Recent comments in /f/movies

AlanMorlock t1_j6kys48 wrote

Reply to Do you think that David Cronenberg peaked comparatively late in his career? by RusevReigns

Bit of a matter of taste there. He built his brand essentially in one kind of mode and set a certain standard. The films that make up what could be described as "Cronenbergian" are essential.

But he did shift gears and I find his 2000s films are quite excellent, though give or take eXistenZ he had moved away from the goop quite a bit for most of the 90s already.

Crimes of the Future is very interesting as it exists now, made so late in life but it's even more interesting when you consider it was actually written and almost got made right about the time of eXistenZ.

Crimes of the Future really feels like Cronenberg looking back at what he had done at that point. Artists telling stories about artists always brings some assumption of self commentary or insert and in the case of Saul Tenser, there is some self criticism. Through Saul Tenser, the artist making an art of cutting out his New Flesh, and actually being cop suppressing others, the film reflects that Cronenberg's approach to 'body horror' and changing technologies was more than a bit reactionary. As much as it defined his brand, that kind of transformation and change, and the real life anxieties they reflected were a source of horror. In Crimes of the Future, Cronenberg imagines an oncoming generation that truly embraces those changes and celebrates the beauty in it. Saul Tenser is a bit self conscious when others say they're following his example as he recognizes that they are at root really doing something different and moving beyond him. Locating that writing and self reflection at the end of the 90s and right before he started that run of films with Mortenson that followed it really does seem like he was consciously not just setting his earlier work aside but coming to terms with it before moving on. Fascinating to finally see it made 20 years later with a whole other phase of his career between.

So no, I don't think Cronenberg peaked creatively in the later career, but I do think he gained some perspective. Also, not sure the younger Cronenberg ever made anything quite as funny as Crimes.

2

ThankU4TakingMyCall t1_j6ky4cr wrote

Reply to The Crying Game (1992) (SPOILERS) by [deleted]

“… a twist so important that the film's producers pleaded with the media and moviegoers to keep it a secret. That didn't sway the Tribune's Gene Siskel, who gave it away on a special Oscars edition of "Siskel and Ebert." The revelation infuriated Ebert, who called the move "arrogant" and said Siskel should have discussed it beforehand.”

2

magus-21 t1_j6kxp5i wrote

Reply to comment by Bomber131313 in Avatar: The Way of Water was boring by Movie_Advance_101

>Are you putting that on Tony and not Cap?

No statements of fault, just cause and effect. The signing of the Sokovia Accords led to the disbanding of the Avengers, and Tony's decision to sign them was driven by his guilt over creating Ultron. And Tony's decision to create Ultron was driven by his PTSD over the Battle of New York.

I'm just illustrating the kind of character continuity that some commenters here (specifically CrackPlug80) seem to be unable to see.

1

spinereader81 t1_j6kx4wc wrote

Reply to Positive family representation in movies? by tasfa10

Little Boxes. Obscure little movie about a multicultural family who moves from the a big city to a small town and struggles to fit in. There are arguments, but they have such a close bond.

Yours, Mine and Ours. Blended family, but still loving.

Inside Out. Though most of the focus is on the emotions.

An American Tail. But they aren't together for most of the movie.

Father of the Bride

101 Dalmations

3

Bomber131313 t1_j6kwc9a wrote

Reply to comment by magus-21 in Avatar: The Way of Water was boring by Movie_Advance_101

> compelled him to sign the Sokovia Accords and cause the disbanding of the Avengers

Are you putting that on Tony and not Cap?

Tony was taking responsibility for his past mistakes and following the law. As well as throughout the film trying to compromise with Cap to keep the team together. Cap is the one who choose to break the Accords ultimately breaking up the Avengers. Cap made up his mind on what the right thing to do was(a decision that was wrong-Zemo was never going to unleash more Winter Soldiers).

1

StreetMysticCosmic t1_j6kw61b wrote

Reply to What tf do you think was going on in “The Lighthouse”? by Conscious-Scale-587

I think Dafoe just loved the light because he was crazy. Pattinson wanted his approval and Dafoe would never let him tend to the light no matter what. So he went mad and did anything he could to see it, convincing himself it did have some power over Dafoe. It's also worth keeping in mind that isolation, no water, booze, repetitive shitty meals, no smells but salt air and farts, hard labor, verbal abuse, and no sounds but waves and seagulls drove them both mad. I think both really just want love. Dafoe is divorced if I remember correctly and Pattinson ran away from a man, even "taking his name," which I took to mean he couldn't understand or confront his feelings about him. They both decide to get love from the light since Neptune knows they aren't gonna get it from each other.

1