Last Movie Watched

[CTV]

I'm not going to attempt to convince you otherwise - how you feel is how you feel. But I definitely don't agree with this logic. You can't criticize a costume because there's no dialogue? You have to admit that's a very particular way to look at things.

I guess I should also point out that this is the only time I've talked publicly about Odyssey thus far - just because it happened to come up. I'm not raging online about how much I hate the movie or anything. But if asked how I feel about what we've seen of the costuming, I'm more than willing to say it looks like shit. Because it does. The costuming (and historicity) of King & Conqueror is trash, but I actually kind of like that show. So, the costuming is not the sum total. It's just a part, and I think you can dislike a part of something without hating the whole thing (AND without seeing/experiencing the whole thing).

I've basically liked every Greek mythology movie ever made, because I'm a huge mark. I expect to like this movie as well. I just doubt I'll ever have anything but strong dislike for the costumes (which is true of pretty much all ancient-themed movies, if I'm being honest).

That's fair. There's a big difference between "From what I've seen, I don't like the costume design" and "I don't like the costumes THEREFORE THE MOVIE SUCKS! TRUST ME GUYS."

 

[SDcomics]

I am so looking forward to The Odyssey. A brilliant writer/director at the top of his game, an amazing cast, an epic scope. I get Laurence of Arabia and Gladiator vibes. Can't wait for this one.

 

[AceofKnaves]

I’m still mad at Troy for “grounding” The Iliad out of its mythological wonder.

I’m honestly mostly just concerned that Nolan gets the story right. The Odyssey is *important* to me. I was a Greek mythology nerd before I ever even knew what a comic book was. I just want to love this movie.

 

[Damien]

That's fair. There's a big difference between "From what I've seen, I don't like the costume design" and "I don't like the costumes THEREFORE THE MOVIE SUCKS! TRUST ME GUYS."

1000%
I'm with you in getting the 'ick' from people that see a trailer or a poster (or a leaked photo) and just decide the entire project is DEFINITELY garbage and we should all sandbag the production by shouting it down every chance we get. That's childish. But as a big history nerd, I will absolutely get into material culture discussions based on half of a photo, taken at night, from a mile away. Because I'm a nerd for that stuff and I'm predisposed to have strong opinions about that.

I am so looking forward to The Odyssey. A brilliant writer/director at the top of his game, an amazing cast, an epic scope. I get Laurence of Arabia and Gladiator vibes. Can't wait for this one.

Sometimes I think I'm the only person that isn't particularly keen on Gladiator.
But yeah, I agree about Odyssey. There's a LOT to love about the potential this film has. I think that's why I am maybe more understanding of the other history nerds out there that saw this as their chance to get a movie for them, only to be massively disappointed by the very first picture that leaks. It does hurt a little.

I’m still mad at Troy for “grounding” The Iliad out of its mythological wonder.

I agree and don't. Like, I WANT an Iliad movie based entirely on the poem something fierce. But there's also something interesting about trying to do the Iliad purely as 'fantasy history' rather than 'pure fantasy.' And, despite myself, I did think the movie was a lot of fun. One of the best fight scenes in any ancient/medieval movie as well.

I’m honestly mostly just concerned that Nolan gets the story right. The Odyssey is *important* to me. I was a Greek mythology nerd before I ever even knew what a comic book was. I just want to love this movie.

Right there with you, brother.

 

[Red Ogre]

If I'm watching, reading, or listening for the sake of learning I want 100% accuracy. If I'm watching, reading, or listening for entertainment I'm down for a lot of liberties being taken.
That's just me. My hangups are in another room.

 

[JakeEkiss]

I've basically liked every Greek mythology movie ever made, because I'm a huge mark. I expect to like this movie as well. I just doubt I'll ever have anything but strong dislike for the costumes (which is true of pretty much all ancient-themed movies, if I'm being honest).

I'd not looked at anything about the movie until just now, and beyond the ahistorical-ness of the costumes, which I could be convinced either way on if I thought the design was cool, I think what I'm looking at just looks really dull. Not interesting enough to justify not being accurate, not accurate enough to justify not being interesting (not that accurate is by default uninteresting, but at least it'd be an excuse). Also brown... feels very brown.

Sometimes I think I'm the only person that isn't particularly keen on Gladiator.

It's one of the fine-est (as opposed to finest) movies I've seen. It does the things, but I'm not especially wowed by it. Like, I wouldn't turn it off, but I've never sought it out to watch it a second time. I did like the costuming in Gladiator for the most part, though, for what that's worth.

Come to think of it I don't know that I've seen a movie set in that period I've really vibed with. Closest might be the OG Clash of the Titans, but that one mainly skates on audacity and looks for it's time, I don't think it really holds up well as a cohesive film. Weirdly I think the period pieces that have locked me in most are Napoleonic. The Duelist and Master and Commander come to mind.

 

[Damien]

If I'm watching, reading, or listening for the sake of learning I want 100% accuracy. If I'm watching, reading, or listening for entertainment I'm down for a lot of liberties being taken.

I have no problem with liberties. Really, I don't have any problem with something being totally ahistoric. The problem is more when people can't recognize what's what and people start taking the movie they saw as if the things in it are accurate depictions of events or the period. That infuriates me. It also more generally bothers me when I just think the REAL material culture is better/cooler, and shows/movies refuse to USE it. Like the Vikings show that looks like ABSOLUTE shit when real history has some incredible potential for costuming and weapons.

It's one of the fine-est (as opposed to finest) movies I've seen. It does the things, but I'm not especially wowed by it. Like, I wouldn't turn it off, but I've never sought it out to watch it a second time. I did like the costuming in Gladiator for the most part, though, for what that's worth.

This is pretty much how I feel about it. Like.. it's a popcorn flick that does popcorn flick stuff. I'm a huge fan of Classical/Ancient Greece and the fullness of the medieval period (from late migration to Renaissance), but I actually don't know a TON about Rome. I probably couldn't tell you if the costuming is actually good or not on the macro. I can pick out a few dummy dumb dumb things, but by and large? I dunno. Looks okay. I just don't care because it's not a period I'm interested in.
If it looked like it did and had an entirely different story, I'd probably be more into it.
And maybe a different actor. Russel Crowe does nothing for me.

Come to think of it I don't know that I've seen a movie set in that period I've really vibed with. Closest might be the OG Clash of the Titans, but that one mainly skates on audacity and looks for it's time, I don't think it really holds up well as a cohesive film. Weirdly I think the period pieces that have locked me in most are Napoleonic. The Duelist and Master and Commander come to mind.

The Duelist (the Russian film) or The Duellists (debut of Ridley Scott)? The latter is one of the best historical films ever made, but I can't disagree with the many people that find it boring and meandering.

My favorite historical film is Kingdom of Heaven - the Director's Cut. It's set in probably my favorite specific time period (12th century Europe) and it has GREAT looking mail hauberks and chausses on loads of the characters. Terrific costuming and set design overall. Great dialogue. It really is a fantastic film. I just wish they'd decided to carry the relative historical accuracy to the swords. Balian's sword is of a type that wouldn't be on battlefields for another 50-60 years. Longswords were just not a thing at the time. But Hollywood loves them as 'hero' swords. And the 'Saracens' at this time would have been using single-hand straight swords very similar to the crusaders, rather than the curved sabers/kilij/whatever Hollywood likes to always give Eastern 'foreigners.'

I can nitpick the shit out of it, and do. But it's a great film and I love it to death.

Also brown... feels very brown.

Above all the material culture stuff I spout on about, if I could put an end to one thing in historical (especially medieval) films, it would be the practice of making everything fucking brown and then throwing a grey filter on the entire movie. Get fucked with that. And despite how many people loudly complain about it, because it's terrible, filmmakers just keep doing it. The Last Duel is one of the ugliest fucking movies I've ever seen, for that exact reason.

 

[JakeEkiss]

The Duellists (debut of Ridley Scott)?

This one. It had been on my to watch list until earlier this year and I finally got to it. I'd heard it was one of the best depictions of sword fighting (from other fencing folks I know) and so I'd sort of pledged to watch it at some point. Turns out I also liked the narrative of it. Some really beautiful cinematography too. That shot in the last duel where one of them passes in the foreground in the forest while the other is stalking through the ruins in the background is just magnificent. Poetry on the screen.

Back before Ridley had all his artsy quirks beaten out of him. He still makes competent films, but his early stuff has more of his soul in it.

The Last Duel is one of the ugliest fucking movies I've ever seen, for that exact reason.

It was extremely grey as I recall, and I remember noticing that it shouldn't have been considering it was really clear the actual costumes had color in them and the grading just deleted all of it.

I was also annoyed at the movie's plot for being up its own ass. Ridley's trying to make a point about how we treat women and don't listen to them or their stories, and while he does that little trick with the chapter break to let you know how he feels, I cannot help but notice the shortest version of events we get... by a wide margin... is hers.

Like, bro, there's what you think you are saying and what you are in fact saying.

And maybe a different actor. Russel Crowe does nothing for me.

There's at least 3 movies I really *really* like him in. Outside of those I'm meh on the guy.

My favorite historical film is Kingdom of Heaven - the Director's Cut.

I've only seen the theatrical and I've thought about giving it another swing at some point. Maybe I'll do the DC version when I do. I liked it well enough at the time, but it didn't go on my instant classic list. Maybe I'll get to it again soon.

 

[Damien]

Back before Ridley had all his artsy quirks beaten out of him. He still makes competent films, but his early stuff has more of his soul in it.

Agree about The Duellists, and agree about this. I think you still see sparks of it in his films, but you can also see he's trying to follow some type of formula now, and he's also letting 'this is what the industry does' get in the way of actually making a movie. Like, as discussed, the goddamn grey filter over everything. OLD Ridley would never have done that.

I was also annoyed at the movie's plot for being up its own ass. Ridley's trying to make a point about how we treat women and don't listen to them or their stories, and while he does that little trick with the chapter break to let you know how he feels, I cannot help but notice the shortest version of events we get... by a wide margin... is hers.

Like, bro, there's what you think you are saying and what you are in fact saying.

And their excuse was how difficult it was to find a female voice in the medieval period and make it authentic. Just a bunch of fuckin' dudes that didn't bother to take note of how many accounts FROM women we have in the medieval period. They actually wrote a lot. My favorites are the nuns that were obviously fucking and writing cute little love notes to each other.

It was extremely grey as I recall, and I remember noticing that it shouldn't have been considering it was really clear the actual costumes had color in them and the grading just deleted all of it.

I can't remember where, as this was back when the movie was fairly fresh off the vine, but someone posted a bunch of stills from the movie either re-colored or with the grey filter scaled way way back, and man.... goddamn it.. that movie could have looked beautiful if they'd just LEFT IT ALONE.

I've only seen the theatrical and I've thought about giving it another swing at some point. Maybe I'll do the DC version when I do. I liked it well enough at the time, but it didn't go on my instant classic list. Maybe I'll get to it again soon.

It's like an hour longer than the theatrical cut and it adds so much context and full on extra subplots that help move and explain character motivations. I loved the look of the theatrical cut, but generally was pretty disappointed in the movie itself. The DC, as I said, is probably my favorite historical film of all time.

 

[JakeEkiss]

you can also see he's trying to follow some type of formula now, and he's also letting 'this is what the industry does' get in the way of actually making a movie.

Oh yeah. He realized after Legend and Blade Runner landed him in director jail that he had to start playing ball or he'd never get out. So now he makes movies as a commodity first. On time, on budget, fewer risks. He's still got all the craft, but it feels less and less like there's any of his passions in there. I think his brother passing probably had some effects too. It's a bummer. I think the last one of his I had fun with was The Martian, but I think that could have been made by someone else and been about as good. He hasn't made a film only Ridley could have made since the 80's.

Just a bunch of fuckin' dudes that didn't bother to take note of how many accounts FROM women we have in the medieval period.

100%

 

[joshsquash729]

My comments about the armor were, admittedly, a bit purposely flippant. History was one of the only subjects in school I really gave a heck about, and you best believe my ADHD ass was daydreaming up the frickin' coolest scenarios, regardless of how goofy looking some of that armor looked. Did some of them look like walking barrels? Yeah, but that did nothing to negate the cool factor for me; especially considering the era and what resources they had, it was pretty ingenious for the time. And my teacher would often stress that, yeah, some of the armor may look a bit goofy by today's standards, but those were often the soldiers that, you know, lived, so who really had the last laugh? At the same time, did I think up scenarios or tie them in with real-world in-jokes or references that only my dumb ass could think up? Absolutely, which undoubtedly played into me thinking any one design was "silly". Fact of the matter is, any one of those dudes could make mince meat of my ass on their worst day and my best. Personally, I love when old historical movies come out because it gives me an excuse to reconnect with my inner history nerd and envelop myself in other cultures for a bit; I can't even begin to tell you how much of an impact old Greek and Roman mythology has had on my creative life- they've inspired so much of my writing.

My biggest amusement with "historical inaccuracies" often comes from the hyper-masculinization of things and the downplaying of women to housewives or temptresses. Were soldiers back in X time period super masculine and terrifying? Of course, undoubtedly. But like Damien said- oftentimes they were also kinda notoriously big softies very in tune with their emotions, and a lot of times were hella gay, but that's something you won't see portrayed (or if you do, it's played or laughs or to telegraph to the audience that said character is villainous). In places like ancient Sparta, women often held just as much power, if not moreso, than men to some degree. A lot of societies back then would be considered "woke" by some folks today, and you know that if those places were ever portrayed accurately in a movie we'd never hear the end of it with some folks. As much as I enjoy stories like 300, I do have to wonder how much damage it's done by contributing to the toxic hyper-masculinity craze. That's part of why I'm excited for the Odyssey; I have no doubt we'll see plenty of buff dudes bein' cool, but I have faith in Nolan to at least accurately portray women as capable and well-rounded.

 

[joshsquash729]

Bit of a detour but also not - I saw Wicked: For Good and have many thoughts but seeing it while also reading this thread the last couple of days connected something.

Wicked's first act is some of the greatest storytelling there is. Act Two has always been a mess. Timelines, character motivations, character endings - ugh.

I *really* had hope the second act getting to stand-alone would give them the opportunity to finesse, add and make it make sense. It does not. In fact, it kinda does the opposite - more time, less depth. Once Act Three of this movie kicks in, it's all characters being yanked to pre-existing character beats that make NO SENSE for these characters as already established in this story.

So the ending of Wicked is a lot like the ending of Game of Thrones. The plot is there but the storytelling is missing, in favor of a quick shove-it-all-in mentality that disservices the characters we've come to love (not to mention the audience).

This connection helped me process my feelings on the new movie. I was so excited for these storytellers to fix it and I'm so disappointed they didn't.

Replying to this in the movie thread, but I agree with a lot of the points you make, Schizm. (classic joshsquash overly long post incoming)

The Oz franchise in general is one of great importance to my family for a variety of reasons, so I've always had my qualms with Wicked, as much as I do generally enjoy it. Saw Wicked: For Good yesterday, and I was really hoping they'd take some of the time and effort they gave to part 1 to flesh things out and let them breathe a bit more and apply it to part 2 as well, but alas, they didn't, at least not where I was hoping. I know it's Elphaba and Glinda's story, but man do some of the side characters need fleshing out.

Spoiler

Nessa and Boq have, in my opinion, always suffered from being terribly thin characters, and Nessa especially could benefit from some fleshing out, doubly so because the story itself is so female-empowerment heavy. But she gets maaaaybe barely more to do here, but it's still sped through to an unfortunate degree. Even one or two more scenes could've greatly helped; I've never really bought that Elphaba was so protective of her in their youth and then suddenly just stopped once she was on the run. We see she has no issue getting around; the fact she wasn't checking in on her, at least to make sure she's safe, feels a little.... odd. Not to mention just how quickly her death is glossed over. I get that the sisters were estranged, but not a single tear is shed for her, and then they immediately launch into a little girl fight that's mostly played for laughs. Same with Boq's transformation into the Tin Man- I surmised that Elphaba made him that way because it was the only way to get him to live without a heart, but the fact she never explains it feels so weird. Especially how they play it in the movie, where she kicks Nessa out, transforms Boq, then kinda awkwardly shuffles out the door and leaves her to deal with the mess. It felt a lot like in a sci-fi comedy, when a character accidentally unleashes a big monster from a lab and tries to calmly sneak out without raising suspicions. And, like, Boq was still lucid when Nessa was doing the spell, so he knew that she was the reason that he became like that; yeah, Elphaba turned him into tin, but, like, Nessa was the reason for it in the first place. And then for Nessa to just be wheeling herself around in the middle of a tornado calling for the boy she's pining after felt oddly... regressive for the message of the piece. Especially when they've talked so much about being mindful of the message they're sending to disabled folks with Nessa flying vs. walking- why not flesh out the disabled character a bit more?

And yeah, the tie-ins to WoO, while fun, end up raising more questions than they answer. I get why they didn't want to show Dorothy's face, but it ended up being way too distracting. I've never been particularly in love with the idea of making Boq and Fiyero into the Tin Man and Scarecrow, because it really conflicts with the events of Oz. I know it's kinda sorta an alternate take on things, but also sorta kinda not? I was hoping that was something they'd clear up in the film too- what is and isn't canon with the events of Oz, but nah.

The two new songs also didn't wow me, I'm afraid. I was hoping they'd take the time to write at least one other faster paced song, rather than adding 2 more ballads into an already very ballad-heavy second half. All the focus is on For Good, obviously, but to me the stand out was No Good Deed, because we finally get some forward momentum. And as much as I love Michelle Yeoh in general, she was just really the wrong choice for the role. Not only vocally, but I think she just plays things way too dry and droll. Morrible has the potential to be a really fun, boisterous villain along the lines of Ursula if you really play it right, and I know it's not exactly a surprise when she has her heel turn at the end of act 1, but this was one of those "so clearly evil from the very beginning and never presenting as anything else" things. I don't necessarily think Goldblum was the right choice for the Wizard either, but at least he had fun with it, and you can easily see how someone would fall for the charm of a guy like him. This Morrible just doesn't have a bright bone in her body, which feels a little off when compared to the bright, carefree people of Oz. I don't buy that they'd follow along with her, personally.

Don't get me wrong- it's a totally competently made film. Not bad, per se, but definitely the second (and weaker) half of a two part story. Act 1/Part 1 can stand on its own, and, I'd argue, serve as a good enough prologue to WoO without part 2, but the same cannot be said for part 2. There's no way to follow along without part 1, and even then, things are breezed by with such speed that it's confusing more often than not. I was by no means miserable, and Cynthia and Ariana definitely gave it their all, but it definitely felt like a lot of missed opportunities

 

[AceofKnaves]

Agreed about the Morrible casting.

That said: I cannot stress how much I despise the character Ursula, and (big hot take!!) The Little Mermaid in general. I mean it’s pretty and has a couple really good songs, but it’s easily my least-favorite Disney Renaissance film by a wide, WIDE margin. And Ursula is the worst part, not the least because if you are going to base a character off of a famous drag queen, AT LEAST HIRE A DRAG QUEEN TO VOICE HER. As is, she’s every negative “evil female” stereotype rolled up in an unappealing package. Bleh. I love Disney villains, but I’d rather be stuck watching a Madame Medusa live-action origin story than ever have to deal with Ursula again.

 

[fac]

No Good Deed is great and wakes things back up in the show, which is greatly needed, as it meanders a bit at the start of Act 2.

I was hoping that maybe the slow start wouldn't be as noticeable, because I think in the stage version the audience is still hyped after Defying Gravity even after the intermission, and it kind of meanders.

Thanks for the review, I was planning to wait for this to hit streaming as I just wasn't that impressed with Part 1.

 

[Schizm]

Ursula's vocal performance is one of the best animated character voices ever. Maybe I'm biased for when it hit me as a youngster, but I really dislike anything with tentacles and never had a problem with Ursula because she's so good.

Spoiler

This Morrible just doesn't have a bright bone in her body, which feels a little off when compared to the bright, carefree people of Oz. I don't buy that they'd follow along with her, personally.

Spoiler: More Wicked Talk

This is a great way to phrase what's off about that performance. She's regal, above-it-all and zero fun from the very start - so she has nowhere to go. Granted, she's evil but playing it EVIL. Michelle's presence is great, and a few of her line readings give me chills (the "Wicked... witch..." in Defying Gravity is a choice I really like).

But she's another ill-motivated character - why does she hate Animals? Her relationship with the Wizard is ill-defined. He's not her stooge, but are they equal partners? Did his balloon land on her house? I know the first movie glammed-up her role from just plain Headmistress of Shiz to a visiting professor, so the leap to Press Secretary (I wish they had gotten a different read of her saying "secretary" - her accent swallows it and I've always liked that line) makes more sense, but then comes in and shames the Wizard - like he's not allowed to come out and play without her say so. Like, how often do the human guards see his human face? They didn't seem surprised but shouldn't they have been?

Also, I would have liked to see one of the bigger Animals he had in captivity pounce on him like it was going to eat him and then not do it - to prove him wrong. He also could have locked himself in one of the cages.

Side-note - I think it was like this in the play, but the green bottle being under Elphaba's hat is such a weird thing when Chistery could literally bring it with him eight seconds later - like HE'S choosing to clue Miss Glinda in. And giving her the final push she needs to take down the Wizard.

New songs: now that I've seen the movie twice and listened to the soundtrack, they are growing on me - but I would have preferred something more upbeat, as well. Making Elphaba responsible for "there's no place like home" as a slogan for her movement is a great way to wrap the whole story up and together when Glinda uses it later, not knowing where it started - but that went nowhere. And "Bubble" and "pop" just aren't fun words to sing, especially that slowly.

Final thought for now: it drives me nuts that Glinda is wearing the same purple gown for "Thank Goodness" and then the entire finale. This girl does not re-wear outfits - why is this gown in two distinct sequences on different days? The crown seems a bit much that early in the story anyway. This feels like a massive continuity error and I can't figure out what they were thinking using this look twice. Also, there's an entire outfit from the trailer/posters not even glimpsed in the final film.