Which movie did you last see?

[Chip]

Nine Days is surreal without any special effects or flashy CGI crap.



The setting is a modest house in a desert. Two men, one Black and one Asian, are there to evaluate several candidates for incarnation (that is, being born). They view the lives of their previous choices— some good, some bad—on a bank of TV screens. The tech stuff is oldish— videocassettes and such. The lack of attention to such details keeps the focus on the human drama, which is intense.

Zazie Beetz (Deadpool 2) is particularly good. The last scene is a monologue from a major American poet: guess who?

[Yazeh]

Another fabulous art film (Black and White), C'mon, C'mon... with Joaquin Phoenix....

[Lloyd]

"Hell's Drivers" from 1957

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Chip]

August: Osage County (2013).



Incredible cast: Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, Sam Shepard, Juliette Lewis, Chris Cooper, Benedict Cumberbatch, Julianne Nicholson, et al. But the premise seems to be the corrosive effect of guilty secrets, lies, vanity, infidelity, lust, booze, and pills. (As if we didn't know that.) Lots of cruel, nasty, vicious dialogue. Humiliation. Tears. Fights. A suicide. With a bit of incest for a kicker. It was like watching a bunch of animals in a cage tear one another to bits.

At the end, they all roar off, hurt and angry, in different directions.

Didn't like this film. Not sure why anyone bothered to make it.

[Yazeh]

Saw Limbo on Netflix....
It's a British film about refugees waiting for processing in a remote Scottish Island.
It's slow film. Beautiful imagery, deadpan humour and moving.
It's like a poem read with long pauses between each stanza....
Not for those who like fast pace films.

[Yazeh]

@chip... This reminds me of a French film I saw A Christmas Fair tale...
If you like family dramedies, and you don't mind French films. two I can recommend...
One is Family Resemblances (un air de famille) a. 1996 film based on a play. Full of nuances
And the more recent What's in a Name? , Le prénom.. based on another play...

[jar]

I watch the new attempt at Dune.

It sucked.

Even bigger failure than the attempts to make movies of Tolkien's Hobbits and Trilogy.

[Chip]

If you don't mind French films. two I can recommend...

I'll look for them. Ta!

I've seen most of the classics of French cinema. At present, we're nearly done with A French Village, a WWII series, that we both like. I'm watching a crime series, Lupin, that's quite good.

[Zhivago]

If you don't mind French films. two I can recommend...

I'll look for them. Ta!

I've seen most of the classics of French cinema. At present, we're nearly done with A French Village, a WWII series, that we both like. I'm watching a crime series, Lupin, that's quite good.

Strong recommendation for Le Samouraï, a 1967 neo-noir written and directed by Jean-Pierre Melville.

[Yazeh]

I watch the new attempt at Dune.

It sucked.

Even bigger failure than the attempts to make movies of Tolkien's Hobbits and Trilogy.

Why did it suck, Jar?

[Robalone]

Big up for KUNG FU PANDA 3 ….👍🏻👍🏻

And……this’ll stir the pot …WILD WILD COUNTRY on Netflix 😱

[jar]

I watch the new attempt at Dune.

It sucked.

Even bigger failure than the attempts to make movies of Tolkien's Hobbits and Trilogy.

Why did it suck, Jar?

Just about everyway possible.

The acting sucked.

The casting sucked.

They omitted significant and import parts of the story-line.

They tried to keep it within a time frame which meant that it had absolutely no chance of reflecting the Dune Saga.

And it will likely make lots of money.

[Yazeh]

I watch the new attempt at Dune.

It sucked.

Even bigger failure than the attempts to make movies of Tolkien's Hobbits and Trilogy.

Why did it suck, Jar?

Just about everyway possible.

The acting sucked.

The casting sucked.

They omitted significant and import parts of the story-line.

They tried to keep it within a time frame which meant that it had absolutely no chance of reflecting the Dune Saga.

And it will likely make lots of money.

I understand that about acting and casting.
However, one thing I need to point out, Novels and movie don't have a similar structure. You cannot convert a novel, image to image into film. It'll be counterproductive and frankly boring. Movies follow their own structre and are not compatible with novels/ novellas etc. One is internal the other is external.
When making a movie, there's not one author. You have multiple. Between what you write as a screenwriter, and what the director interpret sand the producers DEMANDS, and the actor interprets ...and budget restrictions etc. etc. And then you have editing, which films can be completely transformed or mutilated.
Between the original idea and the execution it's day and night. A screenplay is a blue print. However, unlike an architect's plan, the movie's blue print (screenplay) is in a state of flux.
Think Gladiator, which went into production, whilst it was being rewritten.
Or African Queen, where the ending was changed.
Or the latest Anne with E, which has nothing to do with the original Green Gables, but tackles modern themes of Residential Schools, Racism and LGTBQ.

As a final note, often times producers buy the rights for a novel, but not to tell the original story but their interpretation......

[Yazeh]

I saw A month at the country 1987. Colin Firth's first lead role and Kenneth Branagh's first major role. The film was reportedly lost and found by chance and restored.

This is one meditative film: dialogue is sparse and everything is subtext.

[An old bloke]

I watch the new attempt at Dune.

It sucked.

Even bigger failure than the attempts to make movies of Tolkien's Hobbits and Trilogy.

Why did it suck, Jar?

Just about everyway possible.

The acting sucked.

The casting sucked.

They omitted significant and import parts of the story-line.

They tried to keep it within a time frame which meant that it had absolutely no chance of reflecting the Dune Saga.

And it will likely make lots of money.

I understand that about acting and casting.
However, one thing I need to point out, Novels and movie don't have a similar structure. You cannot convert a novel, image to image into film. It'll be counterproductive and frankly boring. Movies follow their own structre and are not compatible with novels/ novellas etc. One is internal the other is external.
When making a movie, there's not one author. You have multiple. Between what you write as a screenwriter, and what the director interpret sand the producers DEMANDS, and the actor interprets ...and budget restrictions etc. etc. And then you have editing, which films can be completely transformed or mutilated.
Between the original idea and the execution it's day and night. A screenplay is a blue print. However, unlike an architect's plan, the movie's blue print (screenplay) is in a state of flux.
Think Gladiator, which went into production, whilst it was being rewritten.
Or African Queen, where the ending was changed.
Or the latest Anne with E, which has nothing to do with the original Green Gables, but tackles modern themes of Residential Schools, Racism and LGTBQ.

As a final note, often times producers buy the rights for a novel, but not to tell the original story but their interpretation......

What I hear you saying in the last two paragraphs is that producers will often buy the rights so that they can use a successful book as a vehicle to advance an agenda or for social criticism. Is that right?

[Yazeh]

@An old bloke, Not necessary. It's not black and white, but mostly grey
You need to have a vision but often times you need be actual.
In US producers have a lot of clout. Think the deposed Harvey Weinstein, who reedited a lot of movies, or the producers of the Golden Age of Hollywood: Selznick, Lous B. Mayer, Thalberg and the gang. I doubt it has changed.
That's why directors/ actors are often producers in order to have creative control. But control is an illusion. Movies are collaborative.....

And finally it's almost impossible to convert a book into movie. In a novel, you have layers, upon layer, in movies you can't really have that much layer, unless you make a TV series and even there.

[Chip]

And finally it's almost impossible to convert a book into movie. In a novel, you have layers, upon layer, in movies you can't really have that much layer, unless you make a TV series and even there.

Having published several books and been recruited for a screenplay by a friend, I'll gently disagree.

A simple, straightforward novel with a time-burnished plot (poor boy makes good, wins girl) and stock characters, written in chronological order, can be made into a movie without much fuss.

A complex novel, with interior monologues, flashbacks, resonant symbolism, and literary devices, is necessarily hard to film, but can be a success, e.g. the adaptation of the novel by Günter Grass, The Tin Drum (1979).

Some filmmakers, e.g. Wim Wenders, seek out challenges and turn them into rewarding films. But along the way, there are quite a burnt-out wrecks.

[catbert]

Saw Limbo on Netflix....
It's a British film about refugees waiting for processing in a remote Scottish Island.
It's slow film. Beautiful imagery, deadpan humour and moving.
It's like a poem read with long pauses between each stanza....
Not for those who like fast pace films.

It reminded me of Local Hero and the films of Elia Suleiman.

[Yazeh]

And finally it's almost impossible to convert a book into movie. In a novel, you have layers, upon layer, in movies you can't really have that much layer, unless you make a TV series and even there.

Having published several books and been recruited for a screenplay by a friend, I'll gently disagree.

A simple, straightforward novel with a time-burnished plot (poor boy makes good, wins girl) and stock characters, written in chronological order, can be made into a movie without much fuss.

A complex novel, with interior monologues, flashbacks, resonant symbolism, and literary devices, is necessarily hard to film, but can be a success, e.g. the adaptation of the novel by Günter Grass, The Tin Drum (1979).

Some filmmakers, e.g. Wim Wenders, seek out challenges and turn them into rewarding films. But along the way, there are quite a burnt-out wrecks.

You're absolutely right. Poor choice of words.
What I was trying to say is that it's difficult to reconcile what imagination provokes in the brain with an actual film. Simply because they are two different mediums and many nuances of one are lost in the other. For ex, Strange Interlude (1932), where you hear everyone's thoughts, it's excruciating to watch. Or the voice over, which producers absolutely hate.
Yes almost any book can be adapted, Unbearable Lightness of Being . But can it capture the spirt of the book? Often times, the story is changed for market reasons, think, The Young Lions, with a nice nazi, or for other reasons, Prayer for Owen Meany's adaption Simon Birch. And often times the ending is different, The Count of Monte Cristo 2002, African Queen so many more.
It is in the nature of the beast. Humans have adapted, changed stories thorough millennia. From the Flood myths to modern literature..... anything that can sell...

[jar]

And finally it's almost impossible to convert a book into movie. In a novel, you have layers, upon layer, in movies you can't really have that much layer, unless you make a TV series and even there.

Having published several books and been recruited for a screenplay by a friend, I'll gently disagree.

A simple, straightforward novel with a time-burnished plot (poor boy makes good, wins girl) and stock characters, written in chronological order, can be made into a movie without much fuss.

A complex novel, with interior monologues, flashbacks, resonant symbolism, and literary devices, is necessarily hard to film, but can be a success, e.g. the adaptation of the novel by Günter Grass, The Tin Drum (1979).

Some filmmakers, e.g. Wim Wenders, seek out challenges and turn them into rewarding films. But along the way, there are quite a burnt-out wrecks.

You're absolutely right. Poor choice of words.
What I was trying to say is that it's difficult to reconcile what imagination provokes in the brain with an actual film. Simply because they are two different mediums and many nuances of one are lost in the other. For ex, Strange Interlude (1932), where you hear everyone's thoughts, it's excruciating to watch. Or the voice over, which producers absolutely hate.
Yes almost any book can be adapted, Unbearable Lightness of Being . But can it capture the spirt of the book? Often times, the story is changed for market reasons, think, The Young Lions, with a nice nazi, or for other reasons, Prayer for Owen Meany's adaption Simon Birch. And often times the ending is different, The Count of Monte Cristo 2002, African Queen so many more.
It is in the nature of the beast. Humans have adapted, changed stories thorough millennia. From the Flood myths to modern literature..... anything that can sell...

But it still should not be so boring and annoying that it's impossible for me to watch the whole thing at one time.

I found the above true with ALL of the Star Wars movies, all of the Tolkein adaptations (I haven't been able to watch any of those completely through yet) and of all the attempts to riff off Frank Herbert.