What surprised me the most is that there are actual parts in the movie that I was feeling actual tension in the scary parts. I didn't think that could happen in a comedy like that.
Loved the movie.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
+1
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
What surprised me the most is that there are actual parts in the movie that I was feeling actual tension in the scary parts. I didn't think that could happen in a comedy like that.
Loved the movie.
Saw it two days ago, and enjoyed it. It did feel like it overstayed its welcome just a bit though. I wouldn't have minded at all if it had ended a little earlier.
Also saw Now You See Me, which I really didn't like when it was over. Things were enjoyable enough at points along the way, but the ending was terrible and there were far too many internal inconsistencies, logic issues and other problems along those lines for me to forgive. Shit characterization didn't help either.
Much Ado About Nothing yesterday was like a palate cleanser, refreshing after Now You See Me. Not sure if I would rather go to a party at Joss Whedon's house or one at James Franco's house after these last few movies, but this was a fine take on the play with a lot of actors I've enjoyed in past Whedon projects but don't see on screen that often. Nathan Fillion lived up to expectations as Dogberry and Fran Kranz did a nice job as Claudio.
I just caught Casablanca on TCM, and I think it is just the perfect movie. I saw it once in high school for a visual media class and remember liking it, but it was much better this time. I enjoyed everything about it, from the characters to the story, the one liners, all so great. The evolution of Rick's character throughout it is great. At the beginning he doesn't care, then you see how he came to be that way. Then cracks show when he helps the couple get the money for visas. And finally giving up everything for two other people. Just...ahh so good. In my personal opinion (unprofessional and for what it is worth) I think Casablanca deserves to be in the conversation of best movie ever.
Just so good to see a quality film after some of the trash that comes out nowadays.
I thought the robots are supposed to be considered monsters because they also destroy cities (in their fights with the aliens), like, one of them is using a giant cargo ship as a bat. Thats kinda what I liked about it, in most movies the destruction caused by the hero is ignored (see Man of Steel), but in Pacific Rim maybe itll be addressed (it wont)?
Theres a very real "monday night football" vibe given to the robots. I feel like we saw crowds in the streets cheering. That's why we got like fake trading cards with stats and there all painted up for their country and such.
I thought the robots are supposed to be considered monsters because they also destroy cities (in their fights with the aliens), like, one of them is using a giant cargo ship as a bat. Thats kinda what I liked about it, in most movies the destruction caused by the hero is ignored (see Man of Steel), but in Pacific Rim maybe itll be addressed (it wont)?
Theres a very real "monday night football" vibe given to the robots. I feel like we saw crowds in the streets cheering. That's why we got like fake trading cards with stats and there all painted up for their country and such.
Wouldn't you be cheering? I mean, sure, you'd know it's a life and death situation with literally hundreds of thousands of lives on the line if the monster makes it to a town.
But it's also a giant robot fighting a giant monster, and that sounds like it would require people to watch it on huge screens and cheer for their country's Jaeger to deliver the coup de grace. And hey, if a few bets get tossed around, who really minds?
I thought the robots are supposed to be considered monsters because they also destroy cities (in their fights with the aliens), like, one of them is using a giant cargo ship as a bat. Thats kinda what I liked about it, in most movies the destruction caused by the hero is ignored (see Man of Steel), but in Pacific Rim maybe itll be addressed (it wont)?
Theres a very real "monday night football" vibe given to the robots. I feel like we saw crowds in the streets cheering. That's why we got like fake trading cards with stats and there all painted up for their country and such.
Wouldn't you be cheering? I mean, sure, you'd know it's a life and death situation with literally hundreds of thousands of lives on the line if the monster makes it to a town.
But it's also a giant robot fighting a giant monster, and that sounds like it would require people to watch it on huge screens and cheer for their country's Jaeger to deliver the coup de grace. And hey, if a few bets get tossed around, who really minds?
There's a good interview with Guillermo del Toro on the CBC radio show Q (Podcast here, the Guillermo interview is the second one) where he addresses these issues. It sounds like he's made some very specific style decisions with this movie. It's a good interview and worth checking out.
I have a feeling the jaeger would be the ultimate expression of national pride
I mean people would watch on screens and cheer, it's a little silly that they'd stand within large projectile distance while the thing is fighting (I mean, huge crowds, individuals certainly would)
but I'm onboard regardless, Del Torro earned my $8 with the trailer
I thought the robots are supposed to be considered monsters because they also destroy cities (in their fights with the aliens), like, one of them is using a giant cargo ship as a bat. Thats kinda what I liked about it, in most movies the destruction caused by the hero is ignored (see Man of Steel), but in Pacific Rim maybe itll be addressed (it wont)?
Theres a very real "monday night football" vibe given to the robots. I feel like we saw crowds in the streets cheering. That's why we got like fake trading cards with stats and there all painted up for their country and such.
Wouldn't you be cheering? I mean, sure, you'd know it's a life and death situation with literally hundreds of thousands of lives on the line if the monster makes it to a town.
But it's also a giant robot fighting a giant monster, and that sounds like it would require people to watch it on huge screens and cheer for their country's Jaeger to deliver the coup de grace. And hey, if a few bets get tossed around, who really minds?
There's a good interview with Guillermo del Toro on the CBC radio show Q (Podcast here, the Guillermo interview is the second one) where he addresses these issues. It sounds like he's made some very specific style decisions with this movie. It's a good interview and worth checking out.
I'm listening to this right now and it makes me even more excited for this movie. Thinking back on many of his other movies I think that the tag line could have
a double meaning. Often his movies have a helpful monster. What if society had some desire to fight monsters so the ones we created were the Kaiju? Literally or figuratively?
Speaking of robots, you all know which is a surprisingly good one? Reel Steel.
I really, really didn't expect to be as good as it was. It's Rocky but with robots and it works really well. The ending fight is really, really good in just getting you pumped and cheering.
Speaking of robots, you all know which is a surprisingly good one? Reel Steel.
I really, really didn't expect to be as good as it was. It's Rocky but with robots and it works really well. The ending fight is really, really good in just getting you pumped and cheering.
Everybody in my family laughed at me when I told them I went and watched it in the theater, and when I tried to convince them that it was better then the ads implied they ignored me.
Every one of them has since expressed your exact same opinion after redboxing it or seeing it on demand. It's not a great movie, but it's so much better then the audience was expecting.
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Real Steel was originally the Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots movie, but I believe it was changed after everyone mocked it to death.
Or it was something like that, IIRC.
Im expecting Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots the movie, how far off am I?
I don't even know what you mean by this.
Yeah, it's about robots that box. There's no similarity beyond that. Not that there could really be similarity beyond that, seeing as how RESE Robots didn't go beyond that.
It's just an entertaining movie that was boned by lackluster publicity.
Real Steel was eye cancer. And brain cancer. That is all.
Ok, that's not all. Every time Huge Jackman opens his mouth in the movie, it's like a Dominic Toretto father monologue without the hilarious irony. I love movies like Hoosiers and Rocky, and Real Steel was no Rocky.
The dialogue is a smidge better than Sand Shark's. The melodrama/family stuff is legitimately worse than Angel in the Outfield's. I can see it being enjoyed ironically, but I can't comprehend buying into it as a serious movie.
Real Steel was originally the Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots movie, but I believe it was changed after everyone mocked it to death.
Or it was something like that, IIRC.
To bad Battleship didn't follow in their footsteps by being a good movie.
Real Steel was eye cancer. And brain cancer. That is all.
Ok, that's not all. Every time Huge Jackman opens his mouth in the movie, it's like a Dominic Toretto father monologue without the hilarious irony. I love movies like Hoosiers and Rocky, and Real Steel was no Rocky.
The dialogue is a smidge better than Sand Shark's. The melodrama/family stuff is legitimately worse than Angel in the Outfield's. I can see it being enjoyed ironically, but I can't comprehend buying into it as a serious movie.
You just gave me a raging sad.
Like, the kind of sad you'd get if someone made a sad pill for old people who couldn't get sad anymore, and you took the whole bottle.
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.
+1
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Real Steel was great, it had an 80's earnest to it that you rarely see these days.
Man, for a movie based on a board game, Battleship did alright.
There's so much good stuff they could have done with that concept. Instead let's try to copy Michael Bay's Transformers. How the fuck did they not give Liam Neesan's character the lead role?
WWZ had its very obvious flaws and I don't like how it ended, but I give it credit for not having the main crew completely ignore logic, like in most other zombie media. They make mistakes and are occasionally ignorant, but at least they didn't do all the stupid and illogical crap that takes place in The Walking Dead show.
The grenade and plane crash were ridiculous, but I'm not sure how else they could've done zombies on a plane. You can't open the emergency hatch while the plane is in the air. I guess maybe directing the pilots to land earlier.
I don't think they could've followed the book very easily, but I also think the book was flawed. Slow zombies just don't work when you have paramilitaries and miliataries involved. They work for small groups of 5-10 people trapped in malls or w/e, but as soon as an apache helicopter or sealed perimeter gets involved, I think you need fast zombies to make it compelling and threatening.
The PG-13 rating harmed it immensely, although the closeup zombie acting was great. Still, needed more people eating/tearing/etc.
The story was definitely disjointed and I wish the investigation had continue, and the cure hadn't been handled like that (although in general, the WHO building stuff was well done.) Also, the geopolitical stuff could've been so much better. I guess they cut it down because the scope was getting too large, but seeing the UN take control just made me laugh.
Letting the wall thing happen like that was dumb. Like someone else said, cameras or watch towers or anything. I was expecting a wall breach through terrorism or something, which would've been more interesting imo.
I liked that they had Pitt give up his axe (and the best weapon of the 3) in order to keep the door open.
It wasn't great, but I'll take it over the vast majority of other zombie movies/TV just because Pitt and his crew, as dull as they sometimes were, at least paid attention. I'll take bad plot over illogical characters any day.
I enjoyed World War Z. That's a weird thing to say on account of a) enjoying the book and (I'm going to get so much shit for this) b) refusing to play or watch zombie-related entertainment because it is so played out. My brother asked me to go, that's my excuse!
Some positives:
1) As you mentioned, most of the people in the movie aren't insanely dumb, which is really the only lubricant that allows most zombie movies to work at all. It's nice to see people acting (mostly) competently.
2) The zombies are pretty scary, and the way it starts and spreads is neat. First it's just a few people in a crowd, but they aren't easy to pick out. Before anyone really knows what's going on enough people have turned that it's already too late. I think it was a very effective way for a zombie plague to plausibly spread.
3) It has some moments that are really intense and I was impressed. The apartment block toward the beginning stands out especially.
So...three critiques I think stand out for me.
1) The wall thing is hilarious. It isn't breached because the zombies know a bunch of people are inside (even though they should); it isn't breached because of an accident or a terrorist attack (the latter idea I quite like); it's breached because of spur of the moment celebration. It robs that moment of most of its tension.
2) The death of the virologist seems unnecessary. They introduce him and immediately kill him. That's fine, but Pitt basically replaces him so it's moot. I think the ending would be a little less silly if the virologist had done the work instead. Not to mention the tension that could have been created by Pitt trying to escort him safely through all of the events of the movie.
3) I feel like the movie never spends enough time letting the audience breathe. Tension and fear are more effective when they rise and fall, but World War Z stays at a pretty steady clip the entire time.
And finally, a thought. Perhaps it was by design or simply because of a PG-13 rating, but I think the movie was way better by showing restraint. Less is more, as they say.
WWZ had its very obvious flaws and I don't like how it ended, but I give it credit for not having the main crew completely ignore logic, like in most other zombie media. They make mistakes and are occasionally ignorant, but at least they didn't do all the stupid and illogical crap that takes place in The Walking Dead show.
The grenade and plane crash were ridiculous, but I'm not sure how else they could've done zombies on a plane. You can't open the emergency hatch while the plane is in the air. I guess maybe directing the pilots to land earlier.
I don't think they could've followed the book very easily, but I also think the book was flawed. Slow zombies just don't work when you have paramilitaries and miliataries involved. They work for small groups of 5-10 people trapped in malls or w/e, but as soon as an apache helicopter or sealed perimeter gets involved, I think you need fast zombies to make it compelling and threatening.
The PG-13 rating harmed it immensely, although the closeup zombie acting was great. Still, needed more people eating/tearing/etc.
The story was definitely disjointed and I wish the investigation had continue, and the cure hadn't been handled like that (although in general, the WHO building stuff was well done.) Also, the geopolitical stuff could've been so much better. I guess they cut it down because the scope was getting too large, but seeing the UN take control just made me laugh.
Letting the wall thing happen like that was dumb. Like someone else said, cameras or watch towers or anything. I was expecting a wall breach through terrorism or something, which would've been more interesting imo.
I liked that they had Pitt give up his axe (and the best weapon of the 3) in order to keep the door open.
It wasn't great, but I'll take it over the vast majority of other zombie movies/TV just because Pitt and his crew, as dull as they sometimes were, at least paid attention. I'll take bad plot over illogical characters any day.
I enjoyed World War Z. That's a weird thing to say on account of a) enjoying the book and (I'm going to get so much shit for this) b) refusing to play or watch zombie-related entertainment because it is so played out. My brother asked me to go, that's my excuse!
Some positives:
1) As you mentioned, most of the people in the movie aren't insanely dumb, which is really the only lubricant that allows most zombie movies to work at all. It's nice to see people acting (mostly) competently.
2) The zombies are pretty scary, and the way it starts and spreads is neat. First it's just a few people in a crowd, but they aren't easy to pick out. Before anyone really knows what's going on enough people have turned that it's already too late. I think it was a very effective way for a zombie plague to plausibly spread.
3) It has some moments that are really intense and I was impressed. The apartment block toward the beginning stands out especially.
So...three critiques I think stand out for me.
1) The wall thing is hilarious. It isn't breached because the zombies know a bunch of people are inside (even though they should); it isn't breached because of an accident or a terrorist attack (the latter idea I quite like); it's breached because of spur of the moment celebration. It robs that moment of most of its tension.
2) The death of the virologist seems unnecessary. They introduce him and immediately kill him. That's fine, but Pitt basically replaces him so it's moot. I think the ending would be a little less silly if the virologist had done the work instead. Not to mention the tension that could have been created by Pitt trying to escort him safely through all of the events of the movie.
3) I feel like the movie never spends enough time letting the audience breathe. Tension and fear are more effective when they rise and fall, but World War Z stays at a pretty steady clip the entire time.
And finally, a thought. Perhaps it was by design or simply because of a PG-13 rating, but I think the movie was way better by showing restraint. Less is more, as they say.
On your #2, I actually liked it
It subtly calls out all the nerds who think that when the zombie apocalypse is their time to shine as a leader among men.
Instead, the nerd who clearly has no gun experience panics and discharges his weapon.
so i recently rented "The Great and Powerful Oz" and i was impressed. I need to follow that up with, the movie is not super fantastic and is a let-down in many ways, like Franco's performance comes across as just adequate instead of something spectacular. However, i think this is fairly non-spoilery that the character and the callback to the original Wizard of Oz are done fairly well.
i think if you look at the end of WoO that the scarecrow already had a brain, the lion had courage, the tinman a heart, and you compare that to TGaPO, you see that he always was a good man. The movie just really rushed that message in the black and white sequence with the girl he could never have (glenda). It left too much to the viewer to figure out with the character and yet over explained things like, tinkers can make anything and there are 3 girls and one of them is the good witch so guess what the other two are/will be...
i guess what i'm saying is that i can see a lot of hate for this movie but to me it's because its a wasted potential, not because the movie is poor. I'm sad because with a few different actors/actresses that could really emote correctly i might have cared more about them and the movie would have been more wowing. the concept of the movie, the origin of the wizard may not be unique to the current trend of origin of things, but it's still a workable story.
I don't think they could've followed the book very easily, but I also think the book was flawed. Slow zombies just don't work when you have paramilitaries and miliataries involved. They work for small groups of 5-10 people trapped in malls or w/e, but as soon as an apache helicopter or sealed perimeter gets involved, I think you need fast zombies to make it compelling and threatening.
Re-read the chapter on Yonkers (which Brooks was advised on by military instructors). It's spot-on.
Modern military machinery & tactics are not designed to deal with something like a 1,000,000 force, of foot, that cannot be intimidated, effectively immobilized, killed with shrapnel, killed with burns, killed via shock, etc. When the only way to stop a zombie is to shoot them right in the head and destroy the brain, and when every single zombie is a real threat & potential vector for the disease, stopping a city-sized mob of them is a logistical impossibility for a conventional army. You will run out of bullets /' shells / missiles before they run out of bodies. And that's not considering all of the disadvantages Brooks took into account, like the fact that the military isn't exactly this perfect, well oiled device that can be brought to bear with absolute, faultless precision at any time or place.
I hated the movie, but I knew i would going into it.
Oh, also, Pacific Rim will suck. I am still going to see it, but my God, it is going to suck. Deep down inside, you know it too.
Del Toro, your film has a human central protagonist. We don't even know the name of the monster(s). This is not how you do Kaiju movies. I don't care how many times you say you've seen Godzilla and want to pay homage to it, or how big your Godzilla poster is; these films are very, very hard to do right (the only good one not in the Godzilla franchise is Cloverfield, and that one pretty heavily relied on it's gimmicky filming), and you know you're doing it wrong when you have a traditional human protagonist.
so i recently rented "The Great and Powerful Oz" and i was impressed. I need to follow that up with, the movie is not super fantastic and is a let-down in many ways, like Franco's performance comes across as just adequate instead of something spectacular. However, i think this is fairly non-spoilery that the character and the callback to the original Wizard of Oz are done fairly well.
i think if you look at the end of WoO that the scarecrow already had a brain, the lion had courage, the tinman a heart, and you compare that to TGaPO, you see that he always was a good man. The movie just really rushed that message in the black and white sequence with the girl he could never have (glenda). It left too much to the viewer to figure out with the character and yet over explained things like, tinkers can make anything and there are 3 girls and one of them is the good witch so guess what the other two are/will be...
i guess what i'm saying is that i can see a lot of hate for this movie but to me it's because its a wasted potential, not because the movie is poor. I'm sad because with a few different actors/actresses that could really emote correctly i might have cared more about them and the movie would have been more wowing. the concept of the movie, the origin of the wizard may not be unique to the current trend of origin of things, but it's still a workable story.
A lot of people don't know that the Wizard didn't just vanish from OZ after the events of TWWoO. He goes back to Earth, and then later returns and eventually becomes Glinda's apprentice, and learns actual magic.
Baum initially had the Wizard's backstory as usurping the throne from Ozma and getting rid of her, but readers hated it so he retconned it into Ozma being dethroned long before the Wizard arrived in OZ.
Anyway.
My point was that the character is open to interpretation whether he is good, bad, or something in between. Baum himself reinterpreted the character, and Gregory Maguire re-reinterpreted the character back to the sinister usurper.
I don't think they could've followed the book very easily, but I also think the book was flawed. Slow zombies just don't work when you have paramilitaries and miliataries involved. They work for small groups of 5-10 people trapped in malls or w/e, but as soon as an apache helicopter or sealed perimeter gets involved, I think you need fast zombies to make it compelling and threatening.
Re-read the chapter on Yonkers (which Brooks was advised on by military instructors). It's spot-on.
Modern military machinery & tactics are not designed to deal with something like a 1,000,000 force, of foot, that cannot be intimidated, effectively immobilized, killed with shrapnel, killed with burns, killed via shock, etc. When the only way to stop a zombie is to shoot them right in the head and destroy the brain, and when every single zombie is a real threat & potential vector for the disease, stopping a city-sized mob of them is a logistical impossibility for a conventional army. You will run out of bullets /' shells / missiles before they run out of bodies. And that's not considering all of the disadvantages Brooks took into account, like the fact that the military isn't exactly this perfect, well oiled device that can be brought to bear with absolute, faultless precision at any time or place.
I hated the movie, but I knew i would going into it.
I think Max was wrong.
It's a slow, clumsy 1,000,000 force that makes no attempt to counter any type of explosives. You incinerate them all, easily. Someone else already wrote about it here and in the book thread, but the Battle of Yonkers is one of the most problematic parts of the book.
Saw The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. I really liked it. I liked Lily Cole a lot, Verne Troyer was great, and the various Tonys were well done. And Tom Waits as the Devil is unspeakably wonderful. Christopher Plummer nailed the washed up magician role. The only actor I wasn't crazy about was Andrew Garfield, but he didn't have much to work with.
they had jackshit for ammo. They thought the opening salvo would clear the zombies and never prepared for a prolonged siege. It was a giant miliarty failure in the book.
Also, why the fuck does noone ever just run over zombies with tanks?
It's a slow, clumsy 1,000,000 force that makes no attempt to counter any type of explosives. You incinerate them all, easily. Someone else already wrote about it here and in the book thread, but the Battle of Yonkers is one of the most problematic parts of the book.
Did you know that people don't burn well? Even if they're dead. There are exceptional circumstances, but this isn't like burning down a forest.
Look at something like The Battle of Kursk, which was arguably one of the largest engagements in WWII. About 1,000,000 people total were killed. Total. With two mobilized, totally committed military machines mashing together.
There is no way in Hell that even the fabulously expensive and well trained military of the U.S. could draw a line against the type of unconventional threat posited in WWZ. Our weapons have been highly tuned for fighting other people & machinery - not for grinding through wave upon wave of unrelenting, thoughtless attackers that have no logistical needs aside from semi-passable terrain and that are attacking everywhere at once. Shoot or drop all of the ordnance you have, and everything that isn't a direct hit doesn't do anything.
I'll take the word of professionals that work in the military over the word of 'someone who posted here in the book thread,' i think.
The Ender on
With Love and Courage
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
More battle of Yonkers
They were also all hooked up to each others headsets so when one or two guys started panicking., it got broadcast and caused a sort of chain reaction of panic. I also don't know if Brooks underestimated the potential effect of explosives on zombies, or if all the critics are overestimating the efficacy of high explosives on a body that shrugs off concussion damage.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
They were also all hooked up to each others headsets so when one or two guys started panicking., it got broadcast and caused a sort of chain reaction of panic. I also don't know if Brooks underestimated the potential effect of explosives on zombies, or if all the critics are overestimating the efficacy of high explosives on a body that shrugs off concussion damage.
Max was also advised that generals are not exactly immune to poor judgement and wrote accordingly. It struck me as appropriate that Yonkers was set with an awful lot of expensive equipment that looked pretty but wasn't going to be especially useful.
There's this attitude among military enthusiasts about just how bonertastic the army is about bringing down the hammer when the time calls for it, particularly in America, and I think the Yonkers piece struck a raw nerve with that crowd.
Oh, also, Pacific Rim will suck. I am still going to see it, but my God, it is going to suck. Deep down inside, you know it too.
Del Toro, your film has a human central protagonist. We don't even know the name of the monster(s). This is not how you do Kaiju movies. I don't care how many times you say you've seen Godzilla and want to pay homage to it, or how big your Godzilla poster is; these films are very, very hard to do right (the only good one not in the Godzilla franchise is Cloverfield, and that one pretty heavily relied on it's gimmicky filming), and you know you're doing it wrong when you have a traditional human protagonist.
But It's also paying homage to giant robot anime, which usually have a central protagonist. And well...it sounds like the upcoming Godzilla flick also has a pretty big human cast, so you might be outta luck there as well.
It's pretty bizarre seeing the difference between this opinion and a Neogaf thread where people were complaining about the marketing not having ENOUGH of a human element and only focusing on the action.
Posts
I'm hoping it will maintain a message and not get lost in an action finale like D9 did. But I have my doubts it will.
Then again, D9 was still pretty great, it just wasn't as good as I hoped it would be.
Also, hopefully, a consistent directorial style this time.
R.I.P.D. looks like something I'll catch on Netflix in a decade or two.
What surprised me the most is that there are actual parts in the movie that I was feeling actual tension in the scary parts. I didn't think that could happen in a comedy like that.
Loved the movie.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Saw it two days ago, and enjoyed it. It did feel like it overstayed its welcome just a bit though. I wouldn't have minded at all if it had ended a little earlier.
Also saw Now You See Me, which I really didn't like when it was over. Things were enjoyable enough at points along the way, but the ending was terrible and there were far too many internal inconsistencies, logic issues and other problems along those lines for me to forgive. Shit characterization didn't help either.
Much Ado About Nothing yesterday was like a palate cleanser, refreshing after Now You See Me. Not sure if I would rather go to a party at Joss Whedon's house or one at James Franco's house after these last few movies, but this was a fine take on the play with a lot of actors I've enjoyed in past Whedon projects but don't see on screen that often. Nathan Fillion lived up to expectations as Dogberry and Fran Kranz did a nice job as Claudio.
Just so good to see a quality film after some of the trash that comes out nowadays.
Theres a very real "monday night football" vibe given to the robots. I feel like we saw crowds in the streets cheering. That's why we got like fake trading cards with stats and there all painted up for their country and such.
Wouldn't you be cheering? I mean, sure, you'd know it's a life and death situation with literally hundreds of thousands of lives on the line if the monster makes it to a town.
But it's also a giant robot fighting a giant monster, and that sounds like it would require people to watch it on huge screens and cheer for their country's Jaeger to deliver the coup de grace. And hey, if a few bets get tossed around, who really minds?
There's a good interview with Guillermo del Toro on the CBC radio show Q (Podcast here, the Guillermo interview is the second one) where he addresses these issues. It sounds like he's made some very specific style decisions with this movie. It's a good interview and worth checking out.
I mean people would watch on screens and cheer, it's a little silly that they'd stand within large projectile distance while the thing is fighting (I mean, huge crowds, individuals certainly would)
but I'm onboard regardless, Del Torro earned my $8 with the trailer
He takes inventive sci fi weapons and throws them earnestly onscreen in a way you typically only see in video games
and I'm not meaning that as an insult
I'm listening to this right now and it makes me even more excited for this movie. Thinking back on many of his other movies I think that the tag line could have
So much hype.
I really, really didn't expect to be as good as it was. It's Rocky but with robots and it works really well. The ending fight is really, really good in just getting you pumped and cheering.
Every one of them has since expressed your exact same opinion after redboxing it or seeing it on demand. It's not a great movie, but it's so much better then the audience was expecting.
Or it was something like that, IIRC.
I don't even know what you mean by this.
Yeah, it's about robots that box. There's no similarity beyond that. Not that there could really be similarity beyond that, seeing as how RESE Robots didn't go beyond that.
It's just an entertaining movie that was boned by lackluster publicity.
Ok, that's not all. Every time Huge Jackman opens his mouth in the movie, it's like a Dominic Toretto father monologue without the hilarious irony. I love movies like Hoosiers and Rocky, and Real Steel was no Rocky.
The dialogue is a smidge better than Sand Shark's. The melodrama/family stuff is legitimately worse than Angel in the Outfield's. I can see it being enjoyed ironically, but I can't comprehend buying into it as a serious movie.
To bad Battleship didn't follow in their footsteps by being a good movie.
You just gave me a raging sad.
Like, the kind of sad you'd get if someone made a sad pill for old people who couldn't get sad anymore, and you took the whole bottle.
There's so much good stuff they could have done with that concept. Instead let's try to copy Michael Bay's Transformers. How the fuck did they not give Liam Neesan's character the lead role?
I enjoyed World War Z. That's a weird thing to say on account of a) enjoying the book and (I'm going to get so much shit for this) b) refusing to play or watch zombie-related entertainment because it is so played out. My brother asked me to go, that's my excuse!
1) As you mentioned, most of the people in the movie aren't insanely dumb, which is really the only lubricant that allows most zombie movies to work at all. It's nice to see people acting (mostly) competently.
2) The zombies are pretty scary, and the way it starts and spreads is neat. First it's just a few people in a crowd, but they aren't easy to pick out. Before anyone really knows what's going on enough people have turned that it's already too late. I think it was a very effective way for a zombie plague to plausibly spread.
3) It has some moments that are really intense and I was impressed. The apartment block toward the beginning stands out especially.
So...three critiques I think stand out for me.
1) The wall thing is hilarious. It isn't breached because the zombies know a bunch of people are inside (even though they should); it isn't breached because of an accident or a terrorist attack (the latter idea I quite like); it's breached because of spur of the moment celebration. It robs that moment of most of its tension.
2) The death of the virologist seems unnecessary. They introduce him and immediately kill him. That's fine, but Pitt basically replaces him so it's moot. I think the ending would be a little less silly if the virologist had done the work instead. Not to mention the tension that could have been created by Pitt trying to escort him safely through all of the events of the movie.
3) I feel like the movie never spends enough time letting the audience breathe. Tension and fear are more effective when they rise and fall, but World War Z stays at a pretty steady clip the entire time.
And finally, a thought. Perhaps it was by design or simply because of a PG-13 rating, but I think the movie was way better by showing restraint. Less is more, as they say.
On your #2, I actually liked it
Instead, the nerd who clearly has no gun experience panics and discharges his weapon.
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
Re-read the chapter on Yonkers (which Brooks was advised on by military instructors). It's spot-on.
Modern military machinery & tactics are not designed to deal with something like a 1,000,000 force, of foot, that cannot be intimidated, effectively immobilized, killed with shrapnel, killed with burns, killed via shock, etc. When the only way to stop a zombie is to shoot them right in the head and destroy the brain, and when every single zombie is a real threat & potential vector for the disease, stopping a city-sized mob of them is a logistical impossibility for a conventional army. You will run out of bullets /' shells / missiles before they run out of bodies. And that's not considering all of the disadvantages Brooks took into account, like the fact that the military isn't exactly this perfect, well oiled device that can be brought to bear with absolute, faultless precision at any time or place.
I hated the movie, but I knew i would going into it.
Del Toro, your film has a human central protagonist. We don't even know the name of the monster(s). This is not how you do Kaiju movies. I don't care how many times you say you've seen Godzilla and want to pay homage to it, or how big your Godzilla poster is; these films are very, very hard to do right (the only good one not in the Godzilla franchise is Cloverfield, and that one pretty heavily relied on it's gimmicky filming), and you know you're doing it wrong when you have a traditional human protagonist.
A lot of people don't know that the Wizard didn't just vanish from OZ after the events of TWWoO. He goes back to Earth, and then later returns and eventually becomes Glinda's apprentice, and learns actual magic.
Baum initially had the Wizard's backstory as usurping the throne from Ozma and getting rid of her, but readers hated it so he retconned it into Ozma being dethroned long before the Wizard arrived in OZ.
Anyway.
My point was that the character is open to interpretation whether he is good, bad, or something in between. Baum himself reinterpreted the character, and Gregory Maguire re-reinterpreted the character back to the sinister usurper.
It's a slow, clumsy 1,000,000 force that makes no attempt to counter any type of explosives. You incinerate them all, easily. Someone else already wrote about it here and in the book thread, but the Battle of Yonkers is one of the most problematic parts of the book.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Also, why the fuck does noone ever just run over zombies with tanks?
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
And Tom Waits needs to be in every movie and possibly playing an older Joker.
Did you know that people don't burn well? Even if they're dead. There are exceptional circumstances, but this isn't like burning down a forest.
Look at something like The Battle of Kursk, which was arguably one of the largest engagements in WWII. About 1,000,000 people total were killed. Total. With two mobilized, totally committed military machines mashing together.
There is no way in Hell that even the fabulously expensive and well trained military of the U.S. could draw a line against the type of unconventional threat posited in WWZ. Our weapons have been highly tuned for fighting other people & machinery - not for grinding through wave upon wave of unrelenting, thoughtless attackers that have no logistical needs aside from semi-passable terrain and that are attacking everywhere at once. Shoot or drop all of the ordnance you have, and everything that isn't a direct hit doesn't do anything.
I'll take the word of professionals that work in the military over the word of 'someone who posted here in the book thread,' i think.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
There's this attitude among military enthusiasts about just how bonertastic the army is about bringing down the hammer when the time calls for it, particularly in America, and I think the Yonkers piece struck a raw nerve with that crowd.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
But It's also paying homage to giant robot anime, which usually have a central protagonist. And well...it sounds like the upcoming Godzilla flick also has a pretty big human cast, so you might be outta luck there as well.
It's pretty bizarre seeing the difference between this opinion and a Neogaf thread where people were complaining about the marketing not having ENOUGH of a human element and only focusing on the action.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com