The last movie you saw Thread

[Frelga]

Disney used the Perrault version of tales like Cinderella rather than the later Grimms' version.

As for the Jungle Book, Kipling's story is more grown up than the Disney animated version, and Mowgli is a teenager rather than a tot for most of it, but it's certainly not dark.

I still like the 1970s Soviet animation best.

[yovargas]

I am not familiar with the original story so I don't know what "dark" means in this context but the tone of that trailer really looks exactly like the tone of Disney's live-action version, which had plenty of serious and dark moments.

[Frelga]

I only saw a trailer of that one, too, but it didn't strike me as dark.

Yov, you do raise a good question of how to define "dark". For example, what about LOTR? Some parts are straight up horror, and the ending is not exactly happy, but I don't think most of us would describe it as dark. To me a dark story is one without hope, without faith in humanity, one where you can't tell villains from heroes, where character development is about corruption and not growth. And in that sense, the Jungle Book is the opposite, despite the themes of loss and lack of belonging.

[lazycat]

I Watched Zardoz again. The line "I have seen the future. And it doesn't work" really resonates.

[yovargas]

I just watched The Martian. What a wonderful little love letter to all the brilliant men and women who have made the past, present, and future of space travel possible.

[Primula Baggins]

Yes. A lovely thing.

The book is good, but it has quirks that were a disadvantage in text but an advantage on film.

[yovargas]

You may recall how I realized during my IMDb movie list thing that there is a pattern where I am bored and annoyed buy movies and stories about assholes, a la Raging Bull or Breaking Bad. It turns out the opposite is also true. I love movies about good people working to do good things, especially about intelligent and hard-working people. It's rare to get a movie that so brazenly celebrates intelligence it's like this one did.

I saw a review somewhere saying that the movie was "just science porn" like if that was a bad thing, instead of what's so cool about the movie.

[Beutlin]

I watched The Martian on television a couple of weeks ago and took it as further proof that Ridley Scott should have retired at the latest in the early '00s: The film features a dull, unfunny, and one-dimensional protagonist (played by a mediocre actor). The rest of the cast barely amount to cardboard characters. The film never manages to build up any tension whatsoever; you know from the start that Damon will solve all terminal challenges and that he will be saved eventually. The sole reason why the protagonist is stranded on Mars, namely a deadly sandstorm, would not be possible on Mars. Which could simply be regarded as artistic license but for a film that proclaims to be all about scientific accuracy...
Worst of all, it (successfully judging from the film's box office results) tries to sell to the audience this nauseatingly infantile Reddit-like fetishism of "science" - or more accurately of a crowd-pleasing, easy-to-consume version of science presentation, where "science" is all about quickly, clearly, and smugly solving obstacles in an easily presentable manner. There is a reason why there are hardly any good films about the sciences out there; primarily because most of science does not lend itself well to celluloid,and is mostly a rather dry affair. Instead we get pandering drivel such as this.

[Primula Baggins]

Beutlin, Mars is enveloped in an almost planetwide dust storm right now, as we post. It’s endangering our little rover named Opportunity.

I obviously disagree with most of your take on the film—I and the audience I saw it with were enthralled.

[Beutlin]

Beutlin, Mars is enveloped in an almost planetwide dust storm right now, as we post. It’s endangering our little rover named Opportunity.

There are dust storms on Mars but they never ever reach the deadly force as depicted in the film due to the planet's weak atmosphere. In the movie, the crew had to abandon the protagonist because their multi-ton launching ship would soon be knocked over by the storm.

Sources:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/o ... he-martian
https://www.space.com/40891-historic-du ... -2018.html

[yovargas]

Opinions!

The film features a dull, unfunny, and one-dimensional protagonist (played by a mediocre actor).

I think you misspelled "charming and loveable".
Seriously, I don't generally think Damon is a really great actor but he is usually quite likeable and this was one of his most likeable roles I can recall. (I did find his constant jokeyness a little over the top.)

The rest of the cast barely amount to cardboard characters.

Right. It's not a movie about characters, it's a movie about solving a big problem. I am 100% on board with that kind of story as long as the problem and solutions are interesting, and I can't imagine anyone finding "how do you get a man stranded on Mars back home" to be an uninteresting problem. Not every movie needs to be a character study.

The film never manages to build up any tension whatsoever; you know from the start that Damon will solve all terminal challenges and that he will be saved eventually.

But you don't know how. In this case, the how is fascinating.

The sole reason why the protagonist is stranded on Mars, namely a deadly sandstorm, would not be possible on Mars. Which could simply be regarded as artistic license but for a film that proclaims to be all about scientific accuracy...

Umm, what? That is quite incorrect. 2 seconds of googling showered Mars does have weather.

But the main reason I posted this post was to ask....

Worst of all, it (successfully judging from the film's box office results) tries to sell to the audience this nauseatingly infantile Reddit-like fetishism of "science" - or more accurately of a crowd-pleasing, easy-to-consume version of science presentation, where "science" is all about quickly, clearly, and smugly solving obstacles in an easily presentable manner.

....what???? I genuinely have no idea what any of this means or what you are getting at. Seriously - what????


To be clear, I don't think it's a masterpiece. I thought Ridley Scott's direction was a surprisingly ordinary through a lot of it, and I thought there were some pacing issues here and there. But it's a hell of a story, and the kind of story that pretty much never gets the big budget treatment like this, which is great. Plus I loved how deeply uncynical it is, which is also a rare thing to see in a big-budget movie for adults. I think we all could use a bit less cynicism in our art and stories.

[Beutlin]

I never claimed that there is no weather on Mars. What is however not possible on Mars is a storm that reaches such a deadly force that it can potentially knock over a space ship weighing dozens of tons. In fact, storms on Mars would have a hard time knocking a person off their feet.

My last sentence refers to an irritating tradition in Western (and especially American) cinema and television that primarily tries to show "science" as a compilation of eureka moments birthed by single geniuses. In that sense it hankers back to the grand nineteenth century traditions of showing "progress" as the triumph of the will of great men (and a few women). I think the following article somewhat touches on what I am trying to say here, albeit a little bit too uncritically: http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... pr-consent
Or, on a lighter note: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX50REHezPY&t=3155s (starting at 31:55; no, I do not think of these guys as formidable movie critics in general)

[yovargas]

I mean, it's people - both individually and co-operatively - trying to solve a difficult problem. It's tough, some attempted solutions fail, but in the end they find solutions that work. This is bad because....why now?

eta - I saw this in a comment section about the movie somewhere; I think it was half tongue-in-cheek but still cannot roll my eyes at it hard enough:

A tale of the wonder of human endurance which is also a capitalist ideological fantasy about a single guy that inherits all these resources and puts them to the best possible use. Even the Social Democratic utopia of the Hermes crew that commits mutiny by popular vote (voting off the shackles of their oppressors) only exists narratively to serve to needs of the One True Protagonist.

[Beutlin]

I mean, it's people - both individually and co-operatively - trying to solve a difficult problem. It's tough, some attempted solutions fail, but in the end they find solutions that work. This is bad because....why now?

That is somewhat of a straw man argument and with that I am out of here.

[yovargas]

I watched a Mister Rogers documentary that recently came out called Would you be my neighbor? What a beautiful, profound, and loving experience. A desperately needed reminder of the power and importance of loving each other.

[Frelga]

He was an excellent human being. Someone posted The Two Rogers Rule of Masculinity - don't do anything either Steve or Fred Rogers would disapprove of. I don't see how one could go wrong with that.

I saw Ocean's 11 in an attempt to decide whether I want to see Ocean's 8. I don't know if it was the movie or the kind of day I was having, but I just couldn't focus on the plot and there wasn't enough action. Also, Julia Roberts is entirely wasted and could be easily replaced by a sexy lamp.

[yovargas]

Someone posted The Two Rogers Rule of Masculinity - don't do anything either Steve or Fred Rogers would disapprove of.

I really like that.

It was discussed that early on he was not supportive of homosexuality but did eventually come around, though to what level of support wasn't entirely clear. Point being, it's a great rule unless Fred disapproved of gay sex, in which case I'll make an exception. Cuz I am totally I'm going to do that.

[Frelga]

I'd like to believe that his viewpoint sufficiently evolved that it doesn't require a footnote. In any case, Captain America is sufficiently supportive that you can still apply the rule.

[Primula Baggins]

A friend of ours went to the same church as Mr. Rogers in Pittsburgh, when their first three children were small, and he taught them all in Sunday school. Can you imagine? And they are three amazing young people now.

I think he did become much more welcoming to different sexualities later in life. I know I have read moving stories of gay young people’s encounters with him, when he offered acceptance and comfort.

[Frelga]

Point being, it's a great rule unless Fred disapproved of gay sex, in which case I'll make an exception. Cuz I am totally I'm going to do that.

Double-take time. Did you mean in general, or is the dating thread due an update?