Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Last Movie You Saw...

Rudolph Quin said:
Mitsu said:
Nightcrawler. I enjoyed this one a great deal; Jake Gyllenhaal did a fantastic job. The ending was a bit unexpected, and was a breath of fresh air.
Click to expand...

Saw that too. It was amazing and despite his character being overbearing and even weaselly, he was extremely likable. His mannerisms and even his approach when he was being a controlling, manipulative dick, it was hard not to be entertained and focused on him. Also an interesting concept as well that made the story, although bland when giving a synopsis/trying to explain it to someone else, is surprisingly emotionally charged, with all these different layers to it.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that you found him likable. I had a much different opinion of Mr. Bloom. He was a morally bankrupt, disgusting person. I saw only two aspects of his personality that were at all admirable, and they were his drive and discipline. Outside of that he was a human being that could best be described as a monster. Everything he did, and strove to do, preyed on other people; and there was nothing that could get in his way, even at the expense of those closest to him. To say that there was even someone close to him is a stretch; Louis Bloom was utterly alone. Even his love interest was a trophy to be won, a tool to advance his own goals. The man amounted to nothing but a cunning sociopath.

Recently I had a lengthy discussion about the concept of protagonists, and heroes and villains. This film has a perfect example of a protagonist that is actually a villain. There is nothing heroic about Bloom, nor does he even accomplish a heroic task. His character is the total embodiment of the darker side of humanity, and a reasonably realistic take on it too.

All of that said, he was entirely fascinating on screen. I never particularly wanted Bloom to succeed, but I was glued to the screen anyway. I wanted to see what was next, to see whether or not he would meet his goals. I don't think I saw a more compelling character since Christoph Waltz's masterful Hans Landa, or Javier Bardem's Raoul Silva.
 
Mitsu said:
All of that said, he was entirely fascinating on screen. I never particularly wanted Bloom to succeed, but I was glued to the screen anyway. I wanted to see what was next, to see whether or not he would meet his goals. I don't think I saw a more compelling character since Christoph Waltz's masterful Hans Landa, or Javier Bardem's Raoul Silva.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant. I think you got stuck on the word "likable" but even though I meant it in the way you described(hence my next sentence elaborating to touch on those villainous qualities and yet still finding him captivating to watch) but also in that I personally, found him to be a bit charming at times and he tried to be. That isn't to say that I think he's a great guy but that on an aesthetic level, I like the character and he'll be one of my favorites.

But I also say that about Christian Bale's performance in American Psycho. He's awful, even the parts he shows to others, everything laced with a condescension, and exaggerated focus on material things. In the end, I find myself rooting for Patrick Bateman not to get caught, because of my investment in him as a character. I acquiesce that my use of the word sounded universal because I thought it was; I don't usually watch movies, no matter where on the moral scale they are, for the protagonists to fail when they strive to meet their goals(not to say that movies that use that formula are bad, just that I don't go in saying "I hope you don't get what you want" especially for characters such as these). Even as you say, Landa, is extremely charming and likable to me and although not a protagonist, it was always interesting when it looked like he was going to succeed or triumph.
 
Rudolph Quin said:
... I personally, found him to be a bit charming at times and he tried to be...

But I also say that about Christian Bale's performance in American Psycho. He's awful, even the parts he shows to others, everything laced with a condescension, and exaggerated focus on material things. In the end, I find myself rooting for Patrick Bateman not to get caught, because of my investment in him as a character. I acquiesce that my use of the word sounded universal because I thought it was; I don't usually watch movies, no matter where on the moral scale they are, for the protagonists to fail when they strive to meet their goals(not to say that movies that use that formula are bad, just that I don't go in saying "I hope you don't get what you want" especially for characters such as these). Even as you say, Landa, is extremely charming and likable to me and although not a protagonist, it was always interesting when it looked like he was going to succeed or triumph.
Click to expand...

I found nothing about him charming, despite his attempts at being so. He was obsessive in my eyes, and every nice word or charming smile (especially to Nina), was for the intent purpose of manipulation and furthering his goals. He's very similar to Ted Bundy, in that he knows how to manipulate people, and the best way is often with a smile and a helping hand. I realized this while watching, as I'm sure you did as well, but I simply could not find him even a bit charming because of it.

Bale's portrayal of Patrick Bateman is also very interesting. I feel basically the same, as Bateman has nearly zero redeemable qualities. In some ways he's even worse than Bloom: sociopath, serial killer, abuser. When I'm watching a character such as Bateman, I try not to desire any particular outcome. I can anticipate or expect an outcome, but I don't root for him to succed or fail. I'm more interested in watching the events unfold. I watch Bateman unravel, because it's interesting. I want to know what happens next, how that next happens, and to see it as interpreted through the perspective of the madman.

American Psycho does leave the question of whether or not Bateman imagined the whole thing, and throws the observer's objectivity out the window: he did it, because I want him to; or he did it, because I didn't want him to. How vile of a character do I want Patrick Bateman to be? The novels and whatnot tend to confirm that he did, however (or he at least became a killer).

Hans Landa, I don't group with the other two we've discussed. Like Louis Bloom, he knows how to charm people, and he uses it to nefarious means. There's a whole lot that Landa does to paint him as a terrible human being, and he is. However, he lets Shosanna flee. Unless I'm forgetting something from the film, they never outright state his motivation for doing so-- maybe he just thought she wouldn't make it far, or maybe he took pity on her, because of the nasty business that just occurred. I'd like to think he showed some remorse, that he spared her, because he is capable of realizing that enough damage had been done.

A Louis Bloom would have killed her to perfect the job.

A Patrick Bateman would have killed her for the enjoyment.

I never got the impression that Landa was incapable of remorse, or that he was completely without a conscious. He may be a terrible human being, but he has some remediable qualities. It should also be noted that he is also a man in a time of war, so it's harder to judge his actions against two men doing terrible things from a position of relative peace and privilege.
 
"The People vs. George Lucas"

and, cue the war between Star Wars Purists and fanboys.

(I hold with the purists. Han shot first).
 
Nightcrawler.

I saw this film just before leaving on my trip and have to say that it was pretty damned good. And coming back and seeing the discussion between it and American Psycho is making me smile as I've seen that movie as well, albeit a while ago. As for Bloom, I'll say this much, the guy was anything but likable. He was the embodiment of villain. I will say, however, that I also found myself tensing up each time he went on a crawl and was in some sort of danger. Not necessarily because I wanted him to win/succeed, but because the whole scene was intense and I wanted to see what would happen...would he actually achieve his goals, would he fail, just...what? The ending just said it all about the sort he was and I think the build up to it was done very well. It was incrementally done, each thing building upon the previous and only further serving to build up his master plan.

What I loved most about this movie was Bloom's character development. It was a study on the type of villain he is and how someone like him would develop given certain opportunities and obstacles. Honestly, I love movies and such like this. They make you think without giving you a brain hemorrhage and they manage to entertain all in one go. That said, this was a movie I'd recommend to anyone who enjoys character development and anything thrilling since there was some level of tense-factor, but nothing I'd rank as over the top.
 
Saw a bunch of movies recently and I love conversation about these things, so, any comments are welcomed. Love discussing things and getting different perspectives. Especially from such intelligent and wonderful people. ^.^ :heart:

Insidious Chapter 1 and 2

There's something that doesn't fit the mold for me as far as typical ghost story, even though it feels kind of similar. And not talking about the bad habit of horror movies lately to overuse jump scares or reveal too much about their monsters/antagonistic ghosts. Even the stuff I feel is good about a horror movie is missing from these films, to the point where it's almost campy or dorky feeling(and not just the comic relief that was put there intentionally but the actual parts they're trying to make scary).

...But I like/love it. I dislike these movies but I really really don't. They were entertaining and fun to watch. The acting was great for this type of film. And I love the way they play with this other world and time. It's engaging in a way I didn't expect them to be. The only thing I do not like is at the end, they come up with the counter-intuitive solution to make the main guy forget his abilities again. Yeah, because forgetting about it was totally not what caused all the issues in the first place concerning his son being born with the same ability. Let's sterilize the kid as well so that just stops completely, or risk the exact same story being told later when HE grows up with a family all his own and has a kid with the same ability that none of them can remember having themselves. Just kind of odd. Other than that, no complaints. I love the roles people played, how they were utilized, the back stories and the characters themselves. Loved the old woman who helps them.

The Pact 1 and 2

I originally tried to watch the Pact fall last year and stopped it and for some reason gave it a single star on Netflix. I can't remember why. Something must have been pretty damning in the first 10 minutes of the film. I'll admit, they start slow but giving it another go, I realize there is so much information the camera gives us. Not a wasted shot. So, even with a bit of a build up, it's illuminating to the background of these characters and who they are without coming right out and saying it. Interesting stories as well, both kind of typical, hitting all of those tropes(hidden sibling, ghost seeking justice, blind medium, girl power, protag in first movie dies in the second, etc.) but it was interesting nonetheless and execution is well done. Like with the camera shots, I didn't feel like there was any part of it that didn't answer it's own mysteries or wasted time.

These Final Hours

Australian-made film about an impending apocalypse and a guy struggling to find where he wants to be when it all ends. Very depressing but also heartwarming, the way it deals with the subject of death and time. All the things that do and don't matter when you've got literally hours until all life on the planet dies. What little lies we tell ourselves in our insecurities, what we use for comfort and what it means about being true to who you are even when in just a couple hours, there will be no memory of it and it wouldn't have made a difference in the long run. Isn't making every moment count the true definition of who we are? What we choose to do, who we choose to be with, right here and right now and why.

darkangel76 said:
Nightcrawler.

I saw this film just before leaving on my trip and have to say that it was pretty damned good. And coming back and seeing the discussion between it and American Psycho is making me smile as I've seen that movie as well, albeit a while ago. As for Bloom, I'll say this much, the guy was anything but likable. He was the embodiment of villain. I will say, however, that I also found myself tensing up each time he went on a crawl and was in some sort of danger. Not necessarily because I wanted him to win/succeed, but because the whole scene was intense and I wanted to see what would happen...would he actually achieve his goals, would he fail, just...what? The ending just said it all about the sort he was and I think the build up to it was done very well. It was incrementally done, each thing building upon the previous and only further serving to build up his master plan.

What I loved most about this movie was Bloom's character development. It was a study on the type of villain he is and how someone like him would develop given certain opportunities and obstacles. Honestly, I love movies and such like this. They make you think without giving you a brain hemorrhage and they manage to entertain all in one go. That said, this was a movie I'd recommend to anyone who enjoys character development and anything thrilling since there was some level of tense-factor, but nothing I'd rank as over the top.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I think I misused the word "likable". Coming at it purely from a storytelling and character appreciation vein, I guess what I intended was "I like that character! That was a great character! Awful person, yes, but SUCH character!" I appreciate Mitsu's analysis and I agree wholeheartedly from the perspective of audience. I just misused the word to mean from a creator/writer perspective that they looked like they'd be fun to handle, that motivations were complex and sinister but in interesting ways rather than just "evil for no reason" or "evil for the same reasons we constantly see." Seeing it explained made me realize that is the direction I was coming at it from rather than saying necessarily this is someone I want to win/lose, and Mitsu put it perfectly describing Bateman's unraveling and the desire to watch it happen.

It'd be an interesting topic of discussion, because I do feel like there is a difference in how you come at a product or story depending on the seat you're sitting in. Because what Hans Landa, Patrick Bateman, and Louis Bloom have in common for me is that they're characters I'd like to play, I'd like to wear as masks in an rp; I want to become director of character stories like that.
 
Oh, I fully got your point, Quin, by what you'd meant. <3 And, as you know for me, I tend to be rather drawn to villainous characters in general. I find them ridiculously intriguing and more often the more interesting character to truly watch and invest my emotions toward than the hero. I think this is why I adore such studies as Nightcrawler and American Psycho because they purposely place these characters into a more protagonist's seat while the antagonists are all your typical heroes. It messes with the standard way things are usually played and presented thus kind of twisting your POV in how you invest your time. Most people aren't going to watch a movie and be interested in the villain if things focus on the hero. BUT in movies like this...they've no choice. Or, well, less of one. XD So it's a breath of fresh air really. And, I'm with you all the way on getting into those villains' heads. It's just fun and demented and glorious. It's a nice creative exercise to be sure. : )
 
Creep

XD omg... This fuckin' movie is awesome! I loved it! Done up like a found footage film style, it's about a psycho dude that hires a freelance cameraman to film him for 8 hours. This guy is like Steve Carrell from the Office, so, if you liked how awkward and cringe worthy that was, you'll love this. First 10 minutes are the most awkward thing I've ever sat through as this weird dude, who's supposedly making a film for his unborn son since he's gonna die of cancer before the baby's birth, takes a fucking bath(a "tubby") and mimes bathing with his infant son... while the cameraman who's literally JUST met him, sits there and records it all. XD Oh, Jesus, makes me laugh so hard again. I dunno how many times I stopped this because it was THAT uncomfortable to watch, and how many times I sputtered laughing like "WTF??? OMG???"

The writing is amazing, the handling of the camera was good, minimal shake and it developed enough of the story without being too much like, "wait, why would they be recording this?" The characters and actors themselves are superb; so entertaining to watch and pull exactly the right strings and push the right buttons. Loved this. Definitely gonna buy it.
 
Wetlands. Has some pretty gross moments, but is a pretty charming and interesting movie. Good characters, good acting, and very "real".
 
Big Daddy.

tumblr_msx4nkpPU01sw3wg5o1_500.gif


Because why the fuck not.
 
Hercules (2014). It was a movie. The plot unfolded in a very movie-like fashion. The actors gave movie performances, and have pivotal movie moments. The sets were definitely movie, and there was CGI in Hercules, which while very movie, were not great.

Seriously, this was as normal of a movie as you can get. The only thing it tried to reinvent is the legend of Hercules, but it was otherwise very by the numbers. Watch it if you're just looking to watch something, or if you're a big fan of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. It isn't a bad movie, but it isn't great either. Very movie.

Also, they still refuse to pronounce Heracles right, and they don't bother to paint any of the statues. Then again, I doubt historical accuracy was the goal here.
 
A Girl Walks Alone at Night. Understated in all of the right ways, a film for people who like slow, deliberate stories. Cinematography is beautiful throughout, and showcases the strengths of black and white film, while keeping from exposing it's weaknesses. Characterization is strong, and performances are fitting. A Girl Walks Home at Night might just be my favorite film of 2014.
 
Predator, because sometimes my wife and I just like a good action movie with lots of bullets flying.

Funny to look back on Arnold in those days too and think, wow...I saw this when it came out about 30 years ago in the theater. I'm old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom