RugbyRebels

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 10:41 pm Sinners - this is a blast, if your in the mood something a bit ott throw it on

I'm still here - the Brazilian Oscar film, it's excellent. In a it's probably the Guardians favourite film of all time

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 10:23 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 4:08 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 12:17 am Finally saw Triangle of Sadness and it was excellent. My expectations weren’t that high despite loving Osterlund’s other work, but I feel like a lot of the criticism I’d heard before had rather missed the point.

The ending was oddly abrupt but I thought this was fucking great overall. It does a good job of recognising how ridiculous and shallow many of these multi-million dollar ‘eat the rich’ movies are, whilst still getting a good few jabs in.

I also watched the Menu. Great director, super slick production, amazing star-studded cast, some great lines and some great performances. Awful, awful film. Absolutely fucking hated it. I had suspected this would be the case based on the trailer, but the pleasant surprise of triangle of sadness made me reconsider. The paper-thin “satire” in this is painful.

I appreciate many could watch those two films and probably reverse the viewpoints, or dismiss both completely, but the Menu felt so shallow in comparison. Even the way it posited you can just view it as a cheeseburger, not be taken too seriously, actually seemed pretty wanky.

I enjoyed them both but preferred The Menu.

Perhaps the difference for me is that while Triangle of Sadness is obviously a satire (but a flawed one) I see The Menu as a comedy-horror and so am not concerned that its satirical elements are unremarkable. For me Triangle of Sadness fell short of its potential but The Menu (aiming for different targets) nailed it.

► Show Spoiler

IMO perhaps the only real failing in The Menu was the judgement on Hoult's character. Shallow and obsessive as he is, he was never claiming to be a chef himself so it seems unfair to be angry at him for being a bad one. Better to have exposed (say) his inability to distinguish between good and bad food, or to reveal that all of his servings were made with putrid/poisonous ingredients.

The praise for the 'honest' cheeseburger was sightly irritating but that's just me being a vegetarian .

Fair enough. I appreciate your explanation. I don't want to bang on any further about the things I disliked (agreed on Hoult's character) in it, but I accept that expectations (and over-analysing intent and subtext) of a film probably makes a huge difference. I probably ruin a lot of films for myself in that way.

I found TOS to be far, far funnier. Meta/self-aware humour is generally pretty fucking cringe but I thought it got the balance right between that, the absurd and the poignant.

► Show Spoiler

the judgement of Tyler (Hoult's character), but when discussing it with my wife, she pointed out that the chef has invited all of the people specifically as avatars of the things that have ruined his passion and crushed his spirit, and that Tyler isn't being punished because he thinks he's a chef, but because he is the epitome of a fanboy obsessed with being the best fanboy.

He is the starfucker who feeds the cult of personality, that deifies the pretentious, elitist, restricted "dining experience" as something other than food.
He has a parasocial obsession with Chef Slowik, but doesn't notice or care about the sous-chefs, despite them doing all the actual cooking and Slowik repeatedly crediting them and evincing their importance - he's only after a relationship with the headline act, cause that's who he considers to be his peer. He insists on trying to control his escort's experience, not because he wants her to have a perfect meal, but because he has to osentatiously display that he understands the correct way to have the perfect meal.

The worst of it is his tears as Slowik gives his wanky introduction about "Do not eat! Consuuuuume, experience, live, laugh, love" (which Slowik himself notably doesn't even care about, cause he's forgotten he even said it when Margot snarkily references it later). The wankiness isn't something Slowik believes in, but he has to do it because it's an expected part of the experience that fans like Tyler demand - it's not about joy in food, but in being cultured enough to "understand the story that the chef is telling." It's about luxuriating in how much better a fan you are than others and Tyler ostentatiously demonstrates that through the film: name-dropping how he knows this technique, owns that tool, understands this reference, 'gets' the story that's being told, recognises a restaurant critic from afar, recognises the ingredient, uses the word "mouthfeel" . He doesn't enjoy food; he enjoys winning at enjoying food.

It shows in how he continues to take photos even when he's asked not to - it's not enough for him to have the good food; he has to show off what he's 'experiencing' to demonstrate how much he is winning at being a gourmet. He is so over-the-top obsessed with being the best at **understanding** food, that he volunteers himself and his then girlfriend to die for what is clearly utter madness, because Chef has the ultimate **vision** and Tyler can't not be a part of that.

And at the same time, Tyler continually shows that he doesn't understand, not least when he swaps out his +1 for the death meal, without telling the restaurant that one of the 'ingredients' is changing - quite apart from the monstrosity of considering a sex-worker disposable, a fanboy like him would be aware of Chef Slowik's policy that, in his restaurant, "THERE ARE NO SUBSTITUTIONS!"

But Tyler's an exception, like every rich person is - he's a special boy and doesn't have to obey the rule about not taking photos, he doesn't have to stay quiet while the chef is introducing a dish, he doesn't have to tell them about his +1 changing (and run the risk of being disinvited?! ), he doesn't have to run away during the women's only course (and then steals the leftovers of the thing that he wasn't supposed to have).

With that context, the punishment of having it brutally demonstrated that he doesn't understand and that he isn't a peer of any of the sous-chefs, let alone Slowik, fits better. I'm willing to bet that the thing that Slowik whispers to him afterwards is that he's allowed to leave and survive, because he's not allowed to participate in the final course and die as part of the "dining experience" - he doesn't hang himself because of the cooking humiliation, but because he's ruined his chance to be part of "perfection."

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 11:21 pm

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 02, 2025 10:41 pm Sinners - this is a blast, if your in the mood something a bit ott throw it on

I'm still here - the Brazilian Oscar film, it's excellent. In a it's probably the Guardians favourite film of all time

Sinners was really fun. I was slightly surprised at all the “masterpiece chat” but it was very entertaining.

Dream Scenario - really enjoyed this. Kaufman/Kafka esque Nicholas Cage stuff with a very interesting premise. Black comedy, mystical nonsense. I’m not even sure how to describe it. Twists and turns that some will hate but I got a lot out of it.

Anora - finally saw this. A lot to like, but it really falls apart and doesn’t really deliver on what is promised. I’d say I enjoyed it overall, but felt like it could have been more.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Mon Jun 30, 2025 5:13 pm Loved the book.

Surprised they're introducing Rocky in advance

Lizard wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:21 am It was a good book. Films are never as good as the book. Except Forrest Gump. That was a shit book.

Lizard wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:21 am It was a good book. Films are never as good as the book. Except Forrest Gump. That was a shit book.

Lizard wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:21 am It was a good book. Films are never as good as the book. Except Forrest Gump. That was a shit book.

Numbers wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 1:25 pm

Lizard wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:21 am It was a good book. Films are never as good as the book. Except Forrest Gump. That was a shit book.

Exceptions to this imo would be One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Jaws.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 5:06 pm

Numbers wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 1:25 pm

Lizard wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:21 am It was a good book. Films are never as good as the book. Except Forrest Gump. That was a shit book.

Exceptions to this imo would be One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Jaws.

It's a good rule of thumb but there are quite a few exceptions . . . let me add to the list: American Psycho, Blade Runner, dare I say it . . . Catch-22?

My guess is that The Wizard of Oz is too . . . not that I've read the book

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 5:06 pm

Numbers wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 1:25 pm

Lizard wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:21 am It was a good book. Films are never as good as the book. Except Forrest Gump. That was a shit book.

Exceptions to this imo would be One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Jaws.

It's a good rule of thumb but there are quite a few exceptions . . . let me add to the list: American Psycho, Blade Runner, dare I say it . . . Catch-22?

My guess is that The Wizard of Oz is too . . . not that I've read the book

Numbers wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:54 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 5:06 pm

Numbers wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 1:25 pm

Exceptions to this imo would be One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Jaws.

It's a good rule of thumb but there are quite a few exceptions . . . let me add to the list: American Psycho, Blade Runner, dare I say it . . . Catch-22?

My guess is that The Wizard of Oz is too . . . not that I've read the book

Catch 22 is almost impossible to transfer to the screen as it's written so much in the third person.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 8:16 pm

Numbers wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:54 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 5:06 pm
It's a good rule of thumb but there are quite a few exceptions . . . let me add to the list: American Psycho, Blade Runner, dare I say it . . . Catch-22?

My guess is that The Wizard of Oz is too . . . not that I've read the book

Catch 22 is almost impossible to transfer to the screen as it's written so much in the third person.

Do you mean that the third person voice is so strong/distinctive that adaptation is difficult?

Similar problem (perhaps even more so) for Vonnegut.

This can be taken head on by having a narrator for the film eg American Psycho, The Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club, A Clockwork Orange, although surprisingly (and IMO successfully) Catch-22 (1970) doesn't have a narrator.

Numbers wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 10:48 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 03, 2025 8:16 pm

Numbers wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 12:54 pm

Catch 22 is almost impossible to transfer to the screen as it's written so much in the third person.

Do you mean that the third person voice is so strong/distinctive that adaptation is difficult?

Similar problem (perhaps even more so) for Vonnegut.

This can be taken head on by having a narrator for the film eg American Psycho, The Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club, A Clockwork Orange, although surprisingly (and IMO successfully) Catch-22 (1970) doesn't have a narrator.

No, I mean there's little dialogue in the book to make a cogent film, what with a lot of the book being related in the third person, if a film relies to much on narration then it might as well just be an audiobook. The Catch 22 film I've never managed to actually finish watching, Clooney's tv adaptation was better imo.