Seen any good films lately? [3]

The trailer looked questionably miserable to me, and the film confirmed it. This shitty, ironic, super-modern take on Arthurian legend is absolutely unsuited to the source material. And then Gawain and Morgause his mother are Indian for some dumb reason as well.

It's A24, so you expect the weirdness, the edgy direction, the jarring score, the dystopian themes: none of which you associate with King Arthur. Which is exactly why I expected it to annoy me from the get-go. How can I explain the incoherence of the movie... It's just such a mix. You have giant naked stone-women, a prostitute-lover waiting back home, the same actress playing some rando lady-seductress later on, anachronistic "science", befuddling witchcraft and symbolism.
Gawain himself is an incompetent, cowardly idiot. I read that Gawain's characterization changed through the different Arthurian versions, but I can't imagine he ever came this low.

It's anti-meaning, is what it is. Anti-chivalry, anti-goodness, anti-meaning. Modern Art-house Hollywood at its hollow worst.

How in hell did I make it this far through life without seeing Moonstruck?

Well I know what it was, it was the basic bloky reluctance about romantic films.  But since I now have a taste for anything New York I felt I should see it - and not only is it a divinely written comedy, but the New York accents are impeccable. The acting fits the accents too (there's a whole culture that goes with it);  though Nicolas Cage is a little off, but he always is. This film brought me to realize how close the New York Italian accent is to the New York Jewish accent, with the emphasis clearly on New York.  The NYC accent is a dying breed, pushed out by so many transplants that when I'm lucky enough to hear it a thrill goes down my spine.  Birdwatchers must feel the same thing at times.

The film also reminded me that until about 50 years ago NYC was basically a working class town, where the culture that the rest of the nation lusted after was simply part of the neighborhood, with everyone on first name basis with the shopkeepers, bartenders and restaurant owners.  New York was essentially a European outpost where good bakeries and such were just a normal part of everyday life.  Now those luxuries have migrated around the country, but much of the charm has left, including here.  You have to go to the outer boroughs that haven't been gentrified to recapture some of that old feeling now; up in the Bronx or the outer reaches of Brooklyn and Queens you can still hear that old movie accent that has long since fled Manhattan and the more popular parts of Brooklyn, with it a way of life.  And it's fading fast.

And how did I miss Forrest's review of Sir Gawain?

yep Gawain sounds dire.

Looks like total ass. I despise the derivative design of the goblins and their pets. And the overall style is fake and saccharine, buuuuuuut, look who's voicing one of the goblins? You can hear him part-way through the trailer. (It's Rik Mayall, if you don't want to brave the awful trailer)

https://www.imdb.com/video/vi2465333529/?ref_=tt_vi_i_1

Loved the book of course, and the illustrations by Arthur Hughes in my copy are *Italian chef kiss*.

Saw the Last Duel. The script is too carefully worked out and logical to have the needed passion. Needs to take more time to smell the roses and get more into the characters. The last few moments of the duel itself are grisly.

It's still a Ridley Scott film and I'm glad I saw it, but I think the script should have baked a bit longer: the writers (mainly Ben Affleck and Matt Damon) didn't take the time to fall in love with their characters.

I haven't see The King yet, but have run across a couple clips that convince me that Robert Pattinson can be a more fun actor to watch than I realized. He plays the Dauphin in a style that critics described as "Peppi Le Pew" but it's such a fun Peppi Le Pew.

Yeah but sadly the character sucks balls. Lowest denominator "comedy" role with the gravitas of a pimply teenager. It's not the actor's fault, it's the writing. They give him nothing and turn him into this predictable, whiny brat. Very disappointing.

Watched Shang Chi and the 10 rings or bracelets whatever on Disney plus. Not a bad film. Predictable ending, but fun to watch. Watched Inglorious Bastards for the first time as well. Again Not bad. Be a while before I watch either again. Might watch Jungle cruise again on Disney plus though.

Watched The King and enjoyed it well enough. It's clearly taking Henry V as as a myth and doing a rewrite along the lines of the multiple interpretations of King Arthur. I don't understand why they even attempted a pre battle speech: given the competition from Shakespeare's Crispin's day speech if I was a writer I would have avoided it altogether and just had the two sides have at it. All they accomplished was a demonstration that they don't hold a candle to Shakespeare.

There's a twist at the end I won't reveal except to complain that they could have milked it but it fell flat. Should have hired Night Shyamalan to write that bit for them so it would work better.

It's okay, not great. Might be interesting if someone attempted a historically accurate version, but Shakespeare runs deep.

Bah, the twist was too modern. Too pessimistic. Hate that kind of thing.

Saw Total Recall tonight though, that was fun. What an excellent movie, great sense of comedy. After it was over I saw the first few minutes of the remake, and holy crow what a soulless and humourless pile that was turning out to be. Turned it off in a hurry.

Yep I love the original Total Recall as well. You cant beat Arnie for cheese.

True Lies also shows his genius at this type of humor. I'm glad he never made the mistake of trying to do pure drama.

just seen the trailer for the new Matrix film, a bit underwhelming. I imagined a jump in special effects as big as the original, but didnt get it.

I don't know if there's much upward space for FX.  People can now do just about anything they want with computer graphics, so it's all the artistry, not technology.  The first matrix film really pushed technology; I think that's played out.  Since the Wachowski's have their universe already set they can't really go in a different artistic direction, so there's no wow factor left.

there was certainly no wow factor on that trailer, but I do think there is no ceiling on sfx because now and again there is a massive jump forward, like for Avatar and Matrix. It cant be the end of evolution surely?

As an analogy, right now the resolution on TV is so good that for most people added resolution will achieve nothing. The only way to push things (without going to bigger screens) is going 3D, surround sound, etc. I think the sfx used on the Matrix is already so good that it can't be improved without changing the physical medium as well. It's not like The Hobbit which was supposed to look like reality but didn't feel as good as miniatures: the Matrix is all about distorting reality. I just don't see anywhere they can go within the framework they have. We're not looking for wind ruffling the fur of CGI bunnies here.

{{ Got to disagree Halfy, the tech is still moving all the time. The technique being used in shows like Mandalorian- where the actors can see the effects live as they act is cutting edge and a massive leap ahead as what makes it look so seamless is the studio lighting is rigged up to exactly match the lighting in the background.
The next massive tech leap might be something like projecting images into the 3d space with the actors. }}

And visually cinema is always developing. You don't even need new technology for that, simply for film-makers to use the tools they have now in new ways or in strange combinations.

But the technological advances are just making things easier - there's no longer anything that can't be done. So the changes will be in the imagination that Forest is talking about. But the idioms for the Matrix are already set. The newness will come in the creation of new worlds, not just improving the look of a world that already exists.

Decades later did Villanueve improve on the look of Blade Runner? He couldn't, it was already too well defined.

{{ But there are things which cant be done- directly interacting with cgi elements live on set for example cant be done, yet. But being able to do so would vastly improve on the current standard of compositing, which is good but its not perfect, and often still poor, if you know what to look for. In fact up until fairly recently there were quite a few effects programs where I could point at something in a film and say 'thats terragen', or thats after effects, or thats particle illusion or whatever because they all have their own uses and functionality and distinct looks, and limits.
Now its true we are way further along the line of 'if I can imagine it I can put it on screen' but we arent there yet and theres still a fair bit of room for improvement in effects still. A big part of it is working out how to fool monkey brains better of course- right now we can produce cgi of objects and animals that seem indistinguishable from reality, but thats mainly because of how our brains work as use the exact same fidelity to render a human and suddenly it looks obviously like a graphic again. The uncanny valley, we are so programmed and used to interpreting and looking at faces that it shows up and makes obvious to us where the tech still lacks, even though we can be otherwise fooled.

On the Blade Runner point the answer is yes- the effects in the new film include shots that would have been impossible to realise in the orginal. Not difficult, impossible. The art direction, the conceptualising of the world is not bettered, all the hard work was done there in the original, they dont have to do anythingmore to it. But the point by point use of special effects, there is a vast improvement over Ridley Scotts original. }}

The next step in technology will be for the audience to feel as if they are actually there in the scene, like an invisible observer. So to take an example, to feel as if you are actually riding behind Gandalf out of Minas Tirith. You will be able to look around you, even if you are sitting on a sofa and see the plane of Osgiliath, and look up towards the oncoming Nazgul. You might even have other sensory experiences, such as smell and touch. With gloves that give you the textures of a horses back or reins. I know you get a certain amount of immersion in computer games, but this would be more like Ready Player One.
As for Bladerunner, no they couldnt do holograms in the 80s, but in my mind it is still far far superior to the reboot in terms of visuals. I was quite disappointed that there hadn't been that massive jump in sfx. I also think there will be Holo-decks like in Star Trek.

I bow to the collective superior knowledge and aesthetics.  I'm simply not picky enough to look at something good and think it could be better.

its not being picky, its just that those East Asian scientists and Hollywood tech guys are never going to sit quietly in front of a flat screen TV and think they have got the job 'done'. They are going to want to invent something that will blow our socks off. They invent stuff every day. most of it is for profit and markets, but a large part is the sheer satisfaction of doing something futuristic and techy.

I really enjoyed Kung Fu Panda, made me laugh. On the other hand, the new James Bond film is really boring.