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?
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The only character who really comes off badly in Scott Pilgrim is Steven Stills, who loses all the character traits that made him not just a fame-'n-money-grubber.
Who am I supposed to like in 500 Days of Summer? The little sister?
I do think Eternal Sunshine and Before Sunrise/Sunset are pretty good answers, even if they skew a bit older; they're fairly universal and all excellent movies.
Has anyone else seen (or even heard of) Detention, which came out last weekend?
I would never have heard of it if I didn't know somebody involved in its production, but I am so glad I saw it. It is great. It's the cultiest fucking thing on earth, it probably won't be in theaters much longer, but it is just exuberant and hilarious. I expect it will get a lot of love if it can get some word of mouth.
Contains (from least strange to most strange):
- Saturday detention
- a kid with a tv strapped to his hand
- 1992 nostalgia
- a time traveling bear
- planet Starclaw
- a furious Canadian
I hoped it would get a wider release. I probably wont be able to see it since it is so limited.
Yeah, they have it on 10 screens in 10 cities, and gave it no advertising. Eventually people will be able to access it on BlueRay/OnDemand, but for anyone in those 10 towns, I would strongly recommend it before it leaves theaters.
Saw The Raid tonight, some CRAZY action if you're a martial arts fan it's worth seeing. It's one of those ones where you see the stunts and wince because wires, padding, whatever, there's no way filming it didn't hurt like hell.
Pretty sure the US could never make that sort of thing because no one would insure the stunts.
There is some insane action coming from places like Indonesia and Thailand these days, because their stuntpeople are fucking nuts. Go check out Chocolate (from the producers of Ong Bak and The Protector). Then check out the "making of" videos. 75% of the time is spent showing the painful injuries, some life-altering, that the stunt people recieve. Except, instead of Tony Jaa, it's a skinny young woman taking most of the hits. It's like watching the out-takes of a Jackie Chan movie, but even more cringe-inducing.
Speaking of which, Chocolate is an amazing movie, if only because it's balls out crazy.
Autistic little girl: "Money?"
Bad Guy: "It's a little girl, who wants the small amount of money that we rightfully owe her mother... Kill her!"
Henchmen: "That sounds about right... Attack!"
...and then the little girl beats them senseless.
The craziest thing was the fight with
the other autistic kid. It's like, "hmm, she's an autistic fighting savant... good thing we've got one of those, too!"
I was disappointed by Chocolate. It wasn't terrible, but compared to the other movies being produced by the same people it felt really slow. Like an American director's take on the Tony Jaa-style Thai martial arts movie.
Her father was a total badass, though, and that pretty much made up for the rest of it. And I've got high hopes for Yanin Mitananda co-starring with Tony Jaa in The Protector 2.
The list of good movies so far:
- John Carter
- Friends with Kids
- 21 Jump Street
- Mirror, Mirror
- Cabin in the Woods
I hate that you liked John Carter.
I can't even give a shakedown of what I didn't like because I found it so laughably bad from nearly the start. I can accept that it was just so not my thing that basically I shouldn't bother talking about it but I ... well this is my last post about it :P
I know you've gone over what you liked so I'm not trying to prompt for an explanation or anything.
Oh, I'm well aware of its flaws.
I'm prepared to put that movie in the category of "films I can't reasonably defend, but enjoy for some reason anyway."
The list of good movies so far:
- John Carter
- Friends with Kids
- 21 Jump Street
- Mirror, Mirror
- Cabin in the Woods
I hate that you liked John Carter.
I can't even give a shakedown of what I didn't like because I found it so laughably bad from nearly the start. I can accept that it was just so not my thing that basically I shouldn't bother talking about it but I ... well this is my last post about it :P
I know you've gone over what you liked so I'm not trying to prompt for an explanation or anything.
Oh, I'm well aware of its flaws.
I'm prepared to put that movie in the category of "films I can't reasonably defend, but enjoy for some reason anyway."
Lynn Collins didn't hurt.
well I feel infinitely better now actually.
everyone gets some of those movies
The sad thing is, with an aggressive editing job, John Carter could become a fairly good film.
at the point where the characters from upstairs and downstairs are mixing, the film has abandoned the literal level and everyone is living in themeland.
The two were interwoven from the beginning.
I don't think there's the distinction here you're trying to make--the upstairs and downstairs parts are both part of the literal plot and both part of the metaphor. It's not like we wandered off into some magic fairy-land of theme; we're shown that it's a literal, in-world conspiracy from very early on when there is a guy standing on the roof of the house saying "the birds have left the nest" or whatever. And yet, at the same time, it is satire on a clever and far-reaching level. I just think it's a shame the literal ending had to be so blah to accomplish it.
I personally thought the ending was beautifully done:
The movie itself acknowledges what we all know: things are fucked. A lot of horror movies have this bizarre compulsion to end up on some sort of high note, or at least otherwise give some closure. Cabin in the Woods is just honest: things are completely, irrevocably fubar and honestly we would all be better off just ending it than living in a world where this sort of horror movie shit happens. They set up the "hero covered in blood, exhausted, but alive" scene where whoever has survived pants a bit/jokes about it and knows that now everything is going to be okay, but it's just not, the world is ending. And then they lampoon the "moral of the story" part where the guy and the girl just kind of stumble over explaining the point of what happened because honestly in your normal movie that's usually the last afterthought the writer includes.
There's also the point where with most horror movies you have the question of "okay, who ends up dying?" that you're trying to figure out the entire movie long: is it everyone but the girl? Is it everyone but the girl and the love interest? Or maybe everyone dies. But this movie takes it a step further: absolutely everyone dies. And we mean everyone.
I think the anti-climax of the end was completely intentional.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
It's a shame too, because given the subject matter it seems like J Edgar could've really been used to say something (ala Social Network), but instead it looks like they did the typical "life's highlight reel" approach. I still haven't seen it, but at this point I'm not sure I will. As an aside, Ali remains my top "Wow, they really didn't say anything here yet you could have said so much." biopic of all-time.
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.
0
Options
DeadfallI don't think you realize just how rich he is.In fact, I should put on a monocle.Registered Userregular
I watched Inception over the weekend, for the first time since it was in theaters (so second time overall).
Not gonna lie, for me that's just about a flawless movie. I'm no expert on visual art in the slightest, but I was completely entertained for every moment.
And the music and sound, just amazing. How the "get ready to wake up music" with its repeating two horn notes was slowed down throughout the entire movie just blew me away, as I'd never noticed that before.
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.
I watched Inception over the weekend, for the first time since it was in theaters (so second time overall).
Not gonna lie, for me that's just about a flawless movie. I'm no expert on visual art in the slightest, but I was completely entertained for every moment.
And the music and sound, just amazing. How the "get ready to wake up music" with its repeating two horn notes was slowed down throughout the entire movie just blew me away, as I'd never noticed that before.
Yep, I like Inception.
Look. Hey. The ending? Gives me a chill every fucking time I see it. I was even squealing with glee the first time because I saw in my head the exact shot I wanted for the end of the movie, and Nolan delivered.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I love Inception so much I want to marry it. I wouldn't say its flawless, but I don't really give a shit about the flaws.
Is this whole thing about "terrible people" the usual internet hyperbole, or do people really have such ludicrously high ethical standards when it comes to fictional characters?
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Terrible people characters are generally harder to relate to, but not always. Hans Gruber is technically a terrible person, but the audience can't help but find him awesome.
I think the "terrible person" appellation gets applied a lot to characters that the movie wants us to think is cool/relatable, but their actions/attitude/whatever doesn't actually get them there. The movie won't acknowledge that they're terrible people because they're in a "good person" role, it keeps trying to make us like them. It's much more satisfying to make a terrible person a villain and have the movie encourage us to hate them.
Man, thinking about Cabin in the Woods more this morning:
Just remembered the "happy frog" scene, which was glorious. I remember that it was mentioned early in the movie that the last glitch that they had was some specific date in the 80s: does anyone know if he's making a reference to a specific movie/event?
No, no. The characters in Scott Pilgrim (at least, the main few) are objective terrible people, Scott foremost among them. There is nothing wrong with this, and I enjoy the movie; character flaws are a good thing for plot.
Now, holding up these terrible people and their terrible actions as "THE Love Story of the Millenial Generation", that's... that's something else entirely, and my original comments were to the effect that I don't understand how people can relate to so over the top and terrible a romance. Whether this is a statement on the courting habits of Millenials or the characters in SP remains to be seen.
Man, thinking about Cabin in the Woods more this morning:
Just remembered the "happy frog" scene, which was glorious. I remember that it was mentioned early in the movie that the last glitch that they had was some specific date in the 80s: does anyone know if he's making a reference to a specific movie/event?
Evil Dead II, I think
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
No, no. The characters in Scott Pilgrim (at least, the main few) are objective terrible people, Scott foremost among them.
I.e. internet hyperbole. Stalin was a terrible person. Pol Pot. Scott Pilgrim is a dick who needs to grow up.
Eh, I'd really classify Stalin and Pol Pot as horrific, perhaps monstrous. Gradations of "jerk", really.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Terrible people, as characters, are interesting if their personality flaws are part of a larger character arc (wherein they will find self-awareness and attempt to overcome these flaws) or these flaws in some other way inform the story and dynamics.
Tom and Summer in 500 Days of Summer are "terrible" people, but that's the whole point. Tom is oblivious to his terrible behavior, but then completes his character arc by self-actualizing and growing out of it, and Summer is "terrible" because she's only seen from the POV of Tom, who selfishly and erroneously blames Summer for their failing relationship.
Much the same with Scott Pilgrim; Scott, despite being fun and cool and charming, is kind of a dick (albeit obliviously), especially to his girlfriend, Knives, who he treats almost like a burden and an obstacle in his quest to be with his dream girl, Ramona. His actualization of this fact is the whole point of the central story; it's not "Will Scott be awesome enough to win Ramona?," it's, "Will Scott realize he's being a huge dick and stop treating people like prizes to be won?"
The only time that characters being terrible people is a problem is when they're supposed to be relatable and the audience is supposed to side with them. I think we can all agree that Anakin Skywalker in the last two Star Wars prequels is the quintessential archetype for this broken character. He's ostensibly the hero and protagonist of the films, but upon execution of his character, he appears sullen, petulant, entitled, selfish, irrational, mean, humorless, incompetent, corrupt, without agency, unhelpful, and outright stupid. Nothing about his character either by design or context is relatable or engaging, and honestly the only reason we even know that he's supposed to be the protagonist is because he's friends with the demonstrably "good" characters (Ben, Padme) and the heroic themes in the score swell when he's onscreen.
That's not to say that his character's arc doesn't make sense once completed; an irredeemable douchebag getting fucked up by his former friends for being a total fucking douchebag is an arc that works, it's just not the arc of someone who's supposed to be the hero or empathized with. Anakin's arc goes, "Creepy weirdo stalker--> Crybaby murderer--> Whiney dick who bitches about the Jedi--> Asshole who murders children and destroys Jedi--> Bastard who tries to murder his wife and friend--> Amputee who continues to be a huge fuckwad, but now wears an evil robot suit." That's not the arc of the hero, but the story insists he is.
The pacing in Inception, especially the third act, is perfect. I spent 30 minutes watching a van fall off a bridge in slow motion and I was on the edge of my seat the entire time.
0
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
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.
Saw The Raid tonight, some CRAZY action if you're a martial arts fan it's worth seeing. It's one of those ones where you see the stunts and wince because wires, padding, whatever, there's no way filming it didn't hurt like hell.
Pretty sure the US could never make that sort of thing because no one would insure the stunts.
There is some insane action coming from places like Indonesia and Thailand these days, because their stuntpeople are fucking nuts. Go check out Chocolate (from the producers of Ong Bak and The Protector). Then check out the "making of" videos. 75% of the time is spent showing the painful injuries, some life-altering, that the stunt people recieve. Except, instead of Tony Jaa, it's a skinny young woman taking most of the hits. It's like watching the out-takes of a Jackie Chan movie, but even more cringe-inducing.
Speaking of which, Chocolate is an amazing movie, if only because it's balls out crazy.
Autistic little girl: "Money?"
Bad Guy: "It's a little girl, who wants the small amount of money that we rightfully owe her mother... Kill her!"
Henchmen: "That sounds about right... Attack!"
...and then the little girl beats them senseless.
The craziest thing was the fight with
the other autistic kid. It's like, "hmm, she's an autistic fighting savant... good thing we've got one of those, too!"
I was disappointed by Chocolate. It wasn't terrible, but compared to the other movies being produced by the same people it felt really slow. Like an American director's take on the Tony Jaa-style Thai martial arts movie.
Her father was a total badass, though, and that pretty much made up for the rest of it. And I've got high hopes for Yanin Mitananda co-starring with Tony Jaa in The Protector 2.
Yanin, or "Jeeja," as they insist on calling her, is going to be a huge star, assuming she doesn't break her damn back doing stunts. I don't think I could've stood Raging Phoenix without her.
That said, they're making The Protector 2??? I thought Tony Jaa had retired from filmmaking after that crapstain called Ong Bak 3.
Tony Jaa gotta eat, I suppose. Of course, you might as well just call this one Don't Fuck With Tony Jaa's Elephants Part 5.
Dracomicron on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
The pacing in Inception, especially the third act, is perfect. I spent 30 minutes watching a van fall off a bridge in slow motion and I was on the edge of my seat the entire time.
Editing together 5 layers of concurrent action scenes that affect each other and still give the audience some idea of what the fuck is going on is like some sort of Herculean editing task.
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.
You can't have a redemption without a fall from grace. Anakin never started as good person. The first time we meet him as an adult, he's a stalking creep who whines about "being held back" and murders a bunch of unarmed women and children.
To a normal person, he would indeed seem to be the villain. Too bad Lucas is not that.
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.
It was so terrible and it's such a shame considering that it was written by the same guy who wrote Milk. And yes, so unfocused. It kept flirting with ideas too, but never going far enough with them: it wants to make Hoover a despot, but doesn't push far enough to make any sort of thesis.
And Leo's accent work was terrible and in conjunction with Eastwood's limited take technique he always sounds unsure of the voice he's going with in any given scene. Armie Hammer just stomps him in this regard.
Eastwood has really grown into someone who's just trying to milk a fifth Oscar out of the Academy at this point.
The makeup was good though..Well not on Armie Hammer.. His old man make up was just.. horrifying.
The makeup all around was terrible. It's weird how with all our modern makeup techniques no one has yet approached Dick Smith's Father Merrin/Jack Crabb/Salieri work.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The only time that characters being terrible people is a problem is when they're supposed to be relatable and the audience is supposed to side with them. I think we can all agree that Anakin Skywalker in the last two Star Wars prequels is the quintessential archetype for this broken character. He's ostensibly the hero and protagonist of the films, but upon execution of his character, he appears sullen, petulant, entitled, selfish, irrational, mean, humorless, incompetent, corrupt, without agency, unhelpful, and outright stupid. Nothing about his character either by design or context is relatable or engaging, and honestly the only reason we even know that he's supposed to be the protagonist is because he's friends with the demonstrably "good" characters (Ben, Padme) and the heroic themes in the score swell when he's onscreen.
That's not to say that his character's arc doesn't make sense once completed; an irredeemable douchebag getting fucked up by his former friends for being a total fucking douchebag is an arc that works, it's just not the arc of someone who's supposed to be the hero or empathized with. Anakin's arc goes, "Creepy weirdo stalker--> Crybaby murderer--> Whiney dick who bitches about the Jedi--> Asshole who murders children and destroys Jedi--> Bastard who tries to murder his wife and friend--> Amputee who continues to be a huge fuckwad, but now wears an evil robot suit." That's not the arc of the hero, but the story insists he is.
It's crazy because Obi Wan is clearly the hero here but the film acts like Anakin is.
To a normal person, he would indeed seem to be the villain. Too bad Lucas is not that.
You have to read Lucas's quotes from the Kasdan/Spielberg/Lucas Indiana Jones story discussion. He thinks that Indiana Jones having slept with Marion when he was 25 and she was 15 (his reason: so it wouldn't be creepy) then abandoning her as their back story (why she punches him) makes him a charming rogue, but having him just taking the necklace he needs from her would make him a jerk with whom the audience couldn't identify.
He's got some fairly twisted ideas that continually evidence in his work (like his sexual peccadilloes what with brothers and sisters making out, sons having sex with the same woman whose last partner was their dad, heroes sleeping with underage women, etc.)
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
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.
It was so terrible and it's such a shame considering that it was written by the same guy who wrote Milk. And yes, so unfocused. It kept flirting with ideas too, but never going far enough with them: it wants to make Hoover a despot, but doesn't push far enough to make any sort of thesis.
And Leo's accent work was terrible and in conjunction with Eastwood's limited take technique he always sounds unsure of the voice he's going with in any given scene. Armie Hammer just stomps him in this regard.
Eastwood has really grown into someone who's just trying to milk a fifth Oscar out of the Academy at this point.
The makeup was good though..Well not on Armie Hammer.. His old man make up was just.. horrifying.
The makeup all around was terrible. It's weird how with all our modern makeup techniques no one has yet approached Dick Smith's Father Merrin/Jack Crabb/Salieri work.
I agree the make-up was pretty bad, although I think anyone who's simply trying to age up a face as famous as Leo's is fighting an uphill battle--it's like CG, in that my brain knows it's fake so emphatically that any "realistic" make-up isn't going to distract me from that.
And yeah, although J. Edgar had several good scenes/moments, it was really unfocused. It's one of those biopics that fails to tell you anything about the character that you didn't either already know or could have guessed.
--
Inception is an original, entertaining, and driving movie, but it's far too flawed to be described as perfect, especially for Nolan (whose Prestige is practically a master class in narrative economy and story structure). The characterization is thin, the use of "newbie hears exposition and questions the status quo" is egregious, the surreality everybody likes (folded cities, trains from nowhere) drops out after the first act or so, the film tells constantly rather than showing, 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), and although the premise is complicated enough the film lacks Nolan's usual level of depth and density.
It's an enjoyable movie, but it really fails to live up to its promise (or justify its frankly amazing cast).
...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)!"
...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.
http://www.danreviewstheworld.com
Nintendo Network ID - PirateLuigi 3DS: 3136-6586-7691
G&T Grass Type Pokemon Gym Leader, In-Game Name: Dan
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
...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.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
He's got some fairly twisted ideas that continually evidence in his work (like his sexual peccadilloes what with brothers and sisters making out, sons having sex with the same woman whose last partner was their dad, heroes sleeping with underage women, etc.)
Lucas, at this point, is fairly famous for being a human being utterly unable to understand or conduct himself in the way of normal social interactions.
Posts
And yet Scott Pilgrim is disqualified for all characters being terrible people?
Who am I supposed to like in 500 Days of Summer? The little sister?
I do think Eternal Sunshine and Before Sunrise/Sunset are pretty good answers, even if they skew a bit older; they're fairly universal and all excellent movies.
Yeah, they have it on 10 screens in 10 cities, and gave it no advertising. Eventually people will be able to access it on BlueRay/OnDemand, but for anyone in those 10 towns, I would strongly recommend it before it leaves theaters.
I was disappointed by Chocolate. It wasn't terrible, but compared to the other movies being produced by the same people it felt really slow. Like an American director's take on the Tony Jaa-style Thai martial arts movie.
Her father was a total badass, though, and that pretty much made up for the rest of it. And I've got high hopes for Yanin Mitananda co-starring with Tony Jaa in The Protector 2.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
well I feel infinitely better now actually.
everyone gets some of those movies
Who's a terrible person in 500 Days of Summer?
The sad thing is, with an aggressive editing job, John Carter could become a fairly good film.
I personally thought the ending was beautifully done:
There's also the point where with most horror movies you have the question of "okay, who ends up dying?" that you're trying to figure out the entire movie long: is it everyone but the girl? Is it everyone but the girl and the love interest? Or maybe everyone dies. But this movie takes it a step further: absolutely everyone dies. And we mean everyone.
I think the anti-climax of the end was completely intentional.
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?
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.
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.
It's a shame too, because given the subject matter it seems like J Edgar could've really been used to say something (ala Social Network), but instead it looks like they did the typical "life's highlight reel" approach. I still haven't seen it, but at this point I'm not sure I will. As an aside, Ali remains my top "Wow, they really didn't say anything here yet you could have said so much." biopic of all-time.
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.
Not gonna lie, for me that's just about a flawless movie. I'm no expert on visual art in the slightest, but I was completely entertained for every moment.
And the music and sound, just amazing. How the "get ready to wake up music" with its repeating two horn notes was slowed down throughout the entire movie just blew me away, as I'd never noticed that before.
Yep, I like Inception.
xbl - HowYouGetAnts
steam - WeAreAllGeth
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.
Look. Hey. The ending? Gives me a chill every fucking time I see it. I was even squealing with glee the first time because I saw in my head the exact shot I wanted for the end of the movie, and Nolan delivered.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I think the "terrible person" appellation gets applied a lot to characters that the movie wants us to think is cool/relatable, but their actions/attitude/whatever doesn't actually get them there. The movie won't acknowledge that they're terrible people because they're in a "good person" role, it keeps trying to make us like them. It's much more satisfying to make a terrible person a villain and have the movie encourage us to hate them.
Now, holding up these terrible people and their terrible actions as "THE Love Story of the Millenial Generation", that's... that's something else entirely, and my original comments were to the effect that I don't understand how people can relate to so over the top and terrible a romance. Whether this is a statement on the courting habits of Millenials or the characters in SP remains to be seen.
Scott Pilgrim is disqualified for being a zany joke of a movie that barely takes itself seriously.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Evil Dead II, I think
Eh, I'd really classify Stalin and Pol Pot as horrific, perhaps monstrous. Gradations of "jerk", really.
Tom and Summer in 500 Days of Summer are "terrible" people, but that's the whole point. Tom is oblivious to his terrible behavior, but then completes his character arc by self-actualizing and growing out of it, and Summer is "terrible" because she's only seen from the POV of Tom, who selfishly and erroneously blames Summer for their failing relationship.
Much the same with Scott Pilgrim; Scott, despite being fun and cool and charming, is kind of a dick (albeit obliviously), especially to his girlfriend, Knives, who he treats almost like a burden and an obstacle in his quest to be with his dream girl, Ramona. His actualization of this fact is the whole point of the central story; it's not "Will Scott be awesome enough to win Ramona?," it's, "Will Scott realize he's being a huge dick and stop treating people like prizes to be won?"
The only time that characters being terrible people is a problem is when they're supposed to be relatable and the audience is supposed to side with them. I think we can all agree that Anakin Skywalker in the last two Star Wars prequels is the quintessential archetype for this broken character. He's ostensibly the hero and protagonist of the films, but upon execution of his character, he appears sullen, petulant, entitled, selfish, irrational, mean, humorless, incompetent, corrupt, without agency, unhelpful, and outright stupid. Nothing about his character either by design or context is relatable or engaging, and honestly the only reason we even know that he's supposed to be the protagonist is because he's friends with the demonstrably "good" characters (Ben, Padme) and the heroic themes in the score swell when he's onscreen.
That's not to say that his character's arc doesn't make sense once completed; an irredeemable douchebag getting fucked up by his former friends for being a total fucking douchebag is an arc that works, it's just not the arc of someone who's supposed to be the hero or empathized with. Anakin's arc goes, "Creepy weirdo stalker--> Crybaby murderer--> Whiney dick who bitches about the Jedi--> Asshole who murders children and destroys Jedi--> Bastard who tries to murder his wife and friend--> Amputee who continues to be a huge fuckwad, but now wears an evil robot suit." That's not the arc of the hero, but the story insists he is.
Yanin, or "Jeeja," as they insist on calling her, is going to be a huge star, assuming she doesn't break her damn back doing stunts. I don't think I could've stood Raging Phoenix without her.
That said, they're making The Protector 2??? I thought Tony Jaa had retired from filmmaking after that crapstain called Ong Bak 3.
Tony Jaa gotta eat, I suppose. Of course, you might as well just call this one Don't Fuck With Tony Jaa's Elephants Part 5.
Editing together 5 layers of concurrent action scenes that affect each other and still give the audience some idea of what the fuck is going on is like some sort of Herculean editing task.
You can't have a redemption without a fall from grace. Anakin never started as good person. The first time we meet him as an adult, he's a stalking creep who whines about "being held back" and murders a bunch of unarmed women and children.
To a normal person, he would indeed seem to be the villain. Too bad Lucas is not that.
It was so terrible and it's such a shame considering that it was written by the same guy who wrote Milk. And yes, so unfocused. It kept flirting with ideas too, but never going far enough with them: it wants to make Hoover a despot, but doesn't push far enough to make any sort of thesis.
And Leo's accent work was terrible and in conjunction with Eastwood's limited take technique he always sounds unsure of the voice he's going with in any given scene. Armie Hammer just stomps him in this regard.
Eastwood has really grown into someone who's just trying to milk a fifth Oscar out of the Academy at this point.
The makeup all around was terrible. It's weird how with all our modern makeup techniques no one has yet approached Dick Smith's Father Merrin/Jack Crabb/Salieri work.
It's crazy because Obi Wan is clearly the hero here but the film acts like Anakin is.
You have to read Lucas's quotes from the Kasdan/Spielberg/Lucas Indiana Jones story discussion. He thinks that Indiana Jones having slept with Marion when he was 25 and she was 15 (his reason: so it wouldn't be creepy) then abandoning her as their back story (why she punches him) makes him a charming rogue, but having him just taking the necklace he needs from her would make him a jerk with whom the audience couldn't identify.
He's got some fairly twisted ideas that continually evidence in his work (like his sexual peccadilloes what with brothers and sisters making out, sons having sex with the same woman whose last partner was their dad, heroes sleeping with underage women, etc.)
I agree the make-up was pretty bad, although I think anyone who's simply trying to age up a face as famous as Leo's is fighting an uphill battle--it's like CG, in that my brain knows it's fake so emphatically that any "realistic" make-up isn't going to distract me from that.
And yeah, although J. Edgar had several good scenes/moments, it was really unfocused. It's one of those biopics that fails to tell you anything about the character that you didn't either already know or could have guessed.
--
Inception is an original, entertaining, and driving movie, but it's far too flawed to be described as perfect, especially for Nolan (whose Prestige is practically a master class in narrative economy and story structure). The characterization is thin, the use of "newbie hears exposition and questions the status quo" is egregious, the surreality everybody likes (folded cities, trains from nowhere) drops out after the first act or so, the film tells constantly rather than showing, 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), and although the premise is complicated enough the film lacks Nolan's usual level of depth and density.
It's an enjoyable movie, but it really fails to live up to its promise (or justify its frankly amazing cast).
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.
Nintendo Network ID - PirateLuigi 3DS: 3136-6586-7691
G&T Grass Type Pokemon Gym Leader, In-Game Name: Dan
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.
Lucas, at this point, is fairly famous for being a human being utterly unable to understand or conduct himself in the way of normal social interactions.