The Nice Guys was fun, but IMO it needed another go at the script. It's best when it isn't too concerned with the plot, since the plot is pretty vague (especially with respect to the Kim Basinger character and John Boy). In its last half hour or so, the plot becomes more prominent and there are a couple of moments of "Huh, what?" Nothing major, but enough to distract somewhat from what the film does best, i.e. the black buddy comedy.
Did you know the actress who's the daughter in that movie is in Spider-man: Homecoming?
Lionsgate also just bought the premium channel Starz.
Their response to having a noticeable drop off in BO returns for that series is to make a movie for the channel to then spin off into a series with other characters as a form of original programming.
It isn't something like going from a movie to the CW, it would likely have a decent budget to entice new tweenwave subscribers, and it's not like the film actually looked all that expensive in the first place.
The idea of movie stars being a separate class than TV actors has long, long eroded, and you were never a Brie Larson or Mia Wasikowska anyway, Woodley.
Woodley is 100% too good an actress to get stuck on a shitty TV show in a desperate attempt to save a shitty YA franchise.
+4
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I tried watching The Invitation because people have been praising it for it being this low key thriller type of movie (100% RT so it can't ever be bad because that's always perfect right gang) but in the first three minutes it has a hipster hitting a coyote and then killing it with a tire iron and I was just nope.
And I get coyotes are terrible especially in Cali Cali and this is probably foreshadowing but nope, you do the one thing I don't want in movies right away you're just too hardcore and edgy for me so boom, peace out.
Out of curiosity, what about that makes it a deal breaker? I mean, it's not done to be gratuitous or edgy, it actually has a thematic relevance. Is animals dying where you draw the line or something?
(I hope this doesn't come off as snarky, I'm just genuinely curious went the movie lost you five minutes in. It's a pretty good, if kinda overrated, movie.)
Usually animals dying is the line being drawn. It's always been that way with me.
In the most generous of cases movies at least builds up to the animal dying for the second or third act, and by that point the film has earned good will or is close enough to ending that I don't have to sit there and ruminate on it. Usually there's an emotional connection that is shown too that reflects on the protagonist in question and give him pathos. The dog doesn't live long in Mad Max 2 but we can tell from the visual clues Max did care about him. Tuner and Hooch does the same thing and even shows a continuing circle of life to alleviate the pain (but it's still hard for me to watch). And of course Old Yeller and Never Ending Story will never be watched again. American Psycho has Patrick stomp a dog to death in an alley but we never see it, they actually go to great lengths not to show it in how it's framed, and there's enough distance there on top of the man being insane to bring distance. And then you have another movie I'm gonna put the title in below
The Rover
where the ending is that instant reveal and I go "yep, that character does everything that I would have done." Plus in that instance the film already starts with the animal gone and is set up for the reveal of why it's so important.
And I know it's a odd thing, absolutely. It's a much less egregious flaw than finding Aziz Ansari funny, naturally, but it is my super sexy cross to bear. The fact that The Invitation not only shows the wounded coyote on top of the guy hitting it twice with a tire iron, but how he just slings it to the side and it's just such a blase thing, can't do it. And I can clearly see they're trying to set it up for some big payoff and apparent characterization, that's not lost on me. But it also shows me you feel so little in your story that you have to drop a usually heavy emotional payoff right away in your film that you must be hiding something. And add to it that the guy looks like he's from the usual suspects of a douchebag looking hipster, and that he drives a SAAB to boot, how am I not supposed to just fly out to California and punch the guy in the face, huh? See, now I'm getting mad as I write this because I realize there's nothing wrong with me, I'm the good guy here and everyone else just wants to throw puppies off a bridge! Well you're not going to anymore, you hear me!?
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Also Shaun the Sheep Movie (Hulu) is a delightfully great movie. The story branches out fast from Shaun and the flock just wanting a day off from the usual routine (until those stupid pigs ruin it) and the Farmer being in a rut and not enjoying the farming life and how it all just spirals out of control, it was just a fun "silent" movie. None of the characters were unlikable like what usually happens in these kinds of kids movies (this is Aardman so they're usually much better in that regard), and the sheep trying to be people is classic old timey jokes that land perfectly. Plus that little baby sheep with the teddy bear is just d'awwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
This should have won best animated picture last year, forget Inside Out.
+2
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I know this too. They even pretend to be friends with dogs in some neighborhoods and act like their buddies trying to get into their fenced area and the second they do they turn on them, it's terrible. And I'm not a super animal PETA eco warrior person either. It's just that it's common knowledge hurting animals is a super powerful emotional tool to use for a film, a often used as a cheat for a quick emotional appeal. But a film usually waits to show that card if at all. Or it goes the other way and embraces it like this new movie A Dog's Purpose which will make a billion dollars guaranteed.
It's just a gut instinct thing in me in whether you're being sincere in throwing that card on the table or not and actually earning the right to do so. And The Invitation just didn't feel that way.
+1
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I think everybody - or at least a lot of us - have "red flags" that make it very difficult for us to continue watching a film, and they aren't necessarily consistent or logical.
There's an episode of Longmire where a horse barn catches on fire and the horses are trapped inside, struggling to get out, and they get badly burned. I found it very difficult to watch, even though it's very brief, and if I ever see that episode for some reason again I plan to skip over that scene. Something about the animals being hurt and terrified was almost unbearable.
Anything with gratuitous torture, sexual assault or extreme degradation (cruelty, sadism, etc.) I also have a lot of trouble with. There's movies that I found mostly enjoyable or interesting but caught me off guard with something like that; while it can be very effective from a storytelling standpoint, I rarely find myself watching those movies more than once.
I think stylization is a big part of it. I can watch hella violent movies like Kill Bill or Thirteen Assassins all day long, and it doesn't faze me. But if it looks real I kind of feel like it is, even though I know it obviously isn't.
Also Shaun the Sheep Movie (Hulu) is a delightfully great movie. The story branches out fast from Shaun and the flock just wanting a day off from the usual routine (until those stupid pigs ruin it) and the Farmer being in a rut and not enjoying the farming life and how it all just spirals out of control, it was just a fun "silent" movie. None of the characters were unlikable like what usually happens in these kinds of kids movies (this is Aardman so they're usually much better in that regard), and the sheep trying to be people is classic old timey jokes that land perfectly. Plus that little baby sheep with the teddy bear is just d'awwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
This should have won best animated picture last year, forget Inside Out.
Oh god. I agree with something that TexiKen posted! Something must be wrong with me...
Shaun the Sheep is an excellent movie, but you expect that caliber from Aardman.
I've seen bits and pieces of this over the years but I think this was my first time all the way through. Pretty fun! Random thoughts:
-Lugosi is great, of course - managing to be suave and charismatic on the one hand but also a total oddball on the other - talking in odd rhythms that suggest not just that he's foreign but that he hasn't interacted with other people much in the past couple hundred years.
-I expect to see rats, spiders, and bats in Dracula's castle but, uh....armadillos?
-It's interesting what's entered the cultural lexicon and what hasn't. Everyone knows "I never drink....wine" and “Children of the night - what music they make!" - but here’s a line I loved that I don’t think is very well known: ”For one who has not lived even a single lifetime, you're a wise man, Van Helsing."
-...But now I see that Ebert mentions that line in his review, so maybe it's more well known that I thought.
-I am all about the spotlight-on-the-eyes effect, and think it's a shame you don't see it much in modern movies. Sure, it's a little 'unreal'...but movies aren't reality, so that's ok. The eyes are the most important and beautiful part of the face, and there's something powerful about highlighting them with light:
-If vampire attacks = sex, and Dracula attacks men and women, is Dracula bi?
-The consensus on the movie seems to be that it runs out of steam a bit once it switches from Transylvania to England. I agree! For one thing, Dracula's spooky gothic castle >>> boring English drawing rooms. But also I think the plot becomes pretty unsatisfying in the second part of the movie. I mean here's what happens: 1) Van Helsing tells Dracula that he's going to go Dracula's home during the day, and stab his heart with a wooden stake (why would Van Helsing reveal his plan to Dracula like this??) 2) Van Helsing goes to Dracula's home during the day, and stabs his heart with a wooden stake (why doesn't Dracula do anything to prevent this from happening??) There's just no strategic thinking on either the good guys' part or the bad guys' part.
-It's also weird that Van Helsing is basically the only person in the movie who actually does anything - he's Obi-Wan and Luke and Han all rolled into one, and everyone else on the good guy team just kinda stands around while he takes care of business. Meanwhile, my memory is that taking down Dracula is much more of a team effort in the book.
-I did love the big show-down between Van Helsing and Dracula, though, when Dracula tries to mind-control Van Helsing and Van Helsing successfully resists. That was the most suspenseful, "oh shi-" moment in the movie. And the actor who plays Van Helsing gives a great, subtle performance in the scene - conveying surprise and fear and defiance.
Well I blame Marvel more than Whedon for any visual blandness, because, by contrast, I think Firefly actually had a bold visual style - it was a TV show shot in a cinema verite-ish style back when that was a rare thing to do, and has some gorgeous shots and moody, naturalistic lighting.
There are some pretty alright shots throughout The Avengers, but for every alright shot, we have a dutch angle to pair it with during the first ten minutes.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
0
Options
chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
-It's also weird that Van Helsing is basically the only person in the movie who actually does anything - he's Obi-Wan and Luke and Han all rolled into one, and everyone else on the good guy team just kinda stands around while he takes care of business. Meanwhile, my memory is that taking down Dracula is much more of a team effort in the book.
Yep.
It's actually the Texan who's both the guy most in the know and who gets the killshot. (Well, Harker takes Dracula's throat with a kurki, while Quincey goes for the heart with his bowie knife). Quincey Morris doesn't usually get his due, really.
(Except in the Castlevania games, where he's a distant relative of the Belmonts.)
Yeah like, the Marvel movies have a house style, mostly run by presumably their CG department. They all look pretty much the same, competent but never actually good.
The marvel movie directors are more like traditional TV show directors - they show up, maintain the house style, and make sure all the shoots are finished on time and on budget. Other than that who the fuck even notices them.
The only difference I can think of offhand was like, the first half of Winter Soldier, when they were still trying to be a bit of an espionage movie. But the last third was still the same old.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The Avengers has no style the way Americans have no accent--which is to say, it's absolutely there, you're just used to it. In 10 years this period in film will seem as distinctive stylistically as any other decade.
Coyotes are not vermin, they are secondary predators attempting to fill the apex predator niche left vacant in most of the U.S. by extirpation of wolves.
The Avengers has no style the way Americans have no accent--which is to say, it's absolutely there, you're just used to it. In 10 years this period in film will seem as distinctive stylistically as any other decade.
They don't have no style
They just have a boring, cookie cutter, uninteresting style across almost all of the marvel movies, in editing and cinematography.
We can recognize Michael Bay's style too, doesn't mean we want any more of it
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
It's one of the reasons why I'm not too unhappy Whedon isn't directing these any more. I think he works well with actors, and he's got occasional ideas that are cool and work pretty well, but he's by no means a consistently good director, at least when it comes to action and VFX.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
The Avengers has no style the way Americans have no accent--which is to say, it's absolutely there, you're just used to it. In 10 years this period in film will seem as distinctive stylistically as any other decade.
They don't have no style
They just have a boring, cookie cutter, uninteresting style across almost all of the marvel movies, in editing and cinematography.
We can recognize Michael Bay's style too, doesn't mean we want any more of it
I mean, I'm okay with it like that. Those movies are entirely character driven, so having a tried-and-true style really doesn't lessen my enjoyment of the films.
But even considering that, AoU was p fucking boring even by Marvel standards.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It's one of the reasons why I'm not too unhappy Whedon isn't directing these any more. I think he works well with actors, and he's got occasional ideas that are cool and work pretty well, but he's by no means a consistently good director, at least when it comes to action and VFX.
Whedon would be great in a consulting role.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited September 2016
I think it's telling that in the one shot of Avengers that people constantly mention in saying is memorable is the one in which nothing exists, not even the camera.
absolutely spot on that " '90s cool" has aged the worst out of any kind of visual style in modern times.
I don't know what's particularly 90s cool about Blade, its an action film, and it's a damn fun film overall. Plus I liked Deakin Frost. The RLM guys are pretty pretentious when they want to be. It's like when they complained that Harley Quinn suddenly has a mobile phone, ignoring the scene where she is handed a mobile phone.
It's one of the reasons why I'm not too unhappy Whedon isn't directing these any more. I think he works well with actors, and he's got occasional ideas that are cool and work pretty well, but he's by no means a consistently good director, at least when it comes to action and VFX.
Whedon would be great in a consulting role.
Whedon had that role for Marvel in Phase 2, everywhere. From tv shows to script doctoring movies - that's part of the reason he was burnt out by AoU.
I think it's telling that in the one shot of Avengers that people constantly mention in saying is memorable is the one in which nothing exists, not even the camera.
You could say that about many FX heavy spectacle movies and tv shows, and I don't see why that's a negative. Especially from a director whose known as his characterization over spectacle. Serenity had plenty of various impressive CGI sequences before he got to Avengers
The Avengers has no style the way Americans have no accent--which is to say, it's absolutely there, you're just used to it. In 10 years this period in film will seem as distinctive stylistically as any other decade.
They don't have no style
They just have a boring, cookie cutter, uninteresting style across almost all of the marvel movies, in editing and cinematography.
We can recognize Michael Bay's style too, doesn't mean we want any more of it
I like the Marvel movies just fine. They're not perfect, but I like what they're doing. You don't speak for everyone, you only speak for yourself. Try to remember that.
That one-shot is still stunning. Although I seem to recall it cheats ever so slightly when Mal and Simon are approaching the top of the stairs because it was a bit too tight for the actors and the cameraman. Not sure if anyone can confirm/deny. Still awesome either way, though.
The Marvel stuff has style, certainly, but I think a lot of complaints come from a combination of it being too tame, a reaction to overexposure/being in the thick of it, and seeing it get a bit repetitive.
*Granted, comparing a summer tentpole blockbuster to a Kurosawa isn't exactly fair, but then again, wouldn't it be cool if superhero franchise stuff worked at that level?
The Marvel stuff has style, certainly, but I think a lot of complaints come from a combination of it being too tame, a reaction to overexposure/being in the thick of it, a seeing it get a bit repetitive.
Which is fair.
*Granted, comparing a summer tentpole blockbuster to a Kurosawa isn't exactly fair, but then again, wouldn't it be cool if superhero franchise stuff worked at that level?
Sure, but Marvel knows that isn't what it's selling to its audience. DC thinks it does, but utterly fails getting there.
The last super-hero movie we had anywhere near that caliber was The Dark Knight, and that isn't going to be easy to repeat or surpass.
edit: The MCU's Netflix shows are closer to the Nolan movies in quality than the movies - who are just fun stuff.
I think it's wrong to think that "just fun stuff" doesn't need to be shot better, because that equals fun and disposable. Raiders of the Lost Ark isn't deep, it's a ride of a movie, yet it's shot more or less perfectly. The MCU has nice moments and it's generally competently shot at least, but just because it's fun doesn't mean it couldn't be better, and cinematography is one of the ways in which this is true.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I can see people remembering the Avengers the same way I remember Batman 89.
But I can't see them remembering it all that well for any particular scenes. It's shot so clean, it looks like a high quality TV movie. There are scenes you can think stand out, but it will probably end up being Hulk smashing Loki, which is memorable because of what it is rather than how its shot or what is in the scene. Compare them sat on the sterile helicarrier to Indiana Jones in the library looking for the big X. Even with that fake bookcase that I can't unsee, it's a real environment and it's a lot more engaging.
There's nothing wrong with having Whedon on as a writer or consultant, but I don't think he should be directing these films. I think on the other hand the Russos have done a better job crafting a good story and grounding it without setting it permanently at night in the rain.
Agreed about the Russo's, they are better than Whedon at basically everything. Which is very impressive.
+4
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
The overall visuals of the MCU are quite homogenous, even with the different little subgenres they try and fit into. Doctor Strange could be very different, depending on how much of the movie actually is crazy kaleidoscope cities and other various magic trance stuff. Could be the whole movie is one wild ride like that, or maybe it's the same visual style as the others with some great gimmick shots thrown in...
Oh brilliant
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I think it's wrong to think that "just fun stuff" doesn't need to be shot better, because that equals fun and disposable. Raiders of the Lost Ark isn't deep, it's a ride of a movie, yet it's shot more or less perfectly. The MCU has nice moments and it's generally competently shot at least, but just because it's fun doesn't mean it couldn't be better, and cinematography is one of the ways in which this is true.
It could be shot better, but to be honest I really don't think it needs to. I wouldn't complain if it were, but I really don't care that it's not.
That one-shot is still stunning. Although I seem to recall it cheats ever so slightly when Mal and Simon are approaching the top of the stairs because it was a bit too tight for the actors and the cameraman. Not sure if anyone can confirm/deny. Still awesome either way, though.
I think they confirmed that on the comment track, so it's two shots that are spliced together at the stairs.
edit: yeah, Serenity was two sets, upper and lower parts, and they spliced at the stairs.
That one-shot is still stunning. Although I seem to recall it cheats ever so slightly when Mal and Simon are approaching the top of the stairs because it was a bit too tight for the actors and the cameraman. Not sure if anyone can confirm/deny. Still awesome either way, though.
I think they confirmed that on the comment track, so it's two shots that are spliced together at the stairs.
edit: yeah, Serenity was two sets, upper and lower parts, and they spliced at the stairs.
Fair enough. I'll have to watch with the commentary track. I could've sworn it was all one huge set (which of course the TV show couldn't do, but was so well shot and edited that the viewer could easily believe that it did) but the splice was just because that corridor was too tight for Nathan and Sean to go past the camera operator.
Posts
Did you know the actress who's the daughter in that movie is in Spider-man: Homecoming?
Woodley is 100% too good an actress to get stuck on a shitty TV show in a desperate attempt to save a shitty YA franchise.
Usually animals dying is the line being drawn. It's always been that way with me.
In the most generous of cases movies at least builds up to the animal dying for the second or third act, and by that point the film has earned good will or is close enough to ending that I don't have to sit there and ruminate on it. Usually there's an emotional connection that is shown too that reflects on the protagonist in question and give him pathos. The dog doesn't live long in Mad Max 2 but we can tell from the visual clues Max did care about him. Tuner and Hooch does the same thing and even shows a continuing circle of life to alleviate the pain (but it's still hard for me to watch). And of course Old Yeller and Never Ending Story will never be watched again. American Psycho has Patrick stomp a dog to death in an alley but we never see it, they actually go to great lengths not to show it in how it's framed, and there's enough distance there on top of the man being insane to bring distance. And then you have another movie I'm gonna put the title in below
The Rover
where the ending is that instant reveal and I go "yep, that character does everything that I would have done." Plus in that instance the film already starts with the animal gone and is set up for the reveal of why it's so important.
And I know it's a odd thing, absolutely. It's a much less egregious flaw than finding Aziz Ansari funny, naturally, but it is my super sexy cross to bear. The fact that The Invitation not only shows the wounded coyote on top of the guy hitting it twice with a tire iron, but how he just slings it to the side and it's just such a blase thing, can't do it. And I can clearly see they're trying to set it up for some big payoff and apparent characterization, that's not lost on me. But it also shows me you feel so little in your story that you have to drop a usually heavy emotional payoff right away in your film that you must be hiding something. And add to it that the guy looks like he's from the usual suspects of a douchebag looking hipster, and that he drives a SAAB to boot, how am I not supposed to just fly out to California and punch the guy in the face, huh? See, now I'm getting mad as I write this because I realize there's nothing wrong with me, I'm the good guy here and everyone else just wants to throw puppies off a bridge! Well you're not going to anymore, you hear me!?
This should have won best animated picture last year, forget Inside Out.
I know this too. They even pretend to be friends with dogs in some neighborhoods and act like their buddies trying to get into their fenced area and the second they do they turn on them, it's terrible. And I'm not a super animal PETA eco warrior person either. It's just that it's common knowledge hurting animals is a super powerful emotional tool to use for a film, a often used as a cheat for a quick emotional appeal. But a film usually waits to show that card if at all. Or it goes the other way and embraces it like this new movie A Dog's Purpose which will make a billion dollars guaranteed.
It's just a gut instinct thing in me in whether you're being sincere in throwing that card on the table or not and actually earning the right to do so. And The Invitation just didn't feel that way.
absolutely spot on that " '90s cool" has aged the worst out of any kind of visual style in modern times.
There's an episode of Longmire where a horse barn catches on fire and the horses are trapped inside, struggling to get out, and they get badly burned. I found it very difficult to watch, even though it's very brief, and if I ever see that episode for some reason again I plan to skip over that scene. Something about the animals being hurt and terrified was almost unbearable.
Anything with gratuitous torture, sexual assault or extreme degradation (cruelty, sadism, etc.) I also have a lot of trouble with. There's movies that I found mostly enjoyable or interesting but caught me off guard with something like that; while it can be very effective from a storytelling standpoint, I rarely find myself watching those movies more than once.
I think stylization is a big part of it. I can watch hella violent movies like Kill Bill or Thirteen Assassins all day long, and it doesn't faze me. But if it looks real I kind of feel like it is, even though I know it obviously isn't.
Shaun the Sheep is an excellent movie, but you expect that caliber from Aardman.
If done properly, this can go well. Exhibit A:
Edit: this post also contains information regarding the 90s style concersation.
I've seen bits and pieces of this over the years but I think this was my first time all the way through. Pretty fun! Random thoughts:
-Lugosi is great, of course - managing to be suave and charismatic on the one hand but also a total oddball on the other - talking in odd rhythms that suggest not just that he's foreign but that he hasn't interacted with other people much in the past couple hundred years.
-I expect to see rats, spiders, and bats in Dracula's castle but, uh....armadillos?
-It's interesting what's entered the cultural lexicon and what hasn't. Everyone knows "I never drink....wine" and “Children of the night - what music they make!" - but here’s a line I loved that I don’t think is very well known: ”For one who has not lived even a single lifetime, you're a wise man, Van Helsing."
-...But now I see that Ebert mentions that line in his review, so maybe it's more well known that I thought.
-I am all about the spotlight-on-the-eyes effect, and think it's a shame you don't see it much in modern movies. Sure, it's a little 'unreal'...but movies aren't reality, so that's ok. The eyes are the most important and beautiful part of the face, and there's something powerful about highlighting them with light:
-If vampire attacks = sex, and Dracula attacks men and women, is Dracula bi?
-The consensus on the movie seems to be that it runs out of steam a bit once it switches from Transylvania to England. I agree! For one thing, Dracula's spooky gothic castle >>> boring English drawing rooms. But also I think the plot becomes pretty unsatisfying in the second part of the movie. I mean here's what happens: 1) Van Helsing tells Dracula that he's going to go Dracula's home during the day, and stab his heart with a wooden stake (why would Van Helsing reveal his plan to Dracula like this??) 2) Van Helsing goes to Dracula's home during the day, and stabs his heart with a wooden stake (why doesn't Dracula do anything to prevent this from happening??) There's just no strategic thinking on either the good guys' part or the bad guys' part.
-It's also weird that Van Helsing is basically the only person in the movie who actually does anything - he's Obi-Wan and Luke and Han all rolled into one, and everyone else on the good guy team just kinda stands around while he takes care of business. Meanwhile, my memory is that taking down Dracula is much more of a team effort in the book.
-I did love the big show-down between Van Helsing and Dracula, though, when Dracula tries to mind-control Van Helsing and Van Helsing successfully resists. That was the most suspenseful, "oh shi-" moment in the movie. And the actor who plays Van Helsing gives a great, subtle performance in the scene - conveying surprise and fear and defiance.
Joss Whedon has the shittiest camera instincts
Whedon has a style, and for a second I thought you meant Uma Thurman's and that was stylish AF.
As a huge Whedon fan, I agree.
There are some pretty alright shots throughout The Avengers, but for every alright shot, we have a dutch angle to pair it with during the first ten minutes.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Yep.
It's actually the Texan who's both the guy most in the know and who gets the killshot. (Well, Harker takes Dracula's throat with a kurki, while Quincey goes for the heart with his bowie knife). Quincey Morris doesn't usually get his due, really.
(Except in the Castlevania games, where he's a distant relative of the Belmonts.)
Why I fear the ocean.
The marvel movie directors are more like traditional TV show directors - they show up, maintain the house style, and make sure all the shoots are finished on time and on budget. Other than that who the fuck even notices them.
The only difference I can think of offhand was like, the first half of Winter Soldier, when they were still trying to be a bit of an espionage movie. But the last third was still the same old.
They don't have no style
They just have a boring, cookie cutter, uninteresting style across almost all of the marvel movies, in editing and cinematography.
We can recognize Michael Bay's style too, doesn't mean we want any more of it
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I mean, I'm okay with it like that. Those movies are entirely character driven, so having a tried-and-true style really doesn't lessen my enjoyment of the films.
But even considering that, AoU was p fucking boring even by Marvel standards.
Whedon would be great in a consulting role.
I don't know what's particularly 90s cool about Blade, its an action film, and it's a damn fun film overall. Plus I liked Deakin Frost. The RLM guys are pretty pretentious when they want to be. It's like when they complained that Harley Quinn suddenly has a mobile phone, ignoring the scene where she is handed a mobile phone.
Whedon had that role for Marvel in Phase 2, everywhere. From tv shows to script doctoring movies - that's part of the reason he was burnt out by AoU.
You could say that about many FX heavy spectacle movies and tv shows, and I don't see why that's a negative. Especially from a director whose known as his characterization over spectacle. Serenity had plenty of various impressive CGI sequences before he got to Avengers
A movie with this one shot take, the set is completely real.
I like the Marvel movies just fine. They're not perfect, but I like what they're doing. You don't speak for everyone, you only speak for yourself. Try to remember that.
That one-shot is still stunning. Although I seem to recall it cheats ever so slightly when Mal and Simon are approaching the top of the stairs because it was a bit too tight for the actors and the cameraman. Not sure if anyone can confirm/deny. Still awesome either way, though.
Steam | XBL
The Marvel stuff has style, certainly, but I think a lot of complaints come from a combination of it being too tame, a reaction to overexposure/being in the thick of it, and seeing it get a bit repetitive.
*Granted, comparing a summer tentpole blockbuster to a Kurosawa isn't exactly fair, but then again, wouldn't it be cool if superhero franchise stuff worked at that level?
Which is fair.
Sure, but Marvel knows that isn't what it's selling to its audience. DC thinks it does, but utterly fails getting there.
The last super-hero movie we had anywhere near that caliber was The Dark Knight, and that isn't going to be easy to repeat or surpass.
edit: The MCU's Netflix shows are closer to the Nolan movies in quality than the movies - who are just fun stuff.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
But I can't see them remembering it all that well for any particular scenes. It's shot so clean, it looks like a high quality TV movie. There are scenes you can think stand out, but it will probably end up being Hulk smashing Loki, which is memorable because of what it is rather than how its shot or what is in the scene. Compare them sat on the sterile helicarrier to Indiana Jones in the library looking for the big X. Even with that fake bookcase that I can't unsee, it's a real environment and it's a lot more engaging.
There's nothing wrong with having Whedon on as a writer or consultant, but I don't think he should be directing these films. I think on the other hand the Russos have done a better job crafting a good story and grounding it without setting it permanently at night in the rain.
It could be shot better, but to be honest I really don't think it needs to. I wouldn't complain if it were, but I really don't care that it's not.
I think they confirmed that on the comment track, so it's two shots that are spliced together at the stairs.
edit: yeah, Serenity was two sets, upper and lower parts, and they spliced at the stairs.
Fair enough. I'll have to watch with the commentary track. I could've sworn it was all one huge set (which of course the TV show couldn't do, but was so well shot and edited that the viewer could easily believe that it did) but the splice was just because that corridor was too tight for Nathan and Sean to go past the camera operator.
Brilliant shot, though.
Steam | XBL