criterionforum.org

Actually, according to IMDb, all episodes share the same director...

Does that extend to multiple seasons though? I thought it was just if there was one

A) I haven't fully thought this through and B) domino doesn't have to use the same rules for this list, but I was thinking that things like this are eligible:

Twin Peaks: The Return (David Lynch, 2017)
True Detective (Cary Fukunaga, 2014)
The Knick (Steven Soderbergh, 2014-2015)

Perhaps things with multiple seasons would fall under a "vote for it" rule, where everyone votes for individual seasons or the whole thing as they wish, and whichever way is the most popular wins out in the end

I am like one step away from ruling out everything but Deadwood season one, y’all need to pump the brakes with pushing these limits way further than intended

My clarifying comment was honestly intended to keep things contained to those already flexible parameters, not as a request or invitation to open them up

domino harvey wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:56 pm I am like one step away from ruling out everything but Deadwood season one, y’all need to pump the brakes with pushing these limits way further than intended

Agreed. No way am I intending to vote for Dark, even in the unlikely event that it manages to stick its landing.

knives wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:33 pm The movie is about discovery and I think the side plot with Vic and Stella is essential to getting at what the film achieves. At first he promotes himself as a daring punk ready for discovery, but in truth he only wants discovery within the confines of his comfort. Stella is a discovery that makes him question himself which is the hardest kind. Over the film he quietly develops until he's ready for a truly new discovery in the form of gender oblivious sex. This is a sincerely horny sex comedy which is such a rare thing as to deserve being treasured.

What Sharp and Fanning represent for themselves is a different sort of discovery yet no less terrifying. It's a sort of domesticity that goes against the values they've placed upon themselves thanks to their histories in the field. It's important that the moment Sharp is the most distressed about in the film is not only his mum being a typical mother, vaseline, but that Fanning goes along with it having the time of her life. The musical climax to their relationship being assured is a real mind meld that shows trust in their mutual discovery via sex and talking, I sort of love how Fanning dismisses sex in favor of a boring Saturday, as they now deal with discovering how they work together in the world. This is ultimately a very sweet tribute to the act of forming relationships.

I really enjoyed this, so first thanks for the rec - you've clearly thought about it much more in-depth than I did while watching, and I may need to give it another go before submissions. Where the film really shines is in the magic of 'discovery,' as you say, and how in any relationship- especially intimate ones (deeply platonic or romantic)- we both discover new shades of life and help another discover them. Using the allegory of a literal alien makes for a structure of such vast dissonance between beings, and it's a testament to the strengths of the filmmakers -and probably Gaiman's source- that instead of gags around a divide, their differences revolve around a mutual enthusiasm for living. Making the women the aliens of course supports a subtext of young men finding women inaccessible, but Fanning's ability to split her attention to both nonsexual fun and passionate romanticism humanizes her in ways women often prompt youthful men to widen their peripheries as more fully-formed people, personifying the opposite of the MPDG trope.

I also loved the running gags of her alien group's internal logic of communication, and laughed quite hard when we see her yelling at the baby later on, which is a very smart way to shoot a joke with a lot of audience trust by stripping more of the setup than usual. I assume you're referring to the montage in the park scene as a favorite, which is sublime, but the concert scene is definitely the best for me. We move from Fanning's self-consciousness and isolation to trusted collaboration and gradual explosion of spirit, as both parties unlock their inhibitions and connect together, with the music, and then with the world as reflected in the crowd. It's a perfect demonstration of the honest experiences we have where we take risks and surrender our reserves, empowered by the support of those around us. Touching on the real, in a pretty realistic way but also cinematic terms, sounds like a paradox but this film sells it as truth coated in the power of the movies. Oh, and it also features my favorite Velvet Underground song, and one of my all-time favorite songs ever, during their early courting, so major brownie points there.

A few rewatches - mostly from over 20 years ago:

Godzilla (Roland Emmerich, 1998) I seem to be one of the few people who actually rather like this. True, it’s not really a Godzilla film – it probably owes at least as much to such films as The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (which in turn influenced the original Gojira) more than Toho – which is ironic as, IIRC, at least in the UK there was a lot more reissuing / resurgence of interest in the Godzilla films then there was for the Edwards version. A rewatch really highlighted some weaknesses I had overlooked before, mainly that the lead cast are really quite annoying (although Jean Reno offers good value for money). I like the treatment of Godzilla’s initial foray into the city, where only glimpses of part of him are shown, and there is a great shot early on with Broderick in a giant footprint, but otherwise it’s fairly functional but generally fun. The treatment of radiation as a magical cause of giant creatures (a la the 1950s) is amusing – the correlation between authentic (-ish!) sounding science with the small increase in size of earthworms at Chernobyl and then applying this, clearly with a wink, to Godzilla’s enormous size. As an aside, the Making Of book is one of the most poorly laid out I have ever seen – pictures rarely correspond with accompanying text and the text itself is mostly printed (occasionally in white) on weird Godzilla skin-colour backgrounds as a continuous run with barely a break and no sub-headings.

Battle Beyond the Stars (Jimmy T. Murakami, 1980) Roger Corman cashes in on Star Wars with a John Sayles’s scripted Seven Samurai / Magnificent Seven in space (with Robert Vaughan effectively replaying his character from the latter). Not as good as other Sayles screenplays from the time – it lacks the edge of Piranha and Alligator – but has its moments. On the plus side, the model work (primarily the work apparently of James Cameron) is excellent considering the budget, and the aliens feel alien in a way that Lucas never quite managed. I remember when this came out a lot of the publicity was centred around Sybil Danning who just about manages to transcend that costume and create something resembling a half-decent character (she’s clearly playing it straight equally seems aware of the camp element involved). I gather the special effects get reused a lot in later Corman productions – luckily a couple are on Prime and Netflix so I’ll keep any eye out.

Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace (Lucas, 1999) I’ve had an ambiguous relationship with Star Wars over the years. I was 8 when the first one made it to the UK and, for reasons I can’t remember, a few of us refused to go to the cinema to watch it. I did go and see Empire, and quite liked it, and Jedi, which I loved but that may have been because the audience was extremely enthusiastic, applauding and cheering throughout (especially the finale). I caught up with them again for the 1997 reissues and liked them well enough – especially, by now, Empire – but was never a fan in the way I was of Star Trek or Doctor Who. Anyway, I did caught up in the hype for this at the time and was there at the opening weekend – and the result, which has only intensified over time, was bemusement. 20 years down the line, I still have absolutely no idea why the villain is doing what he is doing – I have yet to see a convincing explanation of how he would be better off if his plan had actually worked (he seems to be doing pretty well considering it failed). And, even worse, his defeat is BY CHANCE! There’s not even an “it was the force” non-explanation! Add in the sloppy racial stereotyping, dated, cartoony CGI (which looked pretty bad in 1999) and, Neeson aside, flat performances the result is not good. To be fair, it is nice that Lucas didn’t just recreate the original films, the podrace is pretty decent and the climactic lightsabre duel is good but these don’t outweigh the negatives. I’m aiming to go through the whole saga (including the TV series for a quality boost) – I’ll see if I can manage by the end of the project. Incidentally, the Geoff King / Tany Krzywinska book I recommended earlier has an interesting chapter on this film using it to sum up the key arguments and approaches the use in the first two chapters.

therewillbeblus wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 4:05 am

knives wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 9:33 pm The movie is about discovery and I think the side plot with Vic and Stella is essential to getting at what the film achieves. At first he promotes himself as a daring punk ready for discovery, but in truth he only wants discovery within the confines of his comfort. Stella is a discovery that makes him question himself which is the hardest kind. Over the film he quietly develops until he's ready for a truly new discovery in the form of gender oblivious sex. This is a sincerely horny sex comedy which is such a rare thing as to deserve being treasured.

What Sharp and Fanning represent for themselves is a different sort of discovery yet no less terrifying. It's a sort of domesticity that goes against the values they've placed upon themselves thanks to their histories in the field. It's important that the moment Sharp is the most distressed about in the film is not only his mum being a typical mother, vaseline, but that Fanning goes along with it having the time of her life. The musical climax to their relationship being assured is a real mind meld that shows trust in their mutual discovery via sex and talking, I sort of love how Fanning dismisses sex in favor of a boring Saturday, as they now deal with discovering how they work together in the world. This is ultimately a very sweet tribute to the act of forming relationships.

I really enjoyed this, so first thanks for the rec - you've clearly thought about it much more in-depth than I did while watching, and I may need to give it another go before submissions. Where the film really shines is in the magic of 'discovery,' as you say, and how in any relationship- especially intimate ones (deeply platonic or romantic)- we both discover new shades of life and help another discover them. Using the allegory of a literal alien makes for a structure of such vast dissonance between beings, and it's a testament to the strengths of the filmmakers -and probably Gaiman's source- that instead of gags around a divide, their differences revolve around a mutual enthusiasm for living. Making the women the aliens of course supports a subtext of young men finding women inaccessible, but Fanning's ability to split her attention to both nonsexual fun and passionate romanticism humanizes her in ways women often prompt youthful men to widen their peripheries as more fully-formed people, personifying the opposite of the MPDG trope.

I also loved the running gags of her alien group's internal logic of communication, and laughed quite hard when we see her yelling at the baby later on, which is a very smart way to shoot a joke with a lot of audience trust by stripping more of the setup than usual. I assume you're referring to the montage in the park scene as a favorite, which is sublime, but the concert scene is definitely the best for me. We move from Fanning's self-consciousness and isolation to trusted collaboration and gradual explosion of spirit, as both parties unlock their inhibitions and connect together, with the music, and then with the world as reflected in the crowd. It's a perfect demonstration of the honest experiences we have where we take risks and surrender our reserves, empowered by the support of those around us. Touching on the real, in a pretty realistic way but also cinematic terms, sounds like a paradox but this film sells it as truth coated in the power of the movies. Oh, and it also features my favorite Velvet Underground song, and one of my all-time favorite songs ever, during their early courting, so major brownie points there.

I was referring to the concert as well. It’s incredibly touching and I hadn’t seen those techniques used it that way before. Though as I was going over it in my head I really want to point to Kidman’s and Wilson’s final confrontation as emblematic of the whole. We think we’re going to get this down and dirty punk fight, but instead we get this bonding over similar abortion experiences that is treated by the film respectfully while still being hilarious in a bizarre way. The movie really doesn’t waste a character.

Dr Amicus wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:10 am Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace (Lucas, 1999) 20 years down the line, I still have absolutely no idea why the villain is doing what he is doing – I have yet to see a convincing explanation of how he would be better off if his plan had actually worked (he seems to be doing pretty well considering it failed).

Spoiler

Yeah, that's the thing - his plans succeeded completely. Palpatine's goal was to become Chancellor and gain power and prestige by publicly fighting the conspiracy that he himself was orchestrating from behind his cloak. The doofus Trade Federation frog people were clueless pawns. I'm far from claiming that every turn of the plot makes sense, but this is something I really appreciate about the film: the characters have all started the future Emperor off on his rise to power and are celebrating about it. Lucas handles dramatic irony the same way he handled the hero's quest in the original film, by laying on the tropes so thick you could cut them with a knife. I get a kick out of how shameless he is about it.

Plus, the climactic lightsaber fight really is the best one in the whole franchise. There's a fine line between something you can suspend disbelief in as a fight, and something that looks like nothing but a choreographed CGI sword dance. Episode I skillfully straddles that line while Episode III blunders way over it.

The greatest gag about the Star Wars prequels is

Spoiler

how Lucas removed Jar-Jar Binks from the second film almost entirely after the audience reactions from the first film, only to have Portman leave him in charge of the council, easily the least-equipped person of the bunch, and what does he do? Casually hands power over to Palpatine, which kicks off all hell breaking loose. So one could argue that the entire drama from the original episodes can be sourced back to Jar Jar's fault.

knives wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:02 am I was referring to the concert as well. It’s incredibly touching and I hadn’t seen those techniques used it that way before. Though as I was going over it in my head I really want to point to Kidman’s and Wilson’s final confrontation as emblematic of the whole. We think we’re going to get this down and dirty punk fight, but instead we get this bonding over similar abortion experiences that is treated by the film respectfully while still being hilarious in a bizarre way. The movie really doesn’t waste a character.

Ha, another example of being eerily on the same page- good point about Kidman/Wilson and especially the notion of what "punk rock" represents in the film. It's falsely assumed to be a wholly rebellious movement that disconnects people from their milieu, yet what it actually seems to represent is the power of expression, the desire to do so loudly with our fullest potential, and the need for connection and belongingness which the movement brings. All conflicts we, and the characters, may expect within the movement is a kind of atmospheric theme that allows for bonding and reciprocal recognition of one another's humanity (even if they're aliens) instead of going down a toxic segregated self-fulfilling prophecy like some outsiders might incorrectly assume the culture to be about.

True which is why I’m so confused that a lot of the reaction against the film seems to be that it doesn’t understand punk. Maybe it doesn’t fit with a lot of types of punk, but it definitely has a mainstreamed New York Dolls sense of shouting what you know till it makes sense or at least you find someone else shouting.

It’s honestly confusing to me that the film got as toxic a reaction as my little bit of research suggests. The best I can figure out is that the film takes too much from queer artistic storytelling devices that people at large are unaccustomed to. The consistent comparisons to The World’s End seem to highlight that to me because despite similar milieu they have very little in common with Hairspray, Jubilee, and Araki’s Nowhere seeming like more obvious points of reference from a storytelling and thematic standpoint. That also explains why some see the film as clumsy or inarticulate as it’s coming from a different cinematic language then most are used to similar to how people often accuse Spike Lee of sloppiness when he makes perfect sense in the context of African American theater.

Despite mainstream acceptance of diversity the mixed languages of diversity are still largely unknown to people, which explains the still relevant need of gay films for straight people like Boy Erased. I imagine like with John Waters as this film ages and discourse about it continues the tools for understanding how it is in fact an in control and well made movie will become common knowledge.

therewillbeblus wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:27 pm The greatest gag about the Star Wars prequels is

Spoiler

how Lucas removed Jar-Jar Binks from the second film almost entirely after the audience reactions from the first film, only to have Portman leave him in charge of the council, easily the least-equipped person of the bunch, and what does he do? Casually hands power over to Palpatine, which kicks off all hell breaking loose. So one could argue that the entire drama from the original episodes can be sourced back to Jar Jar's fault.

Spoiler

There was a popular fan theory going around for a while, that Jar-Jar Binks was secretly a Sith Lord the whole time and purposely set all those events in motion. Link to Original Explanation

The Pachyderminator wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:18 pm

Dr Amicus wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:10 am Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace (Lucas, 1999) 20 years down the line, I still have absolutely no idea why the villain is doing what he is doing – I have yet to see a convincing explanation of how he would be better off if his plan had actually worked (he seems to be doing pretty well considering it failed).

Spoiler

Yeah, that's the thing - his plans succeeded completely. Palpatine's goal was to become Chancellor and gain power and prestige by publicly fighting the conspiracy that he himself was orchestrating from behind his cloak. The doofus Trade Federation frog people were clueless pawns. I'm far from claiming that every turn of the plot makes sense, but this is something I really appreciate about the film: the characters have all started the future Emperor off on his rise to power and are celebrating about it. Lucas handles dramatic irony the same way he handled the hero's quest in the original film, by laying on the tropes so thick you could cut them with a knife. I get a kick out of how shameless he is about it.

I can't believe I'm spoilering this, but still:

Spoiler

I'd agree with the proviso that works if Palpatine believes our heroes to be both more gullible than they really are and simultaneously less competent - they defeat his plan, which he still seems be pushing even as he's becoming Chancellor, to his surprise but endorse him anyway having fallen for his routine. Either that or Lucas thought that most people wouldn't realise that the actor playing the Emperor in the old films and Palpatine in the new films were the same or playing the same character - IIRC the Emperor is not named in the films, it comes from the expanded universe - and this is supposed to play out as a big reveal in the third film so it doesn't matter if narratively it makes little sense in retrospect.

knives wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:53 pm True which is why I’m so confused that a lot of the reaction against the film seems to be that it doesn’t understand punk. Maybe it doesn’t fit with a lot of types of punk, but it definitely has a mainstreamed New York Dolls sense of shouting what you know till it makes sense or at least you find someone else shouting.

It’s honestly confusing to me that the film got as toxic a reaction as my little bit of research suggests. The best I can figure out is that the film takes too much from queer artistic storytelling devices that people at large are unaccustomed to. The consistent comparisons to The World’s End seem to highlight that to me because despite similar milieu they have very little in common with Hairspray, Jubilee, and Araki’s Nowhere seeming like more obvious points of reference from a storytelling and thematic standpoint. That also explains why some see the film as clumsy or inarticulate as it’s coming from a different cinematic language then most are used to similar to how people often accuse Spike Lee of sloppiness when he makes perfect sense in the context of African American theater.

Despite mainstream acceptance of diversity the mixed languages of diversity are still largely unknown to people, which explains the still relevant need of gay films for straight people like Boy Erased. I imagine like with John Waters as this film ages and discourse about it continues the tools for understanding how it is in fact an in control and well made movie will become common knowledge.

I think you're exactly right, and the comparison to Spike Lee is on point. I know we got into a disagreement over my use of the word "esoteric" in The Young Pope discussion but to reiterate my meaning and apply it again here, I genuinely believe that the film uses very accessible form but the process of approaching narrative and breaking down themes in an unexpected way is, I believe, challenging for many audiences. Take the methodology for how the aliens are introduced in this film and begin to interact with characters. Their personalities and internal logic of customs or purpose aren't clearly defined or fleshed out before they mesh, and we are continuously exposed to new practices of theirs over time (i.e. the alien inhabiting the mother and the argument about what constitutes meaningful research). The only thing we know is that she can relate to the oppression of authority figures like Sharp can, and how that fits into a commonality of craving liberation. Some audiences can just 'go with it' and for others a scene like that breaks too many rules, and expects too much from the viewer. Also, introducing characters like Kidman halfway through and transitioning attention to their multiple dimensions is one of those choices that critics default to dub "uneven" as a blanket-flaw when these unpredictable narrative shifts are actually great strengths in films when used right (though it's mighty risky and fails a good portion of the time).

As for the critical reactions to the punk, well, I could see a popular reading of the film rely on superficialities, like the gags where Sharp explains his comic and Fanning asserts that his anarchistic logic is full of contradictions. A deeper reading of what the punk culture services as a community of close rapport is one that you need to have an interest in dissecting to see amongst the other ideas the film is tackling. There's so much going on in this film regarding the alien plot, relationships, and the beautiful proclamation that self-actualization is best achieved through interpersonal intimacy, that digging into the movement's deconstruction may be too much to ask, even if it is the atmosphere by which these other marvels can be realised!

I thought that Fanning assertion was one of the best lines in the film and one I'm going to use from now on in real life.

therewillbeblus wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:18 pm All of my friends love this show, but I couldn't through the first season. I should really give it another shot one of these days since I have yet to meet a fellow dissenting voice (though it's often aptly compared to Stranger Things, which I really can't stand outside of the first season). For those that do check it out, for the love of God do not watch the English-dubbed version unless you want a good laugh at the potentially-worst dubbing I've ever heard (I only tried it out after receiving the same advice from my friends and I can attest to its awfulness- that's one way to disengage an audience!)

I checked the English dub out last night and you couldn't be more right: it's abominable. Local drama club does radio play without rehearsal abominable.

And I started Season 3, which has a quietly hilarious reboot that seems to be referencing TV shows that change hands between seasons, substitute actors and then try to carry on as if everything's the same, except

Spoiler

one of the characters from the previous season is still hanging around.

Another new, and fairly cool idea, is a trio of thugs who are the same person at different ages.

I don't think I have seen any Disney live action films as an adult and Moon Pilot (James Neilson 1962) has definitely convinced me I was on the right path. I think kids would have been bored to death at this talky, slow, and painfully unfunny "comedy" about a reluctant moon orbiter (A DOA Tom Tryon, who does go shirtless a few times for the benefit of whichever member had that theory that Disney live action movies from the 60s were functionally gay porn) who is intercepted in his pre-mission leave by an annoying French woman. At multiple junctures Dany Saval's character is described as being a beatnik, despite the fact that she's impeccably dressed in couture for the whole film, and even more improbably Tryon at one point insists he can't pinpoint her accent. Let me assure you, no one in the history of human speech has ever sounded more like a French woman than Dany Saval. But boring has to compete with obnoxious: Brian Keith, who I usually enjoy, does his yelling schtick N O N S T O P. Like, he does not stop ever. Every line. Yelling. Did he ever star in any Italian comedies? Real missed opportunity there. And then Edmond O'Brien plays a G-Man but got the memo that he's in a kids' movie and decides to mug the fuck out every second of his screentime. It's also a miscalculation, but at least O'Brien is trying and I can respect the flop sweat. I understand these movies were often filmed waiting rooms for waning stars, which probably explains why Kent Smith is also here in a nothing role. If I told you this kids movie ends with a joke about how Tryon is literally going to fuck an alien, would you believe me? Well, if you hate yourself, feel free to challenge me on this one. One of the most painful viewing experiences in recent memory. So, kicking this list off with me never wanting to see another Sci-Fi film ever again, cool.

Next up for domino: all the flubber movies

Is it just me that only watches films they think might have a chance of being actually good (and thus making my list) for the lists projects?

Aren’t you the guy who actually watches all of those awful Arrow releases?

Guilty as charged, but I don't watch them to make my 'Best of Arrow' list!

zedz wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:53 am Is it just me that only watches films they think might have a chance of being actually good (and thus making my list) for the lists projects?

I’ve been enjoying what I’ve been watching so far

As to live action Disney films, I’ve been slowly going through a few and all of them are indeed bad slogs.

swo17 wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:13 am Next up for domino: all the flubber movies

Well, you say that but I recently read an article, I think it was in Focus on the Science Fiction Film, which argued that the first film in the series treated the pocess of science and invention remarkably well (at least after the initial fantastic invention). I've only ever seen the 90s remake with Robin Williams which I remember hating.