His next movies were supposed to be the Stargate sequels we should have gotten (even though I grew up watching SG1 and still liked it, I always preferred the movie version).
IIRC the sequels were supposed to show alien overlords who based the aesthetic of their "civilizations" (or I guess influenced civilizations on Earth) on the Romans and ancient China. If it was at the same level as the original movie I would have loved to see both.
I think it's been going back and forth on a sequel or a reboot.
30 years later with Kurt Russell again.
I will accept no less.
+6
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Event Horizon was the film I didn't walk out of but wished I had. This illustrates the vast gulf between me and fans of horror films, because this seems to be one of the most favorite horror films of all time and just... I totally should have walked out of the theater. Afterwards one of my friends was sitting out in the lobby waiting for the rest of the group. Another friend and I were like "Oh my God, wish you'd said something we would have left with you."
I think there's people who like it, who like it for what it could have been.
The hellish imagery in the film really is fantastically done, it's just been cut short.
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited June 2016
Event Horizon is one of those movies that indicates the deep wide gulf between people who like movies for what they are and people who like movies for how they are. It's got a really fun premise and there are cool ideas there, but it's poorly written and not much better executed. The people who like it like it because of the content, whereas people like me just sigh and wish the content had been put to better use.
Astaereth on
+3
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
His next movies were supposed to be the Stargate sequels we should have gotten (even though I grew up watching SG1 and still liked it, I always preferred the movie version).
IIRC the sequels were supposed to show alien overlords who based the aesthetic of their "civilizations" (or I guess influenced civilizations on Earth) on the Romans and ancient China. If it was at the same level as the original movie I would have loved to see both.
I think it's been going back and forth on a sequel or a reboot.
30 years later with Kurt Russell again.
I will accept no less.
Maybe a cameo with James Spader where Russell just gives him a look and is like "man, what happened to you?"
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Event Horizon is one of those movies that indicates the deep wide gulf between people who like movies for what they are and people who like movies for how they are. It's got a really fun premise and there are cool ideas there, but it's poorly written and not much better executed. The people who like it like it because of the content, whereas people like me just sigh and wish the content had been put to better use.
Fair.
I don't think the extra 10-20 minutes that got sliced would have done much for the film itself, but I'm all in for the imagery that film has.
But he isn't the bad guy? Never is it set up that he is the bad guy. He has no plot interaction that shows how stopping him produces the desired result. He is passive rather than active. There are other supposed antogonists and the movie has previously flipped who the bad guys were on you by the end.
And he doesn't "win". There was no goal he achieved there was no victory over the hero. He doesn't have a grand revelation. The hero makes his sacrifice and the emperor accepts it.
If the situation is "A dude has come to your place to murder you", and the result of your conversation is "He decides that he would rather be arrested and executed than kill you", I'm pretty sure that isn't listed as a loss in most people's books.
Converting an assassin into a martyr for your cause, destroying a kung fu conspiracy against you, is generally filed as a win.
A dude never came to his palace to murder him. A dude came to his palace and said "we aren't even playing that game, but if we were I would have won".
He also doesn't turn him into a martyr for his cause. He martyrs him for the assassins cause!
And he is not the antagonist in any retelling of the story. There is no conflict the resolution to which the character is against.
He is definitely the antagonist, except unlike in most stories the hero ends up siding with him - then gets fucking murdered for it. Because the emperor wasn't going to let him get out alive. The hero "sacrificing" himself for the emperor isn't a noble cause the movie sells it as - when the story points out the emperor was engaging in total destruction of his enemies for "peace." Ozy did the same thing in Watchmen to keep the world together - he was still the villain in the piece.
Based on his choice of words mirroring my choice of words, I think he's referring to the three retellings of Nameless's tale - not the frame story.
While in the first variant of the story the other warriors are the antagonists and the King's variant has the apprentice (Moon), all those characters are on the same side in the final retelling. That variant is certainly the most intricate of them, but their conflicts are driven by their opposition (or feigned opposition) to the King's actions.
No, not the frame story; not anything. In no narrative structure in the movie is the King the villain. He takes no action in the movie. China is unified, its done and over. He is a macguffin. The thing the characters want because they want. Sure the characters want the macguffin because its shiny/it can explode/it belongs in a museum or in this case it wronged them. But its a MacGuffin none the less.
Ozy is the villain because he directly acts to create all of the action of the story, which the heros must work against, as a part of the story. Qin does nothing in the movie that any character at any point works against. The closest he gets is failing to be killed in an assassination. Which is no different than when any character recounts how close they got to getting the MacGuffin that one time.
That is not what a MacGuffin is. His presence and nature are tightly wound into the story such that replacing him with anything else (or even changing his motivations) alters the fundamental nature of the film. Using your own definition Ozymandias is a MacGuffin too - all he does is survive an assassination attempt and murder a bunch of people before the protagonists show up.
Woah, I never realized how similar those two characters are or the similar fates of the protagonists!
Also, while other people having been using villain, I've been intentionally sticking with antagonist. If the King just decided one day that he didn't want to be Emperor then all conflict in the movie would cease. The protagonist's original goal is freedom for his state - the King is actively fighting against that.
I wonder how frequently (or recently) the people who like Event Horizon watched it. I rewatched it recently and realized that there was a bunch of filler and poor dialogue and flat characterization between a great high concept and the occasional memorable scene.
I still like it for it's idea and atmosphere and that's what sticks with you afterwards - because there isn't much else.
gjaustin on
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
4 minutes in starts the review. Hack liked it, Fraud didn't.
BUT, the scary thing was Fox apparently filing a claim for them showing the trailer for the movie in their review, and it seemingly working because they had to put some text in front of it pointing out how stupid that concept is because Youtube is getting even shittier with regards to obvious fair use. Scary president being set hear.
Saw id4-2. I am really confused because there is like eight movies there, 3 of which that would be interesting. So what they did was take fifteen minutes at random points of character arcs and slam them together. If you just wanted the aliens and the reaction and resolution, this is practically a fifteen minute film.
I appreciate the lore created for the twenty year break. But it was too much to cover for this. I feel like 15 years ago there should have been a 6 season television series that I missed and the movie never bothered to catch anyone up on.
Saw id4-2. I am really confused because there is like eight movies there, 3 of which that would be interesting. So what they did was take fifteen minutes at random points of character arcs and slam them together. If you just wanted the aliens and the reaction and resolution, this is practically a fifteen minute film.
I appreciate the lore created for the twenty year break. But it was too much to cover for this. I feel like 15 years ago there should have been a 6 season television series that I missed and the movie never bothered to catch anyone up on.
I've never been fond of the "Just here for X" arguments, whether its aliens, Godzilla, or action scenes.
That's a marketing issue, not a problem with the film.
His next movies were supposed to be the Stargate sequels we should have gotten (even though I grew up watching SG1 and still liked it, I always preferred the movie version).
IIRC the sequels were supposed to show alien overlords who based the aesthetic of their "civilizations" (or I guess influenced civilizations on Earth) on the Romans and ancient China. If it was at the same level as the original movie I would have loved to see both.
I think it's been going back and forth on a sequel or a reboot.
30 years later with Kurt Russell again.
I will accept no less.
Maybe a cameo with James Spader where Russell just gives him a look and is like "man, what happened to you?"
Living on a pre-industrial (Bronze Age, even) planet for twenty years? SG-1's Daniel Jackson was only there for a few.
A great (IMO) fanfic series about the show referenced the difference between how Russell and RDA played the character nicely, I thought, in the episode where O'Neill has to cut ties with the rest of his team and act like a bastard to draw out moles in the program who've been stealing alien tech. Daniel goes to try to talk to him (because that's what Daniel does) and...
I'd say it's like looking at a stranger, but yet... oh yes, I remember you. Stone face. Flat eyes. Armor-plated. Haven't seen you in a long time, Colonel. I was kind of hoping you were on a permanent leave of absence. Where is my friend and what have you done with him?
I just saw a commercial for the new Ghostbusters movie with John Schnatter dressed up as a GB.
It's a common humorous exaggeration to say that something made you feel sick to your stomach. I personally have never had this reaction to anything that is not genuinely biologically gross.
I just saw a commercial for the new Ghostbusters movie with John Schnatter dressed up as a GB.
It's a common humorous exaggeration to say that something made you feel sick to your stomach. I personally have never had this reaction to anything that is not genuinely biologically gross.
Until now.
Yeah progressive has a GB commercial. Though to be fair I vaguely recall GB 2 being marketed like crazy when it came out in theaters (I was 2 when the original came out so I have no idea how it was marketed).
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I just saw a commercial for the new Ghostbusters movie with John Schnatter dressed up as a GB.
It's a common humorous exaggeration to say that something made you feel sick to your stomach. I personally have never had this reaction to anything that is not genuinely biologically gross.
Until now.
Yeah progressive has a GB commercial. Though to be fair I vaguely recall GB 2 being marketed like crazy when it came out in theaters (I was 2 when the original came out so I have no idea how it was marketed).
It's the only film I can recall seeing that had merchandise behind the candy counter in the theatre showing it. Like, there were literally Ghostbusters bumper stickers ("He slimed me!") right next to the Red Vines. Marketing for that film was quite over the top, most likely because - as many of the film's principals have noted - they knew beyond any shadow of a doubt while they were making it that they had a huge hit on their hands.
Everything I've heard about Swiss Army Man makes it sound like the beautiful, transcendent kind of stupid.
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.
But he isn't the bad guy? Never is it set up that he is the bad guy. He has no plot interaction that shows how stopping him produces the desired result. He is passive rather than active. There are other supposed antogonists and the movie has previously flipped who the bad guys were on you by the end.
And he doesn't "win". There was no goal he achieved there was no victory over the hero. He doesn't have a grand revelation. The hero makes his sacrifice and the emperor accepts it.
If the situation is "A dude has come to your place to murder you", and the result of your conversation is "He decides that he would rather be arrested and executed than kill you", I'm pretty sure that isn't listed as a loss in most people's books.
Converting an assassin into a martyr for your cause, destroying a kung fu conspiracy against you, is generally filed as a win.
A dude never came to his palace to murder him. A dude came to his palace and said "we aren't even playing that game, but if we were I would have won".
He also doesn't turn him into a martyr for his cause. He martyrs him for the assassins cause!
And he is not the antagonist in any retelling of the story. There is no conflict the resolution to which the character is against.
He is definitely the antagonist, except unlike in most stories the hero ends up siding with him - then gets fucking murdered for it. Because the emperor wasn't going to let him get out alive. The hero "sacrificing" himself for the emperor isn't a noble cause the movie sells it as - when the story points out the emperor was engaging in total destruction of his enemies for "peace." Ozy did the same thing in Watchmen to keep the world together - he was still the villain in the piece.
Based on his choice of words mirroring my choice of words, I think he's referring to the three retellings of Nameless's tale - not the frame story.
While in the first variant of the story the other warriors are the antagonists and the King's variant has the apprentice (Moon), all those characters are on the same side in the final retelling. That variant is certainly the most intricate of them, but their conflicts are driven by their opposition (or feigned opposition) to the King's actions.
No, not the frame story; not anything. In no narrative structure in the movie is the King the villain. He takes no action in the movie. China is unified, its done and over. He is a macguffin. The thing the characters want because they want. Sure the characters want the macguffin because its shiny/it can explode/it belongs in a museum or in this case it wronged them. But its a MacGuffin none the less.
Ozy is the villain because he directly acts to create all of the action of the story, which the heros must work against, as a part of the story. Qin does nothing in the movie that any character at any point works against. The closest he gets is failing to be killed in an assassination. Which is no different than when any character recounts how close they got to getting the MacGuffin that one time.
That is not what a MacGuffin is. His presence and nature are tightly wound into the story such that replacing him with anything else (or even changing his motivations) alters the fundamental nature of the film. Using your own definition Ozymandias is a MacGuffin too - all he does is survive an assassination attempt and murder a bunch of people before the protagonists show up.
Woah, I never realized how similar those two characters are or the similar fates of the protagonists!
Also, while other people having been using villain, I've been intentionally sticking with antagonist. If the King just decided one day that he didn't want to be Emperor then all conflict in the movie would cease. The protagonist's original goal is freedom for his state - the King is actively fighting against that.
No. He really is. You could use almost any other "big bad" and have the same message about turning away from revenge. Its true that the story changes slightly and you might have to change other things in order to make it work, but so does the story in Indiana Jones if its not the holy grail or ark they're after. If the King decided one day he didn't want to be emperor no conflict would cease. All of the assassins would still want to kill him. He is a MacGuffin. OK, true you don't get the exact same story but that isn't much different than how you don't get the exact same story when replacing the holy grail from Indy. You have to make up a new reason everyone wants the MacGuffin if the MacGuffin changes.
You cannot do this for Ozymandias. He kills the Comedian, he drives Manhattan off world by giving his friends cancer, he prevents manhattan from seeing the future, he sets up Rorschach, he designs and implements the device to attack cities around the world, hell he even sends the assassin after himself.
And i have been using Antagonist purposefully too. The antagonist is the character which opposes the protagonist. The King does not oppose the protagonists. Not in any of the individual stories (where its the assassin, each other, non) nor in the frame story, where the King lets the Hero kill him.
But he isn't the bad guy? Never is it set up that he is the bad guy. He has no plot interaction that shows how stopping him produces the desired result. He is passive rather than active. There are other supposed antogonists and the movie has previously flipped who the bad guys were on you by the end.
And he doesn't "win". There was no goal he achieved there was no victory over the hero. He doesn't have a grand revelation. The hero makes his sacrifice and the emperor accepts it.
If the situation is "A dude has come to your place to murder you", and the result of your conversation is "He decides that he would rather be arrested and executed than kill you", I'm pretty sure that isn't listed as a loss in most people's books.
Converting an assassin into a martyr for your cause, destroying a kung fu conspiracy against you, is generally filed as a win.
A dude never came to his palace to murder him. A dude came to his palace and said "we aren't even playing that game, but if we were I would have won".
He also doesn't turn him into a martyr for his cause. He martyrs him for the assassins cause!
And he is not the antagonist in any retelling of the story. There is no conflict the resolution to which the character is against.
He is definitely the antagonist, except unlike in most stories the hero ends up siding with him - then gets fucking murdered for it. Because the emperor wasn't going to let him get out alive. The hero "sacrificing" himself for the emperor isn't a noble cause the movie sells it as - when the story points out the emperor was engaging in total destruction of his enemies for "peace." Ozy did the same thing in Watchmen to keep the world together - he was still the villain in the piece.
Based on his choice of words mirroring my choice of words, I think he's referring to the three retellings of Nameless's tale - not the frame story.
While in the first variant of the story the other warriors are the antagonists and the King's variant has the apprentice (Moon), all those characters are on the same side in the final retelling. That variant is certainly the most intricate of them, but their conflicts are driven by their opposition (or feigned opposition) to the King's actions.
No, not the frame story; not anything. In no narrative structure in the movie is the King the villain. He takes no action in the movie. China is unified, its done and over. He is a macguffin. The thing the characters want because they want. Sure the characters want the macguffin because its shiny/it can explode/it belongs in a museum or in this case it wronged them. But its a MacGuffin none the less.
Ozy is the villain because he directly acts to create all of the action of the story, which the heros must work against, as a part of the story. Qin does nothing in the movie that any character at any point works against. The closest he gets is failing to be killed in an assassination. Which is no different than when any character recounts how close they got to getting the MacGuffin that one time.
That is not what a MacGuffin is. His presence and nature are tightly wound into the story such that replacing him with anything else (or even changing his motivations) alters the fundamental nature of the film. Using your own definition Ozymandias is a MacGuffin too - all he does is survive an assassination attempt and murder a bunch of people before the protagonists show up.
Woah, I never realized how similar those two characters are or the similar fates of the protagonists!
Also, while other people having been using villain, I've been intentionally sticking with antagonist. If the King just decided one day that he didn't want to be Emperor then all conflict in the movie would cease. The protagonist's original goal is freedom for his state - the King is actively fighting against that.
No. He really is. You could use almost any other "big bad" and have the same message about turning away from revenge. Its true that the story changes slightly and you might have to change other things in order to make it work, but so does the story in Indiana Jones if its not the holy grail or ark they're after. If the King decided one day he didn't want to be emperor no conflict would cease. All of the assassins would still want to kill him. He is a MacGuffin. OK, true you don't get the exact same story but that isn't much different than how you don't get the exact same story when replacing the holy grail from Indy. You have to make up a new reason everyone wants the MacGuffin if the MacGuffin changes.
You cannot do this for Ozymandias. He kills the Comedian, he drives Manhattan off world by giving his friends cancer, he prevents manhattan from seeing the future, he sets up Rorschach, he designs and implements the device to attack cities around the world, hell he even sends the assassin after himself.
And i have been using Antagonist purposefully too. The antagonist is the character which opposes the protagonist. The King does not oppose the protagonists. Not in any of the individual stories (where its the assassin, each other, non) nor in the frame story, where the King lets the Hero kill him.
You could replace the Ark of the Covenant with Ramses II's cookbook and the only thing that would change is the method by which Nazi faces get melted. Presumably by some really spicy chili.
I could make an exhaustive list of things the King did and even show narrative parallels for them (e.g. Killing the Comedian = Killing Nameless's father). But writing a full plot synopsis does not appeal to me at the moment.
The boxing action scenes are probably the best ever shot and Michael B. Jordan is a pleasure to watch.
Sly puts in a pretty stellar performance of being Old Rocky that's had some time to reflect on his past.
Disco11 on
PSN: Canadian_llama
+7
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
The Fundamentals of Caring (Netflix), a Netflix original film, and just sort of confirms my criticisms of the Netflix Sandler movies about there being a total lack of quality control during the production. There's a difference between a hands off approach and just accepting whatever they give you. It's not a bad movie, it's got it's moments and ultimately middle of the road, but the whole story and setup is so generic and for every original thing it wants to tell, it purposely layers itself with so many safe human shield type plots to really deny it a sense of identity or criticism. It's like if you bought a calendar of puppies acting out Marty Score movies where the proceeds went to benefit brain surgery for Ethiopian orphans. How can you say no when you see Paulie is a Basset Hound puppy chopping garlic with his big paws it's so kawaiiiii. But then you realize after buying it and skimming the months, outside of July and December all the other months are blurry and out of focus with the puppies running everywhere and why is American Hustle in this calendar he didn't direct it! This was clearly an emotional manipulation not so much to help the orphans but to prop up the notoriety of the person who made the calendar in the first place and get easy pats on the back. NOW, despite the valid points you have for not liking the calendar and how blatant the whole thing is, you'd be called a dick to point all that stuff out because hey, it's for the greater good right? (the greater good)
Paul Rudd is a writer who needs a job and won't divorce his wife, but has been separated for two years because something happened that . He signs on as a caregiver and his first and only client is a 21 year old boy with muscular dystrophy who has a set schedule and a dark sense of humor. They start to bond and the kid is a british hipster so he wants to see all these terrible USA landmark attractions he sees on TV, and ultimately gets to go on the road trip for the first time, picking up Selina Gomez on the way who thinks being in Spring Breakers wasn't enough to shed her Disney past so she's got attitude and cusses and stuff and is actually using that tough exterior to hide her softer side.
The highlights come in just the straight up spotlighting of how much of a dick the kid is; he fakes choking, he deliberately pushes buttons, and Rudd responds in kind and it's a natural guys being guys shitting on each other thing. It's nice to see, but never goes as far as he should ala 40 Year Old Virgin or Wet Hot American Summer. Everything else is rather by the books, no surprises, Rudd's character has a past incident that is hidden throughout the film but when it finally reveals itself feels as laughably out of place as Phoebe Cates' story in Gremlins, there's a detour in the road trip which yields an easily seen result (that was never elaborated on when it totally should have but everyone is just all "oh, whatever, ok, see ya" ), and then an end which gives Rudd the chance at redemption, but is also ruined by how much they're hitting you over the head during said scene and you can almost here George Lucas in your head going "it's poetry, they rhyme."
Rudd's good in his dependable way, if a bit unable to sell the beginning with the more drama laden aspects here, it really feels like he played the later stuff much more Rudd-like and improv and perhaps they reshot the stuff in the beginning to try and divert from the foul mouthed name calling teasing aspects later on to show how much he warms up to the kid. The kid, the lead actor from Submarine and has popped up in some other things, is good and believable as being introverted and accepting of his condition and opening up. Gomez is just kind of running through the usual bad girl but really good checklist and really doesn't offer anything to stand out with.
It's just a bunch of standard storytelling beats trying to ride a slightly different wave than the usual YA novel adaptations, the older protagonist cashing in on the YA novel stories genre. Pluck on this heartstring moment here, move the hand down the neck and pluck on the other string, strum a bit across these three plot beats that will just have your girlfriend have the feels and ignore the tonal inconsistencies and voila, you create enough movie noise to make something that seems poignant and fresh, even if it really is just bland. The Intouchables is a much better, funnier, emotionally stronger and sincere movie than this one. Seriously, watch The Intouchables instead, it's great. It has the song September in it, that makes everything better.
+3
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
And because it's sort of connected, here's thirty minutes of Jerry Lewis' The Day the Clown Cried that has just been released a week ago (that big scene at the end starts around 28 minutes):
And because it's sort of connected, here's thirty minutes of Jerry Lewis' The Day the Clown Cried that has just been released a week ago (that big scene at the end starts around 28 minutes):
But he isn't the bad guy? Never is it set up that he is the bad guy. He has no plot interaction that shows how stopping him produces the desired result. He is passive rather than active. There are other supposed antogonists and the movie has previously flipped who the bad guys were on you by the end.
And he doesn't "win". There was no goal he achieved there was no victory over the hero. He doesn't have a grand revelation. The hero makes his sacrifice and the emperor accepts it.
If the situation is "A dude has come to your place to murder you", and the result of your conversation is "He decides that he would rather be arrested and executed than kill you", I'm pretty sure that isn't listed as a loss in most people's books.
Converting an assassin into a martyr for your cause, destroying a kung fu conspiracy against you, is generally filed as a win.
A dude never came to his palace to murder him. A dude came to his palace and said "we aren't even playing that game, but if we were I would have won".
He also doesn't turn him into a martyr for his cause. He martyrs him for the assassins cause!
And he is not the antagonist in any retelling of the story. There is no conflict the resolution to which the character is against.
He is definitely the antagonist, except unlike in most stories the hero ends up siding with him - then gets fucking murdered for it. Because the emperor wasn't going to let him get out alive. The hero "sacrificing" himself for the emperor isn't a noble cause the movie sells it as - when the story points out the emperor was engaging in total destruction of his enemies for "peace." Ozy did the same thing in Watchmen to keep the world together - he was still the villain in the piece.
Based on his choice of words mirroring my choice of words, I think he's referring to the three retellings of Nameless's tale - not the frame story.
While in the first variant of the story the other warriors are the antagonists and the King's variant has the apprentice (Moon), all those characters are on the same side in the final retelling. That variant is certainly the most intricate of them, but their conflicts are driven by their opposition (or feigned opposition) to the King's actions.
No, not the frame story; not anything. In no narrative structure in the movie is the King the villain. He takes no action in the movie. China is unified, its done and over. He is a macguffin. The thing the characters want because they want. Sure the characters want the macguffin because its shiny/it can explode/it belongs in a museum or in this case it wronged them. But its a MacGuffin none the less.
Ozy is the villain because he directly acts to create all of the action of the story, which the heros must work against, as a part of the story. Qin does nothing in the movie that any character at any point works against. The closest he gets is failing to be killed in an assassination. Which is no different than when any character recounts how close they got to getting the MacGuffin that one time.
That is not what a MacGuffin is. His presence and nature are tightly wound into the story such that replacing him with anything else (or even changing his motivations) alters the fundamental nature of the film. Using your own definition Ozymandias is a MacGuffin too - all he does is survive an assassination attempt and murder a bunch of people before the protagonists show up.
Woah, I never realized how similar those two characters are or the similar fates of the protagonists!
Also, while other people having been using villain, I've been intentionally sticking with antagonist. If the King just decided one day that he didn't want to be Emperor then all conflict in the movie would cease. The protagonist's original goal is freedom for his state - the King is actively fighting against that.
No. He really is. You could use almost any other "big bad" and have the same message about turning away from revenge. Its true that the story changes slightly and you might have to change other things in order to make it work, but so does the story in Indiana Jones if its not the holy grail or ark they're after. If the King decided one day he didn't want to be emperor no conflict would cease. All of the assassins would still want to kill him. He is a MacGuffin. OK, true you don't get the exact same story but that isn't much different than how you don't get the exact same story when replacing the holy grail from Indy. You have to make up a new reason everyone wants the MacGuffin if the MacGuffin changes.
You cannot do this for Ozymandias. He kills the Comedian, he drives Manhattan off world by giving his friends cancer, he prevents manhattan from seeing the future, he sets up Rorschach, he designs and implements the device to attack cities around the world, hell he even sends the assassin after himself.
And i have been using Antagonist purposefully too. The antagonist is the character which opposes the protagonist. The King does not oppose the protagonists. Not in any of the individual stories (where its the assassin, each other, non) nor in the frame story, where the King lets the Hero kill him.
You could replace the Ark of the Covenant with Ramses II's cookbook and the only thing that would change is the method by which Nazi faces get melted. Presumably by some really spicy chili.
I could make an exhaustive list of things the King did and even show narrative parallels for them (e.g. Killing the Comedian = Killing Nameless's father). But writing a full plot synopsis does not appeal to me at the moment.
The King acted through his followers, who didn't need to be told in every scene to kill the heroes. Which they did couple times IIRC. Also, didn't he send soldiers to murder the assassins? Which they tried to kill him at least once. He was an antagonist whose influence was spread through the movie and effects everyone's actions. That some of the heroes ended up siding with him in the end doesn't mean he wasn't an antagonist. Not that it saved anyone, even the ones who sided with him were killed, directly or indirectly. The whole story hinges on the King using drastic measures to conquer unify China via brute force. Despite his calm and intelligent demeanor he was a brutal dictator.
The Shallows was mediocre. Felt like it's 80 minute runtime was 40 minutes too long. Some tense scenes and I'm a sucker for survivalism but in the end it was just a bit too unbelievable. Extended slow motion shots of Blake Lively's body seemed gross in a film that was at least pretending to care about a woman's strength and cunning. The bird side character earned an audible groan from me. The underwater shots were fantastic, I don't think I've ever seen underwater look so clear on film before. Cut out all the lame attempts at character building and you have an interesting short, but as is I'd only recommend a Netflix while slightly preoccupied with something else.
We got started on It Follows last week... but my wife, who isn't much into horror, was so freaked out by the first 20-30 minutes that we ended up watching some The Thick of It instead on the day the UK went doolally. Which was quite ironic, seeing how the ongoing tragicomedy of British politics is so much more scary than any horror movie.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I caught a slate of films as part of the AFI Docs Film Fest over the weekend. They were all really good, but I sure at least a few won't make it to distribution.
Tickled was probably the stand out, turning a New Zealand local news story on "competitive endurance tickling" into a sprawling conspiracy investigation. What I expected to be a whimsical look at tickling, turned out to be more akin to Serial, as more and more unseemly details emerged. Just a really well put together documentary from both the content and the visual style employed.
Chicken People was a much lighter piece, but a lot of fun. It's profile of the people and chickens involved in the dog show style competitions for poultry. Between humorous looks at crazy chicken breeds they manage a surprisingly moving set of profiles on the breeders and what motivates them to devote vast amounts of time and energy raising incredibly niche show birds. Some great one-off interviews and animations too.
Cinema Mon Amour is probably the simplest one I saw. It's a character piece on a Romanian cinema manager who has totally devoted himself to a love of film, even as funding, infrastructure, and interest within the country crumbles. Poignant, but about what you'd expect from a look at the intersection of passion and a dying market.
Almost Sunrise follows two Iraq war vets who walk from Wisconsin to Los Angeles to try to cope with their "Moral Injury" (PTSD adjacent trauma stemming from feelings of guilt and moral wrongdoing), and their subsequent work to recover from their experiences. Definitely the saddest of the docs, with some really brutal footage of Iraq casualties, and heartbreaking interviews with loved ones on the effect of the war on the vets.
+4
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I don't understand why that film is considered so infamously bad, based on that. It's not Schindler's List, no, but it's not Transformers 3 either.
It's more how the people involved have talked about it. A certain level of secret shame that makes it unappealing.
From what I've seen and read, it just looks like this bizarre mesh of self-conscious grimdark and slapstick that takes itself alternately too seriously and not seriously enough. It trips all over itself and can't settle on a consistent tone, all the while waddling through how immensely important it is.
It's basically Batman v Superman, but without Batman or Superman.
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.
More so, it's a Holocaust-flavoured Batman v Superman. Arguably, you'll be held to higher standards when you try to make an *important* film about an *important* topic and screw up than when you make a big, stupid film about big, stupid robots beating each other up.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I don't understand why that film is considered so infamously bad, based on that. It's not Schindler's List, no, but it's not Transformers 3 either.
It's more how the people involved have talked about it. A certain level of secret shame that makes it unappealing.
From what I've seen and read, it just looks like this bizarre mesh of self-conscious grimdark and slapstick that takes itself alternately too seriously and not seriously enough. It trips all over itself and can't settle on a consistent tone, all the while waddling through how immensely important it is.
It's basically Batman v Superman, but without Batman or Superman.
Sounds like Life is Beautiful!
(I know that sounds like a criticism of Life is Beautiful but I actually loved it at the time. I haven't seen it since I was 13 or so though.)
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
So the neon demon.
Absolutely gorgeous Bullshit.
I miss when nwr made movies that sort of made sense or where at least interested in being semi coherent
Posts
30 years later with Kurt Russell again.
I will accept no less.
I think there's people who like it, who like it for what it could have been.
The hellish imagery in the film really is fantastically done, it's just been cut short.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Fair.
I don't think the extra 10-20 minutes that got sliced would have done much for the film itself, but I'm all in for the imagery that film has.
Woah, I never realized how similar those two characters are or the similar fates of the protagonists!
Also, while other people having been using villain, I've been intentionally sticking with antagonist. If the King just decided one day that he didn't want to be Emperor then all conflict in the movie would cease. The protagonist's original goal is freedom for his state - the King is actively fighting against that.
I still like it for it's idea and atmosphere and that's what sticks with you afterwards - because there isn't much else.
4 minutes in starts the review. Hack liked it, Fraud didn't.
BUT, the scary thing was Fox apparently filing a claim for them showing the trailer for the movie in their review, and it seemingly working because they had to put some text in front of it pointing out how stupid that concept is because Youtube is getting even shittier with regards to obvious fair use. Scary president being set hear.
I appreciate the lore created for the twenty year break. But it was too much to cover for this. I feel like 15 years ago there should have been a 6 season television series that I missed and the movie never bothered to catch anyone up on.
That's a marketing issue, not a problem with the film.
Living on a pre-industrial (Bronze Age, even) planet for twenty years? SG-1's Daniel Jackson was only there for a few.
A great (IMO) fanfic series about the show referenced the difference between how Russell and RDA played the character nicely, I thought, in the episode where O'Neill has to cut ties with the rest of his team and act like a bastard to draw out moles in the program who've been stealing alien tech. Daniel goes to try to talk to him (because that's what Daniel does) and...
I'd say it's like looking at a stranger, but yet... oh yes, I remember you. Stone face. Flat eyes. Armor-plated. Haven't seen you in a long time, Colonel. I was kind of hoping you were on a permanent leave of absence. Where is my friend and what have you done with him?
It's a common humorous exaggeration to say that something made you feel sick to your stomach. I personally have never had this reaction to anything that is not genuinely biologically gross.
Until now.
Yeah progressive has a GB commercial. Though to be fair I vaguely recall GB 2 being marketed like crazy when it came out in theaters (I was 2 when the original came out so I have no idea how it was marketed).
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's the only film I can recall seeing that had merchandise behind the candy counter in the theatre showing it. Like, there were literally Ghostbusters bumper stickers ("He slimed me!") right next to the Red Vines. Marketing for that film was quite over the top, most likely because - as many of the film's principals have noted - they knew beyond any shadow of a doubt while they were making it that they had a huge hit on their hands.
a concept thats stupid might just be awesome
No. He really is. You could use almost any other "big bad" and have the same message about turning away from revenge. Its true that the story changes slightly and you might have to change other things in order to make it work, but so does the story in Indiana Jones if its not the holy grail or ark they're after. If the King decided one day he didn't want to be emperor no conflict would cease. All of the assassins would still want to kill him. He is a MacGuffin. OK, true you don't get the exact same story but that isn't much different than how you don't get the exact same story when replacing the holy grail from Indy. You have to make up a new reason everyone wants the MacGuffin if the MacGuffin changes.
You cannot do this for Ozymandias. He kills the Comedian, he drives Manhattan off world by giving his friends cancer, he prevents manhattan from seeing the future, he sets up Rorschach, he designs and implements the device to attack cities around the world, hell he even sends the assassin after himself.
And i have been using Antagonist purposefully too. The antagonist is the character which opposes the protagonist. The King does not oppose the protagonists. Not in any of the individual stories (where its the assassin, each other, non) nor in the frame story, where the King lets the Hero kill him.
The reviews (which have in a fairly positive when not just throwing their hands up ang going WTF?) have made me curious.
Becoming friends with Harry Potter's flatuent, erect corpse is...certainly a unique concept...
I could make an exhaustive list of things the King did and even show narrative parallels for them (e.g. Killing the Comedian = Killing Nameless's father). But writing a full plot synopsis does not appeal to me at the moment.
The boxing action scenes are probably the best ever shot and Michael B. Jordan is a pleasure to watch.
Sly puts in a pretty stellar performance of being Old Rocky that's had some time to reflect on his past.
Paul Rudd is a writer who needs a job and won't divorce his wife, but has been separated for two years because something happened that . He signs on as a caregiver and his first and only client is a 21 year old boy with muscular dystrophy who has a set schedule and a dark sense of humor. They start to bond and the kid is a british hipster so he wants to see all these terrible USA landmark attractions he sees on TV, and ultimately gets to go on the road trip for the first time, picking up Selina Gomez on the way who thinks being in Spring Breakers wasn't enough to shed her Disney past so she's got attitude and cusses and stuff and is actually using that tough exterior to hide her softer side.
The highlights come in just the straight up spotlighting of how much of a dick the kid is; he fakes choking, he deliberately pushes buttons, and Rudd responds in kind and it's a natural guys being guys shitting on each other thing. It's nice to see, but never goes as far as he should ala 40 Year Old Virgin or Wet Hot American Summer. Everything else is rather by the books, no surprises, Rudd's character has a past incident that is hidden throughout the film but when it finally reveals itself feels as laughably out of place as Phoebe Cates' story in Gremlins, there's a detour in the road trip which yields an easily seen result (that was never elaborated on when it totally should have but everyone is just all "oh, whatever, ok, see ya" ), and then an end which gives Rudd the chance at redemption, but is also ruined by how much they're hitting you over the head during said scene and you can almost here George Lucas in your head going "it's poetry, they rhyme."
Rudd's good in his dependable way, if a bit unable to sell the beginning with the more drama laden aspects here, it really feels like he played the later stuff much more Rudd-like and improv and perhaps they reshot the stuff in the beginning to try and divert from the foul mouthed name calling teasing aspects later on to show how much he warms up to the kid. The kid, the lead actor from Submarine and has popped up in some other things, is good and believable as being introverted and accepting of his condition and opening up. Gomez is just kind of running through the usual bad girl but really good checklist and really doesn't offer anything to stand out with.
It's just a bunch of standard storytelling beats trying to ride a slightly different wave than the usual YA novel adaptations, the older protagonist cashing in on the YA novel stories genre. Pluck on this heartstring moment here, move the hand down the neck and pluck on the other string, strum a bit across these three plot beats that will just have your girlfriend have the feels and ignore the tonal inconsistencies and voila, you create enough movie noise to make something that seems poignant and fresh, even if it really is just bland. The Intouchables is a much better, funnier, emotionally stronger and sincere movie than this one. Seriously, watch The Intouchables instead, it's great. It has the song September in it, that makes everything better.
I almost don't want to watch it.
It's more how the people involved have talked about it. A certain level of secret shame that makes it unappealing.
The King acted through his followers, who didn't need to be told in every scene to kill the heroes. Which they did couple times IIRC. Also, didn't he send soldiers to murder the assassins? Which they tried to kill him at least once. He was an antagonist whose influence was spread through the movie and effects everyone's actions. That some of the heroes ended up siding with him in the end doesn't mean he wasn't an antagonist. Not that it saved anyone, even the ones who sided with him were killed, directly or indirectly. The whole story hinges on the King using drastic measures to conquer unify China via brute force. Despite his calm and intelligent demeanor he was a brutal dictator.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
But then it went full Holocaust, and you should never go full Holocaust.
Schindler's List and the Pianist get passes since they're based on true events.
Edit: The Clown.... don't know how the hell I made that typo.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Tickled was probably the stand out, turning a New Zealand local news story on "competitive endurance tickling" into a sprawling conspiracy investigation. What I expected to be a whimsical look at tickling, turned out to be more akin to Serial, as more and more unseemly details emerged. Just a really well put together documentary from both the content and the visual style employed.
Chicken People was a much lighter piece, but a lot of fun. It's profile of the people and chickens involved in the dog show style competitions for poultry. Between humorous looks at crazy chicken breeds they manage a surprisingly moving set of profiles on the breeders and what motivates them to devote vast amounts of time and energy raising incredibly niche show birds. Some great one-off interviews and animations too.
Cinema Mon Amour is probably the simplest one I saw. It's a character piece on a Romanian cinema manager who has totally devoted himself to a love of film, even as funding, infrastructure, and interest within the country crumbles. Poignant, but about what you'd expect from a look at the intersection of passion and a dying market.
Almost Sunrise follows two Iraq war vets who walk from Wisconsin to Los Angeles to try to cope with their "Moral Injury" (PTSD adjacent trauma stemming from feelings of guilt and moral wrongdoing), and their subsequent work to recover from their experiences. Definitely the saddest of the docs, with some really brutal footage of Iraq casualties, and heartbreaking interviews with loved ones on the effect of the war on the vets.
From what I've seen and read, it just looks like this bizarre mesh of self-conscious grimdark and slapstick that takes itself alternately too seriously and not seriously enough. It trips all over itself and can't settle on a consistent tone, all the while waddling through how immensely important it is.
It's basically Batman v Superman, but without Batman or Superman.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
(I know that sounds like a criticism of Life is Beautiful but I actually loved it at the time. I haven't seen it since I was 13 or so though.)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Absolutely gorgeous Bullshit.
I miss when nwr made movies that sort of made sense or where at least interested in being semi coherent