I made a 2019 thread too

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:29 am

and none of you bitches can stop me.

Well I guess actually some of you can.

Ant-Man and the Wasp - I think I saw... I want to say... ten minutes of this movie? Maybe? Fifteen, maybe. It was okay. Kate from Lost was fighting the bad guys and she kept turning into a flying bug or something so they couldn't get her.

A Series of Unfortunate Events (season 3) - this really picked up by the end. The last three episodes were genuinely good and vastly improved on the last two books of the original series, which I remember not liking. The last episode was surprisingly very poignant and emotionally powerful in a way I did not expect at all. Overall the show was decent but very, very uneven, sort of like the books. In general I think it's better than the books, mostly because of that last episode.

Remember how I said the Archie witch show had a problem with having a funny cartoony side and an extremely dark and chilling side sitting together giving it a tonal whiplash? Yeah, multiply that a hundredfold and you get ASOUE. This show has the goofy, almost slapstick tone and internal logic of a playful cartoon coupled with an underlying attitude of extreme cynicism and misanthropy and nihilism (at parts). It's strange to watch. Even reading them as a kid, the books gave off the strong impression to me of having absolutely no clue what they actually wanted to be, that the author had no idea what story he was actually trying to write, and having absolutely no direction in mind for his story to go. I always thought the mystery/conspiracy element was thrown in midway through the story because the author knew the series was getting repetitive by that point and wanted something to spice it up. Even the themes became muddled as it went on. The Baudelaires' alleged moral ambiguity which was suddenly raised near the end as a major thematic point always felt wrong-headed and out of place. They're not morally ambiguous, and that theme just doesn't really work for a story like this anyway IMO. There are many other themes the series had which work far better - loss, the sadness of missed opportunities, dealing with a random world where bad things happen for no reason, being stuck in the convoluted and mysterious interconnectedness of peoples' lives and how past actions can cause butterfly effects for others which they get caught up in without fully understanding them, and a heavy side dose of non-conformity and anti-authoritarianism. The show does a good job on doubling down on these latter themes at the very end and finishes very strong.

I also think Larry Your Waiter should have gotten a more dignified death than being boiled alive by curry.

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:39 am

I remember reading the first Series of Unfortunate Events book back in the day but remember almost nothing about it, other than vaguely recalling something about some kind of a marriage plot.

This recent resurgence in that whole franchise has been kind of weird to me, I didn't think people were really dying to go back to those characters but apparently the show has had three whole seasons already.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:46 am

Well, there hasn't been a proper adaptation of it yet, and people wanted to see an adaptation at some point. The books were kind of popular, I think, so there was a lot of demand.

I think the 2004 movie works extremely well as a stand-alone movie and is very much worth watching, but as an adaptation it's a complete failure.

maz89 · Post by **maz89** » Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:12 am

I liked the 2004 film. Should I check this out?

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:52 pm

They're extremely different. But if you like Patrick Warburton and Neil Patrick Harris, then yes.

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:00 am

Derived Absurdity wrote:Well, there hasn't been a proper adaptation of it yet, and people wanted to see an adaptation at some point. The books were kind of popular, I think, so there was a lot of demand.

I see. I do kind of remember people kind of liking them but they always seemed second fiddle to Harry Potter when I was a kid.

I think the 2004 movie works extremely well as a stand-alone movie and is very much worth watching, but as an adaptation it's a complete failure.

I haven't seen the 2004 movie but if its a good movie then it isn't a failure. Adaptations don't actually have any obligation to be faithful to their source material; I'd go as far as saying that faithfulness often harms adaptations more than it helps them, because what might work very well in one medium might not at all translate to another.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:22 pm

The Innocents (1961) - It was pretty spooky. I guess. I mean, not really, but it was a pretty good gothic haunted house movie. It did an interesting thing sometimes where the outer edges of the lens were blacked out so you felt hemmed in when the camera was inside, but it was a wide lens when shot outside, so I guess the house was supposed to feel overbearing and malevolent no matter what perspective you're seeing it from. It also did that thing where it's left ambiguous as to whether all the spooky stuff was real or if it was just in the protagonist's head, and if it was all in her head, well then, hoo boy, she definitely fucked up at the end there. Somehow. What the hell actually happened? I think the theme of the movie is supposed to be sexual repression or something and how she's projecting her own lusts and desires onto those poor kids, thereby corrupting their innocence. It was pretty psychological. I also liked the creepy song.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:34 pm

Spider-Man: Into the Spider Verse - I don't know what I was expecting with this, but it sure as hell wasn't what I got. I haven't been that exhilarated and entertained by a movie in the theater in a long time. I can safely say it was one of the weirdest and most unpredictable movies I've ever seen. Also probably the most visually stunning. Your Name is straightforwardly prettier, but this one was simply far more imaginative and memorable and unique. I think it's using probably like six different animation techniques at once. It tops Scott Pilgrim in effectively bringing comic book aesthetics and structure to cinema (by, like, a lot). I think there's been about fifteen Spider-Man movies in the last eight years, so the fact that this one manages to feel as fresh as it is is impressive to me. It actually leans heavily on the fact that there's been so many Spider-Man iterations for its story, which like the animation is AFAIK entirely original and unique.

With all that said, though, and as enjoyable as it was, there were some things I imagine would probably lessen the movie for me on repeat viewings. The soundtrack, where some lame hip hop song was playing on the downbeat moments, was simply awful. The emotional beats, although it clearly tried, weren't nearly as powerful or as pitch-perfectly executed as the ones from the first two Raimi films' were, probably because the extremely fast pace of this movies prevented the characters from being developed as well as Raimi's movies did. I also got the vague feeling that the narrative structure was a bit conventional and checklist-y, despite the fact that the story itself (or, probably more accurately, the premise) was so creative and original. In fact I think the premise and execution is what's so great and unique about the movie rather than the story itself, which wasn't terribly exceptional. I have no idea if I'll like this movie better or less the second time.

Apostle: Damn this movie was boring. Over two hours long and almost nothing to show for it. The third act was extremely pointlessly violent but I was already checking my phone at that point so I didn't care. Dan Stevens is cool but his character was just an empty shell. Also unless I missed something (which I could have extremely easily) the basic premise of the entire movie makes no sense. I guess the acting and cinematography were good but who gives a shit.

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:54 pm

I'm really looking forward to Into the Spider Verse. That usage of the different animation styles in the trailer looked incredible.

I probably won't see it until it goes up on streaming in several months though. :(

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:15 pm

It's definitely a big screen movie, though.

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:56 pm

Too hard for me to get out of the house, unfortunately.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:19 am

Aquaman - whatever.

You (Netflix) - A show about a murderous stalker who becomes obsessed with some random college girl who walked into his bookstore one day. 95% of it is shot entirely from his perspective. The beginning of the show seemed to be a whole bunch of different genres mashed together, but ultimately it seemed to settle on a satire/commentary of romantic comedies. I enjoyed it a lot, for the most part. It's pretty ludicrous and you have to suspend your disbelief extremely heavily at times, and it's by no means deep or cerebral, but it can still give you some things to think about, if you let it.

A major point of the show is that the girl he stalks and idealizes is kind of screwed up herself. Even we, who are stuck in his perspective, can see that immediately. She's sort of lazy, shallow, self-centered, and is kind of an attention whore. Like, a big one. I mean, the first episode has her jilling off in her apartment on her couch with the windows wide open facing her street. I thought that had potential. You know, a stalker idealizing his victim only to find out that she's almost as screwed up as she is, so instead of a conventional dynamic between an evil predator and an innocent victim waif, we would get a better, more interesting, more psychologically dense one with two disturbed people sort of dealing with each other in their own ways. The show never leaned into that, however, so we settled on the straightforward conventional option instead.

It was still necessary to make her be that way, though. The gigantic chasm between the person he thinks she is and the person she actually is is necessary to show how objectified and dehumanized she is (for when you idealize someone you necessarily dehumanize them) and how much of an obsessive narcissist he is, and also to make sure that our empathy for her is based not on her virtues (for she doesn't have a whole lot) but simply her basic humanity. The actress's natural charm also helped.

I don't know how to feel about the ending. It was horrific, and it came out of nowhere, but it was also felt pretty much inevitable, which I guess is the sign of a twist being good. I guess any other ending wouldn't have worked if the satire/commentary on rom-coms the show was trying to do were to stay consistent.

Anyway, I recommend it.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:42 pm

Lean on Pete - it was okay. It was about a boy and a horse. I remember someone once described horse movies as cinema's onions or something, and this one was no exception. It was very sad. I thought the first half was stronger than the second. It had a distinct realism to it that led me to feel more affected by it, and the characters were more compelling. The second half lost that sense of realism and became more heightened, turning into something like an epic tale or something. It switched from neorealism (good) to feeling almost like an allegorical quest. The ending wasn't really an ending and just kind of felt empty.

For a movie seeming to aim for naturalism, it was mostly directed in a way that felt... economical? Distancing? It's hard to describe. It had the feel of someone wanting to make a movie that's humanist and intimate but not really "getting" how. Like he knows all the steps, basically, but he's still missing a core element. I don't know. I can't describe what Princess Cyd had that made it work for me that this movie doesn't have, but I feel it.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:00 pm

Does anyone actually read these? Anyway...

Sorry To Bother You - I appreciated it. I like what it did and what message it sent. Any movie as explicitly anti-capitalist and pro-labor as this one is going to have to work hard to make me dislike it. I like the directions it chose to take with its story. For example, whenever I see a character passionate about social change in a mainstream movie, they're almost portrayed as a dangerous ideological zealot or someone who turns out to be equally as evil as the people they're fighting, but the professional organizer here, who convinces the protagonist's co-workers to form a union, is portrayed as thoroughly noble and decent and his actions as perfectly legitimate and even heroic. Furthermore, mainstream movies act like things need to be in a state of absolute misery and despair before radical social change can be acceptable, and I appreciated that this movie rejected that - it was just a regular soul-crushing job where the employees happened to consider themselves underpaid, and that was good enough.

It employed a specific storytelling trope early on that is very hoary and cliche, but it gave it a unique twist. The protagonist gets promoted at the same time his co-workers form a strike, and as things progress, eventually he's compelled to make a choice between succeeding in a world he secretly despises or standing by his friends and principles. That extremely standard trope is usually portrayed as the hero needing to find himself or not forgetting who he is or whatever, but here the conflict is specifically framed as him failing to show class solidarity and nothing else. He never "forgets who he is". He always knows who he is and what he's becoming. The conflict is over whether he wants to choose what's best for himself or what's best for his class. Capitalist self-advancement or class solidarity.

It felt nice to watch such an overtly communist movie. Where class is such an overwhelming theme. Where labor organizing and unions are featured prominently, and in a positive light. Where social change is portrayed as good, and where those agents of social change aren't portrayed as evil zealots, and how it shows that you don't actually need to be wallowing in misery for your desire for structural change to be legitimate.

But yeah it was super creative and fun and had a whole lot of other ideas besides "labor unions are actually good". Race was a huge aspect, though not the primary aspect, and I appreciated how it showed how capitalism is the thing that provides the actual material foundations for racial oppression. I liked the meta aspect of its title. Some parts of it were funny. WorryFree is a good dystopian Black Mirror-esque anti-capitalist thought experiment. All the performances were good, especially Armie Hammer who's always good. I don't think the famous twist did much to advance the movie, but it probably helped with word of mouth.

By the way, if anyone wants to read a demonstration of the hilarious, mind-blowing stupidity of so many people who call themselves film critics, an amusing example is provided here. https://variety.com/2018/film/reviews/s ... 202671492/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Faustus5 · Post by **Faustus5** » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:00 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:Does anyone actually read these? Anyway...

I read every one unless it is something I've not seen and don't want to be spoiled.

I liked this one as well, saw it about a month ago.

Post by **Gendo** » Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:08 pm

I read them all; though I only skip through descriptions of movies that I haven't heard of.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:24 pm

Faustus5 wrote:
Derived Absurdity wrote:Does anyone actually read these? Anyway...
I read every one unless it is something I've not seen and don't want to be spoiled.

I liked this one as well, saw it about a month ago.

Well, I put all the spoilers under tags.

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:53 pm

I meant to see Sorry to Bother You last year but just never got around to it. After I'm done catching up on BP nominees I'll check it out and come back to your post on it if you want, DA.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:56 pm

More conversation is always good, Rax.

Skate Kitchen - an extremely light, loose, intimate portrayal of a group of female skaters in NYC, focused on one in particular who's trying to fit in. Aesthetically, it was amazing, and it was shot extremely well, but it was mostly unengaging because of the complete static-ness of all the characters and the extremely shallow drama. The movie obviously likes all its characters, but it provides them with absolutely no depth. Even the protagonist barely changes. There was no substance to it but it was nice to look at and listen to. I don't remember why I put this on my list to watch.

Fright Night - LOL that was goofy as shit. I can't believe the corny bullshit everyone let movies get away with in the eighties. But unlike the remake it was at least charming and had humor and heart, so it's got that going for it.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:28 pm

Roma - it was good.

Alita: Battle Angel - it was bad.

Russian Doll (Netflix) - it was okay.

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:16 pm

I really liked Roma. I think I ultimately prefer the Cuaron that does stuff like that and Y Tu Mama Tambien instead of the one makes stuff like Gravity.

I haven't seen Alita but I've never really understood the whole push for live action adaptations of anime and manga. It seems like more often than not the translation just doesn't work (Lady Snowblood and its sequel perhaps being some of the few exceptions).

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:32 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Al ... _Benjamins" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:52 pm

That's certainly part of it, but Alita has been a weird passion project of James Cameron for like 15 years at this point, maybe even more. The only reason he didn't direct it himself is because of the 70 billion Avatar sequels he's tied up with filming back to back.

I've known a lot of anime fans that clamor for this kind of stuff to exist too and I don't really get it.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:39 pm

I mean, I'm looking forward to the Avatar live action Netflix adaptation, even though I know it's probably going to be bad, so I guess I can see where they're coming from.

There's no inherent reason why anime adaptations have to always fail, it seems to me. There are things like Perfect Blue (and most of Kon's other work) which I can't possibly imagine anyone even attempting to do a live action adaptation of, let alone succeeding at it, but anime is just a mode of storytelling; I've never seen Ghost in the Shell, for example, but from what I can tell there's no inherent reason why it can't work as a live action movie/show. Cowboy Bebop can easily work and Death Note could and should have worked. I think the reason 95% of Hollywood anime adaptations are crap is simply because 95% of everything Hollywood makes is crap.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Mar 01, 2019 4:42 am

Edge of Seventeen - I don't remember, have I ever told this board how much I really, really like this movie? Because I really, really like this movie. I have thought about it deeply and I have concluded that it is the best teen movie. It is flawless and it gets better every time I watch it, and I am glad it exists.

Faustus5 · Post by **Faustus5** » Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:01 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:Edge of Seventeen - I don't remember, have I ever told this board how much I really, really like this movie? Because I really, really like this movie. I have thought about it deeply and I have concluded that it is the best teen movie. It is flawless and it gets better every time I watch it, and I am glad it exists.

Damn good film. I'd say Eighth Grade is of equal quality--check it out if you haven't already.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:38 pm

Agreed on Edge of Seventeen. I've yet to see Eighth Grade. I got bored with Roma and stopped watching it, but my wife liked it.

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:56 pm

FWIW I read these too, even though it's almost always stuff I haven't seen. Last teen comedy I remember really enjoying was Easy A. Haven't seen Edge of Seventeen, but I'll add it to the list.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:41 am

I already mentioned Eighth Grade in my 2018 thread. I said it was a better movie than Hereditary.

I remember liking Easy A but it's no Edge of Seventeen.

Post by **Gendo** » Sun Mar 03, 2019 4:45 am

Derived Absurdity wrote:I already mentioned Eighth Grade in my 2018 thread. I said it was a better movie than Hereditary.

I remember the thread in question; you're missing a key word from this post.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:05 pm

Lol, yeah, well, it's also that.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:31 pm

I'm gonna slowly wean myself off of these posts, maybe. Probably. There's gonna come a day when one of them just randomly becomes my last post.

Captain Marvel - grunge Brie Larson is hot.

Sleepaway Camp (1983) - boring. Nice vibe.

The Terror - good.

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:55 pm

Ah, I'd be bummed if you left. :(

Derived Absurdity wrote:The Terror - good.

Which one is this?

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:13 pm

Raxivace wrote:Ah, I'd be bummed if you left. :(

Thanks. I don't actively plan on leaving soon but someday my willpower/interest is just going to fade out.

Raxivace wrote:Which one is this?

The Terror was a show on AMC based on the story of a lost expedition to the Arctic by the British Navy in the 1800s. It was marketed as a survivalist horror, which it wasn't, but it was still very good and worth watching. It was atmospheric and unremittingly bleak, but not in a nihilistic Game of Thrones or Walking Dead way where it's just gratuitous nonsensical violence and despair for no reason; there's meaning behind it. The storytelling was top-notch and the themes were very deep and mature. There's only ten episodes. I recommend it.

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:26 am

Sounds neat, I might check it out. I thought you maybe had meant the Roger Corman movie The Terror from the 60's, but it looks like they're completely unrelated.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:50 am

Us - I have mixed feelings. It was fun. It was messy, but fun. Not scary, but fun. "Messy" as in I think it tried to say a lot of things, but unlike Get Out which had one clear strong message and theme it delivered forcefully, Us had a whole bunch of messages and themes it sort of vaguely and clumsily gestured at. The whole concept of doppelgangers has, intrinsically, a lot of thematic and psychological potential in stories, especially horror stories, which this one in my mind mostly squandered. There wasn't much here that's deep or metaphorical or psychological. That's not to say there was nothing here thematically, but it was thin and vague. The exposition dump near the end was very very silly and the opening text basically gave it away anyway, so there was no point. A good rule of thumb is that horror is supposed to stay mysterious. A similarity this movie has to Get Out is that the premises and plots for both movies would sound amazingly stupid if explained out loud and taken literally, but Get Out saves itself by merely using that premise to make an obvious social statement, while this one... yeah, I don't know, man. The events here should obviously be taken as fantastic as well, not literal, but still.

The two primary themes of the movie are class oppression and the lasting effects of trauma, neither of which doppelgangers are really the best ideas for which to deliver. Even on the bare surface, the movie is mostly structured and presented as a home invasion thriller with the doppelganger aspect incidental and used primarily to keep the audience wondering what's actually happening. No matter how deeply or in what way the movie is analyzed or viewed, the whole doppelganger aspect seems incidental.

So I feel ambiguous about it. I think it should either have been more metaphorical or more literal/logical, and not tried to be both. It has some depth, but I don't know if much of it would stand up to scrutiny if I watched it a second time. To the extent that I'm even qualified to judge shit like filmmaking craft, it had a lot of craft, although as an actual viewing experience it only sort of worked most of the time. I can see my opinion of it completely changing on a second watch.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:56 am

Hellboy (2004) - I wasn't into it.

Watchmen (2007) - ditto. This movie blew. It's the quintessential example of someone adapting something with slavish devotion while completely missing its whole goddamn point. It followed the comic point-by-point, importing entire scenes and conversations wholesale, and yet it had no idea what it was actually saying. Zack Snyder made all the heroes have actual superpowers just because he thought it would look cool in fight scenes. The soundtrack was just someone going through their iPod shuffle. The plot just plodded along. There was no drama or forward momentum. Everything just seemed stale and stuffy and claustrophobic in a way I don't have the film language to describe. I read a review of this movie once that used the phrase "static visual composition", and goddamn if that doesn't nail it down perfectly. Like I can't really put it into words, but yeah, I know exactly what you mean. The visual composition of this movie was most certainly static. I thought it sucked the first time I watched it and I just re-watched it to see if it still sucks, and, yep, it still sucks.

Post by **Gendo** » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:22 pm

Can we just agree that Zack Snyder has never done anything good?

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:45 pm

Snyder is good IMO.

It has been a long time since I've seen Watchmen though, however I don't remember having any of DA's issues with it. I remember finding it visually striking in particular.

Also most controversially I'd have to say that, at the time at least, I found the Black Freighter stuff in the comic to be genuinely tedious and what it added to Veidt's character not really worth the time it took, and I'm glad the movie cut it out. It's possible a reread would change my opinion though.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:32 pm

Gendo wrote:Can we just agree that Zack Snyder has never done anything good?

I don't know, but certainly everything I've seen by him has been crap. I haven't seen Dawn of the Dead tho. There's also that animated owl movie that's always on in my house that sort of looks fine, although I haven't actually watched more than ten minutes of it at a time. I did not know that was made by Zack Snyder before just now.

Raxivace wrote:Snyder is good IMO.

I think he's good at creating visually striking images and memorable opening credits sequences. Other than that, I can't think of much.

I remember being bored by the Black Freighter stuff, too. I'm glad the movie took it out, because it (the movie) was so boring already that adding an already-boring thing on top of all the other boring things would made it actively unbearable.

I remember reading a theory a long time ago that said there was meant to be a parallel with the Black Freighter stuff in the comics, which seems to have been designed to pull you out of the main story and remind you that you are, in fact, reading a comic book, and the soundtrack in the movie, which seems to have been designed to draw attention to itself with how jarringly, blatantly horrible it is and pull you out of the scene and remind you that you are, in fact, watching a movie, and that movies have soundtracks. I don't know if that's true or what the point would be even if it was, but it's a theory, and it's the most charitable explanation of the soundtrack I can think of.

Post by **Gendo** » Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:25 pm

Yeah I didn't know that either Dawn of the Dead or Legend of the Guardians was him before now. I remember liking Dawn of the Dead ok, but that was a long time ago.

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:56 pm

Dawn of the Dead '04 is good IMO, though all it really lifts from the Romero movie is the general premise of "People in a mall during zombie apocalypse". I do think the Romero movie is better but that's hardly damning criticism.

I haven't seen the Owl movie myself though.

Derived Absurdity wrote:I remember reading a theory a long time ago that said there was meant to be a parallel with the Black Freighter stuff in the comics, which seems to have been designed to pull you out of the main story and remind you that you are, in fact, reading a comic book, and the soundtrack in the movie, which seems to have been designed to draw attention to itself with how jarringly, blatantly horrible it is and pull you out of the scene and remind you that you are, in fact, watching a movie, and that movies have soundtracks. I don't know if that's true or what the point would be even if it was, but it's a theory, and it's the most charitable explanation of the soundtrack I can think of.

As far as the Black Freighter stuff goes IIRC its meant to comment on the main story of the comic (With the main pirate guy reflecting Veidt. He even references the comic at one point, and it also makes the fact that his plan revolves around a giant squid, or y'know, a sea monster thematically relevant.), with the analogy being to how the Watchmen comic itself is meant to reflect the real world. I just don't find the pirate comic parts that interesting in their own right, but the metafictional purpose they serve is fine if not quite as strong as I'd like.

As far as the music goes I'd have to watch the movie again. The only song I really remember in it is All Along the Watchtower, and the lyrics from that are in the comic anyways.

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:20 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:Hellboy (2004) - I wasn't into it.

Watchmen (2007) - ditto. This movie blew. It's the quintessential example of someone adapting something with slavish devotion while completely missing its whole goddamn point. It followed the comic point-by-point, importing entire scenes and conversations wholesale, and yet it had no idea what it was actually saying. Zack Snyder made all the heroes have actual superpowers just because he thought it would look cool in fight scenes. The soundtrack was just someone going through their iPod shuffle. The plot just plodded along. There was no drama or forward momentum. Everything just seemed stale and stuffy and claustrophobic in a way I don't have the film language to describe. I read a review of this movie once that used the phrase "static visual composition", and goddamn if that doesn't nail it down perfectly. Like I can't really put it into words, but yeah, I know exactly what you mean. The visual composition of this movie was most certainly static. I thought it sucked the first time I watched it and I just re-watched it to see if it still sucks, and, yep, it still sucks.

I loved Hellboy but I couldn't help but be disappointed in Watchmen compared to the book. I think your "slavish devotion while completely missing its whole goddamn point" criticism hits the nail on the head so damn hard. I think part of that was in the wrong-headed notion that you can 1:1 transfer a comic to a film to begin with. Different mediums work and don't work in very different ways, and transferring plot and dialogue is never enough. For one, Moore did so much with the visual formalism of the comic that you can't easily replicate in film. Snyder doesn't even attempt anything similar, just replacing form with empty style, and that alone very much changes the tone and how the themes come across.

I don't recall specifics of the film, but I do doubt "static visual composition" would fit as an adjective, at least in the way I think of it. Technically that just means the camera doesn't move and there aren't significant changes within the image. There are art-films that play around with extremes of this like Kiarostami's Five and Warhol's Empire. In more "normal" films, directors like Hou, Tsai and Ozu tend to use a lot of static compositions. Here's one of my favorite films that makes great usage of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ass11dxuyzU

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:27 pm

Snyder is a great visual stylist but I don't think has anything of substance to say thematically or express dramatically. His films work mostly as big, dumb, stylish spectacles. Man of Steel is the perfect example where the first half origin story is so damn awful because it fails on fundamentally human levels, but all the fights and apocalyptic ending between Superman and Zod is some of the most visually imaginative stuff ever in superhero cinema. I feel like if I could meld him and Joss Whedon together into one writer/director we'd have one really great auteur on our hands.

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:23 pm

Eva Yojimbo wrote:There are art-films that play around with extremes of this like Kiarostami's Five and Warhol's Empire.

Are movies like this even meant to actually be watched? And not just put on in the background or something for you to occasionally glance at? Like I can't imagine going to a theater and sitting through all 8 hours of Empire, though I can imagine it being put on at a particularly pretentious cocktail party or something and occasionally talking about it with others.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:05 am

I realize that Watchmen technically had changes within its images, but the phrase still works because compared to a normal movie that people are supposed to actually watch and enjoy, the visuals were static. The camera stayed still more than usual and there was less movement on screen than normal. Mixed together with the thudding dialogue and pondering pacing and lack of natural forward momentum, it was noticeable and unpleasant.

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:53 pm

Raxivace wrote:
Eva Yojimbo wrote:There are art-films that play around with extremes of this like Kiarostami's Five and Warhol's Empire.
Are movies like this even meant to actually be watched? And not just put on in the background or something for you to occasionally glance at? Like I can't imagine going to a theater and sitting through all 8 hours of Empire, though I can imagine it being put on at a particularly pretentious cocktail party or something and occasionally talking about it with others.

For the Kiarostami, probably yes. It was screened at two festivals and got an actual DVD release, and it kinda fits in well with his general aesthetic of wanting to put audiences in a sleepy, meditative state. He also had an interesting perspective on it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu9cbCJKLs8. TBH, I tend to enjoy listening to Kiarostami more than I enjoy watching his films (though The Wind Will Carry Us and Close-Up were great). With someone like Brakhage I love both about equally.

For the Warhol, I have no idea. AFAIK, it was only ever screened at Jonas Mekas's cinema, probably among a small group of avant-garde devotees. Warhol eventually withdrew all his films from circulation. It seems like it--and his others like Sleep--would fit in better at an art gallery where it's projected on a wall and people could "watch" it more like a painting that changes a bit when they come back to it. Certainly sitting down to watch the whole thing is pointlessly silly except as a kind of endurance test--Warhol as the progenitor of the "How Long Can You Watch?" challenge? Makes sense given how many other pop culture trends he predicted--and I'm guessing even Warhol would say so, but also knowing him he'd be satisfied with the fact alone that it got people talking about it.

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:00 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:I realize that Watchmen technically had changes within its images, but the phrase still works because compared to a normal movie that people are supposed to actually watch and enjoy, the visuals were static. The camera stayed still more than usual and there was less movement on screen than normal. Mixed together with the thudding dialogue and pondering pacing and lack of natural forward momentum, it was noticeable and unpleasant.

Hmmm, you've almost got me interested in checking it out again just to pay attention to this. Contemporary Hollywood is so ADD-ish in its obsession with constant movement/action and editing that more static visual compositions would be a refreshing change, even if just to have a contrast to the scenes of action and constant editing. I mean, there's a real art to using a static composition to say something in itself that's almost been completely lost in contemporary American cinema. Assuming that Watchmen did feature more static visual compositions, perhaps Snyder was trying to replicate that aspect of comics? If so, that's a rather silly idea since it's fundamentally impossible in cinema, as static visual compositions are still moving in time. You can't replicate the (literal) timelessness of literature in a medium in which time is a fundamental aspect.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:07 am

Pet Sematary (2019) - worthless. 0/10. I could go on for paragraphs about what a complete piece of shit this was but I don't even care enough. I guess looked at as objectively and unbiased-ly and dispassionately as possible I could say it's a slightly above-average horror flick as far as it goes, but that means nothing when 95% of horror movies are such shit anyway and fucking Pet Sematary deserves so much more than merely being "above average". I hope everyone involved who was involved with this gets stabbed in the eyes, including the cat.

Eva Yojimbo · Post by **Eva Yojimbo** » Sat Apr 06, 2019 3:58 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:...95% of horror movies are such shit anyway...

Have you explored any Japanese Horror? I'm not an expert, but the one I've seen have been quite good. Audition really fucked my mind up good.