28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Skitch]

Star Trek: TMP is the best Star Trek film.

[StuSmallz]

What we've watched the last couple of nights...

Star Trek: The Motion Picture
This is really good and I don't get why it is so polarizing. It feels as truly Star Trek as you can get - hard sci fi with big ideas. It wears its inspirations on its sleeve (2001, Forbidden Planet), and does cool new things with effects and visuals. And man, that musical score is legendary. Incredible stuff.

Sorry; I'm something of a Trekkie, but I still felt TMP was a pretty dull first movie for the series, since it kind of feels to me the way I imagine the people who think 2001 is boring feel about that, you know?

[megladon8]

I get it, I just don't agree. I don't find it boring at all.

Same with 2001. When someone says they think 2001 is boring, I expect their top 10 favorite movies to include a lot of stuff by Michael Bay and McG.

[StuSmallz]

I get it, I just don't agree. I don't find it boring at all.

Same with 2001. When someone says they think 2001 is boring, I expect their top 10 favorite movies to include a lot of stuff by Michael Bay and McG.

Eh, for me Undiscovered Country has always been the best Trek (out of the ones I've seen, at least), since it did the best job of balancing the underlying optimism of Rodenberry's vision with the more popcorn-y thrills needed to entertain the non-Trekkies out there.

[StuSmallz]

For Frodo.

[

Show Spoiler

Why is it so hard for movie trilogies to come to a strong end? Sure, there are trilogies that START strong, and even continue that way for a while, like in the cases of The Godfather, The Dark Knight, and the original Star Wars trilogies, but even the best of these still always seem to pewter out to a certain extent by their third entry, having already exhausted their best material beforehand... all of them, that is, except for one. Yes, in case you somehow hadn't figured it out by now, that one trilogy is Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings, and that expectation-shattering third entry is The Return Of The King, a fantastic conclusion to what has become one of film's definitive series, and a modern, generation-defining classic in its own right.

After beginning with the disturbing tale of Gollum's origins (in a sequence that was wisely moved from The Two Towers to here), King picks up right where the previous film left off, with the kingdom of Rohan having defeated Saruman's forces, Merry & Pippin reuniting with the rest of the fellowship, and Sam, Frodo, and a seemingly helpful Gollum making for an uneasy alliance, as the trio trudge ever closer to the dark land of Mordor, where the War Of The Ring, and the fate of Middle Earth itself, will be decided once and for all.

So, just like the way that Towers upped its scale from the comparatively "small" Fellowship, King continues in the same direction, with the scope of its story becoming just about as epic as epic gets, but not in a numbing, overwhelming manner, but in a way that fully showcases the power of a visual medium like film, as Jackson and company bring Tolkien's words to awe-inspiring life, with Howard Shore's sweeping score, the lavish, lovingly detailed sets, and endless fields of the forces of good and evil stretching out as far as the eye of Sauron can see, as they fight back-and-forth for the fate of an entire planet in some of the most gargantuan battle scenes ever filmed.

Of course, the scale of such a story wouldn't matter at all if we didn't care about the individuals caught up in it, but Jackson never loses sight of the characters within the struggle, superbly balancing the epic with the intimate, as he's not afraid to slow down and focus on relatable human struggles, whether it be the tragic sub-plot of Faramir and his distant father Denethor, King Theoden's elevation of Eowyn to be the future ruler of their kingdom (as a sort of way to make up for the death of his son in the previous film), or the final steps of Sam & Frodo's arduous journey, which sees them reach the darkest of places, both in a physical sense, as well as a spiritual one, as the corruption of the One Ring threatens to be finally be too much for Frodo to bear anymore.

But, good does ultimately triumph here, and while the seemingly endless "false endings" of King have become a bit of a running joke since its release, I feel that they're well-earned here, since they give the sense of events having come around full circle for the fellowship, as the hobbits finally reach the end of their long journey where they started, back in the warm sunshine of the Shire, enjoying a much-deserved rest, just like Return Of The King enjoyed a much-deserved torrent of awards and praise, as it eternally secured the cinematic legacy of Lord Of The Rings, once, and for all. One ring to bind them, and one trilogy to rule them all, baby!

]

Final Score: 9

[

Show Spoiler

​Sorry, baby doll!

]

[DFA1979]

I'm too lazy to look for the thread or whatever but The King's Man was a mess and definitely is (so far) the worst movie I've seen from 2021. That and Eternals which bored the ever living hell out of me for most of it's run time.

[Skitch]

Yeah the Eternals was a chore to get through. And at the end once all was revealed, I asked myself, "but do you care?"

No. The answer was no. I did not.

[StuSmallz]

Okay, I was too tough on Iron Man 3: Our chief film critic A.A. Dowd revisits the one C+ he's never lived down

[StuSmallz]

The Quiet Terror Of Alien: How sound (or lack of it) builds the Sci-Fi Horror film’s seminal scares

[megladon8]

Revisited Serpico last night.
Did Lumet ever do any films that had anything interesting going on visually or stylistically? I've seen several and they all seem based around dynamite scripts and performances, but with incredibly boring visual direction.

[Skitch]

Interesting question. Looking over his filmography, 1. I'm ashamed I havent seen more because Ive really liked everything I've seen, but 2. it seems like he has a talent/knack/choice of selecting work that is primarily set in singular locations? Maybe I'm wrong.

[megladon8]

Interesting question. Looking over his filmography, 1. I'm ashamed I havent seen more because Ive really liked everything I've seen, but 2. it seems like he has a talent/knack/choice of selecting work that is primarily set in singular locations? Maybe I'm wrong.

You may be right, Skitch. I think he did quite a bit of work with stage as well as adapting stage works to screen. So that would make sense.

His visual direction seems to be purely functional. Which is...fine. But not really what I personally go to movies for.

It reminds me of an interview I saw with Peter Bogdanovich on TCM, where he was discussing his favorite films. I forget the exact context of the comment, but at one point he said, "...and to this day, that's all that movies really are. Just people talking."

And I remember thinking, "gotta disagree with you there, bud."

The idea of reducing such an incredible visual medium like film down to "it's just people talking" has always felt asinine to me.

Anyways, my point being, I wonder if Lumet came from a similar school of thought.

[Skitch]

I can't disagree with your opinion...but I am fascinated by movies that are originated by plays. Noises Off! is brilliant

[megladon8]

I can't disagree with your opinion...but I am fascinated by movies that are originated by plays. Noises Off! is brilliant

I agree 100% and I love them, too.

I'm just saying to reduce the entire art form and medium down to "it's people talking" doesn't make sense to me.

[megladon8]

Sam Elliot sure has some feelings about Power of the Dog.

Yeeeesh.

Not a good look.

[baby doll]

You may be right, Skitch. I think he did quite a bit of work with stage as well as adapting stage works to screen. So that would make sense.

His visual direction seems to be purely functional. Which is...fine. But not really what I personally go to movies for.

It reminds me of an interview I saw with Peter Bogdanovich on TCM, where he was discussing his favorite films. I forget the exact context of the comment, but at one point he said, "...and to this day, that's all that movies really are. Just people talking."

And I remember thinking, "gotta disagree with you there, bud."

The idea of reducing such an incredible visual medium like film down to "it's just people talking" has always felt asinine to me.

Anyways, my point being, I wonder if Lumet came from a similar school of thought.

Films of people talking aren't inherently less "cinematic" than films consisting mainly of physical action; there are lots of ways to film people talking, some more dynamic than others. His Girl Friday is one of the talkiest films ever made but Hawks keeps his actors in constant motion, whereas contemporary action movies--e.g., any film by Peter Jackson or Christopher Nolan--tend toward visual monotony: static scenes of expository dialogue punctuated by illegible action scenes. Bodganovich's films seem to me more impressive visually than Lumet's, as the former was trying to revive a classical tradition that Lumet--especially in his earlier, more visually emphatic films, such as The Pawnbroker--helped to kill off before calming down somewhat in his later films, but both are largely at the mercy of their scripts. My favourite Bodganovich films are currently The Last Picture Show, Saint Jack, and The Cat's Meow; my favourite Lumets are Dog Day Afternoon, Find Me Guilty, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, but there's still a lot I haven't seen by both directors.

[DFA1979]

Yeah the Eternals was a chore to get through. And at the end once all was revealed, I asked myself, "but do you care?"

No. The answer was no. I did not.

It is literally what people accuse MCU films of all being haha. I now know how they feel. Plus contrasting it with Shang Chai which is just tons of fun.

[megladon8]

Films of people talking aren't inherently less "cinematic" than films consisting mainly of physical action; there are lots of ways to film people talking, some more dynamic than others. His Girl Friday is one of the talkiest films ever made but Hawks keeps his actors in constant motion, whereas contemporary action movies--e.g., any film by Peter Jackson or Christopher Nolan--tend toward visual monotony: static scenes of expository dialogue punctuated by illegible action scenes. Bodganovich's films seem to me more impressive visually than Lumet's, as the former was trying to revive a classical tradition that Lumet--especially in his earlier, more visually emphatic films, such as The Pawnbroker--helped to kill off before calming down somewhat in his later films, but both are largely at the mercy of their scripts. My favourite Bodganovich films are currently The Last Picture Show, Saint Jack, and The Cat's Meow; my favourite Lumets are Dog Day Afternoon, Find Me Guilty, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, but there's still a lot I haven't seen by both directors.

It's not physical action I'm talking about, though. Lumet doesn't do anything interesting with the camera. Close and medium shots, stock angles, no real visual style.

His films are vehicles for the scripts and performances with zero flare.

[baby doll]

It's not physical action I'm talking about, though. Lumet doesn't do anything interesting with the camera. Close and medium shots, stock angles, no real visual style.

His films are vehicles for the scripts and performances with zero flare.

Considering how overbearing Lumet's style in his early films, it's probably for the best he toned it down in his later work, where (notwithstanding the flashy transitions in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, to cite only the first example that comes to mind) he seems to concentrate his creative efforts more on the films' mise en scène than the camera: e.g., the highly purposeful colour-coding in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. I wouldn't make any great claims for Lumet as a director, but his stylistic choices strike me as far more thought out and purposeful than most of the Hollywood directors who've followed in his wake. Incidentally his book Making Movies is very much worth a read.

[DFA1979]

I've liked all of what I've seem from Lumet so far. Some of his movies are dialogue driven which is fine with me. Dog Day Afternoon is probably one of the best bank heist hostage flicks I've ever seen and I love 12 Angry Men.

[Skitch]

It is literally what people accuse MCU films of all being haha. I now know how they feel. Plus contrasting it with Shang Chai which is just tons of fun.

Yeah I had fun with Shang Chai! And I knew nothing about either that or Eternals going in.

[Skitch]

I hate when I'm scrolling around and 12 Angry Men is on because whether theres 90 minutes left or 10, I have to watch it. It's nearly a rain man situation. Wonper! Wopner!

[megladon8]

Yeah Skitch can never say no to 12 Angry Men.

[megladon8]

Lol pwned

[StuSmallz]

Revisited Serpico last night.
Did Lumet ever do any films that had anything interesting going on visually or stylistically? I've seen several and they all seem based around dynamite scripts and performances, but with incredibly boring visual direction.

What about 12 Angry Men, where, according to this...

At the beginning of the film, the cameras are positioned above eye level and mounted with wide-angle lenses, to give the appearance of greater depth between subjects, but as the film progresses the focal length of the lenses is gradually increased. By the end of the film, nearly everyone is shown in closeup, using telephoto lenses from a lower angle, which decreases or "shortens" depth of field. Lumet stated that his intention in using these techniques with cinematographer Boris Kaufman was to create a nearly palpable claustrophobia.