Seen any good films lately? [3]

A Brit having problems understanding other posh Brits? This is something I have to look up.

Good film. Not much dialogue but good nonetheless.

the director's good with imagery.

Being a great fan of the Deadwood TV series I was relieved to find that my last shipment before Netflix rolled up the sidewalks on its DVD service was Deadwood the Movie.  They made it years after HBO pulled its usual half-ass stunt of cancelling a great series in mid arc. (Okay, that's more a Fox thing but HBO has much the same disease).

I had high hopes, bouyed by the glowing reviews.  But I can not agree with the reviews.  The enchanting language is still there, and the storyline is good, but the script feels more like a bunch of post-it notes of good lines than a freely flowing final product.  

The TV show was a masterpiece of dialogue from a different era in harmonious service to a logical story progression. But the dialogue in the film didn't flow naturally, and those who have never seen Deadwood would be totally lost since all character development was assumed from the series.

If you're curious about Deadwood, skip the film and rent a couple episodes from the first season instead.

Just watched the Creator. Effects are good. The rest is average.

The state of Ridley Scott's modern filmography...

Napoleon is irredeemable garbage.
The Last Duel is trash.

It is a CRIME that ANYONE should see these movies. They are filled with lies about what it means to be men and women, to be alive, to be in God's creation. Horrible, pathetic, worthless vehicles for propaganda to twist reality and spread anti-human bullshit.

What the fucking fuck. How do we go from The Duellists (1977) to this mental illness.
Do see the The Duellists by the way. It is an absolute delight and a staggering contrast to these reeking troughs of filth, these muddy hours of brain-rot, these creeping infestations, these soul-defiling corruptions, these dying flickers of malcontence: the last croaking whimpers of a worthless generation of artists who believe it is still six decades ago and the old world has not yet been toppled to pieces through their ignorant malevolence.

I reviewed Napoleon somewhere, not sure where it's got to. I was very psyched up for the thing, hoping to get some scenically brilliant exploration of what made him great. Instead we get mainly an anemic love story with no insights whatsoever into what made him one of the greatest tacticians in history. And no mention of how he transformed France with the Napoleonic code, refinement of the bureacracy, etc. I don't care a fig about how his damaged psyche affected his love life; I want to know how it affected Europe.

I can get why a writer may think the person in the street may find this intellectual exploration boring, but when you're dealing with Napoleon for chrissakes fire the writer and find someone with the wit to make the mechanisms of history sing.

"The Duellists" Forest, Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel, I used to have a crush on Carradine in that film I just couldnt get why Keitel had to keep that grudge going as long as he did.

The Duellists is one of those films so emotionally immersive I can't watch it unless really, really, in the mood.

21st century films are finished. That ship has sailed. Unless there is some kind of cultural cataclysm and genius is once again allowed to flourish instead of being told it's not diverse and inclusive enough, and artists stop being afraid to 'offend'. And I am not talking about perverse abominations like 'Poor Things' that peddle morally bankrupt pedo fantasies.
Movies will be as sterile and redundant as the millionth superhero franchise they foist on the public.

{{ I think in time it will come back round Figg. There are small signs. There is a quiet actors rebellion against woke that has been going on for a while, not front page jumping up and down about it, but the quiet industrial sort of protesting against it by doing, that actually makes changes. There was a piece not long ago on the BBC about theatres and political correctness, folk protesting, certain shows being shut down or silenced and it was interesting the amount of the best stage actors in the UK who were talking against it and in support not so much of diversity in theatre as controversy in theatre, as Matt Smith in his interview asked, "Isn't art supposed to be dangerous?" Art should challenge, in the past authors would write entire plays as devils advocate just to provoke or offend and cause discussion on a topic, the right to deliberately offend is an important one in the arts. So many great works of art were created as statements of anger or rebellion against the prevailing mindset or ruling society of their day if art loses that it loses its effectiveness.}}

Agreed. A lot of great art was produced by people who today would be considered 'bad people' and would be silenced and hounded out. Caravaggio was a murderer, Picasso sexually incontinent, Michelangelo was uncouth, miserable and smelly, not to mention Vincent's mental illness and Gauguin being a bit of a pedo.
All these men wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes on social media before the flying monkeys descended.
But at the time kings, even popes, just sighed and let them get on with it because they knew genius when they saw it.

Got half way through Saltburn then turned it off. Not very good. Bored the pants off me.

The only films that haven't bored the pants off me for the last 5 years have had Tom Cruise in them.

I'm trying to think of a movie that came out in the last 5 years that I truly enjoyed.   Even if I did enjoy them, it says something that I can't remember them.

Okay, scrolled back through this thread.

In the violence genre the John Wick and The Equalizer series both are commendable advances.

It appears I liked BookSmart, but it didn't leave a lasting enough impression for me to remember I saw it.

yeah i forgot The Equaliser, Denzel is always great to watch.

Went to see Dune Part Two yesterday.

Wasn't too thrilled with the pacing of it but was generally good. Actually preferred the first one I think.

Now have to wait a while for part 3.

I was planning to go see Dune 2 today but something else got scheduled. Not sure when I'll next have a chance, but I think it will be in theatres a good while.

Hmm...there's some very big changes from the book. The guy below is a big Dune fan and actually approves of the changes, but I'll have to judge when I see it. Yeah, spoilers below.

{{ Sounds awful to me, this one isn't helping either- }}

Saw it. The desert looks right this time around, but can't say this is Frank Herbert's Dune.

Jessica was subtly altered, which is ok, but the character of Chani was obliterated. And the Fremen broken into factions of devout southerners and skeptical northerners? The duel between Feyd Ruatha and Paul was stripped of all subtlety. Alia never appears. I have to say if you took the stupid Voice projector out of Lynch's version and didn't make it rain at the end, it would be a far more faithful version than Villaneuve's.

If the whole thing made more sense this way I'd accept it, but it doesn't.

Ruminating on what I saw, and what critics who know the books well said about what Villaneuve was trying to do.

The background is that Herbert wanted Dune to be a warning about spiritual heroes, and was a bit put out that people took Paul to be an actual hero. This is why Dune Messiah is so pervaded with cynicism. But the reason people liked Paul is because he seemed to be a reluctant hero, someone who couldn't find a way to escape his destiny.

Villaneuve has said that he wanted to honor Herbert's intention by NOT making Paul a hero. So in his film both Jessica and Paul are seen to be more conciously manipulating the work of the Missionera Protectiva to their own ends. To further drive the point home, Chani is cast in the role of disapprover in chief.

And it works, you end up not liking Paul.

Well, that may be closer to what Frank Herbert wanted to convey, but then his book would be less loved. He stumbled onto the right theme of people who become heroes despite themselves. We see Jessica watching in trepidation: "No, he must not take on the religious mantle!". In the original version Paul is swept up in it; in Villaneuve's version it is a cynical power grab agreed upon by both Paul and Jessica.

Leave the cynicism for Dune Messiah. Let Paul get caught up in the movement and the viewers will too. A masterpiece happens outside an author's complete control - and you'll do no good by trying to get "closer to the original intentions". Leave it be.

Not sure what counts as spoilers and not so assuming it all is:

Spoiler:

Well my favourite part of it was Stilgar's character. His enthusiasm for Paul is infectious and wholesome. What a counterpart to the cynical little juvenile that Chanti is in the movie!

I didn't like that Stilgar was cast as something of a fool by the northern faction for believing in Paul. Unless they show him acknowledging their doubts and pointedly ignoring them his character is cheapened. Plus you don't get Jihad from a fractured Fremen community.

I think Dune Messiah will vary even more greatly from the books, but I won't mind so much because that book is less iconic due to its cynicism. I just wish Villaneuve had stuck closer to the first book in the second instalment (no serious complaints about the first, except that it didn't look at good as Lynch's version).