Edit: Just got back from the movies with some friends.
Someone is going to have to explain all the hype about Logan to me.
I haven't so thoroughly unenjoyed a movie in ten years.
Really? Huh.
I thought it was absolutely amazing. What didnt you like?
Preface: I have not seen The Wolverine or X-Men: Apocalypse
The good:
Laura: The Mexican touch was brilliant, having her start mute was very effective. X-23 Program Cinematography
The mediocre:
Caliban: I feel Stephen Merchant's talents were wasted. Bad guy turns good, disguises exposition as an argument with the protagonist, gets tortured, commits suicide to take out some guys with him (who he doesn't actually end up taking out, adding to the despair)
Xavier's attitude: This is a knock against the writing, not Stewart. Xavier has always been a collected, logical, and articulate man. Even with his deterioration, Xavier was deliberately verbally abusive to Logan, which falls way outside his normal character. Moreover, Xavier was one of the few mutants who expressly valued human life, even if it risked a mutant's life. A man like that would never whinge about "chemical castration" given the knowledge of his effect on others during a telekinetic episode.
2029: I was not impressed with 2029's showcasing of all the buzzword technology of 2016.
Adamantium Bones: I know this is Science Fiction, but Science Fiction works best when it is based loosely on Science Fact, and Laura's adamantium implants grossly gloss over the issue that children grow, and metal does not. Those blades are going to be quite small for a full-grown woman, unless they keep doing surgeries every two years.
The bad:
- Not that I expect an ultra-happy jaunt from my superhero movies, but considering how most other X-Men movies have been framed, it was incredibly jarring to go full grimdark. It came out of left field.
Logan's Aging: I get that he ages. That's a pretty new concept however for most viewers. For the past 15 years, Wolverine has pretty deliberately been fucking shit up in theatrical fashion. It is unreasonable to think that Logan, who is 200-odd years old, has gone from "prime of his life" wrecking-ball in 2010 to "elderly" in 2029.
Elton John's Adopted Grandson, AKA: The Antagonist: He was so unmemorable I can't even recall his name beyond the goofy red glasses. This guy was flatter than an Earth conspiracy theory, and failed to engender any enmity in me. The plot armor that he wore was particularly annoying.
The ugly:
Cell phone video with voice-over provides 95% of this movie's exposition in 5 minutes.
Children of (X-)Men: This movie was a battery of "fuck yous" with one shining light at the end. I don't know if they were trying to capture some Last of Us or what, but it did not work. I literally looked at my cell phone 1:15 into the movie wondering when Logan was going to stop being a brooding asshole with temper issues. I get that that's his "schtick," but watching 75 minutes of it was simply annoying and exhausting, especially when the voices of reason (Xavier et. al) were either A: absent, or B: too busy being jack-asses themselves.
Logan learned nothing: All this movie showed was that at the end of the day, Xavier was right. For all of Logan's misplaced guilt and devotion to Charles, he sure as shit didn't seem to embrace any of the lessons Xavier previously successfully imparted on him over the years. And whatever enlightenment he might have learned at the end of the movie is overshadowed by the fact that his death and Laura's predicament are the result of his own brooding inaction.
Ultimately, this was movie (an action movie at that) where three times I looked at the clock, because I was tired of the repetitive boredom.
Professor X
The entire point of his arc in this movie is that he has a degenerative brain disorder. If you know how people with that condition act, Stewart's performance was spot-on.
+17
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
it's pretty reasonable sci fi logic that his healing factor failing would lead to some extreme aging. If it stopped altogether, he would presumably turn into a withered husk in seconds.
Why would slow aging suddenly become fast aging?
General X-Men talk
He ages slowly because his power heals all the damage of age. His skin don't wrinkle and his hair doesn't grey because he's in this permanent homeostasis, always in "healthy" condition. Take that away by degrees and he's now a 200 year old with no magic supporting his appearance. He has presumably been aging this whole time, but his power kept it hidden.
"This degenerative brain condition has changed this great man into an almost different person" is uh
Something that happens a lot
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.
+20
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
The metaphor in the Matrix is that Neo is Jesus, so complaining that he's not like the other humans is sort of missing the point. He's part of a design by a higher power, the divine in human form sent to save the other humans through his divinity and stuff. Of course he has weird unexplained miraculous powers that the others don't share, it's all part of being The One (true lord and savior).
Which is fine; my point is that The Matrix is blatantly magic.
This is what happens when the Technocracy rule.
(saying it again)
I walked out at the end, back in '99, thinking "Huh. So, that was Mage: the Movie. Nice."
The Matrix was an action movie with tech-gnostic elements which it included with enough charisma, style and narrative cohesion that it felt interesting and complex without being boring, overdone or actually being too complex for a two hour movie.
It's action was also very slick and it's actors were good and bad good lines to deliver with strong direction, visual cohesion, snappy editing etc. I always hold it up as an example of how to make a really tight, neat, well paced movie.
I saw The Forgotten Space, a very interesting documentary/essay film about shipping containers, or rather the global capitalism and overseas trade that they are a part of. The film moves across several port towns examining not just the docks themselves, but the broader economic and social effects of global trade on the cities and their denizens. What impresses me most is the film's flexibility, its ability to move between drastically different human subjects or culturally specific topics while maintaining coherence. No didactic fact dumps either, just strong human interest, good photography, and thoughtful voice-over.
The title doesn't seem to refer just to the shipping lanes or the open ocean we don't think of as being so integral to our modern society, but rather the space in our own consciousness or line of thinking that keeps us from really understanding the global implications of the systems that keep the first world comfortable.
Saw Scout's Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. Fairly unfunny comedy except one of the background zombies in one scene was wearing a YOLO shirt. That got half a laugh.
Edit: Just got back from the movies with some friends.
Someone is going to have to explain all the hype about Logan to me.
I haven't so thoroughly unenjoyed a movie in ten years.
Really? Huh.
I thought it was absolutely amazing. What didnt you like?
Preface: I have not seen The Wolverine or X-Men: Apocalypse
The good:
Laura: The Mexican touch was brilliant, having her start mute was very effective. X-23 Program Cinematography
The mediocre:
Caliban: I feel Stephen Merchant's talents were wasted. Bad guy turns good, disguises exposition as an argument with the protagonist, gets tortured, commits suicide to take out some guys with him (who he doesn't actually end up taking out, adding to the despair)
Xavier's attitude: This is a knock against the writing, not Stewart. Xavier has always been a collected, logical, and articulate man. Even with his deterioration, Xavier was deliberately verbally abusive to Logan, which falls way outside his normal character. Moreover, Xavier was one of the few mutants who expressly valued human life, even if it risked a mutant's life. A man like that would never whinge about "chemical castration" given the knowledge of his effect on others during a telekinetic episode.
2029: I was not impressed with 2029's showcasing of all the buzzword technology of 2016.
Adamantium Bones: I know this is Science Fiction, but Science Fiction works best when it is based loosely on Science Fact, and Laura's adamantium implants grossly gloss over the issue that children grow, and metal does not. Those blades are going to be quite small for a full-grown woman, unless they keep doing surgeries every two years.
The bad:
- Not that I expect an ultra-happy jaunt from my superhero movies, but considering how most other X-Men movies have been framed, it was incredibly jarring to go full grimdark. It came out of left field.
Logan's Aging: I get that he ages. That's a pretty new concept however for most viewers. For the past 15 years, Wolverine has pretty deliberately been fucking shit up in theatrical fashion. It is unreasonable to think that Logan, who is 200-odd years old, has gone from "prime of his life" wrecking-ball in 2010 to "elderly" in 2029.
Elton John's Adopted Grandson, AKA: The Antagonist: He was so unmemorable I can't even recall his name beyond the goofy red glasses. This guy was flatter than an Earth conspiracy theory, and failed to engender any enmity in me. The plot armor that he wore was particularly annoying.
The ugly:
Cell phone video with voice-over provides 95% of this movie's exposition in 5 minutes.
Children of (X-)Men: This movie was a battery of "fuck yous" with one shining light at the end. I don't know if they were trying to capture some Last of Us or what, but it did not work. I literally looked at my cell phone 1:15 into the movie wondering when Logan was going to stop being a brooding asshole with temper issues. I get that that's his "schtick," but watching 75 minutes of it was simply annoying and exhausting, especially when the voices of reason (Xavier et. al) were either A: absent, or B: too busy being jack-asses themselves.
Logan learned nothing: All this movie showed was that at the end of the day, Xavier was right. For all of Logan's misplaced guilt and devotion to Charles, he sure as shit didn't seem to embrace any of the lessons Xavier previously successfully imparted on him over the years. And whatever enlightenment he might have learned at the end of the movie is overshadowed by the fact that his death and Laura's predicament are the result of his own brooding inaction.
Ultimately, this was movie (an action movie at that) where three times I looked at the clock, because I was tired of the repetitive boredom.
I don't think you watched the same movie I did
Xavier is proven wrong in the film. He realizes it right before he dies; when he remembers the incident that causes Logan to take him into hiding. This is reinforced in he movie when the normal family gets killed. Logan knows it's his fault.
It's then he realizes that Logan had been a good person all along. That he did not retreat from life because he was weak, but because he was strong. He hid Xavier away because he was strong. He did not go after x-23 originally because he cared about Xavier.
Now it's true that Logan doesn't learn anything. He isn't supposed to. His arc ends the way he had always wanted it to end. He fought the fish for all his life and finally caught it. He was the hero he had always tried to be.
Who sold their soul to the devil to allow Jonah Hill to write and direct a 'fictional account of his own coming of age' called Mid '90s?
Forget your Serbian Film and whatnot; that sound like a Goddamn war crime.
So, discuss - are there any movies that you just cannot see yourself watching? Be it based on subject, director, actor, or...? What do you just not see yourself enjoying?
This post was sponsored by Tom Cruise.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Just watched Five Easy Pieces
Kind of a downer.
Jack Nicholson plays an upper class twit who isn't satisfied with the upper class life so he goes off and works menial jobs and sleeps with dumb women and trashy women and dumb trashy women.
He treats everyone in his life like garbage, especially his girlfriend, whose only crime is to be dumb enough to love the jerk.
Some stuff happens and then he's still a miserable bastard. The end. No moral.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Edit: Just got back from the movies with some friends.
Someone is going to have to explain all the hype about Logan to me.
I haven't so thoroughly unenjoyed a movie in ten years.
It was very good. Not sure it's supposed to be "enjoyable"
The trailer was backed by Cash's "Hurt" for goodness sake
It was a very very good movie. It was also a very melancholy movie. On top of the actual narrative, It's two actors saying goodbye to characters they've played for almost twenty years. It's not a normal super hero movie.
I actually just looked at the credits of Logan and realized the director also directed Walk the Line, and I think you can make a pretty direct line between that movie and this, aside from the trailer music (although that's pretty funny to me now)
Who sold their soul to the devil to allow Jonah Hill to write and direct a 'fictional account of his own coming of age' called Mid '90s?
Forget your Serbian Film and whatnot; that sound like a Goddamn war crime.
So, discuss - are there any movies that you just cannot see yourself watching? Be it based on subject, director, actor, or...? What do you just not see yourself enjoying?
I'm starting to not want to watch any movie with a slowed down Lorde style remake of a song in the trailer. I can muster up the strength to watch Miles Teller movies after the fact when they're on a streaming service even though I just can't stand him, but slowed......down.......bad......sing......ing with a piano key droning on for a bit too long is like Captain America turned into audio form. Just....just the worst.
The Matrix was an action movie with tech-gnostic elements which it included with enough charisma, style and narrative cohesion that it felt interesting and complex without being boring, overdone or actually being too complex for a two hour movie.
It's action was also very slick and it's actors were good and bad good lines to deliver with strong direction, visual cohesion, snappy editing etc. I always hold it up as an example of how to make a really tight, neat, well paced movie.
At some point after the Wachowski's transitioned I read a really good argument that The Matrix was a strong metaphor what it's like to realize you're trans and coming to terms with it. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's only about that, as it's got a lot of different philosophies mixed up in there, but that reading sure makes certain parts of the film make a whole lot of sense.
I finally saw Logan. Wolverine has been my favourite X-Man and probably favourite comic book character in general since I was 6 and watching reruns of X-Men: The Animated Series.
Perfect. Brilliant sendoff. Made up for the missteps of the prior X-films. As much as I love the MCU films, I'm really glad Logan didn't feel like a typical superhero movie. Also I almost universally hate kid characters, but X-23 was excellent and not super annoying.
Now hurry up and cast Hugh Jackman as Joel in The Last Of Us.
Went to a Cinebistro and was kind of disappointed. It looked like a more upscale Alamo Drafthouse but the food's mediocre and there's no service during the film. A very nice theater overall though. We just plan to get food somewhere else if we go again.
I finally saw Logan. Wolverine has been my favourite X-Man and probably favourite comic book character in general since I was 6 and watching reruns of X-Men: The Animated Series.
Perfect. Brilliant sendoff. Made up for the missteps of the prior X-films. As much as I love the MCU films, I'm really glad Logan didn't feel like a typical superhero movie. Also I almost universally hate kid characters, but X-23 was excellent and not super annoying.
Now hurry up and cast Hugh Jackman as Joel in The Last Of Us.
Hugh Jackman as Joel and X23 as Ellie.
Someone make this happen.
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.
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.
+3
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Moana was a really good movie despite being very bipolar, the highs are the best you can hope for in an animated movie that it lifts up the bog standard chosen one princess story. Didn't expect it to be up there in the Disney CGI stuff because the first thirty minutes is sort of relying way too much on the success of that first song and adorable opening bit with the lil' turtle, and it becomes too much like some JRPG opening story with encroaching darkness and going to save the day, with Moana never feeling believable, just this written-by-committee character who sort of carries a bit too much Dreamworks smirk.
But then Maui shows up and it's great, especially his Your Welcome song which reminded me a lot throughout the scene of Three Caballeros with the greenscreen mimic. And that tweet joke and the warm water current joke were fantastic. The banter he provides is what carries the movie, even as he becomes too much of a punching bag so Moana can use the all-spark or whatever. Animation is fantastic and the colors are beautiful, songs are a little below 50% success, with the two songs mentioned being the best, and a song like Shiny being almost put in as a dare and a waste of Jemaine Clement.
Also, I might have brought this up before, but is Alan Tudyk Disney Animation's version of John Ratzenberger? If so I approve.
It's not as good as Tangled or Storks (HeiHei feels like a ripoff of both Pigeon Toady and Gobbles from South Park), but another solid addition to Disney's roster.
it was so incongruous with the rest of the movie. it was funny and entertaining but then we got back to "AND THE WORLD IS DYING" and i was like...what was the point of that little side quest again?
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Moana:
He needed his magic hook so he could learn that he didn't need his magic hook, duh. (His reward for learning he didn't need his magic hook? A new magic hook.)
He needed his magic hook so he could learn that he didn't need his magic hook, duh. (His reward for learning he didn't need his magic hook? A new magic hook.)
He very much did need it. He just also needed to center himself to use it. He couldn't shape shift without it.
Who sold their soul to the devil to allow Jonah Hill to write and direct a 'fictional account of his own coming of age' called Mid '90s?
Forget your Serbian Film and whatnot; that sound like a Goddamn war crime.
So, discuss - are there any movies that you just cannot see yourself watching? Be it based on subject, director, actor, or...? What do you just not see yourself enjoying?
Probably the same person who allowed Seth Rogan to get a movie about his childhood made (Superbad).
Superbad was amazing. If Mid '90s is like that, I will be a happy panda.
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.
He needed his magic hook so he could learn that he didn't need his magic hook, duh. (His reward for learning he didn't need his magic hook? A new magic hook.)
That's... not accurate.
Maui, after his mistake of stealing the Heart of the World and his defeat by the lava monster, thought that his ability to use the magic hook was his ONLY good point. His arc was about learning that normal humans did appreciate him, so he was willing to give up his powers to help them. His reward for doing that was getting his powers back.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
He needed his magic hook so he could learn that he didn't need his magic hook, duh. (His reward for learning he didn't need his magic hook? A new magic hook.)
That's... not accurate.
Maui, after his mistake of stealing the Heart of the World and his defeat by the lava monster, thought that his ability to use the magic hook was his ONLY good point. His arc was about learning that normal humans did appreciate him, so he was willing to give up his powers to help them. His reward for doing that was getting his powers back.
I'm not going to defend my half-joking plot summary. BUT
It's inherently a terrible (though common) lesson that your reward for proving yourself willing to sacrifice a thing is... that thing. That construction makes sacrifice a meaningless choice. The right thing to do is to teach people, especially children, to be sacrificing in full knowledge of what that means--that you give of yourself, not because you'll be made whole, but because the loss is worthwhile in itself.
Here, Maui's sacrifice is an act of trust, letting Moana be the hero to the point where the symbol of his heroic power is destroyed. What he gains from this is redemption (or simply correction) from his mistake. Yet he is rewarded with the thing he sacrificed. The commonness of the trope presents a warped universe where the right thing never bears meaningful cost, because the universe will always reimburse the pure intentioned. In real life this isn't so.
He needed his magic hook so he could learn that he didn't need his magic hook, duh. (His reward for learning he didn't need his magic hook? A new magic hook.)
That's... not accurate.
Maui, after his mistake of stealing the Heart of the World and his defeat by the lava monster, thought that his ability to use the magic hook was his ONLY good point. His arc was about learning that normal humans did appreciate him, so he was willing to give up his powers to help them. His reward for doing that was getting his powers back.
I'm not going to defend my half-joking plot summary. BUT
It's inherently a terrible (though common) lesson that your reward for proving yourself willing to sacrifice a thing is... that thing. That construction makes sacrifice a meaningless choice. The right thing to do is to teach people, especially children, to be sacrificing in full knowledge of what that means--that you give of yourself, not because you'll be made whole, but because the loss is worthwhile in itself.
Here, Maui's sacrifice is an act of trust, letting Moana be the hero to the point where the symbol of his heroic power is destroyed. What he gains from this is redemption (or simply correction) from his mistake. Yet he is rewarded with the thing he sacrificed. The commonness of the trope presents a warped universe where the right thing never bears meaningful cost, because the universe will always reimburse the pure intentioned. In real life this isn't so.
the magic hook was inside you all along?
+2
Options
MichaelLCIn what furnace was thy brain?ChicagoRegistered Userregular
When we went to see Moana, 5yr old daughter was crying but "sometimes you cry because you're happy."
First time she's had that strong a reaction to anything.
He needed his magic hook so he could learn that he didn't need his magic hook, duh. (His reward for learning he didn't need his magic hook? A new magic hook.)
That's... not accurate.
Maui, after his mistake of stealing the Heart of the World and his defeat by the lava monster, thought that his ability to use the magic hook was his ONLY good point. His arc was about learning that normal humans did appreciate him, so he was willing to give up his powers to help them. His reward for doing that was getting his powers back.
I'm not going to defend my half-joking plot summary. BUT
It's inherently a terrible (though common) lesson that your reward for proving yourself willing to sacrifice a thing is... that thing. That construction makes sacrifice a meaningless choice. The right thing to do is to teach people, especially children, to be sacrificing in full knowledge of what that means--that you give of yourself, not because you'll be made whole, but because the loss is worthwhile in itself.
Here, Maui's sacrifice is an act of trust, letting Moana be the hero to the point where the symbol of his heroic power is destroyed. What he gains from this is redemption (or simply correction) from his mistake. Yet he is rewarded with the thing he sacrificed. The commonness of the trope presents a warped universe where the right thing never bears meaningful cost, because the universe will always reimburse the pure intentioned. In real life this isn't so.
In general, agreed. Specifically, no.
Maui was given the hook to help people. By renewing his commitment to do so, the Gods saw fit to renew his magic powers as well. It goes with the fresh start to voyaging and discovering new islands theme.
Tangled did not immediately reverse the sacrifice play at the end... but then the cartoon sequel did, because you want your character to retain their interesting traits for a sequel.
He needed his magic hook so he could learn that he didn't need his magic hook, duh. (His reward for learning he didn't need his magic hook? A new magic hook.)
That's... not accurate.
Maui, after his mistake of stealing the Heart of the World and his defeat by the lava monster, thought that his ability to use the magic hook was his ONLY good point. His arc was about learning that normal humans did appreciate him, so he was willing to give up his powers to help them. His reward for doing that was getting his powers back.
I'm not going to defend my half-joking plot summary. BUT
It's inherently a terrible (though common) lesson that your reward for proving yourself willing to sacrifice a thing is... that thing. That construction makes sacrifice a meaningless choice. The right thing to do is to teach people, especially children, to be sacrificing in full knowledge of what that means--that you give of yourself, not because you'll be made whole, but because the loss is worthwhile in itself.
Here, Maui's sacrifice is an act of trust, letting Moana be the hero to the point where the symbol of his heroic power is destroyed. What he gains from this is redemption (or simply correction) from his mistake. Yet he is rewarded with the thing he sacrificed. The commonness of the trope presents a warped universe where the right thing never bears meaningful cost, because the universe will always reimburse the pure intentioned. In real life this isn't so.
the magic hook was inside you all along?
I think the Magic Hook was the friends we made along the way.
He needed his magic hook so he could learn that he didn't need his magic hook, duh. (His reward for learning he didn't need his magic hook? A new magic hook.)
That's... not accurate.
Maui, after his mistake of stealing the Heart of the World and his defeat by the lava monster, thought that his ability to use the magic hook was his ONLY good point. His arc was about learning that normal humans did appreciate him, so he was willing to give up his powers to help them. His reward for doing that was getting his powers back.
I'm not going to defend my half-joking plot summary. BUT
It's inherently a terrible (though common) lesson that your reward for proving yourself willing to sacrifice a thing is... that thing. That construction makes sacrifice a meaningless choice. The right thing to do is to teach people, especially children, to be sacrificing in full knowledge of what that means--that you give of yourself, not because you'll be made whole, but because the loss is worthwhile in itself.
Here, Maui's sacrifice is an act of trust, letting Moana be the hero to the point where the symbol of his heroic power is destroyed. What he gains from this is redemption (or simply correction) from his mistake. Yet he is rewarded with the thing he sacrificed. The commonness of the trope presents a warped universe where the right thing never bears meaningful cost, because the universe will always reimburse the pure intentioned. In real life this isn't so.
It's very Abraham and Isaac though. God asks for you to sacrifice what you love the most, but the reward for the willingness to sacrifice is that you don't really have to give it up. It's the point about faith that Kiekergaard draws from that story. That faith is having the willingness to give up that which you care about most in the world but knowing that you never will be called upon to do it, but the willingness, and not the actual act is the point.
Can Maui's story be framed that way? That the willingness to sacrifice is the truly noble act, and that the reward is not having to give up that which you love, but knowing that you would give it up if you really had to?
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Moana is pretty easily my favorite disney movie of the latest resurgence and....maaaaybe of all of their movies although that's stiffer competition.
I think it does a ton of things right that other movies of its ilk do wrong, or rather does things in a fresh way that had become tired. Having a daughter that will get older and be able to grow up with this movie is pretty important to me.
I am weirdly bummed out that Beauty and the Beast is doing so well. Usually I wouldn't care, but I really dislike the live action remakes of Disney classics, and Jungle Book over a billion and this one on track to crush that, I am not going to be seeing the end of them for a very, very long time.
I guess I just wish they'd make more new things.
Also why on earth is that movie 2 hours and 5 minutes. Good god hollywood. Did all the editors leave town?
Posts
Professor X
General X-Men talk
Something that happens a lot
Funny, this is how I felt about Dr. Strange.
Steam: adamjnet
It's action was also very slick and it's actors were good and bad good lines to deliver with strong direction, visual cohesion, snappy editing etc. I always hold it up as an example of how to make a really tight, neat, well paced movie.
The title doesn't seem to refer just to the shipping lanes or the open ocean we don't think of as being so integral to our modern society, but rather the space in our own consciousness or line of thinking that keeps us from really understanding the global implications of the systems that keep the first world comfortable.
It's then he realizes that Logan had been a good person all along. That he did not retreat from life because he was weak, but because he was strong. He hid Xavier away because he was strong. He did not go after x-23 originally because he cared about Xavier.
Now it's true that Logan doesn't learn anything. He isn't supposed to. His arc ends the way he had always wanted it to end. He fought the fish for all his life and finally caught it. He was the hero he had always tried to be.
Who sold their soul to the devil to allow Jonah Hill to write and direct a 'fictional account of his own coming of age' called Mid '90s?
Forget your Serbian Film and whatnot; that sound like a Goddamn war crime.
So, discuss - are there any movies that you just cannot see yourself watching? Be it based on subject, director, actor, or...? What do you just not see yourself enjoying?
Kind of a downer.
Jack Nicholson plays an upper class twit who isn't satisfied with the upper class life so he goes off and works menial jobs and sleeps with dumb women and trashy women and dumb trashy women.
He treats everyone in his life like garbage, especially his girlfriend, whose only crime is to be dumb enough to love the jerk.
Some stuff happens and then he's still a miserable bastard. The end. No moral.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
The trailer was backed by Cash's "Hurt" for goodness sake
It was a very very good movie. It was also a very melancholy movie. On top of the actual narrative, It's two actors saying goodbye to characters they've played for almost twenty years. It's not a normal super hero movie.
I'm starting to not want to watch any movie with a slowed down Lorde style remake of a song in the trailer. I can muster up the strength to watch Miles Teller movies after the fact when they're on a streaming service even though I just can't stand him, but slowed......down.......bad......sing......ing with a piano key droning on for a bit too long is like Captain America turned into audio form. Just....just the worst.
At some point after the Wachowski's transitioned I read a really good argument that The Matrix was a strong metaphor what it's like to realize you're trans and coming to terms with it. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's only about that, as it's got a lot of different philosophies mixed up in there, but that reading sure makes certain parts of the film make a whole lot of sense.
Perfect. Brilliant sendoff. Made up for the missteps of the prior X-films. As much as I love the MCU films, I'm really glad Logan didn't feel like a typical superhero movie. Also I almost universally hate kid characters, but X-23 was excellent and not super annoying.
Now hurry up and cast Hugh Jackman as Joel in The Last Of Us.
Do... Re... Mi... So... Fa.... Do... Re.... Do...
Forget it...
I kinda want to watch it again.
Hugh Jackman as Joel and X23 as Ellie.
Someone make this happen.
Steam | XBL
But then Maui shows up and it's great, especially his Your Welcome song which reminded me a lot throughout the scene of Three Caballeros with the greenscreen mimic. And that tweet joke and the warm water current joke were fantastic. The banter he provides is what carries the movie, even as he becomes too much of a punching bag so Moana can use the all-spark or whatever. Animation is fantastic and the colors are beautiful, songs are a little below 50% success, with the two songs mentioned being the best, and a song like Shiny being almost put in as a dare and a waste of Jemaine Clement.
Also, I might have brought this up before, but is Alan Tudyk Disney Animation's version of John Ratzenberger? If so I approve.
It's not as good as Tangled or Storks (HeiHei feels like a ripoff of both Pigeon Toady and Gobbles from South Park), but another solid addition to Disney's roster.
But yeah, the story beats of that movie didn't feel all that earned imo.
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
Patrick Stewart is the best
Probably the same person who allowed Seth Rogan to get a movie about his childhood made (Superbad).
That's... not accurate.
It's inherently a terrible (though common) lesson that your reward for proving yourself willing to sacrifice a thing is... that thing. That construction makes sacrifice a meaningless choice. The right thing to do is to teach people, especially children, to be sacrificing in full knowledge of what that means--that you give of yourself, not because you'll be made whole, but because the loss is worthwhile in itself.
Here, Maui's sacrifice is an act of trust, letting Moana be the hero to the point where the symbol of his heroic power is destroyed. What he gains from this is redemption (or simply correction) from his mistake. Yet he is rewarded with the thing he sacrificed. The commonness of the trope presents a warped universe where the right thing never bears meaningful cost, because the universe will always reimburse the pure intentioned. In real life this isn't so.
First time she's had that strong a reaction to anything.
In general, agreed. Specifically, no.
Tangled did not immediately reverse the sacrifice play at the end... but then the cartoon sequel did, because you want your character to retain their interesting traits for a sequel.
Can Maui's story be framed that way? That the willingness to sacrifice is the truly noble act, and that the reward is not having to give up that which you love, but knowing that you would give it up if you really had to?
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I think it does a ton of things right that other movies of its ilk do wrong, or rather does things in a fresh way that had become tired. Having a daughter that will get older and be able to grow up with this movie is pretty important to me.
I guess I just wish they'd make more new things.
Also why on earth is that movie 2 hours and 5 minutes. Good god hollywood. Did all the editors leave town?