MicShazam

I've found that to be typical of people who don't watch movies much, or only watch the most mainstream movies (so just nearly all regular people). The number of times I've heard people complain that a drama movie main character was unlikable...

To a lot of people, a movie is supposed to be about a relatable character overcoming difficulty. Hence why I never really talk about movies with most people I meet, beyond whether they've seen the latest X-men movie or whatever.

The Batlord

Tell your sister that this unattractive ******* says she can kick rocks.

__________________

MicShazam

I better not pass on any of these messages, but she'd just tell you to go **** yourselves anyway

Chula Vista

IT

Pretty solid adaption. Really good acting by the kids invovled.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

Maajo

Saw Downsizing last night at the second-run theater... holy **** was that a quick transition. Anyways, despite the bad reviews, I did want to see this just because it looked like it might have a few good laughs and some entertainment value - not enough to warrant full ticket price or even a matinee really, but it looked intriguing enough. It wasn't half bad. It got a little bit long, they could've shaved 30-40 minutes off of it and it would've been better. There were a couple of characters with some promise that never got fleshed out at all, and the plot is exactly what you think it's going to be from the trailers so it's kind of predictable. It was still worth the $3 and dare I say, the $5 matinee even. I liked the kitschy vibe as as well as the more subtle satirical moments that are scattered throughout the movie, although some things are overemphasized and it gets a little tiring.

MicShazam

Went to see Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri two days ago. I must say I'm pretty disappointed with the movie. It was a complete tonal mess, had a very obvious manner of handling character dialogue and dramatic moments that often felt either hamfisted, sentimentally manipulative, or both. The scene with the deer? Ridiculous and unconvincing. The scene where she scolds the priest? Feels like the director pressing pause on the movie to deliver a self-rightous rant. The movie feels like a less witty, less poignant version of what Tarantino or the Coen Brothers do when at their best. This McDonaugh fellow (the director & writer of this movie) seemingly has a tin-ear for dialogue.

It's also interesting how some people hold up McDormand's character as an anti hero, when it's clear she was a completely unhinged, psychopathic *******. Maybe that's how she was supposed to be read? As a terrible person who legitimizes all her actions by virtue of her grief.

Many have framed the movie as some sort of political allegory for current day USA, but it's a horribly hamfisted one at best and I think the movie is... kind of... terrible...? Maybe not quite that, but I don't think its good.

---



And the other movie I saw most recently: The Man In the Iron Mask. The 1976 version, starring Richard Chamberlain, Ian Holm and more. Aside from how it arguably didn't have much of an aesthetic to it (it's very plainly lit, shot and edited), I found it quite involving. Right from the first scene, where our main character is abducted from his home by armed guards, I was feeling invested in the story. Quite a simple old tale, really, with a sort of silly "let me explain my clever plan to you, the villain. This is how I tricked you! Hah! In your face!" ending that wrapped the movie up nicely but wasn't really the most dramatically stirring climax of any movie ever made.

Still, a good movie to watch if you want to experience that old literary classic in movie form. As with many movies of this sort, I'm now curious about what other movies exist that base themselves on the same book. It was good, but perhaps this movie is not the best version filmed?

Frownland

Yikes. I think you need to watch it 10 times until you can tackle films better and be on my level. The dialogue is a strong point of the film.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

MicShazam

Can't accuse you of lacking confidence. Although you could be improved with a tad less arrogance.

------------------------



Just finished watching first half of a mini-series called Jesus of Nazareth. It is effectively two movies, each of over 3 hours in length. It is directed by Franco Zeffirelli who also oversaw that 1990 Hamlet movie with Mel Gibson that I saw last year.

I'm not religious, but I often find religiously themed movies very interesting. Jesus of Nazareth is by far the most thorough telling of the story of Jesus that I've seen so far. Now that I'm just about halfway through, we've only reached the point where Judas joins the diciples and Herod has just beheaded John the Baptist. Every single plot point of that Mel Gibson Jesus movie I hate so much has yet to come, so I'm very curious how that all plays out in Jesus of Nazareth. It sticks (as far as I can tell) rather close to the Bible, managing to neither come off as sanctimonious, nor as really questioning the material.

It's quite a mouthful and I am cutting it up in four parts to get through more easily. It honestly starts a bit slow, but gets steadily more interesting. I'm thinking it might even be a keeper, when once I'm finally all the way through, which I guess isn't bad for a 6 hours and 22 minutes long movie about Jesus.

Frownland

Wrong. Try again.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

MicShazam

I won't "try again", because that is how I see it.