The thread for movies that aren't going to get their own thread but are still in theaters

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I haven't been shaken and upset by a movie as much as I was by Sicario in a long, long time. Brilliantly made and acted but incredibly difficult to watch.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:

Watched Sicario. Enjoyed it quite a bit -- the performances in particular are great, but in the end I'm not sure it amounts to much more than a perspective-shifted Luc Besson movie drenched in suffocating gloom and Oscar-worthy production values.

I disagree. Besson, at least from what movies of his I've seen, is considerably more interested in the kinetic thrill of violence. Sicario is an extremely violent movie, but it doesn't seem to enjoy that violence in the same way a Besson movie does. It's characters enjoy that violence, but that's different.

Bolded for emphasis. This was one of the things that hit me the most.

It's the first movie in a long time that contains that sheer amount of violence but for me actually made all that violence seem as abhorrent and awful as it actually should. All of that violence is portrayed and shown but not celebrated in the way that most movies do.

Like Heat?

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I haven't been shaken and upset by a movie as much as I was by Sicario in a long, long time. Brilliantly made and acted but incredibly difficult to watch.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:

Watched Sicario. Enjoyed it quite a bit -- the performances in particular are great, but in the end I'm not sure it amounts to much more than a perspective-shifted Luc Besson movie drenched in suffocating gloom and Oscar-worthy production values.

I disagree. Besson, at least from what movies of his I've seen, is considerably more interested in the kinetic thrill of violence. Sicario is an extremely violent movie, but it doesn't seem to enjoy that violence in the same way a Besson movie does. It's characters enjoy that violence, but that's different.

The way that final sequence was presented was basically grimdark Taken. I'd need to see it again to make sure, but ultimately I suspect it amounts to a technically superb but ultimately empty bit of pulp.

Again, I disagree, but perhaps you'd be interested in explaining what you mean in a bit more detail.

Well, I'm kinda not sure to be honest. I'm of two minds when it comes to Sicario. I'm gonna spoiler the rest because this is a general thread and this will inevitably involve the ending.

Spoiler:

One the one hand, we have a righteous person who suffers a traumatic experience involving a grotesque crime. Not only does she discover a mass grave in a house, she gets showered in the blood of her colleagues as they trigger a booby trap. So she wants vengeance, and gets an opportunity to deliver it. Eventually though, as she comes to understand the mission and Alejandro, her mysterious comrade, she realizes the utter moral depravity and compromise of her principles vengeance demands, but by then it's too late. Call that Narrative A.

Ohhh, the drug cartels are so very bad. Let's see how bad they are. And oh this mild mannered lawyer, his family was totally killed by them. Let's see how efficiently he dismantles the cartel's defences and gets the bad guy! Haha he even kills the bad guy's family in front of him. Let's see him suffer! Call that narrative B.

By the time the perspective shifts to Alejandro, we've gone from A to B. Up to a point though, there's a way narrative B serves narrative A - seeing Alejandro have his vengeance is uncomfortable to say the least.

However, when the perspective shifts to Alejandro and his attack on the house, there's a procedural efficiency to narrative B that taps into vengeance/vigilante cinema in a way I can't reconcile with what came before, and I'm not sure the movie can either.

Thanks!

Spoiler:

I felt like the movie sought to undermine the vigilante aspect of the movie (Narrative B) in three ways.

First, by humanizing one of Alejandro's victims. Typically, vigilante movies have the protagonist killing his way through waves of anonymous goons on his (always his) way to a final showdown with the boss. It's like a video game. But Sicario set aside a bit of time to humanize (but not make perfect) one of those normally-anonymous victims with the police officer. The officer is involved in the drug trade, yes, but he's hardly a villain, loves his son, drinks a little too much, and certainly didn't deserve to be Alejandro's human shield.

Second, the movie has Alejandro kill the boss's children. The CIA agent presents Alejandro to Kate as this vengeful figure who is bent on killing the person who killed his wife and daughter. And as Alejandro makes his way through the compound, the movie is trying to bait us into cheering him on. We've just found out what was done to him, and now he's moving toward catharsis. But when it comes down to it, he's not after just the boss but after the boss's sons and wife, cruelly inflicted on another what he endured. If the movie is baiting us into cheering for Alejandro, that's the trap: we were just cheering for a guy who murdered two little boys.

Third, in the end, Alejandro is perfectly willing to kill Kate if she doesn't sign the agreement. If Alejandro is the vengeful lawyer turned angel of death, why is he still working as a hitman? He's shown a capacity to take care of himself, and when we last see him, he's in Mexico with no need to return to the United States. But here he's working for the CIA again, not only willing to kill Kate but (more importantly) willing to kill someone who reminds him of his daughter. That's not a guy the movie wants you to cheer for.

There's a theme throughout the movie of the cost of violence and revenge, yes, but there's also one of the corrupting power of extrajudicial violence. There's a focus throughout on the rush of violence and the eagerness of those who participate in it to do it again. The soldiers and officers throughout are visibly excited by the prospect of combat, cheer about it afterward, and delight it being turned loose to kill. It's fun, and it's best when there are no rules.

Ultimately, the film puts Alejandro squarely in the same camp as the soldiers and cartel's men: doing what he's doing because he can. It's obvious by the end that Alejandro may have started out killing in the name of his dead family, but he didn't stay there. And that's what vigilante movies typically try to avoid, this sense that their killing machine isn't getting revenge anymore but just happens to be good at killing people. Alejandro's character is a direct and deliberate refutation of that Taken archetype.

I saw Sicario tonight. I'm really glad I saw it without knowing too much about it. It reminded me a bit of Traffic, with a much more focused story.

Spoiler:

I felt that Benicio Del Toro is playing a bit against the type he played in that movie. I was cringing for the entire end sequence.

The cinematography was great, and I was not surprised to see Roger Deakins in the credits. Tons of shots with reflections or distorted reflections.

One thing that bothered me is how much Emily Blunt's character was not in control of the situation. The movie even cuts away from her POV in the ending sequence. I know that it is the point of the movie, but I'm still not sure how well it was handled.

Liked the movie but I think the ending could have been handled better. Or maybe the rest of the movie could have been done better. I just didn't think the parts matched up well but I liked both parts.

OMFG, Crimson Peak is terrible.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

OMFG, Crimson Peak is terrible.

Woo! Clocky clocks it!

That means I'm gonna love it!

Have you ever watched one of those plodding Gothic horror movies with the cheesy dialog, questionable acting, and a whole Chekov's armory of heavy-handed foreshadowing, and thought to yourself, "Someone really ought to make a movie that's exactly this glacial and terribly written but with modern special effects and loads of gore?" If so, then do I have a movie for you.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Have you ever watched one of those plodding Gothic horror movies with the cheesy dialog, questionable acting, and a whole Chekov's armory of heavy-handed foreshadowing, and thought to yourself, "Someone really ought to make a movie that's exactly this glacial and terribly written but with modern special effects and loads of gore?" If so, then do I have a movie for you.

I was worried that this is what this movie was. The trailer was filled with shrieking sounds and jump scares. I literally had to leave the theater during that trailer recently because it was just revving up my anxiety like crazy. I'm glad to hear that was just dumb trailer nonsense and that the movie was just bore and gore.

It bums me out, though, because I do like Del Toro. I want to see his movies. But that one looked from the jump like something I'd hate.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

a whole Chekov's armory

Okay, ten points for that one.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Have you ever ... thought to yourself, "Someone really ought to make a movie that's exactly this glacial and terribly written but with modern special effects and loads of gore?"

Sure, but what about Tom Hiddleston's butt?

I'm still going to see it, because del Toro visuals, and I'm a shallow, shallow man. It does seem that he is giving every tropey B-movie from the 60's a 21st century treatment lately. I kinda wish he'd get back to movies like Mimic and Pan's Labyrinth.

Dammit. I loved Pan's Labyrinth. I guess I should bump this down on my list a little. Maybe see Mommy Dearest first.

Funny story. I didn't see anything about Pan's Labyrinth before seeing it and missed the first five minutes. Didn't realize it was rated R until the stepfather beat that man to death with a bottle.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Have you ever watched one of those plodding Gothic horror movies with the cheesy dialog, questionable acting, and a whole Chekov's armory of heavy-handed foreshadowing, and thought to yourself, "Someone really ought to make a movie that's exactly this glacial and terribly written but with modern special effects and loads of gore?" If so, then do I have a movie for you.

That sounds right up my alley I'm guessing you had a similar opinion of The Others?

DSGamer wrote:

The trailer was filled with shrieking sounds and jump scares. I literally had to leave the theater during that trailer recently because it was just revving up my anxiety like crazy. I'm glad to hear that was just dumb trailer nonsense and that the movie was just bore and gore.

The movie is packed with shrieking sounds and jump scares. If those bother you, I'd avoid it. What the movie doesn't have, however, is any kind of tension. Everything that happens in Crimson Peak happens exactly when you expect it to, in exactly the way you expect it to. The pacing of its revelations does little to help, with everything from the opening shot forward doing its best to undermine any sense of danger or of the unexpected. And an obnoxious metafictional layer is there to reassure you throughout that in even some of the most frightening moments, everything is going to be okay.

But beyond all of that, the movie is simply poorly made. Most of the advertising materials have been drawn from the second half of the film, which is understandable, as the first half is a mess. It leaves the impression of a movie that was hastily and sloppily edited just before it shipped out. There are constant jump cuts. Characters will change location, expression, and mood from one cut to the next, and conversations often have a stilted, awkward feel, as though chunks of them have been gracelessly excised. Dialog overdubs have been inserted to bridge some of the cuts, but characters are frequently saying lines that don't match their lips, body language, or mood, if they're speaking at all. Similarly, there are a few shots where a character's mouth is moving, but they're not saying anything.

As with all of Del Toro's movies, there is some striking imagery here, if more than a little grotesque. It's not as remarkable as some of his other movies, and one of his particular recurring violent images is here not once but two or three times, but it does have its moments. But the shoddy editing through the first half, the slow pace, and the overall quality of the movie makes me think that if you have an interest in the film that you might be better served waiting until the inevitable Director's Cut Bluray down the road.

Tanglebones wrote:

That sounds right up my alley I'm guessing you had a similar opinion of The Others?

I never saw The Others. It looked atmospheric but rote, so I passed on seeing it in the theater and just never got around to it.

The Others is one of my all-time favorite ghost story films. It's definitely worth checking out.

It captured the vibe and dread that I was hoping for in The Woman in Black, which was an outstanding novel, but terrible film.

It leaves the impression of a movie that was hastily and sloppily edited just before it shipped out. There are constant jump cuts. Characters will change location, expression, and mood from one cut to the next, and conversations often have a stilted, awkward feel, as though chunks of them have been gracelessly excised. Dialog overdubs have been inserted to bridge some of the cuts, but characters are frequently saying lines that don't match their lips, body language, or mood, if they're speaking at all.

Sounds like a rush to get a horror movie out in October at all costs.

Stele wrote:

Sounds like a rush to get a horror movie out in October at all costs.

My assumption is that the first half of the movie performed terribly with test audiences, so they did what they could at the last minute to make it shorter, especially with all the advertising already focusing on the second half.

I'm very mixed on Del Toro. I thought Pan's Labyrinth was just ok and call me a philistine but I think it gets extra props because his visuals are so unique. He was perfect for Hellboy even if Golden Army kind of got lost in itself. Pacific Rim is one of my favorite dumb movies of all time and a perfect send-up of the old Kaiju movies.

Can't think of anything else he's done that I really liked.

Crazed Java wrote:

I'm very mixed on Del Toro. I thought Pan's Labyrinth was just ok and call me a philistine but I think it gets extra props because his visuals are so unique. He was perfect for Hellboy even if Golden Army kind of got lost in itself. Pacific Rim is one of my favorite dumb movies of all time and a perfect send-up of the old Kaiju movies.

Can't think of anything else he's done that I really liked.

Really enjoying The Strain (both the show and books, though they're starting to diverge).

Stele wrote:
It leaves the impression of a movie that was hastily and sloppily edited just before it shipped out. There are constant jump cuts. Characters will change location, expression, and mood from one cut to the next, and conversations often have a stilted, awkward feel, as though chunks of them have been gracelessly excised. Dialog overdubs have been inserted to bridge some of the cuts, but characters are frequently saying lines that don't match their lips, body language, or mood, if they're speaking at all.

Sounds like a rush to get a horror movie out in October at all costs.

Oct and Feb tend to be dumping ground for bad movies of all genres (although Feb releases have been improving past couple years) .

I just got out of Crimson Peak and I enjoyed it very much. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to do much counter-clocking but...

I found it to be delightfully stylized not only in visuals, but also in storytelling, dialogue and even the acting - it was pretty clear they were given some unusual direction. I also liked it because it was very different from most movies I've seen lately. And maybe I'm just not clever, but I didn't think the foreshadowing was heavy-handed at all. Although I will grant that the movie took a while to get going - it will probably lose much of its audience during that weak start.

This reviewer nails my view of the movie:

"The insanely lush Gothic romance and ghost story plays like a hitherto unrecorded collaboration between Edgar Allen Poe, Edith Wharton, the designers of Disneyland's Haunted Mansion and whoever directed all those Bonnie Tyler music videos in the 1980s." - Alonso Duralde

I would add another Edith to that list - Edith Head. The costuming is stunning.

Thumbs up from me, but only watch it if you might be intrigued by a highly stylized movie and you're patient enough to wait for it to get going.

One thing though - whatever happened to the dog? If it met an untimely end and I missed it, nevermind.

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

BadKen wrote:

If it met an untimely end and I missed it, nevermind.

Spoiler:

You can hear Lucille strangling it while Thomas stabs Alan.

Oh yeah, one more thing: Jessica Chastain was exquisitely arch. She took it right to edge of overdone. Some might say she crossed that line, but I think in such a melodramatic context, she did it just right.

Cross-posting from Pixar/Dreamworks/other studios? thread. I saw Hotel Transylvania 2. It was pretty great. The story was actually more complex than I thought it would be; there is even the slight possibility kids will remember this movie and take from it lessons should their parents get divorced or go through other family drama. Be shocked, the trailers did a good job. It showed the central conflict and didn't spoil all the laughs, as there were many. Not too much of it was gross humor, which given the target audience and subject matter is almost a miracle, but Tartokovsky never relied on that too much anyway. Be prepared to hear what all of Gennedy Tartokovsky's children? (maybe other relatives, I dunno) sound like (under Additional Voices, there were lots of background kid characters in the film).
Potentially relevant to some, Selena Gomez does not sing, other than a lullaby, which you see in a trailer.

The Martian tomorrow probably.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

OMFG, Crimson Peak is terrible.

I think I'm sitting closer to terrible than great on this.

Spoiler:

I was more shocked the first time when it was called Flowers in the Attic.

Tomorowland has some interesting takes on fatalism, but the plot it uses to get its point across is just too generic. The lead character is annoyingly slow for someone who's supposed to be an engineering genius (That whole part where she explored the pin's mechanics was just rife with careless errors). Chases. Evil monologue. Romantic subplot. Predictably hopeful ending. It's bland. It's movie executives taking the most predictable route with what could've been an interesting film.

Thirteenth wrote:

Tomorowland has some interesting takes on fatalism, but the plot it uses to get its point across is just too generic. The lead character is annoyingly slow for someone who's supposed to be an engineering genius (That whole part where she explored the pin's mechanics was just rife with careless errors). Chases. Evil monologue. Romantic subplot. Predictably hopeful ending. It's bland. It's movie executives taking the most predictable route with what could've been an interesting film.

Waste of Brad Bird