like they do in the movies.

I don't know if the characters must be developed for the film to be good necessarily holds all the time. Its definately a factor sure. But European films tend to have good character development, but can be dull as dishwater. Hollywood films often have little or no character development but can be entertaining. Oppenheimer for example, I liked it, not much character development, but you'd be hard pressed to find a better story, so IMO it was hard to stuff-up. I liked it, but it could have been done much better.

I liked LTWB, but I'll admit there were bits when I was thinking 'thats very well done', and bits where I was thinking 'come off it'. And that reflected the bits when they behaved like real people, albiet hollywoodish,, and when they didn't.

Like I said, I don't altogether disagree with you, but there has to be context and reference points. I found the film, and this discussion, interesting.
I get what you're saying, and I agree with a lot of it.

I think the point your raise about Cocaine Bear is interesting.

Could I argue that LTWB is dumber than Cocaine Bear? Not seriously. I'd like to try.

But I didn't watch it because it advertised exactly what it was. I was able to dodge the dumb. So, yes, hyperbole in my statement. I guess it was the dumb masquerading as high brow that triggered me. Though, I imagine you could actually understand the bear's motivations.

Perhaps it was the dumbness gap between expectation and reality that was so significant.

And I think in any story, the character development is critical to its value, though there are genres where it matters more or less. Weirdly, superhero movies actually tend to do this pretty well (other than DC movies), though have serious shortcomings elsewhere (usually plot).

This issue with LTWB is that it doesn't really have a plot, or at least, it's not plot driven. The spend most of the run time sitting in a house wondering whether the world is ending. It should be a character piece. But it isn't. If it is a thriller, then you should at least care about the characters.

Anyway, just my opinion, other people will think my media is dumb, I'm sure.
 

tigersnake

Tear 'em apart
Sep 10, 2003
23,747
12,242
Anyway, just my opinion, other people will think my media is dumb, I'm sure.
There are no wrong answers. I agree it had a bit of an identity crisis, but IMO that helped as well as hindered it. A big part of what interests me is the subject, how affluent western society people react to rapid social breakdown, that interests me. ( I also love prison films). A bunch of make believe comic book characters with pretend super powers fighting each other in imaginary worlds? Who cares?, especially when its been done to death for 30 years. The odd one, fine, but the constant stream says to me that we are a society out of ideas.

I don't want to be a spoiler, but IMO some parts of LTWB were razor sharp, some were OK, some dumb. And another KPI, it has stayed with me more than half an hour!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Coburgtiger

Tiger Legend
May 7, 2012
5,049
7,270
There are no wrong answers. I agree it had a bit of an identity crisis, but IMO that helped as well as hindered it. A big part of what interests me is the subject, how affluent western society people react to rapid social breakdown, that interests me. ( I also love prison films). A bunch of make believe comic book characters with pretend super powers fighting each other in imaginary worlds? Who cares?, especially when its been done to death for 30 years. The odd one, fine, but the constant stream says to me that we are a society out of ideas.

I don't want to be a spoiler, but IMO some parts of LTWB were razor sharp, some were OK, some dumb. And another KPI, it has stayed with me more than half an hour!
When comics (or comic book movies) are done well, like Sci fi or fantasy, the super powers, the enemies, the technology, whatever are supposed to be stand ins for real world quandaries/dynamics/philosophical/ethical issues. They can explore ideas without the constraints or rigidity of mundane reality, but should stay grounded in it.

I don't think the fact that a movie is a comic book movie indicates a lack of ideas. It should be a fertile ground for new ideas. But throwing a comic book character into a bad movie doesn't make it less bad. Hollywood worked out that it makes it more profitable though, hence the proliferation of awful comic book movies.

To me LTWB is just as much a cynical Hollywood placeholder as Superman vs Godzilla. I doubt anyone would have watched it had it not been for the big name actors (who were/are excellent).
 

Ricemagic

Tiger Superstar
Feb 8, 2021
2,038
2,244
58
A Spanish film "Society of the Snow" on Netflix. I'm not going to say much about it other than it's a different version of the American film Alive from 1993.

We have hit the 50 year mark for that tragic story in the Uruguayan Andes :cry:

Screenshot_20240108_223714_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
30,113
12,531
Poor Things on Disney+. Gave it 20 minutes, rubbish.

Ricky Stanicky (filmed here in Melbourne last year), woefully unfunny. John Cena was surprisingly good as the title character but for a comedy was painfully short of laughs.
 

artball

labels are for canned food
Jul 30, 2013
7,014
6,527
I've been avoiding Napoleon but gave it a look last night.
What a pile of historically incorrect garbage.
With a script like Bold and the Beautiful.
You have to wonder why it was made? and casting 50 year old Phoenix (who was asleep) to play a 20 year old?
After 15 minutes I went onto the computer, after 30 minutes turned it off.
What an absolute stinker.
No wonder the French nearly rioted upon its release.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
30,113
12,531
Ferrari on Paramount+ (free trial), very quick to hit the streaming service. Just focuses on a short period of Ferraris life in ‘57. Well acted, looked great but ultimately falls flat, a bit dull.