Saw Apocalypse Now: Final Cut in a theater the other day and that movie really deserves a big screen and sound system (with lack of distractions) if anything does.
I might finally comprehend why people rave about this movie (Platoon, Full Metal Jacket and Deer Hunter made more memorable first impressions) but I guess growing older (or hearing plenty more lies) and playing Spec Ops: The Line also helped.
I think this got a small theatrical release, and it’s also now viewable on Netflix:
The Two Popes attempts to use two fictional meeting between two real people–Josef Ratzinger (AKA, Pope Benedict XVI) and Jorge Bergoglio (AKA, Pope Francis I)–to explore a particular moment in the Catholic Church’s history. It features two venerable actors in the two roles: Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce, both obviously well-cast. And overall, it manages to make what could be a story of very niche interests into something with energy and appeal.
Of course it delves into the two men’s differing views on doctrine and reform, and also some of their personal struggles. Ratzinger is plagued by the politics swirling around him in the Roman curia; Bergoglio is haunted by his long clerical involvement in Argentina’s period of juntas and civil war.
Most biopics that get made could benefit from being as tightly framed as this. It doesn’t strive to be as momentous as some historically based films do, to its credit; it is happy being fairly modest in scope and import. The performances are good, although Pryce gets to outdo Hopkins due to the broader range of his arc, and the fact that he’s the point-of-view character for the film.
We end up seeing how these men with very different perspectives can end up becoming friends and supporters of each other (as they have in Benedict’s resignation and Francis’ ascendance). It’s unfortunate that the script feels obligated to draw deep contrasts between their personalities because it ends up giving Ratzinger short shrift, and painting him as merely a hard-liner or stick-in-the-mud, and even a political opportunist. (The movie makes a point of subtextually praising Francis for being the sort of person that has no ambition of being pope, when that describes Ratzinger at least as well.) In reality, as I understand it, Ratzinger is very modest and extremely scholarly. When we learn about both cardinals’ hobbies, the film presents Ratzinger’s as stuffy and myopic when it doesn’t have to. A more nuanced Ratzinger would have made the story of the two men’s meeting much richer.
My last note would be about the music, which was done by The National’s Bryce Dessner. I really like his work overall, and have heard a lot of good instrumental pieces by him. And much of this film is scored well. But a couple of scenes have absolutely jarring score pieces, particularly when a jaunty jazz piece accompanies them during a discussion in the Sistine Chapel. Weird choices, and not in an interesting way.
Despite being disappointed in the cliche and somewhat unfair portrayal of Josef Ratzinger in much of the film, I’d recommend this to anyone who might be interested in these two figures. Or anyone who just likes watching Jonathan Pryce act.
Ok, just as a heads up to the thread police: I’m going to cheat a bit here and ignore the first word of the thread title - if that gets your hackles up, please just skip this comment!
With that caveat out of the way, I tried to watch Hallmark’s Christmas in Rome, which has a 6,9 rating on IMDB. If you’re asking why would I do that to myself? Well, the week before christmas I actually went to Rome for some sightseeing and thought it might be amusing to see an easy-viewing movie set at the same time & place.
Its even got the original Django himself, Franco Nero in a supporting role and Lacey Chabert (who I remember as the little girl from Party of Five) as the love interest, so I thought ‘what the hell, why not. Can’t be that bad’. Since I’ve never watched these hallmark movie of the week things, I didn’t quite know what awaited me.
The production values were terrible: like the tiny obviously empty suitcase that gets dragged along for miles, or the empty coffee cups that get waved about. These are basic easily corrected things that don’t even cost any money to fix.
They obviously saved up every every cent they could in order to include some really crappy “visual effects” in order to place christmas decor into every scene when it was obviously not there in reality. I can’t even call this CGI, more like terrible matte paintings? Not aligned with the actual image, completely wrong lighting / colours - just sorta fudged into the image.
The fact that they teleport all around the city without any reason is pretty standard for most movies, so I’ll give it a pass on that. Also the fact that we don’t see any “traders” or scam artists anywhere is not surprising in this type of movie, so that gets a pass too.
The acting is very wooden and by the numbers, though I suspect thats normal for this genre and the target audience just wants some pretty people and background to look at and isn’t bothered by that.
Even though I was expecting schmalz, this was SOOO crappy and hammy I ultimately couldn’t stand it and quit. So my vague curiosity of seeing a movie of christmas in Rome, after having just experience that, it wasn’t enough to help my through this.
So this experience just confirmed the trope that Hallmark movies are terrible and confirm the scorn heaped upon them. Perhaps one day they will manage to produce something that rises above the crap and gives us a gem. Just like the terrible Syfy productions managed to gift us the brilliant Expanse!
Right, now lets return to our regular programming… Sorry for the short diversion, but I just needed to get that off my chest!
My wife loves the stupid things. I’ve seen them described as follows, accurately.
300 films, 15 different actors, 1 plot.
I can’t stand the wretched things
Yep, scanning their movie lists, that seems to be pretty accurate!
BTW I didn’t even mention the fact that the main character is tour guide and her tour group all wear red trucker caps that share a certain similarity to an American presidents merchandise. …coincidence?
If you think those are bad just wait until you hit the Christian Christmas releases, and some of those terrible things actually make it to theater. And no, they are not the same movies as the Hallmark ones even though Hallmark will mention religion.
My sister from afar watches them. I don’t actually loathe the movies but the help the city girl find her country roots which of course leads to romance from a down to earth got his priorities straight man can be be grating.
These are the kind of things you watch when you can’t breathe, hot fluid down the throat at least makes it stop hurting for a few minutes, and you’re mind is too cloudy to even follow a Marvel like plot.
There’s perhaps an interesting question about supermarket pulp of the Hallmark kind and the current market for women’s lit, though i’m not really the one to make it.
No. Don’t mix romance novels with the lets spend 90 minutes working up to a chaste kiss in the country Hallmark stuff. I mean even breaking the bed Twilight has more oomph than that.
Hahahah, Nesrie this is fantastic. I need your commentary playing in my head when the GF watches stuff like this.
FWIW, Netflix has a rising number of these, disguised as other fare.
Haha.
Amazon some too, more Christian leaning last I checked, and of course Hulu as well. And every once in awhile we get one in the theater disguised as rom com with enough of a budget to hire some leads to get butts in the seats.
Makes me wonder if they are just buying off on it for content or if someone sold them on a ton of, “movies,” for cheap or what. Seriously, about a half dozen times within the last half year we’ve sat down to watch something my GF picked out and we get 1/4 through it and can tell it’s Lifetime/Hallmark kind of fare.
Amazon does a ton of the latter as far as I can tell. So many no budget horror or “drama” films, 50s/60s cheesecake/exploitation stuff, colourised versions of old movies, etc. Very much the same pool of content that MST3K would dip into, but usually not as fun.
That wouldn’t surprise me. There is a ton of that on there. It’s probably the suggested choices/content that is throwing them at us when browsing that is the issue.
Maybe after she watched a couple we’re now flagged as cheesy rom-com lovers. shudder
Well there are worse offerings out there for sure. But yeah these are cheaply made, so I too assume acquiring these in mass isn’t too expensive.
Formula movies like the Hallmark stuff are these things people put on when they want a portion of their mind occupied but not all of it. It’s like when you’re driving and part of your mind is minding the wheel and the rest is busy thinking about something else.
You watch a Hallmark movie and you can do a crossword, knit, play a mobile game, read a magazine or a book, cuddle and chat with a loved one, etc. You can easily divide your attention, and that’s attractive. Put on a more engaging show and you have to devote more time to it.
We all know people (and may be them) that want the TV on in the background like a trusted friend.
So, anybody going to see Underwater this weekend?
Heck no. I enjoyed the trailer, which played before Ford vs Ferrari, but I feel like I’ve already seen the movie. To watch the movie again this soon seems like overkill. Maybe in a year or two, when I’ve hopefully forgotten the trailer.
Wow, I need to see this trailer.
This explains why you are asking about it. Clearly you don’t know Kristen Stewart is involved.
I don’t really know anything about it except what I’ve seen in a very short trailer I keep seeing on TV. Looks like Alien in the ocean, which might be fun.