Come December, keep in mind there is already a Star Wars thread - Movie Reviews

[Reply #720 on:]

Excellent use of the spoiler tag

[Reply #721 on:]

Hey, we finally got them back; I'm gonna use them.

Show spoiler

I still think that I'm probably right about this.

[Reply #722 on:]

Spoiler alert!

Show spoiler

David A likes spoiler tags

Say, I know it's been out for like... ages now, but who here on PEEL watched Everything Everywhere All At Once? That's got to be one of the most entertaining and bizarre movies I've seen in ages. It came out right as superhero movies were dipping their toes into the multiverse aspect, but did it in a far more interesting way.

[Reply #723 on:]

Spoiler alert!

Show spoiler

David A likes spoiler tags

Show spoiler

I do, UrL.  I really do. 

Say, I know it's been out for like... ages now, but who here on PEEL watched Everything Everywhere All At Once? That's got to be one of the most entertaining and bizarre movies I've seen in ages. It came out right as superhero movies were dipping their toes into the multiverse aspect, but did it in a far more interesting way.

I don't think that I had ever heard of it before, but it sounds interesting.  And the cast includes both Short Round and Lo Pan?  It sounds very interesting.

[Reply #724 on:]

I saw Everything Everywhere All at Once last summer when it came out, and I thought it was basically fine: I enjoyed it, but haven't felt the urge to revisit it and definitely didn't go as wild for it as a bunch of other people (including the friends I saw it with) did. Like, it was funny and heartfelt and well-acted, and the story was interesting, and I'm always happy when an original film not based on existing IP garners both critical and commercial success.

My reasons for not-quite-loving it were definitely idiosyncratic and persnickety—namely, there were some elements of the story/humor that struck me as forced. (The rock scene is a good example: it seemed designed primarily to be memed, and the faux-philosophical tenor of it didn't much impress or amuse me. The hotdog-fingers stuff, too.) Some of the comedy was overly broad, and some of the emotional beats were overly sentimental-to-maudlin, and I don't think the film ever struck quite the right balance between the two extremes. Tonal inconsistency like that always bugs me in movies...and, ironically enough, the very Marvel movies that this one seems to exist as an antidote to are themselves huge offenders on that front.

On that note: Though I don't think it's necessarily a better film (or that it handles multiverse stuff better), I kind of preferred Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness to EEAAO. I know that's an unpopular (perhaps even indefensible) opinion, but I saw both of them in theaters and I felt way less annoyed afterward with Doctor Strange. Maybe it was a matter of expectations: I really wanted to like EEAAO and it left me a little cold, whereas I didn't expect much of Doctor Strange and it surprised me with how enjoyable it was. There's no accounting for taste, as they say...

[Reply #725 on:]

It's a very unusual, delightful, moderately-over-the-top movie that tugged at my heartstrings. I really enjoyed Michelle Yeoh in Discovery (and how she made me feel empathy toward an objectively horrible person). And I love her character in EEAAO. I just let the movie pull me in and take me for a wild ride.

[Reply #726 on:]

Lol, not until I read Tachy's post did I realize I'd abbreviated Everywhere Everywhere All at Once as EEAAW—twice—in my original post because apparently my brain refuses to accept that the 'w' sound can also be made with an 'o.' Jesus Christ.

In any event: it goes without saying that Michelle Yeoh did fantastic work in EEAAO, as did Ke Huy Quan—no surprise at all that they both won Oscars for their performances. I will say, though, that for as much as I love Jamie Lee Curtis in general, I didn't find her character especially interesting or compelling...but, again, I'm willing to accept that I'm in the minority with my relatively curmudgeonly feelings about this film.

I do also think that some of my kneejerk negativity about EEAAO is based in the seeming inclination to praise it as high art when really it's a decent script rendered visually engaging (stunning, at times) on-screen, elevated by excellent actors. It may very well have been the best movie made last year, and I begrudge it none of the awards or accolades it received, but ultimately I think it's more a popcorn flick—in the best possible way!—than some cinematic masterpiece.

But, again, that's more about the film's reception than about the film itself, which I agree is a jolly good time. I'll stop being such a needless contrarian now.

[Reply #727 on:]

I thought it was called Everything Everyone All at Once?

[Reply #728 on:]

Jamie Lee Curtis’s Oscar win definitely struck me as more of a legacy win than anything. She definitely didn’t deserve the award for that performance more than most of the competition in that category, including Stephanie Hsu from the same movie. But she’s had an amazing career and sometimes the Academy wants to recognize that I assume.

Also
https://youtu.be/qfMtPfgEGVM

[Reply #729 on:]

Jamie Lee Curtis’s Oscar win definitely struck me as more of a legacy win than anything. She definitely didn’t deserve the award for that performance more than most of the competition in that category, including Stephanie Hsu from the same movie. But she’s had an amazing career and sometimes the Academy wants to recognize that I assume.

That's what I assumed as well (especially since they've done it for other actors in the past); she was pretty good in EEAAO, maybe even great. But it didn't seem particularly Oscar-worthy to me.

Also
https://youtu.be/qfMtPfgEGVM

That sums up not just EEAAO, but literally everything that's ever been popular.

[Reply #730 on:]

Also
https://youtu.be/qfMtPfgEGVM

Aha, you’ve burned me good, sir!

And I totally agree about the Jamie Lee Curtis thing: good for her and all, but it definitely felt like a sorry-we-haven’t-given-you-one-of-these-yet award.

[Reply #731 on:]

It's officially October and thus permissible to watch scary movies again, so...

The Exorcist

I'd somehow never seen this movie before, but it's (unsurprisingly, and as advertised) really good. The first third or so drags, but once the disparate characters/storylines converge after that director guy takes a faceplant down the stairs the film really kicks into high gear and keeps you engaged the rest of the way through. My one other complaint is that some of the hyper vulgar stuff that Regan says/does struck me as a touch too campy, but I understand that in the early '70s there was a bigger shock factor to such explicit content that likely rendered it genuinely frightening rather than sort of laughable.

In any case: great acting, excellent soundtrack, cool (literally) special effects. I'll definitely add it to my annual spooky-movie rotation.

4/5

[Reply #732 on:]

Wow, I watched that movie a few weeks after its debut, and it's pretty intense. Oddly, I haven't seen it since!

You're right in that the vulgar stuff was appropriate and nominal for the period. When meandering about the local mall with friends (malls were a big deal back then) and window shopping at the Radio Shack or munching our $1 burgers in the food court, I often used retorts such as "Your mother peels cucumbers in hell".

[Reply #733 on:]

'The Exorcist' gets funnier every single time you watch it

[Reply #734 on:]

You should all watch Repossessed, a 1990 comedy sequel to The Exorcist starring Leslie Nielsen as the exorcist, and Linda Blair as a grown-up version of her character from the original.

[Reply #735 on:]

* Tachy checks to see whether he slipped into an adjacent timeline overnight *

This is the first mention of the movie I recall seeing. I'll keep it in mind, thanks.

[Reply #736 on:]

I remember seeing that. I forget whether it was any good at the time, but a lot of nineties comedies have aged incredibly poorly. There wasnt much of a concept at the time of not punching down, after all.

So just go into it with appropriate expectations.

[Reply #737 on:]

You should all watch Repossessed, a 1990 comedy sequel to The Exorcist starring Leslie Nielsen as the exorcist, and Linda Blair as a grown-up version of her character from the original.

I haven't seen that one, though I want to now. I (rightly or wrongly) categorize it alongside other Nielsen movies like 'Dracula: Dead and Loving It' and 'Spy Hard' as one of his less-successful parodies. He made some of the funniest movies ever, when he had a good script, but he didn't always get a good script.

a lot of nineties comedies have aged incredibly poorly

Nielsen movies like the one mentioned are (almost?) always part of the parody genre defined by Zucker-Abrams-Zucker, which are typically dominated by referential humour and wordplay. The referential stuff can obviously age poorly, but not if it's done well, and Nielsen stuff is usually done better than most.

As for punching down.. it seems clear to me that parodies like this punch other movies, if they punch anything. To quote Roger Ebert,

Movies like this are more or less impervious to the depredations of movie critics. Either you laugh, or you don't. I laughed. Will this genre ever run out of steam? "Hot Shots Part Deux" doesn't have the high-voltage nonstop comedy of "Airplane!" and "Top Secret!," still the best of their kind, and it isn't as hard on Stallone as it could have been. But as long as the Hollywood assembly lines keep groaning, there will probably be a function for these corrective measures.

[Reply #738 on:]

Nielsen movies like the one mentioned are (almost?) always part of the parody genre defined by Zucker-Abrams-Zucker, which are typically dominated by referential humour and wordplay. The referential stuff can obviously age poorly, but not if it's done well, and Nielsen stuff is usually done better than most.

As for punching down.. it seems clear to me that parodies like this punch other movies, if they punch anything.

I don't recall it in great detail, and cant recall whether I particularly enjoyed this movie when I first saw it, but I do remember at least a couple of throwaway moments that come off as a little homophobic, and a spoonful or two of sexism and misogyny, that weren't exactly necessary for the movie to be funny.

In that respect, it's strongly reminiscent of the film it's parodying, and not in a way that seems like it's taking a shot at it.

There are similar complaints to be had about Dracula: Dead and Loving It, too (although I'll admit I did enjoy that one at the time).

In my own experience, parodies often swing wildly, punching down as often as they do up, or at the original source material. They're also strongly flavored by the cultural zeitgeist of the time they were made in, and I do remember a lot of stuff from the late 80s to early 90s that was racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, ableist, reactionary anti-PC bullshit.

I'm probably not going to rewarch this movie just to confirm or debunk my suspicion that there's a lot lurking under the surface which is deeply problematic.

But I will give the example of the movie Heathers, which I thoroughly enjoyed the first time I watched it.

Oh sweet merciful fucking Yog-Sothoth, has that film aged poorly.

It has so much in it that's maybe not a problem if you're a slim, white-passing, handsome, male, heterosexual, neurotypical, able, cisgender, stable, priviliged, wealth-adjacent, American who was never a victim of bullying, peer pressure, or sexual assault as a teenager. But if any of that list doesn't necessarily apply to you, then there will be at least one moment in the film that you might find deeply troubling, and will hit you in a way that it won't hit the rest of the audience.

It's a film that you have probably seen and enjoyed, as I did. But once you watch it critically and with a little more awareness if certain things, the movie has a totally different tone, flavor, and overall feel.

And that's what I meant when I talked about punching down, and aging poorly. Not everything has an Ace Ventura level of yikes to it, and things shouldn't have to be at that level before we call them out for any elements which don't pass the modern vibe check.

Repossessed was probably beyond most criticism that could be conceived of in 1990. But by today's standards, there are definitely problematic components, and nothing deserves a pass just because it doesn't make you uncomfortable.

And similarly, I won't judge those who engage with it uncritically and enjoy it, not making any mental connection between the contents and things which may be problems affecting folks in the world beyond the film. That's nice for you, if you're in that category.

I'm just putting out a general warning here, for those to whom such warnings generally apply, that maybe they won't be able to view or engage with it uncritically, and maybe they won't be able to enjoy it in the same way as the folks who have the luxury of not seeing elements of their real-life struggles potentially played for laughs in the name of entertaining rich, white, cis-het dudebros.

But of course, YMMV significantly.

[Reply #739 on:]

It's usually plain as day whether a movie (or any media) treats its characters with decency or not, and whether that's true or not doesn't correlate too strongly with the release date, I've found.

Sympathy is all that's needed in order to feel discomfort at cruel jokes.

[Reply #740 on:]

I agree with so much of what tnuc has said, but if I could be just the most pedantic/excuse-making/annoying piece of shit in the world for just a sec...

But I will give the example of the movie Heathers, which I thoroughly enjoyed the first time I watched it.

Oh sweet merciful fucking Yog-Sothoth, has that film aged poorly.

Oh man do I love Heathers. I recently showed it to a couple friends—English grad students, and thus folks preternaturally attuned to "problematic" content—and if I recall correctly the only thing that aged poorly in their account was the school violence stuff and the discourse around suicide being, like, trendy. Which is not to say our take was/is the right one, but just to note that I still really dig this movie even as an adult with better politics and a more nuanced worldview than I had as a youth. (With that said, I'll admit that my friends didn't enjoy the film as much overall as I did, and while some of that might be micro-generational—they're both 3-4 years younger than me—I'm sure just as much of it has to do with my own nostalgic attachment to it.)

I'm not arguing that the representations—of fat/gay/otherwise marginalized or minoritized populations—are above reproach. Like, it is exceptionally fucked-up that the ultimate humiliation Veronica and JD can imagine for their jock tormentors is to die in a staged gay suicide pact. But I think that's sort of the point: the film is aware of small-town homophobia, the characters try to exploit it to their own psychopathic ends, and ultimately we get a moment like "I love my dead, gay son" that is so hilarious and missing-the-point and ironic and awful all at once.

Heathers is a film that may have aged badly, insofar as some of the plot points, jokes, and representations are a little cringey or don't fully withstand the test of time. But it is at least also actively aware of—and to various degrees interrogating—the social and cultural milieu surrounding it. It's representing the ugliness of the world without necessarily endorsing the underlying politics, assumptions, etc. of that world or its inhabitants. Like, I think it's valorizing a character like Veronica (who, yes, Teenage Gorky identified hard with) as much as it's mocking her for her self-righteousness and other ugly tendencies.

In short: Self-awareness can't save you from everything, and bad politics shouldn't easily be excused under the guise of parody or satire...but, for me at least, I'm willing to give Heathers a pass because I think it's doing more interesting work than, say, a Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker joint (though I do still have a soft spot for Airplane!). Totally willing to admit my bias here, though—and, to tnuc's point, acknowledge that I fall into a variety of categories (white, cis, straight, middle-class) that make me less likely to encounter media that seems committed to denying me even a nominal amount of dignity or humanity. Just couldn't resist getting on my Heathers fangirl soapbox for a moment...

[Reply #741 on:]

Heathers is supposed to be disturbing.  It's a black comedy about teenaged serial killers.  If you didn't find parts of the film deeply troubling, then you may not have been paying attention.

For best results, you should follow up watching Heathers with watching Pump Up the Volume, Christian Slater's other movie about teen suicide.  The two are about as far apart in tone as two films with similar themes can be.

[Reply #742 on:]

Heathers is supposed to be disturbing.  It's a black comedy about teenaged serial killers.  If you didn't find parts of the film deeply troubling, then you may not have been paying attention.

I have no problem with the plot. Teenaged serial killers are fine. I take issue with certain language choices, the choice of target for some of the humor, normalization of slut-shaming, casual use of sexual assault in a manner that normalizes it or even trivializes the experience of the victim, the repeated use of a particular racial slur, and the demonization of disaffected youths who to be fucking honest have a right to be somewhat disillusioned (although not to use murder as a coping mechanism. Not too often. Maybe a little, as a treat).

The problem is, I'd enjoyed the aspects traditionally thought of as troubling and not actually remembered all those other bits, which I only found troubling after re-watching it with a few years having passed during which I'd grown a little awareness.

Black comedy is absolutely my jam. But you can do it without casual use of slurs and language that is generally demeaning to folks who aren't straight white men.

I still have a soft spot for the movie, and will likely watch it again at some point. And I don't disagree with Gorky's assessment of the film or the plot points. Yeah, I think the film is acutely aware of the fucked up stuff with regard to suicide, homophobia, etc, and plays that part hard on purpose. I respect that as a choice.

But the other stuff? The language choices, inherent trivialization of sexual violence, victim-blaming, etc. that happens so casually over the course of the film? Nobody blinked at it when the film was made, but it does tend to raise an eyebrow or occasion a small frown today.

And I'm using that as an example of a film which I think is still fun but was not immune to the passage of time, to demonstrate that there are likely unexpected problematic elements lurking in both Repossessed and Dracula: Dead and Loving It simply due to the cultural zeitgeist that pervaded comedy movies in the 90s being different to the norms we find ourselves attuned to in more modern times.

Don't get me too far wrong: in other contexts, Heathers is a film I will defend, largely due to the self-awareness and sheer ridiculousness of it. But, fuck me gently with a chainsaw, there are specific parts that make me wince a little now.

And I'm definitely nobody to judge anybody else for having identified strongly with Veronica. Or other popular psychotic teenagers in media from the 80s and 90s. Black comedy and psychotic teenagers are absolutely both my jam, and at some point I may make whatever effort is necessary to go see a production of Heathers the Musical, which I only recently became aware of the existence of.

As to Zapp's point, it's very much not got anything to do with whether the film is treating the characters with decency. If there's anybody who isn't in the movie who is being given treatment containing some degree of indecency, then it's going to age poorly as society comes around to being more decent to that particular group.

[Reply #743 on:]

I quite enjoyed "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938). The archetype for later versions, filled with swords and rogues and ladies and kings. It's a fun movie.

[Reply #744 on:]

Thank you for clarifying your position with that last post, tnuc. Speaking as someone whom Gorky had successfully converted to the cult of Heathers some time ago--and who, unlike her grad student friends mentioned above, I daresay does enjoy the movie at least as thoroughly as she does, even without any teenage nostalgic attachment to it--I had been feeling an urge to be an apologist for it. However, I now realize that this would have just amounted to me explaining why I consider things which I may be bothered by in other contexts to be acceptable within this particular movie...and, as you already pointed out, who am I to argue that because I don't find something offensive, that someone else doesn't or shouldn't, especially in a movie such as this one which clearly is treading on dangerous ground in its subject matter and presentation anyway? But I now think that we actually are close to being in agreement anyway, so that's all the better.

and at some point I may make whatever effort is necessary to go see a production of Heathers the Musical, which I only recently became aware of the existence of.

In that case, you probably still should see it (and actually, while I don't remember the details, I think in being adapted and updated for a relatively more contemporary audience it had to have amended at least some of the things you find objectionable, though admittedly those were not what I would've been focusing on at the time)...but I will say that I was not impressed. Some of that is probably due to my over-familiarity with and attachment to the source material, and some is probably due to a general (and undeserved, really) distaste for the trend of popular movies being turned into musicals, but mostly it's just because the music itself did nothing for me, so that's just my own problem.

The musical's songs would have a hard time impressing me, though, since I adore David Newman's soundtrack for Heathers even more than the movie itself. I could only defend the movie to a point, but if you object to the score? Then we'd have some Hot Probs.

it's going to age poorly as society comes around to being more decent to that particular group.

This also predates the era of comedy that was being discussed in the first place, but I am reminded of something that occurred to me recently: in Monty Python's Life of Brian, pretty much everything that Eric Idle's character Loretta says about wanting to be a woman and to be able to have babies if it were possible, despite probably sounding hilariously absurd at the time, is pretty much verbatim what is said today in all seriousness. The same goes for the birth scene at the beginning of The Meaning of Life, with the delivery room doctor responding to the mother's question of "Is it a boy or a girl?" with the line "Now, I think it's a little early to start imposing roles on it, don't you?"

[Reply #745 on:]

I echo Tedward’s appreciation for the clarification, tnuc…but I once more find myself unable to resist the urge to add yet another wrinkle to the matter:

However, I now realize that this would have just amounted to me explaining why I consider things which I may be bothered by in other contexts to be acceptable within this particular movie

But I do think the “would be offensive/distasteful/unacceptable in other contexts” bit is important, right? The argument I (and, I suspect, you and tnuc) would make about Heathers is that it has a genuine artistic sensibility and is not just some exploitative cash-grab made by a bunch of hacks. It is smartly written and well-acted and constructed with an obvious amount of care. It’s provocative, as pretty much all good art is, but that provocation is not just for its own sake but in service of a greater artistic purpose. A given individual may or may not be moved by that artistic purpose, but surely we all must at least recognize it.

I mean, an excellent counterpoint to Heathers the film is Heathers the TV show—which was, by all accounts, a cruel and clueless piece of reactionary bullshit. The same potentially inflammatory subject matter can be handled deftly or horribly depending on the creative team behind it and their ultimate artistic (ideological, political, etc.) intentions.

It’s not so much about giving certain media a pass because we happen to like it, but acknowledging that part of what we like about it—part of what makes it feel worth defending and preserving, even while we recognize (and don’t excuse) its flaws or misfires—is its very artfulness.

To be clear, I’m in complete agreement with the points both Tedward and tnuc are making. But I do think it’s fine (and perhaps even necessary) to make aesthetic value judgments, and to pick and choose what media we’re willing to consume—happily, if not uncritically—based on those value judgments. But maybe I’m just a big ol’ fucking hypocritical snob, in which case you all may vilify me accordingly.

[Reply #746 on:]

Are you saying that artistic qualities outmerit personal negative associations?

Is that in question?

[Reply #747 on:]

I’m saying that the two positions implied by Tedward’s post—“I find this content excusable on the basis of artistic merit” and “I find this identical content gratuitous or otherwise objectionable because it lacks artistic merit”—are not fundamentally incompatible. In other words, just because you defend “problematic” content in one instance doesn’t mean you should feel obliged to defend that content in all instances. Aesthetic taste can (and even should) play a mediating role there.

[Reply #748 on:]

I quite enjoyed "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938). The archetype for later versions, filled with swords and rogues and ladies and kings. It's a fun movie.

Yeah, you can't beat the classics.  Other Robin Hood films that I enjoyed include the 1973 Disney animated movie with the animal characters, and Robin and Marian, a 1976 film starring Sean Connery as an aging Robin Hood.  Of course, I also liked Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

[Reply #749 on:]

I’m saying that the two positions implied by Tedward’s post—“I find this content excusable on the basis of artistic merit” and “I find this identical content gratuitous or otherwise objectionable because it lacks artistic merit”—are not fundamentally incompatible. In other words, just because you defend “problematic” content in one instance doesn’t mean you should feel obliged to defend that content in all instances. Aesthetic taste can (and even should) play a mediating role there.

I generally agree; it's the treatment of the problematic content, I think, that determines its acceptability. What's being defended isn't the particular content, but the meaning given to that content by the larger work.

Of course, I also liked Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

It wasn't one of Mel Brooks' best, but it was good. I actually found the 1938 version by reading the wiki article on it: the Brooks movie is a parody of the Kevin Costner version, and the 1938 version. I should note that the exuberant personality of the Robin character in that movie [edit: the Brooks version] - one of the best parts of it - is very clearly drawn from the 1938 version.

it's very much not got anything to do with whether the film is treating the characters with decency. If there's anybody who isn't in the movie who is being given treatment containing some degree of indecency, then it's going to age poorly as society comes around to being more decent to that particular group.

I think the difference here is just semantics; characters, in part, represent groups. If any group is treated indecently, then the movie will age poorly.

[Reply #750 on:]

It wasn't one of Mel Brooks' best, but it was good.

He's certainly made better films, but I like it because it specifically spoofs Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, a film that in my opinion was ripe for parody.

[Reply #751 on:]

I think the difference here is just semantics; characters, in part, represent groups. If any group is treated indecently, then the movie will age poorly.

You can say something horrible about a group of people without representing them on screen. You don't have to have a character or representation of such a character in the movie to promote harmful attitudes to them. Dialogue and setting can be used to promote ideas about people without having those people as characters, or represented by characters*. That's the nature of a medium which lends itself very well to allegory.

This is a large part of what makes science fiction such a wonderful way to provide social commentary.

So I don't think that the distinction is as empty as a semantic one. As I see it, a movie may age poorly for many reasons, and the absence of explicit indecent treatment internally to the film's universe for specific characters is not necessarily a yardstick by which to judge whether or not this will happen from the perspective of social issues.


*Heathers† also has a great example of this. The film makes use for humor of the repetition of a racial slur that is rightly seen as insensitive today. But in 1988, there was no real conciousness in society of any problem with this. And they could have used so many other words or short statements, but they went with that one. Because they thought it was funny, and didn't forsee the general offense that it would cause as social conciousness evolved to bring the problematic associations with that word into sharper relief.

†I feel like I need to make this clarification here: Items like this are the parts that have not aged well. The overall movie itself, I enjoy and will quite happily endorse. But I will always take care when doing so to point out that insensitive language choices and casual systemic acceptance within the film of problematic cultural norms are rife, and that viewers may find these make them somewhat uncomfortable. This is quite honestly a warning that should apply in the present era to the majority of comedies made during the period from 1985 to 1995, due to what was considered acceptable in that context having undergone significant migration since.

[Reply #752 on:]

I agree with what you're saying, tnuc. I used the word 'characters' to mean the individuals themselves as well as the groups they represent, which is why I considered it to be an issue of semantics. Abuse of off-screen groups would be just as bad.

[Reply #753 on:]

†I feel like I need to make this clarification here: Items like this are the parts that have not aged well. The overall movie itself, I enjoy and will quite happily endorse. But I will always take care when doing so to point out that insensitive language choices and casual systemic acceptance within the film of problematic cultural norms are rife, and that viewers may find these make them somewhat uncomfortable. This is quite honestly a warning that should apply in the present era to the majority of comedies made during the period from 1985 to 1995, due to what was considered acceptable in that context having undergone significant migration since.

Oh, for sure—and sorry to have pressed you so much on what were likely (as zapp suggests) slight semantic/framing differences. (As I like to say of one of my dear friends, with whom I often argumentatively bandy about slightly differently worded but ideologically identical opinions: We are agreeing loudly! )

What you’re describing above is akin to the content warnings I’ve sometimes offered my students—historically/contextually relevant information to help them better understand/process/deal with potentially offensive material. It’s an excellent, empathetic practice that I think most folks (myself included) appreciate. And it’s certainly better, in my opinion, than throwing out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to important-but-problematic art.

[Reply #754 on:]

Titanic II: Awesomely terrible.

[Reply #755 on:]

Godzilla Minus One - A

This is not a monster-of-the-week movie. It has explosions, but it's not Michael Bay material. The cliches are treated tastefully. As much as I've whined over the years about Blue Oyster Cult's popular track never making it into any Godzilla movie, it would be terribly inappropriate for this one.

What it is, is a period piece, in Japanese with English subtitles. It's touching and thoughtful. You neither cheer for Godzilla nor celebrate his peril. To me, anyway, there's zero camp in this film.

See it on the big screen if you can. There were only four or five other people in the 250-seat room with me. Some of the shots looked like they were set up for a 3D version, but even if one is playing I would suggest the 2D, instead. I loved it.

*  edit *

P.S. Some people have complained about a cop-out technical twist/surprise during the climactic scene. All I can say as a person with a passing interest in the subject is that it was clearly telegraphed beforehand and not a surprise to me, and it fit well with the movie's theme. There's also a respectful tribute to the early filmmaking of Spielberg.

[Reply #756 on:]

Gojira (1954) (Japanese with English subtitles) - A

I had been under the mistaken impression that I'd seen a few bits of this movie before, but it must have been a later version. I'd watched the 1956 Godzilla, King of the Monsters! with Raymond Burr, of course, but apparently not the seminal project.

Love this movie. As with the film mentioned above this one, although it does star the famous giant amphibious beast, and he does go on a rampage of death and destruction, it's not what I'd consider a "monster movie". It's a thoughtful and touching cautionary tale about the hubris of mankind. In the words of Blue Oyster Cult, "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man".



Someday I'l love to see a theatrical double-feature of Gojira (1954) and the upcoming black and white release of Godzilla Minus One, which if I recall correctly will be titled "Godzilla -1.0c".

[Reply #757 on:]

As much as I've whined over the years about Blue Oyster Cult's popular track never making it into any Godzilla movie, it would be terribly inappropriate for this one.

That just makes me want to see G-1 with the BOC track playing over his rampage for the sheer perversion of it, TBH. Serious, art-style filmography of a giant lizard destroying property with "Oh no! There goes Tokyo!" sounds like the peak of all Kaiju content.

[Reply #758 on:]

I've whined over the years about Blue Oyster Cult's popular track never making it into any Godzilla movie

They used an (awesome) cover version in Godzilla: King of the Monsters. I can't remember how it's actually featured -- it might have only played over the end credits, but still. It was a bespoke cover version put together for the film by composer Brear McCreary, using the same chanting motifs throughout the score and inexplicably featuring Brendon Small (Metalocalypse, Home Movies) on guitar.


As for Godzilla Minus One, I enjoyed it. It was fine. I don't really understand where the insane hype for it is coming from. I mean, for a start, I didn't think it was as good as Shin Godzilla, the previous Japanese Godzilla movie which largely flew under the mainstream radar. Maybe it's an accumulation effect. I mean it's probably like the fourth greatest Godzilla movie of all time but the bar is EXTREMELY low. The first Godzilla is a masterpiece. After that things went south really quickly.

[Reply #759 on:]

That's pretty unique! Way (way) back in the day we'd play the vinyl of that song, dial the speed down and the volume up. Various intoxicating substances may or may not have been involved. We had pretty simple entertainment in the '70s

Though I seldom watch movies, both Shin Godzilla and Oppenheimer are sitting in my queue, waiting for just the right state of mind to watch them.