Deckard.
It’s Deckard.

I’m glad you liked it, but I think you’re missing a bit of the underlying thread, which is that these various machines are approaching humanity, and developing human consciousness, awareness, and even something approaching physiology and neurochemisty, so the “digital girlfriend” essentially loved K, and fought its own programming to protect him.

That said, it fucking DID record his every move. That actually happened throughout the movie, and is the reason why the “state” (corporation) actually WAS able to track K down and “handle him” pretty “Post-haste.”

So... pay better attention.

Also, K’s supervisor covered for him and died for it. That only bought him about an hour.

The whole movie takes place over the course of about two days. I’d say they handled the deceptive android cop pretty post-haste, since they, y’know, hunted him down and left him for dead and eventually actually did kill him.

I agree the resistance thing was a little sloppy, but it’s a grander concept. Something to leave open to the audience of the next 30 years, since I don’t think a third volume is going to happen any time soon.

You’re so unforgivably full of shit about Dunkirk though.

jab, jab, jab, cross, jab, jab, bob and weave, uppercut

deckhand ;)

saw Elstree 1976 the other night. Probably means a lot more to the avid Star Wars fan (so, not me) but was interesting as a study of some of the extras involved in the first SW episode

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyqtm2D03z4

Such a great movie.

Oh, I was meaning to watch like this six months ago but forgot all about it.

Can you humor me and elaborate a bit? What made it great? What’s it about in a broad sense? (All I read was the description in iTunes, but the cover and the title caught my interest.)

Three friends in high school. When an incident between the friends happens the lives and their friendships spiral down. Being deliberately vague here. This movie made a lot of best horror of the year lists. Yet, I'm not sure I'd even describe it as a horror movie. Its more in line with something like The River's Edge. Its not that the plot has plot twists or revelations either. Its about a friendship that goes really bad. I think it captures male friendship in a honest way, how aggressive it can be. I think its one of the most honest portrayals of adolescent friendships, it has gotten apt comparisons to Stand By Me in that way.

I am fucking interested as fuck.

Was expecting you to give me a slight tweak of the Stranger Things plot... which would have been boring, since Stranger Things only works because it’s a slight tweak of a million classic ‘80s SF/Horror plots. Much more interested now.

Thanks. I’ll get to it soon.

ghost in the shell, live action version



first: let’s get the whitewashing business out of the way: no. everyone is from everywhere in this movie— there’s a romanian, there’s juliette binoche, there are chinese (the cricket minister from marco polo) and japanese actors, there are incomprehensible british accents, and the production seems mostly chinese judging by the credits. good job. sjws are missing the point i think.

second: i like some of the characterizations. #1 beat takeshi as aramaki— hell yeah. he’s the best. hilarious/tough/great. #2 scarlett as kusanagi is great. not saying this just because i like her (who doesn’t) but because she makes great kusanagi faces. guess she learned it playing the alien in scotland? she really can act— it’s the little gestures and twitches.

third: the atmospherics were great. sure you can transplant them from here to blade runner to any number of science fictions fron animation to black and white, and in that they weren’t original *at all* (i guess there’s some vast consensus on what the urban future will be like) but it creates an appropriate mood for the thing and it felt good to be submerged in it. i would have liked to see this in a big screen. yeah.

what i didn’t really like was the writing. and by that i mean the plot. the story, sure, is more or less the same as the original (but i confuse & conflate with so much in the series)— but the way that everything is on the nose here ruins ,things for me. ok it’s not the same story— it’s a worse story too.

particularly the beginning and the end.

at the beginning, instead of starting directly with the raid on that dining hall as i recall the anime began, we get the major’s 6-million-dollar-woman credit “we will rebuild her” (or something) for the dumb public. it was much better to drop into the middle of things and then let things be revealed as i recalled. there was no trying to figure out what’s going on— everything is pre-chewed.

so, same about the hollywood ending. annoying.

but i guess blockbusters have to play it safe. also missing where the characterizations of other members of section 9– but those maybe i got more from the series. hard to recall what’s what— it’s a confusing universe. but anyway, this is not about having to be the same, it’s about not being as good writing, not nearly, no. it’s about writing that is meh.

it was the same thing with aeon flux as i recall— i did like the charlize theron movie some, but to see all that ambiguity and nihilism and s/m reduced to a neatly tied up package with a moral message was annoying in retrospect.

so, anyway, to summarize— nice to look at, but plotwise was like eating baby food where the original was philosphical fugu.

I haven't read the comics, but I started that one, then bailed out after about 15 minutes, because of the, as you said, $6 million woman feel. So, not worth a revisit?

i haven’t read the comics either but the 1995/6 movie was simply phenomenal. one of the best animes ever. and the tv shows (2 seasons) were great too.

there are also cuts and recuts of tv into movies, and a newer anime film i havent seen yet.

but yeah unless you’re a fan of scarlett or just like the visuals i wouldn’t bother with this one storywise.

ultimately it’s just fucking corny.

ok ok maybe the too-short beat takeshi scenes justify it. beat takeshi! ha ha ha. he’s the greatest.

but do watch the 95-96’ original and see how you like. also the FIRST tv series wihch is brilliant.

I actually went to see that at the pictures and y'know what? I can't remember a single thing about it. Actually that's a lie. I can remember two things-the ending (pretty much feel the same as symbols has said) and the crowbarring of the spider.

Other than that it's a total non entity for me.

Started the Hobbit trilogy as I type this, because I finished the book earlier this afternoon.

ABOUT SCHMIDT



now this was fucking great

funny, sure, but there was *a lot* more to it than just the lols.

ambiguity in art is a great thing.

Sounds worth watching on a bored Saturday night if nothing else.

That Aeon Flux movie was kinda trash as I recall. Shame because the old show was so so so great.

Choses secrètes

Linked with the 'New French Extremity' films that've emerged over the last couple of decades (see also, Irreversible, Haute Tension, Martyrs, etc.), this went under the radar a bit, perhaps because, in comparison with those films it isn't actually that extreme - graphically anyway. It's essentially an erotic thriller; albeit one with shades of De Sade and Bataille to give it that philosophical air of transgression (which might ultimately be more central to the NFE 'movement' than any graphic displays of torture, rape, etc.) Anyway, in terms of recent trends in cinema, I do find this one probably the most interesting, even if the films themselves can be pretty hit and miss. I also think the more graphic end will eventually hit a dead end once it reaches (as it inevitably must) that final layer of taboo represented by actual, un-simulated violence (snuff) or sex involving children: areas that it simply can't touch. I suppose that's a problem whenever anything defines itself through graphic extremity: that it eventually reaches its legally defined limit. In that sense, because Choses secrètes emphasises extremity at the level of ideas rather than their graphic display, it may point to a more sustainable future for these kinds of films.

mother!


Did not think I was going to enjoy it as much as I did. The trailer totally presents it in a differently light that made me not too interested in watching. Went ahead and checked it out on a friend's recommendation, and was pleased. Not the best thing ever, but it is one of those that just sort of sticks with you in your head after watching.

It still has that Aronofsky mind-fuck pretentiousness that gets a little on my nerves in some of his flicks, but it actually fits alright for me in this one. It's more fitting in this film and has it's place, if that makes sense. Hard to explain.

Did you not think it was totally exhausting? I enjoyed it a lot, but god I was work out by the end!

Hahahaha. Yes, I did. In fact, I think you just explained what I meant by "hard to explain" quite well. "Exhausting" is a perfect word for it. But, like said, in a good way for some reason with this movie. It fit. That drained feeling at the end while reflecting and piecing it all together seemed to make sense. More so with this one than some of his other ones, I felt. That last half hour or so was one hell of a ride, for better or for worse.

Best films of '17

#20 -#11

The Great Wall, The Glass Castle, Let It Fall: Los Angeles 1982-1992, It Comes At Night, Wonderstruck, Karl Marx City, mother!, Ex-Libris: The New York Public Library, Columbus, Blade Runner 2049

#10 - #1

The Post
Bomb City
20th Century Women
The Salesman
Phantom Thread
Personal Shopper
Dunkirk
Lady Bird
Wind River
The Lost City of Z