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

1394042444599

Posts

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    Variable wrote: »
    I rewatched Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas this week. It had been awhile.

    I never really had a problem with Depp's performance in that film, since he's obviously affecting an over-the-top caricature of Hunter S. Thompson (a person who was good friends with Depp, and who Depp has played twice on film), but the film, for all of its devotion to the source material, is just a narrative bust, which isn't a criticism Terry Gilliam is unfamiliar with.

    It blurts out its central theme of examining the fallout of the mid-1960s counterculture at the end by having Depp recite aloud a passage from the book saying just exactly what the whole point of the exercise is, but there's very little in its 2-hour running time that coalesces around a central message.

    I like it but this is all entirely true

    I was really obsessed with that part of history/culture in high school and it never completely left me but like... it's not a cohesive film in any normal sense.

    The main narrative problem in this film is the fact that it cannot answer the question, "What is this film about?"

    Things happen. Characters interact. But there is no agency from the characters, no urgency from the plot, and no stakes whatsoever.

  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Variable wrote: »
    I rewatched Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas this week. It had been awhile.

    I never really had a problem with Depp's performance in that film, since he's obviously affecting an over-the-top caricature of Hunter S. Thompson (a person who was good friends with Depp, and who Depp has played twice on film), but the film, for all of its devotion to the source material, is just a narrative bust, which isn't a criticism Terry Gilliam is unfamiliar with.

    It blurts out its central theme of examining the fallout of the mid-1960s counterculture at the end by having Depp recite aloud a passage from the book saying just exactly what the whole point of the exercise is, but there's very little in its 2-hour running time that coalesces around a central message.

    I like it but this is all entirely true

    I was really obsessed with that part of history/culture in high school and it never completely left me but like... it's not a cohesive film in any normal sense.

    The main narrative problem in this film is the fact that it cannot answer the question, "What is this film about?"

    Things happen. Characters interact. But there is no agency from the characters, no urgency from the plot, and no stakes whatsoever.

    Isn't it a commentary the death of the youth movement of the 60s and america's march towards the consumerism and conservatism of the 70s and 80s as told through the lens of two semi functional burnouts visiting Las Vegas? The plot/conflict isn't clear and that seems to be Gilliam's style, but there is definitely and answer to "What is this film about?".

  • CapfalconCapfalcon Well, NOW it's beachfront property Weyland Consortium HQRegistered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    Cabin in the Woods tomorrow.

    I am ready.

    YOU ARE NOT PREPARED!

  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Ascension. Ascension. Hallelujah. Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    I rewatched Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas this week. It had been awhile.

    I never really had a problem with Depp's performance in that film, since he's obviously affecting an over-the-top caricature of Hunter S. Thompson (a person who was good friends with Depp, and who Depp has played twice on film), but the film, for all of its devotion to the source material, is just a narrative bust, which isn't a criticism Terry Gilliam is unfamiliar with.

    It blurts out its central theme of examining the fallout of the mid-1960s counterculture at the end by having Depp recite aloud a passage from the book saying just exactly what the whole point of the exercise is, but there's very little in its 2-hour running time that coalesces around a central message.

    I like it but this is all entirely true

    I was really obsessed with that part of history/culture in high school and it never completely left me but like... it's not a cohesive film in any normal sense.

    The main narrative problem in this film is the fact that it cannot answer the question, "What is this film about?"

    Things happen. Characters interact. But there is no agency from the characters, no urgency from the plot, and no stakes whatsoever.

    Isn't it a commentary the death of the youth movement of the 60s and america's march towards the consumerism and conservatism of the 70s and 80s as told through the lens of two semi functional burnouts visiting Las Vegas? The plot/conflict isn't clear and that seems to be Gilliam's style, but there is definitely and answer to "What is this film about?".

    It's two druggy's going out to Vegas to look for the American Dream.

    Raoul Duke wrote:
    There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.

    I have a tumblr.
    Check it out.
  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    I rewatched Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas this week. It had been awhile.

    I never really had a problem with Depp's performance in that film, since he's obviously affecting an over-the-top caricature of Hunter S. Thompson (a person who was good friends with Depp, and who Depp has played twice on film), but the film, for all of its devotion to the source material, is just a narrative bust, which isn't a criticism Terry Gilliam is unfamiliar with.

    It blurts out its central theme of examining the fallout of the mid-1960s counterculture at the end by having Depp recite aloud a passage from the book saying just exactly what the whole point of the exercise is, but there's very little in its 2-hour running time that coalesces around a central message.

    I like it but this is all entirely true

    I was really obsessed with that part of history/culture in high school and it never completely left me but like... it's not a cohesive film in any normal sense.

    The main narrative problem in this film is the fact that it cannot answer the question, "What is this film about?"

    Things happen. Characters interact. But there is no agency from the characters, no urgency from the plot, and no stakes whatsoever.

    Isn't it a commentary the death of the youth movement of the 60s and america's march towards the consumerism and conservatism of the 70s and 80s as told through the lens of two semi functional burnouts visiting Las Vegas? The plot/conflict isn't clear and that seems to be Gilliam's style, but there is definitely and answer to "What is this film about?".

    It's two druggy's going out to Vegas to look for the American Dream.

    It was better when it wasn't Vegas and it was Easy Rider.

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Isn't it a commentary the death of the youth movement of the 60s and america's march towards the consumerism and conservatism of the 70s and 80s as told through the lens of two semi functional burnouts visiting Las Vegas? The plot/conflict isn't clear and that seems to be Gilliam's style, but there is definitely and answer to "What is this film about?".

    Only in as much that Depp just blurts that point out exactly with about 15 minutes left until the end.

    Little else in the film informs such a throughline, either by text or subtext. The only points of view we get into the fading counterculture come from Duke and Gonzo, and they're completely unreliable and wholly subjective. As well, little of what the plot has them doing informs the alleged themes of the film.

    Simply, whatever message the movie is trying to make only needs about 10 minutes of the two-hour running time. Everything else is mostly aimless wandering from vignette to vignette.

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    So, Warners is looking to return their track record on DC Comics film properties to its pristine mid-1990s shape, and has hired Brad Peyton to write and direct a film version of the foul-mouthed violence-ridden title, Lobo.

    You can see Peyton's recent work in masterpieces such as Dogs & Cats 2 and Journey 2: The Mysterious Island.



    Keep up the good work, WB.

  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Isn't it a commentary the death of the youth movement of the 60s and america's march towards the consumerism and conservatism of the 70s and 80s as told through the lens of two semi functional burnouts visiting Las Vegas? The plot/conflict isn't clear and that seems to be Gilliam's style, but there is definitely and answer to "What is this film about?".

    Only in as much that Depp just blurts that point out exactly with about 15 minutes left until the end.

    Little else in the film informs such a throughline, either by text or subtext. The only points of view we get into the fading counterculture come from Duke and Gonzo, and they're completely unreliable and wholly subjective. As well, little of what the plot has them doing informs the alleged themes of the film.

    Simply, whatever message the movie is trying to make only needs about 10 minutes of the two-hour running time. Everything else is mostly aimless wandering from vignette to vignette.

    The plot absolutely informs the theme. He's a fairly well known journalist hired to write about a motocross race in the middle of the desert. It's a stupid puff piece so he decides to try and figure out why the fuck anyone would want to go to Las Vegas which was already considered "America's Playground". Yes they are on drugs but if you decide not to take that on face value everything in Las Vegas looks disgusting and horrific to them because your drug trip is completely governed by your mindset and environment. Plus he literally rambles about vegas being a cesspool of everything wrong with the country for most of the movie. Your analysis reminds me of most college kids I talk to, "DRUGS, HOLY SHIT MORE DRUGS, some statement about 60s counter culture, DEA RELATED DRUG SHENANIGANS"

  • Linespider5Linespider5 Agent of Etc.Registered User regular
    So, Warners is looking to return their track record on DC Comics film properties to its pristine mid-1990s shape, and has hired Brad Peyton to write and direct a film version of the foul-mouthed violence-ridden title, Lobo.

    You can see Peyton's recent work in masterpieces such as Dogs & Cats 2 and Journey 2: The Mysterious Island.



    Keep up the good work, WB.

    Hh.

    I remember when Guy Ritchie was pegged to direct a Lobo movie. Mighta been good, in a Total Recall-meets-Judge Dredd-Meets Demolition Man-but-in-space-but-british kinda way.

    He chose to do the Sherlock Holmes movies instead. Which has since proven to be the biggest boon to his career since getting divorced from Madonna.

    2014png.png
  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Isn't it a commentary the death of the youth movement of the 60s and america's march towards the consumerism and conservatism of the 70s and 80s as told through the lens of two semi functional burnouts visiting Las Vegas? The plot/conflict isn't clear and that seems to be Gilliam's style, but there is definitely and answer to "What is this film about?".

    Only in as much that Depp just blurts that point out exactly with about 15 minutes left until the end.

    Little else in the film informs such a throughline, either by text or subtext. The only points of view we get into the fading counterculture come from Duke and Gonzo, and they're completely unreliable and wholly subjective. As well, little of what the plot has them doing informs the alleged themes of the film.

    Simply, whatever message the movie is trying to make only needs about 10 minutes of the two-hour running time. Everything else is mostly aimless wandering from vignette to vignette.

    The plot absolutely informs the theme. He's a fairly well known journalist hired to write about a motocross race in the middle of the desert. It's a stupid puff piece so he decides to try and figure out why the fuck anyone would want to go to Las Vegas which was already considered "America's Playground". Yes they are on drugs but if you decide not to take that on face value everything in Las Vegas looks disgusting and horrific to them because your drug trip is completely governed by your mindset and environment. Plus he literally rambles about vegas being a cesspool of everything wrong with the country for most of the movie. Your analysis reminds me of most college kids I talk to, "DRUGS, HOLY SHIT MORE DRUGS, some statement about 60s counter culture, DEA RELATED DRUG SHENANIGANS"


    Aren't you a charming individual.

  • EuphoriacEuphoriac Registered User regular
    So, Warners is looking to return their track record on DC Comics film properties to its pristine mid-1990s shape, and has hired Brad Peyton to write and direct a film version of the foul-mouthed violence-ridden title, Lobo.

    You can see Peyton's recent work in masterpieces such as Dogs & Cats 2 and Journey 2: The Mysterious Island.



    Keep up the good work, WB.

    oy

    steam_sig.png
  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    Guy Pierce is joining Iron Man 3 as scientist Killian Aldritch, basically confirming that the film's plot will be heavily based in the "Extremis" story arc, in which Pierce's character developed nanotechnology that gives people extraordinary abilities.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Behemoth wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I never had a problem understanding him.

    Me neither. I figured it was just, you know, good acting.

    Yeah, his performance was amazing. Even just getting down from the horse before he shoots the corn muffins: he manages to be foolish without coming off like a complete incompetent. Also, the humor in the film is brilliant.

    "He is not LaBeouf."

    *Bearskin man rides up*

    "You are not LaBeouf."

    And anyone who had a problem with the dialogue, it's mostly lifted word for word from the book. The lack of contractions really works to make the characters sound like they are of the period.

    Mad King George on
  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    Variable wrote: »
    I rewatched Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas this week. It had been awhile.

    I never really had a problem with Depp's performance in that film, since he's obviously affecting an over-the-top caricature of Hunter S. Thompson (a person who was good friends with Depp, and who Depp has played twice on film), but the film, for all of its devotion to the source material, is just a narrative bust, which isn't a criticism Terry Gilliam is unfamiliar with.

    It blurts out its central theme of examining the fallout of the mid-1960s counterculture at the end by having Depp recite aloud a passage from the book saying just exactly what the whole point of the exercise is, but there's very little in its 2-hour running time that coalesces around a central message.

    I like it but this is all entirely true

    I was really obsessed with that part of history/culture in high school and it never completely left me but like... it's not a cohesive film in any normal sense.
    Cohesive shmohesive.

    Monty Python and the Holy Grail is just a loosely-strung together series of random skits and it's one of the best movies ever made.

    jBEKRTH.png
  • Page-Page- Registered User regular
    Not as good as Life of Brian.

    (Mostly) Competitive Gaming Blog Updated April 14th. Dark Souls Diaries - Day 18
    stream
  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    My thoughts on Cabin in the Woods:
    Spoiler:

    spool32 wrote: »
    The President is right

    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
  • HounHoun Jump In Save the WorldRegistered User regular
    That was really well thought out, Astaereth.

    I just wanted to say that Cabin was fucking awesome, and I am grinning like an idiot right now.
    Spoiler:

    camo_sig2.png
    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • VariableVariable Weed and Masturbation Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    right, which is why I think a lot of people think of it as being about drugs
    wandering wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    I rewatched Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas this week. It had been awhile.

    I never really had a problem with Depp's performance in that film, since he's obviously affecting an over-the-top caricature of Hunter S. Thompson (a person who was good friends with Depp, and who Depp has played twice on film), but the film, for all of its devotion to the source material, is just a narrative bust, which isn't a criticism Terry Gilliam is unfamiliar with.

    It blurts out its central theme of examining the fallout of the mid-1960s counterculture at the end by having Depp recite aloud a passage from the book saying just exactly what the whole point of the exercise is, but there's very little in its 2-hour running time that coalesces around a central message.

    I like it but this is all entirely true

    I was really obsessed with that part of history/culture in high school and it never completely left me but like... it's not a cohesive film in any normal sense.
    Cohesive shmohesive.

    Monty Python and the Holy Grail is just a loosely-strung together series of random skits and it's one of the best movies ever made.

    hey I said I love it

    Steam Profile - Variable114 | WiiU - Variable | 3DS - 3866-8105-7478
    Sig%20-%20Reggie%20Watts.png
  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    That was really well thought out, Astaereth.

    Thanks!

    Your username reminds me of a Cabin question:
    Spoiler:

    spool32 wrote: »
    The President is right

    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
  • Re: nholderRe: nholder Registered User regular
    The Cabin In The Woods was great fun and money well spent. I'd actually compare it to Kevin Smith and what he did with Red State, although, much more tongue-in-cheek. It made me think the film was a love letter to the genre as much as it was a critique. No, screw that, I wouldn't even say it was a critique/love letter to the genre. The movie was a critique/love letter to film cliches in general.


    Honestly, if you didn't have fun with this movie then you need to take off your thinking cap and shove it up your bum.

  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    Page- wrote: »
    Not as good as Life of Brian.

    Which is also basically a bunch of skits strung together.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • Page-Page- Registered User regular
    It's way more coherent than either of the other two movies. Not that Meaning of Life even counts, but still.

    (Mostly) Competitive Gaming Blog Updated April 14th. Dark Souls Diaries - Day 18
    stream
  • armageddonboundarmageddonbound Registered User regular
    The only thing that I hate more than actual monty python movies, is the idea that I'm supposed to enjoy skit comedy that has a 1% success rate at being funny.

  • Page-Page- Registered User regular




    How does it feel to be so wrong?

    (Mostly) Competitive Gaming Blog Updated April 14th. Dark Souls Diaries - Day 18
    stream
  • Linespider5Linespider5 Agent of Etc.Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    The only thing that I hate more than actual monty python movies, is the idea that I'm supposed to enjoy skit comedy that has a 1% success rate at being funny.


    ...

    CryingIndian.jpg

    SOME PEOPLE HAVE A DEEP, ABIDING RESPECT FOR THE NATURAL BEAUTY THAT IS COMEDY.

    AND SOME PEOPLE DON'T.

    Linespider5 on
    2014png.png
  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong Don't treat me like potato. Registered User regular
    The only thing that I hate more than actual monty python movies, is the idea that I'm supposed to enjoy skit comedy that has a 1% success rate at being funny.

    Post of the year award.

    china_sig.jpg
  • SarcasmoBlasterSarcasmoBlaster Registered User regular
    So, apparently Avengers is really good. It's sitting at 96% right now, which includes a number of top critics, so it's not just pre-screening nerds driving up the score artificially high.

    Guess I'll eat some crow. I assumed there was no way they could successfully tie together, what, 5 films, for anything resembling a coherent payoff.

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    So, apparently Avengers is really good. It's sitting at 96% right now, which includes a number of top critics, so it's not just pre-screening nerds driving up the score artificially high.

    Guess I'll eat some crow. I assumed there was no way they could successfully tie together, what, 5 films, for anything resembling a coherent payoff.

    Not just 5 films, but at least eight main characters from those films, plus two new main characters.

    That's nuts.

  • Xenogear_0001Xenogear_0001 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Variable wrote: »
    I rewatched Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas this week. It had been awhile.

    I never really had a problem with Depp's performance in that film, since he's obviously affecting an over-the-top caricature of Hunter S. Thompson (a person who was good friends with Depp, and who Depp has played twice on film), but the film, for all of its devotion to the source material, is just a narrative bust, which isn't a criticism Terry Gilliam is unfamiliar with.

    It blurts out its central theme of examining the fallout of the mid-1960s counterculture at the end by having Depp recite aloud a passage from the book saying just exactly what the whole point of the exercise is, but there's very little in its 2-hour running time that coalesces around a central message.

    I like it but this is all entirely true

    I was really obsessed with that part of history/culture in high school and it never completely left me but like... it's not a cohesive film in any normal sense.

    The main narrative problem in this film is the fact that it cannot answer the question, "What is this film about?"

    Things happen. Characters interact. But there is no agency from the characters, no urgency from the plot, and no stakes whatsoever.

    It's always felt more like a really interesting story your burnt-out uncle would tell than anything. Less a movie and more a happening. It eschews the many staples of traditional story-telling in favor of a highly stylized, super-reality sort of vibe. It absolutely captures the feel of being on hallucinogens--and that, I believe, was always the aim. In itself, that's quite the accomplishment, as I don't think any film prior to or since has been able to pull it off quite as well.

    Xenogear_0001 on
    steam_sig.png
  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    Variable wrote: »
    I rewatched Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas this week. It had been awhile.

    I never really had a problem with Depp's performance in that film, since he's obviously affecting an over-the-top caricature of Hunter S. Thompson (a person who was good friends with Depp, and who Depp has played twice on film), but the film, for all of its devotion to the source material, is just a narrative bust, which isn't a criticism Terry Gilliam is unfamiliar with.

    It blurts out its central theme of examining the fallout of the mid-1960s counterculture at the end by having Depp recite aloud a passage from the book saying just exactly what the whole point of the exercise is, but there's very little in its 2-hour running time that coalesces around a central message.

    I like it but this is all entirely true

    I was really obsessed with that part of history/culture in high school and it never completely left me but like... it's not a cohesive film in any normal sense.

    The main narrative problem in this film is the fact that it cannot answer the question, "What is this film about?"

    Things happen. Characters interact. But there is no agency from the characters, no urgency from the plot, and no stakes whatsoever.

    It's always felt more like a really interesting story your burnt-out uncle would tell than anything. Less a movie and more a happening. It eschews the many staples of traditional story-telling in favor of a highly stylized, super-reality sort of vibe. It absolutely captures the feel of being on hallucinogens--and that, I believe, was always the aim. In itself, that's quite the accomplishment, as I don't think any film prior to or since has been able to pull it off quite as well.

    Come see my new movie! It accurately captures the feeling of being slowly crushed to death under an automobile lift while crankcase oil drips slowly onto your forehead! In itself, that's quite the accomplishment.

    In non-snarky words, I apparently find the feeling of being on a "bad trip" to be oppressive and uncomfortable, and if a movie isn't going to reward me with anything else, why should I watch it? On what basis do we call it good? Is there room in film criticism to attack intentions as well as executions?

    spool32 wrote: »
    The President is right

    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    In non-snarky words, I apparently find the feeling of being on a "bad trip" to be oppressive and uncomfortable, and if a movie isn't going to reward me with anything else, why should I watch it? On what basis do we call it good? Is there room in film criticism to attack intentions as well as executions?
    Doesn't it all depend on what you consider to be a worthwhile 'something else'? I'm not a big fan of Fear and Loathing, but I like Brazil and 12 Monkeys a lot - yes, they're not cheerful films to watch, they're oppressive and uncomfortable in some ways, but I would definitely consider them rewarding in a lot of ways.

    Eagles on Pogo Sticks: Musings of a Goofy Beast
    http://goofybeast.wordpress.com
  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    That's fine. All I'm saying is that "film x successfully simulates feeling y" is not in and of itself an aesthetic criteria informing "film x is a good film". It may be laudable in a certain sense (oh look, Andy Warhol simulated the experience of standing outside the Empire State Building all day, that is legitimately clever) but that has no bearing on a film's quality. Video game simulations similarly might or might not be good regardless of their fidelity to reality--Filling Out Paperwork: The Game may be perfectly realistic but a terrible, un-fun game.

    spool32 wrote: »
    The President is right

    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu ___________PIGEON _________San Diego, CA Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    To the extent that I want to know what a bad trip feels like without dropping acid and getting fucked up, and to the extent that Fear and Loathing tells a story about a bad trip that is entertaining even if it doesn't have some sort of coherent negative, then I can enjoy the movie.

    Now, I actually didn't like the movie too much, but that was for other reasons, and while you're correct to point out that simulating an experience doesn't automatically equal "GREAT MOVIE," it's also not true that just simulating an experience can't make a movie good. Sometimes it can! Planescape: Torment is an amazing game for a million reasons, but one of the best parts of it is that it made me feel guilty. It simulated the feeling of guilt even though I hadn't done anything to anyone else. If that was all that game had done, it would still be one of my favorites. Short games like Passage and Unmanned do the same sort of thing. They're not fun games in the traditional sense (just like a movie like Fear and Loathing isn't a narrative movie in the traditional sense [and just like the original Thompson article wasn't journalism in the traditional sense...]) but their value is in the experience they provide.

    TychoCelchuuu on
  • AstaerethAstaereth Registered User regular
    Games are in a completely different place right now, I feel (my fault for inviting the comparison). I can count the number of games that made me feel a true emotional connection on both hands*, so any game that does is automatically a step forward for the medium. But films are already an overwhelmingly emotional medium. Playing a game that feels like a bad trip might be better than playing a game that makes you feel nothing, but watching a movie that feels like a bad trip might not be better than watching a movie that feels like falling in love or riding a roller-coaster (or having a good trip, presumably).

    I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, btw. You make a good point, and experiential cinema probably does have some value. Perhaps I'm just unsure how to quantify it, how universal it is, how you integrate that judgment with conventional cinema.

    *Spoiled for off-topic:
    Spoiler:

    spool32 wrote: »
    The President is right

    Find more of my writing at The Thieves' Den.
  • Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus Not tests. They were trying to kill it.Registered User regular
    So I finally watched The Descendants last night. There are things I really liked about the movie, but the movie really irritated me too. Every single person in the movie, with the exception of Judy Greer's character, is a gigantic asshole. The older daughter character insists on dragging her asshole idiot boyfriend everywhere for absolutely no reason I can fathom. She doesn't even seem to like him that much, he's just there. George Clooney's character has just an incredibly cruel outburst at his friends, which is a little understandable, but I just could not believe he wouldn't realize what an asshole he just was and apologize for it. It just ended up feeling like everyone in the film acting absolutely horribly, and not a one of them had the decency to apologize for any of it.

  • armageddonboundarmageddonbound Registered User regular
    Page- wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    How does it feel to be so wrong?

    I grinned, not laughed, but grinned twice.

  • Xenogear_0001Xenogear_0001 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    I rewatched Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas this week. It had been awhile.

    I never really had a problem with Depp's performance in that film, since he's obviously affecting an over-the-top caricature of Hunter S. Thompson (a person who was good friends with Depp, and who Depp has played twice on film), but the film, for all of its devotion to the source material, is just a narrative bust, which isn't a criticism Terry Gilliam is unfamiliar with.

    It blurts out its central theme of examining the fallout of the mid-1960s counterculture at the end by having Depp recite aloud a passage from the book saying just exactly what the whole point of the exercise is, but there's very little in its 2-hour running time that coalesces around a central message.

    I like it but this is all entirely true

    I was really obsessed with that part of history/culture in high school and it never completely left me but like... it's not a cohesive film in any normal sense.

    The main narrative problem in this film is the fact that it cannot answer the question, "What is this film about?"

    Things happen. Characters interact. But there is no agency from the characters, no urgency from the plot, and no stakes whatsoever.

    It's always felt more like a really interesting story your burnt-out uncle would tell than anything. Less a movie and more a happening. It eschews the many staples of traditional story-telling in favor of a highly stylized, super-reality sort of vibe. It absolutely captures the feel of being on hallucinogens--and that, I believe, was always the aim. In itself, that's quite the accomplishment, as I don't think any film prior to or since has been able to pull it off quite as well.

    Come see my new movie! It accurately captures the feeling of being slowly crushed to death under an automobile lift while crankcase oil drips slowly onto your forehead! In itself, that's quite the accomplishment.

    In non-snarky words, I apparently find the feeling of being on a "bad trip" to be oppressive and uncomfortable, and if a movie isn't going to reward me with anything else, why should I watch it? On what basis do we call it good? Is there room in film criticism to attack intentions as well as executions?

    Hey, I never told you you had to watch it. And I understand the criticisms against it. Just providing my take, is all.

    As someone who has pretty extensive knowledge about the subject, I appreciated just how much the film captured the feel of something as abstract as an altered state. Most movies/tv/mini-series just make shit up and, if you're like me, you can tell. The authenticity presented by Fear and Loathing is laudable since capturing that feel is something no one else has convincingly done before (at least, that I'm aware of). That's basically what I was trying to say.

    Clearly, you do not feel as I do on the subject. And that's just fine. :)

    Xenogear_0001 on
    steam_sig.png
  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    So I finally watched The Descendants last night. There are things I really liked about the movie, but the movie really irritated me too. Every single person in the movie, with the exception of Judy Greer's character, is a gigantic asshole. The older daughter character insists on dragging her asshole idiot boyfriend everywhere for absolutely no reason I can fathom. She doesn't even seem to like him that much, he's just there. George Clooney's character has just an incredibly cruel outburst at his friends, which is a little understandable, but I just could not believe he wouldn't realize what an asshole he just was and apologize for it. It just ended up feeling like everyone in the film acting absolutely horribly, and not a one of them had the decency to apologize for any of it.

    I think I have a long post about this somewhere.

    I haven't hated a film in a long time as much as I hated this film.

  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    So I finally watched The Descendants last night. There are things I really liked about the movie, but the movie really irritated me too. Every single person in the movie, with the exception of Judy Greer's character, is a gigantic asshole. The older daughter character insists on dragging her asshole idiot boyfriend everywhere for absolutely no reason I can fathom. She doesn't even seem to like him that much, he's just there. George Clooney's character has just an incredibly cruel outburst at his friends, which is a little understandable, but I just could not believe he wouldn't realize what an asshole he just was and apologize for it. It just ended up feeling like everyone in the film acting absolutely horribly, and not a one of them had the decency to apologize for any of it.

    I think I have a long post about this somewhere.

    I haven't hated a film in a long time as much as I hated this film.

    Given your reception of Hunger Games, among others, that's no idle boast!

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    Hedgethorn wrote: »
    So I finally watched The Descendants last night. There are things I really liked about the movie, but the movie really irritated me too. Every single person in the movie, with the exception of Judy Greer's character, is a gigantic asshole. The older daughter character insists on dragging her asshole idiot boyfriend everywhere for absolutely no reason I can fathom. She doesn't even seem to like him that much, he's just there. George Clooney's character has just an incredibly cruel outburst at his friends, which is a little understandable, but I just could not believe he wouldn't realize what an asshole he just was and apologize for it. It just ended up feeling like everyone in the film acting absolutely horribly, and not a one of them had the decency to apologize for any of it.

    I think I have a long post about this somewhere.

    I haven't hated a film in a long time as much as I hated this film.

    Given your reception of Hunger Games, among others, that's no idle boast!

    Different types of ire. Hunger Games I disliked because it was flat and kind of formless, and didn't have much to say. It wasn't great, but it didn't offend me.

    The Descendants is a loathsome film filled with horrible people.

This discussion has been closed.