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!
Posts
This is not an entirely valid criticism.
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.
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.
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?
Same reason I rank Casino Royale so high on my personal movie list.
xbl - HowYouGetAnts
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
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.
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)
The Vac - My Science Fiction Epic
Fortune Pancakes - My Gag-A-Day Comic
If skipping Gran Torino and Letters from Iwo Jima is "right", then I'd much rather be wrong.
The Vac - My Science Fiction Epic
Fortune Pancakes - My Gag-A-Day Comic
One of these things is not like the others.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/BaronofBank/
Blog: www.blakesmisko.com
Portfolio: www.cargocollective.com/bsdesigns
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.
The Vac - My Science Fiction Epic
Fortune Pancakes - My Gag-A-Day Comic
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.
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.
--
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.
Do you like his earlier ones? High Plains Drifter and Outlaw Josey Wales are two of my favorite westerns.
Why the fuck did you stop watching Spinal Tap?
My Band "The Wicked Girls" http://soundcloud.com/the-wicked-girls/sets
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.
The Vac - My Science Fiction Epic
Fortune Pancakes - My Gag-A-Day Comic
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.
I agree that Tony Scott is the inferior brother and Bay is only good for explosions
The Vac - My Science Fiction Epic
Fortune Pancakes - My Gag-A-Day Comic
@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.
You're really missing some great films. Can't recommend Man on Fire enough. Inside Man is another good Denzel film.
Scott's directing style is definitely polarizing, I like it but understand why some don't. He'd make a great director for Punisher.
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.
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.
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.
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.
YES. The snow scene is Goldeneye, as far as I'm concerned.
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:
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.)
Seems like an interesting concept, but I'm just not feeling anything about.
Just solid "meh" for me. What do you guys think?
The ending to 1984 is
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.
eh.. only way for that to be true is if you are all jesus.
edit: positively or negatively doesn't matter, can still relate.
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.
PSN/MGO- Eupfhoria
XBL- Eupfhoric
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.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
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!).
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?
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.