Dune (2021)

I don't think much of Villeneuve as a visualist, to be perfectly honest; a point for which he universally receives de facto praise.
I will be seeing the movie, though—to scratch that itch.

Maybe Villeneuve and Nolan are about the only allowed alternative to the MCU drivel when it comes to the blockbuster entertainment?

I feel I need to read Dune sequels now since someone told me Anakin was somewhat inspired by Paul Atreides (a subversive messiah). 

HBO Max is actually producing the Dune miniseries, sounds like TV is a better medium for the complex politics of the novels.

Say what one will about Villeneuve, but yes, I was blown a-fucking-way when I saw Arrival in the theatre in 2016, simply because I could not believe a movie like that got green-lighted at that point in time. It felt like a movie that would've came out in the mid-nineties or early-seventies something. It's just some random psychological piece for language and time nerds! I hadn't really consciously made note of him yet, but thought he must've done something right at some point to be allowed to do such an against-the-grain film for this era.
(I feel the same with Inception).

Funny you mention "Inception". A short discussion came up about that film at my new job just last night. Weird. Anyway, two of my colleagues said it was one of their favourite films and were gushing all about it, and I just let it happen. Must I bite my tongue forever?  Nolan just doesn't really do it for me, I'm afraid. And I've seen most of his movies -- some even in the cinema!



Begins is a tighter movie and more atmospheric, but TDK is arguably more experimental. But then again, as stated, I find Nolan's movies quite insipid, so I'm not one to really judge.


Well, "Contact" stems from a screenplay by Carl Sagan (later made into a novel and then finally a film), has Jodie Foster, the music of Alan Silvestri, the assured directorial touch of Bob Zemeckis, the now-collapsed Arecibo Observatory, a sappy but involving tone, that awesome opening shot, and Ellie's trippy wormhole journey. Oh, and James Woods.


But there are lots of connections between them and that page goes into detail. It's a really great website that looks at a variety of influences on Star Wars. It was one of my favourite early reads when I was getting into the saga and the Internet was still fresh out of the wrapper.

I wasn't a big fan of the original Bladerunner (thought the story was told better in the book). However, I do acknowledge the visuals were unique and memorable (and even had influence on Coruscant scenes in the prequels). Maybe I should rewatch that and then the sequel after all.

The original is one of my favourite films. The book is also very good. The film was maybe the first time in cinema history -- and maybe still the only time in cinema history -- that an exceptionally well-crafted and imagistic novel(la) was vigorously and gorgeously translated into an authentic, self-enclosed movie experience that also birthed a visual language and story genre unto themselves. The film manages to be low-key and remarkably vivid at the same time, and the whole thing is like a beautiful fever dream: some tangible other-world realised with breathless poeticism. The film became more than a film (like Star Wars) and turned into an iconic artistic statement full of atmosphere and wonderfully melancholic reflections on mortality, urban squalor, and humanity's phase-transition state of existence at the end of several thousand years of technological and cultural evolution. Beyond that, it's simply cool to look at and to listen to, because it feels entirely its own thing. "Blade Runner" is a big, beautiful, one-off undertaking with no equal in cinema. Even the idea of a sequel is slightly offensive to me.



Yup. Pyro posted a nice clip. It's just... I dunno... There was a special alchemy to the original film that the new guy obviously doesn't duplicate. Also: Is there a hero/antihero as compelling as Rutger Hauer's awesomely menacing, cunning, and complicated Roy Batty? It was the casting choice of a lifetime -- and that monologue in the rain is unbeatable.


I like the sprawling quality of TDKR. But as usual, it's Nolan, and I have problems. The performers are on-point (as ever), and I like the no-mercy scale of it, and I won't harp on most of the complaints the film generated (in contrast to the way BB and TDK were lionised from the moment the exhibition prints were struck). Butttttt...

It's a little hard to take the kitschy, overblown finale seriously (to give but one example of Nolan scraping the barrel and simply being a more pretentious version of Michael Bay). I mean, those missiles that chase Batman's batcopter (!!) thing: they seem to go on forever and they move ssooooooo slllllowwwwwwly... Then there's Marion Cotillard's notorious death sequence, and Baleman threatening Bane: "Where's the trigggger???!!!!!!" (Although I do kinda like Catwoman's line). Finally, the silly bomb detonation at the end. Way to downplay the insanity of nuclear weapons. And that's Nolan's filmmaking in a nutshell. Indeed, as Armond White observed in his TDK review: "Though the film's violence is hard, loud and constant, it is never realistic."

I remember watching "Batman Begins" at the cinema and mentally checking out when Batman took his fugly humvee for a joyride over Gotham's rooftops. The awful editing, the extremely terrible puns by the police, and the loud, pummelling score were all turnoffs. The cherry on the top is when Alfred, the "conscience" of the film (Michael Caine -- God help us), berates Bruce and tells him "It's a miracle no-one was killed". You can say that again, chump. Oh, and how do you know that, exactly? The callous joyride just happened. People can be rushed to hospital in a critical condition and later die of their injuries. Does senile Alfred realise that? Or what about serious injuries like people being blinded by shrapnel or a kid on the street below losing a leg? Just absolute bullshit written in as a Band-Aid to try and justify obnoxious ultraviolence. Proving Armond White's point.

And all this gushing, when it wasn't at all the "done" thing to raise a word of complaint against Nolan's filmmaking (witness the insane abuse directed at Armond White for daring to do so -- mob taunts be damned), while Lucas was being endlessly trashed for the prequels and an innocent character like Jar Jar repeatedly demeaned as a "racist stereotype" (never mind the one black character cameoing as a technical-minded butler helping the white and wealthy Bruce Wayne in his extra-legal activities, or the arrogant and extremely cliched "No one takes the law into their hands in my city" black police chief, destined to be replaced by the very white Gary Oldman). Freakin' BS. Yeah... I don't much care for Nolan's output or the mindless approbation he used to receive.

I work a minimum wage job and live in an ivory tower. Yeah, okay.

We prequel fans are contrarians. We like what's been proven "objectively bad" by the Internet critics... and vice versa.

Hmm, yah -- good point. I do tend to rally to underdogs a little bit and I dislike hype machines. Beauty is often to be found in the small and the overlooked or undervalued.

Now that the prequels are getting more popular (well, less bashed than they used to be, at least), I'm losing interest. Or some of the shine is gone. Paradoxically, the prequels are the films most deserving to be turned into an institution (or an ivory tower), but the least fit for it.

On the other hand, there are some films held to be classics, or spoken of very warmly by some online contingents, and I happen to also like those films a great deal. Maybe not a great many, but certainly a few. And maybe the odd TV show or book or two. 

But I've definitely put more energy behind promoting/defending (or, ugh, "apologising") for a few things that many other people look down upon or have a neglectful, boorish attitude toward. It's fun and feels like the "right" thing to do. And of those few things I really love, I may lose enthusiasm sometimes, but I always rediscover it again.