Posted on 04/29/2022 7:49:36 PM PDT by sphinx
The summer season is upon us and, per each year, we’ve dug beyond studio offerings (though a few potential highlights remain) to present an in-depth look at what should be on your radar. From festival winners of the past year to selections coming straight from Cannes to genre delights to some high-flying spectacles, there’s more than enough to anticipate.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefilmstage.com ...
Thanks. There’s a couple in there that look interesting.
Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday is the best character ever
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Couldn’t take 10 minutes of that grossly overrated movie or Kilmer’s over the top, overly made up Doc Holiday.
I’m only 59 so it’s not an ‘old timer’s’ attitude thing but Kirk Douglas as Doc and Gunfight at O.K. Corral was a thousand times better.
Thank You!
I think I may have attended six or seven movies in the past twenty years. 40 in a summer might be a bit much.
Is Baldwin going to finish making Rust? I think he should give it a shot.
Ah, a connoisseur, perhaps a true cinephile. Let me guess: on this particular list, the one that caught your eye was Top Gun: Maverick? If true, that's fine. Tom Cruise bats for average. He's pretty careful about staying mainstream. On a bad day, his films are solid, and he makes an excellent one from time to time. He's one of the most bankable names in Hollywood today for a reason.
In putting this together, I linked three different lists: different sources, different crosscuts, relatively little overlap. I thought these three provided an interesting blend. There are many more such lists. A couple that I skipped leaned much more heavily into the tentpole world of superheroes, big, splashy, CGI heavy action films, and endless franchise sequels and spinoffs. These are the big studio films that get most of the hype. I figure most of us will hear about them somehow. I thought about adding the Cannes selection list, which was recently released, but Cannes tries too hard to be global, avant garde, and woke. It still doesn't hurt to glance at the list and pick out the scattering of good ones, but for this thread, three lists was enough.
There are a lot of movie threads on FR. On many of them, we sound like a Greek chorus wailing that the film industry is a lost cause as we rain anathemas on woke movies that offend us in myriad ways. Fine. There are a lot of those. But there are still good films being made. The problem is that we often don't hear about them. They usually don't get the hype and, as streaming takes over, fewer and fewer films get even a short theatrical release. They are picked up by the streamers, linger for a couple of days on the "just added" list, and disappear into the catalogue where they will never be found except by people who already know what they are looking for. Especially from a conservative standpoint, our screening and target acquisition systems are broken.
I won't rehash the whole story here, but not long ago I was a "nuke Hollywood from orbit" guy. Then I tripped over Columbus (2017, Kogonada), not through any movie source but by reading something online that casually mentioned the use of Columbus' modernist architecture in a well-regarded film. I grew up about 45 miles from Columbus. I had taken the Columbus architecture tour many years ago. I knew the J. Irwin Miller/Cummins backstory. I wondered how anyone could possibly get a movie out of that, so I watched it out of curiosity. I have never been so surprised by a movie in my life, and I wondered how a film this good could be made about a subject of interest to me and I never even heard about it. That's when I realized that I had developed a huge blind spot. The good stuff is out there. We just don't usually hear about it.
Versions of this come up frequently in the film threads here. People discover a movie that is five, ten, or fifteen years old and are amazed to discover that it's really good. How do we miss these the first time around? More movies are being made today than ever before, but the dominant marketing systems are steadily narrowing our field of vision. The streamers' algorithms will keep feeding you more of what you watched last time. It's no wonder that the stuff that's served up to us online seems increasingly stale.
As far as I can see, the only way to break out of this box is to become active consumers and make an effort to search out good films. It only takes a few minutes to scan a list. If I see a list of 40 or 80 or 150 and find six films that look interesting enough to at least read a couple of reviews and watch a trailer, I think that's a decent hit rate. Yes, most of the films on such lists will not be of interest. But that's ok. As a matter of situational awareness, it doesn't hurt to know that they're out there too, but the point is to find the hidden gems. They will usually stay hidden unless we dig a bit.
Since none of us are professional critics and few of us will invest much effort in this, we need to develop clearinghouses to exchange recommendations. Most of us do stumble across interesting films or shows from time to time. So my point is pretty simple. Instead of just kvetching about the bad stuff, which is shooting fish in a barrel, help your fellow freepers out by making some recommendations on films and shows that you think have merit. Especially the new stuff; most of us have probably discovered the golden oldies. I like the classics too, but that doesn't mean I want to rewatch Patton or The Godfather again.
None of the six movies I recommended in this thread are woke. After Yang has my vote for best movie of the year. YMMV. This year's Oscar winner for Best Picture, Coda, is not woke. (I think that's part of the reason it won; I have the sense that a lot of people simply got fed up with the gay pride parade that had been prancing all year around The Hair of the Dog, long considered the frontrunner. Drive My Car was this year's winner for Best International Feature Film. It's not woke. A surprising number of freepers have seen it and all seem to like it; there's a noticeable and seemingly knowledgeable group here who have become serious fans of foreign films, perhaps especially Korean films. There are some terrific recent films, mostly from Europe, that are powerfully anti-communist; they put Hollywood to shame. But the thing is, we won't find these films unless we look for them. And that starts by at least scanning the lists and passing along recommendations.
I highly suggest "Dear, Comrades".
For me they all fall into the “Will watch if stuck on airplane” category. Otherwise no!
Out of a list of 40, I think I’m doing well to find two or three I will want to watch. But if I look at several such lists over time and scan the selections for major festivals, I can find more than enough interesting films to watch. And I always pay attention to critics I trust (and, of course, to freepers’ recommendations).
It only takes a couple of minutes to scan a list. That’s a lot less time than it takes to browse through the Netflix or Amazon or Showtime landing page looking (often unsuccessfully) for something good to watch. I’ll pick a film off a list, read a couple of reviews and watch a trailer. If it still looks good, I’ll figure out where I can see it. The method isn’t foolproof, but I very rarely see a movie that I don’t enjoy because I don’t go in blind.
The people who put such lists together, like the people who make selections for the major festivals, are probably not going to share our point of view. As a group, they probably skew hard left and, like jaded and bored specialists in many fields, they are probably oriented towards what is new and different, which biases them towards experimental techniques and transgressive subjects. If I watched hundreds of films a year — and had to keep doing so year after year because it’s my job — I too might develop a taste for freakshow novelty. It’s an occupational hazard.
Can you imagine how bored members of the U.S. Marine Band must be with playing The Stars and Stripes Forever? Great tune. But after the 7,000 time, I’m surprised bandsmen don’t go postal. The professional movie crowd has a lot of people who have gone postal.
But they are also trying to cast a broad net. Liberals can and do make culturally conservative films if they tell honest stories, don’t cheat on the history, and deal with ambiguities, real dilemmas, and the hard truths of human nature. Reality is conservative. You and I know this. Honest story tellers may consider themselves liberal, but if they’re honest, they know the difference between agitprop, which is lying, and truth in character, motivation and moral choice. If they make honest films, conservative themes will at least get a fair turn, whatever the politics of the filmmakers.
sorry, no. Northman was the only one that seemed interesting.
the rest look like crap
(tho i’ll admit i’ll see TG2 when it comes out)
One I found almost 15 year’s after it came out, and from my view at one time would have became a classic like The Wizard of OZ.
As I found myself loving some character’s and hating others,
The City of Ember, awesome little movie and I’ve watched it many times...
The lists I linked were intended as prompts for suggestions, not a closed field. If the films listed are not to your taste, fine. Tastes vary. The question is, what kind of films/shows do you watch, and have you discovered anything that you are willing to recommend to other freepers?
If you simply don’t watch movies or tv at all, that’s great. There are other and better ways to pass your time. But most of us do indulge from time to time. So what’s good, in your estimation?
Most of us have seen the golden oldies. We probably agree about most of them. But I don’t want to spend the rest of my life rewatching the same 50 shows. Have you seen anything new that’s worth passing along?
Fair enough. I’ve seen The Northman. It has some virtues but it’s a bit too surrealistic for my taste. (The director’s other films are The Witch and The Lighthouse, so viewers should know what to expect.) My biggest criticism of it is the gratuitous nudity. This is fairly sedate as such things go today, but there was absolutely no need for it. (There never is.) This cost $90 million and I expect that some of the suits thought that getting Anya Taylor Joy naked was an important business investment. I’m a bit surprised that ATJ went along, or for that matter, that Eggers, who worked with a much younger ATJ in The Witch, was willing to do it.
Any such list is a mixed bag. Out of 40, I figure I’m doing well if I find two or three to watch. Tastes vary. My purpose here is to encourage suggestions for other freepers to consider. Good movies are still being made. But so much content is being pumped out that finding the good stuff can be hard. The films I recommended may not be to your taste, but none of them are woke. If you’ve got more to suggest, I’m all ears.
I am allergic to "robot children" after Haley Joel Osment and AI though.
Plus, once we get robots will they all have to be different races? Can't they just be robots?
Try Open Range. It's now my favorite western that replaced Tombstone.
I can think of better characters, but Kilmer had that role down pat, as if he was born to play it. If you haven't already, check out Open Range. It's now my favorite western movie. The TV series Yellowstone is worth watching. If you haven't seen and start from season 1 episode 1, be careful, you might binge and forget to buy more beer...ha.
There is also a new series on Amazon Prime called Outer Range with Josh Brolin and other accomplished actors. It's similar to Yellowstone about a modern day rancher, but with a supernatural twist. So far I like it. We'll see.
You should check out Open Range. My favorite western that replaced Tombstone.
I’ll check it out, thanks for the heads up.
I tried and turned it off. Who thought of that crap? "Batman Begins" with Christian Bale was the best of the franchise. It showed his beginnings and how he became so capable during his training. I have the framed one sheet with the autographs of all the stars on the wall in my modest theater.
Which brings me to your point. Because Kogonada is content to pose existential questions without trying to drive home a conclusion, he is free to layer many questions into the film. This leads to this leads to this leads to this, and it's all interconnected. Some reviewers have compared this to wandering around a Zen rock garden and contemplating the shapes from different perspectives. I like the analogy of wandering through a forest with intersecting paths branching off in all directions, with unexplored mysteries barely glimpsed down each path not taken.
This becomes a Rorschach test for viewers. Either you grok open ended storytelling or you don't.
So to your point: why do you call Yang a robot child? That question is raised, though it is fairly minor in the broad context of the ideas Kogonada is posing. At one point, Jake (the father, played by Colin Farrell) asks Ada (the mysterious girl, played by Haley Lu Richardson) if Yang ever wanted to be human. Ada, who probably knew Yang best, says no. This was not an issue for Yang. Why should it be an issue for you?
Jake and Kyra, the parents, had purchased Yang as a "cultural techno," a friend/companion/sibling/teacher/babysitter for their daughter Mika, who is adopted from China. Yang is an android manufactured with Asian features and programmed with cultural information about China as a teaching aid for a child who might be expected to have questions about her country of ancestry. Had the daughter been adopted from Haiti after the next natural disaster, "Yang" would be black, speak French, and would know all about voodoo.
Yang could be anything. I like to think he was manufactured in Cleveland and was one of 1,500 models on offer to permit easy personalization.
Kogonada was born in Seoul, the youngest of several children, and came to the U.S. as a child when his parent immigrated. As a first generation immigrant, he seems to be very conscious of having a foot in both worlds and of feeling some sense of displacement. This is touched on in his first movie, Columbus, and in his current project, Pachinko, which chronicles several generations of a Korean family with members who move to Japan and then the U.S. As presented in After Yang, the immigrant experience question becomes the issue, for Yang, of consciously constructing an identity: what to save, what to leave behind, what memories are worth cherishing.
But this is open ended. The identity question is there, but the film also deals with belonging, what it means to be part of a family, finding a purpose, "seeing" and accepting "the other," loss, and -- as Kogonada phrases it in interviews -- "catching up to grief." Jake and Kyra had thought of Yang as a nifty household appliance. Then he goes on the fritz. In trying to get him fixed, they come across ... memories, and lives unexpected. Jake and Kyra suddenly realize that they had never really seen Yang when he was present. They only really "see" him when his absence creates a sudden gap.
And last but not least, Yang is a mirror through which Jake for the first time really sees himself. Jake only really sees himself when he sees Yang's memories, which in Yang's case are not organic; they are moments consciously selected and archived in a dedicated memory bank because they seemed to Yang to have some special importance. Again, as Kogonada puts it, Jake sets out to fix Yang, but it is Yang (or Yang's memories) that fixes Jake.
So don't think that this is just another movie about a robot child. It's a lot more than that. Just be ready for an open ended structure that invites you to think.
Robots of different races? Well, there is no reason that robots need to be humanoid at all unless they are functioning in human dominated spaces as human surrogates. Which Yang is, as a cultural techno optimized to help with Chinese adoptions. As long as people are of different races, such robots will be of different races.
But note this. In the movie, with one delightful exception, all the human families are racially blended. Kogonada is positing a largely post-racial world. (Remember, he's a first generation Korean immigrant in the U.S., so he's rejecting tribalism here.) But aspirational ideals aside, the humans (with one exception) seem to have moved beyond race consciousness ... BUT the boundary question still exists, with highly lifelike androids and clones occupying an ambiguous status. Society has moved beyond race, but the question now is "natural" humans vs. "engineered humans."
Again, some critics think the movie is juggling too many ideas for it's own good. Others are happy with the complexity. It's worth a watch. Just sit back and enjoy, and don't be surprised if you find it sticking in your mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.