I ran some errands mid-afternoon, which cut into what I was able to get
through.

But first:

Life (Tubi) - I watched this 2017 sci-fi film on Thursday, but forgot
about it...
Yeah, OK - I see what the problem was here.
The ending *killed* the movie.
Up until the ending, it was a solid, if completely unbelievable (the
way systems and firewalls kept failing was highly unrealistic - it's
like the space station engineers had never considered the idea of
"isolated systems" before!!) sci-fi thriller:
International Space Station astronauts retrieve soil samples from
Mars, and discover a hybernating Martian cellular organism. Because
they are *idiots*, they decide to bring the organism out of hybernation
rather than more completely studying it first. Of course it grows into
a larger ogranism, which of course eventually imperils the crew.
This part is OK, and is pretty standard horror/thriller trope stuff.
But I thought the ending really let this down, basically undoing
everything the movie had been trying to achieve up to that point. It's
pretty hard to get me to dislike a movie starring Rebecca Ferguson.
Based on the ending, I can now understand why this was not much of a
box office success.
However, Anim might partly like this, based on who dies first! ;)

On Friday itself, I watched:

Eve (Tubi) - The one thing I can say about 2019 British
"(psychological?) horror" film - It's good at establishing atmosphere.
It's also mercifully short, at just 75 minutes.
Unsuccessful actress, Bex (Rachel Warren), becomes obsessed with the
successful actress, Alex (Christine Marzano), whom Bex feels stole a
key role from her.
But this is one of those movies that is *completely undone* by the
"twist" they try to pull off. Not only do they "cheat" with the twist -
but its revelation at the end doesn't make a lick of sense! Based on
the ending, I have no idea what really happened here. :/
Star Christine Marzano hasn't done anything since this film, which
is odd, as she's quite attractive, and is actually pretty good in this.

soaps: DOOL - Chanel makes her choice, and inexplicably it's headcase
Allie. :/ Gabi convinces Ava to pretend that she and Jake got
married, so Ava can get control of Jake's DiMera shares. Dr. Rolf has
something planned (is it to bring Jake back? or maybe Stefan?!) and
ropes Kristen into helping him.
GH - Spencer is recalled to the stand by Diane for Trina's defense,
and admits that he was with Trina when the video was sent out, but the
ADA proves that the video could have been sent via timed E-mail, so I
think Spencer's testimony was useless. Ava threatens to kill Esme (I
wonder if they are setting up a "Who killed Esme?!" storyline). They
are still jerking us around with what is wrong with Willow. Sasha looks
primed to fall of the wagon again (I'm getting tired of this
storyline...).

Muse (Tubi) - This 2017 film is also known as "Legend of the Muse"
(it's even double-listed in IMDb).
This wasn't much of a film. Decently atmospheric, and Elle Evans
(who played "The Zombie Stripper" in "Scouts Guide to the Zombie
Apocalypse") is really quite lovely as the muse. But there's not much
too this - artist attracts a (murderous!!) celtic muse, which means his
days are numbered.
The ending was appropriate if unsurprising.
Kate Mansi (from DOOL) was in this - man, if this is the kind of
thing she's doing since DOOL, she may want to seriously consider going
back (or, at least, going back to Lifetime!).

The Gilded Age (HBO Max) - "Face the Music" (ep. #1.3). The NYC
Aldermen try to screw George Russell over by reneging on thier deal for
a train station, in order to drive his stock price down so they can buy
it low on margin - but George uses his vast wealth to prop up the stock
price ruining the Aldermen financially. Charles Fane even kills himself
over the financial ruin!! And Bertha Russell gives Aurora Fane no
quarter when she begs for mercy!!
Meanwhile, Peggy Scott gets a publishing deal, but would have to
pretend to be white to get it, so she turns it down. And something
weird is going on with the maid Bridget (Taylor Richardson) when she
goes out on a date with footman(?) Jack(?) but refuses to let him hold
her hand.

Keeping Up With The Jones: The Wrong Inside Man (LMN) - Ep. #2.4.
This one ended more definitively then "season #1" ended - this
"finale" definitely felt like it was supposed to function as a
potential "series finale" for this film series.
Yes, there are a few dangling threads left that they could pursue in
a "season #3" - Webb working with the feds against the Jones', William
knowing about Kayla's baby, both shady lawyer Sheldon and Eric Roberts'
Leo in the hospital. But, mostly, this one served to finish off most of
the storylines.
It will be interesting to see if there's a "season #3" of this, or not.

What did you watch?

--
"Who would ever do this to him!?" - HottCiara on DOOL (04-27-2020), asking
who would stab Victor Kirakis... How about ANYONE WHO'S EVER MET HIM??!!

On 7/30/2022 11:08 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
> I ran some errands mid-afternoon, which cut into what I was able to get
> through.
>
> But first:
>
> Life (Tubi) - I watched this 2017 sci-fi film on Thursday, but forgot
> about it...
>   Yeah, OK - I see what the problem was here.
>   The ending *killed* the movie.
>   Up until the ending, it was a solid, if completely unbelievable (the
> way systems and firewalls kept failing was highly unrealistic - it's
> like the space station engineers had never considered the idea of
> "isolated systems" before!!) sci-fi thriller:
>   International Space Station astronauts retrieve soil samples from
> Mars, and discover a hybernating Martian cellular organism. Because they
> are *idiots*, they decide to bring the organism out of hybernation
> rather than more completely studying it first. Of course it grows into a
> larger ogranism, which of course eventually imperils the crew.
>   This part is OK, and is pretty standard horror/thriller trope stuff.
>   But I thought the ending really let this down, basically undoing
> everything the movie had been trying to achieve up to that point. It's
> pretty hard to get me to dislike a movie starring Rebecca Ferguson.
> Based on the ending, I can now understand why this was not much of a box
> office success.
>   However, Anim might partly like this, based on who dies first! ;)
>
> On Friday itself, I watched:
>
> Eve (Tubi) - The one thing I can say about 2019 British
> "(psychological?) horror" film - It's good at establishing atmosphere.
> It's also mercifully short, at just 75 minutes.
>   Unsuccessful actress, Bex (Rachel Warren), becomes obsessed with the
> successful actress, Alex (Christine Marzano), whom Bex feels stole a key
> role from her.
>   But this is one of those movies that is *completely undone* by the
> "twist" they try to pull off. Not only do they "cheat" with the twist -
> but its revelation at the end doesn't make a lick of sense! Based on the
> ending, I have no idea what really happened here.  :/
>   Star Christine Marzano hasn't done anything since this film, which is
> odd, as she's quite attractive, and is actually pretty good in this.
>
> soaps: DOOL - Chanel makes her choice, and inexplicably it's headcase
> Allie.  :/  Gabi convinces Ava to pretend that she and Jake got married,
> so Ava can get control of Jake's DiMera shares. Dr. Rolf has something
> planned (is it to bring Jake back? or maybe Stefan?!) and ropes Kristen
> into helping him.

How about Jake as Stefan with Stefano's 'essence' implanted like Rolf
tried to do to Steve.

On 7/30/2022 11:08 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
> I ran some errands mid-afternoon, which cut into what I was able to get
> through.
>
> But first:
>
> Life (Tubi) - I watched this 2017 sci-fi film on Thursday, but forgot
> about it...
>   Yeah, OK - I see what the problem was here.
>   The ending *killed* the movie.
>   Up until the ending, it was a solid, if completely unbelievable (the
> way systems and firewalls kept failing was highly unrealistic - it's
> like the space station engineers had never considered the idea of
> "isolated systems" before!!) sci-fi thriller:
>   International Space Station astronauts retrieve soil samples from
> Mars, and discover a hybernating Martian cellular organism. Because they
> are *idiots*, they decide to bring the organism out of hybernation
> rather than more completely studying it first. Of course it grows into a
> larger ogranism, which of course eventually imperils the crew.
>   This part is OK, and is pretty standard horror/thriller trope stuff.
>   But I thought the ending really let this down, basically undoing
> everything the movie had been trying to achieve up to that point. It's
> pretty hard to get me to dislike a movie starring Rebecca Ferguson.
> Based on the ending, I can now understand why this was not much of a box
> office success.
>   However, Anim might partly like this, based on who dies first! ;)
>

It didn't occur to me until you pointed it out, but you may be right
about the ending killing the movie. It is probably the most memorable
aspect, but it did cause me to leave the theater feeling uneasy.

snip
>
> What did you watch?
>
>

I watched Nope for a second time.

So a while back I knew I was going to need to kill some time and I
bought a ticket to see Nope again. I bought the ticket before I saw the
movie the first time. After the first viewing I was ambiguous about the
movie. I didn't like it enough that I would have bought a second
ticket, but I didn't dislike it enough that I felt an urge to cancel the
2nd ticket that I already purchased. Here are my thoughts after a
second viewing.

SPOILER SPACE
P O
I L
E R

S
P A
C E

As I mentioned the first time, Jordan Peele wrote, directed and produced
this movie. It stars Daniel Kaluuya and Keke Palmer as two siblings who
inherit a horse ranch, which leases out horses for movies after their
father Keith David ("The Thing" and "They Live") dies after a coin falls
from the sky and pierces his eye. At the time everyone thinks it's a
freak accident that must have been caused by the coin falling from an
airplane. They later learn there is an alien "spaceship" in the area
and set out to get it on film.

Steven Yeun co-stars in the movie as a former child star who lived
through an on set incident where a chimp went on a rampage and killed or
mutilated his co-stars while filming a sitcom. Yeun has grown up and
now runs a small theme park near the horse ranch. At the start of the
movie it is revealed that Kaluuya has been selling his horses to Yeun to
help keep the ranch afloat.

The first time I saw the movie I said Yeun and his plot line seemed to
be in a complete separate, yet better, movie. Throughout NOPE they keep
flashing back to the sitcom and what happened during the taping. On
second viewing the whole side story with Yeun comes much more into focus
and is tied into the overall theme of the movie. What I missed during
the first viewing is the movie has an overall theme about "spectacle"
the focus is on how people take wild animals and use them for spectacle
and how it backfires on them in horrific ways.

What went completely over my head the first time I watched the movie was
the fact that Yeun *knew* there was an alien in the area. In fact he
had been feeding the horses he bought from Kaluuya's ranch to the alien.
Everyone thought the alien spaceship was a spaceship. In reality the
ship was the alien. And once Yeun assembles a huge crowd at his park to
watch the alien ship eat the horse, the alien winds up eating Yeun and
the audience too instead. At this point in the movie Yeun thinks there
are aliens on the ship, he doesn't realize the ship itself is alive and
apparently tired of being used as a spectacle for people to gawk at.

Back to Daniel Kaluuya and Keke Palmer's characters, they also think the
alien is a real ship and hope to get a picture of it. With help from an
IT guy from the local computer store (Brandon Perea) and a professional
film director (Michael Wincott) they are determined to get the alien on
film. The alien has some sort of EMP field that turns off electronic
devices when it is near so they have to get creative to film the alien
without getting eaten in the process. The big climax of the movie is
them trying to film the alien while not getting eaten, but there is a
reoccurring theme where people throw caution to the wind because they
are obsessed with getting the money shot.

So now that I've watched the movie twice, I'm still on the fence. I
guess it's OK, is still my take on it. But at least now I better
understand what was happening and why. I still don't know *where* the
alien came from! And given it's a biological being, whose to say it is
in fact an alien. It could be native to Earth. There's also no
explanation as to how it can generate a EMP, it just can. There are a
lot of unanswered questions which left me frustrated. But lots of
movies leave unanswered questions. The first Happy Death Day movie
never explained what caused the Groundhog Day effect, neither did the
movie Groundhog Day for that matter. So raising questions that are
never answered doesn't make a movie bad, but it can leave a viewer
frustrated which continues to be the case here.

Also of note, the movie was shot using IMAX cameras. If at all
possible, see it in IMAX.

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

>. . .

>Also of note, the movie was shot using IMAX cameras. If at all
>possible, see it in IMAX.

Are these film or video?

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
>> . . .
>
>> Also of note, the movie was shot using IMAX cameras. If at all
>> possible, see it in IMAX.
>
> Are these film or video?
>

https://ymcinema.com/2022/06/22/filmed-for-imax-vs-shot-with-imax-whats-better/

That article explains what’s what and shows a chart for what cameras meet
what criteria. The final paragraph:

To sum it up, here’re the definitions: ‘Shot With IMAX’ means that the
movie was filmed with IMAX 65mm cameras, whereas ‘Filmed For IMAX’
indicates that the production used digital cinema cameras that were
certified by IMAX (large sensor top-notch cinema cameras). Which is better?
Well, we think that the answer to that is unambiguous. Of course, 65mm
produces more rich and pleasing imagery. However, it’s significantly more
expensive and complicated to shoot with those cameras, although it’s
totally worth the hassle. Nolan would confirm that 🙂

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

>>>. . .

>>>Also of note, the movie was shot using IMAX cameras. If at all
>>>possible, see it in IMAX.

>>Are these film or video?

>https://ymcinema.com/2022/06/22/filmed-for-imax-vs-shot-with-imax-whats-better/

>That article explains what’s what and shows a chart for what cameras meet
>what criteria. The final paragraph:

>To sum it up, here're the definitions: 'Shot With IMAX' means that the
>movie was filmed with IMAX 65mm cameras, whereas 'Filmed For IMAX'
>indicates that the production used digital cinema cameras that were
>certified by IMAX (large sensor top-notch cinema cameras). Which is better?
>Well, we think that the answer to that is unambiguous. Of course, 65mm
>produces more rich and pleasing imagery. However, it's significantly more
>expensive and complicated to shoot with those cameras, although it's
>totally worth the hassle. Nolan would confirm that

Ok, thanks. I didn't think IMAX was produced on film at all. I'm glad to
hear that. We get one movie a year using IMAX film cameras? That's not
enough to keep the doors open.

On 7/30/2022 3:24 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>
>>> . . .
>>
>>> Also of note, the movie was shot using IMAX cameras. If at all
>>> possible, see it in IMAX.
>>
>> Are these film or video?
>>
>
> https://ymcinema.com/2022/06/22/filmed-for-imax-vs-shot-with-imax-whats-better/
>
> That article explains what’s what and shows a chart for what cameras meet
> what criteria. The final paragraph:
>
> To sum it up, here’re the definitions: ‘Shot With IMAX’ means that the
> movie was filmed with IMAX 65mm cameras, whereas ‘Filmed For IMAX’
> indicates that the production used digital cinema cameras that were
> certified by IMAX (large sensor top-notch cinema cameras). Which is better?
> Well, we think that the answer to that is unambiguous. Of course, 65mm
> produces more rich and pleasing imagery. However, it’s significantly more
> expensive and complicated to shoot with those cameras, although it’s
> totally worth the hassle. Nolan would confirm that 🙂
>

Thanks! I thought everything was digital now. As far I know the
theaters are digital only. So even if they are using film, it's still
being shown digitally. That being said, when they transfer the movie to
disc since it was shot originally on film it should produce the best 4K
image possible. And the special effects shouldn't need to be upscaled
either. I was just reading (or was it a video?) the other day about why
older movie special effects often look better on 4K disc than modern
movies because a lot of modern movies shoot at a lower resolution for
the effects then had to upscale them for 4K video.