Movies you've recently watched

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Yeah, there was an opportunity with TFA to create likable new characters to take the torch from the old ones, but for some reason they tried to accelerate the process immediately and make a longterm problem, you can't keep running back the same old faces forever, into an immediate crisis. It's inexplicable to me they didn't error on the side of exploiting the shit out of Mark Hamill. Now they're purported new stars want nothing to do with it either... and nobody cares.

You know, the worst part is I actually think they did a great job casting Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver and John Boyega in their respectives roles. If the writing and directing had been handled better the franchise could be soaring to new heights right now. Maybe it's like you said and they wanted to go too fast, but I also think at the core of it there's a problem of competence. Abrams just went for the "big feels" without caring about constructing a coherent storyline that would actually support a trilogy. Looking back, I have a newfound appreciation for the kind of reverence and care Peter Jackson showed with The Lord of the Rings.

This has always been the Star Wars EU's problem; the only civilian occupation/creed is smuggler or bounty hunter. I'm strangely fine with that on this program because it's just scrawling in the margins to give me the old school, low stakes Star Wars adventure of the week rather than rehashing the already settled SKYWALKER SAGA and Palpatine for the umpteenth and least interesting time, likely with disastrously bad results.

Personally I have as much investment in any of these characters as I had in Phasma (I had to look the name up). And I find the premise of baby Yoda nonsensical, but I don't care enough to be bothered by it.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
You know, the worst part is I actually think they did a great job casting Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver and John Boyega in their respectives roles. If the writing and directing had been handled better the franchise could be soaring to new heights right now. Maybe it's like you said and they wanted to go too fast, but I also think at the core of it there's a problem of competence. Abrams just went for the "big feels" without caring about constructing a coherent storyline that would actually support a trilogy.

Agreed, it's amazing they got the new cast right, arguably the hardest part, and squandered it anyway. Anyway, to me Abrams is "just" a director, and one with the good taste to at least bring on Kasdan when he knew he had nothing (putting the whole enchilada on him now for this movie is something even he clearly knew he wasn't up for). I've always put the failure of this project on the new Lucasfilm and the hilariously named "story group" that clearly didn't care about crafting a good, pleasing or even coherent story so seemingly did nothing to do so. I don't know what their purpose was other than casting more diverse characters because the movies are riddled with the type of incongruity and clash of visions you'd want a story committee to smooth over in the first place. That's how you end up doing a sequel trilogy without even reuniting the cast and putting Luke Skywalker in a story cage until he expires before the third movie even rolls around.

Now they basically have nothing after this. Their next two streaming shows star characters that are already dead! Even the GoT guys ditched them. Who's left in the stable? Rian Johnson!? They might end up making the prequel era look more viable considering all the Clone Wars content they milked out of it. Jon Favs and Kevin Feige will be running this thing by the time the next movie comes out, it's already in motion. I just wonder if the Marvelization of Star Wars will be an improvement or make these messy times look like more creatively credible efforts that simply didn't work out. If there's anything we've learned with Star Wars, it can always get worse.

Looking back, I have a newfound appreciation for the kind of reverence and care Peter Jackson showed with The Lord of the Rings.

Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Stop the presses! I should have just ignored everything else and just quoted this for posterity. =) But yeah, even though he went down his own dark road with the Hobbit movies I have to agree.

Personally I have as much investment in any of these characters as I had in Phasma (I had to look the name up). And I find the premise of baby Yoda nonsensical, but I don't care enough to be bothered by it.

Well, I like them particularly because I don't feel like I'm being asked to invest in them, Mando's just a repainted Boba Fett toy they didn't even bother making up a new name for and baby Yoda probably is a literal clone of Yoda, which will become so problematic they might as well bring in Luuke. Hopefully they won't ruin this for me when they do reveal both of them and act like I should feel something about it. I only like it as the Star Wars show about nothing. =)
 
Last edited:

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
Anyway, to me Abrams is "just" a director, and one with the good taste to at least bring on Kasdan when he knew he had nothing (putting the whole enchilada on him now for this movie is something even he clearly knew he wasn't up for). I've always put the failure of this project on the new Lucasfilm and the hilariously named "story group" that clearly didn't care about crafting a good, pleasing or even coherent story so seemingly did nothing to do so.

Agreed about Abrams. Regarding the "story group" thing, I have to admit I haven't bothered looking into how they worked behind the scenes so I know nothing about it. Well, except that whoever was on it clearly sucked at their job.

Now they basically have nothing after this. Their next two streaming shows star characters that are already dead! Even the GoT guys ditched them. Who's left in the stable? Rian Johnson!? They might end up making the prequel era look more viable considering all the Clone Wars content they milked out of it. Jon Favs and Kevin Feige will be running this thing by the time the next movie comes out, it's already in motion. I just wonder if the Marvelization of Star Wars will be an improvement or make these messy times look like more creatively credible efforts that simply didn't work out. If there's anything we've learned with Star Wars, it can always get worse.

Haha yeah Johnson seems out to prove The Last Jedi wasn't deeply flawed by making more Star Wars movies. Maybe doing his own thing from beginning to end will work better for him? Whatever. As for Feige, you know, I honestly think the new trilogy would have been less bad had he been in charge. Say what you want about him; he managed to make characters like Captain America and Thor relevant in theaters in the 21st century and pulled off an incredibly successful adaptation of the Infinity Wars. The Marvel formula might be stale by now but the guy is a miracle worker.

Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Stop the presses! I should have just ignored everything else and just quoted this for posterity. =) But yeah, even though he went down his own dark road with the Hobbit movies I have to agree.

Let's pretend the Hobbit adaptation doesn't exist. =)
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Agreed about Abrams. Regarding the "story group" thing, I have to admit I haven't bothered looking into how they worked behind the scenes so I know nothing about it. Well, except that whoever was on it clearly sucked at their job.

That's about all I know other than they exist, or at least they did (many have been canned/restructured since TLJ and Solo, naturally). The big article about them in the NYTs is all about increasing diversity, a lofty and noble goal, but one that won't be effective if you give those characters short shrift in the story department, like what happened to Finn in TLJ (Rey didn't get very meaty material either for that matter). Like Abrams, Kennedy is just a producer, so they have to rely heavily on their writers' judgement, and that's a problem if you trust the wrong one(s), especially when you have so many competing visions, voices and agendas that aren't necessarily, "do the best that can be done with Star Wars and its characters."

Haha yeah Johnson seems out to prove The Last Jedi wasn't deeply flawed by making more Star Wars movies. Maybe doing his own thing from beginning to end will work better for him? Whatever.

He actually strikes me as delusionally arrogant on the matter despite seeming like a personable fellow, and I believe in his talent too, I just thought TLJ was TOO MUCH his own personal preferences over what made sense. So, he'll be fine, I guess. He'll probably make an interesting Star Wars on his own if he ever gets there because he basically already made the mainline Star Wars his own thing. He did everything to make his movie definitive but kill Kylo Ren, that final scene was like the thematic ending to Star Wars. It goes both ways too, if Abrams was to properly follow up on that then Kylo Ren and co should be destroyed by a new generation of force adepts led by Rey, but it doesn't look like they're doing anything with that.

As for Feige, you know, I honestly think the new trilogy would have been less bad had he been in charge. Say what you want about him; he managed to make characters like Captain America and Thor relevant in theaters in the 21st century and pulled off an incredibly successful adaptation of the Infinity Wars. The Marvel formula might be stale by now but the guy is a miracle worker.

Yeah, and the thing is, a lot of the stuff in those movies is actually quite daring and inventive, but he makes it look easy.

Let's pretend the Hobbit adaptation doesn't exist. =)

I think that's what society is collectively doing. Speaking of which, given what we know that did survive Lucas' Episode VII treatment into the new trilogy, self-exiled Luke, his female padawan, a Solo offspring turned Jedi killer, it would be interesting to see those elements edited into an episode VII more like that vision; Episode VII: Recauterized! Ah, forget it. =)

Actually, one thing I am curious about is if they'll ever release those Lucas treatments sometime after the new trilogy is out or if they'll keep those in reserve or hidden forever. I'm guessing the latter. The best scenario, and something I could see Feige doing is letting Lucas actually make them under certain conditions. Their next streaming show should really be an anthology where they invite different top tier filmmakers to take their own crack at telling the best Star Wars story they can in about an hour. That'd potentially be a lot more interesting and successful than what they're currently doing with the property.
 

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
The fact that we're even comparing latter-day Terminator movies with Star Wars' trajectory is a sobering legacy conversation to be having right before IX drops :ganishka:

The distinction Dark Fate has over Solo, or perhaps The Rise of Skywalker will prove a better comparison, is the return of the series original creator. This is the elephant in the room, because as much as George Lucas fucked up the prequels and Star Wars itself, it was his to do so, and what's the point of Star Wars, particularly a safe, mediocre Star Wars, if it's not coming from him somehow, even indirectly like the old EU? It's like, do I care about Terminator not made by Jim Cameron? Is there a compelling argument for it? Not really. I think the same is proving true with Star Wars, it just took a while because everybody was happy to kick Lucas to the curb after the prequels, but at this point I'd rather experience George's bad ideas than Disney's endless lack of them. Even if they sucked, at least they'd be interesting and have some sense of authenticity.

In practice, I completely agree. But ironically, speaking as the resident Disney Ruins Everything spokesperson, I don't agree with this in principle -- at least insofar as storytelling is concerned. Is Stan Lee the only person suitable to tell an authentic Spider-man story? Or Bob Kane for Batman (maybe Frank Miller, lol) ? Nobody is reading Detective Comics #938 and thinking: Oh my god, ANOTHER one?

In the case of Terminator and Star Wars, what makes them arguably different is that they were converted (by way of money and exhaustion) from auteur stories to franchise stories. Lucas and Cameron had finite stories to tell, they told them, and then money convinced them there was suddenly A LOT more to tell, just as long as they weren't involved anymore. This makes them structurally different from comics, whose natural order is torch-passing storytelling. But rhetorically speaking, I think the problem is in the execution, not the business arrangement. It's up to each and every shitty title by the team in charge to bring fresh and exciting meat to the old bones. How far removed each writer/director is from the source auteur shouldn't matter as long as the material itself is high quality.

If comics can make that process palatable, why not movies? I can't readily answer that.

But I do think that time-distance is a factor that influences how these franchise attempts are received, and where they are ultimately situated in pop culture. Take those ancient comic properties, for example. Indeed, no one is complaining about yet another issue of Detective Comics, but that's because after 80 years, it's riding along a worn, smooth (quiet) track in pop culture for expectations. It doesn't have to reinvent itself (citation needed). It can just be. By contrast, Star Wars is in the throes of attempting to reinvent itself, with each move incinerating nerds, and I think we can already see how that's going. Terminator ... well, I'd call that more of a death rattle at this point than a movement. But I wouldn't take any bets on Star Wars Episode 938.

This is a long way of saying I think — in principle — a great story is a great story, regardless of its DNA. I've just yet to encounter a movie iteration that doesn't choke on the stink of its own franchise-conversion money pit. But I'm open to the possibility.

The thing that's been off to me since the post-Lucas films started is how truly average they are as action adventure movies.

This has been genuinely surprising to me, since I thought you liked TFA and TLJ. Or is your basic position: They aren't bad, they're just fine? I kinda forgot.
 

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
He actually strikes me as delusionally arrogant on the matter despite seeming like a personable fellow, and I believe in his talent too, I just thought TLJ was TOO MUCH his own personal preferences over what made sense.

The very vocal people who've decided his movie is the ultimate Star Wars experience probably aren't helping him get back down to Earth.

Yeah, and the thing is, a lot of the stuff in those movies is actually quite daring and inventive, but he makes it look easy.

Yup.

I think that's what society is collectively doing. Speaking of which, given what we know that did survive Lucas' Episode VII treatment into the new trilogy, self-exiled Luke, his female padawan, a Solo offspring turned Jedi killer, it would be interesting to see those elements edited into an episode VII more like that vision; Episode VII: Recauterized! Ah, forget it. =)

Haha, earlier on I spent an hour imagining what my version of that story would have been. :iva:

Actually, one thing I am curious about is if they'll ever release those Lucas treatments sometime after the new trilogy is out or if they'll keep those in reserve or hidden forever. I'm guessing the latter. The best scenario, and something I could see Feige doing is letting Lucas actually make them under certain conditions. Their next streaming show should really be an anthology where they invite different top tier filmmakers to take their own crack at telling the best Star Wars story they can in about an hour. That'd potentially be a lot more interesting and successful than what they're currently doing with the property.

What if he went at it Avengers-style? Have 10 movies building up various characters then a 4 hours long monster mash super battle. :ganishka:

Take those ancient comic properties, for example. Indeed, no one is complaining about yet another issue of Detective Comics, but that's because after 80 years, it's riding along a worn, smooth (quiet) track in pop culture for expectations.

Let's be honest though: how many of these comics are actually worth reading? 5% of the total?
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
The fact that we're even comparing latter-day Terminator movies with Star Wars' trajectory is a sobering legacy conversation to be having right before IX drops :ganishka:

Yup, but it got your attention!

In practice, I completely agree. But ironically, speaking as the resident Disney Ruins Everything spokesperson, I don't agree with this in principle -- at least insofar as storytelling is concerned. Is Stan Lee the only person suitable to tell an authentic Spider-man story? Or Bob Kane for Batman (maybe Frank Miller, lol) ? Nobody is reading Detective Comics #938 and thinking: Oh my god, ANOTHER one?

Counterpoint: I'm doing SK.net's version of Godwin's Law when it comes to authorship and invoking: Kentarou Miura! Did the Flaming Dragon book just not get it right yet? Maybe the Skully one by some random dude will? =) Also, how many people ARE reading detective comics these days? These are not equally relevant properties, or industries unless you want to count the MCU, currently despite their historical significance, and maybe this is part of the reason why. As Aaz points out, when there's essentially no guaranteed quality control or credibility and most of the stories are forgettable... well, that's not a worthwhile ratio either.

But rhetorically speaking, I think the problem is in the execution, not the business arrangement. It's up to each and every shitty title by the team in charge to bring fresh and exciting meat to the old bones. How far removed each writer/director is from the source auteur shouldn't matter as long as the material itself is high quality.
But I do think that time-distance is a factor that influences how these franchise attempts are received, and where they are ultimately situated in pop culture.

...

Star Wars is in the throes of attempting to reinvent itself, with each move incinerating nerds, and I think we can already see how that's going.

Because of expectations and relativism there's so many more factors influencing one's mileage than objective quality, which is largely subjective itself. You almost have to make something contradictory, old and new, original and nostalgic, to satisfy an audience that wants new adventures of something they also want to adhere to a limited number of recognizable points. That's why I give TFA more credit as an offshoot sequel/revival. It's basically a tribute to A New Hope with a passing the torch plot on top, and maybe that's the best, most genuine and honest, thing you can do in this situation. They didn't even emphasize it as "Episode VII," which it really isn't by the way, it was "The Force Comes Alive" or whatever, and that's fine, we don't have to pretend this is something it's not. It's a new project.

If comics can make that process palatable, why not movies? I can't readily answer that.

If only there were a successful example of the comic book model being translated to film! =)

This is a long way of saying I think — in principle — a great story is a great story, regardless of its DNA. I've just yet to encounter a movie iteration that doesn't choke on the stink of its own franchise-conversion money pit. But I'm open to the possibility.

Like I said, I don't think it's that, because it's not like the writers don't care or aren't trying to do their best regardless of the money, it's just a very difficult proposition for reasons we're not consciously thinking about most of the time. Yes, trying to satisfy everyone or the lowest common denominator is a problem, but I don't know that they've done that either. In any case, how can these guys compete with me watching the original trilogy on VHS with my parents as a kid? How can new YA characters truly appeal to a middle aged man, or a bunch of fat old geezers to adolescents tuning in for the first time? What's the transcendent story that's going to cut through all that BS and won't get disqualified for, "not being a great Star Wars story, though." I don't think it's been done yet, but I'm also not sure we'd even fairly recognize if it was. Even the vague expectation of "a great story" is kind of unfair considering the classics weren't exactly original or brilliantly plotted, they were simple good vs evil takeoffs on pulp serials that we regard like Shakespeare now, at least compared to what's followed.

This has been genuinely surprising to me, since I thought you liked TFA and TLJ. Or is your basic position: They aren't bad, they're just fine? I kinda forgot.

Oh, I don't even know. I didn't like them coming out of the theater and bashed them on the pod, but I warmed up to them some later, at least TFA as a legacy/nostalgia act (seeing a bootleg in SD later, like an old VHS tape, helped =). So, conflicted is the word. I think the more they try to steer toward a new direction like TLJ, or insist "this is the genuine SAGA" like the latest movie, the more I reject it. For me this can only be successful as a separate reunion episode/trip down memory lane, because it is. It's like an old band getting back together; I don't care about your new album, just play the hits (and the band leader/main songwriter isn't even participating, red flag. =). TFA was the closest thing to getting the band back together to play something approximating their classic show. It's pretty literally true too, from the cast, writers, even the sound engineer. That was all different in TLJ because that was seemingly truly Rian Johnson's production, for better or worse.

I've said multiple times this entire sequel project is a fatally flawed mess, but I'm probably deluded to think the new adventures of old Mark Hamill and company was a viable model to pursue instead; how much more embarrassing could it have been to put that into practice? =) I should probably just appreciate I got new moments with Han, Leia, Luke, Vader, Lando and Palpatine at all, spread across these movies, as unlikely as that had become. Really, from that certain-point-of-view they've gone out of their way to please me and I'm still just bitching that these movies can't live up to something that exists only in my mind as an unattainable combination of high pop art and childhood bliss. Good luck sticking the landing, JJ!

The very vocal people who've decided his movie is the ultimate Star Wars experience probably aren't helping him get back down to Earth.

Plus, all the detractors are just toxic nazi chuds from the internet's sewer!

Haha, earlier on I spent an hour imagining what my version of that story would have been. :iva:

I already have, it's TFA minus Starkiller Base, plus Luke, and the fight between him and Ren is real. If they'd just had him appear earlier in the third act of TFA to help Rey put down Ren it'd have been pretty perfect.

What if he went at it Avengers-style? Have 10 movies building up various characters then a 4 hours long monster mash super battle. :ganishka:

"Whoa, Luuke and Vader Reborn are having a double duel-wielding lightsaber battle!!" It'll be the most badical fight since Guts vs. Zodd II. :zodd:
 
Last edited:

Walter

Administrator
Staff member
Counterpoint: I'm doing SK.net's version of Godwin's Law when it comes to authorship and invoking: Kentarou Miura! Did the Flaming Dragon book just not get it right yet? Maybe the Skully one by some random dude will? =)

:shrug: It's not like I was unaware of examples of shitty authors stepping in on the turf of superior authors' territories and shitting the bed. There is no shortage of such material evidence. Look at what happened to Mass Effect and try not to cry :judo: .

But their existence doesn't negate the point I was making: These titles don't have to be shitty by nature of their distance from their creators. It's up to how the whole thing is executed. For instance, despite all evidence to the contrary, I think there is room for a well-executed Berserk novel, Kentarou Miura or otherwise. The Flame Dragon Knight just wasn't it—to a disastrous degree—and that doesn't bode well for the people in charge of green-lighting such projects. But that doesn't mean it's a brick wall of an opportunity.

Also, how many people ARE reading detective comics these days? These are not equally relevant properties, or industries unless you want to count the MCU, currently despite their historical significance, and maybe this is part of the reason why. As Aaz points out, when there's essentially no guaranteed quality control or credibility and most of the stories are forgettable... well, that's not a worthwhile ratio either.

Likewise, I'm aware of the inherent problem of the comparison. I even elaborated on the discrepancies. But I still think it's educational to question why the endless iteration of comic properties is tolerated where movies aren't.

I think the answer is multifaceted: Comics properties have 1) a more established, if diminutive, place in the market, 2) lowered expectations, and 3) a relatively controlled vision between artist and writer. Whereas for movie properties, 1) franchises are still trying to establish themselves as sustainably palatable, 2) expectations and constraints are juiced by the elaborate financial machinery surrounding the productions, and 3) there's a huge possible variance in quality given the size and scope of the team creating it.

If only there were a successful example of the comic book model being translated to film! =)
The fact that the MCU is among the only breakout successful formulas for adaptation likely isn't a fluke. Not only were they brands that have decades of sustainability on them, audiences were primed for the structure of endless franchise iteration that's inherent to comics. That's gold, Jerry. Armed with that, they sidestepped the "should this exist?" puzzle right out of the gate. Star Wars can't claim to have done that, and neither has Terminator. Hence this discussion.

You almost have to make something contradictory, old and new, original and nostalgic, to satisfy an audience that wants new adventures of something they also want to adhere to a limited number of recognizable points.

I disagree with this mode of thinking. People don't know what they want until they experience it. Anything that tries to tick all of those boxes is pure folly, and it's what's led us to the state that we're in with entertainment—everything for everybody is nothing for no one.

"not being a great Star Wars story, though." I don't think it's been done yet, but I'm also not sure we'd even fairly recognize if it was. Even the vague expectation of "a great story" is kind of unfair considering the classics weren't exactly original or brilliantly plotted, they were simple good vs evil takeoffs on pulp serials that we regard like Shakespeare now, at least compared to what's followed.

You're right, it's not just story. Story certainly didn't put Star Wars on the map. The lightsaber and hyperspace were far more influential than the story. But story encompasses the direction they're taking things, and I erroneously used that as shorthand to refer to the quality of the whole production.

how can these guys compete with me watching the original trilogy on VHS with my parents as a kid? How can new YA characters truly appeal to a middle aged man, or a bunch of fat old geezers to adolescents tuning in for the first time? What's the transcendent story that's going to cut through all that BS and won't get disqualified for, "not being a great Star Wars story, though."

Brass tacks, they can't compete with such a gilded memory, and shouldn't attempt it. But they ARE going to go down that route, and it doesn't necessarily have to be shitty. I just think adhering so closely to the grain of the original (TFA, for example) is the wrong first step to take. Franchises should identify the bones of what worked, then be brave enough to strike out and do something that feels new beyond the inertia of the old. You know, bold. Like The Last Jedi :troll:
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
But their existence doesn't negate the point I was making: These titles don't have to be shitty by nature of their distance from their creators. It's up to how the whole thing is executed.

Sure, it's possible, but usually doesn't turn out well, or is at least fraught and naturally unpalatable unless it's a series or medium meant to be communal, or continued and passed to others from the beginning, like Star Trek (I'm trying to think of a prominent counterexample besides Aliens, and we saw what happened after that). Also, as you point out numerous times, the franchise-zation or perception that something is a pure cash grab is a huge turn off unless it happens to be fantastic, and even then it can be a hurdle.

We've seen this done well with Star Wars in the old EU, most notably the (old, yeesh) Thrawn Trilogy, but the EU naturally occupied a space that was 2nd order of importance, no big deal if it wasn't great, but great if it was, more like the comics model.

The fact that the MCU is among the only breakout successful formulas for adaptation likely isn't a fluke. Not only were they brands that have decades of sustainability on them, audiences were primed for the structure of endless franchise iteration that's inherent to comics. That's gold, Jerry. Armed with that, they sidestepped the "should this exist?" puzzle right out of the gate. Star Wars can't claim to have done that, and neither has Terminator. Hence this discussion.

It took a long time and the right people to unlock that potential though (imagine us talking about video game movies this way someday; comic movies weren't in such a different place). I think another issue you touch on is Marvel is made up of hundreds of unique main characters and stories with tons of history to draw on while Star Wars and Terminator would be like one or maybe a few books they're trying to extrapolate into a universe. That's why the Marvel model didn't take off for Star Wars, though other than the aptly named Solo they didn't really try the solo film route for other popular characters.

It's the same reason Sony trying to do their own shared universe with just Spider-Man, Rhino: The Movie!, seemed so misguided and anemic from conception (if you don't have the universe you want, make a universe out of what you have?). Of course, then Venom happens so we're going to have to endure some form of this project.

I disagree with this mode of thinking. People don't know what they want until they experience it.

So we're told, I happen to be skeptical of that line because it's usually employed by writers that just presented something I know that I DON'T want. =) I agree though, the best work has to surprise you somehow, but not in an unearned, gimmicky way; it also has to be grounded, so it seems audacious but then makes complete sense and is even better the more you think about it (that's more the contradiction I mean, meticulous with flourish). You just didn't see it coming. Stories that can spin you around like that are the best, but too often this mindset leads to throwing random crap at the wall that doesn't stick (e.g. The Terminator franchise).

Anything that tries to tick all of those boxes is pure folly, and it's what's led us to the state that we're in with entertainment—everything for everybody is nothing for no one.

I don't know, I agree with that at the movies, it's all too big and universal now, or super small and indie, there's no more middle ground/class anymore. But elsewhere, particularly streaming television and movies, something for everyone has literally become like a specific show for everyone. There's probably a show about guys debating media on message boards in development as we speak (if not, call me, baby)! :badbone:

As for trying to tick every box, I mean that not so much to be universally appealing as to do something the best it can be done and more. To quote another cliche, anything can be done well. If you can tick all the right boxes AND surprise the audience with something even better than they imagined, basically meet expectations and then exceed them... Congratulations, you're probably Kevin Feige making billions off a bunch of C-list superheroes.

You're right, it's not just story. Story certainly didn't put Star Wars on the map. The lightsaber and hyperspace were far more influential than the story. But story encompasses the direction they're taking things, and I erroneously used that as shorthand to refer to the quality of the whole production.

Well, it's a pretty good dig because they pretty clearly didn't know where they were taking this and were just making it up as they went along, so I guess we'll see where JJ decides to land this thing and if it's going to be bumpy as hell. I'm scared of how he's going to try to surprise us, especially considering how much they're outwardly revealing. Like either it's going to get completely bonkers, or, "This is it, that's all we got."

What's worse, they safely thwart the re-heated Emperor and live happily ever, SAGA RESPECTFULLY CONCLUDED! Or we go all Luuke vs. Kylo Vader Resurrection and Rey is a gender-swapped Palpatine clone meant to be the Emperor's new host body but will travel back in time and become Anakin's mother instead? You just didn't know you wanted this! =)


Hmmm, based on these impressions it doesn't look like they're going the simple route at least.

Brass tacks, they can't compete with such a gilded memory, and shouldn't attempt it. But they ARE going to go down that route, and it doesn't necessarily have to be shitty. I just think adhering so closely to the grain of the original (TFA, for example) is the wrong first step to take. Franchises should identify the bones of what worked, then be brave enough to strike out and do something that feels new beyond the inertia of the old. You know, bold. Like The Last Jedi :troll:

So bold Rian Johnson wrote the whole script in ALL CAPS ARIAL BOLD on his computer! Kill the past, even if you have to repeat the throne room scene from the last Jedi (get it) again in the process, and JJ will literally just bring the past back to life anyway, "You killed my thinly veiled, off-brand Emperor knock off, huh? Well, how about this for killing the past, I'm bringing back the original fucking Emperor now! Revive the past, motherfuckers! This is me being BOLD!"

I've read that a lot of the incongruities in the direction and tone of the story were caused by disagreements between JJ and the Lucasfilm Story Group, there's basically a whole behind the scenes saga where he cut them and their ideas out of the first movie (and he was too big to control and backed by Iger), so then they gutted his vision with Johnson in the second movie, but now he's unexpectedly getting the last word, so it actually wouldn't be that surprising if he outright rebuked TLJ. It's a more interesting war than anything in the actual movies!
 
Last edited:

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
I've read that a lot of the incongruities in the direction and tone of the story were caused by disagreements between JJ and the Lucasfilm Story Group, there's basically a whole behind the scenes saga where he cut them and their ideas out of the first movie (and he was too big to control and backed by Iger), so then they gutted his vision with Johnson in the second movie, but now he's unexpectedly getting the last word, so it actually wouldn't be that surprising if he outright rebuked TLJ. It's a more interesting war than anything in the actual movies!

Shit, no joke I'd rather watch that movie than the Rise of Skywalker. And I'm somehow already rooting for Abrams even though I don't particularly like him. :ganishka:
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Shit, no joke I'd rather watch that movie than the Rise of Skywalker. And I'm somehow already rooting for Abrams even though I don't particularly like him. :ganishka:

Yeah, he's probably the most relatable individual in this kabal anyway, but this certainly turns my perception of him as a company man on its head if on his own he was like, "Fuck your notes, Star Wars is likable force heroes, dark lords and death stars and I'm sticking to that." Plus, whether you like the results, he clearly has a better feel for the pulse of the fanbase, if not the material, "I don’t think that people go to ‘Star Wars’ to be told, ‘This doesn’t matter.’” He's not wrong. =)
 
Last edited:
I'm going to see Rise of Skywalker this Friday in Boston. I'm curious and a bit exciting to watch it on the big screen. It's never the same with meh/ mediocre movies when you watch them afterwards at home on a Blu Ray or streaming platform.

Uncut Gems - Really really good, and Adam Sandler deserves an Oscar nod. If you're not familiar with the Safdie Brothers, check out Good Time. Don't watch the trailer for Uncut Gems, go in blind. It has characters you love, hate, you'll be scratching your head at how annoying someone could be but also root for them at the same time. I watched it with someone who works in the same industry as Sandler's character and he said it was as authentic as it could get. He wondered whether his boss's would ever watch it because it's practically their lives on screen (good and the bad).
 
Joker - Finally watched this. As I'm not one to watch things in the theatre usually, this movie felt like a borderline mythological unicorn that everyone else had seen but eluded me entirely and I really wanted to see it (I'm not really a big movie buff so that says a lot for me). I went in as blind as I could too, having only seen random skits like the stair dance. Holy crap, it is not what I expected and damn did I enjoy it. I felt unnerved the entire time by him and his escalation into madness was downright eerie and weirdly cathartic a times. Loved it and really intrigued where they will go with the sequel. There's a lot of brilliant plot lines they could go with it and a lot of ways they can go ahead and immediately and totally fuckup this potential legacy.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Terminator: Dark Fate - This one makes me sad, a dark fate indeed, as this franchise goes out not with another terrible bang, but a more dignified whimper. I didn't think a Terminator movie could be straight up boring, but here we are. This was just underwhelming, the set pieces were unmemorable, all motion and no action, and basically three CGI chase scenes strewn about a bunch of equally meaningless blather. In the age of Marvel, this barely qualifies as an action movie.

The story elements and drama were all lite versions of things I'd seen before in this franchise. The whole premise is obviously yet another rehash of T2 (save for the Alien 3 intro). Legion and Dani are renamed derivatives, but even more undercooked than you'd imagine going in; they barely mention Legion, and Dani is unbelievable as this five foot dynamo that draws people with her charismatic physical prowess and can-do attitude.

The timeline shifting inevitably is from T3, as is the Rev-9, which is basically just the T-X combined with whatever the black nano goo shit in the last one was. Unlike the iconic T-1000 design he's completely muddled, yet also totally bland and non-threatening. He also suffers from Salvation Syndrome at the end where instead of instantly, ya know, terminating his quarry, he just wrestles with them a little (more of a tryinator =). He seems genuinely apologetic to be a terminator, perhaps because his self-aware A.I. realizes he sucks. He even says sorry to some guy.

On the other side, Grace is basically Marcus from Salvation, but somehow lamer. Not much else to say about her because she's just the latest generic protector with the same stock "YOU saved ME" backstory. Arnold is supposed to be the equivalent of the heroic T2 Terminator aged but this has no organic story credibility or inertia. His whole deal here just makes no sense and he's old as fuck now, his best appearance in this franchise since T2 was his 1984 CGI head in Salvation. As for Sarah... welp, she's also old and tired, and I'm not talking about the physical condition of Linda Hamilton, who performs admirably, but with, again, underwhelmingly respectable, staid and stale legacy material. She was better off dead.

Anyway, Cameron's involvement didn't add anything new or authentic to the proceedings, just more of the same old shit, and Tim Miller should have stuck with Deadpool or gone back to his day job because this looked like generic crap from beginning to end. To put this in perspective, despite its efforts this does more damage to T2's legacy in the first two minutes than it builds on it in the proceeding two hours. So, that sucked, but congratulations to McG (remember him?), you made the third best Terminator movie, and it's not even particularly close even though your movie's not great either!

Terminator Tiers:
All-Time Classics:
1. T2 - Best movie ever?

2. T1 - 'Nuff said.

Fatally Flawed:
3. TS - Good premise. Great cast. Classic terminator designs. Iffy plot and underwhelming execution.

Bad:
4. TDF - Terminator VI: The Farce Aweakens. Almost put it in the tier above as it rounds out the watchable Terminators, but being respectably, boringly bad is still bad. See full review at the top.

5. T3 - Terminator as comedy.

Doesn't Rate:
0. TG - Terminator as tragedy.
 
Last edited:

Aazealh

Administrator
Staff member
the black nano goo shit in the last one

Wait I know that one! It's the Ouroboros from RE5! Or is it the mold from RE7? :iva:
Seriously though: yikes. Somehow I kind of had a vague hope this one redeemed the series like people were saying. Guess not.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Wait I know that one! It's the Ouroboros from RE5! Or is it the mold from RE7? :iva:

The lazy black goo strikes again! It's the perfect example of the phenomenon too, because this guy is basically a T-1000 with a metal endoskeleton underneath, essentially the two classic terminators in one. Endless possibilities, right? Only he basically just uses the endoskeleton to drive vehicles for him while he attacks... from that same vehicle? They should basically be two separate terminators at all times, but the guy stays combined as much as possible, especially recombining during confrontations, without explanation (like does he have limits?). Why not one tangle up Grace and the other kills Dani? Or why can't the liquid one split into multiple other killing forms like dogs or something? Or have both firing on her position from two directions. Or absent guns make liquid/nano-metal throwing weapons for the endoskeleton and kill her a 100 feet away (twice he has a chance to down an aircraft she's in and seemingly just neglects to). Just fucking overwhelm them!

My point is despite the endless potential here the T-1000 did dozens of more interesting things than this guy 30 years ago. Maybe if Cameron is back behind the camera and involved with the effects daily that's different, but given the Rev-9's advantages this guy was a relatively less impressive pursuer than the T-800 in 1984.

Seriously though: yikes. Somehow I kind of had a vague hope this one redeemed the series like people were saying. Guess not.

Yeah, me too, and it was definitely going for that: right the ship and set up a next generation story arc but it's too little, too late, and not at all compelling enough in its own right to justify that. Same thing happened with Salvation, they should have just been going full future war movie culminating in the final Skynet destruction mission at the end, but kept their powder dry because people were purportedly going to want to pay to see that spread out over two or three mediocre movies? Just give me your best shot now and if it works start worrying about thinking of more later. Another example where the Marvel model, despite the endless longterm interconnectedness, usually presents and disposes of a unique villain and/or problem in most of the standalone movies and moves on, "We're giving you the best we got of this villain/story here, for better or worse, then on to the next thing."
 
Last edited:

Oburi

All praise Grail
The T-1000 is such a perfect villain that all the attempts to top it seem so lame. But they keep fucking trying. And they try so hard. They so desperately want to come up with a villain that's somehow more threatening and more badass and more dangerous. Every time I see a new Terminator trailer where you get a glimpse of the new big bad guy I get turned off immediately. Shit they should have just kept rehashing the T-1000. It was perfect.

Anyway, Cameron's involvement didn't add anything new or authentic to the proceedings, just more of the same old shit

I'm kinda over Cameron at this point. He's gone the way of Lucas and Spielberg and Peter Jackson as far as I'm concerned. I was watching that documentary that Keanu Reeves did about digital overtaking film debate and they touched on special effects a bit too. At one point Reeves said to Cameron that at least practical effects are real. To which Cameron replied that it was never real. Even in the 80's just beyond the frame there's a set with a wind machine and a guy on a ladder with his ass hanging out and his hand in a puppet etc. Which is all true. But I think the bigger picture is that no matter how good the cgi gets it's still just animation essentially and that old approach of "if you didn't realize there was CGI, that's a good thing" seems to have been given up in favor of "well it's all CGI now and everyone knows it". Which is a real bummer because no matter how good it gets, with the way it's being implemented today you might as well just put an Looney Tunes acme explosion in a live action movie because it all looks the same to me versus a real one. Digital blood replaces squibs. The new season of Ghost in the Shell is all 3D modeling and looks like the worst parts of the new Berserk anime. The Berserk anime! How is a live action remake of the old animated Lion King gonna be called that when it's only been updated by making everything CGI? I'm ranting again. But yea these fucking guys. These legendary filmmakers just seem so out of touch. These were the same guys pushing the 3D and 48fps camera bullshit and that didn't catch on. I really hope things swing back at some point. I doubt it, but when I see stuff like the Dark Crystal show Netflix did I hang out to some hope because that was really fucking impressive.

Terminator Tiers:
All-Time Classics:
1. T2 - Best movie ever?

2. T1 - 'Nuff said.
That works for me. I also just watched (maybe for the first time?) the "Directors Cut" of T2 that includes a bunch of extra scenes, some better than others, but man I must say I thought it was awesome. Some scenes were totally unnecessary and bad for pacing, but for a movie I have every second of memorized it was really refreshing and enjoyable. There were some excellent special effect driven scenes too (the T-1000 glitching out at the end, altering the chip in Arnies brain) and it was cool seeing Kyle Reese again too in a flashback. I knew these scenes existed but can't recall watching them integrated in the movie start to finish. It was fun.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
The T-1000 is such a perfect villain that all the attempts to top it seem so lame. But they keep fucking trying. And they try so hard. They so desperately want to come up with a villain that's somehow more threatening and more badass and more dangerous. Every time I see a new Terminator trailer where you get a glimpse of the new big bad guy I get turned off immediately.

Here here, the more they try to expand on that simple design, the lesser the attempts seem. Like mutant offshoots of the pure original.

Shit they should have just kept rehashing the T-1000. It was perfect.

Well, he did have half a dozen other film cameos in the 90s, so pretty ubiquitous! And I guess they tried in earnest to recapture the magic in Terminator Genisys apparently. Part of the problem is you can't just put the costumes on anybody and expect it to feel the same. Those movies had a whole specific tone, tempo and attitude all their own, that comes through in the performances as well, which is completely lost in the modern attempts. This last one felt like it could have been a Bourne movie or whatever really, just a generic drama or actioner. It certainly never felt like Terminator.

I'm kinda over Cameron at this point. He's gone the way of Lucas and Spielberg and Peter Jackson as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, they got old. =)

I was watching that documentary that Keanu Reeves did about digital overtaking film debate and they touched on special effects a bit too. At one point Reeves said to Cameron that at least practical effects are real. To which Cameron replied that it was never real. Even in the 80's just beyond the frame there's a set with a wind machine and a guy on a ladder with his ass hanging out and his hand in a puppet etc.

That's a crock of shit, Cameron knows what he meant, it's physical presence as opposed to animation like you say. I hope Reeves pushed back on that, especially as a performer; when someone physically throws a punch at you it's a lot more real than a CGI monster to be inserted later.

But yea these fucking guys. These legendary filmmakers just seem so out of touch. These were the same guys pushing the 3D and 48fps camera bullshit and that didn't catch on.

To be fair, that group in particular push the envelope and are as interested in the technological process of filmmaking as much as the final product. They're probably more frustrated by what they couldn't do and more appreciative of advancements than they are of what they could and how good those effects looked despite, or even because of, their limitations. When I see the original Alien Queen it looks as good as any creature effect I've seen on film, it might as well be alive; whereas, Cameron probably sees a big clumsy puppet that took eight guys to run that still doesn't move like how he imagined in his mind.


I really hope things swing back at some point. I doubt it, but when I see stuff like the Dark Crystal show Netflix did I hang out to some hope because that was really fucking impressive.

I really need to check that out... but agree practical effects probably are not coming back in a big way, just enough to enhance immersion and performance for the actors, more constructed sets than strictly necessary etc, but high level, hyperrealistic puppeteering is seemingly a dying if not lost art anyway. It got so much worse after the 80s. Star Wars is probably the best example in all cases, the Yoda puppet in Episode I looked like a fuckin' toy, and Ackbar in Episode VII looked far worse than his 30 year old counterpart as well. Sometimes CGI is better than practical puppets today by attritian of the latter by the former. Star Wars is probably the last hope for this shit.

That works for me. I also just watched (maybe for the first time?) the "Directors Cut" of T2 that includes a bunch of extra scenes, some better than others, but man I must say I thought it was awesome. Some scenes were totally unnecessary and bad for pacing, but for a movie I have every second of memorized it was really refreshing and enjoyable. There were some excellent special effect driven scenes too (the T-1000 glitching out at the end, altering the chip in Arnies brain) and it was cool seeing Kyle Reese again too in a flashback. I knew these scenes existed but can't recall watching them integrated in the movie start to finish. It was fun.

Oooh, very nice, I have the 2 tape VHS edition of that in the original collector's box. :carcus:

Terminator-2-Judgment-Day-Special-Edition-Box-Set.jpg


The ultimate edition! :ganishka:

I agree a lot of those scenes break the pace and tone of the movie, especially the Reese scene as nice as it is to see him. The only one that actually adds something, though the tactile stuff with T-1000 is also enlightening, is probably the biggest momentum killer, which is the chip scene. Very cool character development from front to back and really adds that extra layer of authenticity to the T-800's transformation. But I get it, it stops the movie dead for five minutes when you just need a single line of him saying, "Yeah, I learn." How they did it is just as cool too, without a real mirror of course and using Linda Hamilton's twin sister as her reflection! Look up the behind the scenes on that if you've never seen/heard it.
 
Terminator: Dark Fate - This one makes me sad, a dark fate indeed, as this franchise goes out not with another terrible bang, but a more dignified whimper. I didn't think a Terminator movie could be straight up boring, but here we are. This was just underwhelming, the set pieces were unmemorable, all motion and no action, and basically three CGI chase scenes strewn about a bunch of equally meaningless blather. In the age of Marvel, this barely qualifies as an action movie.

The story elements and drama were all lite versions of things I'd seen before in this franchise. The whole premise is obviously yet another rehash of T2 (save for the Alien 3 intro). Legion and Dani are renamed derivatives, but even more undercooked than you'd imagine going in; they barely mention Legion, and Dani is unbelievable as this five foot dynamo that draws people with her charismatic physical prowess and can-do attitude.

The timeline shifting inevitably is from T3, as is the Rev-9, which is basically just the T-X combined with whatever the black nano goo shit in the last one was. Unlike the iconic T-1000 design he's completely muddled, yet also totally bland and non-threatening. He also suffers from Salvation Syndrome at the end where instead of instantly, ya know, terminating his quarry, he just wrestles with them a little (more of a tryinator =). He seems genuinely apologetic to be a terminator, perhaps because his self-aware A.I. realizes he sucks. He even says sorry to some guy.

On the other side, Grace is basically Marcus from Salvation, but somehow lamer. Not much else to say about her because she's just the latest generic protector with the same stock "YOU saved ME" backstory. Arnold is supposed to be the equivalent of the heroic T2 Terminator aged but this has no organic story credibility or inertia. His whole deal here just makes no sense and he's old as fuck now, his best appearance in this franchise since T2 was his 1984 CGI head in Salvation. As for Sarah... welp, she's also old and tired, and I'm not talking about the physical condition of Linda Hamilton, who performs admirably, but with, again, underwhelmingly respectable, staid and stale legacy material. She was better off dead.

Anyway, Cameron's involvement didn't add anything new or authentic to the proceedings, just more of the same old shit, and Tim Miller should have stuck with Deadpool or gone back to his day job because this looked like generic crap from beginning to end. To put this in perspective, despite its efforts this does more damage to T2's legacy in the first two minutes than it builds on it in the proceeding two hours. So, that sucked, but congratulations to McG (remember him?), you made the third best Terminator movie, and it's not even particularly close even though your movie's not great either!

Ouch. Reading your review I kind of feel sorry for recommending giving the movie a chance.

I think your review is fair, so now I wonder why it is that the movie's issues didn't bother me as much as they bothered you. I guess one reason is that I don't think I'm as big a fan of the first two movies as you are. Don't get me wrong, I agree that T1 and T2 are classics, but I'm not sure they would be the first movies to pop to mind when thinking about my favorite movies. I think I will watch the movie again to see if I can figure out other reasons.

On an unrelated note, I don't know why but then ending of a Simpsons episode came to mind after reading your review:


I guess some of what Madden says at the end wouldn't be too out of place in your review.

Terminator Tiers:
All-Time Classics:
1. T2 - Best movie ever?

2. T1 - 'Nuff said.

Fatally Flawed:
3. TS - Good premise. Great cast. Classic terminator designs. Iffy plot and underwhelming execution.

Bad:
4. TDF - Terminator VI: The Farce Aweakens. Almost put it in the tier above as it rounds out the watchable Terminators, but being respectably, boringly bad is still bad. See full review at the top.

5. T3 - Terminator as comedy.

Doesn't Rate:
0. TG - Terminator as tragedy.

In addition to rewatching Dark Fate, I will also rewatch Salvation. As I mentioned, I don't remember anything about it, so I'm curious to see if my ranking of the movies changes once I've watched it.
 

Oburi

All praise Grail
How they did it is just as cool too, without a real mirror of course and using Linda Hamilton's twin sister as her reflection! Look up the behind the scenes on that if you've never seen/heard it.
Yea I watched it that! So cool. Such an awesome scene.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Ouch. Reading your review I kind of feel sorry for recommending giving the movie a chance.

I think your review is fair, so now I wonder why it is that the movie's issues didn't bother me as much as they bothered you. I guess one reason is that I don't think I'm as big a fan of the first two movies as you are. Don't get me wrong, I agree that T1 and T2 are classics, but I'm not sure they would be the first movies to pop to mind when thinking about my favorite movies. I think I will watch the movie again to see if I can figure out other reasons.

I thought your recommendation was fair and as advertised, the praise appropriately faint. This wasn't an incompetent or embarrassing effort, I was just really disappointed by how average it was, which put your's and Incant's descriptions in perspective. But it's not a shitshow like Genisys or to a lesser degree T3, and like I said I almost put it in the more decent category above. Hell, Salvation is probably more of a mixed bag, I just like some of what's in the mix more.

On an unrelated note, I don't know why but then ending of a Simpsons episode came to mind after reading your review:


I guess some of what Madden says at the end wouldn't be too out of place in your review.

Haha, all my bitchy reviews should be in the voice of an angry John Madden.

In addition to rewatching Dark Fate, I will also rewatch Salvation. As I mentioned, I don't remember anything about it, so I'm curious to see if my ranking of the movies changes once I've watched it.

I'm curious too, like Salvation is better on paper to me, but remembering all the good things isn't the same as what it's like actually sitting through it. There was a lot of interpersonal bullshit, goofy stuff and drag too when they weren't fighting T-600's or whatever. Oh yeah, make sure you watch the unrated Director's cut.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: m

Rhombaad

Video Game Time Traveler
I watched The Vanishing (the Dutch original, not the terrible American remake) yesterday morning. One of the best thrillers I’ve seen. If you haven’t seen it, do so. You won’t regret it.
 
Watched a few movies recently.

RE:Zero - The Frozen Bond: I fucking love this series and this was a gorgeous movie (or glorified OAV I guess).

Zombieland Doubletap: Had a long day at the time. Wanted something mindless and stupid. It succeeded in this. Fun I guess but not exactly required viewing.

The Handmaiden: Had this movie in the back of my head for a while. Didn't really have a clue what it was about as I tend to go into most things blind and holy fuck goddamn that was a wildride. Felt like I went through three different movies by the end of it. Loved it though, but certainly not a movie to watch with the family... unless your family is like the one in the movie I guess.
 

Oburi

All praise Grail
I've been watching old samurai movies lately, many of which I've seen before years and years ago, some for the first time. Due to Incantations reminder, I watched (embarrassingly for the first time) Harakiri, which is of course a masterpiece. I'm mad at myself for having skipped it for so long. Not only great it's in own right but so much of it felt especially relevant today ("how can those who never go without food and clothing and shelter ever understand the hearts of those who do"). The ending, with that slow panning shot over the violence that just occurred, immediately reminded me of the ending of Taxi Driver.
 

Griffith

With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
We decided to follow up our Hannibal TV viewing experience by rewatching the films.

Red Dragon - I wanted to start with Manhunter, but was swiftly outvoted for the version with Anthony Hopkins and more continuity overall. Unfortunately a killer cast and crew and the return of Silence's Ted Talley writing only reaches middling results under the baffling choice of Brett Ratner in the director's seat. It's not that the movie's bad, it might be his best, it's just that it underwhelms. This is someone trying to recreate a masterpiece via paint by numbers and it shows. Hopkins is a Scary Movie parody of his original Lector performance at this point and Norton is a disappointingly bland and unconvincing Will Graham best summed up by his fake blonde hair (I think he's daydreaming about making 25th Hour instead during all his scenes). Ralph Fiennes is a fine actor that gives a good effort but is totally miscast as the would-be monstrous Dolarhyde; more like the Red Lizard than a dragon here. I should mention the TV adaptation of this particular story owes a lot of it's look and feel to this film, for better or worse. The rest isn't really worth getting into, though I found this contemporary review amusing:

The Silence of the Lambs - The killer thriller that swept the Oscars still holds up. Top notch writing, acting, directing. Hopkins is mesmerizing, somehow more normal and weird, as well as truly menacing, than his campier turns to come in the part. Foster is equally great as the politely earnest, often stymied but unstoppably tenacious Clarice Starling. They also have great chemistry together despite being on opposite sides of a barrier. The big escape scene diversion is still riveting, but the rest of the film is largely contemplative and sad about the dark and morbid subject matter, as much about what's going on inside the character's, including Buffalo Bill, as out, which is perfectly evoked by the haunting score by Howard Shore (he wasn't available for Red Dragon?). They don't make them like this any more.

Hannibal - A messy movie based on a messy book. Not as bad as I thought going in, the last time I watched scenes from this film I actually wondered, "Are we sure Ridley Scott is good?" =) This one was notoriously hurt by defections from the previous film and perhaps the added influence of producer Dino De Laurentiis, trying to cash in on the classic he couldn't make after Manhunter. I can't help but blame him for killing the golden goose with this franchise. Anyway, Hopkins is in decent form as Lector, Oldman is creepy enough as Verger, the Hannibal TV show shamelessly apes his portrayal too, the Florence stuff is the best part of the movie, but the fatal flaw is that Julianne Moore plays Clarice Starling like a cyborg replacement for the original. She has no charisma in the part, and not a lot to do anyway. It's a thankless thing to take on an iconic role made famous by another, but you gotta make it your own, whereas I don't know what this is. I can't even comment on the chemistry with her and Hopkins as they share one scene together and otherwise he's kind of a dick to her but I guess she likes it because she lets him go despite it making no sense, even in the logic of this film (a millions cops show up and nobody realizes he's getting away in a very slow moving boat). Anyway, I should give them some credit for the Florence stuff and Pazzi being good, pulling off Verger, and what I thought would be impossible to depict onscreen, the Krendler brain eating scene! Still, this movie is kind of a mess, feels unnecessary, and is somehow lesser than the sum of its parts.

Next up is Hannibal Rising, both book and film written by Harris, but which I've never seen or read with good reason... it's supposed to stink! We'll see. After that Manhunter will hopefully provide yet another Red Dragon flavored palette cleanser.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom