Movies

Mather said:
I know this isn't a movie, but that opening episode of Picard was really freaking good. Like, fantastic good. And I'm not a big Star Trek guy, but by god's Patrick Stewart is just wonderful.
Click to expand...
Is this a week-to-week series (as opposed to dropping it all at once) Star Trek: NG was my jam. And I would love to watch it but I don’t think I wanna subscribe to multiple months of CBS-All Access.

Also, just an FYI, you can drop your TV post on the television thread, if you’d like.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
Is this a week-to-week series (as opposed to dropping it all at once) Star Trek: NG was my jam. And I would love to watch it but I don’t think I wanna subscribe to multiple months of CBS-All Access.

Also, just an FYI, you can drop your TV post on the television thread, if you’d like.
Click to expand...
THERE'S A TV THREAD?? Okay will do. And yes it's a week to week release apparently.
 
zombie.modernist said:
Saw this last night too with a free Regal ticket. Strangely they didn't advertise it as a special engagement which it was — no trailers and a taped q&a with Patton Oswalt after the film. Definitely fun for those who like elevated B-movies, he screams about alpacas a lot.

I grew up in Rhode Island, and as a result I was super into Lovecraft as a teen. Color Out of Space was easily a top 3 of his as far as I'm concerned, but this adaptation sort of treats it as a bad acid trip. Honestly, I'm down with this, Lovecraft's paranoia is rooted in xenophobia, and Stanley's late-night horror flick twist seems like the right move for this particular story. The whole thing is a bit of a mess at times, never fully depending into camp, or trying to play it straight, but settles in by the climax.

As @EvanBenner mentions lots of the Lovecraft adaptations are crappy "indie" fan films, and this certainly felt better if less Lovecraftian.
My favorite recent Lovecraftian films remain Alex Garland's Annihilation which borrows the premise of this story, and The Endless which really punches above its budget to capture the Cthulhu vibe. This feels like a sleazier take on Carpenter's The Thing which isn't bad!
Click to expand...
I went in almost completely blind , I have the movie pass and saw an unadvertised Nic Cage horror film and said Yeah I'm in for that. I had a blast with it. Some genuinely creepy parts, and cage going all out in his bug eyed nuttiness.
 
zombie.modernist said:
As @EvanBenner mentions lots of the Lovecraft adaptations are crappy "indie" fan films, and this certainly felt better if less Lovecraftian.
My favorite recent Lovecraftian films remain Alex Garland's Annihilation which borrows the premise of this story, and The Endless which really punches above its budget to capture the Cthulhu vibe. This feels like a sleazier take on Carpenter's The Thing which isn't bad!
Click to expand...

Totally agree about Annihilation and The Endless. The problem with Lovecraft's cosmic horror, as I've seen it best described, is that even his literary depictions are almost impossible to capture visually, making it almost unsuitable for film. I could see a paranoia angle playing out rather well, actually, especially given the datedness of the original's rural isolationism.
 
EvanBenner said:
Totally agree about Annihilation and The Endless. The problem with Lovecraft's cosmic horror, as I've seen it best described, is that even his literary depictions are almost impossible to capture visually, making it almost unsuitable for film. I could see a paranoia angle playing out rather well, actually, especially given the datedness of the original's rural isolationism.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on his work being unsuitable to film. I think half the appeal is seeing the first person narrators descend into madness, as they attempt to verbalize their fears, totally unachievable in film.

Not give anything away, but the film does sort of reshape the family as former urbanites that have fled to the countryside, but are already ill-suited to live the life they've idealized. You could kind of read it as a soft critique of Lovecraft's idyllic world as pure fantasy even before alien invaders came and fucked it all up. I don't think the movie cares to poke at any of these issues, but intentionally or unintentionally Stanley's hit a good balance in dealing with Lovecraft's legacy almost a century out.
 
zombie.modernist said:
I agree with you on his work being unsuitable to film. I think half the appeal is seeing the first person narrators descend into madness, as they attempt to verbalize their fears, totally unachievable in film.

Not give anything away, but the film does sort of reshape the family as former urbanites that have fled to the countryside, but are already ill-suited to live the life they've idealized. You could kind of read it as a soft critique of Lovecraft's idyllic world as pure fantasy even before alien invaders came and fucked it all up. I don't think the movie cares to poke at any of these issues, but intentionally or unintentionally Stanley's hit a good balance in dealing with Lovecraft's legacy almost a century out.
Click to expand...

In the Mouth of Madness is incredible.
 
Clint Howard said:
In the Mouth of Madness is incredible.
Click to expand...
Clint Howard said:
In the Mouth of Madness is incredible.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the recommendation. I’ve been meaning to check that out for some time. Carpenter’s Thing is also great, I think he gets away with it by warping the source material quite a bit for filming. I also wonder how much copyright gets involved here. I think HPL's stuff is like dubiously public domain or something.
 
Of semi-random note (not totally as I'm asking because I see Mouth of Madness is on there), does anyone know if "free" VUDU titles play ads during the films or just before?
 
kvetcha said:
Contagion is by far the most realistic representation of a pandemic ever put to film. And that makes it terrifying.
Click to expand...

Yeah it does a good job of capturing that, without falling into zanny Andromeda Strain territory. Still I almost feel like it was too flat, certainly not my favorite of his, but his work is so diverse I'm not surprised others are drawn to different films. Except for The Laundromat which I can't see anyone digging too much...
 
zombie.modernist said:
Yeah it does a good job of capturing that, without falling into zanny Andromeda Strain territory. Still I almost feel like it was too flat, certainly not my favorite of his, but his work is so diverse I'm not surprised others are drawn to different films. Except for The Laundromat which I can't see anyone digging too much...
Click to expand...

I think the clinical nature of the film is what really sticks with me. It's so un-sensational and generally keeps things so close to the ground that it feels that much more immediate.

And the science is remarkably accurate.
 
kvetcha said:
I think the clinical nature of the film is what really sticks with me. It's so un-sensational and generally keeps things so close to the ground that it feels that much more immediate.

And the science is remarkably accurate.
Click to expand...

I'm the opposite of a scientist, so that wouldn't stick out to me, but good to know! The best Soderbergs hold up really well to rewatch IMO so I should give it another go.
 
zombie.modernist said:
I'm the opposite of a scientist, so that wouldn't stick out to me, but good to know! The best Soderbergs hold up really well to rewatch IMO so I should give it another go.
Click to expand...

Aside from some relatively minor dramatic license it's actually a shockingly accurate film, and that should scare people. As one of the epidemiologists who worked on the movie said, it's not an if, it's a when.

It's about as clear-headed and realistic a take on the subject as you're ever likely to see. I recommend giving it another whirl!

Folks in the field have mentioned the most far-fetched thing in the film is that the eventual vaccine is produced in six months, when it would actually take closer to a year, year and a half.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top