Seen any good films lately? [3]

But I see it more like the court fool who had, by all accounts, licence to say the most outrageous and slanderous things right there in front of everyone. Its probably like the government of the day allowing such things as Private Eye magazine or 'Yes Minister'.  They are allowed to touch on dangerous subjects, but touch on really dangerous subjects, and they might find themselves in hot water. I think there are degrees of what is allowed under the heading of amusing scallywagism and what is definitely not funny, maybe arms deals with Saudis come under that heading? Shakespeare knew how to flatter and skate over the ice.

If I'm to be honest I'd say comparing anyone to Shakespeare approaches Godwin's law esque hyperbole levels for me as far as creative writing comparison discussions go. I'd certainly say George has got a lot going for him as a writer, not that he's in any way perfect, would whether one favourably compared him to Shakespeare or not really change that?

Well first of all, everyone in Shakespeare's time sort of wrote like he did - you can't immediately tell on first reading whether or not one of the better Elizabethan authors is him or not. So you have to overlook the writing style and dig into characters and stories. I think GRRM holds up in this respect, though we don't get the poetical ruminations that Shakespeare gives his characters. Those are the things that Shakespeare is really remembered for, but our modern style of realism doesn't allow characters to go off on soliloquys like that.

Tolkien gives us a bit of it when the characters do long winded expositions to each other; and we can get some of it in many author's introductions: the best part of Seven Pillars of Wisdom is the introduction. And some of Tolkien's most memorable phrases are in the introductions both to the books and to new locations in the books.

Well, that further limits the fruitfulness of comparison.

I watched and enjoyed The Bridge on the River Kwai last night. Definitely a really good movie, and Alec Guinness was phenomenal in the lead role, though I felt pretty weird about it at the end. I mean, they start off pretty clear-eyed about atrocities in Japanese prison camps, with their being only two survivors in the whole camp, but apparently the Japanese are shamed into good behavior by the superior discipline and skill of the British Army? And the whole battalion goes along with Nicholson's effective collusion with the enemy just because he's the commanding officer? Don't get me wrong, I found the characters interesting and well-drawn, but the film felt pretty unreal at a number of places. The cross-dressing stage show at the end especially felt like something from a totally different movie. Overall though most of the jokes actually landed pretty well, and while the scenes set on Ceylon weren't that interesting, I'd still definitely recommend the film.

actually the film makes the British commander out to be a collaborator with the Japanese, something the real man did not do.

Yeah, I read up a bit on the real story after seeing the film, but even when watching it I felt it was kind of bizarre, but even moreso that all of his subordinates went along with it. Can't imagine that happening IRL even if a commander started collaborating.

Forgot how funny this film was. Still makes me laugh.



Has the N ward in it.

Has the N ward in it.- Chris

{{True, but you'd have to have all your funny bones and brain cells surgically removed to find its use here anything other than genius funny }}}

My hero!

Watched Captain America Civil War last week.

It was Ok.

I liked it quite a bit. Sure, it's a light and fluffy film, but I was laughing consistently at the humor (especially Spider-Man's scenes) and the action was pretty good. I liked Black Panther too; definitely curious for his solo movie. The overall plot was pretty threadbare but, like the first Avengers movie, it existed mainly as a way to get the characters to interact with each other, and that was the main draw.

Eldorion wrote:I liked it quite a bit. Sure, it's a light and fluffy film, but I was laughing consistently at the humor (especially Spider-Man's scenes) and the action was pretty good. I liked Black Panther too; definitely curious for his solo movie. The overall plot was pretty threadbare but, like the first Avengers movie, it existed mainly as a way to get the characters to interact with each other, and that was the main draw.

To be honest I only watched it because I didn't have a decent excuse to turn down the invite, it wasn't bad per se, just kinda...bland and fan w*nky,
I loved Guardians of The Galaxy and Winter Soldier, but I've found most of the other Marvel films to be kinda generic (and in Iron Man 3's case utter cr*p) not really my thing I guess.

I agree that Black Panther and the New Spiderman were established very well, we moaned about Freeman being wasted in the hobbit, but here it's much worse...

I was surprised to see Freeman at all; had no idea he was even involved. I can't really call him wasted here, though. That implies (to me) that there was unrealized potential; here he just happened to have been cast as a background character. It's a bit strange perhaps to go from a headlining role to a minor one, but there are always gonna be minor roles that need filling.

Agreed about Guardians of the Galaxy and Winter Soldier. I don't think I would put CW quite that high either.

I liked parts of Iron Man 3.

It would be more intellectually stimulating if the video spoke about the origins of these trends, and first-examples if any could be found.

I'm pretty sure the slowed-down covers of pop songs trends in trailers was popularized by (and possibly began with) the first trailer for The Social Network (2010):

{{{Just watched for the first time the 1964 Russian version of Hamlet (with subtitles!) which oddly enough according to wiki has never been broadcast in its entirety in the US- which is a shame as you are missing a very good version.
Directed by Grigori Kozintsev (co-directed by Iosif Shapiro), cinematography by Jonas Gritsius and starring Innokenty Smoktunovsky as Hamlet. With a soundtrack by renowned Russian composer Dmitri Shostakovich.

First the downside- a lot is cut, from a play the full version of which can run to a little over four hours, this comes in at half that.
Whole scenes have vanished such as the opening scene encounter between the guards and the ghosts that prompts to them to go to Hamlet and tell him.
And its in Russian- not that its badly translated as such judging from the subtitles, but if you love Shakespeare than reading his words is  not the same as hearing them well spoken. On the other-hand some who struggle with the language as spoken might actually find it easier to follow reading the subtitles.
For me though the plus points greatly outweigh the downsides here.
It looks beautiful for a start reminding me far more of Italian film making of the period than Russian.
Hamlet himself, his inner monologues are often given in rooms full of courtiers and the like, which rather emphasises nicely the sense of a man utterly alone even in a crowd-



It is also inventive with how it uses dialogue- for example Claudius long speech at the beginning to the court explaining recent events, king's death, his marriage of the Queen ect, begins with Claudius delivering it, but then cuts to a town crier announcing it, then cuts from there throughout the crowd as we hear the lines of the speech being talked about among the courtiers as scandal and gossip, in this way you get the whole speech but delivered in three seperate visual and narrative means- its hugely effective in conveying the sense that the marriage is hasty, contestable and probably not in the best taste given its borderline incest by Church values as he is the brother of the deceased King taking his brothers wife for his own. It makes visually the whole nation guilty in going along with it- 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark' indeed. But its a good example of how new ways are found here to deliver the material in visually interesting ways.
Another notable feature of this version is where possible it loses dialogue in favour of using a visual means to convey it.
Elsinore is a wonderfully grim and brooding background, in the original play when Hamlet and co go to see the ghost they comment on the revelries of the new King- here as they go by in the howling wind outside the castle we can see the leaping dancing  shadows of the revelry cast against the huge Gothic windows behind them- its typical of the very effective visual means by which such elements of the tale are conveyed.



And the visuals for the revelries themselves, whilst showing noting but masked dancers, successfully gives the impression of debauchery and self gratification of the new King.



Elsinore itself is a mix of matte paining, forced perspective and a real castle on the Russian border- and its hugely effective-



But this Elinore is backdrop, and I mean that literally, surprisingly little is set inside it and the scenes are moved outdoors wherever possible into the rawness of nature. And this works very well.
Hamlets to be or not to be, usually delivered in a crypt or a room in the castle here takes place on the cliffs overlooking the sea, as if Hamlet were contemplating just jumping over, and ends with him talking a long lonely walk back up the stairs carved into the rock- it again highlights that sense of a man completely isolated by his own thoughts.



But some of the most memorable, striking, and influential images are reserved for the ghost, whose brooding, large armoured presence conveys perfectly the unnerving nature of the ghost encounters-







Ophelia's fate is neatly handled too, with her madness taking place in front of a packed court making it seem all the more tragic and poignant and the final panning shot revealing her sad fate is as beautiful as it is moving. It has a stillness to it, like a painting, that is quite eerie.



Ophelia's funeral, continues the trend for Elsinore to be a literal backdrop and showing off the excellent visual treatment-



The performances too are very good, very naturalistic and unforced manner, though shortened as much is  particularly enjoyed the Gravedigger scenes and the alas poor Yorick scene is classically presented here, but still effectively so and does not feel forced or over egged.



I don't know why this has never been broadcast Stateside- but I strongly recommend hunting it down and giving it a watch if you are in the US.
Beautifully directed, well adapted, inventive in delivery, excellent cinematography and score. Highly recommended. }}

I watch this every 6 months or so.

One of my favorite movies of all time. Best shootout scene on screen, though only two shots are fired.

That Russian Hamlet definitely looks right. I think Russians do dark brooding atmosphere better than anyone.

This clip was cut from the original movie.