Movies you've seen recently

[Dylan Thomas]

I completely disagree. Huge fan of the novel and this is the first adaptation that communicated the feeling of reading that book, ironically by the very decision of choosing to leave things opaque / mysterious / unexplained. The alternative would have been endless exposition dumps and having characters who know what mentats are explain to each other what mentats are for the audience's benefit.

The way I look at it is: reading the novel or watching the movie, there's so much that is beyond the reader's/viewer's understanding. Who the fuck is Princess Irulan and why is she writing about Paul as if he's somebody from the past? You constantly are presented with the sense that there's a depth to the world beyond what you're seeing on the page / on the screen.

I'm a total freak for Dune, so I'm going to try not to get going here, because you know that I'll rant all day if you let me when I feel passionately about something.

My issue is that I didn't feel the book very often at all in this rendition.  I almost walked out, and I've never walked out of a movie before. I was that appalled by the mistreatment of the source material.

I thought this was a really surface level, shallow rendition of most of Dune's key aspects, its mythos and its universe.  There were many things that I liked about it: the costumes,  the ornithopters, the set designs, the cinematography, some of the casting choices and performances (Paul and Jessica in particular shined, though the Baron was exceptional in the screen time that he received), and that masterful scene where they introduce the Bene Gesserit voice.  That scene was the best part of the movie, and it never really reached those heights again in exploring the many elements that make Dune the modern myth that it's become.

It's not just the lack of explanation of what a mentat is and why they need them, the list of key omissions is a mile long.  Obviously not all of them can or should be rendered on a big screen adaptation, and bit more context would have brought the film to a whole different artistic dimension.
I agree that endless exposition can be pointless, and there are means of telling a story and bringing a world to life other than exposition for exposition's sake.  This movie felt mostly lifeless to me: cold and one dimensional for about half of the run time.  Just having a big budget and expecting aesthetics to carry the film's narrative doesn't work for me either - it's a colossal cop-out. 

Pro-tip: alternate forms of effective exposition to traditional narrative styles do not include gratuitous Jason Momoa action sequences and having Oscar Isaac emphatically state "desert power" over and over ad nauseum.

[whoshotthefrog]

[peoplething]

[neighbor664]

This was great.

[Dylan Thomas]

Is this that new Heavy Metal/Ralph Bakshi-esque animated film??  Did you see it?  Anyone know how it is??

[renfield]

[quote author=Dylan Thomas link=topic=1397.msg610518#msg610518 date=1635454378

Pro-tip: alternate forms of effective exposition to traditional narrative styles do not include gratuitous Jason Momoa action sequences and having Oscar Isaac emphatically state "desert power" over and over ad nauseum.
[/quote]

No, but portraying things in an opaque and mysterious manner IS an effective alternative in my opinion. There's so much implicit detail throughout the film, I really would dispute that they "omit" stuff so much as hide it in the background, force the viewer to tease it out. Cinema and prose are such drastically different vocabularies, and to me this was far and away the most successful attempt of conveying the source material through the language of movieology.

Particularly compared with the Lynch version, which I also love, and which has a lot more plot details from the book on screen despite being like 1/3 of the length, but feels more like a really weird Star Trek episode than Dune.

[peoplething]

Is this that new Heavy Metal/Ralph Bakshi-esque animated film??  Did you see it?  Anyone know how it is??

yep and as you would expect, it's pretty great. The rotoscope is fantastic, story and performances are sick. I only rented it and watched it once, but I don't remember there being much fat in it at all. That might be a purchase in the future

[Dylan Thomas]

No, but portraying things in an opaque and mysterious manner IS an effective alternative in my opinion. There's so much implicit detail throughout the film, I really would dispute that they "omit" stuff so much as hide it in the background, force the viewer to tease it out. Cinema and prose are such drastically different vocabularies, and to me this was far and away the most successful attempt of conveying the source material through the language of movieology.

Particularly compared with the Lynch version, which I also love, and which has a lot more plot details from the book on screen despite being like 1/3 of the length, but feels more like a really weird Star Trek episode than Dune.

Well, you're obviously seeing something that I did not.  Maybe if you gave some examples?  I'm skeptical that most of the more fascinating themes and elements of the Dune mythos were treated even "implicitly."

Honestly, I see it a blatantly disrespectful mistreatment of the source material, big in scope yet purposely dumbed down for mass consumption.  And it definitely steers away from some of the more subversive (and cultural relevant) themes on purpose, which is a total copout.  I wish they could have been brave enough to point out the obvious allegory of Western imperialism vs. Islam oil.  Weak sauce, and a golden opportunity wasted there.

I didn't find it to be effective in the slightest, other than in reminding me of the incomparable subtlety and genius of Herbert's mind, which the film's creators failed not only to capture, but to even comprehend in the first place. In my mind, they had no business making this movie, they missed the point of Dune entirely.

And with that being said,  if it makes some people curious to read the book if they haven't prior to the movie, that's the best possible outcome I can see from the creation of this film.

[neighbor664]

I have never read the books, neither movie has ignited any spark of interest in doing so. Aren't movie adaptions of books at least supposed to do that?

[Dylan Thomas]

I have never read the books, neither movie has ignited any spark of interest in doing so. Aren't movie adaptions of books at least supposed to do that?

Yes, ideally.

Enough on Dune for now though, I could go on for days about the things I don't like about the new one.

Here's a movie I really, really did like - The Electrical Life of Louis Wain.

It's the "true story" of a Victorian eccentric who drew psychedelic cats. so you know, right in my wheelhouse.  I don't know too much about his life, so I'm not sure how badly the movie rendered it, compared to something like A Beautiful Mind, which was obviously abysmal to anyone who knows that guy's real story.

[whoshotthefrog]

This was better than I expected it to be.

[Dylan Thomas]

^ Alright, cool.  I've been on the fence of checking it out, though if you say it's okay for an M Night movie, I'll check it.

[renfield]

HIGH-RISE. Cool JG Ballard adaptation by Ben Wheatley, psychedelic cosmic horror director responsible for KILL LIST and A FIELD IN ENGLAND. It's a period piece that manages to also be sci fi. Very cool and disturbing

THE BEACH BUM ..  Harmony Korine's attempt to make a mainstream stoner comedy. I thought the first half was quite poetic but it lost its lustre as it went on.

IRREVERSIBLE. The less said about it the better.

[Dylan Thomas]

I liked High Rise quite a bit.  The movie of his that I really loved was In The Earth, which is a total mindfuck, ultra weirdness.

[renfield]

I'll check it out, I really dig his style

[neighbor664]

[Dylan Thomas]

I'll check it out, I really dig his style

I really dig his style as well, and I'll admit that A Field In England was a bit hard for me to take in.  I need to give it another go, it's just so purposefully convoluted.

[RAGER]

Came across a big list of movies now available in Dec on Netflix.

Should be some enjoyable stuff. Tremors is up first for me.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vulture.com/amp/article/new-on-netflix-movies-shows-originals.html

[socket]

I saw the new Ghostbusters. Went to the theater solo stoned out of my mind on edibles. Was fun. Plenty to complain about but whatever. What I expected.

[RAGER]

We watched The Power of the Dog. First that struck me when I saw the trailer was that it was cinematically attempting to mimic There Will be Blood. I was right. In fact they'd originally picked Paul Dano to play George. It's not a bad movie. In fact it's pretty good. I've not read the book but I think they could have done a bit more to make the movie even grittier.

Benedict Cumberbatch is no Daniel Day Louis but he tries. There's talk of oscars but I don't think anybody deserves one for this film.

Watch it. It's good. Just not as good as Blood.

[mortlock]

I saw power of the dog yesterday. I really liked it.

Yes cobra kai season 4 is coming.

[RAGER]

Cobra Kai sucks!  Can't wait!  Hahah!

[socket]

It's so stupid... But I'm legitimately excited for it.

[Pissy]

Eagle Fang!

[Dylan Thomas]

We watched The Power of the Dog. First that struck me when I saw the trailer was that it was cinematically attempting to mimic There Will be Blood. I was right. In fact they'd originally picked Paul Dano to play George. It's not a bad movie. In fact it's pretty good. I've not read the book but I think they could have done a bit more to make the movie even grittier.

Benedict Cumberbatch is no Daniel Day Louis but he tries. There's talk of oscars but I don't think anybody deserves one for this film.

Watch it. It's good. Just not as good as Blood.

Yeah, I saw the preview for this, and it certainly looks intriguing.  I'll have to check it out.  Yes, Benedink Pumpernickel is no Daniel Day Lewis, for better and for worse.

I do like Benedict Cumberpatch though, he's a quirky actor with a lot of talent for portraying oddballs, which I can appreciate as a fellow oddball.