[Aptorian]

I'm 30 minutes into Fantastic Beasts and Where to find Them. This film is great. Great casting. Great script. Great dialogue. It perfectly manages to translate the charm and wonder of Harry Potter to early 20th century America.

I love the beasts and I love the characters. I've never seen the English lead before but he's hilarious in how oblivious he is and his reserved britishness.

EDIT: Hmm not sure about this side story about the anti-witchcraft what ever? Where is it going?

EDIT: That money obsessed platapus might be the best thing I've ever seen. It should get some kind of Oscar for best supporting actor or something.

This post has been edited by Apt: 22 April 2017 - 05:54 PM

[Aptorian]

I thought Warcraft was very good as well. Not a great film but a great translation of the MMO to the big screen. I hope they make a sequel now that they've set the stage for what comes next in the universe.

[Aptorian]

Finished Fantastic Beasts. Loved it. Can't wait to see more of this series.

I think the "big bad" of the story was sort of random and felt like it was just put in there for the sake of having something bad to overcome. I also feel like the story did nothing to tie it together with Grindewald directly.

It's easy to make comparisons between the first Harry Potter books/films and this first film in the Fantastic Beasts series, but things don't quite work as well when you're using the same formula outside the confines of a magical wizard school in which children's book logic allows you to hand wave a lot of stuff.

But still I love this film. It seems like this series is going to go into the nitty gritty of how you explain that there is a wizard world co-existing with the muggle world. The power dynamic, the philosophy of how to handle all that power, etc.

I was left sort of baffled by the end of the film by sheer scope of the wizard's power. The potential they demonstrated when rebuilding makes you wonder why things like war, famine, disease, etc. exist at all? Much like the religious paradox of why a kind and loving god would allow people to suffer across the globe, Fantastic Beasts makes one question what ever policy is in place that so separates humans and wizards. Which I take will be a major theme in the series.

For those that have watched the film, what do you think the plan is going forward?

Spoiler

Why was Grindelwald spending his time pretending to be some kind of police wizard captain? I don't really know what Grindelwald had been up to before the film but surely, he must have had better things to do than build a career in the wizard police? Or was it only just recently that he assumed that identity? Killing the original Colin Farell wizard? To what end then?

Certainly not to kill or dismantle America's ruling wizards. He had that chance many time? To gain new power? To recruit spooky poltergeist monster boy? What for? As a weapon? It can't have been why he was there in the first place.

The plot mirrors the teacher in Harry Potter that was acting as a kind of Host for Voldemort. A plot that starts the series off with out having any real significance initially. What happens next?

The series isn't bound to New York. Is it going to be a series that takes place globally? With Scamander going on adventures? How do they connect that to Scamander bumbling into Grindelwalds plans over and over?

Also as an aside, Johnny Depp looked ridiculous at the end of the film. Blonde with a silly little mustache? Not quite the scary dark sorceror I was expecting. Hell it would have made more sense if Depp had been the police captain and Colin Farell had been Grindelwald. He at least had the look of a bad guy.

This post has been edited by Apt: 22 April 2017 - 07:37 PM

[QuickTidal]

Went to see the adaptation of THE LOST CITY OF Z today. The book, by David Grann is one of my favourite non-fiction reads...so I have some thoughts.

On the face of it, it's a great film throughout. They do the Fawcett portion of the story mostly well (with only a few hiccups).

I have a few issues with it though.

1. My main issue is that the book has a framing narrative where David Grann, in modern day, retraces Fawcett's steps into the Amazon. The culmination of that framing narrative is the denoument that makes the Fawcett, historical part of the story SO worth it. Since Fawcett disappeared, we don't get to SEE his end of the story. The framing narrative is entirely absent from the film. We start with Fawcett and end with Fawcett. And that might be all well and good, but that framing narrative portion gives a LOT of the more subtle informaiton that you need to get what Fawcett himself was driving at....that I feel the movie actually misses. The idea that the REASON it's so batshit insane to the British aristocracy of the time that a civilization of any import or technology could be in the middle of the amazon...is becuase the Amazon is like Mars. It tries it's VERY best to kill you in every second, of every day. Most of even Fawcett's part of the book is dedicated to this ideal, and it's part of what drives him to find his lost civilization and city....becuae a people who could live there...WERE leaps and bounds ahead of the Brits. Anyways, with that framing portion missing, I feel like the ending is far flatter and less interesting than it is in the book (whch I won't spoil here).

2. The score is entirely unmemorable, and barely evokes anything throughout. It's terrible.

3. The cinematography is gloomy, and yellow throughout. I can KIND of see what they were aiming at (old school exploration vibe)...but it makes anything that takes place indoors a mess of drab browns and blacks that depresses you, and anything outside makes the jungle FAR less vibrant than it should be. As a result, I feel it affects the tone of the piece and makes for a melancholy 2.5 hours.

4. That brings me to my final issue. The length. IT's 2.5hrs and it could EASILY have been 2. The film has a bunch of extraneous scenes that it doens't need (most notably showing Percy at war in between jungle treks...somehting the books metnion, but don't pertain to the story at hand), and as a result I felt the film dragged in a few places.

Otherwise it's as sollid as the critics have said it is.

That said, I far more highly reccomend the book. It's incredible start to finish.

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 22 April 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

Went to see the adaptation of THE LOST CITY OF Z today. The book, by David Grann is one of my favourite non-fiction reads...so I have some thoughts.

On the face of it, it's a great film throughout. They do the Fawcett portion of the story mostly well (with only a few hiccups).

I have a few issues with it though.

1. My main issue is that the book has a framing narrative where David Grann, in modern day, retraces Fawcett's steps into the Amazon. The culmination of that framing narrative is the denoument that makes the Fawcett, historical part of the story SO worth it. Since Fawcett disappeared, we don't get to SEE his end of the story. The framing narrative is entirely absent from the film. We start with Fawcett and end with Fawcett. And that might be all well and good, but that framing narrative portion gives a LOT of the more subtle informaiton that you need to get what Fawcett himself was driving at....that I feel the movie actually misses. The idea that the REASON it's so batshit insane to the British aristocracy of the time that a civilization of any import or technology could be in the middle of the amazon...is becuase the Amazon is like Mars. It tries it's VERY best to kill you in every second, of every day. Most of even Fawcett's part of the book is dedicated to this ideal, and it's part of what drives him to find his lost civilization and city....becuae a people who could live there...WERE leaps and bounds ahead of the Brits. Anyways, with that framing portion missing, I feel like the ending is far flatter and less interesting than it is in the book (whch I won't spoil here).

2. The score is entirely unmemorable, and barely evokes anything throughout. It's terrible.

3. The cinematography is gloomy, and yellow throughout. I can KIND of see what they were aiming at (old school exploration vibe)...but it makes anything that takes place indoors a mess of drab browns and blacks that depresses you, and anything outside makes the jungle FAR less vibrant than it should be. As a result, I feel it affects the tone of the piece and makes for a melancholy 2.5 hours.

4. That brings me to my final issue. The length. IT's 2.5hrs and it could EASILY have been 2. The film has a bunch of extraneous scenes that it doens't need (most notably showing Percy at war in between jungle treks...somehting the books metnion, but don't pertain to the story at hand), and as a result I felt the film dragged in a few places.

Otherwise it's as sollid as the critics have said it is.

That said, I far more highly reccomend the book. It's incredible start to finish.

I've neither seen nor read Lost City of Z, but have you seen the film Embrace of the Serpent? Focus is a bit different but it's the story, told in overlapping strands, of a native guide who takes two visiting explorers on a journey through the Amazon- once as a young man, once as an old one. The two journeys are fictional but based on the journals of two real people. Very odd film but really good.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 22 April 2017 - 09:59 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 22 April 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

Went to see the adaptation of THE LOST CITY OF Z today. The book, by David Grann is one of my favourite non-fiction reads...so I have some thoughts.

On the face of it, it's a great film throughout. They do the Fawcett portion of the story mostly well (with only a few hiccups).

I have a few issues with it though.

1. My main issue is that the book has a framing narrative where David Grann, in modern day, retraces Fawcett's steps into the Amazon. The culmination of that framing narrative is the denoument that makes the Fawcett, historical part of the story SO worth it. Since Fawcett disappeared, we don't get to SEE his end of the story. The framing narrative is entirely absent from the film. We start with Fawcett and end with Fawcett. And that might be all well and good, but that framing narrative portion gives a LOT of the more subtle informaiton that you need to get what Fawcett himself was driving at....that I feel the movie actually misses. The idea that the REASON it's so batshit insane to the British aristocracy of the time that a civilization of any import or technology could be in the middle of the amazon...is becuase the Amazon is like Mars. It tries it's VERY best to kill you in every second, of every day. Most of even Fawcett's part of the book is dedicated to this ideal, and it's part of what drives him to find his lost civilization and city....becuae a people who could live there...WERE leaps and bounds ahead of the Brits. Anyways, with that framing portion missing, I feel like the ending is far flatter and less interesting than it is in the book (whch I won't spoil here).

2. The score is entirely unmemorable, and barely evokes anything throughout. It's terrible.

3. The cinematography is gloomy, and yellow throughout. I can KIND of see what they were aiming at (old school exploration vibe)...but it makes anything that takes place indoors a mess of drab browns and blacks that depresses you, and anything outside makes the jungle FAR less vibrant than it should be. As a result, I feel it affects the tone of the piece and makes for a melancholy 2.5 hours.

4. That brings me to my final issue. The length. IT's 2.5hrs and it could EASILY have been 2. The film has a bunch of extraneous scenes that it doens't need (most notably showing Percy at war in between jungle treks...somehting the books metnion, but don't pertain to the story at hand), and as a result I felt the film dragged in a few places.

Otherwise it's as sollid as the critics have said it is.

That said, I far more highly reccomend the book. It's incredible start to finish.

I've neither seen nor read Lost City of Z, but have you seen the film Embrace of the Serpent? Focus is a bit different but it's the story, told in overlapping strands, of a native guide who takes two visiting explorers on a journey through the Amazon- once as a young man, once as an old one. The two journeys are fictional but based on the journals of two real people. Very odd film but really good.

Never heard of it, but I usually take your recco's to heart, so I'll seek it out! Thanks man!

[Cause]

Briar King, on 22 April 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

I didn't like that whole thing. Colin had a bit of Hollywood redemption in this movie. This 2hr movie did more then the 10 hr True Detective S2 was meant to do. Wizard/G-Men is a great mix. The No Mag was my favorite part though.

This comment interests me. Why did he need redemption? I thought his character was great

[Cause]

amphibian, on 05 April 2017 - 02:27 PM, said:

I saw The Last Witchhunter. It feels like a bad video game or DnD session. This movie was lazily written and there's zero buy in to Kaulder as a person to respect or care about.

This movie shouldn't have been made.

It's a movie based on vin diesels dnd sessions where he plays an immortal witch hunter so....

[Tsundoku]

Abyss, on 21 April 2017 - 03:41 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 21 April 2017 - 12:31 PM, said:

The latest offering from DC Animation is out for rental, TEEN TITANS: THE JUDAS CONTRACT....now maybe it's because I'm a huge TT fan (maybe even moreso than the Justice League)...but this is one of their most excellent films to date! I mean, it helps that this is literally one of (if not THE) most seminal TEEN TITANS stories they've adapted...but the tone and style if perfect, the dialogue is excellent. Just all around a fantastic watch. If you like the DC Animated output (and most people do) this won't lead you astray.

Important question:
1) how do they dodge around Deathstroke making the sex with a fifteen year old Terra? and,

"Little Death Stroke" you might say ...

[Aptorian]

Cause, on 23 April 2017 - 06:09 AM, said:

Briar King, on 22 April 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

I didn't like that whole thing. Colin had a bit of Hollywood redemption in this movie. This 2hr movie did more then the 10 hr True Detective S2 was meant to do. Wizard/G-Men is a great mix. The No Mag was my favorite part though.

This comment interests me. Why did he need redemption? I thought his character was great

I think he might referring to Farrell not appearing in any big publicity films since... I don't even remember really. Total Recall? Has he done anything big recently? I most hear about him starring in strange or off beat love stories and such. Like the Lobster.

[Macros]

He hasn't been in many blockbusters recently afaik.
But i have a lot of time for Farrell, in Bruge and 7 psychopaths were awesome

[Macros]

And obviously he was in Ballykissangel

[Malankazooie]

True Detective 2 is take it or leave it (mostly leave it) for most viewers, but his character had the best rumination concerning e-cigarettes / vaping.

[Macros]

no way man, Alexander was total shite, I agree.
but he made In Bruges in 08 and its fucking superb

[worry]

Yah, if anything Colin Farrell has gone from being an also-ran prettyboy in terrible blockbuster attempts to a legit comic and dramatic actor since then.

[Tiste Simeon]

Plus he was in Scrubs, so that blots out a lot of sins.

[Morgoth]

7 Psychopaths is an amazing film.

[QuickTidal]

Re-watched two 90’s movies that I’ve always loved over the weekend.

DUMB & DUMBER. Still excellent, and hilarious after all these years.

GROSSE POINT BLANK. I remember loving this movie to the extent that I used to know the dialogue off by heart, and I still always think about the egg line and protein when I eat egg whites. It’s still very good, and much blacker of a comedy than I think I used to assume. It hinges on the phenomenal chemistry between Cusack and Driver, and Cusack’s relatively mind-wandery delivery of the fantastic dialogue throughout. The ending is a bit of a lame duck (like it’s missing about 10-15 minutes of resolution), but everything up to that succeeds. It’s also nepotism on full display with not just Cusack’s sister Joan in a supporting role, but the 3rd of the 5 Cusack siblings Ann Cusack as a drunken schoolmate of the characters. Piven delivers a fantastic performance as Martin’s old friend…and Alan Arkin (as usual) delivers a winning and hilarious performance as Martin’s reluctant shrink. Anyways, still a great movie and holds up well 21 years after the fact.

[Malankazooie]

Made the mistake of watching The Green Inferno late night Friday on HBO. Yeesh, what a pile of garbage. Crappy from start to finish.

I mean, I guess Eli Roth revisiting the cannibal horror genre could be interesting, but this thing is just crap all the way. And the pièce de résistance of all the crappiness is Roth introducing FGM into the film. It offers no redeeming value other then degradation and shock.

I give it half a tarantula bite on the penis out of 5 (or alternatively: half a smoked Jonah out of 5).

Boy, Roth's track record is pretty shitty. Other then Cabin Fever, the rest of his works are not much better then this (don't even say Hostel was good or I will fight you where you stand)

[QuickTidal]

Malankazooie, on 24 April 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:

Made the mistake of watching The Green Inferno late night Friday on HBO. Yeesh, what a pile of garbage. Crappy from start to finish.

I mean, I guess Eli Roth revisiting the cannibal horror genre could be interesting, but this thing is just crap all the way. And the pièce de résistance of all the crappiness is Roth introducing FGM into the film. It offers no redeeming value other then degradation and shock.

I give it half a tarantula bite on the penis out of 5 (or alternatively: half a smoked Jonah out of 5).

Boy, Roth's track record is pretty shitty. Other then Cabin Fever, the rest of his works are not much better then this (don't even say Hostel was good or I will fight you where you stand)

I could have told you this. In fact, when this debuted originally it did so at TIFF Midnight Madness, and everyone I know who saw it that night HAAAAAATED it. Roth was there, and faced (I'd say) about a 1/4 audience who remained for the Q&A portion (note: Usually the Q&A's at the MM screenings stay full). Nearly everyone left apparently. And I then heard about how bad it was ALL week in Fest lineups.

Roth is a one-hit wonder (and I'm not even a big fan of CABIN FEVER...but I'll admit it works as a concept) and apparently a big dickhole to boot in real life.