Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A Thread About Movies

1373840424399

Posts

  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    ...the action feels generic (partly because of the staging, outside of the tumbling hallway, and partly because the characters are usually fighting abstractions instead of villains)...

    Nolan did an interview where he explained how he used a video game writer to help with the ideas of different levels the characters go through. It made me go, "Aha! That explains why there's a snow level with gun play (a la every modern shooter)!"

    That level was the worst! You could have literally done anything for your big action climax and you choose... something from a James Bond movie. Where the environment means your actors can't even show their faces because cold. Bravo.

    This is not an entirely valid criticism.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    The whole point of the projections was for them to be faceless. That's why they kept using the same actors (respawns!), and why the guys that chased Leo in India were so generic looking.

  • waywardwayward Registered User regular
    I saw Chronicle the other night, now there's an awesome film. Probably my favourite of the year so far. It's a couple of months old now but I'll use spoiler tags just in case:
    Spoiler:

    edensigi.jpg
  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    The whole point of the projections was for them to be faceless. That's why they kept using the same actors (respawns!), and why the guys that chased Leo in India were so generic looking.

    I believe the effect Nolan was going for by making them all generic was not worth the cost of making them all generic. Action scenes tend to be better when both sides are characterized. He turned a type of scene that's normally about two viewpoints conflicting and made it into a scene about one viewpoint conflicting with an abstract obstacle.
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    ...the action feels generic (partly because of the staging, outside of the tumbling hallway, and partly because the characters are usually fighting abstractions instead of villains)...

    Nolan did an interview where he explained how he used a video game writer to help with the ideas of different levels the characters go through. It made me go, "Aha! That explains why there's a snow level with gun play (a la every modern shooter)!"

    That level was the worst! You could have literally done anything for your big action climax and you choose... something from a James Bond movie. Where the environment means your actors can't even show their faces because cold. Bravo.

    This is not an entirely valid criticism.

    Which part? That the big action climax is something generic I've seen before even though the film had total freedom to deliver something new? Or that the generic action scene is kind of confusing because the poorly characterized protagonists put masks on, split up, and have separate gun-battles at high speeds in the snow?

    Inception had such potential. Imagine that city-folding scene with Ariadne was just a set-up for a desperate climactic chase through a city where she has to keep changing the architecture and layout to protect Cob and his team from the bad guys, changes which expand into the realm of the surreal, like a running gun-battle set in an Escher painting. The fact that Nolan constructed his movie so that something like that was possible and then added a rule to prevent it for the actual mission is one of the movie's most egregious lost opportunities.

    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
    Currently airing: Killtoberfest 2: Kill Me Twice, Shame On Me.
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    Uh, the whole movie was about them conflicting with an abstract obstacle. There was no villain in Inception. Plus pretty much every action scene involving heros killing many henchman genericizes the henchmen. Look at stormtroopers. Nobody cares about their viewpoint.

    As for surreal stuff happening during that actual mission (or as you said above, dropping out after the first act), did you miss the whole spinning/gravity-less hotel hallway and the infinite staircase?

  • DeadfallDeadfall Registered User regular
    Eh, I judge a movie by how entertained and enthralled I was. I was entertained literally for the entire movie. So to me, Inception is just about as flawless as a movie can get.

    Same reason I rank Casino Royale so high on my personal movie list.

    BKqtjKy.jpg
    xbl - HowYouGetAnts
  • TehSpectreTehSpectre @PixelateJake on TwitterRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Talking about terrible people, I just watched The Divide.

    While it had some good scenes and interesting characters, it really falls apart in the 3rd act, IMO.

    I am not sure I believe people would turn into the monsters (from being trapped in a fallout shelter for a long amount of time) this movies implies they would.


    And then at the very, very end
    Spoiler:


    I don't know, I feel like I know what the director was going for, but it didn't seem like he took the logical steps to make it happen.

    TehSpectre on
    Spec_Banner.png
  • amateurhouramateurhour Registered User regular
    I caught The Woman a few weeks ago and hated it. I honestly had to stop watching it with about 20 minutes to go, which something I rarely do. Even if it's a horrible movie I'll usually stick it out.

    In fact, I've only done that with a handful of movies.

    1) How High
    2) The Woman
    3) Human Centipede 2
    4) Spinal Tap
    5) 30 Days of Night: Dark Days
    6) Wanted (although I did finish it later)

    Here's what I do...
    The Vac - My Science Fiction Epic
    Fortune Pancakes - My Gag-A-Day Comic
  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Meanwhile I am watching J. Edgar, which suffers from the standard biopic awfulties: too long, unfocused, the time-jumps are confusing, and the movie has no plot. In addition it also suffers from most of the problems of bad period pieces, in that all the eras look the same and the actors have trouble making the old-timey dialogue work (which I'll admit is hard, although Boardwalk Empire seems to manage it on a weekly basis). No sign of pop music used to blatantly set the period, though, Eastwood's too smart for that. Not smart enough to pick a better script though. He's really showing me that I was right to skip everything he's directed since Million Dollar Baby.

    If skipping Gran Torino and Letters from Iwo Jima is "right", then I'd much rather be wrong.

  • amateurhouramateurhour Registered User regular
    Gran Torino was overrated. It was good, but not Million Dollar Baby good.

    Here's what I do...
    The Vac - My Science Fiction Epic
    Fortune Pancakes - My Gag-A-Day Comic
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    I caught The Woman a few weeks ago and hated it. I honestly had to stop watching it with about 20 minutes to go, which something I rarely do. Even if it's a horrible movie I'll usually stick it out.

    In fact, I've only done that with a handful of movies.

    1) How High
    2) The Woman
    3) Human Centipede 2
    4) Spinal Tap
    5) 30 Days of Night: Dark Days
    6) Wanted (although I did finish it later)

    One of these things is not like the others.

    steam_sig.png
    I have a graphic design and illustration BLOG sometimes what I put on that blog turns into SHIRTS often those shirts are failed attempts at woot derby entries: Joy Buzzer
  • amateurhouramateurhour Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »

    One of these things is not like the others.

    I know... I feel ashamed about it, because after I met my wife I FELL IN LOVE with mocumentaries, especially Christopher Guest stuff, but I just have not been able to go back and watch it.

    Here's what I do...
    The Vac - My Science Fiction Epic
    Fortune Pancakes - My Gag-A-Day Comic
  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Uh, the whole movie was about them conflicting with an abstract obstacle. There was no villain in Inception. Plus pretty much every action scene involving heros killing many henchman genericizes the henchmen. Look at stormtroopers. Nobody cares about their viewpoint.

    Stormtroopers represent the will of the Empire, which we understand to mean Darth Vader. Even an encounter with a couple of troopers searching transports for droids has a significant tension, not because these individual troopers are particularly dangerous, but because if captured they're eventually going to be brought before Vader and subjected to the might of the entire galactic government. The viewpoint is collective but it's characterized; as a whole the Empire has goals, traits, deadly abilities, and an ethos. This makes any gun-battle on the Death Star a direct conflict between two opposing viewpoints, tyranny and freedom.

    With Inception, on the other hand, they're battling a process, a subconscious will. It's about as dynamic as fighting off an immune system's automatic response; the combat does not represent conflict, it represents danger and delay, which aren't nearly as interesting.
    As for surreal stuff happening during that actual mission (or as you said above, dropping out after the first act), did you miss the whole spinning/gravity-less hotel hallway and the infinite staircase?

    Those were good. I wanted more. The spinning hallway is cool but it suffers from being a fistfight between a generic non-character and a subconscious threat (ba-zing!). The infinite staircase is cool but not terribly dynamic because they set it up so clearly earlier--it would have been much more exciting if they'd just said "impossible shapes" and left it at that, instead of saying "for instance you could use this impossible shape, here let me show you exactly what it looks like". It's a less impressive creative solution on the character's part and less surprising for the audience--all part of Inception being overexplained in places. If Nolan had written Die Hard he would have had a scene where McClane says "I'm really worried about my bare feet getting hurt, I hope there's no broken glass around here" and then later Gruber would have told his men, "Shoot the glass! He's not wearing shoes and it will hurt his feet!"

    quickEdit: Inception does have villains--Cobb's projection of his wife is the closest thing the movie has to a direct antagonist, and the shadowy corporations hunting Cob down also qualify--but the majority of the action sequences have nothing to do with them.

    --

    Hedgethorn wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Meanwhile I am watching J. Edgar, which suffers from the standard biopic awfulties: too long, unfocused, the time-jumps are confusing, and the movie has no plot. In addition it also suffers from most of the problems of bad period pieces, in that all the eras look the same and the actors have trouble making the old-timey dialogue work (which I'll admit is hard, although Boardwalk Empire seems to manage it on a weekly basis). No sign of pop music used to blatantly set the period, though, Eastwood's too smart for that. Not smart enough to pick a better script though. He's really showing me that I was right to skip everything he's directed since Million Dollar Baby.

    If skipping Gran Torino and Letters from Iwo Jima is "right", then I'd much rather be wrong.

    I've come to realize that Eastwood's movies are just really not to my taste. I tend to find the subject matter uninteresting, his style flat, his pacing slow. I'm not entirely sure what it is about them that rubs me the wrong way, it's just a personal thing. I shut Gran Torino off after 20 minutes, and was never able to bring myself to watch any of the others. I'm not saying they're bad movies--I can't, because I haven't seen them. (Although J. Edgar is deeply flawed.) They're just solidly not for me.

    Astaereth on
    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
    Currently airing: Killtoberfest 2: Kill Me Twice, Shame On Me.
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »

    I've come to realize that Eastwood's movies are just really not to my taste. I tend to find the subject matter uninteresting, his style flat, his pacing slow. I'm not entirely sure what it is about them that rubs me the wrong way, it's just a personal thing.

    Do you like his earlier ones? High Plains Drifter and Outlaw Josey Wales are two of my favorite westerns.

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    I caught The Woman a few weeks ago and hated it. I honestly had to stop watching it with about 20 minutes to go, which something I rarely do. Even if it's a horrible movie I'll usually stick it out.

    In fact, I've only done that with a handful of movies.

    1) How High
    2) The Woman
    3) Human Centipede 2
    4) Spinal Tap
    5) 30 Days of Night: Dark Days
    6) Wanted (although I did finish it later)

    One of these things is not like the others.

    Why the fuck did you stop watching Spinal Tap?

    Quire.jpg
  • amateurhouramateurhour Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    I caught The Woman a few weeks ago and hated it. I honestly had to stop watching it with about 20 minutes to go, which something I rarely do. Even if it's a horrible movie I'll usually stick it out.

    In fact, I've only done that with a handful of movies.

    1) How High
    2) The Woman
    3) Human Centipede 2
    4) Spinal Tap
    5) 30 Days of Night: Dark Days
    6) Wanted (although I did finish it later)

    One of these things is not like the others.

    Why the fuck did you stop watching Spinal Tap?

    Honestly I got bored with it. It just stopped being funny and started looking like a failed attempt at what would later become "behind the music" on VH1.

    I've really enjoyed his other stuff, and I fucking loved me some Best in Show, but the holy grail of mockumentaries just doesn't do it for me, no matter how hard that amp goes to 11 or how many tiny people they get to dance around stonehenge.

    Here's what I do...
    The Vac - My Science Fiction Epic
    Fortune Pancakes - My Gag-A-Day Comic
  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »

    I've come to realize that Eastwood's movies are just really not to my taste. I tend to find the subject matter uninteresting, his style flat, his pacing slow. I'm not entirely sure what it is about them that rubs me the wrong way, it's just a personal thing.

    Do you like his earlier ones? High Plains Drifter and Outlaw Josey Wales are two of my favorite westerns.

    I thought Unforgiven was "meh", but "Play Misty for Me" was pretty good (besides the random inserted scene of jazz music that's only in there because Eastwood likes jazz). I hate Mystic River with the power of a thousand suns. Haven't seen anything else he's directed, but I'm willing to give his early stuff a shot.

    The only other directors off the top of my head that are just 90% useless to me are Terry Gilliam, Tony Scott, and Michael Bay.

    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
    Currently airing: Killtoberfest 2: Kill Me Twice, Shame On Me.
  • amateurhouramateurhour Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I wasn't a Monty Python fan, but Gilliam wrote The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Time Bandits, and apparently was the one who adapted Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas into a screenplay and directed it (didn't know that), so I have to give him credit where it's due.

    I agree that Tony Scott is the inferior brother and Bay is only good for explosions

    amateurhour on
    Here's what I do...
    The Vac - My Science Fiction Epic
    Fortune Pancakes - My Gag-A-Day Comic
  • KruiteKruite Registered User regular
    I'd say that the Anakin arc was actually the arc of the villain. And coupled with the original movies, is supposed to somehow show his redemption. I just think it was done in a rather ham-fisted fashion by someone who's best movies were written by others.

    @Atomic Ross as well.

    I always imagined that the story of Anakin was supposed to be that of a fallen Hero, in that he is tempted into "any means to an end" mentality and eventually goes off the cliff. Would have been an awesome story, except Lucas ruined it.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Uh, the whole movie was about them conflicting with an abstract obstacle. There was no villain in Inception.
    Spoiler:

  • Page-Page- Registered User regular
    Tony Scott is the only director that I will just not watch. Even Micheal Bay movies I see eventually, just because. Doesn't help that I'm not a fan of Denzel Washington, either.

    (Mostly) Competitive Gaming Blog Updated August 18th - Monster Hunting
    stream
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Page- wrote: »
    Tony Scott is the only director that I will just not watch. Even Micheal Bay movies I see eventually, just because. Doesn't help that I'm not a fan of Denzel Washington, either.

    You're really missing some great films. Can't recommend Man on Fire enough. Inside Man is another good Denzel film.

  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Registered User
    Inside Man is great, Man on Fire is harmed quite a bit by gimmicky visual stylistic bullshit, but good nonetheless.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Inside Man is great, Man on Fire is harmed quite a bit by gimmicky visual stylistic bullshit, but good nonetheless.

    Scott's directing style is definitely polarizing, I like it but understand why some don't. He'd make a great director for Punisher.

  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    I wasn't a Monty Python fan, but Gilliam wrote The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Time Bandits, and apparently was the one who adapted Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas into a screenplay and directed it (didn't know that), so I have to give him credit where it's due.

    I agree that Tony Scott is the inferior brother and Bay is only good for explosions

    My Gilliam dislike is founded on watching Fear and Loathing, Brazil, and Twelve Monkeys, all of three of which made me feel bad, literally. His production design is claustrophobic, his characters extremely hard to identify with, and his stories rather pointless and unfocused. I'll stick with a film that makes me feel terrible if there's enough of a reward in it (Downfall, for instance, or Requiem for a Dream), but the narrative shenanigans in Twelve Monkeys were bullshit (and wasted a very good Brad Pitt performance), Fear and Loathing failed to tack on more than a perfunctory examination of its themes, and Brazil never got past an inability to decide on tone or the target of its satire.

    That said, I was surprised to find myself enjoying The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, possibly because his CGI production design felt less oppressive. I keep meaning to watch Tideland to see if he's turned a corner for me.

    @Harry Dresden, Man on Fire is pretty terrible (and far too long for what it is). All I need to point to is Domino, that should be Exhibits A-Z when they put Tony Scott on trial for crimes against cinema. I got suckered into watching The Taking of Pelham 123 because casting (plus I like the original) and was rewarded with slow-motion shots of fast-moving trains that literally hurt my eyes and brain when I tried to perceive them. I've sworn him off for good and I just hope somebody frees Denzel so he can go back to being excellent.

    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
    Currently airing: Killtoberfest 2: Kill Me Twice, Shame On Me.
  • Page-Page- Registered User regular
    Man on Fire is the movie that first started me on the Tony Scott/Denzel Washington hate train. Deja Vu finished the job.

    (Mostly) Competitive Gaming Blog Updated August 18th - Monster Hunting
    stream
  • NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    I caught The Woman a few weeks ago and hated it. I honestly had to stop watching it with about 20 minutes to go, which something I rarely do. Even if it's a horrible movie I'll usually stick it out.

    In fact, I've only done that with a handful of movies.

    1) How High
    2) The Woman
    3) Human Centipede 2
    4) Spinal Tap
    5) 30 Days of Night: Dark Days
    6) Wanted (although I did finish it later)

    One of these things is not like the others.

    Why the fuck did you stop watching Spinal Tap?

    Honestly I got bored with it. It just stopped being funny and started looking like a failed attempt at what would later become "behind the music" on VH1.

    I've really enjoyed his other stuff, and I fucking loved me some Best in Show, but the holy grail of mockumentaries just doesn't do it for me, no matter how hard that amp goes to 11 or how many tiny people they get to dance around stonehenge.

    Not sure about Best in Show or their other mocumentry (the one about the folk singers) but Tap does start slow it is kinda over the place (like other backstage concert movies).

    Does it help to know that there is not one single scripted line of dialog in that movie? I think it says somewhat with all that was going on, no one broke character.

    newSig.jpg
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »

    I thought Unforgiven was "meh", but "Play Misty for Me" was pretty good...

    Opposite, here. Unforgiven was a brilliant statement on the westerns of his youth as well as had an ending that brilliantly both defied and confirmed the film's theme.

    Play Misty seemed like overlong masturbating while he vacationed in his favorite little city, Carmel.
    Astaereth wrote: »

    My Gilliam dislike is founded on watching Fear and Loathing, Brazil, and Twelve Monkeys, all of three of which made me feel bad, literally. His production design is claustrophobic, his characters extremely hard to identify with, and his stories rather pointless and unfocused.

    Brazil is supposed to be claustrophobic, but it isn't completely negative. It's the happy ending version of 1984.

    And if you liked Parnassus, you gotta see The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. It has a stellar cast (John Neville, Eric Idle, Sarah Polley, Jonathan Pryce, Robin Williams, Oliver Reed, Uma Thurman and her nipple, even Sting!) and amazing production values. It's also a potent film when you think about when it was made and the comments it was making and then look at things like the Bush Jr. administration and see how much foresight it had. Truly scary.

  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    I'm rewatching Thor in anticipation of Avengers and finding that I enjoy it much more the second time around. Being able to see what is happening in the darker scenes may be part of that.

    camo_sig2.png
  • Linespider5Linespider5 I told her on Alderaan nothing else was going on.Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    ...the action feels generic (partly because of the staging, outside of the tumbling hallway, and partly because the characters are usually fighting abstractions instead of villains)...

    Nolan did an interview where he explained how he used a video game writer to help with the ideas of different levels the characters go through. It made me go, "Aha! That explains why there's a snow level with gun play (a la every modern shooter)!"

    That whole scene I kept having flashbacks to Goldeneye (on the N64). In a good way.

    YES. The snow scene is Goldeneye, as far as I'm concerned.

    bqv5944776sm.png
  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    Brazil is supposed to be claustrophobic, but it isn't completely negative. It's the happy ending version of 1984.

    I get that it's supposed to be claustrophobic; I just don't like feeling claustrophobic if I'm not getting anything positive out of the film. Regarding the ending, though:
    Spoiler:
    And if you liked Parnassus, you gotta see The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. It has a stellar cast (John Neville, Eric Idle, Sarah Polley, Jonathan Pryce, Robin Williams, Oliver Reed, Uma Thurman and her nipple, even Sting!) and amazing production values. It's also a potent film when you think about when it was made and the comments it was making and then look at things like the Bush Jr. administration and see how much foresight it had. Truly scary.

    I will put it on my list. (Speaking of which, my 2011 list is down to only 22 movies! I might actually finish 2011 before 2012 is half-over.)

    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
    Currently airing: Killtoberfest 2: Kill Me Twice, Shame On Me.
  • NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    So, any hype or buzz on Raven?
    Seems like an interesting concept, but I'm just not feeling anything about.
    Just solid "meh" for me. What do you guys think?

    newSig.jpg
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »

    I get that it's supposed to be claustrophobic; I just don't like feeling claustrophobic if I'm not getting anything positive out of the film. Regarding the ending, though:
    Spoiler:

    The ending to 1984 is
    Spoiler:
    Whereas Brazil's ending
    Spoiler:
    Thus it's the "happy ending" version of 1984.

  • quantumcat42quantumcat42 Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Spoiler:
    You really gotta check the fine print at that Thai massage parlor...

  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I wasn't a Monty Python fan, but Gilliam wrote The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Time Bandits, and apparently was the one who adapted Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas into a screenplay and directed it (didn't know that), so I have to give him credit where it's due.

    I agree that Tony Scott is the inferior brother and Bay is only good for explosions

    My Gilliam dislike is founded on watching Fear and Loathing, Brazil, and Twelve Monkeys, all of three of which made me feel bad, literally. His production design is claustrophobic, his characters extremely hard to identify with, and his stories rather pointless and unfocused. I'll stick with a film that makes me feel terrible if there's enough of a reward in it (Downfall, for instance, or Requiem for a Dream), but the narrative shenanigans in Twelve Monkeys were bullshit (and wasted a very good Brad Pitt performance), Fear and Loathing failed to tack on more than a perfunctory examination of its themes, and Brazil never got past an inability to decide on tone or the target of its satire.

    Brazil pretty completely focuses its satire on bureaucracy. I'm not sure how you can find that misguided.

    Fear and Loathing only directly announces its themes once or twice but the entire film is an examination of the fallout of a certain period of time. There are only I think two scenes that say this out loud but that doesn't mean it's not apparent in other ways during the film. It's also based on a book which while I realize doesn't dismiss things in the film you might criticize, is the reason it is how it is. It's incredibly faithful and I love the film for that.

    Twelve Monkeys I'm not clear what your issue is but I'm curious. If you didn't like the ending I can understand it but I disagree, I think it's fucking greeeaaat.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Hearthstone%20DoA.png
  • DeaderinredDeaderinred Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Houn wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    What's the great Millenial movie romance, then? Legitimately great, I mean, not just Twilight or one of those Nicolas Sparks things.

    Eternal Sunshine or 500 Days of Summer. (I lean towards 500 Days, personally, mostly because I've lived that movie at least twice.)

    And yet Scott Pilgrim is disqualified for all characters being terrible people?

    Who's a terrible person in 500 Days of Summer?

    Well, it was argued strenuously to me that Tom is a terrible person the whole way through, and that Summer is a terrible person because that's all he sees of her. The movie only had, like, four characters; Tom, Summer, Tom's sister, Tom's friend who I vaguely remember being a douche... Am I forgetting someone?

    No, people point out that the movie is very explicitly about how Tom is a guy with some bad ideas about this girl Summer and about how that relates back to his own life.

    Being a young guy who doesn't quite get relationships yet doesn't make him a terrible person in any way, shape or form.

    And ... yeah, none of the other people in the movie are terrible people either.

    whats wrong with having terrible people in movies anyway? are we all glued to that hollywood bullshit of likeable characters?

    they dont have to be likeable as long as they are interesting.

    Recap of the Conversation Flow:
    "Scott Pilgrim is the Romance of our Generation!"
    "I can't understand this sentence, because these characters are too big of jerks to relate to."
    "A better example would be 500 Days of Summer."
    "Nuh-uh, Tom's a jerk, too!"
    "Nuh-uh!"
    "Uh-huh!"
    "Nuh-uh!"
    "Uh-huh!"

    At no point was it stated that there's anything wrong with terrible people in movies; this began with how hard it is to relate positively to terrible people in movies doing terrible things to each other.

    eh.. only way for that to be true is if you are all jesus.

    edit: positively or negatively doesn't matter, can still relate.

    Deaderinred on
  • EupfhoriaEupfhoria Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Variable wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I wasn't a Monty Python fan, but Gilliam wrote The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Time Bandits, and apparently was the one who adapted Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas into a screenplay and directed it (didn't know that), so I have to give him credit where it's due.

    I agree that Tony Scott is the inferior brother and Bay is only good for explosions

    My Gilliam dislike is founded on watching Fear and Loathing, Brazil, and Twelve Monkeys, all of three of which made me feel bad, literally. His production design is claustrophobic, his characters extremely hard to identify with, and his stories rather pointless and unfocused. I'll stick with a film that makes me feel terrible if there's enough of a reward in it (Downfall, for instance, or Requiem for a Dream), but the narrative shenanigans in Twelve Monkeys were bullshit (and wasted a very good Brad Pitt performance), Fear and Loathing failed to tack on more than a perfunctory examination of its themes, and Brazil never got past an inability to decide on tone or the target of its satire.

    Brazil pretty completely focuses its satire on bureaucracy. I'm not sure how you can find that misguided.

    Fear and Loathing only directly announces its themes once or twice but the entire film is an examination of the fallout of a certain period of time. There are only I think two scenes that say this out loud but that doesn't mean it's not apparent in other ways during the film. It's also based on a book which while I realize doesn't dismiss things in the film you might criticize, is the reason it is how it is. It's incredibly faithful and I love the film for that.

    Twelve Monkeys I'm not clear what your issue is but I'm curious. If you didn't like the ending I can understand it but I disagree, I think it's fucking greeeaaat.

    yeah, those are my thoughts on Fear and Loathing (& 12 Monkeys) as well. I feel Fear and Loathing is one of the most faithful book-to-film adaptations ever made, to the point where any issues with the movie are issues with the book and Hunter Thompson's writing style in general.

    incidentally, I was actually going to watch Brazil tonight. I'm interested to see how I like it.


    also, watching the entire series of Deadwood over the course of a few days about a month ago put me on a serious Western kick. So far I've watched:

    The Dollars trilogy
    Once Upon a Time in the West
    Unforgiven
    The Outlaw Josey Wales
    The Wild Bunch
    Treasure of the Sierra Madre
    The Proposition
    and Little Big Man, if that counts as a western (apparently usually called a comedy? not sure if I would, but whatever)

    I honestly didn't feel that there was a bad movie among them. Some are better than the others (Once Upon a Time and Unforgiven especially), but they were all very enjoyable. I think westerns are one of my favorite film genres now. Now to watch some of the 1950s era films that Sergio Leone was inspired by.

    Eupfhoria on
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Nocren wrote: »
    So, any hype or buzz on Raven?
    Seems like an interesting concept, but I'm just not feeling anything about.
    Just solid "meh" for me. What do you guys think?

    It looks so generic. You can tell they're going for some sort of Sleepy Hollow/From Hell vibe but the concept seems so dumb. "Oh, Mr. Poe, a murderer is killing people using methods based on your stories! Help us!" then the trailer proceeds to show people getting killed using the most iconic ones so apparently they're all crap at what they do.

    Also, why they gave Poe a goatee is utterly beyond me. No known image of Poe has one. (Also, Cusack doesn't look like him anyway.)

    After Jeffrey Combs's turn as Poe in Masters of Horror (and the subsequent live stage production) I don't know why they'd even bother.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    Saw the Raid. It was pretty awesome.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I get what you're saying, Mad King George. Relatively happy. :p
    Variable wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    I wasn't a Monty Python fan, but Gilliam wrote The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Time Bandits, and apparently was the one who adapted Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas into a screenplay and directed it (didn't know that), so I have to give him credit where it's due.

    I agree that Tony Scott is the inferior brother and Bay is only good for explosions

    My Gilliam dislike is founded on watching Fear and Loathing, Brazil, and Twelve Monkeys, all of three of which made me feel bad, literally. His production design is claustrophobic, his characters extremely hard to identify with, and his stories rather pointless and unfocused. I'll stick with a film that makes me feel terrible if there's enough of a reward in it (Downfall, for instance, or Requiem for a Dream), but the narrative shenanigans in Twelve Monkeys were bullshit (and wasted a very good Brad Pitt performance), Fear and Loathing failed to tack on more than a perfunctory examination of its themes, and Brazil never got past an inability to decide on tone or the target of its satire.

    Brazil pretty completely focuses its satire on bureaucracy. I'm not sure how you can find that misguided.

    Brazil has a lot of problems, from the extremely cliche and poorly produced fantasy sequences to the awful De Niro character. IIRC it also had trouble deciding whether it was dark satire or black comedy or melodrama, whether the people or the system was the target of satire, and whether the problem with the bureaucracy was that it was evil or that it was incompetent. It's been quite a while since I saw it though, and the experience was unfortunate enough that I have no interest in a rewatch, even for the purposes of internet argument (and coming from me that's saying something!).
    Variable wrote: »
    Fear and Loathing only directly announces its themes once or twice but the entire film is an examination of the fallout of a certain period of time. There are only I think two scenes that say this out loud but that doesn't mean it's not apparent in other ways during the film. It's also based on a book which while I realize doesn't dismiss things in the film you might criticize, is the reason it is how it is. It's incredibly faithful and I love the film for that.

    I suspect I'd like the book a lot better. But part of my problem with Gilliam is often the performances he gets out of his actors--I love Johnny Depp, but hiding him behind costuming and making him mutter in an impenetrable monotone is kind of a waste, isn't it?
    Variable wrote: »
    Twelve Monkeys I'm not clear what your issue is but I'm curious. If you didn't like the ending I can understand it but I disagree, I think it's fucking greeeaaat.

    I felt like much of Twelve Monkeys was pointless, especially in light of the ending; that it wasted Brad Pitt, that it wasted Bruce Willis on a "big dumb guy" role, that the grimy and claustrophobic visual design was oppressive, that (as with the others) I wasn't getting enough of it compared to the way it was making me feel.

    Anyway I'm not saying they're terrible movies; I think they're flawed, but mostly I think they're just not for me. I know plenty of people like them and I've spent enough years of my life tipping sacred cows.

    --

    Leone! That guy is awesome. Nobody in film has the reputation he built with 6 movies. I'll take Good/Bad/Ugly over Once Upon a Time in the West, but Once Upon a Time in America is even better. Crazy long, at around 4 hours, but it's a masterpiece.

    --

    For some reason I love the tiny tiny subsubsubgenre of stories where an author must solve the mystery of murders themed around his works. The genre basically amounts to A Murder of Crows, Castle, half a dozen Stephen King books, and the transcendent Brett Easton Ellis novel Lunar Park. I'll also watch just about anything with John Cusak in it.

    Astaereth on
    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
    Currently airing: Killtoberfest 2: Kill Me Twice, Shame On Me.
This discussion has been closed.