Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +3

[NyQuil]

What I found interesting about the film Forrest Gump was the seemingly deliberate failure to adapt specific and core elements of the protagonist's character from the source material.

Now, a caveat - I didn't read the book by Winston Groom.

But I have read some interviews with the author and other articles that point out some of the fundamental differences.

He envisioned John Goodman in the title role, since Forrest, his dim-witted, kind-hearted hero, stands 6 feet 6 inches tall and weighs 240 pounds. He also concedes that the film "took the rough edges off the character," earthy and exuberantly profane in the book, and that several layers of sentiment were brushed on, like sticky varnish.

His sexual escapades are de-emphasized or eliminated entirely, his dialogue littered with profanity is sanitized, and scenes of him physically beating up others were removed for the most part.

Fans of the movie may be surprised to find out that in addition to being a champion Ping-Pong player, the Forrest of the novel is a professional wrestler, a chess grandmaster and an astronaut. He smokes marijuana and makes friends with an orangutan in New Guinea. In Hollywood, he lands the title role in a remake of "The Creature From the Black Lagoon," starring Raquel Welch.

Following the Star Of a Winsome Idiot

I think it's pretty hard to discount the Robert Zemeckis Effect (which is not an progressive rock band from the 70s).

 

[NyQuil]

Tremors (1990) Directed by Ron Underwood 7A

Tremors to me is a palpable example of what expectations can do for your initial enjoyment of a film.

I had zero expectations of this one - it had been marketed and looked like your typical B horror film.

I was pleasantly surprised at the humor and heart of this film, while the creatures themselves managed to still be intriguing and frightening enough to maintain the genre.

 

[Shareefruck]

The message is a construct that goes from A to B. A is responsible for the meaning of it (and will have to assume responsibility if the message is indeed judged reprehensible).

Interpretation is the reading of the construct. B is responsible for its meaning. Now my interpretation of the message can correspond to its intended meaning, or not. In communication, it is pretty important it does (and can lead to quiproquo). In art, it has no importance (well, in both our understanding of art).

Film is the construct (the medium is the message, if you want to read it that way. But if you do, the content of the film is of no great importance, film itself is the message - and there we could go on for another 12 pages here). The message doesn't have a message, it should have "a meaning". In effective communication, that meaning should be aligned with the intent that generated the message. In art, we're talking about signifiance - not "a meaning", but meaning (or meanings).

Hope that clarifies my position a little. Signifiance is a word I can't find a real equivalent to in English. Hirsch used significance and opposed it to meaning - his argumentation has interesting elements (significance being malleable depending on the reader's context and previous knowledge, but meaning being fixed in the intention of the author), but his own position seems malleable and it makes his work a little hard to refer to.

Oh I see what you mean now. So in my example earlier of a person "sending the wrong message", that concept would be incompatible with what you're saying (because the intention would technically be the message and the only thing that could be wrongly communicated is the interpretation), and would be considered a misuse of the formal definition of the word "message", correct?

If that's the only disagreement, I'll gladly walk back my use of the word "message" (and replace every instance of it with something like "most plausible interpretation", which is basically what I meant by it). I don't mean it in the formal sense, but in the colloquial manner that I've heard it often used.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Oh I see what you mean now. So in my example earlier of a person "sending the wrong message", that concept would be incompatible with what you're saying (because the intention would technically be the message and the only thing that could be wrongly communicated is the interpretation), and would be considered a misuse of the formal definition of the word "message", correct?

If that's the only disagreement, I'll gladly walk back my use of the word "message" (and replace every instance of it with something like "most plausible interpretation"). I don't mean it in the formal sense, but in the colloquial manner that I've heard it often used.

Well, not exactly, as I said your argument was an interesting one because one can indeed send the wrong message (something I must do quite often here because of my misuse of the language!). But thinking of it as a 'message' still implied the idea of intent and its importance in your position.

Now that you've changed message to "most plausible interpretation"*, it is easier to understand why the fact that FG might be considered as right-wing propaganda adds to its signifiance and makes it a better and not worse work. It doesn't mean you can't hate what you understand of it, it doesn't mean you shouldn't argue against the film, but it does make it a more complex work.


*which it is absolutely not - it is only the most plausible interpretation in a very limited circle of readers. Most readers interpret things at face value, and FG's most plausible interpretation is that it tells the story of a dim-lit boy who changes the course of american history through running from one place to another.

 

[Shareefruck]

Well, not exactly, as I said your argument was an interesting one because one can indeed send the wrong message (something I must do quite often here because of my misuse of the language!). But thinking of it as a 'message' still implied the idea of intent and its importance in your position.

Now that you've changed message to "most plausible interpretation"*, it is easier to understand why the fact that FG might be considered as right-wing propaganda adds to its signifiance and makes it a better and not worse work. It doesn't mean you can't hate what you understand of it, it doesn't mean you shouldn't argue against the film, but it does make it a more complex work.

I can go along with that.

*which it is absolutely not - it is only the most plausible interpretation in a very limited circle of readers. Most readers interpret things at face value, and FG's most plausible interpretation is that it tells the story of a dim-lit boy who changes the course of american history through running from one place to another.

I don't think that plausibility has anything to do with what interpretation is typical of most readers though-- just what is the most logical and fair reading regardless of adoption. I think that to deny that those unfortunate implications exist in the movie once they're pointed out is less rational than to acknowledge it in one's interpretation and allow that to affect how it's viewed-- "The movie pretty strongly implies this intended sugary-sweet thing, but it also unfortunately happens to pretty strongly imply this other morally questionable thing in the process." would be broadly my idea of the most plausible interpretation of the movie, even though the latter bit may not cross many people's minds.

 

[Osprey]

You could personally have a bigger issue with that, because there's a difference in severity, explicitness, in your view hyperbole, and how judgemental it is, but to me that would be an entirely different "fault" than the preachiness, manipulativeness, and heavy-handedness that I'm referring to. I feel like you're conflating the two because you view them both as negative and passing that off as hypocrisy.

Expressing that I find something disgusting, idiotic, and immoral is a blunt description of what I personally feel about it, it's not automatically a disingenuous appeal to other people's emotions and sentimentality just because of how harsh and judgemental it is.

If a preacher cries down from the pulpit that something is disgusting and immoral, is that not being preachy? That's literally where the word comes from, from preachers who don't mince words and give blunt, harsh and judgmental assessments of what they feel is moral and immoral. It doesn't have to be disingenuous or manipulative to be preachy.

On top of that, there's nothing to interpret when something is called disgusting, idiotic and immoral. There's no grey area there, no doubt about what was meant or chance that that the listener might be reading into things. On the other hand, what you're attributing to the film is very much your interpretation. It could be correct, but you can't be sure of that, and even if it is, the fact that the film requires interpretation is less offensive than if it were to bluntly say it. There have been lots of films that appear to push values and messages that I don't agree with, but I certainly appreciate when they're more subtle and not in my face. There are also films which the filmmakers leave open to interpretation, even though they might've had a specific interpretation in mind, for the benefit of the viewer to take what he or she wants from it. The point is that subtlety and leaving things open to interpretation is a good thing, especially when it comes to films.

 

[Osprey]

The end result is an amiable, unpretentious movie that just wants to give you a good time and does.

That's where you're wrong, IMO. Tremors is really an aggressively conservative film about white American alpha males saving their women and children from uninvited aliens tunneling under and invading their land. I, for one, find it morally reprehensible.

 

[Shareefruck]

If a preacher cries down from the pulpit that something is disgusting and immoral, is that not being preachy? That's literally where the word comes from, from preachers who don't mince words and give blunt, harsh and judgmental assessments of what they feel is moral and immoral. It doesn't have to be disingenuous or manipulative to be preachy.
On top of that, there's nothing to interpret when something is called disgusting, idiotic and immoral. There's no grey area there, no doubt about what was meant or chance that that the listener might be reading into things. On the other hand, what you're attributing to the film is very much your interpretation. It could be correct, but you can't be sure of that, and even if it is, the fact that the film requires interpretation is less offensive than if it were to bluntly say it. There have been lots of films that appear to push values and messages that I don't agree with, but I certainly appreciate when they're more subtle and not in my face. There are also films which the filmmakers leave open to interpretation, even though they might've had a specific interpretation in mind, for the benefit of the viewer to take what he or she wants from it. The point is that subtlety and leaving things open to interpretation is a good thing, especially when it comes to films, as Violenza Domestica is arguing.

To me, the word preachy comes with negative connotations that I associate with disingenuous or manipulative church sermons that use one-sided anecdotes and twisted narratives to cheaply make a point (which could also be seen as where the word literally comes from)-- This is primarily what I find objectionable about it. The aspect of a preacher that strongly gives blunt, harsh, and judgemental assessments of what they feel is moral or immoral does not come with those connotations for me, personally, and I would be hesitant to call something preachy in a bad way if that were what I meant by it. If you want to consider this partial misuse of the word preachy, I can go along with that as well. Replace "preachy" with "sermon-like" if it helps. I'll gladly admit that I can be guilty of being judgmental or harsh when morally criticizing something, but that's rarely something that I object to in movies or in people, really (although obviously there's a limit to that). Also, this whole treating movies the way you would a person angle is pretty strange-- I'm not sure they should necessarily be held to the same standard anyways.

As for the second part, you seem to be mistaking what I'm arguing with what my personal reaction is. I did not argue that others OUGHT to be more bothered by ambiguous manipulativeness than they are by unambiguous judgement like I am-- You're free to feel otherwise and it really depends on the person. I only expressed that the latter happens to bother me much more on a visceral level.

Also, I am deliberately using an example with a lot of tradeoffs (and that I expect others to rationally feel strongly about in the opposite direction) to emphasize how much I dislike the emotionally manipulative side of things, not to express that I especially like or appreciate when things are directly in my face.

 

[NyQuil]

That last line is where you're wrong. Tremors is really an aggressively "conservative" film about white American alpha males saving their women and children from uninvited aliens who invade by tunneling under the ground. I, for one, find it morally reprehensible.

Ok, I laughed.

Still, I found the portrayal (and even the casting) of the survivalists to be satirical enough to be a wink and a nudge to the audience.

The fact that Michael Gross was well-known as the patriarch of the liberal Keaton family made the juxtaposition that much more funny.

 

[Osprey]

The fact that Michael Gross was well-known as the patriarch of the liberal Keaton family made the juxtaposition that much more funny.

All of those years around young Republican Alex P. Keaton must've worn off on him.

Also, the Keaton family matriarch, Meredith Baxter Birney, went on to star as a psychopathic kidnapper in a 1990 TV movie. Maybe they had the same agent advising them on how to avoid being typecast.

 

[kihei]

Antoine and Antoinette (1947) Directed by Jacques Becker 6A

This is the first Jacques Becker film that I have seen and it is an interesting mixed bag of a movie. The plot centres on an 800,000 franc lottery ticket that Antoine, our ostensible hero, has in his possession and then loses, but that plot doesn't actually start until the second half of the movie. The first half of the movie begins with a myriad of characters before focusing on Antoine and Antoinette, a happily married working couple, she in a department store, he in a printing house where he makes books. The first half of the movie is devoted to their relationship and their reactions to the people in their neighbourhood. These scenes have a post-war energy and optimism that is pleasing to watch (for lovers of Paris, it will give you a pang, too). Men like to flirt with Antoinette, including her lecherous boss, and who can blame them? In the parlance of the era, she's a peach. Antoine does not take kindly to her getting this unwanted attention and, in the illogic of the time, sort of blames her. It seems like a movie about male jealousy and possessiveness is going to break out at any moment, but Becker has a different destination in mind. That destination, the lottery plot, is more in keeping with the well-made, feel-good films of Preston Sturges, an assessment I came up with while watching the movie that it turns out other reviewers share. Nothing bad happens in the end, though there is a hell of a fight. And the movie has a happy, somewhat clever ending. Pretty average competent stuff, even charming here and there, but with really nice imaginative touches along the way. For instance, when Antoine goes to cash in his lottery ticket only to find that he's lost it, there is a guy tuning a piano in the same room. As the movie shifts away to Antoine frantically searching in other places, the tuning piano music continues to be audible in these scenes as well, thus continuing to emphasize Antoine's feelings of discord and angst. Mediocre directors don't come up with moves like that. So I will seek out more of Becker's works in hopes that some are more satisfying than this one

subtitles

 

[The Great Mighty Poo]

Saw the new Mortal Kombat Scorpion movie the other day, really solid movie, plan on watching the new Justice League Dark tomorrow night.

 

[Osprey]

Forrest Gump (1994) - 9/10 (Really loved it)

I hadn't seen this in well over a decade and I was honestly a little worried that it wouldn't hold up as well as I remembered, so I was surprised that I thoroughly enjoyed it. I especially forgot how much of a comedy it is through the first two thirds. I laughed more than I have in a long time (because more recent comedies just aren't funny or aren't to my taste, I don't know). Much of the humor comes from making light of serious subjects and situations, so you're sometimes not sure if you should laugh, but it's always good natured. A good example is how it portrays Lt. Dan's PTSD, such that it makes Lt. Dan hilarious without diminishing the condition. In fact, throughout the entire movie, director Zemeckis perfectly oscillates the tone such that every bit of seriousness is shortly followed by some comedy to keep the whole thing from just being very depressing, which it very easily could've been.

One aspect of the story that isn't treated lightly is Jenny's less glamorous journey. She lives a lifestyle of drugs, partying and sleeping with abusive men that she doesn't love, and it leads to her being unhappy and suicidal. That could be a bit of moralizing on the part of the film, but, if it is, I don't see what's controversial or partisan about it. Either way, the film is not overt about it. In fact, when Jenny delivers bad news that is likely that past catching up to her, it's presented without guilt, judgment or even a connection being brought up.

As much as the first two thirds of the film are hilarious, the final third is heartbreaking. I forgot that most of the sentimentality is crammed into the end, after most of Forrest's adventures have taken place. The film really only lays the sentimentality on thick when it comes time to wrap up the relationship, which I think is acceptable and expected from a love story. After all, you wouldn't complain that Romeo and Juliet is overly sentimental. Besides, it's sentimentality that's effective, IMO. Even if you're a big cynic, if you've ever had a sweetheart or loved someone more than he or she returned it, it's liable to really move you.

I was afraid that Hanks' performance might strike me as more fake and irritating than I remembered, but I bought the character almost immediately. What really stood out about it, though, is his acting when he has no lines and he's simply reacting with his eyes to what's happening and what the other characters are saying. That's an acting skill--acting between your lines, not just during them--that seems to have mostly disappeared, perhaps because it's not taught or movie scripts contain too much dialogue. Because Forrest is often quiet and speaks mostly in monotone, Hanks has to convey his character mostly via looks and expressions and he does a superb job, IMO. Most actors win Best Actor because they deliver their lines well. I believe that Hanks won his here more for his expressions and mannerisms, and deservedly so.

Finally, I was surprised and impressed by how many visual effects there are in the movie. I remembered those with Lt. Dan and the archival footage, of course, but I forgot just how how many there are, particularly in the Vietnam scenes. Often, it doesn't look entirely convincing, but a lot of CGI today, 26 years later, doesn't look entirely convincing, either. I was impressed by how good it looked for being as old as it is and can see why the film is considered a landmark in computer imagery, since it demonstrated its usefulness in a conventional, non-science fiction film.

Anyways, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and was surprised that it held up as well for me as it did (though YMMV). It's schmaltzy in that 90s Oscar bait way, but not quite as much as I remembered and no worse than, say, The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. If you're going to be schmaltzy, at least be sincere, and this movie is. It's a feel-good movie, but it doesn't hold back on sadness and heartbreak. It's inspirational in that it inspires you to not wallow in your sadness and, instead, have a positive outlook and make the most of your life. Those are hardly partisan values, IMO, so it's hardly a "conservative" film or a "liberal" one. It's a film that speaks to everyone, regardless of politics or even nationality, which must be why it has a 95% user score at RT. I'm very glad that our discussion here encouraged me to revisit it, since it allowed me to shake off a few misconceptions that even I had built up and re-discover an appreciation for a simply wonderful movie.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Automata

with Antonio Banderas, Melanie Griffith, Robert Forster, and other people

Year 2044. 99.7% of humanity is dead, and the rest are wearing garbage bags and living in cities with the Netflix third world country brown filter on all the time. Think Blade Runner cheerfulness meets WALL-E scenery. Moping around in the wreckage is Jacq (Banderas), an insurance investigator, which is still a thing in this particular crapsack dystopia world because everything depends on robots, which have driven the machinery that kept the cities running and saved the remnants of humanity. Weirdly, everyone hates them. And Jacq works for the company that makes them. They're governed by 2 immutable laws: No robot will harm any life form, and No robot will modify itself. But...guess what people are starting to see them do. Nuh-uh! They can't start altering themselves! But uh-oh, they are. There is of course an evil corporation who can't let that happen, a comely wife to threaten, an older mentor to sacrifice, and many opportunities for Jacq to shout: "YOU'RE NOT ALIVE!!" at obviously alive robots. Ah damn, spoiler there. Not that you won't see that coming.

You know, this is better than I thought, and maybe better than my manner might suggest. I mean, you can see everything coming miles away, but it's not that bad a trip to get there. Low budget-ish...but really. It's actually passable. It does bleak well, there are some obvious logical lapses, but hey, sci-fi. Trope reversal: the one time our hero could really use some invulnerable murderbots that always show up in every sci-fi movie and have you wondering why humans would ever be stupid enough to make them...he's stuck with ASIMO with a speech impediment. Also bizarre: Melanie Griffith is now more plastic than the robots. Yeesh.

On Prime.

The bad guys are coming! What do you mean you don't have railguns or plasma cannons?!

 

[kihei]

Just added the Criterion Channel. Basically a hundred bucks a year for an endless supply of great movies, all restored to their original clarity.

 

[Chili]

Pablo Escobar - 2017

Powerful story of the drug lord but doesn't quite come off. Curious why the movie was filmed in English (with a Spanish director, leads Javier Bardem & Penelope Cruz and locations). Had to read the subtitles because of the heavy accents throughout. Bardem in makeup looked just like Escobar but I was more convinced by Cliff Curtis in Blow of the ruthless character. Would rate as fair, acknowledge though that it is hard to fit this story which develops over several years, into a two hour movie.

 

[Jevo]

Antoine and Antoinette (1947) Directed by Jacques Becker 6A

I haven't seen Antoine and Antoinette. But I have seen The Hole (Le Trou), Becker's last film before his death, which in my opinion is one of the best prison break movies. Good direction and very suspenseful. I can recommend it if you want to see more from Becker.

 

[kihei]

I haven't seen Antoine and Antoinette. But I have seen The Hole (Le Trou), Becker's last film before his death, which in my opinion is one of the best prison break movies. Good direction and very suspenseful. I can recommend it if you want to see more from Becker.

Actually, it turns out I have seen it and liked it very much. My French being embarrassingly lousy, when I looked at Becker's filmography, I misread the title. Definitely worth seeing, though.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Gosford Park - 6.5/10

Too many characters, average drama, annoying cast, not really much of a mystery either.

 

[Osprey]

Gosford Park - 6.5/10

Too many characters, average drama, annoying cast, not really much of a mystery either.

I watched it for the first time only just recently and, despite that, I honestly don't remember a thing about it. I couldn't even tell you the plot. All that I remember is that I didn't like it and it convinced me that I'm just not a fan of Robert Altman.

 

[kihei]

The Canterbury Tales (1972) Directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini 6C

The bad boy of Italian cinema takes his shot at Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales with decidedly mixed results. The movie consists of several episodes taken from or, maybe, inspired by Chaucer's work. As one would expect from Pasolini, the movie is gorgeous to watch, a loose recreation of medieval England only with more colourful costumes. In general, the mise en scene is impeccable. The movie should be fun, but it's not, or not much anyway. Part of the problem is Pasonini's treatment of the content of the various tales supposedly told by the pilgrims during stops on their way to Canterbury. These stories are mishmashed together, one after the other, often without any clear divisions . The theme mostly seems to be rich men getting cuckolded by wily young suitors. There is a lot of ribald sexuality on display, a discordant mix of the hetero-erotic and the homo-erotic with the latter dominating. Not too surprisingly, Pasolini's taste in actors runs to young men who can't act a whit. In addition, because of the location perhaps, Pasolini uses English actors and then dubs them into Italian, which is just as annoying as when it is done the other way around. While this production would never be my preferred version of The Canterbury Tales, the movie is a bold work, especially for its time, by a highly skilled director whose notoriety was based more on his willingness to provoke than on his ability to entertain.

subtitles

 

[nameless1]

Antoine and Antoinette (1947) Directed by Jacques Becker 6A

This is the first Jacques Becker film that I have seen and it is an interesting mixed bag of a movie. The plot centres on an 800,000 franc lottery ticket that Antoine, our ostensible hero, has in his possession and then loses, but that plot doesn't actually start until the second half of the movie. The first half of the movie begins with a myriad of characters before focusing on Antoine and Antoinette, a happily married working couple, she in a department store, he in a printing house where he makes books. The first half of the movie is devoted to their relationship and their reactions to the people in their neighbourhood. These scenes have a post-war energy and optimism that is pleasing to watch (for lovers of Paris, it will give you a pang, too). Men like to flirt with Antoinette, including her lecherous boss, and who can blame them? In the parlance of the era, she's a peach. Antoine does not take kindly to her getting this unwanted attention and, in the illogic of the time, sort of blames her. It seems like a movie about male jealousy and possessiveness is going to break out at any moment, but Becker has a different destination in mind. That destination, the lottery plot, is more in keeping with the well-made, feel-good films of Preston Sturges, an assessment I came up with while watching the movie that it turns out other reviewers share. Nothing bad happens in the end, though there is a hell of a fight. And the movie has a happy, somewhat clever ending. Pretty average competent stuff, even charming here and there, but with really nice imaginative touches along the way. For instance, when Antoine goes to cash in his lottery ticket only to find that he's lost it, there is a guy tuning a piano in the same room. As the movie shifts away to Antoine frantically searching in other places, the tuning piano music continues to be audible in these scenes as well, thus continuing to emphasize Antoine's feelings of discord and angst. Mediocre directors don't come up with moves like that. So I will seek out more of Becker's works in hopes that some are more satisfying than this one

subtitles

Becker is very versatile, as he worked with a variety of different genres, but his works seem generic due to a lack of signature style. That is why he appears to be a better screenwriter than a director, because the story is often more memorable than the images. However, I do think it is an unfair assessment, because his techniques are actually quite advanced, and would not look out of place even today. I especially like his use of lighting, which is noticeable even on black-and-white film stock. They just blend so well with the story, that they do not stand out at all, and that is a testament to his skills.

Personally, while I do not enjoy every single one of his films, as I find Casque d'Or to be a corny romance movie, and Touchez pas au grisbi to be a typical gangster movie in the film noir tradition, I do find him to be underrated. His last film, La Trou, is the best and likely most complete prison film I have ever seen, and I am impressed by the exact right tempo he manages to establish. There is not a lot of action, but I am on the edge of my seat. It feels like it is his ultimate vision that he finally manages to put together.

 

[nameless1]

The Canterbury Tales (1972) Directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini 6C

The bad boy of Italian cinema takes his shot at Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales with decidedly mixed results. The movie consists of several episodes taken from or, maybe, inspired by Chaucer's work. As one would expect from Pasolini, the movie is gorgeous to watch, a loose recreation of medieval England only with more colourful costumes. In general, the mise en scene is impeccable. The movie should be fun, but it's not, or not much anyway. Part of the problem is Pasonini's treatment of the content of the various tales supposedly told by the pilgrims during stops on their way to Canterbury. These stories are mishmashed together, one after the other, often without any clear divisions . The theme mostly seems to be rich men getting cuckolded by wily young suitors. There is a lot of ribald sexuality on display, a discordant mix of the hetero-erotic and the homo-erotic with the latter dominating. Not too surprisingly, Pasolini's taste in actors runs to young men who can't act a whit. In addition, because of the location perhaps, Pasolini uses English actors and then dubs them into Italian, which is just as annoying as when it is done the other way around. While this production would never be my preferred version of The Canterbury Tales, the movie is a bold work, especially for its time, by a highly skilled director whose notoriety was based more on his willingness to provoke than on his ability to entertain.

subtitles

I completely agree with your assessment with the movie. Sometimes I feel like Pasolini wants to push the envelope just for the sake of it.


He is someone that really should not have full control, to be honest. I much prefer his neorealist phase, such as Mama Roma, when he was more conventional. While I appreciate his latter works for their boldness, I never understood why they need to get made. Does the world really needs Salo?

 

[Osprey]

Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) - 6/10 (Liked it)

This sequel to 2017's Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is more of the same, but with a few differences to add some freshness. The first is that our young characters end up in different bodies in the game than last time. The second is that characters played by Danny DeVito and Danny Glover also end up in the game... in Dwayne Johnson's and Kevin Hart's bodies, respectively. Seeing Johnson doing his best DeVito impersonation (with a nasally, NJ accent that contrasts his own manner of speaking) is occasionally funny while Hart doing Glover (with a slow delivery) is frequently hilarious and the highlight of the movie for me. Outside of those impersonations, most of the movie's comedy fell flat for me, but I still laughed enough to have a good time. Awkwafina (no, that's not her real name) is also an addition to the cast and almost steals each scene that she's in. While the first movie's sentimental backbone was about teenage friendship, this sequel's is more about elderly friendship, with DeVito's and Glover's characters being kind of like Lemmon and Matthau in Grumpy Old Men. It was a nice addition, especially because, like the first movie, the plot is paper thin. The characters are supposed to take a knick knack from an evil villain (Rory McCann, aka GoT's The Hound), but it's a total MacGuffin that reminded me of much of the plot of The Rise of Skywalker, except, at least in this case, it's deliberately stupid because the characters are in a video game. Finally, I was not a fan of the over-use of CGI, making many scenes appear more fake than real. An action sequence with CGI rope bridges and CGI baboons stands out. Anyways, the movie has lots of issues, but also has charm and a number of laughs. It actually manages to be about equal to the previous movie (which is more than you can say for a lot of sequels), so how you felt about that one is probably how you'll feel about this one. I somewhat enjoyed the last one, so I somewhat enjoyed this one. I won't remember much about it, but, for one night, it was fairly decent popcorn entertainment.

 

[kihei]

Paan Singh Tomar (2012) Directed by Tigmanshu Dhulia 7A

Paan Singh Tomar is a movie with an uncommon narrative development. It is based on the true story of Paan Singh Tomar who had a long and successful career as a steeplechaser and hurdler, winning many national and international medals for India. However, once he is forced to give up his athletic endeavors, Tomar, fated by circumstance, becomes a regional warlord with a militia of his own that kidnaps people. (The best line in the movie: after his troops tie up a victim, Tomar asks them, "Why? You think he is going to outrun me?") This rather extreme occupational shift is all the more amazing because it actually happened, and the movie makes the most of its possibilities. The late, great Irrfan Khan is superb in the title role. Upon his recent death, a lot of writers pondered just what it was he had as an actor because he certainly had something special, however hard it might be to pin it down. One of the most successful actors in Bollywood history and a success in the West as well (Slumdog Millionaire; A Mighty Heart; Life of Pi), Khan is one of the few actors who effortlessly can combine intensity with calm. He isn't handsome exactly, but those hooded eyes truly seem like windows into his characters' souls. And few actors convey how comfortable he seems to be on the screen. In Paan Singh Tovar, he is the glue that holds the film together, effortlessly nailing Tovar's transition from humble beginnings and a grade four education to a commanding presence that utterly dominates those around him. As always, Khan finds the humanity in his character--still, I couldn't quite decide whether he was a villain or a hero. The movie certainly wants us to see Tomar as a hero, justified in his actions, but I felt quite ambiguous about that as the deck seemed a little stacked in his favour. Nonetheless, Pann Singh Tomar is fascinating character study that underscores just how incredibly much cinema lost with Khan's early death.

Note: Though Paan Singh Tovar is a Hindi film, it doesn't employ the usual Bollywood trademarks--in other words, no one breaks into song and dance numbers. Instead the movie is a straight ahead biographical drama.

subtitles

Available on Netflix in Canada