maegul

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago (9 children)

Of all the shows recommended to me, this one was the most confusing from the trailers … it just did not seem good. I even watched other trailers of comedy shows to test my perception.

Was I wrong?

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The lua escape hatch is interesting.

Are there other lisps like this? I’m guessing closure has some similar features re Java/JVM?

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Yea I got the general or vague impression that this was reminiscent of their initial maps roll out.

Are any heads gonna roll for this?

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

I’m not sure I understand you.

If this is a US politics thing … I’m not USian.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

I’m genuinely curious to see how it goes!

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

Lucky you to have enjoy Lost Highway for the first time!

In a cinema no less!

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

Yep agreed. On the English language thing, I suspected but don’t know enough about him and haven’t seen enough of his films to be confident enough to claim it. But it certainly seemed to me that the writing-directing-editing just was not landing at all. I think my problem is that I picked up on it fairly early on in the film and couldn’t stop it from distracting me from the films positives.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You’re not alone. It happens! I’m around the 10 mark I think.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Mickey 17 (I posted about it already, suffice it to say it’s flaws bugged me to the point of ruining the film despite me wanting to enjoy it)

Mulholland Drive (re-watch) -

I watched Lost Highway for the first time recently (both Lynch films) and wanted to compare. It made me appreciate both actually. MD is surprisingly brisk and varied and well paced in a way that sneakily draws you into a Lynch film without you really noticing or feeling it until the end … such that it’s “success” makes a lot of sense. But LH’s more gritty and disturbing atmosphere was appreciated by comparison too.

For someone seeing them for the first time, seeing them back to back could be quite cool I suspect.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

It’s a tragedy how expensive it was though. They’ll never give him this budget again.

Yea this is partly why I posted, the “meta” story around the film is interesting (and sad) I think.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Interesting comparison. I think Mickey 17 is trying to be something different from Moon, with some overlapping themes. I’d say it’s more Starship Troopers and fifth element with moon-like themes.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don’t think I’m a raging IMDb reviewer.

As I said in another comment:

As for a summary of “reasons”, I’d say it was thin on meaning and loud and discombobulated in its direction, dialogue, pacing and plotting beyond my threshold of enjoyment or even tolerance.

Beyond that, the review I linked captures my thoughts well.

In short I think it crossed a threshold for me that’s likely different for many (thus the mix of up and down votes here).

 

I wanted to like it for basically everything going for it - premise, Pattinson, Bong, sci-fi, “original” film - but came out pretty much as bitter as I have ever after a film. I’m not one to do it, but I was close to walking out on it.

There are some touches of what the film could have been, some moments maybe. But on the whole it felt like a train wreck where I’d bet that people knew on set that it just wasn’t going to work.

At some point I noticed there was a good amount of yelling from the actors (I’m wondering if that’s just me) and can’t help but suspect it was the director or actors trying to find energy in scenes that were struggling. Or maybe that happened in the edit. Then there’s Ruffulo and Collette’s satirical characters that just didn’t land and felt dumb and amateur (along with Poor Things, I’m thinking Ruffulo is just not good and “original” film makers would do well to stay away)

All up, I think it’s embarrassingly bad, or “objectively” bad. No real depth, no coherence or pacing or well directed momentum, much of the comedy doesn’t land, characters and plot often feel like afterthoughts, and it got boring too.

I think this movie review (from a pleasantly non-hype yt channel) says it better than I can.

What’s funny is I think a lot of people want this to be good. For the sake of original, fun, quirky, satirical films (and honestly, me too). But are stuck confronting a film that’s only making that situation worse not better and which represents the risks that studios need to accept not the successes they don’t understand).

Am I off here? I was pleased to find the review I linked as it seemed to match my thoughts.

EDIT - epilogue

And on the point about the fate of films … I saw this in the cinema (somewhat in support of original films) and dragged a friend too.

It was expensive. There was bad behaviour in the cinema (people taking photos with flash of each other!). And the film was bad, IMO, in a way that I feel people should have been more honest about (like I said, I think people wanted this to be good). Plus my friend doesn’t trust my choice in movies any more.

It’s really put me off going to the cinemas TBH. I’ll see how I end up feeling over time, but I think this might have been the straw that broke my back on the whole cinema thing. In part, sadly, because I don’t get how the film was that bad.

 

Jinjer knocked it out of the park with this track (off of their latest album)! Love it!

 

Oooff. That’s had me stressed!

Season 2 had me kinda down. I adored season 1 but it seemed like season 2 didn’t quite know what it was doing. Too slow and underdeveloped.

As it ramped up at the end though I’m really happy with it. And I appreciate the pacing having finished it. Really nice season of TV and I’m totally ready for season 3.

I’ve not read the books, so I don’t know where it’s going.

The whole algorithm thing (that’s apparently what some subtitles have named the voice) … I’m in the fence about the idea of having an AI/algo angle on that … but I guess we still deserve to confront that sort of stuff. I very much appreciated though the structure of there being another level of manipulation. And of course, Bernard refers to them as “who” bit “it” so either he’s naive or there is another organisational element. The additional silo in the “actually there were 51” line also points in that direction. As does the fact that there’s a tunnel at the bottom of the silo … what/who is that for?!

Generally though, having a microcosm of society under duress and oppression is turning out to be a fantastic premise for a TV show willing to be patient with its development! I’m not watching that much TV but Silo and Andor are definitely my favs of the past few years!

 

Of Eggers' works, I've only seen The Northman and this, Nosferatu.

I can confidently say that I like very much what these films are and where they are coming from. I'm almost guaranteed to see Eggers' next film. And, without wanting to see Nosferatu again, I have a general longing to see a film like Nosferatu over the next few days just to dig into the vibe more (I should probably see his earlier films now).

All to say that this film basically delivers on what you'd hope, with probably some surprises and compelling parts.

But what compelled me to write this was that I walked away from Nosferatu with almost exactly the same feeling I had after The Northman ... that I really wanted to see the better version of that film, that there was something missing, something perhaps slight and subtle but also essential for making the films truly great or to at least wash away an itch that there are annoying flaws.

I'm by no means qualified to describe what these things are or to work if they're just me-problems, but I'm struck by having exactly the same feeling after both films and that Eggers is the sole writer of both films. Because what I think I struggle with probably comes down to writing choices.

Watching both films, I thought to myself that Eggers struggles to stitch the dramatic aspects of his films with their atmospheric parts, which in his hands are vital to his style. Sometimes I wondered if a scene really needed to be there or as long, or needed to interrupt the flow of what was cut from before, or couldn't have better dialogue or more focused acting. It just feels like the moment he decides to have a straight dramatic sequence, with dialogue etc, he kind of doesn't know what he's doing nearly as much, let alone how to bind those components into a cohesive whole along with the more intense and supernatural components.

I'm curious now to watch The Lighthouse, which Eggers wrote along with his brother, to see if I can pick on a difference.



Thinking more broadly, as much as I liked an enjoyed Nosferatu, and will probably watch it again at some point, I do feel it is flawed. I could imagine a directors cut being interesting.

But generally, for me, it was downhill from about the middle onwards (basically after "Orlok's Castle" sequence (which was brilliant I thought, and along with the film's opening, easily the highlights I'd look forward to on rewatch).

Thinking about it along with "The Northman", I wonder if Eggers struggled to adapt pre-existing stories. With Nosferatu, for me personally, it certainly took away from the strength of the film that I new the basic structure of the story ahead of time, which for a vibey horror film becomes a serious distraction at some point. And I don't think Eggers really had too much to bring to the final act of the story TBH (apart from that shot/frame, I guess, which if you've seen the film you can probably guess). I certainly would find it interesting if the story told were only loosly inspired by Stoker's and Murnau's prior works.



Anyone else get where I'm coming from? Anyone with a better take on it than me?

 

I’d almost forgotten about this album, rediscovered it today, and fuck I love the vibe and energy.

 

How are people feeling about it? I was disappointed by season 1, but happy to keep watching as I'm a die hard fan from childhood.

Season 2 had me excited at first ...

spoilers (and ranting)The first two-three episodes at least had me even a little pumped.

The dark wizard in the east very much signals to me that the stranger could be a blue wizard, along with the dark wizard, which is honestly very cool and a nice way to split the difference around Tolkien's "speculation" on what happened to them.

Getting more complex Sauron manipulation and moving the plot along too seemed nice.

But after episode 4, I don't know. I came away from it thinking it might have been the worst tv episode I've watched since Picard S2, which was very strange given how much interesting shit they did. Ents, Bombadil, Wizards, Hobbit origins (actually I don't care for the amount of hobbit stuff in the show at all).

But there was something just boring about it all for me.

The only way I can explain what I think I'm seeing, and why it's fundamentally flawed, is that the writers/directors want to take Tolkien seriously and even feel rather pressured to do so ... and so in many ways they're actually writing/filming that sense of seriousness rather than a well thought out adaptation style.

The clue for me is how the whole show is at once strangely grounded and somehow "elevated" at the same time. The elves, such as Galadriel and Elrond, are kinda normal people doing normal things a lot of the time (compare LoTR trilogy Galadriel basically being mind-crushing and haunting most of the time) ... but talk as though they're reading directly from the bible or Silmarillion. Same for Halbrand/Annatar/Sauron. The construction of the rings is a clue into this I think, where they've attempted to portray it as powerful and important, but there's absolutely no sense of how in the world they're magical, no indication that there's some special elven craft behind them. Just "add mithril and get powerful rings".

Bombadil's dialogue seemed the same to me. Talking about being the eldest as though he's talking about what happened last week. Now in that character this sort of approach makes the most sense. But even so, there didn't seem to be any joy, jolly or aloofness about the character to signal how old he must be to be casual about witnessing the beginning of time. And there's always the concern the show should have for making us the viewer feel what's happening on screen ... and I don't think we felt Bombadil's mysteriousness much at all. Compare with, in the LoTR books, Tolkien using a wonderful way of showing that ... the one ring had no affect no him whatsoever to the point that he could see Frodo while he was wearing it.

The only breath of fresh air so far has been the dark wizard, which clearly takes cues from Saruman. It's probably been the only sense stylistically I've gotten that we're in a lost age of a fantasy world.

One take I had from season 1 was that RoP's biggest problem might be that it's being made after Game of Thrones not before it. That GoTs is absolutely the wrong influence for a show like this and yet is likely to have one due to its pervasive success. And I feel like I may have been right about that. The Tolkien world and GoT "politics and intrigue" are not compatible. Moreover, I suspect the GoT style may have run its course somewhat. A show like RoP was a chance to try something interestingly mystical and I don't think the creators were up to the challenge, perhaps not at all.

 

While territorial claims are and will likely be heated, what struck me is that the area is right near the Drake Passage, in the Weddell Sea (which is fundamental to the world's ocean currents AFAIU).

I don't know how oil drilling in the antarctic could affect the passage, but still, I'm not sure I would trust human oil hunger with a 10ft pole on that one.

Also interestingly, the discovery was made by Russia, which is a somewhat ominous clue about where the current "multi-polar" world and climate change are heading. Antarctica, being an actual continent that thrived with life up until only about 10-30 M yrs ago, is almost certainly full of resources.

 

It's funny, at time of posting, many of the YT comments are very nostalgic about how much has happened in this 8 year period ... and I can't lie, I feel it too god damn it.

 

Seems like fertile ground for coming up with something fun and interesting ... a whole shadow universe that barely touches ours ... but I don't think I've ever seen it.

 

Rant …

spoilerI’m talking about Ash/Rook, obviously.

Just saw the film recently, and while it’s a bit of a love it or hate it film I think, the Rook character is I think objectively egregious.

The idea is good, IMO, in a number of ways, and I can understand that the film makers felt like it was all done with love and affection for Holm and the character. As a viewer, not necessarily onboard with how many cues the film was taking from the franchise, I noticed the silhouette of Rook pretty quickly and was quite happy/hyped to see where it would go.

But OMG the execution is unforgivable! And I feel like this is just so much of what’s wrong with Hollywood and VFX, and also indicates that some execs were definitely intervening in this film. Somewhat fortunately for the film, it had a low budget (AFAICT, by Wikipedia) and is making a profit.

But it’s no excuse to slap some bad CGI onto shots that were not designed for bad CGI. Close ups on the uncanny valley! Come on! AFAICT, bad CGI is often the result of a complete disconnect between the director and the VFX crew, in part because the VFX industry is kept at arms length from the film industry, despite (it because of) its massive importance.

That CGI is not something you do a close up on. No remotely decent director would have done that knowing the CGI looked like that. This is likely bad studio management creating an unworkable situation.

What could have worked much better IMO is don’t have the synth functioning well. Have its facial expressions and movements completely artificial and mechanical. Rely on the likeness of Holm and the AI voice (which did and generally do work well). Could have been done just with a well directed animatronic coupled with some basic CGI to enrich some textures and details. Instead we got a dumb “we’ll do it in post” and tortured some poor editor into cutting those shots together.

For many the film was a mixed bag. For me too. But this somehow prevents me from embracing it because I just don’t trust the people who made it.

… End rant.

 

A nice and fair comparison I thought. The main difference, it seems, was the styles of the two films, where a bunch of stylistic choices rather disparate from whether CGI was used or not separate the two.

My take after seeing furiosa was that it's biggest flaw was that its makers struggled with the expectations of Fury Road and I think these stylistic differences kinda support that, where I'd guess they felt like they had to go with a different look and not simply repeat Fury Road's aesthetic when in the end there may not have been much of a coherent artistic purpose behind those changes.

view more: next ›