Not trying to derail but did the film touch on the advanced warning conspiracy. Do you think there's any substance behind it? I find it very fascinating.

WTF

Martin Luther King is in I Am Curious (Yellow)

The Day Shall Come
New film by UK comedy legend Chris Morris, written by him and Jesse Armstrong (writer/creator of Peep Show and Succession, and writer for a ton of other things such as Veep and Black Mirror).

It's similar to Morris's last film, Four Lions, as it follows a group of inept Islamic fundamentalists. I'm a massive massive fan of Morris's work, so may be a bit biased, but I really liked it. I found the first half much funnier and then the humour petered off a bit, but overall very enjoyable.

Not really sure what you mean? They did briefly touch on intelligence having an idea about Pearl Harbor but nothing concrete and of course intelligence code braking was one of the keys to Midway.

Four Lions is terrific. I think four would-be Islamic terrorists singing along to "Dancing In The Moonlight" a highlight I'll long remember.

I Am Curious (Yellow) was probably quite daring and entertaining back in the day..but u less you know a lot of what was going on in 1967 Sweden, both politically and socially, you might not find it all that engaging.

Worth seeing for film buffs/students

it's not a run of the mill conspiracy theory, it's backed by some very prominent and influential people who were stakeholders in the government and military in wwii

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_...spiracy_theory

I think Midway is where they sent the false message as to the water supply being broken. Pearl Harbor is another ball of wax, but the conspiracy theories about it would feel right at home in 2019.

Right, the water supply message was how they confirmed that Midway was the target. And yeah I pay no attention to PH conspiracy theories.

Has anybody seen the rumored director's cut of Galaxy Quest?

Rewatched True Romance on my flight last week. Second half wanes a bit, up to the Sicilian scene it is just unbelievably strong, but it is still really great and fun to watch.

always felt people were so high or drunk by the time the plot tails off they don't remember it

Joker was pretty much what I expected, meaning it was the comic book version of gritty psychological drama. Everything, from the dialogue to the plot to the music to the cinematography, was too obvious, predictable and mainstream. There’s no room for audience interpretation, which ultimately meant that I felt like I was kept at a distance, keenly aware that I was watching a highly commercial product with indie pretensions.

The extension to this thought is that when **** comes along that is slightly different from the usual **** (like Joker), people think this mild variation on **** is amazing, because their benchmark is ****.

I thought more was up to audience interpretation in Joker than in pretty much any other movie I have ever seen; particularly as to how much, if any, of the film "really happened" and how much was the way things were seen by a demented mind.

I don't know why I had put off watching it for so long, but I just finished Ken Loach's Kes. What a beautiful film that occupies, for me, a place alongside Spirit of the Beehive, Forbidden Games, Whistle Down the Wind, Night of the Hunter, Ratcatcher, The Long Day Closes, and a few others as one of the great films about children and adolescents. It's on the Criterion Channel. See it.

Finally saw Joker. I realize hating it is a cottage industry at this point but I had a good time. Loved the soundtrack, especially the work towards the end.

Just grabbed two seats for this for my wife and I. Glad it's playing in town and that I had this thread to let me know it existed.

My favorite movie. Always like seeing people see it for the first time. Gets better with each watch too, imo

Just curious, did the recent episode of the podcast “This Movie Changed Me” trigger this viewing?

If not, you should check it out.

Anyway, I agree. Kes is a great film.

Yeah, it was basically like an old school 50's type of John Wayne WWII movie with high tech visual effects. I would have preferred a behind the action approach because there was so much going on in the planning and the plethora of mistakes and fog of war issues on both sides that made the battle so interesting to me personally. But I guess that is more suited to a ten part documentary rather than a big budget Hollywood action movie. They really left out a lot of the most interesting aspects. Just all of the issues that went into the first US bomber strike being so successful was pretty miraculous based on huge mistakes from both sides and that was never even addressed which is the most important story of the battle.

Your statement is laughable. Independent and foreign films are automatically thought of as good or even great films until proven otherwise. It is the mainstream films that everyone automatically assumes are junk and most wouldn't even attempt to see.

Just look around this thread. If someone says that they didn't like an "art" film they are usually told that they are basically an idiot who didn't really understand what was happening or what the director was trying to say. Art films rarely get put down in this thread or elsewhere. Certainly not by someone who hasn't at least seen it. But here, no one thinks twice about saying a mainstream movie is junk without even having watched it.

So, yeah, I think elitist is a good word for people who look down their collective noses at mainstream films. And I think that it is laughable that you believe that it's the norm for people to be able to criticize art films without being denigrated for doing so, but you poor film snobs (or elitists, if you prefer) can't criticize movies that you don't even bother to watch without being taken to task for your uninformed opinion.

Just look at some of the comments on this movie appreciation thread, starting with your own:

I’m not even sure what you’re arguing for. That everyone like all movies the same?

Things that are mass produced are made for the lowest common denominator and the quality is diluted as a result. This isn’t a new idea.

You can enjoy a slice at Pizza Hut and still have no idea what good pizza is. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But I don’t want to eat it.

You are confusing two things. Peoples appreciation for film (which is subjective) and their value as art (which is objective-ish). This confusion is the root of most arguments around movies. Really there is a third argument I raised as well.

I liked that movie

Great. That is awesome. As a film lover myself I am happy when people like film. Any film. You may like some films I hate, and visa versa. If anyone tells you that you are wrong for liking or disliking a movie, they are an idiot. Period.

That is a bad movie

Far too often this is conflated with the first one “I didn’t like that movie”. This conflation drives 90% of movie “debate” online. However, on this forum there are many sophisticated film buffs. When we say “that is a bad movie” we don’t mean we didn’t like it. Sometimes we don’t like, but sometimes we do. One of my favourite films, I posted itt last week, is In Her Shoes. I recognize it’s not high art. It’s predicable. Contains stereotypes. And Cameron Diaz over acts a fair amount. That doesn't mean I don’t love it deeply.

When we say “that is a bad movie” we mean objectively, as measured against the standards of the art form which have evolved since 1888 when the world first saw a running horse on film. There is objectively good writing and bad writing. Good cinematography and bad cinematography. Good costume and bad costume.

Now you may have caught my use of the term objective-ish. That is to acknowledge that there is debate among film critics as to how objective some of this is, in practice.

Marvel kills small films

The final thing I brought up in the post you quoted is absolutely objectively true. Fewer medium and small films are made now because of comic book movies. The world is literally being deprived of art, and artists voices are not heard, so we can all watch the 11th origin story of Spider-Man. This is a serious problem for the art form.

No. I didn't know about the podcast.

I can't imagine a single movie changing me, but I suppose it's a catchy name for a podcast.

DC2LV,

I hardly think my statement above smacks of elitism. I believe people can learn to love and appreciate great art in many forms, but they need exposure to great art. Clovis is correct. Fewer and fewer movies are made because money goes to trash like Aquaman. And the few minutes of it I saw on HBO confirmed, for me, it's a waste.

I don't comment on films I haven't see. Why the hell would I?