28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[baby doll]

Okay.



*Still never watches it.*

*Still doesn't have Netflix.*

[Grouchy]

Speed Racer is a glorious film. I first watched it on IMAX under the influence of LSD. I recommend this approach.

[Skitch]

Speed Racer is a glorious film. I first watched it on IMAX under the influence of LSD. I recommend this approach.

Holy lord I bet that ruled. Unfortunately Speed Racer came out after my drug days ended lol. I can imagine it though.

[Ezee E]

Can't think of a movie this decade that caught on like Speed Racer did with Match Cut.

Match Cut is getting old.

[Dukefrukem]

Tree of Life?

[Ezee E]

Tree of Life?

VERY old.

[Dukefrukem]

Prometheus?

[Grouchy]

I hate both those movies.

[Dead & Messed Up]

SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS

[spoilers]

I bet I would've liked this more if I saw it immediately after In Bruges; instead, I saw it in short order after watching Three Billboards, and so a lot of my misgivings about that film are in their nascent stages here. Like the way he has American characters speaking in English cunt/fag slang, or the way he can't resist throwing the word "nigger" into what is otherwise the film's peak - a confrontation between Harrelson and Linda Bright Clay (Walken's wife in-film). Or the way he'll often chuck in revelation/coincidence that surprises but doesn't actually develop or deepen the story. The most obvious example is that Colin Farrell has no kind of meaningful reaction to learning his best friend is a psychopathic murderer. If the joke is that this flip only gets some passing revulsion rather than any sort of interior reflection or reconsideration of morality. Instead, it's about as irrelevant as the reveal that Walken's character is the killer who slit his own throat to escape the Quaker. Which means... what, exactly? And perhaps most infuriating is that McDonagh, rather than allowing any interesting female characters, makes a boys movie and then inserts a moment where one boy says to the other boy, "Hey, your female characters are shoddy props," and the other boy shrugs and says, "Whoops."

That said, I have to admit that the movie has many small moments of effective tension, like in the opening sequence where McDonagh plays with foreground/background, or the mentioned scene in the hospital where Harrelson catches on to Clay's evasive language. And individual lines and sequences carry some of the grace and humor that McDonagh's chasing. I hesitate to recommend it, but I equally hesitate to not recommend the flick.

But now I'm really, really hesitant to return to IN BRUGES, which I sorta loved at the time... but now I wonder if it hoodwinked me by acting like movies I loved instead of earning my love the old-fashioned way. By being good on its own terms.

IN BRUGES - A- (at the time)
SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS - B-
THREE BILLBOARDS - C+

[Skitch]

No no, In Bruges holds up. I've watched several times. I haven't seen Seven Psychopaths yet, but I agree with you on In Bruges and 3 Billboards scores.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, I've watched In Bruges a lot and it's still great.

Seven Psychopaths is a good movie, just not as good. His brother's films The Guard and Calvary are better.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Guest director: Martin McDonagh

[Lazlo]

More Cannes/Netflix drama for this year.

Netflix's model continues to be annoying compared to Amazon's but the big sad news here is that the new films from Cuarón, Greengrass, and Saulnier are Netflix releases and therefore won't be in any theaters near most people. Shameful.

[Skitch]

Shameful.

Shameful on who?

Netflix allows these filmmakers to make their mid-tier budget films that they obviously couldn't get set up at a studio. Shame on the studios and their broke dick system.

[Lazlo]

Shameful on who?

Netflix allows these filmmakers to make their mid-tier budget films that they obviously couldn't get set up at a studio. Shame on the studios and their broke dick system.

Fair point, but the way they just pump things out with minimal fanfare and refuse to do any sort of meaningful theatrical release is frustrating. Surely they could both line their content shelves AND give filmmakers the opportunity to have their work seen in a theatrical setting.

[baby doll]

Even before Netflix, films typically made most of their money on home video with festivals and theatrical release serving to generate press coverage and consequently viewer awareness so that the films stand out when they go to video. The French law is clearly a protectionist move that benefits theatre owners at the expense of evil corporations like Netflix. Which is evil, by the way, and I hate it, though I'm glad they chipped in to finish The Other Side of the Wind. I guess evil corporations do good things some times. But as I like watching movies in theatres and have no truck with Netflix, because it's an evil corporation and I hate it and the selection of films they have is depressingly limited, I'm siding with the French on this. Plus, it's not like Cannes has to give their films a competition slot.

[Grouchy]

Even before Netflix, films typically made most of their money on home video with festivals and theatrical release serving to generate press coverage and consequently viewer awareness so that the films stand out when they go to video. The French law is clearly a protectionist move that benefits theatre owners at the expense of evil corporations like Netflix. Which is evil, by the way, and I hate it, though I'm glad they chipped in to finish The Other Side of the Wind. I guess evil corporations do good things some times. But as I like watching movies in theatres and have no truck with Netflix, because it's an evil corporation and I hate it and the selection of films they have is depressingly limited, I'm siding with the French on this. Plus, it's not like Cannes has to give their films a competition slot.

This post is funny precisely because Netflix is becoming a haven for independent-minded films that studios are unwilling to cash out for. None but the studios is to "blame" for the rise of Netflix, and the audience response only proves this point further.

[Skitch]

Seriously. Can some of you not see the disparity between the Disney-type mega corporation audience tested only for money designed movies and the indy any way you can get it made films? You hardcore cinephiles should be in Netflix's camp over Cannes.

[baby doll]

This post is funny precisely because Netflix is becoming a haven for independent-minded films that studios are unwilling to cash out for. None but the studios is to "blame" for the rise of Netflix, and the audience response only proves this point further.

I suppose it depends a lot on what you mean by independent (or independent-minded). If you mean small scale but fundamentally classical narrative films (i.e., the sort of mid-range films the studios used to turn out regularly but have largely given up on over the past twenty years), maybe I can see your point, but if we're talking about filmmakers like Pedro Costa, Lav Diaz, and Carlos Reygadas, then not so much (unless I've missed something)--to say nothing all the pre-1980 Hollywood films that aren't on Netflix. Seen in the broader context of Netflix's awfulness, the new Welles film is obviously an aberration.

[transmogrifier]

Netflix are funding mid-tier films because they don't really give a crap about quality - they are trying to pad their library to hide the fact that they are losing chunks of their library, and they are basically crossing their fingers that enough movies will click critically that they can drum up publicity and get more people to sign up. Now, clever film-makers will be able to use this system to their advantage and produce idiosyncratic, ambitious films - but there is no way Netflix deserves any credit as some kind of creative force. They are content hoarders who get lucky occasionally and trade in on the fact that they have a far more recognizable brand name than most studios to the regular public.

[Lazlo]

To be clear, I'm glad the movies are getting made and that I'll get to see them in some form. But if I'm not mistaken some of them are acquisitions, not direct Netflix productions. So the fact that Netflix has come in and just outbid other distributers, those who would put the movie in a theater, sticks in my craw a bit. It's one aspect of the continued devaluation of move theaters that's a depressing trend to me. Amazon's model is so much more preferable.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Netflix are funding mid-tier films because they don't really give a crap about quality - they are trying to pad their library to hide the fact that they are losing chunks of their library, and they are basically crossing their fingers that enough movies will click critically that they can drum up publicity and get more people to sign up. Now, clever film-makers will be able to use this system to their advantage and produce idiosyncratic, ambitious films - but there is no way Netflix deserves any credit as some kind of creative force. They are content hoarders who get lucky occasionally and trade in on the fact that they have a far more recognizable brand name than most studios to the regular public.

Yep. Their game is clearly not in quality control. Their goal is to have such a "content" advantage (ugh, that word) that their nearest competitors will simply fall by the wayside. While it's not at the level of Disney's shameless amassing of IPs and franchises and public domain, the aim is the same: market victory through quantity, not quality.

[Grouchy]

I suppose it depends a lot on what you mean by independent (or independent-minded). If you mean small scale but fundamentally classical narrative films (i.e., the sort of mid-range films the studios used to turn out regularly but have largely given up on over the past twenty years), maybe I can see your point, but if we're talking about filmmakers like Pedro Costa, Lav Diaz, and Carlos Reygadas, then not so much (unless I've missed something)--to say nothing all the pre-1980 Hollywood films that aren't on Netflix. Seen in the broader context of Netflix's awfulness, the new Welles film is obviously an aberration.

What I mean is obvious - I mean movies that cost money but are not a sure bet nor are they based on a property that already has a wide appeal. I mean films like the ones made by Scorsese, Bambauch, Greengrass, Cuarón, DuVernay, Bong, etc. I think this exodus should be a bit evident by now. Guys like Costa and Reygadas typically use smaller budgets and their styles are labeled "special interest" even amongst film buffs. I mean, I consider myself pretty open minded and I hate Reygadas.

What trans says about padding the library might be true but in my opinion it doesn't directly affect the quality of the films which depends on the filmmakers, their ambition and their talent. If this was the '70s you guys would be saying "that Roger Corman guy sucks, his production model just doesn't give a crap about quality".

[Dukefrukem]

Yep. Their game is clearly not in quality control. Their goal is to have such a "content" advantage (ugh, that word) that their nearest competitors will simply fall by the wayside. While it's not at the level of Disney's shameless amassing of IPs and franchises and public domain, the aim is the same: market victory through quantity, not quality.

Doesn't it depend what you mean by quality though? If netflix gives a filmmaker $100 million to do whatever the fuck they want to do with a movie giving them complete creative control, opposed to Disney who barely trust their directors to do anything radical as they are too afraid to lose out on their ROI, where do we draw the line at quality? Give the audience what they think they want? or let the creative juices flow?

[baby doll]

What I mean is obvious - I mean movies that cost money but are not a sure bet nor are they based on a property that already has a wide appeal. I mean films like the ones made by Scorsese, Bambauch, Greengrass, Cuarón, DuVernay, Bong, etc. I think this exodus should be a bit evident by now. Guys like Costa and Reygadas typically use smaller budgets and their styles are labeled "special interest" even amongst film buffs. I mean, I consider myself pretty open minded and I hate Reygadas.

What trans says about padding the library might be true but in my opinion it doesn't directly affect the quality of the films which depends on the filmmakers, their ambition and their talent. If this was the '70s you guys would be saying "that Roger Corman guy sucks, his production model just doesn't give a crap about quality".

Regardless of whether or not one likes certain directors, the point is it's nice to have a choice. As Dave Kehr pointed out a number of years ago, a lot of classic films by the likes of Oshima and Sembène that were released on VHS never made it to DVD, and the films that made it to Blu-Ray represent an even narrower slice of film history. (As far as I can tell, no film by Naruse Mikio is currently available on Blu-Ray with English subtitles.) Netflix simply represents an intensification of this winnowing down of film history, with films that were on Netflix in the past disappearing into the ether. Speaking of Corman, I'd be very surprised if either of the two Monte Hellman westerns he produced, Ride in the Whirlwind and The Shooting, was available on Netflix.