The Movie Thread

Just finished this Russian serie

Слово пацана, slovo pacana​



Quite easy to find via Yandex.

The vibe is great. Great music.



Though what kept me doubting is the utter godlessness of contemporary Russian society.

The serie displays the poverty of communism, the corrupt officers, the cool kids and I feel it could have been made by Americans. Similar to the propaganda that has been given to blacks for decades now to turn them into beasts.

There is no reference to God.

Been looking at reviews and many older Russians love the accurate scenery, but deny the portrayed bleakness.

In the old system there was more religion even though church and state were separated. There was a value for classic literature.

What intrigues me is how Russia seems to have adopted American modernism. The serie could be any American / European crime serie. And I also thought how much does Soviet communism look like modern Western society today. They tell us we are free. But you only get a state function here as well if you went through 20 years of the right educational systems with the right universities and the right extracurricular activities.

Still cool to watch. Enjoyed it.
 
Last edited:
paternos said:
What intrigues me is how Russia seems to have adopted American modernism. The serie could be any American / European crime serie. And I also thought how much does Soviet communism look like modern Western society today. They tell us we are free. But you only get a state function here as well if you went through 20 years of the right educational systems with the right universities and the right extracurricular activities.
Click to expand...
Soviet oppression still produced Solzhenitsyn and Tarkovsky. Even on a state level, they put a premium on high culture, so while the West was making a transition to "sex, drugs, and rock and roll," the Soviet Union was producing the last great classical composers (Shostakovich, Khachaturian, Schnittke, and others). There was a kind of conservatism in that regard. Despite being "anti-imperialism," Soviets knew there was Western culture worth imitating. How could they not? Many came from bourgeois families and were educated in Europe. Unlike in contemporary America, where every manner of non-white or Third World culture is treated as sacrosanct, the Soviets felt the best way to uplift its "minority" nationalities was by also having them emulate Western culture. Thus, every republic's capital was to have its own opera house, museum, and so on.

The American response was peddling and promoting modernist trash, which it continues to do internationally, and — unfortunately for so many of us — domestically.


And now, as you point out, Russians have begun adopting it. This despite warnings from the likes of Solzhenitzyn, who lived in the West and foresaw its descent. In a twisted way, the only thing keeping them from adopting it wholesale is Western-Jewish hostility.
 
FrostBITE said:
Soviet oppression still produced Solzhenitsyn and Tarkovsky. Even on a state level, they put a premium on high culture, so while the West was making a transition to "sex, drugs, and rock and roll," the Soviet Union was producing the last great classical composers (Shostakovich, Khachaturian, Schnittke, and others). There was a kind of conservatism in that regard. Despite being "anti-imperialism," Soviets knew there was Western culture worth imitating. How could they not? Many came from bourgeois families and were educated in Europe. Unlike in contemporary America, where every manner of non-white or Third World culture is treated as sacrosanct, the Soviets felt the best way to uplift its "minority" nationalities was by also having them emulate Western culture. Thus, every republic's capital was to have its own opera house, museum, and so on.

The American response was peddling and promoting modernist trash, which it continues to do internationally, and — unfortunately for so many of us — domestically.


And now, as you point out, Russians have begun adopting it. This despite warnings from the likes of Solzhenitzyn, who lived in the West and foresaw its descent. In a twisted way, the only thing keeping them from adopting it wholesale is Western-Jewish hostility.
Click to expand...
Well said.

Though I wouldn't say

Soviets knew there was Western culture worth imitating
Click to expand...

Shostakovich, Khachaturian, Schnittke, and others are in the line of Russians as Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff and Rimsky-Korsakov. The Russian tradition is so grand to build upon.

The filthy West under American nihilism threw everything away, as if Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Goethe never existed.

Unlike in contemporary America, where every manner of non-white or Third World culture is treated as sacrosanct, the Soviets felt the best way to uplift its "minority" nationalities
Click to expand...
It's funny as the west calls the blacks sacrosanct, but the west (mainly the music Jews) cultivated and grew "gangster culture" without these media rulers, it wouldn't have existed.

The west degrades its plebs and then puts the self-degrading plebs on a shield to honor them as half gods. It promotes sodomy, and let's men degrade themselves in this perversion and then put them on a shield to honor them for the other peasants to see.

Degrade yourself, do devilish stuff and we might honor you. It's so sick.
Thus, every republic's capital was to have its own opera house, museum, and so on.
Click to expand...
This is very interesting. There seems to have been a certain elevation of the normal man. Literature. Music.

In 1920s socialism the Western Europe I heard this was also the case. The elevation of the common man. Learning to read. Literature.
The American response was peddling and promoting modernist trash, which it continues to do internationally, and — unfortunately for so many of us — domestically.
Click to expand...
So true. Whole of Western European architecture after 1945 is pure trash.

FrostBITE said:
And now, as you point out, Russians have begun adopting it. This despite warnings from the likes of Solzhenitzyn, who lived in the West and foresaw its descent. In a twisted way, the only thing keeping them from adopting it wholesale is Western-Jewish hostility.
Click to expand...

This intrigues me, what are the forces at play here? Around here Russia is presented as this ultraconservative force. From what I see it's just the same shit, same perversion, same degeneracy. What's your take on it?
 
Shostakovich, Khachaturian, Schnittke, and others are in the line of Russians as Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff and Rimsky-Korsakov. The Russian tradition is so grand to build upon.

The filthy West under American nihilism threw everything away, as if Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Goethe never existed.
Click to expand...
Thanks to Westernizing Peter the Great.
In 1920s socialism the Western Europe I heard this was also the case. The elevation of the common man. Learning to read. Literature.
Click to expand...
You used to hear some of this by prominent blacks, even during the 1990s and 2000s. Bill Cosby, sexual abuse allegations aside, was vocally pro-education and anti-"gangsta rap." So while his Cosby Show sitcom making the parents a doctor and lawyer is a familiar template for essentially every Negro-worshipping American sitcom nowadays, Cosby actually believed it was something to aspire to and attempt to achieve.
This intrigues me, what are the forces at play here? Around here Russia is presented as this ultraconservative force. From what I see it's just the same shit, same perversion, same degeneracy. What's your take on it?
Click to expand...
It is conservative in some aspects, less so in others. You're likelier to find far more devout pockets of conservative Christianity in the United States than you'd find in most of Russia, which is a country that is in many ways still recovering from the Soviet Union's state-imposed atheism. Christian, conservative countries are slim pickings these days, so many just sort of default to Russia: its size, nuclear capabilities, relative racial/ethnic cohesion, and at least Christian past/influence all lend it a credibility that other conservative competitors largely lack.
 
Just watched Barbie. It has its moments. The setup was amusing, it's neat-looking, and a bit of the humor connects. Other than that, I thought it was pretty terrible. I expected the obvious feminist push but I didn't realize that would be the entire movie. Because of its inverted worldview, when the movie gets serious, I found absolutely nothing that connects on an emotional level. I can't remember any film that made me roll my eyes more than this one. I do think the first half was watchable, decent even, but the second half was grueling to sit through.
 
Out of sheer rage I am writing my review of Dune 2!

Keep in mind I watched Dune 1 with almost no idea what I was watching beyond a few scenes but read the book with great interest a few years earlier. You know my problem with it was mainly that just being on a desert primarily got very boring after a while. But the story had compelling elements. It might be one of the only works of fiction I’ve been able to enjoy in the last 5 years. Archetypal. Can see how it’s similar to Star Wars /Lord of the Rings and various previously encountered heroes journey arcs but beyond that there is a political intrigue that adds further depths and layers rather than the usual plucky young boyish guy facing their fears in a strange land that we have become oh so used to!

I couldn’t really remember what the spice actually was so when they talked about destroying it I kind of shrugged my shoulders and thought ‘hey I guess those planets will be getting milder dishes for a while – try living in POLAND for a year and or being BRITISH’ but I know it’s more than that

ANYWAY!

There is the talking kid inside mother’s stomach, father betrayed and then the religious aspect of PAUL being the CHOSEN ONE but others not believing and perhaps him not believing even himself! That was enough for me and enabled me to follow this movie more closely despite parts of it being in a strange language with Polish subtitles meaning I couldn’t follow what was happening. But I hung in there!

They did an OK job telegraphing what would happen with the flashbacks/flashforwards but keeping you intrigued more how it would get to that point. The evil bald pasty whities set up as appropriate adversaries to the more humane and crowd pleasing PAUL - who can also kick ass! I wouldn’t say I was completely on the edge of my seat. I was more sunk into the back of my seat. Treating the 3 hour length as a sort of endurance test like a prison sentence. You see the rise of PAUL and there are some soaring moments a bit like an inspirational sports movie where everyone high fives when the main character wins in the final moment. But there could have been a little more conflict and tension throughout the movie.

Oh well I have been reading all about the JEWISH QUESTION and the way the fremen were seen as rats and the nazi imagery of the bald skinhead whities charging around exterminating them made me think that was the jewish influence. As in, the jews always seeing themselves as persecuted people and yet actually the chosen people. I suppose the ultimate subversion for them is to see themselves as Christ – chosen ones - and deny the Christian spiritual aspect. That’s my understanding of why classic Hollywood movies in the 50s were often about some outsider coming into town and rising to the top through sheer force of will. Are the ‘bene gesserit’ mind manipulators in a way stand ins for jewish propaganda merchants?

It does seem Frank Herbert wants to make a point about how religion is a manipulation of the minds of people. I know there is an old theory that Christianity was an invention to keep people bonded to their slavery. Religion being the opium of the people and all that. The thing is when you watch the movie there is a sense that when you act as if you are a hero in a sense you become one. That’s why the movie works with a Jungian analysis even if it might be completely offensive and a seeming attack on other types of religious belief.

The sand people rising up to support Paul shows the resonance faith can have in bonding people to a cause yet unfortunately the storytelling cynically focuses more on how this is manipulation rather than a truly wonderful thing.

The idea that Paul has to do something ‘evil’ for the greater good does seem of this moment in a post covid world where elites felt the same way when they tried to enslave the world. I bet these elites see themselves as Paul’s creating world wars for their own sick greater goods! The insidious part here is the combining elements of Christianity with Islam and atheism to muddle the idea of what the one true religion is or if it’s anything other than symbolism.

I do think the intuitively we respond to Paul as the messiah even if the movie wants to say he isn’t because on some level in our bones we know the truth. We connect with the reality of this idea even if the writers want to tell us the opposite and this is why I think movies like this do far less harm than movies that try to present a completely secular worldview.

The idea of people in some far away desert land forced to fight one another over religious belief due a fatalistic chain of events is very of this moment as we seem set up to have skirmishes all over the world for the coming years. Those in power can absolve themselves of responsibility by putting their proxy in the character of Paul. I wanted to believe Dune was just a movie but it’s hard not to read certain messages into a film. Why this film? Why now? It’s in a way the ultimate film for this moment in its dour sense of hopeless inevitability.

The building up of characters only to slaughter them or have them be far less than ideal (due to how things are in actual life) is an earlier and less extreme version of the nihilism George RR martin would write into his supremely successful GOT books.

I hate to be watching all these movies for feminism since it makes me no different to a libtard unable to enjoy entertainment for what it IS rather than what it wants to say!

The Zendaya love affair was hard to really buy. They had a few scenes of her womansplaining to him but to be fair it was balanced out with him saving her and then ultimately rejecting her for the GREATER GOOD of fulfilling his destiny. It’s overall a message of purpose before bitches which I thought was noble.

They did kinda make it about Zendaya in the final scene and I wasn’t sure what it means or how much was lifted from the book since I haven’t read it for many years.

The part about getting into the bald guy’s mind and manipulating him through sex was very telling about female nature and pragmatisim as well as male weakness. That scene was logos on screen.

I sound negative but there was a lot to admire in this film watching experience. It was an archetypal story well told with a lot of visually stunning sequences. I’m thinking particularly the sand creature riding first attempt and all the scenes with masses of crowds and the scope of those. All of this put alongside a propulsive score that creates of intensity to accompany the spectacle of what’s going on visually. Some of the lighting effects were visually arresting. I’m thinking the weird seduction scene with the black and white fireworks outside. The color scheme matching the clothing of the bald evil guys and the sense of the bleakness of such people still very much apparent even in times of celebration. The scene construction, set design, colour palette and soundtrack all combine to make this an aural feast for the eyes and ears!

And what about the acting? I never really bought Chamalangadingdong as a leading man and some of his alpha moments are in Nic Cage screamo territory here. Weirdly he is out boyished out by Zendaya in this movie. But the whole point of it is a boy turning to man story arc (See godfather, star wars, LOTR) . We knew he could nail the boy part and I think he conveyed the grandiosity needed for the man part just about. He’s no Al Pacino because he’s never really commanding in the frame. He’s still too frail. But he almost makes up for it at times with intense eyes and doing his best Kurt Cobain scream. Maybe he’s more of a poet man than warrior hero but at least the character arc is conveyed and it worked ...enough for me.

I would say that there is a certain cerebral quality to the writing that means that the movie does kind of drag on at times. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t check my phone several times. I feel that this writer director prefers creating atmosphere rather than building a strong sense of dread or tension and really hooking you to the story. It’s more of a heady, thoughtful affair reminding me of the autistic writing of Christopher Nolan. You sense this as well in the awful romantic dialogue between Chalamet and Zendaya. Having seen all of the director’s films, I would say they all have this problem of being a bit too loose with the plotting. Caring more about the scene construction and how the film looks aesthetically than whether the viewer is totally transfixed in the story. I’d say the exception would be Prisoners. That’s the most narratively propulsive thing he has created. But this is by far an upgrade on the first movie on that front. I just felt it could have been tighter and been more emotionally engaging rather than the more heady experience it is. I was thinking more about how great the shots or colours or scene construction were more than I was fully emotionally involved in the story.

Having said all this, I’d give it a. 8.7/10 or a 3.9/.50
 
GodfatherPartTwo said:
There's a theater downtown that plays old movies. Tonight, they played The Departed. Hilarious. The two funniest directors are Brian De Palma and Martin Scorsese. Martin Sheen and Mark Wahlberg were the best parts in the whole movie.
Click to expand...

Yes! I also remember the scene with Alec Baldwin, hilarious. Thanks for the reminder.
 
Tippy said:
Out of sheer rage I am writing my review of Dune 2!

Keep in mind I watched Dune 1 with almost no idea what I was watching beyond a few scenes but read the book with great interest a few years earlier. You know my problem with it was mainly that just being on a desert primarily got very boring after a while. But the story had compelling elements. It might be one of the only works of fiction I’ve been able to enjoy in the last 5 years. Archetypal. Can see how it’s similar to Star Wars /Lord of the Rings and various previously encountered heroes journey arcs but beyond that there is a political intrigue that adds further depths and layers rather than the usual plucky young boyish guy facing their fears in a strange land that we have become oh so used to!

I couldn’t really remember what the spice actually was so when they talked about destroying it I kind of shrugged my shoulders and thought ‘hey I guess those planets will be getting milder dishes for a while – try living in POLAND for a year and or being BRITISH’ but I know it’s more than that

ANYWAY!

There is the talking kid inside mother’s stomach, father betrayed and then the religious aspect of PAUL being the CHOSEN ONE but others not believing and perhaps him not believing even himself! That was enough for me and enabled me to follow this movie more closely despite parts of it being in a strange language with Polish subtitles meaning I couldn’t follow what was happening. But I hung in there!

They did an OK job telegraphing what would happen with the flashbacks/flashforwards but keeping you intrigued more how it would get to that point. The evil bald pasty whities set up as appropriate adversaries to the more humane and crowd pleasing PAUL - who can also kick ass! I wouldn’t say I was completely on the edge of my seat. I was more sunk into the back of my seat. Treating the 3 hour length as a sort of endurance test like a prison sentence. You see the rise of PAUL and there are some soaring moments a bit like an inspirational sports movie where everyone high fives when the main character wins in the final moment. But there could have been a little more conflict and tension throughout the movie.

Oh well I have been reading all about the JEWISH QUESTION and the way the fremen were seen as rats and the nazi imagery of the bald skinhead whities charging around exterminating them made me think that was the jewish influence. As in, the jews always seeing themselves as persecuted people and yet actually the chosen people. I suppose the ultimate subversion for them is to see themselves as Christ – chosen ones - and deny the Christian spiritual aspect. That’s my understanding of why classic Hollywood movies in the 50s were often about some outsider coming into town and rising to the top through sheer force of will. Are the ‘bene gesserit’ mind manipulators in a way stand ins for jewish propaganda merchants?

It does seem Frank Herbert wants to make a point about how religion is a manipulation of the minds of people. I know there is an old theory that Christianity was an invention to keep people bonded to their slavery. Religion being the opium of the people and all that. The thing is when you watch the movie there is a sense that when you act as if you are a hero in a sense you become one. That’s why the movie works with a Jungian analysis even if it might be completely offensive and a seeming attack on other types of religious belief.

The sand people rising up to support Paul shows the resonance faith can have in bonding people to a cause yet unfortunately the storytelling cynically focuses more on how this is manipulation rather than a truly wonderful thing.

The idea that Paul has to do something ‘evil’ for the greater good does seem of this moment in a post covid world where elites felt the same way when they tried to enslave the world. I bet these elites see themselves as Paul’s creating world wars for their own sick greater goods! The insidious part here is the combining elements of Christianity with Islam and atheism to muddle the idea of what the one true religion is or if it’s anything other than symbolism.

I do think the intuitively we respond to Paul as the messiah even if the movie wants to say he isn’t because on some level in our bones we know the truth. We connect with the reality of this idea even if the writers want to tell us the opposite and this is why I think movies like this do far less harm than movies that try to present a completely secular worldview.

The idea of people in some far away desert land forced to fight one another over religious belief due a fatalistic chain of events is very of this moment as we seem set up to have skirmishes all over the world for the coming years. Those in power can absolve themselves of responsibility by putting their proxy in the character of Paul. I wanted to believe Dune was just a movie but it’s hard not to read certain messages into a film. Why this film? Why now? It’s in a way the ultimate film for this moment in its dour sense of hopeless inevitability.

The building up of characters only to slaughter them or have them be far less than ideal (due to how things are in actual life) is an earlier and less extreme version of the nihilism George RR martin would write into his supremely successful GOT books.

I hate to be watching all these movies for feminism since it makes me no different to a libtard unable to enjoy entertainment for what it IS rather than what it wants to say!

The Zendaya love affair was hard to really buy. They had a few scenes of her womansplaining to him but to be fair it was balanced out with him saving her and then ultimately rejecting her for the GREATER GOOD of fulfilling his destiny. It’s overall a message of purpose before bitches which I thought was noble.

They did kinda make it about Zendaya in the final scene and I wasn’t sure what it means or how much was lifted from the book since I haven’t read it for many years.

The part about getting into the bald guy’s mind and manipulating him through sex was very telling about female nature and pragmatisim as well as male weakness. That scene was logos on screen.

I sound negative but there was a lot to admire in this film watching experience. It was an archetypal story well told with a lot of visually stunning sequences. I’m thinking particularly the sand creature riding first attempt and all the scenes with masses of crowds and the scope of those. All of this put alongside a propulsive score that creates of intensity to accompany the spectacle of what’s going on visually. Some of the lighting effects were visually arresting. I’m thinking the weird seduction scene with the black and white fireworks outside. The color scheme matching the clothing of the bald evil guys and the sense of the bleakness of such people still very much apparent even in times of celebration. The scene construction, set design, colour palette and soundtrack all combine to make this an aural feast for the eyes and ears!

And what about the acting? I never really bought Chamalangadingdong as a leading man and some of his alpha moments are in Nic Cage screamo territory here. Weirdly he is out boyished out by Zendaya in this movie. But the whole point of it is a boy turning to man story arc (See godfather, star wars, LOTR) . We knew he could nail the boy part and I think he conveyed the grandiosity needed for the man part just about. He’s no Al Pacino because he’s never really commanding in the frame. He’s still too frail. But he almost makes up for it at times with intense eyes and doing his best Kurt Cobain scream. Maybe he’s more of a poet man than warrior hero but at least the character arc is conveyed and it worked ...enough for me.

I would say that there is a certain cerebral quality to the writing that means that the movie does kind of drag on at times. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t check my phone several times. I feel that this writer director prefers creating atmosphere rather than building a strong sense of dread or tension and really hooking you to the story. It’s more of a heady, thoughtful affair reminding me of the autistic writing of Christopher Nolan. You sense this as well in the awful romantic dialogue between Chalamet and Zendaya. Having seen all of the director’s films, I would say they all have this problem of being a bit too loose with the plotting. Caring more about the scene construction and how the film looks aesthetically than whether the viewer is totally transfixed in the story. I’d say the exception would be Prisoners. That’s the most narratively propulsive thing he has created. But this is by far an upgrade on the first movie on that front. I just felt it could have been tighter and been more emotionally engaging rather than the more heady experience it is. I was thinking more about how great the shots or colours or scene construction were more than I was fully emotionally involved in the story.

Having said all this, I’d give it a. 8.7/10 or a 3.9/.50
Click to expand...

Nice review. I think you made a good point that they really glossed over why exactly the spice is so important, the idea of navigators using it to see the future and therefore plot safe interstellar travel was one of the coolest concepts in the book and I can see someone who hadn't read the book being a bit confused over all the hubbub.

As far as I'm concerned, boosting Zendaya during the final fight scene and making the final scene about her was the biggest sin of this film. After that, I do have to say I found it to be strangely hollow for reasons I can't quite put my finger on, even compared to the first film. Emperor was also not set up well... didn't feel very momentous when Paul overcame him because we never saw him doing anything or being important.

The actors playing Paul, Lady Jessica and Stilgar all killed it in my opinion. Zendaya was the only one who really stood out as mediocre (in addition to Kynes in the first film... of course it's the diversity casting, I have to just be thankful they didn't make Paul himself a woman of color).

VFX and audiovisual spectacle was top-notch.

It's still better than 99% of films out there but it must be a cut below something like Lord of the Rings in the final reckoning. I'd like to perhaps take a crack at a fanedit someday to fix the problems.
 
I've watched a lot of movies by this writer director 'Hirokazu Koreeda' from Japan including:
shoplifters
like father, like son,
our little sister
after the storm

They all had a realism to them and were heavily on the theme of broken families as well as the idea of having an alternative to the conventional family unit.

Now when I first watched these movies I enjoyed them a lot with Shoplifters in particular a movie I would put highly among all the films I've seen. I'm not sure if I would in 2024 since I think more about these films I see a lot of manipulation and a particular obsession with playing the viewer with excessive sentimentality. I think if you watch movies to just have a visceral emotional experience you might weep at some of these or at least feel some sense of heart strings being tugged but now I see such writing/filmmaking as insidiously aggressive.

And I think about it even more with this 2023 movie MONSTER all about the theme of BULLYING. Just depicting bullying is enough to make you feel down a bit like a filmmaker showing a dog beating. This movie shows an awful lot (not as much as the extremist film 'all about lily chou chou though I forgive that film for being ahead of it's time on depicting internet relationships).

The basic plot is told in a jumbled up time order but basically a kid is hit by a teacher and then we see that maybe he is a bully (or not) or maybe another kid is being bullied. Our perception of what's going on changes constantly as more information is slowly unveiled. I have worked in education myself and also in Japan so I related somewhat to the ridiculous face saving over facts. Yet this movie overplays even that for humour in an aggressive depiction of the teaching colleagues as inhumane. In some moments it was like 'The Hunt' but nowhere near as focused as the film wants to keep you guessing as to what's happening (and thus what it is actually about)

Is there any point to many of the scenes shown here beyond cheap emotional pummeling of the audience? Does the film actually have an interesting point to make about Bullying? About being a 'monster?' about people getting mixed up about the truth and the consequences of that? I don't think it does. It's a muddled mess of a film.

Well let's think, who is the monster? Is it the teaching staff lacking in emotions? Is it the bully children? The bullied children (How they now see themselves) or the parents? Yeah could be a compelling idea to analyse but the film doesn't really. It's as messy about as to what it's really about as the timeline of the film. And the ultimate curve ball is that the film seems to actually be about sexuality and having capability to be 'true' to yourself and your sexual orientation.

Koreeda made his last film with American actors. Maybe he spent too much time in Hollywood because he appears to be kneeling to them and mugging for approval too much with this film.

The main thing it did well - like a lot of his films - is presenting marginal characters. The teacher in particular as an oddball weirdo 'incel' with a host club girl girlfriend? was something different. They created sympathy for him without making him a 'loser' as he would be in American films in 2024. But unlike in his other films the characters took a backseat to the themes and even the themes weren't explored in a way that I could gleam any compelling insight from. His last film was called 'The Truth'. This film should have been called 'The obfuscation.' SKIP

2.5/5
 
If you liked The Revenant, then there is its 1971 predecessor, Man in the Wilderness, and, in my opinion, it's a much better movie.

Modern movies are technically finer, but notice that, except for more brutality and darkness, they have nothing else to offer. After watching them, you feel numb, and they will not stick in your memory because of that emptiness.
People admire their darker mode because they see evil as something classy, sophisticated, and worthy of affection, when, in fact, wickedness is just banally stupid and shallow. It is not an art in any sense.

Old movies have a different atmosphere because they were made during a less depraved period of humanity and still deliver feelings that people like.

 
I watched the latest Woody Allen movie 'Coup De chance' last night.

I've been a Woody fan for many years and he shaped my worldview for a time (for better or worse).

With his latest film, we see Woody tread over the same half acre of topics he has been going over since the 80s. We have a dull marriage to a boring partner who brings stability but not romance or passion (see Vicky Christina Barcelona, Match Point, Hannah and Her sisters, Husbands and Wives, Crimes and Misdemeanours and many others for this topic). We then see the infidelity and dark aftermath (see Crimes and Misdemeanours, Irrational Man, Match Point). We also see the appeal of an idealistic lover with artistry and passion yet maybe unrealistic to settle with (Purple Rose of Cairo, Vicky Christina Barcelona).

The difference here is the setting (Paris) and the perspective and point of view being skewed so it at least does not feel like the exact same movie we have seen before. Instead of our protaganoist getting into murder Raskolonikov style, we have the jilted lover doing so. Also tonally this is a lighter movie like most of his recent output with a similar tone to recent charming movie Rainy Day in New York. Woody is not longer striving to be a Fellini or a Dostoevesky. In making films that are lightweight but entertaining, he is I think at least being honest as an artist. He does not have anything to say particularly. He's an entertainer and considering he started as a club comic, this is a natural role for him to retreat to in his final years.

With Woody though even his mediocre efforts have a certain charm about them that make them enjoyable to watch even if there isn't anything particularly interesting or insightful about the plot. Lots of talk about chance in this movie. The randomness of life. How everything is just down to luck. Is this a philosophy Woody truly believes in? A man who sits down and writes a screenplay a year even when on trial for child molestation? I think the idea does not resonate in the movie because the creator wanted to write a film about this idea rather than truly having something to say about it. In fact, the idea of the film's title coming into play with a last minute plot point was far more effectively done with 'Match Point.' In that movie, Woody proved he could write a twisty thriller through sheer force of will and technique just as he did with a serious drama in 1978's 'Interiors.'

Woody has been very much obsessed with infidelity in his work and I suppose in his life. Here it does not have a huge resonance in the film compared with 'Crimes and Misdemeanors' where the protagonist is punished for their act (to a degree) by their conscience. There was a moral weight to that movie rare for Woody.

I was not gripped with the film's moral conscience as I was in Match Point nor was I wholly swept up in the film's lightweight champagne quality like in 'Rainy Day in New York,' It was something between these two films and an interesting experiment for that. In all, a good but not great work but far better than you would expect considering Woody's age and volume of output at this point. Woody is always working on a new screenplay and one way or another trying to rewrite his core themes. With his work ethic and routine, we know the film will at least be artfully constructed and carefully written, even if it doesn't work. That's an artist grinding it out. As one character says in the film, 'you have to force it.' That's Woody. Nothing left to chance.
 
Last edited:
I saw Dune 2 in theaters today. It's the first time I've been out to a theater in 5 years and probably the last I'll go for a while. I wasn't itching to go see Dune 2, but I had seen the first one (at home) shortly after I read the Dune series. I felt they did a pretty good job staying close to the book, about as good as anyone could expect, but like the other commenter here, I too forgot a lot of what happened by the time this second part came out, especially since I read the rest of the series and Paul seemed like an afterthought. I hope they finish the whole series with these movies because at least the source material is good.

That all said, I really do not care for Chalamet or Zendaya. Or casting Christopher Walken as the emperor. That's too many Jews, for one thing, for another, Timothy isn't as good of a leading man as I used to think. He seemed to completely drop the ball when Paul became the Mahdi. He had no gravitas, he doesn't command a room, he doesn't have presence. Zendaya is plain unattractive. By the time Paul is to reject her it's like, go, scram, git! She was nothing but annoying throughout both films and had no femininity at all. In a society like hers they wouldn't have women warriors, or if they did, she'd be extremely rare. Might as well make Paul gay and have Zendaya be a beautiful boy he falls in love with, wouldn't that be woke enough? I will never get this science fiction trope of hardened warrior cultures having a bunch of women in their fighting ranks. It's like no one even knows what is feminine anymore. At least the Lady Jessica had a reason for being the way she was and she played her part well. Everyone else seemed to do a good job, but when Chalamet was raising his voice in front of the emperor I had to stifle a laugh. He felt cringe, not like a powerful leader. The Fremen followed him because he fulfilled all of their prophecy stuff, not because he was a worthy leader.
 
Christopher Walken is a jew now?

@Tippy I really adore 'Cassandra's Dream' by Allen which almost no one ever mentions. I won't spoil it for the ones who haven't seen it but he really gets the best out of his characters/actors.
 
RedLagoon said:
Christopher Walken is a jew now?

@Tippy I really adore 'Cassandra's Dream' by Allen which almost no one ever mentions. I won't spoil it for the ones who haven't seen it but he really gets the best out of his characters/actors.
Click to expand...
Eh? I looked him up and I can't find anything now. I swear he was on the list of jewish actors on wikipedia, if you search for Walken on that page there is a source page but when you go there it's been scrubbed. I wonder if it's possible his jewishness has been scrubbed from the internet for reasons. I'm pretty sure I had no idea, then looked him up, found out, kept that idea in my head and now you can't find it anywhere, even using Yandex. Very suspicious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top