Recommend a movie

Started by The Laughing Fish, Sat, 31 Mar 2018, 01:47

Previous topic - Next topic
Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 24 Aug  2022, 23:52


"Escape from New York" 1981

Finally purchased the 4K edition the other day, and it's simply outstanding!

To me, EFNY is one of those 'perfect' films that never should be remade (though inevitably will be). Such an intriguing premise, amazing cast (Donald Pleasence, Lee Van Cleef, Harry Dean Stanton, Tom Atkins, Adrienne Barbeau, Ernest Borgnine, Isaac Hayes, and the impeccably cast Kurt Russel as Snake Plissken), and John Carpenter at the height of his powers as a director. Like many other scores composed and performed by Carpenter during this era, this one features yet another memorable gem.

Since checking this out in 4K, I've been reading up on the 1987 Coleman Luck script for "Escape from L.A.", and .... what a trip that would have been! As it leans into the fanciful than even the 1996 sequel did to be perfectly honest.

But yeah, "Escape from New York" is highly recommended.

I watched this last week, damn good film! Carpenter had a good eye and ear to set the mood in this dystopian hellhole, from the cinematography to the score. The shot of the black skyline of NYC, where not a single lightbulb is shining, makes it all the more chilling.

I can see how Escape from New York was inspirational to Rocksteady when they made the Arkham City game. Both New York and Arkham City are citywide maximum security prisons where prisoners run riot to fend for themselves, and both Batman and Snake Plissken's lives are further compromised to complete objectives against their will. This movie, as well as the No Man's Land comics, is perhaps the biggest influence on Arkham City.

I read that there was a comic book crossover between Snake and Jack Burton from Big Trouble in Little China, another Carpenter film. Kinda curious to check it out.



https://www.previewsworld.com/Catalog/AUG161301
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

Gave American Psycho another viewing. I read the book well before seeing the movie, and I feel like they did a good job adapting the story and creating the atmosphere. Most of it is included and other things get streamlined, which I'm okay with. The book is heavy on descriptions and routine, which the movie does touch on, but it doesn't go too hard. We get the idea and I think that suits the visual medium.

Certain scenes were just about pitch perfect in how I imagined them in my head, particularly the restaurant and club scenes. Just as The Shining is Jack Nicholson's best role (IMO) this is Christian Bale's. He's generally monotone to show how he's dead inside but there's a spark about him that engages you 100% the whole time. It's a performance where just about every one of his scenes is meme worthy. At under two hours the movie doesn't outstay its welcome and lends itself to being rewatchable.

The interpretation I have is Bateman did commit a bunch of murders, but as his mental state deteriorates the exact body count becomes unclear. The scene of Bateman gunning down the man behind the desk, then returning to see him alive, is a prime example of that. The realtors ignoring the blood soaked apartment in order to resell it makes the story better, on top of others either knowing but not caring/ignoring it, or outright not believing him. Bateman is forever stuck in a loop of his routine with no escape.

I'm satisfied it'a good adaption and companion piece to the source material.

I read American Psycho last year. The only other Bret Easton Ellis book I'd read before was The Rules of Attraction. My brother recommended Less than Zero to me years ago, but I still haven't got around to reading that one. I watched the film adaptation of American Psycho immediately after I finished the book so I could compare them when they were both fresh in my mind.

The novel is very funny but also very disturbing. As far as the violence goes, it might surpass the Clive Barker novels I read in my early twenties for how effed up certain scenes are. The movie obviously tones down the violent and sexual content a lot, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. The film is still brutal in places, but it omits many of the more twisted and pornographic elements that can leave a bad taste when you read the book. This makes the cinematic Bateman more palatable to the viewer, allowing you to laugh at his depraved antics and enjoy the satire without being turned off by the visceral excess of what he's actually doing.

A literal scene-for-scene adaptation of the book would be impossible. You just couldn't show those things in live action, and I doubt many people would want to watch them even if you could. The movie does a respectable job of extrapolating what's most important from the book – the satire, horror and narrative ambiguity resulting from the unreliable narrator – and makes it work for a different medium.

Bale's performance really carries it. He's a good physical match for how Bateman's described in the book, but more importantly he clearly understands the satirical nature of the novel and never takes himself too seriously in the role. The comparison with Jack in The Shinning is a good one, as they're both hilariously over the top. It's not surprising that both performances spawned countless memes.




Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 18 Feb  2024, 03:10The interpretation I have is Bateman did commit a bunch of murders, but as his mental state deteriorates the exact body count becomes unclear. The scene of Bateman gunning down the man behind the desk, then returning to see him alive, is a prime example of that. The realtors ignoring the blood soaked apartment in order to resell it makes the story better, on top of others either knowing but not caring/ignoring it, or outright not believing him. Bateman is forever stuck in a loop of his routine with no escape.
I guess I had the more superficial reading (of the film) that Bateman legit committed all those murders. But he lives in such a self-absorbed bubble that nobody believes him when he confesses and he unintentionally has alibis for all of the murders because cares enough about anyone else to remember their names.

Basically, Bateman devalues human life in one way while his peers devalue human life in other ways.

Still, fun fact about American Psycho. Apparently, Edward Norton was considered (to some degree or another) for Bateman. And while I love Bale in the role, I have to admit that I wonder what Norton might've done with the character.

Mon, 19 Feb 2024, 10:47 #154 Last Edit: Mon, 19 Feb 2024, 10:54 by The Dark Knight
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 18 Feb  2024, 18:02The movie obviously tones down the violent and sexual content a lot, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. The film is still brutal in places, but it omits many of the more twisted and pornographic elements that can leave a bad taste when you read the book. This makes the cinematic Bateman more palatable to the viewer, allowing you to laugh at his depraved antics and enjoy the satire without being turned off by the visceral excess of what he's actually doing.

A literal scene-for-scene adaptation of the book would be impossible. You just couldn't show those things in live action, and I doubt many people would want to watch them even if you could. The movie does a respectable job of extrapolating what's most important from the book – the satire, horror and narrative ambiguity resulting from the unreliable narrator – and makes it work for a different medium.
Well said. Knowing the novel enriches the experience as you can impart those details onto the avatar of Bale's Bateman. His true depravity of innermost thoughts are more fleshed out as they should be in that medium. Seeing Bateman's drawings in the journal at the end of the film is a good way to show his soul that was hidden to almost everybody. Jean had an idea something was very off psychologically, but proof of murder? No way.

I believe the movie's handling of the material is to be commended in how it makes it a more straightforward narrative not too bogged down with the 'a day in the life' content or excessive music appreciation/beauty regimens that could come off as padding in a film. A number of scenes of that is enough as the viewer can imagine he does these things often. It also allows the story and the intention of it to be clearer to the general viewer. And that story is surprisingly deep and not simple shock factor blood and guts.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 18 Feb  2024, 18:02Bale's performance really carries it. He's a good physical match for how Bateman's described in the book, but more importantly he clearly understands the satirical nature of the novel and never takes himself too seriously in the role. The comparison with Jack in The Shinning is a good one, as they're both hilariously over the top. It's not surprising that both performances spawned countless memes.
He commands the screen. The way Bateman speaks non stop about apparent interests lulls his prey into zoning out and not being aware of what is coming next (which is a big part of the book too, and is that robotic aspect of him). The nervous energy he imparts in various scenes such as the questioning by Kimball is interesting to watch and gives another layer. There's the odd social interactions which show he's not all there which I also really liked. He's a young man who enjoys the status of Wall Street while doing nothing in his office except listen to music, draw and make dinner reservations. The killing seems to give him purpose and power as he takes serious offence to being disrespected even in minor ways, and is disgusted by anything he deems beneath him.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 18 Feb  2024, 23:41I guess I had the more superficial reading (of the film) that Bateman legit committed all those murders. But he lives in such a self-absorbed bubble that nobody believes him when he confesses and he unintentionally has alibis for all of the murders because cares enough about anyone else to remember their names.

Basically, Bateman devalues human life in one way while his peers devalue human life in other ways.
I'd be keeping the big kills as legitimate, such as Paul Allen, to properly amplify those themes. I do like the idea of ambiguity as running butt naked through an apartment complex with a chainsaw can either be passed off as surrealist or actually an indictment of a zombie, uncaring public. But if Bateman only killed half of the people in the book/movie, I don't think the themes would be hurt too badly. I'm thinking the content with Bateman shooting the police officers and blowing up their cars is possibly hallucinated. I'm guessing he just walked up to his office and made the call. Or maybe he didn't.