Jump to content

Peter T Chattaway

Member
  • Content Count

    34,349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Peter T Chattaway

  1. Starting at the 18:25 mark, one of the Red Letter Media guys gets into all the reasons why he thinks The Rise of Skywalker will go the way of Avengers: Endgame and bring on the time travel. (Warning: f-bombs etc.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzeOrA2in1c One thing that *doesn't* come up in this video is that time travel is already "canon" in the Star Wars universe thanks to a February 2018 episode of Rebels.
  2. Links to our threads on other Erwin brothers films Moms' Night Out (2014), Woodlawn (2015), Steve McQueen: American Icon (2017), I Can Only Imagine (2018) and Apostles: Resurrection of Christ (in development). We don't seem to have a thread on October Baby (2011).
  3. Peter T Chattaway

    Bombshell

    Charlize Theron as Megyn Kelly. Nicole Kidman as Gretchen Carlson. And Margot Robbie as a fictitious Fox News producer. (No glimpse of John Lithgow as Roger Ailes yet.)
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwXp5A_L93Y
  5. Links to our threads on the MCU films Captain America: Civil War (2016), Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017), Avengers: Infinity War (2018), Avengers: Endgame (2019) and Spider-Man: Far from Home (2019). Links to our threads on the non-MCU films Spider-Man 2 (2004), Spider-Man 3 (2007), The Amazing Spider-Man (2012), The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014), Venom (2018) and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018), as well as the once-in-development films about The Sinister Six and Aunt May. Links to our threads on the original Spider-Man (2002) at the old Novogate discussion board: 'Spider-man -UPDATED- with Movieguide review' (Apr 29 - May 9, 2002) 'I saw "Spider-Man"!', page two (May 2 - 6, 2002)  'spider-man, shadowlands, son of paleface' (May 5 - 16, 2002)  - - -  Disney-Sony Standoff Ends Marvel Studios & Kevin Feige’s Involvement In ‘Spider-Man’ EXCLUSIVE: Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige won’t produce any further Spider-Man films because of an inability by Disney and Sony Pictures to reach new terms that would have given the former a co-financing stake going forward. A dispute that has taken place over the past few months at the top of Disney and Sony has essentially nixed Feige, and the future involvement of Marvel from the Spider-Man universe, sources said. . . . Sources said there are two more Spider-Man films in the works that are meant to have director Jon Watts and Tom Holland front and center, though Watts doesn’t have a deal for the next picture. Unless something dramatic happens, Feige won’t be the lead creative producer of those pictures. . . . Deadline.com, August 20 - - - So it sounds like the loose Vulture and Mysterio plot threads won't be left dangling, necessarily, but we won't see (or even hear about?) Tony Stark in any future films, and Aunt May might have to break up with Happy, as well.
  6. Aren't lions cats? That's the connection here, right?
  7. Yeah, the "drug" scene was weird. Demographically, this film is in a very strange place. The original cartoon is aimed at preschoolers, but the film clearly has to aim higher than that... but not *too* high, age-wise. So it's one of those films about high-school students that were clearly made for kids who haven't started high school yet... which means my 13-year-old daughter is, in some ways, the perfect target audience for this film: she was curious to see just what the filmmakers had done to this character that she used to watch, years ago. Me, I liked some of the meta riffing on the Dora franchise, but I got bored during the final half-hour, when the film became just another Indiana Jones rip-off. (And I've already shown my kids three of the Indiana Jones films, so they're familiar with *those* reference points.)
  8. I left the film wondering if I would have liked it more if I knew more about Springsteen's music. As it is, the movie was a little like putting up with those friends of yours who are really hardcore fans of certain things; the scene where the guys say they want to start a radio show that plays Nothing But Springsteen kinda said it all. (Couldn't they at least broaden it out to include Artists That Springsteen Has Cited As His Inspirations? Something that might give The Boss a bit of *context*!?) Having said that, I did like the broader, 1987- and 1988-specific song choices on the soundtrack. (I say this as one who finished high school in 1987 myself.) I had the Pet Shop Boys' 'It's a Sin' on my mind for several days after seeing the film, much more than any of Bruce's songs. Also, in addition to looking at this film through the lens of Recent British Music Movies (With Diversity Elements), I would also suggest looking at the film through the lens of Period Pics About The British Pakistani Experience, like East Is East. In some ways this film is something of a hybrid, genre-wise.
  9. ‘Matrix 4’ Officially a Go With Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss and Lana Wachowski (EXCLUSIVE) In addition to Wachowski, the script was also written by Aleksandar Hemon and David Mitchell. Wachowski is also producing with Grant Hill. Sources say the film is eyed to begin production at the top of 2020. . . . Plot details are currently unknown, as is how the role of Morpheus will be handled, originally played by Laurence Fishburne. Some sources say the role may be recast for a younger take. . . . Variety, August 20
  10. kenmorefield wrote: : I tend to not think much about End-of-year stuff until post-TIFF, which is when I think awards season really gets going. I hear ya... but TIFF starts very soon, and even VIFF (which begins a week or two after TIFF ends) is already accepting media applications. It feels like festival season (and thus awards season) has basically begun already, in some ways...
  11. Overstreet wrote: : But the primary problem, for me, is this: The family is so obviously hiding the truth from her that she must certainly guess what's up right away. I could never figure out if the movie wanted us to understand that the grandmother — Nai Nai, as they call her — is in on the charade from the beginning, and accepts their fakery as a gesture of love, or not. I kept wondering if there would be a typical Hollywood scene in which we learn that Nai Nai has been aware of the charade all along, and I was grateful that the film never played that card. Then again, when we are told that Nai Nai *herself* kept her husband's illness a secret from him -- because that's just the way things are done in that culture -- I began wondering how she could *not* suspect what her family was up to. A culture that plays those kinds of games is a culture that would encourage a huge degree of paranoia and/or mutual suspicion, I would think.
  12. Also, here is the video in question (unless there is another one out there...):
  13. kenmorefield wrote: : Peter, I am following your individual rebuttals but confess I am not yet grasping your overall claim/point. Are you suggesting the film is *not* misogynistic because it also directs violence towards male characters? Are you claiming that is is misanthropic as well as misogynistic? I am not claiming that it is misanthropic, per se. (I don't have enough invested in the film to push that particular label.) But I am definitely disputing the narrow focus that people are putting on the film's treatment of women to the exclusion of its treatment of men. : Or is there a larger argument that I'm not grasping, that the treatment of violence in all its forms has some sort of artistic merit and necessity that is being lost in the labeling? Again, I don't have enough invested in the film to argue for its necessity, per se. But I do have a resistance of sorts to trendy labels, and the frequency with which "misogyny" gets thrown around when mere "sexism" would suffice is certainly one of those things that pushes my buttons. (And, as I've already said, the film's treatment of men leaves me thinking that even a label like "sexism" would obscure more than it enlightens here. I mean, I was kind of astonished that the film includes an entire sequence in which Brad Pitt's fictitious character *beats up Bruce Lee*, an actual person and a cinematic icon, to boot. The sequence is more comical than anything else, but -- if I'm remembering the sequence of events correctly -- it starts us on a trajectory towards Pitt's more serious beating of that male Manson follower, which then points us towards the even more intense climax of the film.)
  14. Peter T Chattaway

    1917

    Links to our threads on previous Sam Mendes films American Beauty (1999), Road to Perdition (2002), Jarhead (2005), Revolutionary Road (2008), Away We Go (2009), Skyfall (2012) and SPECTRE (2015). Starring Richard Madden, Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth, Mark Strong, etc. Coming Christmas Day.
  15. Incidentally, I saw that Jezebel headline before I saw the film, and I avoided reading the article because I didn't want to see any spoilers... but I assumed at the time that the headline was referring to how the film would depict the death of Sharon Tate or something. So imagine my surprise when I saw the film and realized where the movie's violence was *really* directed... and how the movie aimed it at the men, too. (Again, let's not forget the absolutely riveting sequence at the Spahn ranch.)
  16. Owen Gleiberman loves the first two hours but hates that ending. Not sure whether I agree with his take on the film, but he makes some very valid points. BethR wrote: : . . . here's Jezebel's Rich Juzwiak on misogyny in Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood. It's weird how Juzwiak begins the article by calling Tarantino's statement an "odd, petulant response" when his own response to that response is odd and petulant, inasmuch as he casually dismisses the likelihood that the probable interpretation of Tarantino's statement is, in fact, the probable interpretation of that statement. (It "seems unlikely" that the "hypothesis" Tarantino was rejecting was that he had made a "deliberate choice" not to give Margot Robbie more dialogue? Really?) If Tarantino doesn't delve deeper into Sharon Tate *as a character*, though, it could be due to the same reverent impulses that arguably hindered Jackie Brown. Gleiberman observed, back in the day, that Tarantino had too much respect for both Elmore Leonard and Pam Grier to give that movie the sort of dangerous energy that Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction had had, and maybe there's a similar dynamic in the distance that Tarantino keeps between himself and Tate here. Evan C wrote: : One early line states "Roman Polanski is the hottest director in Hollywood right now." That line only makes sense and has any greater meaning if we know why in six years from the time of the movie that will very much no longer be the case. I don't know if Tarantino *meant* for us to think along these lines, but I was struck by the first scene between DiCaprio's character and the child actor, and how the child actor had *no chaperone*. Thankfully, the scene itself is perfectly innocent, as is the relationship between DiCaprio and the child actor in all their other scenes together. But in light of all the concerns that have been raised in recent years about the treatment of children in Hollywood, it was striking to see that eight-year-old girl just sitting by herself on a movie set in 1969. (And yeah, a part of you wonders if we are supposed to associate that in any way with our knowledge of what Roman Polanski did to a 13-year-old girl just eight years later.) (DiCaprio himself is a former child actor, of course. He first really caught people's attention with Growing Pains, which he joined when he was 16, but he had been working in TV consistently for two years by that point, and the IMDb says he even appeared in an episode of Romper Room when he was 4 or 5.) Incidentally, I *really* liked the last scene between DiCaprio and the child actor. The fact that DiCaprio's character was so desperate for validation that he felt moved by the little girl's claim... brilliant writing and acting there.
  17. *** SPOILERS AHOY! *** Andrew wrote: : Misogyny, because the did he/didn't he kill his wife of Brad Pitt's character goes unexamined, plus Tarantino's choice to spend so much time on the Home Alone-esque slaughter of the home invaders, two out of three who were women. I have absolutely zero sympathy for the home invaders, and I note that, historically, there were *four* home invaders -- one male and three female -- but the movie shows one of the women leaving at the last minute, before the actual home invasion. And I also note that, historically, two of the brutally murdered victims were female, but in the film only one of the people in jeopardy is female (i.e. DiCaprio's wife), and even she is never threatened in a particularly exploitative way, cinematically speaking. I would also note that Tarantino spent a considerable bit of screen time showing Brad Pitt's character beating up a *male* Manson follower in an earlier scene, and when the female followers move to intervene, Pitt's character explicitly says that he will beat *the man* even harder if the women make one more move. Moving from one of Manson's male followers to a trio of Manson followers who are two-thirds female certainly kicks things up a notch, but I don't buy that there is anything particularly "misogynistic" about this, particularly given the historical facts that Tarantino is starting with. Pitt's back-story is the more pertinent point here, but, as you note, it is never examined, and it is never clear whether the story is true. I could see myself kind of leaning towards the story being true, given that so many other seemingly incidental details in the first two hours are basically preparing us for the cathartic violence of the final half-hour. The rumours about Pitt's wife, at the very least, do prepare us to see him as someone who *could* kill a woman. But the fact that he kills two women (and a man) when they threaten his life (and the life of another woman who happens to be in the room) does not, in and of itself, prove the rumours true. : It just strikes me that if QT could go whole hog and have the Basterds kill Hitler, why did he stop short of altering history here and allow Charles Manson to walk away unscathed? Maybe because Manson wasn't one of the actual home invaders...? : In addition - not that I'd expect QT to show this degree of sensitivity - the women in Manson's family were brainwashed victims in their own right, something that is not even given a consideration here. And the men in Manson's family weren't? I'll give you this much, though you didn't mention it: Manson barely appears in the film at all, and to the degree that anyone seems to be "in control" on the Manson farm, it is the Dakota Fanning character, more than anyone else. So maybe there's some sort of sexist angle there, I dunno, inasmuch as a woman bears the weight of the movie's onscreen depiction of cult leadership. But Fanning's character is not one of the home invaders, and thus she is not the victim of anyone's violence.
  18. Uh, whoa. (And that vintage review is dead-wrong when it says John Connor was 12 in T2. The read-out in the police car clearly says he is 10, no matter how old the *actor* might have been.)
  19. Misogyny? Misanthropy, perhaps, but why focus only on the women who get beaten up, and not the men? FWIW, I remember hearing a few years ago about Tarantino's foot fetish, and my goodness but there are at least two scenes in this film where you Really Notice it.
  20. Just got an e-mail announcing that Affirm Films, the "faith-based" division of Sony (they're the ones behind Risen, The Star, Paul Apostle of Christ, the last few Kendricks Brothers movies including Overcomer, etc.), is partnering with Sony's secular division on this film. Interesting...
  21. John Drew wrote: : Maybe since HALLOWEEN did it last year, Hamilton’s return to this franchise feels more imitative of Jamie Leigh Curtis’s return, than it does an inspired return for Hamilton. I dunno, I think this has been in the works long enough that it couldn't be considered an *imitation* of that film. And it's not like the Terminator franchise hasn't semi-rebooted itself before. The bigger issue for me is that there is pretty much nothing in the trailer that we haven't already seen in the Terminator sequels that are explicitly being ignored by this new sequel. To quote what I wrote on Facebook: "A part-liquid-metal, part-mechanical Terminator, reminiscent of the one we saw in T3 (but maybe more nanite than liquid this time?). A Terminator that insists it's human, a la T4. A possible reference to the young Sarah Connor (if we take a certain statement literally, not metaphorically), a la T5." The whole "a young girl is the key to everything" element is reminiscent of Logan and Star Trek: Picard and perhaps other recent franchise entries as well. Speaking of which: what ever happened to *John* Connor? The first film -- which was originally supposed to be the *only* film in this franchise (remember the opening title crawl about the "last" battle being fought in 1984?) -- was all about his conception. And he was a major character in all the sequels that followed. But he's nowhere to be seen in the promotional materials for this new film so far. All we're getting is a bunch of Strong Women™ (plus Arnold Schwarzenegger; are they going to explain his age in this film the same way they explained it in T5?).
  22. I caught The Guilty on the big screen and definitely liked it.
  23. Star Trek: Discovery is such an aggressively stupid show that I have little hope for Picard, which is also produced by Alex "franchise killer" Kurtzman, but we'll see. (Yes, we all love Patrick Stewart, but his involvement is no guarantee of quality; just look at the quality dive that The Next Generation took during its last season or two, and at how awful nearly all of the Next Generation movies are.) As it happens, I am currently about half-way through my first-ever binge-watch of Star Trek: Voyager -- the only series in the franchise that I have never seen all the way through -- and it looks like my catch-up viewing of that series will be useful here. A few quick notes: (1) It appears that Picard became an "admiral" at some point, after years of *resisting* promotion (and after Kirk specifically told him never to become an admiral, in Generations). (2) The teaser refers to a "rescue" mission "fifteen years ago"... and the trailer says Data died "almost twenty years ago", which was during the events of Nemesis in 2379... so this series appears to be taking place in the mid- to late 2390s, which would mean the rescue mission was in the early to mid-2380s. The producers have been saying all along that this series will have something to do with the destruction of Romulus in 2387 (as per the first JJ Abrams movie), so maybe Picard's rescue mission took place a year or three before Romulus was actually destroyed? (3) Whose body parts are we seeing? I would have assumed that Data's body was completely disintegrated in the destruction of Shinzon's ship. Have they held on to Lore's body parts since he was dismantled in Season 7 of The Next Generation (which took place in 2370)? Did they dismantle B-4 for some reason? (In the Star Trek Countdown comic that Kurtzman co-wrote -- and which Kurtzman and company always insisted was "canon" -- Data's personality had taken over B-4's body and the Data/B-4 hybrid had become captain of the Enterprise-E by the time Romulus was destroyed.) (4) Picard and Seven of Nine (does she still go by that name?) are both former Borg drones. A scene between them *could* be interesting. (5) Some observers have noted that Picard seems to be recycling some "Chosen One" super-powered-girl tropes from movies like Logan and The Fifth Element.
×
×
  • Create New...