Movie/film thread: resurrected

Quote from: cruisemonkey on February 26, 2015, 11:20:39 AM

Under The Skin was just friggin' weird.   I don't know what I just watched... but while I was watching it, I couldn't stop watching it.

That was pretty much my reaction. I like that they left so much unexplained, yet enough for my imagination to work with. I'm guessing she was put here to gather information and the guy on the motorcycle was her overseer, yet they never cement that. I REALLLY don't understand the killing scenes. Thought the water was symbolic; how a man will go so far into danger to chase a beautiful woman, even to the point of no return. But, then I had to say it was real and not a metaphor which really lost me.

Can't blame anyone for not liking it, but unlike EL, I thought Johansson was more beautiful in this than in the movies where they make her up, Hollywood-style. I'm not usually given to highly mysterious science fiction at all, but this one I bought in to. Like a few of David Lynch's movies. This director also did "Sexy Beast" with Ben Kingsley cast completely against type and "Birth"; both of which have just enough surrealism for me without blowing up the test tubes.

The review that got me started on "Under The Skin" is below if interested and I still think it really nails it.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/under-the-skin-2014

She was hot in the movie, but the perpetual blank expression looked more like "please let me get out of this contract so I can be allowed to act" than "I'm proving I have no human emotions."

I do like David Lynch and other surrealists.  Even David Lynch is usually kind enough to answer 1 or 2 questions for every 4 or 5 new ones he raises, plus he tends to make interesting actions happen after the more bizarre interludes.  This looked to me more like a poor attempt at a Kubrik film, except with most of the dialog and action replaced by even more endless shots set to music.  Take 2001, cut the scene where Dr. Floyd explains about finding the monolith on the moon, cut most of the dialog leading up to HAL going homicidal, cut all of the dialog from HAL's deactivation, remove the video file Bowman finds after he finishes HAL off.  Call it 2001, Try to Figure Out What The Hell Is Going On.  It would still make more sense than Under The Skin.

Take 2001, cut the scene where Dr. Floyd explains about finding the monolith on the moon, cut most of the dialog leading up to HAL going homicidal, cut all of the dialog from HAL's deactivation, remove the video file Bowman finds after he finishes HAL off.  Call it 2001, Try to Figure Out What The Hell Is Going On.  It would still make more sense than Under The Skin.

Hell... China makes more sense than Under The Skin. 

EL, you have been very quiet about "Fifty Shades of Grey." Have you seen it yet?

Hell... China makes more sense than Under The Skin. 

LMFAO!!!!

EL, you have been very quiet about "Fifty Shades of Grey." Have you seen it yet?

It's on my list.

Now that school has started up again, it may be time to visit the more entertaining shelves my lovely video pirates keep stocked for me.

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

Epic in scope and scene, surprisingly thin in mythos. People don't pray much, Moses might as well be schizophrenic, and awe inspiring nature doesn't inspire fear of god. Some anachronistic turns of speech too. You might wonder if there's not some subtext with all these many modern yankies (and one Australian) in a bible story. However, the epicity is epic, and pretty to watch.

 

"Unfinished Business" starring Vince Vaughn also Tom Wilkinson and Dave Franco. A hard working small business owner and his two associates travel to Europe to close the most important business deal of their lives. Of course, this trip goes off the rails in every imaginable and unimaginable way. This included unplanned stops at a massive sex fetish event and a global economic summit. To be honest, the two "associates" would never work for me. I really mention this movie because I was a bit surprised by some of the vulgar content. No! it didn't stop me, or a couple of other old ladies, laughing in several places. Makes me wonder, what will be shown in films, in 50 yrs time.

Buzzard (2014)

Like Office Space meets Clerks meets Naked. Like watching a man eat a twenty dollar plate of spaghetti.


 

Monsters (2010)

Not a monster movie, more a meditative travel movie, but set in a world where six years ago a returning NASA probe crashed and introduced a monstrous alien animal species that adapted to Earth conditions and became destructively common. The monsters would be a pest species if they weren't so very, very big. The movie is extremely cool, though. It wanders through South America, just like the two leads do, and lingers on destruction and whether or not the breakdown is beautiful.

 


Monsters: Dark Continent (2014)

Not so much a sequel to Monsters as a development of the world. The original Monsters movie described a world where the initial hysteria of alien invasion had passed, and accommodation to the new species had begun. The monsters remain dangerous and destructive, but the world goes on. In Monsters, the "war" on the species has become institutionalised and has given rise to other conflicts, notably in less developed countries where people get bombed along with the monsters. The Monsters story follows several young men out of Detroit into the Army and over to an unnamed Arab country where an insurgency has grown up alongside the monsters to fight the American approach to monster hunting. This movie is in its way just as meditative as the first, but it's subject is "the violence of action" rather than the beauty of decay. If you can sit through the unfortunately misleading first twenty minutes (they spend too long setting up the main characters immaturity), then this movie is actually pretty cool.

 

Monsters (2010)

Not a monster movie, more a meditative travel movie, but set in a world where six years ago a returning NASA probe crashed and introduced a monstrous alien animal species that adapted to Earth conditions and became destructively common. The monsters would be a pest species if they weren't so very, very big. The movie is extremely cool, though. It wanders through South America, just like the two leads do, and lingers on destruction and whether or not the breakdown is beautiful.

 


Monsters: Dark Continent (2014)

Not so much a sequel to Monsters as a development of the world. The original Monsters movie described a world where the initial hysteria of alien invasion had passed, and accommodation to the new species had begun. The monsters remain dangerous and destructive, but the world goes on. In Monsters, the "war" on the species has become institutionalised and has given rise to other conflicts, notably in less developed countries where people get bombed along with the monsters. The Monsters story follows several young men out of Detroit into the Army and over to an unnamed Arab country where an insurgency has grown up alongside the monsters to fight the American approach to monster hunting. This movie is in its way just as meditative as the first, but it's subject is "the violence of action" rather than the beauty of decay. If you can sit through the unfortunately misleading first twenty minutes (they spend too long setting up the main characters immaturity), then this movie is actually pretty cool.

 

Just watched these both in the last couple of days. Loved them and was surprised I'd never heard of them before.

EL, you have been very quiet about "Fifty Shades of Grey." Have you seen it yet?

OK, watched it. 

Considering the subject matter, I had high hopes.  Sometimes it's so much better to go in with lower expectations.

Damn do I hope the novels are better.  After the movie, I'm less than enthusiastic about exploring the possibility.

SPOILER ALERT

Allow me to summarize:

Her:   Aaaahhh... *thud*
Him:  Girls who fall down in my office are sexy.  Think I'll be flirtatious.
Her:  He's cute.

Next scene

Him:  I'm interested in you.
Her:  I'm interested in you too.
Him:  Get away from me!!!

Next scene

Her:  I just called to say I'm drink and I hate you.
Him:  HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAY!
Her: 
Him:  Girls who puke really turn me on.

Later:

Him:  I like dominating girls.  I want them to obey me in all things.
Her:  But I'm a virgin.
Him:  Since this is a special occasion, I'll waste 2 whole minutes of my precious time on foreplay before deviginizing you.
Both:  Ooh, ah, oh. (takes about 2 more minutes )
Her:  I think I love you.
Him:  Get away from me!!!

Later:

Her:  I thought you didn't want to see me.
Him:  I'm obviously deranged.  After all, I stole your car.
Her:  So you really really want to spank me hard?
Him:  Yes.
Her:  I WANT to know!  Do it!  DO IT NOW AS HARD AS YOU DARE!
Him: *smack*  *smack* *smack* *smack* *smack* *smack*
(if that's as hard as he dares, he'd be thrown out of the local B&D club)
Her:  You sick bastard!  How could you!  I hate you!  I'm never seeing you again! (unless there's a sequel)

So, what we have is:

A guy who has a very nice and expensive set of toys, wants a girl who wants to be owned and is totally devoted to his every whim, yet freaks out the moment she shows any hint of getting an emotional attachment.

A girl who obviously isn't into kinky games, yet keeps shifting between Yes and No - and then she finally asks for a firm spanking as hard as he's willing to give, yet goes into a mental meltdown over 6 smacks that won't leave her with even a trace of a red mark a few minutes later.

These two both need therapy.  He fails as a dom.  She fails as a sub.  They both fail at a normal relationship.  Both are so indecisive, it's surprising either can cross the street without a helpful boyscout as a guide.

As an intro to D&S/B&D/S&M, etc., it's a pale shadow of the true eroticism that some practitioners can reach.  It's also like an after school kids' special compared to the extreme levels some people can take things to.


As mentioned, I haven't read the books, so don't know if this lackluster attempt at a movie exceeds the novels or fails to live up to them.  I also don't know if this is only the first part of the story or the whole thing.  In any event, I'd have to be pretty bored or read a very encouraging review from someone I trusted (like Granny Mae ) before wasting time watching a sequel if there is one.  Yes, there were a few moderately erotic scenes, but not enough to make it worth wading through the all-encompassing perpetual state of confused indecision the main characters were kept in.


P.S.  If you want to see a glider flight as part of an extended seduction, it's done 1000 times better in the 1999 version of The Thomas Crown Affair.

Thanks EL! I thought that it must have just been me, given the reviews "Fifty Shades of Grey" received here in Oz. I wish that I had your way with words and that I could type quickly; I think that you described the movie pretty well from my perspective anyway.

Monsters (2010)

Not a monster movie, more a meditative travel movie, but set in a world where six years ago a returning NASA probe crashed and introduced a monstrous alien animal species that adapted to Earth conditions and became destructively common. The monsters would be a pest species if they weren't so very, very big. The movie is extremely cool, though. It wanders through South America, just like the two leads do, and lingers on destruction and whether or not the breakdown is beautiful.

 

Good flick. Makes you wonder why they were called monsters and if the humans were really more monstrous.  This had obvious implications to the U.S./Mexican border issue. Could have called it "Aliens" but that was taken and would be a bit too obvious.   Roger Ebert had given this movie a very positive review, but I somehow missed the movie entirely.  Thanks for the reference.  I am afraid to watch the 2014 sequel for being disappointed.

Good flick. Makes you wonder why they were called monsters and if the humans were really more monstrous.  This had obvious implications to the U.S./Mexican border issue. Could have called it "Aliens" but that was taken and would be a bit too obvious.   Roger Ebert had given this movie a very positive review, but I somehow missed the movie entirely.  Thanks for the reference.  I am afraid to watch the 2014 sequel for being disappointed.

Give the sequel a shot. The people and what they're doing aren't the same but that same aesthetic and storytelling sense is there. Definitely a worthy continuation. That thing both movies have, where the alien invasion is over and the monsters are part of this world now, is really interesting, I think. I'm having a hard time picking out just what it is they've captured by going that route with the stories, but there is definitely some fruitful and compelling thing in there.

Yes, the sequel is worth a look. A completely different story, they didn't try to re-do the first movie.

I only found the first one, because the sequel came up on a torrent list and looked interesting, so I thought I should watch the 2010 one first.

^ same here.

Also I was intrigued when I saw the first one described as low budget. Wikipedia said:

Filming took place in five countries, and many locations were used without permission. Most of the extras were people who were at these locations during filming and were persuaded to act in it; all of their dialogue was improvised, and Edwards provided outlines of the primary plot points.

So I thought, this'll be different, it might have some cred, and it might be super-awful too, better take a look. I went in kind of expecting schlock and got astounded instead. You can see sometimes how they caught certain things on film and represented them as something else to make a story - sort of re-purposed tourism - which strains the suspension of disbelief a tiny bit, but then again the cinematic elements do work out strong enough.

Both of them should be watched in high def where possible. if only for the boat in the sunrise on the river.