The Movie Reel

[Kieran]

Yeah, it was the ending, but I didn't want to spoil. Who already told you the ending? Some spoil-sport. LOL.

I don’t mind spoilers, I tend to look up things in advance because I don’t like excessive violence in films, I get a bit squeamish, so I like my trigger warnings for that stuff, but did you not think it was slightly lacking in imagination, or subtlety, to end it that way? Thinking neutrally, I mean? It’s like making an appeal to popular lefties talking points. I will see it at some point, I’m sure…

 

[Moxie]

I don’t mind spoilers, I tend to look up things in advance because I don’t like excessive violence in films, I get a bit squeamish, so I like my trigger warnings for that stuff, but did you not think it was slightly lacking in imagination, or subtlety, to end it that way? Thinking neutrally, I mean? It’s like making an appeal to popular lefties talking points. I will see it at some point, I’m sure…

We'll discuss after you've seen it.

 

[Kieran]

We'll discuss after you've seen it.

Did you get to see Godzilla minus one in the big screen?

 

[Jelenafan]

“Conclave” is what I consider a political drama, and sort of reminded me of the 1964 Henry Fonda film “The Best Man”, that film was set in a Republican Party National Convention. Like that film this film set up some compelling back stage political machinations.

Despite some good performances i was disappointed in Conclave’s ending. The film had expertly established the political intrigue involved among the Cardinals in selecting the next pope, with different warring factions lobbying for their candidates. Stanley Tucci as one of the contenders was a particular standout.

However,

Spoiler: Film’s spoiler resolution

We are supposed to buy that an unknown Cardinal who was secretly appointed , who none of the other Cardinals even knew existed, much less was friends with any of them would emerge as the final ballot chosen Pope.

That more than the 11th hour twist to his identity stretched all plausibility with me. Though even that disclosure should have given the Fiennes character pause, not necessarily on moral grounds but on the very realistic chance that the news could somehow be disclosed and have fallout consequences.

Because again, the film had already established that no skeletons or secrets can stay hidden.

For me, it failed the internal logic a movie should have. I imagine the book may have had more narrative exposition to make it make more sense.

These things made it more a far fetched fantasy for my taste.

 

[Moxie]

Did you get to see Godzilla minus one in the big screen?

I did not! As soon as I told you it was still playing around the corner, it wasn't, anymore. I watched it on TV, but made the mistake of having the dubbed version on. Only after did I realize there was an original version. I tried watching again, but couldn't get through it. I didn't love it, tbh. I had problem with the Godzilla origin story. Originally, he was a creature of the radiation fallout, which made for a nice symbolism. Maybe I'll try again in the original, though.

 

[Moxie]

“Conclave” is what I consider a political drama, and sort of reminded me of the 1964 Henry Fonda film “The Best Man”, that film was set in a Republican Party National Convention. Like that film this film set up some compelling back stage political machinations.

Despite some good performances i was disappointed in Conclave’s ending. The film had expertly established the political intrigue involved among the Cardinals in selecting the next pope, with different warring factions lobbying for their candidates. Stanley Tucci as one of the contenders was a particular standout.

However,

Spoiler: Film’s spoiler resolution

We are supposed to buy that an unknown Cardinal who was secretly appointed , who none of the other Cardinals even knew existed, much less was friends with any of them would emerge as the final ballot chosen Pope.

That more than the 11th hour twist to his identity stretched all plausibility with me. Though even that disclosure should have given the Fiennes character pause, not necessarily on moral grounds but on the very realistic chance that the news could somehow be disclosed and have fallout consequences.

Because again, the film had already established that no skeletons or secrets can stay hidden.

For me, it failed the internal logic a movie should have. I imagine the book may have had more narrative exposition to make it make more sense.

These things made it more a far fetched fantasy for my taste.

I didn't mind all of that as much as you did. I thought the performances were across-the-board strong, and the machinations kept you guessing...as in, who's really a good guy? Who's really more ambitious than he seems? I thought the Mexican cardinal was a very interesting character, esp. in contrast to the one's more steeped in Vatican politics. There's a certain amount of questioning one's faith. To me, it was the cinema equivalent of a page-turner, and so lots of fun. And it is Amazing looking! We'll debate when more have seen it. I do think it's not worth spoiling, and appreciate your use of the "spoiler" function.

 

[Kieran]

I did not! As soon as I told you it was still playing around the corner, it wasn't, anymore. I watched it on TV, but made the mistake of having the dubbed version on. Only after did I realize there was an original version. I tried watching again, but couldn't get through it. I didn't love it, tbh. I had problem with the Godzilla origin story. Originally, he was a creature of the radiation fallout, which made for a nice symbolism. Maybe I'll try again in the original, though.

I don’t think they addressed the origin story, which was fair enough in that the movie was more about the effects of war, and national shame and trauma etc, and they tried to capture that, but they did show Godzilla changed by radiation.

I can’t stand dubbing. I remember one time in Sardinia an episode of Lieutenant Columbo came on the TV. You can imagine what’s coming. Peter Falk’s beautiful rugged voice changed into a smooth Italian male soprano.

I threw my beach flip flops at the telly…

 

[Kieran]

This ought to get the best film trailer Oscar. Definitely going to go see this one:

 

[Moxie]

This ought to get the best film trailer Oscar. Definitely going to go see this one:

I just saw it. It's quite the film. I liked it a lot! Old-school epic, in it's sensibility and time-span, but intimate, too. It has a lot on its mind. Kind of "brutal," as it were. Shot in very old-fashioned VistaVision, it has an Overture, and an Intermission. The running time is 3 and a half hours, plus the half-hour? intermission. No surprise I'll say see it on the big screen, because it's great looking, and also because you'll focus better if you don't watch it at home on the small screen. It's not hard to watch...it trots right along. I'll leave it at that until someone else pipes up and says they've seen it, too, but I do recommend it.

PS: You'll never believe that they made it for under $10 Million US, and shot it in about 6 weeks. Proving you don't have to spend $50-$100 M even on an epic, if you have a good story, and are cleaver.

 

[Kieran]

I just saw it. It's quite the film. I liked it a lot! Old-school epic, in it's sensibility and time-span, but intimate, too. It has a lot on its mind. Kind of "brutal," as it were. Shot in very old-fashioned VistaVision, it has an Overture, and an Intermission. The running time is 3 and a half hours, plus the half-hour? intermission. No surprise I'll say see it on the big screen, because it's great looking, and also because you'll focus better if you don't watch it at home on the small screen. It's not hard to watch...it trots right along. I'll leave it at that until someone else pipes up and says they've seen it, too, but I do recommend it.

PS: You'll never believe that they made it for under $10 Million US, and shot it in about 6 weeks. Proving you don't have to spend $50-$100 M even on an epic, if you have a good story, and are cleaver.

I can’t wait to see it, and it’s amazing that it was made so cheaply. Proof indeed, trust a great idea and the imagination to fulfil it are worth more than Hollywood big pockets…

 

[Kieran]

This is interesting from 2 directions: firstly, it's taken from Quentin Tarantino's excellent debut book as a movie critic, Cinema Speculations. Secondly, it's narrated by Tarantino himself, with his evident love for the film, his critical honesty in dissecting it, and in challenging the director Martin Scorsese along the way for some decisions he made while making it, and some remarks he made about being shocked by the audience reaction to the violence at the end of the film.

Tarantino is a very sharp critic. He understands gutturally and aesthetically. He knows what films are about, and what they're really about.

I've watched a couple of these videos based on the book, which brings me back to the second point of interest, the narration. I never realised that it's not actually narrated by Tarantino at all, but an AI generation of his voice, that deceived me without breaking any artificial sweat.

 

[britbox]

This one has been coming for a long time. It almost seems like 28 years since the original. It's not too far off... 23 years since 28 Days Later launched the careers of Cillian Murphy, and Naomi Harris and featured some great cameos from Christopher Eccleston and Brendan Gleason in 2002.



Murphy is reunited with the original director (Danny Boyle) and writer (Alex Garland). The original (28 Days Later) was a classic IMO - the sequel (28 Months Later) with a different director and different cast wasn't bad... just not that good. Looking forward to this one.

 

[Federberg]

hilarious!

 

[Kieran]

Sometimes we can get great pleasure from a movie spectacularly flopping and I think that pleasure is the only reaction anyone could have to the struggles of Snow White. Torpedoed below the waterline by the ugly, poisonous and racist - natch - activist actress playing the leading role, the film never stood a chance. Peter Dinklage - most famous for being diminutive - then sent a shiver through Disney’s cowardly and hyper-woke executives by saying something mean about dwarves in the tale, which led them to cgi the fuck out of the seven dwarfs, and in case that wasn’t enough, they renamed them the Magical Fellows, or something similarly lame, which led to vertically challenged actors everywhere complaining they were being done out of a job.

Quite right, too.

When The Guardian and Mark Kermode give the film a kicking in reviews, you knew the films problems extend beyond a dreary modishly woke agenda, and the unbelievable concept that Gal Gadot is jealous of what Rachel Zegler looks like. Now IMDb and rotten tomatoes have closed the public rating option for the film, and Disney once again have a political motivated pile of crap to put on the app.

Well done everybody. You destroy good things by being stupid..

 

[don_fabio]

I was bored on the airplane the other day and chose to watch Gladiator II just to pass the time. The characters are beyond ridiculous and the story is even worse and completely uninspired. Don't watch.

I think I have witnessed one of the dumbest scenes in a history of the film making.

At one point they show a colloseum filled up with water to make it look like a giant pool and somehow 2 big wooden ships enter the arena carrying gladiators and they fight with ships in the colloseum and on the water.

Not to mention in another scene some uber agressive drugged up baboons with completely shaven bodies and looking like they lift weights

 

[Kieran]

I was bored on the airplane the other day and chose to watch Gladiator II just to pass the time. The characters are beyond ridiculous and the story is even worse and completely uninspired. Don't watch.

I think I have witnessed one of the dumbest scenes in a history of the film making.

At one point they show a colloseum filled up with water to make it look like a giant pool and somehow 2 big wooden ships enter the arena carrying gladiators and they fight with ships in the colloseum and on the water.

Not to mention in another scene some uber agressive drugged up baboons with completely shaven bodies and looking like they lift weights

Let me tell you a little hush keep it quiet secret: I thought the first film was shit too. And I generally really like Ridley Scott movies…

 

[Moxie]

Let me tell you a little hush keep it quiet secret: I thought the first film was shit too. And I generally really like Ridley Scott movies…

I didn't like it, either. One thing is he got the beautiful light of Rome all wrong.

But @don_fabio, they did actually used to flood the Coliseum for mock naval battles. Did you think they made it up, or that it was poorly done?

 

[don_fabio]

I didn't like it, either. One thing is he got the beautiful light of Rome all wrong.

But @don_fabio, they did actually used to flood the Coliseum for mock naval battles. Did you think they made it up, or that it was poorly done?

I thought they made it all up. It looked highly unrealistic to me.

 

[Moxie]

I thought they made it all up. It looked highly unrealistic to me.

The Romans were amazing at spectacle, and at controlling water. If Scott didn't make it look realistic, that's his fault.

 

[Kieran]

I didn't like it, either. One thing is he got the beautiful light of Rome all wrong.

But @don_fabio, they did actually used to flood the Coliseum for mock naval battles. Did you think they made it up, or that it was poorly done?

Yeah it was very basic and even a distant acquaintance with Roman history would make you feel ashamed to watch it. It was silly and leaden and looked like a Pepsi commercial. I was totally unimpressed coming out of the cinema that day, when everyone else was delighted..