Movies Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 701
  • Views: 18K
  • Off-Topic 
hedge said:
I was fortunate enough to live in SF in the 90's and got to see a lot of good movies at some grand (and not so grand but still super cool) theaters. I guess The Castro was the granddaddy, they still had a live organ player up front during the pre-movie jockeying for seats. Saw Dead Man there and several others. Hate to say I can't recall the names of other theaters, but I saw Pulp Fiction and Boogie Nights at larger theaters (they installed a disco ball hanging from the ceiling for Boogie Nights) and smaller movies at smaller theaters in the Mission, Trainspotting and one really obscure neuvo-noir based on a Jim Thompson story, This World, Then the Fireworks. I think I was probably one of only a couple of thousand people who saw that one, but I loved it (I was kinda in a personal noir phase myself at the time, so it really hit the spot, the movie, the theater, the Mission district, San Francisco, the whole nine yards)..
Click to expand...
Have somehow never been to The Castro but I’ve seen a few at The Roxie.

Bummer that I’ve also never been to any of the famous LA theaters.
 
UNCMSinLS said:
#5 of 10: "Frankenstein". Grade: B

I'm conflicted by movies adapted from famous source material. If I've already encountered the novel/play/previous movie/comic book/etc, should I hold it against a film that tacks too close to the original source or strays too far from it? I generally try to judge a movie on its own merits and blot out anything in the past related to it. Maybe that opens me up for criticism of my criticism. "If you had read the book", you would have understood the story better. "Because you saw the previous versions of the movie", you don't understand what the director & screenwriter are going for here. Perhaps valid concerns. Perhaps contrarian hokum. So be it. I'll forge ahead.

"Frankenstein" is a beautiful film and worthy of many of its technical nominations. Cinematography, Costume Design, Makeup, Production Design, and Sound were stellar. It should win one or more of these five nominations. In the other categories, we're on less solid footing. The score was reminiscent of something Tim Burton would create. That's fine for an "Edward Scissorhands" with many moments of fancy and wonder, but not so much with a serious gothic narrative. Jacob Elordi, up for Best Supporting Actor, had his moments, but delivered to my eyes a pretty flat performance. Perhaps it was a case of makeup overwhelming acting. It's hard to see the recognition of humanity in dead eyes.

That leaves me with the Adapted Screenplay nom. It was fascinating to me that the women in this movie provided so little connective tissue to the story. They could have been written out entirely, and the movie might have been better. Wasn't the source material here written by a woman? Were women in the novel, and their influence on the two principles, fleshed out in any meaningful way? For a two and 1/2 hour movie, the character development was staggeringly lacking. For goodness sake, tell us who you are and why you're in this movie.

The movie was watchable. It touched on several important themes, including the meaning of humanity, creation, and the sins of fathers (and sons). There is still the potential for a definitive Frankenstein movie. Unfortunately, this "Frankenstein" isn't it.
Click to expand...

Mary Shelley probably knew her proto-feminist shit. Her mother is Mary Wollstonecraft; her father was an anarchist; her husband a republican.

To cut women out of the film isn't completely antithetical to the novel.

Arguably, the novel's underlying point is that British society is so thoroughly misogynistic that Viktor Frankenstein would usurp the very reproductive power of women. The Creature is Viktor's doppelganger, the monstrous being responsible for eliminating many of the women around him.

At the same time, though, the novel sometimes suggests that the Creature is analogous to a figure like Eve--the novel externalizes the moral deformity imputed to women in, say, Paradise Lost.
 
duluoz said:
Have somehow never been to The Castro but I’ve seen a few at The Roxie.

Bummer that I’ve also never been to any of the famous LA theaters.
Click to expand...
The Roxie! That's it! Loved that theater...
 
breepf said:
To cut women out of the film isn't completely antithetical to the novel.
Click to expand...
I thought the character of Viktor's wife (or was it his fiance?) was an important if not crucial role in the movie, and that the actress playing her did a great job. Added a lot to the movie, I thought...
 
hedge said:
I thought the character of Viktor's wife (or was it his fiance?) was an important if not crucial role in the movie, and that the actress playing her did a great job. Added a lot to the movie, I thought...
Click to expand...
I haven't seen the most recent adaptation. But in the book Viktor goes to great pains to avoid his cousin-fiance. She doesn't appear on the page very often.
 
breepf said:
Mary Shelley probably knew her proto-feminist shit. Her mother is Mary Wollstonecraft; her father was an anarchist; her husband a republican.

To cut women out of the film isn't completely antithetical to the novel.

Arguably, the novel's underlying point is that British society is so thoroughly misogynistic that Viktor Frankenstein would usurp the very reproductive power of women. The Creature is Viktor's doppelganger, the monstrous being responsible for eliminating many of the women around him.

At the same time, though, the novel sometimes suggests that the Creature is analogous to a figure like Eve--the novel externalizes the moral deformity imputed to women in, say, Paradise Lost.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Thanks for the insights. In the movie, a young Viktor played with/studied/obsessed over a small anatomical doll of a woman while his father taught him medicine. He seemed particularly intrigued by the detachable abdomen, which could simulate the stages of pregnancy.
 
UNCMSinLS said:
Interesting. Thanks for the insights. In the movie, a young Viktor played with/studied/obsessed over a small anatomical doll of a woman while his father taught him medicine. He seemed particularly intrigued by the detachable abdomen, which could simulate the stages of pregnancy.
Click to expand...
That's not in the novel, but it sounds like it's trying to capture the gist of the novel.

Wollstonecraft died giving birth to Shelley. And Shelley lost at least one newborn, even writing in her diary about a dream in which she brought it back to life. For that reason, the novel makes a lot of sense too as a story about the awfulness of (19th-century) childbirth.
 
hedge said:
I thought the character of Viktor's wife (or was it his fiance?) was an important if not crucial role in the movie, and that the actress playing her did a great job. Added a lot to the movie, I thought...
Click to expand...
Wasn't that his brother's fiancée? Interestingly, the woman who played the role ALSO played Viktor's mother. I wonder if the casting was intentional?
 
breepf said:
That's not in the novel, but it sounds like it's trying to capture the gist of the novel.

Wollstonecraft died giving birth to Shelley. And Shelley lost at least one newborn, even writing in her diary about a dream in which she brought it back to life. For that reason, the novel makes a lot of sense too as a story about the awfulness of (19th-century) childbirth.
Click to expand...
During the scene where Viktor is examining the ivory doll in the presence of his father, the older Dr. Frankenstein says to his son, "Ivory does not bleed, Victor. Flesh does."
 
UNCMSinLS said:
#5 of 10: "Frankenstein". Grade: B

I'm conflicted by movies adapted from famous source material. If I've already encountered the novel/play/previous movie/comic book/etc, should I hold it against a film that tacks too close to the original source or strays too far from it? I generally try to judge a movie on its own merits and blot out anything in the past related to it. Maybe that opens me up for criticism of my criticism. "If you had read the book", you would have understood the story better. "Because you saw the previous versions of the movie", you don't understand what the director & screenwriter are going for here. Perhaps valid concerns. Perhaps contrarian hokum. So be it. I'll forge ahead.

"Frankenstein" is a beautiful film and worthy of many of its technical nominations. Cinematography, Costume Design, Makeup, Production Design, and Sound were stellar. It should win one or more of these five nominations. In the other categories, we're on less solid footing. The score was reminiscent of something Tim Burton would create. That's fine for an "Edward Scissorhands" with many moments of fancy and wonder, but not so much with a serious gothic narrative. Jacob Elordi, up for Best Supporting Actor, had his moments, but delivered to my eyes a pretty flat performance. Perhaps it was a case of makeup overwhelming acting. It's hard to see the recognition of humanity in dead eyes.

That leaves me with the Adapted Screenplay nom. It was fascinating to me that the women in this movie provided so little connective tissue to the story. They could have been written out entirely, and the movie might have been better. Wasn't the source material here written by a woman? Were women in the novel, and their influence on the two principles, fleshed out in any meaningful way? For a two and 1/2 hour movie, the character development was staggeringly lacking. For goodness sake, tell us who you are and why you're in this movie.

The movie was watchable. It touched on several important themes, including the meaning of humanity, creation, and the sins of fathers (and sons). There is still the potential for a definitive Frankenstein movie. Unfortunately, this "Frankenstein" isn't it.
Click to expand...
I've said many times, and probably in this thread too, that a film adaptation owes nothing to the original work. Each and every film must be judged on its own, unless the director specifically says he wanted fidelity to the novel (or source, like a stage play). There are also endless ways a director can modulate that and still make a great film.

The Coen brothers tend to adapt things with a very high fidelity, like No Country for Old Men and True Grit, where they adapted a masterpiece novel and a superb one with those two, respectively, into about the same balance for both: a masterpiece film and a great film.

When Kubrick adapted Lolita, an all-time masterpiece of a novel, he asked Nabokov to write the screenplay, and got back a 350 page behemoth the former said was "un-filmable." Per a previously established contract, he gave Nabokov the screen credit, and wrote the screenplay himself, turning a twisted and tragic love story into a cinematic black comedy. Nabokov understood and acknowledged Kubrick did well with it. Though of course it is not close to the level of the novel, he did the best thing in adapting a novel of inner thoughts into something that well works on film in two hours running time.

Long way to say, your criticisms are valid if you separate novel and film in evaluation, and I agree with most of them. Good discussion of this novel in this thread, so thanks to several for that.
 
breepf said:
That's not in the novel, but it sounds like it's trying to capture the gist of the novel.

Wollstonecraft died giving birth to Shelley. And Shelley lost at least one newborn, even writing in her diary about a dream in which she brought it back to life. For that reason, the novel makes a lot of sense too as a story about the awfulness of (19th-century) childbirth.
Click to expand...
I was telling that whole backstory of Godwin/Wollstonecraft, the Shelley’s, and Byron to some friends when we went to see Frankenstein. They said wow Shelley needs her own movie… turns out there was one not long ago starting Elle Fanning. Reviews were underwhelming so I haven’t watched just yet, but will eventually.

 
Finally saw Hamnet. Wow that is a rough watch, emotionally speaking, but very worthwhile.

I’m a big Sentimental Value guy but I can’t begrudge Jessie Buckley winning Best Actress (which it seems like she will).

And the boy who played Hamnet put in an all-time performance by a child. Not sure I’ve been as moved by any child actor since Bruno in Bicycle Thieves.

A/A-
 
Citizen Kane is being rereleased this year to celebrate its 85th anniversary

share.google

Citizen Kane 85th Anniversary

1940. Alone at his fantastic estate known as Xanadu, 70-year-old Charles Foster Kane dies, uttering only the single word Rosebud. So ends the odyssey of a life … and begins a fabulous tale of the rise to wealth and power–and ultimate fall–of a complex man: A boy abandoned by his parents inherits...
share.google
 
UNCMSinLS said:
#5 of 10: "Frankenstein". Grade: B

I'm conflicted by movies adapted from famous source material. If I've already encountered the novel/play/previous movie/comic book/etc, should I hold it against a film that tacks too close to the original source or strays too far from it? I generally try to judge a movie on its own merits and blot out anything in the past related to it. Maybe that opens me up for criticism of my criticism. "If you had read the book", you would have understood the story better. "Because you saw the previous versions of the movie", you don't understand what the director & screenwriter are going for here. Perhaps valid concerns. Perhaps contrarian hokum. So be it. I'll forge ahead.

"Frankenstein" is a beautiful film and worthy of many of its technical nominations. Cinematography, Costume Design, Makeup, Production Design, and Sound were stellar. It should win one or more of these five nominations. In the other categories, we're on less solid footing. The score was reminiscent of something Tim Burton would create. That's fine for an "Edward Scissorhands" with many moments of fancy and wonder, but not so much with a serious gothic narrative. Jacob Elordi, up for Best Supporting Actor, had his moments, but delivered to my eyes a pretty flat performance. Perhaps it was a case of makeup overwhelming acting. It's hard to see the recognition of humanity in dead eyes.

That leaves me with the Adapted Screenplay nom. It was fascinating to me that the women in this movie provided so little connective tissue to the story. They could have been written out entirely, and the movie might have been better. Wasn't the source material here written by a woman? Were women in the novel, and their influence on the two principles, fleshed out in any meaningful way? For a two and 1/2 hour movie, the character development was staggeringly lacking. For goodness sake, tell us who you are and why you're in this movie.

The movie was watchable. It touched on several important themes, including the meaning of humanity, creation, and the sins of fathers (and sons). There is still the potential for a definitive Frankenstein movie. Unfortunately, this "Frankenstein" isn't it.
Click to expand...
Other than the length, I really enjoyed this movie. I really liked the meaning of humanity component.
 
I watched One Battle After Another tonight. Really enjoyed it. The dark humor worked well and the acting was terrific. Teyana Taylor has gotten so much attention for her role that I was surprised how little screen time she got overall (though she was vital to setting the stage in the opening act).

DiCaprio’s character was in some ways an alternate universe Jeff Lebowski.
 
nycfan said:
I watched One Battle After Another tonight. Really enjoyed it. The dark humor worked well and the acting was terrific. Teyana Taylor has gotten so much attention for her role that I was surprised how little screen time she got overall (though she was vital to setting the stage in the opening act).

DiCaprio’s character was in some ways an alternate universe Jeff Lebowski.
Click to expand...
One little moment I loved about this movie (and I loved so much about it) was the scene where DiCaprio’s character’s daughter is going out with friends, and DiCaprio’s character— legitimately a member of the radical left— goes all Archie Bunker on her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top