Great! Now can we spell the thread title correctly?
I'm kind of fond of the typo which I always misread as "moo" rather than "coo." Moo, for some reason, always makes me laugh, which is probably not the kind of insight I want to be freely offering the public.
So, I just finished writing my latest novel, and anytime I finish a huge writing project, I immediately launch into a ton of binge watching movies and tv shows (which I almost never do during normal times). The only streaming service I have is HBO Max (or whatever they're calling it these days). And because there's so much I haven't seen and because I don't want to start getting overwhelmed by the choices, the first thing that looks good, I hit the play button. No dawdling around, no sir.
The first thing I hit play on:
Black Mass
All the rave reviews on that image are such bullshit. This isn't a bad movie and it has a pretty excellent cast, but it's so by-the-numbers that it's cliche. There are no surprises, there's nothing new added to the mobster movie pantheon, there's nothing substantive at all. Nobody has a breakout performance, the sets and on-scene footage is ordinary, the narrative flow is strained... there's no reason for this movie to exist. They keep making these mobster movies and its running on fumes. They're so plain and ordinary and such a waste of everything. Again, it's not bad. I didn't hate that I watched it. But my viewing experience didn't change when I spent the second half of the movie relocating to the kitchen and getting a bunch of meal prep done while it was on.
Don't watch this movie. If you need a fix for this kind of movie, just watch Goodfellas again or, I dunno, an offbeat film like Killing Them Softly.
This brilliant documentary from Chantal Akerman is comprised solely of shots of NYC from the 1970s with a woman's voice reading letters from a mother sent to her daughter, who had quite suddenly rushed off to live in NYC (in the 70's). That's it. I have never been so riveted by a movie where nothing happens. Literally nothing happens. Mostly it's just still shots of NYC, every now and then they might pan across a street scene, and occasionally there's a shot from a moving train, plus two other moving shots that I won't mention.
Here. These two screen shots are exactly all that happens:
That is all that happens in the movie. Gorgeous, compelling shots of NYC with the voice-over accompanied by subtitles.
It's only the letters from the mother, never anything from the daughter.
This style of storytelling never got old, I never got bored, there were times I was locked in with suspense. It's one of the most compelling movies I've seen in quite some time.
Also, a word of advice: If you're not familiar with this movie or the director... don't look anything up before watching the movie. I totally did a dive into Akerman's life and filmography after watching this movie and there were certain aspects I was glad I didn't know before watching this movie... it's nothing dramatic or salacious or anything, just certain background facts that, had I known them going into the movie... wow, I'm really struggling to put this to words... here, it boils down to a story will seem more wide open and full of possibilities if you don't already know the end going in. That's all I'm trying to say.
Anyways, this movie was amazing and you should watch it. It's on HBO Max, don't know if it's on anything else.
Good to see another Akerman fan. I'm not a film buff at all, but her works were wonderful. Unfortunately, too often great works are created by people who are often mentally unbalanced to various degrees. I discovered her work when I saw her Jeanne Dielman... film in '75 and continued being a fan ever since. No Home Movie was a movie that was kind of a surprise creation because she probably didn't realize that it was going to become more than an homage to her mother. She finished the film, then her mother died shortly afterwards and apparently that was just too much for her. Soon afterwards, she was hospitalized with depression and a few days after being released killed herself.
I posted the next day to my website the French poster ad for Jeanne Dielman... with my own caption: "film like breath."
So, if you're not familiar with the Vertigo comic of the same name, a new civil war breaks out and sides are taken and new territories are formed and there's all kinds of political factions, but NYC becomes a no man's land that no side can claim for their own. Also, residents live there and have to fend for themselves from all sides.
Thankfully, the producers totally ditched the comic's main character and chose, instead, to tell the story from a different character's perspective, and kind of retrofitted her character and others from the comics into their own story arc. I appreciate that. Honestly, the comic's main character was insufferable and his story was dull and the comic only got good when the writer fell in love with his supporting characters.
NO SPOILERS HERE.
Unfortunately, this is a four-episode mini-series and everything about it is rushed. Relationships are forged in minutes, coincidences are necessary to justify ludicrously quick plot development, and the story flow becomes a distraction. Something important happens at the very end of the second episode and if this were a normal 12-episode series, it would be something that happened at the very end of season one. That's too bad. It deserved better.
The shoot sets are pretty cool. The acting isn't bad, but the actors aren't really given anything to sink their teeth into. The speed of the storytelling makes their characters one-dimensional and superficial. Some of it borders on cliche. Some of it dives head first into cliche. Rosario Dawson plays the main character Zee, and it's too bad they keep casting her in these flimsy superhero/comic book-inspired series, because she's so mediocre in these things. I've gotta go watch some proper movies she's in, because I'm pretty sure prior to those Netflix Marvel shows and now DMZ, I think I used to like her as an actor. Benjamin Bratt plays a main character (Parco Delgado) and he lends it his normal charisma but it's pretty apparent he's kind of phoning it in because that's all the writers gave him to work with.
I stopped after the second episode. I figure if the show producers didn't think it was worth trying too hard, there was no reason for me to expend any effort either.
Why do they keep making these movies? Pretty much everything I wrote about the new Johnny Depp mobster movie whose title I've already forgotten could apply here, too. I should just copy-paste it. Nothing new was added to the Batman movie pantheon. No one had a breakout performance. The story was dull, formulaic, and predictable. Ugh, I think I'm more angry at myself for watching it, knowing better, than I am at anyone associated with this movie. The dude who played Batman has all the presence of store brand vanilla ice cream. The catwoman character was equally bland, but she gets credit for having cats in her scenes, which, thinking upon it, my time was would've been better spent watching highlights of the 2017 Cat Bowl. The dude who played the Riddler had nothing to offer, seemed like maybe they forgot to cast the role and pulled someone out of food service on the first day of shooting. It's nice to see John Turturro still getting roles. Jeffrey Wright is wasted in this movie, however, I did just discover that he played the lead in Basquiat, which kind of blows my mind and made me feel the passing of decades in minutes... I was living in Denver still when I saw that movie nearly thirty years ago. I should've watched that instead of this dreadfully boring movie.
I always loved seeing Oz reprints of US comics when I was in the business. Odd things happened either through negligence or because someone thought it was a good idea. Note Batman and Robin's costumes are well wrong. Also note villains driving an inconspicuous pink convertible.
No spoilers to follow, just in case I'm not, in fact, the last person to watch this show.
Much to my surprise, I found myself genuinely enjoying this show. I'm not sure why I had a negative view of the show going in... maybe someone I know turned me off by raving about the show or maybe just the basic premise of it bugged me... but it was pretty simple to ease into the show.
For those who are not familiar (but I'm pretty sure I was last the learn it), a hitman walks into an acting class when trailing his next victim. Something about the acting class (led by a hilarious Henry Winkler) resonates with Barry, and the rest of season one is his attempt to get out of the killing business and into acting.
More than acting, really, I suppose. He's likely suffering PTSD from his time in Iraq, or perhaps his robotic interface with life dates back prior to wartime. But the impression is the acting allows him to find himself again, and the way his coming-back-to-life manifests in spasmodic behavioral fits and wild emotional swings is pretty entertaining, and, really, thoughtfully handled.
I binged season one pretty quick. I've been hesitant to start the second season. I have an uneasy feeling that this show is going to mirror that of Dexter. I have no basis for that supposition. But even though I enjoyed season one, there was something flimsy about the storyline, as if the narrative were bound by the thinnest strand of plausibility. Yes, I bought into the show, but what carried me along was the character sketches, the acting, and the brisk pacing. But the longer I watch a show, the more evident it becomes whether a show is rooted to a sustainable foundation or the show is just gonna figure it out as they go along. I don't know that Dexter's creators ever thought their show would make it past a first season (this is a subject I have zero knowledge about; this is mere conjecture)... it's certainly the impression it gave from the wild swing of season one to season two (and things got weirder and sillier from there). I'm concerned season two of Barry is going to embark on a path of one-upping the previous season for how unhinged they can get. The idea of holding an opinion of Barry just from its first season isn't an unappealing option. There are many shows I regretted watching all the way through and experience the swing from like to hate.
I mean, yes, I'm going to watch season two. But I might hold off for awhile.
P.S. I would've never thought that Henry Winkler could've shed his iconic Fonzie image, but there are times I'm watching the guy on tv and totally forgetting that whole Happy Days thing. That transformation can't be easy for an actor to pull off.
It's a six-episode documentary about a bunch of people who self-identify as anarchists that start up an annual convention in Acapulco. The people that attend are the basic mix one would expect: White middle class people who aren't really after an anarchist life but just want the kind of wealth that can insulate them from the inconveniences of society's infrastructure, others who choose to shed many of the trappings of society and truly attempt to live off the grid and free of the State, still others who are just dipping their toes in the concept of anarchy but really are just sincere open-minded people attempting to explore different ways of living, and your standard-issue hedonists who are just as likely to attend Burning Man as an anarchy convention.
It follows these people and their community and the annual convention over the course of (I forget already) five years (or thereabouts). That span of time really allows the true personalities and intentions to be revealed of the various people, where crypto-capitalism, new age healing, drug addiction, mental illness, and the hard realities off attempting to live off-grid and the true benefits of white entitlement & wealth come through strong.
I went into this show pretty skeptical, figured, sure, let's give it a chance. Honestly, this doc was *really* well executed. The documentarians/producers give a sincere effort to bring out the personalities of each of the featured people, but also dig into those people who hover at the periphery of the main storylines. No one is given superficial treatment and the producers allow both the flaws and the virtues to emerge. There are no good-peeps and bad-peeps in this story.
The shots are amazing, as are the ways they incorporate different footage from other sources. The way they roll out the evolution of the convention and the stories has a natural flow. And, not for nothing, unlike other docs of this kind, *none* of the drama in this series is manufactured. That may have been what surprised me the most... there's no forced conflict, it's not over-the-top for the sake of ratings... it's some serious true-life shit. The opening shot of the show has convention members burning books in a bonfire, which gave me the false impression the doc was gonna go the vapid, melodramatic route... but that didn't happen.
It's a documentary about the death of a Baltimore police detective. The production has some tie-in to The Wire, though I can't remember exactly what that is anymore.
It's an okay documentary. It wasn't particularly compelling, but it definitely had its moments. The facts surrounding the death and the context in which it happened could've easily been adapted for a new season of The Wire.
I'm not certain I had ever seen these movie before, which is inexplicable to me considering how much I listened to these bands growing up. It's kind of possible I just don't remember watching them, but I kind of doubt it.
Quadrophenia was remarkably dull. I can see someone geeking out on it if it gives them a nostalgia rush, and I can appreciate it from a period piece perspective, but ugh dull dull dull.
Gimme Shelter was more compelling by far, especially when viewed through a modern lens. Some of the comments by Jagger, some of the power and political dynamics that emerge, and some of the late-stage-hippy footage kept me locked in.
Quadrophenia was remarkably dull. I can see someone geeking out on it if it gives them a nostalgia rush, and I can appreciate it from a period piece perspective, but ugh dull dull dull.
Funny, I remember quite enjoying Quadrophenia when I saw it, though that was a few years ago. It might make some difference that I've spend a couple of months living and working in Brighton and so had some idea of the local history and landmarks.
Quadrophenia was remarkably dull. I can see someone geeking out on it if it gives them a nostalgia rush, and I can appreciate it from a period piece perspective, but ugh dull dull dull.
Funny, I remember quite enjoying Quadrophenia when I saw it, though that was a few years ago. It might make some difference that I've spend a couple of months living and working in Brighton and so had some idea of the local history and landmarks.
I can definitely see someone having a deep connection to the movie via time and place in their lives corresponding to that of the movie. I feel much more strongly about certain movies that take place in Chicago than I would otherwise just by way of the scenes resonating intensely in my memory banks... that it has as much to do with my past and present as it does the movie.
But without that, it's difficult to overlook the flimsy plot devices and obtuse character traits. At some point, the novelty of kids dressed up like mods and rockers riding around on cool scooters gets old fast.
I adore this show. I don't mind that the occasional episode falls flat. It's unfortunate, but it happens, and it's not inconceivable that it should in the first place. I am surprised, however, that the movie would be one of those episodes. Really disappointing. I mean, I get that you're not gonna be at or near the finish line of a production of this scale and, reviewing everything created to date, make the decision to start from scratch... but that's what they should have done. From the very first scene, the movie stumbles out of the gate and never finds its balance. It's a missed opportunity. I was really hoping to see a huge step up for this crew, not unlike how Southpark took advantage of the movie format and really went to town. I guess I was kind of hoping for something like their brilliant storytelling leap with the BB Season 3 "Boyz 4 Now" episode.
Not sure how well the movie did or how it was generally received, but hopefully my opinion is in the minority and they get the opportunity to make another BB movie.
Inevitably we have started to watch series 5 of The Crown on Netflix. If you've seen the earlier series you know what to expect. Much of it is conjecture based around a few facts. It is causing uproar amongst certain parts of the British elite, but it is a drama in the same way as, eg, a series about Elizabeth I or Victoria, and no-one worries about that. If you haven't seen the series, don't start here but go back to the beginning, but that is not a recommendation!!
I guess you could say it's a "postmodern" or "revisionist" Western series, with a fair amount of violence, and not too politically correct or anything like that. And it does get rather maudlin towards the end, especially at the very end where it gets super-maudlin, but it's post-climactic maudlin-ness so it doesn't interfere with the story too much. Great scenery too!
Now finished series 5 of The Crown on Netflix. IMO not as good as previous series. I'm glad they decided not to do a series 6, although i've read that they are thinking of doing a prequel from the death of Victoria to Elizabeth's marriage
We enjoyed The Crown and found it pretty well put together. It rewarded viewing of the entire series, eg, Charles's infidelity echoing Phillip's. Also Elizabeth's gradual hardening/growing out of touch, as happens as people get older. I was surprised how little I remembered of the scandalous Charles & Diana stuff. Of course the Diana aftermath was well-covered in Helen Mirren film.
Phillip's 'infidelity'was totally imaginary as far as anyone can tell, certainly the Brisih tabloids have never picked up anything (and they would have done if it existed!). We felt it didn't flow as well as earlier series, but maybe that is becuse we remembered that period better. I'd have liked to see their take on Diana's death and its aftermath.. I'm looking forward to the prequel in 2023 0r 2024
This has become (along with "Slow TV") my favorite kind of TV - especially if you have a large screen. You can watch the cam live or go back as far as 12 hours, but it's incredibly meditative during some moments and quite dramatic at other times.
Giraffes, emus, zebras, warthogs, ibex, hyenas (mostly at dawn), foxes, birds of various kinds...
This has become (along with "Slow TV") my favorite kind of TV - especially if you have a large screen. You can watch the cam live or go back as far as 12 hours, but it's incredibly meditative during some moments and quite dramatic at other times.
Giraffes, emus, zebras, warthogs, ibex, hyenas (mostly at dawn), foxes, birds of various kinds...
I've rarely had a TV in my life. To put things in perspective, the last TV I owned was of the box variety; I've never had a flat screen. However, I've decided I would like to get one, and this slow tv stuff I've been catching at other places (like Seoul Walker and some of the train videos) make me want a really nice viewing option to be able to see them at home. Truly background kind of viewing. If I weren't so out of touch with what kind of tv to buy and overwhelmed by all the options and reviews, I'd probably have one by now. But Slow TV seems made for me.
We had a big box TV for decades. The switch to digital TV entailed getting a converter box ... and then we realized that the "box on wheels" was getting pretty scrappy looking: melted area on top from a candle; smudges and dents... Then, when it came time to update the house, I just thought, "It's time." I looked at a couple of bare spots on the walls and wanted to fill them with flat screens to do video paintings on - I'd create the slowly changing videos, transfer them to a stick and plug it in to a USB port - changing the screens to portrait or landscape positions as desired.
In the end, after much research and taking advantage of "Black Friday" sales, we got a 65" one in late 2019 - which is soooo much cheaper these days. The only frustrating thing now is that the companies that provide streaming all think that you want eleventy-billion doo-dads in order to "enjoy" your "viewing experience" when all I really want is for it to act like the old analog box on wheels: turn it on, go to a channel, and watch something if I'm watching a program. This is why I still like sticking with using it as a moving painting. Usually, no hassles.
Also, I wanted to say that the literal "Slow TV" channel is nice, but I like things like the above Namib Desert one because it's actually live as opposed to pre-recorded train travel, for instance, on "Slow TV" out of Norway.
When I watch the above, the movement on screen reminds me of watching the Merce Cunningham dance company with John Cage's music - the kind where he's gently plucking away at an amplified cactus. I have it on at a reasonable background level and it's really nice. It makes me want to use it as an audio accompaniment to a reading of Cage's "Empty Words" work.
Comments
I'm kind of fond of the typo which I always misread as "moo" rather than "coo." Moo, for some reason, always makes me laugh, which is probably not the kind of insight I want to be freely offering the public.
Black Mass
News from Home
I posted the next day to my website the French poster ad for Jeanne Dielman... with my own caption:
"film like breath."
DMZ
Batman (2022)
I can remember when I was 10 years old pestering the newsagent on a regular basis as to whether the latest edition of the Batman magazine had arrived!
Barry
The Anarchists
The Slow Hustle
The Bob's Burgers Movie
Interesting as I read yesterday that they definitely were not doing so! Personally I'd watch it if they do. We'll have to wait and see
I thought that it was probably tied up in legal battles
and that I'd never see this released during my lifetime...
This has become (along with "Slow TV") my favorite kind of TV - especially if you have a large screen.
You can watch the cam live or go back as far as 12 hours,
but it's incredibly meditative during some moments and quite dramatic at other times.
Giraffes, emus, zebras, warthogs, ibex, hyenas (mostly at dawn), foxes, birds of various kinds...
There are highlights here.
I've rarely had a TV in my life. To put things in perspective, the last TV I owned was of the box variety; I've never had a flat screen. However, I've decided I would like to get one, and this slow tv stuff I've been catching at other places (like Seoul Walker and some of the train videos) make me want a really nice viewing option to be able to see them at home. Truly background kind of viewing. If I weren't so out of touch with what kind of tv to buy and overwhelmed by all the options and reviews, I'd probably have one by now. But Slow TV seems made for me.
and then we realized that the "box on wheels" was getting pretty scrappy looking: melted area
on top from a candle; smudges and dents... Then, when it came time to update the house,
I just thought, "It's time." I looked at a couple of bare spots on the walls and wanted to fill them
with flat screens to do video paintings on - I'd create the slowly changing videos, transfer them
to a stick and plug it in to a USB port - changing the screens to portrait or landscape positions as desired.
In the end, after much research and taking advantage of "Black Friday" sales, we got a 65" one
in late 2019 - which is soooo much cheaper these days. The only frustrating thing now is that the
companies that provide streaming all think that you want eleventy-billion doo-dads in order to "enjoy"
your "viewing experience" when all I really want is for it to act like the old analog box on wheels: turn it on,
go to a channel, and watch something if I'm watching a program. This is why I still like sticking with using
it as a moving painting. Usually, no hassles.
Also, I wanted to say that the literal "Slow TV" channel is nice,
but I like things like the above Namib Desert one because it's
actually live as opposed to pre-recorded train travel, for instance,
on "Slow TV" out of Norway.
When I watch the above, the movement on screen reminds me of watching
the Merce Cunningham dance company with John Cage's music -
the kind where he's gently plucking away at an amplified cactus.
I have it on at a reasonable background level and it's really nice.
It makes me want to use it as an audio accompaniment to a reading
of Cage's "Empty Words" work.