/tv/ - Movies and Television★

>>347449
Romanticization of the crusty girls; sounds familiar.

I was interested in seeing this one for a while, but I decided to actually watch it once David Lynch was dead. I thought it was perfectly watchable and did a good job exposing Transcendental Meditation for an uninformed person like me but would have preferred less time spent on the director's personal life.

Watched it on tubi. It was kino, Trinity mommy feeding her boy toy tendies. 8/10 better than Warm Bodies.

I was expecting something less conventional, but it's basically a bog-standard Hollywood period movie from that era that just happens to have a strong anti-war theme. I didn't find it to be worth my time.

This is one of the more interesting Bond films I've seen. The characters seem more like real people than usual. Not that they are deep or complex, they just aren't one-dimensional cartoons like you expect in these movies. It has a lot of heart, relatively speaking, as strange as that sounds.
A lot of segments went on longer than they probably should have and the ending was a mess, but that's every Bond film. The real problem is the villains aren't threatening at all. They had two main villains and they decided to make both of them joke characters you're supposed to laugh at. It cheapens the whole thing.
Still, I like it overall. It's by miles my favorite non-Connery Bond movie so far.

>>349479
>they just aren't one-dimensional cartoons like you expect in these movies
It's top 5 Bond but the villains were much more cartoony than before, what are you talking about
>joke characters you're supposed to laugh at
Yeah this is correct, both good actors but given trashy scripts, if they had combined the roles it would've been great, a soviet double agent doing smuggling stuff like Trevelyan did. After all not farfetched, some ruskies did stuff like that and even Zukovsky's character later in the series is an inspiration from that.
Bond was more human due to Dalton doing a good job and getting a decent script that tried to pack too much for its own good to be fair.
>A lot of segments went on longer than they probably should have
This i disagree with, there were too many and some short to be decent, it's two movies mixed into one. Awesome music, has one of the best action sequences in the series too.

Don't really have much to say, but this was more in line with what I would have liked out of Shenandoah. It's grittier and not held back by the standards and conventions of midcentury Hollywood.

As an aside, there are plenty of recognizable actors involved even for someone like me who doesn't watch that many movies from the 2000s. Outside of the starring roles, you've got appearances from Donald Sutherland, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Giovanni Ribisi (who would work with Jude Law again a few years later in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow), Jack White, Natalie Portman, Ethan Suplee, and Cillian Murphy. I'm glad they went with Jude Law for the lead instead of Tom Cruise. The movie was also edited by Walter Murch.

I think Humble Harv made the right choice by putting money into this one.

>>349498
The chick flick of war movies.

>>349503
I'm not that into love stories, but I liked it in spite of it basically being a romance. It focuses more on the way war affects people and communities than strictly portraying specific events from the Civil War.

>>349481
>what are you talking about
I meant more so Bond, the girl, and some of the other "good" characters.

The first 10-15 minutes about him and his girlfriend are BORING
It gets pretty good after that though. Nice little black comedy that had a bigger budget than you usually see for that genre.

>>349508
Oh, yeah i agree with that, the snow Aston Martin i think is a good example of your idea, very goofy alla Moore when previously there was this tension about smuggling the girl out.
Also shit-tier decision not to stay with Gogol as the entire context of Bond's relationship with the KGB director is with him, not Rhys-Davis.
TLD has many spot-on decisions and many bad ones, it packs too many things.

>>349557
Another movie that was all over the place due to trying to do many things but had a memorable ending, also great OST

>>349583
My guess is they knew people would complain about Dalton's seriousness, so they added the goofy stuff to compensate.
>Also shit-tier decision not to stay with Gogol as the entire context of Bond's relationship with the KGB director is with him, not Rhys-Davis.
According to Wikipedia, it was supposed to be Gogol originally, but the actor who played him was ill. They could have just recast him though since they were already recasting Bond and Moneypenny.

>>349682
>My guess is they knew people would complain about Dalton's seriousness
Nigger cattle audience always ruining things, ironically the next movie is hard as nails compared to TLD due to being compared to american action films.
>it was supposed to be Gogol originally, but the actor who played him was ill
He appeared in the movie anyways as a cameo, supposedly they didn't agree on the fee which is silly as he was a pretty active actor, my guess is that they wanted a new younger face, same with Leiter who was recast again in the next movie.
Broccoli was all over the place with the castings and retarded whim decisions, that was well-known even back then particularly in the 80's

Meh. This was okay I guess. Not nearly as good as The Living Daylights. It was almost more like a Dirty Harry movie at points. The (relatively) more grounded approach was interesting, but it made the silly elements (the ninjas, the guy's head popping in the submarine pod) stick out like a sore thumb. The ending at the cult compound was cool though.

>>349898

Loved her then
Love her now
Simple as!

>>349898
Ending was one of the very best in the series, surprised you didn't think so
>the ninjas
Quite grounded compared to Moore era shenanigans
>head popping in the submarine pod
Not only realistic it still is more subdued than Live and Let Die's balloon death
I though you would like it as much as TLD or similarly

>>349900
Would

>>349936
Liar.

I watched Gimme Shelter recently and this not long after. It's basically a film of footage from ABBA's Australian tour with a tacked-on plot to tie things together a bit. The story is centered on a desperate DJ (played by disgraced child molester Robert Hughes) on an assignment to get an interview with ABBA and constantly failing at it until the end of the movie. It's also interspersed with dull man-on-the-street interview footage of him talking to random members of the public about their thoughts on ABBA, most of which isn't exactly insightful, and some more cinematic bits here and there. I thought the reversed footage in the "I'm a Marionette" sequence felt pretty corny and cheap.

I would've preferred something more straightforward, like a more standard concert film or a documentary focusing on the tour with some musical numbers here and there. I don't think it would appeal to someone who doesn't like ABBA's music.

>>349929
I guess I just prefer the globetrotting Bond films.

>>350055
what was the bond movie where it was revealed the girl was a tranny years later

>>350055
That's understandable, i like it too but Bond movies where you can somewhat think it could happen are my meal, even when the overcomplicated set pieces are my most enjoyed bits (TWINE's london boat chase, OHMSS's embassy papers retrieval, TLD's defection & KGB extraction)

>>350058
IIRC it was a bikini party girl in For Your Eyes Only, in a party where Bond meets/sees the henchman.
In that movie the producer did a lot of questionable decisions, not only in allowing the tranny but also making Bond refuse and deny a fit blonde teen from having fun time with him TWICE on the script, also switching Gian Maria Volonte for Topol because the producer's wife had a great evening with the latter despite the role being written with the former in mind, also because both culprits were hardcore jews.
Doesn't help the main Bond girl was pretty cute but had a mustache shadow, and despite all of this the movie was quite decent if a bit grounded for Bond, shame it could've been considerable better. Also introduced Max the Parrot and behind the scenes the producers got to meet Pierce Brosnan who was then placed as a major candidate for successor; he appeared on the radar because he visited his first wife who played a woman who gets banged and indirectly killed by Bond.

The pros:
>very realistic (actual realism, not just pessimistic brutalism)
>suspenseful final act, even if you already know the ending
>above average cinematography
>characteristically English form of dignified, understated pathos
>Michael Redgrave's performance
>one the characters has a dog named "Nigger"

The cons:
>most of the movie is just the planning stages, the actual attack doesn't happen until around the last half hour
>characters aren't very deep
>the two characters who get the most screen time don't directly take part in the final attack
>the dog dies :'(

It can't compare to Intolerance or The Birth of a Nation, but it still was pretty good. I think the ham-fisted sermonizing about Bolshevism at the beginning brings it down a bit, but that sort of thing isn't unusual for D.W. Griffith. I imagine the fact that I got lazy and watched the movie over three days detracted from the experience.

I think I would have liked it better if the version I watched had been restored properly. I found it strangely difficult to find a good rip and just settled on the best one I could find. I've always been curious about watching America, but if I had that much trouble with Orphans of the Storm I don't know how likely it is that I'd be able to track down a nice rip of it.

lol classic

>>350058
For Your Eyes Only (1981) "Caroline Cossey" on the far left.

>>350530
>surrounded by mediocre
Gen x really touted him as a hero

>>350535
They were extras in a scene at some Cuban hitman's pool. It's a publicity photo. Unless you mean Caroline Bouquet is mid

>>350580
Bond sucks but that guy in particular was a total clown.

>>350580
>Unless you mean Caroline Bouquet is mid
I do

>>350615
Is he gay you think?

>>350617
Craig is a shit actor and a shit Bond.
He's a fag for sure

It was alright. I feel like they had a good idea with Eastwood's character, but the execution was clumsy and undercooked. Especially the way it tries to draw parallels between him and the villain, who is also very undercooked. I almost rolled my eyes when the killer tries to murder Clint's love interest, she pulls his mask off, revealing that Clint is the murderer, only for Clint to wake up panting, revealing the whole scenario to be a dream.
The sex scenes with the prostitutes feel jarring too. He goes to question them about other whores who were killed, and then within 30 seconds they're having sex. This happens three times in the movie. It would have been more believable if they let the sexual tension build up more.
It's still a fun movie with some great shots of New Orleans and an interesting take on the usual detective vs. serial killer story. I just wish it could have been made in the 70s instead of the 80s.

>>350630
>I just wish it could have been made in the 70s instead of the 80s.
70s darkness is so much more potent than most 80s darkness with Blue Velvet and a few other films to one side.

Despite being almost 3 hours long, this movie managed to hold my attention the entire time. I enjoyed it quite a bit, even though it's far from perfect.

The acting is all over the place. Myrna Loy is great in this. The only thing I had seen her in before was The Thin Man, so seeing her in a more dramatic part like this caught me off guard. The guy with the hook hands isn't very good. He was a real life veteran who lost his hands in WWII, and not a trained actor. The girl they paired him with isn't great either. She just sort of looks down and whispers the whole time. Thankfully they were smart enough to give these two the least amount of screen time out of all the main characters.

It's fairly standard as far as the direction goes, with a few bits of flare every now and then. Wyler liked to have significant things going on in the foreground and the background at the same time. He does that at least half a dozen times here. I've seen a few other movies he's directed and I don't remember him doing that much anywhere else. Either I forgot about them or this was just a phase he was going through.

The story is engaging and the characters make it more fun than you would expect this sort of story to be. But it does get a little less believable as it goes on. The only part that felt outright phony to me was the scene where the bomber and the guy with hook hands beat up the conscientious objector in the drug store. It feels like a scene from one of those heavy handed 70s sitcoms where they're just trying to get the audience to applaud.
Something about the romance between the bomber and the banker's daughter didn't hit me quite right either. At first it seemed like they were going to go somewhere interesting with it when she tells her parents that she's going break up his unhappy marriage and they respond by explaining, point by point, how foolish she's being. The scene seems to imply that her parents are right. It seems like the bomber and his wife may subvert our expectations and work things out. But when the bomber's marriage does fall apart later on, the daughter is vindicated. It feels dissonant somehow. And while it's implied early on that the bomber's wife is a whore, we never actually see her with other men until after we see the bomber making many strong advances toward the banker's daughter, so it's hard to sympathize with him as much as I think the movie wants you to when she finally divorces him.
But then again, I do post on tvchan, so maybe I just don't understand romance.

>>350715
>The girl they paired him with isn't great either.
Cathy O'Donnell makes a great doe to other young male actors in the 40s. They Live by Night (1948) is her best film

>>350636
I don't understand why '80s horror movies have such a strong following when '70s horror did it better. Is it nostalgia from younger Gen-Xers and the oldest millennials? It does seem like there were way more to watch in the '80s, but something about them generally feels less organic and more cartoonish to me. That doesn't have to be a bad thing, but I don't think it works as well for pure horror. I also think they come across as less timeless.
>>350715
>The only part that felt outright phony to me was the scene where the bomber and the guy with hook hands beat up the conscientious objector in the drug store. It feels like a scene from one of those heavy handed 70s sitcoms where they're just trying to get the audience to applaud.
Yeah, that was by far the worst scene in the movie.

>>350745
>>350745
>I don't understand why '80s horror movies have such a strong following when '70s horror did it better. Is it nostalgia from younger Gen-Xers and the oldest millennials? It does seem like there were way more to watch in the '80s, but something about them generally feels less organic and more cartoonish to me. That doesn't have to be a bad thing, but I don't think it works as well for pure horror. I also think they come across as less timeless.
80s were Reagan optimism after 70s Vietnam/ Watergate pessimism. 70s could be too defeatist at times but yeah 70s was superior to 80s especially the horror movies. 80s was more graphic and cartoonish but less gritty, which is more horrific to me. Too many zombie and Evil Dead camp horror movies in the 80s. I prefer 70s color to 80s color too which contributes to the atmosphere. The Hills Have Eyes and Last House of the Left are better than A Nightmare on Elm Street for example.

>>350746
>Too many zombie and Evil Dead camp horror movies in the 80s.
Yup. I like the first Evil Dead and all, but the series ended up moving too far from horror. I don't necessarily mind a bit of comedy in a horror movie (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre even had some comedic elements that a lot of people didn't seem to notice), but I dislike full-blown horror comedies. I feel like they're just half-assing two genres.

One '80s movie that feels grimier than even most '70s horror movies to me is Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, which is such a repulsive kitchen-sink portrayal of the life of a serial killer that it's not really in line with what most people expect out of a horror movie. It felt like a snuff film when I watched it. I respect how well it was able to elicit such a negative response in me, but that's exactly why I wouldn't recommend it.

>>350746
What basically happened in the '80s is the studios re-asserted control after high-profile flops like Heaven's Gate. The independent directors and creative freedom of the '70s were replaced by corporate slop, focus groups, and movies produced by marketers.

>>350747
Frank Henelotter and the Return of the Living Dead movies too. Henry is a brutal film.
>>350751
True but there were also more indie small studio drive in grindhouse movies in the 70s. 80s was the direct to video era and they are as sterile as the 70s were grimy. Studio reassertion of control is why so many 80s movies had corporate set movies besides all the 80s greed is good social atmosphere at the time that American Psycho harkens back to.
It's also what slowly happened in the music industry from the late 60s to the late 80s and on: Corporate control and suits needing quarterly profits rather than creative gamblers running things. Popular culture used to rely on gamblers trying new things when possible. Test marketed stuff relies on what is already known which doesn't take a risk on new things. Hence why slowly music has been recycled every ten year since the 60s when British did 50s rock with British accents. 70s did 50s-60s rock with cross dressing or safety pins in your nose. 80s did 70s with synthesizers and designer haircuts. 90s did punk with 70s hard rock "style" and 80s pussiness. Brit pop recycled 60s and 70s British rock etc.
Synthesizers and studio technology not to mention CDs extended the suits control of music much as VHS and LD/DVD/BluRay has for movies for a few decades. But cable, blank VHS and internet/computer technology for movies like tape cassettes, CD burning and internet for music have ultimately reduced the suit control to the present day making film and music overwhelming the same shit with a brand new sheen for quick returns. And the 80s was the real beginning of that concentration of elements for music and movies.
"Hitmen" about music industry illustrates this as a parallel to the movie industry. Earlier waves of immigrants to the US in music and movies aspired to assimilation and creativity and culture as well as taking risks since immigration to a foreign land is a gamble and a risk to succeed. Whereas their kids were spoiled egotistical shits to produced less and made more money doing it adding little new or of value to the industries they controlled. But regression to the mean is a problem with children of immigrants as seen today in the Muslim or Latin American immigrant problems. Legal ones at least.
70s-90s comedies for example are nothing that wasn't already done better in the 30s-60s except nudity, swearing and ridiculous outlandish situations that have little relation to reality

>>350770
What's strange is even indie movies from the 80s onward almost never do anything that unique or original. Even the "sophisticated" ones just seem like retreads of the New Hollywood character dramas, except with more hipsterish self-awareness.

I didn't like this at first because it seemed like every time the tension was starting to build the movie would cut to a comedy bit that sucked it all out. But it turned out to be a pretty good thriller once it got going. Robert Shaw is great. I do wish it didn't have quite so many quirky Marvel-tier quips though.

>>350772
I agree. The 'indie" stuff is merely a lower budget sheen on the same stuff. As vulgar as he was, Russ Meyer is more original than Jim Jarmusch who is just Antonioni in America

All around great political drama. Kino direction, strong characters (the secretary stood out to me for some reason), and a plot that is downright Shakespearean. If this movie had been made in Europe, "film buffs" would never shut up about it.