It's a weird movie. It's bad, but it's not bad. It's disappointing but also cool. I think most people would throw a 7/10 at it, but they'd tell everyone 4/10.
Take out Dennis Hopper and the movie is just bad. It has neat ideas but rarely are they executed well. Dennis at least knew what kind of movie he was making.
Very little actual screen time with monsters. Like maybe 5-10 minutes tops if I recall. But their presence is always felt from the tension in the characters.
Definitely more of a character based story in the framework of a monster horror.
Edit: whoops disregard this thought it was the original a quiet place
I kind of hate how these lazyass "where did walking fossil x go" articles can still bring in the clicks when it's pretty fucking obvious where he's gone. since he's not in the White House, which is the other place we keep our aspiring undead, he's home in the Hills, drooling on his felted dressing gown at 3 p.m., just medicated out of time and space, waiting for the reaper's touch
This year marks the 50th anniversary of Roman Polanski’s Chinatown (1974), the 1930s LA-set crime thriller that has one of Jack Nicholson’s most famous performances, as sardonic detective Jake Gittes.
It’s also nearly half a century since Nicholson played rebellious everyman RP McMurphy, who is incarcerated in a mental institution and engaged in a battle of wills with the sociopathic Nurse Ratched, in Milos Forman’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975).
There was a time when the actor was spotted everywhere: in nightclubs, on chat shows, at basketball matches, at movie premieres.
It is 14 years since his last movie, the rapidly forgotten romcom How Do You Know.
One of his friends, music producer Lou Adler, told the WTF podcast that Nicholson now prefers to spend his time “sitting under a tree and reading a book”.
Nicholson can justifiably claim to be the greatest, most charismatic and versatile of all the stars of his era.
The original article contains 217 words, the summary contains 156 words. Saved 28%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I haven't yet seen an in-depth interview with Villeneuve where he addresses whether or not he wants to continue making (admittedly thoughtful and overall excellent) adaptations vs original works.
Going back over his filmography, every film since Maelström (2000) (or perhaps Polytechnique in 2009) has been an adaptation of a previous work. I really love the work he does, and I would not want him to be tied down to existing properties. Then again, he may believe that adaptations are where he does his best work.
Whichever it is, let the man work the way he wants to work. I'm here for it.
Is Sicario an adaptation? I can't find any reference that it is.
Also, Prisoners is technically an adaptation of a short-story, but it's a not very well known short-story (I don't even see a name for the story on Wikipedia) from the writer of the screen play, so you could make an argument that the short story is essentially just a first draft of the script.
I do agree that we should just let him continue doing whatever he wants, he's done excellent work.
I feel like doing really great adaptations like he has is a really rare skill in his line of work. Dune was considered to be unfilmable even David Lynch failed to do it. But he did it extremely well
He's mentioned somewhere (believe me I'm an internet enthusiast) that he doesn't like writing, he's just a master at adaptation. And I get that. Being really good at visualizing a story well is really hard.
They're just going to see bad numbers and fire everyone below them to use more AI and cheap rebrands or remakes and wonder why nothing is getting better
Movies are bombing now, and they keep churning out the same, and consistently worsening, garbage.
Studios will fire their entire staff in exchange for an AI megafarm before they consider "wasting" any more of their time on quality. Why would they when quantity is enough to fill their pockets?
So called enshitifaction is taking hold everywhere, what makes you think the entertainment industry is any different?? Hoping for shareholders to give a shit, at this point in time, is laughable.
I have faith in some kind of course correction, if it becomes profitable in some way. Otherwise we're watching the death of cinema in real time.
"We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make a statement. But to make money, it is often important to make history, to make art, or to make some significant statement. We must always make entertaining movies, and, if we make entertaining movies, at times, we will reliably make history, art, a statement or all three. We cannot expect numerous hits, but if every film has an original and imaginative concept, then we can be confident that something will break through."
-Michael Eisner
Then neither you, nor Michael Eisner are paying attention (though LMFAO at you bringing a former Disney exec, not even a creative but a business man, as representation of someone who gives a shit about cinema. That's like quoting Musk on environmental issues. Hint: People like that absolutely have been paying attention, things are going great for them, they just can't not lie to make themselves feel important, and to make their shareholders, and people like you, believe in some white/greenwashed fairy tale they spin for you while they continue exploiting people and destroying industries out of sheer greed for money and power).
Also, the idea that if the big corporate propaganda machines fail, cinema fails, just goes to prove how well said propaganda works.
I thought your argument was that the movie industry isn’t immune to enshittification? I was pointing out how you’re correct by using a quote from a film exec that proves your point. Films are a business, and if businesses want to make money then they have to appeal to audiences, so course correction is possible. I’m allowed to live in my duality.
It is wild to me how well they have done at the box office. They just kept getting worse and people have only recently stopped going to see them. I wonder if hese do poorly after release, but are big events in the short term.
A huge amount of people go to see Disney stuff in theatres because they feel like they're supposed to. Disney has done a great job creating a sense of their stuff being a mandatory experience to keep up with pop culture
They have had lots of misfires though. Has anyone even heard of strange world? Even going back to the original lion king, they used to release lots of straight to video sequels. Cheap to make, high margin.
As you say, they have monopolised children's entertainment very successfully. Even with inside out 2, they have taken the character and made them older so the original target audience of viewers can follow the arc personally.
movies
Newest