#the cinematography in this movie stands out to me so much every time I watch it like man the colours .. beautiful

[pyersiki]

high plains drifter studies but with John Marston instead

[somedayillbepeterpan]

Finally, I am able to continue this series.

I started doing The Butterfly Ball analysis as a way to get it out of my head because it had burrowed deep inside my brain that it was rotting my thoughts (which still hasn't stopped).

To understand my ramblings fully, you can go to the other parts here:

Start here | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Here we go for: PART 5: BLOCKING AND WHERE COLIN WAS WHILE PEN WAS REVEALING HERSELF AS LW

I've decided to chop this part into smaller pieces too because when I started part 5, the whole thing was way too long for my attention span. I really am so sorry about the deluge of thoughts that I have for this scene. I'm half tempted to copy Sammy Bates and create videos but I do not have the same talent that she has. So, you're stuck with me and my barrage of written thoughts.

Anyway, Part 5.1 - The stage layout

We've talked about the shape of the venue. We've talked about the aesthetics of the event. We've talked about clothes. And we've talked about music and dances.

Now, let's get to the nitty-gritty of things. Let's talk about the blocking of the whole scene. To start it off, we have to understand the layout of stage.

Just for context, at one point in my life, I studied cinematography and I love movies so I get keyed up with blocking and camera angle choices.

To give importance to how important this scene is, sweeping/panning shots that is 360 degrees in motion with about 150, maybe 200 people, in one room is a nightmare in logistics. Every shot has to matter and every shot has to be reviewed and set up precisely. Most of the ball scenes takes 1 week to shoot because of how technical it is. There is an interview of Tom Verica talking about plotting the whole scene (I think it was the Vanity Fair one).

The particular weight of this ball is shown in how it's set-up like a centre stage. Even the lighting and the floor design draws your attention inward. Out of the three seasons' Ep 8 balls, this is the only one elevated and without anything disrupting the centre.

I've drafted a diagram to fully understand how the whole stage looks like.

**you guys are allowed to call me crazy after this post.

There are 4 major sides that I will call anchor points as we go around this layout.

Entrance (in between the two bug cages)

Side entrance 1

Side entrance 2

Ostrich feathers

One particular stand out for me are the pillars around the stage. The pillars hides and distinctly divides each of the 4 anchor points. While this might go past a regular viewers' head, someone looking for it (or a crazy person like me) will understand the significance of each anchor point. It helps easily assign people on each side and and use blocking (+ camera shots) as a great storytelling device.

These 4 anchor points become very important when Pen goes on stage.

Because every single one of it stands an important woman in Pen's life.

(going clockwise from the entrance) Anchor point 1: Prudence by the entrance

Anchor point 2: Portia by side entrance 1

Anchor point 3: Philippa (+ Albion) by the Ostrich feathers

and Eloise (next to Fran, Alice Mondrich, and Lady Danbury) right by Anchor point 4: Side entrance 2

I just loved that every time Pen turned around, there was someone for her to look at and ground herself. Because what she did, being vulnerable and exposing that part of herself she has kept hidden for a very long time, couldn't have been easy.

(We will get to Colin after the next post if you're wondering where he is in all of this).

I understand that some people were disappointed in how the LW reveal/fallout was portrayed but just for a while, let me help you appreciate that in Pen's most vulnerable moment, these women had equal parts surprise and awe on their faces as they watch their sister/daughter/best friend own up to her mistakes and face the Queen herself. And while we didn't get much out of them in the aftermath in terms of communication, it was still wonderful to know that in the end, all these women become/is important for Pen to fully embrace who she is.

I'm hoping to put all of these out every 1-2 days so I can finally move on to writing other things.

Next up: Part 5.2 The Queen and the bugs

[greenesmyfavcolor]

I got to see Wicked Part 1 yesterday so here’s a little review of it! Spoilers for the movie and Wicked in general if you have not seen it yet! (which YOU SHOULD)

I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned this before on here but I’m actually a super big fan of Wicked (I mean, who isn’t though, right?) I first got into it when I was around 12 and since then, I’ve seen bootlegs of it tens of hundreds of times, collected all sorts of things such as shirts, cds, posters, pins, books (yes I even read that book lol), and I even had the privilege of seeing it on Broadway a couple years back. It also got me into Kristin Chenoweth who I actually got to see in concert too! (No disrespect to the other queen ofc)

So basically, I went into this movie ready to be real critical if need be since Wicked holds a special place in my heart and I didn’t want anything in this to be a downgrade from the stage musical.

That being said, Wicked Part 1 was one of the best movie musicals I’ve ever seen. I loved, loved, LOVED LITERALLY everything about it!!! Everything from the songs, to the acting, choreography, set design, cinematography, you name it, it was PERFECT.

The one thing I was really worried about going into it was the pacing since the movie is two and a half hours long compared to Act 1 of the stage show which is only about an hour. But honestly, nothing felt dragged out and there were no unnecessary scenes added to bloat things. Everything went at a completely natural pace, definitely slower compared to the stage show but it made sense and it’s definitely not the first movie musical adaptation to do this. Because it was at a slower pace, it made the characters and scenes feel more fleshed out compared to the stage musical which was great to see.

The music was also on POINT. I had no doubts that Cynthia and Ariana were going to be anything less than amazing, and of course they didn’t disappoint. But there’s been so many movie musicals lately that just straight up don’t have good music in them? Like, the one thing you’re supposed to get right, they can’t even get that right. It’s definitely gotten better over the past couple years but most of them still aren’t as good as they could be. And as someone who’s lived and breathed the original Broadway cast album for years, I can see myself choosing to listen to the movie’s soundtrack over the Broadway’s any day. Some parts just scratch my brain better so to speak than they do in the original like “dear Galinda you are just too good how do you stand it I don't think I could” in What Is this Feeling? or “who's the mage whose major itinerary is making all Oz merrier” in One Short Day. Now I’m probably still gonna end up listening to the Broadway version the majority of the time, mainly out of nostalgia, but the movie’s is 100% on par with the original’s, no questions asked. The ensemble especially just blew me away with how clear and distinct everyone sounded, particularly during No One Mourns the Wicked and One Short Day. As they should though! We’ve become too sensitized to movie musicals today having muted and flavorless or just straight up bad voices in them that it was so refreshing to hear actual good, strong singing voices in a musical.

One big criticism I’ve heard most people having with the movie though is that the lighting is too bright and that the colors are faded and bland. I’m not sure if it’s because I’ve gotten used to just about every live action movie nowadays looking like this but it really didn’t bother me when I watched it. Obviously, I would have preferred for the colors to pop more like they do in the 1939 Wizard of Oz. And the thing is, there is one moment where the colors do pop during the end of Popular and it looks SO good and like the whole movie should have been like that. But personally, it doesn’t hender my experience as much as it does with other people to the point where I can easily just ignore it.

Moving on, let me tell you, I cried so many times throughout the whole thing it’s not even funny. Now, I cry nearly every time I watch Wicked but it’s impressive that it was able to let me capture the EXACT same feelings I have when I watch a slime tutorial of it, or heck, even when I watched it on freaking Broadway itself. One notable scene was during No One Mourns the Wicked where before, I never truly took into account of how hurt Glinda must feel to try and hide all the pain and regret she’s feeling on the inside in front of everyone. But seeing the anguish on her face when she had to light the statue of Elphaba on fire SENT ME. It’s not something you can really pick up on a stage fifty feet away from you so seeing all the emotions on her face up close really choked me up. Another time was when Elphaba and Glinda dance together. Seeing Elphaba cry (which were real tears by Cynthia btw) for being truly accepted for the first time in her life really moved me like no other time I’ve watched that scene as, like I’ve said before, you can’t see the nuance of their faces on a far away stage. And of course, Defying Gravity had me bawling like a baby. It always does, but like I said before, it was able to capture the same feeling I had as when I saw it live on stage, it was incredible.

Also, I was totally NOT expecting Idina Menzel and Kristin Chenoweth to appear the way they did! I knew they were going to make some sort of cameo, it was inevitable, but I thought they were just going to have a couple of lines to say or something. But NOPE! They straight up have their own new part to sing during One Short Day that COMPLETELY caught me off guard. I legit almost screamed in the theater 🤣 But yeah, that moment was really special and made me smile cause I could see just how much not only they enjoyed being there with all the little homages they made, but how much you could tell the other actors just absolutely adored being around them. And even if you went into this not knowing who they were beforehand (which how could you), you could tell that they were supposed to be a big deal based on their presence alone and Cynthia and Ariana’s chemistry with them.

So to conclude this long, drawn out review that I’d be impressed if anyone actually read all the way through, I think it’s of perfect of an adaptation as it could have been and it will definitely go down as being one of the best movie musicals of all time. Obviously if you’ve seen just a glimpse of me, you’d know that I already have an all time favorite, and that’s not changing anytime soon, but I’d be lying if I said Wicked didn’t come scarily close to topping it (not too close tho lol). I’m literally so shocked at how good this adaptation ended up being. I fear this is going to be my new personality for the next few months as it’s definitely reignited my love for Wicked again 😭

I absolutely cannot wait for Part 2 to come out next year so in the meantime, I will happily be rewatching Part 1 over and over again until then as it is THE definitive version of Wicked to watch now 💚🩷

[891movies]

392 to go

Delicatessen (1991, dir. Jean-Pierre Jeunet & Marc Caro): I don't really have much to say about this movie. It was fun and charming but pretty forgettable, a quintessential 3/5 movie to me.

Get Carter (1971, dir. Mike Hodges): There's a certain base level of misogyny you have to get used to if you watch a lot of old movies but sometimes it becomes so overt, so violent that it completely ruins the viewing experience. Like yeah, Michael Caine is incredible and the cinematography and score are great. But every single female character in this movie exists to be sexualized, victimized and brutalized, sometimes all three, and it happens with such frequency that it becomes impossible to ignore or to enjoy the rest of the movie.

Marnie (1964, dir. Alfred Hitchcock): Speaking of violent misogyny haha. It's different here, though, because it's kind of the point - even if I don't think it was completely intended to be by Hitchcock. Tippi Hedren brings such an incredible energy to this role. The image of her standing in frozen in Sean Connery's arms, completely disassociating from her body as the inevitability of what's about to happen sets in, will haunt me forever, I think.

Jules and Jim (1962, dir. François Truffaut): For the first thirty minutes I was sure this movie would be an all time favorite for me but the rest of the film doesn't really live up to the first part set in 1910s Paris. But it's still great, make no mistake!

McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971, dir. Robert Altman): As always Altman is cynical as all hell but damn if he isn't good at it.

Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979, dir. Werner Herzog): Figured I'd better knock this one out before seeing Eggers' version and I'm so happy I did. The vibes? Impeccable. This movie is slow, unsettling, and absolutely gorgeous to look at.

Hannah and Her Sisters (1986, dir. Woody Allen): I believe this is the last Allen movie I had left on the list and I am very relieved to have him out of the way. That said, I think I could have really loved this movie if I didn't know what I know about Woody Allen.

The Natural (1984, dir. Barry Levinson): God I was bored. On the upside, this movie gave us one of the best episodes of The Simpsons.

Up next: With this post, I have officially watched 500 movies from the list since starting this project. I did a top 25 list after my first 250 and I have been really looking forward to doing a second one, so look out for that! (I'm also gonna do a worst list but probably not until the project is finished.)

I also had the idea of watching one movie a year since the year I was born up to 2020 (the most recent year covered by the list), to sort of track the cinematic landscape as it has changed in my lifetime. I checked and I have at least one movie left in each year, so it's doable! Next movie will be from 1992, and it will probably be A Tale of Winter.

[pissfizz]

Okay so last night I watched the first half of tales of the tmnt and so before I continue, this is my kind of mid way review I suppose.

Currently, my opinions are pretty mixed. First things first, the art and animation and visuals are AMAZING. I love the art direction, and I love the gross grungy look of the people and the world. New York is also depicted so real and lively and unique, which is a great contrast from say, 2012’s devoid and empty nyc and rise’s more stylized version, and I really enjoy it. It really seems like people that know and love the city are working on it. Additionally, whoever storyboarded for this show deserves their props for it because WOW, the shot compositions are amazing, the creative angles, the cinematography, it’s so artistic and engaging and amazing. I love the animation, but in all honesty it’s pretty minimal, par for the course for a 2d animated show follow up for a cgi animated movie. But their creative use of composition, cinematography, and so on kind of hide that and it’s so great. I could sing praises for the visual aspects of this show all day, I adore it so much.

As for the characters, I like them so far. I already knew I loved their characterizations from mutant mayhem, and so I’m glad to see that the expansion on them only made me love it more. They have such strong and great personalities, and I especially love this raph and donnie. I also really like how they’re doing Mikey, he’s not a bumbling incompetent dumbass like some past iterations, and he seems really quite mature and level headed and is a GREAT fighter, probably the best out of all four of them based off the episodes I’ve seen. Leo feels a lot more classic, a great return to his original character archetype (no drag on rise Leo though, he’s one of my favorite turtles of all the iterations combined) and I like his anxious and awkward demeanor paired with his slight overconfidence. Honestly for Donnie I have no notes, I love this version of him, I love that while he’s still the tech guy, he’s not quite as OP as with it as in past iterations. He’s just a kid that likes electronics and understands them. That’s another thing, I really love the stress on the fact they’re kind of just normal kids who also just so happen to be ninjas and mutant turtles. This is by far the most teenage we’ve ever seen them, and it’s definitely aided by the young voice actors, who honestly are killing it. They aren’t perfect, but they’re kids, and they’re doing better than I expected. But when it comes to other side characters some of them are really hit or miss on the quality… April is great though, I love this April, 10/10. Overall, the dialogue itself is a little spotty, which makes for some awkward deliveries no matter the skill of the voice actor. I’m not a fan of how the turtles just openly state their sad insecure feelings out loud so frequently, it feels unnatural and since it’s the beginning of the show, like there’s no build up. We immediately jump into four separate fights, we don’t get to see how they bounce off one another, so hearing Leo say “I’m nothing without my brothers” doesn’t feel right because we haven’t seen that really. I mean, there’s the movie, but I feel the show should be able to stand on its own merits without the movie holding it up so much. It’s just awkward dialogue and a LOT of telling instead of showing for some stuff, and the things like saying their thought processes out loud don’t really work for me. The jokes are hit or miss, I laughed a lot, but some of them fell flat, pretty typical for comedies, not every joke can be a winner 100% of the time. The pop culture references are very frequent and very heavy handed, but for the most part, they aren’t overly egregious. I appreciate that they aren’t just doing modern day tiktok type references that would date the show too much and include older movies and things, but overall I wish they’d pull back a little bit on them. Oh and while we are still technically on dialogue, I’ve got mixed opinions on splinter. I’m aware that they probably couldn’t get Jackie Chan back for the show, so they cut corners by making him speak “vermin” instead, which I thought was funny at first, but now I’m wishing they just cast a new voice actor. Splinter is supposed to be a mentor, and this vermin bit will totally hinder that. Even rise splinter which was supposed to tear away from the wise mentor role a bit still fit it in the end, so I’m hoping they figure out a way to get around it.

Onto the next thing now, earlier I mentioned they do a lot of tell rather than show, and I wanted to discuss that. I’m totally 100% aware this is a kids show, but I can’t tell if they are targeting a younger audience than usual or if they just have zero faith in kids mental capacities. I’d usually say tmnt targets kids maybe 10-12 as the PRIME audience, but is suitable for far younger and far older. Tales of the tmnt feels skewed younger, which is an interesting choice that I’m not sure I like, but honestly I wouldn’t care if they trusted that kids can tell what is happening in a scene without constant dialogue explaining things. Because they CAN and it’s a little egregious that they think they can’t. Continuing on though, the story writing as a whole is also a little spotty for me. I like the idea of a human targeting mutants as a villain, especially when tied into the messages of the movie, but I cannot stress how much I HATE that everything I have watched has all been a comic book Leo has written because they apparently don’t actually do much beyond go to school. It takes me out of the show entirely, makes it so hard to get invested because none of the stakes are real, it’s honestly such an awful choice. Why can’t things like this be actually happening? Yeah I get wanting a realistic teen angle but you can still have that while doing the fantastical tmnt stuff. It’s a show about mutant turtles, it doesn’t have to be realistic! I’m really hoping that they get rid of the comic book angle because it gives a whole “this isn’t canon btw!” Vibe to the show and makes it feel like a waste of time. Which leads to my next point, the pacing is kind of ass. The pilot was not a very good pilot, didn’t establish anything at all. And I get it, there’s the movie, but I feel like the show should be able to stand on its own in terms of structure, it shouldn’t feel like I’m missing something when I start the show even though I have seen the movie. Additionally, that first episodes writing was all over the place, it was really unclear what was happening at first and it was jumping around a lot. And while it is cool to get to see each turtle trying to fight and do something on their own, I really despise that halfway through a 12 episode show, we haven’t made any progress on the plot at all, we are stuck on the same incident for WAY too long. This same effect could have been achieved by isolating each turtle and having them attacked by a mechazoid, on different occasions. Dedicating this many episodes of your run time to just one incident of frankly such a small scale was not a smart decision, I shouldn’t feel like I’m six episodes in and still just on the pilot. It’s obvious they’re shooting for more seasons, but in a day and age where that’s far from guaranteed (I mean look at your predecessor) you shouldn’t waste so much of your runtime dedicated to the events of a single hour or so timeframe from different perspectives. I liked seeing each fight, the events of each, but as I said before, there’s ways they could’ve achieved the same effect they had here while still making progress and moving the plot forward. I’m hoping this improves as the show goes on and yeah.

Of course this is only just my midway through thoughts, I’ll probably post my final ones when I finish the show. I like it and am excited to continue, but some writing choices are a little iffy.

[pandoramsbox]

Sci-Fi Saturday: Dr. Cyclops

Week 20:

Film(s): Dr. Cyclops (Dir. Ernest B. Schoedsack, 1940, USA)

Viewing Format: Blu Ray

Date Watched: 2021-10-29

Rationale for Inclusion:

In looking over a list of science fiction films of the 1940s, most of the feature films were more horror than sci-fi: sequels to Universal Horror movies, dipped more into fantasy than science fiction, and/or re-hashes of the core story of Frankenstein. Narratives where science fiction didn't come conjoined with horror were mostly found in serials, like the Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon serials discussed last week. Across all formats, the mad scientist remained the mainstay of the genre.

Representative of this decade sci-fi cinema is this week's film, Dr. Cyclops (Dir. Ernest B. Schoedsack, 1940, USA). Mad scientist? Check. Horror paired with science fiction? Check.

On a technical level, however, Dr. Cyclops is a standout. It was the first science fiction film ever shot in 3-strip "glorious" Technicolor and one of the first sci-fi films to be nominated for a Best Special Effects Academy Award. These characteristics made it stand out and secure a spot on this survey. 

Reactions:

On a technical level, Dr. Cyclops did not disappoint. The Technicolor was vivid without being over the top, and my partner and I were both surprised by the quality of the visual effects. It was the first time on the survey where we found ourselves going "Oh, the effects are good" with no caveats, including but not limited to "for the era." Black and white cinematography can cover up a lot of sins when it comes to visual effects work, so the fact that we had this reaction to a color film was all the more notable to us.

An aspect of the film that took us by surprise, but in retrospect really should have been more obvious was how much of the film was based on the cyclops episode from Homer's Odyssey. The name "Dr. Cyclops" should have been a dead giveaway, but cyclopses are mythological creatures that existed prior to Homer's epic poem chronicling Odysseus's fraught trip home from the Trojan war, and their name has been applied to various works, characters, and vehicles without invoking the story of Polyphemus. Nevertheless, it wasn't until the bespectacled Dr. Thorkel (Albert Dekker) uses his experimental shrink ray on a group of unsuspecting scientists, and traps them in his lab, did the allusion sink in. Like Odysseus and his crew, despite their disadvantage in size, the scientists must use their cunning to blind their poorly visioned captor and escape. 

I was also amused to note that since Dr. Thorkel's shrink ray is powered by radium it means that, like The Invisible Ray (Dir. Lambert Hillyer, 1936, USA), Dr. Cyclops is a pre-Atomic Age atomic sci-fi film. Labeling a film as being "atomic sci-fi" will rapidly lose its novelty once we get to movies made during the Cold War, which is why I find examples of atomic energy figuring in science fiction narratives made prior to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 fascinating.

It also had not occurred to me until later that Dr. Cyclops would be the first film of this survey to deal with characters being miniaturized or shrinking. Using the survey as an excuse to watch The Incredible Shrinking Man (Dir. Jack Arnold, 1957, USA) and Fantastic Voyage (Dir. Richard Fleischer, 1966, USA) had occurred to me, but had I been thinking about shrinking people as a recurring sci-fi narrative, as I did killer brains, robots, and devolution, I would have included The Devil-Doll (Dir. Tod Browning, 1936, USA) in the survey too.

Oh well. I keep being reminded that when this project started it was meant as a representative survey and not a mission to watch every available science fiction film ever made. Still, I wish that I had given titles from the silent era through the 1940s the same attention I would later give films of the 1950s and 1960s.

[adamwatchesmovies]

Hereditary (2018)

Keen viewers will foresee the ending of Hereditary fairly early on. Having seen the film three times now, I’ve realized that's not a bug; it's a feature. The point is that you see the train coming but you can't move out of its way. With a superb performance by Toni Collette at its center, terrific, inventive cinematography and impeccable direction by Ari Aster (his feature-film debut), it's a joy to examine the filmmaking at work. It also happens to be horrifying.

Following the death of her estranged mother, Annie Graham (Toni Collette) attends a loss support group to try and cope. She’s been sleepwalking again and can't shake the feeling that something's... not right at home.

In class, Annie’s son, Peter (Alex Wolff) isn’t paying attention to his teacher's lesson, but he should be. The students are asked whether it’s more tragic for a hero to know they're doomed but be unable to change their fate, or be unaware of the misfortune awaiting them. This idea is what makes the ending of "Hereditary" work. There’s something about watching people slowly inching their way towards annihilation unsettling. With every passing second, you can feel the walls of their cage tightening. You’re an outsider, powerless to react and when the danger is as intense as it is in Hereditary, you’re glad to be nothing but an onlooker. In the most intense scenes, nothing could be more frightening than the characters turning towards you for help. Of course you would if you could. Annie, Steve (Gabriel Byrne), Peter and Charlie (Milly Shapiro) go through so much you don’t want them to suffer but your curiosity has also gotten the better of you. What’s coming will surely make your skin crawl and your hairs stand on end but you want to see just to be sure. Maybe things will go a different way. Or maybe they’ll go exactly how you expect they will.

Key images in the film fill me with dread just thinking about them. It makes me want to claw my eyes out so I don’t have to see them anymore, which makes me admire the filmmaking even more. The longer you look at this movie, the more things you notice. In many scenes there are symbols hidden in the background, there are things standing in the darkness, recurring images and foreshadowing telling you what’s incoming. It all ties back to that question posed to Peter. The more you see, the more you wonder whether you want the characters to know what you do or if you’d rather they stay ignorant of the doom that awaits them. The recurring theme of decapitation is on its own more than enough to give you the willies.

The performance by Toni Colette turns something you would normally passively watch into a reality you’re forced to confront. Her wails as she cries pierce your chest and wrap their fingers around your heart. Her panic as she pieces together what’s actually going on is palpable even if you don’t quite understand all of the “rules”. This film is quite good at giving you the minimum amount of information required and leaving the rest for your mind to fill in the blanks. If you're the king of person that won’t be able to sleep until you know everything that happened, don't worry. There are a few scenes that spell it out for you. Our lead is so good you’re likely to overlook how well everyone else does with their roles. Milly Shapiro, for instance. You’d never guess A) she was 15 at the time and B) that she’s a perfectly normal teenaged girl. Obviously they used prosthetics to make her look the way she does but she so subtly off you just don’t know what to make of her.

There are certain aspects of the film you could criticize. Hereditary is essentially a modern update on a couple of well-known horror films and a scene during the beginning makes it very easy for you to know this story’s final destination. This may detract from some of the fun but it certainly won’t take away the scares. In fact, it gets more intense, more terrifying upon rewatches because your eyes can focus less on what’s happening in the foreground and more on the stuff hidden in the margins. There’s a brilliant scene with a rolling ball every aspiring horror filmmaker needs to take note of. It's just one example of the many scenes ready to conjure up some recurring nightmares. (March 20, 2020)

[unpassive-viewer]

The Bear: Season 2 Thoughts (Mild Spoilers)

Hey y’all,

I binged The Bear S2 this week and I have things to say.

This show is so visually beautiful, the shots of the food, the tight shots on the actors - everything was gorgeous. The cinematography impacted the story so perfectly in a way that I am not used to witnessing in television versus movies. 

I was rooting for every single character so much. Their stories were all expanded upon so well, and none of them were static. The acting was 10/10, I really bought the development of the relationships even though some of them seemed a little random coming off of S1. The writing for Carmy was perfect as a product of his dysfunctional environment (disclosure: my family is very similar to his, it was like watching myself in a character). Jamie Lee Curtis’ acting made me want to crawl out of my skin, which is a testament to how well she played the part. 

In particular, I fell in love with Richie and Tina this season. 

Richie got the perfect redemption arc - this season was truly his and I loved it. I could not stand him in S1, but S2 fleshed out his character so well. I want his character to get win after win, and I think he has has a long way to go in S3 (should we get it). Matty Matheson’s character was also a great counterweight to Ebon’s pessimism, I thought their dynamic was a lot of fun. 

I feel similarly about Tina’s character. This season you’re really able to understand their motivations and fears, which I always adore. Liza was incredible in the role. On one hand I think the show is best as a stand-alone, but I could also watch Tina’s story by itself. Both she and Richie get a huge dose of self-confidence this season and it makes for a very endearing, relatable story. I think very often stories that involve that kind of realization are very commodified and dramatized when it comes to middle-aged protagonists, but the growth of these characters felt very real and well-deserved. (Side note - I follow Liza on Instagram now and she’s such a sweet lady. She reminds me so much of my mom.)

Sydney - Ayo Edebiri - is an incredible character and Ayo’s writing was perfection. Syd’s and Carmy’s signing “I’m sorry” was a really interesting touch and encapsulates their dynamic so well. I also oddly love the way she’s styled. When she’s not wearing her work clothes, her style isn’t flashy, but she looks fantastic always. Her style is so reflective of her character - often slouched, baggy styles with pops of colour. In my opinion she looks like an artist - a creative - which I’d say is pretty accurate to her reality. 

Lionel Boyce’s portrayal of Marcus was once again very sweet, and I liked his somewhat less dramatic character arc. I didn’t love his little outburst at the end of the season, but as a character that’s been such a consistent teddy bear it’s nice to see some more conflict introduced to his story. 

After this season, I want more Will Poulter and Olivia Colman. I am very much in love with them, and their brief parts in the series were so lovely (despite feeling a little random). Olivia Colman brings the most incredible energy to every project I have seen her in, she is radiant and I love her. I also love the attention to detail with Poulter’s tattoos having a story behind them. 

Claire was a good character as well, but she didn’t have the same effect on me as Poulter and Colman. While they’re all static characters, Claire was just... too perfect. Not entirely manic pixie dream girl perfect, but I didn’t find her particularly compelling. For what the character was, she was played well by Molly Gordon, and it was nice to see Carmy get the chance to be something other than an anxious unhappy wreck for a few episodes. 

My singular big criticism as of now is that there was so much compressed into this season that it all felt a little random. There were a lot of characters introduced in a very short period of time. While it was nice to see the environment external to the restaurant and I think all of those characters fit very well, it was just a lot. I think the Christmas dinner episode was very important to the story, but the rest of the season could have used a little more breathing room that that episode took up. 

I binged it, but this show deserves to be mulled over. 

[knownbyanothername]

I saw the FNAF movie awhile back and thought I'd put down some of my thoughts on it. Spoilers down below.

On one hand, I can kind of understand why if I was a critic who had no attachment, let alone knowledge of FNAF, that I might rate this film really low. Not only would it be a thing of, I guess no 'bias', but the flaws in the film would stand out way more to me… however, the thing is, as a person who is, on some level, familiar with FNAF, and has some attachment to it through at least the people who are close to me… yeah, I enjoyed this film a great deal, actually. Maybe it could be said to be bias– but I can tell there's far more heart in the making of this film than the 18321612893961328968123698123132th disney remake with a minor gay character.

I feel like I need need NEEEEEED to make special mention OF the design of this film in general? Like oh my god. Maybe I would have liked it to be a bit too authentic– how it was shot gave me some very… 'modern' vibes that for a moment I mistakenly thought it was more like the modern 2020s instead of… I think the late 90s/early 2000s? Otherwise, though, the cinematography of this film is so GOOD. Every scene is a delight and I never found myself bored– especially with how they designed the Pizzaria oh my goddddddd……. Not to mention THE ANIMATRONICS THE FACT THEY MADE ACTUAL ANIMATRONICS AND SUITS AND DIDNT USE CGI LIKE. THAT IN OF ITSELF IS A HUGE DELIGHT.

Also… okay, on one hand, the acting can sometimes be… a little hoaky. Like there were some parts where I thought that there could have been a second take. However, otherwise, most of it was really solid! I especially loved the actor for Michael– he did extremely well during the movie and carried it, along with William Afton just… I make a chef kiss motion. The second half of the movie was just fantastic– and on a rewatch I actually really appreciated how nervous he was when he read Mike's last name like, 'oh, shit, it's this kid'. In any case the acting wasn't terrible and was really fun at times.

Now, much like with the acting, I did think the writing could have… used another go around. It's not like god awful to me or anything but there's a lot of repetition, a lot of 'this information could have been stated in a more efficient way or you should have trusted that your audience got the point the first time around', and also a lot of… I think wasted screen time that could have been spent on stuff like the animatronics and Michael and Abby (love her so much). That being said: Oh My God Michael Fans Are Eating Well and So Am I. For a character that never had that much official depth to him they did a fantastic job with him.

Overall: I have to conclude that the movie… distinctly is made for a certain type of audience, obviously– for fans of FNAF, which isn't exactly a small audience. Saying 'I can understand why outside critics wouldn't like it' is like saying 'well I can see why someone who doesn't usually drink wine wouldn't like this one'-- like, yes, objectively, they can have their opinion… but it isn't made for them. Now, granted, people who do like FNAF can still have their opinion on it… but idk, there's so much stuff out there that is a more 'ideal, scary, and mature' take on this property (not derogatory) that like I can appreciate the film series– and it makes me excited for the sequel. I was even able to appreciate it even more on a second watch. Overall, I can give this film a solid 3/5.

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2023

www.tumblr.com/theharpermovieblog

🎃HALLOWEEN LIST 2023🎃

I watched Street Trash (1987)

Never seen this, always wanted to. I'm in for what promises to be a gross-out good time.....or so I'm told.

A liquor store owner starts selling contaminated booze to the homeless community without knowing it has disastrous side effects.

Where would we be without splatter and body horror? Nowhere.

These are sub genres of horror that are often the most effective at turning our stomachs and sticking with us after we leave the theater.

Street Trash is a body horror which is alot like a Troma film, in the way it holds high the gore and wild insanity of pure.....well......pure trash.

Director J. Michael Muro works mainly as a cinematographer, and his talent for it is evident here. The movie features excellent camera work and quite a nice bit of cinematography. There's some really good shots here.

The plot concerns the homeless and the overwhelming amount of Vietnam Vets. Is the movie trying to make a statement? Maybe. But it never really casts any group of people in a good or sympathetic light. I can't say I really walked away liking any of the characters. They're mostly homeless and veteran characters who feel more despicable than they should, which works okay for the problematic comedy they're going for.

What makes Street Trash stand out from other horror flicks is it's balance of a unique horror style. The overuse of bright colorful slime only adds to the weird and disgusting feeling of the movie. People breakdown into fluorescent greens and purples and blues and yellows, melting into acidic paint splatter and sizzling bones. On top of that, street Trash uses a heightened version of the real world to create a film designed to make the audience offended. I mentioned Troma films earlier, and if you've seen a Troma film, you know the purposeful offensive type of stuff I'm talking about. While it's not my favorite style of in your face cinema, I'd argue it has it's place, and I'd argue Street Trash is the better version of a Troma film, simply because it's technically better.

Its fun in places, but it's dirty atmosphere and it's lack of direction began to bum me out a bit. There's not much in the way of a main character and every character in it kind of sucks, and it's view of the world is funny at first and then it gets depressing. Then you realize how much it wants you to laugh at slurs and sexual assault and homeless people. It's just not really enjoyable when watching through today's more progressive and empathetic lens.

The special effects are gross and cool.

[burritosandpeppermint]

So I decided to finally watch 'Willow' the series (I'm generally more into sci fi but everyone here who's been watching it seems to appreciate it and I generally trust y'all) but first I watched 'Willow' the movie which I have no recollection of having watched since I saw it in the theater with my dad when it first came out.

First, a dorky little review of the movie:

I don't' want to spend too much time on this partly because I know people have a nostalgia boner for it whereas I simply do not care about it. Like, I'm sorry, but I don't. Upon rewatching it I remembered some scenes being so disturbing or frightening they elicited a verbal response from me - when Raziel was being changed from a common bush possum into a raven, or the trolls looking like creeping shadows, or when the troll gets turned into that two headed thing - but besides the above and, honestly, the attractiveness of practically everyone involved it just didn't stick with me. High fantasy can require a high buy-in and if it's a one-off movie I just don't return to it often, or at all. That being said, it's not bad! I mean, the fighting sequences feel clunky, the acting is hit or miss (I want to say that Val Kilmer was given some direction that might've run against his instincts from time to time)(but he's still good and fun to watch), and it is literally a movie on the cusp between older special effects and the new CGI movement, so a mixed bag there, but it's also fun! The shield toboggan was thrilling! The cinematography is right where you want it to be! Dogs in costume! (I remember my dad laughing about that; I did the same when I watched it yesterday). So, it's fine. Not a childhood favorite but definitely a 1988 Ron Howard movie...probably a little too much George Lucas in it, but still. You do what you can with what you have.

Now, the series: I love it! There are so many layers.

The prince is a flirt who's kidnapped and the princess has to go rescue him.

Actual queer people portraying queer characters.

Every character is on their own journey, even as they're on the same collective journey, and moving from one to the other from scene to scene feels seamless.

People have conflict and regrets, and that's okay. It sucks to be tortured by your past but what matters is how you move forward.

It's fucking gorgeous.

There's probably more but the reason I'm writing this is because I can NOT stand...the music.

You thought I was going to say dialogue, weren't you? Well, guess what. After five minutes in I realized that the dialogue was modern in nature. I kept noticing it for about another five minutes and then I just stopped noticing it. It's fine. It's a series that's trying to tell a high fantasy story to a modern audience; what matters is what happens, not explicitly how they talk. And this may be a bit crude but if using modern ways of speaking takes you out of a fantasy show and you're missing something written by a literal philologist who created his own languages then go jack off into 'The Silmarillion' and leave us alone (and order a new copy, for god's sake; that thing's getting too crusty).

...but the end music. THAT takes me out of it. Every time. The end of the third episode? Fucking 'Enter Sandman?' No. I'm very emotionally open to what's been happening, receptive to all, and at the climax to the episode I'm immediately jolted into seeing that big rig hit that bed. What? Why? Maybe it's just me but it breaks the entire idea of escapism. So, maybe...you know what? I was going to try to find a similar way to end this paragraph as I did the previous one but I'm just gonna end with this period.

My only other minor gripes are similar to most other modern productions: the scene at the end of episode three was...fighting? Hard to say, it's fucking dark as hell. Yes, I get it, it's night, but also guess what? We can imply night without making it super dark; hell, 'Nope' did night wonderfully (albeit with newer "daytime as nighttime" technology than what's been used before). The other one is with dialogue volume...but more specifically with regards to the fact that most actors now wear lavalier microphones which allows fore more natural speech to come through, so actors can speak more quietly or mumble and it gets picked up. And boy, do they mumble! Maybe it's a generational thing; I feel like the younger actors are more comfortable speaking towards the back of their throats whereas the more experienced actors tend to speak towards their lips and teeth. Literally a difference in elocution. Maybe mumble/whisper core is better for some, but to return slightly to a "Why are they talking that way?" point of view it does take me out of what I'm watching if I have to constantly rewind it before giving up and putting on closed captions.

Otherwise, I love it, and I can't wait to continue it.

[zalrb]

can you talk about how pacing works in tv/movies.

"sorry this is an add on to the last ask. what was wrong with the pacing in siren"

pacing is a tricky thing in tv, movies and books, it's something i struggle with personally in writing. and sometimes pacing is intentionally slow and sometimes pacing is intentionally really fast. but for me, good pacing is a balance between plot and character development so you feel like things are moving along without losing emotional beats and character relationships. fnl is a character based show but one of the reasons why i love the pilot is because the pacing is excellent. i broke down the first 7 minutes of the first episode and everything you learn in those 7 minutes

a show like siren would take an entire episode to hit these points and the characters would be one-dimensional along the way.

barry is phenomenal at pacing, like i've watched the first season and read the script over and over to work it out because it's economical af, there's no fat, but it doesn't feel rushed, you still get to breathe and it's because they use everything at their disposal, they use dialogue, they use setting, they use cinematography and it keep the show on a rhythm.

a show like succession on the other hand is a slow burn and it's a slow pace but it's for a reason, everything is deliberate, every twitch of a character, where a person stands, if a person coughs that all matters and the slow pace immerses you with these people and makes you live in the tension of a scene, traps you with kendall not being able to finish a sentence and logan judging him and it builds and it builds and it builds until the episode where everything pops off.

siren, from what i can remember, was just slow and slow without a purpose where i would be like can we move it along, these stretched out pauses why are we doing this, while at the same time not giving me any reason to care about any of these characters.

[marsbymarsviner]

Research [Dune Part One and Part Two]

The better Dune movies. Mostly because of Timothee Chamalet, but also from every other point of view. The first movie came out in 2021 and the second one came out earlier this year.

Not two thousand years ago, like Google seems to want me to think.

Prehistoric movie aside, the cinematography of these movies alone make them iconic. They represent each planet and..guild? house? well with their architecture and styles of clothing.

The black and white style cinematography for the Harkonnens make them unsettling and unnatural (bald people aside). This scene definitely stands out in the movie for both the violence and the different feeling with the different lighting/colours.

Meanwhile, Caladan is bright and has many colours with its variety of wildlife. It reminds me a lot of England. The House Atreides definitely feel like they're British, although prsonally I don't become a Jesus every time I go to Spain. That whole hot weather thing must be on them.

And of course, Arakkis itself. The Fremen and their planet feel much larger and more intergrated this time. The huge sand dunes really make this feel like an expansive planet and even watching it makes me feel hot.

Onto vehicles now, my favourite design is the Ornithopter. While I usually hate things related to bugs, I love these helicopters. They can act like real bugs too with the whole diving thing they can do and I love how they 'hover'. Reminds me a lot of the dragonfly ship thing from Spy Kids.

If only Arakkis had any ocean, maybe they'd need this.

With CGI, their spaceships were much easier to make more adventurous this time. I enjoy the strange shapes and designs because I can imagine each planet designs their own ships so unique as a trademark.

And here is my honourable mention from the recent movies because this scene is iconic and I wish that people on Earth rode around on worm taxis.

These movies are really good even if you just ignore the story and focus on how it looks. The way they developed the planets, the fashion, architecture and more just shows how much detail you can put into things (obviously they didn't invent dune but a lot of it was cool). I may be fanboying a bit here but I genuinely love these movies.

My final honourable mention is this scene from the first movie because it is my favourite one from both of them and I constantly come back to rewatch it because it's so good.

Anyway, spice is bad, sand gets everywhere and space is cool.

[naughtygirl286]

So yes we did go and see Oppenheimer and that concluded both halves of "Barbenheimer" as for the movie well I would have to say that I did like it for the most part I felt it was every interesting. I thought the story behind it all was the interesting part about how they come up with the idea to create this bomb and the secret construction of it.

The movie is 3 hours but I didn't feel like it was 3 hours until we left we went to the 5pm showing and left a lil after 8pm lol but there is alot of back story and the movie is incredibly talky and I thought very sciencey and I find you have to pay attention at times its not an action movie its a historical drama, but like I said I felt it was interesting how they came up with the idea and figured out how to make the bomb.

One thing that kinda bothered me about the movie was the time jumping at spots where the majority of the movie takes place before the the dropping of the bomb on Japan but also it jumps to after that and after World War 2 where Oppenheimer is kinda telling the story at this hearing they are having that did kinda confuse me a bit at first

Also while watching the movie I thought Oppenheimer's wife was a total bitch I even told the person I was with that and they were all "well she was standing up for him" which is good she should be standing up for her Husband but at the same time I felt that she was treating him like total shit. It was like she hated her life, him and their kid. I was thinking no wonder he was cheating on her with the other woman when his wife was like that lol

Always with movies like this that are historical biopic type things I do wonder how much of this is actually true? like I'm sure there was extensive research done on this but you still wonder how much of it is 100% true and what was made up or exaggerated for the movie.

anyway I thought it was well acted and very well written and of course it was beautifully filmed and directed I'm sure it will be nominated for stuff like best actor/actress and maybe be some technical stuff like cinematography and score and all that

The best I can say if you want to see it then see it if your interested

[watching-pictures-move]

Movie Review | Cleopatra (DeMille, 1934)

If like me, you’re watching this in the Year of Our Lord 2023, there’s a good chance you’ve already seen the much better known Joseph L. Mankiewicz Cleopatra from 1963 and your attention will very likely gravitate towards the points of comparison. The thing that stands out to me and likely to most people about the latter film is its sheer scale, with its almost ruinously large budget and seemingly financially imprudent set pieces like Cleopatra’s arrival ceremony and a climactic naval battle. So for reasons like that, and for that the fact that I associate such scale with the wiiiiiiiiidescreen frame and glistening colours of the kind of cinematography and long runtimes common in epics from around that period, an Academy ratio black and white movie from the ‘30s isn’t going to feel as grandiose, especially when it runs under two hours.

But I do think the movie feels lavish in other ways, with the shimmering surfaces of jewels and armour lighting up the screen, or the dense compositions in which every corner of the frame is filled with something arresting to look at. So no, it doesn’t feel quite as “big” as the other movie, but in scenes like Cleopatra’s arrival procession, or when she’s entertained by dancers writhing in formation around a cow in the centre of the frame, the movie manages to feel decadent. The fact that the movie opens with a silhouette of a naked woman adds to that decadence. If like me, you’re watching this in the Year of Our Lord 2023 on the Criterion Channel as part of a series on pre-code cinema, you’ll appreciate the way the movie carries a certain charge in those respects. (And if you’re like me, you’re watching this in the Year of Our Lord 2023 on the Criterion Channel and sweating profusely as you scramble to watch this before it’s set to leave at the end at the end of the month.) Every bat of Claudette Colbert’s eyelashes feels at least a little bit sinful in this context. (Colbert and her Marc Antony, Henry Wilcoxon, can’t match the torrential, married-and-divorced-multiple-times passion of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, but her screwball repartee with her Julius Caesar, Warren William, goes down a lot better than the DOA romance between Taylor and Rex Harrison.)

And obviously the battle scenes here don’t match the scale of the later movie, but the ones here forgoes the conventional continuity of the other movie for an approach based on montage. Violence and high emotion and almost abstracted action are bracingly edited together, the cuts as percussive as the clanging of swords, and images like the soldier being crushed under a spiked wheel carry an extra jolt.

[cupidssrosses]

i care about this too much

hangman and roosters relationship follows, BEAT. FOR. BEAT. the ‘ex’s getting back together’ plotline i’ve seen in 100 other films about straight relationships. 

the first scene, where hangman swaggers up to rooster, stands like five inches from his face, smirking the whole time while they insult eachother. they’re glancing at eachothers mouths, everyone around them is watching them like this interaction is nothing new. 

rooster telling him he looks good as hangman plays pool veeery slowly and somehow antagonisingly. you can feel how much hes showing off. hangman leaves and pheonix goes up to rooster and says ‘he hasn’t changed’ and rooster is STILL just STARING in his direction and says ‘no he hasn’t (or something like that lol)

then their always making eye contact in the meetings, bantering while their flying then

omg THEN

roosters about to get into the plane and maybe never come home, and this SHOT i swear. it’s like, romantically coded cinematography but a canonically platonic relationship?? and it drives me CRAZY. the camera follows rooster as he walks, and hangman enters the shot and their still for a second. 

they don’t. know what. to say. this could be a goodbye for all they know. the warm lighting, the eye contact, the tension, all of it. 

then finally hangman SAVES HIS LIFE and they say the ‘you look good’ ‘i am good’ lines again. HE LITERALLY IS THE REASON that rooster is still ALIVE. rooster comes home safe, he gets off the plane, hugs EVERYONE ELSE except of the main character and RIGHT here

right here is where after 20 years of watching movies my brain has been trained to expect the love interest to appear and for the romantic subplot to resolve. (idk why how to train your dragon is all i can think of rn but do you remember at the end!?! its the SAME SCENE. hiccup is greeted by a crowd of secondary characters, he talks to them for a second, then the music changes, the crowd parts, and astrid comes up and they have their little ‘thats for everything else’ moment, anyway)

here is structurally where in every other movie the next person to talk to rooster would kiss him. and what do you know hangman arrives, everyone steps back, there’s this importance you can feel. the music changes, so does the tone. this isn't just another character, this interaction means something. god and the way they’re smiling at eachother it gets me everytime. but of course, like he considered going for the kiss but decided against it, hangman offers his hand for a handshake. 

ALL of these scenes. ALL these interactions would have read as romantic if one of them, was a women. its crazy to me. they use the same cinematography, the same type of dialogue, the same direction that you would expect to be used for a romantic subplot, but use it for a platonic subplot. 

a man and a women could interact once with the slightest amount of tension and people would without a second thought assume they’re love interests. these two were out here saving eachothers lives, having the most flirtatious interactions ive seen in ages, but no, they’re just really close friends. 

EDIT/ADDITION: I’ve seen so many people say that rooster and pheonix were ‘clearly fucking’ or ‘clearly had history’ and you know what?? i totally see it!! so valid. plenty of tension. but if you think they had chemistry but rooster and hangman didn’t, the only difference between the two is that they’re the same gender. they had the same amount if. not. more chemistry/tension than either of them did with pheonix

oh also, another example of romantically coded techniques/tropes being used in apparently non-romantic plotlines is the tv show suits. its not every episode but mike and harvey have a bunch of scenes that would read as HEAVILY romantic if either of them was a girl (eg. harvey running in slow motion to stop mike from putting himself in danger was very ‘running through the airport’, but oohhh no they were ‘brothers’ )