MovieChat Forums > Ace_Spade > Replies
Ace_Spade's Replies
Yes, I think Lithgow could do it. He wouldn't be my first choice, but he's surprised me a few times over the years with his range, so I think he can handle it.
Rowling must have relaxed her "British only" rule for this new series. Maybe she feels like the movie series made a definitive version, so she doesn't need to worry about HBO as much. If this version is sub-par, people will just go back to watching the DVDs of the films, so it won't leave as bad a taste in everybody's mouths.
As to his age, sure, but Dumbledore is old. Richard Harris was 70 when he played Dumbledore. What's one more decade?
Mark Strong is underused. Dude should be in more stuff. But I think he'd make a better Sirius, if he was going to be in Potter.
For a second, I thought you meant Metropolis as in Superman's city, not the Fritz Lang film and I was very confused.
I've been meaning to do this for ages now.
It was before the Revolutionary War, so there were still cars. In 1773, most of the cars were thrown into the harbour in Boston to stop the tea from floating back up.
I'll agree with you that Clooney wasn't good as Batman/Bruce Wayne (with the exception of his impeccable line delivery on, "She's trying to kill you, DICK," and the scene where he talks to Alfred about the real purpose of Batman), but he is a very good actor. He might not have a tonne of range, but he does a great job in a lot of films (O Brother Where Art Thou?, Michael Clayton, etc.)
I trusted him, but I'd seen The Lighthouse before I heard he was Batman, so any idea of "oh, he was in Twilight," had been driven from my head by his gangbusters performance, as aided by a frothing Willem Dafoe and a very anatomically articulated mermaid.
One of the things that is not my type, yeah. I tend to go long-blonde (I'm "original" like that...). Carrie-Anne Moss pulls it off, though.
The ending is about a loving sacrifice destroying evil. To me, it's Ellen's physical embodiment of Christ that unmakes the demonic entity of Orlock. It's like she becomes a super-crucifix.
Did the others (not just their friends, but other citizens inflicted with the Orlock-brought plague) die in vain? Yes and no. My take is that technically, yes, they would not have died if Ellen had sacrificed herself earlier. However, at the time, she was unaware or unwilling to accept that her sacrificing herself would be the only way to destroy Orlock. After attempting to resist him in other ways, she ran out of time and came to the conclusion that Von Franz does: she must die that others will live. Part of the tragedy here is how long it takes Ellen to come to terms with what her fate must be.
Orlock, in my opinion, doesn't completely willingly let himself die. He engages with Ellen because he is as strangely bewitched by her as she is by him. She has a hold on him, and by devoting herself to him for that night, he is not thinking clearly, nor is he completely in control of his faculties. He essentially gets sex drunk enough that he doesn't notice the passage of time or consider the consequences of his actions. This has to do with these two characters being bound up in each other on a spiritual level. How does that happen? Well, let me answer that by answering your question about the opening scene.
Yes, it's real. Ellen, when younger, is lonely and depressed, yearning for love. Some of this is romantic and some of this is a titillation at the dark, sexual aspects of love. In the nadir of her despair, she calls for any being to connect with, and Orlock answers. She makes a deal with a devil. Like all deals with devils, this goes horribly wrong. She is sexually assaulted and then breaks off with her demon lover. She meets Thomas, her nightmares subside, and she thinks she's in the clear. However, seeking to renew his evil lust, Orlock has been in contact with Knock and weaves his trap, bringing Thomas to his castle and setting about the events that will reunite him with Ellen.
I've seen quite a few people rip on it. Sometimes it'll be an off-hand remark somewhere, but I have seen it. Most reviews, when talking about any depth (or lack thereof) with Lucy, started and stopped by saying that the 10% brain thing was dumb, so the movie is vapid. They'd then either give it a roughly positive review by saying it was fun or a negative review by saying that it was boring.
So, yeah, I've seen that critique a lot. I think it misses the depth that the film does have. It isn't a science paper, but it does have some interesting thoughts about humanity. It's a bit of a musing on transhumanism. I think there are layers here that a lot of people missed because they got distracted by the bogus neurology and thought they were smart for ripping on it for that.
She's very taciturn, but I find that that makes the moments where she lets the mask drop a little ("You moved like they do" - she's clearly a little shaken and surprised, although she isn't showing it) or a lot (when Neo's getting the blood hammered out of him by hundred-hands Smith) to be much more interesting. The contrast is nice.
As to the original question: yeah, she's a cyberpunk fox, although she's not really my type.
I am 100% in agreement. It's an interesting movie, creative, fun, and I think it has some interesting musings on humanity and how we connect to each other and what our responsibilities are towards each other - plus some cool action scenes - and it's weird that some people rag on it for an unrealistic premise. People rip on The Matrix for the human battery thing, but they use it like a factoid. "Hey, did you know that wouldn't work?" that kind of thing. Whereas, with Lucy, they use it to say why it's a bad movie. As though Interestellar's time travel paradoxes are scientifically accurate or something.
Yeah, the fire drill isn't 100% on Basil.
He's referring to Sybil's not wanting him to do it, I think, but why she doesn't want him is for us to guess. Personally, I think it's equal parts Basil having a problem and Sybil being a bit of a shrew.
Nothing. That's what I was saying. I think Basil should be allowed a little fun by being able to gamble sometimes. I only added one addendum: assuming he's not addicted/causing financial problems. If Sybil stops Basil from betting because he compulsively gambles and will flush hundreds or thousands (or more) of pounds down the toilet, then she's right to stop him. I have a feeling it's just as likely to be that Sybil doesn't approve of fun. She golfs, after all.
Although, there is one other possibility - and I think it likely. Basil, like everyone who gambles, probably loses more than he wins. And, as Basil is a sore loser, it's probably miserable being around his sorry, angry, vindictive self every time a bet goes wrong. Of course, as a pathetic winner, he probably isn't fun to be around when he's won money, either. Still, Sybil should let him do as he pleases and only stop the gambling if he's threatening their finances.
Ultimately, the show doesn't give us any indication that Basil would endanger the Fawlty accounts on account of his gambling, so I've taken three paragraphs to say, "Yeah, nothing wrong with a bet every now and then."
Yeah, you and I are mostly on the same page when it comes to the MCU generally making blockbuster movies worse. They were 100% iconic, though, and are the latest/last thing that was a singular culture of myth-making. You might not enjoy those myths, but even obscure superheroes like Star Lord (I'm a moderate comic book nerd and even I'd never read Guardians of the Galaxy) are well-known in the general popular consciousness. They are still iconic, regardless of quality.
The claim that cinema has been declining since the '70s I'll still push back on. If you want to say that mainstream cinema or big releases are worse - sure, I'll agree with that. But cinema in-general? No, I can't agree with that. If you want to say that The Godfather is the best film ever, go ahead, that's a great pick. For me, I prefer Seven Samurai and Casablanca. And my point here is that, if cinema is downhill from what a person (subjectively) considers the apex of cinema, then I'd have to take the position that movies haven't been the same since 1954, and I'm not making that claim.
Basically, I feel like there are still a tonne of quality artworks out there in the cinematic medium. TV and streaming have opened up a lot, too, and I've seen some marvellous stuff there (like Blue Eyed Samurai).
But, a new point of discussion is introduced now where you say that tech has led to monoculture dying out. I think I agree here, too. It is unlikely that we will see global, lasting phenomena like The Beatles or Star Wars, or even The Avengers, anymore because there is so much to watch.
And I will also agree that there is a tonne of dreck out there. Youtube and the majority of streaming content is just filler. But that doesn't mean the gold is gone.
I disagree with your interpretation of the ending. Although I remember it being more powerfully executed in Murnau's original version, I think Eggers did a great job.
SPOILERS BELOW
For me, Ellen's sacrifice is beautifully tragic. Having exhausted other attempts to combat Orlock, and facing a plague that threatens to boil over and destroy countless lives - perhaps devastating the country - Ellen seals her own fate. She takes on a damnation on behalf of those she loves, to save her town, her friends, and her husband. In Eggers' version, where Ellen has previously escaped from an abusive relationship metaphor with Orlock, there is an added note that makes it particularly brutal for Ellen.
But, at its core, this is an invocation of defending against a vampire with a crucifix. Two pieces of wood do not ward off evil. The element that works is the power of Christ. (I'm not proselytizing, I'm speaking within certain strains of vampiric lore). What Ellen does is model this sacrifice, and in so doing, she undoes Orlock completely.
Furthermore, in a cinematic climate inundated with filmmakers flailing around, trying to make "strong female characters" but not knowing how to write them as interesting, we see Ellen given flaws (compacts with darkness to satisfy lusts), struggles, and the power to defeat those evils without just making her a generic action hero.
I'm not knocking BSD - I like that movie a lot, too - but I just want to push back on Nosferatu not sticking the ending.
I prefer Nosferatu, but they are very different movies. BSD is more colourful, obviously, but I don't think I'd say it's more campy. Consider the Van Helsings (well, Dafoe wasn't technically named Van Helsing, but it was the same role). Both of them are eccentric. I don't think Hopkins' performance is more campy than Dafoe's.
It is theatrical, though, and if I'm in the mood for that, BSD is perfect. Nosferatu is more unsettling. It seems more genuinely eerie and frightening than BSD, in which I never really feel that same sense of terror.
Both films look incredible. They're shot brilliantly. They have great design work. They are accomplishing different goals, but the uncanny look of the strange, red-gowned Gary Oldman isn't less of an accomplishment than the shadow-shrouded corpse that Skarsgard gives us.
And as for uneven - I agree here. This might be why I prefer Nosferatu, ultimately. BSD has some obvious low points in casting. Well, mostly Keanu Reeves. I like Reeves - I actually think he's a better actor than he gets credit for - but he isn't suited to a period piece, he can't do the accent, and he just sticks out and draws attention to how wrong he is. Then there's the plot... BSD goes along adhering impressively to the original novel, but fumbles it with the shoehorned-in "romantic" angle between Dracula and Mina. Ironically, the twisted love triangle is far better played in Nosferatu than in BSD. Nosferatu seems to understand the horror, danger, and evil of the abusive relationship between Ellen and Orlock whereas BSD plays it almost like this is the romance we should be cheering for.
But, while I think BSD has drawbacks, I also think the parts where it is close to the book, a (mostly) stellar cast (Tom Waits!), and brilliant production design help give it its own merits, making for a reasonably creepy entertainment of a film.
Well, first of all, the quality of movies is partly subjective. I've listed a bunch of films that I love that you don't. That's not *factually* wrong, that's our opinions.
As to "iconic," I'm assuming that you mean big, cultural touchstones? The way Star Wars is iconic? If I'm wrong, please correct me, I'm not trying to argue irrelevant points you aren't making. But, assuming that's what's meant, it would be difficult to argue that Lord of the Rings, The Avengers, The Dark Knight, and yeah, even the Dune movies aren't iconic. Dune didn't hit Star Wars levels of cultural critical mass, but the MCU reshaped the film industry and pushed comic book/superhero everything all over pop culture. I think the MCU got stale - we probably see eye-to-eye there - but it's as iconic as they come.
It's not a fact.
I think cinema is in a weird phase right now where it's diffused by streaming and whatnot, but I also firmly believe there are still true artists out there making use of this medium. To say that there aren't is to either inexplicably think that great filmmakers only existed pre-2000s or will require some reasoning as to why artists aren't making art with movies anymore.
Look, I'm not saying you're factually wrong, either. I can see the argument that movies are declining or that the '70s had the best movies - those are arguments that can have a good deal of validity. But it isn't a decided, provable fact.
I think we completely disagree on this. I think there are great films in every era. There are certainly things about different eras that I miss or that I think we did better at that time, but there's still a lot of wonderful cinema out there.