[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/hobby/ - Hobby

"Our hands pass down the skills of the last generation to the next"
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

File: 1650874425515.jpg (1.47 MB, 3504x2336, 35mm_movie_negative.jpg)

 No.24481[View All]

First thread >>2278

I just watched the new Batman movie, it's about as boring and derived as you'd expect. The villain is a real psycho, apparently he hates Bruce Wayne's father because of his scam charity orphanage where children froze to death and the villain himself grew up in, and tries to publicly reveal his father's ties to organized crime and political corruption. Luckily Batman eventually teaches him the true meaning of love and forgiveness before the villain is thrown into an insane asylum for the rest of his days, and the credits roll.

I also watched Memoria, which was just as boring and I have nothing to say about.
483 posts and 168 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I barely understood this movie when I watched it in HS I should def rewatch


Makes me want to watch it again. qntm made a good breakdown of the movie on his site if there some stuff you want to understand better


File: 1695848057090.jpg (229.4 KB, 955x1200, Southland Tales blu.jpg)

Just watched Southland Tales. Actually I'm unsure of what I just watched, this was a bit like a fever dream. It has neo-marxists. I don't know what else to say.


File: 1696470585980.png (7.53 MB, 2500x1667, ClipboardImage.png)

Dora and the Lost City of Gold is pretty decent kids version of an Indiana Jones type adventure film, pretty damn creative for something based on a tv-series for toddlers. It was fun enough.



yeah but does she wear a thong and do you get to see it


Is this a reference to something? She probably is wearing one, but I don't recall seeing it.


File: 1696542633804.png (431.7 KB, 1280x853, ClipboardImage.png)

Just watched Wolf of Wall St. I really don't know what the point of making that movie was.


To make money? It couldn't be more obvious.

It was based on a book by the titular 'wolf' so it's just self promotion mixed with a bit of American psycho.


That's what I said to my friend when we finished watching and they ended with him giving the sales training seminar.

>And he didn't stop there

>He also sold a book
>then he sold a movie!


File: 1696543981721.png (847.72 KB, 1200x675, ClipboardImage.png)

In addition to the whole "make money" point already made…
Movies like this about controversial people and subjects are often intentionally vague so they can operate as a kind of cipher for any audience member. Some people will watch it and think the guy's cool and based. Some people will think is shows how seedy and gross Wall Street is.


Dang. Yeah. You're right.


it's a shame
scorsese used to be a beast straddling the avant garde and mainstream in the 70s and 80s
now he makes completely forgettable schlock


File: 1696575229230.png (85.75 KB, 1200x630, ClipboardImage.png)

Just saw El Conde. It was really weird as fuck. Really beautiful shot. I think you'll basically get an impression of the film from the trailer. There's some zigs and zags in the plot but none of it ultimately means anything.


I watched it as well and I thought it was atrocious. I'm chilean, not that it should matter obviously, but I think this movie is probably the worst chilean movie I've ever watched and we've made many awful movies. One of the most pretentious yet empty movies I've seen in my life.


Yeah it was pretty bad. The writing was really atrocious. Why I don't really like avante garde movies. It seems they just have the movie be empty and people act randomly and inexplicably and that somehow makes it good. I call them Rorschach ink blot test movies. You can just be pomo and see whatever you want to see. But what does it mean? I'll just show you random images and you make up your own mind. I think this becomes most obvious in movies like this that try to take an avante garde approach to shlocky genres, because they follow all the same patterns and tropes as the shlocky genres and do them badly but the veneer makes it seem like it's deep bro. For example Midsommar is very much like El Conde in that sense.

the plot of the movie made no sense. Pinochet is a vampire who wants to die. His servant is faithful to him and wants to help him die, but for some reason he can't die. He can't kill him, because he's a vampire slave(but actually the vampire slavery trope doesn't actually mean anything because he tries to kill him later) So therefore he goes on a murder rampage, because he knows that if he does, Pinochet's children will decide they have to kill them themselves by showing up and demanding an accounting of his assets in which they will hire a vampire slayer posing as an accountant. Like this is what is revealed to us that set the whole story in motion. The butler knew 5 improbable steps would happen if he went on the murder rampage. The nun character, I still have no idea what was up with her, the way she acts, the things she said just made no sense at all throughout the whole film. Then the butler and the wife try to kill Pinochet, fuck up, then the nun tries to kill him too, fucks up, then the butler kills her after he already tried to kill Pinochet? Why? Who knows. It seemed like he was trying to switch back to team Pinochet, but Pinochet isn't having it(but all this is just inferrence because there's not one word of dialogue in between all these turns of events.) The kids try to kill him, but immediately give up, but he forgives them immediately without a word either. The whole Thatcher VO was completely confusing throughout the movie for no reason just to setup a big reveal that served no purpose. And then the ending is just, and Pinochet lived happily ever after. Awesome.

It's just a well filmed, but badly written regular old vampire shlock film. Written worse than some decent films of that genre.


I'ma say I thought those flying shots and everything looked fantastic. I don't know if it was the black and white but it just looked very superb.


The ending of the movie is probably the only decent aspect in the sense that they're portraying, not very subtly ofc, that Pinochet got away scot free irl so the same happens here. That being said though I would be unable to tell someone who hasn't seen the movie what it's about. What's the purpose of the movie? To mock Pinochet? To honor the victims? I think you hit the nail on the head with the Rorschach test comment, this movie tries to be nothing so it can be interpreted however the viewer wants.


>they're portraying, not very subtly ofc, that Pinochet got away scot free irl so the same happens here.
Yeah but it's just repeating the premise as the conclusion. The premise is that Pinochet faked his own death and he's lived for 100s of years already to the point he's tired of life. So he faced no real punishment for his crimes as the premise, then they just redouble it in the conclusion.


I guess I'm not even objectionable to the idea of a movie sort of as an essay where you would expect thesis and conclusion to match, but the body filled no purpose whatsoever, it was just a bunch of random shit that did not address the thesis in any meaningful way.


>>36958 me
TBF some stuff in the body addressed the theme, the children, the money. But a lot didn't make sense within the framework of the story as I addressed >>36798 and also so much was actually random bullshit.


complaining about how modern films spoonfeed the audience and tell them exactly what the movie is about and then complaining when I watch one that does the opposite


It's possible to be subtle and also not dadaesque.


that movie turned me into a communist. it seems like they were trying to have "a modern take" on the gangster movie. But it fails without the whole rising from the bottom and the fall narrative.

In comparison to that, I recently watched "once upon a time in america" from Sergio Leone and that is now my favourite gangster movie of all. Apparently half the movie was cut, and it shows but even then I still really enjoyed it.


Killers of the Flower Moon just felt like another Scorsese movie in the same style that he used in Goodfellas and The Irishman


It should have been 2hr10min long, in those last 50 minutes I was sitting in the theater actually angry at how ridiculously long this movie was for no reason


i have i lost it at the movies by pauline kael on my kindle
but, im not really interested in old reviews of old movies that i've never watched and will be hard to find to watch tbh


The Trotskyists from WSWS hated it too so I think everyone agrees it's just a shitty movie.


Sounds way too long to sit in a theater with no intermission. I'll catch it on streaming maybe.


File: 1699497175643.png (19.65 KB, 183x275, ClipboardImage.png)

Probably belongs in /anime/ but I don't really feel like making a whole thread about it. saw picrel in a theater and holy shit, such a different experience from watching it at home. The atmosphere of this movie in a theater is so hypnotic and oppressive in a way that watching it on a computer or a TV just doesn't get across. Fucking wow


I'd say the first hour establishing the premise and the last hour after the FBI shows up are all really good, but the hour and a half in between just repeats the same plotting > killing > grieving sequence ad nauseam. The movie is worth seeing but it's just too damn long. Sadly, unlike Heaven's Gate I don't think you'd be able to actually cut the middle act entirely without making the story incomprehensible.
I was actually surprised how well I fared without having to pee, drink, stretch etc. That said, it's also not the kind of movie that demands to be seen on a big screen.

>I recently watched "once upon a time in america" from Sergio Leone and that is now my favourite gangster movie of all.
That movie really didn't click with me. The plot was confusing, I couldn't really relate to any of the characters, and the production value was disappointing (lots of fake-looking sets). Maybe the American cut is actually better though, I watched the "extended director's cut" and 4+ hours was way too long.

The only things I still remember about the film are its superb soundtrack (by Morricone) and the rape scene in the limo; was really shocking after the sappy date scene in the fancy restaurant almost put me to sleep.


Watched Captain Marvel on my phone for the hell of it
It was surprisingly decent
I liked the Skrull Palestinian metaphor which surprised me a bit since capeshit is known for being a bit militaristic and State Department-y
Very checklist-y but that's expected for a corporate monopoly product
The CGI was laughably terrible, the scenes that made heavy use of it honestly felt like an amateur After Effects or Vegas Pro project
The longer action scenes made my attention wander


As far as MCU slop goes, Captain Marvel is alright. It's a fun little romp provided you ignore that the protagonist is a soldier for empire


Also brie larson is cute as fuck


It's boring as fuck lol and Brie Larson is plank in both physical and acting aspects.


Saw "The Creator". Incredible aesthetics but shit movie, I read that they cut two hours of the movie so that must explains why it feels so patched together, watch if you can suspend your disbelief or like rolling your eyes a lot.

That said it's politically interesting, the bad guys running around with a death star killing farmers with missile strikes and special operators in the global south are very clearly established as the United States and people refer to them verbatim as "the west". At some point the leader of the resistance says "Do you know what will happen to the west when we win this war? Nothing! We just want to live in peace!".


oh i saw the trailer for this, looks like a schmalzy hardboiled-character-rediscovers-innocence type thing
might watch it


File: 1700307390782.jpg (645.47 KB, 800x1000, conspiracy.jpg)

I like how it showed Eichmann complimenting a Schubert composition at one point, then near the ending he played a recording of it and coerced a servant to compliment it before insulting it himself. Nice touch.


Also I don't think it revolves around tired tropes about the banality of evil or whatever, more the willing blindness to or attempts to moderate the openly brutal anti-Semitic ideology of the Nazis by bureaucratic functionaries and intellectuals who wanted to see themselves as "civilized" anti-Semites or part of some good and rational aspect of the Third Reich and NSDAP.


File: 1700495159654.png (194.61 KB, 1000x1481, ClipboardImage.png)

Just saw Mank. I thought it was very good. A lot of clever dialogue. All the performances were great. Maybe not centered enough on his relationship with Hearst and the making of the script of Citizen Kane as it could've or should've been. The filming was beautiful. If you are into classic Hollywood definitely give it a watch.


I feel like it had the same phenomena I think many big budget hollywood movies do where different factions of the writing team wanted different things and the result is a weirdly disjointed and contradictory plot and messaging. On one hand the skrull are argueably a pro-palestinian metaphor and brave freedom fighters but Captain Marvel is also a giant recruitment add for the Chair Force. Unless theirs one idiosyncratic lib writer I would suggest that different parts for writing team disagreed on where the story should go and/or the DOD fundin hit and they needed shoehorn in some recruitment ads.


File: 1700562474372.mp4 (1.98 MB, 1000x688, jacinto.mp4)

Saw "La estrategia del caracol". Very good Colombian movie telling the story of people about to be expelled from a building by mafia porkies who decide to not go quietly. Funny and entertaining but about serious political stuff. Featuring Karl Marx as a crazy engineer and explosive expert.
You can see the movie here:


A movie that ACTUALLY lived up to the hype
>inb4 muh capeshit
It was pure kino


File: 1701311314445.png (181.65 KB, 800x401, ClipboardImage.png)

Across the spiderverse did not live up to the hype, it was pretty crap in terms of story, antagonist and themes. The first Spiderverse film was much better, and told a concise yet still detailed multiverse story that didn't preach at the audience or create narrative holes. Spiderman 2099 alone is one of the stupidest things in the story, especially considering the source material; there's a reason the "canon event" thing became a meme.

An full critique of the film part by part would be an essay in itself, and I'm not bothering to make effort posts on a story I don't like or dislike enough to merit it, so TL;DR: it was not kino and falls flat compared to the preceding film. If you enjoyed it, that's a different matter, fun movies that you enjoy don't have to be Kino.


The whole point of miguel is that he is a poser. He is not spiderman so has to make a canon using technology. Its an analogy for totalitarianism, which is a common theme for lord and miller films - the outsider who battles against the oppressive system.
The narrative "holes" represent the contradiction of systems of control, not the plot, which is miles unraveling his own "anomalous" place in the world. The next film will make this clear to you, that in fact there is no such thing as the "spiderverse", its an invention of the 2099 algorithm.
Think of gwen and her dad too, where its the idea of a system possessing actors to turn against their instincts - this is the whole theme of the lego movie too.
The idea of miles being the prowler in earth 42 will go into this same stuff - of people having limited choices in systems that dont work for them, but for itself.
Like spider-punk says, "its a metaphor for capitalism"
I would actually like to see an extended critique, since disliking the movie just seems completely contrarian.


File: 1701498095531.png (1.52 MB, 1280x720, ClipboardImage.png)

I'm not going to go into an essay but I will expand a bit more on my point, since you're asking for it.
>disliking the movie just seems completely contrarian.
It's really not, stop trying to position it as such, that only works if something is popular. The first film was enormously popular and liked, so most people went into this one without having negative associations and presupposed notions about it. Many such as myself found it very lack luster and shallow. What made the animation unique and interesting in the first film gets over-done to the point where it's an eyesore, trying to hard to be "unique". The sound-design was terrible too, with loud noise and music making dialogues hard to discern.

All those things you state as "representative of totalitarianism" or other symbolism is just extrapolations you've reached, when it's really not that deep, just pretending to be. The message of people having limited options and conforming under totalitarianism can be a good story, but it doesn't fit with this premise. This same exact concept of a debate over non-interference as a plot point is done much better in Star Trek series like TNG, with the Prime Directive and the reason it exists versus some of the violations of it and justifications of such violations. It doesn't take that long to tell such a story, with the longest I recall being an hour and a half long. The Multiverse argument can't even be used since they're not actively hopping through and exploring each multiverse, almost all of the alternative verses are barely explored or relevant.

What the story theme is really about is the done-to-death American theme that teenagers know better than their parents, which is a de-evolution from stories that were about the overall conflict and rights/wrongs of both parent and child and the reconciliation of both their world-views, which is how Soviet and older Western story-telling discussed the topic (such as Mirror for a Hero). The "They don't know me" schtick is another tired cliche too.

Cutting to the chase of the story and bypassing the immense amount of very bland fanservice for the beginning of the film, Miles realizes that under Miguel's direction, the Spiderman guild is letting people die to preserve the canon of their stories and lore. The thing is that this breaks the entire comic-book setting because its conceptually a paradox, especially since this is essentially 4th-wall self-awareness. The "canon event" doesn't work if the character is aware and actually able to change the event, if things are fated to be, then no action or inaction will change it, if things are not fated to be, then there's no reason for a comic-book hero to not act. There's a difference between not knowing what would happen and knowing someone would die and not protecting them for the sake of a sacrifice to canon when the very existence of multiverses means that there is an infinite number of each reality where different things happened.

The impacts for the story alone are staggering. Saving someone doesn't change the fact that the original timeline where, (for example) Uncle Ben died, and if a Spiderman saves Uncle Ben, then this becomes a new reality and new verse where he was saved, and the timelines split from that point, a la Terminator and Terminator 2, wherein one timeline has Judgement Day happen and another where it's prevented/delayed, which is why you don't have the grandfather paradox with John Connor. Otherwise saving anyone from any verse is impossible because it becomes a paradox, because if one [action] happens then the timeline doesn't continue as it did, which means the events that led up to the timeline being interfered with can't happen, which means that [action] could never have taken place to begin with. So either way the entire plot of the film stops making sense because either way there's no reason to not try to save someone fated to die, as it will either be impossible, or it will split timelines and not change the original canon. It's contradictory to the idea that there is an infinite multiverse with infinite possibilities and either makes every single spiderman story meaningless because it's all predestined. Sure WE the audience know that, by nature of it being written by an author that has an ending in mind, but the characters do not, and within the story itself they can make choices that determine the end result, thus Fate is what we make it. OR we have an Oedipus situation, wherein trying to avoid or change fate, instead brings about the fated outcome.
The authors probably considered NONE of this and just slap-dashed generic time-travel rules to a multiverse without thinking through the consequences.

>Miguel is a poser

And that's stupid, it ignores the entire idea of who Spiderman 2099 is supposed to be. His entire story is built around both cynical pragmatism but also a principled idealism for heroism. His character would never abide by the concept of "let them die for the canon", no spiderman would because it fundamentally breaks the Spiderman character. FFS we're shown that there are THOUSANDS of spiderman variants and apparently they're aware of what's going on, yet not a single Peter Parker thinks "Wait a minute, this is wrong."? Only Miles suddenly has an epiphany about this just to make him look better than the rest of them, which is lame, since the idea of spiderverse is that each one brings something to the table unique to them. If you have to have a bad spiderman you can have those that forget the little things of being a hero like with some of the Iron Spider variants who get too caught up in heady power and start to be assholes, or spidermen that are driven to madness by their failures, or whatever, as has been done in other spiderverse stories. This just feels like a "everyone's an NPC but me" movie.
In fact Miguel and everyone that follows him feels like a lazy attempt to caricaturize comic fans that obsess over canon, which is admittedly a fair complaint, but fails to work within the actual story framework given. Either Miguel is right and Miles is essentially ready to sacrifice an entire universe of innocent people to try and prevent something that is fated to happen OR Miguel is wrong, and the entire concept including Miguel's own motivations of lost family are also meaningless sacrifices. There's gonna be some generic twist in the next film to "make it right" but I honestly have no idea how they're going to unfuck this cat-hairball of a mess.
>Think of gwen and her dad
I'd rather not, it's by far one of the stupidest parts of the film. Sure you don't choose family, but if your old man will put a gun to your head in a situation where you come to him for help, that man is no father to you. It's beyond unbelievable.
Spider-punk is a literal punk in the sense that he talks a big game but in the end he wusses out, and his statement about "capitalism" is some of the most heavy-handed broad-stroke garden-variety childishness. He's an Ultra, same radlib rhetoric, same supposed criticism of capitalism and same shallow inaction at the end of it.
>people having limited choices in systems that dont work for them, but for itself.
Which is literally Margaret Thatcher's nonsense about Individuals. Society can be oppressive to individuals and groups, but society is also made up of individuals, You cannot reject one for the other or vice versa. The system is a reflection of the collective of individuals and their actions. All systems work for themselves, but that alone doesn't take away the agency of the people within it, to say otherwise is equivalent to the Nuremburg Defense.
>The next film will make this clear
Fuck that, a film, even a 2-parter needs proper pacing and should have a proper conclsion. The first half of the film is filled with lazy reference bait and petty drama. The story is just cliche after cliche, half-a-dozen subplots that remain unexpanded upon and are simply bait for possible future spin-offs to milk the "Spider-multiverse" idea dry. Finally the "Family" theme is heavy-handed, over-used and shallowly done. Lengthy character exposition is relied on to tell story beats rather than showing and implying. The central conflict of the story is poorly built up, which is amazing given that the film is over 2 hours long.

As a side note the diversity of the film is tokenistic as hell. I know a few of my Indian friends who were pissed about the Indian Peter Parker, since they just replaced the American name with similar-sounding Indian names and re-designed villains with shallow aesthetics that are basically racist stereotypes; Manhattan but hindu! He doesn't display anything lifestyle or culture-wise that would be unique to an in-depth version of the setting, something to actually make him his own character and which ought to be an impact as to how he became a hero mentally, since his story has no reason to be the same as the original Peter Parker Spiderman, as the material conditions are different.

I've said my piece as asked of me, I don't wish to continue the conversation, if others wish to, go ahead.. Good Night.


Harakiri is very good go watch it


Like literal Haraikiri?


This is a movie thread so the classic movie. Shit, unfunny joke.


File: 1701621474705.jpg (15.61 KB, 237x320, gulfoy90as891.jpg)

Watched the last half of Battle Beyond the Stars with my dad because it was airing on a free movie channel. Like Star Wars but sillier (although not an outright parody like Spaceballs). Some of the ship designs were actually pretty good.
Loved it, heard that a lot of these old samurai movies shit on samurai and the japanese feudal order in general, was not disappointed


Watched oppenheimer finally. Loved rdj's performance, almost forgot he could act after marvel.
Also what an absolutely despicable human being, by which I mean all of them.

Unique IPs: 31

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]