Cabin in the Woods
...I dunno, I've never been a big horror fan...
That's why it was only a "liked it/didn't love it" movie to you.
Yeah that's what I figured, and I'm cool with that. I guess I was kind of expecting/hoping for something more there for the more general moviegoer too, that's all.
Yeah, it wasn't an attack. It's just that unless you're a "horror fan" and when I say that I mean the type of person who knows who someone corny like Charles Band is and what Full Moon Entertainment is, I can seriously see the film not working for you.
Cabin in the Woods
...I dunno, I've never been a big horror fan...
That's why it was only a "liked it/didn't love it" movie to you.
Yeah that's what I figured, and I'm cool with that. I guess I was kind of expecting/hoping for something more there for the more general moviegoer too, that's all.
Yeah, it wasn't an attack. It's just that unless you're a "horror fan" and when I say that I mean the type of person who knows who someone corny like Charles Band is and what Full Moon Entertainment is, I can seriously see the film not working for you.
I'm not a horror fan but I thought it was a great movie. Not a horror movie, really, but an enjoyable movie none the less.
Edit: However, I also saw Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy this weekend and thought it was possibly the most boring movie I've sat through since Zodiac, so obviously I have terrible taste in movies.
Cool little easter Egg from Cabin that I didn't spot myself, but have shamelessly lifted from tvtropes:
During "The Carnage", one video clip shows the woman from Serenity shooting herself before being taken by Reavers. And you wouldn't know it was from somewhere else.
Spaced is pretty excellent, and presages a bunch of Edgar Wright's later work.
500 Days of Summer is such a sexist pile of garbage though. And also just Annie Hall, only less self-aware. Beautifully shot though.
Ugh, I've seen a few people say this sort of thing, and it seems to me to be a huge misreading of the film. I think this article says it fairly well, or maybe I'm thinking of something else I read, but in short, I think that if you see (500) Days of Summer as sexist, it's likely because you're taking Gordon-Levitt's character's viewpoint as authoritative rather than as deeply flawed. The movie is very much from his perspective. It's not just that he's the main character: we see inside his head multiple times, the entire narrative is framed in terms of a portion of his life (note the title, for instance: it's 500 days of Summer not because she only lives for 500 days or something but because the movie is about him and the 500 days he spent with her), if you read it otherwise it's a pretty dumb movie, etc. Given this framing, I think it's an excellent movie, because it's as far from being sexist as you can get. It's mocking (or perhaps a more neutral word like "examining" would be better) his view of the world, and of Summer. He doesn't get her. He doesn't get anything. She's some mix of Manic Pixie Dream Girl and classic Romantic Movie Dream Girl.
I guess my problem is that the movie seemed to be taking a more objective perspective than that. Annie Hall, for instance, is clearly in its protagonist's head from beginning to end, the narrative framed and arranged as one long monologue, with the fictionalization and metaphorization of the story and of Annie clearly something the film is aware of and intends, from restaging an argument with a new ending to Annie having an out-of-body experience during sex to "I'm into leather". It's presented, arranged, and explained by Alvy Singer.
500 Days, on the other hand, frames things from the perspective of an omniscient narrator, and the time-jumps from (day) to (day) are authorial, not related to Levitt's character's state of mind or subjective take on his own story. When, after sex, a song-and-dance number breaks out, it feels like an authorial description of Tom, not a self-interpretation. Indeed the character simply isn't self-aware enough to make such an examination work--he is a flawed and deluded person who would never have been able to tell his story, certainly not the way it appears in the film. Look at the scene when we see the contrast between Tom's fantasy and an objective reality--if the film were actually from his perspective, that sort of division would not be possible.
I agree the film is critical of Tom and his absurd romantic notions; but the objective authorial framing prevents me from laying the shoddy characterization (particularly the female lead) at Tom's feet. There's nothing in the film to suggest that Tom himself is limiting my view of that character; in fact, the objective narrator himself at one point narrates over a missed opportunity for characterization. It doesn't feel like we're missing the bits that would flesh out the MPDG (who here is really just the traditional male-cad-who-likes-things-casual minus the penis) because Tom is withholding them from us but because the film is withholding them from us.
I also think, as a lesser complaint, that the film makes it too easy to take Tom's side uncritically, as evidenced by the many reviewers who missed the movie's intentions.
You completely missed it. Like, you seem to get the point of the film, but refuse to accept it for some reason.
The entire film is very clearly coloured by Tom and his perspective. It's all about Tom. It follows him, not Summer or anyone else. The film is withholding information about Summer and such from us because the film is about Tom and mostly from his perspective.
It doesn't flesh out Summer because Tom doesn't understand Summer and never did. That's the whole point of the film.
It's not a romantic comedy, it's just disguised as one.
Cool little easter Egg from Cabin that I didn't spot myself, but have shamelessly lifted from tvtropes:
During "The Carnage", one video clip shows the woman from Serenity shooting herself before being taken by Reavers. And you wouldn't know it was from somewhere else.
Oh holy crap. I remember that part and it registered as familiar. That's amazing
Cabin in the Woods
...I dunno, I've never been a big horror fan...
That's why it was only a "liked it/didn't love it" movie to you.
Yeah that's what I figured, and I'm cool with that. I guess I was kind of expecting/hoping for something more there for the more general moviegoer too, that's all.
Personally, I do consider myself a horror fan. I just dislike the slasher sub-genre. Some of my favorite movies are Alien, Cloverfield, and Pandorum. I even like Event Horizon!
I was hoping for it to transcend its genre, but it didn't. It basically felt like an retread of Scream, minus any actual suspense.
Cabin in the Woods
...I dunno, I've never been a big horror fan...
That's why it was only a "liked it/didn't love it" movie to you.
Yeah that's what I figured, and I'm cool with that. I guess I was kind of expecting/hoping for something more there for the more general moviegoer too, that's all.
Personally, I do consider myself a horror fan. I just dislike the slasher sub-genre. Some of my favorite movies are Alien, Cloverfield, and Pandorum. I even like Event Horizon!
I was hoping for it to transcend its genre, but it didn't. It basically felt like an retread of Scream, minus any actual suspense.
Here's my take for why it's different than Scream:
Scream says "People do X in a horror movie". Cabin in the Woods tells you why they do that. Like the fantastic little touches of the knife, which shocks the virgin right after she stabs the zombie, making her drop it.
http://www.danreviewstheworld.com
Nintendo Network ID - PirateLuigi 3DS: 3136-6586-7691
G&T Grass Type Pokemon Gym Leader, In-Game Name: Dan
Cabin in the Woods
...I dunno, I've never been a big horror fan...
That's why it was only a "liked it/didn't love it" movie to you.
Yeah that's what I figured, and I'm cool with that. I guess I was kind of expecting/hoping for something more there for the more general moviegoer too, that's all.
Personally, I do consider myself a horror fan. I just dislike the slasher sub-genre. Some of my favorite movies are Alien, Cloverfield, and Pandorum. I even like Event Horizon!
I was hoping for it to transcend its genre, but it didn't. It basically felt like an retread of Scream, minus any actual suspense.
Here's my take for why it's different than Scream:
Scream says "People do X in a horror movie". Cabin in the Woods tells you why they do that. Like the fantastic little touches of the knife, which shocks the virgin right after she stabs the zombie, making her drop it.
That's what that was. I saw the flash of electric blue but missed who got shocked and why.
I loved the bit immediately after they reconvene in the house after zombies show up and resolve to stick together and work as a team, so the subterranean controllers gas them into thinking that splitting up is a good idea.
I'd like to see a still frame of the wide shot with all of the cubes of monsters. I know I spotted the little girls from The Shining and assume there must be other classic horror movie people in there (other than the obvious homages that got more screen time).
Cabin in the Woods
...I dunno, I've never been a big horror fan...
That's why it was only a "liked it/didn't love it" movie to you.
Yeah that's what I figured, and I'm cool with that. I guess I was kind of expecting/hoping for something more there for the more general moviegoer too, that's all.
Personally, I do consider myself a horror fan. I just dislike the slasher sub-genre. Some of my favorite movies are Alien, Cloverfield, and Pandorum. I even like Event Horizon!
I was hoping for it to transcend its genre, but it didn't. It basically felt like an retread of Scream, minus any actual suspense.
Here's my take for why it's different than Scream:
Scream says "People do X in a horror movie". Cabin in the Woods tells you why they do that. Like the fantastic little touches of the knife, which shocks the virgin right after she stabs the zombie, making her drop it.
I actually didn't like that specific part.
Dropping a knife after the adrenaline surge dies down just makes sense to me. Dropping it because you were shocked, yet not noticing the shock doesn't.
I think it was too clever for it's own good. Then again, that's my standard opinion of Joss Whedon, so I'm willing to admit potential bias.
Cabin in the Woods
...I dunno, I've never been a big horror fan...
That's why it was only a "liked it/didn't love it" movie to you.
Yeah that's what I figured, and I'm cool with that. I guess I was kind of expecting/hoping for something more there for the more general moviegoer too, that's all.
Personally, I do consider myself a horror fan. I just dislike the slasher sub-genre. Some of my favorite movies are Alien, Cloverfield, and Pandorum. I even like Event Horizon!
I was hoping for it to transcend its genre, but it didn't. It basically felt like an retread of Scream, minus any actual suspense.
Here's my take for why it's different than Scream:
Scream says "People do X in a horror movie". Cabin in the Woods tells you why they do that. Like the fantastic little touches of the knife, which shocks the virgin right after she stabs the zombie, making her drop it.
That's what that was. I saw the flash of electric blue but missed who got shocked and why.
I loved the bit immediately after they reconvene in the house after zombies show up and resolve to stick together and work as a team, so the subterranean controllers gas them into thinking that splitting up is a good idea.
I'd like to see a still frame of the wide shot with all of the cubes of monsters. I know I spotted the little girls from The Shining and assume there must be other classic horror movie people in there (other than the obvious homages that got more screen time).
If the movie had been 80% of that (instead of the 20% we got), I'd be singing it's praises
When they got into the facility at the end, I was like "Finally, things are going to get interesting now!"
Then the movie ended.
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
people drop knives in horror movies because of shocks? and choose to split up because of gas?
Spaced is pretty excellent, and presages a bunch of Edgar Wright's later work.
500 Days of Summer is such a sexist pile of garbage though. And also just Annie Hall, only less self-aware. Beautifully shot though.
Ugh, I've seen a few people say this sort of thing, and it seems to me to be a huge misreading of the film. I think this article says it fairly well, or maybe I'm thinking of something else I read, but in short, I think that if you see (500) Days of Summer as sexist, it's likely because you're taking Gordon-Levitt's character's viewpoint as authoritative rather than as deeply flawed. The movie is very much from his perspective. It's not just that he's the main character: we see inside his head multiple times, the entire narrative is framed in terms of a portion of his life (note the title, for instance: it's 500 days of Summer not because she only lives for 500 days or something but because the movie is about him and the 500 days he spent with her), if you read it otherwise it's a pretty dumb movie, etc. Given this framing, I think it's an excellent movie, because it's as far from being sexist as you can get. It's mocking (or perhaps a more neutral word like "examining" would be better) his view of the world, and of Summer. He doesn't get her. He doesn't get anything. She's some mix of Manic Pixie Dream Girl and classic Romantic Movie Dream Girl.
I guess my problem is that the movie seemed to be taking a more objective perspective than that. Annie Hall, for instance, is clearly in its protagonist's head from beginning to end, the narrative framed and arranged as one long monologue, with the fictionalization and metaphorization of the story and of Annie clearly something the film is aware of and intends, from restaging an argument with a new ending to Annie having an out-of-body experience during sex to "I'm into leather". It's presented, arranged, and explained by Alvy Singer.
500 Days, on the other hand, frames things from the perspective of an omniscient narrator, and the time-jumps from (day) to (day) are authorial, not related to Levitt's character's state of mind or subjective take on his own story. When, after sex, a song-and-dance number breaks out, it feels like an authorial description of Tom, not a self-interpretation. Indeed the character simply isn't self-aware enough to make such an examination work--he is a flawed and deluded person who would never have been able to tell his story, certainly not the way it appears in the film. Look at the scene when we see the contrast between Tom's fantasy and an objective reality--if the film were actually from his perspective, that sort of division would not be possible.
I agree the film is critical of Tom and his absurd romantic notions; but the objective authorial framing prevents me from laying the shoddy characterization (particularly the female lead) at Tom's feet. There's nothing in the film to suggest that Tom himself is limiting my view of that character; in fact, the objective narrator himself at one point narrates over a missed opportunity for characterization. It doesn't feel like we're missing the bits that would flesh out the MPDG (who here is really just the traditional male-cad-who-likes-things-casual minus the penis) because Tom is withholding them from us but because the film is withholding them from us.
I also think, as a lesser complaint, that the film makes it too easy to take Tom's side uncritically, as evidenced by the many reviewers who missed the movie's intentions.
You completely missed it. Like, you seem to get the point of the film, but refuse to accept it for some reason.
The entire film is very clearly coloured by Tom and his perspective. It's all about Tom. It follows him, not Summer or anyone else. The film is withholding information about Summer and such from us because the film is about Tom and mostly from his perspective.
Do you have any evidence to back that up? I did give several specific examples of techniques the film uses which appear to place it in a objective framework. Just because the film follows Tom doesn't have anything to do with a specific character being underwritten. There's a difference between saying "Darth Vader isn't given much characterization because Luke has far more scenes in the trilogy" (which is true) and saying "Padme is poorly written because Anakin doesn't perceive her character clearly". The latter is unsupported by the text of the prequel trilogy, and the same argument is unsupported by the text of 500 Days.
Again, I'm not arguing that the film is a romantic comedy in the traditional sense, or that it's not critical of Tom's character; I'm arguing that the film does not even begin to suggest that when we're looking at Zooey Deschanel playing Summer, we're looking at Tom's made-up version of Summer differing wildly in depth from a hypothetical objective version of Summer. I'm arguing that the authorial perspective here are the screenwriters, Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber. The movie even begins with a disclaimer marked "Author's Note" that's clearly not written by Tom. Neustadter and Weber are the ones telling us this story and the underwritten Summer character is on them.
I've heard from a number of people that they really liked John Carter. It sounds like I should go see it. It's unbelievable how hard it has flopped domestically, I gather it is doing much better outside the US though.
The one person I know who said John Carter was great also said that Green Lantern was one of his favorite superhero movies ever and Thor was awful. So yeah.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Cool little easter Egg from Cabin that I didn't spot myself, but have shamelessly lifted from tvtropes:
During "The Carnage", one video clip shows the woman from Serenity shooting herself before being taken by Reavers. And you wouldn't know it was from somewhere else.
Another possible easter egg (maybe I'm wrong though)... Was the picture in the cellar which startled Dana a picture of Drusilla? Or was it just someone resembling her?
Edit: Also, regarding Cabin in the Woods, can we please note that though Whedon co-wrote and produced it, it's not "a film by Joss Whedon". Drew Goddard wrote and directed.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Again, I'm not arguing that the film is a romantic comedy in the traditional sense, or that it's not critical of Tom's character; I'm arguing that the film does not even begin to suggest that when we're looking at Zooey Deschanel playing Summer, we're looking at Tom's made-up version of Summer differing wildly in depth from a hypothetical objective version of Summer. I'm arguing that the authorial perspective here are the screenwriters, Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber. The movie even begins with a disclaimer marked "Author's Note" that's clearly not written by Tom. Neustadter and Weber are the ones telling us this story and the underwritten Summer character is on them.
We're shown Summer as she is, but we mostly only see of her what Tom sees. The viewer is able to see that he's misinterpreting things along the way, but we're also able to see how he could come to the albeit flawed conclusions he often comes to, especially since he obviously wants his interpretation to be true, even when it's not.
The only scene where we're shown a version of Summer actually shaped by his perspective is in that Expectations vs Reality scene, and we're explicitly told that we're seeing it then. I really don't see how you're coming to the conclusion that you are.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
The "author's note" disclaimer isn't explicitly written by Tom, but it's clearly there to implant the idea that Summer is based on the "author's" previous acquaintance (Jenny Beckman or whatever it was). With that as a given, why shouldn't it follow that the character of Tom is also based on the "author"?
And as the entire point of SCvTW is arrested Development and nostalgia of course Millinials love it! Arrested Development's their deal and for some reason they love nostalgia.
I'm 22 and my similarly aged friends talk constantly about playing Nintendo as a kid.
My 1 year old cousin has spent a year tracking down a gameboy color! Something he doesn't even remember.
How has your 1 year old cousin spent a year tracking down a Gameboy Color?
17 sorry.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Why wouldn't a 17 year old remember Game Boy Color? If they were affluent enough it was probably one of their first game systems.
500 Days of Summer is very much from Tom's perspective, and treats Summer in the way that is as frustrating and incomplete as Tom's limited understanding is of her. There are multiple scenes that clearly show us Summer as Tom sees her, and not necessarily as her own person. (The different scenes where he lists the little things he loves about her, and then later in the film complains about those very same things, this is a good example of what I'm talking about. It's pretty clear that the only thing that has changed is his attitude toward her, her physical features and habits remain the same.)
The film is pretty self-aware when it comes to showing that Tom's issues are much of the source of his troubles with Summer. And it is absolutely critical of him for this, in that his failure to really understand Summer throws his life into disarray. It's only when he lets go and focuses on what he knows and wants that his life pieces itself back together, with possible new romance to follow.
I don't know, complaining that Summer was underdeveloped to the point of sexism in that film is really going out of the way to miss the point. Sometimes it's pretty bare when one is grasping for a high-minded reason to dislike something.
So the Ironman 3 news has gotten strange. Despite Blacks earlier insistence against the Mandarin appearing it has been revealed that part of the movie will be filmed in China and that they put out a casting call specifically for Asian extra's.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Why wouldn't a 17 year old remember Game Boy Color? If they were affluent enough it was probably one of their first game systems.
He would have been 3 to 5.
Exactly, that's when people first get gameboys.
A GBC isn't that far ago, now if he'd been scouring the earth for an original gameboy, i'd be waggling some eyebrows.
Wait what? Gameboys at age 5?
It's a thing.
My wealthier friends had gameboys that young.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
People who didn't like Cabin in the Woods should just give up on movies. It's obviously just not their thing. I hear frisbee golf is fun. Maybe they should try that.
My one teensy gripe:
Giving the first part of the twist away at the very beginning. I wouldn't even have minded if had been given away fairly quickly, but I think holding off for the first 15-20 minutes would have made the progressive twists and turns all that much more mind-fucking. Sure, there were plenty of further twists to go around, but I love the idea of ramping up the whole bait-and-switch thing up even more. There were people in my theater audibly having their minds blown by this film. It's the best horror film to come out in years, and funny as fuck.
Easily my favorite film so far this year, but I think I've already seen more good movies now than in all last year combined.
The list of good movies so far:
- John Carter
- Friends with Kids
- 21 Jump Street
- Mirror, Mirror
- Cabin in the Woods
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
I've heard from a number of people that they really liked John Carter. It sounds like I should go see it. It's unbelievable how hard it has flopped domestically, I gather it is doing much better outside the US though.
The one person I know who said John Carter was great also said that Green Lantern was one of his favorite superhero movies ever and Thor was awful. So yeah.
Ignore that guy.
I liked Thor, and I'm still astonished at how quickly I could tell Green Lantern had serious, serious problems. John Carter might have a hangnail and stretched calf muscle; Green Lantern has a cannibalistic conjoined twin with bowel cancer growing out of the hump in its back.
Ahem.
You could enjoy John Carter for the costumes and set design alone. If you liked Farscape, I think you'll find something to like here.
But the story is also good, as are all the people involved. Plus it has a brutally uncompromising presentation of the Tharks.
Not to mention it has a Batman-grade Sneaky Ending after the traditional Hail Flash victory of saving the day.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I gotta agree with everyone else. The film is clearly colored by Tom's POV, and quite intentionally so. It's very similar to Annie Hall in the respect that it isn't a deconstruction of the romance between two people, it's an observation of one person's selfishness and obliviousness in a relationship based primarily on treating one party treating the other as an object instead of a human being.
So the Ironman 3 news has gotten strange. Despite Blacks earlier insistence against the Mandarin appearing it has been revealed that part of the movie will be filmed in China and that they put out a casting call specifically for Asian extra's.
They could do the Mandarin if they went the Fu Manchu route and made him the ultimate evil weeaboo (despite the Chinese and not Japanese thing).
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The list of good movies so far:
- John Carter
- Friends with Kids
- 21 Jump Street
- Mirror, Mirror
- Cabin in the Woods
Would Mirror,Mirror be in any way enjoyable to someone with a passionate hatred of Julia Roberts?
Couldn't answer that.
I guess it depends on if you don't like her acting or you just don't like her personally.
There are very few people in film that bother me personally to such a level that I stay away from their pictures, with Roman Polanski and M. Night Shayamalan being really the only two I can think of, and even with Polanski I'll still try to find a way to see his movies without paying for them.
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
So the Ironman 3 news has gotten strange. Despite Blacks earlier insistence against the Mandarin appearing it has been revealed that part of the movie will be filmed in China and that they put out a casting call specifically for Asian extra's.
They could do the Mandarin if they went the Fu Manchu route and made him the ultimate evil weeaboo (despite the Chinese and not Japanese thing).
Huh. I wonder, given the whole 'industrial espionage' angle, if they're going with, uh, you know. China Foxconning their own Stark tech.
I gotta agree with everyone else. The film is clearly colored by Tom's POV, and quite intentionally so. It's very similar to Annie Hall in the respect that it isn't a deconstruction of the romance between two people, it's an observation of one person's selfishness and obliviousness in a relationship based primarily on treating one party treating the other as an object instead of a human being.
Eh, maybe I'll watch it again sometime and see if it strikes me different. I didn't entirely dislike it in the theater (Joseph-Gordon Levitt, very pretty pictures, lovely soundtrack). Although I'd probably get more out of watching Annie Hall for the fifth time, because that is an excellent, excellent movie.
In other news, I watched Barney's Version yesterday; it's a poorly-paced, bloated, uninteresting dullity of a film. I'm convinced that 99% of biopics simply do not work, because it is the rare life which actually reduces to a narrative, and rarer still to find one that reduces to an interesting narrative. Barney's Version (based on a novel, but still structured like a biopic) is about a nobody, distinguished by nothing, who has three wives over the course of a life, and also there's a murder mystery in there for no good reason.
That said, it was just barely worth it to see Paul Giamatti act very well, which he always does, despite the limitations of the role and story. He wasn't quite reading the phone book but this is probably as close as he'll ever get.
Either that's FFF or it establishes dragon like entities in the film universe so the audience won't think it's a Big-Lipped Alligator Moment in Iron Man 3. That said, I doubt they'll have FFF. The invasion in Avengers could be where Mandarin gains the rings.
The Leviathan will, in my brain, be FFF until someones says otherwise. If Mandarin exists I'm assuming he gets the rings from the dragon limping away after the battle.
Posts
Yeah, it wasn't an attack. It's just that unless you're a "horror fan" and when I say that I mean the type of person who knows who someone corny like Charles Band is and what Full Moon Entertainment is, I can seriously see the film not working for you.
I'm not a horror fan but I thought it was a great movie. Not a horror movie, really, but an enjoyable movie none the less.
Edit: However, I also saw Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy this weekend and thought it was possibly the most boring movie I've sat through since Zodiac, so obviously I have terrible taste in movies.
You completely missed it. Like, you seem to get the point of the film, but refuse to accept it for some reason.
The entire film is very clearly coloured by Tom and his perspective. It's all about Tom. It follows him, not Summer or anyone else. The film is withholding information about Summer and such from us because the film is about Tom and mostly from his perspective.
It doesn't flesh out Summer because Tom doesn't understand Summer and never did. That's the whole point of the film.
It's not a romantic comedy, it's just disguised as one.
Oh holy crap. I remember that part and it registered as familiar. That's amazing
Personally, I do consider myself a horror fan. I just dislike the slasher sub-genre. Some of my favorite movies are Alien, Cloverfield, and Pandorum. I even like Event Horizon!
I was hoping for it to transcend its genre, but it didn't. It basically felt like an retread of Scream, minus any actual suspense.
Here's my take for why it's different than Scream:
Nintendo Network ID - PirateLuigi 3DS: 3136-6586-7691
G&T Grass Type Pokemon Gym Leader, In-Game Name: Dan
I loved the bit immediately after they reconvene in the house after zombies show up and resolve to stick together and work as a team, so the subterranean controllers gas them into thinking that splitting up is a good idea.
I'd like to see a still frame of the wide shot with all of the cubes of monsters. I know I spotted the little girls from The Shining and assume there must be other classic horror movie people in there (other than the obvious homages that got more screen time).
I actually didn't like that specific part.
I think it was too clever for it's own good. Then again, that's my standard opinion of Joss Whedon, so I'm willing to admit potential bias.
If the movie had been 80% of that (instead of the 20% we got), I'd be singing it's praises
Then the movie ended.
You have just done a masterful job of expressing my point.
Throw a "Really?!?!" on the end and it's perfect.
In the world of Cabin they do.
I actually just thought of the work that most closely parallels this film:
Nintendo Network ID - PirateLuigi 3DS: 3136-6586-7691
G&T Grass Type Pokemon Gym Leader, In-Game Name: Dan
Do you have any evidence to back that up? I did give several specific examples of techniques the film uses which appear to place it in a objective framework. Just because the film follows Tom doesn't have anything to do with a specific character being underwritten. There's a difference between saying "Darth Vader isn't given much characterization because Luke has far more scenes in the trilogy" (which is true) and saying "Padme is poorly written because Anakin doesn't perceive her character clearly". The latter is unsupported by the text of the prequel trilogy, and the same argument is unsupported by the text of 500 Days.
Again, I'm not arguing that the film is a romantic comedy in the traditional sense, or that it's not critical of Tom's character; I'm arguing that the film does not even begin to suggest that when we're looking at Zooey Deschanel playing Summer, we're looking at Tom's made-up version of Summer differing wildly in depth from a hypothetical objective version of Summer. I'm arguing that the authorial perspective here are the screenwriters, Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber. The movie even begins with a disclaimer marked "Author's Note" that's clearly not written by Tom. Neustadter and Weber are the ones telling us this story and the underwritten Summer character is on them.
The one person I know who said John Carter was great also said that Green Lantern was one of his favorite superhero movies ever and Thor was awful. So yeah.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Another possible easter egg (maybe I'm wrong though)... Was the picture in the cellar which startled Dana a picture of Drusilla? Or was it just someone resembling her?
Edit: Also, regarding Cabin in the Woods, can we please note that though Whedon co-wrote and produced it, it's not "a film by Joss Whedon". Drew Goddard wrote and directed.
We're shown Summer as she is, but we mostly only see of her what Tom sees. The viewer is able to see that he's misinterpreting things along the way, but we're also able to see how he could come to the albeit flawed conclusions he often comes to, especially since he obviously wants his interpretation to be true, even when it's not.
The only scene where we're shown a version of Summer actually shaped by his perspective is in that Expectations vs Reality scene, and we're explicitly told that we're seeing it then. I really don't see how you're coming to the conclusion that you are.
17 sorry.
He would have been 3 to 5.
Definitely had a Game Boy when I was 5.
Exactly, that's when people first get gameboys.
A GBC isn't that far ago, now if he'd been scouring the earth for an original gameboy, i'd be waggling some eyebrows.
The film is pretty self-aware when it comes to showing that Tom's issues are much of the source of his troubles with Summer. And it is absolutely critical of him for this, in that his failure to really understand Summer throws his life into disarray. It's only when he lets go and focuses on what he knows and wants that his life pieces itself back together, with possible new romance to follow.
I don't know, complaining that Summer was underdeveloped to the point of sexism in that film is really going out of the way to miss the point. Sometimes it's pretty bare when one is grasping for a high-minded reason to dislike something.
So the Ironman 3 news has gotten strange. Despite Blacks earlier insistence against the Mandarin appearing it has been revealed that part of the movie will be filmed in China and that they put out a casting call specifically for Asian extra's.
Wait what? Gameboys at age 5?
It's a thing.
My wealthier friends had gameboys that young.
My one teensy gripe:
Giving the first part of the twist away at the very beginning. I wouldn't even have minded if had been given away fairly quickly, but I think holding off for the first 15-20 minutes would have made the progressive twists and turns all that much more mind-fucking. Sure, there were plenty of further twists to go around, but I love the idea of ramping up the whole bait-and-switch thing up even more. There were people in my theater audibly having their minds blown by this film. It's the best horror film to come out in years, and funny as fuck.
Easily my favorite film so far this year, but I think I've already seen more good movies now than in all last year combined.
The list of good movies so far:
- John Carter
- Friends with Kids
- 21 Jump Street
- Mirror, Mirror
- Cabin in the Woods
Ignore that guy.
I liked Thor, and I'm still astonished at how quickly I could tell Green Lantern had serious, serious problems. John Carter might have a hangnail and stretched calf muscle; Green Lantern has a cannibalistic conjoined twin with bowel cancer growing out of the hump in its back.
Ahem.
You could enjoy John Carter for the costumes and set design alone. If you liked Farscape, I think you'll find something to like here.
But the story is also good, as are all the people involved. Plus it has a brutally uncompromising presentation of the Tharks.
Not to mention it has a Batman-grade Sneaky Ending after the traditional Hail Flash victory of saving the day.
I gotta agree with everyone else. The film is clearly colored by Tom's POV, and quite intentionally so. It's very similar to Annie Hall in the respect that it isn't a deconstruction of the romance between two people, it's an observation of one person's selfishness and obliviousness in a relationship based primarily on treating one party treating the other as an object instead of a human being.
Would Mirror,Mirror be in any way enjoyable to someone with a passionate hatred of Julia Roberts?
They could do the Mandarin if they went the Fu Manchu route and made him the ultimate evil weeaboo (despite the Chinese and not Japanese thing).
Couldn't answer that.
I guess it depends on if you don't like her acting or you just don't like her personally.
There are very few people in film that bother me personally to such a level that I stay away from their pictures, with Roman Polanski and M. Night Shayamalan being really the only two I can think of, and even with Polanski I'll still try to find a way to see his movies without paying for them.
Huh. I wonder, given the whole 'industrial espionage' angle, if they're going with, uh, you know. China Foxconning their own Stark tech.
Eh, maybe I'll watch it again sometime and see if it strikes me different. I didn't entirely dislike it in the theater (Joseph-Gordon Levitt, very pretty pictures, lovely soundtrack). Although I'd probably get more out of watching Annie Hall for the fifth time, because that is an excellent, excellent movie.
In other news, I watched Barney's Version yesterday; it's a poorly-paced, bloated, uninteresting dullity of a film. I'm convinced that 99% of biopics simply do not work, because it is the rare life which actually reduces to a narrative, and rarer still to find one that reduces to an interesting narrative. Barney's Version (based on a novel, but still structured like a biopic) is about a nobody, distinguished by nothing, who has three wives over the course of a life, and also there's a murder mystery in there for no good reason.
That said, it was just barely worth it to see Paul Giamatti act very well, which he always does, despite the limitations of the role and story. He wasn't quite reading the phone book but this is probably as close as he'll ever get.
Perhaps that's why